Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Rise of the New Power Co-Op Movement
Breakdown at Copenhagen. Climate legislation stalled. EPA regulation of
greenhouse gasses threatened. Is climate protection dead?
Maybe not. Climate protection has gone local. Political leaders may
fiddle while the world burns, but grassroots groups around the country
are organizing to cut greenhouse gas emissions and build a greener
future for their communities. Block by block and using every tool at
their disposal, groups are fighting to green schools and workplaces;
setting up networks of green job training centers; installing solar
water heaters in low income communities; and halting new coal-fired
power plants with both political and direct action.
One of the least known but most promising examples of this
"localization" of climate politics is the greening of utility co-ops to
create affordable and renewable energy, green jobs, and regional green
development. These efforts may well represent the beginning of a "New
Power Co-Op Movement" that can help jump start the shift to a new green
economy.
Electric co-ops are owned by their customers, who are called
"members" due to their dual role as customer/owner. Their primary
mission is to provide access to electricity at affordable prices for
every potential member in their service area.
Electric co-ops were created as one of President Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal programs in order to promote rural development. The
first electric co-op was born in 1934 in the back of a furniture store
in Corinth, Mississippi. Within a few years, it had thousands of
counterparts across the nation.
Today, America's 930 electric cooperatives are the sole source of
electricity for 42 million people in 47 states -- nearly 12 percent of
the nation's population. They control $100 billion in assets and $31
billion in member equity.
What Matters in Kansas
In western Kansas, rural
communities, farms, and businesses get their electricity from Midwest
Energy, the electric co-op based in Hays, Kansas. The co-op has
pioneered an energy conservation strategy known as "on-bill financing."
It has developed a program called How$mart that provides money for
energy efficiency improvements such as insulation, air sealing, and new
heating and cooling systems for residential and small business
consumers. Co-op members -- whether owners or tenants -- don't have to
put up any money "up-front." Instead, they repay the funds through
energy savings on their monthly power bills.
Members start with an energy audit to determine potential savings.
The co-op develops an individualized conservation plan. Members choose a
contractor. If the member moves or sells the property, the deal passes
to the next customer at that location.
The program started with a pilot in four rural counties in the
summer of 2008; it then spread through rural Western Kansas. A year
later it had invested $1 million in more than two hundred rural homes
and businesses. It is estimated that customers will save over 400,000
kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power forty homes. That will put
13,000 fewer tons of carbon dioxide into the environment over the next
twenty years. The Environmental Defense Fund recently recognized
How$mart as one of America's best energy innovations.
"New Power" in Kentucky
For decades residents of
eastern Kentucky have been fighting Big Coal's destruction of their
majestic environment and cherished way of life by coal extraction. Much
of that fight is led by the statewide citizens organization Kentuckians
For The Commonwealth. KFTC has deep roots in the state's impoverished
mountain communities where coal is mined; many of its leaders are former
coal miners. While it has engaged in direct action against mountaintop
removal, it recognizes that such action is not enough. Kentuckians
desperately need a new strategy for economic development, energy, and
jobs. KFTC is now promoting a plan for "New Power" that would make
eastern Kentucky's electric cooperatives the pivot for such a strategy.
East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) is a cooperative that is
owned by 16 local electric distribution coops. EKPC generates and sells
power to these co-ops, which serve half a million members in 87
counties. EKPC is proposing to build a new 278-megawatt coal-burning
power plant in central Kentucky along the Kentucky River at an estimated
cost of nearly one billion dollars.
The Smith plant would only increase the dependence of Kentucky on
coal for its energy supply and thereby increase the pressures for
mountaintop removal. The struggle against the Smith plant has led KFTC
to accompany its fight to save the mountains with a search for a "New
Power" alternative.
With the help of KFTC, co-op members are now proposing that the
co-ops not waste their funds on the Smith coal plant, but instead invest
in an alternative plan to meet the power needs of their members through
energy-saving and renewable energy programs. These local energy needs
will be met by a combination of energy efficiency and weatherization
initiatives paid through on-bill financing, along with local renewable
energy, such as small-scale hydroelectric plants and rooftop solar hot
water heaters. The New Power plan would cost less than the Smith Plant
while meeting the same energy demand.
Such a plan would not only provide for eastern Kentucky's energy
needs in a way that would protect the local environment and the global
climate, it would also provide far more and better jobs. According to
EKPC itself, the Smith plant will create only 700 temporary jobs at the
peak of construction and 60 permanent jobs. Yet, according to the Ochs
Center for Metropolitan Studies,an energy plan based on efficiency and
renewables will create nearly 4,600 direct jobs over the same period it
would take to build the Smith Plant. Members of local communities could
be trained and hired for these green energy jobs.
The New Power plan would also significantly lower the utility bills
of co-op members (some co-op members in eastern Kentucky spend more than
50% of income on energy). The estimated cost of electricity from the
alternative plan is 17% less than the Smith coal-burning plant. Money
saved could be invested in affordable housing, environmental
restoration, healthcare, and other job-creating activities. (For more on
KFTC's alternative program read: "A Cooperative Approach to Renewing
East Kentucky".)
Co-op members in Kentucky are weighing the trade-off. According to
Rachel Harrod, whose stepmother ran for a local co-op board this summer:
"I believe there's an alternative that will be better for the
environment, less costly to co-op members, and far more beneficial
economically. The jobs generated by a clean energy portfolio would be a
welcome boost to our local economy. I can't tell you how significant
this would be to an area that has lost much of its agricultural base in
recent years."
In addition to saving co-op members from paying for dirty power, a
New Power program in eastern Kentucky could kick-start a broader agenda
for transitioning Appalachia to the new green economy. Co-ops already
have the key infrastructure in place. And instead of being controlled by
for-profit investor utilities, the new facilities will literally be
owned by eastern Kentucky -- the co-op owners, not distant stakeholders.
These economic benefits will stay in Kentucky and reverberate through
the region.
Greening Economic Democracy
Rural electric co-ops were
once a model for economic democracy. David Lilienthal, a founding
director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, described an electric coop
annual meeting in the 1940s: "Throughout a whole day as many as 2,000
farmers and their wives and children discussed the financial and
operating reports made to them by their [co-op] superintendent and board
of trustees, and later while we ate a barbecue lunch watched new uses
of electricity demonstrated."
He added, "These membership "town meetings" are not simply business
sessions. They have an emotional overtone, a spiritual meaning to people
who were so long denied the benefits of modern energy."
But many electric coops have become distant from such town meeting
democracy. In eastern Kentucky, for example, elections to coop boards
are rarely contested, with many of the officers serving for decades.
Policies are often controlled by coal and other energy companies; as a
result, Kentucky's rural electrical cooperatives are more than 90
percent dependent on coal. That makes rural Kentuckians vulnerable to
rising fuel prices and coal depletion.
Building the new green economy will require the revival of democracy
-- at every level. That's why co-op members, with the help of KFTC,
have begun challenging the entrenched leadership of local co-op boards.
This year, KFTC members Dallas Ratliff and Tona Barkley ran for the
board of the Owen Electrical Cooperative. In her campaign materials
Barkley says: "As a board member, I will strive to make the co-op more
open and democratic. I'll also promote a stronger approach to helping
members improve the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses and a
more aggressive approach to transitioning into more renewable sources
of energy -- to protect members from rising energy costs, to protect our
health, and to create local jobs."
Like Tona, hundreds of KFTC members throughout the state see a clear
link between new democratic power and new clean energy power.
Such
a program could be a model for the 400 rural electrical co-ops with 40
million members nationwide. And that could be a significant contribution
to a new strategy for protecting the global climate -- from below.

16 Comments so far
Show AllFunny, but the local power co-op where I live is totally in favor of coal. Low prices are the only thing members want. A small group of them opposed the recent decision of the co-op to buy into a new coal-burning plant and were handily defeated. Don't think co-ops like this come down on the right side of an issue automatically. Depends where you live.
Yes, while existing co-ops, public utility districts (PUDs)and municipal power monopolies (munis) eliminate the 30% mark-up investor owned utilties require (at least teoretically), the sources of their power range from extremely dirty to extremely clean. Their rate structures also range from extremely anti-renewable to extremely pro-renewable.
In many states investor-owned utilties are the only utilties that are required to have rate increases and other changes approved by state regulators that hold real public hearings. Co-ops and PUDs are typically run by a general manager and 3 or 4 elected commissioners that railroad the decision making process, while most munis are subject to the political whims of a city council.
I've had the fortune to have experienced the variety of thinking about energy. I lived in California as a customer of PG&E before deregulation. Energy was pretty reliable, and reasonably expensive. Along came Republican-foisted deregulation and suddenly PG&E was only allowed to be the delivery vehicle. PG&E was forced by law to sell off their electrical generation to private companies. Then we got the "smartest guys in the room" from Enron and other private profiteers who came along and did what big for-profit companies do, screw the general public while boosting their corporate profits to insane levels.
After suffering life in California (my birth state, but sadly bearing little resemblance to the CA of my childhood), I moved to Eugene, OR which has a muni water and electric utility. Being Eugene they were very green-aware and even though the bulk of their power generation was generally grid-supplied, customers were offered an opt-in option to a higher rate electric plan buying energy supplied by an Idaho wind farm. Once that program was FULLY SUBSCRIBED, as defined by buying all the annual output of that wind farm, the muni utility EWEB offered another opt-in package for "green" power. As opposed to a specific wind farm, EWEB would source G.Watts from the grid using Power Purchase Agreements with multiple "green" suppliers, be they solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, etc.
This allowed CUSTOMERS to pick their energy source a bit, at a minimal price increase, and allowed the UTILITY to ultimately increase the overall percentage of "green" power delivered. So they just say in 2010 that xx% of EWEB electricity was "green", an increase of yy% as compared to 2000. The UTILITY doesn't even have to do anything different. They offered customers a choice to pay more for the green generation. Personally I wish they'd found another wind farm and offered another 100% wind option again, but at least they offered the "green" option.
I think this will ultimately be the future, but it can be taken too far. This year we moved to west Texas (I can see about 50 commercial windmills on the horizon) where they've "deregulated" the electricity market. AEP is responsible for the distribution lines, metering, etc, but our "retail electric provider" is who we buy our electricity from. Instead of the muni/corporate utility sourcing the power with bulk purchasing and PPA negotiation, we CONSUMERS have to pick our electric supplier. I ended up paying a little more for a 100% wind generation supplier, but what a pain in the ass it was. I as the consumer had to wade through 20-some different options for my "retail electric" provider, reading fine print, comparing prices, etc, etc, and then have to apply for service with my chosen supplier.
What a pain in the ass. All I really wanted to do was call my utility and tell them I want the "green-generation source" option. Let them negotiate in bulk for the GWatts, or in the case of a Co-Op take that commitment by customers/owners farther and investing in a utility owned "green" power plant where available. Out here I'm not in the Taylor County Co-Op electric service area, or I'd be their customer and advocating for wind farm construction. We have UNBELIEVABLE wind generation potential here. There might already be more wind farms here but for the lack of a sizable power grid to feed out the extra power... How about spending some of that '09 "stimulus" money on national grid infrastructure...
It's not hard, but don't expect for-profit enterprises to make it easy. A LITTLE legislation/regulation is necessary, and can be as simple as requiring utilities to deliver a certain percentage of their annual electricity from "green" sources. Southern states can more easily use solar. Wind is plentiful in various locations, and nuclear can supplement where solar, wind, and hydro aren't abundant. (let's not get sidetracked, I'm simply saying I'd prefer centralized stored nuclear waste to mercury poisoning throughout the food chain).
It's not hard. Frankly it's quite easy. Remember as you vote next month to check up on the candidate's position on "green" energy. Are they against it, using "coal is cheaper", or are they trying to over regulating things to death? Find a candidate with something happening between the ears and vote for them.
How right you are. I am a member of a coop in the Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives. The Director of Communications, basically the person who controls all the information that goes out to members, is Steve Oden. Steve is a self confessed Climate Change Doubter. He unfortunately represents the views of those managing the generating plants (coal)for the cooperatives. The members get a monthly barrage of twisted information about the relationship between coal burning and climate change (there is no relationship--according to Steve. There is no such thing as man made climate change or global warming. While the monthly magazine cannot endorse any persons for elected office, it does its utmost to show GOP office holders (e.g., Boehner and company) in the most favorable light. It never mentions environmentalists by name but paints them in all kinds of unfavorable colors. Most months, if I did not see the cover of the magazine, Country Living, after reading the editorial slant I would swear I was reading a magazine published by the NRA, American Legion or VFW.
So get some locals together and go after Steve Oden. Discredit him as an out of touch loser who will cost the co-op in the end.
He'll have to go before you get change.
ppeters: Here's a thought. Don't go after Steve Oden about climate change. In fact, accept his premise (as in, OK, let's assume you're right--you could of course also point out the consequences if he happens to be wrong but it probably won't help the argument) and then explain the 101 reasons to have non-polluting (or minimally polluting compared to coal) and sustainable sources of energy as well as programs promoting efficiency as a better capital investment. First, you will be telling the truth about mercury, mountain and ecosystem destruction, and other serious problems with coal. Surely, being located near WVa and KY should help people see. Second, by avoiding the CO2 argument you will confuse them and be able to take the lead in defining the debate.
When I mention that 40% of mercury is coming from coal-fired power plants, it seems to strike a chord in many people who are otherwise oblivious, especially if they like to eat fish or go fishing.
drosera: Our rural electric co-op is also coal focused but they've offered wind power (for an extra $2.50/100kwh) for several years. The wind plants are privately owned and local.
But, overall, you are spot on. Most care about nothing but cheap power. The best privately owned power company I ever heard of was Montana Power which had a major focus on efficiency as a better capital investment than building power plants. They were destroyed in the deregulation.
As an aside, this was a bi-partisan deregulation, not a Republican one as the author suggests.
thank you for the clear conclusion that no "green" or any other alternative movements will produce meaningful change without the truly democratic process that is based on the notion of equality and justice for all.
Alternative energy, green renewables, new jobs, coops...
Rarely do you hear anyone talk about human energy, and the concept of less power. By god, we need, all of our electric toys: microwaves, TVs in every room, countless light bulbs, the need to drive everywhere in our huge steel and plastic cars, toasters, washers, dryers, mixers, blowers, suckers, electric peppermills anf toothbrushes,, video games, cell phones, and on and on. Is it any wonder we have become fat and stupid? The dynamo we were all given at birth has been replaced by for profit energy. Pull the plug and we all wind down, wimpering, in a bloated heap on our hardwood floors.
Actually energy conservation was a central theme of this article.
I get your point about muscle energy, and you can read all the time about the need to exercise for health.
So what is your point, other than to rant about fat and lazy people?
In my co-housing unit, we have five people and one modest bank of panels and our electric bill is generally zero to ten bucks a month. Unless the band rehearses alot and really rocks out. Then it can get up to fifty.
My point, joe, is our reliance on external energy sources and those who control them, has blinded us to reality and gifts of our own nature. They have their place but have been seriously abused to the detriment of our personal well being and the health of our home, Planet Earth.
Of course, fat and lazy is an apt description of more and more people. That is not a rant but a serious health problem for many young and old.
Re-posting of my comment from Lakey's article yesterday--and more...
PLAN B, INSTEAD--the only feasible way to "undermine" the coal mining companies, stop MTR, and create a new SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT in Appalachia, using a technology that is both clean and silent, which can co-exist peacefully with birds, bats as well as humans!
Ref. vortexengine.ca ( = PLAN B)
This technology converts WARMED WATER = HUMIDIFIED AIR into electricity.
Not possible you say--just Google waterspout video to see phenomena which convert thermal energy into kinetic energy (while cooling the planet--just as hurricanes are able to cool warm sea water), producing "humidified air" by evaporation. When the vapor cools as it rises in the vortex, it condenses, releasing heat needed to maintain the buoyancy of the rotating updraft, and keep the process in motion.
Electricity could be harvested at the "base" of an "artificial" vortex by installing turbo-expanders (windmills) in channels containing the air flowing in, which comes in to replace that which rises.
By installing an Ave on any one of the "mountain tops" that have been leveled, not only could a clean, silent and non-life-disrupting source of electricity be created, but dignified work be returned to the area, and a nail could be driven into the coffin of the MTR menace.
Another interesting potential power source that I never see mentioned is Thermal Depolymerization. (Hint: it would also solve the landfill problem if done properly)
This is great!
Power from the "bottom up". Top-down changes are a waste of time and money, as well as favoring the status quo.
When the total environmental and social costs of coal are factored in and coal subsidies removed, Green will win every time.
Watch out for "Citizens United/SCOTUS" FUNDS FLOWING TO CONTESTS FOR POSITIONS ON THE BOARDS OF co-ops, and the usual propaganda/corruption. They won't go down w/o a fight.
Several years ago, we tried to get a PUD started in Multnomah County, OR, which would have taken over the assets of PGE when it was still part of Enron. It was defeated at the polls, primarily by huge sums of money poured into a negative attack campaign, funded by PGE and Pacific Power, that scared people into voting against the measure. The grassroots backers of the PUD did not have any funds to run counter advertising. (I think we need to have a return to the requirement that the opposition must have equal advertising time.)
I have come up with an idea that would stop corporate money flooding into the state to run ads that overwhelm the opposition ... pass a state law that would restrict any money spent on ballot measure campaigns, requiring both sides of the issue to be funded strictly by money from inside the effected voting district. The fact that a large company does business in the district would not qualify them to pour corporate money from outside into the campaign. Such a law would better equalize the money available by either side to run ads supporting their position, and it would give low-budget grassroots campaigns more power to be heard over the corporate flood.
The same law could be applied to candidates for office, meaning that the national party committees could not pour money from outside the district into a campaign. (It would take an act of Congress to put restrictions on the funding of candidates for Federal office.)
Much of Washington State is powered by public utility districts, whereas Oregon has primarily opted for power supplied by for-profit corporations. The rates for PUD customers are far lower than for customers supplied by the corporations. I one case, we were told of pumping stations on Sauvie Island that had been supplied power by PGE, but were actually in Columbia County, which has a PUD. They wee switched to the PUD as provider, and the cost of electricity dropped by 1/3. The City of Forest Grove has their own power company, a PUD run by the city. Their rates are lower than surrounding towns that are supplied with corporate power. These truths about lower cost never saw the light of day on prime-time TV, because the only money in the campaign was by the corporations that opposed it