FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday April 19th, 2017 CONTACT: Nick Stumo-Langer, firstname.lastname@example.org, 612-844-1330 Walmart’s Climate Pollution Grows as It Scales Back Renewable Power More than a decade after Walmart pledged to become an environmental leader, the company’s climate emissions continue to rise, according to data released today by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). ILSR found that… Continue reading
Viewing the environment tag archive
The policy of discouraging or even prohibiting repair and reuse is definitely not a win for the environment, but it is also a serious consumer rights issue. Continue reading
Today, ILSR issued a report on Walmart’s rapidly expanding climate pollution and joined with leading environmental organizations in calling for change. The new report, Walmart’s Assault on the Climate: The Truth Behind One of the Biggest Climate Polluters and Slickest Greenwashers in America, finds: Nearly a decade after launching its sustainability campaign, Walmart’s greenhouse gas… Continue reading
In just three weeks, citizens of Boulder, CO, will vote on whether to begin a big, formal process to unplug from Xcel Energy’s system and plug into local energy self-reliance. The vote to form a municipal electric utility could set a precedent for communities across the United States to keep millions of dollars local instead of sending them to remote electric utilities each year.
The vote on ballot measures 2B and 2C is the culmination of a multi-year struggle by the city of Boulder meet the Kyoto greenhouse gas emission targets by getting less coal power and more renewable energy from its investor-owned utility.
At every turn, the utility has stalled local efforts.
When the city first considered municipalization, Xcel offered to finance and build a local smart grid but has since been allowed by the state’s public utility commission to charge Coloradans for significant cost overruns. When the city asked Xcel to bring in more clean energy, the utility offered to build a new wind plant and import its power from across the state only if Boulder citizens agreed to pay more when the wind blew and pay when it didn’t, too. Despite the ill nature of the offer, the city offered to put it on the ballot along with a vote to municipalize, but Xcel refused, demanding that the city also offer citizens a separate “status quo” measure.
In contrast, a Boulder-owned utility offers enormous clean energy and economic opportunity without having to beg a big, private company. The city could increase renewable energy production by 40% from multiple, local sources without increasing rates, according to a citizen-led peer reviewed study. The economic value of local energy ownership would multiply within the city’s economy to as much as $350 million a year, according to research by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
But with $100 million a year in revenues from Boulder ratepayers on the line, Xcel’s fight is getting as dirty as its nearby Cherokee coal plant. Xcel has dumped over $450,000 into a vote no campaign, 10 times the expenditures of the grassroots groups supporting the municipalization ballot measure. The utility’s front group has flogged a web advertisement that falsely asserts that electricity will be unreliable if the city has control, even though 1 in 7 Americans gets their (reliable) electricity from municipal utilities. Xcel has posted job notices on light poles offering residents up to $12 an hour to work as “grassroots” utility flaks. And in a purely spiteful move, Xcel also succeeded in banning Boulder resident Leslie Glustrom from participating at the Public Utilities Commission, where she had asked tough questions about Xcel’s new coal power plants and proposed rate increases.
Locals are fighting back. Citizens for Boulder’s Clean Energy Future has organized a crack team of technical and financial experts to model the impact of the municipal utility and is pounding the pavement to counter Xcel’s campaign of misinformation. The coalition has received endorsements from dozens of local elected officials and businesses, two local newspapers, and nearly one thousand residents. Even President Obama’s former green jobs advisor Van Jones starred in a video endorsing Boulder’s effort for local energy self-reliance.
The battle for local control isn’t just in Boulder. Recently a number of Massachusetts towns have pursued municipal electric plants when the private electric company took too long to restore power after Hurricane Irene. And in nearby Longmont, CO, citizens may vote to use their existing fiber optic network to provide better internet broadband services (if citizens can overcome the $250,000 being spent by private providers CenturyLink and Comcast).
The stakes are high. Buying electricity from Xcel sends $100 million out of the Boulder economy each year, and helps perpetuate a centrally-controlled grid reliant on coal-fired power (and often hostile to wind power). Ratepayers across America may not have the chance to weigh in on Boulder’s vote this November, but they should watch intently (and donate if they like), because Boulder citizens may be firing the first “shot heard round the world” for local control of their clean energy future.
A presentation I gave last Friday to the Arizona Corporation Commission.
In August 2011, ILSR Senior Researcher John Farrell gave this presentation to a group of rural utilities and environmental organizations in Kentucky. The slides illustrate the enormous renewable energy potential in Kentucky and the cost-effectiveness of clean, local power in meeting the state’s electricity and economic needs. Clean Local Power for Kentucky from John Farrell Continue reading
Thanks to innovative energy policy, residents of Ontario can invest in local solar power projects by buying SolarShare bonds. The $1,000 bond provides a 5% annual return over five years and the money is invested in solar power projects across the province (as the chart below shows, this beats a savings account with 0.8% interest or even a 5-year U.S. treasury, with 0.91% interest). Continue reading
Find out why and how ILSR has been helping communities maximize the value of their local energy resources for nearly 40 years: ILSR’s Remarkable Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program View more presentations from John Farrell Continue reading
They should try 21 times. That’s how much more in-state economic benefit can be gained from developing local energy rather than trying to keep rates low with energy imports.
In 2008, voters approved – with 66% percent of the vote – a referendum establishing a 15% renewable energy standard. The law also required utilities to get the renewable energy within Missouri or surrounding states. In January, however, the state legislature stripped that part of the law, allowing Missouri utilities to import renewable energy from anywhere, even if that electricity never physically reaches Missouri ratepayers.
Renewable energy advocates even tried to reach a compromise with utility lobbyists, reducing the mandate by half but keeping the geographic restriction.
If the measure had passed, it would have guaranteed Missouri “a coal-sized plant of renewable energy over the next decade,” [Rep.] Holsman said. “That means a vast array of economic development, including sales, installation, service and manufacturing jobs for Missouri. It means not having to worry about EPA regulations or adjusted fuel costs for the investment.”
The measure failed, however, because consumer groups thought importing wind power from elsewhere would be cheaper and utilities wanted ratepayers to front the cost for permits for new nuclear power plants (despite the horrendous economics of such power plants).
The irony is that Missouri has strong, local renewable energy resources. According to a 2010 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Missouri could generate three times its electricity consumption from high-quality, in-state wind power. The cost for this wind power would be 6 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) without the federal tax credit, and less than 5 cents per kWh including the incentive. This compares to average residential retail rates of 8-9 cents. Even solar PV is fairly affordable, with a levelized cost (including the 30% federal tax credit) of just 15 cents per kWh (with an installed cost of $3.50 per Watt). Missouri has enough sun and roofspace to get 21% of its electricity from rooftop solar PV.
The cost savings from importing cheaper wind power pale in comparison to the economic benefits of building locally. The cheapest wind power in the U.S. would be – at best – about 1.5 cents per kWh less than wind power generated in Missouri. If it could (impossibly) be delivered to the state with zero transmission cost, the savings to ratepayers of getting 100% of their electricity from wind would be $1.3 billion.
However, the economic impact of in-state wind power is $1 million per megawatt (MW), according to the American Wind Energy Association. The state would need 28,000 MW of wind power to match its electricity consumption (with a 35% capacity factor), for an economic impact of $28 billion, 21 times the savings from importing out-of-state wind. Furthermore, if those turbines were also owned by Missourans, the economic impact would rise 1.5 to 3.4 times higher, from $42 to $95 billion.
The repeal of the geographic requirement in Missouri’s renewable energy law is penny-wise and (21 times) pound-foolish.