Utilities

NO MERRI

see UARG --> USWAG and US____

SEE AUR POLLUTION

SEE COAL FRACK

SEE EJ

EEI

GRASSLEY? LINDSEY GRAHAM? INHOFE

~ALT ENERGY SOLAR WIND

AI DATA CTR?

cap 717

---

NO LNX

How Trump's DOJ is quietly protecting billionaires — and destroying poor neighborhoods

Sabrina Haake May 08, 2026

The barely- acknowledged silver lining in Trump’s war in Iran is that it has pushed 30% of the world’s economic power into a race toward renewable energy. Market volatility of fossil fuels, already complex, has become so intolerable due to the oil chokehold in the Strait of Hormuz that nearly 60 nations are mapping out their accelerated plan to abandon fossil fuels.

Legacy cities, built around heavily polluting industries from 1940-1970, inherited dystopian realities, including toxic brownfields, disappearing populations, poverty, declining birth rates, and diminished life expectancy from airborne particulates. Study after study has shown that people of color, many of whom live in legacy cities, face disproportionate health problems from pollution including benzenes, coal ash, airborne particulates, industrial waste, and lead. One study showed that a 10 mile difference in where someone lives can make a 33 year difference in life expectancy due largely to differences in air, soil, and water quality.

As we watch our coastlines sink while fires, droughts and floods increase in intensity, it is only a matter of time before courts begin to compensate victims of mass environmental injury. While legacy cities, comprised of poor and/or black majorities, would make ideal class-action plaintiffs, the best way to avoid a forced national restructuring of the energy map is for state lawmakers to relieve legacy cities from state-sanctioned monopolies that have harmed them for decades.

Republicans should not have a monopoly on energy

Enter the utility monopoly, comprised predominantly of white, mid-to-upper wealth, males. Thirty-four states have created regulated energy monopolies under which competition is eliminated in exchange for “heightened state control”; these controls are exercised to guarantee regulated utilities a certain rate of return on their capital investments, regardless of injuries and pollution caused along the way. The statutes guarantee that the more power plants utilities build, the more financial rewards for their investors, regardless of whether or not those projects injure public health. Even project overruns, where a projected $5 billion plant ends up costing $10 billion, results in greater profits to shareholders, while 100% of the overrun costs are paid for by the consumer.

There is no industry in the free market economy of United States — other than the energy industry — where a given, controlled, highly lucrative ROI is legally guaranteed.

Utility monopoly states have established public utility monopolies to control local electricity production and distribution. Through public utility commissions (PUCs), they govern and regulate monopolies conceived as vertically integrated businesses, meaning the monopoly provides service from front (generation) to end (the consumer meter.) The entrenched array of state-controlled monopolies throughout the U.S. resulted in increased reliance on coal and coke powered facilities that leach chemicals toxic to human life in predominantly black, brown, Asian, and poor communities.

Follow the Money

The Trump administration is fighting climate progress in unprecedented ways. This month, Trump’s Justice Department sued Minnesota to block a state-level lawsuit against oil companies, arguing that the well-pleaded lawsuit is an attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This action follows a 2025 executive order directing the DOJ to protect energy production from state-level climate lawsuits, and complements Trump’s relentless efforts to increase reliance on fossil fuels to enrich and protect his deep-pocket fossil fuel donors.

While litigation winds through the federal courts, states could take matters into their own hands by transferring green energy generation to legacy cities and away from monopolistic utilities. The policy change would bring a profound economic shift by offering sustained economic opportunity to poor people, people of color, and others who live next to industry that ravages its host. This is an economic restitution approach based on evidence that black, brown, and poor citizens are disproportionately harmed by industrial pollution, toxic brownfields, and airborne particulates linked to living in legacy cities.

Redress is not suggested — nor recoverable — for decisions made in the 40s and 50s about where to site polluting industry. Demographics have shifted, and many entities have engaged in corporate shell games designed to insulate them from misdeeds of their corporate forbears.

But today there is no shortage of alternative energy firms with green energy expertise to share with municipalities in exchange for a share of the profits, if only they were not barred by artificial market constraints of Public Utility Commissions. It’s not hard to draft a 30-year lease where the energy developer provides expertise and equipment, and the city provides land, tax and permitting incentives. Over time, shared profits would gradually shift to the city while private investment is recovered.

Environmental justice would benefit the planet

Bringing energy autonomy to legacy cities would present a viable and sustainable economic justice model. Exempting legacy cities from PUCs, or state restraint, as compensation for decades of pollution and diminished life expectancy seems like a win-win, especially compared to the potential devastation of a well-funded class action.

A simple exemption for legacy cities would free 48 cities to set up green utilities through public-private ventures of their own choosing, and would soon provide cash-strapped cities more than enough money to enhance city services and possibly pay dividends to residents. Instead of drowning in debt, legacy cities could soon pave roads, buy municipal EV fleets for police and fire, and provide the kind of early education that gives urban youth a real chance at succeeding.

The war in Iran hits home how absurd it is to extract limited fossil fuels and export them around the globe when wind and solar power exists in everyone’s back yard. Black, brown, and poor communities disproportionately poisoned by fossil fuels own the wind and sun as much as anyone else, and should not have to sue the richest defendants in the world just to get their fair share. As long as we inhabit a spinning ball that circles the sun, we will have all the wind and solar energy we will ever need.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.

---

an ah 1 23

In 2020, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s COVID-19 policies and efforts to save lives in her state made her a major target of the pandemic denialist movement. Armed members of far-right militia groups showed up at rallies in Lansing, the state capitol, to protest against the pandemic-related restrictions she ordered in Michigan, and Whitmer even became the target of a kidnapping plot. In late December 2022, far-right extremist Barry Croft, Jr. was sentenced to 19 years in prison for his role in that plot; his ally Adam Fox received a 16-year sentence.

The pandemic restrictions that Whitmer imposed in Michigan weren’t nearly as severe as the restrictions imposed in places ranging from Australia to Italy in 2020. Regardless, the far right and the MAGA movement attacked Whitmer’s policies as everything from anti-business to anti-religion, and her allies feared for her safety.

In 2020, the anti-Whitmer campaign wasn’t limited to fringe militia groups. According to The Guardian’s Tom Perkins, a utility company was linked to the “dark money nonprofit” behind the Unlock Michigan campaign — which vehemently opposed her COVID-19 policies. A spokesman for that energy company, however, insists that it supported Whitmer’s policies during the pandemic.

Perkins, in an article published by The Guardian on January 10, reports, “A dark money nonprofit linked to power utility DTE Energy funded a group behind the effort to repeal the emergency order powers of Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, and end the state’s COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions. Internal Revenue Service records revealing a $100,000 donation made in 2020 were not publicly available until late 2021, and show the funds were contributed to another dark money nonprofit that served as a primary funder of the Unlock Michigan repeal campaign.”

Utility companies, Perkins reports, “generally opposed lockdowns” in 2020 and requirements that they “stop shutting off service to financially struggling customers” during the pandemic.

According to Perkins, “Unlock Michigan was ultimately successful, complicating Whitmer’s efforts to order restrictions and ending any serious discussion of shutoff moratoriums that included DTE, the state’s largest energy utility…. Michigan was a global flashpoint in the cultural and political fight over how governments should handle COVID. Whitmer’s lockdowns were effective at controlling the virus’ spread, but right-wing opposition to the restrictions culminated with multiple protests and armed protesters storming the state legislature in mid-2020. Against this backdrop, the DTE-affiliated dark money group made its contribution.”

Peter Ternes, a DTE spokesman, stressed to The Guardian that DTE itself did not make the nonprofit donation in question. Although DTE is linked to the nonprofit, Perkins reports, the DTE spokesman told The Guardian that it “unequivocally” did not that make that donation and said that “we do not speak for” the dark money nonprofit that donated to the Unlock Michigan campaign.

Ternes told The Guardian, “DTE unequivocally is not financially supporting the Unlock Michigan/MI Citizens For Fiscal Responsibilitycampaign. Furthermore, DTE has worked hand-in-hand with the governor to protect our customers, employees and the public throughout the coronavirus pandemic. The actions taken by the state have slowed COVID transmission and death rates.”

But Perkins reports that “state and federal records show how the money probably moved between DTE and Unlock Michigan.”

“IRS records reveal a 2020 donation made by Michigan Energy First, a DTE-linked dark money nonprofit, to a dark money nonprofit called Michigan Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility,” according to Perkins. “Michigan Energy First’s three officers are DTE executives who work with an attorney, federal records show, and company executives have controlled the nonprofit since it was created in 2014. Michigan Energy First has funded DTE allies in the state legislature, promoted the company’s interests on social media, funded community organizations whose leaders in turn support DTE in regulatory hearings, and financially backed or opposed political initiatives, like Unlock Michigan.”

Perkins adds, “Though DTE denies involvement with Michigan Energy First, its argument is based on technicalities, and it’s widely considered to be DTE’s dark money nonprofit, said Matt Kasper, deputy director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a national nonprofit that tracks utilities’ political spending.”

Kasper told The Guardian, “When they say they don’t control (Michigan Energy First) or it’s not part of the company.… sure, it’s not part of the utility corporation itself, butthey’ve had their top lobbyists running it for eight years. Customers see right through it, and regulators and lawmakers do too.”

MAGA opposition to Whitmer’s COVID-19 policies in 2020 and 2021 didn’t prevent her from being reelected in the 2022 midterms, which found her defeating far-right Republican challenger Tudor Dixon by around 11 percent.

common dr an 12 22

With colder winter weather looming, a new analysis released Tuesday shows that the nine largest energy utility companies in the U.S. raked in nearly $14 billion in combined profits during the first three quarters of this year—and dished out roughly $11 billion to their wealthy shareholders—as tens of millions of U.S. households struggled to pay their utility bills due to soaring costs.

The watchdog group Accountable.US found thatNextEra Energy, Duke Energy, Southern Company, Dominion Energy, Constellation Energy, Eversource Energy, Entergy Corporation, DTE Energy, and CMS Energy Corporation brought in $13.8 billion in the first nine months of this fiscal year. The firms, the nine largest in the U.S. by market capitalization, returned over $11.2 billion to shareholders during that period in the form of dividends and stock buybacks.

The utility giants' massive profits have come at a cost to U.S. households, roughly 20 million of which are behind on their utility payments as providers continue to raise rates across the U.S., pushing home energy costs to unaffordable levels and prompting warnings of a "tsunami of shutoffs."

The Center for Biological Diversity recently estimated that utilities have shut off households' power 440,000 times across 15 states that have made their rates publicly available, a large increase from last year.

"Well-heeled utility company CEOs are holding consumers' feet to the fire with exorbitant energy prices," Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US' Economic Security and Corporate Power program, said in a statement Tuesday. "Not because they have to, judging by their own high profits and generous giveaways to wealthy investors—but because they can with colder weather on the horizon."

"To prey on families who use a necessary service with unreasonable and unjustified rate hikes is corporate greed at its worst," Zelnick added.

The Accountable.US analysis shows that the same large utility companies raking in huge profits and paying their executives massive compensation packages are driving price increases nationwide.

Southern Company's Georgia subsidiary, for instance, "had a near-12% rate hike approved in June 2022—and in August 2022, its Tennessee subsidiary was granted a rate hike that would result in typical monthly home heating bills rising by about 25%," the analysis notes.

[twt]

nbc reported in October that "nationwide, investor-owned utilities have requested rate increases amounting to nearly $12 billion from the beginning of the year through the end of August."

Zelnick argued that utility giants' price hikes are part of a broader trend of corporate price-gouging, a practice that companies frequently excuse by pointing to higher overall inflation throughout the economy.

"Like so many other industries during the pandemic, utility companies have chased higher and higher profits and enriched investors rather than keep prices stable for working families," said Zelnick. "While the economy is seeing signs of slowing inflation, it is clear corporate greed continues to be a primary driver of high costs on everything from groceries to heating bills—a problem that won't be solved by the Fed's one-track-minded policy of excessive interest rate hikes that threaten millions of jobs."

Utility firms' greedy behavior throughout the coronavirus pandemic has drawn the attention of progressive lawmakers such as Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who in September introduced a resolution that would recognize access to utilities such as electricity and heating as a basic human right.

The Resolution Recognizing the Human Rights to Utilities has not yet received a vote.

"Utilities are the foundation we build our lives upon," Tlaib said in a statement upon introduction of the measure. "In the richest country the world has ever known, it is an outrage that millions of Americans struggle with utility insecurity, substandard and dangerous services, and inhumane shutoffs."

"It's time to change the conversation around what we all deserve, take the profit motive out of providing the basics of a good life, and give every American the opportunity to thrive," Tlaib added.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/8/2121649/-Electric-utilities-join-Big-Oil-in-engaging-in-climate-dishonesty-campaigns-to-benefit-polluters

no lnx gfx

Electric utilities join Big Oil in engaging in climate dishonesty campaigns to benefit polluters

April Siese

Daily Kos Staff

Thursday September 08, 2022

Findings from a new study, titled "The American electric utility industry's role in promoting climate denial, doubt, and delay" show that utility companies, trade associations, and front groups did their damnedest to downplay climate change over the past few decades.

April Siese

Daily Kos

Big Oil isn’t the only industry using a nefarious playbook to keep profits up along with pollution, according to a new study in Environmental Research Letters. The study examines the ways that utility companies have shifted their rhetoric from aligning with scientific findings to pushing doubt and denial from 1990 to 2000 to then calling for delayed action and shifting the blame to other industries rather than dealing with their own roles in the climate crisis.

This includes electric companies like Entergy, Duke, and Dominion, as well as trade organizations like the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The tactics mirror much of the activity seen by the likes of Exxon and Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and faux coalitions set up by the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the electric utility sector draws a parallel in its game plan to some of Exxon’s own misdeeds, the study authors found.

“After 2000, while EEI and EPRI no longer publicly doubted or denied climate change, these organizations continued to argue for delayed action,” researchers wrote. “This rhetoric deflected focus onto other countries and sectors and uplifted approaches such as CCS that have proven unviable to date in the power sector, distracting attention from the energy transition. This shift from doubt to delay is the same pattern that was identified in ExxonMobil's communications”

Since 2020, electric utilities have found “delay” tactics to be their favorite strategy, with researchers finding that “the 79 utilities that generated a majority of U.S. electricity from fossil fuels [only] pledged to retire a quarter of their coal generation by 2030, while proposing over 36 GW of new gas plants.” You can see these tactics in action with entities like the Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s insistence, which recently pushed the false claim that gas must continue flowing in order to generate any gaps in capacity created by retiring fossil fuel plants.

Big Oil, meanwhile, has moved onto a different strategy in its playbook. Oil and gas companies no longer push the so-called positive qualities of their energy sources but rather discuss just how seriously they take the climate crisis, though their actions wholly contradict that.In a new InfluenceMap study, the watchdog found that BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and TotalEnergies talked a big game about green initiatives.

In reality, none of those companies’ “forecasted oil production appears in line with the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (as of Q4 2021), with several companies planning to increase oil and gas production between 2021 and 2026.” These companies are shelling out a cumulative $750 million annually to keep from reducing emissions. The utility industry operates similarly and has devoted more than $500 million to lobbying against renewables and climate policy over the past 20 years.

lnx

big Oil isn’t the only industry using a nefarious playbook to keep profits up along with pollution, according to a new study inEnvironmental Research Letters. The study examines the ways that utility companies have shifted their rhetoric from aligning with scientific findings to pushing doubt and denial from 1990 to 2000 to then calling for delayed action and shifting the blame to other industries rather than dealing with their own roles in the climate crisis.

This includes electric companies like Entergy, Duke, and Dominion, as well as trade organizations like the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The tactics mirror much of the activity seen by the likes of Exxon and Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and faux coalitions set up by the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the electric utility sector draws a parallel in its game plan to some of Exxon’s own misdeeds, the study authors found.

https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-s-Agenda-on-Climate-Change-2022-19585

Following up on InfluenceMap's 2019 edition of 'Big Oil's Real Agenda', this latest report compares and contrasts the public communications, business operations, and policy engagement of 5 'supermajor' oil companies: BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies.

Extensive analysis finds that the five supermajors are spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on a systematic strategy to portray themselves as positive and proactive on the climate change emergency. This is found to be inconsistent with the companies' plans for capital investment in their business. It is also found to be misaligned from the detailed policy engagement activities of the companies and their industry associations on climate change.

Across 3,421 items of public communications materials from the five companies in 2021, 60% contained at least one green claim, while only 23% contained claims promoting oil and gas. Claims highlighting the companies' support of, or involvement with, efforts to transition the energy mix were by far the most popular type of green claim.

None of the companies assessed disclosed the strategies that inform their public messaging on climate change, nor the resources dedicated to related activities. Using cost estimates based on the number of communications and media staff the companies employ, InfluenceMap’s analysis suggests that the companies are spending around $750 million each year cumulatively on climate-related communication activities

In contrast, only 12% of the five companies' 2022 capital expenditure (CAPEX) is forecasted to be dedicated to 'low carbon' activities.Additionally, none of the supermajors' forecasted oil production appears in line with the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (as of Q4 2021), with several companies planning to increase oil and gas production between 2021 and 2026.

At the same time, InfluenceMap found that none of the companies have aligned their climate policy engagement activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and retain a dense and global network of industry associations globally, which are highly active in their opposition to Paris Aligned climate policies

The findings raise serious and persistent questions for regulators and the companies’ shareholders, as well as PR and advertising agencies, media, and social media platforms that work with the companies. It is noted that this analysis focuses on the companies’ main corporate communications channels and thus is focused on their North American/European communications. Future research will focus on how the companies communicate in the Global South.

In addition to the report, Integrated Climate Profiles detailing each companies' public communications strategies, policy engagement, and business operations can be downloaded from this page.

ew 920

only 10% of global energy utility companies are expanding their renewable energy capacity at a faster rate than their gas or coal-fired capacity. That is the main finding of a study by Galina Alova from the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/epa-chiefs-former-lobbying-clients-are-getting-a-long-list-of-favors-from-agency

At least three former lobbying clients of Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler have received favorable decisions from the EPA under his leadership.

Wheeler spent years as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, where he represented companies like the coal giant Murray Energy, whose owner Robert Murray is a major Trump donor. Wheeler signed a pledge in May 2018 to recuse himself from matters related to former clients after he replaced embattled former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. But the two-year pledge expired earlier this year and he has been repeatedly accused of violating the agreement by approving rules that he lobbied for as a lobbyist for Murray Energy and others.

At least three of Wheeler’s former clients have pushed for rules that the EPA has proposed or implemented under his leadership.

“Andrew Wheeler is overseeing policies that damage the air we breathe and water we drink while his associates benefit,” Chris Saeger, a spokesperson for the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon. “This is a clear abuse of his taxpayer-funded position and ethics agreement."

in April, the EPA weakened regulations on the release of mercury and toxic metals from oil and coal-fired power plants, which experts said was aimed at “potentially constraining or handcuffing future efforts by the EPA to regulate air pollution.”

The New York Times described the change as a “particular victory” for Murray, who pressed for the change in a “wish list” of environmental regulation rollbacks he handed to President Trump just weeks after his inauguration. Murray donated $300,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee.

The Trump administration and federal agencies “have completed or are on track to fulfill most of the 16 detailed requests” in Murray’s wish list, the Times reported in 2018. But Murray had “unsuccessfully pressed the administration in 2017” to roll back the mercury emissions rule, E&E News reported, before it was rescinded under Wheeler.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington filed an ethics complaint against Wheeler last yearover his involvement in the rule change, noting that he “participated in the matter less than a year” after signing the pledge.

“It is becoming more and more clear why coal and energy companies are happy to have their former lobbyist Andrew Wheeler in charge of the EPA,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said at the time. “Administrator Wheeler’s apparent failure to abide by ethics obligations and to avoid the reality or appearance of conflicts continues to undermine the EPA’s integrity and weakens public confidence in our government.”

Earlier this year, the EPA also finalized a rule that would extend deadlines to start closing unlined coal ash ponds. Coal ash from coal plants is dumped into excavated holes in the ground, where it mixes with water to create “coal ash ponds,” which can leak if they are not properly lined. The proposed rule would allow some coal plants five more years before requiring them to close the unlined ash ponds.

One of the major backers of the rule is theUtility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), a secretive trade group whose members include Xcel Energy, a longtime former Wheeler client. Xcel Energy called for the rule change and the USWAG petitioned Pruitt for the rule in 2017. The USWAG praised the EPA for proposing the change under Wheeler last year.

Accountable.US criticized the EPA for rolling back regulations on coal ash at the behest of Wheeler’s former client.

“Administrator Wheeler is part of a corrupt pattern in the Trump administration, putting the interests of his allies above the public he is supposed to serve,” Saeger said last month. “This administration is abusing its power to hand out favors to corporate lobbyists, selling out Americans’ health and the environment in the process.”

In May, the EPA proposed no additional measures to mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with renewable fuel standards as required under the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule has been open for public comment ever since but has only received 16 thus far, including one supporting the rule from Growth Energy. The company has been one of the biggest supporters of the rule.

Growth Energy was one of Wheeler’s clients before he joined the EPA, according to his financial disclosure, which said he provided the company “strategic advice and counseling.” Wheeler had pledged to recuse himself from matters related to Growth Energy until shortly before the proposed rule was published.

The trend has played out in other agencies whose heads were appointed by the president. The Interior Department has made at least 15 policy changes or proposals that benefited Secretary David Bernhardt’s former energy industry clients. Several of acting Homeland Security SecretaryChad Wolf’s former lobbying clients have also**received millions in government contracts** while he held senior positions in the department. More than 280 of Trump’s political appointments have been former lobbyists, according to an analysis by ProPublica.

CREW has repeatedly called for the EPA’s inspector general to investigate whether Wheeler violated his ethics pledge in connection to rules that benefited his former clients.

“Administrator Wheeler has repeatedly used his government position at EPA to benefit the former clients that made him rich, and to the detriment of the agency’s critical mission,” CREW Deputy Director Donald Sherman said in a statement to Salon. “Administrator Wheeler’s continued lobbying on behalf of industry from within EPA, is clear evidence that patronage is a feature, not a bug, of the Trump administration.”

ref

https://www.energyandpolicy.org/uwag-and-uswag-the-secretive-utility-groups-that-target-epa-rules/

may 2019

member list: https://www.uswag.org/en/USWAGMemberList

**Traditional Ways of Paying for Fires and Floods Aren’t Cutting It**

Climate change is driving up the expense of natural disasters and sending some of the nation’s largest utilities to the bond market to cover huge, unexpected bills. Claims Journal

RMI 220

icn 120

utilities Have Big Plans to Cut Emissions, But They’re Struggling to Shed Fossil Fuels

BY: DAN GEARINO

Even a renewable energy leader like Xcel, one of the first to promise net zero emissions by mid-century, is finding it hard to end coal without adding natural gas.

use Less Coal, Save Money. Sounds Good, Right?

:{BY: DAN GEARINO

A utility wants to shift coal-fired power units from “must run” to running only as needed on a seasonal basis, a move that would save money and cut emissions. That story and more in Clean Economy Weekly. Read More}:

https://environmentamericacenter.org/reports/amc/blocking-sun-utilities-and-fossil-fuel-interests-are-undermining-american-solar-power

11/17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Solar power is clean, affordable and popular with the American people. The amount of solar energy currently installed in the U.S. can power one in 14 American homes; that amount is expected to triple within the next five years.

The growth of American solar energy in the past decade has been the result of smart solar-friendly state policies like net metering and tax incentives for solar infrastructure, putting clean energy within financial reach of millions more Americans. The recent appointment of officials favored by electric utilities and fossil fuel interests to key positions within the Department of Energy and other federal agencies makes the preservation of strong solar policies in the states more important than ever.

In 2017, utilities continue to chip away at key state policies that put rooftop solar on the map in the United States, making it harder for Americans to invest in clean energy.

This report documents 20 fossil fuel-backed groups and electric utilities running some of the nation’s most aggressive campaigns to slow the growth of solar energy in 12 states, including eight attempts to reduce net metering benefits and seven attempts to create demand charges for customers with solar power. Citizens and policy-makers must be aware of the tools that utilities are using to undermine solar energy across America and redouble their commitment to strong policies that move the nation toward a clean energy future.

A national network of utility interest groups and fossil fuel-backed think tanks has provided the funding, model legislation and political cover to discourage the growth of rooftop solar power.

The Edison Electric Institute, the trade group that represents U.S. investor-owned electric utilities, launched the current wave of attacks on solar in 2012. Since then, EEI has worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council to create model legislation to repeal state renewable electricity standards and attack net metering.
The American Legislative Exchange Council also provides utility and fossil fuel interests with access to state legislators, and its anti-net metering policy resolution has inspired legislation in states like Washington and Utah.
TheKoch brothers have provided funding to the national fight against solar by funneling tens of millions of dollars through a network of opaque nonprofits. The Koch-funded campaign organization Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has carried out anti-solar organizing efforts.
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a Houston-based front group for the utility and fossil fuel industry, representing companies like Florida Power and Light, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell Oil. CEA has spent resources and shipped representatives across the country to help utilities fight their battles in states like Florida, Indiana, Maine and Utah.
The state industry group Indiana Energy Association successfully lobbied on behalf of the state’s biggest electric utilities to end net metering, replacing it instead with a new solar policy that limits consumer compensation for generating rooftop power.

At thestate level,electric utilities have used the support provided by national anti-solar interests, as well as their own ample resources, to attack key solar energy policies.

In Florida, Florida Power and Light, Gulf Power Electric, Tampa Electric Company and Duke Energy, the largest utility in the U.S., spent millions of dollars funding the front group, Consumers for Smart Solar, which was the primary backer of a failed 2016 ballot initiative that would have restricted rooftop solar growth. In 2017, Florida Power and Light drafted language for a new bill to restrict solar growth in Florida.
Two major Arizona utilities – Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project – have successfully pushed for anti-rooftop solar policies. Arizona Public Service, the biggest utility in Arizona, has also been accused of improperly cultivating influence with the state commission that regulates utilities and funneling dark money into recent commissioner elections.
In Utah, Rocky Mountain Power tried once again to eliminate net metering and charge additional fees to its 20,000 customers that generate rooftop power. Public outcry from ratepayers and the solar industry forced Rocky Mountain Power to settle, grandfathering all current solar customers into net metering.
In Texas, El Paso Electric renewed its past attempt to create a separate, and more expensive, rate class for solar customers. In 2015, the utility spent $3.1 million on filing and negotiating fees, an amount ultimately charged to ratepayers, before dropping the proposal, only to pick it up again this year.
In 2015, Nevada Energy successfully campaigned the Nevada utilities commission to eliminate net metering, a move that effectively halted the growth of rooftop solar in its service territory for two years. After widespread public protest, state legislators effectively reinstated net metering in 2017.

As of mid-2017, there were at least 90 ongoing policy actions in U.S. states with the potential to affect the growth of rooftop generation, such as limits on net metering or new utility fees that make solar power less affordable.

State decision-makers should resist utility and fossil fuel industry influence, and reject policies such as

Elimination of, restrictions on, or unfair caps on net metering;
Discriminatory surcharges or tariffs for solar customers;
Utility rate designs that discourage solar adoption;
Unnecessary regulatory burdens on solar energy; and
Rollbacks of renewable electricity standards.

In addition, state leaders should embrace ambitious goals for solar energy and adopt policies that will help meet them, including:

Considering the benefits of distributed solar energy to the grid, to ratepayers and to society in any rate making or policy decisions about solar energy;
Implementing strong net metering and interconnection standards, which enable many customers to meet their own electricity needs with solar power;
Encouraging community shared solar projects and virtual net metering, which can expand solar access to more customers;
Enacting or expanding solar or distributed renewable carve-outs and renewable electricity standards;
Enabling financing mechanisms to allow for greater solar access to businesses and residents;
Allowing companies other than utilities to sell or lease solar to residents and businesses; and
Making smart investments to move toward a more intelligent electric grid that will enable distributed sources of energy such as solar power to play a larger role.

Policymakers should also uphold our country’s commitment to reduce carbon pollution. Solar power will play a major role in any strategy to reduce global warming pollution and the carbon footprint of the energy we generate and consume.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/electric-utilities-had-knowledge-climate-change-1960s-and-tried-cover-it-report

many pix docs links

Electric Utilities Had Knowledge of Climate Change Since the 1960s and Tried to Cover It Up: Report

Some electric utilities have engaged in ongoing efforts to sow doubt about climate science.

By Dave Anderson / AlterNet August 30, 2017, 11:30 PM GMT

Scientists began to warn electric utilities about climate change by 1968, and by 1988 the industry’s official research and development organization had acknowledged that, “There is growing consensus in the scientific community that the greenhouse effect is real.”

Despite this early knowledge about climate change, electric utilities have continued to invest heavily in fossil fuel power generation over the past half-century, and since 1988 some have engaged in ongoing efforts to sow doubt about climate science and block legal limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

The Energy and Policy Institute’s recent report provides a first look into the electric utility industry’s nearly 50-year relationship with climate science, based largely on original research that reviewed scores of industry documents.

Download the report: Utilities Knew: Documenting Electric Utilities’ Early Knowledge and Ongoing Deception on Climate Change From 1968-2017

Below are just a few of the key findings from the report.

The electric utility industry was warned about climate change in 1968

Donald F. Hornig, a science advisor to President Lyndon B. Johnson, warned the 1968 Annual Convention of the Edison Electric Institute about the threat that allowing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels to build up in the atmosphere could one day pose to the climate.

“Such a change in the carbon dioxide level might, therefore, produce major consequences on the climate – possibly even triggering catastrophic effects such as have occurred from time to time in the past,” Hornig said.

Utilities sponsored climate change research during the 1970s and '80s

While the science on climate change was limited compared to what we know today, by 1971, electric utilities knew enough to include research into the “effects of CO2” in the industry’s long-term research and development goals through the year 2000. More than 50 electric utilities contributed to the development of these goals, as did industry associations like EEI:

Acknowledgments section from the Electric Research Council’s 1971 report, Electric Utilities Industry Research and Development Goals Through the Year 2000.

Utilities, through the largely customer-funded Edison Electric Institute and Electric Power Research Institute, sponsored cutting-edge climate research during the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1980s, EPRI funded research by influential scientist Charles Keeling and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography that documented “virtually all that we knew at the time from measurements of atmospheric CO2.” Between 1985 and 1988, EEI and EPRI co-sponsored another study which found that “climate changes possible over the next 30 years may significantly affect the electric utility industry.”

Utilities knew long ago that climate change concerns could warrant a shift away from fossil fuels

“If a consensus arose that we had to limit or curtail the use of hydrocarbons because of their impact on climate, the implications would be enormous,” Carroll L. Wilson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, warned at EEI’s Annual Convention in 1971.

“If this turns out to be of major concern, then fossil fuel combustion will be essentially unacceptable, an important justification for expanding the nuclear and solar energy options,” Cyril Comar, director of EPRI’s environmental assessment department, told Congress in 1977.

“As consensus builds that man is changing the earth’s climate, policymakers are turning their attention to the issue and exploring potential responses,” the EPRI Journal reported in 1988.

By 1988, electric utilities were at a critical juncture. They could either be a part of the solution to climate change, or a part of the problem.

Some utility interests responded to the 'growing consensus' on climate change with disinformation

“It is possible that an increase in concentration of atmospheric gases which absorb the outgoing infrared radiation could result in a rise in average global temperature,” William McCollam, Jr., then president of EEI, admitted to Congress in 1989. McCollam also acknowledged that climate change “could have significant effects on agriculture, rainfall, sea level, storm events, demography, and human health.”

However, McCollam claimed that “our knowledge is currently so limited that we cannot yet judge with any accuracy what might be the results of continued increases in greenhouse gases.”

“… we believe that any plan calling for urgent and extreme action to reduce CO2 emissions is premature at best,” McCollum told Congress.

“The electric utility industry is aggressively pursuing several paths which are designed to meet the nation’s energy needs while reducing atmospheric emissions,” McCollum nonetheless pledged.

Instead, that same year, EEI and some major electric utilities chose to “aggressively” work to sow doubt about climate science. American Electric Power, Consumers Power Company, EEI, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and Southern Company joined the Global Climate Coalition, which for years worked to deny the causes and risks of climate change. In 1991, EEI and Southern Company spearheaded the Information Council on the Environment ad campaign, which listed as its top strategy an effort to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”

One of the misleading ads produced in 1991 for the Information Council on the Environment, which was backed by the Edison Electric Institute and Southern Company.

Some utilities continue to mislead on climate change in 2017

Despite EEI’s 1989 pledge to reduce atmospheric emissions, annual CO2 emissions from the electricity sector remained higher in 2016 than they were when McCollum testified in 1989, due in large part to ongoing efforts by some in the industry to sow doubt about climate science and block legal limits on CO2 emissions from power plants.

Thomas Fanning, the CEO of Southern Company, continued to deny that CO2 emissions are the primary contributor to climate change during an interview with CNBC in 2017. At the time, Fanning was also the chairman of EEI and the face of the investor-owned electric utility industry. Yet no effort was made by EEI, Southern Company, or other utilities to set the record straight.

Like the new EPA chief, Southern Company's CEO doesn't see CO2 as main reason for climate change http://cnb.cx/2nII5kY

12:55 PM - Mar 28, 2017

Photo published for Like the new EPA chief, Southern Company's CEO doesn't see CO2 as main reason for climate change

Like the new EPA chief, Southern Company's CEO doesn't see CO2 as main reason for climate change

Climate change science hasn't proven that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor, Southern Company chief Tom Fanning tells CNBC.

cnbc.com

A 2017 interview and Tweet by CNBC served as a reminder of the ongoing culture of climate denial at Southern Company

Some electric utilities continue to back special interest groups, including the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, American Legislative Exchange Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Utility Air Regulatory Group, that mislead on climate science and/or oppose legal limits on CO2 emissions from power plants.

Above is one of the U.S. Chamber’s Public Policy Priorities for 2017. A representative from Southern Company serves on the Chamber’s board of directors.

Nearly 50 years after scientists began to warn the electric utility industry about climate change, some utilities continue to stand in the way of real progress in addressing the problem. It is a story with striking parallels to the investigations into ExxonMobil’s early knowledge and ongoing deception on climate change. Research has shown that electric utilities could face serious financial repercussions if ever held liable for the climate change damages incurred by their power plant emissions.

Download the report: Utilities Knew: Documenting Electric Utilities’ Early Knowledge and Ongoing Deception on Climate Change From 1968-2017

This article was originally published by the Energy and Policy Institute.

Dave Anderson is the policy and communications manager at the Energy and Policy Institute.

https://www.ecowatch.com/utilities-knew-climate-change-2465743778.html

#UtilitiesKnew, Too, Since 1968

The U.S. electric utility industry recognized decades ago that burning fossil fuels would lead to increased warming, yet later opposed efforts to shift away from coal, according to a new report.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8l-rYonMke-NG5ONVZkZVVJMG8/view

The lengthy report from the Energy and Policy Institute uses reams of archival documents to demonstrate that utility industry representatives knew as far back as 1968 that burning fossil fuels could trigger "catastrophic effects" on the climate.

The report also claims that, despite continued research and consensus on climate throughout the 1970s and 80s, the industry continued to make investments in coal, joined coalitions and lobbying groups to oppose climate action and fund ... "Nearly 50 years after scientists began to warn the electric utility industry about climate change, some utilities continue to stand in the way of real progress in addressing the problem," the report said. Dave Anderson, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute who uncovered the documents, commented to the Huffington Post about the utility companies:

"The evidence suggests they were very much involved in the deliberate deception [about the dangers of carbon emissions] going on at that time. Scientists had been warning for years that they could be a problem, and by the late 1980s, it was pretty clear there was an emerging consensus among scientists."

For a deeper dive:

Reuters, The Hill, InsideClimate News, Huffington Post, Texas Observer, Grist

ref rept:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8l-rYonMke-NG5ONVZkZVVJMG8/view

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utilities-climate-change_us_597673e0e4b0c95f375dd60d

Oil giants like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell aren’t the only corporations that understood what was happening to the climate decades ago and covered that knowledge up.

Utility companies recognized that emissions from burning fossil fuels warmed the planet as far back as 1968, according to a report released Tuesday.

That year, a top science adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson warned utility executives gathered at an industry conference that the federal government feared the projected increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades could wreak havoc on the environment.

“Carbon dioxide is not toxic, but it is the chief heat-absorbing component of the atmosphere,” Donald F. Hornig said at the 1968 annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute, according to the trade group’s newsletter from that year. “Such a change in the carbon dioxide level might, therefore, produce major consequences on the climate ― possibly even triggering catastrophic effects such as have occurred from time to time in the past.”

The new report, published by the watchdog Energy & Policy Institute, contains dozens of internal documents unearthed from the archives of utility industry associations that initially funded research into climate change, but later opposed efforts to stop it. The research paints a picture of how the utility sector transformed from financier to foe of climate science at a critical point when carbon emissions could have been addressed.

Less than two years ago, documents unearthed by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that Exxon Mobil had understood climate change in the late 1970s. But by the late 1980s, the oil company deliberately covered up the evidence to protect its financial interests, funding a Big Tobacco-style disinformation campaign to discredit climate scientists with a network of research institutes pumping out pseudoscience. State attorneys general are now investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly fraudulently misleading its investors about the risks posed by climate change.

A spokesman for Exxon Mobil insisted in an email to HuffPost that the reporting on the company’s climate record “is not credible” and an “easily discredited talking point.”

Earlier this year, Shell was dragged into the controversy when an internal corporate film from 1991 was surfaced by the Dutch news outlet The Correspondent. It demonstrated Shell’s long-ago grasp of the science behind climate change.

Utilities followed a similar arc. By the 1970s and ’80s, the Edison Electric Institute and the industry-backed Electric Power Research Institute had sponsored cutting-edge climate research looking at the surge of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the rise in global temperatures and the risk that melting polar ice caps would flood coastal cities. In 1988, the two organizations co-sponsored research into “the potential effects of climate change on electric utilities.” In a report released that April, the Electric Power Research Institute concluded that “climate changes possible over the next 30 years may significantly affect the electric utility industry.”

There are “striking parallels” between the recent investigations of the oil industry and the utility companies, Dave Anderson, a researcher at the Energy & Policy Institute who uncovered the documents, told HuffPost. “We can now show utilities knew about climate change as far back as the oil industry did.”

But in 1989, the industry’s response to the emerging science took a turn. That year, investor-owned utilities backed the formation of the Global Climate Coalition, a lobbying group that sought to torpedo any governmental action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition disbanded in 2001 after successfully pressuring President George W. Bush to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol,the United Nations-brokered deal to reduce planet-warming emissions in rich countries.

“The evidence suggests they were very much involved in the deliberate deception [about the dangers of carbon emissions] going on at that time,” said Anderson, who previously worked on the Greenpeace-led Exxon Knew campaign. “Scientists had been warning for years that they could be a problem, and by the late 1980s, it was pretty clear there was an emerging consensus among scientists.”

Anderson noted that the Edison Electric Institute’s website traces the industry’s involvement in climate change issues back only 30 years, to 1987, and that details of the institute’s current work on the issue are locked in a password-protected “Climate Workshop.”

In a short statement, Edison Electric Institute said the industry has slashed its carbon footprint.

“The electric power industry has reduced carbon emissions by 25 percent below 2005 levels as of the end of 2016,” Jeffrey Ostermayer, an EEI spokesperson, told HuffPost in an email.

The Electric Power Research Institute did not respond to a request for comment.

Industry efforts to undermine regulations on carbon emissions had real impact. In 2015, utility sector emissions were higher than in 1989, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Totals fell slightly in 2016, although they are likely to increase again as coal use ticks up in response to rising natural gas prices.

To be sure, utilities have made strides in recent years by building up their renewable energy infrastructure and converting smog-spewing coal plants to natural gas, which burns cleaner. But corporations like Atlanta-based Southern Company, a $49 billion giant with more than 9 million customers, continue to publicly deny the basic science behind climate change.

Asked on CNBC in March if carbon dioxide is the primary cause of climate change, Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning said, “No, certainly not.”

“Is climate change happening? Certainly. It’s been happening for millennia,” Fanning said, promoting a :{commonly used, albeit widely debunked, argument:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}: by climate science deniers that the warming seen in the last few decades is a mostly natural occurrence.

In a brief phone interview, a Southern Company spokesman said: “We’re meeting or exceeding all regulations in terms of climate.”

“Southern Company is committed to a leadership role in finding solutions that make technological, environmental and economic sense,” he added in an email. “The focus of this effort must be on developing and deploying technologies that reduce [greenhouse gases] while making sure that energy remains reliable and affordable.”

The utility has urged the Trump administration to reverse power plant rules enacted by President Barack Obama to cut back emissions. It funds groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which argues that the benefits of carbon dioxide outweigh the environmental costs.

“Southern Company would seem to be the individual company that’s the most Exxon-like,” Anderson said. “The move Trump is making is very much in line with what lobbyists at that company have been doing in recent years.”

This story was updated to include a statement from Exxon Mobil.

USEC Inc	$2,100,000	-
USEC Inc	-	$2,100,000
Quinn Gillespie & Assoc	-	$320,000
Patton Boggs LLP	-	$160,000
BKSH & Assoc	-	$100,000
Johnston & Assoc	-	$0
		*$580,000*

Power portfolio

Out of its total 4,971 MW of electric generating capacity in 2005 (0.47% of the U.S. total), Westar produced 59.5% from coal, 38.6% from natural gas, and 1.8% from oil. All of Westar's power plants are in Kansas.^[4]

Westar Clean Air Act Settlement

On February 4, 2009, the U.S. Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency filed a clean air lawsuit against Westar, claiming the company updated a coal plant in Kansas without installing modern pollution controls. It was the first such suit under the Obama administration. The suit alleged that Westar's 1,857 MW Jeffrey Energy Center has violated the Clean Air Act for over a decade.^[5]

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. district court in Kansas City and cited Westar for violating the New Source Review (NSR) portion of the Clean Air Act. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to estimate how much Westar would face in fines. The largest fine in a NSR lawsuit was a $1.4 billion settlement with American Electric Power.^[5]

In response to the suit, Westar issued a statement saying:^[6]

We have known for more than six years, and have even publicly disclosed, that the Department of Justice at some point might file a lawsuit.

We are good environmental stewards, and that is why over the last several years, we have invested nearly $500 million to remove up to 90 percent of the very emissions that the EPA has targeted with its complaint. We also expect to invest more than $1 billion in additional equipment over the next five years. A graphic detailing our target emissions reductions appears with this statement.

In its 2008 annual report Westar stated "A decision in favor of the DOJ and the EPA, or a settlement prior to such a decision, if reached, could require us to update or install emissions controls at Jeffrey Energy Center. Additionally, we might be required to update or install emissions controls at our other coal-fired plants, pay fines or penalties or take other remedial action. Our ultimate costs to resolve the NSR Investigation and the related DOJ lawsuit could be material. We believe that costs related to updating or installing emissions controls would qualify for recovery in the prices we are allowed to charge our customers. If, however, a penalty is assessed against us, the penalty could be material and may not be recovered in rates. We are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss at this time."^[7]

On September 29, 2009, the Sierra Club announced it was planning to file a request in federal court to intervene in the lawsuit. Attorney Bob Eye said the group wanted to provide expertise and support in backing the claims made against Westar. He said the Sierra Club did not plan to raise new issues in the case.^[8]

On January 25, 2010, Westar Energy agreed to spend $500 million to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution at its Jeffrey Energy Center in Kansas by installing scrubbers by the end of 2014. The company said it had opted to settle rather than to litigate.^[9] The installation of scrubbers will reduce combined emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 78,600 tons each year. That figure is 85 percent lower than their 2007 emissions. Additionally, Westar will give up surplus sulfur dioxide allowance. The company will also required to control for lower particular matter emissions. The EPA also reported that Westar will spend $6 million to mitigate the detrimental effects of the accused violations, including:

Retrofitting diesel engines on vehicles owned by or operated for public entities in Kansas with emission control equipment.
Installing new wind turbines that will result in the reduction of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, and provide electricity for the benefit of a school or nonprofit.
Installing advanced truck stop electrification to reduce harmful emissions from idling trucks.
Installing plug-in hybrid infrastructure to facilitate the use of plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Converting vehicles in Westar’s fleet to reduce pollution by retrofitting diesel vehicles with emission controls and purchasing hybrid vehicle.^[10]

Westar/DeLay scandal

Westar, which in 2002 sought a federal tax break, gave $25,000 to win 'a seat at the table' during congressional deliberations about the provision, even though it had no business in Texas, according to an internal company e-mail that surfaced in a criminal probe. Its executives joined Tom DeLay at a Puerto Rico golf resort owned by a TRMPAC contributor that year. DeLay supported the tax break Westar wanted.^[11]

On December 28, 2004, Public Citizen asked the Department of Justice to investigate Westar Energy for "possible bribery of members of Congress, including Tom DeLay, by Westar executives and lobbyists." ^[12] See the Westar Energy Bribery Scandal web page by Public Citizen, which includes links to press releases, memos, letters, timeline, and background information on the scandal.

Westar and coal

Westar Energy had plans to build a coal plant in Kansas, the Westar Energy Kansas Plant, however the unnamed plant has been on hold since December 2006. ^[13]

In February, 2008, Westar Energy announced a new strategic plan that "embraces state and federal policies encouraging greater reliance on energy efficiency and the development of more transmission and renewable energy sources. It also calls for deferring as long as possible constructing a new conventional coal plant, but maintaining existing coal plants and making substantial investments in them to improve their environmental performance."^[14]

On March 28, 2008, the Emporia Gazette reported that Westar Energy has declared "a moratorium on construction of coal-fired power plants. The company has taken a look at the rising costs and the uncertain regulatory future and decided that, right now, investing in coal plants is an unwarranted gamble."^[15]

Existing coal-fired power plants

NextEra Energy Resources was previously known as FPL Energy and is a subsidiary of FPL Group, which also owns Florida Power & Light. NextEra changed its name in January 2009. It is the largest producer of wind and solar energy in North America. The company currently has more than 6,300 megawatts of wind generation in operation, enough to power more than 1.5 million average homes. It also is the largest generator of solar thermal power in the world. The company co-owns and operates seven solar plants in California’s Mojave Desert, which collectively form the world’s largest solar site. In all, the company operates 310 megawatts of solar power.^[1]

NextEra Energy Resources also incorporates nuclear power into its portfolio through 88 percent ownership of the Seabrook Station in New Hampshire; a 70 percent interest in the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa; and 100 percent ownership of Point Beach Nuclear Plant in Wisconsin. The FPL Group nuclear fleet, including nuclear assets of Florida Power & Light Company, is the third largest in the United States.^[1]

Contents[hide]

Existing Coal Plants

Ownership or partial ownership of coal plants:^[2]

Plant	State	Year(s) Built	Capacity
Port of Stockton District Energy Facility	CA	1987	54 MW
Ebensburg Generating Plant	PA	1990	57.6 MW
Birch Plant	PA	1986	82 MW

Contact details

Website: http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/

External links

"FPL announces plans for new solar energy generation, including world's largest photovoltaic solar project and first solar thermal 'hybrid' energy center," company press release, June 25, 2008

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 "FPL Energy to change name to NextEra Energy Resources" NextEra Energy Resources Website, January 7, 2009.
↑ "NextEra Energy Resources Facilities" NextEra Energy Resources Website, September 2009

NextEra Energy	$1,330,000	-
NextEra Energy	-	$1,330,000
SNR Denton	-	$60,000
Holland & Knight	-	$50,000
Quinn Gillespie & Assoc	-	$50,000
Akin, Gump et al	-	$50,000
Capitol Counsel	-	$50,000
Davis & Harman	-	$40,000
Washington Tax Group	-	$40,000
Raffaniello & Assoc	-	$30,000
Ryan, MacKinnon et al	-	$30,000
Birch, Horton et al	-	$20,000
Williams & Jensen	-	$20,000
		*$440,000* NextEra Energy to Adam Kinzinger (R) in 2012 NextEra Energy to Alcee L. Hastings (D) in 2012 NextEra Energy to Ander Crenshaw (R) in 2012 NextEra Energy to Chuck Grassley (R) in 2012 NextEra Energy to Cliff Stearns (R) in 2012