National Geographic News
Photo of a coal train in Arkansas near the White Bluff power plant.

A coal train passes the White Bluff power plant near Redfield, Arkansas. The plant may be forced to close in the wake of proposed carbon regulations.

Photograph by Danny Johnston, AP

Christina Nunez

National Geographic

Published August 19, 2014

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas—At the end of 2012, at a time when many states were replacing their aging coal plants, Arkansas switched on a new $1.8-billion coal plant, one of two the state has fired up in the past five years.

The state saw emissions from its power plants rise 35 percent between 2005 and 2012, even as other states turned to cleaner-burning natural gas and the nation's overall power plant emissions trended downward.

"We know we're a coal-heavy state," said Teresa Marks, director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, sitting in the agency's seven-year-old, energy-efficient headquarters, where floor-to-ceiling windows offer sweeping views of greenery and a hiking trail leading to the Arkansas River.

Marks has to confront that coal legacy as Arkansas decides how to comply with the power plant regulations the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in June. By 2030, those proposed rules aim to reduce the U.S. power sector's carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels. As part of that goal, several states will have to cut even more. The target for Arkansas is a big one: a 44.5 percent reduction.

The nationwide reductions, opponents of the plan like to point out, will not make much of a dent in global carbon emissions. But the stakes are high for President Barack Obama and the EPA, whose ability to lead on climate change and push meaningful change in the power sector will rest largely on the success of the rule.

Arkansas carbon emissions from the power sector graph

State officials and utilities are now poring over the proposed regulations, attempting to grasp their implications and preparing to file formal responses before the public comment period closes on October 16. The federal agency aims to finalize the rule by June 2015. Arkansas, with one of the highest targets for reductions, offers a look at the challenges state officials will face in addressing some of the most far-reaching U.S. environmental regulations proposed in decades. (See related: "4 Key Takeaways From EPA's New Rules for Power Plants")

Marks said the rule had "huge" potential ramifications for Arkansas. "Actually, it was a little more stringent than I expected it to be," said Marks, who began consulting with the state's public utility commission well before the regulations were announced. "We were going to need to really spend a lot of time on preparing a plan. That's one reason we got started early."

Invested in Coal

Arkansas's situation seems rather bleak on the surface. It gets more than half its electricity from coal. It's also the rare state with no formal plan to invest in more renewable energy such as wind and solar.

 

Electric energy emissions targets, 2030 graph
EMILY M. ENG, NG STAFF; JAMIE HAWK; JOEY FENING. SOURCES: U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; EPA; PLATTS, MCGRAW HILL FINANCIAL

Instead, it has remained committed to coal, which produces the cheapest, but also the dirtiest, electricity. Some believe that the state's newest plant, the John W. Turk Jr. facility near the southwestern border with Texas, might be the last conventional coal plant ever built in the United States. It's the only "ultra supercritical" coal plant in the country, meaning it has advanced technology to burn coal highly efficiently. Southwestern Electric Power Company brought it online at a cost of $1.8 billion at the end of 2012, when utilities in many other states were moving to natural gas that had been made cheap and plentiful by advances in fracking technology. (See related: "Clean Coal Test: Power Plants Prepare to Capture Carbon" and "Can Coal Ever Be Clean?")

Glen Hooks was among those who fought the Turk plant. Hooks is director of the Sierra Club's Arkansas headquarters, which he opened 12 years ago in a modest converted house on the edge of downtown. He worked for years on the organization's Beyond Coal campaign, which has played a role in stopping more than 170 coal projects nationwide—but not Turk.

"The one that I wasn't able to stop was this one, in my home state, and it drives me bananas," Hooks said.

To achieve the proposed emissions reductions, Arkansas would likely need to turn to cleaner-burning natural gas power plants as well as ramp down the power coming from five coal-fired plants around the state. (The remainder of the state's electricity generation comes from a nuclear plant, hydroelectric dams, and biomass.)

"We're not going to be able to meet those goals unless we shut down some coal plants in Arkansas—bottom line," Hooks said. He noted that Entergy's 35-year-old White Bluff coal plant, about 30 miles south of Little Rock, is near the end of its life cycle and would likely need expensive retrofits to comply with a pending implementation plan for the EPA's regional haze rule. "So I see that one as a big target."

Chuck Barlow, vice president of environmental policy for Entergy, would not say whether White Bluff was vulnerable because of the new power plant rule. "You can't just look at a coal unit and say, 'Well, OK, let's close that one, or let's close this one.' You've got to look at things like transmission constraints," he said, noting that many plants, including White Bluff, have multiple owners and answer to regional transmission organizations, the groups that ensure reliability across the grid. "There are just a lot of things to consider," he said.

Natural Gas Complications

Teresa Marks and others in Arkansas point to many questions that still need to be answered before the state can make fundamental changes in its energy mix. Transmission lines might need to be built to accommodate regional shifts in power generation, and state legislation might be needed to move ahead with any plan.

"I'm not sure we can convert to natural gas as quickly as perhaps as EPA's rule had anticipated we could," Marks said.

Executives at Entergy and Southwestern Electric Power (a unit of American Electric Power) said they were still evaluating the implications of the rule. But John McManus, vice president of environmental services for American Electric Power, which operates in 11 states, said, "Arkansas is near the top of our list as a state that we're concerned about because of the level of reduction."

The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, which supplies power to 17 customer-owned utilities serving mostly rural residents, many of whom live in persistent poverty, was more direct about its concerns. The cooperative has an ownership stake in four of the state's five coal plants, and about 70 percent of its electricity comes from coal. The White Bluff plant, said Duane Highley, AECC's president and CEO, is "very likely to close" under the clean power plan.

Power facilities in Arkansas

Map of energy sites in Arkansas.
*Includes wind power, biomass and black liquor

Highley estimated that prices for his customers would go up by at least $20 a month, or 20 percent, because gas is "still about twice the price" of coal. He spoke at the Woodruff Electric Cooperative, a member-owned utility in the eastern part of the state, where a drive-through window for payments is open to help customers who sometimes must choose between paying for electricity or, say, medication, according to Woodruff's president and CEO, Billy Martin.

If the state bets on natural gas, and then prices rise, Highley predicted, the results could be grim. "You'll see heat-related deaths," he said. "It won't be because the planet got warmer. It'll be because people can't pay their electric bill in the summer. People die when they don't pay for air conditioning, they really do. We see it."

The Arkansas Electric Cooperative serves more than a third of the state's electricity consumers, but its territory encompasses more than 60 percent of the land area. More than half of Arkansas—nicknamed the Natural State—is covered by forests, 16 percent of them owned by the paper and timber industries.

Arkansas does extract a lot of natural gas from the Fayetteville Shale, making it eighth among the top-producing states. A rise in demand for natural gas, the price of which spiked last winter during the freezing weather, would benefit the state economy, a point made in an analysis released last month by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Rhodium Group.

But Arkansas needs significant investment in pipelines and storage, Highley said, to take full advantage of its abundant natural gas: "There's not a delivery network yet robust enough to deliver that when it's needed."

Other Levers to Pull

The prospective switch from coal to natural gas dominates the conversation about carbon reductions in Arkansas, but the state has other options, according to Ken Smith, policy director at the Arkansas Advanced Energy Association, which advocates for efficiency and cleaner energy.

The timeline for the proposed reduction, Smith acknowledged, is "very compressed. It's going to be very tough." But, he said, Arkansas is in a better position than many other southern states that are just now starting to evaluate the rule.

Smith, who worked on natural resources policy when Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker were in the governor's mansion, also advises other southern states on energy policy. He acknowledged that, when it comes to environmentalism, "it's a thin green line across the South."

Still, Arkansas is a leader in energy efficiency programs in the Southeast, Smith said, and it has many other assets it can deploy to reduce emissions. The state's robust timber and paper industries already generate more than 400 megawatts by capturing waste heat generated from burning natural gas, wood, and biomass. The state could probably increase that by at least 700 megawatts. "That's a power plant," he said. "That's actually two power plants."

Coal power in the United States

Map of coal-generated energy in the US.

Smith also pointed to the possibility of upgrading the state's existing hydroelectric facilities and boosting solar power. As for wind, Arkansas's modest breezes have not attracted much investment for turbine farms; it's importing wind power from other states.

An increased demand for wind power would have a secondary economic benefit for Arkansas: The state has been home to at least two large wind turbine manufacturing companies, though one pulled out last year, citing uncertainty in the U.S. market.

The wind energy that Arkansas imports is the result of the settlement of a lawsuit that environmentalists, including the Sierra Club's Hooks, brought to stop the John Turk coal plant. Though the plant went forward, the owners agreed to buy 400 megawatts of wind capacity from other states.

"The funny thing is, we really scrapped with them for years and forced that settlement," Hooks said, adding that the utilities now boast about quadrupling their wind energy portfolio. "It was in their Earth Day release, and I just lost my mind."

Hooks and others hope that the EPA rule will drive more investment in renewables. "Of course, we're set up to burn coal," said Marks, the state's environmental director. "I think that we just haven't had the public outcry to move forward with renewable energy at this point. This rule is likely to push that more to the forefront."

Ticking Clock

The state's environmental quality department is continuing to hold meetings on the EPA rule and is hiring a professional facilitator to help manage the planning. However, the effort is likely to be complicated by the gubernatorial election. Marks, an appointee of the outgoing governor, Mike Beebe, announced that she will retire this fall; her successor will be determined by whoever prevails in November.

Although states technically have until 2030 to achieve their carbon reduction targets, the EPA laid out interim goals that begin in 2020. Between 2020 and 2029, Arkansas will need to demonstrate an average reduction of 41 percent—in other words, most of its target. The state will have a year, possibly two or three if an extension is granted, after the rule is finalized to submit an implementation plan.

"I just don't think that's long enough, that we really are going to need more time than that," said Marks. "I'm thinking three years if it's just a state plan. If it's a regional plan, it may have to be five."

The EPA, which has already concluded public hearings in four cities, has promised to take comments into account as it finalizes the rule. Arkansas might get the break it's hoping for, but for now, it must evaluate the proposal at hand. (See related interactive map: The Global Electricity Mix.)

Smith expressed optimism about the state's ability to make significant carbon cuts, but he echoed the nervousness that Marks expressed about the tight time frame. "We will get there, but will it be in time?" he said. "That's what scares the bejesus out of me."

The story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.

14 comments
Lisa Stevens
Lisa Stevens

One of the comments here makes a valid point ... efficiency. I have a friend from Germany who says when it comes to energy Americans are stupid. We cool server rooms with AC but then heat the rest of the building in the winter. When he moved to America, he installed a small heat pump to dump heat in an above ground pool during the summer. The unit was cheaper and less expensive then a regular outside unit. It was much more efficient because it requires less energy to dump heat in water than air, particularly if the water is cooler than the air. Further, he was able to heat his pool for free AND save energy costs at the same time.


Another story - when I married we bought my spouse's grandparents' house for 60K in 1999. The gas and electric bill was $170. Further, we had tens of thousands in debt.  Probably wouldn't have bought the house if it hadn't been a good deal. Anyways, I installed a layer of insulation in the attic and replaced all of the lights with florescent bulbs. The monthly bill dropped to $100. Now it cost us $550 for the insulation and bulbs. Yet, despite having no money and tons of debt and being dumb and newly married, we bit the bullet and did it (oh and we had no AC, couldn't afford it!!). And we had to consolidate our debts / loans and take out an additional $500 on the loan to pay for it, however payback on that investment was less than 12 months (it took time for the budget billing to catch up). Most American's (like my spouse's grandparents) have the money (money we did not have) to do these kinds of things and save a bundle. They just don't. It's a shame. And yet, you'll hear complaints about electric bills going up, when in fact many of these people can walk down the street and replace all the bulbs in their house with flourescent for less than $100 and save at least $10 - 40 per month. People who can afford AC can afford to spend $100 to save $10 - 40 per month.


We moved into a much bigger house years later. I replaced "3" (yes "3") 100 watt bulbs with dimmable fluorescent and saved about $10 per month. The bulbs cost $24 and last 3 times longer than standard bulbs. And they don't heat the house as much in the summer.


Further, with power needs rising the costs for new infrastructure are unfairly weighted towards the people that don't use much. This has to stop. The people that use power, gas and water excessively requiring new plants to be built should shoulder most of the costs of the new plants and transmission lines in their monthly bills.


Anyways, I could probably explain this to a caveman and they would get it.Unfortunately, this issue has become so partisan and politicized that the "thick" heads are prevailing.

Patrick Wilson
Patrick Wilson

Just one year ago, AEP’s John W. Turk, Jr. power plant earned POWER Magazine's Highest Honor, and the gloabal "Plant of the Year."  This is the first modern plant in the U.S. to commercialize ultrasupercritical (USC) boiler technology.  This is exactly the technology that environmentalists are counting on the US to produce and export to help make sure that we meet our global climate goals.  Arkansas could be a leader for the nation in an effort to improve and replace very old coal plants with new modern plants with much more efficient and enviornmentally sensitive technology.  Unfortunately, its more likely to devolve into a political food fight about who is more "righteous" rather than a conversation about technology and its capabilities.  If we want companies to continue to invest in these clean environmental systems, we have to ensure they have a market.  If we don't, the innovation leadership we've always counted on here in the US will go to other nation's more willing to embrace a real all of the above strategy.

Doug L
Doug L

-- People die when they don't pay for air conditioning, they really do. We see it."--


Arkansas needs a program to improve residential AC efficiency, NOW.

Doug L
Doug L

"The state saw emissions from its power plants rise 35 percent between 2005 and 2012, even as other states turned to cleaner-burning natural gas and the nation's overall power plant emissions trended downward."


I have no sympathy for Arkansas.

dara bortman
dara bortman

Has Arkansas really calculated the true cost of coal-based electricity, including external costs being assumed by the taxpayers (which are REAL costs - it's just that we pay them and not the large corporation that's raking in all the profits)?  (i.e., increased healthcare costs for higher asthma rates due to burning coal, increased number of days missed from work, damage and wear and tear to infrastructure from transportation, disposal of waste materials like coal ash, contamination of water and air and costs for cleanup, etc)?  Have any of those been calculated?  Has anyone looked at the external costs for Arkansas? Does Arkansas have higher than it's share of asthma cases due to smog? worse air quality? more missed days of work? etc than it's neighbors who use less electricity produced from coal? - although most of these things wouldn't stop at the state line anyway) - maybe calculate by proximity to these coal burning plants? See this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power-muller-mendelsohn-nordhous.html - for some discussion of externalities.  If we're really going to espouse the "free market" then these costs need to be accounted for and not just ignored.  In order for the free market to work, and allow consumers and the economy to move to the energy sources that truly cost the least to that society as a whole, all costs need to be taken into consideration.  Interested to know if Arkansas has considered this (or if it did before spending almost $2B on a new coal-burning plant).

John Sanderson
John Sanderson

The EPA has their head up their green butts. They establish UNFUNDED mandates based on BS, & pseudo-science to curry favor with the enviro-nazis that are trying very hard to turn the US into  a 3rd world socialist state. Meanwhile on the other end of the global warming titanic, they burn tires, dung, & the rain forest just to survive & feed their billions of mouths. I would like to see Congress defund this bloated bureaucracy to  a responsible size and focus on toxic Superfund sites.

Marty Hawkins
Marty Hawkins

One of the largest gas power plants in the nation is in El Doredo Arkansas , but they only have a contract enough to run half their units. I may be wrong, but I believe that they can 2200 megawatt.Union Power.

David Jones
David Jones

The EPA laid out a clear plan for compliance with its targets. Economic output at the level of the US in 1908 would satisfy their objectives. Simple really.

Ranger Dan Parsons
Ranger Dan Parsons

Rest assured, for any state to invest $1.8B in a coal fired power plant in 2012, there were some people wielding power that had investments in coal.  The Good Ole Boys club should start worrying.

Nicolas Edwards
Nicolas Edwards

@Patrick Wilson There is no such thing as clean coal! When you look at the numbers, even for turk, you see higher emission rates when compared to all other alternative generating means. 

Recent Energy News

See More at The Great Energy Challenge »

The Big Energy Question

Share Your Opinion »

The Great Energy Challenge

The Great Energy Challenge is an important National Geographic initiative designed to help all of us better understand the breadth and depth of our current energy situation.

Energy News, Blog and Interactive Features »

Shop Our Space Collection

  • Be the First to Own <i>Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey</i>

    Be the First to Own Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

    The updated companion book to Carl Sagan's Cosmos, featuring a new forward by Neil deGrasse Tyson is now available. Proceeds support our mission programs, which protect species, habitats, and cultures.

Shop Now »