The rise of dedicated public fact checking services like PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and the Washington Post Fact Checker has been a generally good thing. However, these services can go astray when they decide that a statement which would be improved with clarification is “false” – a practice that weakens the “false” label when it is applied to an outright falsehood.

This unfortunate phenomena was on display when the Rhode Island edition of PolitiFact critiqued a comment by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about the interplay between the deployment of renewable energy resources like solar panels and ending U.S. dependence on imported fossil fuels, like the oil that is refined into gasoline.

In their critique, the Providence Journal staff writing and editing the item examine comments that Senator Whitehouse made in support of federal tax incentives for renewable energy:

“Let me just bring it home,” Whitehouse said, as he referred to his notes. “In Rhode Island, this [grant program] has facilitated solar panel installations on three new bank branches. The TD Bank has opened up in Barrington, in East Providence and in Johnston, Rhode Island. Those projects created jobs, they put people to work, they lowered the cost for these banks of their electrical energy, and they get us off foreign oil and away, step by step, from these foreign entanglements that we have to get into to defend our oil supply.”

The Politi-Fact RI folks decide to look narrowly at the question of whether electricity production from solar panels always and consistently directly reduces use of oil.  This is definitely part of the story and, as I emphasized when I spoke to their reporter when he was working on the “piece, it is a direct relationship that used to be more present back in the days (not too many years ago) when more of our electricity came from oil. But is still a real relationship, especially during the days in the summer when air conditioning drives up electric demand to its highest levels of the year.  As ISO New England (the operator of the regional electric grid) told Politi-Fact RI “oil is used more on days when demand for power is high” although the reporters dismiss this reality (despite the fact that these peak hours are when air pollution is at its worst and the fact that the entire system is designed to meet that moment of peak demand) as “isolated.”

Senator Whitehouse was making three points, only one of which is addressed by the simple “displacement” analysis of what generation is pushed out by deployment of new renewable sources:

• Moving to cleaner electricity generation from renewable sources like wind and solar is an essential piece in an overall conversion of our economy and energy system (including energy used to move the wheels on our cars, trucks and buses round and round) away from dirty and imported fossil fuels. In places like East Providence RI where TD Bank (as highlighted by Senator Whitehouse) is installing solar panels on the roof of their branches in close proximity to a Chevrolet dealer selling the Chevy Volt you can seeing that future taking shape.

• Senator Whitehouse’s larger point about ending “foreign entanglements” is of particular significance, moving beyond the question of oil, to people in and around Rhode Island because the largest power plant in what is known in the wholesale electricity world as “Greater Rhode Island” (a geographical label of particular pride and amusement to native Rhode Islanders) is the Brayton Point Power Plant. That facility, just over the border in Somerset Massachusetts, has burnt coal imported from Indonesia and Colombia in recent years.

• And the direct displacement issue is real: while there is less oil used to generate electricity these days it is worth pondering the overlap between peak solar energy generation (do we really need a link to show that it makes more electricity when it is sunny?) and those peak hours of electricity demand during the summer when it is hottest and air conditioners across the region are roaring away.

All of this suggests that the specific comment by Senator Whitehouse that Politi-Fact Rhode Island evaluated are solidly grounded in facts and accurate observations.

As American dependence on foreign oil only grows stronger, high unemployment remains steady, and pollution continues to rise, the current state of domestic affairs seems bleak.  One bright spot, however, aims to address and make a serious dent in these national crises: the electric vehicle (EV).  So bright is the future of EVs that over 180 businesses, municipalities and public interest groups – including the CLF – have signed a statement of support to advance EVs in the U.S.

With the magnitude of national problems and the strong universal support for the EV solution, I set out, as a newbie to EVs, to understand what all the hype is about.

Edison with an electric car in 1913. (Photo credit: americanhistory.si.edu)

While long touted as environmentally friendly and in many aspects superior to fossil fueled vehicles, the EV remains little understood, especially to a novice like myself.  Typically, when I hear EV I think Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid, but as the name implies, these are hybrids of gasoline engines and rechargeable electric batteries.  An EV is different as it runs on 100% electric power, foregoing the need for gasoline, excessive emissions, and perhaps most importantly, excessive prices at the pump.  In fact, using the national average of $ 0.11/kwh, it costs a mere $ 2.75 to fill up an EV Nissan Leaf to travel 100 miles!  To travel 100 miles in my modest Subaru Impreza at my local gas station’s regular unleaded price of $ 3.72, it costs $ 16.90!

The Tesla Roadster, the industry's fastest production EV at 3.7 0-60 mph and 245 mi. range. (Photo credit: Tesla Motors)

But someone like myself may ask: Where do I charge up?  The answer is simple: At home!  While the infrastructure for public charging terminals is still under development, imagine if you could essentially have a fuel station at your home, open 24/7, and charging next to nothing rates.  Well no need to imagine, as home charging stations for EVs are the mainstay of the current EV fleet, with charging times ranging from 3 to 7 hours to charge a car from empty to full.  With prices ranging from $1000-$2200 installed, home charging stations can appear pricey.  But no need to fear the sticker, as you will easily make that cost back in a year, as my Subaru Impreza has an EPA estimated annual fuel cost of approximately $2,500, compared to the EV Nissan Leaf’s annual fuel cost of around $550!

Finally, for those of us who have a hard time conceptualizing a world where cars run on electricity, Nissan has an interesting ad that flips the perspective to a world where everything runs on gasoline; suffice it to say, you don’t want it.

What can the EV do for American job growth?  For starters, EVs have already been successful in jumpstarting job growth and placing the U.S. in a competitive position in the manufacture of EV components.  Within three years, more than 20 different EVs will be on the market, with EVs and their components being built in at least 20 states.  Furthermore, the future of EV infrastructure will provide countless job opportunities for Americans, which will not only strengthen our economy, but do so in an environmentally and economically sustainable way.

While cost savings and job growth are both attractive benefits to EVs, perhaps the greatest benefit is to environmental and public health.  The transportation sector is a significant cause of both global warming and air pollution, which affects everything from the global climate to those with sensitivity to air pollutants, such as asthmatics.  EVs have little or no tailpipe emissions, and even when power plant emissions are factored in, still have lower overall emissions of CO2 and other harmful pollutants, than traditional fuels.

Finally, where utilities provide clean energy options – natural gas, wind, solar, etc. – EVs could become truly zero emission vehicles, turning one of the America’s biggest environmental and public health problems into a solution for the world to follow.

As America faces some of the most difficult economic and environmental times in our nation’s history, the EV stands as a simple solution to tough problems.  It is not often that a decision can be made that saves you money, creates jobs and improves environmental quality.  The EV does all three.  The only thing standing in the way of success is ultimately the consumer, of which I will happily become one at the next chance I get, knowing that my EV will essentially pay for itself, while creating American jobs and saving the environment.

Editor’s note: Cory McKenna is a Cavers Legal Intern at CLF Maine. He is a student at the University of Maine School of Law.

Hotter Temperatures More than Doubled Smog Days in New England

On October 1, the EPA announced that the number of bad air quality days increased from 11 last year to 28 in 2010.  These are also known as “high ozone days” and are triggered when ozone levels exceed the standards EPA has set to protect public health. Excessive ozone, more commonly known as smog, results from a combination of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and heat and sunlight. Even short-term exposure to smog has been shown to shorten lives and cause other severe health impacts, including shortness of breath, chest pain, asthma attacks, and increased hospitalization for vulnerable populations such as the very young, elderly, and those already suffering from lung or heart disease. In children, smog can also result in dramatic long-term impacts such as reduced lung development and function.

The hotter the day, the worse the smog—and that smog is intensified by the increased use of electricity from coal and other fossil fuel-fired power plants when we crank up our air conditioners.  Emissions from cars and trucks add to the dangerous mix, and as climate change progresses, the temperatures continue to rise.

Until now, the greater Boston area had experienced an average of 14 days of 90 degrees or more per year. In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists had estimated that climate change would result in no more than 15-18 days of 90+ degree weather from 2010-2039.

But in 2010, Boston endured 23 days of 90+ degree weather, far outstripping both the annual average and predictions of what that number would be in the future.  Although EPA has proposed stronger emissions limitations for power plants and cars and trucks, the rapid rise in 90+ degree days is a side effect of climate change that has already been set in motion, and it will continue and worsen unless we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal-fired power plants rank as one of the primary culprits when it comes to emitting climate change pollutants and nitrogen oxides.  Across the nation, coal-fired power plants are the second largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions, and here in New England alone, eight coal-fired power plants churn out 10,515 tons of nitrogen oxide a year and millions of tons of carbon dioxide.  By contributing to climate change and increasing smog-forming pollutants, coal-fired power plants pose a major threat to New England’s air quality.  Creating a healthier future for New England means creating a Coal Free New England.  CLF is committed to shutting down each one of these polluting plants by 2020.  Work with CLF to create a thriving, healthy New England.

On an appropriately wet and windy afternoon yesterday in Boston, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act with a vote of 101-52. Modeled after the bill passed by the Senate in February, the Act will streamline the siting process for wind energy projects, making it easier for developers and local authorities alike to incorporate well-designed wind power initiatives into the plan to meet the state’s energy demand. The new legislation is a major step towards building a clean energy economy for Massachusetts and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The bill will now head to a House-Senate conference committee for further discussion.

Here’s what Sue Reid, director of CLF’s Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Change Program, had to say on the issue:

“Massachusetts needs to tap into its abundant wind energy resources in order to meet its clean energy goals. We are delighted that the Massachusetts House of Representatives has joined the Senate in passing this wind siting reform bill that is crucial to meeting the state’s energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preserving our natural resources. This new legislation will make it easier to develop well-designed wind energy projects. Today’s vote represents a key victory in the state’s ongoing efforts to reduce our dependence on dirty fossil-fuel fired power in Massachusetts.”

Read CLF’s full press statement>>
Learn more about CLF’s renewable energy initiatives in MA and throughout New England>>