The U.S. Department of Energy is asking FERC to undermine the integrity of competitive electricity markets.

The U.S. Department of Energy is asking FERC to undermine the integrity of competitive electricity markets.

The U.S. Department of Energy is asking FERC to undermine the integrity of competitive electricity markets.

Now, he might lead a crucial office at the EPA. Tell your Senators to stand up for you. C4. Regional.

Now, he might lead a crucial office at the EPA. Tell your Senators to stand up for you. C4.

Now, he might lead a crucial office at the EPA. Tell your Senators to stand up for you. C4.

By Richard Denison

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

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on October 4 and in responses to Questions for the Record submitted by Senators after the hearing, Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to run EPA’s chemical safety program, provided information about his work on a DuPont chemical called PFOA (also known as C8) that is incomplete and misleading.  His selective responses to Senators’ questions reinforce the already serious concerns about his nomination and his suitability for the job.  

In 2002, the state of West Virginia hired Dourson’s firm, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) to convene a panel to set a “safe” level of PFOA in drinking water, after the chemical was found to be contaminating water supplies in the state.  Among other implications, the level set would determine the number of communities and people for which DuPont would be required to pay to provide alternative sources of drinking water – and hence which families and communities would continue to drink PFOA-contaminated water because it was found “safe.”

During the hearing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand questioned Dourson about his work on PFOA.  The panel convened by TERA recommended 150 parts per billion (ppb) as the “safe” level for PFOA.  Gillibrand asked Dourson whether he knew that DuPont itself had an internal guideline of 1 ppb.  Dourson responded by saying:  “Our understanding at the time was the 1 part per billion was a placeholder; it wasn’t based on a full reading of the science.”  She then asked whether he knew that EPA has set a health advisory level of 0.07 ppb.  Dourson responded that “the science has progressed, significantly advanced since the time of 2004 [sic] and the new science indicates a lower level.”

We have ourselves noted that EPA’s current level was set in 2016, well after Dourson’s work.  However, what Dourson failed to acknowledge is that in March 2002 – 5 months before the report recommending the 150 ppb level was issued – EPA had imposed a much stricter standard of 14 ppb on DuPont through a consent order, based on a review of the latest science commissioned by DuPont.  That level is over 10-fold more protective than the standard set through Dourson’s work.  Since that time, EPA has steadily lowered its standard, as more evidence emerged about PFOA’s myriad risks, reaching the current level of 0.07 ppb that is more than 2,000 times lower than that Dourson advocated.

Dourson’s response to Questions for the Record (QFRs) submitted by EPW Ranking Member Tom Carper contains other incomplete or misleading assertions.

Dourson asserted that:  “In 2002, 4 governments and one industry recommended TERA as the independent and neutral party to assist in a PFOA evaluation.  A West Virginia judge agreed.”  We know who the company is that recommended TERA:  As reported in The Intercept, that company was DuPont, which argued in an internal memo that has since surfaced that: “TERA (i.e. Mike Dourson) was the leading choice” because TERA had “a very good reputation among the folks that are still in the business of blessing criteria” and had the ability to “assemble a package and then sell this to EPA, or whomever we desired.”

However, the source Dourson cites – the final report of the panel – provides no support whatsoever for his claim that 4 governments recommended TERA for the job and that a judge had agreed.  While several government agencies were involved in the panel, we could find no evidence in the report or elsewhere that supports the claim.  Perhaps this evidence was among the documents that a West Virginia official admitted were shredded after the panel concluded?  If such evidence exists, Dourson should be compelled to provide it.  In any case, this is one of many examples of his obfuscation when it comes to the funding of and engagement in his work by different parties.

Here’s another:  Dourson’s QFR response also states:  “Five panelists were government employees; 3 were from EPA.”  This response is both selective and misleading:  Dourson fails to mention that there were five additional panelists:  3 were TERA employees, including Dourson, and the remaining 2 were DuPont employees.  It also downplays the central role TERA was assigned in the panel process, as described in a November 2001 consent order between the state of West Virginia and DuPont.

These questionable and selective responses Dourson provided to Senators in the context of his confirmation hearing serve again to illustrate why we believe Dourson lacks both the credibility and the trustworthiness needed for the job of overseeing our nation’s chemical safety program.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on October 4 and in responses to Questions for the Record submitted by Senators after the hearing, Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to run EPA’s chemical safety […]

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on October 4 and in responses to Questions for the Record submitted by Senators after the hearing, Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to run EPA’s chemical safety […]

By EDF Blogs

Dr. Ananya Roy is a Health Scientist

Over the last few weeks as forest fires engulfed large areas of California, air quality in the Bay area plummeted. Doctors and pediatricians were on high alert to deal with the health impacts felt most acutely by children and the elderly. Pediatrician’s offices had phone messages that said “If you are concerned about air pollution and calling to make an appointment for your child’s asthma please dial …” and advised citizens to use face masks and air purifiers and stay indoors. News outlets compared air pollution levels there to winter days in Beijing or New Delhi where air pollution is a more consistent threat. These fires drive home the reality of the effect of pollution on health.

Time and time again pollution related news from across the country and globe have made headlines, ranging from lead and PFOAS in water Flint and Hoosick Falls, benzene in Houston, to the “Airpocalypse” in Beijing and New Delhi. Though these articles highlight the disastrous effects of pollution from major pollution and weather events, the constant and ongoing silent impact of air pollution on the lives of children and communities remains underappreciated.

GAHP, The Lancet Report

Today, the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, an initiative of The Lancet, the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP), Pure Earth, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, with additional coordination and input from United Nations Environment, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the World Bank, and others provide the first comprehensive global analysis of the health and economic impacts from all forms of pollution (air, water, soil, occupational). My colleague Elena Craft and I were contributors to this report.

The analysis carried out through the Global Burden of Disease framework estimated that pollution across air, water, soil, and occupational exposures costs the global economy $4.6 trillion per year, approximately 6.2% of global GDP, and resulted in 9 million deaths in 2015. This is equivalent to 16% of all deaths worldwide. Three times more deaths than AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined; and fifteen times more than all wars and other forms of violence.

Of the 9 million deaths, air pollution accounts for 6 million deaths. The remaining 3 million deaths is a woeful underrepresentation of the true burden pollution has on communities. This is because of the lack of data on levels of exposures to known toxicants like mercury, asbestos, and contaminated sites in areas where there is unregulated recycling, mining, industrial activity, or a legacy of known and unknown chemical spills. Further unquantified is the wide spread use/ exposure to chemicals and their health effects.

Pollution affects the most vulnerable. It is intrinsically linked to poverty and development- nearly 92% of pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. More than 50% of air pollution related deaths take place in India and China. Even within countries, pollution’s toll is greatest in poor and marginalized communities. A recent study reports that in 2010, black and Hispanic people in America had 37% higher exposures to air pollution than whites and face more severe health effects due to air pollution. Children face the highest risks because small exposures to air pollution and chemicals in utero and in early childhood can result in lifelong disease and disability, premature death, as well as reduced learning and earning potential. This has an impact on the future generation’s productivity, in addition to downstream effects on equitable economic development in countries battling disparities in health and poverty.

Despite the enormous impact of pollution on health and the interconnection with development, it remains an underfunded issue. The political will to deal with pollution is overshadowed by the perceived trade off with economic development.

Globally, however, there are new shifts in willingness to address pollution. Just this week Xi Jinping, China’s president, emphasized the move toward green development and the importance of the environment. Countries such as China and India and cities like Paris and London are making commitments to ban the sale of gasoline cars and switch to electric vehicles within the next 10 to 15 years. The health benefits of this is only going to be realized, however, if the electric power generation utilizes more renewable sources of energy. This is already happening as countries move away from coal for electricity generation.

However, here in the US, our current administration is rolling back environmental protections. Earlier this month, Scott Pruitt, issued a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan outright. Also being reviewed are vehicle emission standards. All this is being done in the guise of promoting the economy and jobs, even as 90,000 Americans die each year due to air pollution alone. EPA’s own analyses show that reducing pollution and growing the economy at the same time is possible, since 1980 air pollution has gone down 65% while the economy has grown by more than 153%.

This report is a reminder that pollution has very real health and economic impacts. Our leaders have a responsibility to protect the health of the people and we need to hold them accountable.

"The conditions that are responsible for these fires continue to exist over thousands of acres of California’s populated landscapes."

"The conditions that are responsible for these fires continue to exist over thousands of acres of California’s populated landscapes."

Congress is considering new legislation that would imperil efforts to protect families from toxic substances and severely weaken safeguards we rely on to keep our communities safe and healthy. C4. MCAF. Regional.

Congress is considering new legislation that would imperil efforts to protect families from toxic substances and severely weaken safeguards we rely on to keep our communities safe and healthy. C4. MCAF. Regional.

Congress is considering new legislation that would imperil efforts to protect families from toxic substances and severely weaken safeguards we rely on to keep our communities safe and healthy. C4. MCAF. Regional.

Better Data, Better Lives. That was the theme of the second World Statistics Day celebrated two years ago on October 20th, 2015. The holiday was designed for celebration every five years, but in light of recent attacks on climate science, it is critical to showcase the value of clean energy data now, more than ever. […]

By Andy Bilich

Better Data, Better Lives.

That was the theme of the second World Statistics Day celebrated two years ago on October 20th, 2015. The holiday was designed for celebration every five years, but in light of recent attacks on climate science, it is critical to showcase the value of clean energy data now, more than ever.

So, why is clean energy data important? Why do we need it? As a data analyst, I expect to answer or debate questions about the significance, trends, and use of data. But I don’t usually expect questioning why data should exist in the first place.

Upon reflection, however, I’d say the simplest response is this: We need clean energy data to progress economically, socially, and technologically.

From a family trying to save money on their electricity bill to the global community collaborating on a cleaner, more renewable future, energy data can unlock an unending list of benefits by facilitating the design of effective policies, empowering people and businesses with information, and spurring energy innovation. Here are a just a few of those benefits.

Why better energy data equals better lives – Now more than ever
Click To Tweet

Effective policies

Good policy solves problems, and good policy is built on clear, transparent, and accessible data.

These days, energy data seem to be used more often defensively, to critically evaluate energy policy (or lack thereof). For example, data show clean energy doesn’t cause reliability problems for the electric grid (in fact, clean energy may actually boost the grid). So, when Energy Secretary Rick Perry ignores existing evidence and instead issues a bailout for uneconomic coal plants by claiming coal is necessary for reliability, data can help hold him accountable and inform American taxpayers about the multi-billion dollars such a move would cost them.

Similarly, data expose dangers, like the devastating impact a potential solar tariff would have on the future of the solar energy industry. Data show that a tariff would make large commercial solar projects less cost-competitive and decrease demand long-term, and such a move by the Trump administration would put up to 100,000 American solar jobs at risk. 

Good policy solves problems, and good policy is built on clear, transparent, and accessible data. 

But data can also be employed proactively, to design policy for a cleaner, more efficient, and customer-centric energy future. In New York, data are informing new policies that fairly compensate distributed energy resources, like solar, storage, and energy efficiency. Data are also being used by regulators across the country to reward utilities for designing new electricity rates that integrate and optimize those resources. Furthermore, data help prove that markets exist for clean energy solutions, like electric vehicles.

Empowering consumers

On a more micro-level, smart meters and customer access to their own usage data allows them to understand where, when, and how they use energy. For example, time-of-use electricity pricing shows customers when energy is cheapest and cleanest throughout the day.

A 2016 report from the Mission: Data Initiative shows how customers can realize 6-18 percent energy savings when they have easy access to their electricity data. But user data can also empower people and businesses to change their behavior or find tech solutions for other reasons, as well, like doing their part for a more sustainable future.

States like Illinois have been on the forefront of empowering customers and entrepreneurs with easy, secure, and meaningful access to energy data for years. In fact, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Citizens Utility Board developed the Open Data Access Framework, which is a regulatory framework for protecting, sharing, and licensing anonymized energy data. The framework also aims to encourage the development of energy-saving products and services.

Driving innovation

The natural result of the needs data reveal are the solutions to address them. Data catalyze and drive innovation, technology, and solutions that help us be smarter about energy use.

Data catalyze and drive innovation, technology, and solutions that help us be smarter about energy use.

Some of these data-driven solutions are tangible, like smart thermostats and appliances that help users optimize electricity use. In the U.S., EDF is working with a tech startup called WattTime that tracks the real-time carbon intensity of electricity produced in different grids across the country. The goal is to better understand the positive environmental impacts of solutions that encourage people to use electricity at cleaner times of the day or reward customers for saving energy, like demand response (during times of peak energy use, pre-approved appliances like swimming pool pumps, defrosters and water heaters automatically turn off, and thermostats can temporarily adjust to pre-approved temperatures).

Other solutions enabled by clean energy data are more “behind the scenes.” An interesting and recent innovation, resulting from collaboration between EDF, National Grid, Sandbag, and World Wildlife Federation, is the UK’s Green Energy Forecast tool. It combines energy and weather data for software designers to build mobile apps that will eventually show consumers the real-world impact of their electricity use on a particular day.

And yet other data-driven solutions are a bit of both, like the Smart Building Operations Pilot that was recently developed by EDF, ComEd, and the Accelerate Group. The pilot connects 10 buildings in Chicago with real time energy-use and performance data to raise awareness and foster smarter energy management decisions by building operators.

It’s October 20th, 2017. Just 15 days ago, data showing the electricity and water needs in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria were deleted from the federal emergency management website. Officially, we are three years out from the next World Statistics Day. I am hopeful that by then our focus will be on utilizing data for good rather than fighting for its existence, so we can continue finding solutions to the most pressing needs of people and the planet.