We have continued our suit in federal court in order to force the federal agency to release some of the improperly blacked-out and otherwise withheld information. Of particular interest to us is information revealing whether company officials played an inappropriate role in shaping the terms of the loan guarantee. Based on the limited information produced, it appears that the power companies had to put almost no “skin in the game,” promising to pay a credit subsidy fee of possibly as little as 0.5 or 1.5 percent of the total loan principal.

SACE has continuously voiced concerns about the controversial conditional nuclear loan guarantee awarded to the risky Vogtle project by President Obama back in February 2010. With legal representation from Emory University School of Law’s Turner Environmental Law Clinic, SACE filed a FOIA request to the DOE in March 2010 and a demand letter in May 2010 in order to find out more about these risky loan guarantees and we failed to receive a satisfactory response. We later filed two administrative appeals (in July and October 2011). In between these two administrative appeals, we filed suit in August against the DOE. At the end of January 2012, we submitted several significant legal filings (See #1, #2 and #3).

These recent filings relate to the following events. On December 16, 2011, DOE filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that it had produced all the documents responsive to our FOIA request, alleging that all the withheld information was justified, and asking to dismiss our claim. On January 27, 2012 SACE responded. We claimed that the information withheld in more than 133 documents – concerning the loan guarantee terms and credit subsidy fee estimates – was improperly withheld. We asked the court to deny DOE’s motion and instead order DOE to release the requested documents in their entirety. Documents 1, 2 and 3 contain our claims.

What’s next? Both DOE and SACE have one more opportunity to present arguments to the court – DOE on February 15 and SACE on March 2. Those remaining steps are outlined in this court order.

Consequently, nearly two years later, our pursuit continues. Find a detailed, updated timeline describing these activities here.

In order to do our part to shed some light on the Vogtle loan guarantee, we have worked to make public the thousands of pages of documents we have received, many of which are so heavily redacted as to be considered useless in determining the risks that taxpayers may bear if default occurs. View some of these documents here. Our experience has further cemented the fact that in order to protect taxpayers, the continuous shroud of secrecy around the nuclear loan guarantee program must end.

New technologies make the Southern states’ wind resources a new frontier for developers.

The U.S. has nearly 45,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity.

There is a total installed capacity of 29 megawatts in the southern block of states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.

There is a reason the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is holding its 2012 conference in Atlanta, Georgia this year, according to Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Renewable Energy Manager Simon Mahan. The combination of newly identified, as-yet-unexploited resources, new technologies that make exploiting them economically feasible and a growing demand for electricity make the region a new frontier for developers.

Southerners are, Mahan said, among the biggest electricity devourers in the nation. The average home in the region, he said, “uses something well north of 14,000 kilowatt-hours a year, primarily because we run our air conditioners a lot.”

In electricity consumption, he explained, “after you get past the top five, you find Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina very high on the list. Florida is the third or fourth highest. And Texas is the biggest. On the East Coast, we represent four out of the top five electricity markets, with New York.”

Average Consumption by Fuels Used, 2005, Physical Units per Household, Department of Energy

Southern utilities are hungry for capacity. Older conventional generation units are going offline and utilities must face the regulatory rigors and prohibitively high costs of building new coal or new nuclear — or consider the energy diversification that new wind capacity offers. Only new natural gas plants are competitively priced.

Mahan described projects that have engaged South Carolina’s Santee Cooper, Georgia’s Southern Company and North Carolina’s Duke Energy (which, when it merges with competitor Progress Energy, will be the biggest utility in the nation).

“If they weren’t genuinely interested, they would just put out a white paper saying it’s too expensive, it’s not viable,” Mahan said. Whether their involvement will lead wind development, Mahan said, still isn’t clear. “They’re taking baby steps, which is a necessary economic caution for them,” he noted. But that’s “better than not doing anything.”

Wind’s emerging competitiveness is the result of several factors, Mahan explained.

The South’s resources, measured in the 1980s at a height of 50 meters, were once thought inadequate to economic development, but new turbine technology makes it possible to exploit winds at 100-meter heights.

“Let me give you three pieces of information,” Mahan said. “The first is anecdotal. Airplanes face headwinds of 120 miles per hour because high up, wind speed is much greater.”

“The second,” he said, “is the wind-power law that says the higher you go, the better the wind speed. There is an actual equation. That’s what the National Renewable Energy Lab [NREL] has done with its most recent wind resource assessment map.”

Just published at the DOE website, new NREL data assesses winds across the U.S. at 80-meter heights and allows detailed extrapolations at 100-meter heights. The detailed data shows pockets of potential in many southern states, especially in the mountains and along the coasts. “Potential resources for wind farms are popping up that folks just didn’t realize existed,” Mahan said, “and they’re starting to test them out.”

Developers are moving on the South now because the taller turbines are also technologically more advanced. Advanced blades, drivetrains and power electronics all make feasible the harvesting of the South’s lower speed winds.

“The third piece of information,” Mahan said, “is that private developers are putting up their own anemometers.” In pursuit of the one to two years of actual, on the ground day-to-day data required by the loan institutions that back them, developers are verifying the NREL assessments.

Mahan’s SACE and Wind Working Groups in several states are laying the ground work to wind public approval. “We pride ourselves on our stakeholder engagement and public outreach,” he explained.

Developers like Iberdrola, Invenergy and Wind Capital Group are engaging communities in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Florida with proposed projects totaling over 1,400 megawatts. “If a developer comes into a community that is not prepared,” Mahan said, “there can be a ‘public backlash.’” SACE and its allies, he said, bring “third-party information so communities are primed and ready for when developers show up.”

TVA’s 1,565 megawatts of power purchase agreements (PPAs) for Midwestern wind and Southern Company subsidiary Alabama Power’s recent PPA for Oklahoma wind both underscore the business sense in fledgling HDVC mega-capacity transmission projects planned by Clean Line (seven gigawatts) and Pattern Energy (three gigawatts) that will by mid-decade deliver Texas and Midwestern winds to southern utilities.

Maybe the biggest part of the equation, Mahan said, “is that we’ve already got businesses here providing goods and services to the wind industry domestically and internationally.” Siemens, ZF Gearboxes, ABB and GE are among the many big names building in the South. “We’ve got turbine and blade manufacturers, nacelle assemblers, ship builders, foundation builders, monopole steel companies and a lot of service companies for avian monitoring, for lighting, for the wires.” It is, Mahan said, “a full suite of economic opportunities for us.”

The obvious next question, Mahan said, is, “’We build the stuff here; why can’t we just go ahead and install it here?’”

Clean Line has four high-voltage direct current transmission projects and the one we’re most closely tracking (and excited about) is the Plains & Eastern Clean Line. This 800-mile transmission line will be able to connect some 7,000 megawatts of wind energy from Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas to the Southeast. That’s enough to power about 2 million homes.

Clean Line Energy has the potential to provide significant quantities of low-cost renewable energy. The estimated capacity factors for the wind farms Clean Line will connect to the Southeast is near 50% – substantially higher than the nationwide average of 35%. Those high capacity factors result in electricity in the 5.5 – 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour range according to Clean Line.

And here’s the best part about those prices – they’re fixed, for up to 20 or 25 years. Since the wind is free, the largest costs associated with wind energy are the capital costs – no mid-month price rate hike because a hurricane has cut natural gas production in the Gulf, or flooding has derailed a coal train.

Yes, the sooner the Plains & Eastern Clean Line gets built, the sooner we can start charging our electric cars with completely clean energy.

For more information about Clean Line, please watch an archived SACE webinar that hosted Clean Line here and read SACE’s letter of support.

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.

A consortium of utility co-ops (Electric Membership Corporations or EMCs) known collectively as POWER4Georgians, LLC (P4G), has been promoting the projects since 2008. Now P4G is down to four members (originally there were nine), as Cobb EMC is the fifth co-op to pull out of P4G and the coal plants. It’s time for the rest to follow Cobb EMC’s lead; hopefully, Snapping Shoals EMC, Central Georgia EMC, Washington EMC, and Upson EMC can now see the light and will stop spending money on this dead-end project.

In 2008, the original nine EMCs represented 741,000 customers across Georgia; the remaining four represent only about 167,000 – a rough way to clearly visualize that support for the plants has dwindled to a mere 23% of what it once was (see pie chart).

With this bold decision, the newly elected directors at Cobb EMC acted to protect their members from further uncontrolled spending. Cobb EMC had already funneled over $13 million into the Plant Washington project, and the members have yet to see those expenses justified. Four of the original nine partners retreated in April of 2009, citing cost concerns and pending environmental regulations; similarly, in its press release, Cobb EMC said its future capacity needs didn’t justify further spending on a new power plant, and that new EPA regulations, which make coal plant operators control more of their air and water pollution, made constructing new facilities too financially risky.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy has been saying for years that the economics don’t stack up on the new coal proposals and that new coal is bad deal for Georgia, but until recently it seemed like Cobb EMC’s leadership was asleep at the wheel. Their decision is a testament to the dogged persistence of Cobb EMC members who held their utility co-op accountable and ousted directors they felt were irresponsible about this project and many other management issues.

Newly elected Cobb EMC board member David Tennant told the Marietta Daily Journal[link] about the board’s conversation with plant developer and advocate Dean Alford:

“We asked him a lot of questions, and in my mind, a lot of questions still weren’t answered. Our questions were very substantive, and even some existing board members were asking questions. (Alford) gave his best case for why he thought the plant is worth going forward with, but at the end of the day, we just didn’t see it his way. Things have changed.”

Dean Alford

Alford himself is a concern for many critics of the coal plants. He worked for now-indicted Dwight Brown as a Cobb Energy VP, and kept his job even though his projects lost about $11 million over 5 years. Alford’s company, former Cobb Energy subsidiary Allied Energy Services, helped create P4G, then got a no-bid contract to handle coal plant development despite never having built a coal plant before. Cobb EMC’s new directors have indicated they will conduct a forensic audit to investigate the business arrangements behind P4G, and other EMC affairs.

SACE and our partners in the Georgians for Smart Energy coalition, including Sierra Club, the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment, Environment Georgia, and many others, continue to advocate that all the EMCs in P4G need to conduct a thorough analysis of their needs for new generation in light of reduced power demand trends, as well as a comprehensive assessment of alternative options including energy efficiency, renewables like solar and sustainable biomass, and natural gas. Cobb EMC has issued an RFP to assess the realm of options to meet their future energy needs and fortunately, Plant Washington will not be on the list of possible sources of power.

SACE applauds the board of directors at Cobb EMC for being bold and decisive on this matter, and we look forward to working with all power providers in Georgia to build a clean energy future that protects citizen health and our precious environmental resources.

An example VEC bill, with key elements marked.

Not all electricity bills are created equal, and today we’d like to commend a local utility company on providing their customers with an exceptionally detailed one. Volunteer Energy Cooperative (VEC) provides information and advice beyond what the average national utility bill presents. Last November, John Wilson, SACE’s Research Director, shared with you a study about the lack of details that utilities publish on their customer’s bills. Conducted by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the study found that, even though these monthly or quarterly statements are often a utility’s only consistent form of communication with their customers, there is very little useful information actually being shared. The chart below outlines the several possible elements of a billing statement that ACEEE considers valuable, and shows the percentage of utility bills that actually contain each component.

With their study, ACEEE pointed out the necessity of providing energy trend information and feedback to electricity users, and voiced concern that several utilities were not taking advantage of such a basic and easy way of preventing energy waste. However, we here at SACE are pleased to be able to say that this is not the case for Tennessee’s Volunteer Energy; their bill already includes most of these components and provides information that customers can use to better monitor and adapt their  energy habits.

VEC’s billing statements hit several of ACEEE’s key elements.
As you can see by the example bill above, VEC is able to present most of this information on a single page. In addition to current usage information that is a given on most bills, VEC’s bills also provide energy users with:

• a breakdown of their electricity rate ($/kWh),

• data on previous month and year usage, and

• information on average daily usage and average daily temperature.

Users are even able to keep track of their home’s energy trends by a bar graph that plots their historical usage patterns. The chart shows energy use in kilowatt hours (kWh), allowing customers the opportunity to compare their electricity spending month-to-month, as well as with the previous year. In this bill, we can easily see that our example household had a slightly higher kWh average daily usage in November 2011 then in November 2010.

A copy of the Powerlines Newsletter that accompanies every monthly bill.

Furthermore, customers are offered tips and information on energy efficiency and conservation.
Most important to us about VEC’s bills, though, are the highlights and tips about energy efficiency and usage awareness that they also provide to their customers. As mentioned earlier, John’s previous post on ACEEE’s study highlighted a couple of the more surprising aspects of the reports results. Included in the blog was his surprise that less than 10% of the analyzed bills even referenced or suggested energy efficiency and conservation opportunities. Luckily for VEC’s customers, their bills can be added to that 10%. Looking at the example bill, you can see that there’s a paragraph at the top of each statement which promotes VEC’s free in-home energy evaluation program, and provides contact information for the customer to find out more about the distributor’s energy efficiency programs.

In addition to this paragraph, Volunteer Energy Cooperative goes a step further to promote energy efficiency and includes a monthly flyer with every bill sent, as pictured on the left. Called Powerlines, this newsletter provides further information about energy efficiency opportunities and energy conservation tips. Powerlines also offers more details and explanations of electricity terms, so that customers can further understand their bills and how to make use of all this information.

VEC bills would almost receive a perfect score on the ACEEE report.
Of the 15 utility bill components that ACEEE highlights in their report, Volunteer Energy Cooperative incorporates 13 of them into their monthly mailings – the only elements that appear to be missing are average daily cost and the type of meter reading used. Because this utility is making effective use of their biggest form of communication and providing VEC customers with more in-depth information, they are better prepared to control their energy usage and habits. We commend VEC for not only sharing a broader picture of their energy impact with their customers, but also for offering important suggestions on how to decrease home energy waste.

Plant Longleaf, a coal-fired power plant proposed near Blakely, GA, was canceled in December 2011 after millions of dollars and more than ten years were spent attempting to acquire state permits. LS Power, the independent generator behind the proposal, said, “economic conditions right now just don’t support continuing development.” The announcement marks a huge victory for environmental groups, citizens, and electricity customers.

Additionally, according to a January 13 article in the Marietta Daily Journal, Cobb EMC’s board of directors and CEO Chip Nelson have “cooled” on the Power4Georgians (P4G) consortium’s proposal to build Plant Washington and Plant Ben Hill, and have begun to seek alternative sources to meet the utility co-op’s future energy needs. Cobb EMC is the lead utility behind P4G, and if they pull out, the four other utility co-ops backing the coal plants would likely find themselves with a choice: cancel the plants, or face an impossibly huge financial commitment.

The change of heart on Plant Washington seems to be a direct result of new leadership on Cobb EMC’s board and years of controversy stemming from questionable actions by the former CEO, Dwight Brown. After a 2007 civil suit alleged fiscal mismanagement by the board and Dwight Brown, EMC customers (who are also co-op member-owners) dogged the EMC to schedule long-delayed board elections. When the first round was finally held last November, they gave the boot to two of ten incumbents – two others declined even to run.

The four new leaders promised transparency and fiscal accountability, and now members (and even public opinion leader Don McKee in his recent piece on the issue) are calling for that accountability to include pulling out of coal plant proposals that consumer advocate Georgia Watch estimates could cost upward of $4 billion (each) to build. SACE and our allies backed the new decision-makers on Cobb EMC’s board with valuable research on Plant Washington and P4G, including the questionable ties between the individuals giving and receiving development contracts (see our previous blog), and the harsh realities of financing a coal plant in today’s economy.

Cobb EMC member and retired utility planner Mark Hackett, who educated board candidates about generation planning, told the MDJ:

“All of the evidence that I have reviewed indicates that continuing to build Plant Washington is a bad idea. I encourage the Cobb EMC Board to stop throwing good money after bad before hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted. The members of Cobb EMC have already stated emphatically that they want a new evaluation of Plant Washington by electing four new directors at their Nov. 12 election. Now is the time for each EMC involved in Plant Washington to stall further investment, re-evaluate their power supply needs and reconsider their participation in this project.”

The Cobb EMC board is expected to take up an official discussion of its future support for P4G and the coal plant proposals at its next board meeting on January 24. We encourage the board members to officially seal the deal and end Cobb EMC’s involvement with the project, though we do hope no final decisions will be made on other long-term power supply matters until new leadership is elected to the remaining six seats on the board on March 31. Pulling out of Plant Washington would be another huge victory for our air and water, and for Georgians who would ultimately be the ones paying for the coal plants.

Top 11 Coal Plant Polluters for 2011

courtesy greenscroll.org

Polluters have been denying their effect on climate change for too long. One of the reasons that power plants have been able to get away with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions(GHG) is largely in part because we are unable to see all of the pollution with our own eyes.

But what if greenhouse gas emissions weren’t invisible?

This year, power plants will no longer be able to deny what we can now see–they are polluting the air we breathe. Even in areas where asthma rates are directly correlated to a near-by power plant, they still deny their role in diminishing our public health. But now the EPA has released a new GHG reporting program that allows people to see the amount of pollution in their backyards.

How Much Do Power Plants Pollute Your State?

“The GHG Reporting Program data provides a critical tool for businesses and other innovators to find cost- and fuel-saving efficiencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technologies to protect public health and the environment.”

–Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation

The Worst Offenders: Top 11 Carbon Polluters for 2011

Click map to learn more

1. Scherer coal plant in Juliette, Georgia. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 22,800,875 MtCO2e.

2. Bowen coal plant in Cartersville, Georgia. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 20,863,476 MtCO2e.

3. Miller coal plant in Quinton, Alabama. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 20,595,125 MtCO2e.

4. Martin Lake coal plant in Tatum, Texas. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 18,603,904 MtCO2e.

5. Gibson coal plant in Owensville, Indiana.Total greenhouse gas emissions: 17,853,899 MtCO2e.

6. Monroe coal plant in Monroe, Michigan. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 17,714,052 MtCO2e.

7. Labadie coal plant in Labadie, Missouri. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 17,233,324 MtCO2e.

8. Colstrip coal plant in Colstrip, Montana. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16,994,687 MtCO2e.

9. Gen J M Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16,744,942 MtCO2e.

10. Rockport coal plant in Rockport, Indiana. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16,539,699 MtCO2e.

11. W A Parish coal plant in Thompson, Texas. Total greenhouse gas emissions: 16, 459,497 MtCO2e.

In the past 6 months, 20 debates have provided ample opportunities for the candidates to distinguish themselves on a range of economic, national security and social issues, but climate and energy issues have rarely made it into the top tier of debate or media coverage.

Just as South Carolina has been a bellwether for presidential nominating contests, the Southeastern United States may be a bellwether for climate-induced or climate-accelerated impacts ranging from sea level rise and salt water intrusion to declines in crop yields and prolonged drought. While primary voters may not pay careful attention to where candidates stand specific to climate change and energy policy, the people, the economy and the ecosystems of the Southeast need leaders who are willing to confront the climate challenges posed to our region and seek workable, bipartisan solutions instead of fanning the flames of climate denial.

As all eyes shift to South Carolina, and then further south for Florida’s January 31st primary, take a few minutes to see where the remaining GOP candidates stand on climate and energy issues: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.

Dear Coastal Citizens:

If you love the place we call home, please read on.

This image shows projections for 1.5 meters of sea level rise in Charleston, SC created through a collaboration between the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Architecture 2030

I sympathize with those who feel that sea level rise sounds like “doomsday scenario” scare tactics or with the thought that a rising sea enveloping our beloved communities sounds like futuristic science fiction. I must assure you, however, that sea level rise is a very real phenomenon and that it’s happening as you read these words.

In fact, two detailed and very revealing reports were released in 2011 confirming why sea level rise is becoming a major mainstream issue that coastal communities must address. Just a few highlights from those recent reports will illustrate the magnitude of what’s at stake if we do not adequately prepare for the impacts of sea level rise in the coming years.

In October 2011, the Center for Environmental Studies at Florida Atlantic University published a report called “Southeast Florida’s Resilient Water Resources,” which details the challenges that sea level rise brings to water management infrastructure.  It points out that a few of the major problems associated with sea level rise include reduced capacity for water drainage out of human-use areas, thus leading to flooding and major economic damage, saltwater intrusion of drinking water supplies, and conversion of freshwater wetlands to saltwater wetlands.  The report notes that water managers are already starting to face these challenges, which will only increase in frequency and intensity as time passes.  In addition, saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies will be accelerated as the water table is lowered by increased population pressures as well as climate change fueled droughts.  South Florida, like many, if not all, other places in the United States did not account for sea level rise when it originally installed its water drainage infrastructure. As a result, that region must now rapidly update its systems in order to retain the intended functionality of providing freshwater to and removing wastewater from communities.  The report’s authors offer a note of caution: the price tag to upgrade water management systems will be very expensive; however, the cost of inaction will be even greater since communities may experience severe floods or freshwater shortages and then need to upgrade their systems anyway.

This diagram from the Florida Atlantic University report illustrates the linkages between water management challenges posed by climate change and sea level rise.

Excerpted from the Florida Atlantic University report.

How much sea level rise can we along the Southeastern coast expect?  That question is addressed by a May 2011 report, released by four counties in southeast Florida and serves as a unified multi-jurisdictional projection for sea level rise.  The collaborative report projects we may experience sea level rise of between 3-7 inches by 2030, 9-24 inches by 2060, and 19.5-57 inches by 2100.  According to the previously mentioned FAU study, it would only take 3-9 inches of rise to disable 70% of the drainage system capacity of southeast Florida.  And as I mentioned in my last blog post, an 18-inch rise, expected by mid to late century, will likely result in  $3.5 trillion dollars of damage in the Miami area alone, and billions more in damage all along our southern coast.

This table is from the Southeast Florida Climate Compact Unified Sea Level Rise report. It compares a few different projections for sea level rise. The projection adopted by the four counties is the 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers line.

In addition to the projections, which are themselves quite compelling, another aspect of the report is confirmation that sea level rise is not a phenomenon we will see in the future, but rather a factor already happening in real time.  The Florida counties’ sea level rise projections are actually based upon the historic tide data from Key West, which have documented a ~2 mm rise per year, or approximately 9 inches per 100 years.  Even the staunchest climate deniers must acknowledge that if we simply continue along in this historic tide trend, without allowing for any additional rise attributable to climate change, we will soon be facing a serious problem that requires immediate action in coastal communities throughout the region. [However, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that almost every peer-reviewed, scientific study suggests that sea level rise will be hastened by ice sheet melt and thermal expansion due to rising temperatures.  The science specific to this topic is constantly growing and, unfortunately, it seems that the more we learn, the higher we can expect sea levels to rise.]

It should come as no surprise that both of the reports I highlighted came from south Florida, arguably the region most vulnerable to sea level rise in the world.  But make no mistake, other low-lying coastal regions in the united States and other parts of the world are not exempt from the risks.  New Orleans, Charleston, the Chesapeake Bay and New York City areas are just a few of the major metropolitan areas extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, as well as many other smaller cities and towns up and down the coast, too.

Perhaps in part because of Charleston’s vulnerability to climate change impacts, it was selected to host the only Southeast Climate Conversation forum this Friday, January 13 as part of the third National Climate Assessment process. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy will participate in this forum along with other stakeholders and community members to learn about and discuss a range of regional issues, such as sea level rise, which may be affected by climate change in the coming decades. The event is open to the public but advanced registration is required.

There is no question that low-lying coastal communities are at risk from rising seas and our coastal infrastructure is not currently designed to withstand these impacts.  Local governments will need to get prepared and an important first step for many communities (coastal or otherwise) is to draft and implement a climate action plan, formulated with community input and adopted by local governments.  ICLEI-USA (Local Governments for Sustainability) is an organization that provides assistance in this process.  These climate action plans will featured a range of adaptation measures including stronger building code enforcement, predictive climate risk-based insurance regulation, shoreline armoring, retreat, water resource management and land use planning to name a few. As the expression goes, “the tide waits for no man,” and higher tides and rising seas are climate change impacts that coastal residents like myself can ill afford to ignore.