Replacing the San Onofre Nuclear Plant Without More Dirty Power Plants

Devra Wang, Director, California Energy Program, San Francisco

Note: Southern California Edison announced today (6/7/2013) that it is permanently closing the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station but as I recently noted, the plant's absence has not affected reliable electric service in California.

The state's electric system is very likely to be reliable this summer, even though a massive nuclear power plant in Southern California is still down. But instead of firing up retired, dirty generators to cover the gap like last summer, this year's replacement will be smarter and cleaner.
That recent news from the California Independent System Operator, which operates the grid, will be a breath of fresh air for Southern Californians contending with the region's infamous smog.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, known as SONGS, has been out of service since January 2012. It is one of the largest power plants in the state at a whopping 2,200 megawatts (equivalent to about four regular large-sized power plants), so its outage leaves a significant "hole" in the electric grid.
But it turns out California doesn't actually need the energy the SONGS plant could have produced right now, because consumers have been taking advantage of incentives to use energy more efficiently, significant amounts of renewable energy has come online in recent years, and we already have more than enough other power plants to meet our needs. Instead, the grid needs the "voltage support" SONGS used to provide.
Since a major part of the Southern California electric grid was built around SONGS, it is a lot harder for the transmission grid to remain stable without the plant operating and providing that voltage support. This all gets very technical fast, but the important thing to know is that there are different ways to provide voltage support (and they don't all require burning fossil fuels at a power plant). So even though one might expect the state to fill the hole left by SONGS with more dirty power plants, this year the state is taking a better and cleaner approach.
Doing Without SONGS' Generation
Electric demand and supply need to be in constant balance at all times, which can be done by adjusting generation or asking customers to use less electricity at peak times (in fact, the state's Independent System Operator (ISO) is counting on nearly 2,000 megawatts of "demand response" from the many customers in Southern California that have taken advantage of incentives to reduce load when needed).
In order to keep the lights on, the ISO needs to have more generation available than consumers are expected to use. This is known as a "reserve margin," and the California Public Utilities Commission requires the utilities to plan for a 15% cushion. And the state already has more power plants than we need to pass that test. This summer, the ISO expects to easily exceed that margin under normal conditions, and to still avoid rolling blackouts even under extreme conditions (like if a lot of power plants go down unexpectedly at the same time customers' demand is unusually high).

Source: ISO (Note: SP 26 and NP 26 are roughly Southern and Northern California, respectively)
Providing Voltage Support Without More Dirty Generation
Last summer, with little time to react to the San Onofre plant's outage, the state brought back retired 50-year-old gas-fired generators at Huntington Beach. Even though we didn't need its energy because we already had more than enough other power plants, the Huntington Beach plant was pulled out of retirement in order to provide the necessary voltage support (and of course emitted air pollution in the process). This year, that plant is instead being converted into "synchronous condensers," which provide voltage support without onsite emissions. (The synchronous condensers operate like electric motors and use a small amount of energy from the grid in the process.) Other emissions-free efforts to fill the hole left by SONGS include installation of capacitors and upgrades to a local transmission line so that if the line has a problem, only part of it goes down instead of the whole thing.
OK, this is where my geeky side that gets excited about this technical stuff should probably give you a break, but the long and short of it is that California is on track to replace SONGS this summer by making the grid more resilient instead of adding more dirty power plants.
What Can We Do to Help?
Even though the ISO expects to be able to keep the lights on this summer, there's always the possibility that heat waves, fires, or other issues could threaten reliability. Everyone in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas can help avoid the need for rolling blackouts by upgrading the efficiency of homes and businesses, and avoiding using energy at peak times when the grid is stressed. Sign up for Flex Alerts to get notified on the days when conserving can make the biggest difference.
What's the Long-Term Solution?
It is still unknown whether SONGS will ever return to service. (See my colleague Jordan Weaver's blog for a discussion of the need for a public process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it considers restarting the plant.)
Even though SONGS' power isn't needed this year, the state's last analysis of how needs will be met over the coming decade counted on the nuclear plant as part of the mix. As a result, the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the state's major utilities including the SONGS' owners (Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric), is about to kick off a public process to examine how the state should fill the gap over the coming decade if SONGS does not return to service.
The Public Utilities Commission should continue to build on the great start made this year by requiring utilities to fill the gap with efficient and clean resources by:

• making the electric grid more resilient through transmission system upgrades;
• adding renewable resources in different geographic regions to take advantage of the different times when they're available; and
• avoiding new generation through more aggressive efforts to help customers:
  • improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses;
  • reduce consumption during costly "peak" periods; and
  • use clean on-site generation like solar panels.

After all, while people may have differing views about a power plant, who can argue with more comfortable homes and productive workplaces - and cleaner air?

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dwang/replacing_songs.htm

Los Angeles will be off coal by 2025 at the latest

Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director, Western Energy and Climate Projects, Santa Monica
Today the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) Board unanimously approved its plan to get off of coal by 2025 and replace it with cleaner energy. This is the culmination of years of work and negotiation, and sets the stage for the largest municipal utility in the country to be coal free by 2025 at the latest, but possibly sooner.
LADWP currently has two sources of coal power: Navajo Generating Station in Nevada where LADWP is a 21% owner, and Intermountain Power Project (IPP) in Utah where LADWP purchases approximately 2/3 of the power. California law requires LADWP to stop getting power from these plants when the current contracts end: in 2019 for Navajo, and in 2027 for IPP. LADWP has long planned to get out of Navajo four years early - by 2015. They plan to sell their share in the plant to one of the other co-owners, who will then continue to operate the plant, thus acheiving pollution reductions for LADWP, but not necessarily achieving any pollution reductions from that facility.
Now, the utility has a definitive plan for getting off of coal at IPP early - by 2025 at the latest. This move will achieve significant pollution reductions, as it will shut down the coal plant permanently. Today the board took an important step along that path by voting to approve amending the existing contract with IPP to allow purchase of natural gas power, rather than just coal power, before the contract ends in 2027.
Pending approval by the other 35 smaller utilities (5 in Southern California, and 30 in Utah) who purchase power from IPP, this clears the way for decommissioning the coal plant and building a smaller natural gas plant on the site beginning around 2020.
LADWP plans for a smaller plant because they will first prioritize cleaner resources - energy efficiency and renewables - and build the natural gas plant only as large as necessary to meet power needs and to maintain power on the 500 mile long Direct Current (DC) transmission line that connects the IPP site to Los Angeles. The smaller plant will free up capacity on the transmission line to bring more renewable power into Los Angeles. The line has a capacity of 2,400 MW and currently carries 400 MW of renewable into LA.
Even with conservative assumptions about energy efficiency, the change from coal to natural gas will reduce LADWP's GHG emissions nearly 60% below 1990 levels in 2025.
LADWP's Projected GHG Emissions
Source: LADWP presentation on LA's Clean Energy Future
Of course the definitive date for exit from coal is big news. But a date certain that locks us in to further pollution would not be a win, so the flexibility around timing and sizing are really important components that make this plan a good one.
Flexibility around timing means that LADWP is locked in to getting out of IPP two years earlier than required, but could get out even sooner. The bonds on IPP will not be paid off until 2023, so it is currently unlikely that LADWP and the other utilities would agree to get out before those are paid off. However, the cost of coal compared to natural gas, renewables and efficiency is in flux, and as that information changes over the next few years, the financial calculation could shift towards it being desirable to get out of the plant sooner.
Flexibility around sizing means that LADWP is locked in to reducing the plant size by 1/3, but could choose to reduce it even more before construction starts. The current IPP coal plant produces 1,800 MW of power, and LADWP purchases about 1,200 MW of that power. The new natural gas plant on the site would produce 1,200 MW with LADWP taking about 600 MW of that power. It plans to replace LADWP and the other utilities will make the final analysis of how big the plant should be in 2018. This gives LADWP the opportunity to continue pushing the bounds on their newly-reinvigorated energy efficiency programs, as well as to continue making progress towards the state requirement to get 33% of their power from renewable by 2020. If those two efforts are going well, it is possible that they will decide to make the natural gas plant even smaller.
Now that the Board has approved amending the existing power sales contract, the next steps are:

• Get the other 35 utilities to also approve the amendment (summer 2013)
• Write a new power sales contract from 2027-2077 and get all purchasers to sign (by end of 2013)
• Analyze power system needs and decide on necessary size of plant (2018)
• Get proposals for building a natural gas plant with most recent and efficient technology (2019)
• Get approval for the new plant from the California Energy Commission (2020)
• Begin construction on the new plant (2020)
• New plant comes on-line (2025)

Dr. Pickel, the Los Angeles Ratepayer Advocate also gave a presention on the costs of getting out of coal and agreed that "climate change is a key world problem" and that LADWP and California play a n important role in showing that we can achieve GHG emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kgrenfell/los_angeles_will_be_off_of

Kansas Legislators Continue to Stand Up for the Renewable Portfolio Standard

Kimi Narita, MAP Energy Fellow , Chicago
Yesterday was another good day for Kansas and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) ensures that Kansans receive a certain percentage of renewable energy like wind and solar in their electricity mix, culminating in 20 percent renewable energy by 2020. Upon a second review, the House Energy and Environment Committee voted 10-9 to table House Bill 2241, which would have completely repealed the 20 percent target of the RPS.
The attack on Kansas's RPS had been two-pronged. There had been a Senate Bill that would have delayed RPS targets by two to four years. This was rejected by the Senate 23-17 in late February. On the same day, the House voted 63-59 to send House Bill 2241 back down to committee for further review. Both the Senate and the House have a supermajority of Republicans, showing that the RPS truly is a bipartisan issue.
After being sent and withdrawn from several committees, Houses Bill 2241 wound up back where it had been introduced - in the Committee on Energy and Environment. Yesterday was the reconsideration hearing on the bill, which I attended.
Despite a standing-room-only crowd in the hearing room, with what I estimate to be about 90 members of the public present, no one was allowed to testify at this hearing. Instead, interested parties were allowed to submit written comments. NRDC, along with over twenty other parties, submitted comments opposing HB 2241.
As I read through the testimony, I was touched by how the RPS has positively affected people in every corner of Kansas. There was testimony from faith-based groups, environmental groups, clean energy groups, economic development groups, steelworkers, wind developers, farmers, county commissioners, and several chambers of commerce. All of these people took the time to explain to the Committee how the RPS and wind energy was making a positive difference in their lives and their communities, and many of them attended yesterday's hearing.
During the hearing, Representative Moxley, a Republican and rancher by trade, said it best when he noted that there is an entire industry built up on the RPS, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars, and that changing this would be devastating to Kansas's economy. The RPS truly is a bipartisan issue that is bringing jobs and prosperity to the state. The number of wind farms that came online from 2011 to 2012, after the passage of the RPS, nearly doubled Kansas's installed wind capacity. And the 19 wind farms operating in Kansas have created more than 12,300 jobs, $13.7 million in payments to landowners annually, and $10.4 million in contributions to communities each year. These are real benefits, experienced by real Kansans.
There were also two proposed amendments to House Bill 2241 - one would have frozen the standard at 15 percent, the other would have weakened the standard from 20 percent by 2020 to 17.5 percent by 2030. The Committee rejected both amendments.
Then, Representative Jennings, a Republican from Western Kansas, moved to table the bill, which means that a vote on the bill is adjourned until a later time. This is what passed 10-9. Some news outlets are reporting this as "a possible death sentence late in the session" for House Bill 2241, especially when the Senate has already made it clear that it is not interested in weakening the RPS. I am cautiously optimistic that this is in fact the last we'll see of efforts to roll back the RPS in Kansas this year.
If the RPS prevails in Kansas, it would deal a huge blow to the nation-wide efforts to roll back state RPS policies led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-a coalition of conservative state legislators and corporations - and other fossil fuel-funded groups, including the Heartland Institute, the American Tradition Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The Beacon Hill Institute, a fossil-fuel funded think tank, has released very poorly researched and highly inaccurate studies in several states, including Kansas, concluding that the Renewable Portfolio Standard would lead to increases in electricity prices and the loss of thousands of jobs. NRDC has created factsheets and reports to counter these bogus claims. As evidenced by the amount of time and money these fossil fuel-funded interests have put into trying to repeal the RPS in Kansas, we can assume they will also put up similar fights in other states like Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina.
But we all can learn from Kansans. They signed thousands of online petitions supporting the RPS, wrote dozens of letters to the editor in the local newspapers, and drove hundreds of miles to attend hearings. And their voices were heard loud and clear: the Renewable Portfolio Standard is working. I continue to thank the legislators for getting that message, and I hope they continue to defend the RPS in Kansas for years to come.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/knarita/kansas_legislators_continue_

Reviewing the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline: The more we learn, the worse it looks

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director International Program, Washington, D.C.
The State Department released its draft environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would take tar sands from Canada to the US Gulf Coast for export. Past reviews severely underestimated the very serious harm to our climate, health, communities and water from the Keystone XL pipeline and expansion of tar sands extraction and refining. Unfortunately, this draft review is no different. My colleague Anthony Swift has already outlined here, the five necessary ingredients for an environmental review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. As my colleague Danielle Droitsch writes here, the State Department review misses the mark on all five.
This draft environmental review fails our climate, our communities, our waters and our health. At several key moments over the past months - election night, his Inauguration Address, and the State of the Union, President Obama has responded to widespread public concerns about the need to fight climate change with strong words calling for action. Action to fight climate change must include stopping dirty projects as well as putting clean energy alternatives into place. It is time for the US to draw a line and say no to dirty energy projects starting with the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
Yet, this draft review makes the same mistake as earlier reviews of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. It fails to acknowledge that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will drive expansion of the tar sands. With alternative pipeline proposals to the west and east coasts stalled due to public opposition and rail such a high cost option, Keystone XL remains the gateway to the higher prices of overseas markets for expensive tar sands. NRDC has analyzed the ways in which the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will make climate change worse.
What we already know from existing analysis is that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest. The pipeline means worsening climate change. Piping it through the US heartland would put our ranchers and farmers at risk from difficult to clean up oil spills. And sending it to the Gulf Coast only makes our country a dirty oil gateway to overseas markets. This is a project where multi-national oil companies reap in the benefits while US communities take the risks.
We'll continue taking a hard look at this draft environmental review. And we know that the many people across the US and Canada who are concerned with tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline project will be weighing in to make their voices heard. A draft environmental review is just the first step in the process to assess this project and to determine if it is in the national interest. During the next step, the public can make its voice known. We are still far from a decision on this project and it would be premature to mistake a draft environmental review for the end of the process.
This post was updated by the author.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/reviewing_the_keystone_x

Fight Keystone XL Tar Sands Pollution and Protect the Climate

Rocky Kistner, Communications Associate, Washington, DC
Up in the pristine Canadian boreal forests and freshwater deltas of Alberta, home to caribou, whooping crane and native communities settled long before Europeans arrived, a poisonous sore is being gouged out of the carbon-rich soil, a massive tar sands oil mining operation that could have huge climate impacts for people across the globe.
New information shows that oil industry plans to more than triple production of tar sands oil in the coming decades will include additional dirty petroleum byproducts, making it even harder for Canada to meet its planned greenhouse gas emission targets. Right now there is one major project standing in the way of tar sands expansion-a roadblock that Canadian oil interests are desperate to crash through.
That roadblock is the Obama Administration's decision whether to grant a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands crude each day from Alberta's forests through America's agricultural heartland to refineries in the Gulf, where much of the oil would be processed and exported. The administration is expected to release a supplemental Environmental impact Statement soon, with the final Keystone decision expected in coming months.
You can help stop the tar sands devastation and protect the climate. Watch this video about climate threats posed by the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and find out how to join the February 17 Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DC.
Climate scientists warn that further development of fossil fuel energy sources like tar sands oil will spell disaster for the planet's climate, a point made clear in the release of the draft study of the National Climate Assessment this month. "If we fully develop the tar sands resources we will certainly lose control of the climate, we will get to a point where we can no walk back from the cliff," says University of St. Thomas energy expert John Abraham, who has studied the climate impacts of tar sands oil emissions.
That's because tar sands oil is particularly dirty--at least three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil--resulting in a refining process that includes carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke-or petcoke-that can be burned like coal in refineries at the receiving end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. According to a new report released by Oil Change International, petcoke burned from tar sands oil would equal the climate pollution of five additional coal fired power plants, boosting overall carbon emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline by 13 percent. Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman describes it this way:

"The refineries at the end of the Keystone XL pipeline are some of the biggest petcoke factories in the world today. By supplying them with tar sands bitumen, the petcoke embedded in the tar sands would find its way to the world market...petcoke from the tar sands is making coal fired generation dirtier and cheaper and this puts another nail in the coffin of any rational argument for further exploitation of the tar sands."

Oil industry supporters claim that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, tar sands oil will find its way to other markets through future North American pipelines built to the east or west coasts. But many researchers say those projects are mere pipedreams, since the tar sands industry faces major opposition from local communities on the east and west coasts, where residents are worried about tar sands oil spills and other environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute's Nathan Lemphers worked on a new comprehensive report that lays out the facts surrounding tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline, which he says is a crucial lynchpin in the development of the tar sands:

The Keystone XL pipeline is critical for further expansion of the oil sands. Major financial institutions in Canada have said that the lack of pipeline capacity is a rate limiting step for the oil sands...if it's (Keystone XL) not build, it'll start to moderate the growth of the oil sands and it will send a clear signal to the financial community and the oil sands community that they need to address the carbon emissions that come from the oil sands.

Tar sands processing plant in Alberta Photo: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute
But growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands is not just a not-in-my-backyard concern--everyone is hurt by higher emissions from the dirtiest oil on the planet. The scientific community is especially concerned about rapidly melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather events associated with climate change that we are already witnessing. In December, some of the country's top climate scientists sent President Obama a letter urging his administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, citing last year's recent record-setting temperatures and storms as evidence that we need bold action to cut global fossil fuel emissions.
Earlier in January, 70 groups wrote President Obama urging him to take bold and decisive action to help protect the nation against climate change's ravages. Danny Harvey, an energy and climate expert at the University of Toronto, said it best in our video: "Right now President Obama faces a critical choice. There's no better time to say no to further expansion, say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around."
On February 17, join people from all walks of life, from climate scientists to ranchers and farmers, who will gather in Washington, DC, to call for strong action to fight climate change. The Forward on Climate Rally will point the way for Obama to shape his climate legacy. One of the most important decisions he can make is to reject the Keystone pipeline and to tell the EPA to set carbon standards for power plants.
We the people have the power to demand action from our political leaders, to tell the lobbyists and oil industry fat cats that we're tired of their business-as-usual dirty energy campaigns. We want clean energy solutions that create new technologies and long-term job opportunities, including money-saving projects like NRDC's innovative plan to cut coal-fired power plant pollution.These are the kinds of investments that will build a more sustainable planet for all who inherit the Earth.
That's certainly worth fighting for. Because if we don't, who will?
For more information on how to sign up and participate in the February 17th march, check out the Forward on Climate Rally site.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/up_in_the_pristine_boreal.h

Fight Keystone XL Tar Sands Pollution and Protect the Climate

Rocky Kistner, Communications Associate, Washington, DC
Up in the pristine Canadian boreal forests and freshwater deltas of Alberta, home to caribou, whooping crane and native communities settled long before Europeans arrived, a poisonous sore is being gouged out of the carbon-rich soil, a massive tar sands oil mining operation that could have huge climate impacts for people across the globe.
New information shows that oil industry plans to more than triple production of tar sands oil in the coming decades will include additional dirty petroleum byproducts, making it even harder for Canada to meet its planned greenhouse gas emission targets. Right now there is one major project standing in the way of tar sands expansion-a roadblock that Canadian oil interests are desperate to crash through.
That roadblock is the Obama Administration's decision whether to grant a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands crude each day from Alberta's forests through America's agricultural heartland to refineries in the Gulf, where much of the oil would be processed and exported. The administration is expected to release a supplemental Environmental impact Statement soon, with the final Keystone decision expected in coming months.
You can help stop the tar sands devastation and protect the climate. Watch this video about climate threats posed by the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and find out how to join the February 17 Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DC.
Climate scientists warn that further development of fossil fuel energy sources like tar sands oil will spell disaster for the planet's climate, a point made clear in the release of the draft study of the National Climate Assessment this month. "If we fully develop the tar sands resources we will certainly lose control of the climate, we will get to a point where we can no walk back from the cliff," says University of St. Thomas energy expert John Abraham, who has studied the climate impacts of tar sands oil emissions.
That's because tar sands oil is particularly dirty--at least three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil--resulting in a refining process that includes carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke-or petcoke-that can be burned like coal in refineries at the receiving end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. According to a new report released by Oil Change International, petcoke burned from tar sands oil would equal the climate pollution of five additional coal fired power plants, boosting overall carbon emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline by 13 percent. Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman describes it this way:

"The refineries at the end of the Keystone XL pipeline are some of the biggest petcoke factories in the world today. By supplying them with tar sands bitumen, the petcoke embedded in the tar sands would find its way to the world market...petcoke from the tar sands is making coal fired generation dirtier and cheaper and this puts another nail in the coffin of any rational argument for further exploitation of the tar sands."

Oil industry supporters claim that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, tar sands oil will find its way to other markets through future North American pipelines built to the east or west coasts. But many researchers say those projects are mere pipedreams, since the tar sands industry faces major opposition from local communities on the east and west coasts, where residents are worried about tar sands oil spills and other environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute's Nathan Lemphers worked on a new comprehensive report that lays out the facts surrounding tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline, which he says is a crucial lynchpin in the development of the tar sands:

The Keystone XL pipeline is critical for further expansion of the oil sands. Major financial institutions in Canada have said that the lack of pipeline capacity is a rate limiting step for the oil sands...if it's (Keystone XL) not build, it'll start to moderate the growth of the oil sands and it will send a clear signal to the financial community and the oil sands community that they need to address the carbon emissions that come from the oil sands.

Tar sands processing plant in Alberta Photo: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute
But growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands is not just a not-in-my-backyard concern--everyone is hurt by higher emissions from the dirtiest oil on the planet. The scientific community is especially concerned about rapidly melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather events associated with climate change that we are already witnessing. In December, some of the country's top climate scientists sent President Obama a letter urging his administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, citing last year's recent record-setting temperatures and storms as evidence that we need bold action to cut global fossil fuel emissions.
Earlier in January, 70 groups wrote President Obama urging him to take bold and decisive action to help protect the nation against climate change's ravages. Danny Harvey, an energy and climate expert at the University of Toronto, said it best in our video: "Right now President Obama faces a critical choice. There's no better time to say no to further expansion, say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around."
On February 17, join people from all walks of life, from climate scientists to ranchers and farmers, who will gather in Washington, DC, to call for strong action to fight climate change. The Forward on Climate Rally will point the way for Obama to shape his climate legacy. One of the most important decisions he can make is to reject the Keystone pipeline and to tell the EPA to set carbon standards for power plants.
We the people have the power to demand action from our political leaders, to tell the lobbyists and oil industry fat cats that we're tired of their business-as-usual dirty energy campaigns. We want clean energy solutions that create new technologies and long-term job opportunities, including money-saving projects like NRDC's innovative plan to cut coal-fired power plant pollution.These are the kinds of investments that will build a more sustainable planet for all who inherit the Earth.
That's certainly worth fighting for. Because if we don't, who will?
For more information on how to sign up and participate in the February 17th march, check out the Forward on Climate Rally site.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/up_in_the_pristine_boreal.h

Coal industry front group scapegoats EPA

Laurie Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate Center, Washington, DC
Today E&E reported (subscription required) a "study" by the coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). The author of the report, ACCCE lawyer Eugene M. Trisko, calculates that household energy expenditures as a fraction of household income have increased in recent years. This, he falsely claims, is a result of EPA regulations on coal.
I almost feel sorry (not really...) for the author in writing this blog. I don't have time to deconstruct his distorted calculations, but a few observations should suffice to prevent any more credence being given to the report:
The author confuses nominal with inflation-adjusted prices

• The most glaring mistake in the report is the author's use of nominal, rather than inflation-adjusted, numbers. If an economist had done this, he would never get another job in his profession. This is a basic economic principle taught in every introductory economics course. Perhaps I should cut the author some slack because he is a lawyer...but don't lawyers take introductory economics?
• With this confusion, the author makes the case for the exact opposite of what he is trying to argue. He writes in the executive summary that "electricity prices have increased by 54% in nominal dollars since 1990, below the rate of inflation..." (emphasis added). This means that in real terms (inflation-adjusted), electricity prices have actually declined. That's *good* for households...Oh my.

The author confuses coal-related energy costs with other energy expenditures

• The author includes gasoline and other non-coal sources of energy in his calculation. Coal is used almost exclusively for electricity production and, as discussed above, those costs have gone down in real terms. Coal's real troubles are with natural gas, which is increasingly pushing coal out of the market because it is more competitive, not with environmental regulations.

The author distorts the data by presenting energy expenditures as a fraction of household income

• The author unwittingly provides inflation-adjusted household income levels, which have significantly decreased in recent years. Given his confusion with nominal versus real prices, perhaps he does not know he is revealing a major flaw in his analysis. Without doing the actual calculation, I would bet that much of the author's main result (increased household energy expenditures as a fraction of household income) is driven by the fact that nominal household income (which he uses in his denominator) is growing at a much slower rate than nominal total household energy expenditures (which he uses in the numerator). Had nominal household incomes increased more relative to household energy expenditures, household energy expenditures would have declined as a percentage of household income. Conveniently for the author, the statistics worked in favor of his distorted calculation.

These flaws in the analysis make the headline of the E&E article all the more disturbing: "COAL: Industry group faults EPA for higher electric bills." A more accurate headline would have read: "Coal industry front group scapegoats EPA."

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/coal_industry_front_group_s

Roadmap to New Clean Energy and Climate Initiatives in Governor Cuomo's 2013 State of the State

Kit Kennedy, Counsel, Air and Energy Program, New York
This afternoon Governor Cuomo announced a bold set of expanded clean tech, clean energy and climate mitigation initiatives in response to Superstorm Sandy as one of the cornerstones of his State of the State speech. The text of his speech weighs in at a hefty 285 pages. For those who don't have time to dive in, NRDC has highlighted the key new programs on clean energy, climate mitigation and climate resilience in his speech here.
These include: a new green bank to leverage private financing to advance renewable energy; lowering the cap on power plant greenhouse gas emissions in New York; extending New York's solar power program; and restoring natural systems like dunes and wetlands to protect against future climate-related extreme weather events.
And for those who want even more details, here's a fuller guide focused on the clean energy and climate mitigation initiatives announced today.
Green Bank
As the Governor Cuomo said this afternoon, the States are engaged in a foot race toward the clean energy future - and whichever State gets there first will get the prize. The boldest initiative announced today is a new $1 billion New York green bank to leverage public dollars with a private-sector match to spur the clean economy. This exciting new initiative will advance New York's advantage in the clean energy race. My colleague Doug Sims - who has been one of NRDC's key thought leaders on clean energy finance - provides the details here. (And Doug's primer on green banks clean energy finance is even cited at footnote 24 of the Governor's speech!).
New Cabinet-Level Energy Czar
In another major positive change, the Governor announced that Richard Kauffman, a seasoned energy and clean-energy finance who has served as a top advisor to U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, will serve as New York's new energy czar. Kauffman is the right person at the right time to execute New York's new climate resilience and mitigation strategies, including leading the launch of the Green Bank and pulling together New York's diverse clean energy programs.
Reducing Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Pollution in New York State
In his speech, the Governor stressed again that climate change is real and that the time to act is now. Acting on recommendations from the NYS 2100 Commission, the Governor announced that New York will be lowering the limits on greenhouse gas pollution from New York Power plants as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. As the Governor explained, reducing the State's greenhouse gas pollution cap will provide an additional $100 to 150 million for New York State to invest in repowering existing inefficient power plants to reduce carbon emissions and assisting communities that lose a big part of their tax base when coal-fired power plants are retired. In the wake of the suffering inflicted by Superstorm Sandy, this announcement - which could help to forestall the frequency and severity of other future extreme weather events-- couldn't be more timely.
Solar Power
The Governor announced a ten-year extension of New York's solar energy program - the New York Sun program -at a level of $150 million a year. This will allow many thousands more New Yorkers to install solar panels on their roofs, lowering their bills and generating their own clean power. It will bring us closer to the attainable goal of getting 2,000 MW of power from solar energy by 2020. As the Governor explained, extending New York Sun will "attract significant private investment in solar photovoltaic systems, enable the sustainable development of a robust solar power industry in New York, create well-paying skilled jobs, improve the reliability of the electric grid, and reduce air pollution." We also hope that the New York legislature will move forward to make this important program the law. My colleague Pierre Bull provides details here.
Electric Cars
Moving forward with the deployment of both renewable energy and electric cars is important for New York to move beyond dirty fossil fuels. Today the Governor announced new initiatives to scale up electric cars in New York, from building a statewide network of 3,000 public and workplace charging stations, to funding primarily from investor-owned utilities for incentives for electric car deployment to reforming regulations at the State and local level to facilitate electric car charging and remove other barriers to electric cars. My colleague Luke Tonachel has explained why 2013 could be a key year for fuel efficiency and electric cars, and today's announcement could add to the progress.
Clean On-Site Power, Smart Grid and Building Code Resilience Improvements
The Governor also mentioned a number of initiatives to move the State forward on clean "on-site" distributed generation, "smart grid" improvements and improving the resilience of New York's building code. As I have explained, these kinds of programs can help make New York's electricity system more resilient - to help keep the power on in times of high stress such as hurricanes or heat waves and to help restore power more quickly when it goes down. The NYS Ready Commission - on which I serve - is expected to deliver more detailed recommendations on these issues in the future.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kkennedy/roadmap_to_new_clean_energy

Even Kids Get It: End Mountaintop Removal Now

Melissa Waage, Campaign Director, Washington, DC
Today our friends at Appalachian Voices present kids in Appalachia explaining why mountaintop removal mining is a disaster for people and the environment. (Blowing up mountains and dumping mine waste into streams is not a good idea: so simple a child can understand it.) They're asking the Obama administration to end mountaintop removal mining right away and support economic transition for Appalachian communities, here.
Departing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson once said of mountaintop removal, "The people of Appalachia shouldn't have to choose between a clean, healthy environment in which to raise their families and the jobs they need to support them." In his second term, the president has a chance to show that this is true by getting serious about ending mountaintop removal.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mwaage/even_kids_get_it_end_mountain