With the race to be Chicago's next mayor heating up, one major issue that has been a hallmark of Mayor Richard Daley's time in office has received little attention so far - what is to become of Mayor Daley's goal of being the greenest city in America, if not the world, after he steps down in May.
Daley's passion for the environment is well known, and has brought major changes that will benefit Chicagoans for generations to come. His efforts have reached far beyond median planters and other beautification efforts - the changes you don't see every day have been less visible, but much more significant. Across city government, public servants have been tasked with being smarter about how they use energy, and cutting the waste they create. Building codes and permitting processes have led the private sector to change how they build homes and businesses in Chicago.
Chicago's leadership has been important beyond our city or state boundaries. During the Bush Administration, when national action to confront climate change or move to cleaner energy wasn't even seriously discussed, Daley was an early leader in a nationwide movement of mayors who pledged not to wait for a change in Washington to fight global warming. Chicago and other "cool cities" started showing America what fighting climate change looked like, and it looked like cleaner air, reduced government costs, better, smarter buildings, and many more bright ideas.
Daley's vision for greening Chicago has been revolutionary, but it has not yet been fully realized. Chicago is still home to two very old coal-fired power plants without modern pollution controls. Most Chicagoans don't have access to convenient, weekly recycling service. The Chicago River is much cleaner, but still suffers from outdated sewage treatment practices. The artificial connection between Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines/Illinois River has been great for sending Chicago's sewage southwest to Peoria, St. Louis, and the Gulf of Mexico, but it has opened the door to Great Lakes invasive species. Our park system is wonderful, but more than ever our kids need access to safe, healthy, outdoor experiences in their neighborhoods.
Whether Chicago meets these challenges, and reaps the health and job creation benefits of doing so, depends in large part on its next mayor, and whether he or she brings passion and commitment to doing so. That's why Sierra Club and other Chicago environmental organizations have prepared a platform of the major issues facing the next mayor.
Sierra Club is actively meeting candidates for Mayor and City Council, identifying those who have the ideas and commitment to make Chicago the greenest city on the planet. Soon we will announce our endorsements of the candidates we recommend to all the Chicagoans who want the "city that works" to be the city that leads America and the world to a smarter, cleaner future.
As the clock winds down on the lame duck Illinois General Assembly, two out-of-state coal companies are asking to put Illinois ratepayers and businesses on the hook for a bailout of their risky, incredibly expensive projects. The two companies, Tenaska and Leucadia, each have custom-drafted bills they are pressuring the Illinois Senate to approve this week, hoping that Springfield won't look at them like the private market has - like overpriced, risky experiments not worth the gamble.
Both Tenaska and Leucadia offer something Illinois already has in abundance - electricity and natural gas. We already generate more electricity than we consume, so we export power out of state (keeping the nuclear waste and most of the pollution here.) Not only do we not need their product, but they want us to pay at least double the market price for it. Why are we even considering this proposition? Hey, remember, this is Springfield.
Tenaska is looking for money to build their coal plant in Taylorville, southwest of Springfield. Tenaska would finance their project by socking it to the state's largest electric customers - stores, businesses, local governments, hospitals, colleges, and others. For example, CTA riders, University of Illinois students, hospital patients, and local taxpayers would all be asked to pay more. On our electric bill at home, we'll also be chipping in an annual 2% increase to add to the subsidy.
Leucadia wants to build a plant to turn coal and hazardous oil refinery waste into the natural gas we use to heat our homes. Unlike Tenaska, Leucadia proposes to protect businesses from their rate hike, turning to homes and apartments to bear their costs. Some gas bills would go up over $100 per year.
Neither Tenaska or Leucadia have gotten their permits from the Illinois EPA. Neither has a plan in place to deal with the millions of tons of global warming pollution they will add to the air. Those are details they say they'll work out after we're all on the hook - for 30 years.
Proponents say all this cost and all this risk is the price we pay to see whether coal can ever be "clean." (No claims are made that future coal mining will be "clean", or in any way different from the practices that are destroying Illinois farmland and degrading water supplies.) For those who want to see Illinois experiment with coal gasification, the recent growth of Illinois' renewable energy sector is a better model. In jumpstarting our wind and solar industries, the legislature included some key safeguards. First, consumers are protected by a rate impact cap, which ensures that renewable technologies are developed aggressively without price impacts. Second, our renewable energy goals are met by an annual competitive bidding process, encouraging innovation and price competition in the market. Finally, our clean energy laws rely on proven technologies like wind, solar, and geothermal energy, and energy conservation - all ready to deploy without environmental risk.
Those smart safeguards for deploying new energy technologies have already created over 10,000 new jobs in Illinois, and more are in the pipeline. The Tenaska and Leucadia proposals ignore, and contradict, all of those principles. Instead of protecting against rate hikes, increases for every customer in the state, large and small, are hard wired into the two proposals. Instead of encouraging competition to meet a policy goal, these are truly special interest pieces of legislation - they're referred to around the Statehouse as the "Tenaska" and "Leucadia" bills for a reason. When politicians name winners in the marketplace, trouble often ensues. And rather than deploying proven technology, each of these projects are highly speculative, with the greatest uncertainties about whether or how they will deal with the millions of tons of new global warming pollution they will produce each year.
In recent years, the Illinois Senate has been getting a lot right in moving to a clean energy future. This week we'll see if they keep to a path that creates good jobs while protecting ratepayers, or whether they capitulate to big coal's feeding frenzy.
With state legislators in Springfield for a lame-duck veto session, two large corporations are making a power play for longterm, sweetheart deals that would bail out two risky projects that appear to be floundering due to their staggering cost and the massive increases in pollution they would create.
The out-of-state companies are seeking billions of dollars in subsidies from Illinois businesses and residential ratepayers. Each company is lobbying the lame-duck session for its own version of special interest legislation, althought the two proposals share a common principle - forcing Illinoisans to buy their product at far higher than market prices, at the same time increasing air pollution.
The Illinois House approved both bills Tuesday, and today they move to the Illinois Senate:
SB 2485 - Tenaska's $9 Billion Rate Hike Request
· This bill would force all Illinois electricity consumers to pay at least $286 million more for electricity annually.
· A wind farm the size of the Taylorville Energy Center would create up to 7500 job years in installation and manufacturing - at substantially lower cost. Source: Wind Manufacturing Supply Chain Report (2010— ELPC)
· While Tenaska claims they will be capturing a portion of their global warming pollution, this number is not reflecting their entire carbon footprint. (A significant portion of the CO2 will not be captured, but emitted by Tenaska’s customers.)
SB3388 - Ratepayer Subsidies For Leucadia's Dirty Gas:
· Getting natural gas from coal and hazardous refinery waste is far dirtier than the natural gas we use to heat our homes.
· Gas customers should not be locked in to buying gas for 30 years from a company that has not even applied for an IEPA permit.
· Leucadia claims they will capture 85% of their global warming pollution but this is only a portion of the total CO2 they will emit. A significant portion of the CO2 will not be captured, but emitted when Leucadia’s customers burn the gas.
Let's hope the Senate doesn't railroad these bailouts through - contact your State Senator today and urge them to vote no on bailouts for Tenaska and Leucadia.
As the results of Tuesday's election become final, it is clear that Illinois voters are not at all angry about at least one aspect of Illinois government - the major changes we've made in our energy policies in recent years to prioritize renewable energy like wind and solar power, and to get serious about energy conservation. Starting in 2007, Illinois enacted a series of major clean energy laws that have already created 10,000 new jobs in renewable energy, with thousands more on the way in the years ahead. Our gas and electric utilities are launching major new conservation programs to help homes and businesses cut costs and pollution by reducing energy use, and by 2025, 25% of our electricity must come from renewable sources.
Illinois voters rewarded the key leaders in making these changes with victories this week, and also elected some exciting fresh faces who prioritized clean energy in their campaigns, and who are poised to bring new energy to Springfield. There were stark differences between the candidates on energy policy, and there was great risk that the plug would be pulled on Illinois' transition to a clean energy economy. Here's a brief rundown on some of the key races with major implications for Illinois energy policy:
-Governor Pat Quinn's victory over State Senator Bill Brady is hugely important to maintaining momentum for clean energy in Illinois and in the country. Quinn has made growing Illinois' clean energy a top priority, from implementing our renewable energy standard to maximize Illinois job creation, supporting key legislative actions, budgeting capital construction dollars for energy-efficient construction, switching the state capitol complex from coal to wind power, and appointing clean energy advocate Manny Flores to the Chair the Illinois Commerce Commission. Brady, on the other hand, was one of 13 State Senators to oppose Illinois' landmark clean energy law in 2007, and also opposed energy efficient building codes for new construction and funding for high-speed rail improvements. Brady also doesn't "accept the premise" that pollution is causing climate change, and voted to bar the state from taking any action to regulate global warming pollution. Sierra Club, organized labor, and local government leaders warned before the election that Brady threatened to short-circuit our clean energy economy. Sierra Club made 42,384 mail, 13,653 email, and 7,208 volunteer phone contacts to its members to educate them about the energy issues in the race and urge them to vote.
-In the Illinois Senate, four candidates highlighted their support for clean energy policies in their television advertising and campaign messages. Three of them won, including Michael Noland (D-Elgin), lead Senate sponsor of a new state law to jumpstart the Illinois solar energy industry. Noland appears to have defeated former State Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, who preceeded Noland in the Senate, in the era when subsidizing coal and nuclear power constituted Illinois' energy policy. Toi Hutchinson (D- Chicago Heights) also featured her support for renewable energy jobs in her campaign, and beat back a spirited challenge from tea party candidate Adam Baumgartner. Hutchinson is excited to get back to work on clean energy in Springfield. John Mulroe (D-Chicago) won a hotly contested race on Chicago's west side and near west suburbs, and sees new energy technologies as a key job creator for our state. Sierra Club sent full-time organizers to the Noland, Hutchinson, and Mulroe campaigns to educate Sierra Club members and swing voters about the choices for clean energy in these races. In these three battleground disricts, Sierra Club made 11,204 mail contacts, 2,940 live calls, and knocked on 1,914 doors to get these messages out. Unfortunately, Michael Bond (D-Grayslake), sponsor of Illinois' net metering law that allows homeowners and small businesses who install renewable energy systems to sell excess power back to the grid, was narrowly defeated by Lake Count Board chair Suzi Schmidt (R- Lake Villa). Schmidt did not run against clean energy policies, and in fact has, in the past, worked to protect open space in Lake County.
-In the Illinois House, suburban battleground seats were generally won by candidates who support clean energy and reduce global warming pollution. Incumbents who support clean energy like Fred Crespo (D-Streamwood), who passed legislation enabling local school district to team up to invest in wind power, Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), who passed legislation to help condo owners install solar panels, and Karen May (D-Highland Park), Chair of the House Renewable Energy Committee, all beat back spirited challenges, as did Carol Sente (D-Vernon Hills), Keith Farnham (D-Elgin), Emily McAsey (D-Lockport), Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago), and Elaine Nekritz (D-Northfield). Several fresh faces will also bring a focus on environmental protection to the Illinois House, including Ann Williams (D-Chicago), Daniel Biss (D-Skokie), Michelle Mussman (D-Hoffman Estates), and Chris Nybo (R-Elmhurst.) In these races, Sierra Club contacted 9,104 swing voters and Sierra Club members.
-Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a key player in Illinois energy policy, cruised to re-election, and she will return as a strong advocate for the environment and clean energy.
Obviously, the success of these clean energy candidates for state office stands in stark contrast to the races for federal offices in Illinois, where clearly, larger forces contributed to the defeat of incumbents Debbie Halvorson (D-Crete), Bill Foster (D-Batavia), Phil Hare (D-Rock Island), and, apparently, Melissa Bean (D-Barrington). State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who made clean energy a priority in his campaign, narrowly lost to Mark Kirk (R-Wilmette), who previously supported clean energy and climate legislation, but has most recently pledged to oppose limits on global warming pollution.
With little expected from the next Congress in the way of clean energy, states like Illinois may be nationally significant in advancing clean energy technologies and businesses. We've come a long way in recent years toward those goals, and Tuesday's election results are an indication that voters want that progress to continue.
Since 2007, Mark Kirk has made a big deal out of his opposition to BP's plans to increase the pollution from its Whiting, IN refinery as part of a plan to switch to a dirtier source of oil - Canadian tar sands.
Most recently, he touted his "stopping" and "beating" BP twice in Wednesday's debate with Alexi Giannoulias.
There's no question Congressman Kirk joined many other leaders, including Senator Durbin, Mayor Daley, Pat Quinn, then-Congressman Rahm Emmanuel, and many others who joined Sierra Club and the environmental community in protesting BPs proposal to increase pollution. To be fair, Kirk certainly didn't go soft on the rhetoric. Here he is from the House floor in 2007:
"We cannot allow new dumping by BP. Later today we will meet with the head of BP North America, and given the legislative tsunami we are preparing, we should simply be discussing BP's terms of surrender on their lake-dumping plan. BP, millions spent in the 'Beyond Petroleum' campaign, but we know it stands for 'Bad Polluter.' Hopefully, BP will back down and be a better partner in protecting Lake Michigan."
To hear Kirk tell it, you'd think he won that battle, and Lake Michigan is safe from the pollution we all protested. You'd be wrong.
Trouble is, nobody stopped BP. Indiana went right ahead and issued BP the permit for the increased pollution. All the protests, including those from Kirk, did net a verbal commitment from BP that they would "review" whether it "could" avoid more pollution; but Indiana's decision to allow the pollution was not reversed. BP was not "beat" or "stopped." They refused to relinquish the permit, and Indiana maintains that the permit, which Kirk called "their lake-dumping plan" is valid. When BP's conversion to dirty "tar sands" oil is complete in 2012, they will be within their right to dump all the pollution we all fought back in 2007.
Kirk apparently reads history a little differently. His campaign website says: "Fact: Mark Kirk stood up to Big Oil when he stopped BP from polluting Lake Michigan."
In a press release from is Congressional office October 17, 2009,:
'Two years ago, we scored a major victory after BP agreed to back down from its plan to dump more ammonia and industrial sludge into Lake Michigan,' Congressman Mark Kirk said.
On February 2nd, his campaign put out a press release including:
"In Congress, Kirk stopped BP’s plan to pollute Lake Michigan"
In May, Mark Kirk approved this campaign commercial, entitled "Distract", that claims "Stopping British Petroleum's pollution of Lake Michigan..." as an accomplishment. Watch:
Then, June 2nd on Springfield talk radio, Kirk asserted:
"We were successful in stopping that plan because it would have been the first new dumper in the great lakes in 10 years and that’s the source of 95% of North America’s fresh water and where 30 million people pull their drinking water from."
"Let's be clear on what we fought and what we won on. We beat a new IDEM permit."
Q: Didn't they actually issue the permit?
"They absolutely did."
Q: Has it been cancelled?
"I don't think it has."
Q: How can you say you beat it?
"We beat it because BP then decided to build a water treatment plant, adding over $20 million in cost to their Whiting facility."
No one that I've talked to involved in the case has any idea what Kirk is referring to with that $20 million figure. In fact, there is no evidence that BP has changed their "lake dumping plan" at all.
If Kirk's recollection of the past seems off, it's even less clear where he stands on BP's Lake Michigan pollution proposal now. In fact, he seems to actually support BP's move to dirtier gas at Whiting:
"No one argues against the need to expand production capability at the Whiting facility, but there should be zero tolerance for releasing deadly poisons into our air and water.'" Crain's Chicago Business, 6/4/09
Tar sands oil is dirty from start to finish - it takes more energy to extract, uses more water and creates more pollution to refine into gasoline, and is dirtier when we burn it in our cars. That makes Kirk's support for tar sands and apparent opposition to BP's pollution irreconcilable.
It also makes this particular verbal assault on BP quite ironic:
"I think BP now stands for bad polluter...They need to be called out on their corporate hypocrisy." Daily Herald, 7/20/07
I agree with Kirk that those who talk a good game on the environment, even if the facts don't back it up, "need to be called out." It's time for Mark Kirk to stop exaggerating, and be honest with the public about the risks still facing our Great Lake, and about the incomplete nature of the "victory" he is so very proud of.
We applaud the Obama Administration for appointing John Goss as federal Asian Carp Director. To save our Great Lakes from Asian Carp and other alien invaders, we need to quickly design a permanent solution that protects our lakes, while continuing the recovery of the Chicago River system. The Great Lakes are a national treasure, and we're pleased that President Obama and his team have made their protection and restoration a top priority.
John Goss' experience in wildlife and environmental protection here in our region will enable him to get off to a fast start, and there is no time to lose. We know that Asian Carp are near Lake Michigan, and we need immediate action to keep them out, while simultaneously working to identify permanent solutions that stop the movement of invasive species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River.
A permanent solution that protects the Great Lakes and improves our economy in the Chicago region will take work and input from a wide range of government agencies and community voices. With John Goss on board as a full-time Asian Carp Director for the federal government, we can all move forward quickly to studying, planning, and implementing those solutions. There's no time to waste.
Council on Environmental Quality Appoints John Goss as Asian Carp Director
WASHINGTON – Continuing the Obama Administration’s proactive response to the threat that Asian carp poses to the Great Lakes, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) today announced the appointment of John Goss as the Asian Carp Director. In his role, John will serve as the principal advisor to CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley on Asian carp issues, and oversee the coordination of Federal, state, and local efforts to keep Asian carp from establishing in the Great Lakes ecosystems.
Goss joins CEQ from the Indiana Wildlife Federation, the Indiana State affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, where he served for four years as the Executive Director. In his role at the Wildlife Federation, he worked with conservation, business and industry groups to support the Great Lakes Compact. Goss previously served as Director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and as Vice Chair of the Great Lakes Commission.
“With a strong background focused on natural resources, John will be an excellent addition to our team as we continue to combat the spread of Asian carp,” said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. “He will help to ensure coordination among government agencies and the most effective response across all levels of government to this threat.”
Goss will chair the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (RCC), which is a team of Federal, state and local agencies working together to prevent Asian carp from establishing populations in the Great Lakes. The Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework, released in February, 2010 and updated in May, 2010, unifies Federal, state and local action in an unparalleled effort to combat invasive species.
Prior to his position at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Goss was Director of Tourism for the State of Indiana and chaired the Great Lakes International Marketing Initiative for the Great Lakes Governors Association. Goss served as Chief of Staff for Lt. Governor Frank O’Bannon, District Director for Congressman Frank McCloskey and Deputy Mayor for the City of Bloomington, Indiana. Goss received his Masters of Public Affairs and his B.A. in Economics from Indiana University.
With the race to be Chicago's next mayor heating up, one major issue that has been a hallmark of Mayor Richard Daley's time in office has received little attention so far - what is to become of Mayor Daley's goal of being the greenest city in America, if not the world, after he steps down in May.
