YANKTON, S.D. - There's majority support for moving the country "entirely away from coal," according to a new nationwide survey commissioned by the Sierra Club. The poll finds that 57 percent of those questioned support the idea.

According to Mary Anne Hitt, who heads the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, the poll results show clear support for non-fossil-fuel power.

"These results serve as a strong reminder that when we make choices about which path we're going to take, the voices of American families are loud and clear," Hitt said. "They want clean energy and they want it right away."

The poll found that more than three of every five Americans support investing in clean energy sources and energy efficiency instead of the traditional fuels, coal, oil and gas (61 percent for clean energy to 33 percent for traditional sources).

The Sierra Club's Alex DeSha, a member from Whitesburg, said coal is "no longer cheap." He sees the EPA's push for stricter rules on carbon emissions as a chance to broaden the country's energy mix.

"We've seen the coal industry lose its competitive edge to other resources. Investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency is the direction the nation as a whole is going," he said. "I look at the carbon rules as an opportunity for us to be innovative."

While many political leaders are criticizing the EPA's actions, pollster Andrew Baumann, vice president, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said the federal agency received "very solid ratings" from the cross-section of Americans surveyed.

"So, you know, the EPA, unlike some would have you believe, is not at all the bogeyman," Baumann declared. "It's actually quite popular and trusted."

The poll found that 44 percent of those questioned had a favorable opinion of the EPA, compared with 27 percent unfavorable. A coal industry supporter from Kentucky, Bill Bissett, claims the survey comes from an "anti-coal polling firm" and that it is a "rallying call" for the industry to do a better job communicating.

Link to poll results at SierraClub.org.




get more stories like this via email

The Keystone 10 Million Trees Partnership is making significant strides in Pennsylvania's environmental efforts.

A $4,000 grant from The GIANT Company and Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful will bring new trees to the City of Lancaster. The trees will be planted by volunteers.

Carla Eissing, Pennsylvania grassroots manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the grant is helping to support their Mira Lloyd Dock partnership diversity award. She added the grant will support a tree planting in November at McCaskey High School.

"We will be planting 56 native trees and shrubs of varying species, depending on what's available," Eissing explained. "We are always working with our growers to ensure that we've got a good selection to choose from."

Eissing added the project leverages community partnerships and leadership. It focuses on urban beautification, stormwater reduction and increasing green spaces. The project builds upon the efforts of previous award winners who engaged with the local school district and community.

Brenda Sieglitz, Pennsylvania director of major giving for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, applied for the grant through Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful to specifically be used for providing and purchasing the trees. She said since several other organizations are also funding this project, it has grown to involve more partners.

"Multiple of the other Mira Lloyd Dock awardees have joined together for this," Sieglitz noted. "We're really excited that we can use this funding from Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful and the GIANT company to work together to leverage such an ambitious project with McCaskey."

Each winner of the Dock Award will get $5,000 to plant trees and $1,000 to take care of them. The trees will be provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tree Pennsylvania program and the partnership.

A proposed rate hike by American Electric Power that would have affected customers in two dozen West Virginia counties is off the table for now.

West Virginia regulators dismissed AEP's case, citing incomplete documents and failure to disclosure financial information.

Courtney MacDonald, coalition coordinator with West Virginians for Energy Freedom, said while advocates would like to cheer the case dismissal, it will likely resurface.

She said residents should stay tuned.

"There were so many eyes on this case," said MacDonald. "There was a lot of outrage and frustration from West Virginians that already can't afford their electricity bills."

The proposal would have raised rates by nearly 18% - or around $29 a month for residential customers, and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for AEP.

The utility argues the rate hike is needed to cover increased costs involved in procuring and supplying energy.

MacDonald contended energy companies should be working to lower costs through efficiency programs and renewable power sources, instead of placing the burden on communities.

"Fifteen to 22% for schools, 25% for churches, and 25% to 30% for small businesses," said MacDonald, "which we all know in this post-COVID world are already struggling."

MacDonald added that residents who want to be involved in the regulatory process and share their views with the Public Service Commission can sign up for alerts online, at energyfreedomwv.org.

"You will get an alert to let you know that it is time to start writing letters again, and we provide a form that makes that easy to do," said MacDonald. "Within two minutes, you can have your own personalized message sent to the PSC."

Mountain State residents saw their average electricity costs jump by 90% between 2005 and 2020, an increase higher than almost all other states, according to the group Conservation West Virginia.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is pausing the state's involvement in a multistate offshore wind development deal.

Lamont cites the projects' potential costs, leaving Rhode Island and Massachusetts to collect proposals.

A Sierra Club report finds offshore wind can save New Englanders $630 million annually.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said offshore wind is essential to the state achieving its climate goals.

"It's a real dangerous game to play, for the rest of us out here trying to get our climate action going, trying to get offshore wind off and running," said Brown. "And it's a huge market, and we're backing away from it for absolutely no good reason whatsoever except political gain."

Postponing offshore wind could prevent Connecticut from reaching its 2030 carbon emission reduction goal. At the same time, the state is building momentum with fossil fuels.

Enbridge is proposing a fracked gas pipeline extension from New Jersey to Rhode Island, much of which would run across Connecticut.

Project Maple is still in its earliest phases, but environmentalists worry about the hazards it can create.

Some environmental organizations feel the state's over-reliance on methane gas has led to increasing price spikes. The state's gas utilities got rate increases earlier this year that many Connecticut residents opposed.

Samantha Dynowski - state director of the Sierra Club Connecticut chapter - said along with offshore wind, the state should pursue all other cost-saving renewable energy options.

"Connecticut really should be moving forward with more solar - particularly on homes, and businesses, and parking lots," said Dynowski. "We also need to be doing more with energy efficiency. We know we can really reduce demand with energy efficiency."

She added the state can also invest in battery storage, which distributes saved-up energy for times when the sun isn't out or the wind has died down.

However, offshore wind is the most abundant renewable resource New England has.

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds offshore wind provides more power for the region in winter than current gas lines do.