MINNEAPOLIS - While climate and energy legislation stalls in Congress, some industry experts aren't waiting for clean energy solutions. A recent report commissioned by the Civil Society Institute compares what they call a "Business as Usual" model relying on fossil fuels to one that eliminates coal production completely by the year 2050, maintains some level of natural gas and nuclear power, and invests heavily in renewable energy sources like wind.

Critics have argued that investment in wind energy is not cost-effective, but that's an outdated notion, says Geoff Keith, associate at Synapse Energy Economics and the report's co-author.

"What we found, really, is that when you're looking at a time frame that long, it's really quite feasible, and it's not that expensive in the out years."

The report estimates that by transitioning to renewable energy sources, each Midwestern consumer would be spending just over two dollars more per month in 2020, but by 2050, would be saving almost four dollars per month.

Keith says relying on conventional fossil fuels such as coal would be much more expensive in the long run than investing in renewable energy, since existing power plants would need to be updated to meet environmental standards.

"They're going to have to install new emission controls for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury, and this is going to be hundreds of billions of dollars nationwide in new investment in emissions controls for these plants."

In the report, it is assumed that the Midwest's level of nuclear power generation in 2050 will remain the same as at present. But with aging facilities and Minnesota's current moratorium preventing the building of new nuclear plants, Keith admits there are questions about how long nuclear power will be viable in the state.

"If existing nuclear power plants were not able to make it through their entire 20-year license extension or beyond that, then we'd have to make up that electricity from somewhere else."

Keith says nuclear power could be taken out of the mix. Under that scenario, it might take longer to phase out coal, or more upfront investments could expand the use of renewable energy.

The Midwest snapshot of "Beyond Business as Usual: Investigating a Future Without Coal Power" is available at:
bit.ly/aB9g4k




get more stories like this via email

The construction of more solar farms in the U.S. has been contentious but a new survey shows their size makes a difference in whether solar projects are favored by neighbors.

South Dakota's largest solar installation, the Wild Springs project in New Underwood, began operations in March and covers more than 1.5 square miles. The survey showed projects under 100 megawatts are generally favored by neighbors, while larger ones like Wild Springs are unpopular.

Kristi Pritzkau, finance officer for the City of New Underwood, said the construction traffic was tough on the town of just over 600 but the project's builder, National Grid Renewables, is giving back to the community.

"They had to use our well, so they paid for the water, and they paid for a new pump for it, too," Pritzkau pointed out. "They've been really great with the city."

Prtizkau noted the company donated to the town's pool and Lions Club and has created a school scholarship program, all part of the more than $500,000 of charitable giving it has promised in the project's first 20 years of operation. It is also expected to bring in $12 million of tax revenue to the county in the same time frame.

Sioux Falls-based Missouri River Energy Services has plans to build a new solar project near Brookings and build a transmission line from South Dakota into Minnesota.

Tim Blodgett, vice president of member services and communications for the company, said federal grant programs and tax credits provide incentives and South Dakota produces more energy than it can use.

"With the development of more wind, the development of solar, there's a lot planned right now to get these resources out of this area," Blodgett explained. "Into Minneapolis and other places where there's larger demand for the energy."

Currently, more than half the state's power generation comes from wind, followed by hydropower.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia officials support the Environmental Protection Agency's new emissions rule. The federal clean truck standards will reduce emissions by up to 60% in 2032 and prevent 1-billion metric tons of carbon pollution. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Virginia and nationwide.

Phillip Jones, Newport News Mayor, said the new rule helps end the city's environmental disparities.

"We have a very large multiple coal company in downtown Newport News in the southeast part of our community," he said. "That's going to lead to higher rates of asthma for that community. There's a lot of air-quality issues in downtown Newport News."

Jones noted the city has taken steps to reduce emissions. The city's school district has been using propane-powered buses and Newport News is purchasing alternate energy-powered vehicles. He added any opposition to this work centers on larger upfront costs, but the long-term benefits are worthwhile. The EPA's rule goes into effect in 2027.

Transportation agencies are also working to cut emissions. Hampton Roads Transit has been working to cut emissions with cleaner buses.

Sibyl Pappas, chief engineering and facilities officer with Hampton Roads Transit, said the agency's upcoming bus maintenance facility furthers its emissions-reduction goals.

"It's very near where Dominion Energy is bringing offshore wind onshore. So, we've talked with Dominion about buying wind power. So, potentially, those buses are zero emissions at the tailpipe and zero emissions at the generation point," Pappas said.

The facility will open in 2029 and be net zero-ready upon completion. While HRT had some hiccups with electric buses, Pappas feels the EPA rule encourages climate-smart initiatives for all economic sectors.

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.