A nasty circle: A warming atmosphere and diminished power reliability

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has issued its second important report within a month. "Power Failure: How climate change puts our electricity at risk—and what we can do about it" raises some important questions. As science has been telling us for years, extreme weather events due to climate disruption will increase over time. And "global weirding" (as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman refers to global warming) seems to already have visited too many of us in the Mid-Atlantic.

Concerns about climate change are not new. But the UCS report connects some dots in a way that spells big trouble ahead: The country's infrastructure for distributing electricity from power plants to homes and businesses (a.k.a. the grid) is aging. And its age increases its vulnerability to extreme weather events.

A few examples from the report:

• Power plants are vulnerable to water-related risks. Because fossil fuel and nuclear power plants rely on copious amounts of water for cooling, they are invariably located on rivers or bays. Many of these plants are ancient, relatively speaking, and were not engineered for warmer water.
• Sea level rise threatens coastal power facilities in particular. Climate Central reports that about 100 power plants and substations are within four feet of local high tide. And with science predicting likely sea level rises of 1.6 to 6.6 feet above 1992 levels by 2099, we'd better be making some new plans.
• Heat waves are a double whammy: reducing efficiency at power plants while simultaneously increasing demand ("Honey, it's too hot in here! Turn up the A/C.")

This is where it hits home for me, literally. I experienced days-long power outages from  Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 and again this past winter, the third snowiest on record for Philadelphia.

So what's to be done? We need to find the collective will to "harden" our electricity infrastructure—burying power lines and building sea walls, that type of thing. But it's expensive. So let's really fix the problem and move toward a cleaner energy future, where generating electricity doesn't make climate change worse, which further threatens our aging grid—a positive feedback loop we just can't accept.

See PennFuture's Clean Energy Wins report, just released in March, that offers a roadmap as to how Pennsylvania can displace fossil fuels with clean energy and energy efficiency.

Please help keep the lights on -- and the planet safer.

This offending branch that knocked out my neighborhood's power for 2+ days in February

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Climate deniers in Congress. And yet, they like the money...

Thanks to the Center for American Progress for the insightful report it has just released titled

States of Denial: States with the Most Federal Disaster Aid Sent Climate-Science Deniers to Congress.  

The report shows all too well the actual cost of carbon pollution, as we reflect on extreme weather events of recent years. These weather disasters, fueled in part by climate change, are costing the country billions of dollars, even as more than 160 members of Congress continue to deny climate change.

To quote the Center, "Interestingly, many of the states that received the most federal recovery aid to cope with climate-linked extreme weather have federal legislators who are climate-science deniers. The ten states that received the most federal recovery aid in FY 2011 and 2012 elected 47 climate-science deniers to the Senate and the House. Nearly two-thirds of the senators from these top 10 recipient states voted against granting federal emergency aid to New Jersey and New York after Superstorm Sandy."

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey voted to send aid to our neighbors in New Jersey and New York. However, Senator Pat Toomey voted not to help them. How is this compassionate, or even fair? These are fundamental American values in my perspective, so I simply don't understand how Sen. Toomey can vote this way.

I'm relieved to write that Pennsylvania is 20th on the list of states in terms of aid received, due in some part to the luck of our inland geography. And yet, Pennsylvania ranks as the third worst state in terms of producing global warming pollution. We're a big part of the problem, so a big part of the responsibility should fall on our shoulders.

We're hearing that the Obama Administration is set to publicly propose this Friday (September 20) a carbon pollution standard for new power plants, as authorized by the Clean Air Act. This regulation, if allowed to stand by Congress, will ensure that no new power plant built in this country will be permitted to release unlimited amounts of dangerous carbon pollution into the air, endangering public health and fueling the storms that are devastating communities and costing billions.

I'm only sorry that our country didn't have the foresight to do this a decade ago.