By Jennifer McPartland

Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist with the Health Program.

Trichloroethylene, or TCE for short, is a very toxic chemical. No doubt about it. Among other health effects, TCE is known to cause cancer and interfere with development.  It is also toxic to the immune system and kidneys. While the vast majority of TCE in the U.S. is used to make other chemicals (i.e., is used as a chemical intermediate), approximately 15% of TCE has other commercial and consumer purposes, including as a metal degreaser and spot cleaning agent.

Over the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a hard look at exposures and potential health risks—including to workers, consumers, and bystanders—resulting from certain commercial and consumer uses of TCE. It found clearly excessive risks from these uses, which prompted the agency to take steps to reduce these exposures.

In December 2016, using its authority under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA proposed a rule to ban the use of TCE as an aerosol degreaser and as a spot cleaning agent in commercial dry cleaning facilities—marking the first time in nearly 3 decades it has tried to restrict a chemical under TSCA. A second proposed rule to ban the use of TCE as a vapor degreaser followed a month later in January 2017 and is undergoing public comment.

The public comment period on the first TCE proposed rule closed recently. EDF filed extensive comments urging the agency to finalize the rule as soon as possible.

Highlights of our comments are below:  

• EPA’s risk assessment of TCE’s use as an aerosol degreaser and as a spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning facilities is scientifically rigorous and meets TSCA’s requirements to use the best available science and apply a weight-of-the-scientific-evidence approach. EPA’s TCE assessment and associated methodologies have undergone extensive public comment and peer review.
• This assessment has clearly identified multiple types of risks that are unreasonable, including to specific subpopulations such as workers and pregnant women.
• EPA has shown that a ban of these uses under TSCA is necessary to address the risks, as actions taken and authorities available under other statutes are not sufficient.
• EPA has also shown that options short of a ban on these uses, such as imposing concentration limits or relying on personal protective equipment (PPE), are not sufficient to address the unreasonable risks.

While EPA has more than established that these uses of TCE present unreasonable risks, as it proceeds with future risk evaluations, EDF strongly encourages the agency to move toward a unified approach to assessing cancer and non-cancer risks as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.

EDF urges EPA to move expeditiously to finalize the rule to meet the applicable deadline of finalizing it by December, a year after its proposal.

The amendments made to TSCA last year clearly authorized EPA to move forward with its assessment of these uses of TCE and to impose restrictions needed to address unreasonable risks it identified.  This express authorization under the law flies in the face of what some have proposed, that EPA abandon its rule, postpone taking any action on these uses, and instead fold them into a separate risk evaluation EPA has just started to look at other uses of TCE.  Taking that approach would delay any action on these high-risk uses for many years.

The fate of EPA’s proposed ban on these uses of TCE will be an important test on whether the agency can finally act effectively to protect the public from harmful exposures using its new authorities under the recently amended TSCA.

By Tomas Carbonell

Just hours after President Trump signed an executive order to weaken a wide range of America’s important climate and heath protections, the Administration filed a motion to delay the D.C Circuit court’s review of the Clean Power Plan case.

That’s only the first of what we expect will be many attacks on the Clean Power Plan – our only nationwide limit on climate pollution from power plants. However, the Clean Power Plan is popular with Americans across the country, and an extraordinarily broad and diverse group of leaders and experts from across America have announced their support for the Clean Power Plan since the executive order.

You’ll likely be hearing a lot about this story in the near future. While you follow the news, here are 10 things you should know about the Clean Power Plan.

1. The Clean Power Plan is expected to save thousands of lives and protect the health of Americans across the country. According to EPA’s analysis, when fully implemented the Clean Power Plan will:

• Prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths each year
• Prevent up to 1,700 heart attacks each year
• Prevent up to 90,000 asthma attacks each year
• Prevent up to 300,000 missed work days and school days each year

2. The Clean Power Plan’s pollution reduction targets are eminently achievable.

Carbon pollution from the power sector has decreased by more than 20 percent since 2005, meaning that we’re already more than two-thirds of the way toward meeting the Clean Power Plan standards for 2030. In fact, most states that are litigating against the Clean Power Plan are on track to meet these pollution limits. The Clean Power Plan is essential to ensure that this momentum is sustained and that power sector investments in clean energy are deployed in a way that maximizes their pollution reduction benefits.

3. The Clean Power Plan can reduce electricity bills for families.

The Clean Power Plan gives states and power companies tremendous flexibility in deciding how to meet the pollution reduction targets – including through cost-effective energy efficiency measures that save families money. Independent analyses of the Clean Power Plan have found that average bills could decline by as much as 11 percent as a result of these measures. That’s why leading consumer and ratepayer advocates, including Consumers Union, support the Clean Power Plan.

4. Our vibrant clean energy sector employs millions of Americans and it is thriving.

According to a recent assessment by Advanced Energy Economy, the United States clean energy sector is now a rapidly-growing, $200 billion industry that employs 3.3 million Americans.

5. Clean energy is creating economic opportunities in communities across the nation.

The American Wind Energy Association estimates that 70 percent of wind farms are located in low-income counties, and that wind developers currently pay $222 million a year in lease payments to U.S. farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners. AWEA also estimates that wind energy has created more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs in 43 states.

6. The Administration’s promises that revoking climate and clean air protections will bring back coal jobs are false, as the coal industry itself recognizes.

Independent analyses have found that employment in the coal industry has been falling steadily since 1975, due largely to changing methods of coal production and – in more recent years – by competition from inexpensive natural gas. These trends cannot be reversed by revoking the Clean Power Plan or other protections for clean air and clean water. Even coal company executives have acknowledged that the executive order can’t bring mining jobs back.

7. An extraordinarily broad and diverse coalition is supporting the Clean Power Plan in court.

This coalition includes, among others: eighteen states and sixty municipalities; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Amazon, Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; former Republican heads of EPA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.

8. Large majorities of Americans in red and blue states alike support reducing climate pollution from existing power plants.

According to a recent national poll, 69 percent of Americans support placing limits on climate pollution from existing power plants – including a majority of Americans in every Congressional district in the country.

9. The nation’s leading businesses support policies to reduce climate pollution.

Just this month, over 1,000 companies and investors called on the Trump Administration to continue low-carbon policies, noting that “failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk” and that “the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.”

10. The Clean Power Plan rests on a rock-solid legal foundation.

The Supreme Court has held on three separate occasions that Congress has vested EPA with the responsibility – and the tools – to reduce carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Numerous legal experts –  including drafters of the Clean Air Act, former EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, and former state energy and environmental officials – have affirmed the strong legal basis for the Clean Power Plan 

Attacks on the Clean Power Plan and our other clean air protections present an unprecedented attack on our children’s health. It takes our nation backwards – to more pollution, more disease – even though Americans support forward progress towards clean air and clean energy.

By Tomas Carbonell

Just hours after President Trump signed an executive order to weaken a wide range of America’s important climate and heath protections, the Administration filed a motion to delay the D.C Circuit court’s review of the Clean Power Plan case.

That’s only the first of what we expect will be many attacks on the Clean Power Plan – our only nationwide limit on climate pollution from power plants. However, the Clean Power Plan is popular with Americans across the country, and an extraordinarily broad and diverse group of leaders and experts from across America have announced their support for the Clean Power Plan since the executive order.

You’ll likely be hearing a lot about this story in the near future. While you follow the news, here are 10 things you should know about the Clean Power Plan.

1. The Clean Power Plan is expected to save thousands of lives and protect the health of Americans across the country. According to EPA’s analysis, when fully implemented the Clean Power Plan will:

• Prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths each year
• Prevent up to 1,700 heart attacks each year
• Prevent up to 90,000 asthma attacks each year
• Prevent up to 300,000 missed work days and school days each year

2. The Clean Power Plan’s pollution reduction targets are eminently achievable.

Carbon pollution from the power sector has decreased by more than 20 percent since 2005, meaning that we’re already more than two-thirds of the way toward meeting the Clean Power Plan standards for 2030. In fact, most states that are litigating against the Clean Power Plan are on track to meet these pollution limits. The Clean Power Plan is essential to ensure that this momentum is sustained and that power sector investments in clean energy are deployed in a way that maximizes their pollution reduction benefits.

3. The Clean Power Plan can reduce electricity bills for families.

The Clean Power Plan gives states and power companies tremendous flexibility in deciding how to meet the pollution reduction targets – including through cost-effective energy efficiency measures that save families money. Independent analyses of the Clean Power Plan have found that average bills could decline by as much as 11 percent as a result of these measures. That’s why leading consumer and ratepayer advocates, including Consumers Union, support the Clean Power Plan.

4. Our vibrant clean energy sector employs millions of Americans and it is thriving.

According to a recent assessment by Advanced Energy Economy, the United States clean energy sector is now a rapidly-growing, $200 billion industry that employs 3.3 million Americans.

5. Clean energy is creating economic opportunities in communities across the nation.

The American Wind Energy Association estimates that 70 percent of wind farms are located in low-income counties, and that wind developers currently pay $222 million a year in lease payments to U.S. farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners. AWEA also estimates that wind energy has created more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs in 43 states.

6. The Administration’s promises that revoking climate and clean air protections will bring back coal jobs are false, as the coal industry itself recognizes.

Independent analyses have found that employment in the coal industry has been falling steadily since 1975, due largely to changing methods of coal production and – in more recent years – by competition from inexpensive natural gas. These trends cannot be reversed by revoking the Clean Power Plan or other protections for clean air and clean water. Even coal company executives have acknowledged that the executive order can’t bring mining jobs back.

7. An extraordinarily broad and diverse coalition is supporting the Clean Power Plan in court.

This coalition includes, among others: eighteen states and sixty municipalities; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Amazon, Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; former Republican heads of EPA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.

8. Large majorities of Americans in red and blue states alike support reducing climate pollution from existing power plants.

According to a recent national poll, 69 percent of Americans support placing limits on climate pollution from existing power plants – including a majority of Americans in every Congressional district in the country.

9. The nation’s leading businesses support policies to reduce climate pollution.

Just this month, over 1,000 companies and investors called on the Trump Administration to continue low-carbon policies, noting that “failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk” and that “the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.”

10. The Clean Power Plan rests on a rock-solid legal foundation.

The Supreme Court has held on three separate occasions that Congress has vested EPA with the responsibility – and the tools – to reduce carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Numerous legal experts –  including drafters of the Clean Air Act, former EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, and former state energy and environmental officials – have affirmed the strong legal basis for the Clean Power Plan 

Attacks on the Clean Power Plan and our other clean air protections present an unprecedented attack on our children’s health. It takes our nation backwards – to more pollution, more disease – even though Americans support forward progress towards clean air and clean energy.

By Christina Wolfe

Houston skyline

What do you think that healthy communities, opportunities for businesses to expand, and diesel engines have in common?

The answer: in Texas, they’re tied together through a successful voluntary program called the Texas Emissions Reductions Plan (TERP).

TERP helps our state by:

1. Working toward making sure all Texans breathe clean air
2. Supporting business growth by ensuring that both Clean Air Act requirements are met and that businesses can attract talent to Texas
3. Modernizing heavy-duty vehicle and equipment fleets through incentives for replacing the oldest, most polluting vehicles and equipment with clean technologies

TERP has been heralded by many diverse cheerleaders. We have talked about TERP’s success (and areas for improvement) in the past on Texas Clean Air Matters, but we aren’t alone in our support for the program. In fact, the program’s achievements were recently mentioned by Secretary of Energy and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who talked about TERP during his confirmation hearing opening statement. The program is also supported by both the Texas Association of Business as a 2017 Legislative Priority, and the Texas Clean Air Working Group (comprised of many local government officials, including air quality planners and others) which advocates for full funding of the program.

Unfortunately, despite strong support for the program from diverse stakeholders, the Texas Legislature is holding hostage $1.2 billion in TERP funding that has been collected by Texas taxpayers and businesses.

Revenues In, Revenues Out?

TERP is funded through a variety of mechanisms, as detailed below in the left-hand column on the table (“TERP Inflows”). TERP programs receive appropriations from the Texas Legislature each biennium, as is shown below in the right-hand column (“TERP Outflows”). To date, more than $2.4 billion has been collected since the program’s inception in 2001, but only $1.2 billion has been spent on clean air projects.

The unspent $1.2 billion is not being used for its intended purpose, but instead has remained on account to balance the state budget. Over the years, this amount grew because the Texas Legislature failed to fully appropriate all revenues that were collected for TERP and instead held funds back, growing the state’s coffers instead.

Moreover, the 2017 Texas Legislature appears to be considering holding back even more funds from TERP (see Senate Finance Committee Decision Document) as recently as last week. This means that the balance in the TERP account will continue to exceed the amount that has been spent on clean air projects. This is not only dishonest to Texas taxpayers and businesses who are paying for TERP, but the Texas Legislature is literally choking Texans by halting potential emissions reduction projects that could be helping improve air quality.

Several of Texas’ metropolitan regions are experiencing more days of moderate, unhealthy, or very unhealthy air quality than they do good days. For example, in 2016, the number of “good” air quality days in key Texas cities was only:

• Houston-Woodlands-Sugarland – 164 good days (202 days that were classified as moderate or unhealthy)
• Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington – 218 good days (148 days that were classified as moderate or unhealthy)
• El Paso – 201 good days (164 days that were classified as moderate or unhealthy)
• San Antonio-New Braunfels – 268 good days (98 days that were classified as moderate or unhealthy)
• Austin-Round Rock – 280 good days (86 days that were classified as moderate or unhealthy)

It’s time that Texas lawmakers do the right thing by Texans – spend this money that has been collected from Texans for clean air rather than keeping it in state coffers. It’s time to restore this clean air funding so that all Texans can breathe easier.

By Erica Morehouse

This post originally appeared on ipolitics.ca.

Air pollution in Toronto. Photo credit: Flickr/ United Nations Photo

On Apr. 3, the Ontario government will announce the results of its first ever auction of pollution permits under its new cap-and-trade program aimed at cutting the emissions that contribute to global warming. As historic and newsworthy as the event may be, it would be wrong to read too much into the results as a measure of the success of the overall environmental program.

Ontario’s cap-and-trade program, launched on Jan. 1, requires emitters such as power plants to surrender a “carbon allowance” for every ton of pollution they produce. The ‘cap’, or limit on emissions, will be reduced over time, ensuring continuing reductions of emissions. The ‘trade’ — allowing emitters to sell excess allowances on the market — provides emitters with a flexible, cost-effective path to going green.

The Ontario government will auction many of these carbon allowances, as they did this month, and the new climate law requires all proceeds to be reinvested in public transit, green technologies and other environmental endeavors that reduce carbon pollution.

The actual auction was held Mar. 22, and offered for sale a total of 28 million allowances at about $17 each. Theoretically, that means the final result announced in April could be hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the province for investments in green projects.

History suggests the actual sum could be considerably less.

Results from recent California and Quebec auctions, which could influence Ontario’s results, have varied widely; those auctions sold 88 per cent and then 18 per cent of available allowances in the two most recent auctions.

There’s a number of reasons why cap-and-trade programs can get off to a relatively slow start.

Relatively soft auction results in the early stages of a cap-and-trade program may simply indicate that the system is working exactly as it was designed.

In the initial stages, for instance, many polluters can find relatively simple ways to cut their emissions enough to meet their cap for the year and thereby avoid having to buy allowances. Or, since they have a few years before they are required to turn in the required allowances, they could simply wait to purchase them.

Many allowances also will be provided to businesses for free — especially those energy-intensive businesses that have competitors in other jurisdictions not subject to similar climate regulations.

Relatively soft auction results in the early stages of a cap-and-trade program may simply indicate that the system is working exactly as it was designed — by allowing industries to make a gradual transition to lower emissions without causing undue economic upheaval or job losses.

Cap-and-trade programs already are showing that economic prosperity and ambitious climate action can go hand in hand. Ontario’s system is modeled after the joint program between Quebec and California, which have both seen carbon pollution decline even as their economies thrived in their first four years of cap-and-trade. In fact, in the first four years of California’s program, emissions under the cap declined while jobs were added faster than the national average — and California’s GDP grew to make the state the fifth largest economy in the world.

The Ontario scheme is designed to achieve similar environmental and economic results by easing consumers, businesses and industries gradually into the new cap-and-trade regime which will put the province on track to a low-carbon economy.

Ontario was able to develop and implement a rigorous but flexible emission-reduction program in less than half the time it took California and Quebec, an example of how climate giants can spur faster and more ambitious action by working together.

A significant feature of Ontario’s plan is that it includes a proposed linkage with Quebec and California’s market. That would mean carbon allowances could be used interchangeably in all three locations, and that Ontario would begin auctioning allowances at the same time as California and Quebec, who held their last auction in February.

Ontario has a rich history of environmental innovation, and its cap-and-trade program is poised to be a key component of its larger climate policy.

As tempting as it may be to judge the Ontario cap-and-trade program by the revenues it will generate, by far the more important measure of success is what it will do for the environment.

By Erica Morehouse

This post originally appeared on ipolitics.ca.

Air pollution in Toronto. Photo credit: Flickr/ United Nations Photo

On Apr. 3, the Ontario government will announce the results of its first ever auction of pollution permits under its new cap-and-trade program aimed at cutting the emissions that contribute to global warming. As historic and newsworthy as the event may be, it would be wrong to read too much into the results as a measure of the success of the overall environmental program.

Ontario’s cap-and-trade program, launched on Jan. 1, requires emitters such as power plants to surrender a “carbon allowance” for every ton of pollution they produce. The ‘cap’, or limit on emissions, will be reduced over time, ensuring continuing reductions of emissions. The ‘trade’ — allowing emitters to sell excess allowances on the market — provides emitters with a flexible, cost-effective path to going green.

The Ontario government will auction many of these carbon allowances, as they did this month, and the new climate law requires all proceeds to be reinvested in public transit, green technologies and other environmental endeavors that reduce carbon pollution.

The actual auction was held Mar. 22, and offered for sale a total of 28 million allowances at about $17 each. Theoretically, that means the final result announced in April could be hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the province for investments in green projects.

History suggests the actual sum could be considerably less.

Results from recent California and Quebec auctions, which could influence Ontario’s results, have varied widely; those auctions sold 88 per cent and then 18 per cent of available allowances in the two most recent auctions.

There’s a number of reasons why cap-and-trade programs can get off to a relatively slow start.

Relatively soft auction results in the early stages of a cap-and-trade program may simply indicate that the system is working exactly as it was designed.

In the initial stages, for instance, many polluters can find relatively simple ways to cut their emissions enough to meet their cap for the year and thereby avoid having to buy allowances. Or, since they have a few years before they are required to turn in the required allowances, they could simply wait to purchase them.

Many allowances also will be provided to businesses for free — especially those energy-intensive businesses that have competitors in other jurisdictions not subject to similar climate regulations.

Relatively soft auction results in the early stages of a cap-and-trade program may simply indicate that the system is working exactly as it was designed — by allowing industries to make a gradual transition to lower emissions without causing undue economic upheaval or job losses.

Cap-and-trade programs already are showing that economic prosperity and ambitious climate action can go hand in hand. Ontario’s system is modeled after the joint program between Quebec and California, which have both seen carbon pollution decline even as their economies thrived in their first four years of cap-and-trade. In fact, in the first four years of California’s program, emissions under the cap declined while jobs were added faster than the national average — and California’s GDP grew to make the state the fifth largest economy in the world.

The Ontario scheme is designed to achieve similar environmental and economic results by easing consumers, businesses and industries gradually into the new cap-and-trade regime which will put the province on track to a low-carbon economy.

Ontario was able to develop and implement a rigorous but flexible emission-reduction program in less than half the time it took California and Quebec, an example of how climate giants can spur faster and more ambitious action by working together.

A significant feature of Ontario’s plan is that it includes a proposed linkage with Quebec and California’s market. That would mean carbon allowances could be used interchangeably in all three locations, and that Ontario would begin auctioning allowances at the same time as California and Quebec, who held their last auction in February.

Ontario has a rich history of environmental innovation, and its cap-and-trade program is poised to be a key component of its larger climate policy.

As tempting as it may be to judge the Ontario cap-and-trade program by the revenues it will generate, by far the more important measure of success is what it will do for the environment.

This post originally appeared on ipolitics.ca. On Apr. 3, the Ontario government will announce the results of its first ever auction of pollution permits under its new cap-and-trade program aimed at cutting the emissions that contribute to global warming. As historic and newsworthy as the event may be, it would be wrong to read too […]

By Jamie Fine

Andrew Bilich, Clean Energy Analyst, contributed to this post.

Here in California, we know a thriving economy and forward-thinking clean energy policy go hand in hand. An important way for us to do this is to keep using cost-competitive renewable sources of energy to power our economy.

Transitioning California to a clean energy economy is good for our wallets, our lungs, and our workforce. Today, electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuel-based generation, and in California we’re powering our homes with nearly 30 percent clean resources. In fact, as the sun shined brightly last week more than half of California’s electricity was powered by renewable sources.

Yet, recent spikes in natural gas bills remind us why alongside renewables, we need to thoroughly green the grid and bring down costs for everybody. One way to accomplish these dual goals is to use our clean energy optimally by deploying efficient tools like TOU, or time-of-use pricing.

How One Clean Energy Solution Can Help Fix Both Price Shocks and Energy Waste
Click To Tweet

TOU rates make electricity cheaper during times when electricity supply is well above demand.  In California, we’re bursting with solar-powered electricity when the sun is shining, so this is when prices will be lowest with TOU rates. Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution. When done right, TOU pricing will save Californians money, avoid pollution (from fossil-fueled power plants), and maximize the productivity of renewables without any extra cost.

Natural gas price shocks mean utilities need to do better

A string of recent articles have reported on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers’ increases in their utility bills this winter. Gas is used primarily for heating, drying clothes, and cooking, and with California’s recent cold and wet winter, usage went up. These increases can especially burden customers who aren’t expecting them and force low-income households to decide between heating and other basic needs.

Recently, Californians have been experiencing the one-two punch of higher natural gas prices combined with higher usage. Not only were more Californians using more heat, but in August 2016, PG&E hiked natural gas prices by 13 percent. Additionally, the utility recently has raised rates for consumer electricity. According to a PG&E spokeswoman quoted in this article, from December 2015 to December 2016 PG&E customers saw a 21 percent average increase in charges for service. PG&E defends the cost increases as necessary to fund upgrades to its infrastructure and cover rising wholesale natural gas prices.

Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution.

PG&E and other utilities need to do better. If and when rates are changing, they must proactively engage and better serve customers with outreach and education about the changes. They should explain to customers how they might be affected, and how they can reduce their energy use by shifting consumption, practicing energy saving tips that can become positive habits, and exploring ways to invest in low-cost energy efficiency.  This is particularly important for the most vulnerable customers who are more likely to have inefficient appliances and housing without weatherization. Additionally, the utilities ought to help connect customers with clean energy innovators such as rooftop solar installers and demand response providers who can provide further solutions.

Abundance of renewables

Last month in a memorandum to its governing body, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization responsible for controlling much of the state’s electric grid – announced plans to turn off 8,000 MW of solar generation capability routinely in the middle of the day. This wasted capacity could power all of the homes in PG&E’s service territory. (On average, 1 MW meets the demand of roughly 750 homes, so 8,000 MW could power 6,000,000 homes, or about 25 percent more than PG&E’s 4,400,000 residential customers.) This is inefficient and in the long term will hurt the economic viability of these resources.

How TOU can help

There is one solution that can help address both price shocks and energy waste: TOU pricing. California’s three major utilities, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, are currently working on plans to transition most residential customers to these rates in 2019. Included in these plans are year-long pilots that will start automatically switching some customers to TOU rates in March 2018.

With TOU rates, there are consistent and clear times of day in which it’s affordable to use energy, and times (including periods of high reliance on fossil fuels) in which it’s more expensive. The daily routine gives customers access to low-priced electricity every day and thus more control over energy bills. In this way, TOU helps us wrap our heads around new ways of thinking about electricity, which leads to new and better choices on how to use it wisely.

By shifting energy use to times when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, we can utilize more of our existing means of renewable electricity. What’s more, by 2025 our electric system could save up to $700 million per year in doing so. In 2016, that amounts to about $70 in savings for the average California electricity customer each year.

Positioning for Success

This solution will only work if customers are aware and educated about rate changes and given easy ways to make TOU rates work best with their electricity needs. Through utility research, we already know some customers may find it more difficult to adjust to these rates than others, and that additional bill pain may be felt during summer months when air conditioning demand is most intense. Utilities know now who these customers are likely to be, and can go much further in introducing them to cost-effective solutions. Let’s continue to maximize our renewable resources and provide all Californians with ways to enjoy affordable, clean electricity.

By Jamie Fine

Andrew Bilich, Clean Energy Analyst, contributed to this post.

Here in California, we know a thriving economy and forward-thinking clean energy policy go hand in hand. An important way for us to do this is to keep using cost-competitive renewable sources of energy to power our economy.

Transitioning California to a clean energy economy is good for our wallets, our lungs, and our workforce. Today, electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuel-based generation, and in California we’re powering our homes with nearly 30 percent clean resources. In fact, as the sun shined brightly last week more than half of California’s electricity was powered by renewable sources.

Yet, recent spikes in natural gas bills remind us why alongside renewables, we need to thoroughly green the grid and bring down costs for everybody. One way to accomplish these dual goals is to use our clean energy optimally by deploying efficient tools like TOU, or time-of-use pricing.

How One Clean Energy Solution Can Help Fix Both Price Shocks and Energy Waste
Click To Tweet

TOU rates make electricity cheaper during times when electricity supply is well above demand.  In California, we’re bursting with solar-powered electricity when the sun is shining, so this is when prices will be lowest with TOU rates. Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution. When done right, TOU pricing will save Californians money, avoid pollution (from fossil-fueled power plants), and maximize the productivity of renewables without any extra cost.

Natural gas price shocks mean utilities need to do better

A string of recent articles have reported on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers’ increases in their utility bills this winter. Gas is used primarily for heating, drying clothes, and cooking, and with California’s recent cold and wet winter, usage went up. These increases can especially burden customers who aren’t expecting them and force low-income households to decide between heating and other basic needs.

Recently, Californians have been experiencing the one-two punch of higher natural gas prices combined with higher usage. Not only were more Californians using more heat, but in August 2016, PG&E hiked natural gas prices by 13 percent. Additionally, the utility recently has raised rates for consumer electricity. According to a PG&E spokeswoman quoted in this article, from December 2015 to December 2016 PG&E customers saw a 21 percent average increase in charges for service. PG&E defends the cost increases as necessary to fund upgrades to its infrastructure and cover rising wholesale natural gas prices.

Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution.

PG&E and other utilities need to do better. If and when rates are changing, they must proactively engage and better serve customers with outreach and education about the changes. They should explain to customers how they might be affected, and how they can reduce their energy use by shifting consumption, practicing energy saving tips that can become positive habits, and exploring ways to invest in low-cost energy efficiency.  This is particularly important for the most vulnerable customers who are more likely to have inefficient appliances and housing without weatherization. Additionally, the utilities ought to help connect customers with clean energy innovators such as rooftop solar installers and demand response providers who can provide further solutions.

Abundance of renewables

Last month in a memorandum to its governing body, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization responsible for controlling much of the state’s electric grid – announced plans to turn off 8,000 MW of solar generation capability routinely in the middle of the day. This wasted capacity could power all of the homes in PG&E’s service territory. (On average, 1 MW meets the demand of roughly 750 homes, so 8,000 MW could power 6,000,000 homes, or about 25 percent more than PG&E’s 4,400,000 residential customers.) This is inefficient and in the long term will hurt the economic viability of these resources.

How TOU can help

There is one solution that can help address both price shocks and energy waste: TOU pricing. California’s three major utilities, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, are currently working on plans to transition most residential customers to these rates in 2019. Included in these plans are year-long pilots that will start automatically switching some customers to TOU rates in March 2018.

With TOU rates, there are consistent and clear times of day in which it’s affordable to use energy, and times (including periods of high reliance on fossil fuels) in which it’s more expensive. The daily routine gives customers access to low-priced electricity every day and thus more control over energy bills. In this way, TOU helps us wrap our heads around new ways of thinking about electricity, which leads to new and better choices on how to use it wisely.

By shifting energy use to times when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, we can utilize more of our existing means of renewable electricity. What’s more, by 2025 our electric system could save up to $700 million per year in doing so. In 2016, that amounts to about $70 in savings for the average California electricity customer each year.

Positioning for Success

This solution will only work if customers are aware and educated about rate changes and given easy ways to make TOU rates work best with their electricity needs. Through utility research, we already know some customers may find it more difficult to adjust to these rates than others, and that additional bill pain may be felt during summer months when air conditioning demand is most intense. Utilities know now who these customers are likely to be, and can go much further in introducing them to cost-effective solutions. Let’s continue to maximize our renewable resources and provide all Californians with ways to enjoy affordable, clean electricity.

Andrew Bilich, Clean Energy Analyst, contributed to this post. Here in California, we know a thriving economy and forward-thinking clean energy policy go hand in hand. An important way for us to do this is to keep using cost-competitive renewable sources of energy to power our economy. Transitioning California to a clean energy economy is […]

The post How One Clean Energy Solution Can Help Fix Both Price Shocks and Energy Waste appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Jamie Fine

Andrew Bilich, Clean Energy Analyst, contributed to this post.

Here in California, we know a thriving economy and forward-thinking clean energy policy go hand in hand. An important way for us to do this is to keep using cost-competitive renewable sources of energy to power our economy.

Transitioning California to a clean energy economy is good for our wallets, our lungs, and our workforce. Today, electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuel-based generation, and in California we’re powering our homes with nearly 30 percent clean resources. In fact, as the sun shined brightly last week more than half of California’s electricity was powered by renewable sources.

Yet, recent spikes in natural gas bills remind us why alongside renewables, we need to thoroughly green the grid and bring down costs for everybody. One way to accomplish these dual goals is to use our clean energy optimally by deploying efficient tools like TOU, or time-of-use pricing.

How One Clean Energy Solution Can Help Fix Both Price Shocks and Energy Waste
Click To Tweet

TOU rates make electricity cheaper during times when electricity supply is well above demand.  In California, we’re bursting with solar-powered electricity when the sun is shining, so this is when prices will be lowest with TOU rates. Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution. When done right, TOU pricing will save Californians money, avoid pollution (from fossil-fueled power plants), and maximize the productivity of renewables without any extra cost.

Natural gas price shocks mean utilities need to do better

A string of recent articles have reported on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers’ increases in their utility bills this winter. Gas is used primarily for heating, drying clothes, and cooking, and with California’s recent cold and wet winter, usage went up. These increases can especially burden customers who aren’t expecting them and force low-income households to decide between heating and other basic needs.

Recently, Californians have been experiencing the one-two punch of higher natural gas prices combined with higher usage. Not only were more Californians using more heat, but in August 2016, PG&E hiked natural gas prices by 13 percent. Additionally, the utility recently has raised rates for consumer electricity. According to a PG&E spokeswoman quoted in this article, from December 2015 to December 2016 PG&E customers saw a 21 percent average increase in charges for service. PG&E defends the cost increases as necessary to fund upgrades to its infrastructure and cover rising wholesale natural gas prices.

Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution.

PG&E and other utilities need to do better. If and when rates are changing, they must proactively engage and better serve customers with outreach and education about the changes. They should explain to customers how they might be affected, and how they can reduce their energy use by shifting consumption, practicing energy saving tips that can become positive habits, and exploring ways to invest in low-cost energy efficiency.  This is particularly important for the most vulnerable customers who are more likely to have inefficient appliances and housing without weatherization. Additionally, the utilities ought to help connect customers with clean energy innovators such as rooftop solar installers and demand response providers who can provide further solutions.

Abundance of renewables

Last month in a memorandum to its governing body, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization responsible for controlling much of the state’s electric grid – announced plans to turn off 8,000 MW of solar generation capability routinely in the middle of the day. This wasted capacity could power all of the homes in PG&E’s service territory. (On average, 1 MW meets the demand of roughly 750 homes, so 8,000 MW could power 6,000,000 homes, or about 25 percent more than PG&E’s 4,400,000 residential customers.) This is inefficient and in the long term will hurt the economic viability of these resources.

How TOU can help

There is one solution that can help address both price shocks and energy waste: TOU pricing. California’s three major utilities, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, are currently working on plans to transition most residential customers to these rates in 2019. Included in these plans are year-long pilots that will start automatically switching some customers to TOU rates in March 2018.

With TOU rates, there are consistent and clear times of day in which it’s affordable to use energy, and times (including periods of high reliance on fossil fuels) in which it’s more expensive. The daily routine gives customers access to low-priced electricity every day and thus more control over energy bills. In this way, TOU helps us wrap our heads around new ways of thinking about electricity, which leads to new and better choices on how to use it wisely.

By shifting energy use to times when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, we can utilize more of our existing means of renewable electricity. What’s more, by 2025 our electric system could save up to $700 million per year in doing so. In 2016, that amounts to about $70 in savings for the average California electricity customer each year.

Positioning for Success

This solution will only work if customers are aware and educated about rate changes and given easy ways to make TOU rates work best with their electricity needs. Through utility research, we already know some customers may find it more difficult to adjust to these rates than others, and that additional bill pain may be felt during summer months when air conditioning demand is most intense. Utilities know now who these customers are likely to be, and can go much further in introducing them to cost-effective solutions. Let’s continue to maximize our renewable resources and provide all Californians with ways to enjoy affordable, clean electricity.

By Jamie Fine

Andrew Bilich, Clean Energy Analyst, contributed to this post.

Here in California, we know a thriving economy and forward-thinking clean energy policy go hand in hand. An important way for us to do this is to keep using cost-competitive renewable sources of energy to power our economy.

Transitioning California to a clean energy economy is good for our wallets, our lungs, and our workforce. Today, electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuel-based generation, and in California we’re powering our homes with nearly 30 percent clean resources. In fact, as the sun shined brightly last week more than half of California’s electricity was powered by renewable sources.

Yet, recent spikes in natural gas bills remind us why alongside renewables, we need to thoroughly green the grid and bring down costs for everybody. One way to accomplish these dual goals is to use our clean energy optimally by deploying efficient tools like TOU, or time-of-use pricing.

How One Clean Energy Solution Can Help Fix Both Price Shocks and Energy Waste
Click To Tweet

TOU rates make electricity cheaper during times when electricity supply is well above demand.  In California, we’re bursting with solar-powered electricity when the sun is shining, so this is when prices will be lowest with TOU rates. Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution. When done right, TOU pricing will save Californians money, avoid pollution (from fossil-fueled power plants), and maximize the productivity of renewables without any extra cost.

Natural gas price shocks mean utilities need to do better

A string of recent articles have reported on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers’ increases in their utility bills this winter. Gas is used primarily for heating, drying clothes, and cooking, and with California’s recent cold and wet winter, usage went up. These increases can especially burden customers who aren’t expecting them and force low-income households to decide between heating and other basic needs.

Recently, Californians have been experiencing the one-two punch of higher natural gas prices combined with higher usage. Not only were more Californians using more heat, but in August 2016, PG&E hiked natural gas prices by 13 percent. Additionally, the utility recently has raised rates for consumer electricity. According to a PG&E spokeswoman quoted in this article, from December 2015 to December 2016 PG&E customers saw a 21 percent average increase in charges for service. PG&E defends the cost increases as necessary to fund upgrades to its infrastructure and cover rising wholesale natural gas prices.

Since cheaper off-peak prices are incentives for people to use sun-sourced electricity, these strategies that reduce bills will also reduce harmful pollution.

PG&E and other utilities need to do better. If and when rates are changing, they must proactively engage and better serve customers with outreach and education about the changes. They should explain to customers how they might be affected, and how they can reduce their energy use by shifting consumption, practicing energy saving tips that can become positive habits, and exploring ways to invest in low-cost energy efficiency.  This is particularly important for the most vulnerable customers who are more likely to have inefficient appliances and housing without weatherization. Additionally, the utilities ought to help connect customers with clean energy innovators such as rooftop solar installers and demand response providers who can provide further solutions.

Abundance of renewables

Last month in a memorandum to its governing body, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – the organization responsible for controlling much of the state’s electric grid – announced plans to turn off 8,000 MW of solar generation capability routinely in the middle of the day. This wasted capacity could power all of the homes in PG&E’s service territory. (On average, 1 MW meets the demand of roughly 750 homes, so 8,000 MW could power 6,000,000 homes, or about 25 percent more than PG&E’s 4,400,000 residential customers.) This is inefficient and in the long term will hurt the economic viability of these resources.

How TOU can help

There is one solution that can help address both price shocks and energy waste: TOU pricing. California’s three major utilities, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison, are currently working on plans to transition most residential customers to these rates in 2019. Included in these plans are year-long pilots that will start automatically switching some customers to TOU rates in March 2018.

With TOU rates, there are consistent and clear times of day in which it’s affordable to use energy, and times (including periods of high reliance on fossil fuels) in which it’s more expensive. The daily routine gives customers access to low-priced electricity every day and thus more control over energy bills. In this way, TOU helps us wrap our heads around new ways of thinking about electricity, which leads to new and better choices on how to use it wisely.

By shifting energy use to times when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, we can utilize more of our existing means of renewable electricity. What’s more, by 2025 our electric system could save up to $700 million per year in doing so. In 2016, that amounts to about $70 in savings for the average California electricity customer each year.

Positioning for Success

This solution will only work if customers are aware and educated about rate changes and given easy ways to make TOU rates work best with their electricity needs. Through utility research, we already know some customers may find it more difficult to adjust to these rates than others, and that additional bill pain may be felt during summer months when air conditioning demand is most intense. Utilities know now who these customers are likely to be, and can go much further in introducing them to cost-effective solutions. Let’s continue to maximize our renewable resources and provide all Californians with ways to enjoy affordable, clean electricity.

Andrew Bilich, Clean Energy Analyst, contributed to this post. Here in California, we know a thriving economy and forward-thinking clean energy policy go hand in hand. An important way for us to do this is to keep using cost-competitive renewable sources of energy to power our economy. Transitioning California to a clean energy economy is […]

In May 2000, our founding fathers (and mothers) brought landowners, port commissioners, parish leaders, restoration advocates, levee experts, business owners and residents together for one purpose—to save our irreplaceable region. They were in the beginning stages of answering the question: Will restoration of Louisiana’s coast require coastal residents to leave their communities? That’s how the name “Restore or Retreat” came about. It was intended as a threat—take action or be forced to leave. Fast forward 17 years, through several devastating ...

Read The Full Story

The post Restore or Retreat? A Difficult Question Facing Many Across Louisiana’s Coast. appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

In May 2000, our founding fathers (and mothers) brought landowners, port commissioners, parish leaders, restoration advocates, levee experts, business owners and residents together for one purpose—to save our irreplaceable region. They were in the beginning stages of answering the question: Will restoration of Louisiana’s coast require coastal residents to leave their communities? That’s how the name “Restore or Retreat” came about. It was intended as a threat—take action or be forced to leave. Fast forward 17 years, through several devastating ...

Read The Full Story

The post Restore or Retreat? A Difficult Question Facing Many Across Louisiana’s Coast. appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

In May 2000, our founding fathers (and mothers) brought landowners, port commissioners, parish leaders, restoration advocates, levee experts, business owners and residents together for one purpose—to save our irreplaceable region. They were in the beginning stages of answering the question: Will restoration of Louisiana’s coast require coastal residents to leave their communities? That’s how the name “Restore or Retreat” came about. It was intended as a threat—take action or be forced to leave. Fast forward 17 years, through several devastating ...

Read The Full Story

The post Restore or Retreat? A Difficult Question Facing Many Across Louisiana’s Coast. appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Karen Chapman

Farmers are bombarded by product claims these days – and they need help.

According to a recent report from Boston Consulting Group and AgFunder, venture capital firms increased their investments in agriculture technologies at an annual rate of approximately 80 percent between 2012 and 2015. The report claims “the surge in agtech investment has brought the agriculture industry to the threshold of a new green revolution.”

Yet amid this surge in technologies to help farmers grow crops more efficiently, reduce environmental impacts and save money, many start-ups and even established companies often forget to consider: what does the farmer actually want and need? And, what would make them decide to spend money after seeing years of low commodity prices and profits?

In agriculture, no product or technology works everywhere, all the time. Navigating this world of advertising and marketing can be a frustrating and time-consuming endeavor, often leaving farmers to wonder if a tool is going to work in their region and in their soil type. NutrientStar can help.

In a new video, farmers from across the Midwest clearly state what it is they want when it comes to technologies to manage fertilizer, their most expensive input: independent assurance that a nutrient management tool or product is worth their money.

If you’re marketing a product to a farmer, show them where and how it will work, says…
Click To Tweet

What NutrientStar does

NutrientStar is an independent, science-based program that assesses and reports on the performance of commercially available nutrient management products and decision-support tools. It’s the “Carfax” of fertilizer tools.

NutrientStar shares data about products that can contribute to reducing nutrient losses from agriculture to the environment. The program provides valuable information to farmers that may help them improve fertilizer management and improve air and water quality across America.

The program also enables farmers to more easily execute the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship, which include applying fertilizer at the right source, the right rate, the right time and the right place. NutrientStar complements the 4Rs by informing farmers on tools that can help implement these important practices.

All assessments are conducted by an independent science review panel, comprised of leading scientists, fertilizer experts and technology practitioners from across the country. NutrientStar was developed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and is currently administered by EDF and S Squared, a consulting firm specializing in agronomic technology and advice.

Why manufacturers and agribusinesses should care

Earning the confidence of farmers through independent review can help a company’s nutrient management tool distinguish itself in an increasingly competitive market. Here’s a sampling of what the farmers in this video have to say to the makers of these tools:

“We need to know if the product will work on our farm or in our business, not somewhere else… show me it works here.”

– Greg Kneubuhler, CCA, owner and operator of G&K Concepts, an independent crop consultancy working with farmers in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan

“Don’t give me promises, give me data…. Get [your product] reviewed by a third party. Give me confidence that your product can help me be a good steward.”

– Rob Ternet, owner of Ternet Farms Partnership – Indiana

Crop advisors and ag retailers can also use NutrientStar reviews to provide sound advice to their farmer clients about tool performance.

What an assessment entails

To get a product reviewed, a company needs to complete an assessment questionnaire and submit any relevant field trial data to the NutrientStar team. That information is then reviewed by the NutrientStar science review panel, which determines if more information is needed and whether or not field trial data is adequate.

Fertilizer management products reviewed through NutrientStar include enhanced efficiency fertilizer compounds, such as nitrogen stabilizers, and decision support tools, such as optical sensor technologies or models used to aid nutrient applications in the field.

Already, eight tools have gone through the review process. But with countless new tools coming to market every month and investments ramping up like never before, farmers will need more independent reviews. With increased transparency, NutrientStar can become the go-to resource for farmers, their advisors and supply chain actors to get reliable data on the performance of fertilizer management products.

This post originally appeared on AgFunder News and is used with permission.

Related:

New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond >>

Meet Eric Davidson, NutrientStar's newest review panel member >>

New program verifies claims of fertilizer efficiency tools >>

Farmers are bombarded by product claims these days – and they need help. According to a recent report from Boston Consulting Group and AgFunder, venture capital firms increased their investments in agriculture technologies at an annual rate of approximately 80 percent between 2012 and 2015. The report claims “the surge in agtech investment has brought […]

The post If you’re marketing a product to a farmer, show them where and how it will work first appeared on Growing Returns.

By Karen Chapman

Farmers are bombarded by product claims these days – and they need help.

According to a recent report from Boston Consulting Group and AgFunder, venture capital firms increased their investments in agriculture technologies at an annual rate of approximately 80 percent between 2012 and 2015. The report claims “the surge in agtech investment has brought the agriculture industry to the threshold of a new green revolution.”

Yet amid this surge in technologies to help farmers grow crops more efficiently, reduce environmental impacts and save money, many start-ups and even established companies often forget to consider: what does the farmer actually want and need? And, what would make them decide to spend money after seeing years of low commodity prices and profits?

In agriculture, no product or technology works everywhere, all the time. Navigating this world of advertising and marketing can be a frustrating and time-consuming endeavor, often leaving farmers to wonder if a tool is going to work in their region and in their soil type. NutrientStar can help.

In a new video, farmers from across the Midwest clearly state what it is they want when it comes to technologies to manage fertilizer, their most expensive input: independent assurance that a nutrient management tool or product is worth their money.

If you’re marketing a product to a farmer, show them where and how it will work, says…
Click To Tweet

What NutrientStar does

NutrientStar is an independent, science-based program that assesses and reports on the performance of commercially available nutrient management products and decision-support tools. It’s the “Carfax” of fertilizer tools.

NutrientStar shares data about products that can contribute to reducing nutrient losses from agriculture to the environment. The program provides valuable information to farmers that may help them improve fertilizer management and improve air and water quality across America.

The program also enables farmers to more easily execute the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship, which include applying fertilizer at the right source, the right rate, the right time and the right place. NutrientStar complements the 4Rs by informing farmers on tools that can help implement these important practices.

All assessments are conducted by an independent science review panel, comprised of leading scientists, fertilizer experts and technology practitioners from across the country. NutrientStar was developed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and is currently administered by EDF and S Squared, a consulting firm specializing in agronomic technology and advice.

Why manufacturers and agribusinesses should care

Earning the confidence of farmers through independent review can help a company’s nutrient management tool distinguish itself in an increasingly competitive market. Here’s a sampling of what the farmers in this video have to say to the makers of these tools:

“We need to know if the product will work on our farm or in our business, not somewhere else… show me it works here.”

– Greg Kneubuhler, CCA, owner and operator of G&K Concepts, an independent crop consultancy working with farmers in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan

“Don’t give me promises, give me data…. Get [your product] reviewed by a third party. Give me confidence that your product can help me be a good steward.”

– Rob Ternet, owner of Ternet Farms Partnership – Indiana

Crop advisors and ag retailers can also use NutrientStar reviews to provide sound advice to their farmer clients about tool performance.

What an assessment entails

To get a product reviewed, a company needs to complete an assessment questionnaire and submit any relevant field trial data to the NutrientStar team. That information is then reviewed by the NutrientStar science review panel, which determines if more information is needed and whether or not field trial data is adequate.

Fertilizer management products reviewed through NutrientStar include enhanced efficiency fertilizer compounds, such as nitrogen stabilizers, and decision support tools, such as optical sensor technologies or models used to aid nutrient applications in the field.

Already, eight tools have gone through the review process. But with countless new tools coming to market every month and investments ramping up like never before, farmers will need more independent reviews. With increased transparency, NutrientStar can become the go-to resource for farmers, their advisors and supply chain actors to get reliable data on the performance of fertilizer management products.

This post originally appeared on AgFunder News and is used with permission.

Related:

New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond >>

Meet Eric Davidson, NutrientStar's newest review panel member >>

New program verifies claims of fertilizer efficiency tools >>