Remember the old “money booths,” in which game show participants got to grab as many dollars as they could before the timer went off? Well, FirstEnergy’s the lucky contestant; everyday Ohioans are supplying the cash, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) is refusing to call time. The PUCO is still deciding whether to […]

By Dick Munson

Remember the old “money booths,” in which game show participants got to grab as many dollars as they could before the timer went off? Well, FirstEnergy’s the lucky contestant; everyday Ohioans are supplying the cash, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) is refusing to call time.

The PUCO is still deciding whether to give final approval to the bailout for the Ohio-based utility giant’s old, inefficient coal plants. Refresher: In October, the PUCO gave a tentative $625-million subsidy to reduce FirstEnergy’s debt associated with its bad business decisions.

PUCO procedures require regulators to solicit responses and reconsider its initial decision. Ohio commissioners, however, have allowed FirstEnergy to start collecting without the final approval. The effective start date of the tariff was January 1, 2017 – nearly five months ago.

Regulators also agreed the utility could keep its windfall even if the tentative bailout were overturned by the PUCO or the Ohio Supreme Court. So as long as the PUCO puts off the decision, FirstEnergy gets to collect the non-refundable fees. In other words, while the regulators twiddle their thumbs, the utility is raking it in.

How much so? By the end of May, FirstEnergy will have collected a massive $55 million from customers. Meanwhile, opponents like Environmental Defense Fund can’t take the case to the Ohio Supreme Court until an official decision is reached.

The PUCO needs to decide soon. The clock is ticking.

Written by page ly

My Big Fear: Because so many countries—195—had to buy into the Paris Accord, the target standards are actually too low to make a significant dent in the problem. But at least it was a beginning, a foundation. And the accord was not binding, nor was it enforceable—that’s doing a lot on trust. But we have no choice.

My Next Big Hope: The Paris Agreement would be refined, over the years, to steadily bring down climate pollution. It would stabilize renewable markets, clear the air of climate denial, and keep us moving productively in the direction of regulating greenhouse gas emissions—something that the Supreme Court has said EPA must do.

My Enormous Anger: Trump, Pruitt, and the fossil fuel polluters just do not care. Do. Not. Care. Not about our children’s health, not about the stability of this planet, not about stewardship of our beautiful world. Not about science, or truth. Certainly not about urgency, or good faith. They do not care. They are willing to crash and burn years of diplomatic work—rather than assume global leadership in solving the problem.

We have a President who does not “believe” in climate change, as if science were a fairy tale. Climate lies among powerful politicians are winning the day. We watch an EPA Administrator do everything in his power to cripple the agency that is supposed to control greenhouse gas emissions, to say nothing of other poisonous forms of air pollution. Today, polluters win.

How can I even think about hope, now?

At least we now have crystal clarity. Trump’s decision to pull out of the historic agreement should blow away any remaining cobwebs of complacency in our minds. This is an administration that is hell-bent on destroying our right to clean air and a stable climate. Let there be no remaining doubt: nothing these people do is constructive, or protective.

The Trump Administration will always put profits over people.

That should make us even fiercer in our determination to fight these cynical and corrupt moves.

Other hope? Leadership that isn’t coming from the White House, but instead from corporate CEOs, business owners, governors, state leaders, ranchers, farmers, insurers, teachers, and parents. People who understand that we do not have years and years to dither around about how best to cut climate pollution. People who understand that our children’s health, and their future, are both at risk if we don’t act now.

Here’s the thing: “Mother” Earth couldn’t care less what we humans decide to do. That’s why I don’t like these maternal references—mothers care about their children. The planet doesn’t care if cockroaches or dinosaurs or humans are crawling across its back.

Only we care. We care enough to exhaust ourselves in this fight. Only we can take the steps necessary to protect a climate in which we have thrived, for thousands upon thousands of years.

Because our President has shown that he doesn’t care, it’s now up to the rest of us.

It’s our time. Through our heartbreak, we must join together to demand the solutions we need, for the children we love.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

What you need to know about Trump's retreat from the Paris climate agreement

This post was first published by New York Daily News.

President Trump’s reckless decision to leave the Paris climate agreement will live in infamy.

This is a retreat from America’s role as world leader – one that ignores overwhelming scientific evidence and the advice of more than 1,000 business leaders who urged him stand up for our clean energy economy.

It will hurt the United States far more than it hurts the rest of the world. And that’s saying a lot, because the global damage will indeed be considerable.

The most obvious consequence, for people everywhere, will be a slowdown in the fight to reduce the pollution that causes climate change – at the very moment we need to step up. That will mean more deaths from heat waves, extreme weather and disease; a deepening refugee crisis as populations shift in reaction to weather and agricultural changes, and an increase in the price we must pay to solve this problem.

Such pollution already takes a toll on public health. The president’s retreat in the face of climate change means Americans must now continue to breathe dirty emissions from power plants and cars.

What will we say to our children and grandchildren when they ask: “Why did you do so little to avert a crisis you could have prevented?”

Dire consequences for U.S. businesses and workers

Trump’s misguided decision will also fuel resentment toward the U.S. and make things more difficult for American business.

Businesses want to locate where their markets are. By pulling out of the Paris climate accord, Trump sends them a clear signal that clean energy companies should look elsewhere.

We’ll be hobbled in the global race for clean energy businesses and jobs, potentially the most important economic prize of the 21st century. China and Europe are already vying for the leadership role on clean energy that the president just ceded.

Trump’s first 100 days: 4 worst and 1 good action

That’s why so many investors and CEOs were urging the president to stay in.Fortunately, the Paris Agreement is strong enough to withstand this blow. Other world leaders have made it clear they will move ahead on their Paris commitments with our without the U.S.

The European Union and China are reportedly preparing to announce new joint climate actions as I write. By pulling out of the deal, we are isolating ourselves diplomatically and economically while siding with the only two outlier nations – Syria and Nicaragua – that refused to sign the climate pact. 

It did not have to be this way.

Why the Paris climate agreement really matters

For decades, the world struggled to come together to face the threat of climate change.

Nations argued over who was responsible and who should contribute to the solution. Developing nations pointed the finger at the advanced economies that had already emitted so much. Those countries, in turn, demanded that the fastest-growing developing countries also do their part.

Finally, in 2015, virtually every country in the world – big and small, rich and poor – came together in an unprecedented show of global unity and made a deal that allowed each country to make its own plan, but also held them accountable for reducing pollution.

This historic breakthrough brought tremendous international credit to the country that helped pull the world together: the United States.

Now that Trump has turned his back on all of that, his decision to shirk U.S. leadership responsibilities will hover over diplomatic discussions, trade negotiations and major business deals. We will be the only major nation dodging our duties, something other countries won’t forget.

Our president has made a reckless, unforced error.

America is making giant leaps – backward

This is the latest in a series of administration decisions that move us backward on climate, public health and the environment.

The president wants to slash the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration’s budget by almost one third, and his EPA chief – who advocated for withdrawal from Paris – is busy dismantling the environmental standards that keep our air and water clean and safe.

But the president’s announcement must not – and will not – be the last word on whether America leads or retreats on climate change.

Join us as we fight back

Trump’s announcement must not – and will not – be the last word on whether America leads or retreats on climate change.

Companies such as Citigroup are already saying the private sector should be able to participate in the Paris climate deal. Many of them have emissions reductions targets similar to the Paris commitments made by nations.

Businesses, engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists – indeed, all of us – must continue to pursue practical solutions to reduce the pollution that is driving climate change at such a dangerous pace.

If there can be a silver lining to this day, it will be that Trump’s retreat from the Paris climate accord becomes a galvanizing moment for the majority of Americans who support clean energy and climate action.

As these women and men stand up for their children and adopt clean energy in their own lives, they will join the myriad cities, states, companies and nations around the world who are leading the way to a cleaner, healthier future – even as the president tries to go backward.

EDF Action Tell Congress to step up and act on climate change Anonymous June 1, 2017 - 03:53

See comments

Comments

I am so upset with this man who cares nothing about Earth and the natural world, and who wants to undo 40+ years of environmental progress. Hopefully, other countries, individual businesses and states will continue to move forward with the policies set forth by the Paris agreement.

Margaret McGinnis June 1, 2017 at 4:26 pm

This is appalling and unconscionable! We can only hope the state and city governments, and our citizenry, will do all they/we can do to combat his ignorance and irresponsibility!

Marilyn Nall June 1, 2017 at 5:15 pm

It's already happening - the real of the world is moving on without us. We've stepped down from a position of global leadership.

Anne Brown June 1, 2017 at 6:41 pm

IDIOT !!!!!

wayne wall June 2, 2017 at 11:28 am

Trump is absolutely an idiot. His rambling speech about pulling out of the Paris accord was alarming evidence that he can't even read a prepared speech and stay on topic. Not only is he wrong he is truly an idiot. From the hundred of people in the Rose Garden the only applause he received was from his staff. The rest sat there in disbelief of the withdrawal and his inability to even read. What an idiot.

John Wayne June 2, 2017 at 11:39 am

I fear it will require an in-your-face disaster to get the world's attention enough to take substantial action.

Cathy Pohlman June 2, 2017 at 3:47 pm

What, with Donald John Trump's retreat from the Paris climate agreement -- is it now time to start the impeachment process?

AUSTIN WESLEY … June 2, 2017 at 6:32 pm

45th is owned by the Koch Brothers and their cabal as well as by Russia. This group is owned by oil. To pledge to the Paris Agreement is to go against oil, gas, and coal.

45th fights clean air as though he can't breathe it. There is nothing hidden here. All he cares about is his own wealth, which I think is dwindling. He cares nothing about this country. He needs to be impeached yesterday!

Hopefully this country will come to its senses and we will be welcomed back into the world community. Meanwhile, he will boast about all of the money he saved us by not having to subsidize poorer countries for decreasing their pollution.

S. Dwyer June 6, 2017 at 5:56 pm

In reply to WHAT WITH DONALD JOHN TRUMPS by AUSTIN WESLEY …

The article says nothing except ranting against Trump. No details whatsoever. Specifically it does not mention that the majority of principles are already present in U.S. federal and state legislation

roberto tassi June 3, 2017 at 9:46 am

Thank you for reading Fred's blog post and for your comment, Roberto. Which federal and state laws, specifically, are you referring to?

Karin Rives
EDF Voices editor

Karin Rives June 5, 2017 at 11:24 am

In reply to The article says nothing by roberto tassi

Early on in this article it is mentioned that one aspect of not honoring our agreement to the Paris accords is that America will no longer be the world's leader in . . .

I hope in the deepest part of my soul that America is no longer the world's leader in any sense of the word. For America has lost its heart. It is a fractured country with cultural of values that are neither civil nor decent.

The often quoted statement or facsimile, of Nelson Mandala surely applies here: “A Nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but it's lowest ones.” That is, the most vulnerable citizens: its poor, its disabled, its sick and its elderly. None of these groups are on any high-priority list that I see coming from our federal administration. Not only are they not being treated with dignity, but they are being made to shoulder the burden of the making of further wealth by those who are disgustingly wealthy.

Are we serfs to the billionaires or even the millionaires? Why in heaven's good name would any right-minded person want to claim that exalted status as ours. Please, let another nation with higher-minded goals and with some integrity please take the lead or at least serve with guidance from the rest of the world.

Jill Sarkady June 3, 2017 at 5:50 pm Add new comment

By Tom Murray

Our businessman president just flunked one of the most important tests of his presidency: failing to listen to business leaders on the Paris climate agreement.

Despite the hundreds of companies and corporate CEOs calling for continued U.S. leadership on climate – in full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, on the Low Carbon USA website, and in direct outreach to the administration – Trump chose to side with the laggards. This is deeply disappointing and will harm American workers and business by undermining our competitiveness in the global clean energy economy.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, however, will not stem the tide of American businesses taking action to stabilize the climate and safeguard our planet. Private sector leaders, unlike our president, have moved beyond the false choice of a healthy economy or a healthy environment; we need both. Which is why leading companies and investors are poised to deliver clean air, clean water and clean energy in ways that increase jobs, incomes and competitiveness.

While the Trump administration has ceded global leadership on climate, corporate America is moving ahead with plans to invest in clean energy and cut emissions. Long-term, global competitiveness demands it.

Leadership on climate and energy is driven by long-term economics, not short-term politics.

American business won’t back down from this latest challenge. In fact, it seems the business community is more motivated on climate than ever before. Cargill CEO David MacLennan summed it up best: “Cargill has no intention of backing away from our efforts to address climate change in our supply chains around the world and in fact this would inspire us to work even harder.”

Companies need to forge ahead by pursing aggressive science-based, emissions reduction targets and expanding their efforts to slash emissions throughout their operations and supply chains. Take PepsiCo, which recently announced that its climate goal to reduce absolute GHG emissions across its value chain by at least 20% by 2030 has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative.

With the U.S. out of Paris, corporate leaders must continue to advance environmental and climate…
Click To Tweet

Business leaders can use Hewlett Packard Enterprises as a model. The information technology company created the world’s first comprehensive supply chain management program based on climate science and requires 80% of manufacturing suppliers to set science-based emissions reduction targets by 2025.

And just last week – despite the unsettled future of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement – Tyson Foods announced it will develop science-based greenhouse gas and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

These high-impact corporate initiatives need to be applauded, and the tools and resources used to achieve these goals should be replicated across industries.

Business will not allow positive climate momentum to come to a halt

The clean energy momentum generated by business over the last decade will not come to an abrupt halt. Companies like Apple, AB InBev and Walmart will not turn their back on the clean energy commitments they’ve made to customers, employees and the planet. Investors, like we saw with ExxonMobil, will keep pressure on companies to clearly report how climate change is affecting business.  And CEOs like General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt or Tesla's Elon Musk, who have been outspoken about remaining in the Paris agreement, will not back away from their company’s climate efforts because they understand how leaving Paris will make it harder to do business around the world. These voices need to keep encouraging others in the business community to join their efforts.

What is the plan? Inaction is unacceptable.

In this new post-Paris world, companies must now demand that the Trump administration and Congress deliver a plan to address climate change. Leading cities, states and companies will continue to move forward, but won’t be enough to deliver the reductions required from the world’s second largest emitter.  Smart climate and energy policy is required to provide the deep emission reductions the world needs and the certainty that business needs for planning, investment decisions, and job growth.

Unfortunately, the president failed to listen to the business community he was once a proud part of for so many years. With the President lagging behind, real business leaders will continue to step up lead the way to a thriving clean energy economy; EDF will have their back. We will continue to engage with business in this time of uncertainty to help shape a future where both business and nature prosper.

If the president won’t listen to business leaders in the future on climate, I hope he will follow the words of one of his favorite presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who said, “I walk slowly, but I never walk backward.”

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Tom Murray

Our businessman president just flunked one of the most important tests of his presidency: failing to listen to business leaders on the Paris climate agreement.

Despite the hundreds of companies and corporate CEOs calling for continued U.S. leadership on climate – in full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, on the Low Carbon USA website, and in direct outreach to the administration – Trump chose to side with the laggards. This is deeply disappointing and will harm American workers and business by undermining our competitiveness in the global clean energy economy.

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, however, will not stem the tide of American businesses taking action to stabilize the climate and safeguard our planet. Private sector leaders, unlike our president, have moved beyond the false choice of a healthy economy or a healthy environment; we need both. Which is why leading companies and investors are poised to deliver clean air, clean water and clean energy in ways that increase jobs, incomes and competitiveness.

While the Trump administration has ceded global leadership on climate, corporate America is moving ahead with plans to invest in clean energy and cut emissions. Long-term, global competitiveness demands it.

Leadership on climate and energy is driven by long-term economics, not short-term politics.

American business won’t back down from this latest challenge. In fact, it seems the business community is more motivated on climate than ever before. Cargill CEO David MacLennan summed it up best: “Cargill has no intention of backing away from our efforts to address climate change in our supply chains around the world and in fact this would inspire us to work even harder.”

Companies need to forge ahead by pursing aggressive science-based, emissions reduction targets and expanding their efforts to slash emissions throughout their operations and supply chains. Take PepsiCo, which recently announced that its climate goal to reduce absolute GHG emissions across its value chain by at least 20% by 2030 has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative.

With the U.S. out of Paris, corporate leaders must continue to advance environmental and climate…
Click To Tweet

Business leaders can use Hewlett Packard Enterprises as a model. The information technology company created the world’s first comprehensive supply chain management program based on climate science and requires 80% of manufacturing suppliers to set science-based emissions reduction targets by 2025.

And just last week – despite the unsettled future of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement – Tyson Foods announced it will develop science-based greenhouse gas and outcome-based water conservation targets for their entire supply chain.

These high-impact corporate initiatives need to be applauded, and the tools and resources used to achieve these goals should be replicated across industries.

Business will not allow positive climate momentum to come to a halt

The clean energy momentum generated by business over the last decade will not come to an abrupt halt. Companies like Apple, AB InBev and Walmart will not turn their back on the clean energy commitments they’ve made to customers, employees and the planet. Investors, like we saw with ExxonMobil, will keep pressure on companies to clearly report how climate change is affecting business.  And CEOs like General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt or Tesla's Elon Musk, who have been outspoken about remaining in the Paris agreement, will not back away from their company’s climate efforts because they understand how leaving Paris will make it harder to do business around the world. These voices need to keep encouraging others in the business community to join their efforts.

What is the plan? Inaction is unacceptable.

In this new post-Paris world, companies must now demand that the Trump administration and Congress deliver a plan to address climate change. Leading cities, states and companies will continue to move forward, but won’t be enough to deliver the reductions required from the world’s second largest emitter.  Smart climate and energy policy is required to provide the deep emission reductions the world needs and the certainty that business needs for planning, investment decisions, and job growth.

Unfortunately, the president failed to listen to the business community he was once a proud part of for so many years. With the President lagging behind, real business leaders will continue to step up lead the way to a thriving clean energy economy; EDF will have their back. We will continue to engage with business in this time of uncertainty to help shape a future where both business and nature prosper.

If the president won’t listen to business leaders in the future on climate, I hope he will follow the words of one of his favorite presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who said, “I walk slowly, but I never walk backward.”

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

The President made a decision that puts America's safety and economy in jeopardy. Now, we need to fight in Congress.

The President made a decision that puts America's safety and economy in jeopardy. Now, we need to fight in Congress. Regional.

By Dick Munson

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s so-called grid reliability study will be nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for the coal industry and a tool to justify expensive government handouts to outdated power plants.

How do we know? The tactic is ripped straight from FirstEnergy’s well-worn subsidy playbook.

The Ohio-based utility has relentlessly sought a massive, customer-funded bailout to prop up its unprofitable power plants. It repeatedly tried using reliability as an excuse for subsidies, while the regional grid operator repeatedly declared there would be plenty of generation to keep the lights on without FirstEnergy’s old power plants.

The reliability justification hasn’t worked for FirstEnergy, and it won’t work for the pro-coal Trump administration. The reality is, a 21st-century energy system won’t be based on old, lumbering coal plants. Instead, modern energy technology means we can build a cleaner, more flexible, and reliable electric grid.

Retirements won’t hurt reliability

Since 2014, FirstEnergy has been trying to bail out its subsidiary power plants that are struggling to compete in the electricity market. Under the guise of grid reliability, the utility asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to authorize billions of dollars in customer-funded subsidies for its aging, inefficient coal and nuclear plants.

Don’t buy Perry’s reliability ruse. His fake study is pro-coal propaganda.
Click To Tweet

Reliability is undoubtedly an important issue. That’s why the responsibility is in the hands of the regional grid operator, in this case PJM Interconnection, which manages electricity across 13 states and consistently examines the region’s power capacity to make sure the lights stay on.

PJM’s generation mix has changed drastically in the past decade: Since 2005, coal and nuclear have dropped from 91 percent of the region’s electricity to 51 percent. Despite these dramatic changes, PJM’s most recent analysis of reliability and fuel diversity [PDF] – which includes multiple scenarios with moderate to high coal and nuclear retirements – shows little to no reliability risk over the coming years. In other words, PJM’s grid can lose more coal and nuclear without affecting reliability.

FirstEnergy’s reliability claims are a scare tactic. At one point, the PUCO chairman even warned the utility to stop “scaring Ohioans.”

Outdated power generation

FirstEnergy’s efforts are the result of a larger, national trend away from “baseload” power. Baseload refers to some power plants – mainly nuclear reactors and coal-fired power plants – that have a hard time ramping up and down in response to changing electricity demand, and thus need to operate all the time to provide a “base” output of power.

These power plants are being quickly outstripped by sophisticated resources that will lead to a cleaner, more efficient electric grid. Remarkable advances provided by modern sensors, smart meters, and telecommunications have created dynamic power options that allow the grid to respond more nimbly than ever before. For example, demand response (which credits homes and business for using less electricity when the power grid is stressed), renewable energy, and battery storage are all increasing the grid’s flexibility while maintaining reliability.

Grid operators like PJM extensively have studied electric reliability and are managing the shift to cleaner fuels just fine.

As regulators and executives think of how best to modernize the grid, the focus should be on these tools that encourage diversity and flexibility, while reducing the need for outdated baseload generators.

“Study” not about reliability

Between the falling cost of clean energy and new technology constantly being unveiled, the electricity industry has more power options than ever before. The transition to a clean energy economy will take time, and stodgy utilities like FirstEnergy will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve their baseload gravy trains.

Unfortunately, these utilities now have an ally in the federal government, which appears willing to prop up the polluting coal industry at a cost to Americans’ health and utility bills.

Step one of the Trump administration’s ruse is producing the 60-day so-called study of whether any policies or regulations have led to the premature retirement of coal or nuclear plants. For proof of the tie between FirstEnergy’s bailout efforts and the so-called study, take a look at the utility’s Q1 earnings call, in which the CEO boasted of how the federal study could have a “potential positive impact” on “the Ohio initiative” (aka the bailout).

On the plus side, grid operators like PJM extensively have studied electric reliability and are managing the shift to cleaner fuels just fine. Don’t be fooled by the bogus reliability claims. Despite pro-coal efforts from utilities and federal agencies, America is headed to a cleaner, more efficient, and reliable energy future.

Photo source: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

By Dick Munson

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s so-called grid reliability study will be nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for the coal industry and a tool to justify expensive government handouts to outdated power plants.

How do we know? The tactic is ripped straight from FirstEnergy’s well-worn subsidy playbook.

The Ohio-based utility has relentlessly sought a massive, customer-funded bailout to prop up its unprofitable power plants. It repeatedly tried using reliability as an excuse for subsidies, while the regional grid operator repeatedly declared there would be plenty of generation to keep the lights on without FirstEnergy’s old power plants.

The reliability justification hasn’t worked for FirstEnergy, and it won’t work for the pro-coal Trump administration. The reality is, a 21st-century energy system won’t be based on old, lumbering coal plants. Instead, modern energy technology means we can build a cleaner, more flexible, and reliable electric grid.

Retirements won’t hurt reliability

Since 2014, FirstEnergy has been trying to bail out its subsidiary power plants that are struggling to compete in the electricity market. Under the guise of grid reliability, the utility asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to authorize billions of dollars in customer-funded subsidies for its aging, inefficient coal and nuclear plants.

Don’t buy Perry’s reliability ruse. His fake study is pro-coal propaganda.
Click To Tweet

Reliability is undoubtedly an important issue. That’s why the responsibility is in the hands of the regional grid operator, in this case PJM Interconnection, which manages electricity across 13 states and consistently examines the region’s power capacity to make sure the lights stay on.

PJM’s generation mix has changed drastically in the past decade: Since 2005, coal and nuclear have dropped from 91 percent of the region’s electricity to 51 percent. Despite these dramatic changes, PJM’s most recent analysis of reliability and fuel diversity [PDF] – which includes multiple scenarios with moderate to high coal and nuclear retirements – shows little to no reliability risk over the coming years. In other words, PJM’s grid can lose more coal and nuclear without affecting reliability.

FirstEnergy’s reliability claims are a scare tactic. At one point, the PUCO chairman even warned the utility to stop “scaring Ohioans.”

Outdated power generation

FirstEnergy’s efforts are the result of a larger, national trend away from “baseload” power. Baseload refers to some power plants – mainly nuclear reactors and coal-fired power plants – that have a hard time ramping up and down in response to changing electricity demand, and thus need to operate all the time to provide a “base” output of power.

These power plants are being quickly outstripped by sophisticated resources that will lead to a cleaner, more efficient electric grid. Remarkable advances provided by modern sensors, smart meters, and telecommunications have created dynamic power options that allow the grid to respond more nimbly than ever before. For example, demand response (which credits homes and business for using less electricity when the power grid is stressed), renewable energy, and battery storage are all increasing the grid’s flexibility while maintaining reliability.

Grid operators like PJM extensively have studied electric reliability and are managing the shift to cleaner fuels just fine.

As regulators and executives think of how best to modernize the grid, the focus should be on these tools that encourage diversity and flexibility, while reducing the need for outdated baseload generators.

“Study” not about reliability

Between the falling cost of clean energy and new technology constantly being unveiled, the electricity industry has more power options than ever before. The transition to a clean energy economy will take time, and stodgy utilities like FirstEnergy will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve their baseload gravy trains.

Unfortunately, these utilities now have an ally in the federal government, which appears willing to prop up the polluting coal industry at a cost to Americans’ health and utility bills.

Step one of the Trump administration’s ruse is producing the 60-day so-called study of whether any policies or regulations have led to the premature retirement of coal or nuclear plants. For proof of the tie between FirstEnergy’s bailout efforts and the so-called study, take a look at the utility’s Q1 earnings call, in which the CEO boasted of how the federal study could have a “potential positive impact” on “the Ohio initiative” (aka the bailout).

On the plus side, grid operators like PJM extensively have studied electric reliability and are managing the shift to cleaner fuels just fine. Don’t be fooled by the bogus reliability claims. Despite pro-coal efforts from utilities and federal agencies, America is headed to a cleaner, more efficient, and reliable energy future.

Photo source: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

By Dick Munson

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s so-called grid reliability study will be nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for the coal industry and a tool to justify expensive government handouts to outdated power plants.

How do we know? The tactic is ripped straight from FirstEnergy’s well-worn subsidy playbook.

The Ohio-based utility has relentlessly sought a massive, customer-funded bailout to prop up its unprofitable power plants. It repeatedly tried using reliability as an excuse for subsidies, while the regional grid operator repeatedly declared there would be plenty of generation to keep the lights on without FirstEnergy’s old power plants.

The reliability justification hasn’t worked for FirstEnergy, and it won’t work for the pro-coal Trump administration. The reality is, a 21st-century energy system won’t be based on old, lumbering coal plants. Instead, modern energy technology means we can build a cleaner, more flexible, and reliable electric grid.

Retirements won’t hurt reliability

Since 2014, FirstEnergy has been trying to bail out its subsidiary power plants that are struggling to compete in the electricity market. Under the guise of grid reliability, the utility asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to authorize billions of dollars in customer-funded subsidies for its aging, inefficient coal and nuclear plants.

Don’t buy Perry’s reliability ruse. His fake study is pro-coal propaganda.
Click To Tweet

Reliability is undoubtedly an important issue. That’s why the responsibility is in the hands of the regional grid operator, in this case PJM Interconnection, which manages electricity across 13 states and consistently examines the region’s power capacity to make sure the lights stay on.

PJM’s generation mix has changed drastically in the past decade: Since 2005, coal and nuclear have dropped from 91 percent of the region’s electricity to 51 percent. Despite these dramatic changes, PJM’s most recent analysis of reliability and fuel diversity [PDF] – which includes multiple scenarios with moderate to high coal and nuclear retirements – shows little to no reliability risk over the coming years. In other words, PJM’s grid can lose more coal and nuclear without affecting reliability.

FirstEnergy’s reliability claims are a scare tactic. At one point, the PUCO chairman even warned the utility to stop “scaring Ohioans.”

Outdated power generation

FirstEnergy’s efforts are the result of a larger, national trend away from “baseload” power. Baseload refers to some power plants – mainly nuclear reactors and coal-fired power plants – that have a hard time ramping up and down in response to changing electricity demand, and thus need to operate all the time to provide a “base” output of power.

These power plants are being quickly outstripped by sophisticated resources that will lead to a cleaner, more efficient electric grid. Remarkable advances provided by modern sensors, smart meters, and telecommunications have created dynamic power options that allow the grid to respond more nimbly than ever before. For example, demand response (which credits homes and business for using less electricity when the power grid is stressed), renewable energy, and battery storage are all increasing the grid’s flexibility while maintaining reliability.

Grid operators like PJM extensively have studied electric reliability and are managing the shift to cleaner fuels just fine.

As regulators and executives think of how best to modernize the grid, the focus should be on these tools that encourage diversity and flexibility, while reducing the need for outdated baseload generators.

“Study” not about reliability

Between the falling cost of clean energy and new technology constantly being unveiled, the electricity industry has more power options than ever before. The transition to a clean energy economy will take time, and stodgy utilities like FirstEnergy will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve their baseload gravy trains.

Unfortunately, these utilities now have an ally in the federal government, which appears willing to prop up the polluting coal industry at a cost to Americans’ health and utility bills.

Step one of the Trump administration’s ruse is producing the 60-day so-called study of whether any policies or regulations have led to the premature retirement of coal or nuclear plants. For proof of the tie between FirstEnergy’s bailout efforts and the so-called study, take a look at the utility’s Q1 earnings call, in which the CEO boasted of how the federal study could have a “potential positive impact” on “the Ohio initiative” (aka the bailout).

On the plus side, grid operators like PJM extensively have studied electric reliability and are managing the shift to cleaner fuels just fine. Don’t be fooled by the bogus reliability claims. Despite pro-coal efforts from utilities and federal agencies, America is headed to a cleaner, more efficient, and reliable energy future.

Photo source: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s so-called grid reliability study will be nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for the coal industry and a tool to justify expensive government handouts to outdated power plants. How do we know? The tactic is ripped straight from FirstEnergy’s well-worn subsidy playbook. The Ohio-based utility has relentlessly sought a massive, customer-funded bailout […]

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s so-called grid reliability study will be nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for the coal industry and a tool to justify expensive government handouts to outdated power plants. How do we know? The tactic is ripped straight from FirstEnergy’s well-worn subsidy playbook. The Ohio-based utility has relentlessly sought a massive, customer-funded bailout […]

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s so-called grid reliability study will be nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for the coal industry and a tool to justify expensive government handouts to outdated power plants. How do we know? The tactic is ripped straight from FirstEnergy’s well-worn subsidy playbook. The Ohio-based utility has relentlessly sought a massive, customer-funded bailout […]

California’s historic winter ended the drought in many parts of the state and piled up record levels of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. With so much precipitation, surface water infrastructure – our network of dams, reservoirs and levees – has been called into action like never before, and in some cases has struggled to […]

The post The hidden opportunity for water storage in California first appeared on Growing Returns.

California’s historic winter ended the drought in many parts of the state and piled up record levels of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. With so much precipitation, surface water infrastructure – our network of dams, reservoirs and levees – has been called into action like never before, and in some cases has struggled to […]

By Maurice Hall

Aerial photo released by the California Department of Water Resources, showing the damaged spillway with eroded hillside in Oroville

California’s historic winter ended the drought in many parts of the state and piled up record levels of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. With so much precipitation, surface water infrastructure – our network of dams, reservoirs and levees – has been called into action like never before, and in some cases has struggled to handle the influx of flows.

With spring temperatures on the rise, snowmelt and runoff have accelerated, adding another wave of stress to the system. And with snowpack still at 192% of average, there is even more runoff on the way.

So where will all this water go?

With many reservoirs near capacity already, water managers have had to allow spring snowmelt to flow out through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and into the ocean. This is inevitable given the shear amount of water in the system this year, and in fact, these occasional high flows provide multiple benefits to ecosystems and coastal communities.

But wouldn’t it be nice if water managers could keep a bit more of this water in the system – not just to ensure delivery to agricultural and urban water contractors, but to hedge against future dry years and prolonged droughts?

Many are calling for increased surface water storage by building new dams and increasing reservoir capacity across the state. And while some of these projects make sense, others will likely prove too costly for the marginal benefits they provide.

A hidden opportunity for water storage in California lies beneath our feet, via…
Click To Tweet

The answer is beneath our feet

One underused opportunity for storage is putting more water into groundwater aquifers. During the drought these aquifers were significantly depleted across the state, and even before the drought, many of our groundwater basins were overpumped. Some estimates show that we’ve lost more than 150 million acre-feet of groundwater in Central Valley aquifers over the past century. This has had devastating effects, such as water supply contamination and land subsidence.

The silver lining to this depletion? There is now plenty of room to store water in these aquifers. Essentially vast underground reservoirs that can accommodate excess water and ease the pressure on our surface water reservoirs during wet years like this one. And, importantly, water stored in underground aquifers could be used to supplement supplies during periods of drought.

The groundwater storage potential is massive – much more than the approximate 42 million acre-feet of total surface storage capacity.

Planning for the future

While groundwater recharge occurred in many basins across the state through natural processes, we unfortunately missed opportunities to take full advantage of underground storage this year.

Recharging aquifers basically means spreading water out on land that has porous soils and letting it soak in. During wet years, our facilities and rules are designed to send water downstream to prevent flooding rather than spreading it out so that it can seep back into our aquifers. So to take full advantage of wet years like this one, we need to look at our water system and policies in new ways.

Luckily we are moving in the right direction and recharging our aquifers at a higher rate. Local water districts and even individual farmers have demonstrated a growing interest in groundwater recharge. Some have started to implement projects and re-purpose land to create more recharge basins.

When we talk about the need for water storage in California, we must take full inventory of the tremendous opportunity of our underground natural storage infrastructure. If we focus on this now, we’ll be able to take advantage of the next wet winter.

And, importantly, we’ll be better prepared for the next inevitable drought when it comes – and it will come.

Related:

What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure >>

Why one wet winter won't solve California's water problems >>

What the Oroville Dam crisis tells us about natural infrastructure >>

By Maurice Hall

Aerial photo released by the California Department of Water Resources, showing the damaged spillway with eroded hillside in Oroville

California’s historic winter ended the drought in many parts of the state and piled up record levels of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. With so much precipitation, surface water infrastructure – our network of dams, reservoirs and levees – has been called into action like never before, and in some cases has struggled to handle the influx of flows.

With spring temperatures on the rise, snowmelt and runoff have accelerated, adding another wave of stress to the system. And with snowpack still at 192% of average, there is even more runoff on the way.

So where will all this water go?

With many reservoirs near capacity already, water managers have had to allow spring snowmelt to flow out through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and into the ocean. This is inevitable given the shear amount of water in the system this year, and in fact, these occasional high flows provide multiple benefits to ecosystems and coastal communities.

But wouldn’t it be nice if water managers could keep a bit more of this water in the system – not just to ensure delivery to agricultural and urban water contractors, but to hedge against future dry years and prolonged droughts?

Many are calling for increased surface water storage by building new dams and increasing reservoir capacity across the state. And while some of these projects make sense, others will likely prove too costly for the marginal benefits they provide.

A hidden opportunity for water storage in California lies beneath our feet, via…
Click To Tweet

The answer is beneath our feet

One underused opportunity for storage is putting more water into groundwater aquifers. During the drought these aquifers were significantly depleted across the state, and even before the drought, many of our groundwater basins were overpumped. Some estimates show that we’ve lost more than 150 million acre-feet of groundwater in Central Valley aquifers over the past century. This has had devastating effects, such as water supply contamination and land subsidence.

The silver lining to this depletion? There is now plenty of room to store water in these aquifers. Essentially vast underground reservoirs that can accommodate excess water and ease the pressure on our surface water reservoirs during wet years like this one. And, importantly, water stored in underground aquifers could be used to supplement supplies during periods of drought.

The groundwater storage potential is massive – much more than the approximate 42 million acre-feet of total surface storage capacity.

Planning for the future

While groundwater recharge occurred in many basins across the state through natural processes, we unfortunately missed opportunities to take full advantage of underground storage this year.

Recharging aquifers basically means spreading water out on land that has porous soils and letting it soak in. During wet years, our facilities and rules are designed to send water downstream to prevent flooding rather than spreading it out so that it can seep back into our aquifers. So to take full advantage of wet years like this one, we need to look at our water system and policies in new ways.

Luckily we are moving in the right direction and recharging our aquifers at a higher rate. Local water districts and even individual farmers have demonstrated a growing interest in groundwater recharge. Some have started to implement projects and re-purpose land to create more recharge basins.

When we talk about the need for water storage in California, we must take full inventory of the tremendous opportunity of our underground natural storage infrastructure. If we focus on this now, we’ll be able to take advantage of the next wet winter.

And, importantly, we’ll be better prepared for the next inevitable drought when it comes – and it will come.

Related:

What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure >>

Why one wet winter won't solve California's water problems >>

What the Oroville Dam crisis tells us about natural infrastructure >>

Written by Katy Farber

In the midst of the daily news cycle, it’s easy to miss some impulsive policy decisions made by the Trump administration. Here’s a kid-related one that may have zipped by your radar.

The EPA, under the Obama administration, created a website, A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change, for kids about climate change. It provided clear, straightforward sections such as: learn the basics, see the impacts, think like a scientist, and be part of the solution. The website also shared informative videos and a ways students could calculate their personal emissions. It even included a web expedition to explore geography that students could participate in and discover the impacts of climate change.

The website shared important resources for educators to use in the classroom. It had cited several examples of innovative technologies featured in the news media too.

The site stated:

“In developing this website, A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change, EPA tried to use the most accurate, up–to–date information available. The facts and figures that appear throughout this website come from high–quality publications such as peer–reviewed scientific journals, international scientific assessments, and government research reports.”

Harmless and non-partisan, right?

Not so, in this current political climate, where fake news ran amok during the presidential election, and where fake climate science is now sent to every science classroom in America. With a climate denier in charge of the EPA, scientific facts are political footballs.

According to a report by Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, the EPA kids site has been buried and is now nearly impossible to find. You can see a web copy from the Wayback Machine website here.

Why was it buried? According to the Washington Post it reflects the Trump administration’s “priorities.” Climate Central reports that in place of the site for students is…” page explaining that they’re being updated to “reflect EPA’s priorities” under President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and that users can check out a snapshot of the entire EPA site from the day before Trump took office.”

But this abbreviated site is very hard to find, and does not have all the features of the original site.

Finding high quality educational resources to use with students can be a challenge. Which is why teachers searched the EPA site for classroom use. According to @rogueEPAstaff Twitter feed, teachers are unable to access the web materials they previously used in their classes.

The removal, or burial, of the EPA’s fact-based climate change site is eerily reminiscent of pulling books from the shelves of a library in an attempt to re-write history.

This leaves us with frightening answers to these questions: What does pulling free access to scientific information mean for the future of the EPA? What does it mean for education? And most importantly, what does this mean for our children?

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN