The Sierra Club Makes Presentations to Governor’s Energy Policy Task Force
by Wallace McMullen

Last January Governor Holden appointed a task force to examine the major energy questions confronting the state. He asked the task force to provide:

· Recommendations for long-term energy policy in time for action by the next session of the General Assembly

· A clearer understanding of Missouri-specific issues of energy supplies and demand

· Recommendations to enhance Missouri’s energy supplies and increase energy efficiency

· An action plan for Missouri-specific research, development and economic opportunities related to energy technology; including the best practices from other states

· The impact of energy policy on Missouri’s environment

The Task Force has held a number of hearings to gather input on these questions.

Our Sierra Club Ozark Chapter has considered this a very important process. The issues this task force is dealing with will have enormous impact on the environment and the economy of Missouri. We have made significant efforts to provide input to the process. Our Global Warming staffer, Carla Klein, has attended all the hearings. Carla Klein and Wallace McMullen testified at the June 15 hearing in Springfield. Ron McLinden spoke at the July 13 Task Force hearing in Cape Girardeau.

Hopefully, the Task Force will provide recommendations which will begin to move Missouri away from its heavy reliance on burning fossil fuel for electricity and transportation. We have clear and strong convictions about what should be done to create energy policies which will improve Missouri’s energy future. The ideas we have recommended are stated in the excerpts below from the testimony by the Sierra members who have represented the Ozark Chapter: Carla, Wallace, and Ron. Sierra Club members will want to pay close attention to this task force and its recommendations. As we stated to the members of the Task Force, they are dealing with issues that will have a major impact on how polluted or clean our future will be, and on how prosperous or economically depressed our future will be.

Excerpts from Carla Klein’s talk:

· If we make the right energy choices today, we can have cleaner air, less global warming pollution, more vibrant public lands and reasonably priced power far into the future. Unfortunately, the energy plans put forth by the majority of energy suppliers and producers at last month’s task force meeting will not accomplish these goals. Their plans focused on the wrong choices – to produce more coal, oil, gas and nuclear power – with insufficient emphasis on energy efficiency and cleaner alternatives.

· We have a multitude of energy choices at our disposal and when I heard expressions like “home grown” energy, “true investments in our future” and “the need to diversify our energy supply” I was very encouraged. Later, I was disappointed to find out that the home grown diversified energy sources being referred to meant nothing more than burning more coal. There was no mention of clean renewable energy or using energy-efficient technology as a major tool to reduce energy consumption. The energy choices put forth for Missouri seemed to be focused on only those options that harm our public health and the environment.

· We can all appreciate that businesses need to make a profit and that in order to stay competitive they must try to keep costs down. The problem is the real cost of using cheap, dirty energy is not being addressed.

· Two of the most polluting forms of energy used in the state of Missouri come from the burning of fossil fuels, the coal we burn for energy production and the gasoline we burn for transportation. I would like for the members of the Task Force to fully consider the harmful effects of theses energy sources on our health and the environment and weigh this evidence in determining the best choices for Missouri’s energy future.

· No other source of pollution causes as many adverse health effects as coal-burning power plants. Coal is America’s dirtiest energy source and also our largest, generating 52 percent of the nation’s electricity and accounting for 85% of Missouri’s electricity. Coal-burning power plants are the single biggest source of industrial air pollution. Coal produces pollution when it is mined, transported, burned and when the waste from burning is disposed.

· Pollution from electric power plants kills 30,000 Americans every year, including approximately 900 people in Missouri and 454 in St. Louis. These numbers place St. Louis eighth in a ranking of metropolitan areas for premature deaths caused by power plant pollution. More people die as a result of the pollution from power plants than from drunk driving or homicides every year.

· Transportation is the second largest global warming pollutant in the state. According to the Department of Natural Resources, transportation was the largest consumer of energy in the state of Missouri in 1990, accounting for 41% of energy consumption. Each gallon of gas burned pumps 28 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Studies show that Missouri’s cars are less efficient than the national average. In 1990, Missouri automobiles averaged 19 miles per gallon compared to 21 miles per gallon nationwide.

· Humans through our energy use activities are having a global impact. If we continue at our current rates the warming of our planet will adversely affect every aspect of the world we leave to our children. The impacts from our energy demands indeed are far reaching and the decision making process must include these environmental and health threats.

· As we continue to see the build up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the long-term impacts we are imposing on future generations we must demand that we use our energy more efficiently.

Excerpts from Wallace McMullen’s presentation:

· We want an energy system that does not pollute the air, cause global warming, or generate toxic radioactive waste as an integral part of generating electricity.

· The existing market structure has a major failure in that the health, environmental and other external costs are not included in the price of electricity or gasoline. Along with other barriers, this makes it difficult for renewable energy to compete, and dampens interest in energy efficiency.

· We need to work for an electricity system we can live with – one that is clean, non-polluting, and doesn’t damage the climate.

· Compared to oil and coal, renewable energy produces tiny amounts of the pollutants that presently impair the health of people, degrade our lakes and forests, lower crop yields, and damage buildings, bridges, and other structures. Of course, renewable energy doesn’t produce greenhouse gases.

· The existing market structure assigns no costs to health and environmental damages, but the costs to the citizens of our state are very real.

· The “supply side” approach – building large new electricity generating stations – is typically the slowest, most costly, and most environmentally damaging way to generate more power. The state needs adequate energy resources in the future to maintain a healthy economy, but we can have the most positive effect by pursuing efficiency and renewable sources.

· I exhort this distinguished panel to make recommendations which go beyond tinkering around the edges, and I hope that our current administration will undertake vigorous leadership on these issues.

· I have a series of specific proposals for your consideration, pertaining primarily to the use of solar power, wind power, and energy efficiency. These recommendations can be categorized into three broad classifications of action:

1. Let’s build the energy system we want in our future.

2. We need the State Government to expand its role as an active actor.

3. We need to clear away barriers that block the adoption of efficiency and renewables.

· Since we need to aggressively pursue a better energy system, I suggest we should:

1. Subsidize clean power. Implement a “Dirty Power” charge on electricity from coal-fired power plants, and use it to subsidize electricity produced by wind or photovoltaic generation.

If sufficient wind or photovoltaic electricity is not being commercially produced in the state to use up the subsidy, then it should be used each year for installing photovoltaic generation for State facilities, which will reduce the State’s electricity bill and boost the photovoltaic industry in Missouri at the same time.

I suggest a good rate for this carbon tax would be the same rate as the nuclear decommissioning fee that we all pay in the urban areas of the state: 0.02¢/Kwh. There is considerable poetic justice in requiring a payment to offset dirty generation of the same magnitude as the fee for the long-term costs of a radioactive generating facility. This is relatively a pretty tiny amount per customer – it would add only $.08 (8¢) to a typical monthly residential bill, assuming usage of 400 Kwh per month. But it would aggregate to at least $6 million per year, enough to have a real impact.

We already have franchise fees, decommissioning charges, utility taxes, and other such charges added to every customer’s electric bill in the state. Adding another small charge would be just a minimal administrative task for the electric utilities and electric co-ops. This would be charging dirty coal-fired generation a little extra for their undesirable external costs and subsidizing the generation system we want, which is eminently good public policy.

2. Pursue renewable manufacturing. Missouri should actively pursue photovoltaic (PV) equipment and fuel cell manufacturers with economic incentives. Chicago recently landed a major manufacturer of photovoltaic equipment, Spire Solar, which developed a new plant in a brownfield area because the city guaranteed to purchase a quantity of photovoltaic panels each year, which are to be used on public schools, museums, and public buildings.

This type of economic development should be actively pursued by the Department of Economic Development and the DNR. The financial resources in my first recommendation could help provide the economic incentives – other State programs such as Tax Incremental Financing, and the Federal Brownfield Programs ought to be applicable. If existing State programs are insufficient, recommending a relatively small amount of General Revenue to support such programs could generate a great deal of investment.

3. Pay more attention to energy issues. We need expanded support for DNR’s Energy Center and more status for the work that they do – it should be given a larger role in dealing with the issues that this Task Force is addressing. The staff there have spent years looking into these questions, and have developed considerable expertise in how the energy problems of the state might be effectively addressed.

We recommend an economist specializing in energy issues be added to the staff of the Energy Center, and that the DNR Energy Center be given a higher profile role in the policy development process of Governor Holden’s Administration, with sufficient funding to support this important work.

Excerpts from Ron McLinden’s testimony:

· I believe the work of this task force is of strategic importance. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than Missouri’s future economic security. And I believe our economic security depends as much on energy efficiency as it does on access to energy supplies.

· Energy and Resource Efficiency – If we are to remain competitive in a global economy we must become more resource efficient.

1. The idea of resource efficiency is described at length in a recent book, Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken and Hunter and Amory Lovins. A central premise of their book is that nature and natural systems are part of the capital that the human economy relies on, and that while we take care to protect the other forms of capital that we use – land, labor, equipment – we have not fully recognized the need to preserve “natural capital” that we take for granted.

2. Nature and natural systems provide services to our economy worth some $36 trillion per year, nearly as much as the $39 trillion estimated annual output of the global human economy. Just one example of a service provided by natural systems is the cycle by which water evaporates, is transported by air currents, and falls back upon the earth to water forests and grasslands and crops. What would be the cost if we had to find and distribute that water without the assistance of this natural cycle?

3. Efficiency is a strategy that fits hand in glove with all of the other energy strategies that you are likely to recommend – assuring supply, alternative fuels, and renewable sources.

4. It’s imperative that we make our economy as energy and resource efficient as possible. The good news, according to the authors, is that we can reduce our energy needs to one fourth what we use now maybe even one tenth – if we will think more holistically about our needs and how we meet them.

5. Consuming more energy doesn’t guarantee us a stronger economy or a higher standard of living or more satisfying lives. Perhaps that’s worth repeating: Consuming more energy doesn’t guarantee us a stronger economy or a higher standard of living or more satisfying lives. In fact, consuming more energy than we really need might actually put our economy at risk and result in a lower standard of living and less satisfying lives for future generations.

6. A major goal of our society should be to reduce our use of energy – and of other resources – while maintaining or enhancing our overall quality of life.

· The Energy Implications of Urban Sprawl – I want to talk now about an element of our economy that’s a particular interest of mine, the physical structure –the geographic layout – of our economy. I’m talking about the pattern of development of our cities and towns. In plain language I’m talking about urban sprawl.

1. Sprawl is characterized as relatively low density development that has its various types of land use separated from one another, and that as a result is highly dependent on motorized transportation. Nearly every city and town in Missouri that is not actually shriveling up is sprawling.

2. During the years since the energy crisis of the 1970s, the American economy has made significant advances in improving the energy efficiency of its industrial processes, of its buildings, and of its vehicles. Those are all things that are more or less within the control of private enterprise – with some occasional nudging from government, such as CAFE standards for motor vehicles.

3. Ironically, our economy tends to operate as if the principles of efficiency apply only within the boundaries of individual private enterprises. Meanwhile, out in the public realm we have been making our human settlements less efficient, more energy dependent. In fact, the energy savings from our more efficient industrial processes, buildings, and vehicles are almost cancelled out by the inefficiencies we continue to build into our cities and towns.

4. Consider a few statistics:

· The St. Louis metro area population grew 35 percent between1950 and 1990. Meanwhile the urbanized land area grew more than 350 percent, ten times as fast. That’s a lot of extra distance we’ve been putting between ourselves.

· The transportation consequences are just what you’d expect. During the 21 years between 1969 and 1990, the US population grew by 21 percent. But during that period the number of miles driven by household vehicles – the vehicles that you and I own – grew by 82 percent, four times as fast.

· Here in Missouri, MoDOT reports that vehicle travel has been growing even faster – 8 times as fast as population.

5. The transportation component of sprawl is one of its more troublesome characteristics. Sprawl makes it hard to do almost anything without getting in a car. Consider where you shop for groceries. If you also need to get something across the street from the grocery store, can you walk there, or do you drive? Is it safe to walk anywhere? Can kids walk or ride a bike to school? Or to soccer practice? The affluence that has put several cars in every driveway has been devastating to our public transit systems. And the changes in development patterns – with new jobs in the suburbs and low-income people still living in the urban core – means that a lot of low-wage workers have to ride the bus an hour or two every morning and every evening, making two or three transfers in the process, just to get to work.

6. Continued growth at the edges of our cities and towns is costly, especially when it occurs at a faster rate than population growth. Such physical expansion of a town requires new roads, new water and sewer lines, new electric and phone and gas and cable lines, and new fire stations and schools and libraries. All of us pay for much of this new infrastructure. Yes, there might be a utility connection fee or a development impact fee, but such fees usually don’t pay the full cost.

7. Consider roads. If I choose to drive to work instead of taking the bus, I make my three-mile commute over existing city streets – streets that were built and maintained using primarily a tax on real estate. But if I move to a new house in exurbia, I suddenly expect to make my 25-mile commute at a speed of 65 or 70 miles per hour on a very expensive highway that has costly bridges and interchanges in place of simple intersections with stop signs.

8. And we keep doing it. One of the most significant factors in contributing to sprawl is an unwritten MoDOT policy that they don’t even realize they have. Their policy is that they will do their utmost to provide highway capacity to meet the needs of all the motorists that can be expected to present themselves on the state highway system. And the expectation that this policy will continue fuels the sprawl cycle. The result is inefficient settlement patterns, and that doesn’t contribute to a competitive state economy.

9. MoDOT’s most recent estimate of transportation needs concludes that they need $1.5 billion in new revenue each year to meet those needs. The General Assembly has balked at the idea of increasing taxes, so MoDOT is having to make tough decisions. Fortunately, they are choosing to preserve existing roads and bridges as their first priority. Eventually that will help rein in urban sprawl, so maybe it’s not such a bad thing MoDOT can't afford all the roads people want.

10. Missouri needs to address its urban growth issues in a very deliberate manner – not just to assure that our cities remain viable places for human habitation and economic activity, but to preserve them for their very energy efficiency. An urban center that has good public transit, that has stores and shops and services available within a short walk or bike trip of its citizens – such an urban center can attract people for whom the “suburban dream” has come to look more like a nightmare of long commutes, congested streets, and rising taxes.

11. We need to support the renaissance of our urban centers. So I was glad to hear Governor Holden say a year ago that he intends to formulate Missouri’s first comprehensive urban policy.

· Recommendations – I have just a few recommendations to make to you as you write your report.

1. I recommend that you take seriously the world economy, and the global factors that will affect us in the future. I outlined some of them, at least as I see them. Humankind faces unprecedented challenges – global warming, for instance – and we disregard them at our peril.

2. I recommend that you place the highest possible priority on promoting energy efficiency. Whether you accept any of my concerns or not, there simply is no risk in making Missouri a more energy and resource efficient state.

3. I recommend that you support formation of a Missouri partnership for energy efficiency to carry the message that “energy efficiency pays” to every town in the state. Such a partnership might have the Departments of Natural Resources and Economic Development working with business associations and chambers of commerce to improve energy efficiency. My hope is that this message would be conveyed with a passion that borders on evangelism.

4. I recommend that you support formation of a permanent coalition of organizations to work on energy policies and programs. This would be consistent with one of the Governor’s platform commitments, to revitalize the Missouri Energy Futures Coalition.

5. I recommend that you give the strongest possible support for an inter-agency body to develop policies and programs to make our whole economy more efficient by encouraging Smart Growth principles in our cities and towns.

· Conclusion – We need to free our economy and our communities from the current built environment that requires us to be dependent on motor vehicles to get from life activity to life activity – school, work, play, culture, and shopping. We need to evolve away from that dominant pattern and toward cities and towns that require less energy by design. Gandhi once said, “There’s more to life than increasing the speed of it.” We need to move beyond the “bigger/faster/more is better” mindset that underlies so much of our economy, and move toward an economy that meets our physical needs while serving the higher purposes of life that we typically look to religion and philosophy to define. The task is great. The stakes are great. We must begin.

Wallace can be reached at mcmulw@socket.net.