Aggregator

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

For years, the concept of prioritization as an element of TSCA reform has enjoyed support from a broad array of stakeholders.  The number of chemicals in active commerce is large, if uncertain:  surely less than the 85,000 listed on the TSCA Inventory, but still in the tens of thousands. That sheer number demands that EPA develop and apply a process to decide where to start and how to sequence the enormous task of reviewing the safety of those chemicals. 

There has also been widespread agreement that EPA should make an initial pass using available information to identify three groups of chemicals:  a) those that present significant hazard or exposure potential or both; b) those for which existing information doesn’t raise such concerns; and c) those that need more information to determine their level of concern.

As conceived, prioritization was to be a low-stakes proposition for the various stakeholders, simply the means to get the new system up and running.  Prioritization decisions would not be final actions; rather, they were expressly designed to minimize dispute, and would be barred from legal challenge.  Chemicals identified as high priority and in need of immediate scrutiny would get a more thorough assessment before any decision as to whether they posed significant risk and required a regulatory response.  Chemicals identified as low-priority would be so designated provisionally based on less than a thorough assessment, and could be revisited if and when new information arose.  And chemicals lacking sufficient information to be prioritized would be subject to further data collection and generation, and then funneled back into the prioritization process.

These concepts are well-established both in the outcomes of industry-NGO negotiations and in heavily negotiated provisions of the more recent incarnations of the Safe Chemicals Act.

But then some folks got greedy.  They broke apart a strong consensus on the need and role for prioritization, by insisting on three specific changes that raise the stakes dramatically by transforming prioritization from a sorting and sequencing mechanism into a means of skirting a thorough assessment and avoiding regulation by any level of government.  This sleight of hand was accomplished by:

1. Forcing EPA to make prioritization decisions using only existing information, no matter how insufficient that information is.
2. Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated low-priority, immediately upon such designation.
3. Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated high-priority long before EPA has completed a safety assessment and determination for the chemical.

While it contained other positive elements, all three of these changes are in the introduced version of the Senate’s Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA, S. 1009).  In the House’s original discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA):

• #1 is included.
• #2 is even worse than in CSIA, in that low-priority designations would preempt pre-existing as well as new State requirements.
• #3 is better than in CSIA, in that preemption of either pre-existing or new State requirements for high-priority chemicals would not be triggered until a final safety determination has been made, or for a chemical found not to meet the standard, a final risk management rule has been promulgated.

A few improvements have been proposed in the context of ongoing negotiations on both legislative proposals, but as of this writing the fundamental problems remain.

Let’s look in more detail at each of these moves away from the consensus on prioritization:

1.  Forcing EPA to make prioritization decisions using only existing information, no matter how insufficient that information is. 

Under no circumstances could EPA require development of new information for purposes of prioritization.  Where EPA found available data were insufficient, it would have three options – each of which represents truly bad policy.  EPA could:

• Designate the chemical low-priority despite the data gaps, undermining confidence in the viability of such decisions.
• Designate the chemical high-priority in order to trigger testing authority to fill the data gaps.  This decision would also trigger a mandatory safety assessment and safety determination.  If the data then showed the chemical was low-priority, EPA’s resources would be wasted assessing a chemical that didn’t warrant it.
• Defer the decision, and ask for voluntary submissions of information.  No deadline or even a timeframe is specified for such submissions, nor for subsequent prioritization decisions by EPA – which, even if made, would still be limited to the two unsatisfactory options just noted.  Deferral decisions and the basis for them would not even have to be made public.
  

2.  Preempting states from imposing new [or in CICA, new or pre-existing] requirements on any chemical EPA designated low-priority, immediately upon such designation.

Suddenly, a decision meant to be provisional and based on less than a full safety assessment – one using only already available information and against less than a definitive safety standard – would have sweeping consequences.  The decision would amount to a final agency action, yet would not be judicially reviewable (CICA is ambiguous on this point).  [Senate negotiations have led to a proposal that these decisions be able to be judicially challenged by a State if it first requested EPA to re-prioritize a low-priority chemical and EPA refused.  But that change would hardly address the real problem here, which is that a process meant to broadly sort chemicals would effectively lead to definitive, binding determinations of chemicals’ safety.]

3.  Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated high-priority, long before EPA has completed a safety assessment and determination for the chemical [in CSIA but not in CICA]. 

Under this provision, simply emerging from the prioritization process would trigger preemption – well before any actual determination as to a chemical’s safety had been made.  And because high-priority chemicals must undergo safety assessments and determinations, the consequences of such an early preemptive effect could be even more perverse than for low-priority chemicals:  Companies making such chemicals would have a major incentive to drag out the assessment and determination process for as long as possible, especially if they were concerned it could lead to testing requirements, restrictions or new conditions.  That’s because States would have already been taken out of the picture, and the longer the federal process took, the longer the chemical could be marketed without new requirements.  (Conversely, delaying any preemptive effect until the end of the safety assessment, determination, and where needed risk management rulemaking would provide incentives to efficiently complete that process.)

CSIA and CICA, as introduced, have no deadlines for completion of assessments, determinations and risk management rules.  Negotiations have led to some proposed deadlines, but they would still allow many years for these processes; the last thing we need are incentives to drag things out even longer.

 

Beyond the shockingly bad policy these provisions represent, there is considerable hypocrisy in those who insist on them.  The chemical industry has long argued that decisions on chemicals should be made only after a full risk assessment is conducted based on robust hazard and exposure information.  Yet it supports provisions that would not only stymie EPA’s ability to get the information it needs to make sound prioritization decisions, but would dramatically restrict States’ ability to act to protect their citizens – all in the absence or far in advance of definitive risk-based decisions by EPA.

How can this be fixed?

Restoring the prior consensus and ensuring an effective role for prioritization under a reformed TSCA require the following:

• EPA should have the authority to require development of new information to fill critical gaps needed to support robust prioritization decisions.
• Any deferrals of prioritization decisions to collect additional information must be subject to clear deadlines, and the basis for such deferrals must be made publicly available.
• Low-priority designations must be based on robust information on chemical’s hazards, exposures and uses.  Because such chemicals are to effectively be set aside for an indefinite period of time, it is essential that such decisions be fully informed.
• Low-priority designations should not be preemptive of State authority, as they are not based on a full safety assessment and are made against less than a definitive safety standard. 
• High-priority designations should likewise not have any preemptive effect; any preemption should ensue only after EPA has completed safety assessments and determinations, and where needed, risk management rules, for a chemical.
• With the removal of preemptive effects from low- or high-priority designations, such decisions should not be judicially reviewable.

As a practical matter, a strong federal system will have a strong preemptive effect without legally mandating it:  Few states will undertake to regulate chemicals EPA has designated low-priority through a process in which they have confidence.  Nor would states be likely to target chemicals EPA has designated high-priority if they are confident EPA will be able to complete their safety assessments and determinations in a timely manner.

The good news is that the issues I’ve raised in this post are under active discussion in both houses of Congress.  It is vital that we restore the original vision for a prioritization process under a reformed TSCA, and with it the strong consensus supporting that vision.

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

For years, the concept of prioritization as an element of TSCA reform has enjoyed support from a broad array of stakeholders.  The number of chemicals in active commerce is large, if uncertain:  surely less than the 85,000 listed on the TSCA Inventory, but still in the tens of thousands. That sheer number demands that EPA develop and apply a process to decide where to start and how to sequence the enormous task of reviewing the safety of those chemicals. 

There has also been widespread agreement that EPA should make an initial pass using available information to identify three groups of chemicals:  a) those that present significant hazard or exposure potential or both; b) those for which existing information doesn’t raise such concerns; and c) those that need more information to determine their level of concern.

As conceived, prioritization was to be a low-stakes proposition for the various stakeholders, simply the means to get the new system up and running.  Prioritization decisions would not be final actions; rather, they were expressly designed to minimize dispute, and would be barred from legal challenge.  Chemicals identified as high priority and in need of immediate scrutiny would get a more thorough assessment before any decision as to whether they posed significant risk and required a regulatory response.  Chemicals identified as low-priority would be so designated provisionally based on less than a thorough assessment, and could be revisited if and when new information arose.  And chemicals lacking sufficient information to be prioritized would be subject to further data collection and generation, and then funneled back into the prioritization process.

These concepts are well-established both in the outcomes of industry-NGO negotiations and in heavily negotiated provisions of the more recent incarnations of the Safe Chemicals Act.

But then some folks got greedy.  They broke apart a strong consensus on the need and role for prioritization, by insisting on three specific changes that raise the stakes dramatically by transforming prioritization from a sorting and sequencing mechanism into a means of skirting a thorough assessment and avoiding regulation by any level of government.  This sleight of hand was accomplished by:

1. Forcing EPA to make prioritization decisions using only existing information, no matter how insufficient that information is.
2. Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated low-priority, immediately upon such designation.
3. Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated high-priority long before EPA has completed a safety assessment and determination for the chemical.

While it contained other positive elements, all three of these changes are in the introduced version of the Senate’s Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA, S. 1009).  In the House’s original discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA):

• #1 is included.
• #2 is even worse than in CSIA, in that low-priority designations would preempt pre-existing as well as new State requirements.
• #3 is better than in CSIA, in that preemption of either pre-existing or new State requirements for high-priority chemicals would not be triggered until a final safety determination has been made, or for a chemical found not to meet the standard, a final risk management rule has been promulgated.

A few improvements have been proposed in the context of ongoing negotiations on both legislative proposals, but as of this writing the fundamental problems remain.

Let’s look in more detail at each of these moves away from the consensus on prioritization:

1.  Forcing EPA to make prioritization decisions using only existing information, no matter how insufficient that information is. 

Under no circumstances could EPA require development of new information for purposes of prioritization.  Where EPA found available data were insufficient, it would have three options – each of which represents truly bad policy.  EPA could:

• Designate the chemical low-priority despite the data gaps, undermining confidence in the viability of such decisions.
• Designate the chemical high-priority in order to trigger testing authority to fill the data gaps.  This decision would also trigger a mandatory safety assessment and safety determination.  If the data then showed the chemical was low-priority, EPA’s resources would be wasted assessing a chemical that didn’t warrant it.
• Defer the decision, and ask for voluntary submissions of information.  No deadline or even a timeframe is specified for such submissions, nor for subsequent prioritization decisions by EPA – which, even if made, would still be limited to the two unsatisfactory options just noted.  Deferral decisions and the basis for them would not even have to be made public.
  

2.  Preempting states from imposing new [or in CICA, new or pre-existing] requirements on any chemical EPA designated low-priority, immediately upon such designation.

Suddenly, a decision meant to be provisional and based on less than a full safety assessment – one using only already available information and against less than a definitive safety standard – would have sweeping consequences.  The decision would amount to a final agency action, yet would not be judicially reviewable (CICA is ambiguous on this point).  [Senate negotiations have led to a proposal that these decisions be able to be judicially challenged by a State if it first requested EPA to re-prioritize a low-priority chemical and EPA refused.  But that change would hardly address the real problem here, which is that a process meant to broadly sort chemicals would effectively lead to definitive, binding determinations of chemicals’ safety.]

3.  Preempting states from imposing new requirements on any chemical EPA designated high-priority, long before EPA has completed a safety assessment and determination for the chemical [in CSIA but not in CICA]. 

Under this provision, simply emerging from the prioritization process would trigger preemption – well before any actual determination as to a chemical’s safety had been made.  And because high-priority chemicals must undergo safety assessments and determinations, the consequences of such an early preemptive effect could be even more perverse than for low-priority chemicals:  Companies making such chemicals would have a major incentive to drag out the assessment and determination process for as long as possible, especially if they were concerned it could lead to testing requirements, restrictions or new conditions.  That’s because States would have already been taken out of the picture, and the longer the federal process took, the longer the chemical could be marketed without new requirements.  (Conversely, delaying any preemptive effect until the end of the safety assessment, determination, and where needed risk management rulemaking would provide incentives to efficiently complete that process.)

CSIA and CICA, as introduced, have no deadlines for completion of assessments, determinations and risk management rules.  Negotiations have led to some proposed deadlines, but they would still allow many years for these processes; the last thing we need are incentives to drag things out even longer.

 

Beyond the shockingly bad policy these provisions represent, there is considerable hypocrisy in those who insist on them.  The chemical industry has long argued that decisions on chemicals should be made only after a full risk assessment is conducted based on robust hazard and exposure information.  Yet it supports provisions that would not only stymie EPA’s ability to get the information it needs to make sound prioritization decisions, but would dramatically restrict States’ ability to act to protect their citizens – all in the absence or far in advance of definitive risk-based decisions by EPA.

How can this be fixed?

Restoring the prior consensus and ensuring an effective role for prioritization under a reformed TSCA require the following:

• EPA should have the authority to require development of new information to fill critical gaps needed to support robust prioritization decisions.
• Any deferrals of prioritization decisions to collect additional information must be subject to clear deadlines, and the basis for such deferrals must be made publicly available.
• Low-priority designations must be based on robust information on chemical’s hazards, exposures and uses.  Because such chemicals are to effectively be set aside for an indefinite period of time, it is essential that such decisions be fully informed.
• Low-priority designations should not be preemptive of State authority, as they are not based on a full safety assessment and are made against less than a definitive safety standard. 
• High-priority designations should likewise not have any preemptive effect; any preemption should ensue only after EPA has completed safety assessments and determinations, and where needed, risk management rules, for a chemical.
• With the removal of preemptive effects from low- or high-priority designations, such decisions should not be judicially reviewable.

As a practical matter, a strong federal system will have a strong preemptive effect without legally mandating it:  Few states will undertake to regulate chemicals EPA has designated low-priority through a process in which they have confidence.  Nor would states be likely to target chemicals EPA has designated high-priority if they are confident EPA will be able to complete their safety assessments and determinations in a timely manner.

The good news is that the issues I’ve raised in this post are under active discussion in both houses of Congress.  It is vital that we restore the original vision for a prioritization process under a reformed TSCA, and with it the strong consensus supporting that vision.

 

The BP spill four years later
By David Yarnold, McClatchy News. April 21, 2014.
“Four years after the largest offshore oil disaster in U.S. history, scientists are still trying to come to terms with the toll that the Deepwater Horizon…” (read more)

BP Oil spill four years later: Return to Barataria Bay and Cat Island
By Julia Kumari Drapkin, The Times-Picayune. April 18, 2014.
“When a crew of journalists and environmental groups studying the effects of the BP Deepwater Macondo oil spill…” (read more)

Kaderka: Deepwater Horizon disaster continues to harm environment
Opinion by Susan Kaderka, The Houston Chronicle. April 19, 2014.
“This week, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill…” (read more)

Evidence shows gulf wildlife continues to suffer 4 years after spill
By Chris Miller, WWL Radio (New Orleans, La.). April 19, 2014.
“Easter Sunday this weekend also happens to be the fourth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion …” (read more)

4 years after spill, work far from over
Editorial by The Tampa Bay Times. April 18, 2014.
“The nation has made uneven progress in the four years since the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig exploded…” (read more)

Mississippi River will carry enough sand needed to build new Louisiana wetlands for at least 600 years, new study says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 20, 2014.
“The lower Mississippi River should carry enough sand during the next six centuries to supply the needs of sediment-capturing diversions…” (read more)

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill at a glance
By the Associated Press. April 18, 2014.
“April 20 marks the fourth anniversary of an explosion on the BP-operated drilling rig Deepwater Horizon…” (read more)

Final phase of BP oil spill trial scheduled for nearly two weeks in January
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. April 21, 2014.
“A federal judge has finalized the timeline for the last phase of the massive BP oil spill trial next year…” (read more)

Four Years Later, Full Effects of Deepwater Horizon Still Unknown
By Cindy Shogan, The Huffington Post Green. April 17, 2014.
“On April 20, 2010, the largest environmental disaster occurred in our country…” (read more)

Deepwater Horizon four years later: A video retrospective
By Dennis Pillion, AL.com. April 18, 2014.
“This Sunday marks the four-year anniversary of the explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform…” (read more)

Four Years Later, BP Oil Spill Still Taking A Toll On Gulf Fisherman: 'We Haven't Started To Recover'
By Nick Visser, The Huffington Post Green. April 20, 2014.
“The BP oil spill, often called the worst man-made environmental disaster of our time, first began four years ago today…” (read more)

Search for oil from 2010 spill scaled back but not over
By Xerxes Wilson and Jason Batte, The Houma Courier (Houma, La.). April 19, 2014.
“For the first time in four years, all was quiet last week on the island beaches off southern Lafourche Parish…” (read more)

4 Years After Spill Dauphin Island Still Recovering (+video)
By Allen Carter, WKRG. April 19, 2014.
“Sunday will mark the four year anniversary since Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Baldwin County Four Years After The BP Oil Spill
By Pat Peterson, WKRG TV (Ala.). April 20, 2014.
“In the spring and summer of 2010, Baldwin County's beaches looked like a war zone…” (read more)

Southeast Louisiana coastal restoration, hurricane protection are new, booming 'water management' economic sector, Data Center says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 20, 2014.
“Southeast Louisiana’s economy, long dependent on the oil and gas, shipping and tourism industries…” (read more)

Gulf Coast residents moving inland, more commuting to jobs
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 20, 2014.
“A new report confirms what anyone trying to get through Belle Chasse in the early morning…” (read more)

People leaving Louisiana's vanishing coast behind
By the Associated Press. April 20, 2014.
“A new report says commuting statistics indicate that coastal parishes are losing residents because of coastal erosion…” (read more)

Telltale Rainbow Sheens Reveal Thousands Of Unreported Oil Spills In The Gulf
By Bob Marshall, WWNO (New Orleans, La.). April 20, 2014.
“Jonathan Henderson of New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network is flying Louisiana's coast looking for oil. As usual, he's found some…” (read more)

The BP spill four years later
By David Yarnold, McClatchy News. April 21, 2014.
“Four years after the largest offshore oil disaster in U.S. history, scientists are still trying to come to terms with the toll that the Deepwater Horizon…” (read more)

BP Oil spill four years later: Return to Barataria Bay and Cat Island
By Julia Kumari Drapkin, The Times-Picayune. April 18, 2014.
“When a crew of journalists and environmental groups studying the effects of the BP Deepwater Macondo oil spill…” (read more)

Kaderka: Deepwater Horizon disaster continues to harm environment
Opinion by Susan Kaderka, The Houston Chronicle. April 19, 2014.
“This week, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill…” (read more)

Evidence shows gulf wildlife continues to suffer 4 years after spill
By Chris Miller, WWL Radio (New Orleans, La.). April 19, 2014.
“Easter Sunday this weekend also happens to be the fourth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion …” (read more)

4 years after spill, work far from over
Editorial by The Tampa Bay Times. April 18, 2014.
“The nation has made uneven progress in the four years since the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig exploded…” (read more)

Mississippi River will carry enough sand needed to build new Louisiana wetlands for at least 600 years, new study says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 20, 2014.
“The lower Mississippi River should carry enough sand during the next six centuries to supply the needs of sediment-capturing diversions…” (read more)

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill at a glance
By the Associated Press. April 18, 2014.
“April 20 marks the fourth anniversary of an explosion on the BP-operated drilling rig Deepwater Horizon…” (read more)

Final phase of BP oil spill trial scheduled for nearly two weeks in January
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. April 21, 2014.
“A federal judge has finalized the timeline for the last phase of the massive BP oil spill trial next year…” (read more)

Four Years Later, Full Effects of Deepwater Horizon Still Unknown
By Cindy Shogan, The Huffington Post Green. April 17, 2014.
“On April 20, 2010, the largest environmental disaster occurred in our country…” (read more)

Deepwater Horizon four years later: A video retrospective
By Dennis Pillion, AL.com. April 18, 2014.
“This Sunday marks the four-year anniversary of the explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform…” (read more)

Four Years Later, BP Oil Spill Still Taking A Toll On Gulf Fisherman: 'We Haven't Started To Recover'
By Nick Visser, The Huffington Post Green. April 20, 2014.
“The BP oil spill, often called the worst man-made environmental disaster of our time, first began four years ago today…” (read more)

Search for oil from 2010 spill scaled back but not over
By Xerxes Wilson and Jason Batte, The Houma Courier (Houma, La.). April 19, 2014.
“For the first time in four years, all was quiet last week on the island beaches off southern Lafourche Parish…” (read more)

4 Years After Spill Dauphin Island Still Recovering (+video)
By Allen Carter, WKRG. April 19, 2014.
“Sunday will mark the four year anniversary since Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico…” (read more)

Baldwin County Four Years After The BP Oil Spill
By Pat Peterson, WKRG TV (Ala.). April 20, 2014.
“In the spring and summer of 2010, Baldwin County's beaches looked like a war zone…” (read more)

Southeast Louisiana coastal restoration, hurricane protection are new, booming 'water management' economic sector, Data Center says
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 20, 2014.
“Southeast Louisiana’s economy, long dependent on the oil and gas, shipping and tourism industries…” (read more)

Gulf Coast residents moving inland, more commuting to jobs
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 20, 2014.
“A new report confirms what anyone trying to get through Belle Chasse in the early morning…” (read more)

People leaving Louisiana's vanishing coast behind
By the Associated Press. April 20, 2014.
“A new report says commuting statistics indicate that coastal parishes are losing residents because of coastal erosion…” (read more)

Telltale Rainbow Sheens Reveal Thousands Of Unreported Oil Spills In The Gulf
By Bob Marshall, WWNO (New Orleans, La.). April 20, 2014.
“Jonathan Henderson of New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network is flying Louisiana's coast looking for oil. As usual, he's found some…” (read more)

By Elena Craft, PhD

Source: AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

This past Thursday marked one year since a fire caused a fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas to explode, killing 15 people, injuring over 300, and scaring a small Texas town forever. Since the West tragedy shocked Texas and the nation, it has become increasingly clear that the explosion could have been prevented had common-sense regulations—like a statewide fire code—been in place. Nevertheless, Texas leaders and state officials have failed to propose, much less adopt, a single common sense safeguard to prevent future tragedies. The anniversary of the West explosion reminds us of the urgent need for proactive measures to prevent a disaster of this magnitude from happening again.

Even before the West explosion, there were a string of industrial accidents across the state over recent years, reminding us that Texas should be doing a better job at managing the industrial sector.

• BP Refinery in Texas City – 2011

In November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at a BP refinery in Texas City; the odor was so potent 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital.

• Magnablend Chemical Plant Fire – 2011

A fire broke out at Magnablend, Inc. in Waxahachie, Texas, caused by the blending of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid. This led to the evacuation of an apartment complex, an elementary school, a junior college, and nearly 1,000 residents who lived close to the chemical plant.

• Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill – 2010

By far, the most horrific pollution incident over the last decade, where a fire burned for 36 hours before the oil rig sank. Eleven people died and 17 were injured from the explosion.

• American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) – 2009

A Center for Disease Control study found over half of the children living within a mile of the smelter had levels of lead in their blood four times the limit considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency.

• BP Refinery in Texas City – 2005

On March 23, 2005, an explosion killed 15 employees and injured 170 as a result of risky working conditions.

While not every disaster can be prevented, it seems reasonable to think that some simple, common sense measures should be adopted to ensure that the lives lost in the West explosion (and the over 400 other industrial fatalities that happen each year in this state) were not lost in vain.

Common sense safeguards:

• Implement a statewide fire code
• Increase the number of inspections at facilities
• Enforce meaningful penalties when facilities don’t follow the rules
• Create more safety rules regarding storage of risky chemicals
• Implement siting criteria of facilities
• Increase training opportunities for emergency responders

EDF calls upon state leaders and agency officials to stop finger pointing and to assess how we can use the lessons learned in West to prevent future disasters and save lives. I hope that one year from now, on the second anniversary of the tragedy, we will be a little closer to living in a state where preventable industrial accidents like the West explosion are a thing of the past.

By Elena Craft, PhD

Source: AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

This past Thursday marked one year since a fire caused a fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas to explode, killing 15 people, injuring over 300, and scaring a small Texas town forever. Since the West tragedy shocked Texas and the nation, it has become increasingly clear that the explosion could have been prevented had common-sense regulations—like a statewide fire code—been in place. Nevertheless, Texas leaders and state officials have failed to propose, much less adopt, a single common sense safeguard to prevent future tragedies. The anniversary of the West explosion reminds us of the urgent need for proactive measures to prevent a disaster of this magnitude from happening again.

Even before the West explosion, there were a string of industrial accidents across the state over recent years, reminding us that Texas should be doing a better job at managing the industrial sector.

• BP Refinery in Texas City – 2011

In November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at a BP refinery in Texas City; the odor was so potent 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital.

• Magnablend Chemical Plant Fire – 2011

A fire broke out at Magnablend, Inc. in Waxahachie, Texas, caused by the blending of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid. This led to the evacuation of an apartment complex, an elementary school, a junior college, and nearly 1,000 residents who lived close to the chemical plant.

• Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill – 2010

By far, the most horrific pollution incident over the last decade, where a fire burned for 36 hours before the oil rig sank. Eleven people died and 17 were injured from the explosion.

• American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) – 2009

A Center for Disease Control study found over half of the children living within a mile of the smelter had levels of lead in their blood four times the limit considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency.

• BP Refinery in Texas City – 2005

On March 23, 2005, an explosion killed 15 employees and injured 170 as a result of risky working conditions.

While not every disaster can be prevented, it seems reasonable to think that some simple, common sense measures should be adopted to ensure that the lives lost in the West explosion (and the over 400 other industrial fatalities that happen each year in this state) were not lost in vain.

Common sense safeguards:

• Implement a statewide fire code
• Increase the number of inspections at facilities
• Enforce meaningful penalties when facilities don’t follow the rules
• Create more safety rules regarding storage of risky chemicals
• Implement siting criteria of facilities
• Increase training opportunities for emergency responders

EDF calls upon state leaders and agency officials to stop finger pointing and to assess how we can use the lessons learned in West to prevent future disasters and save lives. I hope that one year from now, on the second anniversary of the tragedy, we will be a little closer to living in a state where preventable industrial accidents like the West explosion are a thing of the past.

April 21, 2014

By: Dan Whittle, Kendra Karr & Owen Liu With support from the Waitt Foundation, EDF launched an initiative last year with the University of Havana's Center for Marine Research that allowed teams of Cuban, U.S. and Mexican scientists to carry out a series of expeditions to conduct vital new research on Cuba's remarkable—but understudied—marine and […]

By: Dan Whittle, Kendra Karr & Owen Liu With support from the Waitt Foundation, EDF launched an initiative last year with the University of Havana's Center for Marine Research that allowed teams of Cuban, U.S. and Mexican scientists to carry out a series of expeditions to conduct vital new research on Cuba's remarkable—but understudied—marine and […]

By Cheryl Roberto

How does Demand Response reduce electricity use? from Environmental Defense Fund

Clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and energy efficiency, have certain key advantages over traditional, fossil fuel-based resources: they don’t require expensive, polluting fuels or large capital investment, consume little to no water, generate negligible carbon emissions, and are easily scalable. To take full advantage of low-carbon, renewable energy sources, we need a power grid with enough flexibility to harness clean energy when it is available and abundant. That’s where demand response, a people-driven solution, comes in.

On a hot summer day, for example, electricity use rapidly increases as people turn on air conditioners to avoid the heat of the late afternoon. A decade ago, the grid operator’s only option is to turn on another fossil fuel power plant to meet the increased need for electricity. But, at any given time, there are thousands of light switches left on, idle water heaters, cycling swimming pool pumps, and forgotten thermostats that people could temporarily turn off or down, if only they were offered the right incentive. If asked, people can adjust their power usage in exchange for a financial reward. We call this “demand response,” and it is increasingly helping to balance the flow of electricity with our energy needs at a given moment.

Demand response diverts money that would generally go to a fossil fuel power plant to homeowners and businesses instead. In this scenario, a utility or demand response provider sends a message for participants to reduce electricity use at key times in exchange for a credit or rebate on their utility bill, in addition to the cost savings they will earn through conservation. Of course, participants always have the option to opt-out with the tap of a button on their smart phone or thermostat.

While demand response might sound unconventional, it is actually a traditional, common-sense economic idea that has not been adequately applied within the electricity sector. In any market, customers are often encouraged to tweak their behaviors in return for a potential reward. When was the last time you were asked to give up your seat on a flight after the airline overbooked the plane? The airlines either offer money or a free plane ticket if you take a later flight.

Demand response can do the same thing for electricity, incentivizing more energy use when inexpensive, carbon-free renewable energy is abundant, and discouraging non-essential energy use when an additional, fossil-fueled power plant may need to be turned on.

Best of all, demand response is more affordable than constructing new power plants. As utilities invest around two trillion dollars over the next two decades to modernize our century-old electric grid, technology and people will play a larger role in deciding how power is produced and used.

Demand response adds a people-driven dynamic to the power grid, transforming our electricity system from a one-way, centralized power network in which customers passively receive electricity, to a more localized, two-way flow of power and information where both parties gain. Plus, we will all benefit from enhanced reliability on the power grid, as well as curbing energy use during the hottest and coldest months, offsetting the need for expensive, inefficient, and dirty ‘peaker’ plants generally only used to generate power several dozen hours per year during these periods of extreme weather.

If we are going to meet the challenge of climate change, we will have to accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy with innovative, user-friendly technology that puts people in the driver’s seat. Demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment, and will unlock a future that relies on the intelligent, resilient, and clean energy solutions. Let’s put it to work for us.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Cheryl Roberto

How does Demand Response reduce electricity use? from Environmental Defense Fund

Clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and energy efficiency, have certain key advantages over traditional, fossil fuel-based resources: they don’t require expensive, polluting fuels or large capital investment, consume little to no water, generate negligible carbon emissions, and are easily scalable. To take full advantage of low-carbon, renewable energy sources, we need a power grid with enough flexibility to harness clean energy when it is available and abundant. That’s where demand response, a people-driven solution, comes in.

On a hot summer day, for example, electricity use rapidly increases as people turn on air conditioners to avoid the heat of the late afternoon. A decade ago, the grid operator’s only option is to turn on another fossil fuel power plant to meet the increased need for electricity. But, at any given time, there are thousands of light switches left on, idle water heaters, cycling swimming pool pumps, and forgotten thermostats that people could temporarily turn off or down, if only they were offered the right incentive. If asked, people can adjust their power usage in exchange for a financial reward. We call this “demand response,” and it is increasingly helping to balance the flow of electricity with our energy needs at a given moment.

Demand response diverts money that would generally go to a fossil fuel power plant to homeowners and businesses instead. In this scenario, a utility or demand response provider sends a message for participants to reduce electricity use at key times in exchange for a credit or rebate on their utility bill, in addition to the cost savings they will earn through conservation. Of course, participants always have the option to opt-out with the tap of a button on their smart phone or thermostat.

While demand response might sound unconventional, it is actually a traditional, common-sense economic idea that has not been adequately applied within the electricity sector. In any market, customers are often encouraged to tweak their behaviors in return for a potential reward. When was the last time you were asked to give up your seat on a flight after the airline overbooked the plane? The airlines either offer money or a free plane ticket if you take a later flight.

Demand response can do the same thing for electricity, incentivizing more energy use when inexpensive, carbon-free renewable energy is abundant, and discouraging non-essential energy use when an additional, fossil-fueled power plant may need to be turned on.

Best of all, demand response is more affordable than constructing new power plants. As utilities invest around two trillion dollars over the next two decades to modernize our century-old electric grid, technology and people will play a larger role in deciding how power is produced and used.

Demand response adds a people-driven dynamic to the power grid, transforming our electricity system from a one-way, centralized power network in which customers passively receive electricity, to a more localized, two-way flow of power and information where both parties gain. Plus, we will all benefit from enhanced reliability on the power grid, as well as curbing energy use during the hottest and coldest months, offsetting the need for expensive, inefficient, and dirty ‘peaker’ plants generally only used to generate power several dozen hours per year during these periods of extreme weather.

If we are going to meet the challenge of climate change, we will have to accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy with innovative, user-friendly technology that puts people in the driver’s seat. Demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment, and will unlock a future that relies on the intelligent, resilient, and clean energy solutions. Let’s put it to work for us.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

How does Demand Response reduce electricity use? from Environmental Defense Fund Clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and energy efficiency, have certain key advantages over traditional, fossil fuel-based resources: they don’t require expensive, polluting fuels or large capital investment, consume little to no water, generate negligible carbon emissions, and are easily scalable. To take full […]

By Cheryl Roberto

How does Demand Response reduce electricity use? from Environmental Defense Fund

Clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and energy efficiency, have certain key advantages over traditional, fossil fuel-based resources: they don’t require expensive, polluting fuels or large capital investment, consume little to no water, generate negligible carbon emissions, and are easily scalable. To take full advantage of low-carbon, renewable energy sources, we need a power grid with enough flexibility to harness clean energy when it is available and abundant. That’s where demand response, a people-driven solution, comes in.

On a hot summer day, for example, electricity use rapidly increases as people turn on air conditioners to avoid the heat of the late afternoon. A decade ago, the grid operator’s only option is to turn on another fossil fuel power plant to meet the increased need for electricity. But, at any given time, there are thousands of light switches left on, idle water heaters, cycling swimming pool pumps, and forgotten thermostats that people could temporarily turn off or down, if only they were offered the right incentive. If asked, people can adjust their power usage in exchange for a financial reward. We call this “demand response,” and it is increasingly helping to balance the flow of electricity with our energy needs at a given moment.

Demand response diverts money that would generally go to a fossil fuel power plant to homeowners and businesses instead. In this scenario, a utility or demand response provider sends a message for participants to reduce electricity use at key times in exchange for a credit or rebate on their utility bill, in addition to the cost savings they will earn through conservation. Of course, participants always have the option to opt-out with the tap of a button on their smart phone or thermostat.

While demand response might sound unconventional, it is actually a traditional, common-sense economic idea that has not been adequately applied within the electricity sector. In any market, customers are often encouraged to tweak their behaviors in return for a potential reward. When was the last time you were asked to give up your seat on a flight after the airline overbooked the plane? The airlines either offer money or a free plane ticket if you take a later flight.

Demand response can do the same thing for electricity, incentivizing more energy use when inexpensive, carbon-free renewable energy is abundant, and discouraging non-essential energy use when an additional, fossil-fueled power plant may need to be turned on.

Best of all, demand response is more affordable than constructing new power plants. As utilities invest around two trillion dollars over the next two decades to modernize our century-old electric grid, technology and people will play a larger role in deciding how power is produced and used.

Demand response adds a people-driven dynamic to the power grid, transforming our electricity system from a one-way, centralized power network in which customers passively receive electricity, to a more localized, two-way flow of power and information where both parties gain. Plus, we  will all benefit from enhanced reliability on the power grid, as well as curbing energy use during the hottest and coldest months, offsetting the need for expensive, inefficient, and dirty ‘peaker’ plants generally only used to generate power several dozen hours per year during these periods of extreme weather.

If we are going to meet the challenge of climate change, we will have to accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy with innovative, user-friendly technology that puts people in the driver’s seat. Demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment, and will unlock a future that relies on the intelligent, resilient, and clean energy solutions. Let’s put it to work for us.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog. 

By Cheryl Roberto

How does Demand Response reduce electricity use? from Environmental Defense Fund

Clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and energy efficiency, have certain key advantages over traditional, fossil fuel-based resources: they don’t require expensive, polluting fuels or large capital investment, consume little to no water, generate negligible carbon emissions, and are easily scalable. To take full advantage of low-carbon, renewable energy sources, we need a power grid with enough flexibility to harness clean energy when it is available and abundant. That’s where demand response, a people-driven solution, comes in.

On a hot summer day, for example, electricity use rapidly increases as people turn on air conditioners to avoid the heat of the late afternoon. A decade ago, the grid operator’s only option is to turn on another fossil fuel power plant to meet the increased need for electricity. But, at any given time, there are thousands of light switches left on, idle water heaters, cycling swimming pool pumps, and forgotten thermostats that people could temporarily turn off or down, if only they were offered the right incentive. If asked, people can adjust their power usage in exchange for a financial reward. We call this “demand response,” and it is increasingly helping to balance the flow of electricity with our energy needs at a given moment.

Demand response diverts money that would generally go to a fossil fuel power plant to homeowners and businesses instead. In this scenario, a utility or demand response provider sends a message for participants to reduce electricity use at key times in exchange for a credit or rebate on their utility bill, in addition to the cost savings they will earn through conservation. Of course, participants always have the option to opt-out with the tap of a button on their smart phone or thermostat.

While demand response might sound unconventional, it is actually a traditional, common-sense economic idea that has not been adequately applied within the electricity sector. In any market, customers are often encouraged to tweak their behaviors in return for a potential reward. When was the last time you were asked to give up your seat on a flight after the airline overbooked the plane? The airlines either offer money or a free plane ticket if you take a later flight.

Demand response can do the same thing for electricity, incentivizing more energy use when inexpensive, carbon-free renewable energy is abundant, and discouraging non-essential energy use when an additional, fossil-fueled power plant may need to be turned on.

Best of all, demand response is more affordable than constructing new power plants. As utilities invest around two trillion dollars over the next two decades to modernize our century-old electric grid, technology and people will play a larger role in deciding how power is produced and used.

Demand response adds a people-driven dynamic to the power grid, transforming our electricity system from a one-way, centralized power network in which customers passively receive electricity, to a more localized, two-way flow of power and information where both parties gain. Plus, we  will all benefit from enhanced reliability on the power grid, as well as curbing energy use during the hottest and coldest months, offsetting the need for expensive, inefficient, and dirty ‘peaker’ plants generally only used to generate power several dozen hours per year during these periods of extreme weather.

If we are going to meet the challenge of climate change, we will have to accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy with innovative, user-friendly technology that puts people in the driver’s seat. Demand response is good for people, businesses, and the environment, and will unlock a future that relies on the intelligent, resilient, and clean energy solutions. Let’s put it to work for us.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog. 

By Cynthia Duet, Director of Governmental Relations, Audubon Louisiana

On May 24, 2013, a curious, if not uncomfortable, rhetorical question was posed in bold red lettering in an article from The Lens by Representative Brett Geymann, R-Lake Charles. He asked, “Do you think when we created the Coastal Restoration Fund, it was meant to be used for money-laundering?” 

Our groups believe the answer to be an unqualified “No” and therefore are supporting a bill this legislative session – HB 490, authored by Rep. Geymann – intended to close the loophole on further questionable manipulation of the state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund (Coastal Fund).

At issue here is a financing tactic that has been implemented within the last several years as a creative solution to attempt to balance the state’s ailing budget. While the Louisiana Constitution prohibits using one-time money for recurring costs, such as health care and higher education, the administration and some lawmakers believe they can get around that rule by transferring money into, and then out of, the Coastal Fund, which can accept such one-time monies. State officials have repeatedly said that these transfers are allowable under state law.

The uses of the dollars in the Coastal Fund are defined specifically in the Louisiana Constitution, Article VII, Section 10.2(D), which states:

“The money in the fund may be appropriated for purposes consistent with the Coastal Protection Plan developed by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, or its successor.

No appropriation shall be made from the fund inconsistent with the purposes of the plan.”

We believe this language is abundantly clear and that the current machinations of the Coastal Fund erode its integrity and may threaten many millions of future dollars for coastal protection and restoration efforts essential to the state’s true coastal recovery. 

Yet still in 2012, the so-called “fund sweep” bill (Act 597) provided for transfer of more than $21 million of non-recurring revenue from the state general fund to the Coastal Fund, and then the same value was transferred from the Coastal Fund into the state’s general fund and treated as recurring revenues. In 2013, an attempt was made to place more than $87 million of 2011-12 surplus dollars into the Coastal Fund, and then provided for that same value ($87.3 million) in “recurring” revenues to be placed into the state’s general fund (through an amendment to SB 226 that did not ultimately make its way into law). This session, nearly $51 million in non-recurring revenue are slated to be transferred from the Office of Debt Collection, initiatives from the Department of Revenue and other sources, into the Coastal Fund and then taken from that fund to pay for education, elderly affairs and libraries.

The perception of impropriety created by these budget tactics, particularly at this most critical time in the implementation phase of Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan, sends the wrong message to federal partners in charge of allocating and tracking dollars from Clean Water Act fines related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and related sources of funding.

Tomorrow, the Louisiana House Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to consider House Bill 490, which would put a stop to the current money manipulations. The bill adds succinct, qualifying language to the aforementioned section of the constitution that would prohibit not only appropriations from the Coastal Fund, but also pass-through transfers. Rep. Geymann’s bill would take effect by next year’s budget process, closing the loophole and disallowing the current finagling of the restoration account. We fully support the passage of this constitutional amendment so that the Coastal Fund can continue to enjoy the protections provided for it by the voters of this state in 2006 – through another constitutional amendment – which passed by an overwhelming majority.

Continued use of the Coastal Fund for accounting manipulation brings negative attention to an otherwise well-run coastal program and risks the state’s opportunity for BP oil spill recovery dollars. We must continue the fight to ensure the Coastal Fund is fully protected and used solely for coastal restoration and protection.

Take Action: Call your Louisiana state representative and tell them to close the loophole on transfers from the Coastal Fund other than those intended by law, by supporting HB 490.

By Cynthia Duet, Director of Governmental Relations, Audubon Louisiana

On May 24, 2013, a curious, if not uncomfortable, rhetorical question was posed in bold red lettering in an article from The Lens by Representative Brett Geymann, R-Lake Charles. He asked, “Do you think when we created the Coastal Restoration Fund, it was meant to be used for money-laundering?” 

Our groups believe the answer to be an unqualified “No” and therefore are supporting a bill this legislative session – HB 490, authored by Rep. Geymann – intended to close the loophole on further questionable manipulation of the state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund (Coastal Fund).

At issue here is a financing tactic that has been implemented within the last several years as a creative solution to attempt to balance the state’s ailing budget. While the Louisiana Constitution prohibits using one-time money for recurring costs, such as health care and higher education, the administration and some lawmakers believe they can get around that rule by transferring money into, and then out of, the Coastal Fund, which can accept such one-time monies. State officials have repeatedly said that these transfers are allowable under state law.

The uses of the dollars in the Coastal Fund are defined specifically in the Louisiana Constitution, Article VII, Section 10.2(D), which states:

“The money in the fund may be appropriated for purposes consistent with the Coastal Protection Plan developed by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, or its successor.

No appropriation shall be made from the fund inconsistent with the purposes of the plan.”

We believe this language is abundantly clear and that the current machinations of the Coastal Fund erode its integrity and may threaten many millions of future dollars for coastal protection and restoration efforts essential to the state’s true coastal recovery. 

Yet still in 2012, the so-called “fund sweep” bill (Act 597) provided for transfer of more than $21 million of non-recurring revenue from the state general fund to the Coastal Fund, and then the same value was transferred from the Coastal Fund into the state’s general fund and treated as recurring revenues. In 2013, an attempt was made to place more than $87 million of 2011-12 surplus dollars into the Coastal Fund, and then provided for that same value ($87.3 million) in “recurring” revenues to be placed into the state’s general fund (through an amendment to SB 226 that did not ultimately make its way into law). This session, nearly $51 million in non-recurring revenue are slated to be transferred from the Office of Debt Collection, initiatives from the Department of Revenue and other sources, into the Coastal Fund and then taken from that fund to pay for education, elderly affairs and libraries.

The perception of impropriety created by these budget tactics, particularly at this most critical time in the implementation phase of Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan, sends the wrong message to federal partners in charge of allocating and tracking dollars from Clean Water Act fines related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and related sources of funding.

Tomorrow, the Louisiana House Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to consider House Bill 490, which would put a stop to the current money manipulations. The bill adds succinct, qualifying language to the aforementioned section of the constitution that would prohibit not only appropriations from the Coastal Fund, but also pass-through transfers. Rep. Geymann’s bill would take effect by next year’s budget process, closing the loophole and disallowing the current finagling of the restoration account. We fully support the passage of this constitutional amendment so that the Coastal Fund can continue to enjoy the protections provided for it by the voters of this state in 2006 – through another constitutional amendment – which passed by an overwhelming majority.

Continued use of the Coastal Fund for accounting manipulation brings negative attention to an otherwise well-run coastal program and risks the state’s opportunity for BP oil spill recovery dollars. We must continue the fight to ensure the Coastal Fund is fully protected and used solely for coastal restoration and protection.

Take Action: Call your Louisiana state representative and tell them to close the loophole on transfers from the Coastal Fund other than those intended by law, by supporting HB 490.

April 21, 2014

By Emily Reyna and Larissa Koehler To mark the 44th Earth Day, EDF has released a new Green Roads map celebrating clean transportation, an economic sector that is helping the Earth by producing groundbreaking and sustainable technologies. We Californians like to drive, but unfortunately our dependence on petroleum is harming our state, giving us the […]

By Emily Reyna

By Emily Reyna and Larissa Koehler

To mark the 44th Earth Day, EDF has released a new Green Roads map celebrating clean transportation, an economic sector that is helping the Earth by producing groundbreaking and sustainable technologies.

We Californians like to drive, but unfortunately our dependence on petroleum is harming our state, giving us the nation’s most polluted cities and the state’s biggest contributor to climate pollution (see the graph).

California greenhouse gas emissions by sector. Source: California Air Resources Board – May 2013 Investment Plan

Fortunately, state policies like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and the AB 32 cap-and-trade program are helping to reduce damaging greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, while bolstering California’s economy and allowing green companies to grow and thrive.  In fact the number of clean transportation jobs in California tripled from 2001-2011.

In partnership with CALSTART and Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), Green Roads showcases over 300 companies in 400 locations in California that are in the trenches advancing clean transportation and our low-carbon future.  This includes a wide array of companies and functions, from electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla, to biofuel producers like Community Fuels, and the investment firms that help them get off the ground.

The people working in the hundreds of businesses listed in Green Roads agree that California’s clean transportation policies are ushering in positive change. As Ricky Hanna, CEO, Electric Vehicles International states:

“Electric Vehicles International (EVI), formerly headquartered in Mexico, moved our operations to California in 2009 due in part to California’s leading air quality polices, including AB 32 and AB 118,  designed to help deploy zero-emission vehicles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean the air for communities throughout the state.”

In these years of living dangerously in the face of climate change’s ever noticeable impacts, California is acting to create a more sustainable future. This year, we celebrate Earth Day by highlighting the innovators that often get overlooked. The positive transformation these clean transportation companies bring is exciting and represents a big win-win: drastically lower air pollution and improved quality of our transportation, a sector vital to the people and economy of California.

By: Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President, Clean Energy How does Demand Response reduce electricity use? from Environmental Defense Fund Clean energy resources, like wind, solar, and energy efficiency, have certain key advantages over traditional, fossil fuel-based resources: they don’t require expensive, polluting fuels or large capital investment, consume little to no water, generate negligible carbon […]