Arguments against the hugely controversial advance-payment “nuclear tax” law – under which millions of Florida consumers are saddled in advance with higher utility bills for nuclear reactors that may never come online and would only do so considerably over-budget and behind schedule – were heard today by the Florida State Supreme Court.

PEF proposed two new reactors in Levy County, Florida with an estimated cost of $22.5 billion and FPL has proposed two additional reactors at their existing Turkey Point nuclear plant near Miami with an estimated cost approaching $20 billion. Currently both utilities admit that no final decision has been made on whether to actually build these new reactors. Numerous municipalities across Florida — including the cities of North and South Miami, Pinecrest, Biscayne Park, Yankeetown, Crestview as well as the Miami-Dade League of Cities and Broward League of Cities — have all passed resolutions opposing the nuclear cost recovery law.Yesterday, the AARP Florida and a bipartisan group of elected officials (who all filed amicus briefs supporting SACE’s legal challenge) held a telepress conference urging the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the state’s widely criticized “nuclear tax” scheme (listen to the audio here).

Media coverage leading up to today’s arguments before the Court highlights the range of issues resulting from the advanced cost recovery law.

A recent article in the Tampa Bay Times, “Nuclear advance fee case in front of Florida Supreme Court has big implications,” pinpoints the unfairness to consumers in Florida having to pre-pay for nuclear plants that may never be built:

“Should you be forced to pay in advance for a product you may never get? And if you don’t get what you paid for, should you get a refund?“

The Marcos Island Sun Times noted the hardships this nuclear tax imposes on older rate-payers in particular:

“Charles Milsted, associate state director of AARP Florida, said utility costs particularly hit low-income and older residents. Also, many current ratepayers might not ever get electricity from new nuclear plants, as Progress, for example, has said it would not go online in Levy County until 2024″

The Palm Beach Post focused on why a bipartisan coalition is seeking to repeal the advanced cost recovery law:

Democratic state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda declared that, “Nuclear cost recovery is a hidden tax used by the utility companies to control our energy choices, eliminate competition and hold back the future,” while her Republican colleague, State Sen. Mike Fasano, said advance nuclear cost recovery was sold to the Florida Legislature with false construction promises and inaccurate fiscal projections.

Platts noted these Florida legislators said that if the Florida Supreme Court does not rule advanced cost recovery as unconstitutional, they will mount a new, more aggressive effort to repeal the law in the 2013 legislative session.

Though Fasano voted for the law in 2006, he since sponsored legislation (SB 740) to repeal nuclear cost recovery for new reactors during the construction and planning phase. Demonstrating bi-partisan support for a repeal, Rehwinkel-Vasilinda introduced a companion bill, HB 4031.

At the beginning of this year, Fasano detailed the rationale behind his opposition to nuclear cost recovery in an opinion piece in the Tampa Bay Times.

As a staunch advocate for consumers, I believe that protecting our citizens’ pocketbooks, particularly in these trying economic times, is of the utmost importance. In Florida, allowing utilities to recover the costs of a new power plant before the plant is placed in service and regardless of whether such a plant is ever even completed is unfair to consumers and bad public policy. Moreover, while it shifts the risk from private companies to ratepayers, utility shareholders still benefit from all the profits — in this case a guaranteed rate of return on their capital expenditures.

When I originally supported the advanced cost recovery, I never thought the Florida Public Service Commission would turn a blind eye to the high risks associated with such capital-intensive and complicated projects. I know that my fellow lawmakers did not intend to give utilities a blank check, but that is in essence what has happened.

Earlier this week, SACE’s executive director Stephen Smith authored an opinion piece in the Palm Beach Post contrasting the risks of this financing scheme versus the benefits that lower-cost efficiency could have for customers:

This is a high-stakes game that should not be played with your money. FPL has received a virtual “blank check” while the governor remains silent and state legislative leaders refuse to repeal the nuclear tax. They are protecting a scheme that favors an increasingly expensive way to meet our energy needs while ignoring low-cost resources such as energy efficiency. Astonishingly, FPL concedes that is hasn’t actually decided to build the reactors, yet insists that consumers should cover the costs.

SACE remains committed to protecting utility ratepayers in Florida from the negative impacts of this nuclear tax scheme. Stay tuned for further developments and  consider taking action now to tell the PSC and the Legislature to Say NO to the Nuclear Tax!

Rising temperatures have clearly played a part in the oppressive heat waves, devastating droughts, rampant wildfires and deadly storms that impacted the U.S. this summer – more details about those extreme weather events below.  Yet both President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney stayed fairly quiet on the issue of climate change during this campaign season until their respective conventions. Their statements on the issue, however, could not have been more different.

During his speech at the Republican National Convention, Romney mocked Obama’s long-stated position on climate change, saying that:

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

The following week at the Democratic National Convention, Obama provided a sharp retort during his acceptance speech:

“And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet — because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.”

www.whitehouse.gov

Such direct references to climate change are a much needed departure from the silence we’ve seen thus far in these campaigns. Unlike in 2008, when then-Senator Obama spoke clearly and frequently about the need for climate legislation to limit carbon emissions, President Obama has not put much emphasis on the growing threats of climate change or the needed course of action in his stump speeches on campaign trail. On the other hand, his campaign website and recent speeches frequently tout his Administration’s investment in and commitment to clean energy and clearly connect these policies to a reduction in carbon pollution. In large part because of an utter lack of leadership from Congress, the Obama Administration has proposed the first ever carbon pollution rules for power plants, specifically affecting new coal-fired power plants, and twice raised the CAFE standards to cut carbon emissions from the transportation sector.  It’s almost as if President Obama, who watched the contentious 2009 climate bill debate, has decided to act on climate without speaking about climate.

Romney’s stance on climate change has undergone a complete 180 turn-around from his previous actions as governor when he from his actions as governor when he released a climate change action plan for Massachusetts and agreed to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Even during his first run for the White House, Romney acknowledged the importance of global warming when questioned at an event in St. Petersburg, Florida in August 2007. When asked by a local resident whether the U.S.’s significant contribution to global warming pollution meant we should take the lead in promoting solutions, then-candidate Romney said, “the answer is a global solution to global warming.” He then offered a laundry list of potential solutions including wind power, solar power and more efficient vehicles — the very clean energy solutions that are all but absent from his proposed energy plan that stresses oil, natural gas and coal. Listen to Romney’s response here.

Romney’s opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly finalized mercury rule, as well as criticism of the proposed carbon pollution standard for new coal plants, leaves little doubt that a Romney presidency could actively seek to reverse any of the climate pollution reduction gains of the past four years. Effectively, the U.S. would be left without Congressional leadership or executive leadership on one of the most pressing issues of our time.

And pressing climate change truly is: Climate Communications’ new report summarizes data from NOAA’s U.S. Climate Extremes Index which confirms that the summer of 2012 was the most extreme summers in U.S. history:

• From June-August 2012, nearly 10,000 daily high temperature records were broken compared to just over 1,400 daily low temperature records throughout the same 3-month period.
• July 2012 was the hottest month in U.S. history.
• More than 80 million people—about 10 million more than in 2011—experienced 100°F or higher temperatures.
• More than 2/3 of the country experienced drought throughout the summer of 2012, much of it classified as “severe to extreme.”
• The nation could face costs of up to $77 billion due to the 2012 drought, making it the 3rd costliest weather-related disaster since 1980, behind Hurricane Katrina and the drought of 1988.
• January-August 2012 broke the year-to-date record for most acreage burned by wildfires (6,888,342).
• A total of 3 million acres burned from mid-July to the end of August 2012.
• In June 2012, Tropical Cyclone Debby produced record-breaking rainfall across Florida, dropping more than 20 inches of rain in 24 hours in some locations. When Tropical Storm Debby formed on June 23, it was the first time since record keeping began in 1851 that four tropical storms formed before July.
• Fueled by extreme heat, the derecho event in late June slammed 700 miles of the U.S. with violent winds that left 22 dead and millions without power. Washington D.C., one of the areas most affected by the derecho, set a June record-high temperature during that time, while Columbia, S.C. broke its all-time temperature record.

As both of the major party candidates prepare to square off in the first debate starting tonight, I’m hopeful that they will speak about the critical issue of our changing climate and pledge to address the impacts with sound energy policy. There’s still time to send an email to tonight’s moderator, PBS’s Jim Lehrer, urging him to directly ask the candidates about their positions on climate change and how each intends to address what United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called the “defining challenge of our era.”

These possible disruptions have been dubbed “Energy and Water Collisions.” These collisions have been captured in a new infographic series just released by UCS, which is described in their recent blog post, “2012 U.S. Drought and Heat Expose Electricity Supply Risks.”

Energy & Water Collisions Infographic

For example, a repeat example of the water energy collision has been the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) three-reactor Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama along the Tennessee River. During three of the last five summers (2007, 2010 and 2011) TVA has had to reduce generation in order to prevent dumping too-hot water back into the river, thus avoiding violating state environmental permit regulations. This energy water collision has also had financial impacts. As reported in the EW3 report, Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource, in 2010 this reduction and subsequent need for TVA to replace the lost power cost ratepayers $50 million. TVA has also invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a new cooling tower to help prevent this from happening in the future.

But unfortunately, this situation may occur again, not only at Browns Ferry but potentially also at other existing power plants or those on the drawing board. USA Today reported on a recent study published in Nature Climate Change that highlighted the Browns Ferry problems and also determined that, “The likelihood of extreme drops in power generation from total or partial plant shutdowns will triple in the next 50 years.”

Focusing here on the Southeast, thermoelectric power plants in Georgia are already the largest water use sector in the state and this may only get worse if proposals to build new coal and nuclear plants materialize. Both of these technologies can be incredibly water-intensive, with nuclear power generally considered the most water-intensive energy option.

For instance, Power4Georgians proposal to build a new 850MW coal plant in Washington Co. could seriously impact local waterways. A recent press release discussing the drought and implications that poses to our region not only today but in the future stated that:

The Oconee River is running so low, that if the new coal-fired power plant proposed in Washington County, Plant Washington, were up and running it would not be permitted to tap the river for its cooling water. Recent analysis by local water groups concludes that nearly every day in May the plant owner, Power4Georgians, would have had to rely on its “Plan B” – tapping limited precious groundwater because, according to Georgia Environmental Protection Division rules, the river would have been too low to meet the plant’s water needs.

Plant Vogtle's Existing Cooling Towers

Also in Georgia, two new nuclear reactors are proposed for Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle in Burke Co. along the Savannah River. As stated in a 2009 report I co-authored with Dr. Shawn Young, these two Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are estimated to use 55-88 million gallons of water per day from the Savannah River with 50-75% consumptive loss, meaning 50-75% of that water is evaporative loss. To put this consumptive water loss in perspective, with average per capita daily water use in Georgia at 75 gallons from surface and ground water sources, this means the two existing and two proposed reactors could use enough water to supply 1.4 to 2.3 million Georgians.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy recently hosted a media briefing (listen to the audio here) that brought together concerned river groups in Alabama and Georgia along with energy and water experts to discuss these troubling dynamics, while also highlighting another recent report for the River Network that delves into the energy-water connection, Burning Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity.

All of this attention and collaboration finally being paid to the energy-water connection underscores the need for water and energy planning to go hand-in-hand, along with considering the future implications to both from climate change. John Rogers, a UCS senior energy analyst and co-author of the EW3 report, recently said:

“There are places in which so much water is being removed from rivers and lakes for drinking water, agriculture, and current power plants that if you add in more power plant water demand, something will have to give. Developers, regulators, and investors really need to closely look at how new plants would affect water sources before backing those plants. Even though people think of the eastern U.S. as having plenty of water, current problems and trends in water demand and supply show that energy-water stresses will only increase in lots of places. Research shows that climate change has and will likely continue to increase the frequency of drought in certain parts of the country, including in the Southeast, making low- or no-water options like wind, solar photovoltaics, and energy efficiency even more valuable.”

We believe it is long overdue to start planning for tomorrow in order to ensure that future generations not only have clean, safe and affordable energy supplies but also plentiful water resources. Thankfully there are many energy choices available that are less water-intensive and low-carbon emitting including energy efficiency and conservation and renewables, such as solar and wind. And there are technology options available that can reduce water use at existing power plants. Beginning to understand the water-energy connection and committing to work to prevent future energy water collisions from happening is of paramount importance not only here in the southeast, but also across the country and globally. To get involved and learn more, please visit the Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative.

Last week, when the TVA Board of Directors convened in Greeneville, TN, the task before them was to carefully evaluate and consider next steps for the Watts Bar 2 nuclear reactor project. Over the past several months Tom Kilgore had been releasing information about a major cost overrun and multi-year delay in schedule. The CEO’s request for another $1.5 to $2 billion in construction costs as well as a three-year schedule extension should have raised eyebrows and provoked considerable deliberation. It seems the board members thought otherwise. Despite significant information calling into question the management oversight, and despite the ongoing unresolved issues at the second reactor located in the shadow of the Watts Bar dam,  the board unanimously approved both the budget increase and the construction extension as though they were approving minutes from a past meeting.

After all, what’s another couple billion dollars between friends — especially when it’s coming out of someone else’s pocket?

Based on these recent decisions, estimates are that the new reactor will not likely be completed until December 2015, three years behind the last “updated” schedule and 37 years behind the first TVA schedule on the Watts Bar reactors. In fact, according to TVA’s presentation, the estimated completion schedule included a possible June 2016 date. Furthermore, approval of the $1.5 to $2 billion increase in construction costs has effectively doubled the 2007 budget estimate of this proposed reactor project. This is a typical pattern on nuclear power construction: the project is started with a low estimate, typically stated as too good not to act on. But then things get rolling, schedules slip, costs explode and proponents say, “Well, we can’t stop now that we’re so far into the project! All those overruns are just sunk cost.”

Sansom stated at the meeting, “We missed, I’m not sure how we thought we could do it for the $2.5 billion back in 2007.” I think it’s pretty easy to figure out how they missed it though. There are two major reasons, and neither are pretty. First, the Chairman and the other 2007 board members were intentionally misled with a low-ball estimate from TVA staff and a contractor with a serious conflict of interest. Second, the board members did not know enough to ask the right questions or seek a truly independent review of the estimates.

But TVA consumers are the real losers in this battle, the ones who will have to endure the costly consequences of these mistakes. Though Kilgore maintained during the Q&A after the board meeting that TVA doesn’t expect to raise rates significantly, Moody’s Investors Services analysis suggests otherwise. Moody’s April 9 report concluded that the substantial cost overruns will increase pressure on rates and may deplete the existing debt capacity under TVA’s federally mandated $30 billion debt ceiling. Moreover, it’s actually worth noting that $4.5 billion would not be the total price tag for this project: nearly $2 billion was previously invested back in the 1980s before TVA’s board voted to mothball the project. When you consider those older investments, if completed, reactor Unit 2 will come in closer to $6 billion.

It is particularly important to keep in mind that Watts Bar has been “in the works” since the early 1970s. Should reactor Unit 2 ever come online, it can hardly be considered “new.” Early testimony from a former TVA Manager of Power provides an overview of the agency’s immersion with all things nuclear, which sounds eerily familiar to present day. It’s very disconcerting now to read statements from the 1970′s such as this, “TVA is well qualified to finance the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.” That was back when both nuclear reactors at Watts Bar were supposed to be operational by 1978 and were estimated to cost Tennessee Valley residents $685 million — literally over forty years ago. Since then, if you combine what was spent to complete Watts Bar reactor Unit 1, which cost over $6.4 billion, with what has been spent already and estimates on what it’ll take to complete reactor Unit 2, nearly $12 billion will have been committed to this troubled nuclear plant.

So even though it appeared that the board barely raised an eyebrow before approving such an incredible request, we as ratepayers need answers. Where’s the accountability for such colossal multi-billion dollar mistakes?

TVA has shown a lack of concern for this before and has, to date, avoided holding anyone accountable for the coal ash disaster in 2008. You can argue that many of the decisions that led to the Kingston Coal Ash Disaster predated both Kilgore and Sansom, even though it happened on their watch. But the same cannot be said about Watts Bar 2: all of the decisions regarding this resurrected project have been made and supported during their tenures. Kilgore and Sansom have been the biggest cheerleaders for Watts Bar 2 since the beginning: from the time they first authorized Bechtel Engineering — who were already caught overcharging TVA a few years earlier — to do a feasibility study on recovering the costs of Watts Bar 2; to approving Bechtel’s subsequently low-balled cost estimates to complete Watts Bar with no independent review; and all the way up to last week’s public admittance of these glaring mistakes, flippantly referred to as a “miss.”

Kilgore has already said that there will be no one held accountable for these mistakes, only “lessons learned.” What about addressing the lack of transparency? TVA staff said they were  unaware of how bad the situation was at Watts Bar 2 until around October 2011, when they started a “review of the project.” With billions of dollars on the line, how is it possible they were working for nearly six years without realizing they had fallen so far behind and gone so over budget?

If you believe as I do that TVA leadership staff suffers from serious institutional biases in support of nuclear power, then you’ll agree that they are always open to hearing proposals for new nuclear projects. Thus it appears the strategy is to get new board members hooked on the next nuclear project as quickly as possible, before revealing how badly previous nuclear investments have screwed up. It’s awfully convenient that these major problems at Watts Bar didn’t come to light until two months after the TVA board approved the budget last August for completing reactor Unit 1 at the troubled Bellefonte nuclear site in Alabama, another 1970′s vintage TVA facility.

If the board had known at the time the full extent of the issues at Watts Bar, one would hope that the outcome of the Bellefonte decision might have been different. Former TVA Board member Mike Duncan did push through a requirement that construction not start at Bellefonte until the nuclear fuel was loaded at Watts Bar 2, an indication that he may have had at least some concerns and reservations. But the question remains: did the board have the necessary information needed to make a prudent decision on Bellefonte, given the serious management issues at Watts Bar of which they were wholly unaware?

Bringing some wisdom from TVA’s history, former TVA Board Chairman S. David Freeman spoke before the board and on a press conference we hosted last week. Chairman Freeman, who has successfully run a few utilities, spent 20 years of his professional career at TVA, as an engineer, as a lawyer and finally as a board member. As someone long-supportive of TVA’s efforts to improve the life and welfare of citizens in the Tennessee Valley, Freeman was truly saddened by what he saw as developing at TVA, and he said as much during the meeting.

Thirty years ago, Freeman personally voted to cancel eight of TVA’s 17 proposed nuclear reactors because of cost overruns, changing market dynamics and potential rate increases. Now, he says it’s like “having a bad dream” all over again, as if history is repeating itself. He compared his return to speak before the board to Rip van Winkle waking to an old world of TVA chasing nuclear power at the expense of citizens in the region.

There is no evidence that the TVA board is doing the kind of due diligence necessary for a multi-billion dollar decision such as this. As Freeman said during the board meeting, they “never asked any penetrating questions.” Their lack of oversight makes it look as though Kilgore and Sansom are drifting from one financial blunder into another. And now, they’re setting up the Bellefonte reactor as the next blunder in line, even though there are extremely serious questions about the project — including whether or not TVA even needs the power.

Last year, we commented that TVA did a good job of designing an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that involved the public. There were a few areas of disappointment, however, including overestimating the price of natural gas, their insistence on keeping the proposed “low cost” Bellefonte nuclear reactor and their lack of real goals for renewable energy.

But now several major changes have occurred in the energy field since TVA’s IRP was released just one year ago. On the generation side, natural gas prices have hit historic lows and are prompting utility planners to see natural gas as a more attractive option than new coal and nuclear projects. Wind is becoming a more viable option as well, and solar prices continue to drop and are forecasted to continue their steep decline. On the demand side, the region’s load growth has been significantly lower than originally projected due to a combination of the economic recession, lack of new home construction and other factors. Mild weather and increased investments in energy efficiency are also contributing to the decrease in power demand which, in turn, has lead to a decrease in the need for new power plants.

As Freeman reiterated during our press conference, “Nuclear power is not a religion, it’s a business decision.” Bill Sansom and Tom Kilgore have lead TVA to this point, but we have several new additions to the TVA board. These new board members have had enough time to start asking the tough questions about where the agency is going, given the changing market dynamics and misinformation. The board is not supposed to simply rubber stamp the staff and chairman’s wishes…right?

The Truth: Natural gas prices are game-changing. Renewable energy prices are falling. Regulations on coal-fired plants are going to require future retirements. The economic recovery is slower than projected. Energy efficiency is impacting load growth already and, if properly pursued, will greatly decrease power demand.

Given the misinformation on Watts Bar, Bellefonte’s last cost estimate MUST be reviewed. TVA should pull stakeholders together who participated in the IRP process to share updated model runs on these changing dynamics. Good decisions will stand up in full sunlight. The new TVA board members are being pulled further into the TVA nuclear power black hole, and we cannot let this happen. Good leadership requires a review of where TVA is being led. Billions of dollars and the well being of our region are at stake.

PEF has proposed two new reactors in Levy County, Florida with an estimated cost of $22.5 billion and FPL has proposed two additional reactors at their existing Turkey Point nuclear plant near Miami with an estimated cost approaching $20 billion. Currently both utilities admit that no final decision has been made on whether to actually build these new reactors. Municipalities across Florida, including South Miami, the Village of Pinecrest and the Miami-Dade League of Cities, among others – have all passed resolutions opposing the nuclear cost recovery law.

Last week SACE held a press conference (listen to the audio here), which included Mayor Cindy Lerner of the Village of Pinecrest, discussing our appeal and the recent proposed settlement by Progress over their troubled Crystal River 3 reactor uprate and includes terms related to the proposed Levy reactors that we consider a bad deal in the long-term for Progress customers and another example of why the nuclear cost recovery legislation needs to be repealed.

Media coverage of the nuclear cost recovery issue has highlighted that the unjust nuclear tax scam is increasingly opposed by citizens across  Florida. A recent article in the Miami Herald by Mary Ellen Klas, “Energy advocates: State nuclear cost recovery bill is unconstitutional,” pinpoints the unfairness of consumers in Florida having to pre-pay for nuclear plants that may never be built:

“State-sanctioned monopolies are using this nuclear-tax scam as an entitlement to extract money from consumers,” said Stephen A. Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “This a really bad deal for the consumers of Florida.”

The Miami Herald article also mentions that the politics of nuclear cost recovery are changing as well:

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, said a settlement agreement reached on Friday between Progress Energy and state regulators was proof that the company had pulled back from its commitment to build a new nuclear power plant in Levy County. The company agreed to reduce how much it will charge customers for the proposed plant, refund $288 million related to a controversial nuclear-plant repair in Crystal River and increase base electric rates by $150 million a year.

“That tells you right there that the nuclear power plant in Levy will never be built,” Fasano said. “They should be honest with the ratepayers and with the Public Service Commission and refund the ratepayers their money.”

Though State Sen. Fasano voted for the nuclear cost recovery law in 2006, he has now sponsored SB 740, which would repeal nuclear cost recovery for new reactors during the construction and planning phase. Demonstrating bi-partisan support for a repeal, Democratic State Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel-Vasilinda has introduced a companion bill, HB 4031.

Fasano explains the rationale behind his opposition to nuclear cost recovery in an opinion piece in the Tampa Bay Times.

As a staunch advocate for consumers, I believe that protecting our citizens’ pocketbooks, particularly in these trying economic times, is of the utmost importance. In Florida, allowing utilities to recover the costs of a new power plant before the plant is placed in service and regardless of whether such a plant is ever even completed is unfair to consumers and bad public policy. Moreover, while it shifts the risk from private companies to ratepayers, utility shareholders still benefit from all the profits — in this case a guaranteed rate of return on their capital expenditures.

When I originally supported the advanced cost recovery, I never thought the Florida Public Service Commission would turn a blind eye to the high risks associated with such capital-intensive and complicated projects. I know that my fellow lawmakers did not intend to give utilities a blank check, but that is in essence what has happened.

Lee County Commissioner Ray Judah also has voiced his disapproval of the law in a guest post for SACE’s blog, stating:

“Here’s the kicker: Customers not only bear the project risk for utility shareholders, but the early cost recovery statute provides that if a utility abandons a reactor project, it can still recover all construction costs from ratepayers.”

The Palm Beach Post also picked up on our concerns with the bad state legislation that has allowed this nuclear tax scam to flourish in Florida:

“The legislature has created a sloppy law which is unconstitutional,” Smith said. “We are hoping the judicial branch will engage here and do what they are supposed to do.”

SACE remains committed to protecting utility ratepayers in Florida from the negative impacts of this nuclear tax scheme. Stay tuned for further developments.

Photo Credit Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the people of Japan as the death toll soars. They face incredible hardships ahead and are in dire need of aid. As the world closely watches the unfolding, horrific developments in Japan resulting from the massive 8.9 magnitude earthquake, tsunami and many aftershocks, the significant damage to the country’s nuclear power infrastructure has become more apparent though events occurring on-the-ground in real time are difficult to follow.

Since our blog post on Friday evening, Japan is facing a nuclear crisis of epic proportions. As reported in the New York Times today: two reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant 170 miles north of Tokyo appear to have suffered partial meltdowns and three reactors at the nearby Fukushima Daini plant are dealing with failures in the cooling system. Releases of volatile radioactive elements have occurred, though the exact amounts are not yet known. Reports have stated that radiation levels have exceeded permissible limits and over 200,000 people living around the two nuclear power plants have been evacuated. There are reports that several plant workers have experienced significant radiation exposure, a confirmation that at least one worker has died and more than 160 people outside of the plant are also contaminated with radioactivity. Radioactive cesium has been measured, a sure sign that the nuclear fuel has been damaged. Potassium iodide is being distributed as a measure to protect the thyroids of nearby citizens from highly radioactive iodine in an effort to prevent development of thyroid cancer.

Further complicating matters, we have learned that in 2010, the reactor in Unit 3 at Daiichi was loaded with mixed oxide fuel, known as “MOX” or plutonium fuel. A BBC report confirms this and stated that it is possible that some of the plutonium fuel may have been exposed. This type of fuel is currently not used at nuclear power reactors in the United States though efforts are ongoing to try and produce the fuel at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Nuclear Site in South Carolina. We, along with many other concerned organizations, have opposed the multi-billion dollar dangerous and controversial program. Plutonium-based fuel has different properties than traditional uranium-based fuel. Though it is very serious if either type of nuclear reactor fuel is damaged, the ramifications from a meltdown of plutonium-based fuel are more dire in terms of the negative health impacts to surrounding populations.

There are numerous resources tracking the developments of the nuclear disaster still-unfolding in Japan, including:

• The BBC has a detailed analysis of the situation at the Daiichi nuclear power plant;
• Union of Concerned Scientist’s website including a blog updated by Dr. Ed Lyman and nuclear engineer, Dave Lochbaum;
• Beyond Nuclear has extensive information, including recent interviews, maps, reactor schematics, etc.;
• Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) is also tracking;
• Green Action in Japan is issuing updates in English;
• Citizens Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) in Japan held a media briefing on Sunday, March 13;
• Click here for the audio recording of a media briefing held one Saturday afternoon with U.S. nuclear experts analyzing the Japanese nuclear disaster;
• The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has information available on U.S. efforts to assist Japan and possible concerns with reactors in the U.S.

The ultimate consequences of this nuclear disaster are far from known and will take time to analyze. Additionally, the worldwide ramifications of this tragedy are also not yet known. Here in the U.S., a shift in future energy policy has already begun as nuclear proponent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman stated this morning on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” that the United States should “put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what’s happening in Japan.” As one looks at the telling picture from Reuters featured in this blog of young children being monitored for radiation exposure near the Daini nuclear power plant, we must ask ourselves, is this what we want for future generations? Does this image represent a clean, safe energy future? Here at Southern Alliance for Clean Energy we clearly state say “no.”

Meanwhile, CCW continues to degrade water sources across the U.S. and the risk of another Kingston-like disaster remains just as high today as it was a year ago.

One year ago, the retaining wall at TVA’s Kingston Facility failed, spilling an estimated 5.4 million cubic yards of CCW into the Emory river and surrounding countryside in Harriman, TN.  While TVA initially  claimed that the CCW was not toxic and posed little threat, it quickly became apparent that this substance that was spread several feet deep over 300 acres of East Tennessee contained numerous heavy metals and carcinogens.

You can hear Dr. Stephen Smith, SACE Executive Director, discussing this issue during an interview on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition during an audio feature, “1 Year Later: TVA Still Cleaning Up Coal Ash Spill.”

The Kingston disaster thrust the coal plant safety generally and CCW specifically into the national spotlight. It became apparent that CCW was stored in retention ponds like the Kingston facility at hundreds of sites across the United States and that piecemeal state regulations were not adequate to protect against the threat that CCW poses.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has postponed the release of proposed regulations for coal combustion waste

Shortly after the Kingston tragedy, SACE’s Executive Director, Stephen Smith, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers of CCW and the failure of EPA to regulate CCW.  In January 2009, then newly-appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised to have a proposal for regulating this toxic substance by the end of 2009. Unfortunately, it is now apparent this promise will not be fulfilled because the agency is still “actively clarifying and refining parts of the proposal.”  A new deadline for a decision has not been announced.

EPA and independent studies clearly document the hazardous nature of CCW.

The hazards of CCW are well documented.  EPA’s own reports, as well as numerous studies by independent environmental organizations and academic institutions have recorded the toxic chemicals present in CCW.  These include arsenic, aluminum, boron, cadmium, lead and others that are known to cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems and damage to nervous systems.  An EPA report issued in 2007 found that unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as acceptable.  Later that year, another EPA report identified 24 proven and 42 potential damage cases as a result of CCW-caused contamination.

Human Health Effects of Toxins Found in Coal Combustion Waste

And the risk of these contaminants getting into nearby water sources is not limited to sudden releases like the one at the Kingston Facility.  Because of poor storage and disposal practices, CCW poses a significant threat to human health and the environment through the gradual leaching of these toxins into nearby ground and surface waters.  In some cases, CCW is disposed of by pumping it into abandoned coal mines where it then finds its way to nearby aquifers or rivers.  In other cases, it is a CCW impoundment that leaches into nearby water sources because of a lack of proper lining and monitoring.

In October, EPA released a study of toxins in wastewater discharges from coal ash impoundments.  It concluded what environmental groups like EarthJustice and EIP have known for years: that new regulations for  CCW are needed because of the significant toxic releases from impoundments and the likelihood that these releases will increase significantly over the next few years as new air pollution controls are installed (more on the increasing toxicity of CCW below).

Delaying regulation endangers the public as the risk of CCW continues to increase.

Federal regulation of CCW should be adopted immediately to ensure that surface impoundments across the U.S. are stabilized and that the toxins contained in CCW are no longer contaminating nearby water sources.  The toxicity of CCW is alarming in itself, but it is downright frightening when you consider that coal ash represents the second largest source of industrial waste in the country, with an estimated 130 million tons generated each year.

Three generations of pollution control at TVA's Kingston facility. As our air becomes cleaner, coal combustion waste will become dirtier and more dangerous.

And it’s getting more and more toxic.  As air quality regulations continue to tighten, more and more advanced pollution controls will keep toxins out of the air, but these toxins don’t just go away.  They remain in the coal combustion waste that now threatens our water sources.

EPA findings this past year seem to raise the stakes even further.  In June, EPA released a list of 44 “high hazard potential” sites at 26 different coal burning facilities across the United States.  Many of these facilities are located in the Southeast, including 13 sites at 8 facilities in North Carolina.  These sites are all similar to TVA’s Kingston facility that burst in December 2008 in that they are storing massive amounts of coal ash in loosely regulated storage ponds.  The Center for Public Integrity has posted an interactive map that allows you to identify the coal ash storage sites near you.  And if you live in the Southeast, there are coal ash storage sites near you.

In all, we need federal regulations immediately to first ensure that another Kingston disaster doesn’t happen, but also to stop the slow leaching of these same toxins due to poor storage and disposal of CCW.

So why the delay?

One possible explanation is that industry groups have expressed concern that regulating CCW as a hazardous waste would impede its beneficial reuse.  Nearly 1/3 of CCW is recycled in various uses such as filler material for concrete and asphalt.  Listing CCW as a hazardous waste would impose significant reporting and handling requirements that would make it more difficult to recycle.  However, the EPA is free to develop hybrid regulations that would regulate CCW as a hazardous waste until it enters the recycling chain, and then regulations would be lessened to encourage its beneficial reuse.

Another possibility is that the EPA is trying to determine whether to regulate only the storage of CCW in retention ponds or to regulate all storage and disposal of CCW.  It is generally agreed that wet storage facilities pose the greatest risk.  The slurry of water and coal ash means that the toxins contained in the CCW are more mobile and can more easily escape into nearby waterways.

However, dry storage of CCW in landfills, while preferable to wet storage in retention ponds, also poses significant risk if the landfill is not properly lined or does not include proper monitoring systems to detect the movement of CCW toxins into nearby aquifers or river systems.  Regulating only the wet storage of CCW would only address part of the problem.  Regulations must include requirements for synthetic liners and monitoring systems at dry-storage facilities to protect the public from this toxic substance.

The coal ash spill at TVA's Kingston facility could have been avoided if proper federal regulations were in place

Regardless of what is causing the delay, Lisa Jackson and the EPA must put the welfare of human health and the environment above all else.  Certainly we want to encourage the beneficial use of CCW, but not at the expense of our health or the health of our environment.  Protecting ourselves from this toxic substance requires storage and disposal in synthetically lined landfills that are equipped with monitoring systems to ensure that toxins aren’t leaching into nearby water sources.

All the evidence has been collected and it isn’t even a close call.  CCW poses a significant risk to human health and the environment.  The EPA must issue strict federal regulations that phase out CCW wet-storage and mandate proper safeguards for dry-storage facilities.

The EIP report issued on Dec. 8, 2009 featured…

New data highlighted in public for the first time today paint an even grimmer picture of the late December 2008 coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee.  Reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) show that the TVA’s Kingston coal plant dumped into the Emory River in 2008 an estimated 140,000 pounds of arsenic contained in coal ash — more than twice the reported amount of the toxin discharged into U.S. waterways from all U.S. power plants in 2007.

We applaud the work of EIP and other groups for this excellent report.  It is critical for public and environmental health that we know the true toxicity of this terrible disaster.  TVA officials have been quoted in response to the dangers of this disaster with such brush offs as “this water is safe enough to swim in.”  And in response to this new EIP report, it appears that TVA officials are still denying the serious risks of this ash by claiming that heavy metals are not released when they dredge the soil.  This contention simply doesn’t make sense.  Obviously if TVA stirs up the toxic mud while they are dredging, the toxics are going to move downstream and dissolve more readily — just like sugar does when you stir your iced tea.

Charles H. Norris, P.G., Geo-Hydro, Inc., Denver, stated in the EIP press release:

“It is impossible to quantify the amount of toxic metals released from Kingston’s toxic coal ash into the Emory River before settling to the bottom of the river, and how much more may be released over time…  As the Emory River is dredged to help reduce the volume of toxic ash in the river, toxic metals like arsenic may leach into the water from any remaining ash on the river bottom over time, carrying contaminants further downstream, e.g., into the Clinch or Tennessee Rivers.”

And the EIP report clearly identifies:

Arsenic and other toxic metals were contained in the estimated one billion gallons of coal ash that spilled when the Kingston impoundment dikes burst on December 22, 2008. These toxic pollutants are hazardous to the health of humans, fish and other aquatic life.

The EIP analysis of the new TVA data finds a total of 2.66 million pounds of 10 toxic pollutants – arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc.

Currently, there are no federal rules setting standards for the safe disposal of ash or limiting the discharge of toxic leachate into our waterways. EPA has announced that it will propose regulations for disposal of coal ash by the end of 2009.

Read the EIP press release and download the report.

The media coverage of this important new report is impressive:

1. Washington Business Journal
2. Knoxville News Sentinel
3. CNBC
4. Forbes
5. Chattanooga Times Free Press
6. Yahoo News
7. US Politics Today
8. Nashville Business Journal
9. Listen to the radio segment on the report release

Read our previous blogs on the TVA coal ash disaster here:

June 26, 2009  TVA Ash Spill Root Cause Analysis Released

June 12, 2009  Coal is a Dirty Business: PBS Special on Coal in Ga. In this PBS special, Anda Ray, TVA’s main PR spokesperson was asked if she would swim in the river now and Ray told Stahl, “Yes, I would.”  She later retracted her response after remembering there was an advisory against it.  “We’ve advised people not to swim in the river where there’s ash.”

June 12, 2009  Sen. Boxer: Public should be notified about high hazard coal ash sites

April 20, 2009  TVA struggling to meet court-ordered clean ups

December 22, 2008 SACE Press Updates on Coal Ash Disaster

Also, review the Direct Testimony from the TVA Office of the Inspector General before the House of Representatives about the failings of the TVA before the spill occurred and in response to clean up.

We brought this lawsuit to keep ratepayers from having to prepay for two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro along the Savannah River that Georgia Power and its other utility partners have proposed to build. We’ve asked the Court to review the constitutionality of the so-called “construction work in progress” (CWIP) bill passed earlier this year, the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act (SB 31), and the legality of the Georgia Public Service Commission’s approval of Georgia Power’s request to certify building two new reactors at the Vogtle site.

Consumer Rip-Off
Many others share our concerns about this consumer rip-off unfolding if the high-risk Vogtle expansion goes forward under the new Georgia law or the Georgia PSC’s ruling:

• Clark Howard, a national consumer advocate spoke out strongly against SB31 and how Georgia Power and big industrial and commercial companies in Georgia struck a deal with lawmakers to force 100% of the cost of building new reactors at Vogtle onto small consumers saying this is “where the actual real effects of corruption are borne by you and me, not indirectly but immediately and directly.”

• The Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation initiated a lawsuit in 2009 against the Georgia PSC and the Georgia governor on similar concerns. An editorial from the Chattanooga Times Free Press agreed that both the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Taxpayers Foundation pleas had merit.

• Georgia Watch’s Angela Speir Phelps (a former Georgia Public Service Commissioner) commented on how sharply biased against consumers the Georgia PSC 4-1 vote was on the proposed Vogtle expansion. Georgia Watch, Georgia AARP and many others tried to stop state lawmakers from voting for Georgia Power’s and their large customers’ sweetheart Vogtle deal against small businesses and residential customers.

• Even the Georgia PSC’s own Public Interest Advocacy staff, which is charged with balancing the interest of the ratepayer and the electric utility, stated in their March 6, 2009 filing “there can be no serious question that CWIP is harmful to ratepayers. It will cost ratepayers more, deprive ratepayers of the use of their money during the construction period, and create intergenerational inequities.” View the PSC analysis of SB31.

Historical Boondoggles
In the 1970s and 80s the utility industry made a huge financial mess when they built nuclear reactors. There were construction delays and huge cost overruns; many projects were canceled after spending billions of dollars. The industry blamed their problems on changing regulations but it was Wall Street that stopped the nuclear boom. Some reactor projects came in with massive overruns compared to others. The two reactors at Vogtle were among the worst as outlined by expert David Schlissel during the Vogtle certification case. The real problem with the first two Vogtle reactors was poor management. The last time Georgia Power said trust us when it wanted to build Vogtle reactors 1 & 2, projected costs skyrocketed from $660 million for four reactors to $8.7 billion for two – a 1200% increase! This ultimately led, at the time, to the worst rate hike Georgians had ever experienced. In today’s challenging economic times Georgians can no longer be expected to foot the bill for Georgia Power Company follies.

Nuclear Socialism
The main thing the utility industry learned from the last generation of nuclear plants was how to pass risk on to their customers. Plant Vogtle is at the head of the line competing for federal nuclear loan guarantees – billions of taxpayer funds are to back these shaky new reactor proposals. What was never learned but should have been was that the full financial risk of these reactors should belong entirely to the utility that builds them.

Georgia Public Service Commissioners want you to believe that they’ll protect you if costs get too far out of whack this time around. But here’s the real deal:

• The proposed two new Vogtle reactors that Georgia Power wants to build have never been built anywhere in the world. The Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000 is being built for the first time in China and Georgia Power is pushing to make Georgia ratepayers the new nuclear guinea pigs in the U.S., thanks to the Georgia Commissioners green light.

• The AP1000 design is facing obstacles as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently announced serious safety concerns with the ability for some components to withstand strong weather events among other scenarios. This could lead to schedule and budget problems.

• Georgia Power and its parent Southern Company have limited management over the new reactor construction because they’ve turned over most of the control to Westinghouse to work for a consortium of companies. (Be aware that the Georgia PSC has no regulatory authority over Westinghouse or this consortium).

• Change orders can come up at any time when Westinghouse and the construction team determine the new Vogtle reactors will cost more than originally agreed upon. Georgia Power testified to the Georgia PSC in November 2009 that only a few months into the project the Company has already received notice of an unspecified number of potential change orders. The PSC has set itself up to have little control over this situation except to pull the plug on the costly project. The more they let Georgia Power sink funds the more ratepayers are on the hook for having to pay for costly problems with the new reactors.

• Even though Georgia families and businesses are footing the bill, Georgia Power likes to keep the public in the dark – especially with what’s going wrong at Vogtle – here’s a sample page of Georgia Power’s testimony filed at the PSC. The word ‘redacted’ is listed over one hundred times in just thirteen pages of testimony. The public can only see the background on the Vogtle problems that Georgia Power is struggling with by signing a confidentiality agreement and pledging to never discuss the matter publicly. The company claims it would be competitively disadvantaged so much that it could hurt ratepayers if it reveals the information publicly.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Takes Action
Judge Marvin Arrington is presiding over both the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Fulton County Taxpayer’s Foundation lawsuits. So far in this case, Georgia Power and the Georgia PSC have objected to our claims that the governor and PSC acted illegally. They argue that Georgia Power ratepayers are not yet harmed by decisions made by the PSC and that our lawsuit is premature. We don’t agree that it’s okay to wait for electric bills to skyrocket and are pushing forward to protect Georgians from the big corporate interests now. We’ll argue our case in court, which is now scheduled for December 2, 2009.

Building new reactors at Plant Vogtle should be halted because it’s too costly and risky for Georgians. If this scheme is not stopped, Georgia families and small businesses will be paying for new reactors years before any electricity is produced and regardless of whether the reactors are ever built. Georgia Power, the Georgia Public Service Commissioners and the majority of state lawmakers have ignored these consumer concerns. We hope our efforts can change that. Please help us continue this work to protect Georgia families and small businesses. And stay tuned for more!

UPDATE: At the December 2, hearing in Futon County Superior Court, Judge Arrington recused himself from the case. A new Judge will need to be assigned to the case. Listen to the GPB radio interview here.

State Rep. Phil Frye responds to audience questions. Rep. Frye is currently supporting wind energy in WNC and is very interested to see a pilot project developed in his district to show the potential benefits to the local and state economy.

The dust has settled after a last minute ban on mountain wind energy in North Carolina was inserted into an otherwise responsibly written state-wide wind permitting bill by the North Carolina Senate.  We believe now is the time to have a constructive and thoughtful dialogue about these issues to ensure that we protect local rights to choose whether or not to develop clean energy in their communities.

Over the past week, hundreds of people ranging from interested citizens to representatives, environmental groups, and academic institutions to the agriculture community, reengaged in the wind energy discussion in western North Carolina through two public wind forums held in Asheville, NC and Spruce Pine, NC.  SACE staff participated in the second half of a radio show hosted by Our Southern Community (listen to Radio Part 1 and Radio Part 2) after the wind forum in Asheville.

SACE and WNCA also took time recently to meet with the Asheville Citizen-Times editorial board to discuss wind energy in the mountains of North Carolina (watch the video here).  In each of these venues we saw repeatedly that wind power triggers very emotional responses from residents of the mountains and thus, we feel, it is critically important that the public get the facts about wind energy and in particular, the facts about how we can protect our mountain resources as we pursue this much needed source of clean energy.

An Appalachian State University study that looks at the highest quality wind sites (class 4 and above) that are near existing transmission lines and existing roads (to ensure that less development would be necessary), also takes into consideration the exclusion of critical natural areas. By excluding 98% of our mountain lands that are:
• at least 1 mile from the Blue Ridge Parkway and Appalachian Trail,
• Federal lands (ie. Great Smoky Mountains National Park and National Forests),
• State lands,
• Important Bird Areas,
• Spruce fir habitats (like Mt. Mitchell State Park),
• and significant natural heritage areas,
they found that there is still 787 MW of feasible wind power in western North Carolina.  These potential projects represent approximately three dozen wind sites across the 24 county region on only 2% of mountain lands.

Here is what this study’s findings mean:

Wind energy creates jobs. There are 85,000 people currently employed in the wind industry in the United States.  These are

NC Senator Joe Sam Queen addresses the Spruce Pine audience. Sen. Queen currently opposes mountain wind energy and stated to a SACE staff person that the 787 MW of wind potential in WNC is "insignificant."

healthy, sustainable, long-term jobs.  We are puzzled as to why several NC state Senators are telling the wind industry to keep their jobs in the Midwest when we need them here at home. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s economic development model, 787 MW of wind energy is equivalent to 350 well-paid, long-term (20+ year) jobs.  In rural western North Carolina, these numbers mean 350 families raising their kids, participating in building local economies, and investing their time, money, and lives into our mountains.

Wind energy creates local economic benefits. All of us from western North Carolina are painfully aware of the struggles to pay bills for schools and hire teachers in our most rural counties. The best wind energy resources happen to exist in these rural counties and represent an estimated $8.1 million in local economic benefits from tax payments alone that will come from the buildout of a small portion western North Carolina’s overall wind energy potential.

Wind energy helps local citizens keep their lands. Many local farmers, be they apple growers or Christmas tree farmers, are facing critical times in this economy.  Big developers want to buy their land out from under them at prices that are hard to refuse.  But most of these farmers would prefer to keep the beautiful mountain lands that have been in their families for generations and not sell them out to be ravaged by housing developments. Wind energy development actually provides the best of both worlds and offers a truly unique opportunity for local landowners.

Here’s how it works:  When wind turbines are built, the company leases land as a way of leasing the rights to the wind that blows across these lands. 787 MW of wind energy represents between $2 million and $3.5 million in annual lease payments each year.  And since wind projects only require about 2% of the actual land leased to build the turbines, this means that the rest of the land may continue being used to farm, hunt, fish, or grow our prized crops  or Christmas trees. If this isn’t a win-win situation, we don’t know what is!

Wind energy is good for the environment. Wind energy produces no pollution and uses no water. The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report noting that wind energy has the least amount of environmental impact of all the generation sources. With this said, wind energy projects should still be required to conduct site specific studies demonstrating the projects will have little to no significant adverse impacts to biological species, ecological systems, treasured viewsheds, avian and bat populations, and must address noise concerns.

Wind energy is in fact an opportunity to our mountain communities, not a threat. By tightening up some of the language in the original bill Senate Bill 1068, (which was written by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) after months of compromising between environmental groups, state agencies, non-profits, the wind industry, and academic experts), SACE is confident wind energy can be introduced in a way that provides significant amounts of clean electricity to the region, creates jobs, and protects our environment, our North Carolina heritage, and our lands.

Finally, wind energy is geographically competitive. States such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia are currently reaping the benefits of flourishing wind energy markets. Project developers look for the markets where the rules are certain. And, across the country, where wind is being developed, manufacturing is following. This is perhaps the real baby the North Carolina Senators are throwing out with the bath water. The state of North Carolina has a retired manufacturing sector that is ripe for a renaissance. You don’t need to dig to find the scars left by the textile industry’s abandonment of the North Carolina economy.

The wind that blows over our mountaintops contains dollars and jobs for the entire state to harness today, we must demand our leaders reach up and grab it.

This blog post was written by Brandon Blevins (brandon[at]cleanenergy.org) and Ulla Reeves (ulla[at]cleanenergy.org).