Last week in Washington, D.C., a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators and Representatives introduced a bill that would help rural electric co-ops provide "on-bill" financing for energy saving programs.

The Rural Energy Savings Program Act would provide rural utilities, including the rural electric co-ops, with the means to help folks with the up-front costs of financing energy efficient upgrades to their homes; these utility customers would pay back the utilities on their bill with part of their savings.

Representative Ed Whitfield of western Kentucky is an original co-sponsor of the Act. "[I]t is essential we explore ways to improve energy efficiency and, in turn, better manage the demand for electricity,” Whitfield said. “Increasing our energy efficiency is one of the best proven ways to free up energy on our electricity grid. This bill is a win for American consumers and a win for improving energy efficiency across the country.”

Whitfield is joined by members of Congress from throughout the U.S. and both political parties, as well as by the rural electric cooperatives themselves. Whitfield deserves thanks for stepping out in front on this issue that could be so beneficial to rural electric co-op members across the state. In addition to stopping the proposed coal burning Smith plant, the East Kentucky Power Cooperative could help its members even more with the loans for energy efficiency provided by this bill. It will help their customers save energy, save money, and help prevent further pollution, protecting the public health of Kentucky. If you live in Whitfield's district, you can email him (using the form at this link), or anyone can leave a message for him at his office in D.C. by calling (202) 225-3115. Let him know you appreciate his leadership on the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. 

According to the think tank, The Third Way, "This federal program, run through the Rural Utilities Service, [could] provide low-interest loans to 1.4 million rural households to make energy efficiency improvements, creating 25,000-35,000 jobs each year for the next ten years."

More information on what the Act would do:

Home weatherization improvements create jobs, lower emissions, and save money for consumers. But for most families, the upfront costs are too big and the payoff takes too long. This proposal would eliminate these barriers at a tiny cost to the federal government by providing rural homeowners low-interest loans through rural electric co-operatives. Homeowners would then repay the loans through their utility bills with the cost of the loan fully off-set by energy savings. And if they move, both the loan and the energy savings could be passed on to the next homeowner.

Even the rural electric co-ops, often resistant to progressive energy policy, is backing the bill. According to Hoosier Ag Today:

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Glenn English said, “This gives us an opportunity to keep the electric bills as low as we possibly can…it gives us the opportunity to avoid building power plants…which will be extremely expensive and have the potential of increasing electric bill costs to our membership.” [...] Typical loans will run between $1500 and $7000, and cover sealing, insulation, heat pumps, heating and ventilation, boilers, and roofs.

Stay tuned to this blog for more information on the bill and what other actions you might be able to take to help move the legislation forward.

___________________________

Links for more information:

• Grist: "How to provide relief to rural Americans, create jobs, and lower emissions ... all at once!"
• Press release from Senator Jeff Merkley, sponsor of the bill in the Senate.
  
• A good article in the Charleston (SC) Post & Courier on the bill: "Energy initiative to expand"
  
• The text of the bill from the Thomas Register.

KFTC members have joined other rural electric co-op customers across the state in signing a letter to the Inspector General of the USDA questioning approval of risky financing for the proposed Smith power plant in Clark County.

The letter was submitted today, and KFTC members Steve Wilkins and Barb Bailey spoke to the media on a telephone conference this morning.

The Rural Utility Service, an arm of the USDA, normally provides loans to electric co-ops, but in 2008 the RUS put a moratorium on loans for financially risky coal and nuclear plants. To go ahead with the Smith plant construction, East Kentucky Power Cooperative needed approval from the RUS to seek $921 million from Wall Street banks.

Not only did RUS grant this permission but it also said EKPC could pay back its private loans before paying the billions it already owes the federal government. That means if EKPC defaults on its loans or goes belly-up, ratepayers will foot the bill.

From the letter:

The decision to proceed with financing and building this unnecessary coal plant will force EKPC to seek approval for electric rate increases at a time when many Kentucky families and businesses are already struggling to pay utility bills. This could eventually lead EKPC, which is already financially unstable, to default on its debt obligations. By subordinating its existing mortgage to other financial interests, RUS is placing in jeopardy the billions of taxpayer dollars it has loaned or provided loan guarantees to EKPC, and effectively guaranteeing that our electric rates will substantially increase.

On the press call today, KFTC member Barb Bailey questioned why EKPC needs a new coal-burning plant, when it hasn’t shown a real need and when renewable energy sources are less risky, cheaper and readily available.

“The fact that EKPC doesn’t even really need this plant, and their finances are so shaky – those should have been a deal-breaker for the RUS,” Bailey said. “EKPC could meet their energy needs at a lower cost with energy saving programs and renewable energy.”

To learn more about the entire EKPC campaign, click here.

This week the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA, pronounced: "en-REEK-uh") is holding its annual meeting in Atlanta. Active co-op members across the country took the opportunity to highlight some of the best and worst co-op practices with a national press conference. KFTC member Steve Wilkins participated by phone.

A bit of background on the nation's electric co-ops and the issue of co-op reform from the press release for the teleconference:

Today, 900 co-ops still provide power to 42 million Americans in 47 states, but often these associations look more like big private corporations than the democratically-managed cooperatives of earlier days. These days, co-op members are asking a host of questions about the governance and energy decisions of their co-ops, and what they are doing to move toward democratic transparency and encourage energy efficiency and clean alternative energy production.

Some of the cooperatives represented at the [NRECA] conference, such as Texas’ Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC), have had a change in direction and now aim to embrace 21st century energy planning by developing aggressive, cost-effective efficiency programs and integrating renewable energy into their generation portfolios. This mode of operation represents a seismic shift from Pedernales’ previous approach. Board member Dr. Patrick Cox is excited about the co-op’s transparency, democratic board elections and adherence to business planning. He addressed the NRECA conference to spotlight changes at PEC. “I believe advocacy for member rights, ethical leadership, environmental accountability and responsible investment has resulted in and will continue to provide positive changes in PEC’s effectiveness and its relationship to its membership.”

The press conference also highlighted best practices of other co-ops in the country:

The public electric association that stands out as a champion for democratic process and for successful implementation of cost effective renewable energy is Colorado’s San Miguel Power Association (SMPA).  Board leaders have worked to make SMPA a rural electric association that is a true American institution and a model of clearly articulated democratic principles that give members a voice at every board meeting.

In addition to lifting up some of the best practices of the most open and democratic co-ops, the press conference highlighted many of the most regressive policies and decisions of co-ops across the country. KFTC member Steve Wilkins spoke of some of the problems that co-op members in Kentucky face.

In Kentucky, Steve Wilkins, a ratepayer/member of Blue Grass Energy Cooperative, which is one of 16 co-ops that distribute power generated by East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), says that from what he can see “democracy has been lacking in EKPC where directors are almost universally handpicked by the co-ops and elected without opposition due to a lack of encouragement for open elections.” Given that EKPC “is in a relatively weak financial position because of its large debt, members are baffled that financially safe energy investments such as energy efficiency and renewables are not being pursued instead of building a financially risky coal plant, which is what EKPC is currently committed to doing.”

However, Steve didn't just tell the nation what EKPC members are up against, but also spoke about the solutions that co-op members here in the commonwealth are seeking: the plans for new power that members are sharing with EKPC and the local distribution co-ops, a strategy that would create thousands of new jobs throughout the state in energy efficiency and renewable energy while helping EKPC avoid the further financial risk of a coal burning power plant.

The work that members, including Steve, are doing here in Kentucky would bring EKPC on par with co-ops in other parts of the nation, if EKPC would pay heed:

In Colorado, Texas and New Mexico, member-owners of electric cooperatives have implemented changes to ensure open meetings, voting and election safeguards, and to guarantee other fundamental rights.

And the reforms that other co-op members are working toward, mirror similar options for reform proposed by co-op members here in Kentucky:

Former Georgia Congressman Fletcher Thompson, a Cobb EMC member, believes that adopting a “bill of rights” for the co-op will help..."We want our electric co-op to welcome input from members. We believe that sound business practices go hand-in-hand with sound energy investments.”

Last night dozens of KFTC members, joined with our great allies from all over the state, spoke up for clean air and public health at a hearing in Winchester, KY.  The hearing was sponsored by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality and was in regards to an air permit application for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Clark County.  The plant is being proposed to be built by East Kentucky Power Cooperative and would provide power to 16 rural electric co-ops around the state.

"I am a ratepayer/member of Bluegrass Energy, which gets its power from EKPC...As my co-op's power producer, I fear that EKPC is putting me and other members at dire financial risk by pursuing a coal-fired power plant design that is certain to result in higher additional environmental costs versus any other power generation choice it might make," said Madison County KFTC member Steve Wilkins during the public comments section of the hearing.

41 KFTC members and allies spoke out against the dirty air permit application.  Each of the speakers talked about why they believe in clean air, their vision for the future of Kentucky, and the good local jobs that will be possible if EKPC chooses to go down an alternative path of clean, renewable energy.

When asked why she came out, Jefferson County KFTC member Martha Flack said before the hearing, "I think it is really important that we start looking at alternative sources of energy so that we can do a better job protecting the environment and our health... I just dont want to see another coal-fire power plant go up."

Thanks to everyone who traveled far and wide -- especially our great KFTC members in the Eastern part of the sate -- to stand up for clean air, public health, and a better vision for Kentucky!

If you haven't yet sent in comments, there is still time to do so.  Please visit this link to send your comments to the Division of Air Quality.  The more Kentuckians speaking out for a cleaner, better way -- the more powerful we are! 

Here are a few links to some of the news stories about the hearing and our work!

• KY Public News Service
  
• Channel 36
  
• WEKU
  

We will be posting more videos and pictures soon.  Stay tuned!

Live Video Feed

This feed will go live around 6 p.m. for our press conference.

Live Blogging/Twittering

You are invited and encouraged to attend the public hearing for the draft air pollution permit for the proposed coal-burning Smith plant on February 4 at 6:30 in Winchester. Stand with Clark County residents and folks all over the state to demand a clean energy solution. 

Click here to let KFTC know you plan to attend the hearing.

Background

This hearing is our time to make a public demonstration of our opposition to an unhealthy and risky coal-burning power plant, and to stand up in support of the clean and less-costly alternative of energy efficiency, weatherization and renewable energy.

All Kentuckians, whether you receive your power from EKPC or not, are stakeholders in this process as the plant would contaminate the air we all breathe. Already, hundreds of Kentuckians die prematurely each year from the illnesses caused by the soot, smog, mercury and other pollution spewed out by coal-burning power plants.

Now is the time to say, “Enough is enough!” The solution is simple and clear. Energy saving and renewable energy programs won’t need a permit because they won’t pollute our air. We must use this opportunity to speak out, letting the Kentucky Division for Air Quality and EKPC know that this clean energy solution is the just and healthy choice, not only for EKPC ratepayers, but for all Kentuckians.

_______________________________

And don’t forget: If you haven’t submitted a written comment yet, you have until February 12 to tell the DAQ that you oppose the draft air permit. Visit kftc.org/airpermit to submit a written comment to the Division for Air Quality, raising your voice in favor of a just energy future and public health.

Two of the four main objectives set out for KFTC’s Stop Smith campaign in 2009 were:

• To oppose the permits for the Smith plant, and
• To build a movement of Kentuckians working for energy efficiency and clean energy solutions in the rural electric co-ops.

In recent weeks, KFTC members have really ramped up action in these areas and the momentum behind these objectives continues to build. This progress can be seen in the media and in the actions of the regulatory agencies.

A little background: At the end of October, KFTC and our allies the Kentucky Environmental Foundation and the Sierra Club along with individual co-op members Wendell Berry, Father John Rausch, and Dr. John Patterson challenged the Kentucky Public Service Commission’s original approval that allowed the East Kentucky Power Cooperative move forward with its plans to build the coal-burning Smith plant. This approval from the PSC is called the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and it was last granted to EKPC for the Smith plant in 2007. The petition before the PSC made three major claims, that:

• The Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity was invalid because EKPC hadn’t started construction on the Smith plant within a year as is required by Kentucky Statutes.
• The Certificate should be revoked because EKPC would not be receiving low-interest funding from the federal government. Projects that receive such funding didn’t need PSC approval for that funding. However, now that the federal government isn’t issuing loans for coal-fired power plants, EKPC will need further PSC approval for any private funding it seeks. Under the Certificate, EKPC hadn’t received this PSC approval for private funding.
• Simply, the world had changed significantly since the PSC issued the Certificate. Since the original approval was given, a host of factors have changed. For example, EKPC’s financial health has deteriorated, environmental regulations have tightened, the cost of alternatives to coal power have decreased, etc.

Once the groups and co-op members filed their petition before the PSC, members of KFTC and our allied groups began bombarding the Attorney General’s office with requests for them to weigh in on the side of the ratepayers in this case. More than 400 folks sent messages to the AG’s office. KFTC members followed up on these emails with an in-person meeting. Once again, members asked the office to weigh in on the side of ratepayers.

In addition to emails to the Attorney General, KFTC members have flooded state and local newspapers with letters to the editor and op-eds. Dozens of letters in support of our case, asking the Attorney General to weigh in and the PSC to make the right decision, have been published. From Danville, to Winchester, to Lexington and beyond, KFTC members have been informing their neighbors and exerting public pressure to stop the Smith plant from being built. And this public pressure is beginning to pay off.

In December, the Lexington Herald Leader editorialized on the issue, demonstrating their understanding of the full breadth of the petition before the PSC. They wrote:

A group of Kentuckians who are rural electric cooperative members are petitioning the PSC to revoke its approval of the Smith 1 plant. They are concerned about the harm to air, water and human health from another large coal-burning plant.

But they also cite what outside financial analysts and EKPC's own executives say about the utility's deteriorating financial condition and the risk to consumers from taking on even more debt to finance the project.

They acknowledged that “consumers will pay for [EKPC’s] shaky finances and deep debt in the form of higher electricity bills.” They conclude their editorial with the call similar to that which KFTC and our allies have made. They wrote, “Both the utility and PSC should examine and re-examine the demand projections. If it's possible to substitute aggressive conservation for a new power plant, this would be the time to do it."

Later on the same day that the Herald Leader published their editorial, the Public Service Commission issued an order in the case. While the PSC dismissed KFTC and the other groups from the case, and dismissed the first two of the claims listed above, they ordered that the case should go forward with the three individual co-op members, and that EKPC would have to answer to the claims that the world has changed. As the headline in the newspaper put it: “PSC orders East Kentucky Power to justify Clark Co. plant.” In early January, EKPC responded to the seven points the PSC allowed to go forward, and now the ball is back in the PSC’s court. There is no set timeline, but the PSC will review EKPC’s responses and make a decision.

So, while we have momentum, this part of our campaign is far from over. There continue to be multiple venues for the intervention of members and groups in the PSC approval process, and we must continue to call on the Attorney General’s office to step up and step out on the side of the ratepayers. A continued stream of letters in local and state papers may help convince him to listen to the ratepayers who will be most affected by the PSC’s decision, and to speak before the Commission on their behalf. Continued public pressure to encourage these decision makers to make the right decisions for co-op members and for all Kentuckians is needed as much now as ever.

For more information on submitting a letter to the editor or contacting the Attorney General’s office this issue, contact sara@kftc.org or call (606) 276-9933.

The solid waste left over from burning coal is called coal combustion waste, part of which is called coal ash. Despite being dangerous to human health, coal ash is not currently considered hazardous waste. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering recognizing the waste as hazardous, which would force power plants to dispose of it in ways that protect the health of nearby residents.

Coal-burning power plants produce approximately 131 million tons of coal ash per year, making coal ash the second largest U.S. industrial waste stream. Currently, the federal government allows states to regulate coal ash disposal. In Kentucky, state coal ash disposal regulations do little to protect the public from exposure to coal ash toxins.

How is coal ash created?

The air leaving power plant stacks after coal is burned is filtered to limit air pollution, creating a more solid form of waste. This waste is combined with the residue from coal boilers to make what is called coal combustion waste. The ashy part of the waste, called coal ash, contains concentrated pollutants, including many toxins known to cause cancer in humans.

How is coal ash disposed of in Kentucky?

In Kentucky, coal ash is typically mixed with water and channeled into a pond on-site at the power plant. Many of these ponds were constructed without the consultation of an engineer and do not contain lining to prevent toxins from the ash from seeping into the ground. This "wet storage" method is the cheapest way to dispose of coal ash.

How much coal ash is stored in Kentucky?

According to the EPA, there are 44 coal ash ponds in Kentucky - the second highest number in the nation after Indiana.  Seven ponds in the state have been categorized by the EPA as "high hazard", including sites in Louisa, Harrodsburg, Ghent and Louisville. Out of the 100 coal-burning plants that produce the largest amount of coal ash in the nation, Kentucky houses 10.

Why is coal ash hazardous?

Coal ash waste contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals such as arsenic and lead — pollutants that cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, damage to the nervous system and kidneys, and learning disabilities in children.  Kentucky coal-burning plants generate a total of 8.5 million tons of this waste every year.  Proposed plants in Kentucky, including EKPC’s Smith 1 plant, would generate 400,000 additional tons of coal ash annually.

What can you do to improve the safety of coal ash disposal?

Call today to request tighter controls on coal ash disposal. Ask decision-makers to define coal as as hazardous and not give into coal industry demands on this very important issue. The EPA requested comments on this issue late last year and did not receive many public responses.

(202) 395-3080 - U.S. Office of Management and Budget

(202) 564-4700 - Lisa Jackson, EPA director

Also be sure to take action to oppose EKPC's Smith 1 plant. Click here for more information.

A coal burning power plant

The East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) is proposing to build a new coal-burning power plant near the Kentucky River in Clark County called the Smith plant. KFTC members are concerned that the Smith plant would have many negative health and environmental impacts.

To build the plant, EKPC must apply for and receive an air quality permit from the Kentucky Division for Air Quality. The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed air permit. KFTC members and our allied groups across the state are using this opportunity to speak out against the proposed plant and to call for a better, cleaner way forward.

Please help lend your voice to clean air and public health by attending a public hearing on the permit or submitting written comments. We are trying to demonstrate widespread opposition to the plant by generating hundreds of comments from people all across the state.

Feel free to contact KFTC organizer Sara Pennington at sara@kftc.org or 606-276-9933 for more information about the public comment process or the public hearing.

Action #1

Click the button below to submit a written comment about the proposed permit.  We have a sample letter drafted that you can use, or you can write your own.  For more talking points about this issue, please visit this page.

Please submit your comment by February 3rd.

Action #2

Join us for the public hearing for the proposed Air Quality Permit. We are hoping to bring out as many people as possible to this hearing to show that there is widespread opposition to building another dirty, coal-burning power plant. 

The public hearing will be held Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in Winchester, KY, at the Clark County Cooperative Extension Office, 1400 Fortune Drive.

Thanks for taking action!

Recent news about the proposed Smith plant's draft air pollution permit:

• "Permit for electric plant under fire" - Lexington Herald-Leader
• "Controversy over proposed Clark County plant heating up" - Richmond Register
  

In addition to the recent explosion of letters to the editors of papers throughout eastern and central Kentucky, the campaign to halt the coal-burning Smith plant has also shown up elsewhere in the media. A few days ago, Father John Rausch, KFTC member from Powell County, and one of the folks who are petitioning the Public Service Commission to revoke EKPC's original, and now invalid, approval for the plant, published an op-ed piece in the Lexington Herald-Leader. He detailed his reasons for opposing this ill-conceived power plant and why he chose to be among the folks taking legal actions to stop it. Here is his reflection in its entirety. After reading it, consider writing a letter to the editor of the H-L, showing your support for Fr. John, co-op ratepayers who are already paying too much for EKPC's poor decisions, and for a cleaner Kentucky. (Details on how to submit your letter below).

Rethink Clark County plant

By John S. Rausch

On Oct. 28, I joined Wendell Berry and others to petition the Kentucky Public Service Commission to revoke the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity granted to the East Kentucky Power Cooperative to build a coal-fired electrical plant in Clark County.

I live approximately 10 miles east and downwind of the proposed Smith plant. As a member of Clark Energy Cooperative, I feel awkward taking action against our own second-tier co-op.

Yet I hope our petition will ultimately enhance the excellent service our co-ops have historically provided to Eastern Kentucky.

We need to re-examine our direction, in light of health and environmental concerns and renew our purpose to better the community. I offer three considerations concerning the proposed coal-fired plant.

First, generating electricity from coal is problematic. Evidence about the ill health effects of burning coal is mounting. The Environmental Protection Agency found, and other studies confirm, that fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants causes more than 20,000 premature deaths per year. Other health effects include respiratory illnesses, heart attacks and brain damage. The data are readily available. Groups like the American Lung Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility cite the studies.

"Our current economic crisis came from quick profits without regard to community. The cardinal virtue of prudence dictates that when we can meet our electric needs through greater efficiency or renewable and sustainable methods, we choose them."

More regulation of coal-fired plants and increases in operating costs appear inevitable as we grapple with health and environmental issues. This 19th century technology will eventually yield to the renewable energy technologies of the 21st century, which will cost less in the long run.

Second, as a co-op, community comes first. Because co-ops are membership organizations, they seek to serve their members with a social vision. Cooperatives from their founding, a full generation before the abolition of slavery in the U.S., practiced the principle of open membership which forbids discrimination by race, religion, nationality, gender or other incidental factor.

The principle of one person, one vote (not one stock share, one vote) makes money the servant, not the master, of co-op decision making. And, the promotion of education seeks to share information that leads to a better society.

Given this social vision intended to empower members and enhance the local community, how can we justify using fuel from sources like coal waste piles, tires and possibly mountaintop removal coal mining? Teaching members ways of conserving energy and investing in renewable energy sources better fulfills our co-op's social vision.

Finally, a renewed economy depends on high moral and ethical standards. Our current economic crisis came from quick profits without regard to community. The cardinal virtue of prudence dictates that when we can meet our electric needs through greater efficiency or renewable and sustainable methods, we choose them.

Generating electricity while endangering the health of others is a violation of the common good of the present generation, but destroying the environment violates the common good of future generations.

Also, the poor, the low income and those without health insurance will remain the most vulnerable to the sicknesses and diseases from the coal-fired plant's emissions, thus causing the greatest harm to the least among us.

In Catholic theology, violations of social justice like this fall under the Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," because a violation of the common good is theft from all.

East Kentucky Power Cooperative has an opportunity to lead into a new era. We don't need to walk in the dark, though we can turn off unnecessary lights.

Coal miners will still have jobs, though their sons and daughters will find different employment. Green technology will create employment, but we'll need the proper investment.

For these reasons, I petition the Public Service Commission to revoke the certificate of need to encourage the utility to renew its vision of community service that promotes a healthy environment and fulfills its co-op vision.

The Rev. John S. Rausch, a Glenmary priest, lives in Stanton.

 It's easy to submit a letter to the editor of the Lexington Herald-Leader in support of Father John's op-ed. At this link, simply fill out your contact information and post your 250-word or less letter in the "Questions or Comments" field. Editors generally like to publish punchy, to-the-point pieces, and pieces that referred to previous articles published in the paper or that state how an issue relates personally to the author.

If you would like some more background on this campaign before writing your letter, click here. Since the PSC still hasn't made any move on this petition, it might be helpful in your letter to ask that the Attorney General weigh in on the side of the ratepayers and plaintiffs. It would be good for the AG's office to hear that folks think this is an important issue worthy of their attention, and that they are urged to take action.

Stay tuned to this blog for another great piece in the media about this campaign...