Aggregator

By Cheryl Roberto

Last Thursday morning, with my heart quickly jumping, I entered the grandeur of the United States Senate hearing room for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Keeping the lights on — are we doing enough to ensure the reliability and security of the US electric grid? hearing as an invited witness. I was eager to share EDF’s vision of a cost-effective, clean energy system that enhances reliability − but I couldn’t help being a little awed by the moment. I had never testified on Capitol Hill before and the dignity of the setting and importance of the message I wanted to share weighed on me.

Here are the high points of my testimony (though you can read it in full here):

• The nation’s electricity system stands at a transformative crossroads: The costs of distributed generation technologies like rooftop solar and battery storage are falling and energy productivity is rising. In our digital world, people have increased demands for power quality and reliability, but needs for power quantity are predicted to fall – mostly due to “gains in appliance efficiency and an increase in vehicle efficiency standards by 2025.” As a result, our system is transforming from a one-way, centralized power delivery network in which customers passively receive electricity to a two-way flow of both power and information in which customers both receive and produce electricity. The very model of centralized, utility-scale power generation is no longer sacrosanct. The electricity systems we built in the last century, and the regulations that govern them, are no longer adequate – neither to ensure reliability, or to accommodate the rapid changes in technology, consumer needs, environmental standards, and the changing marketplace.

• Transformation of the central power grid will cost-effectively enhance reliability: Costly power outages do not arise from a lack of generation. They are, instead, mostly rooted in our transmission and distribution systems. Power outages due to severe weather cost between $18 billion and $33 billion per year. A grid transformation that incorporates energy efficiency, distributed generation (like rooftop solar power), and proven, innovative tools like demand response (which is used by utilities to reward people who use less electricity during times of peak, or high, energy demand) can enhance reliability. We have every reason to believe that an energy system that seamlessly knits together centralized and distributed power generation is possible and will meet our energy needs more reliably and cost-effectively.

• States should lead the way in accelerating this transformation: In order to realize the clean energy benefits of this transformation, we need to unleash the innovation we see in the states – because they know how to deploy these clean energy solutions. Reliability of the power grid is best protected when state utility commissions and state air agencies are empowered with flexible standards to work on local and/or regional solutions to meet these challenges.

Our history and experience have demonstrated that our country can weather this transition without threatening our non-negotiable commitment to reliability. But to do that, we do need to tap all of the tools at our disposal to ensure a robust, dependable, and integrated energy system that is no longer dependent exclusively upon centralized generation. Managed properly, it can deliver benefits to electricity consumers, the economy, the environment, generators, innovators, and workers alike.

Was I successful in my mission to share EDF’s vision for low-carbon, clean energy economy with the U.S. Senators? Only time will tell.

By Cheryl Roberto

Last Thursday morning, with my heart quickly jumping, I entered the grandeur of the United States Senate hearing room for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Keeping the lights on — are we doing enough to ensure the reliability and security of the US electric grid? hearing as an invited witness. I was eager to share EDF’s vision of a cost-effective, clean energy system that enhances reliability − but I couldn’t help being a little awed by the moment. I had never testified on Capitol Hill before and the dignity of the setting and importance of the message I wanted to share weighed on me.

Here are the high points of my testimony (though you can read it in full here):

• The nation’s electricity system stands at a transformative crossroads: The costs of distributed generation technologies like rooftop solar and battery storage are falling and energy productivity is rising. In our digital world, people have increased demands for power quality and reliability, but needs for power quantity are predicted to fall – mostly due to “gains in appliance efficiency and an increase in vehicle efficiency standards by 2025.” As a result, our system is transforming from a one-way, centralized power delivery network in which customers passively receive electricity to a two-way flow of both power and information in which customers both receive and produce electricity. The very model of centralized, utility-scale power generation is no longer sacrosanct. The electricity systems we built in the last century, and the regulations that govern them, are no longer adequate – neither to ensure reliability, or to accommodate the rapid changes in technology, consumer needs, environmental standards, and the changing marketplace.

• Transformation of the central power grid will cost-effectively enhance reliability: Costly power outages do not arise from a lack of generation. They are, instead, mostly rooted in our transmission and distribution systems. Power outages due to severe weather cost between $18 billion and $33 billion per year. A grid transformation that incorporates energy efficiency, distributed generation (like rooftop solar power), and proven, innovative tools like demand response (which is used by utilities to reward people who use less electricity during times of peak, or high, energy demand) can enhance reliability. We have every reason to believe that an energy system that seamlessly knits together centralized and distributed power generation is possible and will meet our energy needs more reliably and cost-effectively.

• States should lead the way in accelerating this transformation: In order to realize the clean energy benefits of this transformation, we need to unleash the innovation we see in the states – because they know how to deploy these clean energy solutions. Reliability of the power grid is best protected when state utility commissions and state air agencies are empowered with flexible standards to work on local and/or regional solutions to meet these challenges.

Our history and experience have demonstrated that our country can weather this transition without threatening our non-negotiable commitment to reliability. But to do that, we do need to tap all of the tools at our disposal to ensure a robust, dependable, and integrated energy system that is no longer dependent exclusively upon centralized generation. Managed properly, it can deliver benefits to electricity consumers, the economy, the environment, generators, innovators, and workers alike.

Was I successful in my mission to share EDF’s vision for low-carbon, clean energy economy with the U.S. Senators? Only time will tell.

By Pamela Campos

Some environmental threats are hard to explain. Toxic mercury is not. A dangerous neurotoxin that threatens young children, developing babies, and others, almost everyone reacts viscerally at the idea of ingesting it. And the scientific evidence endorses that instinctive response.

That’s why today’s decision by a federal court to uphold the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule is cause for celebration. For decades, power plants have been spewing out mercury. It ends up in our lakes and rivers, in fish, and ultimately in our bodies. It’s been closing favorite fishing holes and, more ominously, delaying mental development for our children. Even spiders in the Sonoran desert and trout in Colorado’s highest mountain lakes are affected.

When the EPA finally issued rules under the Clean Air Act to limit mercury pollution, the owners of the dirtiest power plants sued to stop it. Just like with every other major air pollution rule, they claimed it would be unaffordable, ignoring clear evidence that clean air protections are consistently shown to have public health benefits that far exceed the pollution control costs.

So this morning’s decision is a big deal for protecting our health. The court was sweeping in its denial of industry challenges, confirming that EPA’s technical and legal judgment was sound.

While some power companies are investing in lawyers and lobbyists to obstruct these vital health protections, other power companies are investing in clean air solutions. The reality on the ground shows that many power companies are already complying with the rule. Compliance costs fall as new standards are implemented. The health benefits of preventing exposure to toxic pollution are lifelong.

While some opponents claimed it would not be possible to install controls before the rule took effect, but as of the end of 2012, the Energy Information Administration recently reported that 70% of coal-fired capacity already meets the *standards.

Power companies such as American Electric Power, Southern Company and First Energy that fought EPA’s clean air protections claimed the costs would be too high to make pollution reductions. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards on December 21, 2011 at Children’s Hospital in Washington, D.C. Within months of EPA’s announcement, these same power companies were adjusting their cost estimates downward and touting to investors that the compliance costs with the historic Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were plummeting:

• On July 20, 2012 American Electric Power CEO Nicholas Akins confirmed that the company’s projected costs have come down nearly 25% from what AEP originally projected. He added, “[W]e expect it to continue to be refined as we go forward”. In other words, costs will come down even further. (Nicholas Akins, American Electric Power Co., Inc. Q2 2012 Earnings Call transcript, July 20, 2012).
• On May 15, 2012 Southern Company CEO Thomas Fanning stated that the amount the company projects for compliance costs “could be $0.5 billion to $1 billion less, because of the new flexibility that [the company has] found in the final rules of the MATS regulation.” (Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, Deutsche Bank Clean Tech, Utilities and Power Conference, May 15, 2012).
• On August 8, 2012, First Energy CEO Anthony Alexander stated, "[W]e have significantly reduced our projected capital investment related to MATS compliance." (Anthony Alexander, Q2 2012 Earnings Call (transcript) August 8, 2012).

We examined this again and companies like AEP and FirstEnergy continue to lower compliance cost estimates downward from the claims they asserted during the mercury and air toxics rulemaking with AEP lowering its costs estimates by half and FirstEnergy lowering cost estimates by nearly 70 percent.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards provide crucial emission reductions of toxic pollutants including mercury, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, and chromium from the single largest source of toxic air pollution in the U.S. – coal-fired power plants. These standards will save thousands of lives every year, prevent heart attacks and asthma attacks, and help protect the hundreds of thousands of babies born in America every year who are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury in the womb. While the costs of compliance have plummeted from the public debate during the development of the standards, these vital health protections for our communities and families are enduring.

The court’s decision today demonstrates that EPA’s rule was carefully developed, and we can all rest more easily tonight knowing that we breathe cleaner air.

–

*Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15611

(This post was co-authored by Pamela Campos, Attorney, and Mandy Warner, Climate & Air Policy Specialist) Some environmental threats are hard to explain. Toxic mercury is not. A dangerous neurotoxin that threatens young children, developing babies, and others, almost everyone reacts viscerally at the idea of ingesting it. And the scientific evidence endorses that instinctive […]

By Pamela Campos

Some environmental threats are hard to explain. Toxic mercury is not. A dangerous neurotoxin that threatens young children, developing babies, and others, almost everyone reacts viscerally at the idea of ingesting it. And the scientific evidence endorses that instinctive response.

That’s why today’s decision by a federal court to uphold the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule is cause for celebration. For decades, power plants have been spewing out mercury. It ends up in our lakes and rivers, in fish, and ultimately in our bodies. It’s been closing favorite fishing holes and, more ominously, delaying mental development for our children. Even spiders in the Sonoran desert and trout in Colorado’s highest mountain lakes are affected.

When the EPA finally issued rules under the Clean Air Act to limit mercury pollution, the owners of the dirtiest power plants sued to stop it. Just like with every other major air pollution rule, they claimed it would be unaffordable, ignoring clear evidence that clean air protections are consistently shown to have public health benefits that far exceed the pollution control costs.

So this morning’s decision is a big deal for protecting our health. The court was sweeping in its denial of industry challenges, confirming that EPA’s technical and legal judgment was sound.

While some power companies are investing in lawyers and lobbyists to obstruct these vital health protections, other power companies are investing in clean air solutions. The reality on the ground shows that many power companies are already complying with the rule. Compliance costs fall as new standards are implemented. The health benefits of preventing exposure to toxic pollution are lifelong.

While some opponents claimed it would not be possible to install controls before the rule took effect, but as of the end of 2012, the Energy Information Administration recently reported that 70% of coal-fired capacity already meets the *standards.

Power companies such as American Electric Power, Southern Company and First Energy that fought EPA’s clean air protections claimed the costs would be too high to make pollution reductions. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards on December 21, 2011 at Children’s Hospital in Washington, D.C. Within months of EPA’s announcement, these same power companies were adjusting their cost estimates downward and touting to investors that the compliance costs with the historic Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were plummeting:

• On July 20, 2012 American Electric Power CEO Nicholas Akins confirmed that the company’s projected costs have come down nearly 25% from what AEP originally projected. He added, “[W]e expect it to continue to be refined as we go forward”. In other words, costs will come down even further. (Nicholas Akins, American Electric Power Co., Inc. Q2 2012 Earnings Call transcript, July 20, 2012).
• On May 15, 2012 Southern Company CEO Thomas Fanning stated that the amount the company projects for compliance costs “could be $0.5 billion to $1 billion less, because of the new flexibility that [the company has] found in the final rules of the MATS regulation.” (Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, Deutsche Bank Clean Tech, Utilities and Power Conference, May 15, 2012).
• On August 8, 2012, First Energy CEO Anthony Alexander stated, "[W]e have significantly reduced our projected capital investment related to MATS compliance." (Anthony Alexander, Q2 2012 Earnings Call (transcript) August 8, 2012).

We examined this again and companies like AEP and FirstEnergy continue to lower compliance cost estimates downward from the claims they asserted during the mercury and air toxics rulemaking with AEP lowering its costs estimates by half and FirstEnergy lowering cost estimates by nearly 70 percent.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards provide crucial emission reductions of toxic pollutants including mercury, acid gases, sulfur dioxide, and chromium from the single largest source of toxic air pollution in the U.S. – coal-fired power plants. These standards will save thousands of lives every year, prevent heart attacks and asthma attacks, and help protect the hundreds of thousands of babies born in America every year who are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury in the womb. While the costs of compliance have plummeted from the public debate during the development of the standards, these vital health protections for our communities and families are enduring.

The court’s decision today demonstrates that EPA’s rule was carefully developed, and we can all rest more easily tonight knowing that we breathe cleaner air.

–

*Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15611

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

Thank you to our friends at Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) for joining Moms Clean Air Force on May 7th in Harrisburg, PA at Mama Summit 2014:

“The 2014 Mama Summit offers us the chance to work together.  It’s time to think big again and build a new future with clean air, clean energy, and a sustainable economy. As a grandfather, dad, and evangelical Christian leader, I have a heart for defending our kids. Protecting our children, both born and unborn, from the hazards of dirty air, and pollution that fouls God’s creation is my life’s ministry. Over 275,000 kids in Pennsylvania suffer from asthma and/or other respiratory illnesses with another 2.75 million at risk, and this is only the “tip of the iceberg” on pollution enhanced health problems. One in four children across the country nation suffers autism, ADHD, asthma and/or allergies with links to pollution. And our more frequent extreme weather combined with climate change will simply exacerbate the impacts. It’s time to stop paying for our energy with our children health–we can do better.

Pennsylvania can be a leader for healthier kids and good jobs. Let’s return to our role as the “Keystone State” by being an example of a state that seek solutions to these urgent health challenges. Coming to Harrisburg and being a part of the Mama Summit says we care and want to work together. Our kids already suffer enough. Let’s make their future better and take action.”

-The Rev. Mitch Hescox, President/CEO Evangelical Environmental Network

READ WHAT OTHER FAITH LEADERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IN OUR NEW FREE EBOOK!

 

REGISTER FOR MAMA SUMMIT

April 15, 2014

April 15, 2014

By John Finnigan

Indiana State Capitol, Source: David Schwen

At the end of March, the Indiana legislature passed a bill repealing the state’s energy efficiency standard, becoming the first state in the nation to roll back its energy savings goals. Governor Mike Pence could have signed the bill into law or he could have vetoed it. He did neither; instead, the bill became law because he took no action within the prescribed time period. His statement as to why he allowed the bill to become law left us scratching our heads.

Here’s what he said:

“I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program developed by the prior administration. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.”

Governor Pence admits that energy efficiency saves money on ratepayers’ electricity bills. He’s right, according to a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period and revealed that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Governor Pence’s disregard for energy efficiency is part of a larger trend in the Midwest to roll back clean energy standards. Ohio is the latest battleground, where S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at 2014 levels, is currently being considered by Ohio legislators. These bills and other similar bills around the country are backed by the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, front groups and model bill factories for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal.

So why, exactly, did Governor Pence allow this bill repealing the energy efficiency standard to become law? Maybe he was listening to large industrial companies, who often oppose energy efficiency standards because they have engineers on staff who can design their own energy efficiency programs. As a result, these large companies don’t need to rely on energy efficiency programs managed by the electric utilities. But repealing the law hurts residential customers and small businesses which do not have the luxury of employing their own engineers to develop personally-tailored energy efficiency programs. If small businesses are the biggest job creators in our economy, does it make sense to take away the energy efficiency programs which allow them to save money on their electricity bills?

One thing we know for certain is that energy efficiency makes good sense. But Governor Pence’s failure to veto the bill – not so much.  As Dante said when describing the nine circles of hell in The Inferno,"[t]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

By John Finnigan

Indiana State Capitol, Source: David Schwen

At the end of March, the Indiana legislature passed a bill repealing the state’s energy efficiency standard, becoming the first state in the nation to roll back its energy savings goals. Governor Mike Pence could have signed the bill into law or he could have vetoed it. He did neither; instead, the bill became law because he took no action within the prescribed time period. His statement as to why he allowed the bill to become law left us scratching our heads.

Here’s what he said:

“I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program developed by the prior administration. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.”

Governor Pence admits that energy efficiency saves money on ratepayers’ electricity bills. He’s right, according to a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period and revealed that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Governor Pence’s disregard for energy efficiency is part of a larger trend in the Midwest to roll back clean energy standards. Ohio is the latest battleground, where S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at 2014 levels, is currently being considered by Ohio legislators. These bills and other similar bills around the country are backed by the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, front groups and model bill factories for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal.

So why, exactly, did Governor Pence allow this bill repealing the energy efficiency standard to become law? Maybe he was listening to large industrial companies, who often oppose energy efficiency standards because they have engineers on staff who can design their own energy efficiency programs. As a result, these large companies don’t need to rely on energy efficiency programs managed by the electric utilities. But repealing the law hurts residential customers and small businesses which do not have the luxury of employing their own engineers to develop personally-tailored energy efficiency programs. If small businesses are the biggest job creators in our economy, does it make sense to take away the energy efficiency programs which allow them to save money on their electricity bills?

One thing we know for certain is that energy efficiency makes good sense. But Governor Pence’s failure to veto the bill – not so much.  As Dante said when describing the nine circles of hell in The Inferno,"[t]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

By John Finnigan

Indiana State Capitol, Source: David Schwen

At the end of March, the Indiana legislature passed a bill repealing the state’s energy efficiency standard, becoming the first state in the nation to roll back its energy savings goals. Governor Mike Pence could have signed the bill into law or he could have vetoed it. He did neither; instead, the bill became law because he took no action within the prescribed time period. His statement as to why he allowed the bill to become law left us scratching our heads.

Here’s what he said:

“I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program developed by the prior administration. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.”

Governor Pence admits that energy efficiency saves money on ratepayers’ electricity bills. He’s right, according to a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period and revealed that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Governor Pence’s disregard for energy efficiency is part of a larger trend in the Midwest to roll back clean energy standards. Ohio is the latest battleground, where S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at 2014 levels, is currently being considered by Ohio legislators. These bills and other similar bills around the country are backed by the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, front groups and model bill factories for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal.

So why, exactly, did Governor Pence allow this bill repealing the energy efficiency standard to become law? Maybe he was listening to large industrial companies, who often oppose energy efficiency standards because they have engineers on staff who can design their own energy efficiency programs. As a result, these large companies don’t need to rely on energy efficiency programs managed by the electric utilities. But repealing the law hurts residential customers and small businesses which do not have the luxury of employing their own engineers to develop personally-tailored energy efficiency programs. If small businesses are the biggest job creators in our economy, does it make sense to take away the energy efficiency programs which allow them to save money on their electricity bills?

One thing we know for certain is that energy efficiency makes good sense. But Governor Pence’s failure to veto the bill – not so much.  As Dante said when describing the nine circles of hell in The Inferno,"[t]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

By John Finnigan

Indiana State Capitol, Source: David Schwen

At the end of March, the Indiana legislature passed a bill repealing the state’s energy efficiency standard, becoming the first state in the nation to roll back its energy savings goals. Governor Mike Pence could have signed the bill into law or he could have vetoed it. He did neither; instead, the bill became law because he took no action within the prescribed time period. His statement as to why he allowed the bill to become law left us scratching our heads.

Here’s what he said:

“I could not sign this bill because it does away with a worthwhile energy efficiency program developed by the prior administration. I could not veto this bill because doing so would increase the cost of utilities for Hoosier ratepayers and make Indiana less competitive by denying relief to large electricity consumers, including our state’s manufacturing base.”

Governor Pence admits that energy efficiency saves money on ratepayers’ electricity bills. He’s right, according to a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period and revealed that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Governor Pence’s disregard for energy efficiency is part of a larger trend in the Midwest to roll back clean energy standards. Ohio is the latest battleground, where S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at 2014 levels, is currently being considered by Ohio legislators. These bills and other similar bills around the country are backed by the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, front groups and model bill factories for many corporate interests including oil, gas, and coal.

So why, exactly, did Governor Pence allow this bill repealing the energy efficiency standard to become law? Maybe he was listening to large industrial companies, who often oppose energy efficiency standards because they have engineers on staff who can design their own energy efficiency programs. As a result, these large companies don’t need to rely on energy efficiency programs managed by the electric utilities. But repealing the law hurts residential customers and small businesses which do not have the luxury of employing their own engineers to develop personally-tailored energy efficiency programs. If small businesses are the biggest job creators in our economy, does it make sense to take away the energy efficiency programs which allow them to save money on their electricity bills?

One thing we know for certain is that energy efficiency makes good sense. But Governor Pence’s failure to veto the bill – not so much.  As Dante said when describing the nine circles of hell in The Inferno,"[t]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

By Jason Mathers

I recently had the opportunity to speak about leading corporate green freight practices on Talking Logistics—an online weekly talk show and blog. Talking Logistics is hosted by industry expert Adrian Gonzalez and is a venue for thought leaders and newsmakers to discuss the supply chain and logistics industry.

During this discussion, we spoke about the EDF 5 Principles for Greener Freight, the actions of large freight shippers, including Ocean Spray, Caterpillar, and Boise; and the importance of freight shippers adding their voice in support of strong truck efficiency standards.

You can watch the episode here:

I recently had the opportunity to speak about leading corporate green freight practices on Talking Logistics—an online weekly talk show and blog. Talking Logistics is hosted by industry expert Adrian Gonzalez and is a venue for thought leaders and newsmakers to discuss the supply chain and logistics industry.

During this discussion, we spoke about the EDF 5 Principles for Greener Freight, the actions of large freight shippers, including Ocean Spray, Caterpillar, and Boise; and the importance of freight shippers adding their voice in support of strong truck efficiency standards.

You can watch the episode here:

I recently had the opportunity to speak about leading corporate green freight practices on Talking Logistics—an online weekly talk show and blog. Talking Logistics is hosted by industry expert Adrian Gonzalez and is a venue for thought leaders and newsmakers to discuss the supply chain and logistics industry.

During this discussion, we spoke about the EDF 5 Principles for Greener Freight, the actions of large freight shippers, including Ocean Spray, Caterpillar, and Boise; and the importance of freight shippers adding their voice in support of strong truck efficiency standards.

You can watch the episode here:

By Jason Mathers

I recently had the opportunity to speak about leading corporate green freight practices on Talking Logistics—an online weekly talk show and blog. Talking Logistics is hosted by industry expert Adrian Gonzalez and is a venue for thought leaders and newsmakers to discuss the supply chain and logistics industry.

During this discussion, we spoke about the EDF 5 Principles for Greener Freight, the actions of large freight shippers, including Ocean Spray, Caterpillar, and Boise; and the importance of freight shippers adding their voice in support of strong truck efficiency standards.

You can watch the episode here:

Subscribe to receive our blog updates by email, like our page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Developing tomorrow’s innovative sustainable supply chain strategies requires knowledge, collaborative spirit, and creative thinking. EDF is helping to integrate these elements into the transportation network by highlighting successful sustainability practices already employed by industry leaders.

At a recent freight forum co-hosted by EDF, the Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, we learned about best practices for co-loading heavy and lightweight freight in a single container, funding opportunities available through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), and intermodal strategies in key corridors. The freight transportation stakeholders in attendance ranged from cargo owners with global supply chains to international logistics providers to regional business associations.

The overarching theme of the forum was that securing emissions reductions from freight transportation is achievable through operational changes, partnerships, funding availability, and technology improvements. While many within the freight transportation community know that opportunities exist to increase sustainability and efficiency within the supply chain, not everyone implements these best management practices. Whether you are a logistics provider in Mexico, a shipper based in Texas, a global carrier or another transportation stakeholder, you play an important role in greening our logistics.

EDF also plays an important role, with a long history of working with companies to help them find ways they can improve their supply chain sustainability and efficiency, with new partnerships kicking off in the coming months. This year, we are beginning a supply chain logistics pilot as part of our highly successful Climate Corps program. We are also working on a marine port environmental performance metrics program that will help recognize top performers and share best management practices to reduce emissions. Together, all of our efforts are helping improve efficiency, reduce emissions, save costs, and protect public health.

This forum served as a launchpad for great ideas and new programs and partnerships like Climate Corps logistics and port metrics. Next time, we can share your success story!

Report: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals produced across America

Alissa Sasso, a chemical policy fellow, co-authored this post and our new report. Alissa earned a BA in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology with a certificate in Environmental Studies from Princeton University.

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.

While it’s no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

Our new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we identify which are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; and where they are being produced or imported. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by site location.

Among our findings:

• At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.

• At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).

• More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.

Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

Top 5 States with the Most Sites1. Texas 91 sites 2. Ohio 40 3. Pennsylvania 39 4. Louisiana 36 5. New York 31 Top 5 Companies with the Most Chemicals1. BASF Corp. 24 chemicals 2. Dow Chemical Co. 23 3. DuPont 12 4. Lanxess Corp 12 5(tie). ICC Industries Inc. 10 5(tie). Solvchem Inc. 10 Top 5 Chemicals by Volume1. Ethylene dichloride 28.1 billion pounds per year 2. Benzene 23.7 3. Vinyl chloride 16.7 4. Toluene 15.1 5. Styrene 10.2

While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals we have identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to twelve-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals — such as those featured in our report — we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that — if done right — would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market. And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

dupham April 14, 2014 - 03:19

See comments

The lack of oversight is shocking...what is it going to take?

Grayce Schor April 16, 2014 at 10:11 am

Report: Staggering amounts of toxic chemicals produced across America

Alissa Sasso, a chemical policy fellow, co-authored this post and our new report. Alissa earned a BA in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology with a certificate in Environmental Studies from Princeton University.

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by EDF, Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.

While it’s no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work.

Our new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we identify which are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; and where they are being produced or imported. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by site location.

Among our findings:

• At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.

• At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).

• More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.

Our interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals.

Top 5 States with the Most Sites1. Texas 91 sites 2. Ohio 40 3. Pennsylvania 39 4. Louisiana 36 5. New York 31 Top 5 Companies with the Most Chemicals1. BASF Corp. 24 chemicals 2. Dow Chemical Co. 23 3. DuPont 12 4. Lanxess Corp 12 5(tie). ICC Industries Inc. 10 5(tie). Solvchem Inc. 10 Top 5 Chemicals by Volume1. Ethylene dichloride 28.1 billion pounds per year 2. Benzene 23.7 3. Vinyl chloride 16.7 4. Toluene 15.1 5. Styrene 10.2

While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals we have identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to twelve-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information, masking it from public disclosure. EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used.

Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals — such as those featured in our report — we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that — if done right — would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market. And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.

dupham April 14, 2014 - 03:19

See comments

The lack of oversight is shocking...what is it going to take?

Grayce Schor April 16, 2014 at 10:11 am

Restore or Retreat Annual General Membership Meeting

Monday, April 28, 2014

Guest Speaker: Justin Ehrenwerth, Executive Director, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council

The RESTORE Act established a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, comprised of the five Gulf States, as well as federal departments and agencies, which will manage a 30 percent share of Gulf oil spill Clean Water Act penalties distributed under the RESTORE Act for ecosystem restoration through a Comprehensive Plan.

When: Monday, April 28, 2014
11:30 am Registration
12:00pm Program

Where:
Envie Restaurant
207 East Bayou Road
Thibodaux, LA

Reservations are open to the public, but are requested by Wednesday, April 23.

Cost:
$25 payable in advance
$30 at the door
$250 table sponsors (seating for 8 with priority seating and event recognition)

Call (985) 448-4485 or fax (985) 448-4486 to RSVP or register online at www.restoreorretreat.org.