The end of coal welcomed
Despite burning more coal for energy than all other provinces combined, Alberta is set to ween itself off the black mineral, earning praise from a coalition of physicians.
“It’s exciting to see that this is probably going to happen,” said Joe Vipond, a University of Calgary emergency physician and clinical lecturer. “Five out of the six major parties in Alberta say that this is their policy objective, so let’s make it policy.”
Vipond, a member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, presented his group’s outreach campaign to a geothermal energy conference Friday at the Calgary Petroleum Club, buoyed by this month’s NDP election win.
In 2012, the federal government mandated that coal plants built before 2015 have until 2030 to either close or introduce carbon capture and storage technology. Provinces have pushed through stricter, faster plans, and Alberta could be next.
Premier-designate Rachel Notley’s spokeswoman said it’s too early to tell how the government will move ahead on coal, but pointed to her election platform, which pledged to “phase out coal-fired electricity generation to reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions and expand cleaner, greener sources, including wind and solar.”
Notley introduced a motion in mid-March urging her predecessor Jim Prentice to draft a plan to phase out coal-generated power by 2030.
The move came two years after the physicians partnered with the Pembina Institute and asthma and lung associations to probe the human and financial medical costs of the province’s coal energy use.
The March 2013 study, A Costly Diagnosis, estimated that coal energy use costs the province $300 million in annual health expenses, with 100 premature deaths, 700 emergency room visits, 80 hospital admissions and 4,800 asthma-related sick days.
The study found that closing coal- fired electricity plants — which make up about 67 per cent of the province’s electricity — had already shown an improvement in air quality, though not enough to dramatically soothe health risks.
A spokeswoman for the Coal Association of Canada said the industry group doesn’t commission in-depth health research, but referred the Herald to a rebuttal report published in January by Friends of Science, a Calgary group that challenges a climate change consensus among scientists.
That report stressed that coalburning for energy produces just 1/100th the particulate matter produced by wildfires. It also questions how the province will find alternative energy means and claims that Ontario experienced an energy price jump as a result of its ongoing coal-plant closures.
All elected parties, except the outgoing Progressive Conservatives, campaigned on platforms to phase out coal power, though the Wildrose focused on using natu- ral gas to do so. Vipond, who said he’s been contacted by the Alberta energy ministry since the May 5 election, prefers a greater focus on renewables.
During the election, Notley did not present specifics on how her government would move away from coal when asked during the leaders’ television debate. She told the Herald’s editorial board in mid-April that “it’s a highly complicated issue, and so we don’t have a fully costed-out plan yet.”
NDP MP Linda Duncan told Monday’s session the new provincial government should turn to geothermal and renewable energy.
“We need to now recognize the energy sector’s more than oil and gas,” said the MP for Edmonton-- Strathcona.
As critic for the Western Economic Diversification department, she said the federal government needs to put money in more than oilsands research.
“I’m not saying we shouldn’t do research in that area — I think we should — but when all the millions of dollars go in that direction it becomes a perverse subsidy,” she said.
Vipond, who rode to Monday’s session on his bike, also took aim at coal royalties which are $0.55 per tonne for non-mountainous coal, compared with roughly $2.00 for other per-tonne energy royalties.
Michelle Mondeville, spokeswoman for the Coal Association of Canada, pointed out that Alberta coal is moving toward steel rather than energy production.
“The sun is really setting, in a way, on the thermal side,” said Mondeville. “It will shift because of the regulations, and if the power plants don’t become efficient and they don’t meet the federal regulations then they’ll have to be an- other use for the coal.”
Metallurgical coal, meanwhile, accounts for as much as 70 per cent of the raw materials used in steel production, and mines in Crowsnest Pass are being prospected by foreign companies.