I’m one of those people who believes that climate change is the biggest challenge facing the planet, but I was baffled about how to react when I saw the Polar Bear ad for the Nissan Leaf®.  At first I thought it must be an ad by one of the national environmental groups, and I was shocked that they could afford the spot on the opening night of Thursday Night Football®.  When I realized it was an ad for an electric car, I couldn’t decide whether to be thrilled or concerned.  On one hand, I am thankful to see a multi-national corporation embracing the problem of climate change and investing in solutions.  Nissan’s commitment is virtually heroic when compared to the oil and coal industries’ multi-million dollar campaigns to confuse the world about the reality of climate change.  In addition, emissions from cars and trucks are one of the most rapidly growing sources of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States and worldwide, and electric cars are a promising solution. So why couldn’t I just enjoy the moment and applaud a victory in the climate change battle?

Two reasons.

First, fueling cars on electricity isn’t as effective if that electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. This is a real-world example of jumping “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”  If we reduce gasoline use but ramp up coal burning and all the things that come with it—mountaintop removal mining, strip mining, coal ash, mercury pollution and so on—then we reduce positive impacts of electric cars, and  contribute to plenty of other environmental damage.[1] Solving the problem of climate change demands action on all fronts, not just a transformation of the cars we drive, but of the electricity that fuels them and the rest of our society. If electric cars are really going to be part of the solution, then we must work to get renewable energy flowing through the transmission lines that power them. At the same time, we must also work to reduce our overall energy demand through energy efficiency and other new technologies.

Second, I love polar bears. Sometimes I almost cry during the Coke® ads, but I worry that when people see us pointing to polar bears and penguins as the victims of climate change, they will fail to see it as a problem that impacts people.  I understand that pictures of the wreckage from Hurricane Katrina,  victims of flooding in the Midwest or Pakistan or countless other “natural disasters” intensified by climate change are painful to see and painful to contemplate, but they are just as much the symbol of climate change as polar bears.

I know I can’t expect Nissan to focus its ad campaign on maximizing awareness and action on climate change, and that creating a market for and successfully putting electric cars on the road is already a big step forward; however, I hope ads like Nissan’s, will move people to think about all of the everyday choices we make that affect the climate and not just what kind of cars we drive Here are just a few of the ways that you can fight climate change:

1. Maximize energy efficiency at home. Check out some of the incentives and rebates available.
2. Ask your electric provider if they have a renewable energy option. National Grid offers a GreenUp option, and NStar offers NStar Green and a number of other providers.
3. Bike or use public transit whenever you can.  MassBike provides great information and training on commuting.
4. Become a CLF member to learn about climate change issues in Massachusetts.

---

[1] Notably, this is less of an issue in areas like New England where natural gas power plants make up the bulk of the electric grid.

While the overarching environmental challenge of our time continues to be global warming we can’t loose sight of the need to confront the other air pollution that threatens the public health.  For those of us who fighting against dangerous pollution from coal fired power plants like Salem Harbor in Massachusetts this is not news – but the fact that a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators (there is a phrase you don’t see much !!) have filed legislation to address this pollution is significant.   Exactly how good a bill is this?  We don’t know as they haven’t released the text and the devil (and god) are in the details.   But it is good to see our Senators paying attention to coal plant pollution !

Meanwhile, Tricia Jedele who runs CLF’s office in Rhode Island is helping to move ahead an effort to focus on the old school environmental value of waste reduction.  Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.  And she points out that the U.S. EPA have produced a very convincing report on how this classic brand of environmental action is good for the climate – bringing us back to global warming again . . .

The NY Times presents some required reading about how improvements in air pollution control technology can have the unpleasant consequence of putting pollution into our waterways.  The problem of contaminated coal ash is one that CLF has engaged for years – back in the year 2000 CLF negotiated a successful settlement with the then-owner of the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants (PG&E) that cleaned up groundwater and land that had been contaminated by toxic coal ash over the course of decades – a settlement that predates the purchase of those power plants (out of bankruptcy) by Dominion – company that has its own checkered history regarding coal ash disposal.

Another manifestation of the same problem comes from the longstanding practice of using ash from coal fired powerplants as a “feedstock” for cement – iconic concrete structures containing coal ash include the Hoover dam, vast swaths of interstate highways and the tunnels and stations of the Washington DC metro.

More recently, coal plants have been awarded “carbon offsets” for selling ash to cement companies on the theory that use of ash “displaces” industrial kilns that produce greenhouse gas pollution while making cement.  Many organizations, including CLF, have expressed strong doubts about this practice – noting that it is simply paying coal plant owners once again for something they would have been doing anyway: turning a waste product into a revenue producing commodity.   A far better course of action, rather than create “rip offsets” that undermine climate protection while bestowing a windfall on polluters is to encourage processes and procedures that slash greenhouse gas emissions from cement kilns.

The increasing levels of toxic metals in the ash as air pollution regulations have tightened, is bringing an end to the practice of using fly ash in cement in projects designated as green under the LEED program of the U.S. Green Building Council and the innovative Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (CHPS).  Academic research strongly suggests that this is increasingly dangerous practice.

The bottom line is clear: coal is laden with toxic materials, and converting coal into energy, whether it be through burning it in the oldest or newest of plants (or even gasifying it)  releases these materials creating a serious toxic waste handling and disposal issue with potentially catastrophic effects if done badly.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in an order issued on September 18, 2009, has sided with the operator of the New England electricity system (ISO-NE) in a dispute with Dominion, the owner of the Salem Harbor Power Plant.

Here is the basic situation:  Dominion has “de-listed” the Salem Harbor Power Plant in the upcoming “Forward Capacity Auction”.   This means that it is virtually certain that in the 2012-2013 period that the plant will not be obligated to run and will not received capacity payments that power plants receive when they have such an obligation.   While the plant could still run and be paid for the electricity it made the act of de-listing means that the owner of the plant thinks there is a significant chance it will not be running during that year.  If, however, ISO-NE, finds that one (or more) of the  power generating units at the plant are “needed for reliability” then Dominion would receive payments set at the level of the “de-list bids” submitted this year.

Here is the dispute:  ISO-NE argued that Dominion had set the amount of its “de-list bids” to high.  Dominion had calculated those bids assuming that all pollution control equipment put into the plant would have to be depreciated (basically paid off) within three years.  ISO-NE argued that this was inappropriate. Local newspapers took note of this dispute.

CLF, and the Massachusetts Attorney Generals office, agreed with ISO-NE that Dominion’s bids were inappropriate.  CLF, pressing beyond the polite wording of ISO-NE’s filing, argued that the only appropriate circumstance for the “super-accelerated depreciation” being sought by Dominion would be appropriate only if Dominion were proposing to permanently de-list the plant.  The absurdity of Dominion’s position was highlighted by the fact that it was contradicted by public statements of its own spokesman in a local newspaper.

The Mass. AG, supported by CLF, also raised concerns about the lack of public disclosure of key information about the plant and the lack of auditing of the representations that plant owners like Dominion made to ISO-NE.

FERC, in the order resolving the dispute, accepted the basic logic that ISO-NE and CLF presented, requiring use of the longer depreciation period proposed by ISO-NE.   FERC stated that it could not consider converting a de-list bid from being one-year to permanent at this point in the process – which is essentially a moot point as CLF floated that as an idea that would only apply if the shorter depreciation period was accepted, which it was not. Also, FERC did not squarely address the issues of public disclosure and auditing, relying on earlier decisions that will be continued to be criticized.

But in the end this was squarely a defeat for Dominion: their bluff of calculating costs as if the plant was shutting down, but not actually committing to do so, was called.

These battles will continue.  The likely next dispute will center around “reliability” as all of these numbers games are meaningless if ISO-NE recognizes that the improved transmission system, new generation and rising amounts of energy efficiency and “demand response” (slashing energy use at peak hours during the summer) means that the plant can retire without causing any shortages in the regional electricity system.  They are very close to doing so (having found that other nearby plants can safely retire) and are likely to reach the right result here – although it might take some encouragement.

The Boston Globe today presents an excellent editorial on the misguided proposal for the power plant in Somerset Massachusetts:

ONE OF THE state’s “Filthy Five’’ coal-burning power plants is trying to turn itself into a Cinderella of clean-burning electricity generation. Since the makeover includes a first-in-the-nation commercial use of a certain technology to reduce dirty emissions, the state should give it a closer environmental review. (MORE)

This particular proposal is one that CLF is engaging in many ways, including in a pending court case (somerset-sc-clfs-memo-suppt-of-jdgmt-8-10-09).  And earlier on in the legal process this plant was (among other issues) discussed in an Op-Ed by Dr. James Hansen.  It has been the subject of ongoing upset, protests and opposition.

If you want to support our work on cases like this – go for it – or just comment below if you have a local coal fired power plant giving you gas.