[media-credit name=’OMAR BONILLA-ORTIZ/Herald photo’ align=’alignright’ width=’336′][/media-credit]High on the brick wall of the Psychology Building, a red and white sign proclaims the four tenets of University of Wisconsin-Madison's We Conserve campaign to students passing below: "Efficient systems. Informed people. Realistic expectations. Responsible actions." Two blocks away, on the corner of Dayton and Charter Streets, a four-story mound of coal looming beside the university's primary power plant puts these ideals into sobering perspective. If the sign advertising the campus-wide energy initiative represents the administration's vision for the future, then the Charter Street Heating Plant's towering coal pile serves as a reminder that the restraints of the past are not easily escaped. Although the We Conserve campaign aims to reduce campus energy consumption by 20 percent per square foot over the next three years, UW will continue to rely entirely on non-renewable energy sources to heat and power campus buildings. Most of this energy is produced by burning coal, a process that contributes heavily to greenhouse-gas emissions. "One-hundred-and-fifty years of technology decisions and infrastructure cannot be changed overnight," said Associate Director of the Physical Plant Faramarz Vakili, who is heading the energy conservation program. Vakili estimated it would cost a minimum of $500 million to replace the Charter Street Plant, which provides most of the university's energy. The conflict between old energy methods and new environmental expectations, as well as economic feasibility and climate change concerns, has led to increased scrutiny of the university's energy policy. Last November, Madison residents and Sierra Club members submitted 700 postcards to Chancellor Wiley asking him to replace the Charter Street plant, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources held a hearing Nov. 15 to allow Madison residents to voice their concerns over the facility. Even as the university begins to work toward its goal of a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption, the Sierra Club is planning to sue UW for allegedly failing to obtain permits required by the U.S. Clean Air Act. The environmental group's notice of intent to sue was submitted to Wisconsin Department of Administration officials and Chancellor Wiley Dec. 4. However, the notice said the Sierra Club was willing to postpone the suit provided the parties enter into immediate negotiations and make progress toward resolving the violations within 60 days. Neither the university nor the state of Wisconsin has responded to the suit, which the Department of Natural Resources has "under advisement," according to Air Management Programs supervisor Tom Roushar. However, Vakili said he has no concerns over going to court. "We had an opportunity to improve our system, and we did," he said. "We do not feel we have done anything against any law." The debate will likely continue to grow along with UW, which even now "needs more energy" to power its facilities, according to Vakili. "To have a campus that's a research institute that does over $800 million of research, you have to accept the fact that you are going to have a high usage of energy," Vakili said. In the public eye UW's energy initiative comes as the scientific community continues to reach a stronger consensus on the role greenhouse-gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, play in global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its fourth global climate report this year that it is at least 90 percent likely that emissions from human activities are the primary cause of warming. Energy production accounted for 86 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions in 2004, and carbon dioxide comprised 82 percent of these emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's latest statistics. But currently, the federal government does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Although a legislative initiative proposed in February by state Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, and state Sen. Mark Miller, D-Monona, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, most states have also refused to regulate the greenhouse gas for fear of driving away local industry. In turn, many universities have begun to address the issue on their own — 134 colleges and universities have signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment proposal, including four UW System institutions. Signers of the proposal commit to taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, completing a campus inventory of emissions within a year of signing, and creating a climate neutral plan to be implemented within two years. The plan aims to result in no net greenhouse-gas emissions for the signing campuses. However, Vakili said UW-Madison does not plan to sign the proposal. "The chancellor is not going to sign something unless it's doable," Vakili said. "To make a campus of this size climate neutral … will take hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. … It will take many, many years to do." Vakili said that the energy UW-Madison saves in the We Conserve campaign would exceed that of all the small colleges who signed the Climate Commitment. And unlike most universities, UW-Madison does not make utilities decisions on its own. A move like signing the Climate Commitment would require the approval of the Administration Department and state Legislature, Vakili said. He also said not many campuses of UW-Madison's size would even consider signing the Climate Commitment. Left behind? While the vast majority of ACUPCC signers are liberal arts colleges and small universities, larger schools like the University of Florida, Arizona State University and the University of Washington have also signed. The University of Florida, the fourth-largest university in the nation with a student body of 51,000 — outnumbering UW-Madison by nearly 10,000 — was one of the first 10 schools to sign the proposal. "Our university president is completely committed to slowing down the rate of climate change and taking a leadership position in reducing carbon emissions," said Dedee DeLongpre, director of the office of sustainability at the University of Florida. Like UW-Madison, DeLongpre said Florida relies on coal power for its energy and is attempting to reduce energy consumption and efficiency. However, DeLongpre added that Florida is taking on "carbon sequestration" efforts to cancel out those emissions that are unavoidable. These include planting trees and preserving open land to absorb emissions, as well as building a biomass power plant to convert manure into energy. Florida had already implemented a system to inventory carbon emissions in 2004, she added, as is required in the proposal. Options for reducing a campus's emissions, however, vary with location. The University of California-Santa Cruz, which has been recognized by the EPA as the sixth-largest green-power purchaser in the country, does not use any coal power, according to Physical Plant energy manager Patrick Testoni. He said UC-Santa Cruz's energy provider, Pacific Gas and Electric, relies mainly on natural gas, along with nuclear, hydroelectric and wind power. Burning natural gas generally releases half the emissions of burning coal. Vakili said UW-Madison must take into account energy alternatives, money available and environmental matters, as well as infrastructure and space limitations. Given the situation, the university decided to focus on reducing energy consumption. Firestorm However, several environmental groups maintain that making existing energy use more efficient is not enough. Both the Sierra Club and Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group have stated that burning coal is a 19th-century technology unsuited to the realities of the 21st century. "On the one hand, conserving energy is all fine and great," said Jennifer Feyerherm, coordinator of the Sierra Club's Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign. "But these efforts are mitigated by the coal-fired power plant. Coal produces more global-warming pollution, mercury, soot and smog than any other fuel we use." Feyerherm points to health concerns as well as environmental ones. She said air particles from coal can enter the lungs and bloodstream, causing more frequent and severe asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes. For these reasons, replacing the Charter Street plant is a must, according to WISPIRG State Board Chair and UW-Madison Chapter Chair Rachel Butler. "As long as we have that coal plant on campus," Butler said, "we're not going to be a very sustainable, renewable campus." Inside the Charter Street plant The focal point of the debate surrounding UW's energy policy is a drab monolith with a color scheme best described as weathered urine. According to the power plant's superintendent, Mike Grimmenga, the Charter Street Heating and Chilling Plant was constructed in 1958 using boilers built a few years earlier. The current boilers, he said, run on 1960s technology installed at the plant in the '80s. Grimmenga added that the plant uses the older technology so it can operate with pneumatic controls, allowing the boilers to be run without electrical power. The plant's cramped control room resembles that of a submarine — the walls are covered with gauges, dials and chart recorders measuring everything from steam flow to the percentage of oxygen being released into the air. The facility produces most of the steam used to heat campus buildings, along with roughly 8.7 megawatts of electricity. The five boilers can burn natural gas, fuel oil, or even waste material such as tires and paper, but they usually burn coal. The plant uses approximately 350 to 500 tons of coal every day, depending on the season. "We use the coal first, 'cause it's cheaper," said Chuck Olson, who is manning the control room on this March day. Although natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions that coal does, it usually costs at least three times as much. In the past, shortages have driven the price of natural gas up to five times as much as coal, Grimmenga said. Natural gas supply is also interrupted periodically since it is pumped in from outside the Midwest, and service can be cut off due to fluctuations in demand. During the six years he has worked at the plant, Olson said he has been frustrated by the public's quickness to blame the plant for interruptions in service, as well as its greenhouse-gas emissions. Many complaints have come in about the unsightly pile of reserve coal heaped outside, he added. Olson says he feels good, however, about the plant's emissions, despite widespread criticism. "It's a lot cleaner than people think it is," he said. "We trap so much stuff before it gets out." The plant uses "baghouse" filtration technology, Olson explained, to remove fine particles from the air emitted by the burners, reducing levels of pollutants like soot, dirt, mercury and nitrogen oxide. These particles are captured in heavy fiberglass bags more than 20 feet in length, and the plant's baghouse contains 20 modules of 168 bags each. Bags or no bags, the facility emits carbon dioxide, however, which scientists say contributes to climate change. A door in the side of the baghouse leads to a narrow catwalk clinging to the underside of the fourth story. As Grimmenga steps onto it, his words are swept up by the roaring of the air as it travels up the single smokestack that emits thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide each day. "Coal is what it is," Grimmenga said. "It's your fuel, but it is dirty." Nevertheless, the baghouse addition was a major improvement when it was installed in the 1980s, he said. Grimmenga has worked for the university for 29 years, and said he remembers once seeing a plume of black smoke from the Charter Street plant while walking along the shore of Lake Wisconsin before the bags were put into use. He estimated that emissions are 90 percent cleaner now. "We all live in the same environment," he said. "We're going to run [the plant] as clean as we can." Realistic expectations While UW will continue to rely on coal power and will likely even expand the Charter Street plant, Vakili said it is nevertheless a national leader in reducing energy consumption. According to Vakili, the university has had an "aggressive energy conservation program," even before We Conserve. "We've spent over $29 million just in the past six years to improve the efficiency of our equipment," he said. Vakili himself received a public service award in 2004 from the Energy Efficiency Forum, an annual national forum that has featured speakers like President George W. Bush and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. In 2005, the university and Madison Gas and Electric opened the West Campus Cogeneration Facility, the cleanest gas-fired facility in the upper Midwest, according to Madison Gas and Electric spokesman Steve Kraus. The facility saves on energy use by burning natural gas to heat buildings and produce electricity simultaneously. Looking ahead The We Conserve sign on the side of the Education Science building simply says, "future demands." It could be referring to the large amount energy UW will continue to demand in coming years. Or it could just as easily refer to the increasing demand from the public for reduced carbon emissions and more clean energy. Which interpretation will win out remains to be seen, as the debate over UW-Madison's energy sources continues.