By Henry Robertson, Energy Chair
In November, the Midwestern Governors Association, comprising 12 states, held a two-day summit on climate change and energy security. It concluded with the Midwest Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord signed by the governors of nine states and the premier of Manitoba. The accord sets greenhouse gas reduction goals and calls for a regional cap-and-trade system. Two other states did not sign the accord but did endorse an Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform that pledges to meet specific goals on energy efficiency, renewables and biofuels.
Only Missouri was a complete no-show. Governor Matt Blunt’s administration did not even participate in the preparations leading to these agreements.
Perhaps not coincidentally, at about the same time the World Resources Institute issued a report on the global warming emissions of eight Midwestern states and found that Missouri’s increased the most— 26% between 1990 and 2003. Missouri power plant emissions increased 54% in the same period.
On December 19, Gov. Blunt announced that he had belatedly signed parts of the Platform — but not parts dealing with greenhouse gas reductions in any form other than biomass. Biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) may be the latest Missouri business, but we still get 86% of our electricity from coal even though no coal at all is mined in Missouri. Go figure.
Don’t get too excited about the governors’ accord; it relies heavily on “clean coal” remedies like coal gasification and carbon sequestration. We can hope the guvs discover that these are expensive boondoggles and steer their states’ investments to clean energy solutions. Still, it tells us what we’re up against when our governor puts on his blindfold and says, “Show me!” So how do we turn this ship of state around? We’re trying.
Cool Cities
In 2005 the mayor of Seattle started the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Over 700 mayors have now signed this pledge to make their cities reach the carbon reduction goals of the Kyoto Protocol even in the absence of action by the Bush administration. Cool Cities is the Sierra Club’s campaign in support of this effort (see www.coolcities.us). On November 2, 14 mayors in the Kansas City area signed at the same time, with five more unable to attend but promising to sign.
Kansas City itself remains the state’s leader. In the St. Louis area eight towns, including St. Louis, are signed on. Columbia is also a cool city.
However, most cities have a hard time getting started on the task of actually reducing their greenhouse gases (GHG). This is where we come in, offering guidance on how to make it happen The first thing to do is take a greenhouse gas inventory of the city. Data have to be assembled from utilities and other sources to find out how buildings, transportation, waste disposal, etc., consume energy or generate GHG. Energy consumption has to be translated into units of carbon dioxide. The inventory shows the city how to target its GHG reduction efforts.
ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, has software for doing the inventory and training for a city staff person on how to use it. The modest fee for this service and will pay for itself in no time through energy savings, but many smallcity mayors balk at the expense. Alternatives are to tell a city employee to just do it — improvise — or approach a local university about doing it as a student project. The next step is to appoint a committee to write a climate action plan. If a city does not already have an environmental committee, a special committee can be created by city council resolution or mayoral appointment. These are groups of citizen volunteers, but the committee should include, or at least consult with, key city personnel who will be responsible for implementing the plan — the people in public works, purchasing, city vehicle fleet management, etc.
The plan will itemize the energy saving and waste reduction measures the city will need to undertake — energy efficient lighting, building retrofits, right sized vehicle fleets and possibly hybrids, inducements to use public transit, recycling, generating electricity from landfill gas, and so on. Cities usually start with their own operations, but city government only accounts for 3–5% of a town’s GHG emissions. Public outreach and education are essential and will help citizens save energy and money. The city council can also enact policies like energy-efficient building codes.
Climate action plans are easy to find on the internet. They often contain estimates of anticipated cost savings and GHG reductions. Above all, they show what cities across the country can do and are doing to slow global warming.
By now it’s clear that most cities will need continued pressure from their citizens if they’re going to follow through on their pledge. This is a great opportunity for Sierra Club members to make a difference in your communities.
The AECI power plant
Associated Electric Cooperatives, Inc., has received a draft construction permit from the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR’s) Air Pollution Control Program to build a 660-megawatt coal-fired power plant near the little town of Norborne in Carroll County, 60 miles east of Kansas City. If built, the plant will spew 6.8 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, plus nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulate matter. These contribute to smog, acid rain, asthma and other respiratory diseases, neurological problems and climate change.
On November 13, DNR held a public hearing on the permit in Norborne. Opponents were there in force (see related article in this issue).
Students with the Washington University Interdisciplinary Environmental Law Clinic, which is challenging the permit on behalf of the Sierra Club, addressed the problems with the permit. The most glaring omissions are that it does nothing about carbon dioxide or fine particulate matter. Fine particles left from the burning of coal can lodge deep in the lungs, which makes them even more dangerous than coarser particles at causing or aggravating respiratory illness.
Shortly before the hearing, the director of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment took the unprecedented step of denying a permit to a power plant largely because of global warming. We need to pressure DNR director Doyle Childers and Governor Blunt to do the same with AECI’s plant.
The laws must change Another legislative session is upon us. We were encouraged last session by the passage of a net metering law, which lets citizens get full credit from their utilities for electricity they generate themselves and feed back onto the grid, and by the settlement we reached with Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL) over their new power plant. The settlement, called a Collaboration Agreement, binds KCPL and the Sierra Club to work together to advance energy efficiency and renewable energy. This includes trying to pass legislation. For starters, we need to enact incentives for utilities to do efficiency programs that help their customers save energy. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the utilities are in the best position to do this. But they will be less than halfhearted about it until we make it worth their while. The way rates are set now, they lose money if they sell less gas or electricity. The incentives need to be reversed so that efficiency is as profitable. This is a bit weird, trying to browbeat the utilities into taking more money, but we want them to redirect their investments away from big, expensive, polluting power plants, which will cost us all a lot more.
We also want a mandatory Renewable Electricity Standard that requires electric utilities to generate increasing percentages of their power from renewable sources. We want statewide energy efficient building codes. We want better incentives — tax credits or rebates— for people to install their own solar panels or small wind generators.
This is a lot to ask, but you can help by calling or writing your state senator and representative to let them know what you want.