|
Coal plant lifelines cut On May 9, 2008, two administrative law judges recommended that Minnesota regulators deny permission to construct and operate power lines across west-central Minnesota from the proposed Big Stone II coal plant on the South Dakota-Minnesota border. Without the power lines, the coal plant cannot be built. Fresh Energy, along with the Izaak Walton League of America-Midwest Office, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Wind on the Wires, has been fighting the proposed coal plant since its plans were made public. The judges made two main conclusions:
The judges reported their findings to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which will make the final decision on the power lines in June. If the Minnesota PUC permits the power lines and Big Stone II is built, it will mean an additional four million tons of global warming pollution every year—the same amount produced by all the cars, trucks, and trains in South Dakota each year. Energy regulators in states across the country—Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon—have all voted down coal plants in the past year. Utilities in Minnesota, including Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power, have said they will not build new coal-fired plants in Minnesota in the next 20 years because of the state’s recently passed laws requiring increases in energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy. |
|||
|
States call for pollution cuts A bill that establishes science-based, mandatory global warming pollution limits unanimously passed the Connecticut State Senate last week and is headed to the governor for final signature. Connecticut is now one of five states—joining New Jersey, Hawaii, California, and Washington—that have adopted mandatory limits on global warming pollution. The bill also creates a framework for reducing emissions and requires the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to report on the state’s progress toward meeting the limits. Although Connecticut already passed global warming pollution reduction goals in 2004 (similar to those passed last year in Minnesota), the state was falling short. The new bill’s mandatory limits are designed to correct that problem. The bill also includes measures to save energy and reduce dependency on foreign oil. It is a strong bipartisan win for the state. |
|||
|
What you can do As awareness grows about the economic costs of global warming and the need for 21st century clean energy technologies, business and policy leaders are recognizing that global warming solutions can benefit both the environment and the economy. After weighing the disastrous costs of inaction against the opportunities created by a burgeoning clean energy market, companies such as General Electric, Ford Motor Company, Duke Energy, and 29 other major companies have called for mandatory and significant emissions reductions. These leaders recognize that strong national climate policy will propel the U.S. economy forward, spurring investments in clean energy technologies, creating new jobs, and reducing our dependence on foreign, unstable energy sources. An analysis of the Climate Security Act (S. 2191)—the leading national proposal to limit and lower global warming pollution currently before the U.S. Senate—was released last week by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA found that the law would not hurt the U.S. economy, contrary to claims made by the current administration. In short: fighting global warming is a smart move for the economy. Now is the time to ask Senators Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar to strengthen and support the Climate Security Act.
Senator Amy Klobuchar: (202) 224-3244 A Senate vote on the bill is expected in early June. Please call today! |
|||
Support this service! Become a member of Fresh Energy. Fresh Energy works daily for smart energy policies and regulations that enhance our economies, protect human health and communities, restore our environment, and move us toward energy independence. www.fresh-energy.org |
||||
