Aggregator

Tell Congress to let the EPA do its job, and to support strong climate standards. Regional. C4.

Tell Congress to let the EPA do its job, and to support strong climate standards. Regional. C4.

Coalition Responds to Jerome Zeringue’s Resignation from Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

Chip Kline, current deputy director of Governor’s Office of Coastal Affairs, named successor

(NEW ORLEANS – January 26, 2015) Last week, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that Chip Kline would replace Jerome “Zee” Zeringue as chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Kline is currently the deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities.

National and local conservation organizations committed to coastal Louisiana restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation issued the following statement in response:

“Louisiana is suffering a coastal erosion crisis, and in recent years the state has made strong advancement toward the goals of stopping land loss and rebuilding land along the Mississippi River Delta. Zee’s leadership was key in keeping the implementation of the 2012 Coastal Master Plan moving forward this past year. He has been a tireless advocate and champion for Louisiana and the people who live and work on the coast. We thank him for all of the progress made toward restoring and protecting the delta – and the people, wildlife and jobs that call coastal Louisiana home. We wish Zee well in his future endeavors and hope he will remain engaged in coastal restoration efforts.

“We welcome Chip Kline as the new CPRA chairman and look forward to working with him and his team as they continue to implement the state’s master plan. His experience and knowledge will be an asset to our coast as he transitions in this new position. We have confidence he will keep the Coastal Restoration and Protection program on track and will uphold the commitments made by his predecessors. We look forward to building on past achievements and advancing coastal restoration efforts even more in the future.”

Coalition Responds to Jerome Zeringue’s Resignation from Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

Chip Kline, current deputy director of Governor’s Office of Coastal Affairs, named successor

(NEW ORLEANS – January 26, 2015) Last week, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that Chip Kline would replace Jerome “Zee” Zeringue as chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Kline is currently the deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities.

National and local conservation organizations committed to coastal Louisiana restoration – Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation issued the following statement in response:

“Louisiana is suffering a coastal erosion crisis, and in recent years the state has made strong advancement toward the goals of stopping land loss and rebuilding land along the Mississippi River Delta. Zee’s leadership was key in keeping the implementation of the 2012 Coastal Master Plan moving forward this past year. He has been a tireless advocate and champion for Louisiana and the people who live and work on the coast. We thank him for all of the progress made toward restoring and protecting the delta – and the people, wildlife and jobs that call coastal Louisiana home. We wish Zee well in his future endeavors and hope he will remain engaged in coastal restoration efforts.

“We welcome Chip Kline as the new CPRA chairman and look forward to working with him and his team as they continue to implement the state’s master plan. His experience and knowledge will be an asset to our coast as he transitions in this new position. We have confidence he will keep the Coastal Restoration and Protection program on track and will uphold the commitments made by his predecessors. We look forward to building on past achievements and advancing coastal restoration efforts even more in the future.”

By Lindsay McCormick

Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a high production volume chemical that is used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins.  It is commonly found in food and beverage packaging, such as plastic bottles and the lining of food cans, as well as thermal paper receipts (see our previous blog).  BPA is widely-recognized as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning that it can alter the normal functioning of the body’s hormonal system.  Hundreds of studies have been published associating BPA exposure with health effects, ranging from cancer to obesity to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  Data from the Center for Disease and Control (CDC) show that nearly all people tested have BPA in their bodies.

Despite a plethora of data, numerous calls for action (for example, see here, here and here), and comprehensive regulation in France, it does not seem that national regulation of BPA in food packaging in the U.S. will be happening any time soon.  The official position of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is that, while BPA exhibits endocrine-disrupting properties at high doses, it is safe at the current levels occurring in food.  Although the FDA banned the use of BPA-based materials in baby bottles, sippy cups, and infant formula packaging in 2012, FDA said it based this action on changes in the market, rather than safety concerns.

In the fall of 2014, FDA completed a four-year review of the literature, including more than 300 scientific studies, and concluded that the information does not “prompt a revision of FDA’s safety assessment of BPA in food packaging at this time.”

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently followed suit with their announcement that BPA does not pose a health risk to consumers, including children, at current exposure levels.  (This is in contrast to the action of several EU member states, which have banned BPA in food contact materials for children under 3 years of age over the past few years.)

Meanwhile, scientists continue to churn out studies linking low-level BPA exposure to a variety of health effects.  In this post, we discuss several new studies.  

Metabolic health

Last week, researchers from the University of Michigan, New York State Department of Health, and North Carolina State University published a study investigating the following hypothesis: Prenatal exposure to BPA, at levels representative of actual human exposure, affect metabolic risk factors for the development of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life.

In order to test this hypothesis, the researchers used a unique study design, where human research was conducted alongside animal studies in sheep, rats, and mice.  For the human portion of the study, the researchers collected blood samples from 24 mothers during the first trimester of pregnancy as well as from the umbilical cord at delivery.  They analyzed the samples for BPA levels and known risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, specifically markers of oxidative stress and imbalances in the levels of free fatty acids (FFAs).  Mothers with higher levels of BPA showed greater evidence of oxidative stress and increased palmitic acid, a common fatty acid.

These results were supported by the experimental animal studies, where adult sheep, rats, and mice that had been prenatally exposed to BPA at levels similar to those to which humans are currently exposed showed evidence of increased oxidative stress (in sheep and rats) and altered FFA levels (in mice).  These experimental studies indicate the potential for prenatal BPA exposure to have long-lasting effects on metabolic health, into adulthood.

Cardiovascular effects

Earlier this month, researchers from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine published a study linking cardiovascular effects in mice to low levels of BPA exposure.  The researchers administered BPA to mice in their food in a manner and at doses that mimic human exposure patterns and levels.  Female mice were dosed so as to expose their offspring from conception.  Researchers then continued to dose these offspring after birth through adulthood.  The low end of the dose range used was comparable to estimated current levels of human oral exposure, while the high end of the dose range was near FDA’s current No Observed Adverse Effect Level (i.e., the highest dose that FDA maintains yields no health effects).

The study identified several effects on markers of heart health, including decreased systolic blood pressure, structural changes in the heart, and changes in the expression of genes related to metabolic function in heart tissue.  The response was dose-dependent for many (although not all) outcomes, and the dose-response often differed between males and females.  In female mice only, co-exposure to BPA and isoproterenol, a drug that mimics the effects of a heart attack, increased heart muscle damage and collagen formation – an indicator of scarring – over that seen with the drug alone.  Overall, female mice exposed to BPA demonstrated more pronounced stress-induced effects than male mice.  The authors conclude that this study adds to a body of evidence suggesting that BPA exposure may adversely affect heart health, particularly in females.

A study published last month by researchers from Seoul National University in Korea found that acute increases in systolic blood pressure in humans were associated with BPA exposure from an everyday scenario: drinking beverages from cans.  60 participants (>60 years old) consumed the same beverage either out of glass bottles or cans; researchers then measured urinary BPA concentration, blood pressure, and heart rate variability two hours later.

The researchers used a crossover study design, in which each participant came to the study site three times and consumed the same beverage in three different combinations: two bottles, two cans, or one bottle and one can.  Urinary BPA levels were 1,600% higher and systolic blood pressure significantly increased after beverage consumption out of two cans, compared to consumption out of two bottles.  A smaller, but still statistically significant, increase in urinary BPA levels was seen in the one-can/one-bottle scenario, although there was no significant change in blood pressure.  No change in heart rate variability was observed among the three scenarios.

Developmental neurotoxicity

The University of Cincinnati study comes on the heels of research published by the University of Calgary in Canada, which found associations between BPA exposure at low doses (comparable to or lower than current human exposure levels) and altered neurodevelopment and hyperactive behavior in zebrafish.  The authors note that the BPA concentration used was 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than typical BPA levels found in the human placenta, levels measured in human fetal serum, and levels determined to be safe by U.S., Canadian, and EU international regulatory agencies.  Bisphenol S (BPS), a BPA analogue that is frequently used as a theoretically “safer” BPA replacement in products, was also studied.

The study found that exposure to BPA and BPS was associated with 180% and 240% increases in the growth of new neurons (brain cells), respectively, in the hypothalamus — a region of the brain involved in hyperactivity in humans.  In addition, exposing zebrafish to BPA or BPS during a developmental period analogous to human gestation was associated with hyperactive behavior at a later lifestage.

Zebrafish are frequently used as an animal model for human development.  Not only do they share approximately 70% of their genes with humans, but their organ development and function is remarkably similar to that in humans.  Nonetheless, extrapolating findings from animal models to humans should always be done with caution.  Although the relevance of these effects observed in zebrafish to humans remains to be seen, the study provides evidence that biologically relevant levels of BPA – and BPS – may alter neurodevelopment.

Money talks

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor in pediatrics, environmental medicine and health policy at NYU, published an intriguing economic argument in early 2014 for substituting BPA in food packaging with a safer alternative.  He calculates that BPA-associated childhood obesity and adult cardiovascular disease costs the U.S. an estimated $2.98 billion annually, and that removing BPA from food packaging uses would result in a potential annual economic benefit of $1.74 billion.  He argues that these numbers underestimate the true cost of exposure to BPA, as they do not include the potential costs from the numerous other health effects associated with BPA (such as asthma, cancer, and fertility problems).

Unfortunately, finding both a safe and an effective BPA alternative has proven difficult.  Dr. Trasande discusses the potential, and limitations, of several proposed substitutes such as oleoresin, a plant-based mixture of oil and resin, which he suggests may not be associated with adverse health effects.

 

By Lindsay McCormick

Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a high production volume chemical that is used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins.  It is commonly found in food and beverage packaging, such as plastic bottles and the lining of food cans, as well as thermal paper receipts (see our previous blog).  BPA is widely-recognized as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning that it can alter the normal functioning of the body’s hormonal system.  Hundreds of studies have been published associating BPA exposure with health effects, ranging from cancer to obesity to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  Data from the Center for Disease and Control (CDC) show that nearly all people tested have BPA in their bodies.

Despite a plethora of data, numerous calls for action (for example, see here, here and here), and comprehensive regulation in France, it does not seem that national regulation of BPA in food packaging in the U.S. will be happening any time soon.  The official position of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is that, while BPA exhibits endocrine-disrupting properties at high doses, it is safe at the current levels occurring in food.  Although the FDA banned the use of BPA-based materials in baby bottles, sippy cups, and infant formula packaging in 2012, FDA said it based this action on changes in the market, rather than safety concerns.

In the fall of 2014, FDA completed a four-year review of the literature, including more than 300 scientific studies, and concluded that the information does not “prompt a revision of FDA’s safety assessment of BPA in food packaging at this time.”

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently followed suit with their announcement that BPA does not pose a health risk to consumers, including children, at current exposure levels.  (This is in contrast to the action of several EU member states, which have banned BPA in food contact materials for children under 3 years of age over the past few years.)

Meanwhile, scientists continue to churn out studies linking low-level BPA exposure to a variety of health effects.  In this post, we discuss several new studies.  

Metabolic health

Last week, researchers from the University of Michigan, New York State Department of Health, and North Carolina State University published a study investigating the following hypothesis: Prenatal exposure to BPA, at levels representative of actual human exposure, affect metabolic risk factors for the development of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life.

In order to test this hypothesis, the researchers used a unique study design, where human research was conducted alongside animal studies in sheep, rats, and mice.  For the human portion of the study, the researchers collected blood samples from 24 mothers during the first trimester of pregnancy as well as from the umbilical cord at delivery.  They analyzed the samples for BPA levels and known risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, specifically markers of oxidative stress and imbalances in the levels of free fatty acids (FFAs).  Mothers with higher levels of BPA showed greater evidence of oxidative stress and increased palmitic acid, a common fatty acid.

These results were supported by the experimental animal studies, where adult sheep, rats, and mice that had been prenatally exposed to BPA at levels similar to those to which humans are currently exposed showed evidence of increased oxidative stress (in sheep and rats) and altered FFA levels (in mice).  These experimental studies indicate the potential for prenatal BPA exposure to have long-lasting effects on metabolic health, into adulthood.

Cardiovascular effects

Earlier this month, researchers from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine published a study linking cardiovascular effects in mice to low levels of BPA exposure.  The researchers administered BPA to mice in their food in a manner and at doses that mimic human exposure patterns and levels.  Female mice were dosed so as to expose their offspring from conception.  Researchers then continued to dose these offspring after birth through adulthood.  The low end of the dose range used was comparable to estimated current levels of human oral exposure, while the high end of the dose range was near FDA’s current No Observed Adverse Effect Level (i.e., the highest dose that FDA maintains yields no health effects).

The study identified several effects on markers of heart health, including decreased systolic blood pressure, structural changes in the heart, and changes in the expression of genes related to metabolic function in heart tissue.  The response was dose-dependent for many (although not all) outcomes, and the dose-response often differed between males and females.  In female mice only, co-exposure to BPA and isoproterenol, a drug that mimics the effects of a heart attack, increased heart muscle damage and collagen formation – an indicator of scarring – over that seen with the drug alone.  Overall, female mice exposed to BPA demonstrated more pronounced stress-induced effects than male mice.  The authors conclude that this study adds to a body of evidence suggesting that BPA exposure may adversely affect heart health, particularly in females.

A study published last month by researchers from Seoul National University in Korea found that acute increases in systolic blood pressure in humans were associated with BPA exposure from an everyday scenario: drinking beverages from cans.  60 participants (>60 years old) consumed the same beverage either out of glass bottles or cans; researchers then measured urinary BPA concentration, blood pressure, and heart rate variability two hours later.

The researchers used a crossover study design, in which each participant came to the study site three times and consumed the same beverage in three different combinations: two bottles, two cans, or one bottle and one can.  Urinary BPA levels were 1,600% higher and systolic blood pressure significantly increased after beverage consumption out of two cans, compared to consumption out of two bottles.  A smaller, but still statistically significant, increase in urinary BPA levels was seen in the one-can/one-bottle scenario, although there was no significant change in blood pressure.  No change in heart rate variability was observed among the three scenarios.

Developmental neurotoxicity

The University of Cincinnati study comes on the heels of research published by the University of Calgary in Canada, which found associations between BPA exposure at low doses (comparable to or lower than current human exposure levels) and altered neurodevelopment and hyperactive behavior in zebrafish.  The authors note that the BPA concentration used was 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than typical BPA levels found in the human placenta, levels measured in human fetal serum, and levels determined to be safe by U.S., Canadian, and EU international regulatory agencies.  Bisphenol S (BPS), a BPA analogue that is frequently used as a theoretically “safer” BPA replacement in products, was also studied.

The study found that exposure to BPA and BPS was associated with 180% and 240% increases in the growth of new neurons (brain cells), respectively, in the hypothalamus — a region of the brain involved in hyperactivity in humans.  In addition, exposing zebrafish to BPA or BPS during a developmental period analogous to human gestation was associated with hyperactive behavior at a later lifestage.

Zebrafish are frequently used as an animal model for human development.  Not only do they share approximately 70% of their genes with humans, but their organ development and function is remarkably similar to that in humans.  Nonetheless, extrapolating findings from animal models to humans should always be done with caution.  Although the relevance of these effects observed in zebrafish to humans remains to be seen, the study provides evidence that biologically relevant levels of BPA – and BPS – may alter neurodevelopment.

Money talks

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor in pediatrics, environmental medicine and health policy at NYU, published an intriguing economic argument in early 2014 for substituting BPA in food packaging with a safer alternative.  He calculates that BPA-associated childhood obesity and adult cardiovascular disease costs the U.S. an estimated $2.98 billion annually, and that removing BPA from food packaging uses would result in a potential annual economic benefit of $1.74 billion.  He argues that these numbers underestimate the true cost of exposure to BPA, as they do not include the potential costs from the numerous other health effects associated with BPA (such as asthma, cancer, and fertility problems).

Unfortunately, finding both a safe and an effective BPA alternative has proven difficult.  Dr. Trasande discusses the potential, and limitations, of several proposed substitutes such as oleoresin, a plant-based mixture of oil and resin, which he suggests may not be associated with adverse health effects.

 

By Michael Panfil

A tool only has value if it’s used. For example, you could be the sort of person who’s set a goal of wanting to exercise more. If someone gives you a nifty little Fitbit to help you do that, and you never open the box, how useful, then, is this little device? The same is true about smart energy management solutions: good tools exist, but whether it’s calories or energy use that you want to cut, at some point those helpful devices need to be unpacked. The same is true for demand response, an energy conservation tool that pays people to save energy when the electric grid is stressed.

California's electricity industry stands at a crossroads. The state got an early start on creating laws and policies to cut carbon pollution, and is now reaping the benefits of these policies through reduced emissions and healthy economic growth. That said, California can’t cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels without having alternatives to choose from — some focusing on promoting renewable energy, others on smarter energy management tools. Demand response is one of these tools, and a critical one. This highly-flexible, cost-effective resource should play a key role in California’s clean energy future, but several barriers stand in the way of unleashing its full potential.

It’s hard to think of California as anything but forward-thinking, but, right now, the state’s demand response programs are lagging behind those in other states and regions of the country like the Mid-Atlantic. There is good news, however, because demand response is an evolving resource. And, with advances in smart grid technologies, demand response has the potential to improve our energy mix in California. In EDF’s new report, Putting Demand Response to Work for California, we offer recommendations on how to unlock demand response as an important part of the overall strategy for California’s bright energy future.

What's not to love about cost-effective, people-powered energy mgmt? New EDF report on...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Demand response works by empowering customers to shift their energy use to times of day when there is less demand on the power grid or when renewable energy is more abundant. When energy demand goes up, this puts stress on the electric grid and encourages the use of “peaker plants” – dirty, typically coal-fired power plants reserved for use only a few days a year to accommodate “peak” electricity demand. Instead of turning on one of these expensive, polluting peaker plants, utilities can leverage demand response by asking customers to turn off non-essential appliances (like pool pumps, unused lights, idle water heaters, etc.), or delay the use of certain appliances (like dish washers) to a time of day when clean, renewable energy sources are more abundant. This “people-powered” solution saves customers money, prevents blackouts, avoids carbon pollution, and helps integrate more renewables like wind and solar onto the electric grid.

Simply put, demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment – as demonstrated throughout the U.S. For example, in PJM Interconnection, the power grid operator that covers all or parts of 13 states (and Washington D.C.) throughout the Midwest and Northeast, demand response programs saved electricity users $11.8 billion in 2013 alone. Demand response also helped avoid blackouts during extreme weather events in the Northeast region of the United States between 2013 and 2014.

EDF’s demand response report calls for three actions to advance the resource in California:

1. Identify the range of benefits demand response can offer, such as helping to reduce the cost of electricity for customers, integrate renewables, and improving grid reliability.
2. Spur the rapid adoption of demand response programs by ensuring fair compensation for the value it provides to utilities, customers, the grid, and others.
3. Properly account for all types of demand response in energy forecasts so the state can rely upon this tool when assessing energy supply and demand for the future.

While much more work needs to be done to follow through on the actions outlined above, significant change is already underway in California and much of the United States. For example, California recently passed S.B. 1414, which will help accelerate the use of the resource. Likewise, the state’s Public Utilities Commission (which is responsible for regulating the electricity industry) has been investigating how to increase the resource in its ‘demand response’ docket. EDF has been heavily involved in this case, given how important demand response could be in helping to lower customer energy costs and providing environmental benefits.

Let’s take demand response out of its box and start using this powerful tool to move California toward a low-carbon, clean energy future.

Photo source: iStock

This post originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By Michael Panfil

A tool only has value if it’s used. For example, you could be the sort of person who’s set a goal of wanting to exercise more. If someone gives you a nifty little Fitbit to help you do that, and you never open the box, how useful, then, is this little device? The same is true about smart energy management solutions: good tools exist, but whether it’s calories or energy use that you want to cut, at some point those helpful devices need to be unpacked. The same is true for demand response, an energy conservation tool that pays people to save energy when the electric grid is stressed.

California's electricity industry stands at a crossroads. The state got an early start on creating laws and policies to cut carbon pollution, and is now reaping the benefits of these policies through reduced emissions and healthy economic growth. That said, California can’t cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels without having alternatives to choose from — some focusing on promoting renewable energy, others on smarter energy management tools. Demand response is one of these tools, and a critical one. This highly-flexible, cost-effective resource should play a key role in California’s clean energy future, but several barriers stand in the way of unleashing its full potential.

It’s hard to think of California as anything but forward-thinking, but, right now, the state’s demand response programs are lagging behind those in other states and regions of the country like the Mid-Atlantic. There is good news, however, because demand response is an evolving resource. And, with advances in smart grid technologies, demand response has the potential to improve our energy mix in California. In EDF’s new report, Putting Demand Response to Work for California, we offer recommendations on how to unlock demand response as an important part of the overall strategy for California’s bright energy future.

What's not to love about cost-effective, people-powered energy mgmt? New EDF report on...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Demand response works by empowering customers to shift their energy use to times of day when there is less demand on the power grid or when renewable energy is more abundant. When energy demand goes up, this puts stress on the electric grid and encourages the use of “peaker plants” – dirty, typically coal-fired power plants reserved for use only a few days a year to accommodate “peak” electricity demand. Instead of turning on one of these expensive, polluting peaker plants, utilities can leverage demand response by asking customers to turn off non-essential appliances (like pool pumps, unused lights, idle water heaters, etc.), or delay the use of certain appliances (like dish washers) to a time of day when clean, renewable energy sources are more abundant. This “people-powered” solution saves customers money, prevents blackouts, avoids carbon pollution, and helps integrate more renewables like wind and solar onto the electric grid.

Simply put, demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment – as demonstrated throughout the U.S. For example, in PJM Interconnection, the power grid operator that covers all or parts of 13 states (and Washington D.C.) throughout the Midwest and Northeast, demand response programs saved electricity users $11.8 billion in 2013 alone. Demand response also helped avoid blackouts during extreme weather events in the Northeast region of the United States between 2013 and 2014.

EDF’s demand response report calls for three actions to advance the resource in California:

1. Identify the range of benefits demand response can offer, such as helping to reduce the cost of electricity for customers, integrate renewables, and improving grid reliability.
2. Spur the rapid adoption of demand response programs by ensuring fair compensation for the value it provides to utilities, customers, the grid, and others.
3. Properly account for all types of demand response in energy forecasts so the state can rely upon this tool when assessing energy supply and demand for the future.

While much more work needs to be done to follow through on the actions outlined above, significant change is already underway in California and much of the United States. For example, California recently passed S.B. 1414, which will help accelerate the use of the resource. Likewise, the state’s Public Utilities Commission (which is responsible for regulating the electricity industry) has been investigating how to increase the resource in its ‘demand response’ docket. EDF has been heavily involved in this case, given how important demand response could be in helping to lower customer energy costs and providing environmental benefits.

Let’s take demand response out of its box and start using this powerful tool to move California toward a low-carbon, clean energy future.

Photo source: iStock

This post originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By Michael Panfil

A tool only has value if it’s used. For example, you could be the sort of person who’s set a goal of wanting to exercise more. If someone gives you a nifty little Fitbit to help you do that, and you never open the box, how useful, then, is this little device? The same is true about smart energy management solutions: good tools exist, but whether it’s calories or energy use that you want to cut, at some point those helpful devices need to be unpacked. The same is true for demand response, an energy conservation tool that pays people to save energy when the electric grid is stressed.

California's electricity industry stands at a crossroads. The state got an early start on creating laws and policies to cut carbon pollution, and is now reaping the benefits of these policies through reduced emissions and healthy economic growth. That said, California can’t cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels without having alternatives to choose from — some focusing on promoting renewable energy, others on smarter energy management tools. Demand response is one of these tools, and a critical one. This highly-flexible, cost-effective resource should play a key role in California’s clean energy future, but several barriers stand in the way of unleashing its full potential.

It’s hard to think of California as anything but forward-thinking, but, right now, the state’s demand response programs are lagging behind those in other states and regions of the country like the Mid-Atlantic. There is good news, however, because demand response is an evolving resource. And, with advances in smart grid technologies, demand response has the potential to improve our energy mix in California. In EDF’s new report, Putting Demand Response to Work for California, we offer recommendations on how to unlock demand response as an important part of the overall strategy for California’s bright energy future.

What's not to love about cost-effective, people-powered energy mgmt? New EDF report on...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

Demand response works by empowering customers to shift their energy use to times of day when there is less demand on the power grid or when renewable energy is more abundant. When energy demand goes up, this puts stress on the electric grid and encourages the use of “peaker plants” – dirty, typically coal-fired power plants reserved for use only a few days a year to accommodate “peak” electricity demand. Instead of turning on one of these expensive, polluting peaker plants, utilities can leverage demand response by asking customers to turn off non-essential appliances (like pool pumps, unused lights, idle water heaters, etc.), or delay the use of certain appliances (like dish washers) to a time of day when clean, renewable energy sources are more abundant. This “people-powered” solution saves customers money, prevents blackouts, avoids carbon pollution, and helps integrate more renewables like wind and solar onto the electric grid.

Simply put, demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment – as demonstrated throughout the U.S. For example, in PJM Interconnection, the power grid operator that covers all or parts of 13 states (and Washington D.C.) throughout the Midwest and Northeast, demand response programs saved electricity users $11.8 billion in 2013 alone. Demand response also helped avoid blackouts during extreme weather events in the Northeast region of the United States between 2013 and 2014.

EDF’s demand response report calls for three actions to advance the resource in California:

1. Identify the range of benefits demand response can offer, such as helping to reduce the cost of electricity for customers, integrate renewables, and improving grid reliability.
2. Spur the rapid adoption of demand response programs by ensuring fair compensation for the value it provides to utilities, customers, the grid, and others.
3. Properly account for all types of demand response in energy forecasts so the state can rely upon this tool when assessing energy supply and demand for the future.

While much more work needs to be done to follow through on the actions outlined above, significant change is already underway in California and much of the United States. For example, California recently passed S.B. 1414, which will help accelerate the use of the resource. Likewise, the state’s Public Utilities Commission (which is responsible for regulating the electricity industry) has been investigating how to increase the resource in its ‘demand response’ docket. EDF has been heavily involved in this case, given how important demand response could be in helping to lower customer energy costs and providing environmental benefits.

Let’s take demand response out of its box and start using this powerful tool to move California toward a low-carbon, clean energy future.

Photo source: iStock

This post originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By Michael Panfil

A tool only has value if it’s used. For example, you could be the sort of person who’s set a goal of wanting to exercise more. If someone gives you a nifty little Fitbit to help you do that, and you never open the box, how useful, then, is this little device? The same is true about smart energy management solutions: good tools exist, but whether it’s calories or energy use that you want to cut, at some point those helpful devices need to be unpacked. The same is true for demand response, an energy conservation tool that pays people to save energy when the electric grid is stressed.

California's electricity industry stands at a crossroads. The state got an early start on creating laws and policies to cut carbon pollution, and is now reaping the benefits of these policies through reduced emissions and healthy economic growth. That said, California can’t cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels without having alternatives to choose from — some focusing on promoting renewable energy, others on smarter energy management tools. Demand response is one of these tools, and a critical one. This highly-flexible, cost-effective resource should play a key role in California’s clean energy future, but several barriers stand in the way of unleashing its full potential.

It’s hard to think of California as anything but forward-thinking, but, right now, the state’s demand response programs are lagging behind those in other states and regions of the country like the Mid-Atlantic. There is good news, however, because demand response is an evolving resource. And, with advances in smart grid technologies, demand response has the potential to improve our energy mix in California. In EDF’s new report, Putting Demand Response to Work for California, we offer recommendations on how to unlock demand response as an important part of the overall strategy for California’s bright energy future.

Demand response works by empowering customers to shift their energy use to times of day when there is less demand on the power grid or when renewable energy is more abundant. When energy demand goes up, this puts stress on the electric grid and encourages the use of “peaker plants” – dirty, typically coal-fired power plants reserved for use only a few days a year to accommodate “peak” electricity demand. Instead of turning on one of these expensive, polluting peaker plants, utilities can leverage demand response by asking customers to turn off non-essential appliances (like pool pumps, unused lights, idle water heaters, etc.), or delay the use of certain appliances (like dish washers) to a time of day when clean, renewable energy sources are more abundant. This “people-powered” solution saves customers money, prevents blackouts, avoids carbon pollution, and helps integrate more renewables like wind and solar onto the electric grid.

Simply put, demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment – as demonstrated throughout the U.S. For example, in PJM Interconnection, the power grid operator that covers all or parts of 13 states (and Washington D.C.) throughout the Midwest and Northeast, demand response programs saved electricity users $11.8 billion in 2013 alone. Demand response also helped avoid blackouts during extreme weather events in the Northeast region of the United States between 2013 and 2014.

EDF’s demand response report calls for three actions to advance the resource in California:

1. Identify the range of benefits demand response can offer, such as helping to reduce the cost of electricity for customers, integrate renewables, and improving grid reliability.
2. Spur the rapid adoption of demand response programs by ensuring fair compensation for the value it provides to utilities, customers, the grid, and others.
3. Properly account for all types of demand response in energy forecasts so the state can rely upon this tool when assessing energy supply and demand for the future.

While much more work needs to be done to follow through on the actions outlined above, significant change is already underway in California and much of the United States. For example, California recently passed S.B. 1414, which will help accelerate the use of the resource. Likewise, the state’s Public Utilities Commission (which is responsible for regulating the electricity industry) has been investigating how to increase the resource in its ‘demand response’ docket. EDF has been heavily involved in this case, given how important demand response could be in helping to lower customer energy costs and providing environmental benefits.

Let’s take demand response out of its box and start using this powerful tool to move California toward a low-carbon, clean energy future.

Photo source: iStock

Michael Panfil is an attorney with EDF's US Climate and Energy Program.

 

 

January 26, 2015

In oil spill trial, first BP expert witness to testify about effectiveness of response
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 26, 2015
“BP will call its first witnesses Monday (Jan. 26) as it seeks a penalty lower than the $13.7 billion the federal government wants for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The company's experts will testify to the effectiveness of BP's effort to minimize the spill's impact.” (Read More)

BP’s finances ‘better today than prior to the oil spill,’ can handle $13.7B fine, witness testifies
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 23, 2015
“BP's financial position is "better today than it was prior to the oil spill," leaving the company more than able to pay the maximum $13.7 billion penalty the government is seeking for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, a forensic accounting expert testified Friday (Jan. 23).” (Read More)

Letter: Restoring Gulf Coast is best outcome from BP disaster
By Rebecca Triche (Louisiana Wildlife Federation), The Advocate. Jan. 25, 2015
“Even before the spill, Louisiana had no shortage of coastal restoration challenges. Obviously, we have considerably more challenges now as a result of the spill. As we get closer to finding out the extent of the damage and how much BP will be fined, we urge everyone to remember why this money is coming to the Gulf.” (Read More)

State coastal experts beginning study to assess costs, benefits of river diversions
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. Jan. 23, 2015
“The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority has begun a study to analyze the effects to the fisheries, the economy and the communities in the receiving basins over the next 50 years if diversions are built, as well as what will happen if nothing is done.” (Read More)

CPRA Chair Jerome Zeringue being replaced by Chip Kline, Gov. Bobby Jindal announces
By Benjamin Alexander-Bloch, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 23, 2015
“Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Jerome " Zee" Zeringue has resigned his position and will be replaced by Chip Kline, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced on Friday (Jan. 23). Kline currently serves as the deputy director for the Governor's Office of Coastal Activities.” (Read More)

Ask the Advocate: That’s an awful lot of football fields
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. Jan. 26, 2015
“When we say 16.6 square miles per year that is hard for anyone to visualize. Put it in terms of a football field, something everyone has seen, and now everyone can understand what a significant problem our state is facing?” (Read More)

Editorial: BP owes Gulf Coast millions
NWF Daily News. Jan. 21, 2015
“The U.S. government is right to insist that BP pay billions of additional dollars in environmental penalties for its 2010 oil spill, and we hope it prevails in federal court in New Orleans.” (Read More)

In oil spill trial, first BP expert witness to testify about effectiveness of response
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 26, 2015
“BP will call its first witnesses Monday (Jan. 26) as it seeks a penalty lower than the $13.7 billion the federal government wants for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The company's experts will testify to the effectiveness of BP's effort to minimize the spill's impact.” (Read More)

BP’s finances ‘better today than prior to the oil spill,’ can handle $13.7B fine, witness testifies
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 23, 2015
“BP's financial position is "better today than it was prior to the oil spill," leaving the company more than able to pay the maximum $13.7 billion penalty the government is seeking for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, a forensic accounting expert testified Friday (Jan. 23).” (Read More)

Letter: Restoring Gulf Coast is best outcome from BP disaster
By Rebecca Triche (Louisiana Wildlife Federation), The Advocate. Jan. 25, 2015
“Even before the spill, Louisiana had no shortage of coastal restoration challenges. Obviously, we have considerably more challenges now as a result of the spill. As we get closer to finding out the extent of the damage and how much BP will be fined, we urge everyone to remember why this money is coming to the Gulf.” (Read More)

State coastal experts beginning study to assess costs, benefits of river diversions
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. Jan. 23, 2015
“The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority has begun a study to analyze the effects to the fisheries, the economy and the communities in the receiving basins over the next 50 years if diversions are built, as well as what will happen if nothing is done.” (Read More)

CPRA Chair Jerome Zeringue being replaced by Chip Kline, Gov. Bobby Jindal announces
By Benjamin Alexander-Bloch, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 23, 2015
“Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Jerome " Zee" Zeringue has resigned his position and will be replaced by Chip Kline, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced on Friday (Jan. 23). Kline currently serves as the deputy director for the Governor's Office of Coastal Activities.” (Read More)

Ask the Advocate: That’s an awful lot of football fields
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. Jan. 26, 2015
“When we say 16.6 square miles per year that is hard for anyone to visualize. Put it in terms of a football field, something everyone has seen, and now everyone can understand what a significant problem our state is facing?” (Read More)

Editorial: BP owes Gulf Coast millions
NWF Daily News. Jan. 21, 2015
“The U.S. government is right to insist that BP pay billions of additional dollars in environmental penalties for its 2010 oil spill, and we hope it prevails in federal court in New Orleans.” (Read More)

We need fertilizers to maintain and increase farm productivity and feed a rapidly growing population, yet 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied to crops is lost to our waterways or into the air. That’s not good – not for the grower, nor  for the environment. I’m optimistic that nutrient losses will soon be trending […]

The post Four incentives that will push fertilizer efficiency to scale first appeared on Growing Returns.

By David Festa

We need fertilizers to maintain and increase farm productivity and feed a rapidly growing population, yet 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied to crops is lost to our waterways or into the air.

That’s not good – not for the grower, nor  for the environment.

I’m optimistic that nutrient losses will soon be trending downward while productivity climbs. Here are four reasons why:

1. California’s proposed crop-based carbon protocol will set a strong precedent.

The California Air Resources Board is considering a crop-based carbon offset protocol that will let American rice growers earn additional revenue for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation.

If the protocol is approved this year, the door will be open for the state’s clean air agency to develop and approve a similar protocol that awards carbon credits for fertilizer optimization. This would give farmers and ranchers additional incentives to use fertilizer more efficiently and drive serious improvements in water quality along with emission reductions.

2. Walmart and food companies are creating demand for sustainably grown grains.

As part of Walmart’s commitment to cutting 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from its supply chain, the company asked its top food suppliers to create fertilizer efficiency plans for their own supply chains.

The 15 companies that responded represent 30 percent of the food and beverage market in North America.

Several of these food companies, such as Smithfield and General Mills, approached Environmental Defense Fund to help them create or implement these efficiency plans and meet Walmart’s demand.

And with Walmart leading the charge for nutrient-efficient grains, look for additional food companies and retailers to get on board with fertilizer optimization.

3. New technologies are helping farmers optimize fertilizer use.

Fertilizer optimization tools are being introduced to the market at a staggering pace. Already, platforms such as SUSTAIN, a fertilizer efficiency and soil health platform run by United Suppliers, and Adapt-N, a breakthrough nitrogen use efficiency tool, are being used by General Mills and others to increase fertilizer efficiency.

This year, we’ll also work with our supply chain collaborators to promote the NutrientStar program, a robust scientific review process that EDF and a team of experts are developing to evaluate these and other tools. The process will make it easier for farmers and agribusiness to select the most effective and appropriate mechanisms to optimize their fertilizer use. It will also help food companies prioritize good tools in their sustainable sourcing plans.

4. Farmers have an incentive to reduce fertilizer costs.

Fertilizers are often applied to crops as a kind of insurance policy to protect yields – if some fertilizer washes away, the goal is to have enough remaining on the field to help sustain optimal crop production.

Yet this can result in unnecessary fertilizer application – and in high costs for farmers, who spend up to 25 percent of their operating costs on fertilizer. Fortunately, the new tools in development can potentially lower farmers’ operating costs while still maintaining high yields – another powerful economic incentive for farmers to optimize their fertilizer use.

By Will Lindsey

The first week of phase III of the BP trial ended on Friday, January 23. During this phase, which is expected to last three weeks, Judge Carl Barbier will determine the amount of Clean Water Act civil penalties that BP must pay for the 2010 Gulf oil disaster.

Phase III comes after two previous phases, the first of which determined that BP was 67 percent responsible for the spill, while phase II determined that 3.19 million barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf after the oil collected was deducted. Given these findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Barbier will now determine what BP will pay. In so determining, Judge Barbier will consider 8 factors laid out in the Clean Water Act for assessing civil penalties, including:

1) the seriousness of the violation or violations,

2) the economic benefit to the violator, if any, resulting from the violation,

3) the degree of culpability involved,

4) any other penalty for the same incident,

5) any history of prior violations,

6) the nature, extent, and degree of success of any efforts to the violator to minimize or mitigate the effects of the discharge,

7) the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and

8) any other matters as justice may require.

Each side will present extensive evidence, primarily in the form of expert testimony, on most of these factors. The United States will not present new evidence on factors that it contends have already been determined, such as the degree of culpability, which was determined in phase II. In addition, the United States will not present new evidence on the economic benefit to BP of the violations, as it contends that phase I dealt with “BP’s cost-cutting decisions.”

However, many of these factors will be adamantly disputed and ultimately a “battle of the experts” will ensue at trial. Each side will attempt to discredit the expert witnesses called by the opposing side. Experts will testify on BP’s ability to pay the maximum penalty, BP’s response efforts, the impact that the spill had on the environment and BP’s economic importance to the Gulf Coast, among other issues.

BP indicated in its opening statement that it will highlight the extent of its response efforts to suggest that impacts were successfully mitigated. It will also highlight the expenditures, both as a result of legal proceedings and otherwise, that it has incurred thus far. The United States will in turn emphasize the fact that response effort successes were a result of efforts carried out by numerous parties and not solely attributable to BP, as it indicated in its opening statement. Additionally, the United States will argue that a reduction of the civil penalties in this proceeding based on other penalties, like the criminal penalty, would mean that BP is effectively not paying these penalties.

Ultimately, the expert reports and testimonies of each side will differ. A clear example can be seen in the expert testimony of Captain Mark VanHaverbeke, who testified that approximately five percent of the oil was removed from the Gulf. He indicated that this estimate is lower than the estimate of BP’s expert, Captain Frank Paskewich, because it does not include oil that was dispersed or burned. Captain VanHaverbeke testified that these two methods do not actually remove the oil from the environment. Captain Paskewich’s estimates included oil that was dispersed and burned.

The Gulf Coast is desperately in need of funding for coastal restoration efforts. The billions of dollars at stake in this litigation could mean great things for coastal restoration efforts in the Gulf Coast. The United States will seek an amount close to the maximum penalty of $13.7 billion.

 

In the months ahead, attacks on climate action will continue. Senators who stand with us can make all the difference, and they deserve our support. Regional. C4.

In the months ahead, attacks on climate action will continue. Senators who stand with us can make all the difference, and they deserve our support. Regional. C4.

In the months ahead, attacks on climate action will continue. Senators who stand with us can make all the difference, and they deserve our support. Regional. C4.

In the months ahead, attacks on climate action will continue. Senators who stand with us can make all the difference, and they deserve our support. Regional. C4.