Connect with us

Environment

Can California Cars Save the Climate?

Co-published by Fast Company
Is California’s strict zero-emissions strategy, which forces car makers to market exhaust-free hydrogen-fueled and battery-powered vehicles, really the most consumer friendly, egalitarian way to go?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Judith Lewis Mernit

Published

 

on

Co-published by Fast Company
Eric Noble works in the automobile industry, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t worry about climate change. When he and his two sons, 11 and 15 years old, travel south to surf on Baja’s Pacific Coast a few times a year, they can detect the impact greenhouse gases are having on the earth. “We can see the sea level rising,” he says. “Little coastal roads we used to be able to drive on are inundated now. This is happening.” He understands that transportation is responsible for more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases that linger in our atmosphere, and light-duty vehicles—passenger cars, mostly—emit close to two-thirds of that pollution.

And so Noble, who is president of the Orange County, California-based automotive consulting firm CarLab, also worries whether California’s strict zero-emissions vehicle strategy, which forces automakers to market exhaust-free hydrogen-fueled and battery-powered vehicles in the state, is really the most consumer-friendly, egalitarian way to go. Not just in California and the nine states that have followed its lead on emissions standards, but throughout the nation.

The Trump administration, responding to auto industry complaints, has already signaled its intention to revisit an Obama-era rule calling for automakers to steeply raise the average fuel efficiency of their fleets—standards written to provide consistency with the California market. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has threatened to re-examine California’s independent authority to regulate tailpipe emissions as well (though it’s uncertain whether he can). But even if nothing changes at the national level, the greater problem is that zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs), just aren’t selling. “There is no demand,” Noble says. “There never has been. If federal subsidies are pulled or California loses its exemption, ZEV sales would go to next to nothing.”

A 2015 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Electric Power Research Institute found that electrification of the national vehicle fleet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to 80 to 100 million average passenger cars by 2050. But those numbers assume that more than half the miles drivers log will be powered by grid electricity, and that the grid gets the majority of its power from carbon-free sources. Electric cars that run on coal-fired electricity might be doing more harm than good.

California is moving rapidly toward low-carbon electricity generation. But even with a cleaner grid, or solar charging stations in home garages, it’s not enough for car makers to sell a handful of clean cars to do-gooder early adopters. People have to buy them in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Even with substantial perks for drivers—a $7,500 federal tax credit for a pure electric vehicle, carpool lane privileges, the quiet power of an electric motor—manufacturers still lease their cars cheap, and at a loss.

“There’s not a single automaker that makes money on an electric car,” Noble says. Tesla, with its rising stock shares and fame, turned a slim profit in the third quarter of 2016, but likely because of $139 million in ZEV credits it sold to less-green manufacturers. General Motors expects to lose money on every unit it sells of its new Chevrolet Bolt, the all-electric car pitched as an answer to “range anxiety,” because, if you’re careful not to drive it too hard, it can last for 238 miles on a charge.

The problem, says Noble, is not just that, at current prices, it can sometimes cost less to fill a tank than charge a long-range battery. It’s that current EV technology doesn’t fit the pattern of most drivers’ habits—what Noble calls a “duty cycle.” To benefit from a battery-powered electric vehicle, which at its low end has a range of 85 to 130 miles, “you have to own your own house, have an enclosed garage that’s securable, preferably with a 240-volt power outlet,” Noble says. “You’ve got to have a 20-to-50 mile commute, ideally with HOV lane access.” If you live in an apartment, park on the street or in a structure without an EV charging portal, “you’re out.”

Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles would suit a broader range of drivers, but “hydrogen is eons away. It’s not even worth talking about.” Even if there were enough fueling stations spread across the state to give drivers confidence, there wouldn’t be enough hydrogen: No one has quite figured out a hydrogen-production process that doesn’t squander more energy than it creates.

The way Noble sees it, California would do better to promote “milder” forms of low-emissions vehicles—hybrids, conventional engines with efficient transmissions—cars that people already want, and that serve their duty cycles. The state air board, however, is trending in the other direction. In the 2018 model year, incentives to market plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt, which run on both gas and electricity, will decline. Eventually, they’ll go away: By 2030 it’s likely that only hydrogen fuel-cell and pure battery-electric cars will earn automakers the credits they need to do business in the state.

Noble thinks that’s a mistake, and a strategy almost guaranteed to put California far behind on its mandated goal of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. Worse, it won’t make a dent in the climate.

Noble’s grim assessment of California regulation runs counter to the official narrative about the state, which is that for the last half century or more, California has done more than any regulating authority in the world to clean up cars. In 1959 the state legislature ordered the Department of Public Health to establish standards for ordinary pollutants like carbon monoxide and particulates; in 2006, the state legislature passed the world’s first law to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, including tailpipe emissions. The auto industry and George W. Bush’s administration resisted mightily, but in 2009 California got the waiver it needed under the Clean Air Act to enact tough greenhouse gas emissions standards for mobile sources. Within the next three years, the California Air Resources Board developed its Advanced Clean Cars program, a set of mandates and strategies aimed at reducing the heat-trapping gases, along with the soot-and-smog forming contaminants, that cars and trucks emit.

California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle program has been in effect since 1990, but the Advanced Clean Cars program ramped up its goals dramatically. It operates like a cap-and-trade for cars: Automakers are required to earn credits toward their green-vehicle quotas every year by delivering super-low or zero-emission vehicles for sale. If they can’t do that, they can buy credits from manufacturers who have more than they need. Unsurprisingly, Tesla, Inc., which sells long-range battery-electric vehicles exclusively, has made more than $500 million dollars since 2009 selling credits to other manufacturers. Fiat Chrysler, known for its Jeeps and trucks, bought many of them.

“It’s what we call ‘technology-forcing’ regulation,” says David Gerard, a professor of economics at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin, of the ZEV program. “They’re saying, ‘You can’t do it now [but] you’re going to figure out how to do it. It doesn’t matter whether you can make money doing it.’ They’re forcing you to make a commercially viable product out of something that is not commercially viable.” It’s not a new practice: In 1961, California required automakers to install “positive crankcase ventilation” valves on new cars to mix more fresh air into tailpipe emissions; a decade later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began requiring automakers to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from tailpipes, knowing that, in most cases, it could only be done with a certain technology known as the three-way catalytic converter.

Such regulations inevitably cost manufacturers money, and they may or may not create jobs; Gerard, who’s written extensively on this topic, thinks they probably don’t. (One researcher who concluded they did, Michael Porter, has seen his famous “Porter Hypothesis” both debunked and upheld at regular intervals.) But they do force technology to evolve. In the first five years of the Advanced Clean Cars program, the number of ZEV models in showrooms has grown from three in 2011 to 35 in 2016, according to a presentation by General Motors’ Britta Gross at a CARB symposium last September. Engineers have gone to work on making lighter, cheaper, more powerful batteries that charge in minutes, sometimes even without plugging in. Utilities and municipalities have begun to install charging stations on major roadways throughout the state.

Gross, GM’s director of advanced vehicle commercialization policy, argues that some of those technology advances would have happened anyway. “There was a real confluence events that got us to where we are today,” she says, including the company’s experience with the EV1 in the 1990s, a car that originally ran on a plain lead-acid battery before it moved to the more robust nickel-metal hydride. Making the lithium battery automotive-capable was “an evolution of physical chemistry” that simply took time, she says. “It’s not like we could take a lithium battery from your laptop and put in a vehicle.”

And yet it’s no coincidence that the majority of those lithium-battery powered vehicles ride on the highways in California, and the nine states that have adopted California’s tailpipe emissions standards. “Some of this stuff would have happened [without the ZEV program], to be sure,” said Steve Flynn, the director of air resources division in one of those states, New York, at a March 24 CARB hearing. “But I don’t think any of us believe it would have happened in the time frame that we’re looking at now.”

And when you’re talking about arresting the global temperature rise, Flynn noted, “Time is important.”

There’s no question that plug-in hybrids, and hybrids in general, are a clean-car technology that’s easy to love. Driving one, you save gas, gain some environmental cred and never have to suffer from range anxiety. But CARB, in a January review of the Advanced Clean Cars program, found that while plug-in hybrids “can generate significant benefits over conventional vehicles,” in actual use, they don’t quite pack the climate-and-smog relieving punch of ZEVs. Drivers of the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt tend to fall back too often on the convenience of their gas tanks.

Besides, says David Gerard, the point of technology-forcing policy is not to reward companies and people for doing what they already do, but to guide people into habits and technologies that will better serve society’s goals. Car manufacturers were more heavily rewarded for marketing hybrids when hybrids were rare; as they achieve, in Eric Noble’s words, “ubiquity in the market,” they need fewer incentives to maintain their presence on the roads.

In a way, technology-forcing is like the space program: It may not yield immediately practical results, but over time, it pays off in ways no one previously imagined. When the EPA started forcing manufacturers to use computers to monitor cars’ emissions systems, for instance, car makers figured out they could use computers for all kinds of other functions, like climate control and collision avoidance. “The guys at EPA would tell you that they helped the industry,” Gerard says. “Automakers never thought about using computers before that.” By forcing a solution to noxious tail pipe emissions, the EPA helped trigger a market for newer luxury cars.

Nor is technology the only way to go about reducing tailpipe emissions; Gerard, like most economists, would much prefer to slap a carbon tax on gasoline, although that’s a steeper hill, politically. Local and state regulators could also go further in their ambitions, fixing not just the automobile society’s problem with air pollution but with parking and congestion and expensive fixes to freeways: They could direct their efforts toward designing a public transportation network that’s so appealing and clean and convenient that people willingly give up their cars.

According to a survey of experts conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, autonomous vehicles could one day bring about a dream scenario for transportation, where inexpensive, emissions-free robot cars pick you up at home or work and deliver you, on demand, to a transit hub. They could also produce a nightmare, in which only the rich ride around in gas-powered driverless cars, leaving the rest of us to battle it out in increasingly congested roadways and inadequate public transit. The difference, says UC Davis Professor Daniel Sperling, founder of the university’s Institute of Transportation Studies, will be whether local and state governments look far enough down the road to make the dream happen.

The advantage of autonomous vehicles, says Sperling, is that they’re not yet widely available. “So we have an option to guide that technology with policy.” The state can require that autonomous vehicles sold in the state be electric, for instance. It can encourage car makers to design “passenger-centric” instead of “driver-centric” vehicles, making ride sharing easier with backseats just as comfortable as the ones in front.

GM has already begun to use the Bolt, driver attached, in a San Francisco ride-sharing program. Starting in 2018, reports state, the company will partner with the ride-sharing company Lyft to turn thousands of driverless Bolts loose in the city. “This isn’t just a retail market,” Gross says. “This is a commercial opportunity.”

Sperling, who is also a member of the air board, rejects the criticism that the ZEV program has been a failure because it hasn’t sold as many cars as projected. “Outside of a few places in China or Norway where they’ve dumped massive subsidies, the California policy is the most effective in the world,” he says. But that’s not necessarily because it’s aimed at putting a zero-emission vehicle in every garage, though he believes it will someday. It’s because it’s done what technology-forcing regulation is meant to do. “It’s been the most effective at motivating the auto industry at building these electric vehicles, and motivating local governments to think about how to do permitting for charging stations.” It has meant that, when Volkswagen got caught installing smog-test-defeat devices in its diesel cars last year, its punishment included paying out $800 million to build out electric-vehicle charging infrastructure around California.

All of that progress could support the dream scenario Sperling prophesies, but only if the right rules get written for our driverless, ride-sharing future. It won’t matter what decisions are made at a federal level. “There’s no big role for the national government in what we’re talking about here,” Sperling says. “A lot of it has to do with how we use vehicles, which is the prerogative of local and state governments.” Our transportation habits, it turns out, have more to do with what happens close to home than what happens at the EPA.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Environment

Smog Check: Central Valley Congressmen Refuse to Clear the Air

Both ozone and particulate pollution are attributed to oil and gas production, agribusiness, mega-dairies, power generation, heavy equipment and truck traffic – many of the Central Valley’s major businesses.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

Bend in the River: The view from Bakersfield's Panorama Bluffs. (Photos by Dean Kuipers)

According to the American Lung Association, Bakersfield has some of the worst air in the country with regard to the two principal ingredients that make smog.


 

When you stand on Bakersfield’s Panorama Bluffs, the Central Valley’s chronic air quality problems hit you right in the face. A thick, blue-gray aerial sauce lays over the Kern River below and the massive, 9,000-well oilfield to the north, a smog that sweeps up the bluff. The haze smells of oil and cow manure and stings the eyes.

On the day I visited, the Environmental Protection Agency warned residents that the air was “Unsafe for Sensitive Groups” like children and the elderly, who were advised to limit outdoor activity. Unfortunately, these EPA “action days” are the new normal here. According to the American Lung Association’s “State of the Air 2017” report, Bakersfield has some of the worst air in the country with regard to the two principal ingredients that make smog. The city ranks Number One for short-term spikes in fine particle pollution, or PM2.5, and Number Two for ozone (after Los Angeles).

Ozone forms in the atmosphere as the combination of nitrogen oxides, or NOx, and volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that mix in the presence of sunlight. PM2.5 is a tiny particle produced by diesel engines and wood-burning, and by the conversion of NOx and sulfur dioxides, among other chemicals, into particles. Both are dangerous to health and contribute to asthma, lung disease and other ailments.

“It’s like this most days,” said Debbie Saltello, 50, who was walking from Bakersfield College, which sits at the top of the bluffs directly south of the oilfields. “That’s why we’re always sick. People really want to do something about this, and we need to be fighting for cleaner air. But each of us only has time to do so much.”

Saltello felt like she needed to do something, because her representative in Congress was voting the other way. In 2017, congressmen whose districts lie in the Central Valley voted for a little-known new bill, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, or HR 806, which critics say guts the EPA’s ability to set healthy ozone and particulate-matter standards, and delays the implementation of clean-air solutions.

The bill, which passed the House and is now in the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee as S263, delays the implementation of 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards until October 2024, and permanently changes the EPA’s air quality review from a five-year to a 10-year cycle. More important, the proposed measure allows the EPA to consider “technological feasibility” when the agency sets these standards. Currently, the EPA must set standards “requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety,” even if those goals are hard to attain, thus challenging districts and industry to innovate.

Republicans in this conservative swath of the state supported the bill, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, Devin Nunes of Visalia, Jeff Denham of Modesto and David Valadao of Hanford. It was a mostly partisan vote, with only 11 Republicans voting against the bill and only four Democrats voting for it. One Democrat, however, was Jim Costa, whose Fresno district – along with Bakersfield, Visalia, Modesto and Hanford – is routinely among the Top Six worst cities in the U.S. for year-round PM2.5 spikes and ozone.

Costa, Nunes, Denham, Valadao and McCarthy declined to be interviewed for this story, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Pete Olson of Sugar Land, Texas – a Houston  suburb that is also a center for oil and gas production and has its own claims on having the nation’s most polluted air – said his bill was necessary because the EPA was creating red-tape bottlenecks, and he wanted to see fewer communities struggle with the fines and penalties for being in “non-attainment” of the standards. The 2015 NAAQS, which are the latest released, were met by a barrage of litigation and President Trump’s EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, created a task force to explore ways to ease compliance.

“In recent years, we have seen the Environmental Protection Agency’s inability to issue rulemakings and guidance in a timely way on air quality standards,” said Olson in an email interview. “Communities are left with uncertainty and a lack of implementation guidance, while job creators and local businesses are left dealing with the regulatory difficulties of trying to expand in a ‘non-attainment’ area.” Further, Olson claimed, districts were punished for air pollution that might not be their fault. “We have seen significant issues with how the EPA handles emissions outside the control of localities. The State of Texas has spent years struggling to avoid being penalized for pollution caused by natural events like forest fires. It is also worth noting that a significant portion of pollution in the Western U.S. is either naturally occurring or comes from as far away as China.”

Olson denied that his bill will hurt health standards.

Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association, said the bill was driven by the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and other groups that lobby on behalf of big polluters.

“Oh, you mean the Smoggy Skies Act?” Billings asked in reply to a question about the legislation. “This bill is really designed to repeal the fundamental health premise of the Clean Air Act, or, I would say, rip the lungs out of that law. Currently, the standards are based on the health science: ‘Requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.’ In this legislation, they impose a technological feasibility test. Not having doctors and scientists tell us what levels harm health, but to allow engineers and economists to discuss whether or not it is feasible to meet these standards. This is kind of like diagnosing a patient by what it will cost to cure the patient, rather than by what ails the patient.”

In their published dissent, House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats called the bill a “compilation of attacks that in reality strikes at the heart of the CAA [Clean Air Act],” adding: “This bill would undermine decades of progress on cleaning up air pollution and protecting public health from all criteria pollutants – not just ozone.”

Bakersfield’s Rep. McCarthy, who sponsored versions of this bill for years, provided a statement to Capital & Main, which reads in part: “…the Obama Administration’s regulation [meaning the 2015 NAAQS] will saddle our communities with punitive fines for failing to meet a near-impossible task of complying with a standard so unrealistic it is approaching naturally occurring background ozone levels…. This bill makes the right reforms, without sacrificing air quality that will help our communities be healthy and thrive.”

The Lung Association’s “State of the Air 2017” report notes that air quality has been getting progressively better throughout the country since the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, even as it remains unhealthful: Los Angeles still has the nation’s worst ozone problem, but the numbers have been steadily improving. But that has required increasingly more stringent quality standards.

Dolores Barajas-Weller, director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, a clean-air advocacy group, says the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has resisted clean-air strategies proposed by her group. The district’s executive director, Seyed Sadredin, is well-known for wanting to soften the very law he’s supposed to uphold: He submitted a white paper on that subject to the Trump transition team, and testified in support of HR 806 in committee hearings, while the California Air Resources Board and many other agencies in charge of air quality opposed the bill.

“[The District] say they’ve left it all on the table, but they haven’t,” Barajas-Weller said.

Wood-burning and the widespread charbroiling of restaurant foods, for example, could be more strictly regulated, she said, and agricultural burning could be replaced by offering incentives to growers in the valley to chip, mulch and compost their waste. Similarly, the waste water that is a byproduct of oil and gas extraction is a major source of VOCs and needs addressing. Farm equipment can be transitioned from diesel to clean energy. And biomass energy facilities need to be more strictly controlled.

“The Rio Bravo biomass facility here in Fresno is the top PM2.5 source for the entire county, and it’s located in one of the poorest unincorporated communities,” said Barajas-Weller. “The governor signed a five-year bill to bring in all of the forests affected by the tree mortality issues, trucking them down on diesel trucks and burning them in a disadvantaged community.”

“With respect to particulate matter and ozone, it’s very disheartening that the congressional Republicans, now that they’re in power, are working tirelessly to gut to protections in the Clean Air Act,” said José Gurrola, mayor of the Kern County town of Arvin, located just south of Bakersfield. “Here in Kern County, we saw over the holidays a period of about 10 days where particulate-matter pollution was so bad that we hadn’t seen that kind of pollution since the 1990s.”

Gurrola, who was elected in 2016 on an environmental platform, sees vast opportunity for the valley in the process of air cleanup. He wants smart growth, mass transit, tractors and oilfield equipment running off clean energy, and subsidies for electric vehicles targeted directly to the Central Valley.

“Rather than weaken the standards of the Clean Air Act,” Gurrola said, “I think that [Congress] should provide more resources to the Valley Air District, to provide more incentives for both industry and the community to work together to improve the air.”


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Environment

Four Ways California Can Beat Trump’s Solar Tariff

How much damage a 30 percent tariff will inflict depends on who’s talking. The Solar Energy Industries Association says the impact will be devastating. Others speak less pessimistically.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Judith Lewis Mernit

Published

 

on

The new tariff will complicate the development of large, industrial “utility-scale” solar plants, a meaningful source of jobs
in a labor-poor industry.


On January 22 President Trump announced that the U.S. would impose a 30 percent tariff on solar technology imported from China and most other countries. The tariff won’t boost domestic solar manufacturing, but it will inflict damage on America’s 374,000-job solar industry, which for the last eight years has thrived on inexpensive imports.

How much damage depends on who’s talking. The Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA, says the impact will be devastating. Others say it will only drive the cost of solar installations back to where they were in 2015 ($1.77 to $3.09 per watt, opposed to $1.03 to $2.80 per watt in 2017), when solar installation was doing fine. The Obama administration imposed tariffs on Chinese solar imports specifically in 2012, and on China and Taiwan in 2014. Solar deployment in the U.S. nevertheless doubled between 2014 and 2016.

California state law, which also requires utilities to procure half of their energy from renewable sources by 2030, will also soften the effect of the price hike. Rooftop solar will feel little impact because each system is small enough to absorb a nominal price hike. What the tariff will do, however, is complicate the development of large, industrial “utility-scale” solar plants, a meaningful source of jobs in a labor-poor industry.

“California’s renewable energy mandate has created significant numbers of good, family-sustaining jobs with health care and retirement security,” says Carol Zabin of the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education. “It has also provided apprenticeship training and jobs to people of color from some of the poorest regions of our state.”

There are ways to cushion the tariff’s blow, however, ways that are within the powers of local and state governments, or at least can be helped along by local support. Some ideas follow.

Subsidize innovation: Way back in, say, 2009, a rooftop solar array was out of reach for most middle-class homeowners. Large, “utility-scale” plants, built in remote areas to power cities, made little sense for utilities that could buy coal-generated electricity or build new natural gas plants for less. The only way solar was going to make sense was if somebody figured out how to make it more efficient, or cheaper.

The U.S. Energy Department in the Obama administration therefore put its weight behind research. Stimulus funds were made available for grants and guaranteed loans, and the Energy Department’s SunShot Initiative went looking for ways to wring more watts from a photon. There were many auspicious ventures. A California company called Solyndra, for example, had designed cylindrical solar modules that converted more light into electricity using a material called copper indium gallium selenide, or CIGs to convert sunlight to electricity, which proved more efficient than the traditional crystalline silicon.

Solyndra notoriously went bankrupt, defaulting on its loan. At least one of the reasons (there are many), is that the Chinese started rapidly churning out solar panels, with abundant government subsidies. By applying its innovative muscle to manufacturing processes, not advances in technology, China went from producing almost no solar panels in 2001 to, by 2010, producing half the world’s supply. Manufacturers in the U.S. and other countries accused China of flooding the market, but solar prices dropped by as much as 90 percent. That price drop fueled an international energy revolution with ordinary silicon photovoltaic solar cells.

That rapid transition from conventional to renewable energy, still underway, was a boon for the climate. But it wasn’t so good for innovation. Solar still takes up too much space, creating conflicts between environmentalists and conservationists over open space and wildlife. Alternative materials, such as Solyndra’s CIGs and gallium arsenide are still more efficient solar-to-electricity converters than silicon. A team at Stanford University has developed a way to manufacture gallium arsenide more cheaply than ever.

There are indications that federal decision-makers understand the importance of inventing new solar things. The day after the tariff announcement, Energy Secretary Rick Perry announced a $3 million prize for solar innovation, with the intent of reenergizing domestic manufacturing of solar technology.

Build a better battery: Methods of storing solar-generated energy are proliferating, from Tesla’s Powerwall to the molten salt tower at Nevada’s Crescent Dunes concentrating solar thermal plant (it uses mirrors, not photovoltaic cells, to harness the sun’s energy). Right now, California often has so much solar during daylight hours that the system operator sometimes pays other states to take it. Storage means solar could feed a steady stream of electrons into the grid, making it ever more valuable to the people whose job it is to maintain a reliable electricity supply.

Let solar installers off the hook: When a solar developer sells energy to a utility, the two parties agree to a certain price based on the developer’s cost to develop, design, construct and operate the project. Because companies bid these projects to utilities, that price is the lowest feasible cost at one point in time, says Patrick Hodgins of the Renewable Resources Group, a clean-energy developer. “The utility says, ‘We want X quantity of solar, so let us know what you can deliver it for.’ It’s a race to the bottom on procurement.”

Some developers have loaded up on panels in advance of the tariff. But the ones that have not assumed they were getting them at a lower cost than they can buy them for now. The utilities signed those contracts in a pre-tariff environment, “so if someone’s coming to them saying ‘all of my costs have changed,’ the utilities are not likely to give them any concessions, since they planned on paying the price that was bid,” Hodgins says.

Concessions are even less likely since most of California’s utilities are well on their way to surpassing at least near-term state mandates for procuring renewable energy. “If they don’t get relief, many of those projects are going to die,” Hodgins says.

One of the ways to get that relief would be for utilities to waive the penalties they charge to let developers out of contractual obligations. That would enable them to bid their projects to “community choice” aggregators, or CCAs — municipal entities authorized to purchase power on behalf of their communities. CCAs often have specific requirements for carbon emissions that their consumers demand. “They have a need,” Hodgins says. “They’re in the process of figuring out what their loads are going to look like. They’re offering programs to their consumers beyond what’s required by statute.” Some CCAs say they can provide electricity from 100 percent renewable sources — which means they need all the solar they can get.

Partner with China for stateside manufacturing: Because Trump’s tariff steps down by five percent each year for four years and then expires, it won’t automatically spur investment in stateside solar manufacturing. Only specific policies can do that, and the U.S. so far doesn’t have them. But if Trump is serious about ramping up domestic manufacturing of solar panels — and the tariff might work to that effect — he should invest the money in a solar gigafactory, similar to the one Tesla has for batteries.

This idea comes from Jigar Shah, the president and co-founder of an energy company called Generate Capital, but also a well-known thinker on renewable energy matters. Shah writes in Quartz that the tariff will bring in an estimated $1.6 billion every year to America’s coffers. “It would be the incentive the industry needs to refocus on domestic manufacturing instead of taking advantage of cheap overseas panels.”

In a nod to U.S. solar module manufacturers who import the cells for their panels from other countries, the administration has allowed 2.5 gigawatts of solar cells to cross our borders tariff free, which means that assembly in the U.S. is still possible. But factories ought to make the cells, too, and find “world-class plant operators,” Shah writes. And really the only place to find them is China.

Shah isn’t optimistic about Trump’s ability to negotiate a solar factory partnership with China. But if Trump can’t or won’t make a deal, then states, including California, can. Already the Chinese solar manufacturer JinkoSolar is looking for space and tax breaks to build a $54 million headquarters and manufacturing plant in Jacksonville, Florida. California Gov. Jerry Brown has already been clearing a path to climate collaboration with Beijing. California — or at the very least, our low-tax neighbor, Nevada — could be headed for a plant of its own.


Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading

Environment

Why Climate Activists Protested Jerry Brown’s Swan Song

Climate-change activists hoping to hear the governor propose a new climate initiative during his State of the State speech Thursday were disappointed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

Photo by Carlos Perea

One might expect the final State of the State address from a governor who spent nearly half a century on California’s political scene to be a bit of a victory lap. Speaking before the state’s assembled legislators on Thursday, Jerry Brown took the time to list many of his achievements , including a balanced budget, low unemployment and criminal justice reforms.

But on what might be Brown’s signature accomplishment, climate change policy, activists hoping to hear a new initiative were disappointed. Brown didn’t mention oil and gas in his speech, and that’s a problem, activists say, because despite his reputation as a climate leader, his record on climate is mixed at best.

Shortly after Brown’s address, health professionals and members of the Oil Money Out campaign, a coalition of environmental, advocacy and political groups, gave a press conference on the steps of the state capitol prior to delivering more than 80,000 signatures petitioning Governor Brown and California’s elected officials to refuse to accept oil money.

South L.A. resident Gabriela Garcia gave an emotional recounting of the health problems her family had suffered as a result of living near the AllenCo oil wells.

“We would feel tremors,” Garcia said. “We would smell interesting smells in our neighborhood . . . Later we found out they were using masking agents. At 4 o’clock in the afternoon or at 5 in the morning we [felt] these tremors in the earth or . . . we smelled these smells that are not normal. My own daughter was waking up with blood all over her face.”

Garcia and other neighbors started People Not Pozos (People Not Wells) and were able to shut down one nearby well, but she said she fears AllenCo will keep trying to reopen it.

Several speakers said Garcia’s experience with urban oil drilling shows how Brown has been far too accommodating to the oil and gas industry.

David Braun, director of Rootskeeper and Oil Money Out, was an organizer of the event. He told Capital & Main that Brown needs to “walk the walk” on the environment and climate change.

“I’m always encouraged to hear Brown talk about climate change, but he has ignored the science about fracking and oil production,” Braun said.

“The influence of Big Oil has long been felt in California politics,” said R.L. Miller, chair of the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus. She and other activists fought against the extension of Assembly Bill 398 last year, saying cap-and-trade was too friendly to the oil and gas industry.

Environmental advocates say California can’t meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets, let alone live up to its reputation as a climate leader, without severely reducing the amount of oil and gas production. California is third on the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s list of top crude oil-producing states, behind Texas and North Dakota. Though the state has reduced crude oil production since the 1980s, California still delivers two million barrels per day from 12 refineries. According to a 2015 report commissioned by industry lobbying group Western States Petroleum Association, oil and gas contributes to nearly 500,000 direct and indirect jobs in the state, and accounts for 3.4 percent of the state GDP.

That amount of oil and gas activity has an effect on the state beyond economics. In 2015, a California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) report determined that fracking and urban drilling are dangerous for California and made recommendations such as mandatory human health buffer zones around oil operations. But so far, none of the scientific recommendations have been implemented.

And a 2017 report by the Center for Biological Diversity showed that urban oil drilling releases toxic air pollutants that cause cancer, asthma and other health problems, and that communities of color are disproportionately affected.

“Urban oil drilling uses the same chemicals used in fracking,” Braun said. “But because routine oil operations, which constitute most of the urban oil drilling in California, is not considered well stimulation, nobody is overseeing it.”

Despite California’s reputation of leading the fight for environmentally friendly policies, the oil industry spent more than $36 million in the 2015-16 legislative session, up from $34 million the previous year, according to an American Lung Association study. Miller says that money had influence on climate policies, including AB 398, the extension of cap-and-trade, which Miller said had its “genesis in oil industry talking points.”

A 2016 report by Consumer Watchdog, “Brown’s Dirty Hands,” found that energy companies, including giants Occidental, Chevron and NRG, had donated $9.8 million to Jerry Brown’s campaigns, cause, and initiatives, and to the California Democratic Party between 2009 and 2014. “This was hush money to protect the oil industry,” Liza Tucker, alleges. The report and demands by climate advocates led the California Democratic party to pledge that it would no longer accept donations from oil companies.

In her other capacity as co-founder of Climate Hawks Vote, Miller recently got the four major Democratic candidates – including Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, State Treasurer John Chiang, former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin – to sign a pledge to take no oil money.

“I think this [pledge] shows the candidates at least acknowledge there’s an oil lobbying problem,” Miller said, adding that activists need to hold candidates accountable to ensure oil money doesn’t quietly seep into campaigns through independent expenditures.


Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading

Environment

How L.A. Helped Its Homeless During the Wildfires

During Los Angeles County’s recent wildfires, local organizations that aid the homeless have been working overtime to help those in need.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

A Santa Rosa evacuation center during Northern California's October fires. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

The devastating impact of wildfires exploding across swaths of California is captured nightly in dramatic television footage. Largely unseen, though, is how those same fires affect Los Angeles’ growing homeless population, many of whom have abandoned menacing urban streets for the relative safety of woodland encampments.

Fires that consumed parts of Northern California in October destroyed thousands of homes and put many already homeless residents in the path of danger. The story is no different in Southern California, and local organizations that aid the homeless have been working overtime to help those in need.

Colleen Murphy, coordinator of outreach at the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authorities, told Capital & Main that her agency started working to locate homeless encampments the second they learned the fires had started. She knew there were only so many beds in so many shelters they could use, so they had to redouble their efforts to make sure they found space for everyone.

“One of the things that was a little challenging at the time was that L.A. opens up winter shelters on December 1, and some of the winter shelters were pretty close to the fire area,” Murphy said. “So we were also trying to navigate whether we needed to close the shelters, because that is normally where we would send people.” Their winter shelters were closest to the Rye Fire near Santa Clarita, and in Pacoima near the Creek Fire in the hills above Sylmar. Luckily, none of the shelters the organization needed had to close due to the fires, and they were able to help find beds for the homeless they could locate.

Patrick Justice, an outreach coordinator for LA Family Housing, said he sent support teams to known homeless encampments in the San Fernando and Santa Clarita valleys as quickly as he could. He estimated that hundreds of homeless individuals were in evacuation areas. “Some of the encampment locations were directly in the fire evacuation zones,” he said. Reaching those people wasn’t always easy, because sometimes routes to these locations were blocked by the fires. “There were areas we weren’t able to get to right off the bat,” Justice said. “We had to find alternative ways in.”

The homeless population in Los Angeles County has risen by nearly a quarter since last year, a rise traceable to skyrocking rents and stagnant wages according to a Zillow report. There are nearly 60,000 homeless residents in the county, and officials have been struggling to help this vulnerable group of people.

Getting that population into shelter and out of woodland areas protects them and nearby residents. The Skirball fire that destroyed six very expensive homes in Bel-Air and damaged a dozen more was started by a cooking fire in a homeless encampment in a canyon just off the 405 Freeway in the Sepulveda Pass.

As destructive as the blaze was to property in one of the most affluent communities in the country, the fire’s cause “makes a tragic event even more tragic,” Los Angeles Councilman Paul Koretz told the Los Angeles Times. “The saddest thing is that we have so many homeless people,” said Koretz, whose district includes Bel-Air. “And they are everywhere in the city. And that sometimes causes serious problems.”

Los Angeles officials hope to develop ways to evacuate homeless populations in woodland areas once fire conditions—high winds and accumulated dry brush—arise. But Mayor Eric Garcetti said a lot of people could still be missed, given all the hills in the city. “Just like ramping up efforts to try to anticipate terrorist incidents, you can never get to zero risk,” he told the Times. “And I think it would be a mistake to think we could.”

Murphy and Justice pointed to Measure H, approved by voters last March, as being a major help in their efforts to locate homeless encampments during the fires. Measure H imposed a one-quarter percent county sales tax for 10 years “in order to fund homeless services and prevention,” Ballotpedia explained. Murphy and Justice believe the response to the fires would not have been nearly as effective without the funding and services Measure H delivered.

“I think this is showing the importance of Measure H, which pays for outreach coordination and those outreach teams,” Murphy said. In areas like the Sylmar Hills where the Creek Fire broke out, “we were able to mobilize and had the infrastructure to utilize, as well as the actual teams who knew these places,” Murphy said. “That couldn’t have been done without expanded Measure H funding.”

“Seeing the way the county is moving with all of the Measure H funds, we’re starting to see really strong infrastructure countywide and trickling down into these service planning areas,” Justice said. “I was getting a lot of support from the county level. Having that infrastructure is really amazing.”


Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading

Environment

All About EVs: Why There Isn’t a Ford in Your Future

Are we putting too much pressure on autonomous electric vehicles to solve all of our problems, from pollution to congestion to traffic safety?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Judith Lewis Mernit

Published

 

on

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


“If you think being homeless is bad, try being homeless without a car.”


A couple of years ago in a West L.A. park, I’d hang out with a guy named Richard, who told me he was a former film producer. Long out of work due to an undiagnosed mental illness, Richard had an idea for developing a television show called The Gutter Gourmet, in which he would teach people living out of their cars how to make nutritious meals with makeshift kitchen setups perched on their hoods or tailgates.

I thought the idea had legs, and we started shooting some footage. But one day Richard stopped showing up. When I saw him again a month or two later, both he and his old shepherd-mix dog looked depleted. He told me that his car had been impounded for parking tickets, and he’d just managed to get it back. He and his dog had spent weeks living in the open, where he said he’d been robbed and continually harassed.

“If you think being homeless is bad,” he told me, “try being homeless without a car.”

With every new analysis that comes out on the topic of autonomous vehicles, I think about the Richards of the world. In a study released last May, ReThinkX, a Palo Alto think tank, predicted that by 2030 almost no one among us will still own a car. Instead, we’ll wheel around town in driverless electric vehicles, which we’ll summon with our thumbs on our smartphones, much in the way we order a Lyft or Uber now. Tesla’s Elon Musk has suggested that driving could one day be outlawed due to the dangers of human error, and Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, Inc., which makes artificial intelligence systems, believes that robot cars will be ready to roll out in just four years.

It remains to be seen how a driverless future will benefit the poor. “Transport-as-a-service”
will likely have a deleterious effect on
public transportation.

Lest you conclude that only Silicon Valley futurists with a stake in this revolution buy into its inevitability, consider Bob Lutz, the 85-year-old former vice chairman of General Motors, who says that in 10 or 15 years, you’ll be selling your internal combustion engine Chevrolet for scrap.

There are all sorts of dreamy upsides to this disruption of car culture, beginning with, but not limited to, the climate. The ReThinkX researchers project that “Transport as a Service,” or TaaS, will mean fewer vehicles on the roads driving more miles, completely eliminating urban congestion. Cost, not environmental concerns, will drive the adoption of electric vehicles for autonomous fleets, as EVs are easier to maintain, cheaper to fuel and last for 500,000 miles. The average household will save more than $5,600 a year by not having to own, insure and maintain a car. The oil industry will collapse.

Researchers in Australia have even been studying whether autonomous vehicles could be programmed to avoid wildlife that strays onto roadways, reducing the need for fencing and other barriers, and thus preserving migration routes for animals such as Southern California’s beloved but threatened cougars.

But it remains to be seen how this driverless future will benefit the poor. Transport-as-a-service will likely have a deleterious effect on public transportation, as people with more resources abandon it, opting instead to text, nap and browse Facebook on their solo, driverless commutes. Nor will it necessarily be accessible to people who move through the world without the technology and resources most people in the U.S. take for granted. Right now, the only way to order a rideshare from Lyft or Uber is with a smartphone, and while smartphone ownership in the U.S. has gone from 35 percent in 2011 to 77 percent in 2016, that still leaves nearly a quarter of Americans without the devices.

Rideshare services also require a bank account or credit card, or at least a funded PayPal account. Only seven percent of households manage without bank accounts in the U.S., as compared with eight percent in 2013 — a positive side effect of the economic recovery after the Great Recession. But among black and Latino households, as well as those headed by people with disabilities, close to half remain either “unbanked” or “underbanked,” meaning they have some sort of bank account, but still use check-cashing services.

“We can’t operate from the mindset that everyone is a savvy smartphone user with a bank account, good credit and an ample disposable income,” says Jeremy Martin, head of the clean cars program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Transportation network providers should be required to ensure that payment mechanisms don’t discriminate against anyone.”

“As the footprint of transportation network companies grow,” Martin adds, “our regulatory structures need to adapt along with them.”

Then there are the people like Richard — people for whom a car isn’t just a way of getting around town, but also a refuge. In Los Angeles alone, there are currently about 7,000 people living in their vehicles. If it’s hard for them to find a place to park now, imagine what it will be like when individual car ownership is outlawed, and parking spaces have been repurposed for office parks.

Experts are not uniformly confident that free-market forces will give rise to the utopian future the ReThinkX report outlines. The fleet of self-driving cars—as many as 24,000—that Uber has agreed to buy from Volvo, for instance, will run on gasoline, though the carmaker claims they’ll save fuel by “eliminating unnecessary acceleration.” It’s entirely possible that people who can afford to own one will, and road congestion will get worse. Only the well-heeled will then have the means to flee the city in the event of a disaster that destroys the grid and all its networks.

Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, has long warned that state and local regulation must jump ahead of the technological transformation to avert such a nightmare scenario. “Cities and states need to look at the policy levers they have,” he says, to “discourage single- and zero-occupant automated vehicles.” Some of those levers could be incentives, in the form of preferential parking and tax credits. Some could be prohibitions on independent riders. “From a policy perspective we’ve got to start figuring that out.”

Autonomous rides could be made accessible and affordable to the unplugged and unbanked pretty easily, using the same model urban transit agencies use to pay for bus and rail fares. Cash-only riders can load up cards in advance at kiosks or convenience stores. BlueLA, a pilot electric-vehicle car-sharing program due to launch in 2018, operates on the same principle, offering drivers the opportunity to reserve cars and pay fees at transit hubs and other key points around Los Angeles. The process doesn’t require a smart phone.

State and local governments might also subsidize driverless rideshares for low-income and elderly riders. That might sound extravagant, but in some places, funding a network of shared autonomous vehicles could cost less than funding more miles of bus and rail transit. As Sperling highlights in his book due out in March, Three Revolutions: Steering Shared, Automated and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future, single-occupant Uber and Lyft services currently run about $1.50 per mile. Put two or three passengers in each vehicle and take away the driver, and the cost per mile of travel drops to about 10 cents.

And that’s not just because no one has to pay a driver. It simply costs less per mile, Sperling says, to own a vehicle that drives more miles in a year. “If you divide the [annual] depreciation of a car over 15,000 miles,” Sperling explains, “then the cost per mile is much more than if it’s spread over 100,000 miles.” The same principle applies to insurance, registration and any other fixed costs.

In nearly every urban center, parking takes up enough land to solve a city’s housing crisis.

In theory, the new robot-car society might even offer a solution to Richard’s living space problem. Because autonomous vehicles obviate the need for parking lots, some of the land in cities could be rezoned for low- or even no-cost housing. Or it could just go toward housing in general, which has hit a crisis point in nearly every large city in the U.S.

“Parking takes up premium land,” says Matthew Lewis, a climate consultant and urban planning advocate in Berkeley, California. It’s also richly subsidized land. The way it pencils out, Lewis says, is that city “taxpayers actually pay car owners to use that land.” And in nearly every urban center, parking takes up enough land to solve nearly every city’s housing crisis. Parking in the City of Los Angeles, according to the parking inventory mapping project What the Street!?, takes up about 183 million square feet. That’s enough space to put up 18,300 small-lot multi-family structures, with six to 10 units each.

But ending America’s urban housing crisis may be freighting the autonomous nirvana with a bit too much transformative hope. Especially since, as Lewis argues, we already have the way to reduce congestion and pollution, and to free up parking in urban centers: “Ban cars,” he says. “At least in the urban cores where they make the least sense.” For that, he notes, “You don’t need new technology. You need political will.” If we can’t muster the civic determination to drop parking requirements from new development, establish dedicated bike lanes, and pedestrianize city streets now, it’s hard to imagine we’ll do autonomous vehicles in the fair and clean way in 10 or 20 years.

“The AV folks think they’ve got a car that’s a solution to cars,” Lewis says. “But in the meantime we’ve got a climate crisis and a housing crisis that are feeding each other. We don’t need to wait until parking disappears in 2045 to address it.”


Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading

Environment

Study Shows Limits of Cap-And-Trade in California

California succeeded in lowering greenhouse gas emissions last year. But a new study finds the state’s ambitious cap-and-trade program may have had nothing to do with it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

Protesters assemble after being removed from the UN climate summit in Bonn, Germany. (Photo: Rebecca Fuoco)

 

On November 11, shortly after he began his speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany, California Governor Jerry Brown encountered jeers and chants from Native American and climate justice activists who denounced fracking and the state’s market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions by yelling, “Keep it in the ground.”

A visibly rattled Brown snapped at the protesters, saying “Let’s put you in the ground so we can get on with the show here,” before he softened and thanked them for “bringing the diversity of dissent.”

Brown has been hailed as a climate hero for signing the ambitious California Senate Bill 32, which mandates the statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as his public opposition to the regressive climate policies of the Trump administration. But he’s also drawn scorn for his lack of opposition to fracking, his refusal to close the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility, and for his ardent support of cap-and-trade, which some environmentalists say shouldn’t be the lynchpin of progressive climate policy.

In an email, Jean Su, associate conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups organizing the Bonn protest, countered Brown’s assertion that cutting oil demand is more urgent than cutting oil supply. “California can’t be a model of climate leadership while oil companies continue to produce millions of barrels per year of some of the dirtiest crude on the planet,” Su said.

Coinciding with the Bonn protest comes a new study examining cap-and-trade, Brown’s signature greenhouse gas trading program. In a report released the day before the Bonn speech, the nonprofit think tank Near Zero found cap-and-trade, a key strategy for achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, has fallen short of its promise.

Cap-and-trade is a market-based program that allows companies to buy and sell credits to emit a certain amount of pollution, based on a state-imposed cap on emissions across an industry. The theory is, companies would want to save money by cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. Brown has said the program will reduce climate-changing gases by requiring covered facilities to factor the cost of carbon into their business operations. The Near Zero study found that California greenhouse emissions have been cut – by five percent in 2016 alone – but through changes in the mix of sources generating electricity, including hydropower and solar, rather than cap-and-trade.

The study’s lead author Danny Cullenward said research found that the current limits on pollution set by cap-and-trade are far above actual emissions. The result is an oversupply of allowances that keep the price of carbon cheap and, critics contend, give companies little incentive to slash emissions. That build up of unused allowances enables companies “to maintain their emissions farther into the future than post-2020 program caps might nominally suggest,” he wrote in the report’s summary.

Cullenward told Capital & Main cap-and-trade needs to be tweaked in order to meet California’s goal of reducing emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. “Emissions have fallen pretty quickly and that’s good news. But a lot of people are saying, ‘See, the cap and trade program is working,’ and our analysis shows that it’s too soon to say that.”

Cullenward added that the promise of cap-and-trade is real, but that there is “more work to do” to make it effective. “The state is pursuing an ambitious 2030 climate target, and regulators expect cap-and-trade to play the single biggest role in reducing emissions.”

Earlier this year, California extended cap-and-trade through 2030.

In an email, Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board (CARB), disputed Near Zero’s findings that the state’s cap-and-trade program is not driving observed reductions.

Young cited the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power as an example that cap-and-trade can directly lower carbon emissions. “From 2013 to 2016, overall CO2 emissions from LADWP’s portfolio of generating resources decreased 26 percent (3.6 million metric tons) due to the increase in renewable energy and use of the carbon cost adder. This represents a 42 percent reduction from 1990 levels, which exceeds Los Angeles’ 2030 goal,” Young explained.

Liza Tucker, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog, said that cap-and-trade is a bust because the “approach is too lax.”

Tucker also criticized the law extending the program because it directs CARB to regulate refineries only through cap-and-trade and prevents local air quality boards from more aggressively regulating industry. “But [the law] bans CARB and other agencies from imposing new greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations.”
The Near Zero report is not the first study showing the limited impact of cap-and-trade. Last year, researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California at Berkeley found that California’s cap and trade program had not cut greenhouse gasses. Preliminary evidence suggested that cap-and-trade had, in fact, led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in several industries.

 


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Environment

Study Finds Elevated Levels of Dangerous Chemicals in Porter Ranch Residents

A family practice physician, testing patients living near the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak, says he has discovered the presence of toxins in their systems.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

Aliso Canyon photo by Scott L.

Porter Ranch Doctor: “State agencies
are withholding information.”


An independent health study released earlier this month showed elevated levels of carcinogens in residents living near Aliso Canyon, the site of the massive 2015 natural gas blowout in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley.

Dr. Jeffrey Nordella, a family practice physician in Porter Ranch, near Aliso Canyon, tested 120 patients just after the gas leak was capped in February 2016 and followed up months later. He found significantly elevated levels of styrene, also known as ethynylbenzene, in urine samples, and higher levels of uranium and lithium in hair samples. In 26 Porter Ranch homes, lithium was detected in water supplied by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), but there were no detectable levels of lithium in water from other sources.

Capital & Main discussed Dr. Nordella’s study with him on October 23, the second anniversary of the massive natural gas leak in the Aliso Canyon storage field.


Larry Buhl: How dangerous are some of these chemicals like styrene?

Jeffrey Nordella: Styrene is a volatile organic compound [VOC] and well documented in its use in oil and gas production. It is a carcinogen that is metabolized to a chemical in the liver and it’s collected in urine. The level was very high in residents I tested. When you put all of these chemicals in the body, there will be different effects than when you introduce one chemical. The term we use in medicine is polypharmaceutical. We are in unchartered waters in terms of understanding what all of these together will do.

How many of the Porter Ranch residents tested had abnormal symptoms or health problems?

JN: All of them except one patient were ill with a combination of symptoms.

Was there any correlation between the toxins you found in their systems and the symptoms?

JN: I didn’t look for that. And remember that more than one chemical can cause the same health symptom. Methane and lithium can cause headaches, for example. This requires further study, but unfortunately a good percentage of the window of opportunity is gone for some of the necessary studies. I started months after the well was sealed. Next week I’m going to initiate an epidemiology study to find out who is sick with what. I will look at how many cases [there are] of leukemia, anemia, transitional cell carcinoma and others. I will see how the findings compare to other populations.

Why isn’t the city or county health department doing this?

JN: That’s what I want to know. The county health department hired a company to study 103 homes. They did the wipe testing of hard surfaces and they also did air canister testing, but decided not to test for benzene in the wipe study. Why? In their air canister study, six of 103 homes tested positive for benzene above the EPA’s acceptable level, but they didn’t notify the residents about the levels. Why? As well as benzene, why wasn’t the acrolein disclosed when 96 percent of homes tested positive? Acrolein is a VOC linked to cancer. State agencies are withholding information.

Do you think the county department of public health has been forthright with the community?

JN: Absolutely not. And politicians [should] get their heads out of the sand. [State Senator] Henry Stern [D-Canoga Park] has been on top of this, but where are the others? The biggest issue is the lack of transparency.

Your study showed that nearly a third of Porter Ranch residents were experiencing nosebleeds months after the leak was capped. Does this suggest the physical symptoms began before the 2015 blowout and leak?

JN: We had testimony from people who said they smelled mercaptan, a chemical used as an odorant added to natural gas, for a long time before the blowout. Also, we tested hair samples — like rings of a tree. I tested at 12 inches, which is approximately two years of growth, and at a quarter inch. The toxicological appearance of [chemicals] was greater at two years’ growth, suggesting residents were exposed a long time ago.

What about lithium in the water? This wasn’t due to the gas leak, was it?

JN: It is unknown at this time. I gave my presentation showing lithium in 26 out of 26 samples to LADWP, and I feel their explanation is not sufficient. Their argument is because [the Environmental Protection Agency] has no health goals regarding lithium, there’s no reason to test [for] it. It’s a circular argument. I provided LADWP with a study out of Copenhagen, Denmark in August, which recommends that people should not take lithium supplements. In my opinion the EPA should look at what’s a safe level of lithium, if any.


Note: The County Department of Public Health (DPH) said in an email that it had tested a number of homes for many chemicals and published reports of the overall findings, available at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/gasleak/.

“DPH continues to advocate for a comprehensive, long-term health study of this community, consistent with the scope of work and cost agreed to by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts,” the email said. “The projected cost of the study is approximately $35-$40 million.”

Dr. Nordella’s findings can be read here.


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Environment

Is Dry Cleaning About to Get Wetter, Safer and Greener?

Professional “wet cleaning,” a process developed in Germany in 1991, relies on special computer-controlled machines and detergents to safely clean delicate garments with water. Can California’s dry cleaners be persuaded to switch from using toxic chemicals to this most eco-friendly of cleaning methods?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

From left: AQUA WET CLEAN’s chief technology officer, Paulo Neves, with co-founders Peter Sinsheimer and Hans Kim.

All Photographs by Joanne Kim


Faced with the planned phase-out of a dangerous solvent, California’s dry cleaners have the chance to break with a toxic past.

 

When Sung Park’s landlord found contamination from a dry cleaning solvent in the soil around her Rancho Cucamonga cleaning business, Park had a choice to make. She could spend tens of thousands of dollars on a new machine that used another polluting — but less toxic — solvent, or invest in a new water-based cleaning technique recommended by her nephew, a biochemist.

She chose professional wet cleaning, a process developed in Germany in 1991, which relies on special computer-controlled machines and detergents to safely clean delicate garments with water. Park’s decision in 1999 made her an unlikely environmental advocate and pioneer in an industry under pressure from regulators and landlords to find an alternative to a toxic cleaning solvent that is used by 28,000 cleaners across the country.

I met Park and her nephew, Hans Kim, in mid-September at the site of their new wet-cleaning venture, AQUA  WET CLEAN, as the nephew-aunt team—along with co-founder Peter Sinsheimer — awaited building permits from the city of Los Angeles. We sat around a table in a cavernous former downtown garment factory that was to be their wet-cleaning plant, sipping water from paper cups and talking about the enterprise that was about to take shape.

Los Angeles Dry Cleaner:
“Honestly, I think the clothes come out fresher and more stains come out in the wet-cleaning process than they do in dry cleaning.”

When it opens later in November, AQUA will be both a retail cleaner serving downtown and a demonstration site that aims to win over skeptical cleaners from around the state, many of whom are preparing to invest tens of thousands of dollars in new equipment. Cleaners who want to convert to wet cleaning will be able to become licensees of AQUA. In exchange for a monthly fee, they will be able to lease equipment, enter into a service agreement, and also receive training and marketing support.

California is the only state in the nation that is planning a phase-out of the dry-cleaning solvent perchloroethylene—also known as “perc” — which is considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be a likely carcinogen. It is associated with a number of cancers, including pancreatic cancer, which killed Kim’s father, who was also a dry cleaner.

Long-term exposure can result in central nervous system, liver and kidney damage. If not properly handled, perc can seep through walls and harm those living or working nearby. Perc spills are considered severe environmental accidents that can contaminate underground aquifers, which explains why landlords are not always keen to have perc dry cleaners as tenants.

Green Cleaner (4)

Some 400 Southern California cleaners, under permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, must transition away from perc by 2020, according to SCAQMD spokesman Sam Atwood. Several hundred more cleaners in the rest of the state have until 2023 to find another cleaning solvent.

They will face an array of solvents to choose from. Kim and Park hope their colleagues will select what researchers and regulators say is the most eco-friendly approach to professional garment care.

In exchange for a monthly fee, AQUA licensees will be able to lease equipment, enter into a service agreement, and also receive training and marketing support. Many dry cleaners are “hard workers,” says Kim, but not good marketers or repair technicians. Like Kim and Park, many cleaners are South Korean immigrants who came to the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s seeking greater opportunities. “With this venture, we will be able to license all the solutions to small mom-and-pop shops,” says Kim, who, along with Sinsheimer, is AQUA’s co-founder.

Hans Kim presses a jacket using specialized “tensioning” equipment that prevents shrinkage and helps maintain shape.

But in order to succeed, AQUA—and its licensees—may need to differentiate themselves from other cleaners making similar claims about offering environmentally friendly services, even though the latter may be using solvents that are toxic, combustible or a possible health risk.

I asked Kim, a former food scientist who now owns three cleaners aside from AQUA, and has just finished up a contract to wet clean uniforms at the Marine Corps base in Twentynine Palms, what prompted him to join the family business. He recalled one of his parents’ employees “sniffing perc as his morning coffee” and of being overcome by fumes. Soon after, in 1998, Kim responded to an ad in a trade publication offering $12,500 in incentives for cleaners to convert to wet cleaning.

I told Park and Kim that I played a bit role in the story of wet cleaning. For two years, in the mid-1990s, I coordinated an EPA-funded evaluation of the process at a demonstration site in Santa Monica called Cleaner by Nature.

From my home base, a windowless office at the University of California, Los Angeles, I purchased “Dry Clean Only”-labeled garments of all manner of weave, fiber and construction, and sent them to be repeatedly wet cleaned at the demonstration site and at dry cleaners before the effects were evaluated by textile experts. On other days, like a modern-day Frederick Taylor, I sat in a chair with a timer as pressers labored over wet- and dry-cleaned garments to compare labor costs. I was so immersed in the world of wet and dry cleaning that I even wrote a poem about it, “A Dry Cleaner’s Love Song.”

My two-year obsession with the profession pales in comparison to that of my then co-evaluator Sinsheimer, who was a Ph.D. candidate at the time. Now the director of the Sustainable Technology & Policy Program at the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA, as well as AQUA’s co-founder, he has invested as much time as anyone in evaluating and advocating for wet cleaning.

I called Sinsheimer earlier this year to find out what had happened to the technology since the 1990s. My engagement with the topic had been limited to dropping off and picking up my clothes at a wet cleaner called Sunny Brite in Los Angeles’ Eagle Rock neighborhood.

Sinsheimer walked me through the triumphs and letdowns of wet cleaning’s 20-year history in California. There was the critical role the technology played in persuading regional air quality regulators to agree to a decades-long phase-out of perc in 2002, in the face of strong opposition from the dry-cleaning and petrochemical industry, a move that was mimicked by the state’s Air Resources Board several years later. There was Sinsheimer’s unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Federal Trade Commission to require a “Wet Clean” care label in 2014.

Finally, there was Hans Kim’s painstaking work to convert about 100 California cleaners into dedicated wet-cleaning shops, an effort aided by state legislation that levies a fee on perc dry cleaners to fund such transitions by providing incentives to cleaners.

Jean Cha was one of those cleaners who converted to wet cleaning, about seven years ago. He faced pressure from his landlord, who wanted him to stop using petroleum hydrocarbon, a perc replacement that is combustible at high temperatures. Cha’s Branham Lane Cleaners in San Jose cleans as many as a thousand pieces a day—a relatively high volume for a cleaner—and he was nervous about moving to a brand-new process that could disrupt his business. Cha credits Kim’s patient courtship for his decision to go with wet cleaning.

GreenClean_JoanneKim-14Paulo Neves presses trousers after they have been dried on a specialized machine.

“He stopped by our store like 50 times before we made the decision,” says Cha of Kim, who at the time was working as a distributor for Miele, a German-based maker of wet-cleaning equipment. But Kim was not a typical distributor hawking his wares, says Cha. “He really wanted to make my business successful.”

But as Kim was steadily converting cleaners to wet cleaning, something else was happening. An alternative set of solvents was taking hold in the industry. The go-to substitute for perchloroethylene in California became petroleum hydrocarbon, the solvent that had troubled Cha’s landlord. It is used by about 80 percent of the 3,000 cleaners in state, according to Pierre Cinar, past president of the California Cleaners Association. That solvent produces volatile organic compounds and is consequently regulated by the state’s Air Resources Board.

In 2013, Santa Monica’s city attorney found that six dry-cleaning businesses had misleadingly marketed themselves as “green” businesses.

Another solvent that emerged was Dow Corning’s Green Earth, which is marketed as a nontoxic, environmental alternative to dry cleaning. Concerns about Green Earth surfaced in 2003 after a study linked the silicone-based solvent to cancer in rats at high rates of exposure. The industry maintains that the solvent—which is used in many personal care products—is safe for consumers and workers. Meanwhile, there are fewer than 200 dedicated wet cleaners in the state.

Why hasn’t wet cleaning taken a firmer hold? Studies at UCLA and the University of Massachusetts, Lowell have shown that it is an economically viable alternative to dry cleaning, and cleaners attest to its benefits.

“Honestly, I think the clothes come out fresher and more stains come out in the wet-cleaning process than they do in dry cleaning,” says London Cleaners’ Barry Fein, who wet cleans about 40 percent of garments at his West Los Angeles shop and dry cleans the remaining 60 percent. “But it takes more time to press wet-cleaned garments and that’s where it falls apart.”

GreenClean_JoanneKim-7

Fein’s perspective is common among dry cleaners who argue not that all dry-clean-only garments can be cleaned economically in the wet-cleaning process. That’s because a garment immersed in water becomes more wrinkled, requiring special “tensioning” equipment and attention after it is cleaned.

But Park, who is AQUA’s chief operating officer, maintains that with training, a wet cleaner can clean virtually all garments in the same amount of time as a dry cleaner. The machine cycles are also about half as long for wet cleaning as they are for dry cleaning, allowing more clothes to be washed in a day. (My own cleaner, Sunny Kim, wet cleans all but silk garments that have stubborn oil stains — she sends these out to be dry cleaned.)

Another barrier to adoption may be that cleaners do not realize the degree to which the wet-cleaning process has improved since it was introduced in the 1990s, says Joy Onasch, Business & Industry Program Manager at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“The technology wasn’t great then, and the word sort of spread that it doesn’t work,” says Onasch, who authored a 2017 study that favorably evaluated cleaners that made the switch to wet cleaning. Park recalls her own tears of frustration—and some lost customers–when she first transitioned to wet cleaning in the late 1990s.

Yet one more obstacle is the Dry Clean Only care label, which leaves the wet cleaner liable for damages if a customer takes a wet cleaner to court for ruining a dry-clean-only garment. Sinsheimer sees working with garment manufacturers to win a wet-clean care label requirement as a critical piece of AQUA’s work.

For Sinsheimer, AQUA represents an opportunity to secure a foothold in a market that he says has been difficult to penetrate, in part because of the power of petrochemical companies and equipment distributors that have a vested interest in polluting technologies. One challenge Sinsheimer sees is distinguishing dedicated wet cleaners from dry cleaners who claim to be offering an environmental service to consumers.

In 2013, Santa Monica’s city attorney’s office found that six dry-cleaning businesses—five petroleum hydrocarbon cleaners and one Green Earth cleaner— had misleadingly marketed themselves as green businesses in violation of state law. The city attorney’s office said the cleaners violated FTC guidelines by claiming that their processes were “non-toxic” and “environmentally friendly,” the Santa Monica Mirror reported.

After our conversation at AQUA’s headquarters, Sinsheimer, Kim and I left Park at the Margo Street plant and walked past graffitied buildings, trash-strewn sidewalks and a new coffee shop, evidence of a neighborhood in transition, to where another cleaner was also under construction.

We stood across the street looking at a banner that promised a dry cleaner that would be “organic” and “100% Toxin-Free.” I could find no contact information on the sign.

“This goes directly to the issue of greenwashing,” Sinsheimer had told me a couple of weeks earlier in an email to which he’d attached a picture of the offending sign.

He’d added that Los Angeles should enforce the state’s truth-in-advertising laws and offer green certifications for wet cleaners, a carrot-and-stick approach that he said would finally give the technology the fighting chance it deserves.


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Environment

South L.A. Residents Demand End to Urban Oil Drilling

Los Angeles is the most densely populated city in the country with oil drilling within its borders. It sits on top of one of the largest oil fields in the country, and oil fields are peppered throughout the region, usually hidden from sight.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published

 

on

Neighbors: Oil platform in the middle of a residential neighborhood. (Photo: Larry Buhl)

At a site known simply as Jefferson, 36 oil wells are pumping closely – too closely, residents say — to occupied multi-unit apartment buildings at a drilling site on Jefferson Boulevard, just west of the University of Southern California. There is no noise buffer, vapor capture or enclosure around the site, and at one point there is no more than three feet between a resident’s bedroom window and the drill site wall. An Environmental Impact Report has never been done. Because the land was bought by Union Oil in 1965, the Jefferson drilling site predates the Environmental Protection Agency.

Corissa Pacillas said she has lived in a Craftsman-style building across from the Jefferson site for four years, and the oil production has made her sick at times.

“The noise pollution is severe when they’re putting pipes into the ground,” Pacillas said. “The chemicals that they use smell like rotten eggs. The area around here just stinks. The fumes give me headaches, and the neighbors have experienced that too.”

The Jefferson site’s operator, Denver-based Sentinel Peak Resources, doesn’t notify residents when toxic chemicals are being used in the neighborhood, said Niki Wong, a neighborhood resident and member of Redeemer Community Partnership, a community development nonprofit in South Los Angeles and a group opposed to urban oil drilling. “Sometimes we’ve seen four or five tanker trucks containing 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid,” Wong said. “After one of these acid jobs, all the plants downwind of the facility died.”

“There are studies that say explosions from sites like this could result in a 750 foot crater,” Wong added. “We are standing in a blast zone.”

Pacillas claimed she has to diligently monitor the company’s website to learn when production is underway. “The website that tells you when it’s going to happen is this long obscure [web address] that you wouldn’t be able to find if you didn’t know where to look,” she said.

Los Angeles is the most densely populated city in the country with oil drilling within its borders. It sits on top of one of the largest oil fields in the country, and oil fields are peppered throughout the region, usually hidden from sight. Some of the region’s biggest names, including Getty, Doheny and Bell, made their fortunes from oil after it was discovered that the area contained a huge stock of crude.

A 2014 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that one in three Angelenos live within a mile of an active drilling rig. The report also found that in Los Angeles County, more than half a million people live within 1,320 feet of an oil or gas well and that the vast majority of those residents are people of color.

A report from the Los Angeles-based Community Health Councils estimated in 2015 that 5,000 active oil and gas wells, spread across 10 oil fields and 70 different sites, were embedded in neighborhoods, parks and commercial districts throughout the city.

Though oil production slowed in the 1970s, new techniques like fracking (the injection of highly pressurized, chemical-laced water deep underground to break up rock formations containing fossil fuels) have returned some oil fields to production.

“Increased oil and gas production using these new technologies can bring more contaminants—many of which have been linked to respiratory and neurological problems, birth defects and cancer—to backyards, communities and cities,” the Natural Resources Defense Council report said.

In the wake of the Aliso Canyon natural gas blowout in 2015, which forced thousands to evacuate their homes in the San Fernando Valley, oil and gas development has been under greater scrutiny throughout Southern California.

For Angelenos living near drill sites, the battle is about health and safety, racial justice and, for some, faith and religion. For regulators, the issue is more about who is in charge of oil field operations within the city and what departments can hold drill site operators accountable.

In 2013 EPA investigators called a facility operated by Los Angeles’ AllenCo Energy “shoddy” after investigators who toured the site reported sore throats, coughing and severe, lingering headaches. Their experience prompted U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer to call for the site to be shut down. The Los Angeles City Attorney’s office demanded in 2016 that the company stop operations until it could meet stricter conditions, and AllenCo was also ordered to pay a $1.25 million.

Earlier this month, the city hit the Jefferson site and Sentinel Peak Resources with some of the toughest restrictions yet on an urban drilling. The Planning Department decision gave the company with 90 days to install new systems to continually monitor noise and vibration and to record video. The company must also measure air quality on the property’s perimeter, install new systems to capture emissions and build its walls higher to better enclose the site.

The decision was a response to a 2016 petition by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, which found that other sites in the city were quieter and had better protections for residents’ health.

Advocates for shutting down, or at least curtailing, drilling in Los Angeles are also enlisting faith leaders in their fight. And those leaders have found themselves arrayed against their colleagues of the cloth in  Los Angeles’ Roman Catholic Archdiocese.

The AllenCo drill site, near the University of Southern California, and the Murphy site in the historic West Adams district, sit on land owned by the L.A. Archdiocese. At a rally outside the archdiocese offices in early October, dozens of residents and faith leaders from South Los Angeles called on Archbishop José Gomez to terminate his church’s lease with the owner/operator of both sites, AllenCo Energy.

Rev. Oliver E. Buie of Holman United Methodist Church said he attended the rally because “God has called us to be good stewards over the earth. Many of the residents are not aware of these oil wells in their communities. People are . . . being harmed by these big oil companies that don’t care about the people, only the profits.”

Faith leaders attending the rally also pointed out that 40 Catholic organizations had recently pledged to divest from fossil fuels, and that Pope Francis stressed the importance of a carbon-neutral economy in a 2015 encyclical.

The archdiocese responded to protesters in a letter claiming it was not directly involved in the permitting process and does not operate the site. The letter also said the archdiocese was “working with the Mayor’s Office, the City of Los Angeles Oil Manager and AllenCo to explore possible alternative uses for the site in our continued commitment to the health and well-being of the entire community.”

Eric Romann, an organizer with STAND-LA (Stand Together Against Neighborhood Drilling), said the Archdiocese continues to avoid taking responsibility by not breaking its lease with AllenCo.

The archbishop “could shut down the AllenCo site with the stroke of a pen,” Romann said. “We want the church to be a good neighbor and not profit financially from something that’s poisoning residents.”

Ultimately, Romann said, STAND-LA and other community groups want urban oil drilling to end. Until that happens, they are demanding a 2,500-foot buffer between active drilling sites and homes, schools, churches and hospitals. The distance was determined after consulting experts in environmental burdens, the group said. That kind of setback could be difficult to achieve unless 90 percent of the city’s 322 active wells are shut down, according to the California Department of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources.

Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the California Independent Petroleum Association, which represents small oil producers, said shutting down wells on private property would be legally risky and, if successful, would lead to increased imports of oil and gas to meet the region’s needs.

“Los Angeles grew up around oil drilling, but recently producers have changed production techniques to have a much smaller footprint,” Lockhart said.

Industry opposition aside, there are indications that city and county officials are beginning to take the issue of urban drilling more seriously, even if it’s not clear exactly what can or should be done.

In 2014, on a 10-0 vote, the City Council passed a new ordinance ordering city staff to draft regulatons to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and other well-stimulation activities, but those regulations have yet to be developed. Even so, Wong and other advocates say they are less concerned with the methods used – enhanced techniques versus traditional oil extraction – as much as they are about the proximity of the sites.

In 2016 Mayor Eric Garcetti appointed Uduak-Joe Ntuk as the city’s petroleum administrator, a position the mayor’s office said had been vacant for more than 30 years. It’s considered largely an advisory position, but earlier this year, the city council demanded that Ntuk study how the city could phase out oil and gas drilling near homes, schools, hospitals, parks and other public places.

In June the city council adopted a motion to study the health impacts of oil drilling in neighborhoods. A report is expected late this year. The county is reviewing existing studies and papers to identify what is known about oil and gas exposures and impacts on health.

Wong said recent efforts to look into problems associated with drilling are encouraging but that pressure must be brought on the mayor, city council and the city planning commission to scale back and phase out drilling in the city.

“We believe that oil drilling is fundamentally incompatible with urban life.”

Sentinel Peak Resources and the L.A. Archdiocese did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. AllenCo Energy said they had no comment on L.A. drilling sites.


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Environment

California Persists After EPA Scuttles Clean Power Plan

U.S. power plants rank among the highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Dialing back their emissions would at least have marked a decisive step toward a national clean-energy economy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Judith Lewis Mernit

Published

 

on

The federal Clean Power Plan wasn’t going to make a difference in California, but it would still have moved the clean-energy needle in other states.


As fires incinerate the Napa and Sonoma valleys, as Gulf of Mexico states and Puerto Rico reel from record-setting hurricanes, as California emerges from its hottest summer on record, the federal government is doubling down on denial. On Tuesday, in a coal town in Kentucky, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt triumphantly announced his plan to repeal the Obama administration’s toe-in-the-water attempt at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, the Clean Power Plan. It was never much, really. It was “a pipsqueak plan,” according to Vermont Law School Professor Pat Parenteau, an expert in climate policy. “We needed to do much more than that.” The plan was never going to save the world from climate destruction, nor would it have bankrupted the coal industry. Cheap natural gas is doing that.

California, in fact, was already ahead of the Clean Power Plan goals without it even going into effect (the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the plan in February 2016, pending judicial review). “California’s low-carbon power grid puts us in a position to over-comply with the Clean Power Plan,” David Clegern, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email.

But Pruitt’s move still has consequences, even in California. One of them is that climate is not a local issue, but a global one, and U.S. power plants rank among the highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Dialing back their emissions would at least have marked a decisive step toward a national clean-energy economy. Another, more immediate and significant consequence, is that California’s carbon market, the cap-and-trade program that the legislature just reauthorized this year, needs to expand beyond state borders if it’s going to have any meaningful impact on global warming.

California now has so much solar power it sometimes has to pay other states to take it.

“The Clean Power Plan was the impetus for states to band together in the most cost-effective way to shift the electricity market and electricity generation to renewable sources,” Parenteau says. Its loss “is going to limit the possibility of expanding California’s market up the West Coast.”

A decade ago, California’s then-governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, entered into an agreement with the governors of four other Western states to collaborate on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not just from power plants, but from all controllable sources. The Western Climate Initiative, as it was called, might have, in time, resulted in a five-state carbon-trading market. One of its stated goals was to design a regional cap-and-trade program, similar to the East Coast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Utah joined later, along with four Canadian provinces.

But one by one those other states, along with two of the provinces, dropped out. Governors in New Mexico and Arizona, Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano, respectively, were replaced by conservatives Susan Martinez in New Mexico and Jan Brewer in Arizona, neither of whom supported cap-and-trade. Utah’s governor in 2008, Jon Huntsman, declared a regional market “unsustainable,” according to Platts Weekly, a trade publication. Cap-and-trade bills in Oregon, Washington and Montana failed to pass state legislatures.

The two remaining Canadian provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have since set up individual arrangements to participate in California’s carbon market, and the state has found other means by which to influence its neighbors. California for decades imported coal-fired electricity, even though coal was deemed too dirty to burn at home. Now if states want to build new electricity plants to serve California, they have to run on carbon-free fuel.

But mostly, the watts travel the other way. California now has so much solar power it sometimes has to pay other states to take it.

“We were prepared to work with other states in the West to support carbon pricing and renewable energy growth throughout the region, supported by the Clean Power Plan,” Clegern says. “Proposing a repeal is a terrible signal to states looking to cooperate.”

If the Clean Power Plan wasn’t going to make a difference in California, it still would have moved the clean-energy needle in other states, especially Western states such as Wyoming and Montana, and states in the Deep South that are still heavily dependent on coal. Its call for a 32 percent nationwide cut in the power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 2005 levels, was carefully tailored to each state’s capabilities. When a draft of the Clean Power Plan was unveiled in the spring of 2014, Georgia still prohibited consumers from generating solar power on their rooftops for sale to utilities — a law that quickly changed as the specter of climate regulation loomed.

California’s cap-and-trade program was endorsed by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature in July, extending it through 2030. Nothing that happens on a federal level can change that.

Pruitt’s proposed rescission of that regulation, then, only makes California’s climate missionary role more important, says Cara Horowitz, a law professor with the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The Clean Power Plan was important to California because it was going to bring other states on board with its trajectory,” she says. “Absent that federal prod, the state needs to go back to convincing other states to become partners” in the climate fight.

“The most fundamental way” to do that, Horowitz says, “is to show that these policies are working. We’re expanding our economy, we’re cleaning up our grid, we’re serving as a model for other nations. We’re cleaning up our transportation sources.” This week, Governor Jerry Brown signed a suite of new laws to encourage sales of more zero-emission vehicles.

And in spite of controversy, criticism and legal challenges, the state’s cap-and-trade program was endorsed by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature in July, extending it through 2030. Nothing that happens on a federal level can change that.

Pruitt’s rollback is still subject to a 60-day comment period after publication in the Federal Register. And if he refuses to restrain greenhouse gas emissions in another way, he’ll also have to reverse the EPA’s 2009 ruling that carbon dioxide is harmful to human health and safety — the “endangerment finding” at the root of the Clean Power Plan. California, regardless, will continue on its course.

“We will persist,” says the air board’s Clegern, “because clean power benefits everyone.”


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Top Stories