As a former chair of the Florida Public Service Commission, I am concerned that recent actions in Tallahassee to dismantle the PSC send the message that the views of the working and bill-paying public count for nothing. Those actions show contempt for balancing the interests of ratepayers with politics.

What other meaning could be derived from the fact that immediately following a vote against record rate-increase requests, four members of the PSC were removed and the public counsel who advocated for ratepayer interests was asked to reapply for his position?

A strong, independent and objective regulatory agency is necessary to oversee utility ratemaking and operation. The Legislature recognized that back in 1978, and it remains true today as utility services expand and grow more complex. Just look at your monthly bills filled with obscure surcharges and rising prices. But the recent actions to subvert the independence of the PSC threaten to undermine the agency’s credibility and erode public trust. At the moment, the balance seems to be shifting away from consumer protection and toward the utilities and big-money politics.

Many Floridians would be surprised at the breadth of the PSC’s regulatory mandate. It serves a critical function, affecting virtually every aspect of Florida society by overseeing companies that provide electricity, drinking water, sewage treatment, telephone service, high-speed internet connections and natural gas. These are public services we depend upon and for which we pay. But in return we expect rates to reflect legitimate expenses.

While on average Florida electric costs are relatively modest, ratepayers in Florida have seen their energy bills increase faster than in all but a few states. Most important, these ratepayers face fundamental changes in how these services will be delivered without a meaningful opportunity to weigh in. Amazingly, there is no constituency more closed off from Tallahassee decision-making than ratepayers.

One of the controversial items currently facing the Florida PSC is the 2010 Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause docket. Due to legislation passed by the State Legislature in 2006, utilities can charge their customers in advance for costs associated with pursuing new nuclear reactors. Both FPL and Progress have proposed building two new nuclear reactors (two at FPL’s existing Turkey Point plant near Miami and two by Progress at an undeveloped site in Levy County) for combined project costs of more than $40 billion. Last year the PSC approved more than $260 million in construction charges in advance of power production for the two utilities. Hearings at the PSC began on August 24, 2010 with a Commission vote set for October 12, 2010.   – Sara Barczak, High Risk Energy Programs Director, SACE

Monopolistic industries cannot have control over these essential services without adequate and transparent government involvement. I believe strongly in the mission of the PSC, which is ”to facilitate the efficient provision of safe and reliable utility services at fair prices.” Fair is the operative word — fair to consumers as well as fair to those companies providing basic services. But recent actions to subvert the independence of the PSC threaten to undermine the agency’s credibility and erode public trust.

I congratulate the new appointees and look forward to the two pending appointments. However, I also encourage all five commissioners—including continuing Commissioner Edgar—to consider that they now hold a public duty that demands substantive and moral compasses that are honest and independent of utility persuasion.

Yes, there is imperfection and much room for improvement within the PSC. If you have doubts, I direct you to a series of reports published by Common Cause in 2004: A State Agency In Need of Reform: Florida’s Public Service Commission (Rpt. #1, Rpt. #2, Rpt. #3). You may also wish to review the following:

1. Jan Beecher’s Energy Law Journal article,  “The Prudent Regulator,” addresses the recent trend in several states to intrude on the independence of the utility regulator and the impact of this conduct; especially, it considers the value of an independent commission and an independent staff.
2. Mark Jamison of the University of Florida Public Utility Research Center published a case study on the disbanding of the Maryland PSC (FPL had a large role in this) based on a fight to force commission action on energy deregulation. In a followup column, he cited the impact on jobs.
3. A University of California at Berkeley, Institute for Government Studies article asks, “Does Private Money Buy Public Policy?“
4. The Palm Beach Post report on the 2008 PSC public scolding of FPL for misleading the public and the Commission regarding its green program and a follow-up story offers some historical context.

Nonetheless, the PSC is the designated sheriff, and it controls the balance of interests between utility ratepayers and shareholders. The sanctity of the agency must be maintained by ensuring a fair and transparent process where integrity is paramount. Without this, I suggest that the recent incidents of ethical lapses, name-calling and backroom deals will produce a public outcry that says, ”Enough is enough!”

Floridians must step in and demand that the PSC not be a rubber stamp for utilities and their political allies. Its members must not be chosen for the certainty of their votes. Healthy discussions and differences of opinions are welcome, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that, first and foremost, it is the public that comes first in the Public Service Commission.
– Ennis Leon Jacobs, Jr. is former chair of the Florida Public Service Commission.  He serves on the Board of Directors for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Incredibly, though, the U.S. Senate adjourned this month without even starting a debate on energy policy in general or an oil spill response in particular.  Despite early plans to bring a sweeping climate, energy and oil spill bill to the Senate floor this summer, Senate leaders pulled back and proposed a narrow oil spill response with some efficiency measures on the side before ultimately punting on the issue altogether with promises to “circle back to energy again soon.”

There’s an exhaustive laundry list speculating what may have happened -

• Congressional leaders tried for everything and ended with nothing

• The oil spill fractured efforts when it should have strengthened them

• The general public still doesn’t feel the same level of urgency about climate impacts as they do about the poor economy and keeping their jobs

• Opponents were quick to frame and control the debate by arguing against ‘cap and tax’

• Oil and gas corporations and their lobbyists outspent clean energy advocates and lobbyists by a margin of 7 to 1

• Some questioned whether energy reform was simply too ambitious after several other reforms - notably health care and financial regulatory reform - were ahead in the queue

While each of those factors likely had an impact, one of the most critical elements in understanding what happened (or what didn’t, as the case may be) is that the U.S. Senate exists in a state of near paralysis.  Once a rare, little-used procedure, the ‘filibuster’ (a parliamentary procedure requiring 60 votes to end debate and call for a vote) has become the minority party’s primary tactic to stall and derail policy debates.  Thus, the U.S. Senate has often become the stumbling block for major debates about policy reform - as some would say, it’s the place where good ideas go to die.

The question most advocates, lobbyists, leaders and businesses are asking now is “where do we go from here?”  With many of our energy and climate goals still to be realized, there is considerable work left to be done - both offensive and defensive - this year and in the years that follow.

In fact, a long-term perspective on energy reform suggests that what we are witnessing now is simply a new variation on an old theme.  While in no way condoning the delays and excuses of the Senate, it is worth noting that several of our most seminal environmental laws came about months and even years after precipitating events:

• National Environmental Policy Act (1970) was approximately 1 year after the Santa Barbara oil spill
• Clean Water Act (1972) was nearly 4 years after the Santa Barbara oil spill
• Oil Pollution Act (1990) was almost 18 months after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the
• Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) were also 18 months after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Technically, citizens are paying for this Congress to work through the end of this calendar year, with upcoming midterm elections dropped into the middle of the timeline. While it is possible that Senate leaders bring up energy policy in September or October before the elections or in the narrow window after the election and the end of the year known as a lame-duck session, it is looking less and less likely that the 111th Congress will chalk up yet another policy reform before adjourning for the winter holidays.

What is more likely in the near term, is that we can expect Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) to lead another assault on the Clean Air Act, taking up where Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) left off earlier this year.  Barring delays from legislative maneuvers, the first stage of carbon reduction will commence early next year when the largest stationary sources (such as coal-fired power plants and refineries) will be required to obtain operating permits through the New Source Review process and when new tailpipe standards will be set.  Command and control may not be the most elegant policy tool for reducing carbon pollution, but it is a tool. Until another system is in place, it is essential that we urge our Congressional leaders to preserve existing laws without ‘temporary’ delays that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from protecting human health by reducing carbon pollution.

At the same time, the EPA is finally proceeding with a long-overdue rule making process to regulate coal ash.  SACE encourages everyone to support the option that coal ash should be regulated as the hazardous waste that it is - either by attending a hearing or by submitting written comments by email.

However, a range of legislative solutions that will internalize the price of fossil fuels, thereby lowering the use and amount of carbon pollution, are still needed to compliment these regulatory processes. An oil spill response bill, to increase the liability limits and ensure restoration of the Gulf Coast ecosystems/economies, is considered by many to be the bare minimum that Congress must complete before adjourning for the fall campaign season. If measures to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency are included, then market incentives will help to decrease the amount of fossil fuels we require from deep-water wells in the Gulf of Mexico or from the mountains of Appalachia.  It is vital that citizens keep sending strong messages that we support carbon pollution reductions and a clean energy economy and that time is growing short for meaningful action.  Each citizen will have the opportunity very soon to elect the Congress that will continue to engage in the pending energy debates, and supporting candidates that support clean energy solutions is more critical than ever before.

With the release of two new energy efficiency programs, Governor Bredesen and his staff continue working to create a clean, efficient energy future for Tennessee.

The State of Tennessee announced two separate energy efficiency programs this week: one to assist residents in the purchase of energy efficient heating and cooling equipment, and the other to provide low interest financing to Tennessee businesses for energy efficiency and renewable energy retrofits.

On Monday, the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD) announced the opening of the State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program (SEEARP).  The program will provide rebates  on a first-come, first-served basis for the purchase of qualifying Energy Star heating and cooling appliances.  The program is funded with $5.9 million in Recovery Act dollars.

Monday’s announcement of the appliance rebate program was followed by the announcement on Wednesday of a new $50 million Energy Efficiency Loan Program to help Tennessee companies finance investments in energy efficient technology, energy retrofits and renewable energy systems. The  program, administered by Pathway Lending, will offer access to below-market rate loans to finance improvements aimed at reducing energy consumption, lowering overall costs and improving profitability.

These programs will lead to lower energy bills for Tennessee residents and businesses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and generate economic growth as people are put to work improving Tennessee’s energy efficiency.

Tennessee's appliance rebate program will provide rebates for the installation of high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment.

The State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program offers a rebate of $250 for the air source heat pumps and central air conditioners, a rebate of $150 for gas furnaces, and a rebate of $40 for room air conditioners.  All appliances must have the Energy Star designation that certifies its energy savings qualities. Purchases made on or after April 22, 2010 are eligible for the rebate.

“Assisting Tennesseans in purchasing Energy Star heating and cooling units will help people reduce their energy usage and lower their utility bills, while also having a positive impact on our environment,” said Matt Kisber, Tennessee’s Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development. “The Rebate Program is a welcome step in the right direction for our state’s future energy conservation initiatives.”

The estimated impacts of this program on energy consumption is impressive.  Statewide, the program will save an estimated 16 million kilowatt hours per year, enough energy to power almost 16,000 average US households.  These energy savings translate into nearly $1.4 million in avoided annual energy costs and avoiding air emissions equal to 32 million pounds of carbon dioxide.

When combined with TVA’s In-Home Energy Evaluation Program, Tennessee residents have the opportunity to significantly reduce the upfront costs of improving their home’s energy efficiency, thereby reducing monthly utility bills while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

By providing low-cost financing to retrofit commercial buildings, Tennessee's Energy Efficiency Loan Program is strengthening the state's economy and helping the environment.

The State’s Energy Efficiency Loan Program, on the other hand, is directed at Tennessee’s business community.  “Our goal is to make Tennessee a true leader in sustainability and this new Energy Efficiency Loan Program will be a substantial step in that direction,” said Governor Bredesen. “By providing access to this type of financing, we are making Tennessee businesses more competitive and that means more jobs for Tennesseans.”

The program will offer below-market rate loans at 5% with terms extending to 10 years. Loans can finance up to 100 percent of the cost of building retrofits, equipment replacements or upgrades, and lighting and renewable generation projects.  The program is the result of a collaborative effort between the state of Tennessee, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Economic Development Administration, Pathway Lending, Pinnacle Financial Partners and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

One of the more creative aspects of the program is the Shared Savings Option that allows loans to be repaid with a portion of the energy cost savings derived from each project.  Once verified, the project’s energy savings determine the amount and term of the loan.  Businesses may be able to retain up to 50% of their monthly energy savings, and repay the loan with the remaining percentage.  This Shared Savings Option will minimize out-of-pocket expenses for the business owner and maximize the economic benefits of the program.

The program is available to any business seeking to reduce energy consumption in their Tennessee facilities, and like the residential appliance rebate program, which pairs well with TVA’s In-Home Energy Audit Program, the State’s Energy Efficient Loan Program pairs will complement TVA’s Commercial Efficiency Advice and Incentive Program. 

Free informational workshops on the Energy Efficiency Loan Program will be hosted by Pathway Lending staff throughout the state in September.  The first round of applications is due by November 1st.

To learn more about the Energy Efficiency Loan Program, visit www.pathwaylending.org or call (615) 425-7171.

Applications for the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program are available online at www.e-rebates.org/teearp or by phone at 1-877-741-4304.

By overwhelming bipartisan support, the NC General Assembly passed a tax credit for Combined Heat and Power.

On August 2nd, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue signed into law HB 1829, an expanded Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and renewable energy tax credit.  For the first time, investments in CHP systems are now eligible for North Carolina’s 35% renewable energy tax credit. This new incentive sponsored by Representative Paul Luebke and supported by the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association will help North Carolina citizens and businesses invest in more efficient and sustainable energy sources while creating jobs and reducing the state’s carbon footprint.

CHP developers who install a system can now receive a tax credit from the state equal to 35% of the cost of the equipment, construction, and installation, up to $2.5 million dollars.   The new law makes North Carolina only the third state to offer businesses a CHP tax credit, along with Oregon and South Carolina’s Biomass Resource Credit.  The North Carolina General Assembly’s inclusion of CHP in the state’s incentive package  will accelerate the adoption of CHP technologies that can produce electricity and heat far more efficiently than traditional sources.

CHP:  Good for North Carolina

Expansion of CHP will mean jobs, investment and cleaner air here in North Carolina.  An American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy report shows there is excellent growth potential for CHP in North Carolina from current installed capacity of 1504 MW to over 7,700 MW by 2030.

CHP is a key clean energy technology having a fuel efficiency that can reach 90%, much greater than the 35% often achieved by electricity-only generation systems.  Less fuel used means fewer dollars spent generating that energy and drastically reduced emissions.  As compared to operating separate power and heat generating systems, a CHP system can cut CO2 emissions by over half, while also reducing criteria pollutants like NOx and SOx.

CHP Installation

This bill is a step towards national leadership on an issue of critical importance to our clean energy future. According to Oak Ridge National Lab, doubling CHP use nationwide by 2030 would create 1 million new jobs and reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 154 million cars off the road.

In addition to CHP, the new law extended the 35% tax credit for investments in renewable energy; and, reinstated and expanded a 25% tax credit for investment in a facility for the manufacture of renewable energy equipment and certain equipment sub-assemblies.  Eligible renewable technologies for the 35% tax credit are:  solar – either photovoltaic or thermal; wind energy; geothermal heat pump and hydroelectric installations.  The 25% manufacturer’s tax credit applies to newly constructed facilities or the costs to convert an existing facility to manufacture the applicable technologies.

TVA CEO Tom Kilgore expressed the hope that TVA will become “one of the nation’s leading providers of low-cost and cleaner energy by 2020″. One of the goals of this new direction is to become the nation’s leader in air quality improvements. A significant first step was TVA’s announcement that it would retire 1,000 MW of old coal plants by 2015.

Today TVA announced further details of its old-coal retirement plans. Within the next four to five years TVA will idle six units at its Widows Creek plant in Stevenson, Alabama, one unit at its Shawnee plant in Paducah, Kentucky and two units at the John Sevier plant in Rogersville, Tennessee. This accounts for 1,000 MW out of TVA’s approximate 15,000 MW of coal-power generation.

Units 1-6 at Widows Creek will be retired in tiers, with the first two units to shut down in 2011 and the remaining four to retire in the following four to five years. Most of these units were built between 1952 and 1954.   All six of these units lack advanced environmental controls.

TVA's Widows Creek Coal Plant in Stevenson, AL

Shawnee unit 10 was built in 1956 and also does not have advanced environmental controls. In addition, Shawnee unit 10 has a heat rate of over 11,000 btu/KwH. Heat rate is a measure of plant efficiency and generally a rate above 10,000 is considered inefficient. This unit is now planned for retirement in 2011.  TVA did state that they will evaluate it for possible conversion to biomass-based energy generation.

TVA's Shawnee Coal Plant in Paducah, KY

TVA has not identified specific units at the John Sevier plant. However, John Sevier has four units, all with similar statistics. All units went online in the mid 1950s, are without advanced control technologies and have a capacity of 200 MW. Two of these units are targeted to come offline in the next four to five years.

Although they have announced these specific retirements, TVA acknowledged still relying on a significant number of old coal plants without advanced environmental technology. Even with today’s announced retirements, an additional 6,000 MW of uncontrolled coal will remain. TVA claims to be reviewing this 6,000 MW and evaluating whether to retire, convert to alternative generation, or to install advance environmental controls.

TVA's John Seveir Coal Plant in Rogersville, TN

SACE strongly supports today’s  announcement. This is a significant move within TVA. As we stated in an earlier blog post, this is long overdue, the human health and environmental impacts of these largely uncontrolled  facilities has been enormous. I expect TVA’s ongoing work on their Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) will lead to additional announcements. As a member of the Stakeholder Review Group we are reviewing IRP modeling runs for future generation mix strategies that range from 2000- 7000 MWs of coal retirements. I believe that TVA is seriously looking at a 3000-5000 MW retirement window. Today’s announcement is an important down payment on these goals. The TVA IRP will be out in draft in late September and the target is for a final recommendation in early 2011.

The bottom line today is that our mountains, rivers and lungs can look forward to a day, in the near future, where less coal will be mined and shipped to be burned in the Tennessee Valley, causing less air and global warming pollution. This is a good thing!

Josh Galperin contributed to this post.

After reading this post, you might notice one major problem.  While the EPA announced 7 official public hearings around the country on this proposed rule, not one of these hearings is within reasonable traveling distance to Roane County, Tennessee — home of our nation’s largest and most dramatic coal ash disaster in history.  Although SACE and our allies have pushed EPA to hold a local hearing, none is forthcoming.  For this reason a group of local organizations has formed the Citizens’ Coal Ash Hearing Committee, which is sponsoring a public hearing on Thursday, September 2, at 5:30pm. The hearing will be held at Roane State Community College, 276 Patton Lane, Harriman, Tennessee 37748 - full details on this flyer.  The comments made at this hearing will be officially recorded and submitted to the EPA record.

We strongly encourage you to attend this or another hearing, to tell your friends about these upcoming opportunities, and visit our website for more information on participating in this process.  Also, please submit written comments by the deadline: November 19, 2010.

For more information, we encourage you to watch a compelling segment that CBS’ 60 Minutes recently aired on the dangers of coal ash.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

***************************************************************************************************************************************

Coal power plants are by far the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Their pollution is making our planet a more dangerous place to live. But these coal plants also produce a by-product waste called “coal ash.” Coal ash contains toxic chemicals like arsenic, mercury and lead that can poison the water supplies of entire communities and are known to cause birth defects and premature deaths.

The Obama Administration is planning to regulate coal ash as “hazardous waste” — and as you’d expect, Dirty Coal and their allies plan to fight these regulations tooth and nail to protect their profits. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to hear from you today. Tell the EPA you support cracking down on Dirty Coal and their dangerous coal ash.

On December 22, 2008, a ruptured ash dike at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Eastern Tennessee released 1.1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash — enough to fill 1,660 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The spill covered nearly 400 acres of land, causing major property and environmental damage. The sludge contained high levels of heavy metals like arsenic, lead and selenium that can cause cancer and neurological problems. This is exactly the kind of disaster that the EPA needs to prevent in the future with tough regulations.

The EPA will hold hearings in seven cities about these coal ash regulations over the next few weeks, so it’s critical that they hear from you right now. If you live near any of the following cities, please sign up to attend an EPA hearing on coal ash regulations near you:

* Monday, August 30: Arlington, VA at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City
* Thursday, September 2: Denver, CO at the Grand Hyatt
* Wednesday, September 8: Dallas, TX at the Hyatt Regency Dallas
* Tuesday, September 14: Charlotte, NC at the Holiday Inn Charlotte (Airport)
* Thursday, September 16: Chicago, IL at the Hilton Chicago
* Tuesday, September 21: Pittsburgh, PA at the Omni Hotel
* Tuesday, September 28: Louisville, KY at the Seelbach Hilton

The more they hear from concerned citizens like you, the harder it will be for Dirty Coal to block these regulations. Let’s protect the health of our families and communities –  send your comments to the EPA today and sign up to attend a hearing near you.

***

As you read this, there is a good chance that your air quality is considered “unhealthy” because of ground-level ozone pollution. In 2008, the year with the most recently available data, Hamilton County experienced 110 days during which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Quality Index listed a health risk for at least one segment of the population. These risks include reduced lung function, inflammation and damage to airways, increased risk of asthma attacks, increased susceptibility to respiratory infections and aggravation of chronic lung diseases.

There are big stories in our history that boldly demonstrate the severity of problems caused by ozone and other air pollution — the death and illness of more than 6,000 people in Pennsylvania in 1948, for instance — but when we experience more than 100 days of unhealthy air here at home, the danger is especially hard to ignore. Everybody is at risk of suffering symptoms ranging from coughing, throat irritation and congestion to chest pain and worsened bronchitis or emphysema, but children and the elderly are most at risk because of their sensitive upper respiratory systems. Even people trying to stay healthy by exercising are at a special risk from the extra exposure to ozone in the air.

Fortunately, the EPA is addressing these health dangers by updating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The current standard for ozone is 0.075 parts per million, but Congress directed the EPA to review these standards regularly and update lawmakers if evidence shows that tighter standards are needed to protect human health. The EPA is now reviewing the science and relying on technical data including epidemiological studies, human health studies, and exposure and risk assessments to update the ozone NAAQS to within a range from 0.060-0.070 parts per million.

This map shows ground-level ozone concentrations, with darker colors representing higher concentrations

Whenever science demonstrates that tighter clean air standards are required, critics clamor about the costs of improving air quality. But we must remember that as a society, we are already paying extraordinarily high prices for not having clean air. Every single day, and especially on days with air quality alerts, we are paying the price for dirty air through increased disease and even death.

Ozone-polluted air costs everybody money through medical bills, emergency room visits and lost work productivity. When a child’s asthma acts up and a parent has to stay home from work, that costs the parent and the employer money. When an elderly person or a child can’t breathe, the visit to the emergency room costs money. When Medicaid or Medicare patients have routinely severe respiratory problems, the expense of the program increases, costing everyone in the long run.

With all this in mind, it is simply unfair and untrue to argue that improving air quality is an unreasonable expense. When ozone standards are strengthened, the EPA is simply internalizing the costs associated with dirty cars, dirty power plants and other dirty industries. This shifting of expenses is exactly why the EPA has reviewed costs and benefits closely, and come up with a pretty startling set of numbers.

EPA economists estimate that an ozone standard closer to 0.070 parts per million would cost upward of $25 billion per year in 2020. If the EPA chooses the 0.060-parts-per-million alternative, costs could reach $90 billion. These are big numbers, but based on the EPA’s look at the benefits, we can expect to save much more. At 0.070 parts per million, the benefits from fewer health complications could reach $37 billion per year in 2020, and at 0.060 parts per million we could expect benefits as high as $100 billion. No matter what standard the EPA selects, there will be a net monetary benefit.

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated that the risk of premature death increased as levels of ozone increased. The EPA’s new ozone NAAQS mean that Chattanooga’s ozone levels will have to decrease, and that means that the lives and pocketbooks of Chattanoogans will grow.

For the time being, however, the American Lung Association gives Hamilton County an F for ozone-related air quality. This grade is based on 44 “orange” and three “red” alert days. A grade of F and nearly 50 unhealthy days already this year are indications of a truly dangerous problem. While Chattanooga’s air quality has improved some over the past few decades, with the EPA’s NAAQS revision, the opportunity for truly clean air is finally here.

In 1969 the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare designated Chattanooga as the most polluted city in the nation. Today, on the other hand, even with an F grade, Chattanooga is surprisingly not on this list of the most polluted cities and is a thriving metropolis.
Those who oppose cleaner air tell us that the costs are just too much to bear — that we cannot strive for cleaner air and a growing economy. But the evidence tells us that we actually can continue this nearly half century of air-quality improvement, reduce air quality alert days, and increase life spans and overall health, while simultaneously continuing economic growth and reaping our share of the $100,000,000,000 worth of clean air benefits.

Josh Galperin is a Knoxville-based policy analyst and research attorney with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, www.cleanenergy.org. He can be reached at josh@cleanenergy.org. The Alliance promotes energy reform and environmental protection.

First let me thank Robbie and Harvey and their team at EETN for seeing this project through and allowing myself and my SACE team to be a part of it. It is indeed a bright and sunny day in East Tennessee and a bright and sunny day for clean energy. Before I begin my remarks I want to give a shout out to someone in the crowd here who has played a key role in this day: Gil Melear-Hough, who worked for me for 10 years and is now working in Oak Ridge with RSI, for his tireless advocacy for solar in east Tennessee and close collaboration with the City to help make Knoxville become recognized as a solar city.

I was asked to share some thoughts on why solar is not just an environmental thing anymore. First let me reiterate why it is an environmental thing: It is clean energy that is produced without causing mountaintop removal coal mining. It does not add to our ground level ozone, acid rain, fine particulate, or regional haze air pollution; does not cause massive spells of toxic coal ash in our rivers, nor lead to drilling or spilling or leaking oil and exploding gas pipelines; will not harbor long-lived deadly radioactive waste, excessive thermal pollution in our rivers or nuclear weapons proliferating terrorist targets - and as we swelter in a worldwide record-setting hot summer it does not emit climate destabilizing global warming pollution. Of course, all energy sources have their drawbacks; some just have significantly more than others. I say this not to be glib but to clearly point out that how we produce and consume energy in this country does have very serious consequences.

Solar has many clear advantages and it is moving out of just the environmental realm into the realm of serious business for business. Our great state of Tennessee, thanks to our Governor and his energy and economic development team, is well down the road to becoming a major solar manufacturing hub, with in excess of $3 billion dollars - yes billion with a “B” - in economic development over the past 24 months. SHARP, the makers of the panels we see here today and the ones I have on my home, has tripled its solar production capacity at its Memphis facility, and we are seeing the Tennessee solar installer community gaining in strength and experience. All of this is good for business in Tennessee and is good for quality jobs in Tennessee.

While today is an important milestone, the first MW solar station, it is just a point in time. We already know that this site will be leap-frogged by a larger site under development in West Tennessee. We know that TVA is struggling to keep up with the demand for solar systems being deployed and we know that if you poll the people and ask what they want, they overwhelming say they want clean energy with solar power being at the top of the list.

So I’m bullish on this technology, one because I know it works. I happily watch my electric meter run backwards the majority of the time at my house when the sun shines; two because I know that the cost curve trends for this technology continue to come down. Last year we saw a 40% drop in panel manufacturing cost and a 10-20% reduction in installed system cost, yes solar is still more “expensive” than traditional dirty energy, but only because tradition energy continues to rely on society to carry the burden of “externalized cost of production.” But that is changing. More importantly solar is already hitting “grid parity” in some U.S. markets now and I expect to see “solar grid parity” in the current planning horizon for TVA and its power distributors. Three: as a father of three boys and two grandsons, I know solar is the right thing to do. Because in a global warming world of more than 6 billion people, all who want the same standard of living we take for granted, I know we better figure out how to produce and consume our energy with a lighter footprint that is safe and clean, that tries to work with the natural world instead of against it.

Just remember this simple but compelling fact: Every morning the sun comes up and bathes our planet with more energy in one hour (one hour!) than all the energy humans will consume in a year. We need to unleash the innovation to harness this gift.

This site is an important step along that path. I ask all of you to commit yourself to helping this smart, clean and safe technology continue to grow and help overcome the barriers so it can power our world safely, cleanly and cost efficiently. It is the right thing to do!

Political posturing and back-door procedures are keeping TVA Board appointments from being confirmed by the Senate.

Nearly a year after President Obama nominated four people to fill vacant seats on TVA’s Board of Directors, and 6 months after the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works unanimously approved the nominations, it seems backdoor politics and partisan bickering are keeping the Board nominees from final confirmation by the Senate.

We see no reason for confirmation of these appointees to be controversial.  All are well qualified and each testified to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works about their commitment to the people of the Valley and their desire to move TVA towards a leadership position among the Southeastern utilities.  Unfortunately, dysfunctional politics, having nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees, is stalling final confirmation by the full Senate.

The irony is that when the TVA Act was amended in 2005 to change the Board from 3 full-time members to 9 part-time members, the primary justification was to remove the politics that had permeated the Board and its appointments for several years.  Apparently, the current Senate didn’t get the message.

The use of a "secret hold" allows one senator to stall the political process without repercussions.

The political maneuver that is primarily responsible for the delay is the “secret hold” that allows a single senator to anonymously stall presidential appointments and legislation.  It is an archaic process that corrupts the political process and leads to greater governmental dysfunction.  A look back at the last year reveals how these secret holds and other political shenanigans have turned the TVA Board appointment process into a platform for useless political posturing, leaving Valley residents as collateral victims.

Initially,  sources revealed that Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee placed (or threatened to place) a hold on the TVA Board appointments to strongarm the Obama administration into re-appointing Bill Sansom to the TVA Board.  No offense to Mr. Sansom, but after the past 5 years of TVA mediocrity, Valley residents would be better served by some fresh perspectives on the TVA Board.

Then it was Senator Cochran of Mississippi who used an anonymous hold to protest the lack of Mississippi representation on the TVA Board.  Ironically enough, it was Senator Alexander who supposedly worked a deal that resulted in Senator Cochran removing his hold.

At other points throughout the year, the nominees have been held up for reasons having nothing to do with TVA, whether it was Alabama senator Richard Shelby’s hold to protest a decision not to build Air Force facilities in Alabama, or Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnel’s objection to a vote to confirm 80 nominations, including the TVA Board nominees, due to his objection to President Obama’s choice for appointment to the National Labor Relations Board.

All the while, the citizens of the Valley wait, and TVA struggles to make important business decisions with only a skeleton crew at the helm.

Mr. Thrailkill will step down from the TVA Board at the end of the Congressional session, leaving only four Board members to continue TVA business.

As the end of the current Congressional session looms near — summer sessions typically wind up in October — The need for these nominees to be confirmed grows more pressing.  According to the TVA Act, a Board member whose term has expired is allowed to remain on the Board until his successor takes office or until the end of the Congressional session in which his term expired.  Howard Thrailkill, whose TVA Board seat expired in May of this year, has been taking advantage of this provision, allowing a quorum of Board members (defined by the TVA Act as five Board members) to vote on TVA matters.  However, Mr. Thrailkill will be forced to step down at the end of this session, leaving only four Board members remaining.

Having a quorum of Board members present to vote on TVA matters is critical to TVA being able to effectively meet the energy demands of the Valley.  According to the TVA Bylaws, during a period when the Board has fewer than five members, the Board can exercise power to continue in the daily course of business, but the Board does not have the authority to direct TVA into new areas of activity, to embark on new programs, or to change TVA’s existing direction.

Exactly where the line sits between TVA’s daily course of business and “new areas of activity” is uncertain.  However, TVA’s integrated resource planning (IRP) process is nearing completion of a draft strategy to meet energy demand through 2029.  This strategy will almost certainly include new programs and new areas of activity for TVA, and will hopefully change TVA’s direction away from the dirty coal-fired generation that it has relied on for the past 50 years.   It will be critical that a fully functioning Board is in place to consider and vote on this new strategy.

Because the current nominees have been appointed by the president and approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, it stands to reason that we should expect confirmation by the full Senate soon.  In fact, we rightfully expected it several months ago.  Unfortunately, there is still an anonymous hold on these appointments.

Sources indicate that Alabama senator Jeff Sessions is behind the current secret hold that is delaying the confirmation of TVA Board nominees.

Because it’s anonymous, we can’t say for sure who retains the hold on the TVA Board nominees, but sources indicate that Alabama senator Jeff Sessions is the likely culprit.  He is angry because the TVA Board, with Howard Thrailkill leaving his position, will not have an Alabama representative.  We would hope that after 13 years in the Senate that Senator Sessions would recognize that the respectable course of action is to acknowledge the impressive credentials of the current nominees, allow them to be confirmed, and then identify well-qualified individuals that could represent Alabama in the next round of Board appointments — three which will take place in 2011.

The call for nominee confirmations is getting louder and louder as TVA approaches its August 20th meeting where it will vote on the 2011 budget, and possibly make critical decisions regarding the future of TVA, including whether to move forward on the construction of nuclear reactors (and which reactor design to move forward with) at the Bellefonte nuclear site.

It’s a sad commentary on how far our national politics have sunk when one senator is able to hold the entire Tennessee Valley hostage at such a critical time for TVA.  Getting the current nominees confirmed by the Senate in time for them to take part in the IRP process should be a top priority for senators from TVA-served states and for the Valley residents that will be living with the TVA Board’s decisions for years to come.

Three Steps to Establish a Politics of Global Warming

This blog posting features an article by 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben that has been posted everywhere from TomDispatch.com to Grist.org to the L.A. Times. This provocative piece shows us how to change the dynamics of the climate debate in our country. These words are flying around the internet!  Please share this with anyone who is losing faith–and everyone who is wondering how to get to work on the greatest challenge humanity now faces.  Bill says, “The time has come to get mad, and then to get busy.”

By Bill McKibben (cross-posted by 350.org 5-Aug-10 from TomDispatch.com) — re-posted here by SACE with permission from 350.org.

Bill McKibben in Times Square

Try to fit these facts together:

• According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet has just come through the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months, and the warmest April, May, and June on record.

• A “staggering” new study from Canadian researchers has shown that warmer seawater has reduced phytoplankton, the base of the marine food chain, by 40% since 1950.

• Nine nations have so far set their all-time temperature records in 2010, including Russia (111 degrees), Niger (118), Sudan (121), Saudi Arabia and Iraq (126 apiece), and Pakistan, which also set the new all-time Asia record in May: a hair under 130 degrees. I can turn my oven to 130 degrees.

• And then, in late July, the U.S. Senate decided to do exactly nothing about climate change. They didn’t do less than they could have — they did nothing, preserving a perfect two-decade bipartisan record of no action. Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not even to schedule a vote on legislation that would have capped carbon emissions.

I wrote the first book for a general audience on global warming back in 1989, and I’ve spent the subsequent 21 years working on the issue. I’m a mild-mannered guy, a Methodist Sunday School teacher. Not quick to anger. So what I want to say is: this is f***ed up. The time has come to get mad, and then to get busy.

For many years, the lobbying fight for climate legislation on Capitol Hill has been led by a collection of the most corporate and moderate environmental groups, outfits like the Environmental Defense Fund. We owe them a great debt, and not just for their hard work. We owe them a debt because they did everything the way you’re supposed to: they wore nice clothes, lobbied tirelessly, and compromised at every turn.

By the time they were done, they had a bill that only capped carbon emissions from electric utilities (not factories or cars) and was so laden with gifts for industry that if you listened closely you could actually hear the oinking. They bent over backwards like Soviet gymnasts.  Senator John Kerry, the legislator they worked most closely with, issued this rallying cry as the final negotiations began: “We believe we have compromised significantly, and we’re prepared to compromise further.”

And even that was not enough.  They were left out to dry by everyone — not just Reid, not just the Republicans. Even President Obama wouldn’t lend a hand, investing not a penny of his political capital in the fight.

The result: total defeat, no moral victories.

Now What?

So now we know what we didn’t before: making nice doesn’t work. It was worth a try, and I’m completely serious when I say I’m grateful they made the effort, but it didn’t even come close to working. So we better try something else.

Step one involves actually talking about global warming.  For years now, the accepted wisdom in the best green circles was: talk about anything else — energy independence, oil security, beating the Chinese to renewable technology. I was at a session convened by the White House early in the Obama administration where some polling guru solemnly explained that “green jobs” polled better than “cutting carbon.”

No, really?  In the end, though, all these focus-group favorites are secondary.  The task at hand is keeping the planet from melting. We need everyone — beginning with the president — to start explaining that basic fact at every turn.

It is the heat, and also the humidity.  Since warm air holds more water than cold, the atmosphere is about 5% moister than it was 40 years ago, which explains the freak downpours that seem to happen someplace on this continent every few days.

It is the carbon — that’s why the seas are turning acid, a point Obama could have made with ease while standing on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. “It’s bad that it’s black out there,” he might have said, “but even if that oil had made it safely ashore and been burned in our cars, it would still be wrecking the oceans.” Energy independence is nice, but you need a planet to be energy independent on.

Mysteriously enough, this seems to be a particularly hard point for smart people to grasp. Even in the wake of the disastrous Senate non-vote, the Nature Conservancy’s climate expert told New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, “We have to take climate change out of the atmosphere, bring it down to earth, and show how it matters in people’s everyday lives.”  Translation: ordinary average people can’t possibly recognize the real stakes here, so let’s put it in language they can understand, which is about their most immediate interests. It’s both untrue, as I’ll show below, and incredibly patronizing. It is, however, exactly what we’ve been doing for a decade and clearly, It Does Not Work.

Step two, we have to ask for what we actually need, not what we calculate we might possibly be able to get. If we’re going to slow global warming in the very short time available to us, then we don’t actually need an incredibly complicated legislative scheme that gives door prizes to every interested industry and turns the whole operation over to Goldman Sachs to run.  We need a stiff price on carbon, set by the scientific understanding that we can’t still be burning black rocks a couple of decades hence. That undoubtedly means upending the future business plans of Exxon and BP, Peabody Coal and Duke Energy, not to speak of everyone else who’s made a fortune by treating the atmosphere as an open sewer for the byproducts of their main business.

Instead they should pay through the nose for that sewer, and here’s the crucial thing: most of the money raised in the process should be returned directly to American pockets. The monthly check sent to Americans would help fortify us against the rise in energy costs, and we’d still be getting the price signal at the pump to stop driving that SUV and start insulating the house. We also need to make real federal investments in energy research and development, to help drive down the price of alternatives — the Breakthrough Institute points out, quite rightly, that we’re crazy to spend more of our tax dollars on research into new drone aircraft and Mars orbiters than we do on photovoltaics.

Yes, these things are politically hard, but they’re not impossible. A politician who really cared could certainly use, say, the platform offered by the White House to sell a plan that taxed BP and actually gave the money to ordinary Americans. (So far they haven’t even used the platform offered by the White House to reinstall the rooftop solar panels that Jimmy Carter put there in the 1970s and Ronald Reagan took down in his term.)

Asking for what you need doesn’t mean you’ll get all of it.  Compromise still happens. But as David Brower, the greatest environmentalist of the late twentieth century, explained amid the fight to save the Grand Canyon: “We are to hold fast to what we believe is right, fight for it, and find allies and adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or them to win, then let someone else propose the compromise. We thereupon work hard to coax it our way. We become a nucleus around which the strongest force can build and function.”

Which leads to the third step in this process. If we’re going to get any of this done, we’re going to need a movement, the one thing we haven’t had. For 20 years environmentalists have operated on the notion that we’d get action if we simply had scientists explain to politicians and CEOs that our current ways were ending the Holocene, the current geological epoch. That turns out, quite conclusively, not to work. We need to be able to explain that their current ways will end something they actually care about, i.e. their careers. And since we’ll never have the cash to compete with Exxon, we better work in the currencies we can muster: bodies, spirit, passion.

Movement Time

As Tom Friedman put it in a strong column the day after the Senate punt, the problem was that the public “never got mobilized.” Is it possible to get people out in the streets demanding action about climate change? Last year, with almost no money, our scruffy little outfit, 350.org, managed to organize what Foreign Policy called the “largest ever coordinated global rally of any kind” on any issue — 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries, 2,000 of them in the U.S.A.

People were rallying not just about climate change, but around a remarkably wonky scientific data point, 350 parts per million carbon dioxide, which NASA’s James Hansen and his colleagues have demonstrated is the most we can have in the atmosphere if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Which, come to think of it, we do. And the “we,” in this case, was not rich white folks. If you look at the 25,000 pictures in our Flickr account, you’ll see that most of them were poor, black, brown, Asian, and young — because that’s what most of the world is. No need for vice-presidents of big conservation groups to patronize them: shrimpers in Louisiana and women in burqas and priests in Orthodox churches and slumdwellers in Mombasa turned out to be completely capable of understanding the threat to the future.

Those demonstrations were just a start (one we should have made long ago). We’re following up in October — on 10-10-10 — with a Global Work Party. All around the country and the world people will be putting up solar panels and digging community gardens and laying out bike paths. Not because we can stop climate change one bike path at a time, but because we need to make a sharp political point to our leaders: we’re getting to work, what about you?

We need to shame them, starting now. And we need everyone working together. This movement is starting to emerge on many fronts. In September, for instance, opponents of mountaintop removal are converging on DC to demand an end to the coal trade. That same month, Tim DeChristopher goes on trial in Salt Lake City for monkey-wrenching oil and gas auctions by submitting phony bids.  (Naomi Klein and Terry Tempest Williams have called for folks to gather at the courthouse.)

The big environmental groups are starting to wake up, too.  The Sierra Club has a dynamic new leader, Mike Brune, who’s working hard with stalwarts like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. (Note to enviro groups: working together is fun and useful). Churches are getting involved, as well as mosques and synagogues. Kids are leading the fight, all over the world — they have to live on this planet for another 70 years or so, and they have every right to be pissed off.

But no one will come out to fight for watered down and weak legislation. That’s not how it works. You don’t get a movement unless you take the other two steps I’ve described.

And in any event it won’t work overnight.  We’re not going to get the Senate to act next week, or maybe even next year. It took a decade after the Montgomery bus boycott to get the Voting Rights Act. But if there hadn’t been a movement, then the Voting Rights Act would have passed in… never. We may need to get arrested.  We definitely need art, and music, and disciplined, nonviolent, but very real anger.

Mostly, we need to tell the truth, resolutely and constantly. Fossil fuel is wrecking the one earth we’ve got. It’s not going to go away because we ask politely. If we want a world that works, we’re going to have to raise our voices.

Bill McKibben is founder of 350.org and the author, most recently, of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. Earlier this year the Boston Globe called him “probably the country’s leading environmentalist” and Time described him as “the planet’s best green journalist.” He’s a scholar in residence at Middlebury College.