Restarting the National Clean Energy Conversation

In March, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Energy Committee and long-time champion of the renewable energy industry, released S. 2146, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, a bill that requires electric utilities to secure an increasing portion of their power supply from no-carbon or low-carbon sources, including renewable energy, nuclear, natural gas or coal facilities that capture and sequester their carbon emissions. The annual targets begin at 24 percent in 2015 and increase to 84 percent in 2035. The bill is based on a proposal by President Obama, and it re-starts the conversation about developing a much needed, long-term national clean energy policy.

Back in January, I wrote that a well-designed CES can be an effective tool for affordably and reliably moving our nation to a cleaner, more sustainable energy system, but that it is critical to get the details of policy right. Laudably, S. 2146 sets aggressive targets and a long-term time frame that will increase low-carbon energy and give investors the policy certainty needed to develop projects. It also positively emulates many state renewable electricity standards by using a proven tradable credit system to track compliance and allow utilities greater flexibility in achieving the targets. But there are at least three major shortcomings that should be addressed before the bill goes further.

Mature Technologies Don’t Need Further Incentives

The CES gives utilities tradable credits to mature industries like natural gas and nuclear power. In case you haven’t heard, the natural gas industry is doing very well in the power markets these days. In many parts of the country, natural gas facilities are the least cost source of electricity, competing favorably even with existing coal generation. It does not need additional “clean energy” incentives, especially in light of concerns around hydraulic fracturing and fugitive methane emissions.

It is one thing to allow natural gas to count toward the target of the purchasing utility, but awarding a tradable credit, even a partial one as the bill proposes, gives it additional value that is unnecessary for stimulating deployment. It also reduces the development of truly sustainable, renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Making the credits non-tradable is an easy way to acknowledge the value of low-carbon, mature energy technologies without funneling incentives away from other low-carbon energy technologies that need the support.

Prioritize New Low-Carbon Energy Development

For most eligible technologies S. 2146 awards tradable credits to facilities placed in service as far back as 1992. One of the primary objectives of a clean energy standard is to stimulate investments in new technologies and to bring additional facilities online. Giving tradable credits to facilities that are as much as 20-years old significantly undermines this goal, particularly in the near term when the annual targets are lower. And while it is true that some existing facilities may need additional incentives to stay competitive, most do not. In this case, the simple and fair solution for rewarding early adopters of low-carbon energy is to provide non-tradable credits for existing facilities, and shift the eligibility of tradable credits to facilities that come online after the date of enactment.

Bringing Energy Efficiency into the Mix

Outside of allowing for combined heat and power technology, which is very much welcome, energy efficiency plays virtually no role in the CES. That’s a mistake. Energy efficiency is our cheapest and most readily available energy source that can result in significant near-term reductions in carbon emissions. If it can’t be adequately integrated into the CES itself, then the legislation should include a stand-alone energy efficiency resource standard and other efficiency measures. Coupling a CES with strong energy efficiency policies would greatly reduce costs of the whole program to consumers.

Given the stalemates that have plagued this Congress, the CES isn’t likely to get much more attention this year than tomorrow’s hearing. At a minimum though, members of the energy committee should consider making at least these three improvements.

That way, when Congress is ready to put aside polarizing politics, this legislation could serve as a more useful starting point for creating a clean energy policy that will drive innovation and economic development, reduce carbon pollution, and protect consumers.

When I look at what is left of the so-called “Nuclear  Renaissance” in this country, both of these sayings come to mind. In recent  weeks, developments at three nuclear reactor projects in three states – Tennessee  Valley Authority’s Bellefonte in Tennessee, Southern Company’s Vogtle 3&4 in  Georgia, and Progress Energy’s Levy 1&2 in Florida – show that they are all over budget and behind schedule.

This could be an indication that we are repeating the past, one where nuclear reactor construction resulted in hundreds  of billions in cost overruns, abandonments, bankruptcies, defaults and the cancellation of more than half of the reactors proposed to be built in this country.

TVA Watts Bar 2 is one of two reactors that began construction in 1973. Unit 1 was completed  in 1996, but TVA stopped construction on Unit 2 in 1988 when it was about 80% complete and $1.7 billion had been spent. In 2007 TVA decided to complete the unit with the expectation that it would come on line in 2012. Earlier this year TVA announced that the project was running over budget and behind schedule. In April, the utility released a revised construction schedule and cost estimate stating that the target start date for the reactor is now December 2015 and the project would “require additional funding of $1.5 billion to $2 billion, putting the total estimated cost of completion in the range of $4 billion to $4.5 billion.” If TVA’s new schedule holds, this 1,180 MW reactor will have taken 42 years and at least $6 billion to complete.

Vogtle 3&4 are two 1100 MW reactors being built at an existing reactor site by Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power and its partners Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Originally planned to come on line in 2016 and 2017 and cost $14 billion, this week the partners announced that they are engaged in a dispute with the project’s contractors about proposed adjustments that could add $900 million to the project’s cost. Further complicating this project is a reported dispute between Southern Company and the Department of Energy over the conditions Southern must agree to in order to receive its share of an $8.33 billion federal loan guarantee for the project.

If built, Levy 1&2 would comprise two 1100 MW reactors at a greenfield site. Progress Energy Florida first announced Levy in 2008 as a one-reactor project scheduled to come on-line in 2016 and cost $3.5 billion. Last month, Progress announced that the first of what is now planned as a two reactor project wouldn’t come on-line until 2024, citing low customer demand, the ongoing economic slowdown, low natural gas prices and the lack of a federal carbon policy. Meanwhile, the project cost has ballooned to $24 billion.

These developments will not surprise industry followers, whether pro or anti, but they should serve as a clear warning signal to anyone else who is still considering whether or not to invest in new reactors. For the undecided, a “wait and see” approach is the most prudent course. These projects will take years to play out, and we should not be surprised to see even more cost overruns, schedule delays, and even a cancellation.  As Yogi Berra once said: “You can observe a lot by watching.”

More than 500,000 supportive comments on the new standards were hand-delivered to the EPA.

I am inspired by the voices and actions of hundreds of thousands of people around the country supporting the first-ever national standards to limit global warming emissions from new power plants. Just last week, more than 500,000 supportive comments on the new standards were hand delivered to the EPA. And that’s just the beginning. On May 24, public hearings on the standards will take place in Chicago, IL and Washington, DC. UCS will be there, along with scientists, health experts, economists, concerned citizens, faith leaders and many others testifying on the importance of reducing emissions and showing support for this first round of standards.

Last Thursday, UCS hosted a national conference call with speakers from the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discussing the draft standards to limit carbon pollution from new power plants—a historic step toward a cleaner, healthier energy future—and talking about how we can all get involved in calling for action.

We were honored to have on the call Heather Zichal, the deputy assistant to President Obama for energy and climate change, and Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. McCarthy shared more details and her insight on the new carbon standards and encouraged scientists and citizens alike to engage and submit comments on the draft carbon pollution standards for new power plants – standards she noted are a signal to the world that the U.S. is committed to addressing climate change. Ms. Zichal spoke about the significant progress on environmental and energy issues the Administration has been able to do working together with members of the public. She also noted the importance of staying engaged on these issues in order to take advantage of opportunities to go further and do better in the future.

The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards demonstrate that the Obama administration is taking prudent action to address the dangers of unchecked climate change that an overwhelming majority of scientists have been warning us about for years.

With groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowing to do everything they can to stop the EPA’s efforts to protect our health and environment from the impacts of climate change, in order to make these standards a success and lay the groundwork for continued national efforts, the EPA and White House need to know there is public support for action. This is where you come in. With this momentum and excitement, we can make these first standards a reality and get ready for the next round of standards that will limit emissions from existing power plants.

What can you do today? The public comment period is open until June 25th. If you haven’t already, submit your comment to the EPA! If you have already submitted a comment, spread the word and contribute to a record number of comments into the EPA.

Levy 1&2: $24 billion and counting

Progress Energy Florida first announced Levy in 2008 as a one-reactor project scheduled to come on-line in 2016 and cost $3.5 billion. Last week, Progress announced that the first of two reactors wouldn’t come on-line until 2024, citing “lower-than-anticipated customer demand, the lingering economic slowdown, uncertainty regarding potential carbon regulation and current low natural gas prices,” while the project cost has ballooned to $24 billion. These developments also track the conclusions of Big Risks, Better Alternatives, which found that nuclear power is one of the most costly and risky ways to meet Florida’s future electricity needs.

While few should be surprised by this turn of events, many would be surprised to know that Progress Florida customers are already paying for this plant in their rates. They will continue to pay unless Progress cancels the plant or the state legislature repeals the 2006 advanced cost recovery law that allows utilities to charge customers for new nuclear plants long before they operate, and even if they never get built at all. Given the latest announcement, I’m firmly in the camp that believes Levy will not get built.

Florida’s resistance to developing cleaner, safer alternatives that can be deployed much more quickly than new nuclear reactors is puzzling. The potential to reduce demand for new power plants in Florida is huge: Energy efficiency investments could reduce Florida’s future electricity use by nearly 20 percent. But unlike 22 other states, Florida doesn’t have energy efficiency standards in place and invests little in efficiency, ranking 27th in the nation according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Last year, Florida spent only $6.60 per resident on energy-efficiency programs, well below the national average of $14.87 and far behind the leading states. Granted, there’s little incentive for Progress to aggressively promote energy conservation; it’s in business to sell power. But what about the state legislators and public service commissioners, who are supposed to represent the public interest?

Three years ago, Florida lawmakers did require Progress to ramp up its efficiency programs. Last July, however, the PSC ignored the law and threw out the plan because of its modest implementation cost, despite the fact that it would lower electric bills. The PSC allowed Progress to cut its energy efficiency program targets from a modest 3.5 percent to a paltry 2 percent over the next decade. If Progress pursued an efficiency target of 15 percent over the same time frame, it could keep energy use below the state’s peak 2006 levels, making large new reactors unnecessary.

Let the sunshine in.

Unlike 29 other states, Florida also has a poor track record developing renewable energy resources. The state has no standards requiring utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from renewables. It’s a lost opportunity: Big Risks shows that renewables could meet a significant percentage of Florida’s electricity needs.

Instead of prodding Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light (Florida’s other major utility) to promote efficiency and invest in renewable energy, the PSC in October approved rate increases for both utilities to finance new nuclear projects. Ratepayers already are paying $1.1 billion toward the Levy project, although Progress has not made a final decision to build the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must first approve its license, which is not expected to occur until next year. Progress says it will then decide whether to proceed with the project. Before the latest price hike was announced, the typical Progress Energy retail consumer was on the hook to pay more than $718 in Levy costs per year by 2021. Unless the plant is cancelled customers will be charged even more, although no one can say how much.

Energy efficiency, wind power, biomass and natural gas are all cheaper and less risky than the proposed reactors, and solar costs are declining quickly. With a little effort, Florida could give its motto “The Sunshine State” a whole new meaning.

Photo: A Baked Creation www.abakedcreation.com

You may have heard that EPA recently issued draft carbon standards for new power plants. These standards are a small, important step toward lowering our future carbon emissions. (Yes, we clearly need to do a lot more to truly address the threat of climate change – both by sharply reducing our emissions and by building resilience to the impacts of climate change already underway.)

But even these reasonable, commonsense standards are coming under mounting attack from the usual suspects.

The Chamber of Commerce campaign of falsehoods and misinformation on climate

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s press release on the carbon standard is a particularly egregious example of misinformation and scare tactics. First of all, it’s important to note that this standard only applies to new power plants (and also exempts plants that are already permitted and will begin construction within a year). And it’s a fallacy to say that the standard is preventing the building of new coal-fired power plants because, apart from a few plants already in the pipeline, no one is planning to build any more new coal plants! According to EIA’s most recent projections (see Data Table A9), even under a business-as-usual scenario virtually no new conventional coal-fired plants are forecast to be built through 2035.

The fact is coal-fired power plants are becoming increasingly uneconomic for a variety of reasons including competition from lower cost alternatives like natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Add to that the enormous health and environmental costs of coal, and it’s clear that we need to diversify our energy base with cleaner, more sustainable options.

Contrary to what the Chamber claims, EPA’s legal authority and obligation to regulate carbon pollution has been clearly affirmed though a 2007 Supreme Court ruling and the issuing of the endangerment finding which establishes the threats to public health and welfare from climate change.

Several economists have confirmed that this standard will have little or no impact on electricity prices. Market conditions are clearly unfavorable for building new coal plants and any new investments are likely to be in natural gas or renewable energy.

The Chamber is out of step with its members on climate

Instead of embracing a future of cleaner energy sources that also help limit the growth in carbon emissions that are fueling climate change, the Chamber has chosen to adopt a short-sighted stance. The Chamber has a history of this kind of head-in-the-sand thinking on climate issues, which has already led to the exodus of members like Apple, Exelon and PG&E who recognize the need to acknowledge the science and take action on climate change. Many others (including Nike, General Electric and Johnson and Johnson) have explicitly said that the Chamber does not represent their views on climate change.

Show your support for limits on global warming emissions  

You can make a difference: Please send comments to EPA in support of these critical standards that will help protect our health and environment from the impacts of global warming. Moms (and responsible adults) everywhere would approve!

Disinformation = disservice

Some of what the memo lays out is consistent with smart campaign strategizing. And who can argue with moving to “encourage critical thinking from members and the public” or to “develop a list of experts for testimony to government agencies, etc”?

But other aspects should give readers pause about the intentions and modus operandi of the proponents of these types of efforts, or even what the memo means by the phrases above. Some choice morsels from the menu of goals, strategies, and tactics:

“Setup [sic] a dummy business that will go into communities considering wind development, proposing to build 400 foot billboards.”

One commenter has already pointed out the unfortunate reference to billboards, in the wake of last week’s tragicomical Heartland Institute billboard fiasco.

Photo by Wes Gibson (iStockphoto)

But it’s the “dummy business” stuff that gets my goat.  It’s way too consistent with the documented strategy and long history of anti-climate science folks funding organizations to sow confusion. UCS documented ExxonMobil’s efforts along those lines several years ago—in that case, pointing out how they had created “a vast ‘echo chamber’ that repeats the same disinformation about global warming but gives the appearance of widespread debate among experts.”  Many of the organizations mentioned in the recent memo as having “substantial commonality” with the proposed effort were ones named in the UCS report, or their intellectual heirs.  And more recent indications show that those of their ilk haven’t given up.

“Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the messages.”

What got me about that piece was the last part.  I would think all of us should want any mind-changing to be based on free will plus an understanding of costs and benefits, of causes and consequences, of options and impacts.  To depend on an understanding of the science, not on the catchiness of the phraseology that Madison Avenue or pollsters cook up.

“Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a ‘groundswell’ among grass roots.”

“Appear as a ‘groundswell’ ”? Shouldn’t successful grassroots movements actually be groundswells? “Appear” can mean different things, but in light of other pieces of the memo and tactics employed against renewable energy and climate science, this suggests the goal is a plausible parade of Potemkin people instead of genuine public reaction (see astroturf).

Which brings us back to the first phrases I mentioned.  What do all these pieces say about the truthiness that should underpin the critical thinking the memo professes to want to encourage, or the nature of the “experts” that this effort would have proposed to engage?

Science rules

The most (unintentionally) ironic piece of the memo may be the suggestion to “Provide alternative solutions for public consumption.” They’re talking about messages, but the phrase fits the energy context to a T.  Because that’s what renewable energy is about—meeting our electricity needs (public consumption) in a way that’s different from fossil fuels or nuclear power (alternative solutions). Different because those energy sources give us options that don’t alter our climate, and don’t pollute the water we depend on or the air we breathe. Different because renewables make use of resources that are inexhaustible or grow back. Different because of the control they give us over our energy destiny.

No technology—wind included—should be up on a high pedestal, unassailable by facts or logic.  Rational people can and do disagree about what should matter when it comes to our energy choices, about how to value the trade-offs.  But those discussions can and should be grounded in an understanding of the facts as best as they can be determined, not in some fantasy constructed by over-zealous opponents or proponents.

As the UCS website says,

Our energy choices have direct impacts on our health, environment, and economy. No energy technology is perfect, but science helps us assess the options and make smarter decisions.

Science rules… or should.

As part of the book’s release, my co-authors and I have blogged the past few weeks about the most effective steps people can take to reduce their personal carbon emissions 20 percent this year. And while individual consumer decisions can lead to meaningful progress in combating global warming, government policies and programs are essential for overcoming the entrenched market barriers that currently impede our progress. A single community, state, or federal clean-energy policy can lock in enormous reductions in carbon emissions, far beyond what any of us can hope to accomplish on our own.

That’s why it is so important to not only take charge of your personal carbon emissions, but also to get involved in formulating and implementing government policies on energy use and global warming. By becoming a low-carbon leader, you can increase your impact many thousands of times over.

Taking Charge in Cincinnati

Solar PV installation at Cincinnati zoo (Source: SolarWorld)

The effort in Cincinnati offers a great example. Groups there, such as Ohio Citizen Action, began working with local residents to convince the city council to allow a ballot measure last November creating a program that allowed the city to buy electricity in bulk. That way, Cincinnati could negotiate lower power costs and influence the source of the electricity in the process. Voters approved the new system, but the City Manager’s decision to go with a 100 percent renewable energy provider came after a series of public hearings where residents and business owners voiced strong support for a cleaner, more sustainable power supply.

The important point is this: the actions of one local group of committed low carbon leaders created a policy that will now allow up to 52,000 homes and small businesses to be powered by renewable energy at a savings of about $133 for the average household. Now, that is what we mean by being cooler and smarter!

Opportunities For Action

Cincinnati offers a great case of one city taking action, but there are many exciting opportunities to advance clean energy policies at the state and federal level too. For example, many states have adopted renewable electricity standards (RES) that require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable power sources by a specific date. Since the late 1990s, clean energy groups across the country have worked with state legislators to pass these standards, and today 29 states have mandatory programs. By requiring a clear and firm target date, this bipartisan and market-friendly policy offers certainty to investors and developers of renewables while helping utilities move away from older, carbon-intensive sources of energy. Vocal support from citizens to our elected officials is critical for adopting new state RES policies as well as defending and strengthening existing ones.

Federal tax credits for wind power are set to expire at the end of the year. (Source: Todd Spink, NREL)

On the federal level, citizen action can make a big difference too. One important job right now is the need for vocal support for tax incentives to speed the development of more clean renewable sources of energy. One of the primary drivers of the growth in zero-carbon wind energy, for instance, is something called the production tax credit, a federal policy that gives developers a tax break when they generate renewable energy. Tax credits help defray the upfront costs of installing renewable energy technologies and help level the playing field with fossil fuel and nuclear technologies, which historically have received much greater tax subsidies. Unfortunately, the federal tax credit for wind power is set to expire at the end of the year. Here again, low carbon citizen leaders can make the difference. Contact your members of congress today and urge them to support permanent, aggressive tax incentives to speed the development of more renewable generating capacity.

Cooler Smarter shows how each of our individual actions and choices can make a difference in driving down carbon emissions. But we can’t stop there. We need more citizens like those in Cincinnati to become low carbon leaders and help push government action along too. Only then can we be truly successful in making the transition to a low-carbon society.

Suzanne Shaw, Director of Communications, Union of Concerned Scientists – When you suggest changes that can help your workplace save money, people are likely to listen. And as we demonstrate in our new book, reducing global warming emissions can produce big savings. Here’s what you need to know to encourage your employer along an energy-efficient, low-carbon path.

Low Emissions = Big Savings

Many businesses large and small are waking up to the economic benefits of reducing their energy use and emissions. For example, the chemical giant DuPont was an early leader. Between 1990 and 2006, the company invested in more energy-efficient processes and equipment, renewable energy, and other emissions-reducing approaches. It cut worldwide heat-trapping emissions to 72 percent below 1990 levels and reduced energy use by 7 percent even while its production expanded 30 percent. As a result DuPont saved roughly $2 billion in energy costs. But you don’t have to be a huge corporation to realize significant savings.

In Cooler Smarter we talk about Tom Bowman, the owner of Bowman Design Group, a small company that designs exhibits for corporations and museums. After designing an exhibit on climate change for the National Academy of Sciences, Tom decided he wanted to address global warming in his work life. After getting an energy audit, he redid his office lighting, bought power strips to turn off equipment at night, and installed more energy-efficient equipment, including an air-conditioner. He also traded in the company SUV for a hybrid Prius. He estimates he reduced his company’s emissions by 13 tons and is saving about $9,000 annually in the process.

Wouldn’t it be great if you could get your boss to think like Tom?

Start with Energy Savings

Making effective and sustainable climate choices often means doing more with less—exactly the type of thinking that helps businesses maximize their profits.

Ask around to see if energy savings efforts underway are already at your workplace. If so, join the effort. If not, you might offer to contact your utility (on your lunch break) to see if they provide free or low cost energy audits. At a larger corporation, you might list the tasks performed by your business unit, brainstorm how you could reduce its use of energy or resources, and present your ideas to your supervisor as money savers. Make sure to include a story or two like the ones above to showcase how other businesses are making wise and profitable energy choices.

Measurement Is Key

I’ll admit it: I am one of those people who will measure anything if it will give me some payback. I’ll happily sweat on a stair machine just so I can watch the calories burn. I’m a sucker for GPS. I’ve even counted out my paces on two separate routes to the same destination so I can take the shorter walk. I know it sounds a little extreme (my husband makes fun of me all the time), but the truth is, if you want to know whether you’re making progress, you need to know where you started. That’s definitely true when it comes to energy, emissions, and the workplace. Ideas are great, but measuring impact is critical if you’re going to prove the value of an effort.

Here at the Union of Concerned Scientists, we’ve been monitoring our energy use since the 1990s and conducting an annual carbon inventory since 2002. The information has helped us learn and continue to make steady progress. Most recently, by measuring efforts over time and deploying the best strategies, we were able to cut our total carbon emissions by almost 30 percent (28.8) between 2008 and 2011.

Here, staff in the Washington, D.C. office, conduct a meeting via video conference with Cambridge staff to cut down on energy-intensive inter-office travel. Photo by Emily Robinson.

If you’d like to learn more about building a low-carbon workplace, pick up a copy of Cooler Smarter. It provides many examples of businesses large and small making great strides in driving down their emissions, gives you practical advice on how you can be a catalyst for change at work, and tackles important issues from greenwashing to transparency.

The baby shower was quite the experience for me, as someone who hadn’t spent much time with wee ones. In particular, I had no idea what a Onesie® was, which end was up, or why on earth we would ever need so darn many. Just a few ill-fitting diapers and other gastronomical/intestinal incidents later, though, I got it: outfit changes (and washings) are to newborns what costume and wig swap-outs are to Lady Gaga.

The embarrassment of Onesie® riches, though, turned out just to be a foreshadowing of all the things that seem to come with having kids — the clothes, the toys, the school supplies, the sports gear,…

The "Stuff" category includes a smorgasbord of consumer goods and services -- from diapers to X-rays to water bills -- and plenty of opportunities for cutting your carbon.

To buy or not to buy (or both)

As our research for Cooler Smarter found, the Stuff You Buy (our decidedly scientific term for the rest of our carbon emissions once you separate out transportation, home heating/cooling and electricity, and food) turns out to be responsible for over one-quarter of our personal carbon emissions. Even though the Stuff category is less of a single dish than a smorgasbord with a lot of different goods and services, there are opportunities to cut your carbon in these areas, too.

The main approaches to reducing your carbon emissions through your Stuff category decisions are (1) buy less and (2) make smart decisions when you do buy. The carbon implications of number 1 should be pretty obvious. Recycling and reusing are important strategies, but the reduce part of “reduce, reuse, recycle” takes the cake.

Number 2 is about buying quality products that won’t wear out quickly, buying used or refurbished items when you can, or buying in a way that drives positive change — buying products made from recycled materials, for example, to close the loop on recycling.

Cosmic cahoots for marital bliss

An important add-on to the list above, though — (2)(b), perhaps — is buy more. If what you’re buying is a much more energy-efficient replacement for some big energy user you already own — a car or fridge, for example — buying can be much better for your carbon emissions than not buying. For most items like those, the carbon emissions associated with producing them and shipping them your way are a small fraction of the emissions involved with using them.

Our new fridge: Shiny, new, and oodles more efficient. What's not to love?

I like category 2b because it’s one area where there’s a great confluence between my wife’s passion for new things and my fervent desire to spend less on utilities and cut our carbon. And in the case of kitchen remodeling underway at our house right now, that confluence is a beautiful thing. Even though our old fridge was high efficiency when we got it in 1999, the one we’re replacing it with, even though it’s 18 percent larger, is shiny, new, and 35 percent more energy efficient. Everybody wins!

If you can’t take the heat

Meanwhile, outside the kitchen, because of the disruption of the renovations, the “stuffness” of our house is even more apparent; it’s clear there are plenty of opportunities for us in the Stuff You Buy category, even if Onesies® are a thing of the past for us. But as with so much that Cooler Smarter covers, having good information about what matters and what we can do about it is an important step toward dealing with the carbon-ness of Stuff. Even if it can’t help you avert diaper disasters.

Given today’s vehicle market, is buying an electric vehicle really a good option for the climate conscious driver?

The answer is yes, but just how good depends on where in the country you live.

The global warming pollution emitted when charging your electric vehicle depends on how much of the electricity of your area is powered by coal, and how much comes from cleaner alternatives such as renewable sources and natural gas. Even on the most coal-heavy grids, EVs are on par with the most fuel-efficient conventional gasoline vehicles for global warming emissions – making them a good choice, though not necessarily the best. Only in areas where a greater share of electricity comes from cleaner sources do EVs compete with good gasoline-hybrids; in many cases beating even the most fuel-efficient hybrids on the road for global warming emissions.

Can one determine how electric vehicle emissions compare in different parts of the country?

The U.S. can be divided into 26 electric grid regions, each with a unique mix of power generation resources. We performed an analysis of the global warming emissions produced when charging an electric vehicle in each region, and then placed the regions into three categories—Good, Better, and Best—based on how the emissions compare to those of gasoline-powered vehicles. For example:

• EVs in Good regions produce the same global warming emissions per mile as a gasoline vehicle with a fuel economy somewhere between 31 and 40 mpg. This means that their emissions are comparable to the best non-hybrid gasoline models available, such as the Ford Fiesta and the Hyundai Elantra.
• EVs in Better regions produce the same global warming emissions per mile as a gasoline vehicle with a fuel economy somewhere between 41 and 50 mpg. This means that their emissions are comparable to the best gasoline hybrid models available, such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid.
• EVs in Best regions produce the same global warming emissions per mile as a gasoline vehicle with a fuel economy somewhere in excess of 50 mpg. This means that they outperform the best gasoline hybrid models available.

To make sure we are taking the fuel’s full life-cycle into account, our analysis includes emissions not just from burning fuel to power a car or to generate electricity, but also from producing the fuel. So we include emissions from pumping and refining oil into gasoline as well as mining and transporting coal, for example.

Check out the map to see how EVs in your region stack up. Click on the image for a larger version.

So what are the results? Where are the “Best” regions for charging an electric vehicle?

The analysis shows that 45% of Americans live in regions where electric vehicles are the “best” choice, producing less global warming pollution than any gasoline vehicle on the road, including the best hybrids. For those that don’t, EVs are at least a “good” choice, producing significantly less global warming pollution than the average new compact car.

So if you want to buy an EV and you live in a region with a “dirtier” electricity grid, what do you recommend?

Well first, it is important to note that the electricity grid has been getting cleaner as older coal plants are retired, and investments in cleaner power from renewables and natural gas increase. So even if an EV purchased today may not be the very best choice for cutting global warming pollution where you live right now, its emissions are likely to improve over its lifetime.

But there are definitely some things people can do right now to improve the environmental performance of EVs in their region. By participating in green energy programs offered by their utilities, supporting renewable energy standards for their state, or even producing their own renewable energy with rooftop solar panels if they own a home, individuals can help electric vehicles live up to their potential as the best choice everywhere.