Georgia Power is reducing its reliance on coal by phasing out several coal-fired units. However, clean-energy advocates say the company should dispose of all its waste correctly and not pawn the cost of cleanup on ratepayers.
After years of pressure from concerned community members and clean-energy advocates, Georgia Power has been following a national trend by retiring some of its coal-fired power plants, the latest is Plant Wansley near Carrollton.
The welcome news for environmental groups is bittersweet since the next phase is trying to convince the company -- or force state regulators to make it -- to manage the leftover toxic waste known as coal ash, without harming the environment.
Charline Whyte, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign in Georgia, said she was glad to see the utility switch from "capping-in-place" to excavating the ash to a lined pit which prevents seepage into groundwater.
"So this shows that Georgia Power is willing and able to do the right thing and, too, do the safest options for the communities," Whyte acknowledged. "But they haven't opted to do so at many of its other coal ash ponds."
Georgia Power did not respond to a request for comment but has outlined plans to phase out most of its coal units in the next five years, claiming it no longer makes economic sense to keep the aging coal plants open.
Georgia's Public Service Commission agreed with all but one, deferring giving the company permission to shutter its Bowen Plant until at lest 2025.
The company plans to close 29 coal ash ponds with its efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to close to zero by 2050. Whyte argued the company should opt to add liners in all of its coal ash ponds.
"I would say that in Georgia, Plant Scherer pond is another example of an opportunity for the company to do the right thing from the beginning," Whyte urged. "Which is closing by removal rather than the planned closure by cap in place."
Whyte added she believes the utility should bear the responsibility and shoulder the costs of properly disposing of the waste instead of it being allowed to pass the cost on to consumers.
The Sierra Club has an interactive map on its website which lists 358 coal plants retired since 2010, or proposed to retire by 2031.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Virginia's General Assembly will consider budget amendments to reenter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin pulled the state out of RGGI at the end of 2023, and now experts said the holes in the budget left by RGGI funding going away are not being filled. Money from the program was used to fund climate mitigation work.
Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state saw many benefits when it was part of RGGI.
"We were reducing fossil fuel emissions that were being created here in Virginia," Ford pointed out. "There were some clear reductions as a result of our participation. So, we're improving air quality and we are helping expedite that transition to a clean economy."
Virginia residents mostly favored staying in RGGI, but Youngkin has said the reason for pulling out was in his view, it was a "hidden tax" for ratepayers. Ford estimated homeowners paid around $2 a month from their electric bills for RGGI and argued the trade-offs were worth it.
Between 2021 and 2023, RGGI revenue generated around $828 million for Virginia. Ford thinks not rejoining the initiative could slow down Virginia's ability to reach the Clean Economy Act's climate goals, and warned other effects could be costly to communities.
"On the ground in communities around the state, if we don't get back into RGGI, there's a real potential that the work to prepare the Commonwealth, and prepare our communities for climate impacts, could grind to a halt," Ford contended.
Virginia used RGGI money to help towns and cities fund their climate resilience plans. The state used 25-million RGGI dollars to establish a Climate Resilience Fund. There have been 107 "billion-dollar disasters" since 1980 in Virginia, with long-term costs totaling between $20 billion and $50 billion.
get more stories like this via email
Despite different outcomes - New York's first offshore wind farm came online and New Jersey had one canceled - both states are benefiting from offshore wind. Job creation and economic growth are predicted, as New Jersey's decarbonization efforts could create 20,000 jobs.
The New Jersey Wind Port being developed in Salem County is expected to create up to 1,500 jobs.
Caren Fitzpatrick, former Atlantic County Commissioner, said it's time the area had a viable industry again.
"They used to be known for growing asparagus and harvesting oysters. And due to blight and overfishing, those industries went away. They're starting to come back now, but they're not big enough to support the families that live in this area," Fitzpatrick argued.
After Ocean Wind's cancellation, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities is moving on. This year, it has approved two projects that would power close to 2 million homes, create 27,000 jobs and provide a $3 billion boost to the state's economy.
Beyond job growth and economic development, New Jersey Assemblymember Carol Murphy, D-Cinnaminson, contended public health will also improve as the state shifts to cleaner energy sources.
"The transition from fossil fuel to clean energy power will improve air quality, water quality, reduces cases of medical illness such as asthma, heart disease and cancer, and this will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs," she explained.
Offshore wind projects have faced tough odds to get this far. Misinformation has made the public skeptical. But lawmakers in both states have signed letters voicing their commitment to these projects.
New York Assemblymember Angelo Santabarbara, D-Schenectady, said it's only the beginning.
"Let's continue to push forward for a brighter, cleaner future for all here in New York, but for the entire country as we move forward. Together, we can harness the power of offshore wind to build a better tomorrow, and in Schenectady we're doing it one turbine at a time," Santabarbara said.
With the South Fork Wind Farm online, attention is turning to other projects like Empire Wind 1, the first offshore wind project connected to New York City's grid. In March, the developer's agreement was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
get more stories like this via email
Later this month, Indigenous leaders will speak before a United Nations panel about their ongoing concerns with a controversial oil pipeline in the Great Lakes region.
Enbridge Energy's Line 5 operation is likely to come up when the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues convenes in New York.
Back in the Midwest, organizations such as Earthjustice represent the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
The tribe has been contesting Line 5 in Wisconsin as Enbridge seeks to re-route the pipeline.
Earthjustice Senior Attorney Stefanie Tsosie said the proposal isn't an improvement in minimizing the effect on tribal lands.
"The Bad River Band is already at a risk of an oil spill because the pipeline is going directly through their reservation," said Tsosie, "and the re-route, if you look at the map, it's basically hugging the reservation boundaries."
She said her team is preparing for litigation if permits for the re-route are issued.
The tribe has previously filed lawsuits against Line 5 in an effort to shut it down, prompting the latest route plans. Similar cases have been active in Michigan.
Enbridge argues the pipeline is a key source of energy and rejects claims and legal decisions that it's trespassing on tribal lands.
On the Michigan side, opponents say they're worried about Enbridge's latest Line 5 plans to construct an oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, a connecting waterway.
The company says it would be safer than the existing pipeline section, but Native American Rights Fund Senior Staff Attorney Wes Furlong said there's real concern about a worst-case scenario.
"If a leak happened within that tunnel, it would cause a catastrophic failure," said Furlong, "pumping crude oil into the Straits and into the Great Lakes."
He said pushing back against Line 5 aligns with calls to reduce the use of fossil fuels, citing their connection to climate change and the impact on treaty-reserved resources Midwest tribes rely on.
First built in 1953, the pipeline can transport up to 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids per day.
get more stories like this via email