Iowa vs. Kansas

Another gem from the Omaha World-Herald (Omaha is just across the river from Iowa so they often report on Iowa news as well)...

As you know, there's been a fierce debate over the proposed construction of two coal-fired power plants in SW Kansas. Republicans in the Kansas legislature have been obsessed with trying to get these polluting monstrosities built (so that the energy can then be sent to Colorado and Texas) while the Democratic Governor has wisely vetoed the measure and twice defeated veto override votes in the legislature. The Orwellian-named Sunflower Electric Power Corp has spent nearly $1 million on lobbying to get the plants approved while local newspapers bemoaned the fact that the legislature failed to attend to much needed business (including health care proposals) because they were so fixated on the coal fight.

Meanwhile, not far away in Iowa, a completely different picture is emerging. MidAmerican Energy, since 2003, has focused on increasing its production of wind energy. The differences between Iowa and Kansas couldn't be more stark. From the article, Wind Energy Project Proposed:

A "green" project may be popping up out of the green fields of northeastern Pottawattamie County this summer.

MidAmerican Energy is looking at the area as a site to build 64 wind turbines, a project that county officials said could be worth more than $120 million and generate about 96 megawatts of electricity.

The Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors will schedule a public hearing on tax incentives for the project in the next few weeks. If the proposal is approved, construction could begin sometime this summer.

County board member Delbert King said he thought the project would be worth more than $120 million, with each tower costing about $2 million. The area being considered, King said, is outside Walnut. It would be leased from landowners....

MidAmerican Energy has been increasing the amount of electricity it generates from wind since 2003. By the end of this year, MidAmerican expects to have more than 780 wind turbines operating in the state, including the proposed turbines in Pottawattamie County.

In January, 142 wind turbines went into service, most in north-central Iowa. Another 260 wind turbines are being built near Carroll, Pomeroy and Adair, said Tom Budler, general manager of wind development for MidAmerican. They are expected to be running by the end of the year.

MidAmerican Energy expects to generate about 18 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources by the end of this year...

Budler said wind energy is part of the company's portfolio and helps mitigate the rising cost of fuel and the amount of emissions. Wind energy projects are part of the reason MidAmerican has not raised rates since 1995, he said.

Important to note:

Iowa generates more wind energy than all but three other states despite being 10th in the nation in the amount of wind resource available.

By contrast Kansas is the 3rd windiest state in the nation, but it's like pulling teeth to get neanderthal Kansas legislators like Bill Otto to even consider investing in wind projects.

A few final thoughts on this:

1.) Comparing energy policy in Iowa verses Kansas shows that doing the right thing (investing in wind or other alternative energy sources) is often EASIER than doing the wrong thing.

2. ) What's fascinating about the debate in Kansas is that Republicans in the state have made coal synonymous with masculinity, Republicanism, patriotism, and nationalism. It's almost like they see the harm caused by coal as a virtue because it's macho and reminds them of an earlier industrial age of American economic might. Increasingly, voters are way ahead of politicians in understanding smart energy policy.

3.) Better politics in Iowa results in better energy solutions, less political discord, and better outcomes for residents (think about this -- farmers in Iowa are being paid to lease their land for wind turbines while Kansas farmers would get all of the pollution and none of the benefit from coal-fired plants in their state).

Coal lobby front group changes name -- still trying to destroy the Earth

The Center for American Progress is out today with an excellent analysis of where we stand in the fight against the coal industry. It's so perfect with so many wonderful links, that I quote the whole thing below. One of the factoids in their report caught my eye: Americans for Balanced Energy Choices has changed their name to American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Now that may seem like a small change -- just like when Philip Morris changed their name to Altria (evoking images of philanthropy or a small Japanese car or something). But I think it's a pretty big poker tell. It tells us that progressive groups have so completely damaged the coal industry's brand, that they had to rename their front group. Which is pretty incredible when you remember that ABEC spends $35 million a year promoting their brand.

The coal folks are out with a new video too -- and it's so ripe for parody that I can't wait to get started on remaking it.

Also, if you are interested in tracking the PR fight against the coal industry, definitely check out: Desmogblog. They are doing fantastic work.

From today's Progress Report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund:

King Coal's Future

Coal-fired plants provide over 50 percent of the electricity in the United States and over 83 percent of the global-warming pollution from the power sector. A large coal-fired power plant emits the carbon dioxide equivalent of one million SUVs, and the United States has nearly 500 plants. Because power plants are a generational investment -- the average age of U.S. coal plants is 40 years -- the decision to construct new plants in a world at risk from global warming is monumental. NASA climatologist James Hansen argues that a "firm choice to halt building of coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO₂ would be a major step toward solution of the global warming problem." In addition to the pressing issue of climate change -- exacerbated by the surge in coal-fired electricity in the developing world -- "the conventional coal fuel cycle is among the most destructive activities on earth." Coal is contaminated with toxic elements like mercury, arsenic, and lead that end up in the air, water, and soil. The costs of coal are disproportionately borne by the poor communities where it is mined and by children exposed to its pollution.

A GROWTH INDUSTRY: In the United States, "power companies have pushed to build more than 150 new coal-fired power plants." "European countries are slated to build about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years." "China is completing two new coal plants per week." Since the rise of the Industrial Age, economic growth has been tied to increased electricity demand. Although the price of coal, like all other commodities, is rising to record levels, its economics are attractive to companies wary of the even greater price jump in natural gas, its primary fossil fuel competitor. But part of this drive to build new plants in the United States is driven not by demand, but by political calculus. The United States is poised to join Europe in placing mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions. Electric utilities hope they can successfully lobby for existing plants to be grandfathered into a new system of regulation, as they did in 1970 with the Clean Air Act, shifting the "significant financial and environmental risk" from the companies to everyone else.

THE POLITICAL BATTLE: Public opposition to coal plants due to their mercury, acid rain, smog, and carbon emissions has helped kill 60 coal plants in the past several years. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), the $40 million coal-industry public relations effort, is no more. In recent months, youth, environment, and health activists exposed ABEC's efforts to attack green-collar jobs and propagandize coal. ABEC and the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED), the trade organization that started the front group, have now become the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). Writing for Grist, Sean Casten translates the retooled message of ACCCE: "We need to burn more coal. We need taxpayers to pay for the cost of that coal. And we've got enough money to make sure it happens." Jim Rogers, President and CEO of coal-heavy Duke Energy, an ACCCE member, has become one of the most prominent industry voices calling for the regulation of global warming pollution from power plants and other sectors of the economy. In making his case for action, Rogers includes a very important caveat: regulate greenhouse gases, but regulate in a way that ensures that the American taxpayer foots the bill for cleaning up the company's aging and high-emitting power plants. The European Union this week signaled it is willing to invest government dollars into finding a possible future for coal, "pushing forward proposals for a dozen demonstration projects" of coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). CCS is still unproven but may be the "key enabling technology for a future in which we can continue to use our vast coal resources and also protect the climate."

ANOTHER PATH: If not hundreds of new coal plants a year, then what? Energy efficiency is the most powerful choice. A study this week by the electric utilities found that "energy efficiency improvements in the U.S. electric power sector could reduce the need for new electric generation by an additional 7 to 11 percent more than currently projected over the next two decades." McKinsey and Co. has found that improving energy efficiency could "offset some 85 percent of the projected incremental demand for electricity in 2030, largely negating the need for incremental coal-fired plants." Even with limited public investment, renewable technology is making dramatic gains. Wind turbines, once used primarily for farms and rural houses far from electrical service, are becoming more common in heavily populated residential areas as homeowners are attracted to ease of use, financial incentives, and low environmental effects. In addition to wind turbines and solar power, which can provide increasingly inexpensive but variable power, there is a host of renewable power sources that can be used for base-load electric capacity instead of a coal-fired plant. Solar thermal systems "gather heat from the sun, boil water into steam, spin a turbine and make power," like other solar thermal plants, and are designed to store the heat for hours or even days. Geothermal and tidal power are also available technologies. Although the challenge of transitioning away from coal-fired power is monumental, the first steps are clear.

Coal Awareness Week, Part 6: Additional Ways to Stop the Coal Lobby

Imagine your city has a basketball team and they really suck (worse even than the Clippers, if you can imagine that!) This team sucks so bad that not only do they never win a game, BUT THEY REGULARLY KILL MANY OF THEIR FANS! And there's something about the arena or the pyrotechnics before each game that gives asthma to thousands of children in attendance and shortens the lifespan of thousands of fans. (See, I said they were worse than the Clippers!) You'd be pretty outraged right?

Now imagine if that same team took the money from season ticket holder and everyone in the entire community, and used it NOT to improve the team, NOT to bring in new management or new players, NOT to clean up their arena, NOT TO STOP KILLING PEOPLE, but instead to launch a massive advertising campaign to tell you that THIS TEAM IS GOOD (AND NEVER MIND THE PEOPLE WE KILL AND INJURE).

That's pretty much the situation we have with the coal industry today.

The coal lobby seems to have more money than God. The coal lobbying group, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is spending $35 million THIS YEAR to try to influence the public debate. $35 million buys a lot of PEOPLE. ABEC has 5 press officers. They have an outside agency that runs their website and a full-time "researcher" who just goes around commenting on blogs. They have a contract with R&R Partners (the same advertising agency that brought you the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" campaign) to produce their advertising. They also appear to be running a nationwide ground campaign that mirrors the campaigns of the Presidential contenders. In each state they visit they apparently hire an additional local PR agency to help them spread their message.

It'd be brilliant if only it wasn't so evil.

But where does all of the money that is funding this coal misinformation campaign come from? Well, it comes from the coal companies and a handful of utilities. Yes, but where does their money come from? IT COMES FROM YOU AND ME EVERY TIME WE PAY OUR ELECTRICITY BILL.

A little historical background and then some action steps to kick some ass. When Thomas Edison first figured out how to use coal to generate electricity, he worked with J.P. Morgan (the same folks who just stole AN ENTIRE INVESTMENT BANK in the middle of the night, but I digress) to figure out how to profit from his invention. Edison's right hand man was a guy named Samuel Insull, Jr. It was Insull who was really responsible for taking Edison's invention and figuring out how to get the first power plants built across the country.

The problem that Insull faced was that the start-up costs for a power plant were enormous -- not only did they have to build the power plant but there was no electrical grid at the time so all the transmission lines had to be built as well. Insull didn't want to invest all that money only to lose out to a competing utility in the same region. So he came up with the clever idea that power companies should be regulated by public utilities commissions. It sounds strange for an industrialist to insist on regulating his own industry but in the process the power companies were able to divide up the entire country and NOT HAVE TO COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER. (All the info in the last 2 paragraphs comes from Jeff Goodell's book, Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future.)

Public utilities commissions set the price that the public will pay for electricity, while guaranteeing that the power company will recover its investment plus a profit.

Which brings me back to ABEC. The $35 million that they are blowing on TV ads and a nationwide ground campaign is coming from you and me in the form of the utility bills we pay. THE FACT THAT THE COAL LOBBY HAS ALL THIS MONEY LAYING AROUND TO SPEND ON FANCY TV ADS MAKES ME BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR OUR ELECTRICITY.

And I think we should ask for our money back.

Public utilities commissions are just that, public. Every state has one. And they are required to take public comments. If you are unhappy with the coal industry taking your money and spending it on a massive misinformation campaign that will ultimately jeopardize your health -- you have a right to complain.

Here's a list of the Public Utilities Commissions in every state.

Here's the How to File a Complaint link for California (and each state will have a similar link with step by step directions you can follow).

Specifically, I think the Public Utilities Commissions across this country owe rate payers (that's you and me) $35 million in rebates for excess profits given out to the power industry this past year. How do we know they have charged us $35 million too much? Because ABEC is spending $35 million of our money on a campaign to lie to the us about the dangers of coal, that's how.

Coal Awareness Week, Part 5: What you can do about it

As we've seen this week, coal is a horrible energy source. It dramatically decreases quality of life while increasing heart attacks, asthma, lung disease, autism, global warming, acid rain, and smog. So what can we do about it?

It seems to me that there are several different ways to get involved in addressing the problems posed by coal-fired power plants (I imagine you'll have additional ideas and I'd welcome them in the comments). I've organized them into 3 different categories:


ORGANIZATIONS DOING GOOD WORK:

There are several national organizations fighting against coal and working for sane alternatives such as solar, wind, and geothermal power. Working with existing organizations can help focus our efforts and amplify our voices. Each one has a wealth of creative ways to get involved (and the websites have gotten increasingly sophisticated -- in many cases helping you to quickly and easily target your message to your Representative or Senator). Here are some of my favorites:

National Resources Defense Council
Jump right in and take action (here) -- awesome site by the way.
Sign up for the NRDC Action Network (here).

Sierra Club
Learn more about Sierra Club initiatives (here).
Sign up with the Sierra Club (here).

Rainforest Action Network
For background info on Rainforest Action Network and their current campaigns click (here).
Learn about how to get involved with their campaigns against coal-fired power plants (here).


LEGISLATIVE ACTION

On February 27th, 2008 the House of Representatives passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, H.R. 5351, which will extend and expand tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances.

This is a really important bill because current tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources are set to expire this year. If these tax credits are allowed to expire, investment and research into alternative energy will plummet. Kudos to Nancy Pelosi for getting H.R. 5351 through the House of Representatives (96% of Democratic Representatives supported the bill, 92% of Republicans opposed it). Now the bill is in the Senate where it faces a much more uncertain future. The Senate is expected to begin debating the bill in early April. There is a great automated e-form (here) that you can use to contact your Senator and urge him/her to support passage of H.R. 5351.

Also, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey have introduced a bill that would require any new coal-fired power plant to capture and permanently sequester carbon dioxide. It would be a huge step forward. You can use the zip code search box in the upper left corner of (this page) to find your representative and urge him/her to support this bill (it does not have an H.R. # yet -- but it's called the "Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Acts of 2008").

Finally, if you're tired of Republican presidents vetoing environmental legislation, you can always send some love to the soon-to-be Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama (here). (Love ya Hil, but the math ain't on your side.)


ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION IN THE MEDIA

It seems to me that CNN has some explaining to do. They took money from Big Coal and then, when hosting Presidential Debates, failed to ask any questions about global warming or energy policy (other than the "snowman question" in the CNN YouTube debate which hardly qualifies). CNN uses airwaves owned by the public and has a obligation to use these airwaves responsibly. I've written to CNN to ask them to explain how much money they accepted from Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (the coal lobby) and why they failed to ask any questions about global warming or energy policy. But I would urge you to contact them as well. Please be kind and respectful (remember, honey attracts more flies than vinegar, or something like that) but I think it's fair to ask hard questions and demand accountability. Below are links to the forms to send questions to the various anchors at CNN:

Anderson Cooper (he's their star and seems like a decent guy. I'd be curious to know how he feels about the fact that CNN accepted sponsorship money from these toxic polluters and then seemed to pull its punches during the debates.)

Wolf Blitzer (Wolfie moderated the South Carolina Democratic Debate on January 21, 2008).

Comment form for The Situation Room (CNN's afternoon political show).

If you have ideas for other media outlets we should be contacting, I'd welcome them as well.

Coal Awareness Week, Bonus: RFK Action Front Debates Americans for Balanced Energy Choices

It appears the folks at the coal industry lobbying group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices have seen my new videos. "David, with ABEC" posted a comment on my last post. I thought I would reply -- but rather than making you dig through the comments, I've decided to do a whole post about it here. (A quick note, I've written to ABEC to ask whether "David, with ABEC" is officially authorized to speak on behalf of ABEC -- it appears that he is, but I'll let you know what I find out.)

Here's what "David, with ABEC" wrote,

Hi there. I watched the videos... there's a lot to respond to but I'll focus on what you said about mercury.

First off, over half of the mercury in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. And the government estimates that as much as 70 percent of all of the mercury that is deposited in U.S. waterways come from emission sources outside the United States.

Coal-based power plants in the United States contribute about 1% of total global emissions.

The United States is the only country in the world to regulate utility mercury emissions. About three years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency released new stringent rules to regulate mercury emissions from power plants in the United States. The reduction required is a 70 percent reduction in utility mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, resulting in the need for the industry to invest about $52 billion in new technology.

Human exposure to methyl mercury comes from fish. The methyl mercury in ocean fish comes mostly from natural sources in the deep oceans — there has been methyl mercury in ocean fish since there were fish. Given that our nation’s power plants account for only 1% of global mercury emissions, eliminating them would have no detectable effect on fish.

And here's my reply:

Dear "David, with ABEC":

Thanks for taking the time to write and thanks for watching the videos.

Yes, let's definitely talk about mercury.

According to the EPA, coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the United States.

Every 1,000 pound increase in mercury emissions causes a 43% increase in special education rates in the community and a 61% increase in autism. To argue that eliminating mercury from coal-fired power plants would not improve public health is completely disingenuous.

The EPA's March 2005 mercury rule is the best argument you've got? You've gotta be kidding me! As you know, the EPA mercury rule was a WEAKENING of existing standards under the Clean Air Act. The EPA was sued by 14 states as a result. THE EPA JUST LOST THE COURT CASE! THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU'VE GOT IS A RULE THAT WEAKENED AIR STANDARDS AND WAS THROWN OUT IN COURT!? Yes, let's definitely talk about this some more:

"The Washington Post reported that at least a dozen passages in the EPA's proposal were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from memos prepared by West Associates, an industry organization representing western coal burners, and Latham & Watkins, a powerful Washington law firm that often represents corporations on environmental issues and where EPA air policy chief Jeffrey Holmstead once worked... In the following months, the Government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog agency, blasted the EPA for in effect, cooking its books...

The EPA's mercury rule was finalized in March 2005. Within weeks, fourteen states filed suit to have the new rule overturned, charging that the cap-and-trade scheme was unlawful under the strict requirements for the regulation of hazardous air pollutants in the Clean Air Act." (Big Coal p. 144 - 145.)

And how'd that court case turn out? From the NY Times:

"This month, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the E.P.A. had once again ignored the law by failing to require deep and timely reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Like most clean air cases, this one was mind-numbingly complex. The gist of it was that the E.P.A. — seeking as usual to please industry — had approved a weak set of regulations that would let many plants off the hook for emissions reductions that would be required under any honest reading of the law."

The NY Times continued:

"The D.C. Circuit, by no means a radical group of judges, has become so exasperated that it has taken to quoting Lewis Carroll. In 2006, in a reference to “Through the Looking Glass,” the court said that the E.P.A.’s reading of the law would make sense “only in a Humpty Dumpty world.” This month, invoking “Alice in Wonderland,” the court said the agency’s reasoning recalled “the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting the E.P.A.’s desires for the plain text” of the law."

So in defense of your toxic polluting industry you cited a rule that you knew had just been thrown out in court? Does your plan for counteracting bad PR rely on the hope that no one knows how to use Google?

What's maddening about ABEC and other coal industry lobbying groups is that doing the right thing is often easier than your Neanderthal commitment to continuing toxic pollution. You don't even pay for the bill for environmental improvements -- consumers do through rates set by utilities commissions that guarantee that you will recover your costs plus a tidy profit:

"According to one report by state air pollution regulators, installing scrubbers that would remove 90 percent of the mercury from power plants' emissions would add just 15 to 60 cents a month to the typical residential electric bill." (Big Coal, p. 143.)

Don't you think most consumers would be willing to pay 15 to 60 cents a month to dramatically reduce special education rates, autism, asthma, heart attacks, and lung disease? In fact, you and I both know that environmental regulations are incredibly cost-effective and produce a huge net benefit to society at little cost to producers.

I'll close with this quote from Jeff Goodell about the coal industry's bone-headed opposition to sensible regulation of mercury emissions:

"For Big Coal, the obvious question is this: was the fight over mercury worth it? Yes, the industry won a decade or more of delay before it has to install mercury controls on power plants. But in return, it received mountains of bad press, provoked passionate anti-coal outbursts at public meetings around the country, triggered more than a dozen lawsuits, and inspired nearly half a million protest letters to the EPA. One might easily argue that Quin Shea has been correct back in 2000: by engaging in a political street fight over mercury, Big Coal made a mockery of its own PR rhetoric about being "increasingly clean" and undermined whatever credibility it had as an industry willing to face up to tough problems." (Big Coal, p. 145)

So what we know about mercury is that it is a huge public health problem, coal-fired power plants are a big source of the problem, it wouldn't cost the coal industry much to address the problem -- but you (ABEC and the coal industry) still insist on the right to poison our communities with this hideous neurotoxin.

And mercury is just the tip of the iceberg. Coal-fired power plants also release "67 other air toxins, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins." If you like, I'd be happy to debate the problems created by these other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants as well.

Sincerely,
Toby

http://www.rfkactionfront.com

To see the videos that have gotten ABEC's undies in a bunch click (here and here).

Update #1: I got an e-mail reply from Steve Gates, Senior Communications Director at ABEC. He writes:

"David is in fact a real person. He is a researcher and editor who works for a vendor that helps us with our website."

Coal Awareness Week, Part 3: RFK Action Front strikes back at Americans for Balanced Energy Choices

In January, I was watching the Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I was surprised that there were absolutely no questions on global warming or energy policy. It seemed like a pretty huge oversight on the part of CNN given that we are currently fighting a 3 trillion dollar war that has cost nearly 4,000 American lives in lieu of having a domestic energy policy.

After about an hour CNN started cutting to commercial breaks. I thought, that's odd, the public owns the airwaves and this is a Presidential debate -- why are we having commercial breaks? As they went to break, CNN proudly announced that the debates were sponsored by the Orwellian-named Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) -- and again I thought, that's weird, since when are Presidential debates, sponsored by anyone other than the League of Women Voters? And CNN kept running these peppy commercials by ABEC telling people how great coal-fired power plants are! The commercials even used the song "Celebration" by Kool and Gang to put us all in that feel good mood!

It turns out that Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a PR front group for the coal-fired power industry. ABEC is spending $35 million to try to get more coal-fired power plants built in the U.S. They have to spend $35 million on PR (and Kool and the Gang songs) because coal is a horrible energy source. Coal mining causes black lung, mining accidents, and destroys entire communities. Burning coal causes asthma, heart attacks, and shortens the lives of thousands of Americans (it may also cause autism).

The more I thought about it, the angrier I got. CNN should be ashamed of itself for taking money from these toxic monsters. And it's about time someone slapped ABEC for lying to the American people.

As it turns out, I was recording the debates. So I decided to remake the ABEC commercial with actual, real world facts about coal (and thankfully, I couldn't afford to license the Kool and the Gang song). I made two version, the funny version, and the serious version. Check 'em out:

Solar kick's coal's ass #2, Funny:



Solar kicks coal's ass, just the facts:



You can subscribe to my YouTube channel by clicking (here).

Tomorrow I'll have more on ABEC and some ideas for ways to fight back against the coal-fired power industry.