Fuel pellets v. coal: Chapel Hill community weigh cogeneration facility possibilities

On Jan. 16 the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Air Quality held a public hearing to discuss UNC's proposal to burn fuel pellets, which may contain Per- polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in the university's cogeneration facility. 

The University filed the permit application in July 2024 in support of their climate action plan, which seeks to move the University completely away from relying on coal. In 2010, the University vowed to end coal use by 2020, but did not complete the goal.

Now, community members and experts are considering the benefits and drawbacks that come with converting to fuel pellets from coal. 

Fuel pellet emissions concerns

PFAS, which are a potential emission from the burning of pellets, remain in the environment for an unknown amount of time and lead to negative health effects to humans and animals, including increased risk of cancer and lowered immune system function. However, the specific risks are not fully understood by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and there is no legal limit on PFAS emissions or exposure.

The pellets utilized by the University are made of non-recyclable waste material and may contain between 15 and 40 percent plastic. An analysis of the pellets by the DEQ indicated the facility would emit, at most, 1.2 pounds of PFAS annually.

However, because the pellets vary in makeup, there is no way of accurately estimating potential emissions of PFAS, Melissa McCullough, Chapel Hill Town Council member and former EPA employee, said. 

Jeff Ryan, retired senior scientist at the EPA Office of Research and Development, said burning PFAS does not destroy them, but rather changes their chemical makeup. 

If the facility switches to the pellets, emissions of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide will increase. All of those emissions have adverse effects on human health.  

“Quite a few pollutants, even by UNC's own estimates, are going up with the new pellet fuel, not down,” Patrick Anderson, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said. “So this fuel is actually dirtier — [and] on a lot of pollutants that we care about — than coal.”

Despite this, overall greenhouse gas emissions will decrease, as well as sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid emissions, according to the DEQ.

Effects of burning coal versus pellets

UNC's cogeneration facility has been the subject of debate since it began operations in 1940.  The coal ash mound at the 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. site — which houses the Chapel Hill Police Department — is the byproduct of the facility's burning operations.

Currently, the facility utilizes around 40 percent coal power and 60 percent natural gas to provide power to the university. Campus groups, including No Coal UNC and Sunrise UNC have demanded the university halt its coal consumption and have spoken out against the switch to pelletized fuel.

“These pellets, they're sort of a way to delay the inevitable — which is transitioning from fossil fuels to clean, zero-carbon energy sources,” Victoria Plant, research lead for Sunrise UNC, said. 

She said switching to the pellets is a waste of time and resources, as they are not intended as a long-term solution from the University's perspective.

“They could be using this time and using the personnel, resources and all that to be working on a real solution that would ultimately result in lower carbon emissions,” she said. 

McCullough said she believes burning the pellets is worse than continuing to burn coal, but the main concern should be finding a way to shut down the plant altogether. 

Comparing burning coal and burning the pellets is like comparing two bad options when, in reality, shutting down the plant should be the main focus, Anderson said.

“SELC, as an organization, is really asking for UNC to do their own analysis, and we can support it,” he said. “But, you know, at the end of the day, our goal is let's not power UNC with any kind of combustion.”

@LolaOliverio

@DTHCityState | city@dailytarheel.com