Sierra Club Compass Blog

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.

As I have mentioned on this blog before, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently holding public hearings at sites around the country to hear your input on draft regulations for the disposal of toxic coal ash.  This week’s blog post comes from Sierra Student Coalition Apprentice Margaret Hoerath, who writes about an activist who travelled to the coal ash hearing in Virginia earlier this week.

---

“This is a bureaucratic mini-Katrina because FEMA doesn’t know what’s going on here,” said James McGrath, a citizen from Giles County in Southwest Virginia, where a coal ash disposal site is located. 

Coal ash is the toxic byproduct left over after burning coal and contains elevated levels of dangerous poisons such as mercury, lead, and arsenic. The Cumberland Park Project, essentially a coal ash disposal site dressed up as a real estate development project, is prompting concerns from local citizens like McGrath. 

There have been dozens of documented cases where coal ash has contaminated surface water or groundwater in at least 23 states, according to a 2007 EPA study. There are some places near coal ash disposal sites that have water with levels of heavy metals tens and even hundreds of times above federal drinking water standards (U.S. EPA, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007).  McGrath points out that the disposal site is in a 100 year floodplain and is “unlined,” which allows toxins from the coal ash to leak into the area’s groundwater and potentially into someone’s drinking water downriver. 

McGrath is particularly concerned about the lack of public participation in the approval process for the project, and the fact that the county administration dodged the proper Federal Emergency Management Administration permitting process by misrepresenting the materials to be used at the site on their application. The administration told FEMA that they were using dirt fill materials instead of specifying that that they were using toxic coal ash from American Electric Power. By misrepresenting the materials to be used on their application, the Cumberland Park Project was able to circumvent the local public hearing process that should have been required.

For McGrath, a 60 year old veteran who was with the 1st marine division in Vietnam, this process violates his democratic values. McGrath explains that it took him two years and eleven months to get a grip on the ins and outs of the permitting process and to understand all the players and beneficiaries in the project. 

“If it was Chinese, I could go to the Mandarin opera and understand it,” McGrath explained. “It’s a labyrinth. [This permitting process is] intentionally done this way to confuse people.”

McGrath explained that it is important to understand the permitting process in order to understand the strategies used to get Cumberland Park approved. McGrath has worked on this issue by asking the key players tough questions and by shedding light on all the decision makers involved.  He needed to do a lot of digging to find the information he needed to inform others. He became well-versed in the proposed project and was a major source of information for Concerned Citizens of Giles County, which is the group that was formed directly in response to the Cumberland Park Project. McGrath calls himself a long-time environmental activist and found out about this project through involvement in another local environmental group.

“We need more citizens to get involved in activism,” McGrath said. He said that he wishes young people would take more of a role in their government.

McGrath calls many of the moves that the county and AEP used to usher the project in as “slick.” By providing incorrect information on their FEMA developmental permit application, the county avoided having public hearings and prevented local residents from taking a stand on the project. Despite the fact that many coal ash ponds and disposal sites have been shown to leak over time, the Cumberland Park project is allowed to be built in a floodplain and without a composite liner. Since the project is being touted as a development project where future businesses and buildings could be built, bringing jobs to the area, it is termed a “beneficial use” project and slips under the radar. 

Industry lobbyists have aimed to limit public participation and they accomplished this by ensuring that a “beneficial use” clause was part of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality permitting process. The “beneficial use” clause was part of the reason that Giles County did not have to hold any public hearings.

“The lobbyists are intentionally influencing legislation to eliminate public participation,” McGrath says.

Through public participation and pressuring public officials back home, McGrath has shed light on the dark side of the project in an effort to create change. McGrath says working on this issue was like a full time job.  After driving five hours from Southwest Virginia to testify at the Washington DC Environmental Protection Agency coal ash hearing on August. 30th, McGrath now plans to stop working on the issue. He wants to let the issue take a life of its own and devote more time to his woodworking jobs, tending his property and spending time with his family. 

“I’m going to go back to being a grandparent," he said.  "I haven’t seen one of my grandchildren for a third of their life.” 

The Washington DC hearing McGrath attended was the first of seven hearings nationwide that are being held to evaluate regulations regarding the disposal of coal ash. See http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coalash/ for more information and to find out how you can tell the EPA what you think.

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. 

Power industry lobbyist Jim Roewer: "Wasn't a problem."

Leslie Stahl: "Well, it was a problem, but we just didn't know it."

This excerpt from a recent 60 Minutes story on toxic coal waste sums up the current trouble with the millions of tons of toxic ash left over each year from burning coal for energy. 

While scientists and experts know, and have known for years that coal ash is full of harmful pollution that can cause cancer and other serious illnesses, the issue flew largely under the radar until the massive TVA disaster. Even now nobody, including the EPA, has a full picture of how much of this toxic waste is out there, where it is, or if it is staying put. The coal industry has dumped millions of tons of its toxic leftovers at thousands of sites across the country with no federal oversight, and utterly inadequate state policies. 

The result? Toxic ash dump sites lacking even basic safety protections, drinking water sources poisoned and people unknowingly at risk.

A new investigative report reveals more than three dozen new sites in 21 states where toxic coal waste has made water supplies unsafe. These sites are the latest in a steadily growing number of waters known to be contaminated by poor management of coal ash. So far more than 130 cases of coal ash contamination have been found in 34 states, and even EPA admits this could be just the tip of the iceberg. 

Many state agencies (like those in Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico and Tennessee to name a few) require no monitoring of waters near toxic coal ash sites. Other states, like West Virginia, do such a poor job of monitoring as to be useless. About 70 percent of the toxic coal ash generated nationwide is dumped in states that don't require monitoring to see if toxic contamination is leaking from coal ash sites.  

The report shows that states responsible for only four of the coal ash sites have required an investigation to determine the scale of the pollution. Not one state has required the toxic pollution to be stopped, let alone cleaned up.  There is a clear need for the EPA to step in where the states have failed to protect our communities. 

Lisa Jackson and the EPA have recognized this and the agency is currently considering whether and how to regulate toxic coal ash. Monday the EPA will begin a series of hearings across the country to gather public comment on the new protections. The first hearing will be in Arlington, Virginia, followed by hearings in Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Kentucky over the next month. Whether you attend a hearing in person or submit comments online I urge you to send a strong message to EPA that federally enforceable protections are absolutely necessary in the face of the growing risk from coal's toxic waste. 

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.

Contrary to the impression you may have been left with after reading a recent Associated Press piece about the future (or lack thereof) of coal in this country, the reign of “King Coal” is ending.

Though the AP piece makes some good points (specifically, noting that “the process [for producing electricity from coal] has changed little since Thomas Edison built the first plant in 1882” and that even after $3.4 billion in stimulus spending, there is currently “no way of capturing carbon” from coal-fired power plants), the idea that coal-fired power is expanding as opposed to rapidly declining is inaccurate.

Just a few years ago, “King Coal” was hoping to build 151 new coal-fired power plants while the Bush Administration’s coal-friendly federal regulators were “on the job.”  This was a troubling idea for many reasons.  From the mine, to the plant, to the ash pond, coal is our dirtiest and most dangerous energy source. It causes four of the five leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases.  It destroys mountains and releases toxic mercury into communities.  The carbon pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants is responsible for more than 30% of our country’s total global warming pollution.  

In response to this Coal Rush, the Sierra Club in 2005 launched a nationwide Beyond Coal campaign with a broad swath of allies to block these plans.  

As of today, the Sierra Club and our allies have blocked 129 new coal plants from being constructed, keeping well more than 530 million tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.  No new coal plants have broken ground since 2008 and clean energy is filling the vacuum, with record amounts of both wind and solar power projects up and running in 2009.  Yes, there were some coal plants that sneaked through and came online in 2008 with enormous help from the Bush Administration’s coal-friendly permitting process.  That number of coal plants, however, is a fraction of what was planned and represents significantly less than the growth in clean energy during the same time period- growth that would not have been possible if the energy market had been swamped with filthy coal.  The wind industry alone added 8,300 MW to the grid in 2008- more than five times the 1,400 MW of new coal added to the grid that year.  

Make no mistake, the Coal Rush is over.   The costs of the plants that did make it through should serve as a reminder than no clean energy project has ever taken five years to build and witnessed 100 percent cost overruns.  The steps to finally move America beyond coal have begun.  

We are now in phase two of our efforts to dethrone King Coal, get our energy infrastructure out of the 19th century and build a modern and clean power sector.  This phase involves retiring and replacing the oldest and dirtiest coal plants and opening up more market share for clean energy.  Since January 2009, more than 8,300 megawatts of existing coal (about 16 average-sized coal plants) have been slated for retirement in the next decade.  The tens of thousands of dedicated grassroots activists who first help to stop the coal rush are now busy phasing out outdated existing coal plants. 

While we have made significant progress over the past few years, our work is clearly far from done.

It was an outrage when earlier this summer, corporate polluters relied on a minority of Senators to block action to cut coal plant pollution when conservationists, labor, veterans, communities of faith, small businesses and everyday citizens all agreed it was the right thing to do.  Failing to address this problem puts all the collective future of our country, and our planet, in jeopardy.  Scientists tell us that to avert runaway global warming we need to phase out coal plants in less than two decades.  

Ending coal’s contribution to global warming, as well as the smog that plagues most of our cities, is a top priority for the Sierra Club, and we will continue to fight for the necessary changes in federal policy.  With Congress stymied by a minority of Senators, we are engaged in other venues to address the litany of serious problems caused by coal.

Lisa Jackson at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is busy working on enforcing clean air and clean water laws designed to end the regulatory loopholes too-long exploited by King Coal.  After eight years of Bush Administration backsliding and inaction, the safeguards seek to put public welfare back on top of the priority list.  Among those safeguards are efforts such as:

• The Good Neighbor rule, which could help avoid 36,000 premature deaths from dirty air;
• The smog, or ozone, rule, which could prevent more than 5,000 heart attacks and up to 12,000 early deaths; 
• The coal ash rule, which could keep known carcinogens from toxic coal leftovers out of our water. 

The EPA is currently in the process of hosting public meetings across the country to hear input on these rules, with the first hearing on the Good Neighbor rule to be held in Chicago on Thursday, August 19.

Strong regulation of each step of coal’s dirty and dangerous life-cycle (from the reckless mining practices to the hazardous disposal of the toxic byproduct of the waste left over when coal is burned) is not only going to level the playing field between coal and clean energy, it is also to usher in a new era of American energy.  

We know that continuing our dependence on coal chains us to dirty energy and prevents us from making the changes we need to bring about a clean, secure energy future.  If our economy is to be revitalized by the clean-energy industry, if the health and safety of families is to be considered, if we want to have any hope of stopping the worst effects of climate change, King Coal’s reign cannot continue.  

We have made unprecedented progress in recent years to prevent new coal plants and massive amounts of new pollution for decades into the future, but our work is not done.  Whether it is pursuing federal legislation that will cut carbon pollution or pushing and supporting Lisa Jackson as she enforces the law to protect public health and our communities, we will continue the fight to move our country beyond coal.

7,769 Sierra Club members told the Export-Import Bank that instead of financing dirty power projects abroad, it should be positioning U.S. companies to lead in a competitive clean technology market that can create thousands more jobs in the US. These comments were directed at the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Kusile coal-fired power plant proposed by the South African Utility.

By Justin Guay

At nearly 5,000 megawatts of output, the Kusile plant would be one of the largest dirty-coal plants in the world, and would be one of the single largest point sources of climate disrupting pollution on Earth. The Kusile project would annually emit more than 150 percent of the annual carbon emissions from projects supported by the Ex-Im Bank in 2009.

While failing to adhere to a Congressional mandate to significantly increase renewable energy financing, the Ex-Im Bank’s Board of Directors also recently voted to support the Sasan coal-fired power project in India, one of nine “Ultra Mega Power Plants” being pursued by the Indian government. Sasan, slated to produce 3,960 MW, is controlled by Sasan Power Limited, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries, owned by Anil Ambani one of the world’s richest men. Local communities in India are actively protesting the Sasan project, as it will displace 6,000 people, and emit between 26-27 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

If the Ex-Im Bank proceeds with funding the Kusile and Sasan projects, U.S. taxpayer dollars will be tripling the annual carbon emissions from projects supported by the Export-Import Bank in 2009. According to a recently released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, more than 95% of Ex-Im’s energy portfolio is based on fossil fuels, and in 2009 Ex-Im Bank financing for renewable energy was less than 0.5% of the agency’s total financing.

While funding the project with U.S. tax dollars presents a strategic misstep, it also represents significant health and environmental impacts in South Africa. Pollutants proven to cause and contribute to serious cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses such as heart disease and asthma, as well as neurological and developmental disorders, will directly impact the surrounding communities.

The Ex-Im Bank Board is expected to take up a due diligence vote on Kusile in early September. The decision to whether or not to finance these projects will send a direct signal to fossil fuel industries and other lenders about the future of clean energy technology and the role of fossil fuels in development. With controversy brewing, and pressure building, it’s time for Ex-Im Bank to do the right thing.

To find out more about Kusile go here.

To find out more about Sasan go here.

It's the summer doldrums, but there's still been a lot of clean energy and dirty energy news hitting the wires out there. Here are some highlights.

First up we have a NY Times article about using "brownfields" as clean energy sites in California - meaning using dried up farmland as good siting for solar power projects. From the article:
Unlike some renewable energy projects blocked by objections that they would despoil the landscape, this one has the support of environmentalists.

The San Joaquin initiative is in the vanguard of a new approach to locating renewable energy projects: putting them on polluted or previously used land. The Westlands project has won the backing of groups that have opposed building big solar projects in the Mojave Desert and have fought Westlands for decades over the district's water use. Landowners and regulators are on board, too.

"It's about as perfect a place as you're going to find in the state of California for a solar project like this," said Carl Zichella, who until late July was the Sierra Club's Western renewable programs director. "There's virtually zero wildlife impact here because the land has been farmed continuously for such a long time and you have proximity to transmission, infrastructure and markets."
In the world of dirty energy, there's been some news out lately about toxic coal ash (the by-product of burning coal for electricity). Right now the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed two very federal safeguards for coal ash - and this Alamogordo Daily News article looks at residents in New Mexico who are fighting to make sure its regulated as a toxic substance.

Meanwhile, after some serious pressure from grassroots groups, EPA announced two more public hearings on these proposed coal ash rules - one in Louisville, KY, and one in Pittsburgh, PA. You can learn all about the hearings on EPA's coal ash rules website - and make sure you submit your comment calling for strong federal safeguards for coal ash right away! And if you want to see if there's a coal ash storage site near you, check out our map.

From water quality (coal ash contaminates groundwater all the time) to air quality. There's a new report out showing the EPA action on air pollution will not hurt the industry. From the release:
An expert report issued today finds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can move forward in a timely way on new air quality rules for power plant emissions to improve public health while maintaining the reliability of the nation's power system.

"However, these will tend to be older, smaller generating units that are already reaching the end of their design life. We have identified at least 40 units that are scheduled for retirement with an average age of more than 50 years old."

The report, Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability....reviews the impact on power plant operations of proposed EPA rules to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury, and other hazardous air pollutants.
Related to air quality, EPA just issued air pollution rules for facilities that produce cement. This may sound small and inconsequential, but it's quite the opposite. From EPA's release:
(The final rules) protect Americans' health by cutting emissions of mercury, particle pollution and other harmful pollutants from Portland cement manufacturing, the third-largest source of mercury air emissions in the United States. The rules are expected to yield $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every dollar in costs.

Mercury can damage children's developing brains, and particle pollution is linked to a wide variety of serious health effects, including aggravated asthma, irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
And finally, we go back to clean energy. Our friends over at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy have a brand new website in honor of their 30th anniversary - go check it out.

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.

Yesterday and today are code orange unhealthy air alert days in the Washington, DC, region where I live. The 95+ degree temperatures and excessive ground-level ozone create extremely unhealthy air – especially for kids, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing health conditions.

These aren't the first days this summer where we've had these warnings, and I know that the Washington, DC, region is not alone in its unhealthy air warnings. Temperatures are soaring across the U.S. - and while one major source of air pollution is vehicles, the other major cause is burning coal for energy.

And with this comes new research that poor air quality days aren't just a struggle for your lungs, they're just as tough on your heart. This is news from the combined efforts of the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association, who are reminding us that while some pollution levels may be decreasing, we’re learning that air pollution is actually much worse for us than originally thought.

From one article on this research:
While risks to individuals are small and are dwarfed by risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure and obesity, the overall effect on the public is big, says Robert Brook, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan and lead author of the report.

Much of the worrisome data concerns "fine particulate matter" - tiny bits of soot that come from burning coal, oil, diesel fuel or wood, mostly in factories, vehicles and power plants.

"These fine particles get deep into the lungs," says Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association....It's also possible that some fine particles seep into blood vessels and the blood itself, causing direct damage. Dirty air also may trigger irregular nervous system activity that affects the heart and blood vessels.
Some in Congress want to gut EPA's Clean Air Act powers - and yet air pollution levels are so dangerous that these unhealthy air warnings recommend that kids should not be outside. Kids should not be outside in August? Right. Summer vacation is still in full force, so kids are outside, and that means they are at risk of permanent lung damage because the oil and coal companies are holding congress hostage.

We are literally killing ourselves by burning coal, and yet the coal industry continues to fight against the Clean Air Act and any safeguards that might prevent them from spewing their pollutants into the air.

This is shameful. The coal industry would rather make money than clean itself up.

We must support clean, renewable energy sources that don't pollute the air and contribute to unhealthy air warnings when temperatures climb. Coal-fired power plants spew millions of tons of pollution into the air ever year, which spreads from state to state and causes numerous health issues.

Thankfully, EPA is acting to help states be good neighbors with the proposed 'Good Neighbor / Transport' rule that will systematically and efficiently cut pollution from dozens of coal plants that would otherwise spread across the country. The rule is intended to help downwind states achieve EPA's national ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particles.

We applaud this common sense approach by Lisa Jackson and EPA to protect public health and help states clean up their air efficiently and cost-effectively. 

You can make your support heard for this rule at one of the three upcoming public hearings (first one is next week), or by submitting your own comment.

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.

Coal ash contains numerous poisonous chemicals, including arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum. So why are some members of Congress wanting to block action from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson that would protect people from toxic coal ash?

It's true - 139 House members and 36 Senators either signed onto letters asking as much, or wrote their own letters (links to the letters are farther down in this post). What's worse is that the letters are full of misleading information and inaccuracies about the public health risks of coal ash.

Coal-fired power plants produce approximately 150 million tons of waste per year, making coal combustion waste the second largest industrial waste stream in the U.S. When coal ash comes into contact with water, toxic heavy metals can leach out of the waste and contaminate groundwater and surface water.

One of the House letters to Administrator Jackson refers to an EPA document from 2000 that supposedly concludes that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste - but in reality that document says,
After careful review of the present disposal of these wastes, we believe these additional measures are needed to ensure that public health and the environment are fully protected. If the states and industry do not take steps to address these wastes adequately in a reasonable amount of time or if EPA identifies additional risks to public health, EPA will revisit this decision to determine whether a hazardous approach is needed.
Consider these facts: There are more than 2,000 coal ash storage sites across the U.S. and dozens of documented cases where coal ash has contaminated surface water or groundwater in at least 23 states. (U.S. EPA, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007.)

And the latest EPA test results released in December 2009 show that the heavy metals seep out of coal ash at much higher rates than previously understood, poisoning water with arsenic and selenium at levels hundreds of times greater than the federal drinking water standards. Clearly, EPA is right in proposing stringent protections for toxic coal ash.

The House letter also claims that "states have effectively been regulating" coal ash - but in reality state laws governing coal combustion waste disposal are usually weak or non-existent, as exemplified in the growing cases of water contamination putting communities at risk across the country.

Further, both the House and Senate letters advance faulty claims that stringent federal safeguards for coal ash would stigmatize the coal ash recycling industry (coal is often recycled into concrete, bricks, etc...), with the Senate letter claiming even the proposed idea of this type of regulation has caused a downturn in the market. What these letters choose to ignore is that EPA's proposals would completely exempt coal ash that's encapsulated from water and safely recycled into construction materials.

Even the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) said there would be no stigma. From one news report:
EPA noted a U.S. Green Building Council representative's affirmation that Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design incentives would remain for fly ash in concrete even under a broader (coal combustion residual) hazardous waste classification. If USGBC and EPA continue to recognize fly ash as an environmentally beneficial portland cement substitute, the proposed rule states,

"The use of this material is unlikely to decrease solely because of 'stigma' concerns. We believe it is unlikely (the American Society for Testing and Materials) will prohibit the use of fly ash in concrete under its standards solely because of a determination that fly ash is regulated under subtitle C of (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), especially given that [such usage] is accepted [worldwide] as a practice that improves the performance of concrete. It is one of the most cost-effective, near-term strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and, there is no evidence of meaningful risk--nor any reason to think there might be--involved with its use in cement or concrete."
The list of inaccuracies in these letters goes on. We encourage you to read the letters (PDF) - House Letter 1,  House Letter 2,  House Letter 3,  Senate Letter 1,  Senate Letter 2.

See if your representative or senator signed on. If s/he did, call them right now and tell them to withdraw their signature. If s/he did not sign on, call them to say thanks and to continue working for strong coal ash safeguards.

We need strong, federally enforceable safeguards for coal ash. Research from government and private scientists over the years shows an increasing concern for public health if exposed to coal ash's toxins. Some studies have shown that these coal ash dumps are so toxic that they can increase nearby residents’ cancer risk to as high as a staggering 1 in 50.

Call your reps right now.

Yesterday the U.S. government reported that around 75% of BP's oil disaster in the Gulf had been cleaned up, dispersed, burnt, or diluted and the rest poses little additional risk. That still leaves more than 50 gallons out there, but officials were saying cleanup methods and nature itself were doing a good job.

But now other scientists are wondering if the government is stretching the truth just a little. From today's Washington Post:
But, in interviews, scientists who worked on the report said the figures were based in large part on assumptions and estimates with a significant margin of error.

Some outside scientists went further: In a situation in which many facts remain murky, they said, the government seemed to have used interpretations that made the gulf -- and the federal efforts to save it -- look as good as possible.

"There's a lot of...smoke and mirrors in this report," said Ian MacDonald, a professor of biological oceanography at Florida State University. "It seems very reassuring, but the data aren't there to actually bear out the assurances that were made."
Meanwhile, others are claiming environmentalists over-reacted to the disaster, calling it "more hype than harm." Don't worry, we've responded to that OpEd in The Hill.

This is a guest post from Chip Gaul, intern for the Sierra Club's Good Jobs Retrofit campaign.

During the peak days of summer, Portland's richly diverse Cully Neighborhood enjoyed a cool breeze as residents gathered for a neighborhood ice cream social last Thursday. The Metropolitan Alliance for Common Good (MACG), Sierra Club Oregon Chapter, LiUNA, and the City of Portland organized the event to launch the neighborhood phase of the city's retrofit program, Clean Energy Works Portland (CEWP).

Local and state representatives and Cully Association of Neighbors' Rich Gunderson spoke about the pilot program that helps residents pay for improvements to their home's energy performance. Over 220 residents and contractors were in attendance, and 57 people signed up or committed to apply for loans following CEWP program guidelines. Cully Neighborhood's goal is to get at least 100 retrofits completed as part of the city's overall 500-home pilot.

Twenty-five communities (cities and states) across the country won Retrofit Ramp-up awards to improve the energy efficiency of homes and businesses. Portland was awarded $20 million in April. These programs don't just have the potential to cut carbon emissions and shrink utility bills, they can also create the quality green jobs that build a new clean energy economy. In September, CEWP created a workforce agreement between the city, contractors, and members of the community.

As these programs expand, more homeowners will pay less to keep their homes comfortable and energy bills affordable on the hottest and coldest days of the year. Stay posted for more updates in Portland and other cities planting the seeds to green economies and sustainable communities.

While previous years had it coming down the East Coast and into Washington, DC, this year's Brita Climate Ride will hit the West Coast. The Climate Ride is a huge bike ride aimed at supporting action on climate change. Here are the details from Climate Ride organizer David Kroodsma:
Join the National Bike Ride to Support Climate and Energy Solutions
The nation's largest environmental charity bike ride and 'climate conference on wheels' comes to California! After two years on the East Coast, Climate Ride debuts Brita Climate Ride California 2010 this September 21-25, 2010.

Two hundred cyclists will pedal beautiful country roads 300 miles along California’s rugged northern coast from Eureka to San Francisco to raise awareness of clean energy, the climate crisis, and pedal power.

This fully-supported adventure raises funds for Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Green America, and 1Sky. Climate Ride is the first multi-day, multi-city bicycle ride to address climate issues and highlight renewable energy solutions. The event also showcases that the bicycle is the ultimate carbon-free machine and a viable form of transportation. Participants can register online at www.ClimateRide.org.
David also has a great write-up on Huffington Post about how the event will go and why you should join him. You should also watch this video from last year's ride.



So how about it - will you join the Climate Ride?

(photo courtesy of Climate Ride)

On the heels of yesterday's second oil accident off Louisiana's coast, emergency workers in Michigan are responding to another major slick caused by a ruptured pipe. This oil spill of more than 800,000 gallons of crude (so far) is affecting some 16 miles of the Kalamazoo River (again, so far). Here's a photo of that mess from Brandy Baker of the Detroit News.



This quote from the Detroit News article sticks out to me:
"We have negatively impacted your lives and made a mess of your properties and waterways," said Patrick Daniel, Enbridge president and CEO. "We're now working around the clock to minimize the impact of that and clean up the area." And yet the oil industry says spills and accidents are few and far between, huh?

Here's another round-up of stories you may not have heard about just yet. Most of it is about coal - but not all.

First up, in timely coal news - we need you to call your U.S. rep right now to urge them to not weaken coal ash standards (The photo to the left is of the massive coal ash spill in Harriman, Tenn., from December 2008. Photo by Lyndsay Moseley). From our friends at EarthJustice:
We need you to call your Congressional Representative immediately!! Please take two minutes this morning to help stop our opponents from gaining ground in the House. You can call the House switchboard and ask to be transferred to your member's office, (202) 224-3121
 
Two damaging letters to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson are currently circulating in the House asking for weak coal ash regulations.
 
Representatives Rick Boucher (VA) and Fred Upton (MI) are circulating one letter seeking sign-on from Energy and Commerce Committee members and Representative Holden (PA) is circulating a second letter to all House members. Both letters ask EPA to issue only guidelines, maintain the inadequate status quo of weak state regulations, and refrain from establishing federally enforceable regulations!
 
Please call your representative in Congress and ask him/her to refrain from signing a letter that will hurt your community and lead to EPA action that fails to protect our health and environment from toxic coal ash. 
 
Let your voice be heard and call immediately. The deadline for sign on to these letters is TODAY. The authors may extend the deadline, but only until Friday at the latest.
----

Next up is more coal news. If you're in California, you might just be knee-deep in election news. The latest is that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina received campaign money from Murray Energy, a major coal company whose CEO is a climate denier, along with other major coal companies in Appalachia.

Now for some good coal news: A legal challenge has proved successful in Georgia, where a state administrative court ruled against two state water permits for the proposed 850-megawatt Plant Washington coal-fired power plant in Sandersville, GA. The court has ruled that the water withdrawal and water pollution discharge permits issued by Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) for the proposed power plant are both legally flawed. More details here.

And coal's not just bad for the water, as some residents in Illinois discovered this past weekend on a tour of a longwall mining site. The Illinois Sierra Club Mining Issues Committee took folks on a tour in Hillsboro, where the new Deer Run longwall mine is under contruction next to town, within a few hundred feet of the local hospital. If you're unfamiliar with how damaging longwall mining can be, watch this video to learn more.

They also traveled to Macoupin County to see longwall mined areas still not "reclaimed" after a decade after mining - not to mention the Shay 1 mine coal waste impoundment, which features millions of gallons of toxic coal slurry. Check out pictures from the tour on Flickr.

Also this past weekend, hundreds of Texans gathered for the Great Texas Cleanup Event in Houston, which was co-organized by the Texas Sierra Club - especially by our Texas Beyond Coal and Texas Sierra Student Coalition teams (seen in the photo to the right). The event was an outdoor music and arts festival mixed with community organizing for clean energy and clean air. This website has a great write-up and more fantastic pictures.

Finally, in more good clean energy news, got this tip via email: "Atlantic Green Power (AGP) announced (July 20th) it received final approval to build a 14.4 megawatt (MW) solar farm in Upper Pittsgrove, N.J. This approval makes the pending project the largest solar energy generation facility to receive final site plan approval in New Jersey to date, and one of the largest on the East Coast."

This is a guest post from the Sierra Club Good Jobs Retrofit Campaign intern Chip Gaul.

Have you ever wanted to know more about your home's energy consumption after receiving a higher than usual utility bill? Or kicked yourself for leaving the lights on when you're out of the house, or the refrigerator door open, then wondered how much energy- and money- you just lost?

Residents in southern California are finding answers to these questions from Southern California Edison's (SCE) newly installed smart meters. The major utility recently installed the one millionth smart meter in one of its customer's homes under its $1.6 billion SmartConnect program. The program opens two-way communications to its customers, and aims to install 5 million smart meters by the end of 2012. SCE plans to start providing useful energy consumption data online to each homeowner with an installed smart meter by the end of 2010.

Utilities and techie businesses in the building performance industry are now realizing that the "smartest" grid is one that gives building owners access to information on their building's energy performance. SCE's recent landmark is just one development in a market that's allowing people to view their home or business as an system of energy appliances (e.g., HVAC, lighting, refrigeration, etc.) integrated with their utility's grid and power production. Cisco Systems recently announced plans to test their new home energy "controller" in a pilot program with major utility Duke Energy. Other companies and applications, such as Google's recent smart grid development, don't even need energy readings from utility-installed smart meters to help building owners understand their energy performance. Read about more of these devices in a report from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

Whatever the mechanism or technology, these developments are connecting private businesses and homeowners to their utility grid. As more utility providers follow SCE's lead, building owners will discover more ways to interact with their community's electricity grid and adjust their consumption behavior to save energy and money.

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign. This post was co-written by Lena Moffitt, Washington Representative for the Sierra Club Dirty Fuels Campaign.

This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blasted the State Department's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline - asserting that the EIS is "woefully deficient" because "the Draft EIS does not provide the scope or detail of analysis necessary to fully inform decision makers and the public, and we recommend that additional information and analysis be provided."

The Keystone XL is a massive pipeline designed to carry tar sands oil from Canada into the U.S., and we've long called its EIS inadequate. Now our nation's environmental watchdog is putting its weight and expertise behind that assessment.

EPA is charged with protecting Americans' health and safety, and its concerns about this pipeline underscore and validate what Americans are saying across the country.

EPA is demanding more than 30 additional pieces of information needed based on grave concerns such as "the Draft EIS does not fully identify and address the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority, low-income and Tribal populations."
 
EPA also raises serious concerns about the threats tar sands pose to the health and safety of American communities, which underscores the need to proceed with caution when it comes to making a decision of this magnitude about the country's energy future.  

And given what we've witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico, where rubbers stamps for the oil industry were all too common, we welcome this call for a more thorough and rigorous approach to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Here's just a partial list of what EPA is asking of the State Department, given the woefully deficient consideration of these environmental and human impacts:
- A broader assessment of the need for this pipeline, including a "robust analysis of options for meeting national energy and climate policy objectives";  
- A more thorough investigation into the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, including a consideration of Canadian tar sands development (which EPA asserts is an action clearly connected to building the pipeline and must be considered);  
- A lifecycle assessment of "well-to-wheel" (greenhouse gas) emissions generated from tar sands;  
- A better understanding of mitigation measures that could be taken to decrease the emissions from tar sands developments;  
- An assessment of the air quality impacts of refining tar sands, and a more in-depth look at the environmental justice ramifications of these air quality concerns;
- A much more thorough emergency response plan, including a consideration of the specific impacts to water bodies or a leak or spill of the chemical dilutent needed to transport heavy tar sands oil;  
- A consideration of the safety waiver [the Department of Transportation] is considering granting to TransCanada, with special attention paid to the sulfur content of the fuel and how this would impact the thinner steel which would be used if the waiver were granted;
- A complete assessment of all the project's impacts to wetlands;  
- A consideration of the impacts of Canadian tar sands developments on migratory birds.
That list alone underscores the high risk and hefty cost of pursuing toxic tar sands oil at the expense of America’s clean energy future.

We applaud EPA's scrutiny.

All of the additional analysis requested by EPA must be prepared to allow for a robust consideration of the impacts of this pipeline, and whether or not is it in our nation's interest.

And because of an executive order, these requests from EPA mean that the Keystone XL plan cannot go through until the Department of State can deliver completed analysis addressing all of these points.

We have said all along, an open and honest dialogue about our energy future leads to the conclusion that we should say no to this filthy project. Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should say yes to clean energy, yes to clean air, and yes to an oil-free future.

This is a guest post from Chip Gaul, Intern for the Sierra Club Good Jobs Retrofit Campaign.

In April, twenty-five cities and states received “Retrofit Ramp-up” awards from the U.S. Department of Energy’s stimulus funds (a competitive grant under the Energy Efficiency and Community Block Grant Program). These grants are beefing up existing programs and new initiatives set to launch this fall and winter that allow households and building owners to improve the energy efficiency performance of their homes and businesses.

New Sierra Club ED Mike Brune recently stated that we need to do more than simply fight the status quo of dirty energy and environmental degradation: we need to promote new solutions. Improving the performance of our country’s 130 million energy inefficient homes (20 percent of global warming pollution) will help curb our dependence on fossil fuels and create quality jobs in a slumping economy and construction sector.

Even though retrofits produce many benefits for building owners- reduced carbon footprint, lower utility bills, and more comfort during extreme weather days- most people are unaware of local programs that help pay for energy-saving measures. Community-based organizations and local clean energy advocates in “Ramp-up” cities can help spread the word about these new programs and help deliver real energy savings by signing up their peers and neighbors, implementing solutions envisioned in ED Brune’s remarks.

For instance, in Maine, where 75% of homeowners heat their homes with oil at an average cost of $2,000 per year, Maine Partners for Cool Communities is organizing canvassing and neighborhood events to teach homeowners about the benefits of home energy upgrades through Maine's Home Energy Savings Program with Efficiency Maine. Sierra Club has joined labor unions and business partners to host Clean Energy Roadshow events across the country. The Roadshow partners create an open forum for business leaders, industry experts, public officials, and stakeholder groups to exchange best practices and form new partnerships to rapidly build new clean energy industries.

Implementing these budding “Ramp-up” programs will help communities enter a new era free of pollution from dirty energy and booming with a clean-energy economy. Read about Sierra Club campaigns in a community near you.

That's what the Washington Post is reporting - "Oil Leak Stopped for First Time Since April." If the well stays capped, this is fantastic news!

Related to the BP oil disaster, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson was testifying again on Capitol Hill about the disaster. Her testimony is here.

Speaking of oil, Senators Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Tom Carper, and Michael Bennet just released the "Oil Independence for a Stronger America" act, which is all about oil savings. From the senators' news release: The Oil Independence for a Stronger America Act will set into law the goal of achieving independence from overseas oil in the next 20 years and a specific plan for achieving it. By committing America to developing a robust clean energy economy, the legislation would create new jobs while eliminating the national security vulnerability posed by dependence on oil from overseas to run the economy.

To us, this is a great start. From a statement by Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune: Senators Merkley, Carper, Udall and Bennet are putting us on the right track. This bill to reduce oil dependence is absolutely the right place to start and will focus action where it is most needed. Calling on the President to use all existing authority to reduce the amount of oil we use by at least 8 million barrels a day by 2030 sets an appropriate floor for what together we can achieve. Taking these early steps in the wake of an immediate disaster is also vital to the success of our ultimate goal--an oil-free economy that works for America's middle class.Let's end our addiction to oil! And don't forget about the BP Oil Disaster Group here on Climate Crossroads.

This is the weekly blog post from Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.

Today I'll focus on yet another community suffering from coal's pollution - but this community is a little bit larger, and it's on the front end of an emerging trend. The city is Chicago and it's starting what could be a national movement to clean up dirty energy in the inner city.

Some of our oldest and dirtiest coal plants are located in major cities across the U.S.; and they are often located in areas with other major pollution sources, exposing residents of these densely populated areas to higher levels of harmful pollution than their neighbors.

What's happening now in Chicago is just the beginning as residents of these communities organize and rise up against these environmental injustices, finding ways to clean up their air and water.

In Chicago, more people live near the city's two old coal plants than any other coal plant in the nation. The plants, located on the southwest side of Chicago, cause 40 pre-mature deaths, 500 emergency room visits and 2,800 asthma attacks every year. Chicago also has one of the highest asthma rates in the country, and the city's asthma hospitalization rate is nearly double the national average. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, on average, one out of seven school-aged children has asthma; in a number of Chicago-area neighbors, upwards to one out of three children suffer from asthma.

As such, community groups are working to clean up the two coal-fired power plants: Fisk and Crawford - both owned by Midwest Generation. And it goes beyond their asthma-causing air pollution.  The Fisk plant produces more than 1.78 million tons of CO2 annually. The Crawford plant produces more than 3.18 million tons of CO2 annually.

Today in the Windy City, more than 50 local and national organizations, joined by local community members and elected leaders kicked off a ward by ward effort.

"Like many working-class communities of color around the country, Pilsen (a Chicago neighborhood) is inundated with multiple pollution sources, the worst of which is the Fisk plant," said Jerry Mead-Lucero, member of Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization (PERRO), "Your race or class should not determine whether or not you have a healthy environment in which to live."

For years, local organizations such as Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) and PERRO have been champions for cleaning the Crawford and Fisk coal plants. Then the Chicago Clean Power Coalition was formed early this year, and support for the groups has grown as more families living in the affected communities get sick of the coal plants' pollution.

The groups are working to pass the Clean Power Ordinance introduced by Chicago Alderman Joe Moore in April. The ordinance will require the coal plant operators to reduce particulate matter pollution (soot) from the coal plants by 90% and global warming pollution (CO2) pollution by 50%, resulting in significant health benefits for neighboring communities. The ordinance currently has nine cosponsors and the coalition has collected close to 1,000 signatures and letters from citizens asking their aldermen to support the ordinance.

"We are looking to the City Council and Mayor Daley to not only to protect the health of its citizens, but also lead the country towards a clean energy future," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, who was at the kick off event.

This Chicago event is just another example of action against coal and for clean energy. All over the U.S. we've seen local residents uniting to protect public and environmental health from the massive pollution spewed out from coal-fired power plants. Together we can make these changes.

This is a guest post from Sierra Club Conservation Director Sarah Hodgdon.

Actress Ashley Judd has recently been the target of some very harsh criticism and language from the coal industry in Appalachia. This is not surprising behavior from the coal industry, since Big Coal often resorts to personal attacks when they feel like their dirty, dangerous, expensive way of life is threatened.

This harsh language and attacks are coming in response to Judd's June speech at the National Press Club where she railed against mountaintop removal coal mining as "the rape of Appalachia." (We blogged about that speech right here). I was at that speech and found it very compelling - Judd has been a longtime critic of mountaintop removal coal mining.

Judd is a native of eastern Kentucky, so the destructive practice of mountaintop removal coal mining hits close to home for her. Her June speech discussed in detail the harsh realities that this form of mining and coal in general is having on Appalachia - including massive environmental degradation and the economics showing that the coal industry is hurting the region far more than it is helping.

The real statement behind these coal industry attacks is that when it comes down to the issues, the coal industry can only respond with personal attacks because they know that Judd - and everyone else speaking out against coal - is correct.

We've see the coal industry intimidate activists and spend huge amounts of money of lobbying and smearing good people, but we don't hear about solutions.

Jobs, the environment, health - coal and mountaintop removal coal mining are destroying them all in Appalachia. Visit the Sierra Club webpage on mountaintop removal, or I Love Mountains' website , or check out this post defending Judd from Jeff Biggers.

As we've said before, Judd is no slouch on this issue. Not only did she grow up in the impacted areas, but she’s also done extensive research during her graduate school time at Harvard University.

Ashley Judd knows what she's talking about, she is absolutely correct, and we applaud her for using her celebrity to help bring attention to such a devastating issue. We must end mountaintop removal coal mining. We don't have time for personal attacks.

This is a guest post from the Global Warming and Energy Team Intern Edward Hill.

Smooth crispy lines that criss-cross in perfect symmetry, each individual panel soaking in that ‘all natural’ golden syrup, are all you need to serve up an entire grid of delicious sustainably. Waffles, that’s right, waffles.

 

Near Norcross, Georgia, the cradle from which our nation’s Waffle Houses leapt, managers are planning for the future by installing solar panels to help wean us off our addiction to dirty energy and move us towards a sustainable future. According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, four solar powered water heaters, installed by First Century Energy, will provide nearly half of the restaurants daily hot water needs. Waffle House expects the investment to pay for itself within five years. Every week it seems that more and more businesses are seeing the long-term benefits of energy independence, even if at the individual level.

 

The Waffle House move marks another milestone among the many laid in the nation’s path towards sustainability. Congratulations, Waffle House, for helping to create a future where waffles might not be glutton-free, but will certainly be guilt free.

The momentum against bringing Canada's dirty tar sands oil into the U.S. via the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline continues.

Today across the nation are a series of rallies and public events bringing attention to this dirty and dangerous option, and the need for the U.S. State Department to not approve TransCanada's permit for this pipeline. The events are organized by Corporate Ethics International, Friends of the Earth, Indigenous Environmental Network, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club.

The background on this dirty tar sands pipeline: In an effort to save money, TransCanada has applied for a safety waiver for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would allow the company to operate with thinner pipe and higher pressures than standard operating procedure; they also lack a public emergency plan in the event of a leak and have not demonstrated that emergency responders have been identified, contracted or trained.
These rallies come on the heels of last Tuesday's final public hearing on the pipeline (which I blogged about here)

I attended the rally today in Washington, D.C., outside the Canadian Embassy, where many gathered wearing orange shirts that said, "Oil Spill Prevention Team" on the front and "We Want Clean Energy Now!" on the back.

One of the rally speakers was Paul Siemens (pictured below), a rancher from Draper, South Dakota, whose own land would be crossed by this pipeline if it's built.

"Is South Dakota a state of no consequence? The State Department and TransCanada want you to think so," said Draper, noting that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the State Department acted as if a spill in rural areas would be no big deal.

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) brought in a celebrity, too - former "ER" star actress Gloria Reuben - who was born in Canada but is now an American citizen.

"These mine pits (where they get the tar sands) are so massive you can see them from space," said Reuben (pictured below), who serves on the NWF board of directors.

"Enough is enough - Secretary Clinton, we do not want any more fast-tracking for these industries," she added, pointing to the BP oil disaster and the Massey coal mine tragedy.

The ralliers then marched from the Canadian Embassy (seen below in the background, where employees gathered on the steps to see what we were up to) over to the White House, carrying signs and chanting for clean energy and against tar sands oil.

You can learn more about the fight against tar sands on our Dirty Fuels page and on our coalition website.