By Richard Denison

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

[This post is adapted from comments I provided for the science policy panel at the June 27, 2017, forum TSCA Reform: One Year Later, co-sponsored by Environmental Law Institute, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., Environmental Defense Fund, and George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.]

I don’t know anyone who opposes EPA using the best science it can and considering all the evidence in making decisions.

So why is it that this science stuff is so controversial?  It’s long been a battleground across all of what EPA does, and the debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was no exception.  I have no doubt this will continue unabated into implementation of the amendments to TSCA made by last year’s Lautenberg Act.

Science policy issues are among the most “cultish” of any policy issues I have ever dealt with.  Different camps have formed, each with its own belief system, each seeing a right way and a wrong way of doing science.  Each is highly suspicious of the others, including what they mean by each word.

At the risk of appearing cultish myself, I want to briefly discuss my concerns about the final prioritization and risk evaluation rules in relation to the term “best available science.”  

Let me first say that section 26(h) of the Lautenberg Act [15 U.S.C. 2625(h)] itself already requires this term to be applied to science decisions EPA makes under the law.  Its codification in rules is not needed for it to have effect.  Yet this term is clearly important to some who were involved in writing these final rules.

Care to guess how many times this term appear in the final risk evaluation rule?  A dozen?  Two dozen?  Three dozen?  Would you believe there are 37 references to “best available science”?  That compares to just four references in the proposed rule issued in January.

Somebody really likes this term, and got it into the rules along with a definition.  Hmmm.

Whatever the motivation, the irony here is core features of the final rules – each the result of changes made since their proposal that were made to address chemical industry concerns – would actually move us away from any meaningful realization of what this term intends.

First, a major criticism of traditional risk assessment for decades has been its failure to adequately account for the real world:  the fact that there are typically multiple uses and sources of exposure to a given chemical, with the potential to affect multiple subpopulations.

I thought we finally had made progress toward addressing this flaw through last year’s TSCA reform:  The law requires, and the proposed rules sought to codify the requirement, that EPA must conduct broad reviews of chemicals across their full lifecycles and accounting for their known, intended and reasonably foreseen uses.

Yet the changes made to the final rules represent a renewed effort to move us squarely away from that, by allowing and facilitating EPA to examine only certain use of and exposures to a chemical;  little explanation, let alone specific criteria, are provided as to how these use exclusions will be determined.

In reforming TSCA, Congress explicitly required that EPA determine whether or not a chemical substance, not individual uses, presents unreasonable risk, and to do so by conducting comprehensive risk evaluations.  This is because, while exposures resulting from certain uses of a chemical viewed in isolation may present low risk to some groups of people, when multiple exposures are combined and when all potentially susceptible subpopulations are considered, such a chemical may well present unreasonable risk and warrant restrictions.

Yet the final risk evaluation rule would not only allow EPA to exclude some uses altogether, but it could make individual risk determinations about specific uses it does examine and set them aside, with no requirement ever to consider them collectively.

How is that best available science?

Second, perhaps my longest-running battle in the chemicals arena has been trying to ensure there is adequate information on chemicals in order to determine their safety.  TSCA’s own preamble set that as national policy in 1976, calling for the development of such information and placing the onus of doing so squarely on the companies that make and use chemicals.

Starting with EDF’s 1997 report called Toxic Ignorance, we have drawn attention to how little information is available even on the most widely used chemicals.  Some limited progress has been made since then, but the fundamental problem remains.  Why?

The chemical industry has always wanted it both ways on this one:  It seeks to set an ever-higher bar EPA must meet to take action on a chemical, routinely challenging the science and information used.  But it also fights any efforts to require companies to provide the information the agency needs to meet that bar.

Again, I thought we were finally making progress with TSCA reform.  Core aspects of that reform addressed the widespread recognition that EPA lacked adequate authority to require testing of chemicals, and the proposed rules sought to ensure that EPA could use its enhanced authority to develop that information where needed far enough ahead of having to make prioritization decisions and risk determinations that it could still meet the law’s aggressive deadlines.

Yet the final rules seem intent on undermining all this:  They seek to cut off early information development – and then argue that, given the deadlines, there isn’t time for anything other than very short-term testing.  They would require EPA always first to request voluntary submissions, eating up precious time, despite multiple past failures of such voluntary approaches.  All of this before EPA could ever invoke the new testing authorities Congress just gave it.  Among other problems, this would introduce a strong bias for EPA only to select relatively data-rich chemicals in order to meet its deadlines, rather than dedicating its resources initially to chemicals that present the greatest potential concerns.

How is this best available science?

By Richard Denison

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

[This post is adapted from comments I provided for the science policy panel at the June 27, 2017, forum TSCA Reform: One Year Later, co-sponsored by Environmental Law Institute, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., Environmental Defense Fund, and George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.]

I don’t know anyone who opposes EPA using the best science it can and considering all the evidence in making decisions.

So why is it that this science stuff is so controversial?  It’s long been a battleground across all of what EPA does, and the debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was no exception.  I have no doubt this will continue unabated into implementation of the amendments to TSCA made by last year’s Lautenberg Act.

Science policy issues are among the most “cultish” of any policy issues I have ever dealt with.  Different camps have formed, each with its own belief system, each seeing a right way and a wrong way of doing science.  Each is highly suspicious of the others, including what they mean by each word.

At the risk of appearing cultish myself, I want to briefly discuss my concerns about the final prioritization and risk evaluation rules in relation to the term “best available science.”  

Let me first say that section 26(h) of the Lautenberg Act [15 U.S.C. 2625(h)] itself already requires this term to be applied to science decisions EPA makes under the law.  Its codification in rules is not needed for it to have effect.  Yet this term is clearly important to some who were involved in writing these final rules.

Care to guess how many times this term appear in the final risk evaluation rule?  A dozen?  Two dozen?  Three dozen?  Would you believe there are 37 references to “best available science”?  That compares to just four references in the proposed rule issued in January.

Somebody really likes this term, and got it into the rules along with a definition.  Hmmm.

Whatever the motivation, the irony here is core features of the final rules – each the result of changes made since their proposal that were made to address chemical industry concerns – would actually move us away from any meaningful realization of what this term intends.

First, a major criticism of traditional risk assessment for decades has been its failure to adequately account for the real world:  the fact that there are typically multiple uses and sources of exposure to a given chemical, with the potential to affect multiple subpopulations.

I thought we finally had made progress toward addressing this flaw through last year’s TSCA reform:  The law requires, and the proposed rules sought to codify the requirement, that EPA must conduct broad reviews of chemicals across their full lifecycles and accounting for their known, intended and reasonably foreseen uses.

Yet the changes made to the final rules represent a renewed effort to move us squarely away from that, by allowing and facilitating EPA to examine only certain use of and exposures to a chemical;  little explanation, let alone specific criteria, are provided as to how these use exclusions will be determined.

In reforming TSCA, Congress explicitly required that EPA determine whether or not a chemical substance, not individual uses, presents unreasonable risk, and to do so by conducting comprehensive risk evaluations.  This is because, while exposures resulting from certain uses of a chemical viewed in isolation may present low risk to some groups of people, when multiple exposures are combined and when all potentially susceptible subpopulations are considered, such a chemical may well present unreasonable risk and warrant restrictions.

Yet the final risk evaluation rule would not only allow EPA to exclude some uses altogether, but it could make individual risk determinations about specific uses it does examine and set them aside, with no requirement ever to consider them collectively.

How is that best available science?

Second, perhaps my longest-running battle in the chemicals arena has been trying to ensure there is adequate information on chemicals in order to determine their safety.  TSCA’s own preamble set that as national policy in 1976, calling for the development of such information and placing the onus of doing so squarely on the companies that make and use chemicals.

Starting with EDF’s 1997 report called Toxic Ignorance, we have drawn attention to how little information is available even on the most widely used chemicals.  Some limited progress has been made since then, but the fundamental problem remains.  Why?

The chemical industry has always wanted it both ways on this one:  It seeks to set an ever-higher bar EPA must meet to take action on a chemical, routinely challenging the science and information used.  But it also fights any efforts to require companies to provide the information the agency needs to meet that bar.

Again, I thought we were finally making progress with TSCA reform.  Core aspects of that reform addressed the widespread recognition that EPA lacked adequate authority to require testing of chemicals, and the proposed rules sought to ensure that EPA could use its enhanced authority to develop that information where needed far enough ahead of having to make prioritization decisions and risk determinations that it could still meet the law’s aggressive deadlines.

Yet the final rules seem intent on undermining all this:  They seek to cut off early information development – and then argue that, given the deadlines, there isn’t time for anything other than very short-term testing.  They would require EPA always first to request voluntary submissions, eating up precious time, despite multiple past failures of such voluntary approaches.  All of this before EPA could ever invoke the new testing authorities Congress just gave it.  Among other problems, this would introduce a strong bias for EPA only to select relatively data-rich chemicals in order to meet its deadlines, rather than dedicating its resources initially to chemicals that present the greatest potential concerns.

How is this best available science?

Written by Lisa Sharp

Have you noticed weather forecasts calling for more ozone alert days? I keep a close eye on these alerts because I have asthma.

Ozone naturally occurs in the Earth’s upper atmosphere and protects us from the sun’s ultraviolet rays. When ozone is found near the Earth’s surface, it is called ground-level ozone. This is a problem because ozone is a harmful air pollutant.

Ground-level ozone, or smog, is harmful for everyone. But for children, the elderly, people who work outside, and people with respiratory conditions, ozone is particularly dangerous.

Since I have asthma, I fit into this high-risk category. On ozone alert days, I avoid being outside. I also live in Oklahoma and we have pretty hot summers. These high temperatures are a factor that increases the likelihood of an ozone alert. This summer has already been tough, as I’ve been having more asthma attacks. Sadly, I can’t spend much time outside.

Here’s why ozone alerts are issued:

• Temperature
• Cloud cover
• Build-up of emissions in the air
• Wind speed and direction

Visit AirNow to find out about ozone alerts in your area. This important site is run by the EPA, which must be protected because so many families need to know when it is safe to be outside and when to decrease exposure to ozone.

There are also things we can do to help reduce activities that cause pollution ozone alert days.

• Limit driving. Put off errands that can wait, carpool, use public transportation, and combine trips you do need to make.
• Refuel vehicles and lawn equipment in the evening when the air is cooler and ozone is less likely to form.
• Avoid idling. Vehicle idling emits more pollution than restarting a warm motor.
• Avoid lawn mowing with a gas mower. Mow in the evenings. Battery powered or push mowers a better choice.
• Reduce energy. Set air conditioners at a higher temperature, turn of lights when not in use, air dry your dishes instead of using heat dry, line dry your clothes.
• Avoid burning trash, leaves, and other materials.

We’re all living on this planet together, and when follow simple steps to reduce the occurrence of ozone alert days, we can all breathe easier.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

Without coastal restoration that makes beaches less vulnerable to storm surges, climate change will be a threat, and not just from sea level rise. Originally posted on Audubon.org on June 27, 2017. This week, communities ringing the Gulf of Mexico are assessing damages and cleaning up after being hit by Tropical Storm Cindy, which made landfall in southwestern Louisiana on Friday and caused heavy rain, floods, high winds, and tornadoes through the weekend. The region’s shorebird biologists are in poor spirits: ...

Read The Full Story

The post Tropical Storm Cindy Just Wiped Out Most of the Shorebird Chicks in the Gulf appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Without coastal restoration that makes beaches less vulnerable to storm surges, climate change will be a threat, and not just from sea level rise. Originally posted on Audubon.org on June 27, 2017. This week, communities ringing the Gulf of Mexico are assessing damages and cleaning up after being hit by Tropical Storm Cindy, which made landfall in southwestern Louisiana on Friday and caused heavy rain, floods, high winds, and tornadoes through the weekend. The region’s shorebird biologists are in poor spirits: ...

Read The Full Story

The post Tropical Storm Cindy Just Wiped Out Most of the Shorebird Chicks in the Gulf appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Without coastal restoration that makes beaches less vulnerable to storm surges, climate change will be a threat, and not just from sea level rise. Originally posted on Audubon.org on June 27, 2017. This week, communities ringing the Gulf of Mexico are assessing damages and cleaning up after being hit by Tropical Storm Cindy, which made landfall in southwestern Louisiana on Friday and caused heavy rain, floods, high winds, and tornadoes through the weekend. The region’s shorebird biologists are in poor spirits: ...

Read The Full Story

The post Tropical Storm Cindy Just Wiped Out Most of the Shorebird Chicks in the Gulf appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

The State Senate voted to handcuff you from speaking out to protect your family. Don't let the State House do the same. Regional. C4.

The State Senate voted to handcuff you from speaking out to protect your family. Don't let the State House do the same. Regional. C4.

The State Senate voted to handcuff you from speaking out to protect your family. Don't let the State House do the same. Regional. C4.

By Jayant Kairam

Cities have long been testing grounds for policy innovation. That identity is critical as we barrel headfirst into an urbanized world. As of 2014, 54 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and the United Nations estimates that by 2050, over 6 billion people will live in cities.

So, it only makes practical and economic sense that local leaders around the world have doubled-downed on addressing one of, if not the, biggest threats to humans and the planet we call home: climate change.

In fact, over 300 U.S. mayors have reaffirmed their commitment to meet the climate reduction goals set forth in the 2016 Paris Agreement.

Leading American cities

After President Trump called out Pittsburgh in his announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the city announced its plan to go 100 percent renewable.

The “Steel City” is among a rapidly growing cohort of global urban centers in red and blue states, and in the developing and developed world, that have committed to act on climate and use more clean energy.

How cities are using clean energy commitments to prosper
Click To Tweet

That said, ensuring all residents can access clean energy, are included in planning, and are rightfully considered recognizing structural and historic barriers is essential for cities. This requires that considerations of equity and access move beyond pilot programs and testing, and truly drive the culture and objectives of local agencies.

California is home to two great examples of cities making equity and access, with measurable standards, fundamental to climate and clean energy commitments and operations of local services and the future workforce:

• In 2009, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ‒ which delivers power to city agencies and customers across the Bay Area ‒ became the first public utility in the nation to adopt an environmental justice policy. With it, the utility made a commitment to lesson disproportionate environmental impact on disadvantaged communities across all agency operations.
• Recently, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced adoption of equity performance indicators designed to address geographic and demographic disparities in services and investment. The department’s effort was not just important for setting a precedent but also for replicability. The California Energy Commission has since undertaken an effort to set equity metrics for statewide energy service programs.

Keeping focus on energy equity will be critical to making exponential renewable energy commitments and innovative third party partnerships.

Clean cities everywhere

As we recently noted, the clean energy transition is something new: Clean energy isn’t an established city service like picking up the trash. Nor has it always been a major focus of cities.

A new report from Meister Consultants provides some guidance (Environmental Defense Fund staff provided technical guidance to the report’s authors). The Meister report outlines options for cities pursuing 100 percent clean energy.

With the help of new resources and lessons learned by trailblazing municipalities, growing numbers of citizens can make their cities vehicles for improved health and local economies, and for taking direct action against climate change. Because as more and more cities are showing – clean energy is a win for local governments and the people they serve.

Cities have long been testing grounds for policy innovation. That identity is critical as we barrel headfirst into an urbanized world. As of 2014, 54 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and the United Nations estimates that by 2050, over 6 billion people will live in cities. So, it only makes practical […]

By Jayant Kairam

Cities have long been testing grounds for policy innovation. That identity is critical as we barrel headfirst into an urbanized world. As of 2014, 54 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and the United Nations estimates that by 2050, over 6 billion people will live in cities.

So, it only makes practical and economic sense that local leaders around the world have doubled-downed on addressing one of, if not the, biggest threats to humans and the planet we call home: climate change.

In fact, over 300 U.S. mayors have reaffirmed their commitment to meet the climate reduction goals set forth in the 2016 Paris Agreement.

Leading American cities

After President Trump called out Pittsburgh in his announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the city announced its plan to go 100 percent renewable.

The “Steel City” is among a rapidly growing cohort of global urban centers in red and blue states, and in the developing and developed world, that have committed to act on climate and use more clean energy.

How cities are using clean energy commitments to prosper
Click To Tweet

That said, ensuring all residents can access clean energy, are included in planning, and are rightfully considered recognizing structural and historic barriers is essential for cities. This requires that considerations of equity and access move beyond pilot programs and testing, and truly drive the culture and objectives of local agencies.

California is home to two great examples of cities making equity and access, with measurable standards, fundamental to climate and clean energy commitments and operations of local services and the future workforce:

• In 2009, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ‒ which delivers power to city agencies and customers across the Bay Area ‒ became the first public utility in the nation to adopt an environmental justice policy. With it, the utility made a commitment to lesson disproportionate environmental impact on disadvantaged communities across all agency operations.
• Recently, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced adoption of equity performance indicators designed to address geographic and demographic disparities in services and investment. The department’s effort was not just important for setting a precedent but also for replicability. The California Energy Commission has since undertaken an effort to set equity metrics for statewide energy service programs.

Keeping focus on energy equity will be critical to making exponential renewable energy commitments and innovative third party partnerships.

Clean cities everywhere

As we recently noted, the clean energy transition is something new: Clean energy isn’t an established city service like picking up the trash. Nor has it always been a major focus of cities.

A new report from Meister Consultants provides some guidance (Environmental Defense Fund staff provided technical guidance to the report’s authors). The Meister report outlines options for cities pursuing 100 percent clean energy.

With the help of new resources and lessons learned by trailblazing municipalities, growing numbers of citizens can make their cities vehicles for improved health and local economies, and for taking direct action against climate change. Because as more and more cities are showing – clean energy is a win for local governments and the people they serve.

Cities have long been testing grounds for policy innovation. That identity is critical as we barrel headfirst into an urbanized world. As of 2014, 54 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and the United Nations estimates that by 2050, over 6 billion people will live in cities. So, it only makes practical […]

By Jayant Kairam

Cities have long been testing grounds for policy innovation. That identity is critical as we barrel headfirst into an urbanized world. As of 2014, 54 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and the United Nations estimates that by 2050, over 6 billion people will live in cities.

So, it only makes practical and economic sense that local leaders around the world have doubled-downed on addressing one of, if not the, biggest threats to humans and the planet we call home: climate change.

In fact, over 300 U.S. mayors have reaffirmed their commitment to meet the climate reduction goals set forth in the 2016 Paris Agreement.

Leading American cities

After President Trump called out Pittsburgh in his announcement to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the city announced its plan to go 100 percent renewable.

The “Steel City” is among a rapidly growing cohort of global urban centers in red and blue states, and in the developing and developed world, that have committed to act on climate and use more clean energy.

How cities are using clean energy commitments to prosper
Click To Tweet

That said, ensuring all residents can access clean energy, are included in planning, and are rightfully considered recognizing structural and historic barriers is essential for cities. This requires that considerations of equity and access move beyond pilot programs and testing, and truly drive the culture and objectives of local agencies.

California is home to two great examples of cities making equity and access, with measurable standards, fundamental to climate and clean energy commitments and operations of local services and the future workforce:

• In 2009, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ‒ which delivers power to city agencies and customers across the Bay Area ‒ became the first public utility in the nation to adopt an environmental justice policy. With it, the utility made a commitment to lesson disproportionate environmental impact on disadvantaged communities across all agency operations.
• Recently, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced adoption of equity performance indicators designed to address geographic and demographic disparities in services and investment. The department’s effort was not just important for setting a precedent but also for replicability. The California Energy Commission has since undertaken an effort to set equity metrics for statewide energy service programs.

Keeping focus on energy equity will be critical to making exponential renewable energy commitments and innovative third party partnerships.

Clean cities everywhere

As we recently noted, the clean energy transition is something new: Clean energy isn’t an established city service like picking up the trash. Nor has it always been a major focus of cities.

A new report from Meister Consultants provides some guidance (Environmental Defense Fund staff provided technical guidance to the report’s authors). The Meister report outlines options for cities pursuing 100 percent clean energy.

With the help of new resources and lessons learned by trailblazing municipalities, growing numbers of citizens can make their cities vehicles for improved health and local economies, and for taking direct action against climate change. Because as more and more cities are showing – clean energy is a win for local governments and the people they serve.

By Jayant Kairam

Over 70 cities across the globe have set targets to achieve 100 percent clean energy and made commitments to cut a billion tons of greenhouse gases by 2030. These trend-setting jurisdictions are found across the U.S. – underscoring that local leaders recognize the resiliency, cost-savings, job-creation, and pollution-reduction benefits clean energy investment provides.

That said, making the clean energy transition is something new: Clean energy isn’t an established city service like picking up the trash. Nor has it always been a major focus of cities. Here’s where a new report from Meister Consultants provides some guidance (Environmental Defense Fund staff provided technical guidance to the report’s authors).

The Meister report outlines options for cities pursuing 100 percent clean energy. It explains how to evaluate the clean energy landscape and can help officials understand the value of key actions and policies like renewable portfolio standards, incentives for distributed energy generation like rooftop solar panels, and power purchasing agreements which allow third parties to own clean energy assets like wind turbines and other renewables. 

Steps for success

The report also discusses steps like municipalization (where a city owns and operates the utility) and community choice aggregation (where the community gets to decide what kind of power resources they want). These two models break from the dominant “buy power from the utility” paradigm and are gaining interest across the country.

The second half of the report lists a handy set of implementation strategies under three main categories:

• Consumer orientation. These strategies focus on financial incentives, “soft cost” improvements, land use repurposing, and group purchasing mechanisms that cities can deploy to grow local markets for renewable energy.
• Municipal operations. This includes methods like goal setting, planning, and partnerships which can help cities source more clean power.
• Utility engagement. Cities, and their significant purchasing power, can have large impact on a utilities’ resource planning. This strategy identifies the specific ways cities can leverage that power to influence utilities to use more clean energy.

New Report: How cities can prosper with 100 percent clean energy
Click To Tweet

Equitable transformation

Ensuring all residents can access clean energy, are included in planning, and are rightfully considered in light of structural and historic barriers is essential for cities.

The Meister Report lays out a framework so that the multiple dimensions of equity are baked into the energy transformation effort. The report suggests cities make equity and access a goal and plan now for ways to measure success.

Finally, the report provides guidance on internal capacity-building and network development ‒ how to nurture a groundswell of technical and social support for clean energy inside and outside of local government. This way, people participate in their own process, rather than having a new system imposed from the top.

Over 70 cities across the globe have set targets to achieve 100 percent clean energy and made commitments to cut a billion tons of greenhouse gases by 2030. These trend-setting jurisdictions are found across the U.S. – underscoring that local leaders recognize the resiliency, cost-savings, job-creation, and pollution-reduction benefits clean energy investment provides. That said, […]

By Jayant Kairam

Over 70 cities across the globe have set targets to achieve 100 percent clean energy and made commitments to cut a billion tons of greenhouse gases by 2030. These trend-setting jurisdictions are found across the U.S. – underscoring that local leaders recognize the resiliency, cost-savings, job-creation, and pollution-reduction benefits clean energy investment provides.

That said, making the clean energy transition is something new: Clean energy isn’t an established city service like picking up the trash. Nor has it always been a major focus of cities. Here’s where a new report from Meister Consultants provides some guidance (Environmental Defense Fund staff provided technical guidance to the report’s authors).

The Meister report outlines options for cities pursuing 100 percent clean energy. It explains how to evaluate the clean energy landscape and can help officials understand the value of key actions and policies like renewable portfolio standards, incentives for distributed energy generation like rooftop solar panels, and power purchasing agreements which allow third parties to own clean energy assets like wind turbines and other renewables. 

Steps for success

The report also discusses steps like municipalization (where a city owns and operates the utility) and community choice aggregation (where the community gets to decide what kind of power resources they want). These two models break from the dominant “buy power from the utility” paradigm and are gaining interest across the country.

The second half of the report lists a handy set of implementation strategies under three main categories:

• Consumer orientation. These strategies focus on financial incentives, “soft cost” improvements, land use repurposing, and group purchasing mechanisms that cities can deploy to grow local markets for renewable energy.
• Municipal operations. This includes methods like goal setting, planning, and partnerships which can help cities source more clean power.
• Utility engagement. Cities, and their significant purchasing power, can have large impact on a utilities’ resource planning. This strategy identifies the specific ways cities can leverage that power to influence utilities to use more clean energy.

New Report: How cities can prosper with 100 percent clean energy
Click To Tweet

Equitable transformation

Ensuring all residents can access clean energy, are included in planning, and are rightfully considered in light of structural and historic barriers is essential for cities.

The Meister Report lays out a framework so that the multiple dimensions of equity are baked into the energy transformation effort. The report suggests cities make equity and access a goal and plan now for ways to measure success.

Finally, the report provides guidance on internal capacity-building and network development ‒ how to nurture a groundswell of technical and social support for clean energy inside and outside of local government. This way, people participate in their own process, rather than having a new system imposed from the top.

By Jayant Kairam

Over 70 cities across the globe have set targets to achieve 100 percent clean energy and made commitments to cut a billion tons of greenhouse gases by 2030. These trend-setting jurisdictions are found across the U.S. – underscoring that local leaders recognize the resiliency, cost-savings, job-creation, and pollution-reduction benefits clean energy investment provides.

That said, making the clean energy transition is something new: Clean energy isn’t an established city service like picking up the trash. Nor has it always been a major focus of cities. Here’s where a new report from Meister Consultants provides some guidance (Environmental Defense Fund staff provided technical guidance to the report’s authors).

The Meister report outlines options for cities pursuing 100 percent clean energy. It explains how to evaluate the clean energy landscape and can help officials understand the value of key actions and policies like renewable portfolio standards, incentives for distributed energy generation like rooftop solar panels, and power purchasing agreements which allow third parties to own clean energy assets like wind turbines and other renewables. 

Steps for success

The report also discusses steps like municipalization (where a city owns and operates the utility) and community choice aggregation (where the community gets to decide what kind of power resources they want). These two models break from the dominant “buy power from the utility” paradigm and are gaining interest across the country.

The second half of the report lists a handy set of implementation strategies under three main categories:

• Consumer orientation. These strategies focus on financial incentives, “soft cost” improvements, land use repurposing, and group purchasing mechanisms that cities can deploy to grow local markets for renewable energy.
• Municipal operations. This includes methods like goal setting, planning, and partnerships which can help cities source more clean power.
• Utility engagement. Cities, and their significant purchasing power, can have large impact on a utilities’ resource planning. This strategy identifies the specific ways cities can leverage that power to influence utilities to use more clean energy.

New Report: How cities can prosper with 100 percent clean energy
Click To Tweet

Equitable transformation

Ensuring all residents can access clean energy, are included in planning, and are rightfully considered in light of structural and historic barriers is essential for cities.

The Meister Report lays out a framework so that the multiple dimensions of equity are baked into the energy transformation effort. The report suggests cities make equity and access a goal and plan now for ways to measure success.

Finally, the report provides guidance on internal capacity-building and network development ‒ how to nurture a groundswell of technical and social support for clean energy inside and outside of local government. This way, people participate in their own process, rather than having a new system imposed from the top.

By Liz Delaney

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.

It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working?

Slashing climate policies

In March, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, and on June 1st, he followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. These reckless decisions were a major setback to both our nation’s economy and our job market.

The decision to withdraw from Paris was justified by the “economic unfairness” that it would bring upon the country, citing negative effects on jobs. The administration claimed they would continue to be the “cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth”, but not at the expense of our businesses and jobs. After business and world leaders criticized his actions, Trump defended his decision by stating he was simply fulfilling a campaign promise.

This was a campaign promise to bring back [coal] jobs. It’s time we check whether Trump has delivered.

America’s job board: where does coal fall on the list?

In addition to his actions on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement, Trump has focused on weakening health protections that reduce the impacts associated with the production of fossil fuels, like coal. Since then, the coal mining industry has added a mere 1,000 jobs, bringing us to a total of just 51,000 coal mining jobs nationwide—keep in mind that’s roughly only .03 percent of the more than 150,000,000 jobs in the U.S—as of May 2017. And of those industry workers, only roughly one-fifth actually mine the coal. These numbers fall far behind the 50,000 coal jobs that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claimed have been created in just the time since Trump became president.

It’s time we look at the long-term picture. The economic realities of the past few decades haven’t favored coal power and this isn’t going to change. The decline of coal-related jobs is partly due to the rise in cheap natural gas, combined with increased continuous automation, and the industry is forecasted to see an additional 51% reduction in generation by 2040. We’re heading in a new direction. The U.S. power sector—as states and power companies reaffirm their commitments to de-carbonization—is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution.

Six months into the presidency, where are all the jobs?
Click To Tweet

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s best efforts to dismantle their progress, renewables are on track to see a 169 percent increase in generation by 2040, bringing with them clean, local and well-paying jobs. There are an estimated 4-4.5 million clean and sustainability jobs in the U.S. today according to this Now Hiring report. Solar and wind alone account for close to half a million jobs, and energy efficiency makes up another 2.2 million more jobs. The rest are in fields such as natural resources conservation, corporate sustainability and environmental education.

The future of clean jobs only looks more promising. Wind turbine technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in America, adding jobs over nine times faster than the overall economy, just behind solar jobs, which are growing at a rate 17 times faster than the rest of the economy. And, investing in renewables or energy efficiency results in about 5 more jobs than the same investment in fossil fuels. That’s an opportunity we can’t afford to turn our backs on.

Moving the needle in the right direction

If Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promises of creating jobs, then he should redirect his attention from the dying coal industry to the booming clean energy sector. Why? Because it makes economic sense. That’s why business leaders, investors and politicians are demanding that the Trump administration deliver a plan to address climate change with smart policies.

There’s a way for Trump to make good on his campaign promises to bring back America's jobs and lead us closer to becoming energy “dominant”. The answer is to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency jobs.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

By Liz Delaney

We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.

It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working?

Slashing climate policies

In March, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, and on June 1st, he followed through on his promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. These reckless decisions were a major setback to both our nation’s economy and our job market.

The decision to withdraw from Paris was justified by the “economic unfairness” that it would bring upon the country, citing negative effects on jobs. The administration claimed they would continue to be the “cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth”, but not at the expense of our businesses and jobs. After business and world leaders criticized his actions, Trump defended his decision by stating he was simply fulfilling a campaign promise.

This was a campaign promise to bring back [coal] jobs. It’s time we check whether Trump has delivered.

America’s job board: where does coal fall on the list?

In addition to his actions on the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement, Trump has focused on weakening health protections that reduce the impacts associated with the production of fossil fuels, like coal. Since then, the coal mining industry has added a mere 1,000 jobs, bringing us to a total of just 51,000 coal mining jobs nationwide—keep in mind that’s roughly only .03 percent of the more than 150,000,000 jobs in the U.S—as of May 2017. And of those industry workers, only roughly one-fifth actually mine the coal. These numbers fall far behind the 50,000 coal jobs that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt claimed have been created in just the time since Trump became president.

It’s time we look at the long-term picture. The economic realities of the past few decades haven’t favored coal power and this isn’t going to change. The decline of coal-related jobs is partly due to the rise in cheap natural gas, combined with increased continuous automation, and the industry is forecasted to see an additional 51% reduction in generation by 2040. We’re heading in a new direction. The U.S. power sector—as states and power companies reaffirm their commitments to de-carbonization—is well-positioned to continue to reduce carbon pollution.

Six months into the presidency, where are all the jobs?
Click To Tweet

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s best efforts to dismantle their progress, renewables are on track to see a 169 percent increase in generation by 2040, bringing with them clean, local and well-paying jobs. There are an estimated 4-4.5 million clean and sustainability jobs in the U.S. today according to this Now Hiring report. Solar and wind alone account for close to half a million jobs, and energy efficiency makes up another 2.2 million more jobs. The rest are in fields such as natural resources conservation, corporate sustainability and environmental education.

The future of clean jobs only looks more promising. Wind turbine technicians are the fastest-growing occupations in America, adding jobs over nine times faster than the overall economy, just behind solar jobs, which are growing at a rate 17 times faster than the rest of the economy. And, investing in renewables or energy efficiency results in about 5 more jobs than the same investment in fossil fuels. That’s an opportunity we can’t afford to turn our backs on.

Moving the needle in the right direction

If Trump wants to fulfill his campaign promises of creating jobs, then he should redirect his attention from the dying coal industry to the booming clean energy sector. Why? Because it makes economic sense. That’s why business leaders, investors and politicians are demanding that the Trump administration deliver a plan to address climate change with smart policies.

There’s a way for Trump to make good on his campaign promises to bring back America's jobs and lead us closer to becoming energy “dominant”. The answer is to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency jobs.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.