Author Archives Laura Arnold

California Republicans Are 5 Times More Likely to Own Solar Than Democrats

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 04, 2016  /   Posted in solar, wind  /   No Comments

California Republicans Are 5 Times More Likely to Own Solar Than Democrats

California Republicans Are 5 Times More Likely to Own Solar Than Democrats

Republican voters and elected officials are generally considered hostile toward renewable energy. That’s likely because many prominent Republicans deny humanity’s contribution to climate change and oppose subsidies for clean energy technologies, despite the fact that fossil fuel industries benefit from billions of dollars in tax breaks.

Instances like the snowball toss made by Republican Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, coupled with his record of votingagainst clean energy legislation, help to cement the perception that conservatives widely oppose the adoption of low-carbon technologies like solar and wind.

This year’s GOP platform states, “We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources -- wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal and tidal energy -- by private capital.” However, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed the clean energy sector, called climate change a hoax created by the Chinese, and recently called the solar industry “a disaster.”

But the reality is that the Republican electorate, on the whole, has a favorable view of clean energy. A 2016 poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found broad support for government policies to expand renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with 84 percent of all registered voters in support of more funding for energy sources like wind and solar, including 75 percent of Republicans.

The bipartisan embrace of clean energy is playing out in California, where a recent study by the Denver-based energy information company SolarPulse found that people in Republican-leaning communities are five times more likely to purchase rooftop solar than people in communities that vote Democrat, as ThinkProgress reports.

In the last five years, more than one in every 100 households bought solar panels in areas that elected Republicans. That compares to one in every 500 households with solar in areas that elected Democrats.

According to ThinkProgress:

To reach these findings, the company reviewed data on 25,000 California houses that installed solar panels from 1997 to 2015, and looked into the political leanings of the areas with the highest proportion of solar homes.

Researchers then tested partisanship effect on solar purchases using the Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI)  --  which scores the representatives of each congressional district based on the partisanship of their voting record  -- and divided areas as either Very Republican, Mildly Republican, Mildly Democratic, Moderately Democratic, or Very Democratic.

The conclusion: Very Republican houses were just somewhat less likely to buy solar than Mildly Republican homes.

Income did not prove to be the differentiating factor between political groups, given that the median per capita income in Democratic areas is roughly $8,000 higher than in Republican ones. The SolarPulse report found that home ownership is a driver, however, given 50 percent of California Democrats are renters compared to 40 percent of Republicans. Renters are far less likely to make a long-term investment in a home project like rooftop solar, and solar companies want stable solar purchasers.

But the biggest factor proved to be geography, according to the report. Republican districts are typically located in the southeastern part of the state, where there are stronger solar resources and people are more likely to own large suburban homes that are better suited to host solar systems.

“When you start to look at how the installation of solar panels can translate into your individual electricity bill and what that can mean for your family, especially in California where you deal with above-average per-kilowatt-hour electricity costs, I think that can trump any political persuasions you may have about solar and renewables,” Paul Zalewski, director of digital marketing for SolarPulse, told the San Diego Tribune.

Clean energy isn’t only attractive to Republicans in progressive states like California. Solar has strong support from Republicans in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and several other states. Even staunchly Republican states like Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe’s home state, are starting to embrace solar power. Wind energy also has a very high approval rating among conservative voters. Texas, one of the reddest states in the nation, is currently at the forefront of wind energy generation in the U.S.

For some Republicans, Trump’s opposition to clean energy is a point of contention. In August, after Trump said at a rally that “wind kills all your birds,” Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said if the GOP nominee wins the presidency and tries to attack wind energy subsidies, “he’ll do it over my dead body.”

In coal country, much of the hostility toward renewable energy is misplaced. Market forces -- predominantly the increased availability and plummeting cost of natural gas -- have led to the coal industry’s decline.

Meanwhile, efforts are underway to retrain coal workers to participate in the growing renewable energy sector. The same is true for the oil and gas sector, which has been under pressure from low commodity prices.

Energy policy is likely to play a role in swaying voters in the 2016 election. During the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton advocated for leveraging the clean energy sector as an economic driver -- while Trump said, referring to solar, “I’m a great believer in all forms of energy, but we’re putting a lot of people out of work.”

In actuality, U.S. solar jobs are growing 12 times faster than the overall economy, and last year provided more jobs than oil and gas extraction for the first time. Wind turbine technician recently became the fastest-growing job in the country, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The International Renewable Energy Agency projects there could be as many as 24 million clean energy jobs worldwide by 2030.

As solar and wind get tied up in debates on the national stage, California’s experience offers another data point showing there’s much more agreement on clean energy among U.S. voters than it would seem. As the staff at SolarPulse wrote: “If all politics is local, then solar panels aren’t political at all.”


julia-pyper_avatar_33614_121_121_c1

Julia Pyper is a Senior Writer at Greentech Media covering utilities, grid issues, electric vehicles, the solar industry and energy storage. Find her on Twitter @JMPyper.

https://www.twitter.com/@JMPyper

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/feed/author/Julia+Pyper

Proposed legislation would further weaken Ohio clean energy standards

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 04, 2016  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized  /   No Comments

ohio-state-capitol-2

Proposed legislation would further weaken Ohio clean energy standards

An Ohio lawmaker says he’s no longer pushing to continue a freeze of the state’s clean energy and efficiency standards, but legislation he’s proposing would effectively do the same thing.

If the legislature does not act before the end of this year, the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards will kick back in, as revised in 2014. State Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), a longtime opponent of the standards, is circulating the new draft bill despite indications that Gov. John Kasich would not approve any plan to further weaken the policy.

Seitz’s bill would delay any enforcement of increases in renewable energy and energy efficiency for at least three years. It would also weaken the standards further, restrict Ohio’s ability to comply with federal regulations, increase utilities’ potential for profits, and blur the lines of corporate separation between utilities and their generation affiliates.

“It’s just more of the same from Sen. Seitz, and we don’t consider it a way forward,” said Ted Ford of Ohio Advanced Energy Economy. “We think the governor is right in saying we need to let the standards come back.”

‘An extension of the freeze’

As introduced by Seitz this spring, SB 320 would have maintained the current freeze on requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency until 2022 and 2021, respectively. Final compliance would have been pushed out until 2029.

Under the draft bill, targets would resume next year. But companies that don’t comply would not face any penalties for several years – until 2020 for the energy efficiency provisions and until 2021 for the renewable energy provisions. After those dates, enforceable targets would only kick in every few years.

“There is no more freeze in the revised bill that I’m preparing,” Seitz said last week on WOSU radio. But, he admitted, utilities and generation suppliers will have no enforceable duty to meet any additional requirements for either renewable energy or energy efficiency. “We will have a goals-based plan for the next three years,” Seitz said.

As critics see it, the draft bill would effectively continue the current freeze.

“It doesn’t really preserve the standards when you make everything voluntary and you push out compliance dates,” Ford said.

“The latest version of SB 320 is nothing more than an extension of the freeze for another three years,” said Trish Demeter of the Ohio Environmental Council. “Instead of outright freezing the standards, the bill proposes to make the annual benchmarks voluntary.”

In her view, that would put Ohio at a competitive disadvantage compared to other states. “This would stall investments in clean energy and put Ohio even further behind while others charge ahead with creating jobs, reducing harmful air pollution and attracting new companies to their states,” Demeter said.

Weaker standards

The 2014 law that imposed the current freeze had already weakened Ohio’s clean energy standards by enlarging the scope of what would count toward compliance. The draft bill goes even further. For example, water-saving measures and various wastewater treatment actions could count as energy efficiency. Similar provisions were in a 2013 bill sponsored by Seitz that garnered widespread criticism.

The draft bill is “a thinly-veiled attempt to water down the standards, render them unenforceable and throw them into limbo,” said .

Environmental advocates had previously said that Ohio was well on the way to compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan under the initial version of the state standards, although Seitz has warned about the risks of potentially conflicting requirements under state and federal rules.

However, weaker standards and delay in their enforcement would likely make it harder for Ohio to comply with the Clean Power Plan if it is upheld by the federal courts, advocates say.

“The fact is, the longer we sit around and allow clean energy investments to stall, the harder it will be for the state to craft a common-sense plan to reduce carbon pollution coming from the power sector,” Demeter said.

And if the federal rules are upheld, the draft bill would require the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to get legislative approval before submitting a state plan to implement the rules. Last year Ohio EPA director Craig Butler voiced constitutional and practical concerns over similar requirements in another bill.

“The Clean Power Plan grants the state a wide berth on how to reduce carbon pollution, but this bill would limit that flexibility greatly,” Demeter said.

Unfair advantages

Any clean energy standard “needs to be fair to everyone,” said Teresa Ringenbach at independent energy company Direct Energy. The company is neutral on whether states have standards for renewable energy or energy efficiency. But if there are standards, she said, “the utilities shouldn’t get an advantage to comply that we don’t have.”

As she sees it, the draft bill falls short in that regard. For example, some language in the bill could be read to favor a utility’s energy efficiency programs over those of competitors, Ringenbach suggested.

The draft bill would also let utilities count and recover shared savings for certain measures that improve the efficiency of affiliates’ power plants.

“The provision that allows the distribution utility to claim energy savings that their sister companies realize through making power plants more efficient is bizarre,” noted Demeter. In addition, she said, it “blurs the line for what is appropriate, and would make Ohio the only state in the nation that permits such self-dealing.”

Language in the draft bill would also expressly let utilities collect profits in the form of shared savings for actions that they had nothing to do with performing. FirstEnergy is currently asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to allow that under an ambiguity in current law.

“The original concept behind the shared savings was to ensure that the utilities were incented to keep real efficiency happening,” Ringenbach said. “However, taking credit for something that another customer is doing is probably not the best solution either.”

Potential utility profits could grow even more if enforceable milestones were spaced out as proposed by the draft bill. Utilities likely wouldn’t wait until the last minute to start meeting the upcoming deadlines, Sen. Seitz said on WOSU last week. Yet until each deadline, efforts by utilities or others would be considered above the law’s requirements — and thus eligible for profits as shared savings.

‘A difficult place’

In any case, said Ringenbach, the unsettled state of Ohio’s energy policy continues to frustrate business planning for her company and others. “Business certainty is a very important thing in any aspect of regulation,” she noted.

Failure to have strong clean energy standards can also hurt Ohio’s competitive position for keeping and attracting businesses, Ford stressed.

Especially for corporations with their own clean energy policies, “we appear to be a difficult place to acquire the kind of energy that they are increasingly demanding,” Ford said. “And that’s a problem, because there are other solutions or other options out there, as we saw with Facebook deciding to go to Texas instead of Ohio.”

“We’ve got to be a welcoming place,” Ford concluded. “We have to have a reputation for being forward-looking.”

Indianapolis Star Editorial: Indiana needs to clean the air

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 02, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

-1_nwCARBON.172699.jpg_20091207.jpg

Editorial: Indiana needs to clean the air

We seldom are trendsetters in Indiana. And for the most part that’s OK. But sometimes our reluctance to accept change has serious consequences, including harming our health and our quality of life.

That’s certainly been true with our slow, downright stubborn, refusal to more aggressively cut our dependence on coal as our primary fuel source for generating electricity.

Nationwide, coal is used to produce only 33 percent of the electricity consumed in America’s homes and businesses. In Indiana, we still burn coal to generate about 85 percent of our electricity. Only three states — West Virginia, Kentucky and Wyoming — are more dependent than Indiana on coal.

To hear Indiana’s top political and business leaders tell it, the state has little choice but to continue its heavy reliance on coal. To do otherwise, they say, would risk wrecking the state’s manufacturing-dependent economy because the cost of electricity would surge.

Perhaps. But then why have neighboring states such as Ohio and Michigan, also centers of manufacturing, been able to significantly reduce their reliance on coal? Is Indiana’s economy really less able to adapt to change than our neighbors?

Those questions arise out of an enlightening new investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, the USA TODAY Network and the Weather Channel. Their report found that about one-third of all industrial air pollution in the United States is produced at 22 sites. Four of them, all coal-fired power plants, are in southwest Indiana, near Evansville.

The health consequences for Hoosiers, and for our neighbors in other states, are serious. Air pollution significantly increases the risk of cancer, heart attacks and respiratory illnesses, such as asthma.

So yes, the average cost for electricity is a bit cheaper in Indiana than in Ohio — 11.33 cents per kilowatt hour versus 12.47 cents. But how much do we lose from higher health care costs and insurance rates? How many years of productivity are lost because workers are burdened by chronic illnesses?

Even more important, how many lives have been cut short because our state has been slow to further reduce air pollution?

Despite strong evidence that our dependency on coal has hurt Hoosiers’ health and reduced our quality of life, state leaders, including gubernatorial candidates Democrat John Gregg and Republican Eric Holcomb, are still reluctant to take the lead in promoting alternatives to coal.

The question isn’t whether Indiana could rely more on natural gas, wind, solar and even geothermal energy to generate electricity. We could. Those alternatives are increasingly reliable as energy sources and increasingly competitive with coal in terms of cost.

Is Indiana finally ready to catch up with the rest of the nation in terms of air quality and safeguarding public health? We will all breathe easier if the answer is yes.


IndianaDG Editor's Note: To better understand this Editorial, please see http://www.indianadg.net/super-polluters-many-states-have-at-least-one-in-southwest-indiana-there-are-four/

Super Polluters: Many states have at least one. In Southwest Indiana there are four.

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 02, 2016  /   Posted in Uncategorized  /   No Comments

Super Polluters: Many states have at least one. In Southwest Indiana there are four.

By Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

IndianaDG Editor's Note: Please use the above link to view the video with the story and to see many of the graphics which we were unable to display with this story. 

EVANSVILLE, Indiana—To see one of the country’s largest coal-fired power plants, head northwest from this Ohio River city. Or east, because there’s another in the region. In fact, nearly every direction you go will take you to a coal plant — seven within 30 miles.

Collectively they pump out millions of pounds of toxic air pollution. They throw off greenhouse gases on par with Hong Kong or Sweden.

 

Industrial air pollution — bad for people’s health, bad for the planet — is strikingly concentrated in America among a small number of facilities like those in southwest Indiana, according to a nine-month Center for Public Integrity investigation.

The Center, which merged two federal datasets to create an unprecedented picture of air emissions, found that a third of the toxic air releases in 2014 from power plants, factories and other facilities came from just 100 complexes out of more than 20,000 reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A third of the greenhouse-gas emissions reported by industrial sites came from just 100, too. Some academics have a name for them: super polluters.

Twenty-two sites appeared on both lists. They include ExxonMobil’s massive refinery and petrochemical complex in Baytown, Texas, and a slew of coal-fired power plants, from FirstEnergy’s Harrison in West Virginia to Conemaugh in Pennsylvania, owned by companies including NRG Energy and PSEG. Four are in a single region — southwest Indiana. Together, owners of these 22 sites reported profits in excess of $58 billion in 2014.

Thomas O. McGarity, a law professor and regulatory scholar at the University of Texas at Austin, said the Center’s findings show that “a lot of the problem is isolated, and what we need to do is focus in on these plants.”

The EPA says it’s doing that. In a written statement, the agency said its sustained emphasis on the electric power sector has led to “dramatically” lower emissions from power plants since 1990 — “while the U.S. economy has continued to grow” — and it is working to get further improvements.

But not all the states are on board. Indiana is one of 27 suing the EPA over its Clean Power Plan, which would require reductions in climate-altering greenhouse-gas pollution from electric utilities. Indiana is also among the states that tried to block a federal rule to reduce emissions of dangerous metals and acid gases from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Its governor, Mike Pence — Donald Trump’s running mate — is a pro-coal, climate-change skeptic who says the costs of shifting to cleaner energy sources are too high.

Maintaining the status quo has costs as well: bad air that threatens health and fuels global warming. More toxic pollution from utility coal plants was sent into the air within 30 miles of Evansville than around any other mid-sized or large American city in 2014, a Center analysis shows. That same 30-mile radius accounted for the most greenhouse gases released by U.S. coal plants that year around any city.

Mike Pence — Donald Trump’s running mate — says the costs of shifting to cleaner energy sources are too high.

Across the country, the top 100 facilities releasing greenhouse gases — almost all of them coal plants — collectively added more than a billion metric tons to the atmosphere in 2014. That’s the equivalent of a year’s worth of such emissions from 219 million passenger vehicles — nearly twice as many as the total number registered nationwide.

The top 100 for toxic air emissions vented more than 270 million pounds of chemicals in 2014. The vast majority of these chemicals have known health risks, according to the EPA; they can target the lungs, the brain or other organs, and some can affect the development of children born and unborn.

Eight of the super polluters have closed. The rest, including all four in Indiana, still operate.

Tina Dearing, 48, with 8-year-old daughter Maleah. Dearing believes air pollution contributed to her husband’s fatal heart attack.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

Tina Dearing, 48, from Huntingburg, Indiana, was unexpectedly widowed in March when her 57-year-old husband died of a heart attack. Coronary artery disease, the death certificate says. Two months later, researchers published the results of a 10-year study that showed why previous investigations kept finding shorter lifespans in areas with poorer air quality: pollution appears to accelerate harmful deposits in the arteries that cause nearly all heart attacks and most strokes.

Dearing’s family lives northeast of Evansville in a community within 30 miles of two of Indiana’s largest coal plants. She knows a variety of factors can play a role in an early death, but believes dirty air contributed in her husband’s case.

“The air quality stinks,” she said.

The Center, which relied on the EPA’s most recent final Toxics Release Inventory data to track total chemical releases, found that the people who live within three miles of the top 100 polluters are in some ways a cross-section of America: spread across half the states, all races, young and old, in a wide range of income brackets.

Hyper-polluters “disproportionately expose communities of color and low income populations to chemical releases.”

But more of them are poor or African-American than the country as a whole, data from the U.S. Census Bureau show. For instance, nearly 90 percent of the thousands living within three miles of ExxonMobil’s refinery and chemical plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are black and about a third are below the poverty line. The complex, which ExxonMobil said has reduced total emissions over 40 percent since 1990, released more than 2.6 million pounds of chemicals to the air in 2014, including hydrogen cyanide — which can cause headaches, confusion and nausea — and known carcinogens such as benzene.

Mary B. Collins with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry and two other researchers found similar disparities in a sophisticated analysis this year, writing that “there exists a class of hyper-polluters — the worst-of-the-worst — that disproportionately expose communities of color and low income populations to chemical releases.”

While people nearby are the most affected, these facilities can degrade air far afield. Almost all the states with top toxic-air emitters send a significant amount of pollution to downwind states, according to EPA analyses — in some cases reaching people hundreds of miles away.

Some of the companies that own the nation’s biggest polluters say their emissions break no rules and are simply a reflection of a facility’s size. Others point out that they’ve ratcheted down releases in recent years, including after 2014. FirstEnergy said it has shuttered coal plants accounting for more than 5,000 megawatts of power generation since 2012.

NRG, which owns or co-owns several coal plants on the top-100 lists, said its toxic air emissions are falling, including a sharp drop in mercury in 2015 to comply with new federal regulations, and it has set aggressive climate goals — a 50-percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2030, 90 percent by 2050 — that would mean a major overhaul in the way it makes power.

“Things can’t continue on the same path as they have for decades,” Bruno Sarda, NRG’s chief sustainability officer, said of businesses worldwide. “More and more of our new revenue is coming from much lower-carbon sources.”

“Things can’t continue on the same path as they have for decades.”

But coal is far from dead in America. And the tug-of-war over the future of electric power generation will affect everyone, some more than others. The influential utility industry. Blue-collar energy workers, from coal miners to solar-panel installers. Neighbors of coal plants. Electricity customers. People suffering from the lengthening pollen season, dangerous heat waves, devastating floodsand other effects of global warming.

To watch this unfold, come to one of the biggest coal-burning states, a place with no renewable-energy requirements. No mandatory energy-efficiency targets to cut back on unnecessary, money-wasting usage. No contingency plan for climate-change repercussions, which so worried local university researchers that a group of them sent a letter to the governorlast fall pleading with him to call on their expertise — a letter that went unanswered.

Come to Indiana.

Living and Dying in Evansville

Kris Dasch and son Kameron Edmonds, 19, look at photos of her younger son and his brother, Kavon Cooper.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

Kavon Cooper’s asthma, his mother says, “was a constant battle.” If he spent too much time outside in Evansville, he needed medicine to breathe. If he went to a friend’s house, he never knew if he’d have to go home in a hurry. Sometimes his asthma attacks were so bad that he ended up in the hospital. So he stayed inside as much as possible with the windows closed, playing video games, dreaming of testing them for a living someday.

For all that, the 12-year-old seemed to be getting better. It was a shock when he collapsed and died at home last year, lying in the hallway by the bathroom as his nebulizer ran in his bedroom. The coroner ruled that he’d suffered an acute asthma attack.

His mother, Kris Dasch, 47, couldn’t understand what had happened. The only explanation she got was that pollen had spiked.

So had air pollution. But no one had told her that.

Rising levels of toxic fine particles can trigger a deadly lung reaction.

Levels of toxic specks called fine particles — typically formed by emissions from power plants, vehicles and factories — leapt up 20 micrograms per cubic meter the previous day, according to the air monitor less than a half-mile from the family’s home. They began to ease overnight, then jumped another 9 micrograms shortly before his death. Levels of sulfur dioxide, another common power-plant pollutant, also rapidly increased at the same time that morning.

These are conditions that research suggests can trigger a severe, even deadly, lung reaction. No one had told Dasch that, either. No doctor had ever discussed air quality with her, other than the effects of pollen.

Dr. Carrie A. Redlich, director of the Yale Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program, suspects that’s almost always the case. Many physicians don’t think about the connection between air pollution and health, Redlich said. They might not know, for example, thatresearch suggests tainted air and allergens such as pollen work like a one-two punch — together, the reaction is worse.

“There’s a lot of illness, a lot of sickness in this area.”

That both spiked in the lead-up to Kavon’s death makes them sound to Redlich like contributing factors. “That is an important interaction,” she said.

Now that air quality is on her mind, Dasch makes connections that didn’t stick out before. How well Kavon did on the rare occasions he took a trip outside the region. How a neighbor mentioned that her son’s asthma didn’t bother him as much when they lived in Arizona. How “there’s a lot of illness, a lot of sickness in this area.”

Vanderburgh County, which includes Evansville, has lower life expectancy compared with peer counties across the country and a higher rate of adults reporting fair-to-poor health, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Health Status Indicators. Some key influencers — poverty, unemployment and obesity — are actually better here than in most peer counties. What’s counterbalancing it are higher rates of smoking and air pollution.

Dr. Stephen Jay, a pulmonologist and emeritus professor, says air pollution is a public health problem for Indiana.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

Researchers already knew that poor air quality impairs children’s lung development, but studies in the past few years have also suggested multiple in utero complications such as autism spectrum disorder, found a possible connection with childhood psychiatric conditions and linked exposure to damage that can trigger neurological problems in old age. In 2013, the World Health Organization declared that air pollution causes cancer. Inflammation kicked off by the pollutants seems to be the common denominator.

“You add air pollution together with a lot of smokers, you are adding a lot of disease, premature death and costs that the state of Indiana incurs,” said Dr. Stephen Jay, a pulmonologist and emeritus professor of public health at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis who has pressed for a shift to clean energy.

Lori Salma, a preschool teacher from Evansville, says she is struck by the number of young children using lung medication. She and her 14-year-old son both have asthma, and there are days “when I feel winded after being outside for longer than 15 minutes.”

There are days "when I feel winded after being outside for longer than 15 minutes."

She’s frustrated that for all they’ve done in their house to try to reduce flare-ups — no carpets, no curtains, no pets and, of course, no smoking — “there’s nothing we can do to control the air that we breathe.”

Tina Dearing said her late husband, Vincent, would come home to Huntingburg from business trips and complain that inhaling the local air felt like someone standing on his chest. Her oldest daughter had trouble breathing as an infant. And she wonders whether the air contributed to her daughter’s daughter, now 2, being born so small — not preterm, but just 5 1/2 pounds. (Research suggests that air pollution can decrease birth weight.)

“That’s why we limit our time outside,” Dearing said.

Rose Hoffman and her family lived in a community near Dearing’s for years before moving in 2012 to Champaign, Illinois. Air quality was not the reason — in fact, when she occasionally heard bad news about it, “I didn’t want to believe it because we enjoyed living there so very much.” But what happened after they left, she said, “was stunning.”

Her nighttime wheezing stopped. Her youngest daughter no longer coughs at bedtime. The awful migraines besetting two of her children went away almost entirely and hers eased. Her husband, a doctor, saw his asthma symptoms improve.

Hoffman, 45, had assumed genetics, or being the child of smokers, explained her severe lung damage following a bout with pneumonia in Indiana — her doctors had no idea why it happened. Now, she can’t help but think that air could have played a role in that, too.

Seven coal-fired power plants operate within 30 miles of Evansville, Indiana, including two pictured here in the nearby community of Newburgh.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

The State of the Air

Southwest Indiana doesn’t look like an industry stronghold. Evansville, population 120,000, is the biggest city by far amid the rippling farmland. Rural Kentucky is just across the Ohio River, while the state capital of Indianapolis — and the massive steelmaking complexes in northern Indiana — are hours and a world away.

But this is coal country, where the state’s 6,500 mining jobs are concentrated. Six coal plants operate here: Gibson, Rockport, Petersburg, Warrick, A.B. Brown and F.B. Culley, all but one within 30 miles of Evansville, which is also near two coal plants in Kentucky. A large piece of southwest Indiana power travels on transmission lines to be used elsewhere because the plants make more than 40 percent of the state’s electricity in an area with just 6 percent of its people.

They also make a disproportionate share of the pollution. The plants accounted for a quarter of Indiana air emissions reported to the EPA’s toxics inventory in 2014, a remarkable concentration in the most manufacturing-intensive state in the nation. Within the seven most southwestern counties here, three-quarters of the air pollution recorded in the inventory came from the six coal plants. And that doesn’t count the effects of the Kentucky plants.

Ask Mark Maassel about the air and he’ll recount the billions of dollars in environmental controls his members have installed over the last decade, some required by federal rules, some by EPA enforcement actions. He’s president of the Indiana Energy Association, a trade group for investor-owned utilities, and he sees “very significant changes and improvements in the environment of the state.”

Fine particles — toxic specks that research has linked to a variety of ills, including shorter lifespans — aren’t evenly concentrated across the country. Vanderburgh in southwest Indiana has higher levels than nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties with air-monitoring data for 2013 to 2015, according to average annual figures from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Most of the country, colored in gray in the map above, does not have monitoring data for particles. But efforts to estimate particles for all counties using satellite data have shown similar trends for southwest Indiana.

Power plants’ sulfur dioxide emissions dropped 64 percent statewide between 2000 and 2014, he said. Nitrogen dioxide, which harms the lungs and contributes to ozone, often called smog, fell 69 percent, he said. As some coal plants shut down, carbon dioxide — which warms the atmosphere — also declined.

That’s meant cleaner air. Evansville-area concentrations of fine particles dropped nearly 30 percent over the past decade, EPA monitoring figures show.

But the air here is still worse than in most of the country.

Vanderburgh County had higher levels of fine particles than nearly 90 percent of the U.S. counties with air monitors from 2013 to 2015, EPA records of average annual concentrations show. Vanderburgh was nearly on par with Manhattan, even though that New York City borough has nine times as many people and a lot more particle-spewing vehicles.

Despite that — and despite some power plants here running afoul of EPA rules in recent years, including for sulfur dioxide — the region isn’t violating federal air-quality standards for fine particles.

“The good news is, as of today, the entire monitoring network within the southwest Indiana area does demonstrate compliance,” said Scott Deloney, air programs branch chief at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

Research suggests the most toxic fine particles come from burning coal.

The bad news: The standard for particles is based on total amount, but research is finding they aren’t equally unhealthy. The most toxic ones, a 2015 studyby 11 researchers in the U.S. and Canada suggested, come from burning coal.

What’s more, researchers keep finding harm from fine particles at levels below the standard, which the EPA is reviewing to determine if it’s still appropriate. A new study led by a Johns Hopkins University researcher that focused on Boston — with markedly better particle levels than Evansville — found an association between that air pollutant and intrauterine inflammation, a key risk factor for premature birth.

In March, a New York University study estimated the share of premature births that can be attributed to fine particles. Indiana was second-highest in the country.

Premature birth can have lifelong consequences for children and is the biggest cause of infant mortality — a challenge for Indiana, tied for ninth-worst on infant death among U.S. states.Some studies have specifically linked air pollution to infant death rates.

Dr. Edward McCabe, chief medical officer at the infant-focused March of Dimes, says the evidence of pregnancy harms is now substantial enough that action — not simply further study — is required: “We need to do something about it.”

Dr. Norma Kreilein, a pediatrician in southwest Indiana, says patients breathe better when outside the area and people who move in “complain that they’ve never been as sick.”
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

But Indiana officials, focused on more widely understood risk factors such as smoking, which the state has high rates of, haven’t delved into pollution as a possible contributor. A 2014 state report aimed at improving infant survival rates didn’t mention air quality at all.

Asked about it, Indiana State Department of Health spokeswoman Jennifer O’Malley said by email that “outdoor air quality is beyond the scope of ISDH and was not a consideration” in its infant-mortality work. She referred questions to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, which said it has no public-health specialists on staff.

Dr. Norma Kreilein, a pediatrician in southwest Indiana who has tried to draw attention to environmental-health problems she sees in the region, is fed up with the state.

“They’ve refused to connect pollution to public health,” Kreilein said.

A spokeswoman for Pence did not answer questions about the matter or anything else for this story, except for one asking for his perspective on coal.

“President Obama’s Clean Power Plan will drive up electricity prices.”

“This abundant Hoosier resource supports over 26,000 Hoosier jobs and has historically provided Indiana’s economy with competitive electricity prices,” the spokeswoman, Kara Brooks, said by email. “Unfortunately, President Obama’s Clean Power Plan will drive up electricity prices, threaten electricity reliability, and put coal miners out of work. That is bad for Indiana and bad for America.”

Pro-Coal State

As Pence himself put it last year, Indiana is a “proud pro-coal state,” and its energy use reflects that. It relies on coal for 75 percent of its electricity, at a time when the national average has fallen to 33 percent.

Pence gave up his shot at re-election this fall to run with Trump in the presidential election. The Democrat in the governor’s race? A former coal lobbyist.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, right, greets Carl Chapman, chief executive of the Evansville-based utility company Vectren Corp.
Credit: Mike Lawrence / Evansville Courier & Press

Pence’s popular Republican predecessor also was pro-coal, and supported a coal-gasification power plant project that went way over budget. But former Gov. Mitch Daniels’ administration also started a mandatory energy-efficiency program to cut back on waste and crafted rules to allow more people to go solar.

The efficiency program is gone now, replaced with a law that sets no reduction targets for utilities and has saved less energy, according to the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. State lawmakers tried last year to allow utilities to raise costs for customers with solar panels, stepping back only after they were flooded with complaints — solar advocates fear another attempt will come. And then there’s Indiana’s challenge with other states to the Clean Power Plan, now under a U.S. Supreme Court stay as a lower court considers the arguments.

That hasn’t kept change from happening, because national forces pressuring coal — cheap natural gas, falling costs for renewables, federal pollution rules — are here, too. As recently as 2009, more than 90 percent of Indiana’s electricity was coal-fired.

But if a complete energy transformation is inevitable, as some in Indiana assume, getting there quickly is not. There’s so much farther to go here than in most places.

Only Texas burns more tons of coal for power than Indiana.

 

 

Just a handful of states get a larger share of their electricity from coal, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration figures, and none is as populous as Indiana. The only place that burns more tons of coal for power is Texas, which makes four times the electricity and gets a lot of it from natural gas.

Indiana made 16 percent of its electricity from natural gas last year. That fuel’s unhealthy air emissions when burned are sharply lower than coal’s. (Natural-gas power plants aren’t tracked by the Toxics Release Inventory, which exempts certain operations from otherwise fairly broad coverage.) Gas plants also release 40 to 50 percent less greenhouse gases than equally sized coal plants, though that doesn’t include potent methane leaks before the fuel arrives on site.

Then there’s wind and solar, which account for about 5 percent of Indiana’s electricity. Because of its lopsided energy profile, Indiana gets bigger health and environmental benefits from new wind turbines than any other state, and among the biggest from new solar panels, according to a 2013 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. A 2015 study led by a Stanford University researcher suggested that Indiana would save money by switching to renewables for all its energy needs.

But if Indiana’s rate of change over the last 10 years continues, power plants here will burn coal for decades to come.

“It will be a gradual thing,” predicted A. David Stippler, Indiana’s utility consumer counselor. “Hopefully a prudent, well-thought-out transition.”

Duke Energy’s Gibson power plant in southwest Indiana is the state’s largest.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

The Pollution Field Trip

From the back seat of a car, John Blair offered up acerbic commentary on the biggest air polluters of southwest Indiana. To your left, Duke Energy’s Gibson power plant and its coal-ash ponds. To your right, the little neighborhood where Duke provided bottled water to residents — later connecting them to a town water system — after the coal ash contaminated their wells.

Blair is a 69-year-old photographer with a 1978 Pulitzer Prize, but what he’s known for now is his work as volunteer head of a small environmental group in Evansville called Valley Watch. In decades of agitating for cleaner air and water, he’s often pressed the power plants — and their regulators — to do better.

The Gibson power plant released more greenhouse gases than all but three other facilities nationwide in 2014.

The first stop on Blair’s tour was Gibson, fourth-largest coal plant in the country by capacity. Located 25 miles northwest of Evansville, it released 2.9 million pounds of air pollutants in 2014, according to the toxics inventory — much of that the lung irritant sulfuric acid, which the EPA says contributes to the formation of fine particles. Lead, arsenic and mercury, all neurotoxins, added up to a collective 1,000 pounds that year as well. And Gibson released more greenhouse gases than all but three other sites — not just power plants — nationwide.

“A godawful place,” Blair said, “that should be shut down.”

Duke spokeswoman Angeline Protogere said the company has “significantly reduced emissions” at Gibson, installing more than $1 billion in environmental controls there over the past 20 years. Some of that was negotiated in a 2014 settlement after the EPA said it found violations. Toxics Release Inventory air emissions at Gibson have shrunk by three-quarters since 2006, including a 19 percent drop between 2014 and 2015, Protogere said. Greenhouse-gas emissions dropped by a third over the last decade as power generation also fell.

Duke operates its plants “within EPA and state regulatory limits that are designed to protect public health and the environment,” she said.

After Gibson came a stop at plants in Kentucky. Then back over the Ohio River into Indiana to see the looming, 1,038-foot stack at Rockport, tied for tenth-largest coal plant in the country.

Owner American Electric Power was sued in 1999 by the EPA, environmental groups and eight states (Indiana not among them) over its emissions at coal plants. As part of the 2007 settlement, in which AEP did not admit any violations, the company was to have installed pollution controls on one Rockport unit by 2017 and on the other by 2019. But a 2013 rework of the settlement allowed the company to push that off another eight to nine years — in the meantime installing less-expensive, less-effective controls — in exchange for retiring units at coal plants outside the region.

The Petersburg power plant reported more air pollution to the Toxics Release Inventory than any other site in the region.

AEP spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said by email that Rockport “is among the most efficient power plants in the world, which means it uses less coal, and has fewer emissions, for each kilowatt of electricity generated.” AEP, she added, has spent “hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce the emissions and environmental impact of the Rockport Plant,” including controls to cut mercury releases by about 80 percent.

Rockport, like Gibson, is on both of the Center’s top 100 lists, but neither is the region’s biggest producer of air pollution tracked by the Toxics Release Inventory. That distinction goes to the AES Corp.’s Petersburg power plant, 40 miles northeast of Evansville, which reported sending more chemicals into the air in 2014 than all but eight other sites nationwide. It’s also 35th for greenhouse gases. AES, hit with EPA violation notices for Petersburg in February and last year,said in a statement that it recently installed $450 million in pollution controls there, and “we comply with all environmental regulations.”

John Blair, head of Valley Watch in Evansville, gazes at the F.B. Culley power plant.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

Blair’s tour ended seven miles southeast of Evansville. There, the Warrick power plant run by Alcoa sits near F.B. Culley, one of two coal plants owned by the locally based Vectren Corp., which also co-owns part of Warrick. Vectren says its fleet is among the best controlled in the Midwest. Alcoa, whose complex is the fourth in southwest Indiana to make both top 100 lists, said it closed its smelter there in March and is running its power plant less now as a result.

Blair paused at a cemetery overlooking the smokestacks.

“You know,” he’d said earlier in the trip, “we’re subsidizing the coal industry big time with our health.”

‘Incredibly Powerful’ Utilities

Indiana utilities have influenced the state’s power mix beyond building coal plants in the first place. They gave a thumbs-up to ending mandatory state energy-efficiency targets, calling the program “very costly” for customers despite consumer-advocate support. They pressed for extra solar charges, contending that rooftop-solar customers shift costs to everyone else because they aren’t paying their fair share. (Some of the independent research on this national debate is in agreement; much of it is not.)

N. Ryan Zaricki and two of his employees at Whole Sun Designs in southwest Indiana install solar panels. Zaricki says the solar industry “has always been on the defensive” in his state, and he’d like to see improvements.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

The Indiana Energy Association says the state doesn’t need mandatory energy-efficiency or renewable-energy targets — now common across the country — because its members are making so much progress voluntarily. Indiana ranked 42nd on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s most recent state scorecard. It ranked 24th last year for the share of electricity generated with wind or solar, far outstripped by top states — half of them in the Midwest.

Unless a state’s regulatory structure accounts for it, energy efficiency dampens utility revenues. So does customer-generated power. Some of Indiana’s utilities, including Evansville-based Vectren, specifically warn investors that these options are a financial threat.

Consumer groups think the utilities — not the coal companies — make the most effective advocates for Indiana’s energy status quo.

“They’ve always been an incredibly powerful voice in the General Assembly,” said Julia Vaughn, policy director for Common Cause Indiana, and “they’ve drug their feet on any type of movement away from coal.”

Utilities’ gifts to legislators: dinners, cocktails, golf, sports tickets.

Electric utilities are among the largest corporate contributors to state elections in Indiana. They spent nearly 100 times as much as pro-environment groups in the past five years, and far more than mining companies, according to National Institute on Money in State Politics data.

Their state lobbying, which totals hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, includes spreading freebies around to legislators: dinners at McCormick & Schmick’s, cocktails at Moe & Johnny’s, rounds of golf, tickets to Indiana Pacers and Indianapolis Colts games. Utilities are also thebiggest donors to a state foundation that covers costs of economic-development travel for the governor.

Among the top recipients of their contributions and gifts is state Rep. Heath VanNatter, vice chair of the House Utilities and Energy Committee. He voted for the solar bill utilities wanted. He put forth the amendment that ultimately killed the energy-efficiency program. VanNatter, a Republican who represents an area north of Indianapolis, did not respond to requests for comment.

“The faster you do it, the more expensive it becomes.”

The utilities say the transition away from coal is best handled at a measured pace. They’re increasing their use of alternatives, but a post-coal Indiana is a “long, long ways into the future,” said Maassel, president of the Indiana Energy Association, whichopposes the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

“In anything, generally speaking, the faster you do it, the more expensive it becomes,” he said.

Maassel said more than 730,000 Indiana households have after-tax incomes under $30,000 and pay a sizable chunk of that for energy, so utilities are mindful of the cost of change.

“The existing facilities many times enjoy an economic advantage because they’ve been paid for to some level, and upgrading them with additional [pollution] controls … makes sense,” Maassel said.

Kerwin Olson and colleague Jennifer Washburn at Citizens Action Coalition in Indianapolis.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

This reasoning galls Kerwin Olson. He’s executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indianapolis consumer and environmental advocacy organization that often clashes with utilities. Olson contends that the most cost-effective option is to stop using coal sooner, not later.

He’s not talking about health and climate costs, though research suggests they make the true price of coal much higher. He means people’s actual utility bills.

“If you’re a utility company with a guaranteed rate of return and the more you spend, the more you make, you’re going to choose the most expensive option,” he said. “That’s why we continue to rely almost exclusively on coal.”

Olson said that while coal-plant pollution controls were once the cheapest option, that’s no longer the case. Efficiency and wind aren’t only cleaner but are also less expensive than coal, he said, while utility-scale solar is on par.

That’s clearly the case for new construction. Comparing piecemeal coal-plant retrofits to the alternatives is trickier, but David Schlissel with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which advocates for reduced dependence on fossil fuels, said many coal plants are uneconomic even without additional controls.

Cheaper electricity from gas and renewables prevents them from selling as much to the grid as they once did. In states such as Indiana where utilities own the plants, he said, ratepayers take the hit.

Utility analyst Paul Patterson said power companies aren’t necessarily wedded to coal — some are moving aggressively on renewables. But it’s an industry that craves stability, said Patterson, with New York-based Glenrock Associates.

And in states that have staked out pro-coal positions, he said, “there may be a whole variety of political issues” at play. AEP tells investors in its most recent annual report that it wants to rely more on natural gas, energy efficiency and renewables “where there is regulatory support.”

‘Beyond Coal’ in Coal Country

In southwest Indiana, a future without coal would unpredictably reorder industries and people’s lives. Most of the state’s 6,500 mining jobs are here. They’re a small piece of the region’s employment — about 2 percent — but their reach is widened by the truck drivers, suppliers and others whose jobs depend on coal. Mining — like utilities — also provides some of the best-paying work. Property taxes from the power plant owners boost small-town budgets.

Mining — like utilities — provides some of the area’s best-paying work.

At the United Mine Workers of America’s old union hall in Boonville, 30 minutes from Evansville, a half-dozen retired coal miners gathered in June to talk about their anxieties — in particular their frustration that Congress had yet to vote on health and pension benefits endangered in the wake of coal-company bankruptcies. Some of the politicians loudly proclaiming themselves pro-coal are not beloved here.

All of these men worked at a Boonville surface mine that supplied a local coal plant and shut down in 1998, its closure blamed in part on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Marvin Bruner, who worked there 31 years, had to retire early and accept a smaller pension. Randal Underhill had to travel all over on construction jobs for power plants, living out of motels. David Hadley had to work in Indianapolis during the week and come home to his family on weekends.

Marvin Bruner (center) talks to Wilber “Bud” Groeninger (left) and Bil Musgrave about the now-closed southwest Indiana coal mine where they worked for years.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

But in this group, opinions of air-pollution regulation are nuanced. They’ve seen coal companies open new mines in the area since the Clean Air Act amendments — non-union ones. Bil Musgrave, 60, who contracted a rare bile-duct cancer he links to working amid hazardous waste dumped in the Boonville mine, is a Sierra Club member.

He feels the tension between the benefits and problems coal brings. You can’t be a miner without it, and yet Musgrave knows it’s burned to make far more electricity than his region needs. The Toxics Release Inventory figures for a nearby coal plant, he said, show “an enormous amount of pollution.”

Hadley, co-chair of the United Mine Workers’ Indiana political action committee and a former state utility regulatory commissioner, wishes the industry had pushed full speed ahead on clean-technology innovations 15 years ago. What if carbon capture were economically viable and widely used today? What good does switching to natural gas do, he says, if it doesn’t solve the carbon problem?

What if carbon capture were economically viable and widely used today?

Hadley fears coal’s window of opportunity is all but closed. That would leave transition away from it as the only option — “a transition with consequences.”

Wendy Bredhold, a local Sierra Club representative, is a former Evansville city councilwoman who thinks about economic consequences, too. As the nation increasingly turns to renewables and big companies demand them, what will that mean for local growth prospects? Wouldn’t coal workers do better, she says, if state officials helped people with the transition instead of fighting it?

Wendy Bredhold, left, listens as Jessica Thomas talks about living near the A.B. Brown power plant. Bredhold is the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign representative for the region.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign has notched successes across the country, preventing new plants from opening and convincing regulators that old plants weren’t cost effective and should close. An Indianapolis coal plant it targeted switched to natural gas this year.

Now the group is campaigning in Evansville, trying to do this work in an area where, as Bredhold puts it, “coal runs generations deep.” An Evansville event the Sierra Club organized this month drew 100 people but also attracted angry Facebook comments.

Bredhold sees health problems and the accelerating effects of climate change, and doesn’t think she can afford to fail.

“We can’t wait until these plants just can’t run anymore,” she said. “I want this transition to be as easy as it can be for my community, but it’s one that has to happen.”

Xinrong Ren, a research scientist at the University of Maryland (left); Russ Dickerson, a University of Maryland professor (center); and pilot Nizar Bechara walk by a plane to be used in a July pollution-tracking flight for the Maryland Department of the Environment.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

Secondhand Pollution

The Cessna four-seater raced down a runway in Fort Meade, Maryland, loaded with equipment to measure ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and greenhouse gases. For more than two decades, the Maryland Department of the Environment has tracked where pollutants come from. Agency scientists and university researchers have worked together to prove that other states routinely send unwanted contributions their way.

This isn’t academic. Pollution drifting over state lines complicates local efforts to clean the air.

Indiana — 280 miles from Maryland at its nearest point — is one of the culprits, according to both Maryland and EPA analyses.

Pollution drifting over state lines complicates local efforts to clean the air.

Closer states have a bigger impact on Maryland, but the reach of Indiana’s pollutants is impressive. AnEPA analysis for a 2011 rule to reduce power-plant emissions that exacerbate interstate problems with fine particles and ozone showed Indiana significantly contributing to air pollution in 11 states as far northeast as Connecticut. Only Kentucky topped that, at 12.

Traveling pollution is why nine East Coast states petitioned the EPA in 2013 to make nine other states — Indiana among them — do more on ozone. That petition is pending; some officialstold the EPA this year that they plan to sue to force a decision.

Indiana and the other targeted states, in a 2014 letter to the EPA, said they’ve made “tremendous progress” on air quality and the petition’s arguments are out of date.

Dave Foerter, executive director of the Ozone Transport Commission, which advises the EPA on interstate smog problems, said meteorological conditions made for better years in 2013 and 2014. But generally, the wind blows Midwestern pollution to the Northeast, and that problem continues, he said.

“Indiana tends to throw emissions a long way,” Foerter said.

Tad Aburn, director of the Maryland Department of the Environment’s Air and Radiation Management Administration, says pollution is a problem that crosses state lines.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

That’s less likely to come from its cars than its power plants, because the plants’ smokestacks give pollutants the height they need to travel, according to Maryland regulators. New York, analyzing 2015 power-plant releases, discovered that Indiana put out four times as much nitrogen oxides — a key ozone ingredient — for every megawatt-hour of electricity as New York did.

The Maryland Department of the Environment’s Tad Aburn isn’t suggesting car-heavy Maryland doesn’t make its own pollution. It does, affecting three other states, according to the EPA’s analysis. But Maryland’s power-plant rules are stricter than federal ones, and Aburn says the agency’s detective work shows the air improves when states work together.

“We need to do more,” he said.

The Climate in Indiana

Climate change, like air pollution, requires group efforts to combat. But in Indiana — where industrial greenhouse-gas emissions are second only to Texas in the United States and exceed those from Israel, Greece and 185 other countries — the official position is inertia.

Pence once called climate change a “myth” and now positions himself as a skeptic: “I think the science is very mixed on the subject,” he told MSNBC in 2009, an assertion he repeated until he said on the campaign trail this week that human activities have “some impact” on climate. Not only is his state suing over the Clean Power Plan, but he also vowed that Indiana won’t strategize to reduce greenhouse gases even if the rule does take effect. He’s an enthusiastic supporter of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of companies and conservative lawmakers — popular in the Indiana state house — that has encouraged anti-climate initiatives.

Polling shows more than half of Hoosiers say climate change is indeed happening, though, and that includes some local officials. Jim Brainard, a Republican from the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, is among the Indiana mayors who see economic opportunities in the shifting energy landscape and are taking action in their cities.

The major point of climate-change debate among scientists now is just how bad it will be.

But a variety of Indiana residents think statewide efforts are crucial, and they’re pressing officials to do something. What’s driving them is the knowledge that the science isn’t mixed on whether the world is warming, whether humans are largely to blame and whether that’s bad for us. The major point of debate among scientists now is just how bad it will be.

Last fall Gabriel Filippelli coordinated a letter, signed by 23 Indiana academics, that urged Pence to draw on the educators’ in-state expertise on climate and its impacts. It recommended a plan for “mitigation and adaptation strategies … to protect energy and transportation infrastructure, the health of the public and economic development.”

“It actually wasn’t intended to be political, but rather, ‘You have a lot of resources right here in Indiana, in your back yard, people who are expert in this and can give you better advice than maybe you’re receiving,’” said Filippelli, a professor of earth sciences at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

He said he got “zero” response from the Pence administration, which also did not answer the Center’s questions about the matter.

Anita Wylie of Indianapolis with her grandsons, 11-month-old Eamon Romer and 4-year-old Declan Romer.
Credit: Jamie Smith Hopkins / The Center for Public Integrity

Anita Wylie is trying a different tack. She’s suing.

Wylie, an attorney who once worked for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, is asking a trial court in Indianapolis to make the state develop a climate action plan. It’s something two-thirds of states now have, and it’s what the academics’ letter meant by mitigation and adaptation strategies.

A Pence spokeswoman did not respond to a question about the lawsuit, but the state argued in a motion to dismiss the case that it is not required to write a climate plan.

Wylie, now retired, says she is pursuing the lawsuit for her young grandsons and in memory of her father, a meteorologist deeply concerned about climate change.

“Indiana’s my state,” she said. “I’m embarrassed by the positions that the government’s taken.”

Hopkins reported this story with the support of the Dennis A. Hunt Fund for Health Journalism and the National Fellowship, programs of the University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism.

Center for Public Integrity news developer Chris Zubak-Skees contributed to this story.

Ohio GOP voters support green energy, efficiency programs and customer choice

Posted by Laura Arnold  /   October 02, 2016  /   Posted in solar, Uncategorized, wind  /   No Comments

Ohio GOP voters support green energy, efficiency programs and customer choice

CMHA solar array.jpg
More than 4,200 solar panels feed power to the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's headquarters on Kinsman Road in Cleveland. A new poll of Republican voters has found that conservatives support solar and other renewable technologies. (Gus Chan, The Plain Dealer )
 

John Funk, The Plain DealerBy John Funk, The Plain Dealer Follow on Twitter
on September 21, 2016 at 7:00 AM, updated September 22, 2016 at 2:31 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Ohio's Republican voters and conservative independents are greener than state politicians might have believed.

They strongly support green energy and want to see more of it in Ohio, a new poll of only Republican and conservative independents has determined.

The report also found that:

  • 82 percent of these conservative voters want the state to keep on requiring electric utilities to provide efficiency programs that help consumers cut their monthly bills.
  • 85 percent want the state to continue the policy that gives them the right the choose their own power suppliers, even after hearing about their utility's concerns about the option.
  • 87 percent want utilities to continue crediting customers who have home solar systems for excess power they generate.
  • 74 percent would increase research and development of battery storage technologies to increase the use of renewable power.
  • 72 percent would advise Republican candidates to support energy efficiency and renewable energy policies.
  • Large majorities oppose ongoing utility efforts to convince law makers to scrap laws requiring power companies to provide renewable power -- 62 percent would support a modified renewable standard requiring power companies to supply at least 5 percent renewable power over the next five years.In fact, most of these voters want a lot more renewable power in the mix, --  even if it raises their electric bills. Seventeen percent said they would pay $20 a month extra for renewable power. Nearly 50 percent said they would pay at least $5 more a month.
  • 79 percent oppose surcharges to prop up old coal and nuclear power plants unable to compete well against gas-fired power plants.

FirstEnergy is still arguing for special subsidies, though what it would be called and how the money would be used are no longer certain. AEP dropped its proposals and has sold off some its power plants to investors that would run them as independent power companies.

Public Opinion Strategies, a Colorado-based polling company widely used by GOP candidates, talked to 400 registered Ohio Republican voters earlier this month, including some independents who said they voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

The poll has a margin of error of 4.9 percent, adequate, considering that its findings are overwhelming.

"The survey clearly demonstrates support among conservative voters for a broad rage of policies to encourage energy efficiency and greater use of renewable energy," wrote Lori Weigel, a partner in the polling firm.

Elected officials understand polling numbers. Numbers don't lie."

"The vast majority of voters in this conservative portion of the ideological spectrum say they would tell GOP candidates to back these kinds of policies. They think of renewable energy as a job creator, and place these sources of energy squarely in the mix of more traditional energy sources," she wrote.

"They even go so far as to be willing to pay more in higher electricity prices if renewable energy cost more."

The Ohio Conservative Energy Forum, a group led by Mike Hartley, former Kasich administration director of public liaison, sponsored the poll. Hartley will take part in a City Club of Cleveland luncheon panel discussion today on conservatives embracing renewable energy policies.

Hartley said the poll's results clearly show that conservative voters want their candidates to support renewable energy policies and are more likely to vote for those who do. He said his group plans to talk to lawmakers and policy makers about the poll's findings.

"Elected officials understand polling numbers," he said. "Numbers don't lie."

He added that the poll did not strongly focus on the question of whether the state ought to return to traditional regulation, a topic the utilities have been talking to lawmakers about.

The survey did include a question about wind farms and state rules determining now close a wind turbine can be to other properties.  GOP lawmakers slipped a new setback rule into a budget bill in 2014 that has effectively stopped all major wind development in the state. The poll found that 72 percent would support "more reasonable set-back limits for wind turbines."

The poll also measured how voters feel about different kinds of power generation, including coal, nuclear and gas, as well as wind and solar. It found that voters favor natural gas power plants and energy efficiency efforts, that solar is more popular than coal, wind or nuclear power.

Copyright 2013 IndianaDG