In a well-organized report of at least 1250 words plus an MLA-style Works Cited page, write a technical description of one specific type of equipment, process, or program by a government, business, or other research institution that is designed to lower carbon dioxide emissions from a specific source, such as cars, factories, agriculture, etc. Your proposal memo should describe your plan in at least three well-organized paragraphs of at least seven sentences each 

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering
Tome VII [2014] Fascicule 3 [July – September]

ISSN: 2067 – 3809

© copyright Faculty of Engineering – Hunedoara, University POLITEHNICA Timisoara

 

 

1. Siti Halimah YUSOF, 2. Md. Azree Othuman MYDIN

SOLAR INTEGRATED ENERGY SYSTEM
FOR GREEN BUILDING

1,2School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia,

11800, Penang, MALAYSIA

Abstract: Green building is a kind of sustainable development and energy-saving building, has a very important
significance for alleviating strained resources, protecting the environment to reduce pollution. And the solar
energy is not only an energy, and a renewable energy, but which rich in resources. It not only free use of, but also
not to be transported, and it produces no pollution to environment and more widely using in the green building.
Early, solar building just passed the light and heat of the Sun in order to light up and heat the building. But now,
the green building obtains solar energy by adopting ‘active’. This ‘active’ green building is a kind of heating system
consists of solar energy collector, radiator, pump and fan, or air conditioning-building combined with absorption
chiller. One of the green building which is Shanghai Research Institute of Building Science contain multiple green
energy technologies, such as solar thermal technology, solar photovoltaic, natural ventilation, natural lighting, and
indoor virescence. Here, there an example of solar integrated energy system including heating, air conditioning,
natural ventilation and hot water supplied which applied in the green building
Keywords: sustainability, thermal, solar, photovoltaic, renewable energy 

Introduction
The field of „green technology” encompasses a
continuously evolving group of methods and
materials, from techniques for generating energy to
non-toxic cleaning products [1]. The present
expectation is that this field will bring innovation
and changes in daily life of similar magnitude to
the „information technology” explosion over the
last two decades. In these early stages, it is
impossible to predict what „green technology” may
eventually encompass. The goals that inform
developments in this rapidly growing field include
[2]:
− Sustainability – meeting the needs of society in

ways that can continue indefinitely into the
future without damaging or depleting natural
resources. In short, meeting present needs
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.

− „Cradle to cradle” design – ending the „cradle to
grave” cycle of manufactured products, by
creating products that can be fully reclaimed or
re-used.

− Source reduction – reducing waste and pollution
by changing patterns of production and
consumption.

− Innovation – developing alternatives to
technologies – whether fossil fuel or chemical
intensive agriculture – that have been
demonstrated to damage health and the
environment.

− Viability – creating a center of economic activity
around technologies and products that benefit
the environment, speeding their implementation
and creating new careers that truly protect the
planet.

Sustainable development is development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own
needs this is a common definition of the sustainable
that been use all wide world [2]. In other word
sustainability is the approach in which
development that provide to ensure the need of
today generation but not forgetting the need of
future generation. The benefit of sustainability and
green technologies is divided to three components,
which are environment, social and economic.

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014] 

| 116 | 

The environmental benefits of sustainability and
green technologies are as follows:
Lower Air Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas

Emissions
One of the benefit of sustainability and green
technologies is it reduce emission of CO2 this
reduce by decreasing energy use through energy-
efficient design, use of renewable energy, and
building commissioning. When the CO2 is reduced
it will lower the greenhouse gas emissions as CO2
is one of the gases that produce greenhouse effect
[1].
Reduced Volumes of Solid Waste

Green construction practice such as using recycle
material, waste prevention, storage and collection
of recyclables will reduce the volume of solid waste
that can contribute to pollution.
Decreased Use of Natural Resources and

Lower Ecosystem Impacts
Sustainable design principle also assists in
lessening the impacts on natural resources and
ecosystems. One of the principles is sustainable
sitting approach. It avoids built building on prime
agricultural land, floodplains, and habitats for
threatened species or near wetlands, parklands, and
cultural or scenic areas. This will reduce the
impact of the building to the ecosystem. Other than
that; the use of rapidly renewable material such as
bamboo will help reduce the use not renewable
materials and help maintaining the forest and
biodiversity.
The social benefits is of sustainability and green
technologies
Better health of building occupants

The benefit of sustainability and green technologies
in health is focus on the indoor environment and
specially put in intention on the air quality. The
indoor air quality is very important in maintaining
the health of the occupant this is because usually
the diseases are transmitted through the air. So,
enough air ventilation is needed to remove harmful
air outside and allow fresh air to the building
through a sustainable site orientation and
planning this can be achieved.
Usually sustainable building is design with many
opening or louvered to allow the movement of air
[2].

Improved comfort, satisfaction, and Well-
being of building occupant
Psychological effects (e.g., comfort, satisfaction and
well-being) are generated through perceptual and
sensory processes that interpret environmental
information in terms of its effect on current needs,
activities, and preferences. Some of the sustainable
feature like natural daylight, views, connection to
nature, and spaces for social interaction, appear to
have positive psychological and social benefits.
Community and societal benefit

Sustainable construction practices tend to generate
lower amounts of dust, pollution, noise, traffic
congestion, and other community disturbances.
These improvements will likely contribute to
improved public health, safety, and well-being.
Construction practices and building operation
practices that foster recycling and reduce waste
generation will decrease the public nuisance this is
because it will reduce the will demand for new
landfills, electric utility plants, transmission and
gas pipelines, and wastewater treatment.
Furthermore, the use of local product in
sustainable building will increase the local
economy and provide job for community [2].
The economic benefit of sustainability and green
technologies
Reduce First Cost

Sustainability and green technologies provide
financial rewards for building owner’s. This is
because it lower the first costs. this can be seen
when it use recycle material instead of other virgin
material. the sustainable approach to site
orientation will ensure the building capture
enough sunlight and balancing the sunlight
penetration with vegetation reduce the use of
HVAC system which then reduce the first cost [2].
annual energy cost saving

Sustainable design approach will lead to annual
energy saving. For example, reducing the use of
HVAC system because of the sustainable design
approach like good building orientation and good
site planning may reduce the use of energy.
annual water cost saving

the annual water is save by using green
technologies such as rain water harvesting. the
rain water is use for the domestic use and lead to
water cost saving. Some of the technologies such as

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014]

| 117 |

ultra-low-flow showerheads, no-water urinals, and
dual-flush toilets will lower indoor water
consumption [1].
lower costs of facility Maintenance and

repair
Sustainable design aims to increase durability and
ease of maintenance which will reduce the
maintenance cost and repair cost. Some of the
sustainable design approach is using local material
to reduce the maintenance cost this is because the
material is easy to get and the material is cheap.
SOLAR INTEGRATED ENERGY SYSTEM
FOR BUILDING
In the era where the energy future is uncertain.
The amount of fossil fuel is no longer enough for
the future. This cause the improvement of
technologies in renewable energy sources. There
are several of renewable energy sources available
today. Some of the renewable energy sources is
wind, biomass, and hydroelectricity and solar
which now becomes a trend for the green building
[3].
Solar energy is radiant light and heat from the sun.
The technology enable the sun radiant light to be
transform into electrical energy that can be used
for the daily purposed. Some of the solar
technologies are solar heating, solar photovoltaic,
solar thermal electricity and solar architecture.
Solar technologies are basically divided into two
which are active solar energy system or passive
solar energy system depend on the way they
capture, convert and distribute solar energy.
Active solar energy system is the use of
photovoltaic panel and solar thermal collectors to
harness the energy. While, passive solar energy
system is the technique to harness the solar energy
passively. For example, by adjusting the building
orientation to capture natural sunlight and to
capture the heat from the sun to provide
comfortable environment in the building [4].
It has become a trend for the large firms, and some
of the famous architect to joining the forces with
energy specialist to design the building based on
the solar integrated energy system. Solar
integrated energy system is no longer a system that
only provides renewable energy either provide the
passive solar energy system or active solar energy
system. This is because it is a combination of all the

technologies such as solar heated and cooled,
photovoltaic powered building. Solar integrated
energy system is also can be called as “solar
building”.
The word integrated in the solar integrated energy
system is solar system become one of the part of the
general building design. It cannot be separated or
added after the building is completed. In fact, it
becomes one of the building elements. Solar
integrated energy system is sustainable system
that combining all the solar technologies system
that integrated with the building to make the
building more energy efficient and reduce the use
of depleting energy sources [3].
ACTIVE SOLAR ENERGY vs PASSIVE
SOLAR ENERGY
Active Solar Energy uses of mechanical devices in
the collection, storage, and distribution of solar
energy for building. An example is in active solar
energy water heating systems a pump is used to
circulate water through the system. There are a
numerous solar applications that acan use to take
full advantage of active solar energy. These include
[5]:
− Active Solar Heating is a method of heating the

air inside of the building. This method uses
mechanical equipment including: pumps, fans
and blowers to help collect, store and distribute
heat throughout the building.

− Active Solar Heating is a method of heating the
building with water using the sun and pumps
to circulate the water or heat-transfer fluid
through the system.

− Passive Solar Energy refers to the harnessing of
the sun’s energy without the use of mechanical
devices. Using south-facing windows to provide
natural lighting and heat for home are examples
of passive solar energy.

There are a variety of solar applications that a
homeowner can use to take full advantage of
passive solar energy. These include:
Passive Solar Heating is a type of solar space
heating that can be accomplished by the following
methods:
− Orienting the building so that the majority of

it’s windows face south.
− Sizing windows for optimal heat gain and

making sure have the right type of windows.

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014] 

| 118 | 

− Utilizing thermal mass to absorb the solar
energy entering the windows for release during
the night. Thermal mass is simply a solid or
liquid material that will absorb and store
warmth and coolness until it is needed.
Examples of thermal mass include: brick,
stone, concrete and water.

− Insulating the building to minimize heat loss.
Passive Solar Cooling utilizes many of the methods
listed below to minimize the impact the summer
sun has on the building and thereby reduce or
eliminate building need for mechanical cooling
systems. Passive Solar Cooling techniques include
[5]:
− Orienting building and landscape so that it can

take advantage of cooling breezes.
− Designing building to minimize barriers to air

paths through the buildng to allow for natural
ventilation.

− Using the right size and type of windows in
order to minimize the heat gain in the summer
and that enable ventilation by opening.

− Using both structural features and landscaping
to create shading.

− Insulating the building to maintain a
comfortable temperature.

Solar energy is receiving much attention in green
building energy system because of its abundant
and clean being. Generally, the newer green
buildings combine several of solar technologies. As
for example, they may be both energy efficient,
solar heated and cooled, and PV powered in one
building. They are simply just solar buildings.
Solar integrated energy system is the combination
of different solar-related technologies. Solar energy
is a renewable resource that can be used in many
ways for water heating, space heating and cooling
in buildings [2].
An integrated energy system based on solar
thermal technologies are:
a) Solar Water Heating System
The beauty of a solar hot water system is its
relative simplicity and durability. There are two
types of collectors used in a solar hot water service
as been shown in Figure 1:
− flat plate collectors (suitable where tank roof

mounting is required)

− evacuated tubes (more efficient and great for
frost prone areas)

Figure 1. Flat panel (left) and evacuated tube collectors
i. Flat plate solar collectors
Flat plate collectors’ work on copper pipes running
through a glass covered collector, often connected
to a water storage tank on the roof. The hot water
can then thermo-siphon itself in and out of the
tank, thus heating the water [5].
ii. Evacuated tube solar collectors
Evacuated tubes use a glass tube with a vacuum
inside and copper pipes running through the
centre. The copper pipes are all connected to a
common manifold which is then connected to a
slow flow circulation pump that pumps water to a
storage tank below, thus heating the hot water
during the day. The hot water can be used at night
or the next day due to the insulation of the tank
[4].
The evacuation tube systems are superior as they
can extract the heat out of the air on a humid day
and don’t need direct sunlight. Due to the vacuum
inside the glass tube, the total efficiency in all areas
is higher and there’s better performance when the
sun is not at an optimum angle – such as when it’s
early in the morning or in the late afternoon.
b) Integrated solar Energy System
The integrated solar energy system mainly
includes two adsorption chillers, floor heating
pipes, finned tube heat exchangers, circulating
pumps and a cooling tower. Hot water storage tank

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014]

| 119 |

is employed to collect solar heat, thereby providing
hot water for the integrated solar energy system.
The integrated solar energy system can be switched
to different operating modes through valves located
on the pipes according to different seasons [5].
This silica gel-water adsorption chiller is composed
of three working vacuum chambers including two
desorption/ adsorption chambers and one heat pipe
working chamber. In the adsorption chamber,
water is taken as the refrigerant, while in the heat
pipe working chamber; methanol is used as the
working substance. The evaporation cooling in
evaporator 1 or 2 is transferred to the methanol
chamber via heat pipe evaporation/condensation
process. Chilled water is cooled down in the
methanol chamber directly. This design idea has
made two water evaporators (Evaporator 1,
Evaporator 2) integrated into one methanol
evaporator.
Generally, the supply water temperature of floor
heating system is relatively lower, which leads to
the feasibility of low-grade heat source. As a result,
solar energy is suitable for floor heating system.
The floor heating coil pipes are made of high-
quality pure copper with the dimension of F12 _
0.7 mm, fixed on the 30-mm thick polystyrene
insulation layer with spacing interval 200 mm.
And then crushed stone concrete was poured with
the thickness of 70 mm. Figure 2 shows the
arrangement of floor heating coil pipe [5].

Figure 2. Arrangement of floor heating coil pipe

c) Natural Ventilation Enhance
There is an air channel under the roof of the green
building, which is designed for indoor air exhaust

through natural ventilation. In order to enhance
natural ventilation by stack pressure, we installed
seven groups of heat exchange elements inside the
air channel. Each group consists of three parallel
finned tube heat exchangers as shown in Fig. 8.
The finned tube heat exchanger is made of a 3-m
long copper tube with 540 square fins. The
diameter of the tube is 20 mm and the sectional
dimension of the square fins is 102 mm [3].
SOLAR INTEGRATED SYSTEM APPLIED IN
GREEN BUILDING
The green buildings of Shanghai Research Institute
of Building Science include an office building for
the demonstration of public building and two
residential buildings which are for the
demonstration of flat and villa, respectively. As
demonstration projects, they contain multiple
green energy technologies, such as solar thermal
technology, solar photovoltaic, natural ventilation,
and natural lighting [6]. Here, we designed a
solar-powered integrated energy system including
heating, air-conditioning, natural ventilation and
hot water supply for the office building. However,
only solar hot-water systems were designed for the
flat and villa. All the three systems have
continuously run for 2 years.
i. Integration of solar hot-water system with
flat
A three-storey green building was built for the
demonstration of flat, where the first floor is for
ordinary single-storied flat and the upper two
floors are for duplex flat. The solar collectors were
installed on the sideboards of balconies. According
to the dimension of balconies, we customized
evacuated tubular solar collectors with CPC, and
placed solar collectors at the first floor, second floor
and third floor. Figure below shows the effect of
integration of solar collectors and the flat. Here,
solar collectors act as not only the heat source of
hot-water system, but also the decoration of
balconies [4]. This demonstration project serves as
a good example of both building integration and of
a sensible combination of functions. Moreover, it
provides a feasible design method for multi-story
buildings and high-rise buildings especially for
residential buildings. Besides solar collector arrays,
the solar hot-water system of the single-storied flat
is mainly composed of a solar collecting pump, a

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014] 

| 120 | 

constant pressure tank and a heat storage water
tank. They are connected through copper pipes and
valves to form a closed circulating system [5]. The
domestic hot water is heated by the heat exchanger
inside the heat storage water tank. Similar solar
hot-water system was constructed for the duplex
flat by the parallel connection of solar collector
arrays on the second floor and the third floor.
ii. Integration of solar hot-water system with
villa
In the villa, because the whole roof is occupied by
technologies of solar photovoltaic then U-type
evacuated tubular solar collected is customized
with CPC in terms of the dimension of awning, as
shown in below. Such design provides another
example of how a solar element could be used in the
original design in a logical manner, especially for
those without enough roof area. The solar hot-
water system in the villa is similar with those of
flat (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Solar hot-water system in villa

iii. Integration of solar collectors and green
office building
As the power to drive adsorption chillers and the
heat source for the floor heating and natural
ventilation, the solar collectors are the most
important parts. We installed solar collectors on
the roof of the green building, wherein U-type
evacuated tubular solar collectors with CPC of area
were placed on the west side (SCW), and the other
heat pipe evacuated tubular solar collectors on the
east side (SCE). For the purpose of efficient
utilization of solar energy, the architects designed a
steel structure roof, facing due south and tilted at
an angle of 40° to the ground surface, on which the
solar collectors were mounted and integrated with
the building perfectly [6].

Figure 4. Appearance of the green office building

integrated with solar collectors
Figure 4 shows the appearance of the green office
building integrated with solar collectors. All solar
collectors of both sides were divided into three
parallel rows. The collector units in each row were
connected in a series arrangement for the purpose
of obtaining hot water with relatively high
temperature, which plays an important role in
improving performance of the solar energy system.
Such an arrangement of solar collectors not only
guarantees high system performance but also
enhances the architectural expression of the
building. Besides, it provides a feasible idea for
integration of solar collectors and civil buildings
especially for public buildings [3].
iv. Design of solar-powered integrated energy
system
An integrated energy system based on solar
thermal technologies was designed and set up for
building area of 460 m2. As an office building, the
hot water demand is not as significant as that in
residential buildings. So, the solar-powered
integrated system design of the green building is
mainly focused on floor heating in winter and air-
conditioning in summer. Another design is natural
ventilation enhanced by solar hot water, which is
effective and necessary to solve the problem of
surplus hot water in transitional seasons.
Moreover, it provides a new method for the design
of solar-enhanced natural ventilation [4].
Except for solar collectors, the solar-powered
integrated energy system mainly includes two
adsorption chillers, floor heating pipes, finned tube
heat exchangers, circulating pumps, and a cooling
tower. Besides, a hot water storage tank is
employed to collect solar heat, thereby providing

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014]

| 121 |

hot water for the integrated solar energy system.
All components are connected by tubes and valves
to form the whole circulating system.
BENEFITS OF SOLAR INTEGRATED
ENERGY SYSTEM
First of all advantages of solar energy is that Solar
energy offers the highest energy density among all
the renewable energy resources (a global average of
170 W/m2). The amount of solar energy received by
the Earth every minute is greater than the amount
of energy from fossil fuels consumed each year
worldwide.
In areas with a well-developed power grid, solar
energy leads green energy in the network. In the
case of grid-connected, photovoltaic energy can be
stored and used at times of peak demand, reducing
the network load. A solar energy system can
generate electricity all year round, not just in the
days of sunshine. Solar energy does not cause
pollution, which is one of the most important
advantages of solar energy. The maintenance, or
structures, after an initial set-up, is minimal [7].
The solar energy connected to the network can be
used locally minimizing in this way the losses
related to transmission / distribution
(approximately 7.2%). The grid-connected
photovoltaic systems produce electricity from
conventional clean and sustainable. Are
environmentally friendly, the usual costs of
transport and energy allow any user to become a
producer of green energy in an easy and profitable.
Supported the initial cost of installing a solar
power plant, operating and maintenance costs are
minimal (<10% of revenues), as compared with existing technologies. The lifetime of a solar energy system over 20 years, this is also one of many important advantages of solar energy.Solar cells are long lasting sources of energy which can be used almost anywhere. They are particularly useful where there is no national grid and also where there are no people such as remote site water pumping or in space [5]. Solar cells provide cost effective solutions to energy problems in places where there is no mains electricity. Solar cells are also totally silent and non-polluting. As they have no moving parts they require little maintenance and have a long lifetime. Compared to other renewable sources they also

possess many advantages; wind and water power
rely on turbines which are noisy, expensive and
liable to breaking down [6].
Rooftop power is a good way of supplying energy
to a growing community. More cells can be added
to homes and businesses as the community grows
so that energy generation is in line with demand.
Many large scale systems currently end up over
generating to ensure that everyone has enough.
Solar cells can also be installed in a distributed
fashion, i.e. they don’t need large scale
installations. Solar cells can easily be installed on
roofs which means no new space is needed and each
user can quietly generate their own energy.
Solar Energy Advantages are often discussed in the
news, the biggest advantage may be that this is an
option to achieve energy independence on an
individual basis and at your own speed [7]. You
can add a solar powered attic fan or water heater or
migrate a little faster with solar panels to
supplement a portion of your electrical needs or get
completely off the grid or somewhere in between.
We took for granted that electricity would continue
to be easy to acquire, relatively cheap to consume
and reliable.
While it is still convenient, we know it is no longer
easy to acquire or cheap to consume and in the past
few years many of us have experienced rolling
blackouts, power outages that lasted longer than a
few days and these instances are happening
multiple times and more regularly. Taking into
consideration the environmental disasters of oil
spills in just Alaska and in the Gulf, it’s clear that
oil companies have no backup plan in the case of
mishap. Now maybe the best time to really explore
the advantages of solar energy and how to
transition to this source of energy for our homes
and businesses.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, solar technologies can be divided
into two which are active solar energy system or
passive solar energy system depended on the way
they capture, convert and distribute solar energy.
Active solar energy system is the use of
photovoltaic panel and solar thermal collectors to
harness the energy while, passive solar energy
system is the technique to harness the solar energy
passively. For example, by adjusting the building

ACTA TEHNICA CORVINIENSIS Fascicule 3 [July – September]
– Bulletin of Engineering Tome VII [2014] 

| 122 | 

orientation to capture natural sunlight and to
capture the heat from the sun to provide
comfortable environment in the building. Solar
integrated energy system is sustainable system
that combining all the solar technologies system
that integrated with the building to make the
building more energy efficient and reduce the use
of depleting energy sources. Solar integrated
energy system involves heating, air-conditioning,
natural ventilation and hot water supplying was
constructed for the green building, which realizes
high integration of solar thermal technologies.
References
[1.] M. Green, Third Generation Photovoltaics:

Advanced Solar Energy Conversion, Springer,
Berlin, 2006.

[2.] G. Dennler, The value of values, Mater. Today 10
(2007) 56. [4] ASTM Standard G173, Standard
Tables for Reference Solar Spectral Irradiances:
Direct Normal and Hemispherical on 371 Tilted
Surface, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA: /http://www.astm.

[3.] IEC Standard 60904-3, Photovoltaic Devices—
Part 3: Measurement Principles for Terrestrial
Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Devices with Reference
Spectral Irradiance Data, International
Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland

[4.] ASTM Standard E 927, Standard Specification for
Solar Simulation for Photovoltaic Testing, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA

[5.] IEC Standard 60904-9, Photovoltaic Devices—
Part 9: Solar Simulator Performance
Requirements, International Electrotechnical
Commission, Geneva, Switzerland

[6.] V. Shrotriya, G. Li, Y. Yao, T. Moriarty, K.
Emery, Y. Yang, Accurate measurement and
characterization of organic solar cells, Adv. Funct.
Mater. 16 (2006) 2016–2023.

[7.] W. Durisch, B. Bitnar, J.-C. Mayor, H. Kiess, K.-
H. Lam, J. Close, Efficiency model for photovoltaic
modules and demonstration of its application to
energy yield estimation, Solar Energy Mater. Solar
Cells 91 (2007) 79–84.

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
copyright ©

University “POLITEHNICA” Timisoara,
Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara,

5, Revolutiei,
331128, Hunedoara, ROMANIA

http://acta.fih.upt.ro

Copyright of Acta Technica Corvininesis – Bulletin of Engineering is the property of
University Politehnica Timisoara, Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

A political ecology of the built environment: LEED certification
for green buildings

Julie Cidell�

Department of Geography, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 220 Davenport Hall,
607 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards of the non-
profit US Green Building Council have become the accepted benchmark for
designating “green buildings” in the USA and many other countries. Throughout their
10-year history, the standards have remained flexible, changing with input from
designers, builders, environmentalists, and others to incorporate new types of
buildings and modify the existing standards to make them more geographically,
economically, and functionally sensitive. In this article, I examine through an urban
political ecology lens how the LEED standards help to produce a particular kind of
built environment. Political ecology has broadened from its origins in the cultural
ecology of the developing world to include urban and industrialised environments. In
recent years, work in this area has focused on hybridity and socio-nature to explore
the ways that urban environments are constructed and maintained through biological,
political, and economic processes. In this article, I show how the LEED standards
and the green buildings and built environments they help to produce are hybrids of
material objects and human practices.

Keywords: green buildings; political ecology; built environment; sustainability

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards of the non-profit
US Green Building Council (USGBC) have become the accepted benchmark for designat-
ing “green buildings” in the USA and many other countries, with over 16,000 projects cur-
rently seeking certification. Throughout their 10-year history, the standards have remained
flexible, changing with input from designers, builders, environmentalists, and others to
incorporate new types of buildings and modify the standards to make them more geographi-
cally, economically, and functionally sensitive. This article examines through an urban
political ecology lens how the LEED standards help to produce a built environment that
is an explicit hybrid of human and natural objects and practices.

Political ecology has broadened from its origins in the cultural ecology of the developing
world to include urban and industrialised environments. In recent years, work has focused on
hybridity and socio-nature to explore how urban environments are constructed and main-
tained through biological, political, and economic processes. While urban political ecology
is not a research method per se, it does provide a framework for considering green buildings.
Approaching green buildings from an urban political ecology perspective thus leads us to ask
what vision of the city is being produced by the LEED standards. (We can also ask who is

ISSN 1354-9839 print/ISSN 1469-6711 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13549830903089275

http://www.informaworld.com

�Email: jcidell@illinois.edu

Local Environment
Vol. 14, No. 7, August 2009, 621–633

producing that vision and why, as well as for whom, but these questions are beyond the scope
of the current article.) Through an examination of the current standards, I will show how the
LEED programme works to construct cities with the following characteristics:

. flexibly and reflexively green

. well documented and carefully planned

. sustainable in terms of the environment and the economy, but not society

. planned to be socio-natural hybrids

After a more detailed explanation of the LEED standards and a brief review of the urban
political ecology literature, this article explores each of these points in turn. The main con-
tribution of this article is to argue that one of the most promising sources for understanding
the production of socio-nature is the built environment, which by its very name implies the
irreducibility of the world to the human on one side and the natural on the other. Green
buildings and the standards that produce them are one important pathway to investigating
how the built environment is constructed both discursively and materially, and how chan-
ging building practices might imply a change in urban socio-nature relations.

The LEED standards

The recent and rapidly growing green building movement urges architects and builders to
take the environment into account at local, regional, and global scales. Buildings in the
USA account for 68% of electricity consumption, 37% of energy usage, and 88% of
potable water usage, while generating 30% of greenhouse gas emissions (USGBC 2003,
The Economist 2004). One way to reduce these numbers is through a certification pro-
gramme that awards points for reducing environmental impact, and the non-profit
USGBC was founded in 1993 with the express purpose of doing so. The LEED programme
began in 1998 and has since been used by public and non-profit agencies as well as private
developers for buildings ranging from houses to skyscrapers. The LEED standards have
been adopted in over 40 countries, including Brazil, Canada, China, India, and the
United Arab Emirates, and programmes such as BREEAM in the UK and Green Star in
New Zealand and Australia serve a similar function.

Because of the wide variety of structures in the built environment, there are several
different sets of LEED standards. Over 80% of certified buildings fall into the New
Construction (NC) category (e.g. as opposed to existing buildings or homes), and so those
are the standards that will be examined here. As of November 2008, there were over 2000
projects that had been certified as LEED-NC, with an additional 15,000 registered but still
under construction, and construction industry analysts estimate that by 2010, 10% of all
buildings in the USA will be LEED certified (USGBC 2008c).

One of the strengths of LEED certification is its flexible point or credit system. There
are seven prerequisites, and credits can then be acquired according to the preferences of the
building owner, designer, and/or contractor up to certified, silver, gold, or platinum levels.
USGBC data show that of the buildings certified under LEED-NC as of the end of 2007,
34% were certified, 32% were silver, 28% were gold, and 6% were platinum. These
figures indicate that most builders are not settling for the minimum requirements, but are
trying to achieve as many credits as possible.

The credits are distributed across six categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency,
energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and inno-
vation in design. Table 1 shows the relationship between the percentage of total credits

622 J. Cidell

that are possible in each category and the credits actually achieved in that category based on
all LEED-certified buildings as of the end of 2007, indicating that some categories are more
popular than others.

As the LEED reference guide notes, “Establishing sustainable design objectives and inte-
grating building location and sustainable features as a metric for decision making encourages
development and preservation or restoration practices that limit the environmental impact
of buildings on local ecosystems” (USGBC 2007, p. 21). In the sustainable sites category,
“sustainability” includes reducing air and water pollution from the construction process,
making use of existing infrastructure, redeveloping brownfields, promoting alternative trans-
portation, maximising open space and habitat, managing stormwater in both quantity and
quality, and minimising heat island effect and light pollution. The proportion of credits
achieved in this category was roughly equivalent to the percentage of possible points (Table 1).

Water efficiency includes reducing water usage for both potable and non-potable water,
including landscaping as a separate category. Treating wastewater on site is one possibility
in addition to simply reducing usage; the intent is to reduce not only the flow of water into a
building, but of wastewater out of the building as well. Credits were achieved in this cat-
egory to a slightly greater extent than they were available (Table 1).

Since one of the most-cited statistics by the USGBC is the 37% of energy usage that
goes to buildings, the energy and atmosphere category would seem particularly important.
Beyond the obvious strategy of reducing energy consumption (with up to 10 points possible
for different levels of doing so), this category includes managing refrigerants, using renew-
able energy onsite or paying for green power, using building commissioning, and monitor-
ing building performance over time. Based on Table 1, credits appear more difficult to earn
in energy and atmosphere than in other categories.

Materials and resources is the category most concerned with connections beyond the
building’s immediate surroundings, including explicitly trying to promote local green econ-
omic development through the production of green building materials. As the LEED refer-
ence guide states, “Building materials choices are important in sustainable design because
of the extensive network of extraction, processing and transportation steps required to
process them” (p. 239). With that in mind, credits are achieved by recycling onsite, divert-
ing construction materials from disposal sites, reusing existing building elements when
possible, using recycled or rapidly renewable materials as well as certified wood, or
using local or regional materials. The latter is where one of the most significant changes
in version 2.2 has occurred: instead of “local” counting as the final site of production,
now at least 10% of materials must be extracted or sourced locally. Slightly fewer credits
were achieved here than would be expected based on Table 1.

Table 1. Possible LEED credits and achieved credits, 2000–2007.

Credits by category as a percentage
of all possible credits

Credits achieved by
category (%)

Sustainable sites 21 19
Water efficiency 7 9
Energy and atmosphere 24 19
Materials and resources 19 16
Indoor environmental quality 22 26
Innovation in design 7 11

Source: USGBC data and author’s calculations.

Local Environment 623

Because the majority of the population in the USA spends most of its time indoors,
indoor environmental quality may actually be more relevant to human health than the
out-of-doors is. This category addresses that concern via indoor air quality management
plans, low-emitting materials (carpet, paint, etc.), the ability of building occupants to
adjust their own heat and light conditions, and increasing ventilation. Proportionately
more credits were achieved in this category than almost any other (Table 1).

Finally, there are three purposes for the innovation in design category: to reward
designers for going above and beyond the existing standards (generally considered to be
twice the level; for example, using 40% recycled content instead of 20%); for recognising
new technologies or processes (such as carsharing from a residential building in lieu of car-
pooling); and for including a LEED Accredited Professional (AP). Anyone who passes the
AP exam is qualified to go through the building process with the design team and verify that
credits are or are not likely to be achieved. The USGBC then independently certifies the
building. As Table 1 shows, while only 7% of available credits were in innovation in
design, 11% of achieved credits were here, making this a very popular category.

These six categories are open to review and debate by the USGBC membership. In
2009, the fourth round of LEED standards will be put into place. The standards themselves
are developed by consensus-based volunteer committees and are open to public comment,
although only member organisations are allowed to vote on the actual standards. This
tips the power balance in terms of organisations rather than individuals, although that
does include state and local governments, non-profits, and educational institutions in
addition to private firms. As more and more local governments insert LEED requirements
into their building codes and ordinances, it is important to consider how voluntary
these standards really are, as well as who is in favour of their implementation and who
is not.

Each of the categories of credits also displays a particular aspect of the human–environ-
ment relationship as expressed in the built environment, largely in an urban setting. The
LEED standards produce a particular kind of environment, one that uses minimal resources
and produces minimal waste, but is also very much an urban, indoor environment. In recent
years, geographers and others have theorised extensively about how cities and nature are
not only intertwined, but co-constitutive, through the framework of urban political
ecology. The following section explains the main contributions of this field and their
relevance to green buildings.

Urban political ecology

While political ecology has been around for decades, its urban branch is relatively new.
Heynen et al. (2006) identify the need to fill in the missing spaces of both political
ecology (where the urban has been neglected) and sustainability (where capitalism has
not been rigorously considered). They and others (e.g. Swyngedouw 1996, Braun and
Castree 1998, Braun 2005, 2006) argue for the hybrid, co-constructed concept of social
nature or socio-nature: “Put simply, gravity or photosynthesis is not socially produced.
However, their powers are socially mobilized in particular bio-chemical and physical
metabolic arrangements to serve particular purposes; and the latter are invariably associated
with strategies of achieving or maintaining particular positionalities and express shifting
geometries and networks of social power” (Heynen et al. 2006, p. 6). Or, in short, “cities
are built out of natural resources, through socially mediated natural processes” (p. 5).
It is this intersection between non-human nature and social processes that produce not
only cities, but the flows of people and materials through and within them.

624 J. Cidell

Additionally, environmental regulation within North America and Europe has been
shifting to the urban level over the last couple of decades (Keil 2005). Whether from neo-
liberal devolution of regulation to the local scale (Whitehead 2003) or the growing local
climate change movement over frustration with national governments (Bulkeley and
Betsill 2003), recent years have seen many examples of environmental regulation at the
urban level. Green buildings are one example, with dozens of jurisdictions mandating
various levels of “greenness” for buildings (public and/or private). Keil and various co-
authors (Keil and Graham 1998, Desfor and Keil 2004, Keil and Boudreau 2005, see
also Whitehead 2003) have been at the forefront of demonstrating how new post-Fordist
growth regimes have become based on this new relationship between society and nature.
Redevelopment of brownfields and waterfronts, marketing nature, and regulating pollution
are all done for the sake of capital: to make cities competitive in a global environment and to
encourage reinvestment in existing infrastructure. At the same time, renegotiating the
society–nature relationship leaves room for civic engagement and even resistance by
urban inhabitants who have a different relationship in mind.

What is important is not only the economics of the urban growth regime or the physical
properties of water and contaminants, but the images and discourses that are created and
promoted by all of the actors involved, constructing “the city” at the same time they are
constructing “nature” (Keil and Graham 1998, Gandy 2002, Whitehead 2003, While
et al. 2004). In particular, the desire to keep business going as usual often means that
environmental concerns are only selectively incorporated into policy in what While et al.
(2004) call a “sustainability fix”. Here, public policy supports environmental and social
goals only so long as economic goals are not diminished. A different approach is offered
by Whitehead (2003), who argues that sustainable cities are sites of regulation, produced
by discursive and material practices that shift over time. As he concludes, “sustainable
cities are not simply ‘business as usual’ for capitalist urbanisation, but involve the active
repackaging or humanisation of neo-liberal projects in urban areas” (Whitehead 2003,
pp. 1202–1203, italics in original). This repackaging includes presenting some green
elements as part of urban development or redevelopment without digging too deeply into
ecological principles or social justice (Hagerman 2007).

Despite arguments that hybridity and the social construction of nature are a two-way street,
most existing work in urban political ecology focuses on the manmade properties of living or
organic things, whether in terms of piped-in water or piped-out sewage (Swyngedouw 2004,
Kaika 2005), landscaping that brings “nature” into the city (Gandy 2002), urban forests that
further the turnover of capital (Heynen 2006), or the status of non-humans within the city
(Hinchliffe et al. 2005, Perkins 2007). As Braun (2005) writes, “water, energy, food and
wastes have proved particularly useful to think with” (p. 637, emphasis in original). The
main focus has been on finding ways that nature still exists and matters within the city
(Evans 2007). Little if any urban political ecology has been done on how the ecological prop-
erties of inorganic objects materially and discursively shape urban environments (but see
Gandy 2002, Kaika 2005). How do buildings, for example, direct flows of energy and
water, or how does the discursive construction of a green building shape the urban environ-
ment around it? In short, how is the built environment socially and naturally constructed?

This article contributes such a perspective, using the LEED standards to examine how
socio-nature is produced through the discursive and material construction of green build-
ings. In so doing, it offers an answer to Braun’s (2005, p. 647, emphasis in original) ques-
tion: “Why, then, do we need a specifically urban political ecology? What is gained,
conceptually, by this move?” Rather than focusing on how the “natural” is actually
manmade, looking at the built environment allows us to understand the biophysical

Local Environment 625

properties of the manmade and in so doing, how the city is constructed as a socio-natural
hybrid. One way of doing so is to look at the recent movement within the building industry
to more carefully incorporate the biophysical properties of buildings and the sites they
inhabit into their design and construction. The following section explains how the LEED
standards of the USGBC do this, and what vision of the city they produce in the process.

Constructing the urban built environment

The discourse of the LEED standards works in concert with the material components of the
resulting buildings to construct a particular vision of the city. Four components of that
vision stand out, as discussed in this section. This portion of the article draws on not only
the standards themselves as outlined in the USGBC reference guide, but the credit interpret-
ation rulings (CIRs) submitted in response to the standards (USGBC 2008a, 2008b). CIRs are
occasionallyused toappealadecisionaboutcertificationbutmore oftenserveaspointsofclar-
ification for a design team during the process and to get an idea as to the likelihood of being
able to earn a particular point or credit. The CIRs therefore serve as a dialogue between
builders and the USGBC concerning the meaning and interpretation of the standards.

Flexibility and reflexivity

To begin, the vision of the city constructed by LEED is flexibly and reflexively green.
I deliberately use “green” instead of “sustainable”; if the latter term is well known for
being vague, the former is even more so. In particular, the LEED standards are based on
reducing overall impact rather than meeting a specific benchmark (e.g. the percentage of
building materials required to be recycled to earn a point has changed from 25% to 5%
to 10%). Basically, this means that points are earned for trying to be green, not for
meeting a scientifically established number (which may itself be problematic; see Robertson
2006) in terms of water quality or resource protection.

That being said, one of the most significant components of the LEED standards is their
flexibility. Not only are many of the standards themselves flexible (e.g. requiring a
reduction in water usage for landscaping by 50%, but not specifying how), but the entire
system allows builders to choose which points they want to pursue. In fact, a number of
CIRs note that it is impossible for any one building to earn all possible credits, underlining
the flexibility of the system for many different kinds of buildings. Furthermore, the inno-
vation in design points are designed specifically to account for elements that cannot be
incorporated in the existing system: new technologies, performance above and beyond
the standard, etc. This emphasis on flexibility is one of the reasons why hundreds of
government jurisdictions, from municipalities to the federal government, have passed
requirements that LEED standards be met for public and/or private buildings.

Reflexivity matters in terms of the ability of building owners and users to make adjust-
ments as time goes on and to learn from past experience. There is a thoughtfulness implied
in many of the standards, requiring designers to minimise or reduce impact on various
aspects of the environment, to limit disruption, or to restore or rehabilitate natural settings
as well as urban environments. If, as noted above, the standards are meant to modify current
patterns of resource use by a somewhat arbitrary percentage, this also implies that we have
to understand those patterns: where raw materials come from, where stormwater and waste
go, and how we might better work with existing sources and sinks in the local environment.
As the example of recycled materials shows, the standards can be tightened if they are being
met too easily.

626 J. Cidell

Reflexivity also exists in quantitative terms. Three credits include establishing systems
to monitor ongoing performance in energy usage, outdoor air delivery, and thermal comfort.
Since one of the major criticisms of LEED is the number of points based on installing equip-
ment but not mandating performance over time (e.g. Zimmerman and Kibert 2007), the
USGBC is working to incorporate more points like these so that users’ practices can be
incorporated.

Finally, reflexivity is also present in terms of governance. The USGBC comprises
member organisations and individuals from the public, private, and non-profit sectors.
Any time the standards are revised, they are open to comment and voting from the entire
membership (and in the most recent revision, open to comments from the public at large).
This ensures that the benefits of experience are being incorporated into the requirements.

In short, the city as constructed through LEED standards is flexible in terms of what it
means to be “green” and how to meet that definition: through conserving water or energy,
maximising the use of existing infrastructure, reducing indoor emissions, etc. At the same
time, designers and builders need to understand existing resource use and waste emissions
in order to reduce those amounts. While LEED does not require the workers, residents, and
others who inhabit these buildings to consider their role in the urban environment, heigh-
tened awareness of energy and water usage is assumed to be an outcome of inhabiting build-
ings labelled as green.

Detailed documentation and planning

One of the features that distinguishes USGBC’s green building standards from others is the
emphasis on documentation (Burnett 2007, Kibert 2008). In smaller countries such as the
UK or alternative assessment systems such as the Green Globes, a representative from
the administering organisation goes out and inspects each building before it can be certified.
Under LEED, all inspections are of paperwork (or the electronic equivalent). Documen-
tation is therefore key to achieving certification, and it is strongly emphasised in
USGBC materials. At the same time, design teams are repeatedly urged to incorporate
green features as early in the process as possible, in large part because of a number of
studies demonstrating that overall costs are lower when green elements are not simply
added as an afterthought (Langdon 2007).

A number of credits require reliance on outside standards and/or careful calculations. For
example, numerous technical standards from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) are incorporated, as are regulations from the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Outside standards are used for roof
reflectivity, paint and carpet emissions, and certified wood. In a number of CIRs, design
teams are told that they may be able to substitute other standards or comply with the spirit
of the credit in an alternative way – as long as they use proper documentation.

The complexity and comprehensivity of the LEED standards mean that expertise in
a wide variety of subjects is necessary to complete a project: architecture and landscape
architecture; civil, hydrological, and electrical engineering; ecology; urban planning; etc.
One of the main reasons a credit can be achieved for using an AP is to integrate this
diversity of approaches and requirements. (Another reason is to put someone in charge
of the paperwork who is not invested in a single area of the project.) The fact that 98%
of all certified projects use an AP underscores the value of this means of dealing with
the demands of documentation.

However, APs themselves are likely to be experts in only one area. For example,
engineering expertise is often orthogonal to design or planning experience. One of the

Local Environment 627

mandatory points for certification therefore comes from using a commissioner. Building
commissioning – use of a third party to verify building systems function as they are supposed
to – has become increasingly popular as heating, lighting, security, and communications
systems have grown more complex (Houghton and Covington 1998). Testing and verification
are used to make sure that energy-saving technology does, in fact, use less power (e.g. auto-
matic lights actually turn off when no one is in the room). The commissioner’s role is to test
the systems, whereas the AP’s role is to make sure that all of the boxes are properly checked.
Both document and incorporate a vast amount of information concerning the functioning of
the building relative to the standards it is supposed to meet.

In short, the green city is well planned and documented from the start, incorporating
green materials and processes into the design at an early stage and not adding them on
as superficial finishes at the end. In part, this is because of the emphasis on keeping
costs down, but also to make it easier to mesh together the complex systems that go into
a modern building. The LEED standards also promote a well-documented city, with
resource savings calculated and displayed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. “Green facts” for the Affinity Medical Group building in Brillion, WI. Image used with
permission of the USGBC.

628 J. Cidell

Social sustainability?

Most definitions of sustainability have three components: economic, environmental, and
social (Whitehead 2007). The first two components are generally emphasised with social
sustainability often coming as an afterthought. Green buildings are no exception. While
anecdotal evidence indicates that they are not exclusively inhabited by the elite, there is,
by and large, a lack of social considerations. The LEED standards can therefore be said
to be socially neutral at best.

One of the positive aspects of LEED with regards to social sustainability is the emphasis
on workers’ health. A number of the indoor environmental quality points are predicated on
reducing exposure to harmful emissions for both construction workers and building inhabi-
tants. This is because most Americans spent the bulk of their time indoors, and improving
human health therefore depends on improving the indoor environment. At the same time,
capitalism is never far from the surface: studies show that worker productivity increases
when indoor air quality and access to sunlight and outdoor views are increased
(Langdon 2007). Speculative developers even use this in their advertising (Figure 2).

One way in which the LEED standards are socially equivocal is in terms of transpor-
tation. Four credits are devoted to encouraging alternative transportation: public transit
access (either through direct proximity or by providing a dedicated shuttle), encouraging
alternatively fuelled vehicles, encouraging cycling, and minimising parking. These
credits rely on discouraging automobile use, not necessarily on increasing accessibility.
Workers who are carless will benefit from only some of these credits.

One of the major criticisms of LEED is that the increased cost puts green buildings out
of reach of lower-income inhabitants. However, anecdotal evidence from existing home-
building programmes indicates that builders who are interested in doing green buildings
are also often interested in providing affordable housing. For example, San Francisco’s
first residential project was a low-income apartment complex that included homeless transi-
tional housing. Additionally, citywide requirements for public buildings to meet LEED
criteria, such as those instituted in Chicago and Los Angeles, mean that schools, libraries,

Figure 2. “Indoor environmental quality. Give your employees the benefit of working in a LEED
Gold-certified building. 2009 Office Space Availability”. Street-level advertising for 300 North
LaSalle, Chicago, IL. Photograph by author.

Local Environment 629

and police and fire stations in all neighbourhoods are increasingly environmental friendly.
Still, while the additional cost of meeting LEED requirements is generally less than 5%
(Langdon 2007), that might make it too expensive for communities or organisations
whose budgets are already tight.

The green city promoted by LEED is at best socially neutral. On the one hand, the health
of building inhabitants is explicitly considered, although this is largely aimed at improving
worker productivity (or increasing students’ test scores, in the case of schools). At the same
time, transportation improvements are largely concerned with reducing automobile use and
only tangentially with enhancing accessibility. Social considerations are generally not
explicitly considered, leaving sustainability with only two legs of its three-legged stool.

Planned as a socio-natural hybrid

Finally, the city that the LEED standards help to construct is deliberately designed to be a
socio-natural hybrid. LEED calls on multiple standards and definitions from the human and
biophysical environments; incorporates micro-local features, regional connectivity, and
global environmental concerns; works to improve both human and non-human habitats;
and incorporates both performance and process.

Buildings certified under LEED are explicitly expected to meet both social and bio-
physical criteria, thus making them examples of socio-natural hybrids. Outside standards
come from the EPA, USDA, FEMA, California Air Resources Board, and relevant state
and local zoning, endangered/threatened species, brownfields, or wetland definitions and
codes. Certain credits are meant to serve double duty: for example, site development is
described as increasing natural habitat and worker productivity, while light pollution
reduction is intended to protect both nocturnal habitat and stargazing. Buildings are concep-
tualised as inhabiting and producing socio-natural spaces, with flows of energy, water, and
other resources neither purely biophysical nor purely manmade.

Related to the idea of a hybrid is an emphasis on process and performance rather than
static qualities, which is also seen in the LEED standards. For example, many of the trans-
portation credits require a long-term investment with the goal of changing commuters’
habits. Stormwater credits are designed to provide alternatives to the traditional retention
pond by encouraging rain gardens, vegetated roofs, and other strategies to increase infiltra-
tion onsite and reduce demand on municipal systems. This is the flip side of the earlier criti-
cism about using percentage reductions rather than meeting specific targets. Focusing on
reducing or increasing flows rather than on meeting target amounts keeps the emphasis
on process and allows for steady improvement.

The vision of the city produced by LEED is integrated with the human and biophysical
environments. Its builders are aware of their regional and global footprint and try to reduce
both through dealing with wastes within the metropolis rather than exporting them and by
obtaining local resources rather than reaching out into surrounding territory (Gandy 2002).
For the most part, the human is not “purified” from the nature; concepts like green roofs and
incorporating views of open space take for granted the socio-nature that is produced by the
built environment. Looking at green buildings and the built environment in general is therefore
a useful way of considering how socio-natural hybrids are literally constructed in today’s cities.

Conclusions

This article has used urban political ecology to examine how the built environment is being
constructed by the LEED standards of the USGBC. The vision of the city that these

630 J. Cidell

standards produce is reflexively and flexibly green, is well-documented and planned in
detail, emphasises the economic and environmental over the social in terms of sustainabil-
ity, and is planned as a socio-natural hybrid. Through the flexible and dynamic LEED stan-
dards, the USGBC is producing both a discourse and a material reality that is intended to
change the way the building industry functions, not only in the USA but in other nations
that have established their own versions of green building criteria.

Political ecology asks us to consider not only how the socio-natural environment is
being produced, but who is benefiting from that production and who is not. The
USGBC, a non-profit organisation, comprises members from the public, private, and
non-profit sectors. Its goal is to reduce the environmental impacts of buildings, which
obviously benefits a broad range of people. However, the emphasis on changing business
as usual, but not too much, suggests that economic motivations are still at the fore. As
Figure 2 shows, capitalist development has no problem incorporating greenness as a way
to increase profit. The observation that nearly every newspaper article on green buildings
mentions the slight increased cost but follows it quickly with mention of long-term
energy savings confirms this. USGBC’s stated goal of transforming the building industry
to the point where “all buildings are green” also implies that a win-win scenario is possible,
where the building industry gets to continue functioning and profiting as it does now,
simply integrating more aspects of green design. As governments initiate or tighten regu-
lations that encourage or mandate LEED certification of public or private buildings, it is
important to consider why these regulations are in place, what they are meant to achieve,
and what aspects of urban sustainability and livability are being omitted.

The USGBC has recently argued that the USA needs to spend significantly more money
on building research, especially in light of growing concern over global climate change
(Baum 2007). While much of this research is aimed at the traditional areas of material
and design improvements (Guy and Shove 2001), there is also increased emphasis on
the users of green buildings. Initial studies show positive results in terms of worker satis-
faction and student performance (Langdon 2007), but now that more than 1000 LEED-
certified buildings are in place and occupied, more work needs to be done to understand
how inhabitants understand and relate to these socio-natural hybrids of which they are a
part. Future work should also consider the science that is being mobilised in the definition
of these credits and their interpretations; the EPA, USDA, and other organisations have their
own stories in terms of how prime agricultural soil or wetlands are defined (Engel-Di Mauro
2006, Robertson 2006), and those need to be better understood as well. The built environ-
ment in the form of green buildings therefore offers significant opportunity for further
exploring the socio-natural, hybrid nature of our modern world.

Acknowledgements
This work was partially completed with funding from the Campus Research Board at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The author is grateful to Susannah Bunce, Susan Moore, and two
anonymous referees for their comments on the article.

References
Baum, M., 2007. Green building research funding: an assessment of current activity in the United

States [online]. Washington, DC: The U.S. Green Building Council. Available from: http://
www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID¼2465 [Accessed 13 March 2008].

Braun, B., 2005. Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban geography. Progress in
Human Geography, 29 (5), 635–650.

Local Environment 631

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2465

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2465

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2465

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2465

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2465

Braun, B., 2006. Environmental issues: global natures in the space of assemblages. Progress in
Human Geography, 30 (5), 644–654.

Braun, B. and Castree, N., 1998. Remaking reality: nature at the millennium. London: Routledge.
Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M., 2003. Cities and climate change: urban sustainability and global

environmental governance. London: Routledge.
Burnett, J., 2007. City buildings – eco-labels and shades of green!. Landscape and Urban Planning,

83 (1), 29–38.
Desfor, G. and Keil, R., 2004. Nature and the city: making environmental policy in Toronto and Los

Angeles. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Engel-Di Mauro, S., 2006. From organism to commodity: gender, class, and the development of soil

science in Hungary 1900–89. Environment and Planning D, 24 (2), 215–229.
Evans, J., 2007. Wildlife corridors: an urban political ecology. Local Environment, 12 (2), 129–152.
Gandy, M., 2002. Concrete and clay: reworking nature in New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Guy, S. and Shove, E., 2001. A sociology of energy, buildings and the environment: constructing

knowledge, designing practice. London: Routledge.
Hagerman, C., 2007. Shaping neighborhoods and nature: urban political ecologies of urban waterfront

transformations in Portland, Oregon. Cities, 24 (4), 285–297.
Heynen, N., 2006. Green urban political ecologies: toward a better understanding of inner-city

environmental change. Environment and Planning A, 38 (3), 499–516.
Heynen, N., Kaika, M., and Swyngedouw, E., eds., 2006. In the nature of cities: urban political

ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. London: Routledge.
Hinchliffe, S., et al., 2005. Urban wild things: a cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and

Planning D, 23 (5), 643–658.
Houghton, D. and Covington, A., 1998. Mentors. Architectural Record, 186 (5), 26–29.
Kaika, M., 2005. City of flows: modernity, nature, and the city. London: Routledge.
Keil, R., 2005. Progress report – urban political ecology. Urban Geography, 26 (7), 640–651.
Keil, R. and Boudreau, J.-A., 2005. Metropolitics and metabolics – rolling out environmentalism in

Toronto. In: N. Heynen, M. Kaika and E. Swyngedouw, eds. In the nature of cities: urban
political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. London: Routledge, 41–62.

Keil, R. and Graham, J., 1998. Reasserting nature: constructing urban environments after Fordism. In:
B. Braun and N. Castree, eds. Remaking reality: nature at the millennium. London: Routledge,
43–63.

Kibert, C., 2008. Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

Langdon, D., 2007. Cost of green revisited: reexamining the feasibility and cost impact of sustainable
design in the light of increased market adoption [online]. Available from: http://www.davislangdon.
com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2007-The-Cost-of-Green-Revisited [Accessed 17 March
2008].

Perkins, H., 2007. Ecologies of actor-networks and (non)social labor within the urban political
economies of nature. Geoforum, 38 (6), 1152–1162.

Robertson, M., 2006. The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodifica-
tion of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D, 24 (3), 367–387.

Swyngedouw, E., 1996. The city as hybrid: on nature, society and cyborg urbanization. Capitalism,
Nature, Socialism, 7 (2), 65–80.

Swyngedouw, E., 2004. Social power and the urbanization of nature: flows of power. Oxford
University Press.

The Economist, 2004. The rise of the green building. The Economist, 2 December [online edition].
USGBC (US Green Building Council), 2003. Building momentum: national trends and prospects for

high-performance green buildings [online]. Prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. Available from: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/
043003_hpgb_whitepaper [Accessed 10 March 2008].

USGBC (US Green Building Council), 2007. LEED for new construction version 2.2 reference guide.
Washington, DC: USGBC.

USGBC (US Green Building Council), 2008a. Credit interpretations [online]. Available from: http://
www.usgbc.org/ [Accessed 30 March 2008].

USGBC (US Green Building Council), 2008b. Credit interpretations [online]. Available from: http://
www.usgbc.org/ [Accessed 30 March 2008].

632 J. Cidell

http://www.davislangdon.com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2007-The-Cost-of-Green-Revisited

http://www.davislangdon.com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2007-The-Cost-of-Green-Revisited

http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/043003_hpgb_whitepaper

http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/043003_hpgb_whitepaper

http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/

USGBC (US Green Building Council), 2008c. Green building, USGBC, and LEED. Available from:
http://www.usgbc.org/ [Accessed 29 December 2008].

While, A., Jonas, A., and Gibbs, D., 2004. The environment and the entrepreneurial city: searching for
the urban “sustainability fix” in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 28 (3), 549–569.

Whitehead, M., 2003. (Re)Analysing the sustainable city: nature, urbanisation and the regulation of
socio-environmental relations in the UK. Urban Studies, 40 (7), 1183–1206.

Whitehead, M., 2007. Spaces of sustainability: geographic perspectives on the sustainable society.
London: Routledge.

Zimmerman, A. and Kibert, C., 2007. Informing LEED’s next generation with the natural step.
Building Research and Information, 3 (6), 681–689.

Local Environment 633

http://www.usgbc.org/

http://www.usgbc.org/

ACTATECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering [e–ISSN: 2067–3809]

TOME XIII [2020] | FASCICULE 1 [January – March]

133 | University POLITEHNICA Timisoara / Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara
http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

1.Abed Inan CHOWDHURY, 2.M. Nahin MAHMOOD, 3.Akash TALAPATRA

MODEL OF AN ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY AND SUSTAINABLE
POWER PLANT

1,3.Petroleum & Mining Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, Chittagong, BANGLADESH
2.Petroleum Engineering, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana, USA

Abstract: Power plant is one of the major sources of Carbon dioxide gas emission. This gas is leaving an atrocious impact
on the environment such as the Greenhouse Effect. This paper proposes a new model that ensures lower Carbon dioxide
emission from the power plants. In this model, steps of chemical processes are used in a cycle. The basic principle of the
model is represented through 5 chemical reactions. Exclusive reactions like Sabatier Reaction, Hydrogen Production, and
Hydrogen Fuel, etc. are used in this cycle in a systematic way. It is observed that the Oxygen to Carbon dioxide ratio in
the air can be increased with every completion of this cycle. Also, Methane is re-produced in one step of this cycle which
ensures sustainability. It is observed that only 3% of energy is lost to run these extra processes. So, this model can prevent
the Earth’s environment pollution with a nominal energy loss.
Keywords: Environment, Power Plant, Sustainable Energy, Emission Control, Chemical Process

INTRODUCTION
The major source of air pollution is the emission from
combustion that takes place in industries, power
generation systems and electrical utilities. The
environmental pollution from burning various fossil
fuels in thermal power plants poses tremendous
health hazard to modern civilization. In addition to
causing annoyance to public, air pollution by thermal
plants contributes to the cause of property damage,
various respiratory diseases and lung cancer.
From burning of fuels (coal, oil and gas) the
combustible elements are converted to gaseous
products, and non-combustible elements to ash. As a
result, thermal power plants continuously emit a
massive amount of Carbon dioxide in air. These
Carbon dioxide has a molecular structure that
triggers the global climate issues by the following
mechanism: The internal molecular vibration and
rotation of Carbon dioxide causes its molecules to
absorb infrared radiation.
When Carbon dioxide gas form part of the
atmosphere, they absorb some of the heat that the
earth normally radiates into space. So, heat is trapped
that would otherwise be lost (Peirce, 1998). This is
causing the temperature to increase every year.
Hardley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
claims that, “An upward trend can be clearly seen in
the annual mean global temperature that initiated
from 1920 and continued for the rest of the century.”
It also shows in a chart that the average temperature
increase from 1975 to 2000 was of about 0.5°C/0.7°F
(Lawson, 2009). It has been projected that average
temperature across the world would climb between
1.4°C and 5.8°C over the next century.

The second of IPCC’s impact categories is ecosystem,
where it states that, “Approximately 20-30% of plant
and animal species assessed so far are at the risk of
extinction if increase in global temperature exceed
1.5-2.5°C (Lawson, 2009).”
Scientists have proved that the root cause of global
warming is the increase of man-made Carbon dioxide
emissions in the free air. Under the light of these
certain facts, it is customary that the emission process
of Carbon dioxide needs to be modified. But due to
economic facts, none of the industry leaders are
executing such steps. On the other hand, energy
demand is increasing day by day.
According to IEA- key world energy statistics 2015,
world final energy consumption of 2014 (109,613
TWh) was more than double of the final energy
consumption of 1973 (54,335 TWh) (International
Energy Agency, 2015). It also projects 28% increase
of energy demand by 2040. Scientists and engineers
have demonstrated the necessity of introducing
sustainable systems that can ensure fulfilment of the
future energy demand.
So, to reduce the Carbon dioxide emissions and ensure
future energy demand are the major concerns of the
Century. This paper offers a power plant cycle that
ensures lower Carbon dioxide emission and
reproduction of hydrocarbon that yields sustainability
for future use.
This paper proposes a new model where ideas of
Artificial Photosynthesis, Hydrogen Fuel and Sabatier
Reaction will be used to develop the energy
production. Every completed cycle of the system
gradually reduces Greenhouse Gas emission and
ensures a good amount of Oxygen emission. Which

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering [e–ISSN: 2067–3809]
TOME XIII [2020] | FASCICULE 1 [January – March]

134 | University POLITEHNICA Timisoara / Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara
http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

will increase the Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide ratio of
the atmospheric air.
The basic principal of the model can be represented
by 5 steps of chemical reactions. Various fuels (coal,
fuel oil, shale oil, natural gas) are used in thermal
power plants. Though the principle of the proposed
model is applicable for all the other fuels, only
methane (CH4) is discussed in this paper due to being
most widely used.
For better understanding of the new model, operation
procedure of a general steam power plant that uses
Methane as the fuel is briefly demonstrated below.
TYPICAL OPERATION PROCEDURE OF A STEAM
POWER PLANT
Heat required for steam production in a steam power
plant is achieved through the combustion of methane.
In methane power plants, the following chemical
steps take place:
Due to heat and attack by the active elements,
methane reacts with methyl radical (CH3), which then
reacts with formaldehyde (HCHO). This
formaldehyde reacts with a formal radical (HCO), this
forms carbon monoxide (CO).
In these steps, the active elements are used and H2 and
H2O are formed with the CO.
Principle reaction:

CH4 + O2 → CO + H2 + H2O

Here, methane gas is converted into two new fuels
(CO and H2) and into one product (H2O). This process
takes place very quickly, within a fraction of
millisecond to a few milliseconds, this depends on
some parameters such as: pressure, flame
temperature, and fuel-air ratio. The process is called
Oxidative Pyrolysis.
After oxidative pyrolysis, the H2 oxidizes, which forms
H2O, which replenishes the active species, and
releases heat. This step occurs quickly, usually in less
than a millisecond.

H2 + (1/2) O2 → H2O

In the final step, the CO is oxidized, forming CO2 and
releasing more heat. This step is slower than the other
steps, and generally requires up to several
milliseconds to occur.

CO + (1/2) O2 → CO2

The produced heat is used for steam production and
the produced Carbon dioxide is released in free air.
PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED MODEL
As mentioned earlier, the proposed model is divided
into 5 chemical steps which will take place in
different complex compartments (cells). These
compartments make up a plant altogether.

Products from each compartments will be exchanged
with the other. One run of the cycle is completed after
each step-wise completion of the model. The steps of
the model are as follows:
 Methane Combustion:
This is the first step of the model and is the general
mechanism used in any thermal power plant. Here,
methane is combusted with oxygen and heat is
produced. Heat is then used to produce steam.
Mechanism of this step is briefly discussed in the
previous section of this paper.
Overall reaction:

CH4 + O2 → CO2 + H2O

The produced Carbon dioxide (CO2) shall not be
released to air, rather it will be captured and then sent
to the next step which is “Artificial Photosynthesis”
and the produced H2O is sent to the third step which
is “Hydrogen Production.”

Figure 1: Capture of Carbon dioxide from a typical

thermal power plant cycle.

 Artificial Photosynthesis:
In this step, the captured Carbon dioxide from
Methane combustion is split into Carbon monoxide
and Oxygen. Simple changes are needed to be made
to capture this Carbon dioxide from the discharge
manifold (Shimizu, 1999). The aim of this step is to
produce Carbon monoxide that can be used in the
following step which increases energy output. Also, a
small amount of the produced Oxygen from this step
is sent to the fuel cell and the rest is released in the air.
So, this step shall help to increase the amount of
oxygen ratio in air.
Artificial Photosynthesis can be done through various
mechanisms. But, in this paper it is demonstrated
through energy storage reaction (Chen, 2012).

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering [e-ISSN: 2067-3809]
TOME XIII [2020] | FASCICULE 1 [January – March]

135 | University POLITEHNICA Timisoara / Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara
http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

Figure 2: Two compartment cell for Artificial

Photosynthesis

This energy storage reaction is split into the following
half reactions:

O2 + 4H+ + 4e+ → 2H2O (E° 1.23V vs. NHE)

CO2 + 2H+ + 2e- → CO + H2O
(E° -0.12V vs. NHE)

The final reaction stands,

CO2 → CO + (1/2)O2

The process is designed using a two compartment
electrochemical cell which is reactive electro-catalyst
for water oxidation to Oxygen and Carbon dioxide
reduction to Carbon monoxide
 Hydrogen Production:
Hydrogen is required to run the fuel cell in step 4 and
Sabatier reaction in step 5. Though Hydrogen can be
extracted naturally, but it is not in large enough
quantities to be produced economically. Therefore it
needs to be separated from other elements. Methods
of Hydrogen production includes electrolysis,
thermolysis and steam refining from hydrocarbon.
Due to the fact that natural gas is cheap and easily
available, the steam refining from hydrocarbon
method is most widely used. The chemical process for
Hydrogen Production is an exothermic, lower-
temperature, water gas shift reaction: (performed at
about 360°C)

CO + H2O → CO2 + H2

This is called the Water-Gas Shift Reaction which is
the second step of steam refining from hydrocarbon
method. Here, Hydrogen is produced and Carbon
monoxide is eliminated by passing it through a
catalytic reactor, called shift reactor. Where carbon
monoxide reacts with steam and forms carbon dioxide
and hydrogen. As this step is exothermic, according to

Le Chatelier’s principle the reaction must be done at a
low temperature. This reaction is conducted in both
high temperature shift and then low temperature shift
to get maximum output. The H2O to CO2 ratio should
be as high as possible to avoid any side reaction
(Braga, 2017).
 Fuel Cell:
A fuel cell is a device that generates electricity by a
chemical reaction. This is an important step of the
model. Because it supplies not only renewable source
of electricity, but also heat energy that can be used in
other purposes (Michael, 2008).

Figure 3: Energy production from a fuel cell

There are many types of fuel cells and any of them can
be implemented in the model. Alkaline fuel cell is
preferable for its high efficiency, fast start and simple
design.
Here, hydrogen is sent to the anode where a catalyst
splits hydrogen’s negatively charged electrons from
positively charged protons (H+). At the cathode,
protons combine with oxygen resulting in water.

Figure 4: Principle of a Fuel Cell. (Source: Dept. of

Energy)

This chemical reactions occur in an alkaline fuel cell:
 Cathode: (½)O2 + H2O + 2e- → 2OH
 Anode: H2 + 2OH- → 2H2O + 2e-

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering [e–ISSN: 2067–3809]
TOME XIII [2020] | FASCICULE 1 [January – March]

136 | University POLITEHNICA Timisoara / Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara
http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

Hence, electricity is produced due to the flow of
electrons.
 Sabatier Reaction:
It involves the reaction of hydrogen with carbon
dioxide at elevated temperatures (optimally 300-400
°C) and pressures in the presence of a nickel catalyst
to produce methane and water. It is described by the
following exothermic reaction:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

Optionally, ruthenium or alumina (aluminum oxide)
makes a more efficient catalyst (Brooks, 2007).
To avoid the energy crisis in near future, we must
employ sustainable systems. This step reproduces
methane which can be re-used hence, it contributes
to a more efficient usage of non-renewable energy.
SUMMARY OF THE MODEL
At first, the Carbon dioxide and steam produced from
the combustion of methane will be captured. Then it
will be sent to the Artificial Photosynthesis
compartment and split into Carbon monoxide and
Oxygen. This Carbon monoxide will be sent to
Hydrogen Production compartment where reaction
with steam (from Methane Combustion) will take
place. Then the produced Hydrogen from Hydrogen
Production compartment will be sent to both the Fuel
Cell compartment and Sabatier Reaction
compartment. In this case, only 25% of Hydrogen will
be sent to Fuel Cell and the rest to Sabatier Reaction
compartment. This will balance for maximum
conversion of Carbon dioxide in Sabatier Reaction,
energy production in Fuel Cell and release of oxygen
from the system. Since Hydrogen is more efficient for
producing energy compared to Methane, the
distribution of Hydrogen must be optimal.

Fig. 5: Flow diagram of the proposed power plant

model

The basic principle of the model can be represented
by these 5 steps of chemical reactions: (100 moles of
Methane is considered to demonstrate the product
distributions.)

Step 1: 100CH4 + 200O2 → 100CO2
+ 200H2O + 88200 KJ

Step 2: 100CO2 → 100CO + 50O2
– 17050 KJ

Step 3: 100H2O + 100CO → 100CO2
+ 100H2 + 4100 KJ

Step 4: 25H2 + 12.5O2 → 25H2O
+ 7150 KJ

Step 5: 75H2 + 18.75CO2 → 18.75CH4
+ 37.5H2O + 3093.75 KJ

This model releases 75% of the produced oxygen to air
and re-uses 18.75% carbon dioxide for the next cycle.
So, every next cycle produces more energy, hence
more Oxygen and less Carbon dioxide is released to
the environment compared to the conventional power
plants. Thus increases the oxygen to Carbon dioxide
ratio of the environment and eradicates global
warming.
VIABILITY & SIGNIFICANCE
Net energy production from this model was
determined by adding the produced energy values of
each step given in Process Summary.
So, the net energy of the model: 85493.75 KJ.
Which is 97% of the conventional process (Methane
Combustion: 88200 KJ).
Hence, the energy loss of the model is only 3%.
A field assessment was conducted on Ashuganj Power
Station Company Ltd. in Bangladesh. System losses
were neglected for the ease of calculation.
For the maximum capacity of 146 MW of the Power
plant, it was determined that 11.7 X 109 liters of
Carbon dioxide is released to the air per year. For
18.75% conversion of this Carbon dioxide by Sabatier
reaction at step 5, this emission was reduced by 2.19
X 109 Liters.
Which means emission reduction of 15000000
liters/MW in a year.
As suggested by Osama T Akoubeh in a model,
methane could be simply re-produced using Sabatier
reaction (Akoubeh, 2015). In that case, the Carbon
dioxide collected from Methane combustion will be
directly sent for Sabatier reaction. Which means, a
model where only the step 1 and 5 is applied. But in
that case, the system produces zero net energy. So, the
model fails to provide any means of benefit.
Additionally, this model is unique for the future
energy demand, sustainability. Hence, reduction of
carbon dioxide emission can be enacted through the
model proposed in this paper with a minimal energy
loss (3%).
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed model releases 18.75% less Carbon
dioxide in air compared to the conventional power
plant system. This is possible due to Sabatier Reaction
(Step 5) where this Carbon dioxide is converted to

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering [e-ISSN: 2067-3809]
TOME XIII [2020] | FASCICULE 1 [January – March]

137 | University POLITEHNICA Timisoara / Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara
http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

Methane (CH4). In this model, 4 out of the 5 steps are
exothermic. And renewable energy is used in Fuel Cell
(step 4). Due to higher heating value (BTU/lb)
hydrogen is more efficient fuel compared to methane.
So, Fuel Cell provides efficient and clean energy. On
the other hand, reproduced methane can be used that
yields sustainability. So, this model can help to
improve the future energy scenario.
Energy produced in the model, such as from Fuel Cell
can be used to run the power plant itself. On the other
hand, this model offers the most economical solution
for environment pollution without any kind of extra
processing, carbon sequestration storage (CSS), or
transportation.
References
[1] Akoubeh, O. T. (2015). Methane Production from

Carbon Dioxide and Increasing Energy Return of
Investment (EROI) in Shale Oil. In Proceedings of
the TMS Middle East—Mediterranean Materials
Congress on Energy and Infrastructure Systems
(MEMA 2015) (pp. 381-393). Springer, Cham.

[2] Braga, L. B., da Silva, M. E., Colombaroli, T. S., Tuna,
C. E., de Araujo, F. H. M., Vane, L. F., … & Silveira, J.
L. (2017). Hydrogen production processes.
In Sustainable Hydrogen Production Processes (pp.
5-76). Springer, Cham.

[3] Brooks, K. P., Hu, J., Zhu, H., & Kee, R. J. (2007).
Methanation of carbon dioxide by hydrogen
reduction using the Sabatier process in
microchannel reactors. Chemical Engineering
Science, 62(4), 1161-1170.

[4] Cebrucean, D., Cebrucean, V., & Ionel, I. (2014).
CO2 capture and storage from fossil fuel power
plants. Energy Procedia, 63, 18-26.

[5] Chen, Z., Concepcion, J. J., Brennaman, M. K., Kang,
P., Norris, M. R., Hoertz, P. G., & Meyer, T. J. (2012).
Splitting CO2 into CO and O2 by a single
catalyst. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 109(39), 15606-15611.

[6] Finkenrath, M. (2011). Cost and performance of
carbon dioxide capture from power generation.

[7] Hondo, H. (2005). Life cycle GHG emission analysis
of power generation systems: Japanese
case. Energy, 30(11-12), 2042-2056.

[8] IEA. (2015). Key World Energy Statistics 2015.
[9] K. Sarkar, Dipak. 2015. Air Pollution Control. DOI:

10.1016/B978-0-12-801575-9.00014-7.
[10] K. Sarkar, Dipak. 2015. Fuels and Combustion.

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801575-9.00003-2.
[11] Lawson, N. (2009). An appeal to reason: A cool look

at global warming. Abrams.
[12] Merkel, T. C., Lin, H., Wei, X., & Baker, R. (2010).

Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide
capture: An opportunity for membranes. Journal of
membrane science, 359(1-2), 126-139.

[13] Peirce, J. J., Vesilind, P. A., & Weiner, R. (1998).
Environmental pollution and control. Butterworth-
Heinemann.

[14] Shimizu, T., Hirama, T., Hosoda, H., Kitano, K.,
Inagaki, M., & Tejima, K. (1999). A twin fluid-bed
reactor for removal of CO2 from combustion
processes. Chemical Engineering Research and
Design, 77(1), 62-68.

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering

ISSN: 2067-3809
copyright © University POLITEHNICA Timisoara,

Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara,
5, Revolutiei, 331128, Hunedoara, ROMANIA

http://acta.fih.upt.ro

Copyright of Acta Technica Corvininesis – Bulletin of Engineering is the property of
University Politehnica Timisoara, Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Civil Society in an Age of Environmental Accountability: How

Local Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations Reduce

U.S. Power Plants’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Don Grant
1
and Ion Bogdan Vasi

2

Institutional scholars have argued that in the absence of legislation on the issue of climate change, non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) can help reduce the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases being

emitted to the environment by disseminating environmental norms. Consistent with this reasoning, they

have shown that from the middle of the last century up through the mid-1990s, nations with more member-

ships in NGOs have tended to have lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the aggregate. Doubts

remain, however, about whether NGOs have reduced emissions in the time since and at the level of individ-

ual power plants where the lion’s share of carbon pollution is emitted. Using plant-specific information on

CO2 emissions recently collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under its Greenhouse

Gas Reporting Program, we investigate the effects of local environmental NGOs (ENGOs) on plants’

environmental performance. Consistent with our expectations, we find that local ENGOs not only directly

reduce plants’ emissions but indirectly do so by enhancing the effectiveness of subnational climate policies

that encourage energy efficiency. We discuss the implications of our findings for research on the decou-

pling of normative systems, social movements, environmental sociology, and the EPA’s proposed Clean

Power Plan.

KEY WORDS: civil society; Clean Power Plan; energy; environment; pollution; social movements.

INTRODUCTION

At least since Weber, sociologists have stressed how civil society can solve
problems that the market and state either create or ignore. While acknowledging
that the policies promoted by civil society might be adopted but never fully imple-
mented, they suggest that citizen groups can nonetheless be influential within decou-
pled systems by diffusing cultural models that legitimate social movements, spur
corporate action, change government priorities, and reshape people’s attitudes
(Meyer, Ramirez, and Soysal 1992; Ramirez, Soysal, and Shanahan 1997; see also
Hutter and O’Mahoney 2004). Extending this argument, institutional scholars have
argued that in the absence of international legislation on the issue of climate
change, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can still help reduce the amount
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being emitted to the environment by
disseminating global, environmental norms to lower levels of society (Frank, Hiron-
aka, and Schofer 2000). Consistent with this reasoning, they have shown that from
the middle of the last century up through the mid-1990s, nations with more

1
Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder, 327 Ketchum 219, Boulder, Colorado
80309; e-mail: Don.GrantII@colorado.edu.

2
Department of Sociology, University of Iowa, 140 Seashore Hall West, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1401.

Sociological Forum, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 201

7

DOI: 10.1111/socf.12318

© 2016 Eastern Sociological Society

94

memberships in NGOs have tended to have lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
in the aggregate (Schofer and Hironaka 2005).

Doubts remain, however, about whether NGOs have reduced CO2 emissions in
the time since and at their primary sources. Many observe that NGOs have adopted a
more professional orientation over time that downplays citizen participation and dis-
ruptive politics (Choudry and Kapoor 2013). Since the mid-1990s, policymakers have
also concluded that economy-wide approaches to lowering CO2 emissions are too
unwieldy and imprecise, whereas those that seek to change the consumption habits of
individuals are limited to the lowest hanging fruit. They argue that a new approach to
a low carbon future is urgently needed that targets the energy sector, the world’s lar-
gest and fastest-growing source of emissions (International Energy Agency 2009).

Also, contrary to institutionalists’ model of “environmentalization” as a top-
down, internationally sponsored process, scholars note that in response to interna-
tional and national actors’ failure to address climate change, subnational entities in
the United States and elsewhere have begun experimenting with policies to mitigate
CO2 emissions (Vasi 2007). These policies range from those like GHG targets that
are primarily motivated to combat power plants’ emissions to others such as renew-
able portfolio standards that were created for different reasons, but because they try
to alter how energy sources are used or managed, may have implications for plants’
carbon pollution (Grant, Bergstrand, and Running 2014). As responsibility for
curbing the energy sector’s carbon emissions has thus devolved to the subnational
level, national environmental NGOs (ENGOs) have established more local chapters
that target specific power plants and lobby their local state officials.

Importantly, at the subnational level, not only do some plants emit vastly more
CO2 than others (Grant, Jorgenson, and Longhofer 2013; Jorgenson et al. 2016),
but fossil fuel industries can also exercise considerable power over local citizen
groups whose members’ livelihoods often depend on the jobs and tax revenues they
create (Buttel 2000). Indeed, beginning with Engels’s writings (1892) on the working
poor’s exposure to factories’ pollution and continuing with the “perpetrator-victim”
scenario painted by most environmental justice scholars (see Pellow 2000), research
on corporate pollution has tended to conceive organizations as closed systems
(Davis and Scott 2007) that are impervious to any pressure their surrounding com-
munities might put on them to improve their environmental performance. It is
unclear, therefore, whether the local chapters of national ENGOs are sufficiently
motivated and resourced today to influence the CO2 emissions of individual power
plants and, if they are, whether their effects are mediated through existing subna-
tional policies or independent of them. And because local ENGOs may be more sus-
ceptible to co-optation by the energy industry at the subnational level, it is
uncertain whether their local presence helps or hinders the effectiveness of subna-
tional climate policies.

Thus, a number of important questions are unaddressed: Can civil society miti-
gate the damage the energy sector is doing to the earth’s life support system at the
sites where it is causing the greatest harm—power plants? If so, does civil society
directly influence plants’ climate disrupting emissions or indirectly through the pas-
sage of environmental policies? And to what extent might civic society transform
policies that have no effect on plants’ emissions into ones that do?

Environmental Accountability 95

Scholars have made little progress in addressing these issues for two main
reasons. First, researchers continue to employ theoretical frameworks that were tai-
lored for times when climate policies were either nonexistent or largely symbolic in
nature. Whereas today, due to the growing rationalization of institutional environ-
ments, states and markets are held more accountable for climate-disrupting emis-
sions. On the one hand, this creates new opportunities for civil society to pass
policies that compel industry to reduce their carbon releases. On the other hand, it
is not obvious what role civil society plays in affecting emission outcomes after the
policies it advocates have been enacted. A second reason why our understanding of
the environmental impact of local ENGOs has not advanced is that systematic data
on individual power plants and their CO2 emissions have been lacking. This has
forced scholars to rely on crude national estimates of emissions that obscure differ-
ences in pollution caused by individual power plants and make it impossible to
determine whether local ENGOs or features of polluters themselves such as their
size determine emission outcomes.

Drawing on recent insights into civil society (Bromley and Powell 2012) and
social movements (Vasi and King 2012), we sketch a framework for analyzing the
direct and mediated effects of local ENGOs on individual power plants’ CO2 emis-
sions. According to our framework, local ENGOs can significantly shape plants’
emission levels net of effective subnational climate policies and change otherwise inef-
fectual policies into effectual ones. We test these propositions using data on individual
power plants’ carbon pollution recently collected by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). We supple-
ment the quantitative analysis with qualitative analyses to illustrate the mechanisms
through which local ENGOs influence power plants’ emissions. We conclude by dis-
cussing the implications of our findings for sociological literature on civil society and
environmental movements as well as the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan that will
require states to reduce their power plants’ emissions over the next few years.

Contrary to some studies that treat civil society and social movements as occu-
pying distinct spheres, our study emphasizes how NGOs can possess properties of
both. As case studies suggest, characteristic of civil society and the associated world
of consultation, NGOs can participate in politics and foster consent through offi-
cially approved channels. By the same token, NGOs are sometimes born out of
social movements and may provide a space for engaging in forms of dissent not rec-
ognized or encouraged by state officials. Rather than relying exclusively on the civil
society or social movement literatures, therefore, we seek to provide a richer and
more nuanced understanding of NGOs by drawing on each. In the process, we sug-
gest not only how ENGOs can enable certain climate policies to more effectively
reduce power plants’ CO2 emissions but also shape emission outcomes independent
of climate policies.

THEORIES OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

According to Weber, associational life is the sociocultural basis for political
education. As such, it not only is a bulwark for democratic dynamism during

96 Grant and Vasi

modern times when monopolies restrict the expansion of free markets and govern-
ments are subject to bureaucratic petrification, but also serves to integrate policies
and practices in ways that benefit the public at large. Building on these ideas, several
scholars have conceived civil society as occupying a middle ground between the
state and market and suggested how civil society can enlist the state to address
threats the market poses to the public. Civil society does this through bonding ties
that raise awareness among citizens about their shared interests and through bridg-
ing ties that communicate those interests to government, which must adopt policies
that reflect citizens’ interests to maintain legitimacy.

Later scholars observed that market actors sometimes go to great lengths to
buffer their core technologies/procedures from state policies by appearing to comply
with them, resulting in a decoupling policies and practices (Meyer and Rowan
1977). Far from denying the importance of civil society, however, they insist that
even when the policies it promotes fail to alter business practices, civil society can
still bring about real change by forging bridges with market actors and encouraging
them to identify with and voluntarily act in the interests of citizens. Applying this
logic to the problem of climate change, they suggest that formal environmental poli-
cies are not the only mechanism capable of driving emission outcomes (Frank et al.
2000; Schofer and Hironaka 2005). Rather, in the absence of such policies, NGOs
can function as “receptor sites” that legitimate and spread environmental norms
and discourse. This, in turn, puts informal pressure on domestic actors, including
local businesses, to reduce their emissions.

Skeptics contend that businesses may manipulate these same “sites” to con-
vince civic leaders to adopt a more managerialist perspective that focuses on minor
environmental reforms and technical solutions. Especially in communities that
depend heavily on businesses that extract, transport, or burn fossil fuels, energy
executives may capture local chapters of ENGOs and use them to discourage citizen
participation and disruptive tactics. Consistent with the idea that NGOs’ autonomy
has been compromised is McAdam et al.’s (2010) finding that NGOs have no bear-
ing on local opposition to pipelines and other large energy projects.

Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of NGOs is the growing
rationalization and fragmentation of the institutional environment (Bromley and
Powell 2012). As rationalization spreads, the disjuncture between policies and prac-
tices becomes less tolerated, contributing to fragmentation as government and civic
leaders seek to isolate the actors most responsible for undesirable outcomes and
develop competing solutions. In federalist countries like the United States, these
developments have led to the emergence of a new national culture of accountability
accompanied by heightened policy innovation and civic activity at the subnational
level. In the area of environmental protection, for example, the EPA now requires
industrial plants to make their pollution more transparent by submitting annual
reports. At the same time, consistent with this country’s tradition of environmental
federalism, states and local citizen groups are being encouraged to devise policies
that curb industry’s emissions and to hold them publicly responsible for the threat
they pose.

In a period of environmental accountability, the appearance of conforming to
ecological norms is no longer sufficient for attaining legitimacy. Governments

Environmental Accountability 97

cannot, for example, rely solely on pollution prevention programs that provide
businesses with technical assistance and publicize their participation but do not
assess any penalties regardless of their environmental record. Governments are now
expected to develop policies that force major polluters to make real improvements
in their environmental performance.

In response to this shift in the institutional environment, businesses will likely
still try to insulate their core processes from outside pressures. But instead of relying
on previous ceremonial strategies like greenwashing and so on, they will focus more
on promoting public policies that (1) use different outcome measures that provide
businesses greater flexibility (e.g., emission rates rather than emission levels) or (2)
advocate means (e.g., rebates) that seem capable of achieving a particular end (e.g.,
energy efficiency), but the end itself may have a dubious relation to the outcome
sought by climate activists, which is to reduce or eliminate the absolute pounds of
carbon emitted to the atmosphere.

3
An example of the former is President George

W. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol’s mandatory cap on GHG emissions in
favor of an intensity target. An example of the latter is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan
that recommends several strategies to meet the rate-based goals (in pounds of CO2
per megawatt hour) it sets for states’ electricity sectors but does not explain how
these goals can be translated into mass-based goals (in pounds of CO2) (Palmer and
Paul 2015). In short, during the shift to environmental accountability, it will be
easier to recouple policies with practices. At the same time, there may be a growing
decoupling of means-ends (Bromley and Powell 2012).

Under these circumstances, environmental activists and ENGOs have an
opportunity to forge bridging ties with industry that are more on their terms.
Instead of such ties absorbing ENGOs into an institutional logic that privileges
industry and quiet incremental change, ENGOs can exploit them to harass manage-
ment, disrupt routines, generate media attention, and engage in other forms of resis-
tance that have more direct and significant effects on corporate pollution. Because
the institutional environment at large expects the state to hold industry accountable
for its pollution, ENGOs are also in a better position to implement policies that
have real consequences for emission outcomes. But once those policies are in place
and they begin to lower emissions, activists themselves may add little to their effec-
tiveness because, again, they are enforced by the larger institutional environment.
Similarly, it is unlikely that climate activists and ENGOs will seek to pass or bolster
policies favored by industry that use an outcome measure other than a level-based
one. ENGOs may, though, try to bolster policies advocated by industry that pro-
mote different ends because while they may not directly reduce emission levels, in
principle they could. That is, ENGOs might realign an end with the latter goal by
encouraging businesses to adopt routines that have the best chance of decreasing
absolute emissions (see also Hironaka and Schofer 2002). For example, one of the
potential pitfalls of energy efficiency policies is that because they enable power
plants to economize on their fossil fuels, they may entice plants to increase their
output to the point where their emission levels actually begin to rise, characteristic

3
Although closely related, energy efficiency and emission rate are conceptually distinct. When applied to
power plants, the latter basically refers to the fuel energy input required to generate one unit of electric-
ity, whereas the latter refers to the pounds of carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced.

98 Grant and Vasi

of so-called rebound effects (Polimeni et al. 2008; Sorrell 2009). By encouraging
downstream users of electricity to keep their consumption levels low, ENGOs can
prevent this from occurring and persuade power plants to invest their energy sav-
ings into less destructive environmental routines.

Environmental NGOs are likely to have a significant influence on energy com-
panies’ decisions because they combine elements of civil society and social move-
ments. As an embodiment of civil society, ENGOs may participate in local and
national politics as well as in energy policymaking—for example, by joining energy
collaboratives and submitting comments to Public Utilities Commissions. At the
same time, ENGOs may be involved in environmental movement’s campaigns that
pressure electric utilities and elected officials to reduce air pollution and GHG emis-
sions. ENGOs often use social movement tactics—protests, sit-ins, marches, boy-
cotts, and so forth—to foster dissent and work outside the institutionalized policy
making system. Therefore, we argue that ENGOs can both enable certain climate
policies to more effectively reduce power plants’ CO2 emissions and shape emission
outcomes independent of climate policies.

While scholars recognize that the environmental movement had a pervasive
influence on the evolution of modern energy systems, it is surprising that the litera-
ture on the energy sector “has so often treated [environmental] activists as irrelevant
or passive agents” (Podobnik 2006: 13; cf. Vasi 2009, 2011). Environmental organi-
zations have clashed with electric utilities and power plant operators since the
1970s. In 1975, for example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued
the Bonneville Power Administration for failing to consider alternatives to con-
structing new fossil fuel–powered power plants. NRDC and other environmental
organizations also published the Alternate Scenario in 1977, which suggested that
future electricity demand in the Pacific Northwest could be met primarily with con-
servation measures. During the 1980s, environmental groups advocated for “de-
mand-side management” as a solution for the projected increase in electricity
consumption. The first “collaborative”—a plan for energy-efficiency and demand-
side management programs developed in collaboration by environmental groups
and electric utilities—was set up in 1988 by the environmental group Conservation
Law Foundation and the utility Connecticut Light and Power (Hirsh 1999:211).
During the 1990s, environmental groups increased their pressure on utilities to go
beyond conservation measures and invest in renewable energy as the environmen-
talist agenda became dominated by the global climate-change issue.

More broadly, research about the influence of social movements on corpora-
tions has examined corporate-movement dynamics operating at a national or global
level (Schurman and Munro 2009; Vasi and King 2012; Weber, Heinze, and DeSou-
cey 2008). This research has tended to focus on large, multinational companies that
have scaled beyond a single community, causing the negative externalities of corpo-
rate policies to affect a broad set of geographically dispersed stakeholders. Clearly,
as corporations move across state borders, they become more difficult to formally
regulate, leading activists to look for extragovernmental solutions that transcend
local communities. At the same time, much activism continues to be locally ori-
ented, embedded in communities and focused on particular municipalities and local
businesses (Lind and Stepan-Norris 2011; Stall and Stoecker 1998; Walsh et al.

Environmental Accountability 99

1993). For example, many manifestations of the civil rights movement involved the
organizing of community members trying to change local regulations, rules, and
customs (e.g., Luders 2006). This localism seems especially prevalent among envi-
ronmental activists. The strong local orientation of many activists reflects the speci-
fic environmental damages that companies cause to specific geographical areas in
the form of toxic dumping (Bullard 1990), destruction of lands and resources
(House and Howard 2009), and air pollution (Bullard and Johnson 2000). We
expand this research by developing hypotheses about the effect of local ENGOs on
power plants’ emissions.

HYPOTHESES

The United States provides an ideal setting for investigating these ideas. The
EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan targets the energy sector, which is the largest
source of heat-trapping pollution in the United States, accounting for 40% of all
CO2 emissions and one-third of GHGs overall. If this plan is approved, the nation’s
fleet of existing power plants must reduce their carbon pollution 30% from 2005
levels by 2030. The EPA’s plan is founded on section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act,
which requires the EPA to set performance standards for stationary sources of pol-
lution, including power plants.

The Clean Power Plan, though, departs from the regulation of most air pollu-
tants under the Clean Air Act in that it seeks to create rate- as opposed to level-
based limits on emissions. That is, while the proposed rule speaks of using 2005
emission levels (measured as total pounds of CO2) as a baseline for comparison, it
also establishes standards, at least initially, for state-specific emission rates (mea-
sured as pounds of CO2 emitted per unit of electricity produced). Rate-based stan-
dards are favored by fossil fuel industries because they allow for economic growth
and thus give power plants more flexibility to improve their environmental perfor-
mance than do level-based standards. Whereas NGOs like the World Resources
Institute (2006) have stressed the difficulties surrounding the communication and
perception of rate-based standards. They note that not only is a rate subject to dif-
ferent interpretations because its denominator be quantified in several ways (e.g.,
output vs. sales), but rates tend to decline over time regardless of whether total
emissions total emission rise or fall, thus creating in a false sense of improvement
among the public.

Partly in anticipation of the plan, which depends heavily on states and their
ability to devise programs that meet the goals set by the EPA, states have been
experimenting over the past two decades with policies to lower their power plants’
carbon pollution. Some of these policies, which we label direct climate policies, are
explicitly climate focused and designed to curb energy-based CO2 levels by, for
example, establishing emission caps or targets (Grant, Bergstrand, and Running
2014). Others, which we label indirect climate policies, were created for different rea-
sons such as to promote the conservation of fossil fuels but nonetheless may have a
bearing on plants’ climate-disrupting emissions. Of these, the energy industry least
opposes the indirect variety because like rate-based standards, it only encourages

100 Grant and Vasi

power plans to use carbon-intensive fuels more wisely and does not attempt to con-
strain their productivity.

It follows that to the degree local ENGOs are committed to closing fossil fuel
plants or mitigating the absolute environmental harm they cause, they will put more
effort into reducing plants’ CO2 emission levels than their emission rates. Through
their public protests and participation in community hearings, local ENGOs can
compel plants to reduce their levels or persuade local officials to adopt legislation
like emission caps that force them to do so. But once such direct climate policies are
in place, local ENGOs probably add little to their effectiveness. Whereas through
their sharing of technical knowledge, local ENGOs may be able improve the effec-
tiveness of existing indirect policies by encouraging plants to choose the most envi-
ronmentally responsible means to conserve and economize on fossil fuels. Put
differently, we can think of local ENGOs as performing two types of roles (Andre-
sen and Gulbrandsen 2003). As activist organizations (exemplified by groups like
World Wide Fund and Greenpeace), NGOs use confrontational or outsider strate-
gies (e.g., demonstrations, rallies, lobbying) to confront polluters or advocate for
policies that require polluters to reduce their emissions. As advisory organizations
(exemplified by groups like the Center for International Environmental Law and
Environmental Defense), local ENGOs use collaborative or insider strategies (e.g.,
research-based reports, knowledge construction) to craft policies that are more vol-
untary in nature and acceptable to industry but still have the potential to reduce
emissions if polluters follow the technical advice that NGOs offer.

Stated more formally, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Power plants’ carbon dioxide emission levels are significantly lower in local areas
where more local ENGOs are present.

Hypothesis 2: The efficacy of states’ indirect climate policies, but not their direct climate poli-
cies, varies by the presence of local ENGOs.

DATA AND METHODS

Scholars have been slow to determine whether local ENGOs reduce CO2 emis-
sions at the level of power plants because systematic, plant-specific data on CO2
emissions have largely been unavailable. Fortunately, with the recent release of the
EPA’s GHGRP data file, scholars now have access to information on the CO2 emis-
sion rates and levels of all major U.S. fossil-fuel power plants. Using these data in
conjunction with other information on the characteristics of plants and their sur-
rounding communities, we conduct the first analysis of the effects of local ENGOs
on plants’ carbon pollution.

We constructed a data set that includes indicators of U.S fossil fuel electric
power generation facilities’ CO2 emissions in 2010 (NAICS code 221112) as well as
other relevant factors. The unit of analysis is the power plant and the data set con-
sists of 1,129 cases. In this study, we examine the determinants of changes in plants’
emission rates and levels between 2005 and 2010 by controlling for rates and levels
in 2005. We use a single cross-section of 2010 data rather than continuous panels

Environmental Accountability 101

because the GHGRP data were only available for 2010 at the time this study was
conducted, and some of our predictors were only measured in that year.

Our sample (N = 1,129) contains about a third of all power plants in the Uni-
ted States in 2010 (N = 3,406); this is because the GHGRP data on emissions pri-
marily includes plants that met the EPA’s criterion of a “major source” polluter
(emits 25,000 metric tons or more CO2 equivalent in a year) and were required to
submit emissions reports (N = 1,426). Of these plants, 297 were excluded from our
analysis because information on their internal characteristics (e.g., size) and/or 2005
emissions were unavailable. Importantly, the 1,129 plants examined here, by them-
selves, account for 90.1% of all CO2 emitted by the electricity sector.

Dependent Variables

Our two measures of emission outcomes—emission rate and emission level—
are taken from the EPA’s GHGRP,

4
which began requiring power plants to submit

information on their carbon pollution in 2010. Emission rate is operationalized as
the pounds of CO2 released by a plant per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity gener-
ated. Emission level is total pounds of CO2 emitted by a plant. Because the latter
variable is highly skewed, we use a logarithmic transformation of it in our analyses.
To assess the determinants of plants’’ emissions over time, we include lagged mea-
sures of these variables for the years 2005 in our models. These measures effectively
capture other conditions from the past that might influence plants’ present environ-
mental performance. They were constructed by aggregating generator-specific data
gathered by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2005 to the plant level.

Key Independent Variables

One of key independent variables—ENGOs—is measured as the number of
environment and conservation nonprofit organizations (North American Industry
Classification System NAICS-813312) in a plant’s county and is taken from the
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. We use this measure because it provides better granularity than state-level
measures of environmental activism used in previous studies—for example, Sine and
Lee (2009).

5
Because this measure is highly skewed, we transform it when conducting

our regression analyses by taking its natural logarithm; to avoid simultaneity bias, we
used the measure from 2009. This is also in keeping with previous studies that have
examined the effects of county-level civic engagement on environmental, poverty, and
health outcomes (Grant, Jones, and Trautner 2004; Tolbert, Lyson, and Irwin 1998).

Our measures of states’ climate policies are derived from the factor analysis
reported in Table I. Results indicate there are two coherent and distinct sets of cli-
mate policies. The first captures whether a state has a renewable portfolio standard,

4
For more information on these data, see Grant et al. (2014).

5
An even more fine-grained measure of ENGOs’ presence would be at the city level; however, given the
large number of cities that are nearby power plants, we could not collect these data, and we had to rely
on the county-level measure.

102 Grant and Vasi

energy efficiency resource target, and public benefit fund. A renewable portfolio
standard requires electric utilities to deliver a certain amount of electricity from
renewable or alternative energy sources. An energy efficiency resource target is a
standard used to encourage more efficient generation, transmission, and use of elec-
tricity and natural gas. And a public benefit fund provides financial assistance for
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and research and development. We label this
factor indirect climate policies.

The second set of policies captures whether states have emission caps for elec-
tricity, GHG targets, and a climate action plan. An emission cap is a CO2 perfor-
mance standard designed to reduce CO2 emissions. A GHG target is a goal set for
reducing GHG emissions to a certain level by a certain date. And a climate action
plan is a comprehensive strategy for reducing a state’s contribution to climate
change. We label this second factor direct climate policies.

Controls

To ensure that the effects of ENGOs and climate policies are not artifacts of
other factors, we control for several characteristics of plants and their states. Specif-
ically, using data collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we con-
trol for the effects of plants’ characteristics, namely whether coal is their primary
fuel

6
(1 = yes) and their size (nameplate capacity) and age. And using data from

the U.S. Statistical Abstracts, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we control for the effects of the
following attributes of a plant’s surrounding areas, some of which may also influ-
ence the formation of local ENGOs: population density (county), median income
(county), coal industry influence (coal employment per 1,000 state residents), oil
and gas industry influence (oil and gas workers per 1,000 state residents), Demo-
cratic state (2008 Cook Partisan Voting Index), change in regional natural gas

Table I. Factor Analysis of States’ Energy-Related Climate Change Policies With Varimax Rotation
(N = 50)

Emission Caps for Electricity .343 .624
GHG Targets .334 .641
Climate Action Plan .372 .428
GHG Registry .301 .187
Renewable Portfolio Standard .807 .285
Energy Efficiency Resource Target .643 .250
Public Benefit Funds .623 .231
Financial Incentives for CCS –.120 .078
Mandatory Green Pricing .313 .388
Electric Utility Decoupling .212 .305
Eigenvalue 2.453 1.465
Alpha (for underlined items) .815 .734

6
Given that the goal of several NGOs is to shut down coal plants or convert them to natural gas, the
inclusion of this control means that our results likely underestimate the effectiveness of NGOs in reduc-
ing carbon pollution.

Environmental Accountability 103

prices between 2005 and 2010, change in a census region’s net electric output
between 2005 and 2010 (a proxy for increases in electricity demand that might drive
up emissions), and south central or plains/mountain region where the largest gas
fields by proved reserves are concentrated (1 = yes).

Analytical Strategy

In conducting ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses of the determi-
nants of power plants’ CO2 emissions, we effectively control for the average differ-
ences across parent companies in any observable or unobservable predictors by
including dummies for each parent company in our models. In doing so, we account
for the fact that there is not the same number of plants in each company. We also
conducted robustness checks, the results of which indicated that our standard error
estimates were not biased by heteroskedasticity. And in models not reported here,
we found that the effects of our predictors were essentially the same when using a
change score (instead of a lagged dependent variable) specification, suggesting that
our analyses were not substantially compromised due to the unavailability of longi-
tudinal data. Because it is possible that high emissions may attract NGO formation
and mobilization and thus make it difficult to determine the causal role NGOs play
in reducing emissions, we also use qualitative data to bolster and deepen our claim
that NGOs can alter plants’ environmental performance.

RESULTS

Table II uses a lagged dependent variable specification to assess the determi-
nants of power plants’ CO2 emission rates over time. Model 1 reveals that plants that
rely on carbon-intensive coal as their primary fuel source pollute at increasingly
higher rates. This is also true of older plants, which tend to use less efficient technolo-
gies. Whereas larger plants, which reap the benefits of economies of scale, and plants
situated in regions where the demand for electricity is growing or in states controlled
by Democrats tend to improve their rates. Net of these controls’ effects, the presence
of more ENGOs has a negligible impact on emission rates. This is consistent with our
argument that environmental activists do not prioritize reducing plants’ emission
intensities because that may not decrease the total amount of the carbon they release.

Model 2 adds indicators of states’ direct and indirect climate policies. Here, we
see that only those measures that are specifically designed to address energy-based
carbon pollution significantly curb plants’ emission rates. That less direct policies
are ineffectual is consistent with other studies that find renewable portfolio stan-
dards and energy efficiency programs to be insignificant determinants of plants’
emissions (e.g., Grant et al. 2014). In Models 3 and 4, we interact the two types of
climate policies with our measure of ENGOs. In neither case do ENGOs signifi-
cantly improve the effectiveness of these policy strategies.

7

7
Indirect and direct climate policies are correlated .44 and .60, respectively, with Democratic state, sug-
gesting that states controlled by Democrats are more likely to adopt these measures. However, the inclu-
sion and exclusion of Democratic state did not alter the effects of climate policies in Table II or III.

104 Grant and Vasi

Table III uses the same modeling procedure to examine the determinants of
power plants’ emission levels. Importantly, emission rate and level are weakly corre-
lated at .120. This not only suggests that policymakers are wrong in assuming that
reductions in rates will automatically result in reductions in levels, but as we will see,
factors like NGOs may have different effects on the two emission outcomes. Model 1
shows that the volume of carbon emitted by plants tends to be higher if plants rely
primarily on coal, have larger capacities, and are located in areas where the demand
for electricity and the price of natural gas are rising.

8
Older plants, which require

more repair and therefore are operated less frequently, tend to have lower levels of

Table II. Regression Analysis of U.S. Power Plants’ CO2 Emission Rates in 20

10

1 2 3 4

Coal Fuel (1 = yes) 95.65* 94.24* 93.19* 88.16*
(52.04) (52.02) (52.31) (52.54)

Size �63.79** �63.35** �63.53** �63.37**
(23.57) (23.61) (23.67) (23.63)

Age 5,993.52** 6,111.12** 6,133.19** 6,375.14**
(2,292.18) (2,292.21) (2,298.39) (2,314.61)

ENGOs 2.32 8.32 21.72 36.31
(22.47) (24.94) (60.55) (40.24)

2005 CO2 Rate 1,074.81** 1,072.68** 1,072.67** 1,073.35**
(45.57) (44.56) (45.65) (45.59)

D in Regional Electric Output �1,501.80** �1,774.92** �1,780.88** �1,798.91**
(704.98) (727.50) (729.30) (728.47)

Democratic State �7.81* �4.90 �4.31 �4.04
(7.73) (7.58) (7.62) (7.60)

Fossil Fuel Industry Influence �516.51 2,168.56 2,248.50 2,844.96
(13,703.09) (14,469.92) (14,501.13) (14,500.14)

D in Natural Gas Prices 31.32 6.71 6.98 10.09
(28.26) (33.11) (33.19) (33.36)

Population Density �.01 .01 .01 �.01
(.12) (.13) (.13) (.13)

Median County Income �.04 �.02 �.01 �.01
(.16) (.16) (.17) (.16)

South Central Region (1 = yes) �4.51 �12.37 �10.75 �5.80
(88.11) (90.07) (90.49) (90.05)

Mountain/Plains Region (1 = yes) 76.64 95.78 95.60 90.15
(161.82) (162.27) (162.58) (162.50)

Indirect Climate Policies 26.48 33.99 26.06
(33.26) (45.79) (33.29)

Direct Climate Policies �58.69* �58.04* �28.92
(31.28) (33.45) (58.95)

NGOs x Indirect Policies �6.31
(26.37)

NGOs x Direct Policies �18.38
(21.70)

Constant 39,555.49 40,555.06 40,704.03 42,503.71
N 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,129
R

2
.73 .74 .74 .74

Standard errors are in parentheses, p = *≤.05; **≤.01, one-tailed tests.

8
Population density did not significantly alter the effect of ENGOs. Nor did another possible determinant
of ENGO formation that we tested but not reported here, median county income. In addition, our two
measures of industry influence exerted a nonsignificant effect when combined into a single indicator.

Environmental Accountability 105

emissions. Importantly, net of these factors, plants are significantly more likely to
reduce their emission levels if embedded in counties with numerous ENGOs.

Model 2 reports that ENGOs continue to depress emission levels after taking
into account states’ indirect and direct climate policies. The latter set of policies also
significantly reduce plants’ absolute emissions.

9
These results comport with our first

hypothesis that as activist organizations, ENGOs can pressure local plants to reduce
their overall emissions independent of whatever climate policies might be in place.

In the next two models, we interact the two sets of climate policies with
ENGOs. We find that states’ otherwise ineffectual indirect policies are significantly
associated with emission reductions if plants are surrounded by more ENGOs. This
supports our second hypothesis that as advisory organizations, ENGOs may do

Table III. Regression Analysis of U.S. Power Plants’ CO2 Emission Levels in 2010

1 2 3 4

Coal Fuel (1 = yes) .37** .38** .37** .38**
(.15) (.16) (.16) (.16)

Size .32** .32** .32** .32**
(.08) (.08) (.08) (.08)

Age 19.38** �18.61** �18.26** �18.69**
(6.61) (6.63) (6.37) (6.69)

ENGOs �.14** �.12* .03 �.13
(.06) (.06) (.17) (.11)

2005 CO2 Level .77** .76** .76** .76**
(.04) (.04) (.04) (.04)

D in Regional Electric Output 6.79** 6.27** 6.20** 6.27**
(1.96) (2.03) (2.02) (2.02)

Democratic State �.01 .02 .02 .02
(.01) (.02) (.02) (.02)

Fossil Fuel Industry Influence �24.49 �36.07 �35.28 �36.31
(38.26) (40.16) (40.17) (40.31)

D in Natural Gas Prices .23** .16* .16* .16*
(.08) (.09) (.09) (.09)

Population Density .01 .01 .01 .01
(.35) (.35) (.36) (.36)

Median County Income �3.41 �1.89 �9.57 �1.95
(4.46) (4.52) (4.63) (4.56)

South Central Region (1 = yes) �.18 �.13 �.11 �.13
(.24) (.25) (.25) (.25)

Mountains/Plains Region (1 = yes) .50 .52 .52 .52
(.45) (.45) (.45) (.45)

Indirect Climate Policies �.05 .03 �.05
(.09) (.13) (.09)

Direct Climate Policies �.25* �.23* �.25
(.13) (.13) (.16)

NGOs x Indirect Policies �.07*
(.04)

NGOs x Direct Policies �.06
Constant �146.24 �140.56 �138.09 �141.14
N 1,129 1,129 1,129 1,129
R

2
.77 .78 .80 .78

Standard errors are in parentheses, p = *≤.05; **≤.01, one-tailed tests.

9
Other studies suggest that GHG targets and emission caps reduce plants’ emission levels (Grant et al. 2014),
but ours is the first to show that direct climate policies exert significant effects on both levels and rates.

106 Grant and Vasi

little to improve already efficacious direct climate policies, but they can provide the
technical expertise that plants may need to voluntarily comply with indirect policies
and translate efficiency gains into actual emission reductions.

CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

The ENGOs’ Influence on Power Plants

To illustrate the mechanisms through which ENGOs may reduce power plants’
CO2 emission levels, we conducted secondary data analyses. We examined newspa-
per articles using the Lexis-Nexis Academic database searching for various tactics
(protest, demonstration, boycott, and lawsuit) used by ENGOs that interacted with
electric utilities.

10

We found numerous cases in which activist organizations’ use of confronta-
tional tactics against a power plant led to either the closure or the retrofitting of the
power plant. One such example is the case of the Salem Harbor power plant, which
began operating in 1952. The Conservation Law Foundation, a regional environ-
mental organization, mounted a two-pronged legal assault on Salem Harbor Sta-
tion. First, it filed a federal lawsuit against plant owner Dominion Energy for
repeated violations of the Clean Air Act. The lawsuit cited 317 violations of smoke-
stack emissions limits between 2004 and 2009 and asked the court to fine Dominion
$10.7 million.

11
Second, it organized protests at the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission “to end the plant’s reliance on ratepayer subsidies stemming from
insufficient planning for reliability.”

12
Additionally, environmental groups coordi-

nated a public education campaign aiming at raising awareness about the local air
pollution emanating from the power plant; in fact, the Salem Harbor power plant
was frequently described by activists as one of Massachusetts’ “Filthy Five” power
plants. Activists also criticized the power plant for contributing to global climate
change and for burning low-sulfur coal from Colombia.

13
As the result of their

long-term campaign against the power plant, environmental activists achieved a vic-
tory in 2012 when the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts approved a consent
decree that requires Dominion to shut down some of its units by 2014.

Another example is the Valmont power plant, which opened in 1924, and by
2010, it supplied nearly 200 megawatts of electricity to customers in Boulder and
other cities in Colorado. Activists have organized numerous protests in front of Val-
mont and other power plants owned by Xcel Energy during Earth Day celebrations.
In 2010, activists climbed to the top of the coal pile in front of the Valmont power

10
We used various query terms such as “[power plant name] within same paragraph as [environmental
protest] or [environmental demonstration] or [environmental activism] or [environmental activist] or
[environmental group] or [environmentalists].”

11
See Cate Lecuyer, “Lawsuit: City Plant Violated Clean Air Act Over and Over,” The Salem News,
June 25, 2010. Retrieved September 8, 2016 (http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/lawsuit-
city-plant-violated-clean-air-act-over-and-over/article_250f257c-af68-5f0b-a5e3-cf79ab944d06.html).

12
See http://www.clf.org/our-work/clean-energy-climate-change/coal-free-new-england-2020/salem-harbor-
station/.

13
See Amanda McGregor, “Fighting the Power: Dozens Brave Cold to Protest Salem Harbor Station,”
The Salem News, March 2, 2009.

Environmental Accountability 107

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/lawsuit-city-plant-violated-clean-air-act-over-and-over/article_250f257c-af68-5f0b-a5e3-cf79ab944d06.html

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/lawsuit-city-plant-violated-clean-air-act-over-and-over/article_250f257c-af68-5f0b-a5e3-cf79ab944d06.html

http://www.clf.org/our-work/clean-energy-climate-change/coal-free-new-england-2020/salem-harbor-station/

http://www.clf.org/our-work/clean-energy-climate-change/coal-free-new-england-2020/salem-harbor-station/

plant, where they unfurled a large banner reading “Renewables Now” and erected
fake wind turbines.

14
Environmental groups also took advantage of opportunities

offered by Colorado’s legislation that power plant permits are renewed every five
years. When the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission held a hearing to solicit
public comment on renewing the plant’s permit in 2009, more than 300 people
turned out to oppose the plant at a rally. Environmental groups such as WildEarth
Guardians, the Sierra Club, and Clean Energy Action favored shutting down the
Valmont plant and questioned whether the current air-permit requirements are
stringent enough to meet the federal Clean Air Act. About 50 activists addressed
the commission, asking its members to deny the permit because the plant emits
more than 1 million metric tons of CO2 each year.

15
While the Air Quality Control

Commission disregarded the public comments in opposition to renewing the permit
and gave the plant the go-ahead to continue its operations, activists have continued
to protest the power plant. The mounting public pressure and the adoption of the
Clean Air Clean Jobs Act legislation have contributed to Xcel’s decision in 2010 to
close the Valmont coal plant by 2017.

16

Another example of confrontational tactics used against a power plant is that
of the Fisk power plant in Chicago, which opened in 1903 and was rebuilt in 1959.
Before it was shut down in 2012, the power plant was among Illinois’s largest emit-
ters of toxic chemicals. Not surprisingly, the power plant was the target of environ-
mental protests for many decades. In 2002, a number of environmental groups
organized a petition drive to get a referendum on the Chicago’s ballot asking city
hall for an ordinance that would force the company that owned the power plant,
Midwest Generation, to reduce pollution by 90% by 2006 or be shut down.
Because of growing pressure from local activists, Midwest Generation spent mil-
lions of dollars over the next several years on pollution-control equipment and
sharply reduced emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Yet, the
activists were not satisfied and demanded the plant to be closed because it had no
controls to cut heat-trapping CO2 emissions. A coalition of local and national envi-
ronmental organizations formed in 2010 under the name Chicago Clean Power
Coalition. The environmentalists fought for a “Clean Power Ordinance,” which
asked the power plant to convert to natural gas, cut operating hours or shut down
within four years. In 2011, Greenpeace activists climbed the smoke stack and
painted “Quit Coal” in vertical letters, a publicity event that brought the issue
before thousands of Chicagoans. The next year, activists were able to use local
elections as an opportunity to gain support from influential local politicians and
win support for the ordinance that resulted in Midwest Generation’s decision to
close the Fisk power plant.

17

14
See “Five Citizens Arrested at Boulder, Colorado Valmont Coal Power Plant,” Elephant Journal,
April 27, 2010. Retrieved January 2015 (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/04/five-citizens-
arrested-at-valmont-power-plant/).

15
See Laura Snider, “Public Packs Valmont Power Plant Hearing,” Daily Camera, July 14, 2009.

16
See Laura Snider, “Xcel Plans to Close Valmont’s Coal-Burning Generator. Plan Must Be Approved
by PUC,” Daily Camera, August 13, 2010.

17
See Julie Wernau, “Fisk, Crawford Coal Plants Had Long History, as Did Battle to Close Them,”
Chicago Tribune, September 2, 2012. Retrieved September 8, 2016 (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/
2012-09-02/business/ct-biz-0902-crawford-fisk-20120902_1_fisk-and-crawford-coal-plants-bruce-nilles).

108 Grant and Vasi

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/04/five-citizens-arrested-at-valmont-power-plant/

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/04/five-citizens-arrested-at-valmont-power-plant/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-02/business/ct-biz-0902-crawford-fisk-20120902_1_fisk-and-crawford-coal-plants-bruce-nilles

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-02/business/ct-biz-0902-crawford-fisk-20120902_1_fisk-and-crawford-coal-plants-bruce-nilles

Finally, the AES Redondo Beach power plant in California is another case of a
power plant that was a frequent target of activist organizations. In 1967, local resi-
dents began to complain about sooty residue on their homes and in their yards, and
in 1976, citizens pushed for a study to examine the noise pollution created by the
power plant. During the 1990s, protesters continued to voice their opposition to the
power plant’s air and noise pollution, and the city took the utility to court, albeit
without success. Facing stricter regulations on smokestack emissions, the utility
company installed two large tanks of ammonia to use in reducing emissions.

18
The

power plant was bought by another utility in 1997, AES, which downsized it and
proposed building a new, smaller and cleaner power plant. However, environmental
activists opposed the construction of the new plant, arguing that “If a new plant is
built, nearby residents may be exposed to the noise and visual disturbance of cool-
ing towers/big fans in addition to stacks that emit dangerous air pollutants into our
backyards.”

19
After years of conflict with the utility, local environmental groups

such as the South Bay Parkland Conservancy and Building a Better Redondo suc-
cessfully lobbied the city council to introduce an alternative land use plan that
includes new mixed-use residential, hotel, and commercial zoning for the power
plant site in 2015.

20

The ENGOs’ Influence on Indirect Climate Policies

We also conducted secondary data analyses to illustrate the mechanisms
through which ENGOs may influence indirect climate policies. We examined the lit-
erature on the environmental movement, and we searched newspaper articles using
the Lexis-Nexis Academic database looking for evidence of environmental groups’
influence on the adoption of indirect policies such as renewable portfolio standards,
energy-efficiency resource targets, and public benefit funds.

We found numerous cases in which activist organizations’ actions shaped indi-
rect policies. Environmental organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scien-
tists have been instrumental in developing the policy framework for Renewable
Portfolio Standards (RPS) in California during the mid-1990s. The Union of Con-
cerned Scientists lobbied for the adoption of an RPS in California because “renew-
ables currently cost a little more than fossil fuels and, in a deregulated electricity
market, could disappear, taking their many benefits with them” (Vasi 2011:103).
ENGOs played an important role not only for the adoption of an RPS in California
but also for increasing its goals. For example, while the initial RPS required electric
utilities to produce 20% of their electricity from renewables by 2010, the NRDC
and other environmental groups called on California’s policymakers to update the
goal to 33% by 2020 (Vasi 2011). Environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the
League of Conservation Voters, the NRDC, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club have
played an important role in the adoption of RPS policies in many other states—

18
See Vickey Kalambakal, “Opposition to AES Power Plant Not New,” Redondo Beach Patch, April 28,
2012. Retrieved January 2015 (http://patch.com/california/redondobeach/history-of-aes-redondo-
beach-power-plant).

19
See http://laist.com/2010/09/10/redondo_beach_protest.php#photo-1.

20
See Kelley Kim, “Detente on the Waterfront,” Orange County Register, July 31, 2014.

Environmental Accountability 109

http://patch.com/california/redondobeach/history-of-aes-redondo-beach-power-plant

http://patch.com/california/redondobeach/history-of-aes-redondo-beach-power-plant

http://laist.com/2010/09/10/redondo_beach_protest.php#photo-1

Texas, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Colorado, and so forth. Many of these
groups also published studies that examined the costs and benefits of national RPS
proposals and introduced renewable electricity standard bills.

Beyond RPS policies, we found that environmental groups also contributed to
the adoption and implementation of Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS).
For example, in Washington state, nongovernmental organizations such as the
Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC, and National Wildlife Federa-
tion have joined forces with civic, health, labor, and faith groups to support Initia-
tive 937, a bill that requires large utilities to use renewable energy and to undertake
energy conservation measures. In Minnesota, environmental groups—including the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Environmental Law and Policy Center,
NRDC, and Sierra Club—have lobbied for the introduction of the New Generation
Energy Act (which sets energy-savings targets for electric utilities) and defended it
when it came under attack from the coal and mining industry.

21
These groups also

supported the creation of a Public Benefits Fund that required some local utilities
to invest in renewable energy. In Texas, Environmental Defense and other ENGOs
formed a broad coalition with farmers and local politicians that successfully lobbied
for the adoption of an EERS requiring utilities to use end-use efficiency and to
reduce load growth by 10%.

Environmental groups also worked to influence the adoption and implementa-
tion of and Public Benefits Funds policies. In New York, for example, a coalition of
environmental groups has lobbied for the adoption of the System Benefits Charge
(SBC), established in 1996 by the New York Public Service Commission. The SBC
supports energy efficiency, education and outreach, research and development, and
low-income energy assistance through a surcharge on customers’ bills from the
state’s six investor-owned electric utilities. When the New York Public Service
Commission attempted to modify the SBC, a number of environmental groups such
as Natural Defense Resource Council, Environmental Advocates of New York,
New York League of Conservation Voters, and Sierra Club mobilized to oppose a
Budget Amendment that could have interfered and complicated the state’s “excel-
lent administration and implementation of both the Systems Benefits Charge (SBC)
program and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).”

22
Similarly, in California,

environmental groups have supported the introduction of a public goods surcharge
on ratepayer electricity use to create three public benefits funds for renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and a research, development, and demonstration called
the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program. Environmental organizations
have been active in the advisory board that provided strategic guidance to the
Energy Commission regarding funding priorities for PIER. For example, the Cali-
fornia Apollo Alliance, which included the Sierra Club, EDF, California League of
Conservation Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists, and other civic groups, pro-
moted the PIER program because it supports research, development, and

21
See Manuel Qui~nones, “Industry, Advocates Weighing in on Minnesota Coal Case,” Greenwire,
February 17, 2015. Retrieved September 8, 2016 (http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/02/17/industry-
advocates-weighing-in-on-minnesota-coal-case/).

22
See http://www.dps.ny.gov/03e0188_05m0090_4-8-05_comments/Environmental_groups_comments.
pdf.

110 Grant and Vasi

http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/02/17/industry-advocates-weighing-in-on-minnesota-coal-case/

http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/02/17/industry-advocates-weighing-in-on-minnesota-coal-case/

http://www.dps.ny.gov/03e0188_05m0090_4-8-05_comments/Environmental_groups_comments

http://www.dps.ny.gov/03e0188_05m0090_4-8-05_comments/Environmental_groups_comments

demonstration of new advanced transportation, energy efficiency, and renewable
energy technologies and contributes to California’s leadership in these areas.

More broadly, environmental organizations have used collaborative strategies
to craft policies that are more acceptable to industry. The EDF and NRDC, for
example, worked with electric utilities since the 1970s to encourage the use of con-
servation measures. In 1976, EDF challenged PG&E’s request to build new nuclear
power plants. Using computer models of future electricity demand scenarios, EDF
demonstrated in front of California’s regulatory commission that customers and
investors would benefit more from conservation programs and renewable energy
resources than by building new plants (Hirsh 1999). In 1977, NRDC and other envi-
ronmental organizations published the Alternate Scenario, which suggested that
future electricity demand in the Pacific Northwest could be met primarily with con-
servation measures. During the 1980s, environmental groups advocated for “de-
mand-side management” as a solution for the projected increase in electricity
consumption. The first “collaborative”—a plan for energy-efficiency and demand-
side management programs developed in collaboration by environmental groups
and electric utilities—was set up in 1988 by the environmental group Conservation
Law Foundation and the utility Connecticut Light and Power (Hirsh 1999:211). By
the end of 1991, more than 24 utilities in 10 states had worked with environmental
groups to reduce energy consumption through demand-side management programs
(Hirsh 1999:220).

The Midwestern Power Sector Collaborative is an example of ongoing collabo-
ration between ENGOs and electric utilities. The collaborative is formed of inves-
tor-owned utilities, generation and transmission cooperatives, state environmental
and utility regulators, and various environmental groups (Union of Concerned Sci-
entists, EDF, or coalitions of environmental organizations such as Iowa Environ-
mental Council and Ohio Environmental Council, etc.). This collaborative was
launched in 2011 and “seeks to inform sound federal policy based on meaningful
agreement among coal-based power companies, environmental advocates and regu-
lators in a region that generates most of its electricity from coal.”

23
Participants in

this collaborative were able to achieve consensus on a set of recommendations pre-
sented to senior officials at the EPA in 2013, prior to the drafting of a federal rule to
regulate existing power plant carbon emissions. Additionally, Midwestern environ-
mental groups and their partners have promoted clean sources of electricity and
worked to grow the renewable biomass industry and turn organic waste into renew-
able energy.

This brief examination of specific cases allows us to identify the processes
through which ENGOs have contributed to a reduction in power plants’ CO2 emis-
sion levels. It has also allowed us to understand how ENGOs have influenced indi-
rect climate policies. In some cases, ENGOs have used protests and demonstrations
to pressure local and state elected officials to act; in other cases, ENGOs have sued
electric utilities for violating the Clean Air Act; in still other cases, environmental
groups published reports and worked with electric utilities and state agencies to
adopt and implement RPS, EERS, and Public Benefits Funds. While space

23
See http://www.betterenergy.org/projects/midwestern-power-sector-collaborative.

Environmental Accountability 111

http://www.betterenergy.org/projects/midwestern-power-sector-collaborative

limitations prevent us from providing a detailed analysis of all various strategies
used by ENGOs, it is important to mention that local activists’ actions were often
coordinated with local chapters of national ENGOs. For example, anticoal activists
from around the country received support from Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” or
from Greenpeace’s “Quit Coal” campaign.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have sought to advance our understanding of the role civil
society plays in an age of environmental accountability. Toward that end, we ana-
lyzed the direct and interactive effects of local ENGOs on U.S. power plants’ CO2
emissions using newly released data from the EPA’s GHGRP. Contrary to skeptics
who argue that ENGOs have been co-opted by energy executives and have compro-
mised their environmental goals to focus on lowering the rate rather than the level
at which plants pollute, we found that even in areas where the fossil fuel industry is
strong, ENGOs tend to suppress the total pounds of CO2 that plants emit to the
atmosphere. This suggests that utilities are relatively open systems (Davis and Scott
2007) whose environmental performance can be influenced by a mobilized local citi-
zenry. We also found that ENGOs curb carbon pollution independent of policies
like GHG caps and targets that explicitly address the carbon pollution of power
plants, and they enhance the effectiveness of others like renewable portfolio stan-
dards and energy efficiency programs that encourage the economical use of fossil
fossils. Past studies suggest the latter, indirect climate policies fail to reduce curb
plants’ CO2 emissions (e.g., Grant et al. 2014), but ours demonstrates that this
depends on the civil context in which plants are embedded. Finally, our qualitative
analyses identified several tactics used by local ENGOs that have directly or indi-
rectly reduced plants’ carbon pollution, including outsider strategies like organized
protests, lawsuits, and petition drives as well as insider ones that involve the sharing
of technical knowledge. Through these mechanisms, civil society is reducing emis-
sion levels (as opposed to rates) and motivating plants to adopt real green practices.

Our study makes several important contributions to the literatures on the
decoupling of global normative systems, social movements, and environmental soci-
ology as well as public policy. We advance research on decoupling by shifting atten-
tion from aggregated environmental outcomes to the sites where the disjuncture
between policies and practices is most likely to occur—the power plant. By combin-
ing information on local ties to international organizations with data on plant-level
outcomes, we have uncovered some of the conditions under which individual plants
are more or less likely to comply with or decouple from the expectations of global
environmental institutions. We also extend social movement research that has
focused on the diffusion of environmental policies by investigating whether policies
and NGO activists actually deter pollution. And in keeping with ecological modern-
ization theory (Mol 1995, 2001; Mol, Sonnenfeld, and Spaargaren 2009), our
research speaks to how environmental organizations can tap into the growing eco-
logical concerns of developed countries to bring about real change in corporate
environmental behavior. Finally, our study suggests that if the EPA’s proposed

112 Grant and Vasi

Clean Power Plan is to be successful, state policymakers must not simply solicit the
input of citizen activists in devising climate policies but also encourage the long-
term involvement of activists to ensure that policies are effectively implemented.

While our study demonstrates that local ENGOs reduce power plants’ emission
levels, its findings are limited to the United States. Consequently, it is unclear
whether ENGOs decrease the emissions of individual plants in other countries and
especially less developed ones that face a rapidly growing demand for electricity.
Nor do we know if the presence of ENGOs enhances or hinders the ability of
national climate policies to reduce plants’ emissions.

Future research, therefore, needs to analyze power plants throughout the world
and how their CO2 emissions are affected by the presence of ENGOs. It also needs
to compare the effects of national policies on plants’ emissions and explore how
their effectiveness is conditioned by the ties ENGOs forge with global environmen-
tal institutions. In these and other ways, scholarship can deepen our knowledge of
civil society and its ability to make polluters responsible for the irreversible harm
they are doing to the earth’s life support system. More research is also required to
understand which social movement tactics (protests, petitions, sit-ins, lobbying) are
employed most often and which ones are most effective in reducing GHGs.

REFERENCES

Andresen, Steiner and Lars Gulbrandsen. 2003. The Role of NGOs in Promoting Climate Compliance.
Lysaker, Norway: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

Bromley, Patricia and Walter W. Powell. 2012. “From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decou-
pling in the Contemporary World.” The Academy of Management Annals 1–48. doi: 10.1080/
19416520.2012.684462

Bullard, Robert D. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO:
Westview.

Bullard, Robert D. and Glenn S. Johnson. 2000. “Environmentalism and Public Policy: Environmental
Justice: Grassroots Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision Making.” Journal of Social
Issues 56: 3: 555–578. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00184

Buttel, Frederick. 2000. “World Society, the Nation-State, and Environmental Protection.” American
Sociological Review 65: 1: 117–121. Retrieved September 15, 2016 (http://cfd153.cfdynamics.com/
images/members/docs/pdf/special/asr/ASR_65_1_Article_5_Buttell )

Choudry, Azis, and D. Kapoor (eds.). 2013. NGOization: Complicity, Contradictions and Prospects. Lon-
don: Zed Books.

Davis, Gerald and W. Richard Scott. 2007. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open
Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Engels, Friedrich. 1892. The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. London:
S. Sonnenschein.

Frank, David, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer. 2000. “The Nation-State and the Natural Environment
Over the Twentieth Century.” American Sociological Review 65: 1: 96–116. Retrieved September 15,
2016 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657291)

Grant, Don, Kelly Bergstrand, and Katrina Running. 2014. “Effectiveness of U.S. State Policies in
Reducing CO2 Emissions From Power Plants.” Nature Climate Change 4: 977–982. doi:10.1038/
nclimate2385

Grant, Don, Andrew Jones, and Mary Nell Trautner. 2004. “Do Facilities With Distant Headquarters
Pollute More? How Civic Engagement Conditions the Environmental Performance of Absentee Man-
aged Plants.” Social Forces 83: 1: 189–214. doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0111

Grant, Don, Andrew Jorgenson, and Wesley Longhofer. 2013. “Targeting Extreme Polluters: An Alter-
native Approach to Reducing Energy-Related CO2 Emissions.” Journal of Environmental Studies and
Sciences 3: 4: 376–380. doi:10.1007/s13412-013-0142-z

Environmental Accountability 113

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.684462

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.684462

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00184

http://cfd153.cfdynamics.com/images/members/docs/pdf/special/asr/ASR_65_1_Article_5_Buttell

http://cfd153.cfdynamics.com/images/members/docs/pdf/special/asr/ASR_65_1_Article_5_Buttell

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657291

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2385

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2385

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0111

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0142-z

Hironaka, Ann and Evan Schofer. 2002. “Loose Coupling in the Environmental Arena: The Case of
Environmental Impact Assessments.” In Andrew Hoffman and Marc Ventresca (eds.), Organizations,
Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives: pp. 214–234. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.

Hirsh, Richard. 1999. Power Loss: The Origins of Deregulation and Restructuring in the American Electric
Utility System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

House, Silas and Jason Howard. 2009. Something’s Rising: Appalachians Fighting Mountaintop Removal.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Hutter, Bridget and Joan O’Mahoney. 2004. The Role of Civil Society Organisations in Regulating Busi-
ness. London: Center for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and
Political Science.

International Energy Agency. 2009. Sectoral Approaches in Electricity: Building Bridges to a Safe Climate.
Paris: IEA Publications.

Jorgenson, Andrew K., Juliet B. Schor, Kyle W. Knight, and Xiaorui Huang. 2016. “Domestic Inequality
and Carbon Emissions in Comparative Perspective.” Sociological Forum 31: SI: 770–786. doi: 10.1111/
socf.12272

Lind, Benjamin and Judith Stepan-Norris. 2011. “The Relationality of Movements: Movement and
Countermovement Resources, Infrastructure, and Leadership in the Los Angeles Tenants’ Rights
Mobilization, 1976–1979.” American Journal of Sociology 116: 5: 1564–1609. doi:10.1086/657507.

Luders, Joseph. 2006. “The Economics of Movement Success: Business Responses to Civil Rights Mobi-
lization.” American Journal of Sociology 111: 4: 963–998. doi:10.1086/498632

McAdam, Doug, Hilary Schaffer Boudet, Jennifer Davis, W. Ryan Orr, Richard Scott, and Raymond
Levitt. 2010. “‘Site Fights’: Explaining Opposition to Pipeline Projects in the Developing World.”
Sociological Forum 25: 3: 401–427. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01189.x

Meyer, John, Francisco Ramirez, and Yasemin Soysal. 1992. “World Expansion of Mass Education,
1870–1980.” Sociology of Education 65: 2: 128–149. Retrieved September 15, 2016 (http://www.
jstor.org/stable/2112679)

Meyer, John and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Ceremony
and Myth.” American Journal of Sociology 83: 2: 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550

Mol, Arthur. 1995. The Refinement of Production: Ecological Modernization Theory and the Chemical
Industry. Utrecht, the Netherlands: van Arket.

Mol, Arthur. 2001. Globalization and Environmental Reform. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mol, Arthur P.J., David A. Sonnenfeld, and Gert Spaargaren, eds. 2009. The Ecological Modernisation

Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Palmer, Karen and Anthony Paul. 2015. A Primer on Comprehensive Policy Options for States to Comply

With the Clean Power Plan. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Pellow, David N. 2000. “Environmental Inequality Formation: Toward a Theory of Environmental Jus-

tice.” American Behavioral Scientist 43: 4: 581–601. doi:10.1177/0002764200043004004
Podobnik, Bruce. 2006. Global Energy Shifts: Fostering Sustainability in an Turbulent Age. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.
Polimeni, John M., Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampietro, and Blake Alcott. 2008. The Jevons Paradox and

the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. London: Earthscan.
Ramirez, Francisco, Yasemin Soysal, and Suzanne Shanahan. 1997. “The Changing Logic of Political

Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women’s Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990.” American
Sociological Review 62: 5: 735–745. Retrieved September 15, 2016 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/
2657357)

Schofer, Evan and Ann Hironaka. 2005. “The Effects of World Society on Environmental Protection
Outcomes.” Social Forces 94: 1: 25–47. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0127

Schurman, Rachel and William Munro. 2009. “Targeting Capital: A Cultural Economy Approach to
Understanding the Efficacy of Two Anti-Genetic Engineering Movements.” American Journal of Soci-
ology 115: 1: 155–202. doi:10.1086/597795

Sine, Wesley and Brandon Lee. 2009. “Tilting at Windmills? The Environmental Movement and the
Emergence of the U.S. Wind Energy Sector.” Administrative Science Quarterly 54: 1: 123–155. doi:
10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123

Sorrell, S. 2009. “Jevons’ Paradox Revisited: The Evidence for Backfire From Improved Energy Effi-
ciency.” Energy Policy 37: 4: 1456–1469. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003

Stall, Susan and Randy Stoecker. 1998. “Community Organizing or Organizing Community?” Gender &
Society 12: 6: 729–756. doi:10.1177/089124398012006008

Tolbert, Charles, Thomas Lyson, and Michael Irwin. 1998. “Local Capitalism, Civic Engagement, and
Socioeconomic Well-Being.” Social Forces 77: 2: 401–428. doi:10.1093/sf/77.2.401

114 Grant and Vasi

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/socf.12272

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/socf.12272

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/657507

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/498632

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01189.x

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112679

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112679

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764200043004004

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657357

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657357

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0127

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/597795

http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124398012006008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/77.2.401

Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2007. “Thinking Globally, Planning Nationally, and Acting Locally. Nested Organiza-
tional Fields and the Adoption of Environmental Practices.” Social Forces 86: 1: 113–137. doi:
10.1353/sof.2007.0112

Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2009. “Social Movements and Industry Development: The Environmental Move-
ment’s Impact on the Wind Energy Industry.” Mobilization 14: 3: 315–336. doi:10.17813/
maiq.14.3.j534128155107051

Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2011. Winds of Change. The Environmental Movement and the Global Development of
the Wind Energy Industry. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vasi, Ion Bogdan and Brayden King. 2012. “Social Movements, Risk Perceptions, and Economic Out-
comes: The Effect of Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Activism on Firms’ Perceived Environmen-
tal Risk and Financial Performance.” American Sociological Review 77: 4: 573–597. doi:10.1177/
0003122412448796

Walsh, Edward, Rex Warland, and D. Clayton Smith. 1993. “Backyards, NIMBYs, and Incinerator Sit-
ings: Implications for Social Movement Theory.” Social Problems 40: 1: 25–38. doi:10.2307/3097024

Klaus, Weber, Kathryn Heinze, and Michaela DeSoucey. 2008. “Forage for Thought: Mobilizing Codes
in the Movement for Grass-Fed Meat and Dairy Products.” Administrative Science Quarterly 53: 3:
529–567. doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.529

World Resources Institute. 2006. An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Intensity Targets. Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute.

Environmental Accountability 115

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0112

http://dx.doi.org/10.17813/maiq.14.3.j534128155107051

http://dx.doi.org/10.17813/maiq.14.3.j534128155107051

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448796

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448796

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3097024

http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.3.529

Copyright of Sociological Forum is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.