Sierra Club chair: JEA's future energy plans are perfect example of 'greenwashing'

In a time of rapid global warming, there is an urgent need for companies, industries and governments to reduce carbon emissions. Many of these entities respond by touting their efforts to go “green” and impress environmentally minded customers. Sometimes their claims are legitimate, but far too many are “greenwashing.”

That is, their claims suggest they are environmentally friendly, while their everyday practices contribute to environmental degradation and global warming. For a local example of greenwashing, look no further than JEA, our municipal utility.

For many years, renewable energy sources comprised less than 1.5% of JEA’s energy generation portfolio, yet the utility distributed brochures portraying it as being on the cutting edge of the transition to renewable energy sources. To JEA’s credit, these brochures lessened in frequency and their claims became less grandiose.

As JEA rolled out its electrical Integrated Resource Plan, the greenwashing resurfaced. If implemented as designed, the JEA plan will translate to the addition of clean and renewable energy, yet the amount to be added is modest when compared to additions by other utilities. At the start of 2023, JEA was at 1.5% renewable energy. Their plan projects an increase to 24% renewable energy by 2030, a goal that seems ambitious and bold.

JEA will also follow through on a 2008 agreement to purchase electricity produced by Plant Vogtle, a nuclear energy plant in Georgia. Thus, to reach its total stated goal of 35% alternative energy sources, JEA’s energy portfolio lumps in 11% nuclear with 24% renewables.

Additionally, the JEA plan assumes a new combined cycle natural gas plant will be built and many components of the plan are contingent on its addition. Given that the plant will likely cost over $1 billion and have a lifespan of 30 years, adding it will lock the utility even further into fossil fuel dependence beyond 2050.

Given the rapid advances in renewable energy technologies and the declining cost of adding renewable energy sources, it may eventually cost more to operate the natural gas plant than what JEA receives from selling its electricity. Thus, there is a good chance the plant will eventually become a financial yoke around the utility’s neck, much like its nuclear energy purchase contracts with Plant Vogtle.

Many utilities are decommissioning their coal-fired generating systems because they are expensive, inefficient and highly polluting, yet JEA assumes its coal-fired Northside Generating Station will operate indefinitely. This action defies looming EPA requirements that utilities retrofit existing plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Does such defiance and inaction reflect a utility committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

While other utilities are actively capitalizing on financial incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act to transition to renewable energy sources, JEA is actively finding reasons not to do so. The Integrated Resource Plan includes steps to study and analyze the offerings of the bill, rather than capitalizing on them.

This seems like a utility preferring to stay in its comfort zone, burning fossil fuels for energy generation.

Residents in this region have been starved for signs JEA is modernizing its energy generation practices, so many were elated by the addition of renewable energy sources to the plan. They interpreted this as a bold move by JEA and an indicator of great changes to come. If you are one of these people, I encourage you to take a closer look.

You will find JEA is committed to fossil fuel combustion for most of its electricity generation for a very long time. If the plan is implemented as designed, JEA will remain fossil fuel dependent for at least the next 25 years. Since JEA is Jacksonville’s utility, the city will continue its fossil fuel dependence and remain a substantial contributor to global warming.

Letters: Thanking those who helped save JEA for National Public Service Recognition Week

If you are among the city leaders and citizens who are pleased with JEA’s foray into clean energy, enjoy the warm feeling inside when you hear them touting their clean energy bona fides. You will be living proof greenwashing works.

Conversely, if you are among the residents who want JEA to do more, convey your preferences to its board members and demand more of its leaders.

This would allow Jacksonville to join other cities addressing climate change — a positive step for us and the environment.

J. Logan Cross is chairman of the Sierra Club of Northeast Florida Executive Committee. He lives in San Marco. 

This guest column is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Times-Union. We welcome a diversity of opinions. 

This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: JEA refuses to act on Inflation Reduction Act clean energy incentives