Ads will run in six states plus Washington, D.C. EDF launches new TV ad campaign to thank Senators who voted to confirm Gina McCarthy as EPA Administrator Thu, 2013-07-25 Contact:  Keith Gaby, 202-572-3336, kgaby@edf.org Sharyn Stein, 202-572-3396, sstein@edf.org

(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2013) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is launching a new TV ad campaign to thank the U.S. Senators who put public health ahead of politics, and voted to confirm Gina McCarthy as the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Political squabbling in the Senate delayed the vote on McCarthy for 136 days, even though she was widely viewed as an exceptionally qualified nominee with a well-earned reputation for bipartisanship. She was finally confirmed last week by vote of a 59 to 40. 

“EPA needs a strong leader to ensure that Americans have the cleanest air and the healthiest environment possible,” said EDF’s Keith Gaby. “Thanks to Senators who were focused on public health instead of politics, we now have that strong leader. With Gina McCarthy’s confirmation, we can get to work solving the critical issues we face – from climate change to the need for cleaner air.”

The 30-second ads will run in six states: Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Tennessee. A version thanking Senators who voted to confirm Gina McCarthy will run in the Washington D.C. TV market.

You can see the 30-second ads by clicking on these links: 

• Thank You Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
• Thank You Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
• Thank You Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Thank You Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
• Thank You Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
• Thank You Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• Thank You Senator Angus King (I-ME)
• Thank You Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
• Thank you Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Thank You Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

# # #

Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook.

Gulf of Mexico natural gas well stops flowing gas and fire is subsiding
By Benjamin Alexander-Bloch. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 25, 2013.
"The leaking natural gas well in the Gulf of Mexico has stopped flowing, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard confirmed on Thursday morning. The fire has decreased to a small flame fueled by residual gas at the top of the well, the agencies reported…" (Read more).

Our Views: Suit raises big questions
Opinion by The Advocate. July 24, 2013.
"Considering the long legacy of official supplication to the oil and gas industry in Louisiana, a lawsuit by a New Orleans area flood protection authority asking the industry to pay for environmental abuses seems at first glance to have a lot of merit.  But we’re concerned about the methods…" (Read more).

Why The Latest Gulf Leak Is No BP Disaster
By Christopher Joyce. National Public Radio. July 24, 2013.
"Teams of workers are mobilizing in the Gulf of Mexico to try to stem a natural gas leak at an offshore drilling rig that exploded and caught fire Tuesday. The rig off the Louisiana coast has been partially destroyed by the out of control blaze, and firefighting boats are on the scene…" (Read more).

Halliburton says progress toward spill deal slows
By Harry R. Weber. The Houston Chronicle. July 24, 2013.
"Three months ago, Halliburton said talks to resolve a substantial portion of private claims related to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill were at an advanced stage and that it had offered cash and stock to make a deal happen.  But the oil field services giant warned Monday that discussions…" (Read more).

Historic lawsuit seeks billions in damages from oil, gas, pipeline industries for wetlands losses
By Mark Schleifstein. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 24, 2013.
"Faced with a continuing loss of wetlands and the protection they provide to newly rebuilt levees in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the authority that oversees East Bank levee districts filed a historic lawsuit Wednesday against 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies…" (Read more).

Jindal lashes out against coastal erosion suit
By Jeff Adelson. The Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.). July 24, 2013.
"With the ink barely dry on a massive lawsuit accusing nearly 100 energy companies of devastating Louisiana’s coast and increasing the risk of catastrophic damage during a hurricane, political maneuvering over the case has already begun.  Gov. Bobby Jindal blasted the suit Wednesday…" (Read more).

Locals interested in suit against oil companies
By Nikki Buskey. Houma-Courier (Houma, La.). July 24, 2013.
"Local levee leaders are watching a historic lawsuit filed by a New Orleans-area levee district that blames oil and gas companies for wetlands loss that has made coastal communities increasingly vulnerable to flooding.  In the suit, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East claims salt water…" (Read more).

New Notre Dame study proposes changes in New Orleans area levee systems
By William G. Gilroy.  The Science Daily. July 24, 2013.
"Less may mean more when it comes to the levee systems designed to protect New Orleans from hurricanes.  That's the conclusion of a new study by a team of University of Notre Dame researchers led by Joannes Westerink, chair of the department of civil and environmental engineering…" (Read more).

Sen. Landrieu: Louisiana should fight 'everywhere,' including courts, to stop wetlands loss
By Bruce Alpert. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 24, 2013.
"WASHINGTON — Louisiana congressional members are taking a wait-and-see attitude about the historic lawsuit filed Wednesday on behalf of East Bank levee districts seeking money to restore wetlands district officials say were destroyed or damaged by the operations of oil, gas and pipeline companies…" (Read more).

Local leader testifies for restoration money
By Nikki Buskey. The Daily Comet (Lafourche Parish, La.). July 23, 2013.
"Terrebonne Levee Director Reggie Dupre told Congress on Tuesday about on the importance of increasing the share of offshore oil and gas revenues paid back to coastal states for coastal protection and restoration.  Dupre testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee…" (Read more).

 

By Kate Zerrenner

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

If you’re like so many conscientious consumers, you’ve experienced the disappointment that comes when you realize the lean turkey breast you bought has 300% of your daily value of sodium, negating the benefits of its high-protein and low-fat content.  Instantly, food choices feel more complex; you’ve learned the hard way that the pursuit of a low-fat diet is not the same as a healthy diet.

The Energy-Water Nexus shows us that our energy choices are much like our food choices: The environmental benefits of an energy diet low in carbon emissions might be diminished by increased water consumption (or waste), and the unforeseen tradeoffs between the two resources (i.e. more sodium in lieu of less fat, can hurt us in the long run).

Water Intensity

As we have mentioned before, roughly 90% of the energy we use today comes from nuclear or fossil fuel power plants, which require 190 billion gallons of water per day, or 39% of all U.S. freshwater withdrawals (water “withdrawal” indicates the water withdrawn from ground level water sources; not to be confused with “consumption,” which indicates the amount of water lost to evaporation.)

The water intensity of these energy resources brings us face-to-face with the realities of energy and water overconsumption.  High electricity consumption means more water withdrawals, placing extra strain on the water system.  At the same time, emissions from power plants contribute to climate change, which increases the amount of water required to produce energy and intensifies severe drought.

It’s important to realize that our energy choices have a part to play in these dire situations.  Let’s look at a breakdown of how energy resources stack up in terms of water consumption and discuss their carbon footprints:

Source: KQED.org

Wet-cooled concentrated solar power plants use slightly more water than coal and natural gas; however, concentrated solar power plants can be designed to use dry-cooling, thereby reducing water demand by more than 90%.  Additionally, solar thermal produces zero carbon emissions.

• Coal generally requires more water than nuclear, and generates more greenhouse gases emissions and other pollutants than any other energy source (about 2.15 lb CO2 per kWh electricity), making coal something like the chili cheese fries of energy.

• Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear energy releases no carbon emissions, but still requires an abundant water supply – think about that high-sodium processed turkey.

• Natural gas emits about half the carbon emissions of coal (about 1.22 lb CO2 per kWh electricity) and requires less water than coal, but still needs an enormous amount of water for drilling activities and conversion to electricity.

Texas

If you need an example of a state that is currently coping with realities of the energy-water nexus, look no further than Texas.  The state is currently in the midst of a multi-year drought, yet the vast majority of the electricity Texans use comes from sources that contribute to this prolonged drought (namely, natural gas, coal and nuclear).  With nearly 90% of Texas’ electricity coming from these three sources, we have a serious problem.

Here’s a breakdown of fuels used in electricity production in Texas:

Source: Energy Information Association

These water-intensive power plants consume thousands of gallons of drinking water per day, while roughly 90% of the state remains in drought conditions.  The ongoing water shortage has prompted 65% of Texas counties to impose water use restrictions, and even forced some communities to truck in fresh drinking water several times a day.  And don’t forget, Texas’ vast fleet of coal and natural gas generators contribute to our shameful ranking as number one carbon emitter in U.S.

No matter what, when it comes to fossil fuels, there will always be a hidden environmental consequence—much like the sodium hiding in your ‘lean’ turkey.  There are, however, guilt-free, low-water options: renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Solutions

Wind and solar energy consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions.  Texas, already an international leader in the use of wind power, should increase use of its clean energy sources to cope with the continuing drought and the ongoing Texas Energy Crunch.

At the same time, the state should look to energy efficiency to reduce water use and cut carbon pollution.  The more we invest in energy efficiency, the more we cut our overall energy use—saving enormous amounts of water and reducing harmful power plant emissions.  After all, the cleanest source of energy is the energy (and water) we don’t use.

However, Texas, and other states, has a long way to go before decision-makers tactically conserve its water supply and utilize the best available energy technologies, and I intend to take a more in-depth look at Texas in my next post.  Stay tuned!

This is one of a group of posts that examines the energy-water nexus, Texas’ current approach to energy and water policy and what Texans can learn from other places to better manage its vital resources.

By Elena Craft, PhD

Given that it’s July and we’re nearing the annual peak of ozone or “smog” season, our team wondered what public education and outreach efforts cities in Texas might be undertaking to raise air pollution awareness.

We started by looking at Texas cities’ websites. Overall, we were pleased to see the depth of information readily available for all citizens. Here’s a summary of what we found:

City of Arlington: Undoubtedly the largest city in North Texas, with a population of more than 350,000, Arlington provides its citizens with a “Cleaning Up Our Air” site, which includes facts on ground-level ozone, health implications and major air pollution sources, namely vehicles, industrial facilities, refineries and household products. The site lists 12 tips for how everyone can improve air quality.  It also outlines the steps the city has taken to reduce emissions, such as maintaining city vehicle tune-ups and routinely updating emission control equipment.

City of Austin: Texas’ capital, with more than 800,000 people, boasts an air quality page that includes a two-day ozone forecast and insight into how population growth is a major factor in increased ozone levels. The site provides a tutorial on the creation of ozone and tips on how to reduce emissions. These tips include less use of cars and trucks, limited engine idling, regular car tune-ups and more use of public transit.

City of Dallas: With more than 1.2 million people, the people of Dallas make up a sizeable portion of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, which ranked eighth among the U.S. cities with the worst ozone levels. Dallas’ page offers basic information on ozone with links to the American Lung Association and to the state’s Air Pollution Watch.  What’s particularly helpful is the option to subscribe to ozone email alerts. Green Dallas, another city page dedicated to Dallas air quality offers tips on controlling air pollution, anti-idling ordinances, climate change, regional initiatives and more. It also cites ozone as the only air pollutant for which Dallas does not meet national air quality standards.

City of Fort Worth: In Fort Worth, a city of nearly 760,000 people, the Environmental Management department site features an Air Quality Index with links to air alerts and real-time updates. As part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, Fort Worth was also ranked as eighth on the list of U.S. cities with the highest ozone levels. The page also includes tips on how to reduce ozone emissions. The Environmental Management team assists the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with outdoor air monitoring, permitting, compliance inspection, complaint investigation and enforcement. It also provides insight for businesses interested in promoting better air quality in the region.

City of Houston: Texas’ largest city is home to more than 2 million people, and as part of the Houston-Baytown-Huntsville region was ranked seventh this year among the nation’s cities for highest ozone levels. The city devotes a page to ozone, other air toxics and their impact on public health. The site links to a “What You Can Do” page, which offers perhaps the most extensive list of tips we’ve seen, including two separate lists for free tips and those with a fee. This comprehensive site goes above and beyond by detailing the air quality benefit from each action, as well as water quality benefits.

City of San Antonio: This Southern Texas city provides its 1.3 million residents with an Environment page and a chance to read the “Air Quality Health Alert Plan.” San Antonio’s air quality plan details the city’s guidelines and procedures created to reduce ozone-forming emissions in the atmosphere, both on “Alert” days and throughout the ozone season. The Environment page also links to Environmental Health Services, which extensively outlines various rules related to emissions reductions, especially for business and industrial processes. (If you are interested in reading more about San Antonio air issues, check out my recent post on San Antonio’s first public forum on air quality.)

Overall, the pages we found give citizens a good introduction to the dangers of smog and other airborne pollutants. Many forms of air pollution are totally invisible to the naked eye, so these pages are a vital tool for citizens concerned about the air they breathe. In the future, we’ll post about regional coalitions taking the next step to address air quality in Texas. In the meantime, the TCEQ Air Quality Index can help you understand when smog hits dangerous levels in your region, while the local city pages offer simple steps that we can all take toward improving the quality of the air we breathe.

By Kate Zerrenner

If you’re like so many conscientious consumers, you’ve experienced the disappointment that comes when you realize the lean turkey breast you bought has 300% of your daily value of sodium, negating the benefits of its high-protein and low-fat content.  Instantly, food choices feel more complex; you’ve learned the hard way that the pursuit of a low-fat diet is not the same as a healthy diet.

The Energy-Water Nexus shows us that our energy choices are much like our food choices: The environmental benefits of an energy diet low in carbon emissions might be diminished by increased water consumption (or waste), and the unforeseen tradeoffs between the two resources (i.e. more sodium in lieu of less fat, can hurt us in the long run).

Water Intensity

As we have mentioned before, roughly 90% of the energy we use today comes from nuclear or fossil fuel power plants, which require 190 billion gallons of water per day, or 39% of all U.S. freshwater withdrawals (water “withdrawal” indicates the water withdrawn from ground level water sources; not to be confused with “consumption,” which indicates the amount of water lost to evaporation.)

The water intensity of these energy resources brings us face-to-face with the realities of energy and water overconsumption.  High electricity consumption means more water withdrawals, placing extra strain on the water system.  At the same time, emissions from power plants contribute to climate change, which increases the amount of water required to produce energy and intensifies severe drought.

It’s important to realize that our energy choices have a part to play in these dire situations.  Let’s look at a breakdown of how energy resources stack up in terms of water consumption and discuss their carbon footprints:

Source: KQED.org

Wet-cooled concentrated solar power plants use slightly more water than coal and natural gas; however, concentrated solar power plants can be designed to use dry-cooling, thereby reducing water demand by more than 90%.  Additionally, solar thermal produces zero carbon emissions.

• Coal generally requires more water than nuclear, and generates more greenhouse gases emissions and other pollutants than any other energy source (about 2.15 lb CO2 per kWh electricity), making coal something like the chili cheese fries of energy.

• Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear energy releases no carbon emissions, but still requires an abundant water supply – think about that high-sodium processed turkey.

• Natural gas emits about half the carbon emissions of coal (about 1.22 lb CO2 per kWh electricity) and requires less water than coal, but still needs an enormous amount of water for drilling activities and conversion to electricity.

Texas

If you need an example of a state that is currently coping with realities of the energy-water nexus, look no further than Texas.  The state is currently in the midst of a multi-year drought, yet the vast majority of the electricity Texans use comes from sources that contribute to this prolonged drought (namely, natural gas, coal and nuclear).  With nearly 90% of Texas’ electricity coming from these three sources, we have a serious problem.

Here’s a breakdown of fuels used in electricity production in Texas:

Source: Energy Information Association

These water-intensive power plants consume thousands of gallons of drinking water per day, while roughly 90% of the state remains in drought conditions.  The ongoing water shortage has prompted 65% of Texas counties to impose water use restrictions, and even forced some communities to truck in fresh drinking water several times a day.  And don’t forget, Texas’ vast fleet of coal and natural gas generators contribute to our shameful ranking as number one carbon emitter in U.S.

No matter what, when it comes to fossil fuels, there will always be a hidden environmental consequence—much like the sodium hiding in your ‘lean’ turkey.  There are, however, guilt-free, low-water options: renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Solutions

Wind and solar energy consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions.  Texas, already an international leader in the use of wind power, should increase use of its clean energy sources to cope with the continuing drought and the ongoing Texas Energy Crunch.

At the same time, the state should look to energy efficiency to reduce water use and cut carbon pollution.  The more we invest in energy efficiency, the more we cut our overall energy use—saving enormous amounts of water and reducing harmful power plant emissions.  After all, the cleanest source of energy is the energy (and water) we don’t use.

However, Texas, and other states, has a long way to go before decision-makers tactically conserve its water supply and utilize the best available energy technologies, and I intend to take a more in-depth look at Texas in my next post.  Stay tuned!

This is one of a group of posts that examines the energy-water nexus, Texas’ current approach to energy and water policy and what Texans can learn from other places to better manage its vital resources.

Given scarce resources in the  EU and UK, it’s especially important that fishing privileges are allocated in a way that best serves national sustainability interests—and now is the time to invest. This month, the European Council approved proposals to reform the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU’s framework for fisheries management. The new policy calls [...]

EDF statement on NC decision to fire all members of the state's Environmental Management Commission (EMC) Wed, 2013-07-24 Contact:  Jane Preyer, 919-881-2912, jpreyer@edf.org Georgette Foster, 919-881-2927, gfoster@edf.org

(RALEIGH, NC – July 24, 2013) The North Carolina budget that became law today will fire all members of the state's Environmental Management Commission (EMC), a rule-making body established in 1973 during the administration of Republican Governor James B. Holshouser, Jr. The following statement may be attributed to Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense Fund:

"Most of us don't realize the daily impact that the EMC has on our lives. We turn on a faucet, and clean water comes out. We go for a walk and breathe fresh air. That's because the EMC developed the rules to limit toxic pollution in our water and air.

"The EMC deals with critical issues that affect the health of our families, businesses and communities. It's difficult to imagine how firing an entire commission and losing that expertise and institutional knowledge will help our state be a better place to live and work."

The new budget decreases the number of commissioners from 19 to 15, gives the General Assembly more control over appointments, changes the qualifications for members and weakens conflict of interest provisions. Current EMC members will lose their positions on July 31.

# # #

Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook.

Jane Preyer

By Jim Marston

If it’s not power plants fighting carbon pollution reduction, it’s plastic companies fighting against voluntary standards to make buildings less wasteful.  The Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) building certification system, developed in 2000 by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides third-party verification for buildings striving to reduce environmental impact.  The system gives credits to builders who eliminate the use of certain plastics and chemicals in building construction, such as PVC and vinyl that are known to be hazardous to workers and occupants.  However, these credits, which once seemed like apple pie, have now been met with opposition from plastic and chemical industries lobbyists.

Recently, these polluting industries have “slipped wording” into the 2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriation bill, to undermine the federal government’s ability to use the popular and successful LEED standards when building or renovating its office buildings.  The lobbyists claim that LEED standards are not open and transparent, and through a bit of sophistry they have used this appropriation amendment to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the LEED system.

However, in practice, the LEED system is rigorously accessible.  The most recent version of LEED allowed stakeholders from across all sectors of the building industry to issue more than 22,000 comments when it was released for public response. For a draft to be accepted as a new version of LEED, it must then be approved by at least 66 percent of the voting members.  Even the General Services Administration (GSA), the buying arm of the U.S. Government and important player in the future of federal buildings, affirmed that LEED is open and transparent.

The lobbyists have acted under an umbrella called the American High Performance Building Coalition (AHPBS) that pretends to be committed to sustainable building standards.  If this legislation becomes law it could prevent the U.S. government from participating in energy efficient LEED certified building development, instead using taxpayers’ money to promote the interests of plastic and chemical industries.

This was originally posted on the EDF Voices blog.

By Douglas Rader, Chief Oceans Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

The Deepwater Horizon

The third anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon blowout seems a good time to take stock of the damage done to the Gulf of Mexico, and to look to its future.

The drill rig sank in about a mile of water on April 22, 2010, Earth Day, spewing more than 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. It took almost a hundred days to cap the underwater well. During that time, shifting currents spread oil-based toxic substances far and wide, at many depths in the sea, exposing many forms of sea life to potentially deadly pollution.

Today, storms still churn up oil and perhaps one third of the toxic materials from the blowout remain loose in the Gulf. Scientists are still struggling to estimate the damage done.

Visible and Invisible Damage

From the spill’s first days, the public focus was on direct human effects, on animals that were being visibly “oiled” – sea birds, dolphins and whales – and on coastal habitats onto which the oil might wash. When drifting oil made landfall on beaches and in saltmarshes, that was big news. But the worst impacts of the spill remained largely out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

The blown-out well is located in deepwater right at the edge of the continental shelf, in close proximity to ancient and highly vulnerable deepwater coral reefs. These were bathed in organic pollutants for months, and surveys have revealed devastation in those coral communities, including serious damage to corals that take thousands of years to grow. It will take centuries – or longer – for those reefs to recover.

Moreover, toxicants now cover a wide range of seafloor habitats, where they are being consumed and processed by myriad creatures that make their living by eating sediments and digesting organic matter found there. These small creatures, carrying their poisonous payloads then enter food webs when they are eaten by fish. This will be a long-term problem with no easy solution. Recent reports from the field of eyeless shrimp and fish covered with sores suggest that significant amounts of toxic substances are indeed still loose in the Gulf food chain.

Damage also was concentrated in the middle depths of the sea. This so-called “deep scattering layer” is home to swarms of small animals, so dense that they reflect radar signals. This abundant soup of life is the food target zone for deep-diving fishes and mammals – tunas and billfishes, dolphins and great whales. The deep-scattering layer is especially important in the “spill kill zone” of the Northern Gulf, where a large population of sperm whales lives.

Deep scattering layer animals were very likely obliterated for a wide distance around the well site by vast underwater plumes of dissolved and dispersed oil-derived toxicants, nearly certainly made worse by the use – including underwater – of two million gallons of dispersants. The dispersant/oil mixture has since been shown to be up to fifty times as toxic for many sea creatures as the oil by itself. Dispersant use certainly spread the toxic brew much more broadly under the sea.

On the surface, birds and other large animals were oiled and killed, but immeasurably greater numbers of floating baby sea creatures died as well. The oil – and the toxic dispersant brew – covered large areas of sea surface, where buoyant eggs and larvae drift, between the spawning areas at the edge of the coastal shelf and the coastal nurseries (wetlands, tidal creeks and even sandy beaches). For many key species, those larvae drifted through during the peak of the spill.

In addition, the Gulf Loop Current acts as a sea highway for drifting larvae of Atlantic Bluefin tuna, groupers, snappers spiny lobsters and a host of other species spawned far upcurrent. These larvae, too, drifted through the BP “kill zone” during the time of the spill.

Oil-Eating Bacteria?

As the spill progressed, many observers expressed great relief that the oil stayed offshore, and that it was apparently consumed by microorganisms, including “oil-eating” bacteria that were said to have eliminated the threat. In truth, however, there is no free lunch, even in the sea. It’s true that populations of naturally occurring but normally rare microorganisms exploded, using oil as a feed-stock. This altering ecosystem conditions along many lines. The explosion in bacteria sucked oxygen from the sea and liberated carbon dioxide, deoxygenating and acidifying mid-depth oceans waters and altering food webs in ways that may never be fully quantified.

The Spill’s Bottom Line

The damage done to sea life by the blowout cannot be quantified today. No one knows how many baby reef fish and lobsters died, or how those losses will affect regional fisheries. It may turn out to be possible to make an informed estimate down the road, if extensive modeling is done to compare the numbers of adults that came from 2010 spawning to what might have been expected for at least some of the most economically important animals (perhaps red snapper and some groupers).

I suspect that serious reductions in so-called “year class strength” – the relative number of animals reaching the size where they enter fisheries – occurred for many important species, like shrimp, blue crabs, menhaden and others.

Still, with so much unknown, providing economic loss estimates for the damage done by the spill is challenging. Besides, how do you value  pelicans, sea turtles, and dolphins? How do you value – much less replace – a million-year-old coral mound?

When one puts all of these pieces together, it is clear that the Gulf took a real body blow, probably much worse than people understand. Fortunately, there are forces at work that provide hope for the future of the Gulf. I’ll address some of these forces in my next post, but until then you can help make BP pay.

Gulf Gas Leak: Fire Breaks Out On Evacuated Drilling Rig
By Kevin McGill. Associated Press. July 24, 2013.
"NEW ORLEANS — An out-of-control natural gas well off the Louisiana coast continued to burn Wednesday after it caught fire following a blowout that prompted the evacuation of 44 workers, authorities said.  Meanwhile, officials stressed that Tuesday's blowout wouldn't be close to as damaging…" (Read more).

Louisiana Agency to Sue Energy Companies for Wetland Damage
By John Schwartz. The New York Times. July 24, 2013.
"Louisiana officials will file a lawsuit on Wednesday against dozens of energy companies, hoping that the courts will force them to pay for decades of damage to fragile coastal wetlands that help buffer the effects of hurricanes on the region…" (Read more).

Rig owner loses round in oil spill document fight
By Associated Press. July 24, 2013.
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Transocean Deepwater Drilling Corp. has lost a round in its fight to avoid handing over documents to a government board investigating the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion.  Transocean is appealing a federal court order enforcing a subpoena…" (Read more).

Science to be key factor in lawsuit against oil and gas companies for coastal loss
By Bob Marshall. The Lens (New Orleans, La.). July 23, 2013.
"Over the last seven months, three New Orleans-area law firms spent thousands of hours researching how to do something that many have talked about, but never tried — hold oil and gas companies accountable for increasing the flood risk to the metro area by destroying coastal wetlands…" (Read more).

Obama administration 'cannot support' bill increasing offshore revenue sharing
By Bruce Alpert. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 23, 2013.
"WASHINGTON — A key Interior Department official Tuesday said the Obama administration "cannot support" legislation that would increase revenue sharing from offshore oil and gas development because it would increase the federal deficit and doesn't appear targeted to advance energy conservation…" (Read more).

Environmental groups' lawsuit to stop flow from failed Taylor Energy platform cleared for trial
By Mark Schleifstein. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 23, 2013.
"A federal judge in New Orleans has cleared the way for a trial to begin in a lawsuit filed by environmental groups attempting to force Taylor Energy to halt the flow of oil from a platform 12 miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi River. The platform, which had 28 oil and gas wells…" (Read more).

National Marine Fisheries Service scientist has serious concerns with planned Barataria Bay diversion
By Todd Masson. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 23, 2013.
"The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion that's one of the hallmarks of the state's Coastal Master Plan could have devastating impacts to fisheries and the way of life in Louisiana's coastal towns, according to Roy Crabtree, regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service…" (Read more).

150 attend meeting about flood insurance costs
By Xerxes Wilson. Houma Courier (Houma, La.). July 23, 2013.
"Terrebonne Parish President Michel Claudet appealed for calm in the face of a “perfect storm” spawned by the convergence of new flood maps and reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program.  More than 150 people packed the conference room in the parish's Main Library…" (Read more).

BP's 'breathtaking' spill settlement shenanigans
Opinion by Thomas L. Young. The Tampa Tribune. July 22, 2013.
"British Petroleum's whining about how it's being fleeced by excessive claims from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill is one of the more breathtaking examples of corporate revisionist history.  The legally binding settlement agreement BP is now trying to extricate itself from is the same agreement…" (Read more).

 

By John Finnigan

Like the tide washing upon the shore, new technologies are gradually eroding electric utility revenues.  These new products enable consumers to use cleaner energy and use it more efficiently.  Electric utilities worry this trend will ravage their industry just as wireless technology convulsed the telecommunications industry.  The utility industry urges its members to stem the tide by, among other things, increasing consumers’ net metering costs.

Net metering makes small-scale renewable energy, such as rooftop solar panels, more affordable by crediting the “distributed generation” owners for the excess energy they produce.  The electric meter measures how much electricity flows back to the grid from the distributed generation unit.  A corresponding credit is applied to the consumer’s monthly energy bill.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires public utilities to offer net metering to all consumers upon request.

Why the new focus on net metering?  The cost for rooftop solar panels has fallen 80% since 2008, including 20% in 2012 alone.  Installed rooftop solar energy has increased by 900% between 2000 and 2011.  As consumers install more rooftop solar panels and net meter them, utility revenues will decrease.

Net metering policies vary from state-to-state, including the amount of the payback for excess energy.  The most favorable policy for distributed generation owners is an excess energy credit equal to the full retail energy rate consumers pay for energy, i.e. the amount consumers are charged for using energy.  Most states use this measure.  However, utilities claim this prevents them from recovering their full costs and overpays distributed generation owners, unfairly shifting costs to other consumers.  Utilities say the credit should be equal to the utilities’ wholesale energy cost at the time of day when excess energy flows back to the grid.

Despite attempts by utilities to change net metering policies, state regulators are keeping these policies intact.  Earlier this month, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission rejected Idaho Power’s request to pay less than the full retail rate and to impose higher charges on net metering consumers.  Last month, the Louisiana Public Service Commission rejected similar requests by Louisiana utilities.  More recently, Arizona Public Service Company raised the issue in a new filing.

Source: Vote Solar

As a general rule, paying the full retail rate is sound policy because rooftop solar capacity, or maximum electric output, only accounts for 0.2% of total capacity in the U.S.  This will encourage consumers to install more renewable energy.  Utilities will gain valuable experience on how distributed generation functions under local conditions, and how to integrate renewable energy into their electric grids.

The utility of the future, after distributed generation has achieved greater scale, will pay net metering customers for the full costs and benefits of the consumers’ renewable energy systems.  A recent report lists the costs and benefits regulators should consider when setting net metering payments.[i]  The costs include: inability to recover the utility’s existing costs under existing rate structures; interconnection costs; administrative and operational costs; and infrastructure costs to support distributed generation.  The monetary benefits include: lower power delivery costs; lower power supply costs; lower system peak costs; and fuel flexibility benefits.  The non-monetary benefits include:  reduced toxic emissions and greenhouse gases; improved reliability; and local job creation.

After distributed generation reaches greater scale, this approach will accomplish several worthy objectives.  Distributed generation developers and owners will receive the fair value for distributed generation.  Distributed generation owners will be paid for the benefits provided by their units, which are currently overlooked.  Utilities will have a better opportunity to recover their costs and remain financially viable.  The utility’s cost of service will be fairly apportioned between consumers who own distributed generation and those who do not.  With better information on distributed generation performance, new benefits will be recognized.  These new benefits will increase the value of distributed generation and lower the cost of service for all utility consumers.  This is how net metering and rooftop solar should function for the utility of the future.

By Pamela Campos

EDF continues to defend the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) historic greenhouse gas rules, this time against a petition to the Supreme Court.

A broad coalition of groups just asked the High Court to deny requests to review the unanimous D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding those vital greenhouse gas rules.

The groups that filed briefs yesterday are:

• EPA
• Seventeen states and the City of New York
• Trade associations representing domestic and global automakers
• A coalition of environmental organizations, including EDF

These four short and succinct filings responded to hundreds of pages of industry petitions attacking EPA’s greenhouse gas standards.

Our briefs emphasize that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to re-decide issues addressed twice in the last five years, or to take up questions of statutory interpretation that have been resolved for more than thirty years.

As EPA put it, the greenhouse gas rules:

Represent … an unexceptional application of settled principles of statutory construction and administrative law.

Nine petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to re-hear the case, and an equal number of amici – or “friend of the court” – briefs have been filed.

Our opponents have presented the Court with a smorgasbord of claims, ranging from challenges to the fundamental science of climate change, to spurious suggestions that EPA shouldn’t set standards for reducing carbon pollution from cars unless it can singlehandedly and in one fell swoop solve the problem of climate change.

The petitioners complain, as they have before, about permitting rules for heavy polluters that require power plants, refineries, and other large industrial sources to consider common-sense energy efficiency measures before building new plants or remodeling old ones.

These arguments are old and tired.

The Supreme Court has twice concluded, in Massachusetts v. EPA and AEP v. Connecticut, that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases.

The vehicle rules being challenged now will reduce carbon pollution by almost one billion tons and provide America with monetary benefits of up to 1.2 trillion dollars.

And most important – these rules will protect our lives and health.

As EPA notes, by reducing carbon pollution now, these rules help avoid:

[A]n increase in heat-related deaths; an increase in respiratory illness and premature death relating to poor air quality; an increased risk of death, injury, and disease relating to extreme weather events; and an increase in food- and water-borne diseases.

Arguments attacking EPA’s statutory interpretation of permitting rules could have, and in many cases were, unsuccessfully made more than thirty years ago.

EPA, the states, and our environmental coalition all conveyed the same message to the Court — the petitions are much ado about nothing.

Our opponents imply that thousands or millions of businesses may be affected by EPA’s greenhouse gas rules.

In reality fewer than 200 sources — all of them large polluters — applied for permits for greenhouse gas emissions in the first two years of the program, and only handful of previously unregulated sources — all large sources of carbon pollution — have required permits.

EPA’s rules are clearly working as they should – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the biggest polluters.

We think that proves that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the historic greenhouse gas rules are far from cert-worthy.

We hope the Supreme Court will agree, and decline to re-hear the case.

(You can read more about the greenhouse gas rules and find all the legal briefs, on our website)

Ruling leaves weaker, less protective standard in place Court of Appeals rejects request from EDF, others to stregthen the ozone standard. Court leaves the weaker Bush Administration ozone standard in place. Tue, 2013-07-23 Contact:  Sharyn Stein, 202-572-3396, sstein@edf.org

(Washington, D.C. – July 23, 2013) Today, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected petitions for stronger, more protective air quality standards for ground-level ozone pollution – commonly known as smog.

The court affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current smog standard in spite of strong scientific evidence that currently allowed ozone levels continue to endanger Americans’ health. 

“Today’s court decision is deeply disappointing in light of the compelling body of scientific evidence showing the health hazards of ozone pollution at levels below the current standard,” said Peter Zalzal,  an attorney for Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). “Ozone is a corrosive air pollutant linked to aggravation of asthma, serious bronchial conditions, and other serious health harms – including premature death.”

In 2008, EPA set national ozone standards in 2008 at 75 parts per billion – despite of unanimous advice from the statutorily-established Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and from the nation’s leading medical societies that called for a more protective standard.

States and cities – including New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, and the California Air Resources Board – sued to strengthen the ozone standards consistent with rigorous scientific evidence. 

Earthjustice represented the American Lung Association, EDF, NRDC, National Parks Conservation Association, and Appalachian Mountain Club in pressing for a more protective standard.

While today’s decision declined to require a more protective health standard as these groups urged, the court did agree that EPA’s secondary standard, which is designed to protect damage to vegetation and ecosystems, violated the Clean Air Act. The court remanded this portion of the rule for further explanation or reconsideration by EPA.

“The scientific evidence for a more protective standard has only become stronger since 2008,” said Elena Craft, Health Scientist for EDF. “Notwithstanding today’s decision, EPA must move forward with stronger standards to protect Americans’ health with an adequate margin of safety in its legally-required review of the 2008 standard, which is now underway.”

There are proven, cost-effective solutions available that can help protect Americans from smog. Those solutions include: EPA finalizing the “Tier 3” emission standards for cleaner cars and cleaner gasoline; strengthening emission standards for oil and gas development activities; and cutting the smog-forming emissions from coal-fired power plants.

# # #

Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook.

Peter Zalzal Elena Craft

By Kate Zerrenner

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

(Source: Bluebonnet Electric Co-op)

Everywhere you turn these days, you hear someone mention the emergence of big data and how our lives will be more and more reliant on numbers.  Well the world of electric cooperatives (co-ops) is no exception.  Originally emerging out of the establishment of the Rural Electrification Administration, co-ops enabled rural farmers and ranchers to create customer-owned electric utilities in areas that are not serviced by traditional utilities.

I recently visited the Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative (Bluebonnet), one of the Texas’ largest co-ops providing energy to 14 counties, spanning the outskirts of Austin to Houston and boasting an impressive 11,000 miles of electric lines, 83,000 electric meters and 63,000 members.  Who would have thought so much big data is coming out of rural Texas?

What makes this co-op particularly unique is its smart grid, which is attracting some serious attention.

Unlike other traditional utilities, Bluebonnet does not generate any of its own electricity.  Instead, it buys electricity from the Lower Colorado River Authority and CPS Energy, both pioneers for clean, renewable energy.  Because of this, Bluebonnet is able to concentrate its energy (pun intended) on using new technologies to provide reliable power and enhance customer satisfaction.

Bluebonnet’s CEO Mark Rose and his staff recently gave me a tour of the co-op’s online dashboard, which provides Bluebonnet members with detailed information on their electricity use.  The amount of information readily available to customers is impressive, and the dashboard acts as a great tool to boil down much of this big data into digestible, understandable formats.  Bluebonnet members view the information on their own personal energy dashboards in three categories: cost, usage and environmental impact:

Cost

The cost tab displays your current monthly electricity bill, as well as a projected monthly bill for the following month based on previous usage.  If you want to dive deeper (like I would), a different chart can show you your energy usage each day.  On top of that, you can view hourly data to see what time of day you use the most energy.

All of this information empowers Bluebonnet members to control how they use energy and reduce electricity costs.  Presently, the dashboard shows data with an eight hour delay, but Bluebonnet’s goal is to show energy data the exact moment it’s used (real-time), so that members can gain control and make savvy energy choices.

Usage

While the cost tab shows electricity in dollars and cents, the usage tab shows energy in terms of units (i.e. kilowatt-hours or kWh).  This tab compares the current month’s energy consumption to the previous months, highlighting if you’ve increased or decreased your electricity use.  Just like the cost tab, you have the option to view daily or hourly usage, but this time in kWh rather than dollars. Additionally, on its website Bluebonnet offers some effective tips for members looking to conserve energy.  The site even shows a breakdown of how much energy appliances use nationally.  For instance, heating and cooling use about 56% and refrigerators use about 5%.

Impact

Bluebonnet’s unique approach shows members the environmental impact of their energy decisions in the form of understandable, real-world comparisons such as pounds of trash produced, number of trees needed to offset pollution or exhaust produced from certain number of cars driving per day.  These types of comparisons make our energy carbon footprints feel ‘real’ and, hopefully, manageable.

In addition to its dashboard, Bluebonnet has a mobile app that enables members to check their electricity usage from anywhere.  Members can also sign up for email or text message alerts to notify them when their bill reaches a certain dollar amount, which makes saving money even easier.

One challenge the utility faces is insufficient internet access in many of the rural communities it serves.  Poor internet access makes two-way communication between Bluebonnet and its members difficult, but the co-op understands this communication gap and is figuring out how to bridge this.  Regardless, the co-op should be commended for making a serious commitment to becoming a leader in clean energy and providing health, environmental and economic benefits to its members.

In the future, Bluebonnet hopes to give its members even greater opportunities to manage the energy use and further reduce their electric bills.  As the old saying goes, “knowledge is power”, especially when it comes to reducing our energy use and its environment impact.

By Kate Zerrenner

(Source: Bluebonnet Electric Co-op)

Everywhere you turn these days, you hear someone mention the emergence of big data and how our lives will be more and more reliant on numbers.  Well the world of electric cooperatives (co-ops) is no exception.  Originally emerging out of the establishment of the Rural Electrification Administration, co-ops enabled rural farmers and ranchers to create customer-owned electric utilities in areas that are not serviced by traditional utilities.

I recently visited the Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative (Bluebonnet), one of the Texas’ largest co-ops providing energy to 14 counties, spanning the outskirts of Austin to Houston and boasting an impressive 11,000 miles of electric lines, 83,000 electric meters and 63,000 members.  Who would have thought so much big data is coming out of rural Texas?

What makes this co-op particularly unique is its smart grid, which is attracting some serious attention.

Unlike other traditional utilities, Bluebonnet does not generate any of its own electricity.  Instead, it buys electricity from the Lower Colorado River Authority and CPS Energy, both pioneers for clean, renewable energy.  Because of this, Bluebonnet is able to concentrate its energy (pun intended) on using new technologies to provide reliable power and enhance customer satisfaction.

Bluebonnet’s CEO Mark Rose and his staff recently gave me a tour of the co-op’s online dashboard, which provides Bluebonnet members with detailed information on their electricity use.  The amount of information readily available to customers is impressive, and the dashboard acts as a great tool to boil down much of this big data into digestible, understandable formats.  Bluebonnet members view the information on their own personal energy dashboards in three categories: cost, usage and environmental impact:

Cost

The cost tab displays your current monthly electricity bill, as well as a projected monthly bill for the following month based on previous usage.  If you want to dive deeper (like I would), a different chart can show you your energy usage each day.  On top of that, you can view hourly data to see what time of day you use the most energy.

All of this information empowers Bluebonnet members to control how they use energy and reduce electricity costs.  Presently, the dashboard shows data with an eight hour delay, but Bluebonnet’s goal is to show energy data the exact moment it’s used (real-time), so that members can gain control and make savvy energy choices.

Usage

While the cost tab shows electricity in dollars and cents, the usage tab shows energy in terms of units (i.e. kilowatt-hours or kWh).  This tab compares the current month’s energy consumption to the previous months, highlighting if you’ve increased or decreased your electricity use.  Just like the cost tab, you have the option to view daily or hourly usage, but this time in kWh rather than dollars. Additionally, on its website Bluebonnet offers some effective tips for members looking to conserve energy.  The site even shows a breakdown of how much energy appliances use nationally.  For instance, heating and cooling use about 56% and refrigerators use about 5%.

Impact

Bluebonnet’s unique approach shows members the environmental impact of their energy decisions in the form of understandable, real-world comparisons such as pounds of trash produced, number of trees needed to offset pollution or exhaust produced from certain number of cars driving per day.  These types of comparisons make our energy carbon footprints feel ‘real’ and, hopefully, manageable.

In addition to its dashboard, Bluebonnet has a mobile app that enables members to check their electricity usage from anywhere.  Members can also sign up for email or text message alerts to notify them when their bill reaches a certain dollar amount, which makes saving money even easier.

One challenge the utility faces is insufficient internet access in many of the rural communities it serves.  Poor internet access makes two-way communication between Bluebonnet and its members difficult, but the co-op understands this communication gap and is figuring out how to bridge this.  Regardless, the co-op should be commended for making a serious commitment to becoming a leader in clean energy and providing health, environmental and economic benefits to its members.

In the future, Bluebonnet hopes to give its members even greater opportunities to manage the energy use and further reduce their electric bills.  As the old saying goes, “knowledge is power”, especially when it comes to reducing our energy use and its environment impact.

Pump station to reduce risk south of Oakville
By Terri Sercovich. The Plaquemines Gazette (Plaquemines, La.). July 22, 2013.
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District recently awarded a $29.5 million contract to Phylway Construction, of Thibodaux, to construct a new pump station with fronting protection features at the existing Wilkinson Canal Pump Station located near Myrtle Grove. This is the fifth New Orleans to Venice (NOV) / Non-Federal Levee (NFL)…" (Read more).

Deepwater Horizon and Deep South justice
Opinion Editorial. The Financial Times. July 22, 2013.
"Whatever one thinks of the corporate conduct that caused the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, BP has not shirked its responsibility to compensate the victims. Since 2010, the oil company has paid $11bn to those damaged by the spill.  Last year, it entered a settlement that will oblige it to pay billions more to business owners and individuals…" (Read more).

The unintended cost of insurance reform
By Xerxes Wilson. The Daily Comet (Thibodaux, La.). July 22, 2013.
"The Bayou Gauche neighborhood in St. Charles Parish resembles many in Terrebonne and Lafourche.  It's near a small waterway with a larger lake nearby. It has a levee, though it's not U.S. Army Corps of Engineers certified.  Unlike Terrebonne and Lafourche, Bayou Gauche residents have already received estimates…" (Read more).

Anglers see red with new snapper season
By Brian Albert Broom. The Clarion Ledger (Jackson, Miss.). July 20, 2013.
"From the coast to the Delta, changes in seasons should make hunters and fishermen happy this fall.  At the Wednesday meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in New Orleans, coastal anglers and captains got the news they had hoped for: a fall red snapper season. Rumors had swirled for weeks and…" (Read more).

Oil-Spill Claims Saga: BP Keeps Paying, Corruption Probe Continues
By Paul M. Barrett. Bloomberg BusinessWeek. July 19, 2013.
"Here’s a law-school exam question:  A court-supervised multibillion-dollar pollution settlement leads to serious allegations of corruption. A federal judge appoints a former FBI director as “special master” to investigate. But the judge orders the defendant company to continue paying claims while the..." (Read more).

 

Tourism Officials Support White House Plan To Fight Climate Change
By Eileen Fleming. WWNO 89.9 (New Orleans, La.). July 22, 2013.
"New Orleans tourism officials kicked off a national bus tour scheduled to stop in regions most at risk from climate change. Those officials are linking jobs and coastal restoration.  Mark Romig heads the New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corporation. He and others spoke in front…" (Read more).

Resilient Grand Isle frets over its future as population falls, insurance costs rise
By Andrea Shaw. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, La.). July 20, 2013.
"For a spit of land sandwiched between Barataria Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, one that in the past eight years has endured five hurricanes and the worst oil disaster in United States history,Grand Isle bears few obvious scars. Recreational fishers crowd piers and bridges to cast theirlines…" (Read more).

Natural Barriers Protect Our Coasts Best, Say Researchers
By Tim Radford. Climate News Network. July 20, 2013.
"LONDON – The best thing to protect your property from the sea is a sand dune – or a mangrove swamp, or a coral reef, kelp forest or sea grass meadow. Nature, which has been doing the job for three billion years, has had time to work out the surest and most enduring sea defenses, according to U.S. researchers…" (Read more).

Scientists study nesting patterns of threatened sea turtles in Gulf
By Nikki Buskey. Houma Courier (Houma, La.). July 20, 2013.
"Scientists studying threatened loggerhead sea turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico have found the turtles cover hundreds of miles from their nesting sites to feeding grounds offshore in a single season.  This migration takes them through waters impacted by the oil and fishing industries…" (Read more).

Gulf spill civil trial’s second phase delayed two weeks
By Harry Weber. FuelFix – The Houston Chronicle. July 19, 2013.
"A federal judge is giving the Justice Department and attorneys for BP and Anadarko an extra two weeks to prepare for the second phase of a civil trial over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans said in an order Friday that the second phase of the trial will begin Sept. 30…" (Read more).

Getting Skewered in New Orleans
Opinion by Joe Nocera. The New York Times. July 19, 2013.
"NEW ORLEANS — “All rise,” boomed the bailiff as the Honorable Carl J. Barbier strode to the bench in his courtroom here. It was 8:35 Friday morning. Barbier was frowning. The federal judge overseeing the civil litigation related to the BP oil spill, Barbier had called this hearing…" (Read more).

Continuing a legacy
By Janet MacFall. Times-News (Burlington, N.C.). July 19, 2013.
"In the most recent edition of its annual “Testing the Waters” report on beach water quality, the National Resources Defense Council cites an eye-popping piece of data: for local governments and businesses along our nation’s shores, a typical swimming day is worth about $35 in revenue for each visitor…" (Read more).

Senate bills call for 'real-time' fish counts in Gulf
By Ledyard King.  The Shreveport Times (Shreveport, La.). July 19, 2013.
"WASHINGTON — Senators want federal regulators to start using “real-time” fish counts in assessing the health of red snapper and other species in the Gulf of Mexico, a move they say would ease catch limits.  The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the proposal Thursday…" (Read more).

BP Oil Spill Payments Will NOT Be Suspended, Judge Rules
By Michael Kunzelman. Associated Press. July 19, 2013.
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge refused Friday to temporarily shut down a multibillion-dollar settlement program for compensating victims of BP's 2010 Gulf oil spill, saying he has seen no evidence of widespread fraud among the tens of thousands of claims.  The judge also said he was offended…" (Read more).

The BP Settlement
Letter to the Editor by Stephen Herman & James Parkerson Roy. NY Times. July 17, 2013.
"Mr. Nocera unfairly characterized the settlement agreement that BP entered into last year with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, which represents individuals and businesses affected by the 2010 gulf oil spill. For more than two years BP negotiated, helped draft, agreed to and sought court approval…" (Read more).

Tourism does depend on a healthy Gulf
By Brad Young. The Sun Herald (Biloxi, Miss.). July 18, 2013.
"The article "Wildlife tourism depends on healthy Gulf" (July 10) supports the position of the Mississippi Wildlife Federation and countless others who recognize Mississippi's economy and the ecology of the Gulf region are inextricably linked…" (Read more).

Kudos to Manatee County for ecosystem restorations
By Jessica Koelsch. Bradenton Herald (Fla.). July 14, 2013.
"Thank you for the story "Wildlife tourism big business for Manatee County" (July 9), which highlighted the impacts of tourism on the local economy.  A recently released report reinforces the position of the National Wildlife Federation (and many others) that the economy…" (Read more).

 

By Brad Copithorne

In last my post about Connecticut’s clean energy finance efforts, I alluded to an important innovation in their Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) financing program for commercial properties.  PACE programs have been in place for several years, and the basic concept is that property owners are able to pay back clean energy financing through their property tax bill over time.  Rates tend to be low because property taxes are almost always paid back and the PACE assessment will survive foreclosures.

To date, PACE transactions have generally been structured as a set of fixed payments to finance retrofits managed by the property owner.  Functionally, these transactions have been quite similar to loans.  In the solar industry, however, the vast majority of financings have been structured as leases or power purchase agreements (PPAs) in order to fully capture the tax benefits associated with solar investments.  This has generally resulted in fairly low use of PACE by solar installers and limited installations of solar on commercial properties.  (Most commercial properties have large mortgages and are not good candidates for additional financing unless PACE or On-Bill Repayment (OBR) can be used to improve credit quality.  The exceptions are buildings that are owned or occupied by very high quality credits, such as a large corporation or city.)

Connecticut is breaking new ground by allowing leases and PPAs to participate.  The lease or PPA payments would simply become part of the property tax bill.  If necessary, true-up mechanisms could be used to adjust payments and ensure that customers are not overbilled.  Additionally, we understand that this flexibility will likely be available for innovative energy efficiency financing for commercial properties.  EDF has long advocated for this type of flexibility (and we see this as a major benefit of OBR), but – to date – PACE programs have not incorporated this feature.

Hats off to Connecticut for once again showing us how to get things done!

Statement from EDF On The Inclusion Of Disaster Relief Funds In Senate Appropriations Committee 2014 Commerce, Justice and Science Spending Bill Fri, 2013-07-19 Contact:  John Anthony, 202.572.3284, janthony@edf.org

“The bill reported out by the Senate Appropriations Committee is an encouraging first step toward bringing immediate relief to those around the country suffering from serious decline of fish stocks.   This decline, exacerbated by warming ocean temperatures associated with climate change, has hit fishermen, their families and communities hard, rippling outward in local economies. 

“We want to thank the New England congressional delegation and committee chairwoman Mikulski for their leadership and commitment to help meet the challenges facing families and fisheries in New England.”

- Johanna Thomas, Director, New England and Pacific EDF Oceans Program

# # #

Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook.

Johanna Thomas

By Jim Marston

No one likes being told “I told you so.”  But since DOE released its report last week, I’ve been tempted.

The report warns that the existing American energy infrastructure is highly vulnerable to climate change.  That increasing temperatures will stress the U.S. water system and enhance the likelihood of drought. That because conventional power plants require huge volumes of water to operate, lower water availability will mean less reliable power.  And that the changing climate will prompt more extreme and frequent storms, increasing energy demand due to extreme temperature changes and threatening our aging and already stressed electric grid with potential blackouts.

In essence, the affirms the many the calls-to-action that EDF and many other groups have been leading for years and the lessons we learned from Superstorm Sandy made painfully real and salient:  Our existing energy technologies and policies were designed for a 20th century climate.  To weather the extremes of a 21st century climate, we need to a 21st century energy system – one  that promotes energy efficiency, enables widespread adoption of homegrown, renewable sources of power and allows people to control their own energy use and reduce their electricity costs.

I have been very encouraged by President Obama’s recent movement on climate change, and the DOE report provides research backing the urgency of his Climate Action Plan.  Hopefully, this recent movement will translate into real national momentum, as our national approach to energy truly needs an overhaul.

Consider this outdated thinking:

• Utility Business Models

If utilities are paid more when customers use more energy, what incentive do they have to invest in energy efficiency programs that urge customers to use less?  Utilities that control generation (and profit from energy demand no matter how high it goes) have zero incentive to burn less fossil fuels and encourage renewables. We need to create new business models that reward utilities for providing a platform for clean energy, allowing them to earn at least as much from investing in clean energy as they do from investing in fossil fuels.

• Smart Grid

(Source: Iwan Baan/Getty Images)

The fundamental design of our grid is the same as when Thomas Edison invented it over 100 years ago.  For all the talk about the power of America’s tech-economy, our energy system is remarkably low-tech.  The DOE report warns that climate change could outpace our best adaptation efforts if we don’t adopt a comprehensive and accelerated approach to grid resiliency.  And new, proven technology can help us do just that.  Conventional utility business models were built around large-scale, centralized fossil-fuel power plants located far away from electricity customers.  Today, a whole suite of new clean energy technologies is enabling more on-site power generation and customer-side participation.

Increasing the amount of electricity sourced locally makes the grid fundamentally more resistant to damage caused by extreme weather events.   And unlike conventional fossil fuel-based power generation, clean energy sources don’t contribute to a worsening climate.  Utilities can empower their customers to become energy “prosumers” (rather than energy consumers) by incentivizing renewable energy, energy efficiency and demand response, which rewards those who reduce electricity during peak times.

• Energy-Water Nexus

Finally, the national energy discussion woefully ignores the fundamental connection between energy and water.  But in this era of a changing climate, policymakers must also take a comprehensive approach to energy and water management.  The energy-water nexus, as policy wonks call it, is a classic example of a vicious cycle.  As the climate changes, air and water temperatures will increase, resulting in higher energy demand (due to ramped up use of air conditioners and heaters, among others).  But higher temperatures reduce power plant efficiency, which – in addition to the higher electricity demand – will increase power plants’ water demand.  With large parts of the country in the midst of historic droughts like the one gripping Texas, now is FINALLY the time to recognize this important relationship and inject it into our energy policy.

It would be wise to take the DOE’s warnings and recommendations to heart before the next major storm, flood or prolonged drought.  Investing in innovative clean energy technologies provides a two-fold benefit for our energy system, making it more resilient to climate change and reducing harmful carbon emissions.

Without the right incentives in place to encourage adoption of climate-resilient energy technologies, we could wind up spending trillions to band-aid a broken energy system.  Instead we need to build a resilient and reliable electric grid that is fit to withstand more extreme weather events in the future.