Excerpt:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Bank
Excerpts:
1)
2010 report finds WB oil/coal projects do not help poor
A 2010 report by Oil Change International, World Bank Group Energy Financing: Energy for the Poor? released on the eve of the World Bank's Annual Meetings, found that World Bank support for coal and oil projects does not increase access to energy for the world's poorest. The report found that only 9 percent of Bank energy sector lending actually went to support basic needs or productive uses in communities that lacked access to energy. Many of the energy projects had no clear targets for the energy produced, while other projects went expressly to energy projects for industrial uses (often for export), or to add power to existing grid systems without the specific purpose of increasing access.[3]Eija Pehu is Senior Adviser in the World Bank's Agriculture and Rural Development Department. [1] She was previously president of Unicrop Ltd, a Finnish biotech company, and in 1999 was issued a patent on virus-resistant transgenic plants. [2]
- Executive Council, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chr%C3%A9tien
Excerpt:
http://www.boreal.fi/fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=13&Itemid=181
Excerpt:
Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd.
Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd. is a Finnish company specialising in the breeding of field crop varieties for northern regions. Our principal market area is Finland, where we are the market leader in our sector. Our main export areas include Sweden, the Baltic States and Russia.Our head office, laboratories, and a substantial part of our breeding operations are based in Jokioinen, Finland. Our field trials are located across Finland, northern Europe and Russia. Boreal’s largest shareholder is the State of Finland, while its other owners include Finnish Farmers Unions and a group of agribusiness companies.
http://pba.ucdavis.edu/News/European_PBA_Begins/
Excerpt:
Diego Ramos and Jose Maldonado from Monsanto in Spain,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hylton_Murray-Philipson
Excerpt:
Ansbacher "has been synonymous with specialist banking since 1894. Today we deliver a personalised blend of wealth management services for the individual demands of both private and institutional clients.
"Through private banking, yacht finance, investment management and fiduciary services, our relationship based solutions focus entirely on meeting our clients’ needs.
"The Ansbacher Banking Group currently has trading companies in seven jurisdictions." [1]
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ojidojsnmh/
Excerpt:
06/07/2002 - 11:55:55
A long-awaited report into the biggest financial and political scandal to hit Ireland was published today, exposing the names of 200 clients who held accounts with a ‘‘sham’’ bank.
Former Taoiseach Charles Haughey was listed among other former members of the Dail, the landed and the wealthy, who used Ansbacher (Cayman) bank between the 1970s and 1990s.
The clandestine bank, which was unauthorised to operate in Ireland, was used by many of its clients to evade tax.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/report-exposes-irish-banking-charade-647574.html
Excerpt:
Report exposes Irish banking 'charade'
Sunday, 7 July 2002
An unauthorised banking system used by some of Ireland's political and business elite to evade tax payments for more than 20 years was exposed as "little more than a charade, a sham and a legal fiction" in a report published yesterday.
An unauthorised banking system used by some of Ireland's political and business elite to evade tax payments for more than 20 years was exposed as "little more than a charade, a sham and a legal fiction" in a report published yesterday.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_584546.html
Excerpt:
http://www.grist.org/article/worlds-dumbest-project-tata-ultra-mega
Excerpt:
Here is how the World Bank proposes to solve climate change: lend money to build a 4,000-megawatt coal plant in India that will emit 25.7 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. By way of comparison, that's half a million tons more than the worst carbon emitter in North America, the Scherer plant near Macon, Georgia.
Getting Warmer: US CO2 Emissions from Power Plants Emissions Rise 5.6% in 2010 Photo: Seth Gunning 2
Getting Warmer: US CO2 Emissions from Power Plants Emissions Rise 5.6% in 2010
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose 5.56% in 2010 over the year before, the biggest annual increase since the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking emissions in 1995. Electricity generators released 2.423 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2010, compared to 2.295 billion tons in 2009, according to information available on EPA’s "Clean Air Markets" database.1 While the increase is worrisome, power plant emissions are still below the high water mark of 2.565 million tons set in 2007. Last year’s rise was driven in part by a 3.0% net increase in overall generation for the 12 months ending in November of 20102, due to the economic recovery and unusually warm weather in some parts of the country.
Average global temperatures last year reached the 2005 level, the warmest year on record.3 CO2 is the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming; the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation in the U.S. accounts for more than one third of our nation’s total U.S. releases of CO2, and more than nearly 5% of CO2 emissions worldwide.4 Coal-fired boilers provided 45% of our electricity in 2010, but were responsible for 81% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from electricity generation last year.
Texas power plants led the pack in 2010, with nearly 257 million ton of CO2 emissions, as much as the next two states combined (Florida and Ohio), and more than 7 times the total CO2 emissions from power plants in California. Despite a favorable climate for wind energy and falling natural gas prices, Texas opened three new coal plants toward the end of 2010, with a combined capacity of 2,156 megawatts.5 Emissions of CO2 from the top ten states are listed at left.
Fifty coal-fired power plants accounted for 750 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2010, or about a third of the total. The two largest carbon polluters, the Scherer and Bowen power plants in Georgia, together released more than 48 million tons of CO2 in 2010. By comparison, emissions from all power plants in California were 37.1 million tons; in New York, 40.0 million tons; and in the six states of New England, 40.5 million tons.
Coal-fired generation rose 5.2% in the 12 months ending November 30, 2010, growing at a faster pace than the overall 3.0% increase in net generation over the same period. But net generation of wind powered electricity, although a much smaller fraction of total output, rose from 73.6 to 92.7 million megawatts, for a 26% increase through the end of November last year.Net generation from natural gas fired plants, which release less than half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants on a per megawatt basis, rose 6.8% over the same period.6
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power plants decreased from 5.72 million to 5.11 million tons between 2009 and 2010, while nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions increased slightly over the same time span (See Appendix C for SO2 data). Emissions of both pollutants have declined more than 50% over the past ten years, though progress is uneven. For
3
example, sulfur dioxide has actually increased slightly in Missouri, while declining more than 85% in Maryland. The overall trend is encouraging and emissions of SO2 and NOx should decline still further, unless the Republican House majority succeeds in derailing emission standards that are scheduled to take effect within the next four years. As indicated
Congress has declined to pass comprehensive legislation to address global warming. But the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws, falling natural gas prices, and the growing market for renewable energy could curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants. Most of the more than one hundred proposals to build new coal plants that surfaced several years ago have been withdrawn, having been defeated by local opposition, legal challenges, and the erosion of marketplace advantages that coal-fired power use to enjoy.
Nearly 4.5 gigawatts of new coal-fired electric generation came on line in 2010, about half of that in Texas. But power companies have also announced plans to retire almost 12 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity within the next few years, including the announcement last month that Xcel would close nearly 900 megawatts of coal-fired capacity at four different power stations in Colorado.7More announcements are expected this year, as companies wisely choose to shut down aging boilers, rather than pay to retrofit dirty and outdated plants to comply with federal air, waste and water standards.
These new rules include regulations requiring the cleanup of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants, additional reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide at plants that do not already have state-of-the-art controls, and potential new standards for ash disposal that will require closure of leaking ash ponds used to dispose of the industry’s waste. This summer, the EPA will propose standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act, in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court decision finding that greenhouse gases were pollutants subject to regulation under the act. 8By law, any standard that EPA proposes must be affordable and technologically feasible, but even modest limits on CO2 pollution would at least slow down the buildup of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere.
The phase out of the worst polluters would make room for cleaner technologies, like the 3.6 gigawatts of wind power installed in 2010, which could add momentum to the economic recovery while reducing reduce global warming and damage to the public’s health from dirty coal plants.
The industry’s allies on Capitol Hill are working hard to turn back the clock by repealing environmental standards for coal plants that are already many years overdue. Congress may weaken or even eliminate EPA’s ability to stop coal plant pollution, and block further study of climate change. But even the most powerful legislature in the world is subject to the laws of science, and global warming will not disappear because our politicians choose to pretend it does not exist.
A Appendix
B Appendix
C Appendix
1 All power plant and state-wide emissions data from Clean Air Markets Database, USEPA, available online at:. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard
2 Electric Power Monthly, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, (February 2011), Executive Summary [hereinafter Electric Power Monthly], available online at . http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
3 National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, State of the Climate National Overview Annual 2010, available online at:. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13
4 See, e.g., (Draft Inventory of Green House Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2009) US Environmental Protection Agency, Table ES-2, pg 25, February 15, 2011.
5 Electric Power Monthly, at Table ES-3.
6 Id., at Table 1.1, 1.1A.
7 Does not include additional retirements contingent on other circumstances. See, e.g., "Coal Plant Retirements," Table 2, available online at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plant_retirements;
"Clean Air Clean Jobs Plant," Xcel Energy, August 13, 2010, available online at: http://www.xcelenergy.com/Colorado/Company/About_Energy_and_Rates/Pages/Clean-Air-Clean-Jobs-Plan.aspx
8 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497
End Notes
http://www.greenamerica.org/PDF/SouthernCompanyReport.pdf
Excerpt:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_584546.html
Excerpt:
World Bank increases fossil-fuel funding despite pledge
By Christopher Swann, BLOOMBERG NEWS
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Once the new Tata Ultra Mega power plant in western India is fired up in 2012 and fully operational, it will become one of the world's 50 largest greenhouse-gas emitters. And the World Bank is helping make it possible.
A year after World Bank President Robert Zoellick pledged to "significantly step up our assistance" in fighting climate change, the development institution is increasing its financing of fossil-fuel projects around the globe.
The $4.14 billion, coal-powered Ultra Mega plant will emit more carbon dioxide annually than the nation of Tunisia, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The World Bank in April agreed to provide $450 million in loans and guarantees for the project and also may buy a $50 million stake in it.
"The World Bank's lending record does not match up to Zoellick's rhetoric," says Heike Mainhardt-Gibbs, a consultant to the Bank Information Center, a Washington watchdog group. "The institution is simply not slowing down its significant funding to fossil-fuel projects that will emit greenhouse gases for 20 to 40 years."
The $4.14 billion, coal-powered Ultra Mega plant will emit more carbon dioxide annually than the nation of Tunisia, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The World Bank in April agreed to provide $450 million in loans and guarantees for the project and also may buy a $50 million stake in it.
"The World Bank's lending record does not match up to Zoellick's rhetoric," says Heike Mainhardt-Gibbs, a consultant to the Bank Information Center, a Washington watchdog group. "The institution is simply not slowing down its significant funding to fossil-fuel projects that will emit greenhouse gases for 20 to 40 years."
http://www.grist.org/article/worlds-dumbest-project-tata-ultra-mega
Excerpt:
World's dumbest project: Tata Ultra Mega
How a twisted definition is setting up a monumental folly in India
Getting Warmer: US CO2 Emissions from Power Plants Emissions Rise 5.6% in 2010 Photo: Seth Gunning 2
Getting Warmer: US CO2 Emissions from Power Plants Emissions Rise 5.6% in 2010
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose 5.56% in 2010 over the year before, the biggest annual increase since the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking emissions in 1995. Electricity generators released 2.423 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2010, compared to 2.295 billion tons in 2009, according to information available on EPA’s "Clean Air Markets" database.1 While the increase is worrisome, power plant emissions are still below the high water mark of 2.565 million tons set in 2007. Last year’s rise was driven in part by a 3.0% net increase in overall generation for the 12 months ending in November of 20102, due to the economic recovery and unusually warm weather in some parts of the country.
| State | 2009 CO2 Emissions | 2010 CO2 Emissions |
| Texas | 244,248,050 | 256,903,967 |
| Florida | 119,960,137 | 130,324,532 |
| Ohio | 119,793,429 | 124,966,156 |
| Indiana | 117,544,009 | 123,695,438 |
| Pennsylvania | 114,331,904 | 123,345,741 |
| Illinois | 102,752,939 | 107,082,729 |
| Kentucky | 92,614,351 | 99,246,065 |
| Georgia | 81,906,514 | 86,826,424 |
| Alabama | 74,033,748 | 84,734,388 |
| Missouri | 75,774,756 | 83,279,658 |
Average global temperatures last year reached the 2005 level, the warmest year on record.3 CO2 is the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming; the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation in the U.S. accounts for more than one third of our nation’s total U.S. releases of CO2, and more than nearly 5% of CO2 emissions worldwide.4 Coal-fired boilers provided 45% of our electricity in 2010, but were responsible for 81% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from electricity generation last year.
| Power Plant | 2009 CO2 Emissions | 2010 CO2 Emissions |
| Scherer, GA | 24,894,852 | 25,133,404 |
| Bowen, GA | 21,964,073 | 22,997,740 |
| James H. Miller, Jr., AL | 21,929, 156 | 22,702,006 |
| Martin Lake, TX | 19,571,666 | 20,506,471 |
| Gibson, IN | 18,135,538 | 19,679,980 |
| Monroe, MI | 19,376,047 | 19,514,435 |
| Labadie, MO | 17,433,816 | 18,996,586 |
| Colstrip, MT | 15,471,751 | 18,733,243 |
| Gen J M Gavin, OH | 20,126,750 | 18,449,408 |
| Rockport, IN | 18,086,957 | 18,220,454 |
Texas power plants led the pack in 2010, with nearly 257 million ton of CO2 emissions, as much as the next two states combined (Florida and Ohio), and more than 7 times the total CO2 emissions from power plants in California. Despite a favorable climate for wind energy and falling natural gas prices, Texas opened three new coal plants toward the end of 2010, with a combined capacity of 2,156 megawatts.5 Emissions of CO2 from the top ten states are listed at left.
Fifty coal-fired power plants accounted for 750 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2010, or about a third of the total. The two largest carbon polluters, the Scherer and Bowen power plants in Georgia, together released more than 48 million tons of CO2 in 2010. By comparison, emissions from all power plants in California were 37.1 million tons; in New York, 40.0 million tons; and in the six states of New England, 40.5 million tons.
Coal-fired generation rose 5.2% in the 12 months ending November 30, 2010, growing at a faster pace than the overall 3.0% increase in net generation over the same period. But net generation of wind powered electricity, although a much smaller fraction of total output, rose from 73.6 to 92.7 million megawatts, for a 26% increase through the end of November last year.Net generation from natural gas fired plants, which release less than half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants on a per megawatt basis, rose 6.8% over the same period.6
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power plants decreased from 5.72 million to 5.11 million tons between 2009 and 2010, while nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions increased slightly over the same time span (See Appendix C for SO2 data). Emissions of both pollutants have declined more than 50% over the past ten years, though progress is uneven. For
3
example, sulfur dioxide has actually increased slightly in Missouri, while declining more than 85% in Maryland. The overall trend is encouraging and emissions of SO2 and NOx should decline still further, unless the Republican House majority succeeds in derailing emission standards that are scheduled to take effect within the next four years. As indicated
Congress has declined to pass comprehensive legislation to address global warming. But the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws, falling natural gas prices, and the growing market for renewable energy could curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants. Most of the more than one hundred proposals to build new coal plants that surfaced several years ago have been withdrawn, having been defeated by local opposition, legal challenges, and the erosion of marketplace advantages that coal-fired power use to enjoy.
Nearly 4.5 gigawatts of new coal-fired electric generation came on line in 2010, about half of that in Texas. But power companies have also announced plans to retire almost 12 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity within the next few years, including the announcement last month that Xcel would close nearly 900 megawatts of coal-fired capacity at four different power stations in Colorado.7More announcements are expected this year, as companies wisely choose to shut down aging boilers, rather than pay to retrofit dirty and outdated plants to comply with federal air, waste and water standards.
These new rules include regulations requiring the cleanup of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants, additional reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide at plants that do not already have state-of-the-art controls, and potential new standards for ash disposal that will require closure of leaking ash ponds used to dispose of the industry’s waste. This summer, the EPA will propose standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act, in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court decision finding that greenhouse gases were pollutants subject to regulation under the act. 8By law, any standard that EPA proposes must be affordable and technologically feasible, but even modest limits on CO2 pollution would at least slow down the buildup of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere.
The phase out of the worst polluters would make room for cleaner technologies, like the 3.6 gigawatts of wind power installed in 2010, which could add momentum to the economic recovery while reducing reduce global warming and damage to the public’s health from dirty coal plants.
The industry’s allies on Capitol Hill are working hard to turn back the clock by repealing environmental standards for coal plants that are already many years overdue. Congress may weaken or even eliminate EPA’s ability to stop coal plant pollution, and block further study of climate change. But even the most powerful legislature in the world is subject to the laws of science, and global warming will not disappear because our politicians choose to pretend it does not exist.
A Appendix
| Top 50 2010 CO2 Emissions by State | ||
| State | Year | CO2 Mass (Tons) |
| TX | 2010 | 256,903,967 |
| FL | 2010 | 130,324,532 |
| OH | 2010 | 124,966,157 |
| IN | 2010 | 123,695,439 |
| PA | 2010 | 123,345,742 |
| IL | 2010 | 107,082,730 |
| KY | 2010 | 99,246,065 |
| GA | 2010 | 86,826,464 |
| AL | 2010 | 84,734,388 |
| MO | 2010 | 83,279,658 |
| WV | 2010 | 78,338,976 |
| MI | 2010 | 74,375,752 |
| NC | 2010 | 74,293,631 |
| AZ | 2010 | 60,713,242 |
| LA | 2010 | 51,867,719 |
| WI | 2010 | 50,047,776 |
| OK | 2010 | 49,871,771 |
| WY | 2010 | 49,382,465 |
| TN | 2010 | 46,425,781 |
| IA | 2010 | 45,401,248 |
| CO | 2010 | 45,130,511 |
| SC | 2010 | 43,754,659 |
| NY | 2010 | 40,031,704 |
| KS | 2010 | 39,751,566 |
| CA | 2010 | 37,065,278 |
| UT | 2010 | 36,985,780 |
| AR | 2010 | 36,254,482 |
| MN | 2010 | 34,123,976 |
| ND | 2010 | 33,534,159 |
| NM | 2010 | 32,653,177 |
| VA | 2010 | 32,441,939 |
| MS | 2010 | 30,618,950 |
| NE | 2010 | 26,402,128 |
| MD | 2010 | 26,328,311 |
| MT | 2010 | 21,356,366 |
| MA | 2010 | 19,499,495 |
| NV | 2010 | 16,956,569 |
| NJ | 2010 | 14,638,010 |
| WA | 2010 | 14,560,232 |
| OR | 2010 | 10,873,651 |
| CT | 2010 | 6,644,898 |
| NH | 2010 | 6,420,303 |
| ME | 2010 | 3,943,457 |
| DE | 2010 | 3,860,307 |
| SD | 2010 | 3,765,614 |
| RI | 2010 | 3,504,392 |
| ID | 2010 | 693,069 |
| VT | 2010 | 444,647 |
| DC | 2010 | 236,894 |
B Appendix
| Top 50 2010 CO2 Emissions by Facility | |||
| State | Facility Name | Year | CO2 Mass (Tons) |
| GA | Scherer | 2010 | 25,133,404 |
| GA | Bowen | 2010 | 22,997,741 |
| AL | James H Miller Jr | 2010 | 22,702,007 |
| TX | Martin Lake | 2010 | 20,506,471 |
| IN | Gibson | 2010 | 19,679,980 |
| MI | Monroe | 2010 | 19,514,436 |
| MO | Labadie | 2010 | 18,996,587 |
| MT | Colstrip | 2010 | 18,733,243 |
| OH | Gen J M Gavin | 2010 | 18,449,408 |
| IN | Rockport | 2010 | 18,220,454 |
| TX | W A Parish | 2010 | 18,124,351 |
| PA | Bruce Mansfield | 2010 | 17,890,433 |
| AZ | Navajo Generating Station | 2010 | 17,798,384 |
| WY | Jim Bridger | 2010 | 16,278,550 |
| SC | Cross | 2010 | 16,003,418 |
| NC | Roxboro | 2010 | 15,972,697 |
| KS | Jeffrey Energy Center | 2010 | 15,963,886 |
| WV | John E Amos | 2010 | 15,833,972 |
| TX | Monticello | 2010 | 15,217,100 |
| KY | Paradise | 2010 | 14,929,854 |
| MN | Sherburne County | 2010 | 14,901,029 |
| WY | Laramie River | 2010 | 14,724,744 |
| TN | Cumberland | 2010 | 14,588,893 |
| NM | Four Corners Steam Elec Station | 2010 | 14,399,394 |
| OH | J M Stuart | 2010 | 14,378,504 |
| TX | Limestone | 2010 | 14,298,446 |
| LA | Big Cajun 2 | 2010 | 13,707,365 |
| NC | Belews Creek | 2010 | 13,676,646 |
| KY | Ghent | 2010 | 13,413,886 |
| PA | Keystone | 2010 | 13,354,557 |
| FL | Crystal River | 2010 | 13,226,180 |
| UT | Intermountain | 2010 | 13,080,935 |
| OH | W H Sammis | 2010 | 13,007,678 |
| IL | Baldwin Energy Complex | 2010 | 12,937,246 |
| IA | Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center | 2010 | 12,742,797 |
| NC | Marshall | 2010 | 12,651,413 |
| IN | Petersburg | 2010 | 12,556,502 |
| AR | Independence | 2010 | 12,462,442 |
| TX | Sam Seymour | 2010 | 12,349,409 |
| TX | Welsh Power Plant | 2010 | 12,146,242 |
| WV | Harrison Power Station | 2010 | 12,125,976 |
| PA | Conemaugh | 2010 | 11,966,512 |
| IN | R M Schahfer Generating Station | 2010 | 11,890,244 |
| AR | White Bluff | 2010 | 11,823,841 |
| GA | Wansley (6052) | 2010 | 11,775,202 |
| NM | San Juan | 2010 | 11,741,411 |
| AL | Barry | 2010 | 11,348,498 |
| AZ | Springerville Generating Station | 2010 | 11,213,478 |
| PA | Homer City | 2010 | 11,151,430 |
| WV | Mount Storm Power Station | 2010 | 11,037,919 |
C Appendix
| Ten Year Difference in SO2 Emissions by State | ||||
| State | 2000 Emissions (Tons) | 2010 Emissions (Tons) | 2010 and 2000 Difference in Mass (Tons) | 10 Year Decrease/Increase |
| AL | 512074.659 | 202439.776 | -309634.883 | -60% |
| AR | 75057.457 | 67083.708 | -7973.749 | -11% |
| AZ | 71556.489 | 36445.121 | -35111.368 | -49% |
| CA | 380.087 | 286.889 | -93.198 | -25% |
| CO | 87175.579 | 45962.408 | -41213.171 | -47% |
| CT | 36917.827 | 1954.961 | -34962.866 | -95% |
| DC | 957.675 | 934.711 | -22.964 | -2% |
| DE | 40290.542 | 14491.681 | -25798.861 | -64% |
| FL | 570061.455 | 138297.663 | -431763.792 | -76% |
| GA | 518745.615 | 218093.023 | -300652.592 | -58% |
| IA | 137266.717 | 104649.8 | -32616.917 | -24% |
| ID | 2.118 | 3.498 | 1.38 | 65% |
| IL | 429849.968 | 220085.212 | -209764.756 | -49% |
| IN | 874617.157 | 413864.433 | -460752.724 | -53% |
| KS | 116285.044 | 45250.564 | -71034.48 | -61% |
| KY | 584916.595 | 266203.824 | -318712.771 | -54% |
| LA | 110401.263 | 98128.896 | -12272.367 | -11% |
| MA | 112038.625 | 36964.787 | -75073.838 | -67% |
| MD | 252829.223 | 28669.563 | -224159.66 | -89% |
| ME | 10592.765 | 820.011 | -9772.754 | -92% |
| MI | 369830.082 | 242182.284 | -127647.798 | -35% |
| MN | 93072.049 | 41573.818 | -51498.231 | -55% |
| MO | 222724.222 | 236201.884 | 13477.662 | 6% |
| MS | 129913.061 | 54696.201 | -75216.86 | -58% |
| MT | 20247.216 | 19895.755 | -351.461 | -2% |
| NC | 453442.374 | 116627.178 | -336815.196 | -74% |
| ND | 149805.877 | 124058.643 | -25747.234 | -17% |
| NE | 60233.998 | 64184.363 | 3950.365 | 7% |
| NH | 51326.386 | 36834.354 | -14492.032 | -28% |
| NJ | 60037.234 | 13010.618 | -47026.616 | -78% |
| NM | 68616.623 | 16570.253 | -52046.37 | -76% |
| NV | 53203.111 | 7887.392 | -45315.719 | -85% |
| NY | 283344.767 | 46774.574 | -236570.193 | -83% |
| OH | 1209458.017 | 570045.216 | -639412.801 | -53% |
| OK | 93417.294 | 85134.649 | -8282.645 | -9% |
| OR | 14386.823 | 15695.913 | 1309.09 | 9% |
| PA | 935167.819 | 393194.848 | -541972.971 | -58% |
| RI | 5.994 | 17.807 | 11.813 | 197% |
| SC | 200301.036 | 92068.408 | -108232.628 | -54% |
| SD | 13532.882 | 12589.052 | -943.83 | -7% |
| TN | 424973.072 | 118659.409 | -306313.663 | -72% |
| TX | 557510.226 | 461467.386 | -96042.84 | -17% |
| UT | 27202.061 | 21598.097 | -5603.964 | -21% |
| VA | 214231.877 | 91576.5 | -122655.377 | -57% |
| VT | 8.667 | 1.695 | -6.972 | -80% |
| WA | 83623.011 | 2650.797 | -80972.214 | -97% |
| WI | 196830.401 | 108649.126 | -88181.275 | -45% |
| WV | 593314.907 | 106087.766 | -487227.141 | -82% |
| WY | 80300.242 | 64848.778 | -15451.464 | -19% |
1 All power plant and state-wide emissions data from Clean Air Markets Database, USEPA, available online at:. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard
2 Electric Power Monthly, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, (February 2011), Executive Summary [hereinafter Electric Power Monthly], available online at . http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
3 National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, State of the Climate National Overview Annual 2010, available online at:. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13
4 See, e.g., (Draft Inventory of Green House Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2009) US Environmental Protection Agency, Table ES-2, pg 25, February 15, 2011.
5 Electric Power Monthly, at Table ES-3.
6 Id., at Table 1.1, 1.1A.
7 Does not include additional retirements contingent on other circumstances. See, e.g., "Coal Plant Retirements," Table 2, available online at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plant_retirements;
"Clean Air Clean Jobs Plant," Xcel Energy, August 13, 2010, available online at: http://www.xcelenergy.com/Colorado/Company/About_Energy_and_Rates/Pages/Clean-Air-Clean-Jobs-Plan.aspx
8 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497
End Notes
http://www.greenamerica.org/PDF/SouthernCompanyReport.pdf
Excerpt:
Leadership We Can Live Without:
Green America:
May 24, 2011The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company
2
A Green America Report: May 2011Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report
for Southern Company
May 24, 2011
Authors:
Joseph Edwards and Todd Larsen
Research:
Joseph Edwards
Design and Layout:
Dennis Greenia
Prepared by
1612 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington DC 20006
www.GreenAmerica.org
Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 3Table of Contents
Executive Summary
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Southern Company in Comparison to Other US Utilities
Dirtiest Power Plants in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Greenhouse Gases and Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Toxic Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nuclear Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Lobbying Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
. . . . . . . . 9Conclusion:
How Southern Company Could Demonstrate Real Leadership
Desired Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
. . . . . .23Endnotes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
A Green America Report: February 2010Executive Summary
Southern Company
utilities, with 4.4 million
customers in the American Southeast. Southern Company prides itself on its
relatively low rates and its consistent payment of dividends to shareholders.
But while some ratepayers and shareholders may appreciate these limited
economic benefits, they come at a high price: the extraordinary pollution produced
by Southern Company, which harms the communities in which it operates and fuels
global warming. In addition, Southern Company creates enormous environmental
and health risks through its increasing use of nuclear power and growing coal ash
ponds.
The real price of Southern Company’s strategy include: asthma, heart disease,
lung disease, air and water pollution, global warming, and the potential for
catastrophic accidents. Clean Air Task Force data indicates that the cost of death
and disease caused by Southern Company’s non-climate-change pollution alone
is over $9 billion.
may appear to be low, they are paying the price in health care costs (see Clean
Air Task Force Data cited on p. 16). While Southern Company’s shareholders
may be getting dividends today, they risk the future value of their shares if
Southern Company’s policies continue.
Southern Company has some stiff competition for the title of Worst Utility, from
coal-fired giant American Electric Power (AEP) to nuclear leader Exelon. The seven
large utilities in Table 1 (p. 5) have all distinguished themselves through their air and
water pollution, reliance on nuclear power, and/or anti-environmental lobbying.
Each can act as a clear example of what is currently wrong with US electric
generation in terms of human health, the environment, and catastrophic risks.
is one of the nation’s largest1 While the electricity costs for Southern Company’s ratepayersLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 5Within this competitive race to the bottom, Southern Company stands out as a leader
overall — a leader we can live without. A partial list of the company’s most irresponsible
practices includes the following:
o
the top five utility emitters
According to CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action), Southern Company is one ofof carbon in the world.2o
dioxide every year, making it
the country
Southern Company’s Scherer plant emits an astonishing 26 million tons of carbonthe biggest power plant emitter of CO2 in.3o
Three of Southern Company’s coal plants made Environmental Integrity Project’s topTable 1:
Southern Company and The Dirty SevenRank
CompanyReliance
on Coal
Air & Water
Pollution
(CO
SO
Mercury)
2, NOX,X,Reliance
on and
Expansion
of
Power
NuclearAnti-
Environment
Lobbying
1 Exelon C C F D
2 Entergy C C F D
3 Dominion D C F C
4 TVA D D F C
5 Duke F D F C
6 AEP F F C D-
7 Southern Company F F F F
The Dirty Seven
plants; levels of CO
currently existing nuclear power plants; construction and/or planned construction of new
nuclear plants; and lobbying expenditures.
were chosen based on ownership of and construction of coal-fired power2, NOX, SO2, and mercury emitted; existing and planned ownership of6
A Green America Report: May 2011ten list of most polluting plants in the country
of sulfur dioxide (SO
for their emissions2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury, and CO2.4o
the lives of miners and
mountain top removal mining.
Southern Company creates enormous demand for coal, which endangersputs entire communities at risk fromo
Southern Company currently has at least 22 plants that utilize “wet”
storage facilities for coal combustion waste — including at least one site
that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found has polluted
ground and surface waters.
All those coal plants produce vast quantities of toxic waste.5o
power plants
to use have raised serious safety concerns from an expert at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Southern Company is taking the lead in building new nuclearin the United States, and the nuclear plants it is planning6o
Southern Company is the leader among highly polluting utilities in spendingmillions of dollars every year on anti-environment lobbyists
to maintain the status quo.
7For all of the above reasons, which are described in greater detail throughout
this report, Southern Company has earned the title of the United States’ most
irresponsible utility.
Southern Company has issued its own corporate social responsibility report,
available on its website at: www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/.
The information provided by Southern Company, of course, presents its
responsibility efforts in a much more favorable light, but much of the language is
aspirational and vague. Green America’s report acts as a counterbalance to the
company’s own report, and presents the facts regarding Southern Company’s
overwhelming environmental impacts, which directly and negatively impact
people’s health and the environment every day.
Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 7Introduction
The United States
from coal.
as well as our extensive use of fossil fuels overall, the US is the second largest carbon emitter
in the world, following China, which only superseded the US in 2007.
climate change, US coal-burning utilities are a major cause of health issues ranging from
asthma to lung cancer to heart disease. A recent Harvard University study found that coal
costs the US up to $500 billion per year in health, environmental, and economic impacts.
obtains approximately half of its electricity8 As a result of our reliance on coal,9 In addition to causing10Mercury from coal-fired power plants is a dangerous neurotoxin, and children are particularly
vulnerable to its effects. Mercury also has a devastating impact on waterways and wildlife. As
the effects of climate change mount, overall costs will only grow.
The only practical solution to addressing these enormous costs, and slowing the ensuing
destruction that imperils future generations, is to phase out our use of coal in the US, while not
trading coal for new and dangerous fuel sources. Within the US, some utilities are taking steps
to reduce their reliance on coal and are increasing their use of renewables and energy efficiency
measures. Others are digging in their heels and using lobbying to maintain a status quo of
burning the most polluting fuels and/or encouraging a greater reliance on nuclear power, the
dangers of which were most recently demonstrated in Fukushima, Japan.
Southern Company is a company that both maintains its reliance on fossil fuels while gambling
with new nuclear power plants. It continues to run several of the most polluting power plants
in the country, including the number-one polluter: Plant Scherer.
Force data, pollution from these plants has a very real cost on human health: two states where
Southern Company runs coal-fired power plants rank amongst the top fifteen for per capita
deaths from power-plant pollution.
to continue running its existing, aging nuclear reactors, one of which unexpectedly shut itself
down in April 2011 (Southern Company attributed the shutdown to a failed breaker), but is
pursuing new reactors, using Westinghouse AP1000 technology, that employ a controversial
11 According to Clean Air Task12 At the same time, Southern Company is not only planning8
A Green America Report: May 2011new design that has been criticized by one of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s own experts (see p. 19).
reactors and failing to close its polluting plants, Southern is simultaneously failing
to develop wind capacity (which is abundantly available off the Georgia Coast)
and is only making limited investment in solar energy. All the while, Southern
Company spends exorbitant amounts of money on lobbying, with expenditures
of over $13 million per year, to protect the status quo.
13 While forging ahead with these risky14The failure to invest in clean technologies is evidenced by the fact that, as of 2009
(the most current data available), Southern Company generates electricity from
the following sources: coal (57%), hydro (4%), natural gas (23%), nuclear (16%).
15Southern Company’s heavy reliance on coal and natural gas explains its enormous
climate-change and other pollution emissions.
Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 9Southern Company in Comparison to Other US Utilities
Dirtiest Power Plants in the US
While the rush to build new coal plants in the US has been turned back through the efforts of
local opponents and national nonprofit groups, the US still has approximately 600 coal-fired
power plants in operation. Many of these coal-fired plants are 40 to 50 years old and highly
polluting. Table 2 contains data regarding the top 10 worst polluting plants in the United States
in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.
Three of the top energy-producing utilities — Southern Company, American Electric Power,
Table 2:
Top 10 Dirtiest Plants in the United States Based on CO2 EmissionsRank
CO
Parent Company Facility2 Emissions(tons)
1
Southern Company Scherer 25,298,4992
Southern Company James H Miller Jr 23,466,0223
Southern Company Bowen 22,756,1914
PSI Energy, Inc Gibson 21,447,9805
TXU Martin Lake 21,301,3936
NRG Energy W A Parish 21,076,0827
American Electric Power Rockport 20,181,5458
Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Navajo Generating Station 20,071,5819
Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland 19,049,06710
Appalachian Power Co John E Amos 18,798,261Source: Environmental Integrity Project “Dirty Kilowatts” 2007 Report Database
10
A Green America Report: May 2011and the Tennessee Valley Authority — are represented on this list. Southern
Company operates the top three most polluting plants in the US, topping the list
with Plant Scherer, which produces over 25 million tons of carbon dioxide per
year. These plants, in addition to Southern Company’s other coal-fired facilities,
help explain why Southern Company is one of the top emitters of carbon dioxide
in the US, and even one of the top five utility emitters of carbon in the world,
16as well as a top emitter of numerous other pollutants.
GreenHouse Gases and Pollution
The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring rapidly, human activity
is the primary cause, and that we need to substantially reduce our carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rapidly.
GHG emissions has been known for years, many energy companies, which are
major producers of GHG emissions, have been slow to act, with some companies
actually increasing their emissions. In order to compare power generation to
carbon dioxide pollution in the US utility sector, Green America looked at data
from the top 12 utilities in the US based on generation, including such companies
as Southern Company, American Electric Power (AEP), Duke Energy, Dominion,
and Exelon, in 2004 and 2008.
Table 3
for 2004 demonstrating power generation, both total and fossil fuel generation,
as well as carbon dioxide emissions. The table contains data from the top 12
largest energy producers in the United States. The table shows that in 2004,
American Electric Power (AEP) was the highest producer of electricity as well as
the largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions. The table shows that AEP also
produced the largest amount of electricity from fossil fuels, with a significant
portion of that generation coming from coal-fired plants. Southern Company was
a very close second in terms of total generation, and also second in fossil
fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. The Tennessee Valley Authority was the
17 While the need to reduce(p. 11) contains data compiled by the Natural Resources Defense CouncilLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 11highest carbon dioxide emitter amongst government-owned utilities. Exelon was fourth in
total power generation; however, it had the lowest carbon dioxide emissions of any of the
top 12 companies (although this is owing to its high reliance on nuclear power, which carries
other significant risks).
Table 3:
2004 Generation and CO2 Emissions for Top 12 Electric ProducersCompany Name
Total Generation
(MWhs)
Fossil Fuel
(Coal)Generation
(MWhs)CO
2 Emissions(tons)
AEP
190,358,346 166,758,395 (158,760,228) 163,934,554Southern Company
186,294,694 151,312,859 (130,822,620) 148,647,755Tennessee Valley Auth.
157,556,843 96,266,655 (95,778,379) 103,602,929Exelon
150,934,074 12,077,633 (8,292,026) 11,942,981FPL
(Now NextEra En.) 124,859,593 85,348,720 (8,324,848) 54,186,212Entergy
117,946,999 43,155,287 (15,820,954) 36,222,715Dominion
105,971,331 62,774,403 (51,093,496) 62,071,888Duke
102,249,100 61,586,837 (44,558,864) 49,793,724Progress Energy
93,252,779 61,402,477 (43,584,588) 58,930,512Calpine
85,229,495 78,728,091 (0) 37,119,368Xcel
81,283,493 66,604,435 (54,673,970) 69,809,043First Energy
78,228,085 48,502,225 (47,214,113) 49,714,694Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
of the 100 Largest Electricity Producers in the US, 2004 Emissions Data
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/default.asp
Benchmarking Air Emissions.The second comparison
at a time prior to the full impact of the recession’s reduction in electric demand taking effect).
(see Table 4, p. 12) examines a similar set of data four years later (and12
A Green America Report: May 2011The data show that by 2008, Southern Company had eclipsed AEP as the largest
electric energy producer in the United States. Both AEP and Southern Company
increased total energy production, utilizing more fossil fuel production, as well
as increasing their carbon dioxide emissions above 2004 levels. While TVA is
third in energy production and fourth in carbon dioxide emissions, this position
will likely improve in light of a recent settlement agreement TVA reached with
the Environmental Protection Agency, four states, and several environmental
groups, whereby it will be closing 18 of its most-polluting coal plants.
18Table 4:
2008 Generation and CO2 Emissions for Top 12 Electric ProducersCompany Name
Total Generation
(MWhs)
Fossil Fuel
(Coal)Generation
(MWhs)CO
2 Emissions(tons)
Southern Company
200,145,044 167,701,125 (134,153,248) 155,107,239AEP
192,128,241 175,021,763 (164,179,849) 171,253,191Tennessee Valley Auth.
158,866,850 98,318,649 (97,597,845) 104,775,169NextEra Energy (FPL)
153,399,071 92,318,283 (6,666,142) 49,545,564Exelon
150,557,232 9,007,627 (7,787,398) 9,239,010Duke
149,023,541 107,798,695 (102,755,813) 105,512,223Entergy
123,913,830 43,888,167 (16,069,899) 35,642,520Dominion
107,343,219 60,849,788 (48,972,868) 58,468,229MidAmerican
93,345,114 81,027,818 (68,371,058) 81,784,623Progress Energy
93,272,525 62,281,137 (42,486,560) 55,513,274Calpine
87,644,660 81,019,547 (0) 33,986,372Edison International
85,104,385 63,478,490 (47,651,514) 59,256,143Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
Electricity Producers in the US, 2008 Emissions Data
available). http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/db/rank.asp?t=e&s=2&d=0
Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest(2008 is the latest year for which this data isLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 13Table 5 shows the percent change in CO
2emissions amongst the top 12 companies from
2004 to 2008. In total, five companies increased
the amount of CO
seven companies were able to decrease their
emissions. The most striking percentage
increases, those of Duke Energy (111.90%) and
MidAmerican Energy (288.71%), largely result
from their significant increases in energy production
due to acquisitions of and mergers
with other companies. The top energy
producers, Southern Company and AEP, had
similar percentage increases in their carbon
dioxide emissions, both around 4.5 percent.
The largest percent decrease was Exelon, which
was able to cut its carbon emissions by more
than a fifth (again, owing in part to its reliance
on nuclear power). NextEra Energy and
Calpine were also able to cut emissions
significantly, each seeing decreases around 8.5
percent. NextEra has a significant portfolio of
wind, hydro, solar (as well as some nuclear) in
its energy mix, and no coal. Calpine has a significant reliance on natural gas and geothermal.
NextEra and Calpine both represent the group of utilities that are starting to move towards
cleaner sources of electricity in a meaningful way, as opposed to Southern Company and AEP.
2 they produced, whileToxic Emissions
In addition to producing extensive GHG emissions, concerns have been raised for decades
regarding the emissions of other pollutants from energy derived from fossil fuels, particularly
coal. These pollutants, SO
2, NOX, and mercury, have a devastating impact on human health andTable 5:
from 2004 to 2008
Percent Change in CO2 EmissionsCompany Name
Percent Change in
CO
2 EmissionsSouthern Company
+4.35AEP
+4.46Tennessee Valley Auth.
+1.12NextEra Energy (FPL)
-8.56Exelon
-22.64Duke
+111.90Entergy
-1.60Dominion
-5.81MidAmerican
+288.71Progress Energy
-5.80Calpine
-8.44Edison International
-4.13Note: The large percentage increases of CO
Duke and MidAmerican can largely be explained by
their acquisitions of, and mergers with, other companies.
2 from14
A Green America Report: May 2011the environment. The next two tables compare the emissions of toxic pollutants
from the same 12 major utility companies. The comparisons include SO
and mercury emissions for each of the utilities from 2004 and 2008.
2, NOX,Table 6:
SO2, NOX, and Mercury Emissions (in tons) for 2004Emissions in tons
Company Name
SO2 NOX MercuryAEP 963,838 318,783 3.75
Southern Company 886,735 216,824 3.91
Tennessee Valley Auth. 492,605 199,801 1.68
Exelon 53,018 15,006 0.29
FPL (Now NextEra En.) 129,461 66,700 0.24
Entergy 80,695 60,564 0.47
Dominion 225,452 107,670 1.03
Duke 286,048 68,995 0.76
Progress Energy 351,276 105,052 0.95
Calpine 200 7,125 0.00
Xcel 157,324 124,237 1.09
FirstEnergy 297,858 82,634 1.12
Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
the 100 Largest Electricity Producers in the US, 2004 Emissions Data
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/default.asp
(Mercury emissions only include those from coal-fired plants).
Benchmarking Air Emissions of.Table 6 contains data compiled by the National Resources Defense Council on
toxic air pollutant emissions from the top twelve energy producers for 2004. At
that time, AEP was the largest emitter of both SO
2 and NOX gases, whileLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 15Table 7:
SO2, NOX, and Mercury Emissions (in tons) for 2008Emissions in tons
Company Name
SO2 NOX MercurySouthern Company 827,413 197,801 3.45
AEP 715,691 261,973 4.05
Tennessee Valley Auth. 335,758 168,112 1.49
NextEra Energy (FPL) 48,974 34,845 0.2
Exelon 50,072 13,212 0.23
Duke 403,504 125,180 1.32
Entergy 51,928 40,231 0.56
Dominion 155,401 64,965 0.82
MidAmerican 134,678 108,027 1.11
Progress Energy 210,496 67,455 0.66
Calpine 196 5,892 0
Edison International 184,583 83,120 1.06
Source: Natural Resources Defense Council
the 100 Largest Electricity Producers in the US, 2008 Emissions Data.
Benchmarking Air Emissions ofhttp://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/db/rank.asp?t=e&s=2&d=0
(Mercury emissions only include those from coal-fired plants).
The 2008 data from the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that the top four producers
of SO
Southern Company was the largest emitter of mercury. The smallest emitter by far in each
category is Calpine, with very small emissions of SO
no coal-fired energy production).
2, NOX, and mercury are again Southern Company, AEP, the Tennessee Valley2 and no mercury emissions (due to having16
A Green America Report: May 2011Authority, and Duke Energy. Southern Company emerged in 2008 as the largest
producer of SO
emissions. Southern Company and AEP both showed decreases in SO
2, while AEP is again first in NOX and moved to first in mercury2 and NOXemissions. With the exception of Duke and MidAmerican Energy, every energy
company in the top 12 for 2008 decreased both SO
2004. All companies excluding Duke Energy, MidAmerican Energy, AEP, and
Entergy demonstrated decreases in mercury emissions. However, these
decreases are not the result of the utilities’ own initiatives; rather, they are
due to the control of each of these pollutants under the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The utilities were responding to increased standards
and enforcement.
2 and NOX emissions overSouthern Company’s coal-fired power plants cause
1,224 deaths, 1,710 heart attacks, 20,770 asthma attacks,
and 752 cases of chronic bronchitis per year. The total
annual cost of all of this damage is over $9 billion.
As one of the leading producers of NO
impacts of Southern Company’s reliance on coal are extensive and costly.
According to Clean Air Task Force Data (as compiled by SourceWatch),
Southern Company’s coal-fired power plants cause 1,224 deaths, 1,710 heart
attacks, 20,770 asthma attacks, and 752 cases of chronic bronchitis per year.
The total annual cost of all of this damage is over $9 billion.
X, SO2, and mercury, the resulting health19Southern Company also generates over 12 billion pounds of coal combustion
waste, or coal ash, per year, which can contain arsenic, mercury, and other
potent toxins.
ponds leaking, which can contaminate groundwater. Contaminated groundwater
can lead to a significant increase in the risk of cancer; for example, it can increase
the risk of cancer in children to 9 out of 1,000, which is 900 times higher than the
US EPA’s goal.
20 The coal ash is often contained in ponds, and there is a risk of the21 The TVA’s catastrophic 2009 coal ash impoundment disaster, theLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 17worst environmental spill on land in US history, highlighted the fact that in addition to
toxins leaking into groundwater, there is the possibility of catastrophic failure. Southern
Company has already experienced one such significant accident: In 2002, a sinkhole opened
up at a Southern Company impoundment in Bartow County, GA, releasing 2.25 million
gallons of coal ash mixed with water into a local creek and river that provides drinking water
to the community.
22In 2010 and 2011, shareholders, led by Green Century Funds, filed resolutions calling on the
company to fully disclose its risks related to coal ash. In response to the 2010 resolution,
which received 21 percent of the vote (high for a first-time resolution) Southern Company
issued a report on coal ash that failed to fully address the risks it faces and how it will address
them, which led shareholders to file a new resolution on coal ash in 2011. In response to the
2011 resolution, rather than address investor concerns, Southern Company sought to have the
resolution removed from the ballot, and failed, which means that the resolution will be voted
on by Southern Company’s shareholders.
Nuclear Power
The United States currently has 104 active nuclear power plants, generating approximately
20 percent of the nation’s energy.
of nuclear power resulting from accidents, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters (as most
recently illustrated by the catastrophic failure at Fukushima).
raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) regarding the ability of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to oversee the nation’s aging fleet of nuclear reactors, a number of
which each year experience “near misses” — safety — or security-related events that risk damage
to the reactor core.
as one of 13 near misses in 2010, due to a failed pump. Despite the risks, and the inability of
utilities to construct new reactors without significant government loan guarantees and insurance
coverage, the industry is pushing forward with a “nuclear renaissance,” and Southern Company
is leading the way
23 Numerous concerns have been raised regarding the safety24 In addition, concerns have been25 UCS included Southern Nuclear’s Farley plant in Dothan, Alabama,(see Table 8, p. 18).18
A Green America Report: May 2011Southern Company has broken ground on two new nuclear plants at its Vogtle
site, which it hopes will go online mid-decade (although most nuclear power
plants experience significant delays and cost overruns). To build the reactors,
Southern Company is relying on $8.3 billion in loan guarantees from the
Department of Energy, and the fact that Georgia lawmakers, in response to
Southern Company lobbying, passed legislation allowing the company to charge
ratepayers for construction costs prior to construction, in order to finance the
enormous costs of the new plants.
26Table 8:
Nuclear Power Plants — Existing and Under ConstructionCompany Name
Number
of Existing
Sites
Number
of Existing
Reactors
New Plants Under
Construction / Planned /
Proposed
Southern Company 3 6 2 under construction
AEP 1 2
Tennessee Valley Authority 3 6
1 under construction, 2 proposedNextEra 5 8
2 proposedExelon 11 19
2 suspendedDuke 3 6
3 proposedEntergy 9 11
2 proposedDominion 4 7
1 proposedMidamerican 1 2
1 under considerationProgress 4 5
2 plannedCalpine 0 0
Edison International 2 5
Sources: Nuclear Energy Institute, http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableand
affordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearpowerplantownersoperatorsandholdingcompanies/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html#New_build
Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 19Southern Company’s newest plants use Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, which are
controversial. For example, in a March 7, 2011 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) notes that a natural disaster or terrorist attack on the
AP1000 “could result in catastrophic core meltdown.”
The Congressman also notes that the material comprising 60 percent of the shield building has
not passed important physical safety tests and is therefore too brittle. It is unconscionable that
any design certification plans would proceed in light of such very real danger. One of the NRC’s
own experts, Dr. John S. Ma, has noted that the AP 1000’s containment building could shatter
“like a glass cup” if struck by a natural or manmade impact. Dr. Ma also found that the AP1000
design underestimates the force of earthquakes on the reactor, stating that “the design will be
grossly inadequate if the correct and actual earthquake analyses were used.”
disaster in Fukushima, which has led the Japanese government to scrap its plans to build new
nuclear plants and instead expand renewable energy, has not caused Southern Company to
rethink, or even slow down its plans to construct new nuclear reactors.
27 Even the nuclear28While Southern Company is taking the lead in new construction of nuclear power plants,
Exelon owns the most nuclear power plants overall, with 11 plants and 19 reactors active, and
intends to increase its existing nuclear plants through a planned merger with Constellation
Energy.
29 Exelon will be the leader, by far, in running the nation’s aging fleet of existing reactors.Lobbying Expenditures
In the wake of the climate change bills that have been proposed in Congress, and which failed to
pass in the Senate, the next comparison table will look at how much each of the top energy
producers in the US spent on lobbying. Lobbying by a number of energy companies and their
trade associations is considered to be a major reason that comprehensive climate legislation has
failed to pass in the US Congress, (although there were also forward-looking energy companies
that supported climate legislation).
regulations at the state level. The following chart tracks lobbying expenditures by top utility
30 In addition, utilities use their lobbying power to secure favorable20
A Green America Report: May 2011polluters (the utilities that are the top generators of CO
Of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, Southern Company
spent the most on lobbying
was moving forward in the House, the company spent over six million dollars
more than the nearest competitor, nearly doubling the money spent by AEP, and
far out-distancing the expenditures of the rest of the major companies. In that
year, the top four polluting utilities all spent over five million dollars on lobbying.
According to a report from the Center for Public Integrity, Southern Company
had the highest number of climate lobbyists working for them in the first quarter
of 2009, with 63. This is in addition to the 34 reported to be working for the
Edison Electric Institute, an association of investor-owned energy companies.
The report also stated that AEP, the second-highest spender on lobbying, had
only nine climate lobbyists during the first quarter of 2009.
2, NOx, SO2, and mercury).(see Table 9, p. 20). In 2009, when climate legislation31Table 9:
and Top Nuclear Utilities 2009-2010
Lobbying Expenditures by Top PollutingCompany Name
Lobbying
Expenditures 2009
Lobbying
Expenditures 2010
Southern Company
$13,450,000 $13,220,000AEP
$7,297,245 $10,313,196Duke
$5,880,516 $6,500,000Entergy
$5,035,000 $4,640,000Exelon
$4,573,000 $3,711,797Dominion
$2,030,000 $1,670,000TVA
$192,000 $175,000Source: OpenSecrets.org’s
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/
Lobbying Spending Database.Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 21In 2010, Southern Company once again spent the most on lobbying of the major polluters, although
AEP came closer, spending over $10 million. PG&E, a utility that is not on the list of top polluters nationwide,
increased its spending on lobbying from $6,280,000 to an incredible $45,460,000.
32Industry spending on lobbying as a whole increased from $146,006,753 in 2009 to $191,644,085
in 2010. Data from Open Secrets demonstrates that for the utility industry as a whole, spending
on lobbying for the three years 2008-2010 averaged $166,000,000 per year, up from the prior
three year average (2005-2007) of $107,000,000 per year.
33To accompany its lobbying expenditures, Southern Company is also a leader in contributions
to elected officials. At the national level, Southern Company is second only to AEP in total
donations for the 111th Congress. Southern Company contributed $252,700 to both
Republicans and Democrats in the 111th Congress, while AEP contributed $302,650. The top
recipients of Southern Company’s money were current House Speaker John Boehner (R-VA)
and former House Energy Subcommittee Chair Frederick Boucher (D-VA), both of whom
received $10,000 from the company.
34Southern Company clearly used its lobbying and contributions to play
a leadership role in opposing true climate reform in the US Congress.
When the legislation was working its way through Congress, Southern Company spokeswoman
Terri Cohilas said Southern Company supports “significant portions” of the legislation that
passed the House. But she added: “We do believe it will have a profound impact on the US
economy, and the bill does not do enough to reduce the cost to customers or to provide
regional fairness.”
as code for saying that Southern Company does not want to move away from generating
80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels, and does not want to make significant investment
in renewable energy anytime soon.
Southern Company’s lobbying has been broadly effective. In addition to its extensive lobbying
during the consideration of comprehensive climate legislation in 2009-10, the company is
35 The phrases “cost to consumers” and “regional fairness” can be read22
A Green America Report: May 2011credited with helping defeat legislation that would have established a national
energy market in 2004, as well as leading the attack on proposed Renewable
Portfolio Standards, which would have required Southern to go from zero
megawatts to 6,000 megawatts power generated from renewable sources.
36Southern Company is currently supporting efforts to strip the EPA of its authority
to regulate climate-change emissions
Coordinating Council (of which Southern Company is a prominent member),
it is currently opposing the EPA’s proposed rules to reduce mercury emissions
from power plants.
37 and through the Electric Reliability38Southern Company’s lobbying has also paid off at the state level. Most recently,
as mentioned previously, Georgia’s legislature is allowing Southern Company to
bill ratepayers for the construction of two new nuclear reactors even before they
are up and running.
of laws in Georgia that limit the ability of customers to install and use solar
energy. The largest impediment is the Territorial Electric Service Act which gives
Southern Company “a monopoly of over ‘the purchase of energy.’” This law
restricts consumers from using power purchase agreements to buy solar energy
produced on their own roofs.
solar power produced on their roof from the solar company that installed them,
which makes the installation economically viable. The Territorial Electric Service
Act in Georgia, passed at Southern’s behest, prohibits this arrangement.
39 Southern Company also successfully lobbied for a number40 In many states, homeowners can purchase theLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 23Conclusion
How Southern Company
Could Demonstrate Real Leadership
Through
quo, and its plans to increase nuclear power, Southern Company is
cementing its position as a climate-change and pollution laggard. However, with annual profits
hitting nearly $2 billion in 2010, Southern Company could easily move towards true leadership
in the industry by producing electricity from safer and cleaner sources.
Southern Company could take a leadership position in developing solar power, but
currently the company only has one joint facility with Turner Renewable Energy in Cimarron,
New Mexico, that provides 30 MW of electricity.
solar facility, compared to Southern Company’s overall electric generating capacity of
43,000 MW, it is a drop in the bucket. As discussed previously, Southern Company has also
successfully lobbied regulators to inhibit its customers from installing solar panels on their own
homes or businesses.
Southern Company could also take a leadership role in developing offshore wind. A report,
commissioned by Southern Company and produced by Georgia Tech found wind speeds
of 16-17 miles per hour off the coast of Georgia, which are ideal for offshore wind
development.
instead, is currently planning to conduct further research into offshore wind.
its continued reliance on fossil fuels, its lobbying to maintain the status41 While 30 MW is significant for a single42 Yet, Southern Company is moving slowly to develop this resource, and43Southern Company could also do more to increase energy efficiency in the regions it serves.
24
A Green America Report: May 2011Steps Southern Company
Must take to be a True Leader
Southern Company needs to take dramatic steps to improve its corporate
responsibility:
o
such as wind and solar, from current levels (near zero) to 20 percent in
the next decade and at least 80 percent by 2050.
Increase the proportion of energy from truly renewable sources,o
the next decade and a 100-percent reduction by 2050.
Phase out its existing coal plants, with a 50-percent reduction overo
existing plants within the next decade.
End the construction of new nuclear power plants, and retireo
that the states in which Southern Company operates are all in the top
ten in energy efficiency in the country within the next ten years. With
sufficient investments in energy efficiency, ratepayers’ total electric bills
can remain low in costs.
Increase its outreach to its customers to improve energy efficiency, soo
mercury to reduce environmental and health impacts locally and
globally. Southern Company should seek to reduce its carbon
emissions by at least 20 percent, and other pollutants by 80 percent,
in the next decade. Carbon emissions should be reduced by at least
80 percent by 2050.
Take steps to radically reduce the release of CO2, NOX, SO2, ando
pollutants, climate change emissions, and coal ash deposits, and should
support the transition to a clean energy economy.
End any lobbying efforts that oppose federal EPA regulations ofLeadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 25It has created programs for promoting new technologies such as smart meters, energy-efficient
lighting, and energy-efficient construction. As the company notes on its website, it has even
won a number of awards from ENERGY STAR. Southern Company also has a number of
programs it is developing under its EarthCents moniker. These include programs that:
promote energy-efficient home improvements, weatherization for low-income homes, solar
water heating, direct load controls, and promoting smart-grid and smart-meter upgrades.
44However, while it appears as though Southern Company has several energy-efficiency
programs consumers can take advantage of, the states in which the company operates do not
score well in energy efficiency based on measures produced by the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The states in which Southern Company operates (Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida) all rank in the bottom 40 percent of states based on the
Utility and Public Benefits Programs and Policy Score from the ACEEE. In this measure, Georgia
was tied for 36th, Alabama and Mississippi were tied for 47th (last place in this measure), and
Florida (a state where Southern Company has a smaller share of power generation) was tied
for 30th.
that energy-efficiency programs are not performing at a high level in the areas that Southern
Company serves, and that Southern Company could do far more to increase energy efficiency
in the states where it operates. Increasing energy efficiency could save ratepayers money as
the company moves to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power while increasing its
investment in renewable energy.
Another measure of Southern Company’s weak record on the environment and steps to
reduce its impacts, is the company’s low score on the
which ranks the Fortune 500 based on environmental performance. Southern Company ranks
494 out of 500 on the Green Rankings list. Out of the 32 utility companies included in the
rankings, Southern Company ranked 30th in overall Green Rankings. It was also ranked 30th in
the Environmental Impact Score (496th overall).
reputation score (486 overall).
Compare Southern Company to PG&E, the utility that gets the highest ranking on
45 While this score also measures the impact of state government programs, it showsNewsweek 2010 Green Rankings list,46 It is 32nd amongst utilities on the surveyNewsweek’sGreen Score list. Of the 500 companies ranked, PG&E is ranked 20th.
47 While PG&E is far from26
A Green America Report: May 2011a perfect company, it obtained its much higher ranking in part due to the fact
that its power mix consists of only one percent coal and over 14 percent
renewables.
48 PG&E is also developing a 500 MW solar photovoltaic facility,49as well as entering into an agreement with BrightSource for a 1,300 MW solar
thermal facility.
Southern Company’s efforts.
At a time when Americans are increasingly interested in creating green jobs, there
is rising concern about our nation falling behind China and Germany in the race
to produce clean-energy technologies. As we are already feeling the impacts of
climate change, Southern Company should be pursuing renewable energy and
energy efficiency aggressively. However, Tom Fanning, Southern Company’s latest
CEO, is making it clear that he is not breaking with tradition. At a recent address
to the US Chamber of Commerce, Fanning paid lip service to renewables, while
promoting “21st Century Coal” and nuclear, and opposing the EPA’s efforts to
create cleaner air and curb climate change.
50 It is also developing a 246 MW wind facility.51 All of this dwarfs52With its terrible record on pollution, health impacts,
reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power, it is time for
Southern Company to give up its position as the
nation’s most irresponsible utility and start
down a path of true leadership.
27
A Green America Report: February 2010Endnotes
Executive Summary
1 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Southern_Company
2 http://carma.org/company
3 Environmental Integrity Project “Dirty Kilowatts” 2007 Report Database
4 Environmental Integrity Project “Dirty Kilowatts” 2007 Report Database
5 Southern Company “Notice of Annual Meeting 2011 and Proxy Statement,” p.25
6 http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PETITION-to-Suspend-AP1000-Rulemaking.pdf
7 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/
Introduction
8 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html
9 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
10 http://www.fastcompany.com/1727949/coal-use-costs-half-a-trillion-dollars-each-year-in-health-economic-environmental-impacts
11 Environmental Integrity Project “Dirty Kilowatts” 2007 Report Database
12 http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf
13 http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PETITION-to-Suspend-AP1000-Rulemaking.pdf
14 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/
15 http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/electricity/performance.aspx
Southern Company in Comparison to Other US Utilities
Dirtiest Power Plants in the US
16 http://carma.org/company
Green House Gases and Pollution
17 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
18 http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2011/apr/15/tva-to-retire-18-coal-fired-units-epa-settlement/
Leadership We Can Live Without:
The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for Southern Company 28Toxic Emissions
19 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Southern_Company
20 http://www.grist.org/article/industry-wraps-coal-ash-regulation-fight-in-the-mantle-of-civil-rights
21 US EPA, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, August 6, 2007 (draft)
22 http://www.grist.org/article/industry-wraps-coal-ash-regulation-fight-in-the-mantle-of-civil-rights
Nuclear Power
23 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=safety-concerns-status-quo-at-us-reactors
24 http://www.boell.org/downloads/Rozenkrant_UK_web.pdf
25 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-2010-full-report.pdf
26 http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_id=175
27 http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PETITION-to-Suspend-AP1000-Rulemaking.pdf
28 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_re_us/us_nuclear_energy_georgia
29 http://www.examiner.com/technology-in-wilmington/nuclear-power-giant-exelon-corporation-and-constellation-energy-to-combine
Lobbying Expenditures
30 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/pro-environment-groups-were-outmatc.html
31 Mariane Lavelle and David Donald, “Southern Company Dominates the Climate Lobbying Scene,” The Center for Public Integrity, July 1, 2009.
32 http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2010&ind=E08
33 http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2010&ind=E08
34 http://coalmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php?type=congress
35 http://www.iwatchnews.org/2009/07/01/2830/southern-company-dominates-climate-lobbying-scene
36 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/05/southern-co-takes-aim-at-renewable-energy-bill-48469
37 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/04/17/supco-climate-change-case/
38 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-04/china-s-basel-carbon-fraud-dodd-frank-compliance.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204583816132832.html
39 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/energy-technology-nuclear-power-southern-company.html
40 Susan Kraemer. (2010).
Retrieved from http://cleantechnica.com/2010/04/23/how-southern-company-keeps-solar-competition-out/
“How Southern Company Keeps Solar Competition Out of Georgia.” Clean Technica.29
A Green America Report: February 2010Conclusion: How Southern Company Could Demonstrate Real Leadership
41
http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/electricity/building.aspx
42 http://www.southerncompany.com/planetpower/pdfs/WindReport.pdf
43 http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/20269
44 http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/electricity/building.aspx
45 http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports /e107.pdf
46 http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/green-rankings-us-companies.html
47 http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/green-rankings-us-companies.html
48 http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/
49 http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/newsreleases/20100422/pge_to_launch_major_solar_energy_initiative.shtml
50 http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q2_2009/090513.shtml
51 http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/newsreleases/20091203/pge_agrees_to_purchase_and_operate_major_california_wind_energy_project.shtml
52 http://chamber.350.org/2011/04/southern-company-ceo-pushes-coal-and-nuclear-in-address-to-us-chamber/
“Building Renewable Resources.” Southern Company Website.Green America
organization, advancing marketplace solutions for our country’s most serious social and
environmental problems. Green America harnesses economic power—the strength of
consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace—to grow the green economy,
stop corporate abuse, curb climate change, and help people and businesses everywhere
make economic choices that are good for people and the planet.
(www.GreenAmerica.org) is the nation’s leading green economy
No comments:
Post a Comment