By Carla Klein, Ozark Chapter Director
Sierra Cub activists across the state have been working hard to educate voters on the potential of energy efficiency to help address our state’s present and future electricity needs.
- Springfield voters rejected a new coal-fired power plant, August 3rd. Despite City Utilities best efforts to convince citizens that a dirty coal plant was their only option, Springfield White River Group members formed a coalition and convinced voters there was a better way. They sent City Utilities back to the drawing board and are pushing for a study on energy efficiency.
- Kansas City, Thomas Hart Benton activists have been attending joint meetings with KCP&L (Kansas City Power & Light) and the Public Service Commission, promoting energy efficiency as a resource.
- Columbia Osage members have mounted a successful initiative petition campaign to place a “Renewable Energy Standard requirement on the ballot, giving citizens the opportunity to vote for renewable energy and improved efficiency programs.
Before any of these Cities opt for more polluting coal, they better take a hard look at how much electricity savings can be captured at what price. A wide variety of programs around the country are generating electricity by mining the vast amount of energy we waste — and they are doing it cheaply. Several states are consistently saving power — thus returning what would have been used to the overall supply — for 2 cents per kilowatt hour.
A study conducted by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project suggests that communities can reduce their electricity consumption by 18% by 2010 and by 33% by 2020. This “waste not want not” adage could save consumers and businesses billions of dollars, create jobs and drastically cut air and water pollution. Helping small businesses choose more efficient equipment when they do capital upgrades, subsidizing appliance retailers to feature Energy Star models, upgrading the city traffic lights to Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), or working with builders to include efficient options in new homes are just a few of the saving options. Since Springfield City Utilities (CU) has not actively promoted energy efficiency programming to date, there are a lot of low-hanging fruit to be picked.
Despite new emission technologies, burning coal is still a highly polluting fuel source resulting in serious public health and environmental consequences. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified 67 hazardous pollutants in the emissions from coal burning power plants. Collectively, these pollutants are associated with asthma attacks, respiratory disease, heart disease, neurological disorders, and even premature death. The new coal plant proposed by CU will still add an additional 2.2 million tons of these pollutants into the air each year.
Cities like Seattle, Washington and Austin, Texas have saved millions of dollars for their ratepayers, reduced local pollution, and created local jobs by aggressively pursuing energy efficiency programs. Before citizens are forced to vote again on a new coal plant, the cities should seriously consider all of the options available and rigorously assess what can be achieved by saving energy.