By Dick Munson

Even as the Trump administration moved this week to repeal the Clean Power Plan, some of the biggest American utilities indicated they’ll continue investing in clean energy and strategizing around climate change.

And as they continue investing in smart meters and other grid modernization efforts, utilities will want to know how well they do. Are grid programs fulfilling environmental promises and cutting pollution? Can they measure success and prove to investors and regulators they’re making smart decisions?

In Illinois, electricity providers Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and Ameren are the first in the country to adopt a new tool that calculates clean air benefits from investments such as advanced meters. ComEd began using the tool last year, and now Ameren will follow suit.

Beyond bringing tangible rewards to the utilities, this little-noticed milestone can have major implications for the entire power industry.

Billions for smart grid

After Illinois passed the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act in 2011, channeling $3.2 billion to ComEd and Ameren to modernize the grid, the companies began to replace customers’ conventional electric meters with smart meters. The new devices make it easier to provide energy savings programs and other clean energy services, while helping utilities reduce outages.

Innovative measurement tool will help Illinois calculate the benefits of smart-grid investments
Click To Tweet

The companies have now deployed approximately 4 million meters across the state, along with other sensing and control technology.

This is where the first-of-its kind metric comes in.

ComEd started to use the measurement tool last year to calculate and report to state regulators greenhouse gas reductions from its new and advanced energy infrastructure. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) – Illinois’ premiere utility watchdog – developed the metric. Initial results show ComEd has already lowered greenhouse gas pollution, for example through dispatching fewer outage and maintenance related vehicles.

Now Ameren will work with EDF and CUB to design the specifics of the metric so it can begin to use the tool across its territory.

The initiative serves, in essence, as a pilot project for other power companies that want to build a modern grid.

This metric…does what, exactly?

By determining the carbon value of a kilowatt-hour of electricity for all 8,760 hours in a single year, the metric can pinpoint how much pollution the smart meters are keeping out of the air. Utilities can now show investors and the public that they are meeting air-quality goals.

For example, when power comes from high-carbon coal, using a kWh of this electricity results in more carbon pollution than when power is coming from mostly low-carbon wind or solar.

The metric will be able to track greenhouse gas reductions.

Advanced meters can also open the door for numerous clean energy and smart grid tools, such as energy efficiency and demand response, which rewards customers for conserving electricity when the grid needs it most. The metric will be able to track the greenhouse gas reductions associated with all of these efforts, and more.

Rewards too good to pass up

As ComEd and Ameren continue their advanced meter rollout, the utilities hope to be rewarded accordingly. Illinois offers higher earnings for utilities that show they’re meeting the goals of the state’s grid modernization plan.

As the companies gain more experience with the metric’s use, they will also be able to incorporate the findings into future plans and make more informed investment decisions going forward.

Carbon-emissions tracking could open doors for new businesses and products.

Moreover, carbon-emissions tracking could open doors for new businesses and products. For example, EDF Europe, alongside collaborators National Grid, Sandbag, and World Wildlife Federation, recently released the Green Energy Forecast Tool, which combines U.K. energy and weather data for software designers to access for free online. From there, they can design apps that show consumers the real-world impact of their electricity use on a particular day.

Nearly half of all American households now have smart meters generating utility data about daily energy use, and the Illinois greenhouse metric and Green Energy Forecast Tool are just the tip of the iceberg of what’s possible when marrying energy-use data with other datasets. Illinois may be first state in the U.S. with an innovative carbon-impact tool, but it probably won’t be the last in our growing clean energy economy.

A version of this post originally ran on EDF Voices.

By Dick Munson

Even as the Trump administration moved this week to repeal the Clean Power Plan, some of the biggest American utilities indicated they’ll continue investing in clean energy and strategizing around climate change.

And as they continue investing in smart meters and other grid modernization efforts, utilities will want to know how well they do. Are grid programs fulfilling environmental promises and cutting pollution? Can they measure success and prove to investors and regulators they’re making smart decisions?

In Illinois, electricity providers Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and Ameren are the first in the country to adopt a new tool that calculates clean air benefits from investments such as advanced meters. ComEd began using the tool last year, and now Ameren will follow suit.

Beyond bringing tangible rewards to the utilities, this little-noticed milestone can have major implications for the entire power industry.

Billions for smart grid

After Illinois passed the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act in 2011, channeling $3.2 billion to ComEd and Ameren to modernize the grid, the companies began to replace customers’ conventional electric meters with smart meters. The new devices make it easier to provide energy savings programs and other clean energy services, while helping utilities reduce outages.

Innovative measurement tool will help Illinois calculate the benefits of smart-grid investments
Click To Tweet

The companies have now deployed approximately 4 million meters across the state, along with other sensing and control technology.

This is where the first-of-its kind metric comes in.

ComEd started to use the measurement tool last year to calculate and report to state regulators greenhouse gas reductions from its new and advanced energy infrastructure. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) – Illinois’ premiere utility watchdog – developed the metric. Initial results show ComEd has already lowered greenhouse gas pollution, for example through dispatching fewer outage and maintenance related vehicles.

Now Ameren will work with EDF and CUB to design the specifics of the metric so it can begin to use the tool across its territory.

The initiative serves, in essence, as a pilot project for other power companies that want to build a modern grid.

This metric…does what, exactly?

By determining the carbon value of a kilowatt-hour of electricity for all 8,760 hours in a single year, the metric can pinpoint how much pollution the smart meters are keeping out of the air. Utilities can now show investors and the public that they are meeting air-quality goals.

For example, when power comes from high-carbon coal, using a kWh of this electricity results in more carbon pollution than when power is coming from mostly low-carbon wind or solar.

The metric will be able to track greenhouse gas reductions.

Advanced meters can also open the door for numerous clean energy and smart grid tools, such as energy efficiency and demand response, which rewards customers for conserving electricity when the grid needs it most. The metric will be able to track the greenhouse gas reductions associated with all of these efforts, and more.

Rewards too good to pass up

As ComEd and Ameren continue their advanced meter rollout, the utilities hope to be rewarded accordingly. Illinois offers higher earnings for utilities that show they’re meeting the goals of the state’s grid modernization plan.

As the companies gain more experience with the metric’s use, they will also be able to incorporate the findings into future plans and make more informed investment decisions going forward.

Carbon-emissions tracking could open doors for new businesses and products.

Moreover, carbon-emissions tracking could open doors for new businesses and products. For example, EDF Europe, alongside collaborators National Grid, Sandbag, and World Wildlife Federation, recently released the Green Energy Forecast Tool, which combines U.K. energy and weather data for software designers to access for free online. From there, they can design apps that show consumers the real-world impact of their electricity use on a particular day.

Nearly half of all American households now have smart meters generating utility data about daily energy use, and the Illinois greenhouse metric and Green Energy Forecast Tool are just the tip of the iceberg of what’s possible when marrying energy-use data with other datasets. Illinois may be first state in the U.S. with an innovative carbon-impact tool, but it probably won’t be the last in our growing clean energy economy.

A version of this post originally ran on EDF Voices.

Even as the Trump administration moved last week to repeal the Clean Power Plan, some of the biggest American utilities indicated they’ll continue investing in clean energy and strategizing around climate change. And as they continue investing in smart meters and other grid modernization efforts, utilities will want to know how well they do. Are grid programs […]

By Richard Denison

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

[My colleague Ryan O’Connell assisted in the research described in this post.]

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

In a series of earlier posts to this blog, we have described and documented numerous conflicts of interests that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to head EPA’s toxics office, would bring to the job if he is confirmed.

(A vote on his nomination by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is currently scheduled for this Wednesday at 10am EDT.  If he is voted out of committee, a majority vote of the full Senate would then be required for his nomination to be confirmed.)

Dourson has worked on dozens of toxic chemicals under payment from dozens of companies.  Two consistent patterns emerge when his reviews are examined:  The process he typically uses to conduct his reviews is riddled with conflicts of interest.  And his reviews typically result in him recommending “safe” levels for the chemicals that are weaker, often much weaker, than the established standards in place at the time of his reviews.

If confirmed, Dourson would oversee most of the chemicals and companies he has worked on and with.  The chemicals include numerous pesticides coming up for review shortly under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as three chemicals that are among the first 10 EPA is now considering under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

To further gauge the impact Dourson could have if confirmed, we have looked a bit farther down the road.  TSCA requires EPA to be conducting risk evaluations on at least 20 chemicals by December 2019.  At least half of those chemicals are to be drawn from EPA’s so-called Work Plan for Chemical Assessments.

Using information available on the website of Dourson’s company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), as well as his published papers, we compared the list of chemicals he/TERA have worked on to those on the EPA Work Plan.  We found that 22 chemicals overlap.  We then examined each chemical Dourson or TERA worked on to determine whether Dourson or TERA was paid for their work by their manufacturers or industrial users of those chemicals.  

For at least half – 11 of the 22 Work Plan chemicals – we identified such funding.  These include the three chemicals noted earlier that are among the first 10 EPA is currently evaluating:  1,4-dioxane, 1-bromopropane, and trichloroethylene.  These and the eight additional Work Plan chemicals we identified are listed in the accompanying table, along with the corporate interests that hired Dourson or TERA to work on them.

This analysis only deepens the basis for concern over Dourson’s nomination:  If confirmed, he would have full authority over the selection of which Work Plan chemicals EPA selects next for risk evaluations, not to mention the scope and content of those evaluations.  Many other aspects of TSCA implementation would fall entirely under his purview as well, including those that are central issues in current litigation over EPA’s prioritization and risk evaluation rules:

• what uses are included in and excluded from risk evaluations;
• whether risk determinations are made for specific uses rather than across uses of a chemical;
• which and how many chemicals are designated low vs. high priority;
• how many and which company-requested risk evaluations EPA grants, and the scope of those evaluations; and
• whether and when to use the expanded testing authority the new law gave EPA.

The stakes are indeed high.  Public health protection demands that the Senate reject Dourson’s nomination.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [My colleague Ryan O’Connell assisted in the research described in this post.] [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] In a series of earlier posts to this blog, we have described and documented numerous conflicts of interests that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to head […]

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [My colleague Ryan O’Connell assisted in the research described in this post.] [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] In a series of earlier posts to this blog, we have described and documented numerous conflicts of interests that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to head […]

Dourson should not be responsible for protecting our children from toxic chemicals. MCAF. C3. Regional.

Dourson should not be responsible for protecting our children from toxic chemicals. MCAF. C3. Regional.

Dourson should not be responsible for protecting our children from toxic chemicals. MCAF. C3. Regional.

A new John Deere and Cornell partnership promises to make it easier than ever for farmers to access and analyze farm data.

A new John Deere and Cornell partnership promises to make it easier than ever for farmers to access and analyze farm data.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Melissa Nootz, Moms Clean Air Force’s Montana field consultant. This post originally posted on Huffington Post:

Priced out of the first Montana town we loved, my husband and I look for affordable homes without leaving the state. Serendipity offers us an opportunity for a job and very affordable home in the former smelting town of Anaconda. Before committing, I research everything I can find about the risks of living near this Superfund site. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Quality and independent labs, I call whomever will talk to me about the real risks of living in a town with toxic heavy metals, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. Permeating the soil and waters across town, their reach extends far beyond. And then I call them again. Pages of scrawled notes sprawl across my counters. I guess it’s simple: If we buy a house and the levels of toxic heavy metals in the soil are high, our yard will be remediated. Late nights staring at the ceiling from bed, I wonder which path is for us, feeling torn somewhere between my head and my heart.

My husband and I take a second set of vows nine years after our first vows. We promise each other to obey all the recommendations gathered from all the guiding agencies to the letter: scrubbing windowsills, shoes off upon entry, wash hands before every meal, wash hands after playing outside, never eat food dropped on the ground, keep the sod intact, remediate soils before gardening and on and on. It’s not so bad. I can do this.

We finally find it, our first home ― kitchen overlooking the yard, wood floors, a bright sunroom, nice neighbors, close to his work, a space for the sewing machine, a garage, and it even comes with a 1950s dining room table that I love. We move to a new house in a new town. It’s all really good, and I’m really happy.

Our yard’s soil is tested. There are so many organizations involved. It’s confusing. I’m not always sure where to go for what answers. The results are in. The numbers are high and are exceeding the limits for arsenic. They dilute the data by using averages, hotspots don’t matter, and now only the boulevard is going to be remediated. Wait. There’s a Record of Decision amendment concerning lead. This is supposed to better for us. More of our yard could be remediated. They tell us there’s no timeline for the ROD amendment. We’re on a list for remediation, near the very top. And we’re told to wait.

It sounded so straightforward: If the levels of heavy metals were high, our yard was supposed to be remediated.

My husband and I talk about the numbers. They’re so high. We can’t put our toddler’s swing set over soil with that much lead and arsenic. The sod will wear thin and toxic dirt will become airborne with every push of her feet against the bare ground. The county has a program that doesn’t cost us money. If we do the labor they will haul the toxic soil away, and bring us clean soil. Clean soil ― an oxymoron, I think. So shovelful by shovelful, we dig. From shovel to wheelbarrow, from wheelbarrow to trailer. The county hauls the toxic soil away and brings us clean soil. From trailer to wheelbarrow, from wheelbarrow to shovel, we are making it a safer home for our family.

It’s exhausting, both mentally and physically. I adjust my thoughts, and I recommit myself again and again to love this place ― my home. I love this house. I really do love this house. I just need to keep remembering that. It’s just that one looming thing I loathe with my whole heart is always in my periphery. It sucks all the spontaneity that’s still inside me.

We want another child, and my husband now insists on digging alone. He wants to keep us safe.

I’m pregnant. We’re all happy. And one afternoon, there it is: the reddest blood I’ve ever seen. I have an ultrasound. There is no heartbeat. I am in labor. This can’t be happening, but it is. Several hours slip away. It’s late. My husband’s hands on my shoulders and words in my face pull me from unconsciousness, and I wake to a fear in his eyes I’ve never seen before. I’ve never fainted before that night. My pregnancy is over.

I wonder if this could be related to living here. My health care providers tell me that sometimes these things happen without a reason.

Summer comes and goes, and he digs. More toxic soil out, new gardens in. Life goes on. And I hold on tightly to what I love: my family, this house, growing plants in gardens.

I’m pregnant again. We’re all hopeful. We hear a heartbeat. Weeks pass, and the heartbeat is gone. I have an ultrasound. The image of our lifeless baby is on the screen. This can’t be happening, but it is. Ready, I awaken to a strange and familiar sensation from within me. The house is still and dark. I am in labor. I call my doula. There is a heavy spring snow falling. Several hours slip away. It’s dawn. Between contractions I watch the snow capped leaves outside the window bending toward the earth. The snow keeps falling. I wonder if the branches can hold the weight. My pregnancy is over.

I wonder again if this could be related to living here. My health care providers tell me that sometimes these things happen without a reason. They pause, adding that testing for causes typically doesn’t begin until after three consecutive losses.

Summer comes and goes, and my husband digs. More toxic soil out, new gardens in. Life goes on. And I hold on tightly to what I love: my family, this house, growing plants in gardens.

I’m pregnant again. We worry. We hear a heartbeat. We worry more. We see her on the ultrasound, and she is very much alive. We worry more than we ever have worried. It’s Christmas Eve. This can’t be happening, but it is. I am in labor. I call my doula and midwife. Several hours later and my pregnancy is over. She is born at home on Christmas morning.

When she is 1, a routine test shows she has lead in her blood. My husband and I faithfully kept our vows, and we feel cheated and betrayed and utterly, helplessly devastated.

I wonder how many times I can shatter into a million pieces, sweep myself up, and pull myself back together.

It sounded so straightforward: If we followed the recommended protocols, we were supposed to be safe. We were near the top of the priority list. Our yard was supposed to be remediated.

On my birthday, we move into a new home in a new town: Livingston. I love both of these things for a host of reasons related and unrelated to our experiences in our previous home. We no longer live near a Superfund site. I’m not fragile. And I never broke. I am simply a mother, just like the many mothers before me and beside me.

To satiate my long-held curiosity, I search to learn if heavy metal exposure could be linked to miscarriage and infant loss. The short answer is yes, they can be linked. I’m mostly numb to these facts.

Now that we moved away, people tend to ask a lot of questions trying to understand what it’s like to live near a Superfund site. Mothering in a frontline community with toxic pollution silently threatening to poison us all, in most ways I suppose, is just like mothering anywhere. But then, I don’t really know any other way to mother.

I wonder if I’ll ever feel spontaneous and lighthearted again. And I hold on tightly to what I love: my family, this house, growing plants in gardens. It’s so not bad. I can do this.

Photo: Melissa Nootz

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Written by Molly Rauch

“I can say without the slightest hesitation that inaction on climate is both emotional abuse and it’s abuse from negligence,” says Lise Van Susteren (left).

 

Climate change is making extreme weather events worse, and that takes both a physical and emotional toll. I recently sat down with psychiatrist and mental health advocate Lise Van Susteren at her home outside Washington, D.C., to discuss the psychological toll of climate change and the need for the mental health community to act. With more than a decade of experience at the intersection of mental health and climate change impacts, Van Susteren’s advocacy has led her to offer therapy to comedian Jack Black on the TV series “Years of Living Dangerously” and push the professional associations to which she belongs to adopt new norms with regard to climate change impacts. Read her recent commentary on the health effects of climate change here and her call to action for psychiatry here.

Moms Clean Air Force: As a physician thinking about the mental health impacts of climate change, can you describe what you’re seeing now in your practice?

Lise Van Susteren: I’m already seeing a lot of anxiety, and I expect it to grow.  Increasingly, as Mother Nature gives us reasons to be anxious, we are certain to see a population on edge. I believe already that everybody knows—on some level—that climate change is the problem, so we’re all anxious, whether we admit it or not.

You’ve talked about “climate Cassandras” who are gripped by anxiety about future harm to the planet. What do you mean by this?

In Roman mythology, Cassandra was doomed to be able to always see the truth, although no one around her would believe her—a punishment meted out by the higher gods for some misdeed. A “climate Cassandra” is a person who has known for a long time where we are headed, sees the handwriting on the wall, but can’t get the rest of the population to wake up to take action in time.

On the flipside, there are people denying this is happening. What is your perspective on that denial, as a psychiatrist?

Denial is a defense—but denial is there for a reason. People feel too anxious to know the truth, so it sits on top of the truth in our subconscious. There are many reasons why we deny, but all of them can be taken apart if a person does it well. This is retail therapy one-on-one!

“As mothers, our primary goal is to keep our children safe.”

Do you think this is the role of the mental health professional?

Oh, I absolutely do. It is a call to action—the likes of which we have never seen before. Civilization is under attack. Our profession has to say that these [climate] scientists need to be believed. We are doctors: we “get” science, we “get” emergencies, we “get” the need to act. It’s absolutely critical for us to look at this data and not only take action ourselves but also influence others to take action as well.

Our country has experienced extreme weather events back-to-back [Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico]. What are some of the mental health impacts?

We haven’t been able to recover before the next one comes—so the cumulative toll is profoundly traumatizing. What we are seeing on the ground from these storms is that we have not only anxiety but there’s also depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. We’re seeing domestic violence, abuse of alcohol and drugs as people try to cope. With domestic violence, there is also child abuse. Researchers find that for each standard deviation of increase in temperature and change in rainfall, you have a four percent increase in violence between individuals and a 14% increase in violence among groups.

Tell me about children and climate change. What is your understanding of their vulnerability to the kind of anxiety you are talking about?  

It’s just immense. It’s heart stopping to think of what the kids are going through. Many are already expressing profound despair at what’s happening in the world. It’s no secret that they know harm is coming to them; the sensitive ones are struggling.

The rage that some young people have toward their government for its inaction is a huge concern of mine. The sine qua non of civilized society is a belief in our institutions. If our youngsters are unprotected by our institutions, our government, our politicians, some may become cynical about government, putting at risk their future involvement. We need involved, caring, informed people to assure a civilized society, and our democratic form of government.

The degree of abandonment that these kids feel is another huge concern. They are not calling it this – yet – but the negligent, reckless inaction on climate that is putting them at such existential risk that it has risen to the level of abuse. As a psychiatrist,

I am required by law, in all 50 states, to report evidence of child abuse in all its forms – physical, sexual, emotional, or by negligence. I have seen child abuse. I know it when I see it. I see it. I can say without the slightest hesitation that inaction on climate is both emotional abuse and it’s abuse from negligence — abandonment of our children. Reporting is mandatory.

“Understanding [our children’s] fears and talking openly in a safe space is key. List off the things that you’re doing so that you help them craft an action plan.”

You’ve talked about how we need a new kind of motherhood to address climate change. What can mothers do?

As mothers, our primary goal is to keep our children safe. We nurture them so that they can grow up to lead healthy lives and have children of their own for whom they provide a secure and loving environment.  Yet, this role is now fundamentally up in the air: we don’t know that we can guarantee that for our kids. As a mom, it’s profoundly upsetting to think of my kids in harm’s way. It makes me want to redouble my efforts to find out where I can be of greatest use.

Depending on the stage in our lives and theirs, we have different needs and pressures. We can weave many opportunities to create good citizens respectful of others into their early years as a foundation—sharing our love for nature by helping them experience the beauty and bounty of nature and interacting with the earth in ways that promote sustainability. Planting a vegetable garden comes to mind. School and community activities can draw us together with peer groups, showing that we seek to assure that others are safe and taken care of as well. Across the span of our lives, we can take action in different places. When the intensity of taking care of young children passes, we may have more time to work on “upstream” systemic impacts.

There is a table laden with opportunities and all of us have a role – or many roles – to play. We must seize upon them because it is the essence of the call to be caretakers for our children and those of the future.

What gives you hope that mental health community will rise to the challenge of climate change?

I’m very proud to say that the Climate Psychiatry Alliance has been making progress with our professional organizations. The Alliance is working to raise consciousness of how much mental health practitioners can do to address the threats climate change poses. We can talk about policy, science, emergencies, kids, safety, denial, resistance—covering the entire spectrum of issues around climate change. We have a unique opportunity to help, so its critical that we run with this

What is your advice for parents with children who may be anxious about climate change? 

It’s exceedingly important to address the fears that a child brings up. Ask questions and never minimize their fears. Tell them you understand they’re fearful and then tell them it’s why you are taking action: “That’s why we went to that march, why we’ve got a vegetable garden, why we’re taking the train instead of an airplane, why we’re walking out in nature to show our reverence for Mother Nature and to recognize our place in it.” These are all the things that you can do. Of course, calibrate [your examples and language] according to the child’s age, but meet those fears head-on. Understanding their fears and talking openly in a safe space is key. List off the things that you’re doing so that you help them craft an action plan. In doing so, you are building the kind of active citizenry we will need even more in the years to come.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director The Cincinnati City Council enacted three ordinances in June 2017 that establish an innovative legal framework to replace the city’s 27,000 lead service lines (LSLs) over the next 15 years. The Council acted after finding that “high levels of lead in water create serious health risks to residents of […]

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

The Cincinnati City Council enacted three ordinances in June 2017 that establish an innovative legal framework to replace the city’s 27,000 lead service lines (LSLs) over the next 15 years. The Council acted after finding that “high levels of lead in water create serious health risks to residents of the City, particularly young children, and using lead service lines between public water mains and properties increases the risk that the lead content of drinking water to the properties served will increase to a dangerous level” and that “replacing lead service lines is in the best interest of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.” Although the City stopped allowing new LSLs in 1927, an estimated 1 in 9 service connections still have a portion made of lead pipe.

A member of the GCWW Repair Services Team replaces an LSL. Photo credit: GCWW

Cincinnati’s program is based on Madison, Wisconsin’s successful effort, which began in 2000 and was completed in 2011. Cincinnati is roughly three times larger than Madison in terms of population, service connections, and LSLs.

Under the program, residential property owners within Greater Cincinnati Water Works’ (GCWW) service area can receive between 40 and 50% off of the cost of replacing the portion of the LSL on their property up to $1,500 if they agree to have GCWW arrange for the replacement. Owners within the limits of the City of Cincinnati may choose to have the remaining cost assessed semiannually on their property tax bill and repaid over 5 or 10 years. Property assessments must be approved by the political entity where the property resides. As of today the assessment option is only available for the residential properties in the City. However, GCWW is reaching out to the other jurisdictions it serves to discuss expanding the assessment program to those jurisdictions as well.

GCWW will also be replacing the portion of the LSL on public property so that the entire service line is replaced. The City is committed to fund its share of the work from GCWW’s Capital Budget.

While based on Madison’s program, Cincinnati’s approach varies in three significant ways. It:

1. Prohibits existing LSLs as of June 28, 2017 and provides an automatic grace period to all property owners. The requirement to remove the private LSL is triggered when the City serves notice to the owner that they need to replace the LSL. The owner must choose within 30 days to replace the LSL at their own cost with their own contractor in coordination with GCWW, or, to contract with GCWW to complete the work. Any unpaid costs after deduction of GCWW cost-sharing can be assessed to the property. In contrast, Madison’s ordinance did not prohibit existing LSLs and used the notice to trigger an investigation and extended replacement schedule.
2. Requires landlords to inform prospective tenants in writing prior to the tenant’s signing the lease if the unit is serviced by an LSL. Landlords are directed to the GCWW's webpage to check records of the material composition of their service line. The City provides a useful interactive map. Cincinnati is the first community we are aware of that alerts prospective tenants about LSLs so they can consider the risks before signing the lease.
3. Establishes a “Help Eliminate Lead Pipes” (HELP) fund to handle donations from City employees, GCWW customers, corporations, and others to assist low-income residential property owners with the cost of replacement of LSLs on private property.

Cincinnati’s ordinances are a follow-up to its October 2016 directive to GCWW to develop an LSL replacement program that 1) replaces all lines within 15 years, 2) uses property assessment as a financing option; and 3) sets up a customer assistance program.

GCWW’s notice to property owners that they must replace their LSL is significant because once the notice is delivered, the private LSL replacement is required within the GCWW project timeline and enforceable by GCWW. The ordinance identifies three situations that will trigger the notice and removal of a lead pipe from service:

1. GCWW plans to replace the water main that connects to the LSL. The ordinance prohibits the utility from reconnecting the main to existing lead pipe. This provision effectively bans partial LSL replacement.
2. An existing LSL is leaking. The line can be temporarily repaired but then must be replaced with copper.
3. LSL is disturbed for any other reason such as renovation, demolition and rebuild.

The cost sharing with GCWW is only available if the work is performed by GCWW or its contractor. This approach enables the City to manage the cost and ensure the work is done properly and efficiently. Low-income residents who are senior citizens will be asked to pay half the cost of replacement. If the resident property owner is low income but not a senior citizen, they pay 55% of the cost. All other property owners pay 60%. GCWW’s maximum cost share is $1,500.

GCWW has the flexibility to prioritize LSL replacement based on the public health risk and economic consideration and anticipates putting any school, child care provider, or other business or activity frequented by children as a high priority.

The three ordinances only provide the legal framework and the resources for the City to successfully replace all LSLs. The difficult work of implementation falls largely on GCWW and not all property owners will appreciate the need to replace lead pipes. A key to success is the HELP fund to minimize the burden on low-income property owners. With these cautions, we think the approach is a model that should be considered by other communities.

The oil and gas industry has a massive wastewater problem. And if the growing dialogue about new ways of dealing with it are any indication, it may get worse if we aren’t careful. Cost concerns, pressure to conserve water, and other factors have led some oil and gas companies to consider new ways to manage […]

The post Getting dangerously creative with oil and gas wastewater appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Nichole Saunders

Look before you leap – why learning more about oilfield wastewater is critical to reducing health and safety risks.

The oil and gas industry has a massive wastewater problem. And if the growing dialogue about new ways of dealing with it are any indication, it may get worse if we aren’t careful.

Cost concerns, pressure to conserve water, and other factors have led some oil and gas companies to consider new ways to manage or repurpose wastewater – including using it to irrigate crops. That could create more problems than it solves.

Managing the massive amount of oil and gas wastewater has been a challenge for energy companies for generations. Some wells produce up to 10 times more wastewater than oil. In the United States, companies produce nearly 900 billion gallons of wastewater a year. That’s enough to fill over 1,000 football stadiums.

Ongoing Risks

Oil and gas wastewater is often many times saltier than sea water – and can ruin soil for generations if large amounts spill or leak during storage or transport.  In fact, landowners with a long history of oil and gas production on their lands know that a wastewater spill can cause much more long term damage to their land than an oil spill.

Case-in-point, in the 1920s oilfield wastewater was managed by releasing it directly onto West Texas soil, before the industry and regulators fully realized the negative consequences of this practice. It created the Texon Scar, a patch of dead earth so large it can be seen from space.

Beyond salt, this waste can contain any number of nearly 1,600 chemicals that are either present in groundwater or known to be used in the well construction process – chemicals ranging from ethylene glycol (antifreeze) to hydrochloric acid. And yet, regulator-approved chemical detection methods only exist for about a quarter of them. This means that we can’t know if certain toxic chemicals are present, and the energy companies can’t say they aren’t.

Quakes, Cost and Climate

Industry’s most common solution to this deluge of wastewater has been to pump it into specialized disposal or enhanced recovery wells, but a number of factors have companies (and sometimes regulators) looking at alternatives.

One reason?  A dramatic increase in the number of earthquakes in some oil and gas regions, has raised questions about this once tried-and-true disposal method. In Oklahoma, for example, regulators limited wastewater disposal volumes after a rash of earthquakes shook the region (the number of quakes dropped afterwards).

And disposing of wastewater can be expensive. Depending on the well and its location, water management – including trucking, treatment, and disposal – could be the single greatest expense of the operation.

Finally, there’s no doubt that concerns about fresh water use and protection will only increase as climate change exacerbates prolonged droughts in a number of key energy-producing states like Texas, California, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

What now? 

All of these factors have insiders looking for new ways to repurpose wastewater, but perceived near-term pressures should not push decision-makers towards options that could create new, long-term risks to water and other resources.

Some options, like recycling industry’s wastewater to fracture new wells, are viable with current management practices – assuming leaks and spills are minimized. Others, however, like using treated wastewater for agricultural purposes, come with a ton of risks and unanswered questions, like: how can companies and regulators ensure the water is “clean enough” for new uses? And what are the long term impacts to the soil and crops? What about other health or toxicological impacts? We don’t know, and that’s the problem.

Moving forward with new management practices before we know more about what’s in wastewater could be dangerous; the Texon Scar is the perfect example of that. Operators in the 1920s didn’t know their decision to release wastewater onto soil could be problematic, but that lack of information resulted in a vegetative dead zone that has lasted for nearly a century despite countless hours and dollars spent on restoration.

Our advice is fairly simple: not so fast. Before industry adopts (or regulators allow) new uses for this polluted water, we need to learn a lot more about what’s in this water and how it could threaten human health and the environment. In other words, we need to look before we leap, and everyone’s eyes – companies’, regulators’, scientists’ and citizens’ – need to be wide open.

EDF is certainly not the only group advising caution. In the last issue of Air and Waste Management Association’s magazine, several academics and industry experts outlined the various challenges of new wastewater uses.  And the Ground Water Protection Council has announced a project to define the types of important questions state regulators need to be asking and answering now to make smarter decisions on produced water in the future.  That’s good. We NEED to spend time getting this right. Let’s not leap before we look.

By Nichole Saunders

Look before you leap – why learning more about oilfield wastewater is critical to reducing health and safety risks.

The oil and gas industry has a massive wastewater problem. And if the growing dialogue about new ways of dealing with it are any indication, it may get worse if we aren’t careful.

Cost concerns, pressure to conserve water, and other factors have led some oil and gas companies to consider new ways to manage or repurpose wastewater – including using it to irrigate crops. That could create more problems than it solves.

Managing the massive amount of oil and gas wastewater has been a challenge for energy companies for generations. Some wells produce up to 10 times more wastewater than oil. In the United States, companies produce nearly 900 billion gallons of wastewater a year. That’s enough to fill over 1,000 football stadiums.

Ongoing Risks

Oil and gas wastewater is often many times saltier than sea water – and can ruin soil for generations if large amounts spill or leak during storage or transport.  In fact, landowners with a long history of oil and gas production on their lands know that a wastewater spill can cause much more long term damage to their land than an oil spill.

Case-in-point, in the 1920s oilfield wastewater was managed by releasing it directly onto West Texas soil, before the industry and regulators fully realized the negative consequences of this practice. It created the Texon Scar, a patch of dead earth so large it can be seen from space.

Beyond salt, this waste can contain any number of nearly 1,600 chemicals that are either present in groundwater or known to be used in the well construction process – chemicals ranging from ethylene glycol (antifreeze) to hydrochloric acid. And yet, regulator-approved chemical detection methods only exist for about a quarter of them. This means that we can’t know if certain toxic chemicals are present, and the energy companies can’t say they aren’t.

Quakes, Cost and Climate

Industry’s most common solution to this deluge of wastewater has been to pump it into specialized disposal or enhanced recovery wells, but a number of factors have companies (and sometimes regulators) looking at alternatives.

One reason?  A dramatic increase in the number of earthquakes in some oil and gas regions, has raised questions about this once tried-and-true disposal method. In Oklahoma, for example, regulators limited wastewater disposal volumes after a rash of earthquakes shook the region (the number of quakes dropped afterwards).

And disposing of wastewater can be expensive. Depending on the well and its location, water management – including trucking, treatment, and disposal – could be the single greatest expense of the operation.

Finally, there’s no doubt that concerns about fresh water use and protection will only increase as climate change exacerbates prolonged droughts in a number of key energy-producing states like Texas, California, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

What now? 

All of these factors have insiders looking for new ways to repurpose wastewater, but perceived near-term pressures should not push decision-makers towards options that could create new, long-term risks to water and other resources.

Some options, like recycling industry’s wastewater to fracture new wells, are viable with current management practices – assuming leaks and spills are minimized. Others, however, like using treated wastewater for agricultural purposes, come with a ton of risks and unanswered questions, like: how can companies and regulators ensure the water is “clean enough” for new uses? And what are the long term impacts to the soil and crops? What about other health or toxicological impacts? We don’t know, and that’s the problem.

Moving forward with new management practices before we know more about what’s in wastewater could be dangerous; the Texon Scar is the perfect example of that. Operators in the 1920s didn’t know their decision to release wastewater onto soil could be problematic, but that lack of information resulted in a vegetative dead zone that has lasted for nearly a century despite countless hours and dollars spent on restoration.

Our advice is fairly simple: not so fast. Before industry adopts (or regulators allow) new uses for this polluted water, we need to learn a lot more about what’s in this water and how it could threaten human health and the environment. In other words, we need to look before we leap, and everyone’s eyes – companies’, regulators’, scientists’ and citizens’ – need to be wide open.

EDF is certainly not the only group advising caution. In the last issue of Air and Waste Management Association’s magazine, several academics and industry experts outlined the various challenges of new wastewater uses.  And the Ground Water Protection Council has announced a project to define the types of important questions state regulators need to be asking and answering now to make smarter decisions on produced water in the future.  That’s good. We NEED to spend time getting this right. Let’s not leap before we look.

The oil and gas industry has a massive wastewater problem. And if the growing dialogue about new ways of dealing with it are any indication, it may get worse if we aren’t careful. Cost concerns, pressure to conserve water, and other factors have led some oil and gas companies to consider new ways to manage […]