Energy Efficiency

The Times (Ottawa, IL) Editorial: Assisting Exelon – Offering help or handout?

THE ISSUE: State could boost struggling nuclear plants

OUR VIEW: Lawmakers should tread carefully

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has five color-coded levels for its advisory scale — green is low and red is severe, with guarded (blue), elevated (yellow) and high (orange) in between.

A similar scale might be of use throughout Illinois for communities that depend on nuclear power facilities as bedrocks of the employment and property tax base. At present, the threat level would have to be no lower than guarded, as Exelon Corp. is discussing closing its generation stations in Cordova, Byron and Clinton.

Operations in La Salle County, Morris and Braidwood are not considered at risk, but it’s no understatement to say conditions are leaning away from stability and toward volatility.

As with many major corporations experiencing uncertainty, Exelon is taking its case to Springfield (via Chicago, of course) to explore how, if at all, the state’s tax dollars might be used to impact the private sector.

Of course utility companies straddle a line between public and private concern that other large employers, such as Sears or Archer Daniels Midland, can’t quite claim. The government is heavily involved in how much utilities can charge customers and the extra taxes on the services they deliver directly fund a great many special programs.

Further, power generation itself is a community issue. The way a nuclear plant affects its surrounding area is vastly different from that of a coal-fired power plant, for example, and it’s precisely that distinction Exelon has singled out in its attempt to leverage influence at the Statehouse.

A Jan. 7 report from several state agencies detailed how the state could aid Exelon by adopting policies that penalize competitors that emit carbon dioxide. House Speaker Michael Madigan last year directed the Commerce Commission and several other agencies to study ways to boost the financially struggling nuclear industry, and the findings aren’t all that surprising.

Exelon told lawmakers it wants to be included in a “clean portfolio standard” under which nuclear, solar and wind power producers are rewarded for providing energy to the state. Otherwise, the company could push for a price on carbon that would make its nuclear plants more competitive.

Continue Reading

Crain’s Chicago Business: Mark Kirk in damage control amid surprise battle with greens

Overshadowed by the hoopla over the inauguration of Gov. Bruce Rauner—and perhaps partially caused by it—U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk is in damage control mode after opening a big breach with the state’s politically influential environmental community.

A host of green groups expressed shock, disappointment and more after the Illinois Republican in an interview appeared to suggest skepticism that industrial pollution is causing global warming. At least one of those groups, Chicago’s Environmental Law and Policy Center, is hoping to personally brief the senator and his staff on what they view as scientific realities. But the damage has been done.

Kirk’s comments came in an interview with a trade publication, E&E News, in which he suggested that Greenland has been losing its green for centuries, long before pollution levels really took off.

“We had the previous warming period, which was called the global optimum, and the best way to talk about that is when Leif Erickson went west from his home, he discovered a landmass that he called Greenland, because it was,” Kirk said after a Senate Republicans’ lunch to discuss legislation to build the Keystone Pipeline. “And that was called the global optimum, because the planet was much warmer. By calling Greenland ‘green land,’ we know that the climate has been changing pretty regularly within recorded memory.”

Kirk’s office later released a statement from the senator saying that “climate change is real and human beings definitely play a role.”

“As I have said since 2010, I will not support a carbon tax or similar attempts which hurt the Illinois or American economy,” he said, according to the statement.

Continue Reading

E&E: In Wis., renewable energy advocates reluctantly take on underdog role

MADISON, Wis. — Speakers at an all-day conference on energy policy in Wisconsin evoked two images of the state’s renewables sector. And neither is encouraging for clean energy advocates.

The first was “Rudy,” the inspiring 1993 film about a student’s quest to make the University of Notre Dame’s storied football program as a walk-on. The other reference was Sisyphus, the king in Greek mythology who was sentenced to push a large boulder uphill for eternity.

Whatever the metaphor, renewable energy advocates in Wisconsin are being forced to embrace the role of underdog with Republican Scott Walker staying put as governor, the state Legislature awash in red and Walker appointees holding a majority on the three-member Public Service Commission.

Renew Wisconsin, the host of Friday’s meeting, sees the exponential growth in rooftop solar happening elsewhere across the nation, from neighboring Minnesota to red states such as Georgia. But the same is “just not happening in Wisconsin, and the major reason is policy,” said Tyler Huebner, the group’s executive director.

Wind energy development has largely been on hold in Wisconsin for a few years, Huebner said. And whatever momentum was building for adoption of more distributed solar generation was halted two months ago when the Public Service Commission approved a series of controversial proposals by We Energies, the state’s largest electric utility.

In a case that drew national attention, the PSC ultimately approved a reduction in net metering rates (the rates at which customers are credited for excess energy put on the grid) for We Energies customers, imposed a demand charge for recovery of fixed costs from customer generators and raised fixed charges for all customers (EnergyWire, Nov. 17). The commission also slightly reduced variable energy rates. But in sum, solar advocates say, the commission’s order effectively doubles the payback period on a residential solar energy system.

A poll last summer commissioned by an environmental advocacy group reflected strong support for energy efficiency and renewables. But without the ability to push through broad changes like an expansion of the state’s 10 percent renewable energy standard, furthering clean energy development must rely on more nuanced, targeted strategies, speakers said.

Those strategies include getting more large Wisconsin businesses on board and involved in policy discussions. Frequently cited was Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls Inc., a global supplier to the building and automotive industries with $43 billion in sales last year. The company intervened in the We Energies rate case to oppose the utility’s proposal to increase fixed customer charges, arguing that the changes discouraged energy efficiency.

Brad Klein, an attorney for the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center, emphasized the need for clean energy advocates to work with investor-owned utilities to redesign an outdated business model focused on a centralized power grid. That business model too often pits utility shareholder interests with consumer interests and serves as a barrier to reduce energy use and deploy new technology.

Klein cited the Utility 2.0 reforms pursued by the state of New York. And there’s a similar but less developed effort underway in Minnesota, where Xcel Energy Inc., a participant, just proposed significant new additions of wind and solar energy over the next decade and a half.

“I think the key is figuring out some of these business model challenges,” Klein said.

Battling the ‘steamroller’

While some utilities are trying hard to reinvent themselves, “others are doubling down on the status quo” and flexing their political muscle by challenging changes in statehouses and utility commissions, he said.

Renewable advocates say We Energies and two other Wisconsin utilities that pushed through large fixed-charge increases last month didn’t provide sufficient proof to support the commission orders. A decision is coming soon on whether to seek judicial review, and if so on what grounds.

State Rep. Chris Taylor, who drafted a measure last year to expressly authorize third-party solar financing in Wisconsin, said the commission’s decision “made our state one of if not the most hostile to solar.”

Taylor, a Democrat who said she belongs to the American Legislative Exchange Council and attended ALEC’s annual meeting last spring just to stay up to date on what her political opponents are doing, implored environmental groups, businesses and others to work more closely. Otherwise, they cannot overcome a galvanized conservative movement.

“We need to get organized,” she said. “We cannot come to the battle with a fly swatter when they have a steamroller.”

Matt Neumann, an owner of Sunvest Solar, which has installed 10 megawatts of solar and does business in five states, said there’s no disputing that utilities see solar developers like his company as a competitive threat and the two industries will continue to butt heads.

“We’re diametrically opposed to each other, and there’s really no other way to say it,” he said.

Politically, though, the battle isn’t one defined by party lines. There’s strong support for solar expansion among some conservatives, he said. For instance, Georgia tea party activist Debbie Dooley as well as a solar advocacy group led by former Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. both opposed the We Energies proposal.

Neumann, the son of former Republican Rep. Mark Neumann, said distributed energy offers benefits that mesh with widely held conservative principles such as consumer choice and free markets, property rights, national security, and job growth (ClimateWire, Aug. 14).

“Those are just fun things to get Republicans thinking,” he said.

There are also subjects not to bring up.

“Do not talk about climate change, please,” Neumann said. “It’s a lightning rod topic, it’s not going to get you anywhere.”

Legislative prospects

Neumann said he’s met with Republican legislators and thinks that a measure to allow third-party financing for solar projects would be possible this session if framed as a consumer choice bill.

“A narrowly defined solar bill for financing I think has legs and can work,” he said. “Republicans would have to violate their own principles to deny it.”

Longer term, Wisconsin will have little choice but to transition to more renewable resources, especially if U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan is finalized, said Gary Radloff, director of Midwest energy policy analysis at the Wisconsin Energy Institute.

“The genie is out of the bottle,” Radloff said. “Our energy system is going to change, and you’re going to like it. But I have no idea how fast it’s going to happen.”

While embracing natural-gas-fired generation may help the state comply with greenhouse regulations and meet EPA’s 2030 target, the fuel would require significant upgrades in infrastructure, and history would suggest that prices for the commodity won’t stay cheap forever.

“We might have a couple of decades of reasonably priced natural gas,” Radloff said.

Ultimately, the most cost-effective strategy is to rely much more heavily on renewable energy and efficiency — a strategy that would require the scale of development underway in Minnesota.

“I don’t want to candy-coat this. It will cost us money,” Radloff said. “But it is achievable if you have the political will.”

E&E: Kirk disavows climate change ahead of expected Senate vote

Nick Juliano, E&E reporter

 

Climate change isn’t caused by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said yesterday, citing evidence that Greenland was once green — and presenting his strongest disavowal of the prevailing scientific view linking human activity to rising temperatures and sea level.

Kirk’s comments come ahead of a Senate vote series later this month that Democrats are hoping to use to create political headaches for the new Republican majority, especially embattled moderates like Kirk who are up for re-election next year in traditionally blue states.

While he was a member of the House representing a suburban district north of Chicago, Kirk was one of just eight Republicans to vote for cap-and-trade legislation in 2009. Although he renounced that vote soon after launching his 2010 Senate campaign and has been critical of the Obama administration’s climate regulations, Kirk remained supportive of policies to advance clean energy development and did not overtly question the prevailing view of most climate scientists.

That changed yesterday, in a brief exchange with E&E Daily in which Kirk lamented that “political correctness took over climate science,” dismissed scientists’ view that greenhouse gas emissions are linked to consequences like rising temperatures and said the problem is not one that should be addressed through government policy.

“We had the previous warming period, which was called the global optimum, and the best way to talk about that is when Leif Erickson went west from his home, he discovered a landmass that he called Greenland, because it was,” Kirk said after Senate Republicans’ first weekly caucus lunch. “And that was called the global optimum, because the planet was much warmer. By calling Greenland ‘green land,’ we know that the climate has been changing pretty regularly within recorded memory.”

Democrats are teeing up a variety of amendments to offer when the Senate later this month takes up legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Among them will be a nonbinding measure designed to put senators “on record” as to whether or not they buy into climate science, said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and is among the most vocal supporters of aggressive climate regulations.

“Scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change is real. Unfortunately, we have a majority party here which disagrees with science. And I think it’s important for them to go on record,” Sanders told reporters yesterday. “Do they believe that climate change is real? Is it caused by human activity? Is it causing devastating problems? And they’re going to have to vote yes or no on that.”

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee today is scheduled to mark up legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, with a procedural vote on the Senate floor expected Monday. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged an open amendment process that will provide Democrats and Republicans broad latitude to offer amendments, some of which would be substantive while others would offer an opportunity to score political points.

Point-scoring seems the most likely outcome, as there have been some efforts among Republicans to keep the bill relatively clean of extraneous provisions, promising that there will be ample opportunity to discuss other issues separately.

“The majority leader has talked about a series of Democrat gotcha amendments. They will be accompanied by Republican gotcha amendments,” Kirk said yesterday.

Kirk said he would easily vote against an amendment such as the one Sanders outlined, based on a reporters’ description, and went on to criticize the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international climate agreement the United States never ratified.

“I actually served as a small part of the U.S. delegation to the Kyoto climate change talks. I have lived and breathed Kyoto,” he said. “And Kyoto stands for the principle, as you know, that all developing country emissions don’t count. I would say that Mother Nature disagrees with that Kyoto ruling.”

Pressed specifically on the link between human activity and climate change, Kirk offered the Greenland observation. In the brief exchange, he also noted that after voting for carbon cap-and-trade legislation in the House that he would not do so in the Senate, and he said that is “not too much” of a problem policymakers should concern themselves with. He then disappeared behind closing elevator doors.

A spokeswoman offered a more measured take in response to a follow-up request for comment.

“Senator Kirk believes that climate change is a long-term problem that deserves a long-term fix — and doesn’t support a politically motivated amendment intended to undermine the Keystone Pipeline and the jobs it would create in the U.S. and Illinois,” spokeswoman Danielle Varallo said in an email.

Kirk’s comments could be used as political fodder against him as he seeks a second term in 2016.

Kirk is a top Democratic target this election cycle, and he’ll be running for re-election in a presidential year in a state that has voted Democratic in every White House election dating back to 1992 — meaning he could have a tougher time than he did when he won the seat in 2010 by 2 points. Potential Democratic challengers include Reps. Tammy Duckworth, Bill Foster, Cheri Bustos and Mike Quigley, and state Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Kirk’s embrace of arguments popular among climate skeptics also came as a surprise to environmentalists, who long thought the Illinoian was one who they could count as an ally in some situations. In a 2011 interview, Kirk said climate remained a “long-term” concern that should be addressed through alternative energy innovation (ClimateWire, May 17, 2011).

“I think we all hold out hope that there is the old Mark Kirk from the House — who was really a moderate Republican,” said Melinda Pierce, the policy director at the Sierra Club, who said she was caught off-guard by his remarks given his earlier work. “If he’s pointing to Viking explorers from the 10th century as a justification for climate denial, does he also believe the world is flat?”

Steve Frenkel, who directs the Midwest office for the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed that it was surprising to learn of Kirk’s comments, but he noted that other lawmakers have questioned the link between human activity and climate change while still supporting policies related to clean energy or environmental protection. Frenkel noted that Kirk has supported renewable energy development — especially wind, which has had success in Illinois — and protection of the Great Lakes.

“Politically, it’s hard to say why Sen. Kirk would want to question climate change. It’s unfortunate that there’s any political division on climate science, but obviously that’s what we’re dealing with. Scientifically, of course, the evidence that climate change is human-induced is clearer than ever,” he said in an email yesterday.

“Scientists are as certain that human activities cause climate change as they are that smoking causes lung disease,” Frenkel added. “And regardless of what the climate looked like in the past — or in Greenland — it’s the rapid rate of climate change today that presents the biggest risks to our homes and businesses.”

Chicago Tribune: State plan would help nuclear plants by punishing carbon-based providers

Illinois governmental agencies Wednesday issued a report proposing ways to prop up Exelon’s ailing nuclear power plants, citing the economic and environmental impact that closing those plants could have on the state.

The agencies suggested programs and taxes that would punish electric generators that burn carbon-based fuels and produce carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Exelon’s nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases.

Regardless of whether Exelon’s plants continue to operate or are shuttered, Illinois ratepayers will see higher electricity bills, according to the report.

For instance, if the state legislature decides to tax carbon dioxide emissions to help Exelon, the move would drive up electricity prices 17 to 21 percent over 28 years, the report said.

Closing nuclear plants; however, would also cost “hundreds of millions of dollars or more” in upgrades to transmission lines needed to bring in new forms of power to the state, the report said.

The Illinois Power Agency, which purchases power on behalf of utility customers, said there would be no threat of outages in the state because much of the power generated by Exelon’s nuclear plants is shipped out of Illinois.

Exelon has said three of its six plants in the state face possible closing. The impact of closing those plants, according to the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity: 2,500 direct jobs lost, $1.8 billion in lost economic activity to the state and a 10 percent to 16 percent increase in wholesale power prices.

Increased spending on renewable energy, however, could mitigate those costs, according to the report, adding 9,600 jobs by 2019 and producing $120 million in energy savings.

Continue Reading

Midwest Energy News: Illinois report says Exelon nuclear straits not so dire

Has Exelon been crying wolf?

Or should the state intervene to help the Chicago-based corporation’s nuclear plants prevent closures that could hurt the economy and endanger the electric supply?

A 269-page report created by four Illinois state agencies and released Wednesday sheds light on these questions. The multi-faceted findings defy clear conclusions, but they generally support the idea that Illinois can weather nuclear plant closures; and such shut-downs could even bolster clean energy generation and jobs.

Exelon critics say the report is vindication, showing the company is not in crisis or deserving of government “bailouts.”

Illinois is the country’s top producer of nuclear energy, with six nuclear plants housing 11 reactors run by Exelon, which had $25 billion in operating revenues in FY2013. Nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide and are highly reliable, as made clear during the polar vortex a year ago when frigid temperatures meant disabled coal plants and interrupted natural gas supplies.

But in a deregulated competitive power market flooded with cheap natural gas, costly nuclear plants are much less profitable. Exelon has said their nuclear plants in Byron, Quad Cities andClinton are unprofitable and could close soon without state policies that bolster their fortunes. Changes to energy market auctions and policies that put a price on carbon would help Exelon’s troubled plants, which have been operating for 28, 41 and 26 years, respectively.

Continue Reading

Howard Learner’s Comments on Report on Exelon’s Economically Uncompetitive Nuclear Plants

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 7, 2015
Contact:
David Jakubiak

Environmental Law & Policy Center’s Howard Learner’s Comments on HR 1146 Report
Report Confirms Energy Policy Key to Environmental Progress, Economic Development

CHICAGO – Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, responded to the release of the state’s report on Exelon’s economically uncompetitive nuclear power plants with the following statement:

“This report shows that Exelon’s nuclear plants that aren’t economically competitive can be retired without added costs to Illinois consumers, without hurting reliability, and with more job creation by growing clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

“This report confirms that the competitive power market is working to hold down Illinois energy costs. We shouldn’t bailout Exelon’s old, uncompetitive nuclear plants. Instead, we should invest in new renewable energy, like wind and solar, and energy efficiency to grow a cleaner Illinois energy future.”

Midwest Energy News: As in Wisconsin, Missouri utilities seek to raise fixed charges

Utilities across the Midwest and the nation in recent years have sought to hike the fixed portion of their customers’ bills, in what some observers interpret as an attempt to compensate for stagnant or flagging electricity sales and head off competition from solar.

Two such proposals are now pending before the Missouri Public Service Commission.

Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L), one of the major utilities serving the state, is seeking to boost the fixed portion of customers’ monthly bills from $9 to $25, which would make it one of the higher fixed rates among 28 investor-owned utilities in the Midwest, according to a survey of rates done by the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

KCP&L’s proposal is included in a rate case filed with Missouri’s Public Service Commission on Oct. 30, 2014.

The Empire District Electric Co., which serves the southwestern part of the state, is seeking to increase the monthly fixed charge by about 50 percent, from $12.52 to $18.75.

The company also has proposed to increase the cost per kilowatt hour by approximately 1/3 of a cent. A customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours per month would pay an additional $6.23 in fixed charges, and roughly $3.80 in additional variable charges.

The balance between the fixed and variable components of the bills has “gotten out of whack,” according to a cost-of-service study done by an engineering firm, said Amy Bass, Empire Electric’s director of corporate communications. “With this case, we’re trying to mitigate the distortion that has occurred over the years.”

Courtney Hughley, KCP&L’s corporate communications manager, said, “One of the reasons we want to make that change is there were some things we were recovering in the energy charge, which is the variable cost. We wanted to be more transparent about what was being recovered, so we moved those into the fixed charge.

“The new rate design we are requesting will more closely align the way costs are incurred with the way revenue is recovered on our customers’ bills.”

Continue Reading

Cleveland Plain Dealer: FirstEnergy rate deal to cost customers an extra $3 billion, says Consumers’ Counsel

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The latest proposed FirstEnergy rate plan would cost customers an extra $3 billion, an expert retained by two consumer organizations charged earlier this week.

The plan would have “a net cost to customers of about $3.1 billion to $3.2 billion,” wrote Matthew Kahal, an expert consultant retained by the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council, or NOPEC.

“The commission should protect Ohio customers from this result and reject the … proposal,” wrote Kahal in testimony filed with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

With 35 years experience in more than 400 U.S. utility rate cases, Kahal was one of 15 experts filing testimony on behalf of more than 20 parties by Monday’s deadline.

The testimony sets the stage for three public hearings on the plan to take place in Akron on Jan. 12, Toledo on Jan. 15 and Cleveland on Jan. 20.

Continue Reading

Duluth News Tribune Op-Ed by ELPC’s Learner: Environment, economy can flourish together

The elections are behind us. Let’s now focus on opportunities to advance clean water, clean transportation and clean-energy solutions that can help make Duluth an even stronger, more sustainable community.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center has opened a new office here, staffed by Duluth native Jessica Dexter. We will be working with civic partners to make a difference in advancing positive environmental solutions in three areas of focus.

First, Duluth is at the headwaters of the Great Lakes and not far from the Mississippi River’s headwaters. America’s greatest freshwater systems both start in this region. For many years, the Environmental Law and Policy Center has been working collaboratively with environmental and policymaker partners to clean up the Great Lakes and reduce pollution in the Mississippi River basin.

The Great Lakes are global gems, representing 22 percent of the world’s freshwater supply and providing drinking water to 42 million people in eight states and two provinces. The Environmental Law and Policy Center played a key role in advancing the transformative Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which, since 2011, has provided more than $1.3 billion in federal support to more than 2,000 projects that have improved water quality, protected and restored native habitat and species, prevented and controlled invasive species, and are helping solve additional Great Lakes environmental problems.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center’s public-interest attorneys are focusing on reducing mercury and other toxic contamination that impair the Great Lakes’ ecological health and safe drinking-water supplies. We look forward to working with Minnesota partners to advance sound, science-based legal and policy solutions to better protect Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes.

The mighty Mississippi River flows past Minnesota and nine other states before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. Along the way, it provides drinking water for more than 18 million people and vital cultural, recreational, economic and wildlife resources. Reducing phosphorus and nutrient pollution from fertilizer and manure runoff from agricultural operations into the waterways of the Upper Mississippi River basin is necessary to protect threatened local drinking water and to counteract the growing Gulf of Mexico “dead zone” caused by pollution.

Second, better transportation is vital for Duluth’s economic and environmental health. The Minnesota Legislature will consider a transportation bill this session. It should prioritize smart investments in transit and rail, which are gaining passengers, and “fix it first” when it comes to highways and bridges. According to the St. Louis County Public Works Department, 20 percent of the bridges in the county longer than 10 feet are “deficient.” Fixing problem bridges should be a priority.

Let’s also support better inter-city rail transportation options that advance Duluth’s future. Modern, faster, comfortable and convenient passenger rail service between Duluth and the Twin Cities will improve mobility, reduce pollution, create jobs and better connect the regional economy.

A “hard-wired” rail link would make Duluth less dependent on airlines’ changing plans and business priorities and would connect Duluth to the Twin Cities metropolitan area and beyond. In addition, new passenger rail service creates a competitive price constraint on airfares and helps attract businesses and mobile young professionals to Duluth.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center long has been a recognized leader in advancing the Midwest high-speed rail network. We look forward to working with Duluth-area businesses, environmental leaders and transportation experts to accelerate modern Duluth’s higher-speed rail from vision to reality.

Third, the Environmental Law and Policy Center is advancing breakthrough policies that accelerate solar-energy development and remove regulatory barriers. The center’s public-interest attorneys and experts were extensively engaged in persuading the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to adopt a forward-looking “value of solar tariff” that takes into account the multiple benefits of solar-energy development.

Solar energy should be compensated in ways that value the jobs and economic development from new projects, the pollution reduction and public health benefits, and the importance of solar as a peak-power resource that’s generally available when the power is needed most for demand and reliability. Let’s work together to advance Minnesota leadership on innovative clean-energy policies and projects.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center believes environmental progress and economic growth can be achieved together. We put this sustainability principle into practice with the positive initiatives described above. We look forward to working with our Duluth partners to advance clean-water, clean-transportation and clean-energy solutions that work well and support Duluth’s sustainability.

Howard Learner is executive director in Chicago of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, an environmental and economic development advocacy organization that recently opened an office in Duluth. The center has offices in five Midwestern cities.

 

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 20 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now