Copyright Capital & Main
Far from California on the flatlands of Central Arkansas, a group of four farmers are applying themselves toward growing more climate-friendly rice. It’s a little-known issue: Rice grows in a soup of standing water and microscopic organisms. The microbes feed on plant matter and release methane. So the Arkansas farmers, instead of continually flooding their crops, allow the fields to dry out before watering again. The process, combined with water conservation that reduces the use of diesel pumps, cuts the methane that rises from the rice fields as much as 87 percent.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. It doesn’t hang in the atmosphere as long as carbon-dioxide does, and there isn’t as much of it. But in the short term it warms the planet with as much as 87 times the force of carbon-dioxide. Rice and its flatulent microbes contribute between 10 and 20 percent of global methane emissions. Which means that the rice farmers’ efforts are meaningful and dramatic in the fight against climate change — so much so that the farmers can sell their greenhouse-gas savings to polluting industries struggling to meet voluntary or state-imposed reduction targets.
Last week, the Microsoft Corporation bought the first round of credits generated by rice farmers, using them to “offset” their own greenhouse gas emissions, and thus reach their goal of carbon-neutrality. (Methane, like all greenhouse gases, is measured for regulatory purposes as a carbon-dioxide equivalent.) The California Air Resources Board has approved rice offsets as a way for industries to meet their targets under its cap-and-trade program, which means that soon, polluters in the state can buy them to comply with their state-imposed caps.
“This is a great demonstration of how agriculture can participate in the larger carbon market,” says Robert Parkhurst, director of agriculture greenhouse gas markets at the Environmental Defense Fund. Agriculture hasn’t been included in the cap-and-trade program before because it’s too complex. EDF has spent a decade working with regulators, researchers and farmers trying to figure out how to quantify emissions from methane emitters like manure and fertilized crops. The rice offset experiment has moved that research forward. “It’s helped us understand how to quantify agricultural emissions,” Parkhurst says, “so agriculture can participate as a part of the cap-and-trade program” — in other words, be able to participate under the state’s 2006 landmark climate law, Assembly Bill 32, along with oil refineries, milk processors, and manufacturing plants.
Regulators of cap-and-trade programs split the caps they set for various industries into “allowances,” permits to pollute a certain amount, typically one metric ton of carbon or its equivalent. Offsets are sold in those increments, to “offset” greenhouse gas emissions that individual polluters either can’t or won’t contain. They can come from reforestation projects that sequester carbon, dairy digesters that turn methane into usable fuel, and other climate-mitigating efforts, and they have a lot of upsides for industries that for whom cutting emissions is a prohibitive challenge. “Here’s a really good example — milk processing,” Parkhurst says. “In California, the number one dairy state, milk has to be processed near where it’s made — near where the cows are.” Milk processors are in the cap-and-trade program, which has forced them to adopt more efficient boilers and make other adjustments, “but there’s only so much they can do,” Parkhurst says. To meet near-term state goals without offsets, “we’d have to move whole industries out of the state.”
But many public health and climate activists insist offsets are a poor substitute for actual emissions cuts, and in fact, might be making pollution worse in some communities. They point to examples like Chevron, which operates two oil refineries in California, and buys offsets to compensate for eight percent of its emissions, the maximum allowed under state law. Meanwhile, pollution builds up in the neighborhoods that surround the refinery, sickening local residents. Investments in a Wisconsin forest do little to help.
“An offset is a decision to reduce emissions in a forest [in some other state], instead of reducing emissions in Wilmington or Torrance or Richmond. It does nothing about the toxics that make your kids sick, or the truck traffic that causes the pollution that makes you sick,” says Michael Wara, an environmental law professor at Stanford University. “They don’t actually reduce emissions. They change where emissions reductions happen.”
Over the last six years that cap-and-trade has been in effect, “the big industrial emitters in their communities have not changed their behavior at all,” Wara says. “There’s no emissions response and no one would expect one.” Plentiful carbon allowances already make compliance cheap; offsets make it cheaper.The cap-and-trade program as the state air board developed it expires in 2020; whether regulators can extend it without legislative action is an open question. Wara isn’t alone in thinking the program needs fresh authorization from the legislature, preferably with a two-thirds majority, as that’s what it takes to approve a tax under California law. (An appeals court ruled in April that carbon-trading wasn’t a tax, but that decision may not be the final word.)
Wara has been working with State Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Léon (D-Los Angeles) on a bill, SB 775, that would not simply extend cap-and-trade, but overhaul it completely. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030, the next milestone in the state’s climate fight, the law would set a $30 minimum auction price for carbon allowances (the last auction price was an alarmingly low $13.57). It would eliminate the allowances that regulators give each polluter for free every year, and eliminate the “banking” of credits, where industries can carry over unused credits from one year to the next. It would prohibit offsets altogether.
Proponents of the bill realize it will be mean higher electric bills and gas costs, so to sweeten the deal for consumers, a certain portion of the revenues from the program would go to state residents as a per capita dividend. Wara compares it to Alaska’s Permanent Fund. “If the carbon price is tied to that rebate check, it’s going to be hard to mess with it,” he says. “Every politician in Alaska knows that you don’t mess with the Permanent Fund.”
Environmental justice groups, such as California Environmental Justice Alliance and Physicians for Social Responsibility, are solidly behind SB 775, largely because it holds polluters to account more strictly than California’s current cap-and-trade system. Cap-and-trade has long been blamed for concentrating pollution in low-income communities. Residential areas near greenhouse gas emitters have higher numbers of people living in poverty and people of color. With SB 775 in place, the Chevron refinery can no longer spew 4.4 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide and its equivalents into the air around Richmond with impunity. The company will have to figure out a way to reduce emissions at the source, instead of compensating for them elsewhere.
That constituency is crucial to passing any bill relating to cap-and-trade. “The reality in the legislature,” Wara says, “is that the environmental justice community is a potent political force. They don’t feel heard by the air board, even though they’re allowed to speak.”Air pollution, to paraphrase Hemingway, has two ways of killing people: Gradually, and then suddently. Greenhouse gases might affect us globally, and over the long term, but it’s the “criteria” pollutants, the components of soot and smog, that weaken lungs and clog arteries in the short term, leading to what public health experts euphemistically call “premature death.” Most people agree that Chevron and other oil companies that own refineries in the state — Tesoro and Valero — ought to clean up their operations in both categories, but not everyone agrees local pollution is so tightly connected to greenhouse gas emission.
“It is indirectly, don’t get me wrong,” says Craig Ebert, president of the Climate Action Reserve, which finds and verifies offsets for the carbon markets. “But if you shut down all the regulated entities in California, everything covered under cap-and-trade, you only cut criteria pollutants by five percent.” Transportation causes most of the local air pollution in the state, particularly in industrial areas where diesel trucks idle.
A better way to address that problem is to go after the criteria pollutants themselves. Ebert applauds a plan by mayors Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles and Robert Garcia of Long Beach to move toward zero emissions at their cities’ twin ports, announced just as the rice farmers were sending their offsets to market. “That’s the right way to deal with the problem,” he says.
Ebert argues that there’s a certain irony in local environmental justice advocates opposing offsets, when offsets were the original solution to international climate justice back in the 1990s. They were a way for developing countries to contribute to climate mitigation even though they contributed little to the emissions problem. Right now, California regulators don’t allow polluters to buy offsets from international projects. But if California wants to extend its influence over global climate, Ebert thinks they should.
“From a climate perspective, the climate doesn’t care, Ebert says. “A one-ton reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions in South L.A. is the same as a one-ton reduction on the other side of the planet. Politically they may not be the same, but from a scientific perspective they are.”
Two other fixes to the cap-and-trade problem are currently floating in the state legislature. One, by Assemblymember Autumn Burke, would establish a hierarchy of offsets, prioritizing those that originate in underserved communities. Another bill in the Assembly with similarities to SB 775 failed early this month, but could have another chance next year.
Whatever happens, EDF’s Parkhurst says the rice farmers will continue their progress. Their experiment wouldn’t have existed without the impetus of California’s climate laws — “they needed some sort of signal to do it,” Parkhurst says. But they can continue to sell credits to the voluntary market Microsoft bought from, or to the aviation industry’s market.
“These four guys in Arkansas are looking to demonstrate their commitment to the land,” he says. “They’re trying to get other people to follow their lead. We’re trying to open up a market to make it economical for them. If it doesn’t work in the California market, they’ll go another way.”
Copyright Capital & Main
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
“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.”
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
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.
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
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.
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
An Environmental Victory in Oxnard
A state regulator signals its intent to deny a controversial gas-fired plant proposal.
Puente Power Project opponents say state regulators’ rejection of the proposed plant is the most significant battle in a grassroots war against a fossil fuel giant.
In a move environmental advocates call unprecedented, two members of a committee of the California Energy Commission (CEC) last week said the state regulator plans to reject NRG Energy’s proposed 262-megawatt Puente Power Project in Oxnard. A letter opposing Puente, penned by CEC committee members Janea Scott and Karen Douglas, cited environmental concerns and strong civic opposition, along with a requirement to consider “feasible alternatives that avoid or reduce those impacts.”
Assuming the other three members of the CEC agree with the members of the panel who wrote the letter – and who have followed the controversial issue for years – NRG’s project is effectively dead. A proposed decision, which observers expect to follow the CEC panel’s recommendation, is coming in November. A final decision will come in some time early next year after a public comment period.
Those familiar with the three-year legal battle say the CEC’s unusual decision to signal intent well in advance of a ruling was spurred by a desire to give the local utility company, Southern California Edison, additional time to create a request for offers (RFO) for clean energy alternatives to NRG’s 58-year-old Mandalay Generating Station, which will be decommissioned in January, 2021.
The CEC’s statement of intent followed a study conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the regulator in charge of grid reliability, exploring three clean energy alternatives that could the meet the area’s energy needs in the absence of Puente. In a letter released September 29, CAISO stated that clean energy alternatives are technologically feasible and could meet the region’s needs, and that RFOs for those alternatives should be expedited.
Puente’s opponents say the CEC letter is the most significant battle in a grassroots war that pitted residents, advocates and the city of Oxnard against a fossil fuel giant. They argued that NRG’s proposal for another gas plant on Oxnard’s coastline was an environmental justice case, as the predominantly Latino and low-income community 90 minutes north of Los Angeles had been struggling for years to reclaim its beaches from industrial development.
Matt Vespa, a staff attorney with Earthjustice, one of the groups opposing the NRG proposal, said the CEC decision was “huge and surprising.”
“Honestly, I thought it was going to get built,” Vespa told Capital & Main, pointing to the fact that NRG already had a contract to build the plant, which ordinarily gives a project momentum.
“Plus, the staff of the CEC had put out analyses that were very dismissive of the environmental impacts to the area, which makes [the CEC] letter even more surprising,” Vespa said.
The project had already crossed a major hurdle when the other overseeing regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, approved it in 2016.
“NRG has repeatedly said the region needs a huge gas-powered plant to keep the lights on,” said Lucas Zucker, a spokesman for the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE). “But having a commission that’s actually charged with keeping the lights on in the state disagree really destroys that argument.”
“I hope the cleantech sector sees this as a watershed moment where they can be cost-competitive with gas-fired plants,” Zucker said, adding that his group and local residents are “celebrating, but not resting yet.”
Copyright Capital & Main
California Game Changers: Can We Ban Fracking?
Co-published by International Business Times
Environmentalists and community activists have long lobbied for a statewide ban on fracking. “Given what we know about fracking’s dangers, [banning it] is just a no-brainer,” says one advocate.
Oil drilling in Los Angeles has been associated with asthma, heart disease and low-birthweight babies. Close to 300,000 people in Kern County reside within a mile of an oil well.
Co-published by International Business Times
If you were to parachute into Kern County about 40 miles west of Bakersfield, you might doubt California’s status as a national leader on climate. Pumpjacks spread out in every direction across a hellscape scraped bare of anything green. Scattered at irregular intervals, spires of latticed steel reach up more than a hundred feet, secured with guy-wires: evidence of hydraulic fracturing, a practice sufficiently infamous that its household nickname, fracking, invokes images of tap water so toxic you can light it on fire.
Fracked oil wells are everywhere on this southeastern extreme of the San Joaquin Valley, hard by the leeward side of the San Andreas fault. Big oil companies such as Chevron and Mobil began hydraulically fracturing wells here in earnest during the late 1970s, after the OPEC embargo made oil expensive and scarce. Drillers learned that by injecting a powerful slurry of chemical-laden water and sand into sedimentary rock, they could blast under played-out conventional wells and squeeze out oil left trapped in fissures, or could access reserves that traditional drilling otherwise couldn’t. (They could also inject acid into a certain kind of petroleum-bearing rock to dissolve it, another “well stimulation” method less common, but just as controversial, as hydraulic fracturing.)
The view from Bakersfield’s bluffs is breathtaking and dissonant: The lush green Kern River Valley; black pumpjacks, planted over scoured and parched brown earth, extend toward the horizon.
Environmentalists and community activists have long lobbied for a statewide ban on fracking, arguing that the unique chemical cocktails that make up fracking fluids present novel risks to human health. “Given what we know about fracking’s dangers, [banning it] is just a no-brainer,” says Hollin Kretzmann, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. But up until two year ago, no one but the drillers even knew where fracking was happening.
“We didn’t know how much water was being used, which chemicals they were using, even where it was happening — it was a big data vacuum,” says Briana Mordick, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. That changed with the 2013 passage of Senate Bill 4, then-State Senator Fran Pavley’s well stimulation disclosure act. Now, you can look up fracked wells on a map maintained by the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.
You can also look up what each company puts in its fracking fluids, which may or may not be meaningful. “Two-thirds of the chemicals used in fracking don’t have any public health profiles,” Mordick says. No one has yet done the studies to prove what dangers the chemicals pose. We might know that a common component of acidizing, hydrofluoric acid, eats away at your bones (one drop on your finger and you cut it off or die). But we don’t know whether any chemical escaped into the environment and directly made anyone sick.
Other industries have more established connections to Kern County’s elevated rates of lung disorders and heart disease. Poverty takes a toll on health, as do pesticides from farm fields and exhaust from two major freeways and a railroad. “We are the heart of California,” says Juan Flores, a 31-year-old community organizer with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, in Delano, a mostly agricultural city about half an hour north of Bakersfield. “If something gets moved from north to south in this state, it goes through here.”
Flores figures that each of the county’s principal industries — oil, agriculture and goods movement — account for about a third of the valley’s pollution. Fracking is responsible for only about a fifth of oil’s contribution. Still, he believes a fracking ban is worth fighting for, if only because fracturing encourages wells to be drilled where there were none before. And even if fracking’s precise environmental damage remains somewhat of a mystery in California, the destruction wrought by oil and gas operations does not.
A recent study in rural Colorado found that children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were three to four times more likely to live in close proximity to an oil or gas site. Oil drilling in Los Angeles, which happens in dense, urban neighborhoods, has been associated with asthma, heart disease and low-birthweight babies, primarily because it exacerbates air pollution. Close to 300,000 people in Kern County reside within a mile of an oil well, the majority of them Latino and living near or below the federal poverty line. Hydraulic fracturing makes more oil possible.
“To kill the environment where people live –that is the worst thing you can do.”
Flores is a tall, imposing presence, with a low forehead that gives way to thick, black hair. He grew up in Mexicali and came to the U.S. as a teenager with his parents, both of whom are farmworkers. Despite spending four years as an anti-fracking activist, he seems relentlessly cheerful, even when discussing painful subjects. I ask whether he believes what oil company representatives have told me, all speaking on background: That the oil industry in California is subject to the strictest environmental rules in the nation. “The good part is that I do believe that,” he says. “The bad part is, if we’re dying in California, with the best of the best — I can only imagine the suffering they’re going through in Kansas, in North Dakota, in Texas. To kill the environment where people live — that is the worst thing you can do.”
Fracking activity in the San Joaquin Valley slowed temporarily after SB 4’s rules took effect in 2015, says Kyle Ferrar, who monitors the Western U.S. for the FracTracker Alliance, a nonprofit that collects data and other information on fracking in the U.S. Besides disclosure, the law requires strict groundwater monitoring unless drillers obtain exemptions. “When those rules were passed, they were pretty strict, and rightfully so,” Ferrar says. Now permitting has picked up again, and thousands more wells have been stimulated since 2016.
Flores worries the upward trend could continue, especially as older fields age and if oil prices rise. When we spoke, the Bureau of Land Management had signaled an intent to open up more of California’s public lands to oil and gas exploration. A few weeks later, a federal judge struck down that plan, on the grounds that the agency failed to fully investigate the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, which could affect as many as a quarter of the new wells.
The administration still has options to pursue; the BLM could well come back with a revised plan sometime in the next four years and prevail. Flores hopes that before that happens, the California legislature will impose a statewide ban, despite the extent to which oil irrigates California politics. (Oil and gas interests donated $2.8 million to campaigns in the November 8, 2016 election. Close to 48 percent of those contributions went to Democrats.) In the meantime, he says, “we’re expecting and hoping that [local lawmakers] will upgrade their county and city oil and gas ordinances, focusing on the health of the community,” he says. “[Then] the oil industry would not be so attracted to [these] communities to extract oil.”
Last year Monterey County voters did just that, bucking oil’s well-funded opposition to approve Measure Z, prohibiting fracking and other well-stimulation methods within the county’s boundaries. And unlike some other California counties that have passed similar laws — Santa Cruz, San Benito, Alameda, Butte and Mendocino — Monterey County actually has oil: More than 1,000 wells operate on four fields near San Ardo, in the Salinas Valley. Chevron and Aera Energy almost immediately filed suits to stop the law from being implemented, and public hearings over exemptions and timelines have been contentious.
Lawsuit or not, Hollin Kretzmann contends that Measure Z is a model for other jurisdictions that want to take action at a local level. “New York’s fracking ban started with a couple of rural townships,” he points out. “It spread to a dozen townships. The governor was under enormous pressure from the public, and facing the science was forced to [sign] a statewide ban.”
“The oil companies, they’re going to be left behind,” Juan Flores says, standing in the shade of an abundant valley oak in Panorama Park, an expanse of manicured grass on Bakersfield’s bluffs. The view from the bluffs is both breathtaking and dissonant: Looking down, you can see the lush green of the Kern River Valley; along the horizon a field of black pumpjacks, planted over scoured and parched brown earth, extends into apparent infinity. Flores traces with his finger the route of a canal that carries water left over from Chevron’s Kern River operations. Eventually, that water mixes with fresh water in an irrigation canal. During the drought of the last six years, farmers used it to keep their nut groves green. “Think about that,” Flores says, “when you eat your almonds and pistachios.”
It’s clear that Bakersfield’s boosters still take pride in this landscape. You don’t name bluffs, a park and a scenic drive “Panorama” because you’re ashamed of the view. But Flores notes that some of the field’s pumps have gone idle. Since oil prices crashed from their well-over $100-a-barrel highs to under $50 a barrel in 2015, Kern County’s economy has struggled.
“I notice the anger, the frustration of the oil workers who have lost jobs,” he says. “I know it makes it worse for them seeing me in documentaries saying, ‘Yeah, I really want fracking to stop.’ But what I want them to notice is that oil is not everything. They can jump on this train of renewable energy and be the leaders of it.”
He imagines another future for Bakersfield’s windy, sun-baked vista: Hundreds and thousands of solar panels and wind turbines, generating clean power for California’s grid. “Even more than that, I can see community members owning that energy, being part of it,” he says. “We’ll be so much better off with energy that won’t hurt us.”
Copyright Capital & Main
Finding Resilience in the Face of Disaster
The press tends to cover the immediate aftermath of natural disasters. Readers get heroic stories, viewers see great visuals, and if they are lucky, the victims get help while people are paying attention. Then comes the long road to recovery.
“I think I was in total disaster fatigue last week,” my wife Susan said to me as we began a little down time over the weekend.
And no wonder. Hurricane Harvey had no sooner finished devastating Houston and surrounding areas, than three more storms lined up facing Florida and islands in the Caribbean and the Atlantic. People fled several small outer islands, like Barbuda, only to find themselves stranded in a Puerto Rico shattered by record rains and winds.
Then came the news of vast wildfires throughout the American and Canadian West. From the Columbia River Gorge to the worst ever inside the Los Angeles city limits, these fires consume almost two million acres, a territory nearly the combined size of Rhode Island and Delaware. This was not supposed to happen in the wake of last winter’s drenching rains. The land and the vegetation were expected to be wet enough to forestall such horrors.
At the same time, monsoon season dumped record rains on Nepal, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, while an estimated 20 million people face famine across northeast Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Then the earthquakes hit Mexico.
The storms and the fires come with warnings that this is what human-caused climate change looks like. The increasing incidences of catastrophic storms and fires come from a common source. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, which is part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), sea levels, temperatures of sea water and its surface, the air above the oceans, and over the land have all gone up. Meanwhile, sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets and snow cover have decreased. These phenomena all result from the amount of carbon dioxide humans put into the atmosphere.
With information that clear, no wonder climate change deniers don’t want the American people to know. So President Trump has salted his cabinet with deniers and wants climate change information scoured from the government’s web sites, just like the governor of Florida has forbidden his Environmental Protection Agency’s employees from using the words like “climate change” or “global warming.” But there is a reason why NOAA is in the Commerce Department and not, say, at Interior, where you might expect it: Business relies on forecasting calamity. Stability matters. Predictability makes a difference in the profit/loss column.
Knowing what’s coming matters to people in the pathway of destruction, too. Newspapers and television cover the threat of approaching catastrophic fires and storms because they provide warnings and generate suspense for the rest of us. The press also tends to cover the immediate aftermath because people want to know what happened. Readers get heroic stories, viewers see great visuals, and if they are lucky, the victims get help while people are paying attention. Then comes the difficult stuff and the long road to recovery. Network television turns away, and newspapers and broadcast outlets—except those based in the disaster area–may only continue a storyline for a brief time, unless they return years later for a historic look back.
But for the people on the ground, the horror of tragedy continues. Following Katrina in 2005, my wife joined a team of church people who volunteered in New Orleans. She came back shell-shocked by the devastation. Six months after the hurricane, the streets were still filled with piles of debris, fallen trees, uprooted shrubbery. Houses just being opened still held dead refrigerators filled with toxic mold.
Construction workers in hazmat suits gutted a home, down to the studs, so it could be rebuilt. A year later when we went back together, homes still stood empty, uninhabitable, some with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) trailers in the front yard. Trees, stripped bare by the winds, were just beginning to leaf again. Remnants of the wreckage sat everywhere. Street car lines weren’t operating in some locations. That was still true a year later. Vast areas like the Lower Ninth Ward, remain mostly vacant even now. It takes a long time to recover from disaster.
In these situations local resilience and national response make a difference. People sharing food, cooking together, sorting through the rubble, building temporary shelters – all these efforts matter. In the immediate wake of Harvey, the volunteer “Cajun Navy” showed up with their small boats and skiffs. They rescued everyone they could without regard to race or religion or wealth because “Floodwaters don’t discriminate,” as they say. FEMA-sponsored teams soon began arriving from across the country, including California.
Donation centers popped up, of course. Some are worthy, others not. Before contributing to the rebuilding anywhere, make sure you find an organization that’s trustworthy. And sometimes the best known – like the Red Cross – are not the most locally effective or transparent.
These devastated places will take a long time to be habitable again. Lives will be upside down for a very long time. We Americans have a short attention span. As these catastrophes pile up, my fear is that we will get worn out before we work it out. A significant part of that work will be reducing our impact as human beings on this planet.
California Bill Would Bring Climate Change Battle to State Construction Projects
A new bill awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature could use the state’s massive purchasing power as the world’s sixth largest economy to address greenhouse gas emissions far beyond its borders.
With California doubling and tripling down on climate change as a reality in 2017, a new bill awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature could use the state’s massive purchasing power as the world’s sixth largest economy to address greenhouse gas emissions far beyond its borders.
Assembly Bill 262, the Buy Clean Act, would require all state departments and the University of California and California State University systems to buy steel, rebar, flat glass and mineral wool board insulation for its infrastructure projects from low-carbon producers. Currently, the state usually buys at the lowest price, meaning that materials can come from companies in China and elsewhere, where the carbon footprint is almost certainly higher.
“We can’t forget our commitment to the environment in pursuit of the cheapest state infrastructure project,” said the bill’s lead author, Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-Alameda). “We have to pursue getting the best value and protecting our environment at the same time. This is the next step in global climate change leadership in California.”
The bill would require the state to determine the average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit from the manufacture of those four infrastructure products. Bidders on state projects would then have to submit Environmental Product Declarations, or EPDs, proving they are at or below the average. EPDs are commonly available on many construction materials today.
The Buy Clean bill, co-authored by Assembly Member Marc Steinorth (R-Rancho Cucamonga), has bi-partisan support in both legislative houses and is backed by a massive blue-green coalition of labor, business, environment, and the building trades, many of whom see this as a boon for California. Businesses in the state are already required to meet the most stringent climate regulations in the nation and are thus well-poised to get these contracts. Still, not everyone is on board.
“Small business is going to be adversely affected,” said Tom Holsman, CEO of Associated General Contractors of California, an advocacy group for the building trades. He points out that contractors are required to hire a certain percentage of small businesses known as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, or DBEs, owned by individuals from socially or economically disadvantaged communities, who may not be able to meet the requirements of the bill. This could hurt local businesses and put contractors out of compliance. “We had to oppose this bill in order to get that point across.”
California would be the first state in the U.S. to have such a policy, though the idea behind Buy Clean is already widely in practice in California and beyond. Buildings certified by LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), a green building rating system, already require EPDs on materials. The California High Speed Rail Authority adopted a sustainability policy that similarly requires EPDs on steel and concrete. Oregon and Washington State have also recently started developing a statewide policy.
We can’t forget our commitment to the environment in pursuit of the cheapest state infrastructure project. We have to pursue getting the best value and protecting our environment at the same time.
Businesses already investing in clean tech, however, are seeing this policy as an opportunity to showcase their green credentials. Gerdau Steel, which runs the state’s only full-production steel plant, making steel reinforcing bar, or rebar, at its facility in Rancho Cucamonga, has already put $33 million into switching its power source to renewable energy, and helped craft the bill.
“We compete with neighbors in Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and then in Asia, that use less clean processes and haven’t made the investments we’ve made,” said Gerdau Rancho Cucamonga Vice President Mark Olson. “And then we get underbid by a nickel and we lose out. That was very frustrating to us. We believe it’s a way for California to really push climate goals to surrounding states.”
It is also a way to create and keep jobs in California. Purchases previously made out of state or overseas may shift to California, where not only environmental regulations but also labor standards are more stringent. Just about every major labor union, including the California Labor Federation, SEIU California, the Communications Workers of America and the United Steelworkers support the bill, as does the labor-environmental BlueGreen Alliance.
Kathryn Phillips, of Sierra Club California, points out that the Buy Clean Act is a first attempt to address a huge source of GHG emissions. An estimated 22 percent of all global emissions that contribute to climate change are embedded in the supply chain and are attributable to manufacturing.
Governor Brown had already demanded in an executive order that state agencies take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions, and “employ full life-cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives.” That order means agencies had to look at whether any infrastructure decisions would mean increased costs due to climate change remediation actions later. AB 262 is an attempt to codify that order and put it into action, with identifiable goals and standards.
“The Department of General Services and the Department of Finance are concerned that it could lead to millions in increased costs,” said Phillips. “There’s no reason that the price should have to go up. Unless what they’re admitting [is] that the state has routinely gone out and bought the cheapest and dirtiest products, and I say: shame on them! What hypocrisy!”
Buying cheap has occasionally led the state to environmental embarrassment. One outstanding example that stuck in the craw of lawmakers was the reconstruction of the San Francisco Bay Bridge which re-opened fully in 2013. The structural steel used to rebuild that bridge was purchased from a Chinese firm that did not meet California environmental or climate standards. It was just less expensive.
Mike Mielke, senior vice president at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, noted that even if the bill did create some front-end cost for new infrastructure in the state, it would pay for itself. He drew a parallel to those LEED-certified buildings. “They last a lot longer, people are happier in them, they are healthier in them, and there’s been lots of research that point to the fact that that additional up-front cost is more than borne out over the life of the building,” he said. “So I think that is not so different here.”
It’s not rocket science. It’s just basically saying you have to buy from the cleaner half, instead of the dirtier half.
Materials covered by the bill leave a couple of glaring exceptions: cement and concrete. They were in the bill until it went into the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee where they were then stripped out. Bonta notes there was “significant opposition” from the cement and concrete industries, and also from Caltrans, who argued that compliance would significantly increase their concrete costs.
This cost increase is way overblown, said U.S. Concrete Vice President Jeff Davis. His firm was a major backer of the bill and is still supporting it. “For 12 years we have been focused on developing the most sustainable, lowest-carbon footprint concrete in our marketplace and for that matter, leading the entire industry in low-carbon concrete,” Davis said. “But I can tell you that here, in the SF Bay Area, our low-carbon concrete is selling competitively with standard concrete.
“We see the value of this bill and the value for our industry. It provides the incentive for the industry to continue to focus on innovation, and to continue to advance that goal of lowering our carbon footprint.”
Bonta sees the bill as a foundation to be built upon later. “Sometimes you start with a significant stake in the ground and get a program started, and then you can build on that program going forward and include more materials,” he said “The political pathway this year didn’t include concrete, but that’s not to say that it won’t be included in the future.”
It seems like a bill like this would be a slam-dunk with Governor Brown, but reading Brown can be very difficult. It’s already been a banner year for the state’s climate policy, with Brown successfully extending his hotly debated cap-and-trade program from 2020 to 2030. Cap and trade requires companies to buy permits allowing them a certain amount of greenhouse gas pollution. A monumental bill requiring 100 percent clean energy production in the state by 2045 was rolled over into the next legislative session. But legislators are pushing ahead.
“It’s not rocket science,” said the Sierra Club’s Phillips. “It’s just basically saying you have to buy from the cleaner half, instead of the dirtier half. And it’s notable that I think every California company will fall into the cleaner half.”
The Electric Road to Zero Emissions Hits a Gas Pocket
Activists have sent a loud and clear message to the California Public Utilities Commission: L.A. and the state should make electric transportation in the city and at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports a priority.
Electrician Francisco “Paco” Arago attends a California Public Utilities Commission community meeting on electric transportation. Arago, a Boyle Heights resident, says he doesn’t know how he will continue to raise his family in such a polluted area of the city. (Photos: Joanne Kim)
Union members, environmental justice advocates and green transportation activists packed a meeting room Tuesday evening in Downtown Los Angeles to send a loud and clear message to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC): the city and state should make electric transportation in the city and at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports a priority.
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill 350) requires utilities to present programs to accelerate the widespread use of zero emission vehicles over the short term and longer range. Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Pacific Gas & Electric, utilities providing about three quarters of California’s electricity service, have all proposed paths to zero emissions, and the CPUC hearing was part of the public process to weigh the merits of those proposals.
“The natural gas industry sees electric vehicles as the future . . . That’s why SoCalGas is fighting Edison on this. They’re opposed to electric across the board.”
Regulators will determine whether the proposals will benefit ratepayers with greater energy efficiency, improved air quality, lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduced dependence on oil, and increased job creation, including jobs in disadvantaged communities.
The new proposals include programs to accelerate the adoption of light-duty EVs (electric vehicles), but also address trucks, buses, port equipment, forklifts, and the other vehicles that move people and goods in bulk in an effort to reduce diesel pollution.
Pacific Gas & Electric has proposed spending $250 million over five years to install infrastructure to electrify fleets of medium and heavy-duty vehicles. That infrastructure includes all the necessary electrical equipment from the transformer down, but not the actual charging stations. San Diego Gas & Electric proposed a $244 million outlay for its five-year program to install 90,000 charging stations at homes in the San Diego region at an estimated 71 cents monthly cost to its customers. The most ambitious proposal has come from Southern California Edison, which includes $554 million in infrastructure to electrify vehicles and equipment moving goods from the Port of Long Beach. PG&E estimates its customers will see a 28-cent hike in their monthly bills while SoCal Edison customers will pay 53-cents more a month.
But the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is determined to protect its piece of the energy pie. If SoCalGas’ arguments to the CPUC are effective, none of the electric utilities’ proposals will be adopted.
Clean Energy Fuels Corp. attorney J. Nathan Jensen urged the CPUC in August to make “cautious, measured movement toward electrification in the off-road, medium-duty and heavy-duty (MD/HD) sectors of the transportation market.” The MD/HD electric vehicle market has “only limited areas of early commercial readiness,” he said in written testimony submitted to the commission.
“Ratepayers are already being asked to shoulder market development costs as the utilities experiment in the MD/HD market,” Jensen said. “Asking them not only to assist customers in funding infrastructure but to allow the utility to earn a return on that assistance is unreasonable.”
Adrian Martinez, an attorney with Earthjustice, said after the meeting that SoCalGas is mostly worried about its own bottom line.
The company “is basically arguing that the natural gas infrastructure is already installed, and therefore there will be stranded assets and harm to ratepayers if the CPUC allows electric vehicle infrastructure to be installed,” Martinez said. “But it’s SoCalGas and other gas companies that will be hurt.”
SoCalGas’ testimony is unusual in that it sets up a situation of one utility potentially going up against another, and SoCalGas going up against a sister company, San Diego Gas & Electric.
Advocates for electric vehicle infrastructure say SoCalGas is playing hardball.
Melissa Bailey, a spokeswoman for Sempra Energy, parent company of SoCalGas and San Diego Gas & Electric, rejected the contention that it was a utility vs. utility fight. For heavy duty trucking, Sempra is touting natural gas engines fueled by biogas, made from green waste, waste water, and other organic sources.
“Natural gas and biogas engines reduce the emissions of smog forming pollutants to nearly zero,” Bailey said. “When fueled by biogas, these natural gas engines actually deliver lower greenhouse gas emissions than electric ones. That’s because biogas takes climate pollutants out of the air and uses them as clean, renewable fuel instead.”
Alexandra Nagy, Southern California Community Organizer with Food & Water Watch, said biogas promotion amounts to “greenwashing.”
“Those vehicles still have tailpipes that still emit greenhouse gasses,” Nagy said. “And gas companies still need to build out infrastructure to move the gas from farms to the consumer, which undercuts their argument about stranded assets.” Food & Water Watch supports the use of biogas onsite, she said, but not for widespread consumer distribution.
Advocates for electric vehicle infrastructure said SoCalGas is playing hardball.
Kathleen Woodfield, of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, gave Capital & Main a letter she had sent to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach regarding possible SoCalGas interference at a joint Clean Air Action Plan hearing in August.
Woodfield wrote that on the evening of September 1, a woman approached her and said that she and 35 other people had been hired to give pro-natural gas testimony at a Clean Air Action Plan hearing, and that about 35 other people were each paid $60 and were given a free dinner for similar testimony. The woman said she had been hired by a PR firm called Method, Woodfield said.
Martinez said such tactics to sway regulators, if true, wouldn’t surprise him.
“They’re desperate,” Martinez said. “The natural gas industry sees electric vehicles as the future, and they don’t want to lose their market share. That’s why SoCalGas is fighting Edison on this. They’re opposed to electric across the board.”
At the downtown CPUC meeting, Jennifer Kropke, Director of Workforce and Environmental Engagement at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Los Angeles area Local 11, testified that Edison’s approach was bold, and that it was the perfect nexus of “good, green jobs paying a living wage to local workers, and cleaner air for people who live near our ports.”
Kropke also emphasized, as did many others at the meeting, that building out EV infrastructure solves a chicken or egg problem. “It is easier to transition to EVs when the charging infrastructure is in place,” Kropke said after the meeting.
The CPUC hearings on the electric utilities’ proposals will be wrapped up in the next three weeks. Decisions on whether to approve or deny a proposal are expected early next year.
Copyright Capital & Main
EducationSeptember 7, 2016
Moonlighting Teachers Learn Hard Lessons from Uber
Conversations on Trump’s AmericaNovember 29, 2016
Conversations on Trump’s America: Robert Reich Previews a New Era of Savage Inequality
Labor & EconomyNovember 16, 2017
Robert Reich on Trump’s ‘Dangerous Tax Bill’
Labor & EconomyNovember 20, 2017
Saving Private Enterprise: Director Jacob Kornbluth on His New Robert Reich Film
Andrew Puzder NominationFebruary 14, 2017
Investigating Labor Secretary Nominee Andrew Puzder’s Fast Food Empire
EnvironmentAugust 26, 2016
California Doubles Down on Its Green Economy, But Kicks Cap-and-Trade Down the Road
Labor & EconomyMay 25, 2016
Aging in the Fields: Retirement Followed by a Return to Work
Labor & EconomySeptember 25, 2017
Kicked to the Curb: How USC Drove a Bicycle Repairman Into the Street