Author: adamse

By Shems Jud

Trawl gear modifications produce reductions in bycatch, fuel use and seafloor contact – all with increased catching efficiency.

Over the past couple of years EDF’s Pacific team has been privileged to work with fishermen, scientists, fishing net manufacturers and many others on a three-stage project to demonstrate the feasibility of improved trawl net designs on the West Coast. The video shown here describes the amazing progress we’ve made together and indicates a path-forward for disseminating our results to fishermen everywhere.

Our video tells the story of:

• Trawl gear innovations developed by fisherman Giuseppe Pennisi, of Monterey, California
• The work of Dr. James Lindholm, of Cal State University, Monterey, along with his team of remote operated vehicle (ROV) consultants and a hardy band of grad students.
• The Trawl Gear Modifications Workshop we convened last summer, which brought together researchers, fishermen, regulators and gear manufacturers from the West Coast and Alaska to view underwater fishing footage and share their expertise.

That workshop was so well received that a second one is already being planned.

Please feel free to share this video with your family, friends or colleagues. There are lots of good stories in U.S. commercial fisheries these days, and the more people who learn about them the better!

P.S. Many people contributed to this project, but our special thanks go out to NOAA Fisheries and the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program.

By Jack Pratt

Jack Pratt is Chemicals Campaign Director

Today, EDF joined a group of advocates in filing a petition that could force a ban on lead in hair dyes. Over the last several decades, we have gone to great lengths to reduce lead exposure—from eliminating the use of lead in gasoline, to tackling legacy uses in paint and water pipes. Yet, somewhat incredibly, lead is still permitted in hair dyes in the United States. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that use can have an impact not only on the men who use it (it is seemingly exclusive to men’s dyes) but can have an impact on kids in the house too. That’s why FDA should take action and reverse their decades-old approval of lead in hair dyes.

No one contests that lead is a potent neurotoxin, with an especially devilish impact on

Think twice about how you cover up that gray.

kids. Children with elevated blood lead levels can see life-long impacts, including lost IQ points, ADHD and other significant cognitive and health impacts. While there are still critical areas that require attention—such as the lead pipes providing drinking water to millions of Americans and the hazard of old lead paint—decades of work on lead policies has made a real impact, resulting in significant declines in children’s exposure. Some of these policy initiatives were quite dramatic, like removing lead from gasoline, but the societal impact has been well worth the trouble.

For all that work, it is surprising—astonishing really—that an intentional, purely cosmetic use of lead remains permitted. Today you can walk into almost any drug store or supermarket in the United States and purchase a so-called “progressive” men’s hair dye that could contain as much as one gram of lead. While use of lead acetate in hair dyes is prohibited in Canada and the European Union, the U.S. FDA approved of such use in 1980. That approval included only minimal restrictions—a vague warning label and that the dye only be used on the scalp, not on facial hair. The levels of lead in the product are allowed to be as high as 6000 ppm. To put that in perspective, three years before FDA’s decision, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the sale of household paint containing more than 600 ppm of lead.

The petition filed by EDF and our colleagues cites cases where users of such hair dyes have noticed real health impacts, including one user who didn’t realize it should not be used on facial hair and lost feeling in his hands and feet. He did not return to normal for a year.

Perhaps more notably, however, the petition cites major advances in science since the 1980 FDA decision that show the risks go beyond the users themselves and put other members of their family at risk. One such study showed lead contamination from the hair dyes—especially on surfaces touched after using the hair dye like blow-dryers, combs and faucets—and found these surfaces had up to 2,804 micrograms of lead per square foot. In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that more than 40 micrograms of lead per square foot on the floor posed a hazard to children.

I certainly understand the desire for a youthful appearance—I’ve got more than a few grey hairs myself. But as the parent of two small children, there is simply no contest for where my priorities lie, especially since there are many hair dyes that do not contain lead. I’m sure that many, if not most, users of these products have no idea they could be putting their health and that of their families at risk. FDA now has 6 months to review the petition and make a final decision. This should be a no-brainer—FDA should take action to protect Americans from this unnecessary source of lead exposure.

By Tom Neltner

By: Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant, Environmental Defense Fund

Since September 17, 2016, most facilities storing, processing, or manufacturing food are required to identify and, if necessary, control potential hazards in food under a Preventive Controls Rule promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pursuant to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA). Some foods have had similar requirements in place for years. For example, fruit and vegetable juice processors have been required to have a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Plan since the early 2000s.

The driving force behind the law and the rules has been reducing the hazard of pathogenic contamination in food. However, the Preventive Controls Rule defines a hazard broadly to include any chemical, whether a contaminant or an additive, that “has the potential to cause illness or injury.”

In this blog, we will explore how the requirements of the Preventive Controls Rule apply to chemical hazards using lead as an example. We chose lead because it is known to cause injury and clearly meets the definition of a hazard. It is well-established that there is no safe level of lead in the blood of children leading to lower IQ and academic achievement, and increases in attention related behaviors. We also know it is all too common in food that toddlers eat. And scientific evidence indicates that much of the lead in food gets into children’s blood.

Four potential sources of lead in the food supply chain

Lead can get into food in different ways including:

• Absorption from contaminated soil into the roots, leaves, and, possibly, fruit. Soil may be contaminated from past use of lead arsenate pesticides or air deposition from burning leaded gasoline.
• Contact with contaminated soil during production or harvesting. For example, soil may get into a head of lettuce or on an apple that falls to the ground.
• Leaching from food handling equipment such as that made from brass or plastic that had lead intentionally added. Until 2014, brass used in drinking water applications could contain up to 8% lead and still be called lead-free. If such brass were used in pumps and valves in food production, leaching of lead into food may occur. Similarly, lead has also been used in PVC plastic as a stabilizer, although it has been phased out in U.S. and Europe. It is important to note that lead is not approved by FDA to be intentionally added to anything that contacts food. If any leaches into food from these sources, the lead would be considered an unapproved food additive. That would render the food adulterated and, therefore, illegal to sell. Note that a supplier’s claim that a material is “food grade” is no guarantee that its use is legal.
• Contamination of food or food contact materials during processing such as lead from deteriorated paint in the building.

Elements of a Food Safety Plan

Under the Preventive Controls Rule, most facilities storing, processing or manufacturing food must have a written Food Safety Plan that consists of seven items:

1. A hazard analysis to identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards;
2. Preventive controls to ensure hazards are significantly minimized or prevented and food will not be adulterated;
3. Risk-based supply chain program to protect raw materials and ingredients from hazards;
4. Plan for recalls should they be necessary;
5. Procedures to monitor preventive controls to assure they are consistently performed;
6. Corrective action procedures if preventive controls are not properly implemented; and
7. Verification procedures to validate that preventive controls are adequate and effective, other procedures are being followed, and plan is reevaluated at least once every three years.

The path forward

The FSMA food safety planning requirements put in place a systematic approach for food manufacturers to prevent food safety problems rather than react when they arise. This includes problems that can result from chemical hazards as well as pathogens. The goal is to ensure that consumers are not exposed to adulterated food, whether because it contains “any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health” or it contains an unapproved food or color additive.

A robust food safety plan for lead and other chemicals such as perchlorate would go a long way to protect children and pregnant women from unnecessary exposures to chemicals known to impair brain development, and the businesses from unnecessary risk.

What a Food Safety Plan would say for lead

To comply with the regulations and mitigate risk, the food manufacturer/processor’s written food safety plan is required to identify lead as a hazard if it is reasonably foreseeable that lead could get into food either as a contaminant or from its intentional addition to materials such as brass or plastic used in food handling equipment.

If the plan identifies lead as a hazard, the company must evaluate the risk by assessing (1) the severity of the illness or injury if the hazard were to occur, and (2) the probability that the hazard will occur in the absence of preventive controls. The plan must also develop and implement preventive controls to assure lead levels are significantly minimized or prevented and the food is not adulterated. The controls would likely include:

Next, the company must identify how the preventive controls would be monitored to spot implementation problems, explain how a recall would be conducted if lead were found to exceed the maximum amount identified in the plan or is present as an unapproved food additive, and describe what corrective action would be taken to prevent future recalls.

Finally, the food manufacturer/processor must reanalyze its Food Safety Plan at least every three years or when:

1. There is a significant change in the activities conducted at the facility that creates a reasonable potential for a new hazard or creates a significant increase in a previously identified hazard;
2. The food manufacturer becomes aware of new information about potential hazards associated with the food;
3. An unanticipated food safety problem occurs; or
4. The food manufacturer finds the preventive control, combination of preventive controls, or the food safety plan as a whole is ineffective.

The Food Safety Plans are not made publicly available, but they must be made available to FDA on request or during an inspection. Potential downstream buyers and retailers most likely can obtain a copy through their own supply chain management programs.

By Larissa Koehler

If music has taught us nothing else, it is that more is better. Three Dog Night taught us that “one is the loneliest number,” the Beatles taught us that we need help from our friends to get by, and Rob Base and DJ E-Z Rock reminded us that “it takes two to make a thing go right.”

Those lyrics apply just as easily to our electric grid. That’s because on the grid, it is best to have a bigger, varied group of resources.

Through the Integrated Resource Plan proceeding, the California Public Utilities Commission is requiring California’s big three utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric – to create energy portfolios that are balanced, cost-effective, and position the utilities to meet state climate and energy targets. This was codified in SB 350 (De León), which required the Commission and utilities to develop these integrated resource plans (IRPs). Accordingly, the Commission has set forth the following specifications:

• By 2030, meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets set forth in SB 32 (Pavley) – a 40 percent reduction relative to 1990.
• Enable an energy portfolio of 50 percent renewable energy.
• Maintain reliability, strengthen diversity and resilience, and prevent severe bill impacts. In practice, this means the plans must continue to ensure utilities provide enough power at all times to serve their customers while making clean resources – including energy storage and tools like demand response – more of a focus in their energy portfolios. These changes should be cost-effective for customers.
• Prioritize reduction of harmful air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in disadvantaged communities.
• Widely electrify transportation.

In short, IRPs are required to show a lot of ambition, and their efficacy – or lack thereof – can have a tremendous impact on whether or not California successfully meets its ambitious climate and clean energy goals.

Bigger, Varied Resource Portfolios to Clean up California’s Grid
Click To Tweet

How can California’s utility plans succeed?

Given all these utility plans are set to accomplish, it’s important to get them right. Here are some ideas for how to make them as successful as possible:

• Consider revision of the utility business model: As expressed in the Integrated Distributed Energy Resource (IDER) proceeding, the current planning process is an opportunity for the Commission to re-evaluate (and re-envision) the utility business model. Currently, shareholders make profits based on their investment in infrastructure – this de-incentivizes investment in distributed resources (like home solar and demand response), because they require less utility infrastructure than their “poles and wires” brethren. Encouraging utilities to invest in distributed energy resources will take more than the pilot established by the IDER proceeding. Getting utilities to invest in clean energy will require a “fees for services” or performance-based ratemaking model. In a fees-for-services model, the utility would be eligible for a share of profits when connecting customers to third-party distributed energy resource providers. Under a performance-based ratemaking model, the utility would be able to collect profits by reaching of a set of pre-determined metrics.

• Coordinate with other relevant proceedings: The IRP process will be more successful if it draws on learnings from other key proceedings. Acknowledging and integrating important findings from, for example utility electric car pilots, the utility storage mandate, and the IDER proceeding, will only serve to strengthen the final version of the IRPs. Additionally, the IRP proceeding will now include a significant portion of PG&E’s plan to replace Diablo Canyon ─ California’s last nuclear power plant which the utility is proposing to retire and replace with clean energy solutions. This will make it vital for the IRPs to consider the needs that arise from the plant’s closure and how to ensure the power that replaces it is clean and low-cost.
• Focus on disadvantaged communities: Low-income communities are disproportionately burdened by harmful pollution, so utility analyses must correctly pinpoint the areas in their service territories that are most in need of clean energy solutions and then prioritize serving those communities. From there, they can figure out how to cost-effectively deploy clean, distributed resources in those locations.
• Transition away from natural gas reliance: The procurement process can level the playing field for flexible, clean energy resources. This can, in turn, incentivize utilities to move away from using natural gas resources for the traditional, yet increasingly outdated, role they play in our energy system (one of balancing out intermittent resources and meeting high demand). The IRPs should encourage resource mixes capable of cutting harmful carbon pollution while maintaining reliability. This impacts whether and how utilities balance variable electric generating units (i.e. solar panels and wind turbines) with existing and new fast-response gas units.

With these elements, utility IRPs have the potential to create a clean, affordable energy system ─ one that leverages the collective strength of a broad range of clean energy resources from rooftop solar panels to home batteries. With all these tools working together, we can ensure a reliable California grid.

By John Hall

“If you want to know how wind works for America, just ask a Texan.” That’s according to Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), which just released its newest wind industry market report.

The AWEA report shows Texas is the nation’s indisputable wind powerhouse, including serving as home to nearly a quarter of America’s wind jobs. But wind is just one piece of the puzzle, and recent reports confirm the pieces are in place for Texas to blaze the clean energy trail.

Wind is thriving in Texas and solar is growing, while the electric grid remains reliable and billions in savings await. But the Lone Star State can do more: California has more than 10 times as many solar jobs with less than a quarter of Texas’ solar potential. When it comes to clean energy, will lawmakers during this 85^th Texas Legislative Session position the state to lead the nation?

Mounting evidence

In a span of a week, four reports came out with significant findings for Texas’ clean energy economy:

1. Wind juggernaut: AWEA’s report is full of Lone Star wind tidbits. In addition to accounting for four times as many jobs as the next state (Iowa), Texas is now home to roughly one-fourth of the nation’s wind capacity, with more on the way. Additionally, wind projects are providing private landowners with millions in land lease payments – more than $60 million for Texas farmers and ranchers, to be exact. The state also has acquired nearly $40 billion in wind energy investment. Clearly, wind is checking the jobs, growth, and investment boxes. 
   

   ---

   4 Signs Texas Could Lead the Clean Energy Economy – But Will It?
   Click To Tweet

   ---

2. Solar surge: The Solar Foundation’s new census shows Texas solar jobs experienced 34 percent growth last year, significantly surpassing the 12 percent projected growth and propelling Texas to the number three spot. Although undeniably impressive, the “solar jobs per capita” tells a less sunny story: Texas is in the 37^th place (California is in 4^th). As solar grows, so will the job numbers.

   Wind and solar are accounting for more Texas jobs than ever before, while bringing substantial investments into the state.

3. Grid reliability: Closing coal plants doesn’t mean the lights will go out. Looking at data from Texas’ main grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), a new study from Public Citizen examined what would happen if Dallas-based Luminant shut down two of its largest coal plants. Conclusion: Wind, solar, and natural gas will fill any gap left by coal, and potential issues will be mitigated “without the need for additional transmission upgrades beyond what is currently planned by ERCOT.” In other words, Texas already is well-equipped for coal shutdowns.
4. Amazing savings: Prioritizing clean energy will lead to hefty Texas savings, as evidenced in the new Environmental Defense Fund report. Lower pollution means billions of dollars avoided in healthcare costs. At the same time, enhanced energy efficiency results in billions of power savings. Increasing the use of wind and solar PV, which need virtually no water to create energy, avoids the need for billions of additional power-sector water. And focusing on homegrown energy sources, rather than coal imported from other states, translates to billions of avoided import costs.

When it comes to Texas’ clean energy economy, what’s not to like? Wind and solar are accounting for more Texas jobs than ever before, while bringing substantial investments into the state. The growth of cleaner power sources means less reliance on imported coal, a transition that won’t harm our electric grid’s reliability.

These four reports show Texas clean energy is primed and ready to go. The state has a thriving competitive electricity market that benefits people and the economy thanks to forward-looking policies put in place years ago. As Texas’ current legislative session continues, we hope policymakers will keep that market in place and allow the growing clean energy economy to flourish.

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.

New research finds that climate change will cause dramatic impacts in the world’s fisheries, but with effective management most fisheries[…]

By Erica Morehouse

California’s Alta Wind Energy Center, Image Source: flickr

Carbon auction results released today show low demand for California’s carbon allowances in the first carbon auction of 2017, with only 18% of allowances selling.

The results say more about the many milestones that are ahead for the cap-and-trade program rather than anything about the cap-and-trade program’s core function of reducing overall emissions.

Results from the February 22 auction show:

• The auction offered more than 65 million current vintage allowances (available for 2016 or later compliance) and sold about 11.6 million. Most of these allowances were utility-held allowances and some were from the province of Quebec. No ARB current allowances sold.
• Almost 10 million future allowances were offered that will not be available for use until 2020 or later; a little over 600,000 of those allowances sold.
• This means only about $8 million was raised for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Why cap and trade is working

Auction results themselves cannot tell us whether cap-and-trade is “working.” Though selling most allowances offered at stable prices at or above the minimum or floor price is generally a good sign, the reverse does not necessarily indicate that something went wrong with the cap-and-trade program itself. Disappointing auction result could simply be a product of the market’s expectation that more information on which to make an investment decision and plenty of allowances will be available in the future.

The best indicator of whether California’s climate policies, including cap and trade, are working is whether greenhouse gas emissions are declining. As we reported in November’s auction blog, all indications suggest California’s policies are reducing emissions.

Another important factor is whether California’s economy continues to thrive as the state implements some of the most ambitious climate policies in the world. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in 2016, California continued to add jobs faster than the national average, as it has in every year that cap and trade has been in place.

So what explains current low demand

Outstanding litigation brought by the California Chamber of Commerce and others challenging California’s cap-and-trade program design is likely still hampering sales of allowances and negatively affecting the auction, as many participants may be waiting to see how the Court of Appeals rules on the legality of carbon market auctions. Oral Arguments were held in late January and a decision is likely by the end of April.

At the same time, Governor Brown in January asked the Legislature to extend the cap and trade program beyond 2020 with a two-thirds vote; the supermajority vote, also recommended by the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office, could insulate the cap-and-trade program from legal challenges like the one brought by the Chamber. Two bills currently in the Assembly – AB 378 (C. Garcia) and AB 151 (Burke) – could both facilitate the extension of cap and trade and be passed with a two-thirds vote. But we are still early in this process and the market is clearly still waiting to see how the Legislation plays out.

What we can understand from California’s February carbon auction

• Regulated businesses under the cap-and-trade program will have to purchase a large portion of available allowances in order to comply with the cap-and-trade program requirements. It appears they have just decided to deploy the wait-and-see strategy they utilized in May and August, perhaps hoping for more information perhaps in advance of the next auction.
• One thing that is different between this auction and the May auction that also saw similarly low demand, allowances prices on the secondary market were quite close to the current floor price of $13.57. This means that entities are still valuing carbon allowances close to the floor price, showing expectations of a steady market in the future, there just wasn’t quite enough demand to soak up all the supply in this auction.
• The November auction when 88% of allowances sold was the last time participants were able to buy allowances for $12.73 at auction instead of the 2017 floor price of $13.57.  This opportunity for lower cost allowances seems to explain the higher demand in November.
• Importantly, the ARB allowances that went unsold represent a temporary tightening of the cap. They will not be offered again until two auctions have fully sold all available current allowances. This is an important self-regulating design feature of the cap-and-trade program that helps stabilize prices in the face of inevitable market fluctuations in supply and demand.

What to expect from 2017 auctions

Two major developments this spring may provide more certainty about the post-2020 cap-and-trade program, which we’ve noted before could significantly increase auction demand. First, there will likely be a decision from the appeals court on the California Chamber of Commerce case. There could also be more clarity on the bill or package of bills that could move through the Legislature this year.

The core functions of the cap-and-trade program are operating as intended, reducing carbon emissions while the economy thrives.  But it remains to be seen whether the Legislature will be able to act to provide the highest level of certainty for the cap-and-trade market.

By David Lyon

In its draft 2017 GHG inventory, published this week, the EPA estimates methane emissions from the oil and gas industry were lower than their previous estimate in the 2016 inventory.

The vast majority of the decrease comes from methodological changes in how EPA does these estimates and does not represent actual reductions from improved industry practices. We expect to see fluctuation in EPA estimates in future inventories as the agency continues to revise their accounting methods; this inventory should be viewed as the final answer. But, to see the actual trend in emissions, you should compare 2015 emissions to their updated estimate of 2014 emissions, not the estimate from last year’s inventory. EPA estimates a mere 2% reduction in actual emissions, largely attributable to reduced drilling activity and well completions, which is a result of lower oil and gas prices in 2015. This points to the importance of recently enacted regulations, like the EPA NSPS and BLM rule, to drive the much greater reductions needed to minimize waste and the climate impacts of oil and gas.

What about super-emitters?

While the draft inventory represents progress in that EPA is continuing the process of incorporating new data such as the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, much work remains to be done.  For example, the inventory still largely ignores “super-emitters,” which science has shown to be a major source of emissions. EPA has made an important step by including emissions from the Aliso Canyon blowout, but they exclude other transmission and storage super-emitters, which an EDF/CSU study found to account for almost a quarter of the T&S sector’s emissions. They also have started to account for production super-emitters by including estimates of emissions from stuck dump valves, but the underlying data for this source are flawed and likely greatly underestimate emissions. EPA’s current estimate of production super-emitters only account for 0.2% of production sector emissions.

In contrast, our recent paper in Nature Communications found that super-emitters account for one-third of well pad emissions in the Barnett Shale. Although the science supports some of EPA’s revisions that emissions from individual sources like processing plants have lower emissions than previously estimated, if they had fully accounted for super-emitters, those emissions would have more than offset the paper reductions reflected in the current draft. It is important to see the forest for the trees: emissions may be lower for some sources, but you’re not seeing the true magnitude of total emissions if you ignore the biggest emitters.

What’s next?

In order for EPA to continue their progress in updating the inventory, it is critical that they are allowed to rely on the best science without political interference. We must not be misled by interest groups who claim that the updated inventory is the final answer because it gives the false impression of a large emissions decrease. As a start, EPA should continue collecting data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and Information Collection Request, assure the data is publicly available, and make scientifically supported changes to the GHGRP to increase the accuracy of reported emissions. EPA should also review existing and forthcoming studies that evaluate the contribution of super-emitters and determine the best approach for fully incorporating super-emitters into the inventory.

EPA is accepting comments on the draft inventory until March 17 and plans to release a final inventory by April 15.