Alberta plans to phase out coal-fired electricity generation over the next 15 years. But, how the province does so will have big impacts, and lives could hang in the balance.
That’s according to a new study from the Pembina Institute on the benefits Alberta and Canada could reap from an “accelerated” coal phase-out by 2030.
Phasing out coal-fired electricity generation has the potential to save lives, improve productivity and reduce healthcare costs, researchers found.
The study, “Breathing in the Benefits,” was released earlier this month and relies on a 2012 Environment Canada analysis to extrapolate the health benefits of a sped-up coal phase-out.
Alberta has committed to ending coal-fired power generation by 2030. However, most analyses of the phase-out’s health benefits rely on a “back-loaded” model in which all power units are taken off line close to the deadline, instead of a “step-wise” phase-out over the next 15 years.
Benjamin Israël, one of the study’s co-authors, said an accelerated phase-out has considerable benefits.
“Basically, what we’re saying is if we do an accelerated phase-out as opposed to business as usual, we could save 600 [lives], and save $3 billion in health care outcomes,” Israël told Clean Capital.
Alberta is one of several Canadian jurisdictions that still use coal power, along with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. Because prevailing winds carry coal pollution east, Alberta’s phase-out could have healthcare impacts as far away as Ontario, which shut down its last coal plant in 2014.
Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba meanwhile, rely mostly on low-emitting hydroelectric power.
Alberta currently has six coal plants with 18 power units. Based on Pembina’s analysis, coal pollution in Alberta adds up to $461 million in healthcare costs per year. It was linked to 92 premature deaths in 2015, including from respiratory illnesses, as well as 81 ER visits and hospitalizations that year.
Ontario’s coal phase-out has been a cautionary tale, with electricity prices skyrocketing following the transition from cheap coal power. Pembina’s study is further evidence that after the initial sticker shock, switching to lower-emitting forms of power can be a money saver.
By Jonny Wakefield, 29 September 2016