Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

This Green-Flashing Firefly Could Become the First Ever Listed as Endangered in the U.S.

News Feed
Tuesday, October 1, 2024

A biologist holds a Bethany Beach firefly, found on a survey in 2019. The dwindling species is now being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Kayt Jonsson / USFWS Along the shores of Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, a firefly flickers with two distinct green flashes. First discovered in 1949 and named for a Delaware coastal town, the Bethany Beach firefly is a beetle endemic to the mid-Atlantic area that emerges every June and July. But as the firefly’s population dwindles, sea-level rise and coastal development may further endanger this rare insect. Now, a new proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Monday aims to list the Bethany Beach firefly as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. With this status, the insect would receive additional protections, granting greater conservation focus to its habitat. The action marks the first time a firefly has been considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act. “Protecting Bethany Beach fireflies under the Endangered Species Act would be a tremendous step toward ensuring these little creatures don’t blink out,” Jess Tyler, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, says in a statement. Bethany Beach fireflies live in low-lying, freshwater marsh areas near coastal dunes, called swales, that provide them with shelter and food. They face many existing and emerging threats such as light pollution, habitat degradation and flooding. Climate models predict between 76 to 95 percent of swales could be lost to flooding by 2100, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and storm surges from intensifying weather could also put the firefly’s habitat underwater. Listing the firefly would bring attention and resources to its plight. “We’ll hopefully have expanded partnerships to help improve abundance and quality of their habitat, while trying to figure out how we’re going to deal with sea-level rise,” says Julie Slacum, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to WHYY’s Zoë Read. The Bethany Beach firefly is identifiable by a black marking on its head and its distinctive double flash, which emits green light. Kayt Jonsson / USFWS With many insect populations shrinking, the decline in fireflies has been called part of the “insect apocalypse.” About 40 percent of insect species are in decline, and in North America alone, one in three firefly species may be at risk of extinction, according to an analysis of data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature. In 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation asked for the Bethany Beach firefly to be federally protected. Since then, a prominent, known habitat site for the insect was lost to rapid coastal development, and the firefly has declined further. Following the 2019 petition, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control carried out surveys for this species and found additional sites important to its survival. Now, scientists have a list of 35 swales across Delaware, Maryland and Virginia where the firefly lives. Besides habitat destruction, another threat for fireflies and many other insects is the constant glowing and blinking of street lamps, porch lights and other artificial lighting. This has led to an excessive brightening of the night sky called sky glow, and it can disrupt fireflies, which use their own lanterns to communicate or find mates. “There are lots of sources of lights out there,” says Jason Davis, a biologist with the state of Delaware who was part of the habitat surveys, to the Washington Post’s Dino Grandoni. “When you’re a firefly and things are blinking, that’s very reminiscent of what the fireflies are doing.” “Even when you’re the surveyor, it can be distracting,” Davis adds. Alongside the proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is asking for people who have seen the Bethany Beach firefly to contact its Chesapeake Bay field office with information. This way, the agency can “better understand the species’ range and habitat needs.” Public comments on the proposal will be accepted through December 2. Most fireflies are nocturnal and are typically seen twinkling after dusk. Shaunl via Getty Images The public can empathize with fireflies, Slacum tells WHYY, as the insects may hold sentimental value to people who remember catching them during their childhoods. “This firefly is only known from the Atlantic coast. So many people probably haven’t seen it, but I think they can relate to the ones that they see in their backyard and just the awareness that these insects are experiencing threats like a lot of our other species,” she adds to the publication. The Bethany Beach firefly isn’t the only one that has been targeted for protection. The Xerces Society has also asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect four other firefly species, according to the Washington Post. For now, this recent proposal “could go a long way in protecting the Bethany Beach firefly’s habitat from a variety of threats,” Richard Joyce, a biologist with the Xerces Society, tells the Washington Post. “The Bethany Beach firefly is a striking example of how magical insects can be, as well as how precious and unique our coastal wetlands are,” Joyce adds in a statement from the Xerces Society. “If we can protect this firefly, it will also protect this rare habitat and the creatures within it—a natural beauty that can’t be replicated anywhere else.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will consider granting federal protections to the Bethany Beach firefly, which is rapidly losing its coastal habitat to development and climate change

a hand holds a single firefly between the thumb and index fingers
A biologist holds a Bethany Beach firefly, found on a survey in 2019. The dwindling species is now being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Kayt Jonsson / USFWS

Along the shores of Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, a firefly flickers with two distinct green flashes. First discovered in 1949 and named for a Delaware coastal town, the Bethany Beach firefly is a beetle endemic to the mid-Atlantic area that emerges every June and July. But as the firefly’s population dwindles, sea-level rise and coastal development may further endanger this rare insect.

Now, a new proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Monday aims to list the Bethany Beach firefly as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. With this status, the insect would receive additional protections, granting greater conservation focus to its habitat. The action marks the first time a firefly has been considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

“Protecting Bethany Beach fireflies under the Endangered Species Act would be a tremendous step toward ensuring these little creatures don’t blink out,” Jess Tyler, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, says in a statement.

Bethany Beach fireflies live in low-lying, freshwater marsh areas near coastal dunes, called swales, that provide them with shelter and food. They face many existing and emerging threats such as light pollution, habitat degradation and flooding. Climate models predict between 76 to 95 percent of swales could be lost to flooding by 2100, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and storm surges from intensifying weather could also put the firefly’s habitat underwater.

Listing the firefly would bring attention and resources to its plight. “We’ll hopefully have expanded partnerships to help improve abundance and quality of their habitat, while trying to figure out how we’re going to deal with sea-level rise,” says Julie Slacum, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to WHYY’s Zoë Read.

a firefly under a magnifying glass
The Bethany Beach firefly is identifiable by a black marking on its head and its distinctive double flash, which emits green light. Kayt Jonsson / USFWS

With many insect populations shrinking, the decline in fireflies has been called part of the “insect apocalypse.” About 40 percent of insect species are in decline, and in North America alone, one in three firefly species may be at risk of extinction, according to an analysis of data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

In 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation asked for the Bethany Beach firefly to be federally protected. Since then, a prominent, known habitat site for the insect was lost to rapid coastal development, and the firefly has declined further.

Following the 2019 petition, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control carried out surveys for this species and found additional sites important to its survival. Now, scientists have a list of 35 swales across Delaware, Maryland and Virginia where the firefly lives.

Besides habitat destruction, another threat for fireflies and many other insects is the constant glowing and blinking of street lamps, porch lights and other artificial lighting. This has led to an excessive brightening of the night sky called sky glow, and it can disrupt fireflies, which use their own lanterns to communicate or find mates.

“There are lots of sources of lights out there,” says Jason Davis, a biologist with the state of Delaware who was part of the habitat surveys, to the Washington Post’s Dino Grandoni. “When you’re a firefly and things are blinking, that’s very reminiscent of what the fireflies are doing.”

“Even when you’re the surveyor, it can be distracting,” Davis adds.

Alongside the proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is asking for people who have seen the Bethany Beach firefly to contact its Chesapeake Bay field office with information. This way, the agency can “better understand the species’ range and habitat needs.” Public comments on the proposal will be accepted through December 2.

Fireflies dance in twinkling lights in a marsh during "blue hour"
Most fireflies are nocturnal and are typically seen twinkling after dusk. Shaunl via Getty Images

The public can empathize with fireflies, Slacum tells WHYY, as the insects may hold sentimental value to people who remember catching them during their childhoods.

“This firefly is only known from the Atlantic coast. So many people probably haven’t seen it, but I think they can relate to the ones that they see in their backyard and just the awareness that these insects are experiencing threats like a lot of our other species,” she adds to the publication.

The Bethany Beach firefly isn’t the only one that has been targeted for protection. The Xerces Society has also asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect four other firefly species, according to the Washington Post.

For now, this recent proposal “could go a long way in protecting the Bethany Beach firefly’s habitat from a variety of threats,” Richard Joyce, a biologist with the Xerces Society, tells the Washington Post.

“The Bethany Beach firefly is a striking example of how magical insects can be, as well as how precious and unique our coastal wetlands are,” Joyce adds in a statement from the Xerces Society. “If we can protect this firefly, it will also protect this rare habitat and the creatures within it—a natural beauty that can’t be replicated anywhere else.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Humanity is failing to meet its climate change goals. Here's what experts say we can still do

There's still time to act to limit the worst effects of climate change, but we need political willpower

Last month the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization run by the European Union to monitor global heating, revealed that Earth was on track to surpass the 1.5º C threshold. This manifested throughout 2024 in so-called “weird weather,” from unusually extreme hurricanes and floods to intense heat waves, parching droughts and unprecedented wildfires. It’s little wonder this year was the hottest in recorded history, breaking the record shattered in 2023.  A recent study even found that 2024 experienced 41 days of extra dangerous heat because of human-caused climate change. To make matters worse, recent data suggests that climate change is accelerating even faster than scientists predicted, meaning we’re rapidly entering uncharted territory. International conferences to address environmental issues like climate change (such as COP29) consistently ended in disappointment. Why are continuing to go backward on this issue? It’s certainly not from a lack of awareness or passion for the environment. Many people understand the stakes: climate change threatens to kill billions of humans and wipe out millions of species, pushing the definition of “habitability” to the brink. Top climate scientists say there’s still reason to hope and time to act, explaining why humanity has failed to meet its climate goals — and what we can do from here. “The obstacle isn’t technology,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann told Salon. “We have the technological knowhow and infrastructure to decarbonize our economy on the needed timescale. What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will.” "What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will." Mann said humanity needs to rapidly decarbonize our economy. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates humanity’s overuse of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change, as doing so releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “We need governmental incentives that will massively incentivize renewable energy and phase out fossil fuel energy as soon as possible,” Mann said. “It won’t happen, however, if young people in particular don’t turn out to vote for climate-forward policymakers.” He added that many did not turn out in sufficiently large numbers during the 2024 election, “and too many fell victims to dishonest tactics of the Republicans and even voted for them out of ignorance of their true agenda. As a result, we elected the most pro-fossil fuel, climate-adverse government in modern history.” Going forward, Mann hopes people who prioritize climate change turn out to vote in larger numbers. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explicitly argued for three specific policy measures: “Cut emissions and use of fossil fuels; promote renewables; prepare for the consequences,” Trenberth said. He also noted that growing trees, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture of carbon dioxide emissions tend not to work. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. In general, it appears like humanity has failed to make limiting greenhouse gas emissions a priority, according to Tom Knutson, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, said that it appears humanity as a species has not “decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal that should be pursued and treated as a critical ‘pass or fail goal.’” Knutson, who has contributed to the scientific efforts behind reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the U.S. Fifth National Climate Assessment, views his job as providing relevant scientific information rather than offering policy prescriptions. Regardless of the specific measures that people choose to democratically decarbonize our society, it will be essential that they establish realistic goals and reliably follow through in implementing them. “Broadly speaking, humanity can decide, based on the above scenario information (with uncertainties) provided by IPCC and other scientific sources, what future emission pathway to set as a goal,” Knutson said. “Then society and policymakers can enact policies in an effort to reach the emission goal that is set. If they decide collectively that scenario X is the goal, and they fail to enact or implement the policies to achieve scenario X, or the policies are not followed as desired by the policymakers, then that would constitute a failure in my view.” It appears humanity as a species has not "decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal." As humanity swims against the tide of rising temperatures, they will also need to solve lingering mysteries regarding these scientific facts. At the time of this writing, Knutson and his colleagues are researching issues such as why current climate models are not able to reproduce the observed pattern of sea surface temperature trends (1980 to 2022) in the tropical Pacific and southern Pacific Ocean. Other scientists are examining why climate change has been accelerating even faster than previous models anticipated. Because climate science includes many variables that humans do not know, experts cannot precisely anticipate or explain every phenomenon that ensues as people continue global heating through greenhouse gas emissions. Yet Knutson does have his own hypothesis about why climate change seems to be getting worse at an ever more rapid rate. “I would speculate that natural variability may be creating temporary trends (either ‘hiatus’ periods of little warming or temporary ‘spurts’ of accelerated warming) lasting up to a few decades,” Knutson said. “Maybe that is part of the explanation for the recent changes.” Citing his 2016 paper for Nature Communications on possible future trajectories for global mean temperature, Knutson said that this “suggests to perhaps just be patient for now to see if the recent acceleration we have seen is just a temporary effect of internal variability or temporary forcing change, or if it really does represent an accelerated long-term warming rate, relative to the trend we've been on since about 1970.” He added that these are his personal views and do not necessarily represent those of NOAA or the U.S. government. Mann emphasized that the most recent peer-reviewed scientific research does not find any acceleration of warming itself. “Some impacts of climate change are proceeding faster than expected,” Mann said. “Examples are ice sheet melt and sea level rise, and the rise in extreme weather events. The longer-term warming itself is steady and is proceeding as predicted by the models.” Perhaps the bottom line in all of this is that human beings must stop relying on fossil fuels. Dr. Friederike Otto, the lead of World Weather Attribution and an Imperial College climate scientist, put it bluntly when announcing the extra 41-days of extreme heat that occurred in 2024. "Climate change did play a role, and often a major role in most of the events we studied, making heat, droughts, tropical cyclones and heavy rainfall more likely and more intense across the world, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions and often uncounted numbers of people," Otto said during a media briefing. "As long as the world keeps burning fossil fuels, this will only get worse." Read more about this topic

The Bold Environmental Vision of President Jimmy Carter

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres […]

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone. The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds. Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.” Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history. More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction. Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment. Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978. HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks. But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century. Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums. Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.” Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof. Warren Leffler/Library of Congress The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost. In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas. Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry. Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia. David Goldman/AP If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

Climate-Friendly Electricity Sees Big Battery Projects Soar Again for 2024

2024 was another banner year for a source of electricity that is better for people’s lungs, better for climate change and may be reaching your home now when you turn on the lights or turn up the thermostat — large banks of batteries

2024 was another banner year for a source of electricity that is better for people's lungs, better for climate change and may be reaching your home when you turn on the lights or turn up the thermostat — large banks of batteries.This ability to store large amounts of electricity in batteries was essentially nonexistent a decade ago, but the country had about 24 gigawatt-hours operating as of the end of November, up a whopping 71% over the same date in 2023.This is welcome news to clean energy advocates including Dariella Rodriguez. She has seen what happens on days when demand for air conditioning or heating spikes and extra power plants fueled by natural gas, located in Port Morris and Mott Haven, fire up not far from where she works in Hunts Point in the South Bronx, New York.Batteries can jolt into service, sending electricity onto overhead wires, instead of these dirty “peaker” plants. Rodriguez hasn't seen that transition yet, but she hopes to.“The people that are exposed to these plants are the most vulnerable people in environmental justice communities already,” said Rodriguez, a director at THE POINT Community Development Corporation there, noting that lower-income people and communities of color often live near peakers. The nation’s 1,000 peaker plants can be very dirty, inefficient and expensive, according to an analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a watchdog group that works for the U.S. Congress. Some 63 million people are estimated to live within a three-mile radius of one. Although peakers run only a small part of the time, they release more harmful nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide per unit of energy, the agency said. Those two pollutants cause asthma and other breathing problems. Peakers also release more greenhouse gases than other power plants do per unit of electricity. Batteries are “a really obvious solution” to reducing need for peakers, says Daniel Chu, senior energy planner for the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance.“It’s not always sunny, the wind’s not always blowing, but energy storage can help move that generation to when it’s most needed,” said Tim Fox, managing director at research firm ClearView Energy Partners.That's why at least half of battery storage facilities in the U.S. are co-located with, or in some other way support solar, an AP analysis of Energy Information Administration data shows. The amount of solar energy in the U.S. is growing and surpassed the 100-gigawatt mark this year.Another way that the addition of these batteries is helpful to the American electrical grid and grids around the world is that forecasting is getting more difficult. “With weather patterns changing, the old ways of essentially figuring out how much capacity you need on the grid for extreme events just doesn’t work,” said Oliver Garnett, director of energy services product at the technology company Fermata Energy.Last, global electricity demand is slated to increase — by about one-third to three-quarters by 2050, according to the Energy Information Administration. Data centers for artificial intelligence, switching vehicles to electricity and population growth are all contributing. “‘Do we have enough power plants?’ is the classic question every utility asks every year,” said Mike Jacobs, senior energy analyst at the science nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. “The beauty of the batteries is that if there’s energy in them, they can be used for unexpected needs.”Otherwise, if utilities have to find more power generation, they may keep investing in plants that burn gas or coal and account for one-quarter of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, instead of retiring them.Leading the charge for adding new batteries to the grid this year was California with more than 11 gigawatt-hours operating. One way to think about this is roughly the amount of electricity that a nuclear power plant would put out over 11 hours. Then the batteries would need to be recharged to do the same thing again. It's a limited, but meaningful amount of power. In Texas, 6 gigawatt-hours were online. Arizona saw nearly 2 gigawatt-hours humming and Nevada — the fourth-largest deployer of storage in the U.S. — had 1.1 gigawatt-hours operational.Yet many states aren't using storage yet. As of November, 86% of large-scale battery storage in the U.S. was operating in just those four states.Some states haven't set targets telling utilities to go out and build or buy energy storage on their own. Only 18 states have 50 megawatt-hours or more operating.Others don't have as much clean electricity to pair with the batteries, or claim storage isn’t reliable in times of crisis. It can also be challenging to connect storage to the grid. Still, experts expect more momentum.Especially in California and Texas, “That investment and that experiment is paying off very well,” said John Hensley, senior vice president of markets and policy analysis at American Clean Power.“The word is getting out,” he said. “We’re increasingly seeing the technology move to other parts of the country.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.