The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Atlanta Charts Difficult Path to 100 Percent Clean Energy
By Jeremy Deaton
At the start of 2017, just 22 cities had committed to sourcing all of their power from clean energy by 2050. As of this week, that number is 72. Since President Trump moved into the Oval Office and started ripping up federal climate policy, dozens of cities in conservative states have set ambitious goals for clean power, including Salt Lake City, St. Louis and Atlanta. Now for the hard part. These cities must chart a course to reaching their goal.
Atlanta recently laid out three options for hitting 100 percent clean energy. The document reveals two important facts. First, if Atlanta invests in new clean energy projects—as opposed to buying credits for clean energy generated out of state—it will see more jobs, smaller energy bills and less pollution. Second, if Atlanta wants to rely solely on locally sourced renewable power, it will need the help of the state legislature and the public service commission, both of which are controlled by Republicans, many of whom are wary of wind and solar. The proposals speak both to the promise of renewable power and to the limitations of local government. It will be hard to achieve 100 percent clean energy, but as former vice president Al Gore recently said, if Atlanta can do it, anybody can.
Officials listed the three proposals in increasing order of difficulty. The first calls for buying clean power credits from out-of-state wind farms to make up for power purchased from coal, gas and nuclear power plants. This option could be executed more quickly and cheaply than the other two, but it offers the smallest upside. In this scenario, Atlanta would support the development of clean energy, and thereby stem climate change, but it would not manage to shrink power bills, cut local pollution or create jobs for residents.
The energy mix in the first scenario. REC stands for "Renewable Energy Credits," while SREC stands for "Solar Renewable Energy Credits." City of Atlanta Mayor's Office of Resilience
The second option calls for investing in solar energy and energy efficiency. Like the first scenario, it also requires buying clean power credits, some from out-of-state wind farms and some from in-state solar farms—assuming Georgia Power, the local utility, invests in solar power. This scenario boasts the highest cost-to-benefit ratio, meaning the greatest savings on electricity and healthcare per dollar spent on clean power.
The energy mix in the second scenario. REC stands for "Renewable Energy Credits," while SREC stands for "Solar Renewable Energy Credits." City of Atlanta Mayor's Office of Resilience
The third option calls for going all in on clean energy, making big investments in rooftop solar arrays and community solar farms, in addition to making buildings more efficient. Even in this scenario, however, the city would rely in part on fossil fuels for power, and it would have to buy solar energy credits to reach its goal.
Overall, this proposal would yield the biggest returns. Officials say this option would create almost 8,000 jobs and produce nearly $12 billion in returns by slashing power bills and cutting pollution, thereby reducing healthcare costs. In this scenario, the city would also save 10 billion gallons of water that would otherwise be used in the operation of coal, gas and nuclear power plants—the largest water savings of any option.
The energy mix in the third scenario. REC stands for "Renewable Energy Credits," while SREC stands for "Solar Renewable Energy Credits." City of Atlanta Mayor's Office of Resilience
If the officials want to pursue the second or third options, they will need the help of the Georgia Public Service Commission and the state legislature. The Public Service Commission, for example, would need to direct Georgia Power to build enough solar power in Georgia to satisfy Atlanta's aims, allowing the city to purchase clean energy credits that support local solar projects instead of distant wind projects.
"We recognize that we can't put all of the renewable energy in the city limits. So that means it's going to have to come from somewhere else," said Ted Terry, director of the Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club. "We don't want to be exporting our dollars to other states. No offense to Oklahoma, but we've got the energy resources right here in our state to power our state." Terry wants to see Atlanta source power from in-state solar arrays, "built by Georgia workers that will add value to the tax base of Georgia."
A solar array on the roof of the Carbon Neutral Energy Solutions Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Georgia Institute of Technology
The legislature could help by allowing solar owners to sell more of their power back to the grid or by creating a renewable portfolio standard, asserting the state must source a certain portion of its power from wind and solar. Terry said that a renewable portfolio standard is unlikely to pass the Republican-dominated legislature, but a tax credit for solar installations or energy efficiency upgrades just might. "The legislature is very politicized and ideological," Terry said.
Given the political hurdles, authors of the three proposals warned that trying to achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2035 would likely result in the city "simply purchasing large amounts of renewable energy credits rather than achieving the goal through energy efficiency and in-state renewable generation." They urged the city council to aim for the more modest date of 2050, which would provide "a realistic timeline in which to achieve an equitable, affordable, and cost-effective 100 percent clean energy future."
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. Afdahe
As officials noted, the more power the city can generate locally, the greater the benefits for its poorest residents, who devote up to a 10 percent of their monthly income to electricity costs. "Energy equity was a huge deal—relieving the energy burden for people who are lower income," Terry said. Officials called for shrinking power bills and funding efficiency upgrades in the homes of low-income families. The right policies could radically cut the cost of power, which would be significant for families struggling to pay rent.
"This is not just a plan drafted in a vacuum at City Hall—our aim is to unlock the potential of Atlantans to take action to make our home more resilient to the shocks and stresses of a warming planet," wrote Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms in an introductory letter. Bottoms described Atlanta's plan for clean energy as "a social contract to protect the health and welfare of its citizenry."
Reposted with permission from our media associate Nexus Media.
- Driving on Sunshine: Nissan Rolls Out Solar + Storage System ›
- Samsung Commits to 100 Percent Renewable Energy by 2020 ›
- 6 Things You Can Do Right Now to Help Stop Trump's Supreme ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Europe is gearing up for another extreme heat wave that could set all-time records for several European countries.
Micro-Naps for Plants: Flicking the Lights on and off Can Save Energy Without Hurting Indoor Agriculture Harvests
By Kevin M. Folta
A nighttime arrival at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport flies you over the bright pink glow of vegetable production greenhouses. Growing crops under artificial light is gaining momentum, particularly in regions where produce prices can be high during seasons when sunlight is sparse.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) former head of the Office of Air and Radiation who was instrumental in drafting policies that eased climate protection rules and pollution standards is under investigation by a federal watchdog for his dealings with the fossil fuel industry he was supposed to be regulating, according to the New York Times.
It's no secret that the Trump administration has championed fossil fuels and scoffed at renewable energy. But the Trump administration is trying to keep something secret: the climate crisis. That's according to a new analysis from the watchdog group Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) who found that more than a quarter of the references to climate change on .gov websites vanished.
By Adrienne Hollis
Climate change is a threat multiplier. This is a fact I know to be true. I also know that our most vulnerable populations, particularly environmental justice communities — people of color and/or low socioeconomic status — are suffering and will continue to suffer first and worst from the adverse effects of climate change. Case in point? Extreme heat.