Coal-powered electricity has long had an impact on American energy systems and our environment. In its latest Dirty Truth report, the Sierra Club pulls back the curtain on the industry, grading U.S. utilities on their climate pledges and calling out greenwashing, as well as flagging slow coal plant retirements and challenging cities and states to demand more accountability.
Ozarks at Large’s Jack Travis reached out to two people deeply immersed in those questions: Emory Hopkins, Sierra Club organizer for Arkansas, and Peter Nierengarten, director of sustainability for the city of Fayetteville. They dig into what the Dirty Truth reveals about Arkansas utilities, what's realistic for cities, and how citizens can push for change.
As far as utilities in the Natural State, Hopkins says they're in a steady decline and possibly overcharging their customers.
Hopkins: SWEPCO we can see is backsliding, and this has been their worst score in the history of the Dirty Truth report. They scored an F. They're investing way too much money in their aging, dirty, polluting Flint Creek Coal Plant, which is located in northwest Arkansas. SWEPCO actually, right now, is asking the Arkansas Public Service Commission for a rate hike, and they want to spend over $30 million to invest in the Flint Creek plant in their current rate case.
They're also planning to build more expensive gas plants, more than 3 gigawatts by 2035, which is a lot of energy, while also investing less in clean, affordable energy than they have in previous years.
The Arkansas Electric Cooperative also scored an F. This is also their worst score in the history of the Dirty Truth report. AECC owns the Flint Creek coal plant with SWEPCO, and this aging, polluting plant has no retirement commitment. They also had one of the lowest renewable scores in the entire United States, earning 0 percent because they had no planned solar or wind while facing future load growth.
And finally, Entergy Arkansas earned a C. The reason why they earned a C rather than a D or an F is largely due to their commitments to retire the costly White Bluff and Independence coal plants, which will remove hundreds of tons of toxic chemicals from the air every year. But the reason why they didn't score higher is because Entergy Arkansas needs to be planning for more renewables moving forward.
Travis: More on Entergy. They're backtracking their 2030 clean energy goals. Could you talk about what message that sends to customers and policymakers?
Hopkins: This is a trend that we're seeing throughout the country. We've seen some of the lowest scores in the Dirty Truth since it was first published. Really, what we're seeing here is that utilities need to be making better choices and plan better for a future with more demand, which includes having a better diversity of resources and access to cleaner, affordable energy rather than relying only on fossil fuels.
We also need to be seeing our utilities investing more in technology like transmission because we need to have access to cleaner energy and more affordable energy in other places, like Oklahoma, which has great access to wind, for example. If Arkansas had access to that energy, it would make everybody's bills more affordable.
Travis: The report warns that some of that poor planning could increase household electricity bills by $120 by the year 2030 and $230 by 2035. Is that already playing out in Arkansas? Are we seeing rate increases?
Hopkins: We're absolutely seeing rate increases. For example, as we were talking about, SWEPCO right now has a docket open with the Public Service Commission where they are asking to increase rates by an average of 27 percent for residential customers. I think that number is a wider range for commercial customers—it's 20 to 40 percent. That's already $30 on normal residential customers’ bills, and we expect to see this trend continue moving forward.
Travis: How would a data center going up in West Memphis affect these results?
Hopkins: We see that throughout the country. Data centers are causing a lot of load growth, and utilities have not done the proper planning to keep up with something like that. A lot of utilities are backsliding on their clean energy commitments. My hope is that we can hold our utilities accountable to keeping their clean energy goals and keeping our bills affordable while big companies invest more in things like data centers.
Travis: How does continued reliance on these coal and new gas plants affect public health in Arkansas, especially for vulnerable lower-income communities?
Hopkins: We often see coal plants, gas plants already in the most marginalized communities, which are communities who are already paying so much of their income toward their electric bill. I don't have all of the stats on hand, but I do know that in 2023 alone, Flint Creek, for example, cost the residents of Arkansas over $13 million in health impacts such as ER visits and asthma attacks, cardiac and neurological diseases, as well as missed days of school and work. And that's just one of the coal plants that resides in Arkansas.
Nierengarten: And I'd just add, Jack, that from a pollution perspective, I think we've known for a long time that coal plants in particular emit dirty pollutants. Those are bad for our health. They're also bad for our environment. But what we're seeing play out today with the SWEPCO rate increase that Emory referenced is they're also bad for our pocketbooks. Continuing to operate these aging, dirty, particularly coal facilities is expensive.
The coal train coming to Arkansas from Wyoming, delivering that coal every single day, is expensive—to mine it out of the ground in Wyoming and ship it all the way to Arkansas and burn it in that coal plant. That has a cost that's much higher than wind and solar and other clean energy options and transmission. And so the economic argument for clean energy is really playing out and really laid bare by this 27 percent rate increase that SWEPCO has proposed.
Travis: With regard to that, if y'all could have the ear of a policymaker or a regulatory commission, what recommendations would either of y'all have if you could have just 15 minutes to really speak your mind?
Nierengarten: The city of Fayetteville has intervened in this rate case that SWEPCO has opened right now, and we've submitted our testimony to the Public Service Commission. Essentially, our arguments are that the economic justification that SWEPCO has used to continue and further the operation of the coal plant is unsound and uses bad math. They discount coal, and they inflate the cost for clean energy—wind and solar and transmission. If you corrected for both of those items, closing the coal plant would be in the best economic interest of Arkansas ratepayers.
Our message to the Arkansas Public Service Commission is disallow the $31 million that SWEPCO is asking for rate recovery on associated with these improvements at the coal plant because it's a bad economic investment for Arkansans, and it's causing our utility bills to go up.
Travis: How much influence or sway does the city of Fayetteville have with the Arkansas Public Service Commission?
Nierengarten: It's a difficult question to answer. We're one of about 10 intervening parties, along with Walmart, the University of Arkansas, the Sierra Club, Audubon, the attorney general's office, and a couple others. We have standing. They've accepted our testimony, and we hope that they are listening. I think our arguments are strong and sound.
If you look at the economic impact of the rate increase, it's over $30 per month for the average Arkansan. If you do the math on what that impact looks like just across Fayetteville alone, it's over $15 million a year in added electricity costs. That's going to be leaving our local economy, in part to support this aging coal plant that again is importing coal from Wyoming to burn and generate dirty electricity for Arkansas.
Travis: Does the city have any tools that can help people reduce their energy burden even when utilities are slow to transition? I know that Fayetteville is kind of a leader in sustainable energy.
Nierengarten: Yeah. We've been investing heavily in clean energy. We've got 10 megawatts of ground-mounted solar at our two wastewater treatment plants. That's helped levelize our electricity costs that we pass on to our ratepayers. That's part of what we're investing in to try to keep our services as low as possible in the city of Fayetteville, as our strategy to help mitigate the impacts of the rate increase.
Travis: Do you see any opportunities for partnerships between cities like Fayetteville and utilities that could accelerate some of that clean energy adoption?
Nierengarten: Yeah, we would certainly welcome any partnerships. That could be especially beneficial beyond us as a large ratepayer, but also for the average ratepayer, the residents and the businesses across the city. We would welcome any partnerships with the utility to invest in clean energy options to help keep rates low.
Travis: What's one action that you would like to see Arkansans—just normal residents—push for, whether through policy, city programs or grassroots advocacy, in response to this Dirty Truth report?
Hopkins: Jack, I love that question. Peter talked about the different people and entities that are intervening in this rate case. But normal Arkansans also have an opportunity to leave public comment and give testimony. I would really encourage everybody listening to go tell the Arkansas Public Service Commission that you don't want your utilities to pass on the costs of dirty coal onto everyday ratepayers and increase rates.
They can do that through—I'm going to shamelessly plug—sc.org/noratehike We have a site to make it easy for people to submit their public comment. There's also going to be an opportunity for public testimony in person in Texarkana on Dec. 2 and Fayetteville Dec. 4.
Nierengarten: We absolutely support folks making their comments heard directly to the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Use the link the Sierra Club has available, show up in person in December at the public hearing. That's your opportunity to talk directly to the Arkansas Public Service Commission and help them understand that we don't want to see continued investment in aging, dirty coal infrastructure that's causing our electricity rates to rise.
The only thing I would add, Jack, is we've known for a long time that coal plants produce dirty pollution. It's bad for our health. It's bad for our environment. And it's also bad for our pocketbooks. I think the current SWEPCO rate increase, the $31 million they want to pass on to ratepayers, that's going to cost the average Arkansan over $30 a month more in electricity rates. That lays bare the fact that the economics of coal is not good. We need to retire these aging coal plants and invest in more affordable, clean energy options for Arkansans to help keep our rates lower.
That was Peter Nierengarten from the city of Fayetteville and Sierra Club's Emory Hopkins speaking with Ozarks at Large’s Jack Travis about the Dirty Truth report.
Jack sought comments from the three Arkansas companies named in the report—SWEPCO, AECC and Entergy—for their input. Only AEC responded in time for our reporting here on Ozarks at Large. AECC manager of corporate communications, Marine Glisovic, stated via email that while the company considers all forms of generation, neither wind nor solar generation resources are capable of providing reliable energy at an affordable cost to serve as replacement generation for its 1.2 million members.
Ozarks at Large transcripts are created on a rush deadline. Copy editors utilize AI tools to review work. KUAF does not publish content created by AI. Please reach out to kuafinfo@uark.edu to report an issue. The audio version is the authoritative record of KUAF programming.
