Fact Checking the Coal Industry’s ‘Information Meetings’ in Alberta

The air pollution metrics look even worse. The five coal plants dominate the biggest polluter lists for a number of the most notorious air contaminants including nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and mercury.

The province’s two newest units are still significant polluters

According to the article, Campbell feels emissions from the province’s new-generation coal-fired plants are not as bad as the government makes them out to be. “When you look at the newest plants, the one at Genesee and the one at Keephills, there’s hardly any emissions coming out of them at all,” he writes.

Campbell focuses on these two units because they are more efficient and have better pollution controls than the other 16. When drawing comparisons to old, dirty coal plants, practically all new installations appear clean. These two new units emit nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide at about a quarter the rate as the older 16.

But they are still major sources of air pollution. They emit more than six times as much NOx as the projected emissions from a new combined cycle natural gas plant. And because neither renewables nor natural gas emit many other pollutants (i.e., SO2and mercury), even new coal units are just the cleanest players in their own dirty power league.

Rates of SO2 and NOx pollution at coal plants — both old and new — are much higher than alternative sources of electricity generation.

Alberta has serious air quality problems and coal power is a significant contributor

Campbell points to a University of Alberta study that found “coal-fired power plants had little effect on overall air quality in Edmonton.” He goes on to say. “I look at the air quality in Alberta and there's no cleaner air anywhere. So to blame it on the coal industry is just a fallacy.”

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

Alberta has serious air quality concerns. Five of Alberta’s 11 listed municipalities are among Canada’s worst 25 — of 131 total municipalities in Canada — for annual mean concentration of fine particulate matter, one of the most pervasively harmful air contaminants. Edmonton and Calgary are in the worst 15, while Red Deer topped the list. Toronto came in at 36, also better than Fort Saskatchewan and Drayton Valley. This is perhaps a surprise until we recall that Toronto’s air quality has improved in the years since closing its coal plants while Edmonton’s has worsened.

Environment Canada estimates have shown poor air quality — including from coal plants in Alberta — is responsible for sending people to emergency rooms, keeping children indoors and even premature death. Late last year, the province acknowledged the Red Deer region is failing to meet a federal standard for air qualitywhile four other regions of the province are approaching limits. Minister of Environment, Shannon Phillips says she is committed to finding ways to protect Albertans from these pollutants. “We know, the science tells us, that air quality has a direct impact on human health and that’s of concern to us as a government,” she said.

The cause of fine particulate matter exceedances in the Edmonton area is secondary formation from other pollution, particularly NOx and SO2. Imaging of both types of pollutants demonstrates some problem areas of large polluters in Alberta. There are a number of different sources, but we know that electricity from coal is a major source of both pollutants in Alberta — including the Edmonton region. It is also worth noting that coal generated electricity has increased in recent years.

The president of the Coal Association of Canada, Robin Campbell, is currently touring Alberta. He is making a number of assertions about Alberta’s coal industry and the province’s Climate Leadership Plan. This is the first in a series of blogs by the Pembina Institute to address those claims and to reiterate the importance of Alberta’s pledge to phase out coal-fired electricity generation.

*Edit (March 14, 2016): On March 10, 2016, TransAlta wrote to the Pembina Institute to ask it to change this blog to reflect that the company did not in fact fund the University of Alberta study mentioned in the blog. Around that same date, the company changed its own webpage about the study to delete the following sentence: “TransAlta financially supported Dr. Kindzierski’s work, but had no direct involvement in the scientific investigation or the interpretation of the results.” (Original version cached as of March 9; also available as a pdf.)