May is Asthma Awareness month: an opportunity to highlight a serious, chronic respiratory disease that affects the quality of life of nearly 26 million Americans, including more than seven million children. The exact causes of asthma are unknown, however there are several environmental factors, especially air pollution, that play a key role in causing asthma and/or “triggering” flare ups, episodes or attacks.

Emissions from cars, diesel engines, fires, road dust, and coal and natural gas-burning power plants all contribute to air pollution. These emissions contain many hazardous air pollutants (such as nitrogen dioxide – NO2), fine particles (such as soot) and ozone, which can aggravate asthma and make it harder for people with asthma to breathe. Moreover, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – another known pollutant resulting from energy production and use – may also be contributing to the growing rates of asthma. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and some researchers, increased levels of CO2 in our environment are increasing ozone and pollen production (an allergen), which in turn are increasing allergic reactions and aggravating asthma. New studies also suggest that traffic-related pollution exposure at school and homes may both contribute to the development of asthma.

Asthma affects people of all ages, races and socio-economic classes, but it disproportionately affects minorities as well as children and families with lower incomes due, in part, to their close proximity to asthma-triggering pollutants from coal-fired power plants, highways, construction sites, and other sources of dirty emissions.  According to the report, Air of Injustice, 68% of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. These communities are also two to three times more likely to be exposed to fine particle pollution contributing to poorer air quality in these neighborhoods.  African-American children also have a 500% higher death rate from asthma, as compared to Caucasian children. In addition to higher levels of air pollution, these communities suffer from higher health care costs due to increased hospital stays and indirect costs such as lost school and work days due to asthma attacks. The estimated economic cost of asthma amounts to more than $56 billion annually here in the United States. Cleaning up dirty air pollution from just one source – coal-fired power plants – will improve the lives of asthma sufferers and others living near these facilities while saving as much as $140 billion annually.

For more than 40 years, the Clean Air Act (CAA) has played an important role in reducing health impacts from polluting emissions. Today, the EPA is considering new regulations to reduce the health impacts from unseen pollutants: the first-ever national standards to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new coal-fired power plants. These plants are the single largest emitter of CO2 pollution in the United States, dumping more than two billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. Reducing emissions from these behemoths will not only significantly help mitigate climate change, but can also protect public health by reducing pollutants that aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases.

As air quality continues to threaten public health for all Americans, our leaders in Congress need to stand up and implement clean energy and air protection policies now. Across the country, many organizations, like SACE, are playing an important role in the fight against asthma and other illnesses impacted by air pollution. We will continue to lead those efforts in the Southeast. Please join us in the fight and let your Senators and Representatives know that these policies will protect the air we all breathe and create a healthier, happier future for everyone.

On April 16, Duke Energy submitted their proposed Residential Neighborhood Program to the South Carolina Public Service Commission for approval. Shortly after, SACE also submitted comments, evaluating and supporting this effort. And on May 9 – less than a month after the application was submitted – the Commission approved the program and gave Duke the green light for implementation!

Up until now, Duke Energy had few offers targeted specifically at low-income customers in South Carolina.  The only options targeted at low-income customers were offered through the Office of Economic Opportunity, which administered the state’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program.

According to Duke Energy’s application, the Residential Neighborhood Program will help customers in income-qualified neighborhoods reduce energy consumption by performing energy assessments and subsequently installing, at no charge to the customer, the energy savings measures identified in the evaluation.

You can see the ten measures that this program plans to offer in Figure 1, shown below.

Duke Energy anticipates that installing these measures will cut participants’ energy use by approximately 950 kilowatt hours (kWh) a year, saving participants about $100 annually. Right now, the Company is predicting that it will reach about 2,400 customers a year. If the program runs for the full four years the Commission approved, then Duke has the potential to reach 9,600 South Carolina residents!

This is not just good news for low-income customers; it’s good news for all customers of Duke Energy Carolinas. The Residential Neighborhood Program will cost-effectively reduce Duke Energy’s electric demand, at far less cost than new generation resources. The Company forecasts that, with this decrease in demand occurring over the next four years, the program will cost $2.5 million but will save all customers $3.5 million.

SACE congratulates Duke Energy for adding this valuable program option to their portfolio of energy efficiency programs! This is a great start, and there are some potential ways that the Company can make the program even better.  For instance, the Company could target all qualified neighborhoods, going beyond their estimated goal of 9,600 customers. We also recommended in our comments, and the South Carolina Commission agreed, that it is important to try and expand the impact of the program by collaborating with other low-income efficiency implementers in South Carolina. It would be great if Duke Energy could work with community action agencies to ensure that homes are safe, and additional, more advanced efficiency measures can be installed in these homes.

Duke Energy also submitted for approval a similar program for their North Carolina customers as well. We are hopeful that the Commission in North Carolina will approve the program there as well, so that all of Duke Energy’s customers can benefit from this great initiative.

Photo: Gerald Herbert, AP

Many of the impacts from the BP oil disaster will go unseen. Typically, this is in reference to the hidden ecological impacts, deep underwater, from spewing millions of gallons of crude oil into the ocean. However, it has now come to light that a BP engineer has been charged with intentionally destroying records relating to the Macondo well blowout. Now it seems that not only will ecological impacts go unseen, evidence in a criminal case may also be plunged into the abyss.

As the article states, Kurt Mix heard that BP may have to release its internal estimate of how much oil was actually lost. For whatever reason, he then decided to delete about 300 text messages about oil flow estimates. Analysts say that the company could be criminally liable for up to $17.6 billion – but that figure depends on the estimate of how much oil actually spilled. If more was spilled, the fine could be much higher.

One of the thousands of dolphins whose death is linked to the oil spill. Photo: Laurel Lockamy

Some of the texts, or at least the context of the texts, have been restored. While BP was initially telling the public that the estimated flow rate was around 1,000 barrels per day, their own internal numbers generated by Mix were actually around 64,000 barrels – 138,000 barrels per day.  Perhaps even more tragic than the loss of evidence, it appears Mix may have been warning BP that their hokey efforts to stop the flow (remember the “top-hat”, “top-kill”, etc?) would fail because the flow rate was too high.

BP lied to the public about the extent of the oil gushing into the Gulf, and they expect to pay a pittance for their criminal actions. They’ve also earned billions of dollars in profits since the oil spill – and raked in millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, Congress has done nothing and even ignored advice to ensure this doesn’t happen again. Eleven men died, followed by the worst environmental disaster this country has ever seen and the best our justice system can do is bust a guy for deleting some text messages?

Now it appears that offshore oil drilling may soon come to the coasts of the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida. This is unacceptable. Contact your elected officials.

Florida’s local elected officials aren’t waiting around for state or federal action requiring enforcement of energy efficiency standards.  They know that we have tried and failed too many times to get a Renewable Portfolio Standard for the state of Florida, as utilities have fought any attempt to include renewable energy sources as 20% of their generation mix.   So, local officials have decided to sign up for PACE, as is their right under the law, to bring clean energy solutions directly to their businesses.

That will show the utilities!

In 2010, the Florida Legislature passed a law that authorized Florida municipalities to establish PACE districts. The Florida PACE Funding Agency was established in June 2011 with the initial incorporators of Flagler County and the City of Kissimmee.

PACE is a voluntary program whereby property owners can obtain financing for efficiency upgrades, solar projects and windstorm resistance improvements that are repaid through an assessment on their property tax bills for up to twenty years.  The Florida PACE funding agency enables local governments to access capital markets without having to implement individual programs.

April 2012 has been an active month for PACE programs in South Florida. A number of municipalities have joined Flagler County and the City of Kissimmee using PACE to remove barriers to investment in energy efficiency measures and solar projects:

• The City of Miami joined five other south Miami municipalities in forming the “Green Corridor”. The Green Corridor District, is a separate legal entity that, under the PACE law, allows the cities to work together to finance energy-efficiency and solar projects for commercial properties.  The program will be funded and administered by the Ygrene Energy Fund.
• The Towns of Lantana and Mangonia Park created the Florida Green Financing Authority and opted into the Florida Green Energy Works Program. This program is based on an “open market” model whereby, Florida Green Energy Works Program is open to any bank, contractor or property owner located within a city or county that opts into the Program.
• Broward County also just approved a Request for Letters of Interest (RLI) to provide an energy efficiency retrofit and solar energy finance program with services to include commercial and residential financing, energy service program administration, and marketing. County staff recommended that the RLI be coordinated with partner counties in the Southeast Florida Climate Compact formed for the purpose of mitigating the causes ad adapting to the consequences of climate change. This is particularly significant as the Compact represents a joint commitment of Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Monroe Counties.

If you add up all the counties and cities above, they account for 6 million of the state’s 19 million population.

The word is out – PACE is Now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SACE was an exhibitor at the festival and our booth was quite popular.  Our volunteers worked hard to get petitions signed in support of offshore wind energy and I am proud to say that 159 petitions were signed!  These petitions will be shared with with elected officials at various levels of government in the hopes that they will pursue favorable policies to promote offshore wind energy development. If you are interested in signing a petition please click here.

I gave an outdoor workshop on offshore wind energy opportunities in Georgia which was well received.  While my presentation materials were quite literally “Gone with the Wind,” (it was really blustery) it was an excellent opportunity to drive home the fact that coastal Georgia has wind energy potential and we should be harnessing this resource to provide clean, renewable energy. Georgia has about 14.5 gigawatts of developable offshore wind energy potential, which is enough to provide a third of the state’s electricity. Read more about Georgia’s wind resources here.

Low Prices and Low Emissions are Compatible
Representatives from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Sunshot Program, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), Navigant Consulting and the Promethius Institute were just a few of the more than 400 attendees. They all had something in common: they were confident that the price of solar is becoming competitive enough for solar to take its place alongside other forms of energy generation.  In fact, Kevin Lynn of DOE indicated that innovation continues to propel the cost of solar technologies down to levels previously unheard of: $1 per Watt, with a goal of 6¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh).  Meanwhile, the cost of coal increased 19% from 2010 to 2011. Now is the time for Southeastern utilities to acknowledge that low prices and low emissions are compatible.

Solar Investments are Now Bankable
On the utility-scale side, Andrew Kinross of Navigant used the example of the 550 MW, $2 Billion Topaz Solar Farm, financed by First Solar and Warren Buffet’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings. The utlity-scale solar PPA model: MidAmerican took a 50% equity position in the project and secured it with a 25 year Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Having the PPA in place lowers project risk from an investor’s point of view since they have a guaranteed return.

In 2011, the residential solar market grew to over $2 billion.  This growth was driven primarily by 3rd party providers, who gravitate toward states that offer a variety of incentives to help facilitate customer acceptance of this new technology.  At the very least, the regulatory framework in each state has to authorize 3rd party PPAs.  Here are some current models:

• The 3rd party provider model:  the provider offers residential solar systems with zero money down and an easy-to-understand residential lease or PPA.
• The community solar model:  even if your home doesn’t have optimum exposure to the sun or even if you live in a multi-residential building,  this community solar model, provides an opportunity for the entire community to invest in an off-site solar installation and buy a “slice” of the system.
• The Morris model: originated in Morris County, NJ.  The Morris model involves a partnership between a municipality and a solar energy company.  The municipality issues a low interest rate bond; the solar company builds, owns and operates the solar system.  The solar company then sells the energy back to the municipality at a discounted rate.

TVA and Georgia Power offer programs under which these types of financing arrangements may take place to a limited degree, but they have not made the case for investor groups to consider the region’s states solar-friendly.

• TVA’s Green Power Providers (GPP) — formerly Generation Partners — initiative is funded solely by their Green Power Switch (GPS) program.  GPS is a voluntary program enabling customers to buy electricity generated by a renewable energy source. Projects under the GPP program receive premiums of 12 cents above the retail rate for the first ten years, curtailed to retail rate for the balance of the 20-year contract. This program has enabled 33 MW of solar installations, with an additional 76 MW in various stages of completion.  However, while GPS enables GPP, it also has the effect of creating a dollar cap on the program.
• TVA introduced the Solar Solutions Initiative in April 2012, a two year, 20 MW pilot for larger projects, with premiums ranging from 6 cents for systems up to 200 kW and 4 cents above retail rates for systems over 200 kW.  Patty West, TVA’s Renewable Energy Programs Director says that the 20 MW cap may be increased, depending on how the pilot goes.
• Georgia Power’s Solar Buyback program is a small scale program modeled on TVA’s, i.e. capped by voluntary donations. They recently signed contracts for two large solar projects, the 30 MW Simon Solar Farm to be developed by Silicon Ranch, and a 20 MW contract for solar installations at multiple locations developed by Solar Design and Development.

Technological Advances Cut Solar Costs
None of this market growth would have happened unless the industry continued to strive for technological excellence.  The goal continues to be to lower prices through better science, rather than by squeezing profit margins. Solar module efficiency is just one way to cut consumer costs. Joe Goodman of Georgia Tech showed conference participants how sun-tracking studies have helped improve component pricing.  Industry experts are also looking at how reducing non-technical barriers to both residential and commercial solar projects can help reduce costs. Dr. Bruce Tonn, of the Howard Baker Center at the University of Tennessee, is heading up DOE’s Rooftop Solar Challenge, which is part of the SunShot initiative. The Solar Rooftop Challenge is taking a close look at permitting, net metering standards, zoning and interconnection barriers.  The goal is to document barriers to market entry, get our utilities to streamline these processes and encourage wider use of solar energy.

Having the Right Regulatory Framework
Neither the utility-scale nor the residential investment approaches discussed at the Solar Solutions conference are as prevalent in our Southeastern states as they are in other regions in the US.  To the degree that these investment approaches do exist, it is only on a limited basis. The reason these models are not delivering here, is primarily because states like Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee have not put any requirements in place for utilities to introduce renewable energy into their mix of generation resources.  By way of contrast, in 29 states and Washington, D.C, utilities operate under a framework known as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).  To put it simply, RPS requires utilities to include a percentage of renewables in their generation resources.  The RPS enacted in California requires renewable energy to account for 33% of utilities’ total resources by 2020.   While North Carolina does have an RPS, it is one of the smallest in the country with only a 12.5% requirement for utilities to install renewable resources, of which only a 0.2% carve out must be solar.  So far, solar programs in the Southeast account for 0.05% -0.44% of total generation in each state.  Our utilities refuse to include renewable resources as a significant percentage of their total generation resources.

At the end of the conference participants were left with an impression of hope for the future of solar, tempered by the realization that we have to do more.  The message was loud and clear: low emissions are low cost.  One day soon, price will move even our Southeastern utilities to make the shift — away from coal and nuclear and in the direction of solar resources.  Think about it, for all the money it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running, how much solar could we install instead?

The first obstacle: Plant Washington’s permit was not final in time to avoid a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that seriously threatens the plant. The proposed rule, Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants, would stipulate that new facilities must produce no more than 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide per MW of power generated – a limit Plant Washington is not designed to meet. No coal plant could, without carbon capture and sequestration, a technology that is expensive, unproven on a commercial scale, and requires specific geological features on site. The Plant Washington site has not even been studied for feasibility.

P4G attempted to achieve the final permit before the rule was officially published, in order to be “grandfathered in” and avoid immediate compliance, but no dice. The EPA published the rule on April 13, before the settlement was even signed. Moreover, according to the settlement, P4G will not have a final permit until its proposed amendment to reduce mercury emissions (in compliance with the new MATS rule, which is now required through this settlement) goes through the state Environmental Protection Division’s public notice and comment period, which will take at least thirty days.

The second obstacle: There’s a second criterion of the new GHG standard in order to be “grandfathered in” and temporarily avoid the emission limit: Plant Washington would also need to make demonstrable construction progress by April 13, 2013. We are very skeptical of Power4Georgian’s ability to do so. For example, P4G has not done any of the engineering work required to order a boiler, historically a key piece of evidence that construction has commenced. For a facility of this size experts estimate the cost of a boiler to be about $400 million; if P4G ordered it and then cancelled their order, penalties alone could range from $20-80 million. Considering that Allied Energy Services, P4G’s consultant, was sold last summer for $128,000, we wonder whether P4G has even that much cash on hand.

The third obstacle: The very real possibility that the EPA rule could halt Plant Washington is a major turn-off for potential investors… so that boiler is looking more and more elusive. Imagine you’re a banker – would you put billions of dollars into constructing a power plant that might be stymied in short order by public health rules, and is likely to produce power at above-market prices? Furthermore, Plant Washington would produce far more power than the four EMCs participating now could use. Financiers are looking for assurance that the plant will be profitable, specifically, that contracts are in place for utilities to buy 100% of its power – so Alford has to convince these EMCs and others to lock in contracts now, at a higher rate than today’s rates, before the investors will even take him seriously.

Activists try to prevent Taylor's Comanche 3 plant from going online in Colorado. Image from colorado.indymedia.org

Even Alford’s new friend, Tim Taylor, hasn’t publically committed a dollar amount to Plant Washington (we look forward to Power4Georgians’ release of the actual financial commitment) – and his role is just to get the project ready to seek financing. Alford has actually admitted to Cobb EMC board members that P4G never planned on constructing Plant Washington themselves anyway and would sell its (near-complete) permit to another developer, theoretically recouping some of the participating EMCs’ expenditures. But any potential buyer would face the same problems that Alford and P4G currently do in terms of attracting investors.

Given these major hurdles, P4G’s member EMCs look less and less likely to receive any return on their investment so far. That’s why we think they should stop spending now. Such was the decision of Cobb EMC, which not only withdrew all spending on Plant Washington, but also recently announced an investment in a large solar array.

For these EMCs (Snapping Shoals, Central Georgia, Washington and Upson EMCs), we recommend careful investments in energy saving technology – the cheapest way to meet their energy needs –as well as an updated, post-recession projection of electricity demands and an industry-standard assessment of all alternatives for meeting it. That’s the smart way to invest member money, and to invest in healthy communities at the same time.

Photo: Gerald Herbert, AP

Two years ago, we witnessed the unraveling of the worst environmental disaster in our country’s history.  On April 20, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded into flames, killing 11 people, and spiraled into a horrific 87 days of oil gushing into the ocean, resulting in over 200 million gallons of oil dumped into the Gulf of Mexico.  The ensuing months, documented on our blog here, claimed the lives of uncounted fish, birds, and marine mammals, exposed tens of thousands of cleanup workers to hazardous chemicals and decimated several of the Gulf region’s key industries, including fishing and tourism.  At a time like this, it is appropriate for us to reflect with critical eyes upon the significance of offshore drilling and its massive impacts.  Just now, after two years, we are just starting to see the emergence of some of the long-term consequences of that spill—persistent environmental toxins, human health effects, and long term economic impacts.  While BP and many business interests want us to believe that “everything is back to normal,” the increasingly evident truth is that the Deepwater Horizon spill will have lasting impacts for many years and even decades to come.  We can and need to do better when it comes to the energy future we want for ourselves and our children, and by reexamining new evidence that only comes with the passing of time, we are better equipped to make those decisions.  With that frame of reference in mind, let’s take a look at what we’re finding two years later.

While the subject's legs look clean in the top photo, UV light reveals dispersant-treated oil has absorbed into his skin. Courtesy of James H. "Rip" Kirby III, University of South Florida.

Dispersants May Not Have Been Such a Great Idea

Shortly following the spill, widespread use of chemical dispersants, particularly one called Corexit, became commonplace to treat affected marine areas.  Chemical dispersants work by breaking up the oil slicks into smaller volumes of oil to avoid massive oil sheets bombarding the shore or a wetland all at once.  While the dispersants did what they were designed to do – break up the oil – they did so at a high cost and really just moved the oil from blobs on the surface to blobs underwater, newly enriched with poisonous chemicals known to contribute to cancer, respiratory and kidney toxicity, and fish and other aquatic organism toxicity.  It was apparent two years ago, but it’s even more apparent today: simply shifting pollution so that it’s “out of sight, out of mind” does not fix the problem.

Initial EPA reports in the wake of the spill indicated that Corexit was killing about 25 percent of all living creatures at 500 feet of water depth, however with the passage of time, we’ve learned that the toxic oil/dispersant combination has affected marine life throughout the water column.  A group of academic and government researchers published findings last month that they have found pollution from the spill as deep as 1,370 m, or approximately 0.85 miles, below the surface, where it is killing coral reef communities.

UV light applied to this beach shows toxic spill pollution that is hidden under normal lighting conditions. Photo: Chris Combs, National Geographic

Other research has shown that chemical dispersant-laden tar balls are washing up on shore at many of the Gulf coast’s most popular beaches and contributing to toxic-level chemical exposure to beachgoers.  A new report from University of South Florida and the Emerald Coast chapter of the Surfrider Foundation has documented that dangerously high levels of oil and dispersant persist on the beaches of Florida and Alabama, in spite of BP’s proclamation that “the beaches are open!”  It was found that 26 of the 32 sampling sites had concentrations of certain oil compounds that exceed carcinogenic or “Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health” (IDLH) exposure levels and that Corexit aids rapid absorption of tar into the skin.  Further complicating the situation is the fact that weather that is generally considered to be good “beach weather” and thus draws more people to the beach also creates tidal conditions that promote concentration of the hazardous chemicals.

As if that weren’t enough bad news, the report goes on to assert that the incidence of spill pollution on the beaches may cause groundwater contamination.  Finally, adding insult to injury, the report concludes that the use of Corexit as a dispersant actually inhibits and kills two of the main natural bacterial biodegraders of oil, meaning that as the dispersant was dumped into the ocean en masse, it was actually hindering the ocean biology’s ability to deal with the problem naturally.

Oil Spill Pollution Has Penetrated Deep Into the Food Chain

In a study released in February, researchers from East Carolina University reported that they had found that in Gulf zooplankton—one of the smallest and most abundant marine creatures—had absorbed oil compounds known as PAHs.  This finding is particularly concerning because plankton are one of the bases of the marine food web and therefore pose a threat of introducing high levels of PAHs—which are known to contribute to cancer, reproductive problems and birth defects—to fish that feed on them.  Prior research has shown that it may be possible for PAHs or other oil compounds to concentrate into greater levels higher in the food chain therefore as as the plankton are eaten by larger animals and those animals are eaten by even larger animals, the compounds may increase in concentration with each feeding, resulting in unhealthy levels of PAHs in Gulf sea ecology and seafood.

One of the more interesting findings of this research was that the incidence of oil contamination was geographically patchy—in some areas near the spill, the zooplankton didn’t have as high of concentrations of oil compounds, whereas in some areas further away, concentrations were very high.  This gives credence to the argument that all of the direct effects of the spill are not readily apparent but rather are highly complex and will take years for us to understand.

The Fishing Ain’t Great

While BP would have us believe that the fish, shrimp, and oyster businesses of the Gulf are doing fine, the truth is that fisheries have collapsed and fishermen are pulling in record low numbers.  Where half of all oysters sold in the U.S. came from Louisiana’s waters before the big spill, today it is just one-fifth.  For some oystermen, harvests are down by 75 percent or more from pre-2010 levels and shrimpers are seeing catches down by 80 percent or more.  An Al Jazeera article from last week profiled a few commercial seafood professionals who validate claims of reduced harvests with personal stories. Henry Poynot, a New Orleans seafood purveyor who has been in business 28 years, said “2010 was the worst year we’ve had in 15 years.  Then 2011 was worse than 2010. Some of this was the economy, but most of it is due to BP.”  Ryan Lambert, a 31-year veteran commercial fisherman, said that prior to the spill, 90 percent of his yield was speckled trout; today, they are almost completely gone.  Brad Robin of the Louisiana Oyster Task Force, who is pulling in one-thirtieth the volume of oysters he used to harvest said, “The truth of the matter is that it’s not there to catch […] Disaster is an understatement for what they have done […] We’re hurting.  I’m not afraid to go to court with BP […] They destroyed my industry.  They destroyed my livelihood, they destroyed by business, and they also destroyed the way we did life.”

Whether it is due to the aforementioned trophic accumulation of PAHs and other oil compounds as each stage of the food web gets contaminated, direct contact with oil and dispersants, or some other cause yet to be discovered, the fact is that something is seriously wrong with Gulf ecology.  Not only are seafood harvests down, but Gulf residents are also seeing unprecedented random deaths of dolphins, turtles and other sea creatures.  Since the spill, over 700 dolphin carcasses have washed up on shore, indicating thousands upon thousands of dolphin deaths that are likely linked to the oil spill.  The rate at which dead dolphins are being found on shore is many times the rate considered normal, such that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has termed it an “unusual mortality event.”  Sea turtles have been impacted especially hard as well.  600 sea turtle strandings were documented in 2010—six times the average annual rate—and the deaths continue, with 87 strandings reported within the first two months of 2012, meaning the dieoffs could be getting worse.

One of the thousands of dolphins whose death is linked to the oil spill. Photo: Laurel Lockamy

Furthermore, sea life is displaying a remarkable incidence of sickness and developmental problems.  Fish with lesions and heart dysfunction, fish, shrimp, and crabs missing eyes, crabs with soft shells and lacking claws, and tumors on many forms of sea life are now commonplace.  One University of South Florida study revealed that in some areas, and astonishing 50 percent of fish caught have lesions.  Prior data indicates a normal incidence of lesions on fish at around one-tenth of one percent of the catch.  This problem again resounds the theme that the worst still may be yet to come considering that developmental problems are passed down through generations of marine life, meaning that the fish exposed to toxins now could pass disorders down to their second and third generation offspring.  As Penn State biologist Charles Fisher said, “Things happen very slowly in the deep sea; the temperatures are low, currents are low, those animals live hundreds of years and they die slowly […] It will take a while to know the final outcome of this exposure.”  Similar to how it took four years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill for the herring population to crash, we may be still on the verge of experiencing the worst the spill has to offer.

Slick P.R. Doesn’t Clean Up Oil Slicks, Nor Does it Help Many of Those Hurt

For all of BP’s under-deliveries, the company has shown one great strength: buying public opinion.  BP has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising proclaiming that the Gulf is just as good as ever.  In addition to traditional television advertisements, they have executed clever social media campaigns, bought celebrity chef’s endorsements of Gulf seafood (and even given it out for free at public events), and given Gulf public agencies multi-million dollar P.R. budgets to host gimmicky giveaways.  This whirlwind advertising spree has influenced a good number of people to spend their vacation on the Gulf coast and some counties have reported record numbers of visitors.  The region is not optimistic, however, for when their temporarily overinflated tourism budgets return to normal rates sans BP compensation.

The sad truth that isn’t being reported enough, though, is that in spite of all the dollars that BP is spending on making the region look good, they have failed to adequately compensate many local residents whose livelihoods and even way of life have been destroyed.  Because of the collapse of fisheries and other seafood creatures’ populations, individuals and communities who have historically relied on these resources, whether for profession, sustenance, or recreation, are now faced with the bleak reality of needing to find other ways to meet their needs—often with resources that just aren’t there.

The toll is more than economic, though.  Many Gulf communities have seen notably increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues such as depression as a result of the increased stresses of post-spill life.  As one research team concluded, “social disruption and psychological stress will characterize residents of Gulf Coast communities for decades to come.”

Perhaps BP’s greatest failure, though, is its denial of responsibility for paying for health treatment for coastal residents’—particularly cleanup workers—medical issues due to exposure to oil and dispersants.  In the face of longstanding evidence of crude oil’s toxicity and newer evidence of dispersants’ toxicity, BP has denied all health-related compensation claims on the grounds that health conditions cannot be directly tied to the spill itself.  Even workers onboard the rig when the blowout occurred have been denied compensation for injuries.  Buddy Trahan, profiled in this Bloomberg article, was one of the workers on the rig at the time of the explosion.  He said that in spite of BP executives, who shared an evacuation lifeboat with him, seeing him “bleeding nearly to death, right in front of their eyes [...] It’s been nearly two years and they’ve made no attempt to help me. I’d like to see them again, look them in the eye and ask where are their hearts.”

While a new compensation system that may pay for health-related damages is in the works, it will not be operational for months and the fact of the matter is that many people are sick and hurting now.  As many as 90,000 cleanup workers and many thousands more of coastal residents are at risk for short-term and long term health impacts.

Even though BP posted $26 billion in 2011 profits, they only paid out one-quarter of claims filed against them—none of them health-related.  The sad state of the matter is that many of the impacted Gulf residents have lost their livelihoods, are in debt from seafood related business investments, have been denied adequate compensation from BP, and are now facing spill-related health problems and yet BP is making out like a bandit.

Neither BP Nor the Government has the Capacity to Effectively Deal With the Spill, Yet The Government is Proposing More Drilling

The impacts of a catastrophic oil spill are great, complex, and persistent and we are likely only seeing the tip of the iceberg as of yet.  What we’ve seen in the wake of the BP Gulf oil spill is inability of private business and the government to adequately deal with problems caused by the spill.  BP’s failures of responsibility, systematic suppression of information (which led to this week’s first arrest related to the spill) and prioritization of shareholder returns over the well being of the entire region goes to demonstrate that the liabilities associated with offshore drilling are handed to the public while profits are maintained by the elite.

With this in mind, it seems like sheer insanity to try to be ramping up new offshore drilling in domestic waters.  But in what could be construed as a cosmically tragic display of nearsightedness, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)—the regulatory agency that oversees offshore drilling—is actually moving forward with the Department of Interior’s proposal to open the Atlantic coast to offshore oil and gas drilling.

BOEM is currently touring up and down the east coast hosting public meetings to gather comments on a proposal to open the South Atlantic to oil and gas drilling.  Last Friday, exactly two years to the date since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, I attended the Charleston, SC meeting to deliver SACE’s comments on the proposal.  I was honestly distressed to see so many people in support of more offshore drilling in spite of all the lessons we continue to learn from the Gulf oil spill of 2010.

In order to ensure the government hears our pleas for sanity in the offshore energy discussion, please consider submitting comments to BOEM, stating your opinions on the matter.  SACE has developed a Take Action webpage on which you can learn about the proposal and submit comments to BOEM.

Take Action and Submit Comments to BOEM Here.               

Keep Coal Ash Out of Our Water and the Transportation Bill!

West Virginia Rep. David McKinley is a man on a mission — to save the coal industry from the bullies at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. McKinley’s afraid that the EPA may eventually require coal-fired utilities to contain their coal ash so it’s not allowed to continue to pollute our waterways. But McKinley is not alone — he had some help from the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, the organization currently under fire for providing industry the means to unduly influence our elected officials.

McKinley’s bill, H.R. 2273, would literally prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from protecting families from the water and air pollution associated with poor storage and disposal of coal ash, the toxic remnants of coal-burning.

Last Wednesday, McKinley attached the entire toxic bill as an amendment to the “must-pass” House version of the Transportation Bill. With the Senate version already passed a few weeks ago, there will now be a conference of House and Senate members to hammer out the final Transportation bill.

Please contact your Senators and ask them to reject any amendments that would gut federal coal ash protections.

The passage of this coal ash bill would have real consequences for real people. Just ask Steven Johnson, Gloria Dorsett, Robert Deveaux and Donna Keiser, whose lives have been forever changed by the toxic menace of coal ash.

Steve Johnson and his daughter on his coal ash covered driveway

In Florida, we have Steven Johnson, whose dream home near a preserved wetland in northeast Florida is now ruined from toxic coal ash that was sold to him as structural fill. When his soil was “…compared to the median level of metals in soils across Florida, arsenic was tested to be 45 times higher than the median level in soils.”

………………

Gloria Dorsett of Juliette, Ga. “recently sold her white brick house on Luther Smith Rd. to Georgia Power and moved away. She had spoken to The Telegraph and written letters to a local paper in prior years, complaining of the ash eating away at her home and causing her to have nosebleeds, among other health problems.” Dorsett lived across the street from Plant Scherer, the largest power plant in the country.

Researchers from the University of Georgia recently found high levels of uranium in drinking water wells in Dorsett’s community. The story recently garnered national coverage as a CNN story.

………………

63-year-old Robert Deveaux had plans to retire to his family’s land in Richland County, S.C. “As a kid, I grew up fishing in that river,” he told The State Journal. In 2009 it was discovered that “arsenic-tainted runoff that in places measured several feet wide” were leaking from SC&G’s coal ash ponds directly into the Wateree River.

Deveaux’s reaction? “This makes me very angry and very frightened.” And rightfully so. The Southern Environmental Law Center is now suing SC&G to hold them accountable.

………………

In North Carolina, dried coal ash dust floats onto Donna Kaiser’s home and patio in Arden, N.C., just south of Asheville. Her community of Julian Trails lays just several hundred feet from the edge of one of the coal ash ponds owned by Progress Energy; in fact, you can see the ponds from her bedroom. She says her vegetables in her garden came out deformed and she hadn’t put two and two together until the French Broad Riverkeeper came knocking on her door to ask her about the coal ash ponds.

Watch a TV report about the Progress Energy coal ash pond.

………………

Curt Havens and his wife are afraid to eat their vegetables because they live so close to Little Blue coal ash pond

McKinley’s own constituents in Chester, W.Va. are suffering from the impacts of coal ash from Little Blue coal ash pond, the largest coal ash pond in the country. “At a congressional hearing last spring, resident Curt Havens described how the toxic ash impoundment was gushing water contaminated with cadmium, a cancer-causing metal, near his home. He also explained to Rep. McKinley and the subcommittee that he had thyroid cancer and his wife has thyroid disease—illnesses caused by cadmium exposure.”

………………

These cases are only the tip of the coal-ashberg. Most people do not even know if they live near a coal ash pond, even though there is a 1-in-50 chance that you will develop cancer if you do.

But the unfortunate truth is that there are more standards for your kitchen trash than for toxic coal ash ponds. Coal ash is so unregulated, you can even buy some off of Craig’s List.

“I have as much coal ash as you can haul it can be used for alot of different things. Take all you want or all of it if you want free you load.”



Please email your Senators today and ask that they vote against any amendments that weaken federal protections on coal ash.