How Electric Vehicles That Feed the Grid Will Pay Off

Just like the two-way street, car innovators are focusing more than ever on the two-way plug that could revolutionize cars' relationship with the grid. The idea is to give plug-in cars the ability to feed energy back into the grid when parked. And part of the vision includes small payments to people whose vehicles become energy providers when the grid is in need of balancing during peak hours. This innovation will be particularly useful for backing up energy sources like wind and solar that can vary by time of day or weather.

Using 15 plug-in Mini E's donated by BMW, the idea is being explored by Prof. Willett Kepton of the University of Delaware. These days cars sit idle and unused for a large majority of their lives. Creating back-and-forth capabilities with the grid --
 and the home -- would sharply increase the car's efficiency and role in our lives while challenging the traditional energy provider and consumer relationship.

Dubbed the "cashback car," the consumer-friendly technology could make EVs even more appealing to people who are tired of burning funds at the gas pump. As Autoblog Green explains:

Kempton estimates that in the high-value grid markets, an EV at a charging point with the capability to charge or discharge at 10kW can generate $2,000 or more each year. It's a very appealing proposition to go on vacation while leaving your car at home in the garage generating a paycheck for when you return. And, over a typical 5-10 year ownership period, it's enough to pay for the cost of the battery and still provide you the benefit of EV motoring at its spectacular two- to three-cents-per-mile operating cost.

In this world, the rules of car ownership change dramatically. Drivers can quit oil, provide clean energy to the grid, and get paid for it.

-- Brian Foley

Big Victory: Minnesota's Landmark Clean Energy Standard Charts Course Beyond Dirty Energy

Minnesota energy has begun a new chapter.

Minnesota has taken a first step in outlining the next big leap forward in the state's sustainable energy future. Pushed by more than 60 environmental, labor, business, youth, and faith groups, the jobs omnibus bill -- expected to be signed by Governor Mark Dayton -- includes a Clean Energy and Jobs package that sets a standard of 1.5 percent solar by 2020 with a broader goal of reaching 10 percent by 2030. This is a great start for a state that is in position to lead the Midwest into the clean-energy economy.

I remember seeing pictures earlier this month of people filling the halls of the Capitol in St. Paul to demand phasing out coal and bringing in clean energy jobs. Legislators, impressed by the turnout, stopped in the rotunda to express their support. The governor even put a picture of the rally on his Facebook page. 

Retiring coal is key to solving climate disruption and investing in healthy communities. But just as important is the transition to clean energy. Minnesota's solar legislation will propel the state's investment in energy innovation, generate jobs, and build on the existing goal of reaching 25 percent renewables by 2025. This new standard includes:

- An estimated 450 megawatts of new solar by 2020 added to the existing 13 MW in the state.

- Community-shared solar. Utilities will offer solar "subscriptions" to anyone who wants to invest in an off-site project and receive credits on their energy bill. This is perfect for Minnesotans who rent or have shady roofs.

- A solar tariff. Minnesota will be one of the first states in the country to adopt a tariff that will pay homeowners who generate and pump clean energy back into the grid.

- The commission of a study to explore how Minnesota can achieve an energy system free of burning fossil fuels over the next several decades.

Critics have complained that this will increase rates. But they conveniently overlook the fact that the cost of Big Coal has sharply increased, while solar and other renewables have been steadily getting cheaper. This is one reason why the vast majority of Minnesotans support more wind and solar. They are tired of polluters calling the shots. That's why their representatives have taken action by paving the way for a bright energy future.  

-- Mary Anne Hitt, Beyond Coal Director

An Open Letter to Energy Secretary Moniz on Natural Gas Exports

By Deb Nardone, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Director

Dear Secretary Moniz,

Congratulations on being confirmed as Secretary of Energy. You will play a vitally important role leading our country toward a clean-energy future.

As you begin to consider how natural gas will fit into our energy policy, the Sierra Club's 2.1 million members and supporters urge you and the Department of Energy (DOE) to seriously consider whether fracking for gas is really going to benefit Americans.

There are currently 25 proposals the DOE is considering to build terminals that could export up to 45 percent of total U.S. gas production as liquefied natural gas (LNG). We ask you to think through how exports will affect our public health, environment, climate, and economy, which we have detailed in
our report, Look Before the LNG Leap.

In December, NERA Consulting (which is known to have close ties with the fossil fuel industry) published an economic study on LNG exports that included a number of major flaws, such as using old data for its projections. Even more concerning is that NERA's report provides no economic assessment associated with risks to public health and the environment. If exporting natural gas has such potential to change the U.S. economic landscape, why would we think it would not also drastically change our environmental landscape?

The reality is that exporting natural gas will mean more fracking in our communities, which will affect not only our air, water, and land, but the health and safety of the public. Fracking is a dangerous and largely unregulated drilling process, which lacks adequate federal and state protections. Even the Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General warned in its latest report that poor data on air emissions of toxic pollutants from oil and natural gas production make it difficult to predict the potential health effects fracking will have on the public.

Continued drilling and fracking is also going to wreak havoc on our climate by increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Natural gas is made up mostly of methane, an extremely powerful climate-disrupting gas in its own right, which is actually seventy times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat. According to studies by the International Energy Agency, using more natural gas will put the planet on track toward a 3.5°C global temperature increase, driving us closer to climate disaster.

As the new head of DOE, it is your public responsibility to complete a full environmental impact assessment for LNG export before our nation commits to any exports. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly advised DOE that a comprehensive environmental impact statement is essential to understanding the public health and environmental implications of increased domestic fracking.

In addition to public health and our climate, LNG exports will have significant negative effects on the U.S. economy, especially the middle class. Purdue University conducted an assessment of NERA's study and found, disturbingly, that exports would actually decrease GDP and transfer wealth from the middle class to the already-rich oil and natural gas investors. As stated in the NERA report, "impacts [from LNG exports] will not be positive for all groups in the economy. Households with income solely from wages or government transfers, in particular, might not participate in these benefits." And major job loss, especially in the manufacturing sector, is also expected to be an outcome of LNG exports. A recent report commissioned by Dow Chemical showed that exports could affect hundreds of thousands of planned new jobs in U.S. manufacturing.

In order to fully determine whether sending natural gas overseas is in the public's best interest, DOE must redo the flawed economic study and ensure that it includes costs associated with health and environmental risks. It must also be based on current climate science.

But the real game-changer for exporting LNG will be if the U.S. completes the free trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is currently under negotiation with 10 countries across the Pacific Rim. And Japan, the world's biggest LNG importer, is likely to join the talks in July. The TPP and another pact the U.S. is initiating with the European Union (EU) are likely to require DOE to approve all gas exports, of any amount and without delay, to nations in the agreement. The TPP could be finalized as early as October of this year, and the U.S.-EU trade pact in 2015.

To keep domestic control of our natural gas resources, the DOE must insist that the trade negotiations do not remove DOE's authority to examine the environmental and economic impacts of LNG exports, even to free-trade countries.

Gas exports will transform the U.S. energy landscape and affect communities across the country. They are already altering our climate. We urge the DOE to conduct a thorough scrutiny of the nation's energy policy and take a hard look at the economic and environmental consequences of gas exports. Until these steps have been taken, we must not move forward on extracting any more natural gas. Let's keep it in the ground and fully understand what's at stake before making any decisions that cannot be easily undone. The American public and our future generations deserve no less.

Huge Victory in Oregon Builds Momentum Against Coal

Energy company Kinder Morgan announced last week that it is ditching plans to export 30 million tons of coal through the Port of St. Helens, Oregon -- a move that further galvanizes the grassroots movement in the Pacific Northwest that is keeping Big Coal out.

"Three down, three to go!" exclaimed Sierra Club Organizer Laura Stevens. "This proposal would have meant a dozen mile-and-a-half-long, dirty, coal-dust spewing trains through the Columbia River Gorge and dozens of other communities every day."

The three remaining sites coal companies have their eye on to build coal-export terminals are in Boardman, Oregon, and Longview and Cherry Point in Washington.

"The announcement came just two days after we packed two hearing rooms in St. Helens to oppose a re-zone that would facilitate coal exports, and the nearby city of Scappoose, where the council voted unanimously to pass a resolution expressing their concerns about the project," Stevens said.

Communities through Washington and Oregon continue to face the prospect of dealing with miles-long trains carrying tens of millions of tons of coal each year -- and bringing its harmful coal dust pollution with them. The coal would then be burned in energy-hungry East Asia, emitting carbon that would rival the infamous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The nightmare scenario has solidified communities across the Pacific Northwest, bringing together a coalition that includes environmental groups, hunters and anglers, farmers, business leaders, mayors and state leaders, faith leaders, and the health community.

Tar Sands and Soda? Launching the Future Fleet Campaign

By Michael Marx, Beyond Oil Campaign Director

The Sierra Club has a long and successful history mobilizing our two million-plus members and supporters to push government leaders to protect our health, air, water, land, animals, and climate. Corporations have a tremendous impact on all of these. 

With the launch of the Future Fleet campaign we intend to hold corporate leaders to the same high level of scrutiny and responsibility as government. We will push them to get off the fence on climate, stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution. Today, the Sierra Club, ForestEthics, and our millions of supporters, kick off our campaign to persuade the first three companies -- Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper -- to make the leap and join us as leaders in the effort to solve the climate crisis.

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group own and operate some of the biggest vehicle fleets in the U.S. -- between them more than 100,000 vehicles moving soft drinks and snacks around the nation.

Oil use accounts for more than 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution, and the biggest customers for oil are large companies. By getting these three corporate fleets to start a corporate race to the top by prioritizing fuel efficiency and eliminating tar sands, we can significantly reduce the nation's demand for oil, curb emissions, increase transportation choices, and slow the development of extreme oil sources, like tar sands.

We are quickly running out of time to head off the climate crisis, so we're starting with some of the biggest oil consumers. As well-known worldwide brands, the decisions these beverage giants make about what they drive and what fuel they use will influence what vehicle and parts manufacturers build and the market for high-carbon extreme fuels like tar sands. Efficiency gains in those 100,000 vehicles will have a real and immediate effect on the amount of carbon pollution we produce as a nation.

These are companies that care deeply about consumer feedback, so when consumers ask them to be leaders on climate solutions, we know they will listen. Washington, D.C., remains gridlocked, and oil companies continue their multimillion dollar climate denial PR campaign, but these companies have three great reasons to act without delay. First, to protect and strengthen their brand by being climate leaders. Second, to reduce fuel usage and save money. And third, to do the right thing for their next generation of customers.

We are asking these companies to accelerate the switch to electric and more efficient vehicles, improve driving behavior, and change shipping practices to save fuel.

We are also asking them to reject the most dangerous and extreme sources of oil, starting with the worst of the worst: tar sands. While companies need eventually to move off oil altogether, they urgently need to start with the most egregious source. We know which oil refineries process tar sands, and ForestEthics has already convinced 19 companies to stop buying from them. The Sierra Club is joining and expanding this successful effort to convince even more companies to get on board and go even further to reduce their oil consumption altogether.

To date, the climate movement has largely given large corporate oil consumers a free pass. Those days are over. With the Future Fleet Campaign, we along with ForestEthics intend to shine a bright spotlight on the need for corporate leadership to head off a climate crisis, starting with their oil consumption. This has been a critical missing link in the climate movement, but no more. The future fleet will use no oil!

Sierra Club & Solar Crowdfunding For the World's Poor

More than 1.3 billion people around the world live in darkness lacking access to even small amounts of life changing electricity. The good news is we can change their fate and help solve climate change at the same time. The bad news is those tasked with solving the problem aren't getting the job done because they are products of two broken systems - energy and finance. That's why we need disruptive solutions like solar crowdfunding to transform these systems so that they deliver outcomes that benefit the poor and the planet.

Crowdfunding works by aggregating small amounts of funding through online portals like the one maintained by SunFunder, SolarMosaic, or Milaap. These platforms aggregate small 'crowdsourced' amounts of funding into larger sums that directly finance clean energy entrepreneurs. All told, it's a $90 billion clean energy access opportunity that can help transform people’s lives and the fate of our planet.

 

But more than the sheer amount that can be raised, what makes crowdfunding so important is that it fills a gaping hole left by traditional financial institutions. These institutions simply aren't financing enough clean energy - let alone decentralized clean energy that serves the poor. That’s a big problem because we know that to end energy poverty we need to dramatically ramp up decentralized clean energy (at least according to the International Energy Agency). Because, after all, small is big.

Instead financial institutions tasked with ending energy poverty are dumping billions into the problem - large scale coal plants (like the one in Kosovo). This outrageous use of public funds leaves us with the maddening task of banging our collective fists on the brick wall of institutional inertia until the system changes. And change it will.

But in the meantime people living in the dark need solutions now. That's why myself, and the Sierra Club, are working to increase awareness of the power crowdfunding holds. Not only does it empower individuals to make concrete change in the world, it also sends a political message: we won’t stand by while the planet burns and the poor get screwed - even if our leaders are.

That's why I personally am putting my money where my mouth is, starting with a new project SunFunder is financing near Kampala, Uganda. SunFunder has already provided clean energy to over 22,757 people by sourcing $75,000 from the 'crowd.' Now they're looking to raise another $15,000 to provide 375 people with solar power via Fenix Ready sets to help power off-grid wireless communications for nearly 4,000 people. Deploying this clean energy will generate over $100,000 in village income over the next three years, increasing poor household income by 36.4% while eliminating 15,000 liters of kerosene and 37 tons of CO2. As you can see, a little finance can go a long way.

But it doesn't end here. Supporting these off grid entrepreneurs holds tremendous promise in the battle to disrupt the fossil fuel dominated grids in the Western world. By supporting clean energy where the playing field is actually level - off grid areas - we can create a base of power to launch an insurgency against the industries fueling climate change. That's why how we power the world's poor is just as important, and perhaps even more, than how we power the rest.

The Sierra Club is doing its part to bring its 1.3 million members to this revolution. Help us build our ranks by spreading the word. Because with crowdfunding the future is literally in our hands. Check out the project here and tweet: "What if you could shine light for billions living in darkness while fighting climate change? @SunFunder is doing just that: http://bit.ly/109MrvB"

-- Justin Guay, Sierra Club International

Clean Energy Activists Fight Back in Louisiana

Earlier this year, the Louisiana Public Service Commission abandoned new energy efficiency rules in a bid to roll back progress on clean energy and efficiency. Not only did the Commission scrap a program that will help citizens across the state -- they did it without hearing public comments.

Now the Sierra Club, with the help of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and the League of Women Voters of Louisiana, is fighting back, suing the PSC for refusing to allow public testimony before voting to ditch the energy efficiency rules -- a vote that barely passed.

The PSC's questionable judgment didn't stop there. Late last month, the commission got an earful from grassroots activists and entrepreneurs when it weighed the idea of overturning the state's solar net metering. The commission promptly passed on the ill-advised idea.

"Louisiana has the best solar tax credits program in the country," said Jordan Macha, Sierra Club Louisiana Representative. "The Sierra Club, the Alliance for Affordable Energy, and other industry and consumer groups generated 750 calls and letters in one week to commissioners. The support for net metering was overwhelming and the commissioner who wanted it overturned backed off and decided to hold off the vote."

Later in the week, the focus turned to New Orleans, where the city council hosted a public hearing on their proposed Integrated Resource Management Plan, which develops a long-term energy strategy for the city under the purview Entergy New Orleans, the city's only energy utility provider.

"The plan seriously lacked energy efficiency and renewables as part of the city's long-term energy portfolio. The council should prioritize the access to energy efficiency for all, as well as including cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels," said Macha.

The coalition helped push a turnout of nearly 80 people with 45 people commenting to the city council about the need for more renewables.

"What we’re seeing is a surge in support for clean energy, not just among environmentalists, but also business leaders, the faith community, and families who'd rather get energy from clean sources that are cost effective instead of dirty fuels that make people sick," Macha said.

-- Brian Foley

Appalachians Stand Up Against Mountaintop Removal

Appalachians against mountaintop removal coal mining from Kristen E on Vimeo.

 

On May 8, concerned residents of the Appalachian region came to Washington, D.C. to demand an end to the industry practice polluting their water and devastating their communities – mountaintop removal mining. They took their call – and samples of the water from their hometowns – to the Environmental Protection Agency’s doorstep in the hope that new rules and safeguards could curb the destruction and danger mountaintop removal poses to their environment and their families. 

--Sierra Club Media Team Intern Kristen Elmore

Appalachian Families Denied Clean Water Travel to Washington to Demand Action

Appalachian activists gather outside the Washington, D.C., Environmental Protection Agency office to demand an end to mountaintop removal coal mining.

Elaine Tanner and her partner Jimmy Hall have both experienced, up close and personal, the destruction caused by mountaintop removal coal mining. The Kentucky natives are fighting a coal company they claim poisoned their well water. One of the company's mountaintop removal sites is right next to their home in Letcher County.

"They destroyed our water," said Jimmy. "The Kentucky Department of Water tested the water of many wells in our area and found a toxic soup. They said the water was unfit to touch and could only be used for flushing the toilet. But the state Division of Mine Reclamation and Enforcement (DMRE) had knowledge of this and still said the water was safe to use, just filter it to drink. So now we have people in our town with cancer, heart disease, and skin and organ issues."

The mining has blown away their land over the years, too. The property, which has been in Jimmy's family for more than 200 years, went from 250 acres down to 134 acres thanks to a coal company that leased it out from under their family when an uncle passed away. The two also are living in Ohio because they cannot drink the water at their home in Kentucky.

Jimmy and Elaine joined more than 100 other Appalachian residents in Washington, D.C., this week to tell their members of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that mountaintop removal coal mining must end.

"The water is poison and I came to D.C. to see if the federal government will do what the local, state, and regional governments have failed to do - which is to bring us an emergency supply of water for the 100 families in my community," says Jimmy.

The photo to the left and below shows some of Appalachian activists sitting outside of the EPA offices with jugs of water from their home taps that showing contamination by mountaintop removal coal mining.

Elaine says she and Jimmy filed a Safe Water Drinking Act request for relief in February and just got to show EPA on Monday the request and permit documents showing that mining company Consol Energy is responsible for providing emergency drinking water within 10 days and a permanent supply to her community within a year.

The process has been a long, tiresome journey. Jimmy says it took the state around 10 years to test their water, and Elaine says not much has been done since then.

"It's been over a year since our water tested to contain 17 times more arsenic than allowed. Some families have had no choice but to take the chance and use this toxic water in the meantime," Elaine says. "We plan on coming back until the destruction of our mountains has ceased," says Elaine.

Jimmy and Elaine are not alone. All across Appalachia, people are fighting coal companies who are destroying the region's land and water with mountaintop-removal coal mining. These families are tired of waiting for action from their legislators, most of whom are beholden to the King Coal because of the industry's deep pockets.

However, in spite of the powerful forces aligned against them, local residents are still winning victories, In Virginia this week, residents of the town of Appalachia celebrated a victory when  the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy denied a surface mine permit for the Ison Rock Ridge mine in southwest Virginia.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., wrote about Ison Rock Ridge in the Washington Post back in 2009, when the Obama Administration first took office and was weighing its approach to mountaintop removal. In the intervening four years, while the EPA has taken some actions that have slowed the clip of mountaintop removal, mountains are still being blown up, streams are still being buried, families are still suffering from polluted air and water, and states are not adequately enforcing the law. We applaud the recent Ison Rock Ridge decision, and we call on the EPA to do more to protect other communities, mountains, and public health.

The Sierra Club proudly stands with these Appalachian residents in the fight for clean water and clean air. We work with great local organizations and coalitions, as well as nationally, to petition government at all levels to end mountaintop removal coal mining.

"Every day this goes on, our folks are in danger," says Jimmy.

Join us and tell the EPA and President Obama that all Americans deserve clean water, and it's time to end mountaintop removal coal mining.

-- Mary Anne Hitt, Beyond Coal Director. Photos courtesy of the Delaware Sierra Club.

"Maybe even nothing!" - How We Got Los Angeles Off Coal

Maybe there has never been and will never be a more important energy decision in my city, Los Angeles, than the one made last week by our city council representatives.

In fact, just recently I was having pizza next to Ronni Solomon, a local high voltage organizer for environmental justice and fellow advocate for the L.A. Beyond Coal campaign. She was wondering if there was anything that the L.A. City Council could ever vote on energy issues that would be more important than their vote to secure L.A.'s transition off of coal fired power. Andy Shrader, the dark knight of the plastic bag ban in our city and one-man clearing house for L.A.'s environmental initiatives, stepped up and said, "maybe even nothing!"

The L.A. city council's unanimous vote to move beyond coal power was the culmination of three-and-a-half years of on-the-ground organizing work with highly diverse constituents all over the city. Residents from black, white, Asian and Latino neighborhoods, along with labor, business and environmental advocacy groups came together to make the city council an offer it couldn't refuse. This victory belongs to all of these communities that raised their voice on this issue.