Business magnate turned philanthropist Mike Bloomberg joined with environmentalists Wednesday near Capitol Hill to put new financial muscle behind an aggressive campaign to close half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants in the next two years.
“Together we are raising the bar” with a new goal, Bloomberg said at a press conference hosted by the national environmental organization Sierra Club. “And the new goal is not a third of the coal plants by 2020, it’s half of the nation’s coal fleet by 2017.”
He joined with Sierra Club to announce that Bloomberg Philanthropies would be giving an additional $30 million to strengthen the club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign, which before the announcement had the goal of closing a third of the nation’s coal fleet in the next five years.
Bloomberg said now the goal is “fewer coal plants” in the country in “fewer years.”
He said that in addition to $30 million from Bloomberg Philanthropies, a dozen additional backers have committed to matching that $30 million in grants.
Ahead of Bloomberg’s announcement, the Sierra Club claimed that its campaign contributed to 187 coal plants either retiring or announcing their plans to retire in the prevailing years since the campaign started.
Coal supporters have criticized the campaign for using litigation to stall new plants from opening, while intervening in state utility commission proceedings to discourage states from further funding coal operations in favor of renewables and other clean energy resources.
“Because of less coal pollution, almost 6,000 less Americans will die this year,” Bloomberg said. “We have helped the United States, believe it or not, to become a global leader in carbon reduction.”
“The single biggest reduction in CO2 emissions has been the closing of coal-fired power plants.”
At the same time Bloomberg was making his announcement, the natural gas industry released a report that showed U.S. natural gas reserves are brimming, offering a cleaner energy alternative to the nation. Many in industry and elsewhere say part of the reason for there being fewer coal plants is the low price of natural gas. The lower price makes gas more competitive than coal in some regions, which has driven utilities to favor gas-fired power plants over coal.
In addition to low gas prices driving out coal, there are also new EPA pollution rules that go into effect soon that are forcing coal utilities to retire plants.
American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest coal utilities, announced recently it would be closing six of its plants in four states beginning May 31. The company says it is closing the plants because of strict Mercury and Air Toxic Standards that EPA will begin implementing in mid-April. In addition to these rules, the coal industry fears that EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan will spur even more closures beginning in 2020.
But Bloomberg did not address either the regulatory or market conditions that are causing these plants to retire. For him, these closures are solely the result of the grassroots efforts he has supported, without any help from Washington.
“This is done by grassroots and local government,” he said. “That’s the reason … America is leading the way, not because of Washington but because of you … and people who just want to make a difference.”
One reason for making the grassroots argument might be to demonstrate political will. It shows that the American people, not Washington, support global reductions of greenhouse gases that many scientists say are warming the Earth’s climate.
Bloomberg said the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign would help send the message that the U.S. is serious about fighting global warming when the president travels to Paris in December to hash out a global climate agreement with world leaders.
“That’s sending the message that one of the best things we can do to improve the chances for a strong climate change agreement in Paris this December is to show that this makes a difference,” Bloomberg said.
Some environmentalists have warned that continued disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over the stringency of climate regulations could undermine the president’s effort to demonstrate the U.S. is serious about facing down the problem.
