1

“Among all industrial sources of air pollution, none poses greater risks to human health and the environment than coal-fired power plants.”

—Schneider and Banks 2010

Introduction

The United States as a whole, and Kentucky in particular, are highly dependent on coal as

a source of energy. Providing 44.5% of the United States’ electricity in 2009 (U.S. Energy

Information Administration 2011), coal is touted as a “cheap” solution to rising energy demands.

However, as the Physicians for Social Responsibility assert, coal-fired power can only be

considered a low-cost energy source “by ignoring its very serious health and environmental

impacts.” (Physicians for Social Responsibility 2009). The true costs of burning coal are

externalized onto society not only through producing approximately 40 percent of the United

States’ carbon dioxide emissions (contributing to global warming), but also by causing a large

number of health problems, such as developmental disorders in children, respiratory conditions,

and cancer. Coal-fired power plants produce “millions of pounds of toxic air emissions each

year, making coal-fired power plants the largest source of air toxics in the U.S.” (Physicians for

Social Responsibility 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing of coal-fired power plants’ smoke

stacks reveals that these plants release 67 different air toxics, 55 of which are known neurotoxins

Burning Coal on the University of Kentucky’s Campus:

Health Impacts, Barriers to Change, and the Possibilities for Transitioning

to Renewable Energy

An action research project conducted by students in Dr. Shannon Bell’s Public Sociology (SOC 350) class, Fall, 2011

Steve Barch, Victoria DeSimone, Island Devore, Mandy Hord,

Eustace Kambelu, Rachel Masters, Calvin Prest, Rebecca Reeves, Cara Robinson, Josh Thompson, Lauren Traylor,

Kristin Vinson, & Amanda Warrington

2

that cause developmental damage to the brains and nervous system of children and 24 of which

are known, probable, or possible human carcinogens” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1998). Each year, fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants is responsible for nearly

23,600 premature deaths, 38,200 heart attacks, 554,000 asthma attacks, 21,850 hospital

admissions, 26,000 emergency room visits, and 3,186,000 lost work days (Physicians for Social

Responsibility 2009). In addition, coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury

pollution in the nation; such plants emitted more than 65 percent of all mercury air pollution in

2005 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). This is particularly relevant for the state of

Kentucky, which emitted nearly 6,000 pounds of mercury in 2009, ranking it sixth in the nation

for mercury emissions (Randall and Vinyard 2011). Mercury pollution especially affects

expectant mothers, causing birth defects in their children, even at low levels of exposure.

According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (2009), “fetal exposure via the placenta

can cause mental retardation and brain damage, while continued exposure in early childhood can

result in learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders.”

Burning Coal and the University of Kentucky

It is not only large-scale power plants that are to blame for the many health problems

associated with burning coal. Across the United States, there are currently 60 colleges and

universities that operate their own smaller scale coal-fired boilers for heating their campuses.

The University of Kentucky (UK) is one of these institutions. UK currently operates three central

heating plants that produce steam, which is piped throughout campus to provide building heat

and hot water. Two of these plants rely on coal as a source of fuel. There are four coal-fired

boilers associated with these plants: two at Central Heating Plant #1 on South Limestone Street

and two at the Medical Center Plant. According to the University of Kentucky Facilities

Management’s “Information Sheet on Energy Use and the University of Kentucky,” the

university uses approximately 36,565 tons of coal per year. On average, 68% of the heat on

campus is produced from burning coal and 32% is produced from burning natural gas. These

percentages vary by year, depending on the price of coal and natural gas (UK Facilities

Management 2011).

Particularly alarming is the fact that UK’s coal-fired boilers were built prior to the

passage of the Clean Air Act, and, due to a little-known loophole in the law for older plants, they

3

are not held to the same pollution emissions limits as plants built after the Clean Air Act was

implemented (UK Heating Plant #1 Tour, 2011). In other words, UK’s two plants have been

“grandfathered” into current air quality standards, allowing them to legally emit air toxins above

levels that have been deemed acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, what is

coming out of the smokestacks of our coal-fired boilers is even more toxic than the air pollution

from newer coal-fired power plants.

Our concern about the toxins that are being inhaled by University of Kentucky students,

faculty, staff, and the surrounding community is the reason for this class research project.

The Study

During the Fall 2011 semester, three teams of students in Dr. Bell’s Public Sociology

(SOC 350) class set out to examine the health impacts of UK’s coal-fired boilers, the barriers to

moving beyond coal for heating the campus, and the ways that other universities have

successfully made the transition away from coal. This report is the compilation of our findings.

We are hopeful that our research will help prompt the University of Kentucky’s administration to

make a commitment to:

Completely phase out burning coal on UK’s campus over the next two years

Conduct a feasibility study for transitioning to renewable energy sources

(geothermal, solar, and/or wind) to provide the campus’s heating needs.

Join the 674 other colleges and universities (such as University of Louisville, Berea

College, University of Cincinnati, and University of Tennessee) that have signed on

to the American College and Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment,

which would commit the university to create a comprehensive plan for achieving

climate neutrality by a target year designated by the university.

4

PART I: The Health Impacts of Burning Coal on UK’s Campus Steven Barch, Lauren Traylor, Josh Thompson, and Mandy Hord

After reading about the large number of serious health problems caused by pollution from

coal-fired power plants and learning that the University of Kentucky’s coal-fired boilers are

(legally) operating with out-of-date air pollution controls, Team 1 set out to examine the

following research question:

What are the health impacts of the University of Kentucky’s coal-fired boilers on the

campus community and the larger Lexington area?

Our team was interested in discovering what toxins are being emitted by UK’s coal-fired boilers

and what the health effects of inhaling those toxins on a daily basis are for members of the

campus and surrounding community.

Research Methods

Our team used several different research methods to answer our question, including

observation, key-informant interviews, and enlisting the help of a chemistry professor to run

chemical analyses on samples of coal soot collected from the parking garage next to one of the

coal-fired heating plants.

We conducted our observations through participating in a guided tour of UK’s Central

Heating Plant #1 on South Limestone Street. Through this tour, we were able to gain a better

understanding of how the coal is burned to produce steam heat for campus, the out-of-date

pollution controls, and what is done with the coal ash (coal combustion waste) after coal is

burned. We also conducted observations in the area surrounding the heating plant, particularly

Parking Structure 5, which is adjacent to the heating plant. We found coal soot from the

smokestacks accumulating on various surfaces in this parking garage. The top two levels of the

parking garage are in the direct air flow of the coal-fired boilers’ smokestacks, and on various

occasions smoke has been observed blowing through the garage. We took photographs of the

coal soot to document where it had accumulated and what it looked like (see Figures 1-3). We

also took samples of the soot for the purposes of conducting a chemical analysis to determine if

there were any toxic substances in the soot (see Figure 4).

5

FIGURE 1 Coal Soot wiped from a wire in Parking Structure 5 on November 1, 2011

FIGURES 2 and 3 Coal soot accumulated on a metal pole in Parking Structure 5. November 1, 2011.

6

We enlisted the expertise of a chemistry professor, who helped us properly collect

samples of the coal soot from the parking garage and then tested the samples for toxins known to

be present in the flue gas of coal-fired power plants. With the professor’s help, we hoped to

determine whether the soot accumulating in the parking garage (and being spread throughout the

campus and surrounding area) contained high enough concentrations of toxins to pose a health

threat to the campus community.

Finally, we conducted four key-informant interviews to help us learn more about UK’s

coal-fired boilers and about the health impacts of coal soot and coal combustion waste. We

interviewed an environmental chemist; Nancy Reinhart, who is a public health researcher with

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth; Lauren McGrath from the Sierra Club, and a former

employee of the UK Heating Plant.

FIGURE 4 Collecting a sample of coal soot for chemical analysis from a metal wire in Parking Structure 5. November 1, 2011.

7

Findings

As noted above, through our observations, we found that there is a great deal of coal soot

accumulating in Parking Structure 5 next to Central Heating Plant #1 on South Limestone Street.

Through informal conversations with faculty who park in this garage, we also learned that on

some days a thin layer of soot will accumulate on the cars parked in the structure, and sometimes

one can see a cloud of smoke blowing through the garage. We were surprised to learn through

our key informant interview with a former heating plant employee that this parking structure is

actually cleaned every morning at 6:00 AM before faculty and staff arrive on campus because so

much coal soot accumulates in the garage on a daily basis. This employee was the one

responsible for cleaning the garage Monday through Friday for eight years. His primary focus

was cleaning the railings around the stairs and the walls of the parking garage. Despite its being

cleaned so often, we were still able to find a significant amount of soot that had accumulated on

various surfaces, as shown in Figures 1-4 above.

During our observations while we toured the Central Heating Plant #1, we noticed that,

despite the large amount of coal dust and soot in the air, none of the workers at the plant were

wearing protective face masks. The former coal plant employee we interviewed (whose job it

was to clean coal soot from the parking garage every day) informed us that he rarely wore a dust

mask because of the uncomfortable, cheap material that they used, and also because no one else

wore masks, so he did not think it was important to do so himself. After a few years of cleaning

the garage every day, he noticed a constant coughing. He was recently diagnosed with a rare

illness, and he wonders if his illness was caused from breathing the coal soot for so many years.

After collecting the coal soot samples from the parking garage, we had a chemist run a

chemical analysis to determine the composition of the soot and the concentrations of the

elements present. Once he had the results, we conducted an interview with him to learn about

what exactly was found in the soot. The chemical analysis revealed the coal soot to have very

high concentrations of Category 1 Toxins, which are extremely dangerous if inhaled or ingested,

even in small doses. During our interview, the chemistry professor told us that the results of the

analyses were worse than he could have imagined them being, as the concentrations of the toxins

far exceeded the EPA-designated “safe” limits. Toxic elements found in high concentrations in

our samples include:

8

Arsenic, which is a known carcinogen of the lungs, liver, bladder, and skin. There is some evidence that arsenic causes lower IQ scores in children and increased mortality in young adults who are exposed to arsenic as children or in the womb. It also causes a decreased production of red and white blood cells and an abnormal heart rhythm.

Beryllium, which is a known carcinogen of the lungs and also causes Chronic Beryllium Disease, Acute Beryllium Disease, and Skin conditions.

Cadmium, which is a known carcinogen. Cadmium poisoning causes renal failure, respiratory impairment, and softening of the bones

Chromium, which is a known carcinogen

Manganese, which is a known carcinogen that also causes neurological disorders

Cobalt, which is a possible carcinogen that also causes dermatitis, lung and heart effects

Vanadium, which causes lung damage and is a possible carcinogen

(Sources: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; National Institute of Environmental Health Science/NIH;; “Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants” Report, American Lung Association and Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.)

According the Clean Air Task Force, fine particle matter pollution from U.S. power

plants leads to more than 24,000 deaths per year. During our interview with Nancy Reinhart,

public health researcher from Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, she informed us that

individuals who live or work in close proximity to coal-fired power plants are at a higher risk of

being exposed to these pollutants and thus are at a greater risk for health problems related to

coal. This means that the entire campus community is being exposed to these harmful toxins

because we have not only one, but two plants with coal-fired boilers. Further, as previously

mentioned, neither of these plants has up-to-date emissions controls in place, and thus they are

legally emitting more toxins and pollutants into the air than coal plants that are built today.

In addition to the toxics that UK’s coal-fired boilers are emitting into the air, there is also

the coal combustion waste (CCW), or “bottom ash” left over from burning the coal that is a

matter of concern. We learned during our tour of the plant that Spencer County takes UK’s

bottom ash to use for ice removal on their roads in the winter. We asked the chemistry professor

if spreading the ash on the roads in Spencer County could cause environmental or health

problems. He responded, “Yes, definitely. We must analyze the ash to find out what is in it.

What they put on the roads will wash down into the streams…These chemicals could get into the

drinking water, especially the water of individuals who own private wells.” Thus, not only are

the coal-fired heating plants threatening the health of the UK campus community and Lexington

9

residents, but the waste from these boilers may also be affecting the health and environment of

Spencer County residents. The bottom ash should be tested in the same way that the coal soot

was tested so that the university can inform Spencer County about what, exactly, they are

spreading on their roads in the winter.

Discussion

It should be a top priority of the University of Kentucky to provide a safe learning and

working environment for students, faculty, and staff. With these findings, the University needs to

take immediate action to transition away from burning coal on our campus. We understand that

there are deep political and historical ties to the coal industry in Kentucky. However, these ties

should not take precedent over the health of our campus community. As Lauren McGrath stated

in our interview,

If the Administration of the University of Kentucky fully understood and publicly disclosed the impacts of pollution from their coal boilers to the campus and broader community, it would probably be the end of the discussion [and a commitment to transitioning would be made]. UK has an opportunity to lead the state in terms of making initial strides with renewables. The technologies are there, there’s ample opportunities for creative financing mechanisms; they just need the courage to take the first step.

The chemistry professor we worked with echoed Ms. McGrath’s sentiments in his interview,

stating,

Ball State [transitioned to renewables], so we can, too. We come to universities to get top educations from top educators. We learn about the latest technology and how to think critically. It’s totally against that to have outdated power plants and say we can’t do anything about it. We are supposed to be the best of the best.

The coal soot that is being emitted by the coal-fired boiler on South Limestone Street

contains toxic elements that university students, faculty, and staff are breathing on a daily basis.

Workers in the plant are especially at risk because they come in close contact with the ash. For

the health of the university and larger community, the UK administration should commit to

phasing out the coal burners. Our group feels strongly that simply retrofitting the coal-fired

boilers with modern scrubbers is not the answer. The University of Kentucky should take this

opportunity to move beyond our dependence on this polluting source of energy and make a

commitment to transitioning to renewables, such as geothermal, solar, or wind (or a combination

10

of the three) to meet the campus’s heating needs. In the remainder of this report, Teams 2 and 3

will discuss barriers to moving beyond coal and how other universities similar to UK have

successfully made the transition.

PART II: The Barriers to Transitioning Away from Coal on UK’s Campus

Rachel Masters, Cara Robinson, Amanda Warrington, Kristen Vinson, and Eustace Kambelu

The University of Kentucky is the leading public institution in the state and is home to

some of the top academic researchers in a variety of disciplines. With all of the resources and

bright minds that UK has at its disposal, it is surprising that the university is still using such

outdated and polluting technology to heat the campus. This is the puzzle that Team 2’s research

seeks to address. Specifically, we focused on the following research question:

What are the barriers to moving to renewable forms of energy, such as geothermal or

solar energy, for heating UK’s campus?

Research Methods

In order to explore our research question, our team conducted surveys with University of

Kentucky students and completed two key-informant interviews. Our survey questions were

aimed at discovering how much the students already knew about coal use on UK’s campus and

their willingness to support and advocate for a transition away from coal. We asked whether

respondents were aware that the university has coal-fired boilers on campus, and if they were,

did they know the location of the four boilers. We also asked our respondents if they felt that UK

should move away from using coal to heat the campus, and if they responded “yes,” we asked if

they would be willing to get involved in efforts to help this transition happen. Finally, we asked

if our respondents would be willing to pay an extra student fee each semester ($1-3, $4-6, or $7-

10) to help support an investment in clean energy for UK’s campus. We felt these questions were

important ones to ask because if students are not supportive of a transition away from coal-

burning on campus, or if they are unwilling to help the cause, those would both be barriers to

moving beyond coal on the University of Kentucky’s campus.

11

We distributed hard copies of our survey at the Student Center, the William T. Young

Library, and our classes. We also posted a link to an on-line version of the survey (created

through the data collection and analysis program Qualtrics) to our Facebook and Twitter pages.

Through these efforts, we collected a total of 131 completed surveys. Of these responses, 24

were freshmen, 38 were sophomores, 21 were juniors, 42 were seniors, and 6 were graduate

students. There were 65 respondents who identified as women, 65 who identified as men, and

one who identified as gender non-conforming in our sample.

In addition to surveys with students, we also conducted two key-informant interviews.

One interview was conducted with Vice President for Facilities Management and Board of

Trustees member Bob Wiseman, and the other was conducted with Elaine Alvey, who is

president of the student organization Greenthumb and is also a leader of the University of

Kentucky’s Beyond Coal Student Coalition. The Beyond Coal Coalition is a group of UK

students that is raising awareness about the problems with the university’s coal-fired boilers and

is advocating for the administration to commit to make a transition to renewable sources of

energy to heat the campus.

Findings

Our key-informant interviews revealed three main barriers to the goal of transitioning to

renewable energy sources for heating UK’s campus: a lack of financial capital, a perceived lack

of renewable energy options, and political ties to the coal industry.

Vice President of Facilities Management and Board of Trustees member Bob Wiseman

stated that a major reason the University has not moved to renewable energy sources is because

“In Kentucky, we don’t have a lot of renewable energy sources. We’re a state that doesn’t have

good wind power;; we don’t have adequate solar, we don’t have a biomass industry that could

support it. So we don’t have a lot of renewables in Kentucky.” However, as will be discussed in

Part III, the University of Louisville has started the process of phasing out its coal-fired boilers

and has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050, which will require transitioning into

renewable energy sources. If the University of Louisville is able to make this transition, the

University of Kentucky can as well. However, if there is the perception that there is a lack of

renewable energy sources in Kentucky, this perception is a barrier that must be overcome.

12

An additional barrier that Wiseman pointed to is the cost. He stated in our interview that

“In terms of capital, the cost of changing out our coal plants would be very expensive and we do

not have available capital for that.” This was also the response that the members of the Beyond

Coal Student Coalition received from the Board of Trustees when, on October 25, 2011, they

presented the Trustees with a letter outlining the reasons why the group believes the university

should transition away from coal and requested that the university conduct a study on the

feasibility of converting the campus heating system to renewable energy sources. At a rally

following the Board of Trustees meeting, a member of our team interviewed Elaine Alvey, who

is president of the student organization Greenthumb and a leader of the Beyond Coal Student

Coalition. When asked about the Trustees’ response to the letter the Coalition presented at the

October 25 meeting, Alvey responded,

The reason that the Board of Trustees gave today is that they don’t have the capital to invest in transitioning. But I think it’s probably likely that there are political and [other] financial factors at play there. There’s a long-standing political and economic relationship between the University of Kentucky and the coal industry, and a lot of people stand to benefit financially from keeping the status-quo.

Thus, while making a transition to a heating system run on renewable energy sources will require

financial resources – and raising those funds is certainly an obstacle to be overcome – another

barrier may be overcoming the deep political ties that the university maintains with the coal

industry.

Our survey of UK students provided insight into students’ lack of knowledge about the

coal-fired boilers on campus and pointed to a potential solution to the financial barriers noted

above. Below is a summary of our most significant results:

67% of our respondents were unaware that there are currently two sites with coal-fired

boilers actively running on UK’s campus.

o While 33% of respondents were aware that there are coal-fired boilers on campus,

77% of those individuals did not know these boilers do not have to abide by the

Clean Air Act.

72% of the respondents stated that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement, “I believe UK should transition to renewable sources of energy (such as solar,

geothermal, and/or wind) to meet its heating needs on campus.”

13

75% of the students surveyed stated they would be willing to pay some extra amount of

money each semester to support an investment in renewable energy solutions for UK’s

campus (see Figure 5)

Discussion

We believe the last finding from our survey is extremely important, given that the

primary barrier to transitioning to renewable energy sources for heating the university’s campus

that the Board of Trustees and the Vice President of Facilities Management cited was a lack of

finances. If 75% of the students we surveyed are willing to invest in renewable energy sources

through paying an extra fee in their tuition, just think of how many other individuals and groups

associated with the university would also be willing to invest: alumni, staff, faculty,

environmental groups, and civic organizations, to name a few. There may also be a number of

foundations and other grant-funding agencies willing to support the university’s transition. While

the financial resources may not be available at this moment, it is very likely that a fundraising

campaign for renewable energy on UK’s campus could be extremely successful. We believe the

university should actively pursue this possibility.

PART III: Moving Beyond Coal: Lessons from Other Universities Making the Transition Rebecca Reeves, Island Devore, Calvin Prest, and Victoria DeSimone

FIGURE 5: Responses to the question, “How much extra per semester would you pay in order to support an investment in renewable energy solutions for UK’s campus?”

14

As noted in the previous section, three primary barriers to moving beyond burning coal

on UK’s campus include: (1) A lack of financial capital, (2) the perception that Kentucky does

not have adequate renewable energy resources to be able to heat UK’s campus, and (3) the

political ties that this region, particularly the state of Kentucky, has with the coal industry. Team

3 set out to discover how other universities have been able to make the transition away from

burning coal, despite having had to overcome many of the same obstacles. Our research

questions were:

How are other universities successfully making a transition away from coal-fired boilers?

How best could UK mobilize and allocate resources to transition to renewable energy

options to meet the campus’s heating needs?

Research Methods

Our research methods included internet research and key informant interviews. Each

group member selected a different University listed in the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Report,

which detailed universities that have committed to reducing their carbon emissions by phasing

out their coal-fired boilers and transitioning to alternative forms of energy. The universities

selected were Ball State University, the University of Louisville, Cornell University, and the

University of Wisconsin, Madison. Additionally, one group member was responsible for

researching issues related to moving beyond coal at the University of Kentucky. Through

extensive internet research, we were able to learn about the selected universities’ climate action

plans. The online sources that we referenced included each of the universities’ sustainability

websites, the Beyond Coal Report, the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, as

well as the American College and Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment. This research

involved gathering information regarding each university’s energy goals and climate action plan,

the progress they have made thus far, the costs and benefits associated with transitioning, the

barriers they encountered, and the overall impact of moving beyond coal.

After researching the universities, we then selected key informants from each of the

institutions’ sustainability department to conduct interviews with. The key informants included

Robert Koesker—Ball State, Justin Mog—University of Louisville, Edward Wilson—Cornell

University, Faramarz Vakili—University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Shane Tedder—University

15

of Kentucky. Through these interviews we were able to learn about each university’s decision to

transition from coal, the challenges and barriers they encountered, how they raised funds for their

projects, the benefits associated with moving beyond coal, and we also asked for helpful advice

for the University of Kentucky’s transition. After conducting the interviews, we then compiled

the information with what we were able to gather from internet research to develop a

recommendation for UK.

Findings

Through the internet research and key informant interviews, we were able to garner a

substantial amount of information regarding each university’s transition from coal. Although we

researched four universities in addition to UK, the bulk of the information in this report is

regarding Ball State and the University of Louisville due to the fact that our findings suggested

their climate action plans were likely to be most feasible on our campus. First, information

gathered from the University of Kentucky will be discussed.

As previously noted, there are currently four coal-fired boilers located on campus that

produce steam to heat campus facilities. In addition to the coal-fired boilers, there are also on-

site natural gas combustion plants that produce steam for heating as well. On average, 68% of the

heat on campus is produced from burning coal, while the other 32% is produced from burning

natural gas (University of Kentucky 2011). These percentages vary by year, depending on the

price of coal and natural gas. The university spends around 3.7 million dollars annually on coal

and burns 36,565 tons per year on average (University of Kentucky 2011). Although UK is not

actively transitioning away from coal, there has been a conscious effort to reduce the total

amount of coal being used by implementing conservation measures. Currently, the university is

in the process of making energy efficiency improvements to 61 buildings on campus (University

of Kentucky). These improvements are projected to reduce UK’s overall carbon footprint and

save the university between 1.5 and 2 million dollars annually (University of Kentucky 2011).

As previously mentioned, the coal-fired boilers on campus are not required to abide by EPA

Clean Air Act regulations because the boilers were built before the act was passed. This allows

the plants to legally emit more pollutants than would otherwise be permitted today. This could

potentially pose serious health risks to not only those that work in the heating plants, but all those

16

on the university’s campus and surrounding community. While UK has increased energy

efficiency, the university has yet to address the health impacts from burning coal on campus.

Ball State University: Going Geothermal

Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana decided to move beyond coal in 2008, upon

signing the American College and University Presidents’ Climate commitment—a pledge to

work toward climate neutrality or zero carbon emissions (Ball State University 2011). This

decision was made in order to reduce cost of operations as well as drastically reduce their carbon

footprint (Interview with Bob Koester 2011). According to key informant Robert Koester, the

decision was also made because, “It’s the right thing to do;; it assures a more environmentally-

benign future, it redirects the focus to the new green economy, and it meets the call to recognize

what our buildings and campuses teach” (2011). After signing the commitment, the university

developed a climate action plan. Development of the plan was heavily influenced by the decision

of the university to decommission its four coal-fired boilers (Interview with Robert Koester

2011). In 2009, Ball State broke ground for the construction of the nation’s largest closed

geothermal energy system (Ball State University 2011). Once completed, the system will replace

the university’s four coal-fired boilers with geothermal energy to heat and cool 45 buildings on

the 731-acre campus (Ball State University 2011).

A geothermal heat pump system utilizes the Earth’s steady underground temperature as a

means to provide heat in the winter and serve as a heat sink in the summer. Because the ground a

few feet below the surface has a very stable temperature, geothermal systems operate efficiently

at all times. Rather than burning coal to produce heat and, as a bi-product, greenhouse gases, the

geothermal heat pump system will merely transfer heat from one place to another. The system is

comprised of borehole fields, energy stations, district loops, and building interfaces (Ball State

University 2011). The switch to geothermal heat will not be detectable by the campus

community—meaning, faculty, staff, and students will not notice a difference in temperature in

buildings or appearance of campus (Ball State University 2011).

The North Energy Station, Phase I, is currently operational, providing heating and

cooling to around 20 buildings on campus (Interview with Robert Koester 2011). Construction

on the South Energy Station, Phase II, which will bring the remaining buildings on-line, is

underway (Interview with Robert Koester 2011). The total cost of the project is estimated

17

between $70-$75 million dollars (Interview with Robert Koester 2011). Of this project total, $45

million came from the state of Indiana, $5 million came from the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (a federal stimulus fund), and the remaining will come from internal

reallocation at Ball State (Interview with Robert Koester 2011).

Going geothermal will provide the university with a number of benefits. The new system

will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 80,000 tons annually, cutting Ball State’s

carbon footprint roughly in half and providing cleaner air for the campus community and the

town of Muncie, Indiana (Ball State University 2011). Switching to geothermal heating and

cooling is estimated to save the university $2 million dollars a year in energy costs (Ball State

University 2011). The construction of the system will also help the economy in that it is

estimated to create nearly 2,000 construction jobs, increase production of manufacturers

supplying the project, not to mention the system will be American-made and built by U.S

contractors, many of them from Indiana (Ball State University 2011). Lastly, this project will

serve to discredit the assumption that renewable energy projects are always too expensive or

impractical for cost-conscious institutions (Ball State University 2011).

The University of Louisville: Carbon Neutral by 2050

The University of Louisville also signed the American College and University

Presidents’ Climate Commitment in 2008 (Interview with Justin Mog 2011). The university

released its climate action plan in 2010, specifying how they intend to ultimately reach climate

neutrality, which implies a transition from all fossil fuels (University of Louisville 2011). UofL’s

ultimate goal is to reach carbon neutrality – zero carbon emissions – by 2050, with interim goals

along the way, including converting to 20% renewable energy sources by 2020 (Interview with

Justin Mog 2011). Other means they are taking to accomplish this goal are reducing energy

demands by 33% through energy conservation, efficiency, and green building design (University

of Louisville 2011).

The University of Louisville no longer burns coal on campus. In 2010, UofL replaced its

coal-fired boilers with cleaner burning natural gas boilers for heating and cooling the campus

(Interview with Justin Mog 2011). Sustainability Coordinator Justin Mog said, “This is not a

perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction” (2011). Although UofL still has a long way

to go in terms of reducing carbon emissions, they are taking the proper steps. Moreover, though

18

natural gas is not a clean energy source, it does eliminate many of the health risks associated

with coal-burning particulates. In addition to phasing out their coal-fired boilers, the university is

also exploring a number of larger-scale renewable energy options (University of Louisville

2011).

The University of Louisville maintains that the benefits of transitioning to renewable

energy include helping with recruitment and retention of faculty and students, aiding in

fundraising efforts, increasing the university’s status among peer institutions, improving its

reputation, saving the university a great deal of money down the road, providing cleaner air and

better environmental conditions, and ultimately making the university a more responsible global

citizen (Interview with Justin Mog 2011).

The fact that the University of Louisville has been able to make such a bold commitment

when the state of Kentucky is so dependent on coal has serious implications for UK, which

excuses it environmental injustices, in large part, because of this dependency. In other words, if

they can do it, we can do it. The advice we received from UofL was to avoid targeting coal in

particular, which is a hot-button political issue in Kentucky; rather we were advised to urge our

President to sign the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, which

implies an eventual transition from coal without specifically targeting it (Interview with Justin

Mog 2011).

University of Wisconsin-Madison and Cornell University

Lastly, to provide some information on the remaining two universities, both the

University of Wisconsin, Madison and Cornell University have also signed the Presidents’

Climate Commitment. Wisconsin is currently converting its five coal-fired boilers to biomass

and natural gas boilers (University of Wisconsin 2011). They have also instituted the “We

Conserve” project to increase the university’s energy efficiency (University of Wisconsin 2011).

Since 2006, the campus has seen an annual reduction of approximately $13 million in utility

bills, 178 million gallons of water, 1.2 trillion BTUs of energy, and 125,000 tons of carbon

dioxide (University of Wisconsin 2011). They have also developed a Climate Action Plan

detailing their eventual transition to renewable energy and subsequent climate neutrality

(University of Wisconsin 2011).

19

Cornell University released a Climate Action Plan as well, with a goal to generate zero

carbon emissions by 2050 (Cornell University 2011). As a short-term solution, in March of 2011,

Cornell transitioned away from coal to a Combined Heat and Power plant, which burns natural

gas (Cornell University 2011). In order to meet its carbon neutrality goals, Cornell will

eventually need to transition the natural gas boilers to renewable energy sources.

Conclusion In addition to environmental problems, the coal-fired boilers on the University of

Kentucky’s campus are posing a serious health threat to students, faculty, staff, and the

Lexington community. The four universities highlighted in Part III of this report, along with

many other universities across the country, prove that it is possible to move beyond coal to

cleaner forms of energy. For the sake of our health and our climate, it is very important for UK

to join these environmentally conscious universities and transition to cleaner ways to heat our

campus. In addition to health and environmental benefits, our research indicates that there are

also a number of economic and reputational benefits to gain from this transition. As the flagship

university of the state of Kentucky, and as an aspiring top-twenty institution, it is UK’s

responsibility to take a leadership role in promoting the growth of renewable energy solutions in

the state and surrounding regions. This brings us to our primary recommendation: sign the

American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment and begin the phase-out of

the university’s four coal-fired boilers.

Signing the Climate Commitment would allow the University of Kentucky to make a

significant public commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and eventually reaching climate

neutrality. The commitment essentially provides a framework and support for colleges and

universities to implement plans in pursuit of climate neutrality (ACUPCC 2011). The

Commitment recognizes the responsibility that institutions of higher education have as role

models for not only their students, but their surrounding communities (ACUPCC 2011). The

commitment requires signatories to develop a Climate Action Plan to achieve climate neutrality

by a certain date, as well as take steps to gradually reduce carbon emissions while the plan is

being developed and implemented (ACUPCC 2011). There are already 674 colleges and

universities that have signed the commitment (ACUPCC 2011). Many of these universities are in

our region, even in our own state. A few include the University of Louisville, Transylvania

20

University, Berea College, Ball State University, University of Cincinnati, University of

Tennessee, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Cornell University,

Auburn University, Centre, Clemson, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, and the University of Florida. All

of these institutions are making a commitment to transition to renewable energy sources, and the

University of Kentucky should not be left behind. The University of Louisville proves it can be

done, even in a coal dependent state like Kentucky. We should not let politics and money stand

in the way of protecting our health and our environment. It is time our university joins other

forward-thinking universities in moving beyond coal.

References

American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. 2011. Available at: http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/

Ball State University. 2011. Sustainability at Ball State University. Available at: http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CentersandInstitutes/COTE/Sustainability.aspx

Cornell University. 2011. Cornell Sustainable Campus. Available at: http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/.

Koester, Robert. 2011. email correspondence, November 7.

Mog, Justin. 2011. email correspondence, November 22.

Physicians for Social Responsibility. 2009. “Coal-Fired Power Plants: Understanding the Health Costs of a Dirty Energy Source.” Available: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-fired-power-plants.pdf.

Randall, Lauren and Shelley Vinyard. 2011. “Dirty Energy’s Assault on Our Health: Mercury.” Environment America. Available: http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf.

Schneider, Conrad and Jonathan Banks. 2010. “Clean Air Taskforce: The Toll from Coal.” Clean Air Task Force. Available: http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf

Sierra Club. 2010. “Breaking Coal’s Grip on Our Future: Moving Campuses Beyond Coal (2nd ed.). Sierra Club.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2009. Electric Power Annual 2009. Available:

21

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. “Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Final Report to Congress.” February 1998. 453/R-98-004a. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. “U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Year 2005 Public Data Release.” Section B. http://epa.gov.tri/tridata/tri05.pdfs/eReport.pdf.

University of Kentucky Facilities Management. 2011. “Energy Use and the University of

Kentucky: Info Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions.” Updated version 10/19/2011.

University of Kentucky. 2011. Office of Sustainability. Available at: http://sustainability.uky.edu/.

University of Louisville. 2011. Sustainability. http://louisville.edu/updc/sustainability.

University of Wisconsin, Madison. 2011. Campus Sustainability Initiative. Available at: http://sustainability.wisc.edu/.