Help me, EPA, you're my only hope!

I was disappointed during the election when many environmental writers downplayed the role of Environmental Protection Agency regulation on coal. It was a timid response to the "war on coal" hype.

Sure, there's not exactly a war on coal. There's a war to save modern civilization as we know it from climate change disasters. The coal industry just happens to be on the pro-ending-modern-civilization side.

The argument downplaying EPA action bothered me. First, because I think it was somewhat disingenuous. You can't honestly go from bragging one week about how many proposed coal plants activists have stopped, often by using EPA regulation as a tool, and the next week pretending the movement doesn't exist. It's the kind of defensive, weak-kneed messaging that gives tree-huggers and liberals a bad reputation. The low price of natural gas may be the bigger factor in determining the future of coal, but compliance with regulation is an important part of the cost/benefit analysis companies do when making decisions about building or retiring coal plants.

That rhetorical retreat was troubling because EPA may be our last best hope of dealing with carbon pollution during the next 2-4 years. The climate change movement will be forced to rediscover their conviction to cheer EPA action as a positive.

It's not hard to see why. The House is still controlled by a Republican majority in the pockets of oil and coal. Even though most of them campaigned on being bipartisan, they made similar promises in 2008. We saw how that turned out.

The Senate has a small Democratic majority, but the Democratic caucus still includes fossil fuel Senators like Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin. Plus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems uninterested in exposing oil and coal Democrats to controversial votes. He refused to bring cap-and-trade to the floor two years ago because it didn't have 60 votes to pass, but then allowed three failed votes on stripping EPA authority to limit carbon emissions.

So, a big legislative solution like cap-and-trade is about as realistic as "clean coal." I've seen suggestions about a carbon tax. As much as Congressional Republicans hate the idea of any tax increase, I can only imagine the category 5 hissy fit they would throw over a tax increase to deal with a problem they won't even admit exists. I'd be happy to see someone try, but I won't hold my breath.

What I'll hold out small hope for in Congress is another jobs bill focused on energy efficiency, improving the grid, and promoting renewables. That was the best part of the stimulus bill, and we need another big round of green jobs spending in term II. Preferably, they should target spending in coal regions to offset job losses.



That leaves us with the authority a previous, more functional Congress already granted EPA to limit air pollutants. Obama moved forward with expanded EPA protections after Congress failed to act during his first two years in office. Some regulations have been stalled, like CSAPR. That needs to be completed along with better rules on mountaintop removal, coal ash, and air emissions like carbon.

My number one hope for Obama's second term is that he moves forward much more aggressively with EPA limits on deadly coal pollution.

Combine that with Obama's campaign comments and this is what a second term energy policy could look like:

• Renewed effort to cut oil subsidies.
• More spending on energy efficiency.
• Extending clean energy production tax credit.
• More mass transit spending through transportation budget.
• Renewed call for a clean energy portfolio standard.
• Hopefully combine that with more aggressive air regulation and a green jobs bill to speed up the transition to new energy sources.

That plan may be better than a cap-and-trade bill filled with special deals for oil and coal lobbyists.

Of course, even that won't be easy because major pieces would still require Congressional action. During the next four years, environmentalists and progressives will have to work out whether they can play a role in promoting positive action by Obama and EPA, or whether they will limit themselves to nursing every disappointment, as so many pundits and bloggers did during his first term.

Wind farm ban becomes issue in Sangamon county board election

Proposed changes to the county wind farm ordinance have become an issue in the election for Sangamon county board seats. In August, I wrote about the county board threatening to turn away green jobs and clean energy by adopting the most extreme restrictions in Illinois. The post got some attention, including a promotion to the front page of DailyKos.

County board members punted the issue again by extending the ban on wind farms for another six months. Ordinance changes, which may halt development of a wind farm proposed in western Sangamon county, will be considered again after the election.

The delays, hesitation, and threatened destruction of a project that would create badly needed green jobs has been raised by several candidates challenging county board incumbents. Mike Ziri was the first to contact me after my blog post. Ziri is a Springfield Democrat running in district 11. Both Ziri and Mike Crews spoke in favor of wind farm jobs at the Liberty Brew & View candidate night last month. Crews referenced his opponent's vote for the wind farm moratorium in a campaign mailing.

The sponsor of the ordinance is Springfield county board member Tim Moore. I contacted his election opponent, Tony DelGiorno, to ask if this is an issue in his race. He speaks about it with voters while knocking on doors and it's included on his campaign website. Tony sent me this quote:

"In my opinion, Sangamon County should be among the pioneers in renewable energy alternatives in the State of Illinois.  Other communities and counties in Illinois have successfully built wind farms, minimized adverse consequences, and reaped the rewards of increase property tax revenue and the creation of green jobs. The so-called moratorium and overly restrictive ordinance put forward by my opponent demonstrates the shear lack of leadership, ingenuity, and forward thinking that has stagnated the county board.  We need new leadership with new ideas."

Those are refreshing words compared to the hemming and hawing from county board members who seem unable to resolve the issue. My impression is that many Republican board members are hesitating partly due to pressure from a small, but vocal, group of opponents. The dynamics can change if they realize there will be a political cost for stopping the wind farm.

Candidates are making their final push before the election. If you speak with a Sangamon county board candidate, ask whether they support wind farm jobs, and then give your support to those who do.

If you live elsewhere, remember that energy is not just a national issue. Local officials in your area have a large voice in whether we stick with dirty energy sources or build a new energy future.


Note: I didn't want to procrastinate this blog post any longer so I didn't attempt to contact every candidate. If other candidates send me their position, I'll be happy to post those as well.

Rodney Davis denies science behind climate change. Would kill green jobs in Illinois.

It finally happened! During an interview with the State Journal-Register editorial board, Rodney Davis was asked if he accepts the scientific consensus behind climate change.

The question came near the end of their interview with the three candidates in the 13th district Congressional race (at 53:00 in the video online). It was finally discussed after independent candidate John Hartman scolded the SJR editorial board for not asking about an issue as important as climate change. When asked if it's man-made, Hartman spoke about the broad scientific consensus that man-made pollution is driving the climate crisis.

David Gill reinforced the position on his campaign website, saying, "It's not a question of belief, it's a question of what is. The science is extremely clear on this. It's very, very real and it's a grave threat. Irreversible damage is already taking place now. The failure of the Exxon-Mobil funded politicians in Washington D.C. to address it appropriately is perhaps the biggest mistake that we're making."

Gill didn't mention that his Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, already took the maximum allowable campaign contributions from Exxon and the Koch brothers PAC. Both Exxon and the Koch brothers funded deceptive propaganda campaigns to spread doubt about the science of climate change. Does Davis represent the views of his corporate sponsors who try to undermine science?

Davis claimed that, "I think we all agree that climate change is reality. There's a debate between how much of it is man-made and how much of it is due to natural causes."  He didn't say where he stands in that debate.

Once again, Davis dodged saying plainly what he believes about climate change science. Furthermore, his claim about the debate is misleading. There's broad scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving greenhouse gasses far beyond normal levels, causing the planetary emergency we face now.

After it became impossible to deny that climate change was already happening, the deniers switched to the "natural causes" argument in an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Davis is repeating the misleading talking points used by the fossil fuel industry and their puppets like Glenn Beck, James Inhofe, and John Shimkus. He passed on the opportunity to distinguish himself from the anti-science conspiracy theorists who support his campaign.

Davis even brought out the old straw-man argument I often hear from coal industry spokesmen, that we can't power the country on wind and solar alone. Back on planet reality, no one is seriously proposing we try doing that in the near future. What people do propose is that we create jobs by quickly building a ton of new clean energy. Unfortunately, Davis made it clear in his interview that he opposes meaningful policies to expand wind and solar.

When pressed about what tax loopholes he would close, Davis said “I would like to take away the energy tax credit that gave us the Solyndras of the world.”

First of all, Solyndra made news because it defaulted on a Department of Energy loan guarantee, not because it received a tax credit. Second, Davis personally spoke in favor of a loan guarantee from the same Department of Energy program for a proposed coal plant in Taylorville that was five times bigger than Solyndra's loan.

What's even more baffling about his position is that the production tax credit for wind power is one of the few tax cuts proven to create jobs here in Illinois.

Five to ten thousand direct and indirect jobs are created from Illinois' wind-based maintenance, construction, and manufacturing sectors. The rapid expansion of wind power in Illinois is partly due to the production tax credit.

The tax credit is scheduled to expire soon. Wind power companies argue they need the certainty of knowing it will be extended before launching new projects. Ending the tax credit, as Davis suggests, would destroy construction and manufacturing jobs in Illinois.

Davis speaks frequently about cutting taxes to create jobs and the desire small businesses have for certainty. Extending the production tax credit does both of those things for the wind industry. It's exactly what Davis claims to support in principle, but for some reason, he flip-flops when it comes to wind power.

Ending the production tax credit is the one and only tax increase Rodney Davis claims to support. It takes a real zealot to put thousands of people out of work just to spite clean energy.

When asked if he would also cut tax subsidies to the oil industry, Davis retreated into his standard talking points, defended how the oil industry uses the money, and spoke about the need for more refineries. He never directly answered the question, but he made it clear that he supports oil subsidies.

Davis worries a cap-and-trade system would hurt the economy. He says nothing about the economic impact of more frequent extreme weather events like droughts, flooding, and wildfires that wreak havoc on communities. I didn't hear anyone claim the recent drought was good for Illinois agriculture or hope that we get many more years like it. Doing nothing about climate change will bring economic disaster, and in contrast, building new clean energy is the best jobs plan anyone has come up with.

Voters have a clear choice in this election. One candidate, David Gill, takes a rational approach that respects science. He sounds as though he understands that we must take bold action to reduce climate change pollutants. The other, Rodney Davis, mimics anti-science conspiracy theorists and would subsidize oil and coal while Rome burns.

Here's the full hour-long video of the candidate interview.

 

Talking heads focus on debate style over substance. Romney wants to flood your house.

I was pretty shocked after the debate when MSNBC hosts started crying about how badly they think Obama did. After a while I realized that their entire critique is about the performance style of each candidate rather than what either one actually said.

I'm used to Obama's style so I wasn't surprised by how he spoke tonight. He acts as though he has respect for the intelligence of the American public, which is obviously pretty risky. I like his calm, rational approach as a contrast to the foaming at the mouth conservatism that has been popular the last few years.

The national pundits disagree. Chris Matthews was the worst, bemoaning that there was no Robert Kennedy backstage. I'm surprised he could stop daydreaming about the Kennedys long enough to watch the debate. I muted the TV about the time that Matthews was screaming that Obama should watch MSNBC to get debate pointers.

No, Chris, no one should watch MSNBC to get pointers because most of what the cable networks do is crap. This may be news to the talking heads, but many people think that someone who constantly interrupts and talks over others like Romney did tonight (and like you do to your guests) is a rude jackass. Romney's rude behavior and smug smile did not impress me.

Personally, if someone is shoveling a lot of bullshit, I don't care if they do it with a smile. I can still smell bullshit. Not so with the cable news talking heads. They don't talk about substance and facts anymore because dealing in reality means opening yourself up to accusations of liberal bias. And so, they talk about which candidate gave the best "performance" in terms of style while avoiding discussion of any actual issue.

This is why cable news is a waste of time, including most of MSNBC. They rarely deal with substance. They know nothing but style, spin, and people screaming over each other. Rachel Maddow is the only MSNBC host I can handle in daily doses.

Speaking of substance, there was a clear distinction on energy issues. Romney loves coal, unlike his days as Governor when he said he wouldn't support jobs that kill people. He hates clean energy, and he lied about half of the businesses getting green stimulus funds failing. Once again, it's OK with the cable news talking heads if Romney makes things up, as long as he does it aggressively.

Mitt Romney apparently thinks that catastrophic flooding, hurricanes, droughts, and other climate change disasters will be good for the economy. Wow.

Creating green jobs through the stimulus package is the biggest success of Obama's first term. It needs to happen again on a bigger scale in his second term. Creating tons of jobs by rebuilding America's energy infrastructure is the best plan anyone has to revive the economy. I hope Obama will go on the offensive about climate change instead of letting Romney turn green jobs into something negative.

Anyway, the debate watch party I hosted was a good time. I liked watching with friends and meeting some new ones. A reporter showed up so there may be a State Journal-Register article. People are enthusiastic about local campaigns, including David Gill's congressional campaign.

Reactions to the debate were mixed. Some agree with the talking heads that Obama didn't do well, and others thought Romney was terrible. Everyone is looking forward to Joe Biden in the Vice-Presidential debate!

Illinois solar tour shines on rising downstate trend

The 2012 Illinois Solar Tour is coming up on October 6th. The Illinois Solar Energy Association tells us:

The Illinois Solar Tour is a FREE public educational event to generate awareness and knowledge of how solar and other forms of renewable energy are being used by home and business owners throughout the state. It is the best event to attend if you are planning to install a system or are looking to learn more about renewable energy. 

The self-guided tour features a rising number of downstate Illinois sites this year, including the new installation at the Taylorville airport. The description for one hints at why there are several around Springfield this year by mentioning the CWLP Solar Rewards rebate program.

It seems like solar systems are getting mainstream enough that you can buy them anywhere. They should become a standard part of any home with a suitable spot to place one.

Of course, you should contact your utility before deciding what sort of system to purchase, and if you're in Springfield, you'll get invaluable information from the experts at the Energy Services Office.

Congressman Shimkus called energy loan guarantees "imperative" before voting against them

House Republicans continue to ignore the American Jobs Act, but they found plenty of time for their ongoing effort to gin up a phony scandal around Solyndra. Today they passed the "No More Solyndras Act," mostly along partly lines. They want to end the Department of Energy loan guarantee program because one solar project failed.

Next month I expect them to pass the "No More Restaurants Act" because O'Boys Bar-B-Q chain in central Florida just closed their final location. Also, the "No More Movies Act" will be voted on in response to "Think of the Cold Light of Day" earning far less at the box office than it cost to make. As long as we're irrationally overrating to minor setbacks, then why not?

Illinois Congressman John Shimkus has been making noise about Solyndra during the House's desperate search for a scandal. He voted for the bill today that would ban the Department of Energy from approving loan guarantee applications filed after 2011. That's an important deadline. It means the act won't apply to a loan guarantee Shimkus enthusiastically supported in 2010 that's five times bigger than Solyndra's.

Shimkus lent his support to a $2.5 Billion DOE loan guarantee for Tenaska's failed coal plant in Taylorville, Illinois. The Taylorville Energy Center is stalled indefinitely after failing to get the special subsidies and fixed rate increases they need from the Illinois legislature. In other words, it's a failed project the market can't support that's far, far more expensive and unrealistic than Solyndra. But, that doesn't register as a scandal to Shimkus and other House Republicans.

Shimkus went beyond giving tepid support for the loan guarantee. He sent a member of his staff, Rodney Davis, to speak in favor of Tenaska's application at a Department of Energy public hearing in Taylorville. In a message about the loan guarantee, he said it's "imperative that we move forward with policies and financial assistance to projects like" the Taylorville Energy Center.

Yes, that's right. Shimkus just voted to end a policy he called "imperative" two years ago when it might have helped a "clean coal" hoax in his district. That double standard is what he calls an "all of the above" energy policy.

Will Sangamon county turn away green jobs?

A proposal is currently before the Sangamon County Board that would end a project to create local green jobs and clean energy. I decided to check out rumors I've been hearing that the county board may kill a proposed wind farm and there's definitely reason for concern.

The county has a "moratorium" on wind farms while it considers zoning rules. The current rules require turbines to be 1,000 feet from any structure and 1,200ft from a neighboring property line. That's already the most restrictive setback requirement in Illinois. The next largest setback rule is 750ft in Peoria county.

I'm told that some Illinois wind power producers dislike the Sangamon county ordinance because it could set a new standard that's too restrictive. Despite that, the company proposing a new local wind farm, Sangamon Wind, still agreed to the rule.

Now, there's a proposed change that would be even more restrictive. The "perimeter setback" to the property line of the project would be increased for turbines over 400ft, like the ones proposed by Sangamon Wind. This would protect pieces of ground on neighboring property from being near a wind turbine even if there are no houses or other structures nearby. It would essentially give landowners veto power over their neighbors who do want to participate in the project.

As if that weren't enough, two county board members offered separate floor amendments at their last meeting extending the perimiter setbacks even further to 1,850ft or 2,640ft. Thankfully, the proposals were postponed but the issue will come back at a future meeting.

I spoke with a representative of Sangamon Wind who told me that the new guidelines would effectively ban wind farms in Sangamon county.

Farmers and other landowners across Illinois sound generally happy with the extra revenue they're getting from hosting wind turbines on their property. The wind industry supported 5,000-10,000 Illinois jobs in 2010. Could Sangamon become the one county backward enough to turn down good jobs during a recession?



There was some opposition at previous public hearings on the ordinance. Residents near the project had reasonable questions. A few others brought up a long list of far-fetched objections and internet conspiracy theories about wind power generation.

Ultimately, there are some people who just don't want any change to their scenic views of corn and soy fields, even though wind farms preserve the rural nature of the area. It would be ironic if opponents stopped the wind farm only to see the area later developed with a subdivision or mega hog farm.

There's also a great deal of support, including land owners who already agreed to have wind turbines on their property. Added tax revenue will benefit the rural New Berlin school district, which is below the state average on per-pupil spending.

Wind power is facing an unusual level of scrutiny. In contrast, the county board didn't hesitate to approve a dirty energy project in the recent past. An expansion of the Viper Coal mine near Williamsville was not only approved, but given $900,000 in local tax breaks over ten years. They also received $4.7 million in grants from the Illinois Coal Development Fund, and that's hardly the first time the out-of-state owners have been given large coal subsidies.

To my knowledge, Sangamon Wind isn't asking for the same special county tax subsidies or state grants given to Viper mine. Tax revenue from the project will benefit local schools and government.

Sangamon county needs more jobs and the nation needs more clean energy. It's puzzling that the county board is having such a difficult time doing something that should be a no-brainer.

County board elections are happening this year. If a candidate asks for your vote, ask them where they stand on bringing clean energy and green jobs to Sangamon county.

My White House petition: Create clean energy jobs in coal mining communities

The Obama administration created a new petition tool at the White House website. I don't know whether it will have much impact but it looks interesting enough that I'll give it a try. It encourages people to pester their friends about signing a petition. Most of my friends should be used to that by now anyway.

If 5,000 people sign the petition in 30 days then it will be reviewed and receive a response from White House officials. It will surprise no one that I created a petition about clean energy and coal.

Create clean energy jobs in coal mining communities

Every region that bases its economy on coal mining is poor. Many clean energy jobs are being created nationally, but most of them are not in coal mining regions. Instead, coal communities are sold on unproven "clean coal" pipe dreams backed by federal subsidies and Department of Energy loan guarantees. How can real clean energy jobs be directed to coalfield communities so that unemployed miners will have an economic future beyond coal?

If you like it then click the link to sign and we'll see how this petition thing works.

Illinois solar jobs could outnumber coal mining

A few days ago I wrote about the old news that the wind industry already employs more people nationally than coal mining. Grist pointed me toward One Block Off the Grid, which claims they've made a conservative estimate of how many solar industry jobs could be created in each state.

They believe that solar could support nearly 6,000 jobs in Illinois. Less than 4,000 people are employed in mining Illinois coal.



With the lack of federal action, some of the most important progress is happening at the state level. Their analysis grades state solar policies and gives Illinois an A. I assume that's because solar was added to that Illinois' renewable energy portfolio standard that environmental groups advocated. Because the solar portion of the standard won't kick in for several more years, the industry is only beginning to rise in Illinois.

If you're wondering what's going to happen to Illinois' fleet of obsolete coal plants, check out this Washington Post article, which provides a good summary of the likely road ahead. It covers a Congressional Research Office study that offers a more reliable analysis than the hysteria we predictably hear from the coal industry about every proposed regulation. New EPA regulation of coal, plus incentives for renewable energy, are the current Plan-B for dealing with climate change since the Senate refused to vote on cap-and-trade.

We'll hear more shouting about jobs from the coal industry as they fight the transition to new energy sources. It's important to remember that the alternatives to coal will likely provide more jobs than we get from the world's deadliest power source.

Brian Schweitzer talks green jobs at State Fair as wind overtakes coal

I only caught parts of the speech Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer gave at the Illinois State Fair, but I heard him finish by talking about green jobs. It makes sense since that was the most successful part of the federal stimulus bill.

The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining, and it's the fastest growing energy source in the country. There are still people in central Illinois who believe they can boost the regional economy by reviving coal mining. They might as well try to revive the horse and buggy sector. Illinois' future isn't in 19th century energy sources.

Iowa already produces 20% of its power from wind. Illinois is headed the same direction wtih the renewable energy portfolio standard. Rather than getting nostalgic about the last Illinois coal boom, communities that are serious about creating jobs should look to wind, solar and other green job opportunities.

Rick Perry should thank Obama for Texas green job growth

I listened to Rick Perry give his Presidential announcement speech today. He bragged about job growth in Texas and claimed it happened because he cut state government spending. That's an interesting fantasy, but the reality is that much of the job growth in Texas is a direct result of President Obama's green stimulus bill.

According to Recovery.gov, Texas has been awarded over $16 Billion in stimulus funds. Only California received more. Much of that is funding clean energy and efficiency projects. One of many examples is the State Energy Conservation Office award of over $218 million in grants to fund energy efficiency and distributed renewable generation projects around the state, including green job training programs. To give another, Duke Energy received $21 million for an energy storage project at a Texas wind farm.

One of the largest grant recipients is CenterPoint Energy, which was awarded $200 million to install an energy-saving smart grid system in Houston, including 2.2 million smart meters. Since then, CenterPoint was given an award for their economic development efforts with a letter of support from Governor Rick Perry.

Apparently, Rick Perry does support government spending for job creation and he likes it even better when other states pay the bill.

Wind is the fastest growing energy source in America, and Texas has the most wind capacity of any state in the union. This isn't the random work of the market's magical invisible hand. Obama's green stimulus bill boosted the industry by including a wind energy production tax credit and other clean energy incentives.

No state has benefited more from pro-wind policies than Texas. It includes the nation's top five largest wind farms and is the first state to surpass more than 10,000MW of wind installations. In 2010 that resulted in 8,000-9,000 direct and indirect wind power jobs, including manufacturing facilities, plus $30 million in lease payments to Texas landowners.

Wind power came through for Texas during recent rolling blackouts. High temperatures stopped some power plants from working, including coal and natural gas plants. In contrast, wind stayed reliable, providing more megawatts than the industry is expected to supply during peak summer demand.

To be fair, the Texas legislature deserves partial credit for enacting a renewable energy portfolio standard in 1999. It mandates that the state ramp up its use of renewable energy and currently the targets are expected to be met ahead of schedule. President Obama has made a similar proposal for the nation. Once again, the solution that's working best directly contradicts Perry's free-market-anarchy rhetoric in campaign speeches.

Dear Governor Perry:
On behalf of the environmental community I'd like to say, "you're welcome!" We're glad that you were able to create thousands of green jobs in Texas with the help of federal and state incentives. Environmental groups worked hard to enact those policies. You may thank us in return by dropping the fantasy explanation for job growth and start showing support for the green job stimulus spending policies that worked so well for Texas.

Your Environmental Road Trip a hit on Route 66

"YERT: Your Environmental Road Trip" screened to a packed house at Liberty Brew & View Tuesday night. YERT is an official selection of the Route 66 Film Festival, which brought in viewers beyond the usual tree-hugger crowd. Pairing a road trip movie with a film festival held along the classic Mother Road made a perfect match.

Co-Director/Producer Ben Evans and co-star Julie Dingam Evans answered questions for nearly an hour on environmental issues and their experience making the film.



The documentary follows three travelers across all 50 states as they explore unique ways Americans are tackling environmental threats.

YERT is different from many environmental movies in that it's not horribly depressing. There are many excellent documentaries about environmental disasters that I'm glad I've seen, but the experience of watching those movies can be draining. YERT skips the gloomy warnings of impending climate doom, which most of us have already seen, and moves right into exploring the innovative, interesting and ingenious ways those problems are being solved on the coasts and deep in the heartland.



The quick jumps from state to state and issue to issue makes the film a kind of ADD experience. That should make it perfect for college campuses but the baby boomer crowd at the screening loved it too. The fast-paced way they cover many different ideas makes the movie's above average length easy to digest.

Evans said they have hundreds of hours of footage they couldn't fit into the final version. It would be nice to see them put it to use in a TV series after the feature film makes the rounds. In the mean time, you can view extra clips and check for screenings at the YERT website. Don't miss any chance you get to see this film!

My guest editorial on Springfield's energy future

The State Journal-Register published my guest editorial today.

...

We were warned.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a major report representing the scientific consensus on impacts of man-made climate change.

For the Midwest, the report warned of heavy rainfall and unpredictable storms that would result in more severe flooding, delays in the planting season for farmers and disruption during harvest season. It perfectly described the weather trend of every year since the report was issued. One-hundred-year floods and extreme storms are part of the nation’s weekly weather report. It’s impossible to ignore the dramatic disruption to Earth’s natural climate patterns as extreme weather disasters are becoming the new normal.

Globally, we’ve seen that the panel’s predictions were not entirely accurate. Scientists now admit that the impacts of climate change are happening faster than many expected. Illinoisans are currently measuring the consequences of climate change in flooded homes, lost livelihoods, and reduced crop yields.

Coal power plants are the top source of man-made pollutants that cause global warming. While Congress has failed to take decisive action, Springfield and the state of Illinois can be proud of our leadership in the transition to clean energy. Illinois’ renewable energy portfolio standard requires a gradually increasing amount of our power to come from clean sources.

The standard already has created local jobs in the rapidly growing wind industry.

City Water, Light and Power became a national model by investing in wind energy, ramping up customer energy efficiency programs, shutting down an outdated coal plant and improving pollution controls on its other plants. And providing clean power hasn’t stopped CWLP from offering more reliable service and cheaper rates than neighboring utilities.

Others will be compelled to follow Springfield’s example. Operators of outdated coal plants will increasingly be forced to bear the true cost of pollution, whether it’s through a cap-and-trade program or EPA regulation that requires plant upgrades. Utilities that choose to be overly reliant on obsolete coal plants will be hit hardest by these changes, while those who make early investments in clean energy will benefit most.

As owners of our public utility, the people of Springfield must decide our energy future. The use of wind energy helps to green our current power supply, but Springfield has yet to make a significant investment in clean energy sources within city limits.

Now is the time for CWLP to begin offering incentives for distributed renewable energy, such as rooftop solar panels. As a source of peak power supply during hot summer days, small-scale solar will help CWLP remain financially sound while helping customers lower their utility bills and increase property values. In addition to customer rebates, other communities have launched innovative financing programs that allow property owners to install clean energy projects with little up-front cost and repay on their utility or property tax bill. As we grow, the city should explore ways to encourage the use of clean energy in new buildings as well, especially those receiving TIF district funds.

City leaders should take note that other communities are receiving significant state and federal funds to build large-scale solar projects. The opportunity to create jobs with a similar project can only be realized if the city is seeking those opportunities.

Being the owner of a public utility presents Springfield with unique opportunities for economic development. The refrigerator rebate program already helped to attract an appliance recycling center. Similarly, we can attract more green jobs by building infrastructure for electric cars, developing a mo-dern smart metering system, making it easier to install sources of clean energy, and pursuing further recommendations by the Cool Cities Advisory Council.

The most successful area of national economic growth is in green jobs, whether it’s installing wind farms, manufacturing solar panels, or building hybrid cars. Springfield can protect the environment and create jobs at the same time if we have the courage to choose a new energy future.

Will Reynolds is chairman of the Sierra Club Illinois Chapter.

It's getting hot out here

It would be nice for a utility to have a series of rooftop solar panels or a large scale solar installation to act as a peak power supply on a hot, sunny day like this.

Infinite Saudi Arabias of energy

Anyone who follows Illinois energy issues will hear coal lobbyists and their politicians say our state is "the Saudi Arabia of coal." It has become a well worn cliche.

I heard on the Colbert Report that the natural gas industry upped the ante by claiming that America has TWO Saudi Arabias of natural gas.

But I know who can beat them all. America currently possesses INFINITE Saudi Arabias of wind and solar energy. Both coal and natural gas will eventually become more expensive to extract and supplies will run out. But, we'll never run out of the wind and sun. If someday the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining then the planet won't be able to support human life anyway.

We have two valuable resources we need to extract. Conveniently, no one has to destroy land or poison water supplies while mining wind and solar resources. We don't even have to spend billions on ports, roads, rail lines, and river levies to transport clean energy. Wind and solar come to us!

We can't leave these resources in the air!

Don't miss the Illinois Times clean energy issue!

If you haven't picked up the March 3-9 issue of Illinois Times yet be sure to grab one today. The "Greening of Springfield" edition is one of those that makes IT the news source of record for environmental issues in the Springfield area.

Of course, I'm biased toward the article that covers the Cool Cities advisory council and quotes me about how the city election is important in determining Springfield's clean energy future. This election is the time to discuss whether we want our public utility to be totally reliant on coal or whether we're going to continue investments in clean energy and efficiency projects after the CWLP/Sierra Club agreement runs out.

I wrote an email to several editors and reporters at the State Journal-Register suggesting that the clean energy future of CWLP is a vital issue they should be discussing with candidates and including in their election coverage. I received no response. They continue to focus on CWLP porn and their general dislike of Todd Renfrow.

I guess I'm in the mood to complain so I can't help but nitpick that the IT cover is overgenerous when it states that "LLCC leads the way to renewable energy." If LLCC has shown any leadership it's in applying for grants. The Green Center remained nothing but a website for over a year because that's all that was grant funded. The college has shown no overall environmental vision, only recently formed a sustainability committee, and didn't originally plan to make the new workforce development center LEED certified.

If anything, they've been dragged late into the game by national trends and federal stimulus funding. If those grants aren't renewed it's likely that LLCC will abandon the Green Center just as quickly as they dropped the Community Volunteer Center and the adult education programs they gutted when state funding was in question. We have to thank Obama's stimulus bill and the state of Illinois for shoving LLCC in the right direction.

Wind powering central Illinois job growth

It's time to stop calling central Illinois "coal country." Several recent articles show the path of Illinois' new energy future.

The Bloomington Pantagraph reports that a wind turbine manufacturer in Clinton (North of Decatur) is adding new jobs and a third shift. The company President had encouraging news for the prospect of more job growth in the Illinois wind industry.

"The Midwest is really still the best market for the wind industry in the U.S.," Cole said this week. "With all the facilities we have, the Midwest seems to be, through these economic times, holding up the best."

The expansion was a welcome surprise Thursday for officials in DeWitt County, where Trinity is one of the five largest employers and taxpayers, and manufacturing is the No. 2 sector. The county posted a jobless rate of 8.5 percent last month, down from a year ago but still about double pre-recession levels.

It's no accident that wind power is blowing jobs our way. A Reuters article explains several factors helping to promote the industry in Illinois, including the Renewable Portfolio Standard pushed by environmental groups. It requires the state to gradually ramp up renewable energy use to 25% by 2025.

That's why new jobs are being created for yet another wind farm in Pike County.

Using the U.S. Department of Energy’s latest Jobs and Economic Development Impacts (JEDI) Wind Energy Model, Affinity Wind estimates that the wind farm could create some $44 million in local spending during construction and $3 million per year once completed. More than $1 million in annual property taxes and several hundred thousand dollars in lease payments to landowners could be generated, along with 600 new jobs.

Those numbers are only for the Pike County project. Estimates for the rest of the state are even more impressive.

According to a June 2010 economic impact study by the Center for Renewable Energy at Illinois State University, wind farm development has created about 10,000 full-time jobs during construction periods and nearly 500 permanent jobs in rural Illinois, totaling $509 million and $25 million in payroll, respectively.

Annual property taxes generate $18 million for local economies, while landowners see $8.3 million each year in extra income through leases to wind farm developers. Overall, the center expects the projects to generate $3.2 billion in economic benefits over the life of the projects.

Clean energy sources are creating jobs without the big rate hikes and subsidies being sought by the coal industry. In the last several years we've seen job growth in communities embracing the new energy economy, while several towns chasing clean coal pipe dreams have met disappointment.

Politicians and development officials who only look to the past by pushing coal as an economic base are doing a disservice to their community.

Wind turbine maker plans to hire 1,000 (but not in Illinois)

I wish that headline were about Illinois but it's happening in Colorado.

Vestas Wind Systems said Tuesday it will hire more than 1,000 people at three Colorado plants that manufacture wind turbine components after receiving a surge of orders for the electricity generators in the U.S. and Canada.

Vestas plans to hire the new workers over the next 18 months, bringing the company's Colorado work force to about 2,200...

Those jobs could be locating to downstate Illinois if our political leaders were focused on attracting new energy jobs instead of peddling clean coal pipe dreams.



I'm reminded of an old article quoting State Representative Brandon Phelps.

He also said he will continue to represent coal mining and agricultural interests in Springfield despite the push for "green jobs," and opposition by the Sierra Club to mining.
"I'm fighting the Sierra Club every day to keep mines open."

Coal mines aren't creating new jobs. The one bright spot in the national economy is the growth of green jobs. Politicians subservient to the coal industry like Phelps and John Shimkus are doing a good job of keeping Southern Illinois' economy outdated and desperate.

Maybe next year they'll propose a jobs plan based on brand new horse and buggy technology. Or a plant to manufacture old-timey cotton gins and quill pens. That's the kind of innovative thinking I would expect from any politician who thinks coal is the future.

The Senate Democratic Hall of Shame

Earlier this month I wrote about Obama's veto threat against the Murkowski resolution. Murkowski would have removed the EPA's authority to regulate global warming pollution from large new sources like coal power plants.

Thankfully, the resolution failed. In the process we were able to see which Senators place the short-term interests of the fossil fuel industry over the health and safety of American citizens. These are the Senators more interested in having the approval of Massey Coal, BP, and the rest of the fossil fuel industry.

The list of fossil fuel lackeys includes EVERY Republican in the US Senate. They all voted for it.

Some of them said in debate that the climate crisis should be dealt with by Congressional action rather than through EPA regulation. It's impossible to take these arguments seriously since most of them oppose any meaningful climate change bill.

I sometimes point out to conservative or libertarian friends that Republicans leaders represent the interests of large corporations over the average person and small business owners. They often respond that it's not so clear cut because some Democrats also represent corporate special interests first.

The Murkowski resolution is a perfect example. Six Democrats joined Republicans in supporting Murkowski's sloppy wet kiss on the lips of those companies most responsible for the climate change crisis. These are the Democrats who compromise the message and effectiveness of the entire party.

Evan Bayh - Indiana
Mary Landrieu - Louisiana
Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
Ben Nelson - Nebraska
Mark Pryor - Arkansas
Jay Rockefeller - West Virginia

It's particularly sad to see Mary Landrieu accept the risk of another Katrina rather than stand up to the oil industry that's so powerful in her state. It's pathetic that Jay Rockefeller would rather keep his vote and his state's economy subservient to the declining coal industry instead of embracing a new energy future.

These kind of Democrats are why having a 59 vote majority isn't enough. This is a vote that makes me deeply disappointed to see conservative Democrat Blanche Lincoln win her primary. When she's replaced by a Republican it probably won't make much difference on the difficult votes that really matter. Thanks for nothing, Bill Clinton.





On a side note, wasn't it bizarre for Lincoln to complain about "outside interests" supporting her opponent after all the money she took from the US Chamber of Commerce, the fossil fuel industry and other outside corporate special interests she serves over Arkansas citizens? And why didn't more media outlets mention her hypocritical contradiction? Why should unions with members in the state be the only ones who count as "outsiders."

But getting back to the topic, the negative side of this victory is that media pundits are using it to to predict that climate change legislation won't pass the Senate this year. These are largely the same pundits who made identical predictions about health care and continually suggested Obama would give up.

There are many important issues facing the country right now. But, for no issue is the price of delay so enormous.

Every year we stall will result in more severe climate disasters experienced by today's youth and future generations who will suffer the consequences of inaction by the US Senate gerontocracy. It's a generational injustice being committed against everyone under 40.

Obama's campaign platform focused on health care, climate change, getting out of Iraq, and government intervention to stop the economic decline. There's only one item left. The time for change is now.

WAND TV Dallman 4 interview

WAND news interviewed me about the new Dallman 4 power plant.

Those who haven't seen me in a while may notice that I've aged significantly. Either that or someone forgot to tell me I was appointed General Manager of CWLP. That's a scary thought, isn't it? I think it's a pretty good report, despite the name mix-up.