Academics support strong clean energy policies

The Ohio General Assembly is considering changes to the state’s successful renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. (Photo source: The Ohio Channel)

More than two dozen academics with expertise in clean energy have signed an open statement in support of Ohio’s successful policies requiring utilities to obtain 12.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources and reduce energy use 22.5 percent through energy efficiency programs, both by 2025. They join thousands of Ohioans who have taken action to support their state’s clean energy commitment this year.

The open statement was shared with members of the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee in advance of a June 18 public hearing, along with written testimony submitted by UCS Energy Analyst Sam Gomberg examining the economic, environmental, and public health benefits of diversifying Ohio’s energy portfolio with more clean energy. It was the latest round in a legislative review that puts all options on the table, from possible strengthening to outright repeal of Ohio’s renewable electricity standard (RES) and energy efficiency resource standard (EERS).

A successful track record

After five years of Ohio’s bipartisan clean energy standards in action, the facts show that these innovative policies are a success and should be maintained, and ultimately strengthened. Ohio is now home to more than 1,100 renewable energy projects. Energy efficiency programs have already saved enough energy to power 30,000 average Ohio homes for a year. Increased investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency created an estimated 3,200 jobs from 2008 to 2012, according to a new study by The Center for Resilience at The Ohio State University. Researchers also found that savings from improvements in energy efficiency more than offset the less than one percent increase in electricity generating costs resulting from increases in renewable energy.

These facts are consistent with the findings of a recent UCS review of state-level renewable electricity standards. In the Midwest for example, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin are all reporting little or no additional costs to comply with their RES requirements, while at the same time reaping significant economic benefits that include job creation, new revenues for local and state governments, and long-term stability in electric rates. Maintaining and eventually strengthening Ohio’s RES positions the state to harvest similar benefits.

Energy efficiency is cheaper than generating electricity, making it a no-brainer for consumers. A recent report by the Ohio Manufacturers Association, in partnership with the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), found that Ohio’s energy efficiency standard could provide net savings of more than $2.7 billion through 2020.

Clean energy opponents spread false information

Unfortunately, Ohio is just the latest state where fossil fuel-funded special interest groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council and Heartland Institute, have targeted clean energy policies for repeal.

Misinformation lies at the heart of these attacks. Opponents of Ohio’s RES are fond of citing a 2009 report questioning the job and economic benefits of renewable energy development that has been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to The Wall Street Journal. They do not mention that this “study” was paid for by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), which has received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers. FirstEnergy, one of Ohio’s largest electric providers, has also gotten into the misinformation game, claiming that energy efficiency is too costly when in fact it is Ohio’s cheapest, cleanest, and most readily available resource for meeting energy demand.

The facts support maintaining strong clean energy policies

The good news is policy makers in states across the country, including recently in Kansas and North Carolina, are choosing clean energy facts over fossil fuel fiction, and doing so in bipartisan fashion. In fact, no state has repealed a renewable electricity standard, ever. Ohio should not be the first to reverse progress on clean energy.

Indeed, the energy experts in Ohio agree:

“We now have an opportunity to transition to cleaner sources of electricity. Nearly 6,800 megawatts of old, inefficient, dirty, and uncompetitive coal generating capacity is scheduled for retirement in Ohio. We must embrace this as an opportunity to further diversify our energy sources in a way that reduces pollution and keeps energy dollars local by continuing to invest in Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency resources.”

The Ohio General Assembly will soon begin its summer recess, but the debate over the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards is expected to resume this fall. When it does, legislators would do well to listen to what Ohio’s own energy experts have to say about the success and importance of the state’s clean energy policies in transitioning to a safe, affordable, and reliable energy economy.

• Interested in adding your name to the open statement in support of Ohio’s clean energy policies? Click here.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, recently unsealed court documents have been released that include thousands of Syngenta emails, internal memos, and other documents. The documents detail the strategies the company used to stave off potential EPA regulation of its widely used weed-killer, atrazine. Environmental Health News and 100Reporters told the story yesterday.

And for me, it’s déjà vu all over again—and not just because there’s been past interference around atrazine science (which there has). But the newly released documents show that Syngenta has used the same time-tested tactics many industries have used when new scientific evidence surfaces that suggests a possible need for regulation. And Syngenta does it with textbook precision. To refresh your memory, let’s walk through these strategies and how Syngenta applied them, page-by-page.

Atrazine is a widely used agricultural pesticide often sprayed on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane crops. Photo: Flickr user pmarkham

Strategy #1: Attack the Scientist

Ah, this is a familiar strategy, we’ve seen again and again. Most recently, you may be familiar with the death threats and hate mail received by climate scientists but this strategy is much older. Back in the 1960s, Rachel Carson was attacked by industry and labeled a “hysterical woman” by industry actors for sounding alarm on the harmful effects of DDT.

Atrazine also has an outspoken critic with scientific credentials. Dr. Tyrone Hayes, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley demonstrated atrazine’s effect of feminizing male frogs over a decade ago, published the results in Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and has since remained critical of the pesticide’s use. The documents show that Syngenta targeted the scientist directly. The company commissioned a psychological profile of Dr. Hayes, investigated his family, and planted trained critics in the audience at his speaking events.  “They impacted my professional and personal life,” Dr. Hayes says in response. “It’s sobering to get substantiation of the verbal attacks they made.”

Strategy #2: Pay “Independent” “Experts” to Tout Your Cause

If you can’t discredit the scientist, the next best thing is to create your own expert to counter him or her. The tobacco industry paid seemingly independent scientists to cast doubt over the connection between cancer and cigarettes. Climate science has seen the same, with fossil fuel companies paying individuals to be climate contrarians in the public realm or through scientific studies. Syngenta, too, paid scientists to downplay the environment and health impacts of the pesticide and paid economists to claim atrazine’s economic necessity.

And it’s not just the same strategy in the cases of tobacco, climate, and atrazine, in at least one instance we are talking about the very same person. In all three examples, Steven J. Milloy, a Fox News columnist and blogger, was one of the “independent experts” hired to combat the scientific evidence. In the past, he has also been critical of the science around stratospheric ozone depletion, secondhand smoke, and DDT.

Syngenta tried to prevent regulation of atrazine by attacking the science behind the pesticide’s health and environmental effects.

Strategy #3: Try to Interfere with Policy Making

This is a strategy that has taken many different forms, but one that is routinely employed, nonetheless. How a particular issue is regulated will dictate how you can fight it in the policy realm. The Clean Air Act, for example, dictates that regulation of ground-level ozone must be based on the science—in particular, the science of how ozone levels affect human health. So if an industry or politician wants to avoid ozone standards tightening, they need to focus on attacking the science behind the regulation. In contrast, pesticide regulation is based on both the science and economic impacts. This is why Syngenta paid economists to produce certain results.

In addition to economic considerations, atrazine regulation is also influenced by a federal advisory panel convened to assess the effects of the pesticide. The released documents also show that Syngenta hired a detective agency to investigate on the EPA scientific advisory panel reviewing atrazine, though it wasn’t clear what Syngenta did with this information.

Keeping the Science Independent

The most shocking thing you might first observe about this case is the incredible lengths that Syngenta went to in order to discredit the science with a multi-million dollar campaign. When large economic interests are at play, the stakes are higher and the tactics get tougher. What is equally concerning to me is the sad truth that this is not an isolated case. In a post last week, the director of UCS’ Center for Science and Democracy Andrew Rosenberg discussed the troubling trends in ghost-writing of scientific articles by conflicted experts paid by industry actors.

But might there be a better way? In each of these cases—tobacco, DDT, ozone, climate change—the science has eventually surfaced and actions have been taken to protect the public from harm (albeit, a work-in-progress for climate). I expect that the case of atrazine will follow suit.

Rather than fighting the overwhelming evidence of science that inevitably wins out in these cases, we could be focusing on alternatives, innovations, and solutions. My hope is that one day this can be Strategy #1 in the playbook.

Zichal and others say that Administration climate agenda will be announced soon

Last week Heather Zichal, the top White House advisor on energy and climate, indicated that the Obama Administration will be announcing details of its climate agenda “in the coming weeks and months.” She specifically said “We will continue to build on the progress using the tools of the Clean Air Act to advance a broader climate agenda.” That is exactly what finalizing the carbon standards for new power plants and issuing draft standards for existing power plants would do.

We’ve also seen increased speculation in the news about a major “July climate announcement.” Whatever that announcement is, it needs to be specific. The President has already used the bully pulpit to make his overall commitment to addressing climate change clear and should continue to do so. But with just a little more than three years left of his term, we need a road map for reducing emissions as soon as possible.

Suing the EPA for action on the power plant carbon standards

In December 2010 the EPA reached a settlement agreement promising to propose standards to regulate carbon emissions from new and existing power plants by July 26, 2011, and finalize them by May 26, 2012. Following that, after much delay, it released draft standards for new power plants last April. Because it has now missed its one-year legal deadline under the Clean Air Act to finalize the draft carbon standards for new power plants, and has also failed to propose standards for existing power plants, a number of environmental groups announced their intention to sue.

When the science is so clear on the causes of global warming (our emissions from burning fossil fuels and cutting down tropical forests) and the need for urgent action (atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ hit the ominous 400ppm mark last month), it is regrettable that legal action is required to simply make the EPA do its job: protect the health and well being of Americans by reducing carbon pollution. With Congress failing to pass legislation to address many important public health issues, going to court is a strategy that many environmental groups have chosen to adopt.

Climate impacts are evident. Why is Congress failing to act?

From raging forest fires to damaging coastal flooding, from searing heat waves to heavy rainfall, the growing risks and costs of extreme events with climate contributors have become increasingly evident to Americans. Yet too many policy makers in Washington are failing to take this seriously and are blocking any action toward  a national plan to build resilience and cut carbon emissions.

There are some isolated bright spots though. Last week five senators from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all states hard hit by Sandy, sent a letter to President Obama urging him to issue the power plant standards. Also last week newly-elected Senator Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) gave his first speech on the Senate floor and spoke powerfully of the great economic opportunities for our nation in addressing climate change by investing in clean energy and innovation.

From businesses to the American public, many would probably prefer to see Congress to live up to its responsibilities. But failing that, the Obama Administration must use its executive authority to act, and act soon. That too is a sign of the democratic process at work.

Here’s what the Administration needs to do on climate and energy

If I could be so bold, here’s what I think the Obama Administration needs to do in the near future: Within the next month, they should announce a firm date for finalizing the carbon standards for new power plants this summer. The draft standard issued last year is a good one, supported by sound science and by the American public. A major deviation from that could undermine the strength of the standard and its ability to help ensure a transition away from high carbon electricity generation. Revising the standard would likely also reset the clock on the process for finalizing the rules and delay its final issue.

Simultaneously, they should also announce firm dates for when they will issue a draft standard for existing power plants, which is where roughly one-third of our emissions come from currently. Leaving this timing uncertain is bad for businesses and investors that need to make long-term choices about our power generation fleet. And it’s bad for Americans who are already being pummeled by costly climate impacts.

We also need policies and measures that will directly help ramp up renewable energy and efficiency. As my colleague Steve Clemmer points out, record amounts of renewable energy are already being deployed in the U.S. Now we need to build on that progress and scale it up. Including renewable energy and energy efficiency as compliance options can also help achieve a strong, flexible, cost-effective carbon standard for existing power plants.

Furthermore, it’s time to begin work on a national adaptation plan that would help communities across the country assess their climate risks and vulnerabilities, based on locally relevant scientific information, and understand their options to help protect themselves. Mayor Bloomberg has given New York a head start with the ambitious plan he announced last week. Now we’ve got to make that happen everywhere, even in small towns and cities that may not have the resources of a big city like New York.

Time for bold leadership

I don’t underestimate how difficult it is to take these kinds of actions in our current highly polarized political environment. But the public wants action and these are the right decisions for our future. Large majorities support the very proposals the administration might be ready to enact.

Unfortunately, with climate change, we don’t have the luxury of time. This is an occasion for bold political leadership and vision and I remain hopeful that President Obama and his administration are up to the task. We’ll see if that hope is borne out with the possible climate announcement next month, especially in what it says on the power plant carbon standards.

The new report is an important precursor to both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, the first part of which is due out in late September of this year; and the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment, which is undergoing its review (see the draft here) before being released in 2014.

All of these publications underscore the urgency of the latest climate science and the need to act quickly in addressing one of the most pressing issues of our time — human-caused global warming.

Here are three important highlights from the new report:

1. Most of the available fossil fuels simply cannot be burned

If we are to stabilize climate this century, most of the available fossil fuels cannot be burned. Estimates in this report show we can emit at most 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the year 2000 until mid-century to give us the best chance of limiting global temperature rise to 2^oC (3.6^o F) above pre-industrial temperature. The nations of the world have agreed that the consequences of a 2^oC rise in global temperature are so severe for the health and well-being of humanity and systems it depends on that it is a threshold that should not be crossed. Although, this story is evolving as new science is pointing to dangerous impacts under less warming — leading some to call for a 1.5^o C limit.

However, in the first 13 years of this critical period, the world has emitted nearly 40 percent of that budget already. The rate we are emitting carbon dioxide is also accelerating, with a 2.6 percent increase just between 2011 and 2012. (See more at the Global Carbon Project here.) Stabilizing the climate within the 2^oC temperature limit remains possible, but unless we intensify our efforts this decade and beyond, the promise international leaders made in 2009 will be forever broken.

Overspend in the Carbon Budget (Source: The Critical Decade 2013)

2. The risks scientists warned us about are already happening

There is consensus that many of the climatic changes we are currently seeing are due to human activity. Some of the consequences already evident are rising seas and changing rainfall patterns.

One dramatic change is the heating of the ocean globally. Over the period 1961 to 2003, almost 90 percent of the extra heat from human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the ocean. This dramatic rise in water temperature is not only raising sea level by thermal expansion but is also affecting the chemistry and biology of the world’s oceans and affecting the hydrological cycle, impacting areas far removed from the oceans themselves. (See more at NOAA Oceans and the U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center.)

The influence of climate change on the water cycle – higher surface water temperatures and air temperatures speed up the hydrological cycle (Source: The Critical Decade 2013)

3. Scientists know more about abrupt and irreversible changes

Scientists are improving our understanding of abrupt and irreversible changes in the climate system, known as tipping points. The most concerning of these are the melting of the world’s great ice sheets, shifts in the Indian summer monsoon, and changes to the patterns of rainfall in the Amazon basin. Many of these processes can have direct impacts on human well-being on a large scale.

The conclusion of the report is clear and repeats what was stressed in the initial report two years ago – this is the decade to begin decisively decarbonizing the economy. Time is of the essence.

National Park Service natural resource specialist, Dorothy Geyer, in front of a revetment at Indian Field Creek on Colonial Parkway, Virginia. Photo: Adam Markham

Hurricane damage provides a wake-up call

There have been many warning signs over the years. When Hurricane Isabel hit Jamestown in 2003 it was a wake-up call for the Park Service. Storm waters from the James River surged over the century-old sea wall and filled a basement storing hundreds of thousands of priceless artifacts that together tell the story of America’s founding, submerging them in filthy, brackish water.

When I toured the site with Dorothy Geyer, a Park Service natural resource specialist, she told me that restoring the damage took years and cost millions of dollars. Today, the artifacts are back on Jamestown Island and the storage buildings have been raised, but the risk of damage from severe storms still remains.

A 400-year history of extreme weather impacts

That enhanced sea level rise and severe storms pose a threat to the site of America’s first permanent colonial settlement should come as no surprise. Weather extremes have been part of the Jamestown story since the colonists of the Virginia Company of London landed there in 1607. Archaeologists believe that by the time the would-be settlers came ashore, natural sea level rise caused by land subsidence had already driven the local Powhatan Indians from year-round occupation of the island.

Erosion due to tides and waves is a constant issue on the island and the site. Today sea levels at Jamestown are at least three feet higher than when the colonists first landed more than 400 years ago.  The original settlement was long thought to have been swallowed by the James River until a team of archaeologists led by William Kelso of Preservation Virginia discovered the remains of the fort in 1996. According to the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) the current rate of sea level rise is about 1.5 feet per century and it is speeding up because of global warming.

Preservation Virginia Archaeological dig at Historic Jamestown. Photo: Adam Markham

Even in its earliest days, Jamestown suffered the consequences of severe storms and extreme weather. In August 1609, a fleet of ships bringing supplies, new settlers, and a new governor to Jamestown was hit by a “most terrible and vehement storm” near Bermuda. One ship sank, and the flagship, carrying Sir Thomas Gates, was stranded on Bermuda for months – providing Shakespeare with the inspiration for “The Tempest” and his first literary brush with the New World.

Scientists have recently discovered that the  “starving time” from 1607 to 1610 — when 80 percent of the original colonists died — coincided with the most severe drought experienced in tidewater Virginia for 800 years. The drought would have radically reduced the ability of settlers and Indians alike to grow food and reduced the availability and quality of freshwater.

National parks under threat

The rediscovered Jamestown today is part of the Historic Triangle, which includes Colonial Williamsburg and the revolutionary battlefield of Yorktown, as well as many pre-colonial and Civil War archaeological remains. Jamestown, Yorktown, and the parkway together form Colonial National Historical Park, and they are likely soon to be joined by Fort Monroe, designated a National Monument by President Obama in 2011. Fort Monroe was the landing site for the first Africans who were traded to the settlers at Jamestown in 1619, laying the foundation for the institution of slavery, which took root in the colony during the subsequent decades. The current fort, built after the War of 1812, sits on a barrier island and like the three existing National Park units is highly vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge.

Many coastal views close to Jamestown remain similar to those the first settlers must have seen when they landed in 1607. Photo: Adam Markham

Traveling back from Jamestown along Colonial Parkway with Dorothy was instructive. Where previously I had seen merely a scenic road winding through woods and emerging for long stretches along the shore with vistas along the James River, she described a roadway at serious risk from accelerating sea level rise. Dorothy told me of flooded battlefield cemeteries, of washed out culverts, and of coastal bluffs eroded in ferocious storms.

Climate solutions needed to save historic site

To my mind, there’s no more powerful way to connect with history than to visit the places where it happened. Today, the closest we or our children can get to the extraordinary chapter in our nation’s history that began at Jamestown is to wander the paths of the same island, walk where they walked, and try to see the views of the James River with their eyes. Perhaps, if we are lucky, we’ll be there when one of the archaeologists working on site pulls a pig’s jaw bone or a clay pipe from a pit dug in the 17^th Century soil layers – a direct, physical connection to the past.

For 400 years the story of Jamestown has been one of resilience. The tenacity and perseverance of the settlers eventually paid off. The question now is whether we can move the democracy they helped create to take actions to slow climate change before the rising river swallows Jamestown once and for all.

RPS compliance trajectory for the POUs between 2011 and 2020

What does the RPS mean for the POUs?
In the graph to the right, the green area shows the cumulative amount of renewables that POUs are expected to procure to meet RPS requirements. By 2020, the POUs will be delivering enough renewable electricity to power approximately 3 million households!

As you can see, the POUs have quite a bit of time in the first two compliance periods (2011-2013 and 2014-2016) to get their programs in order. It’s important to clarify that while the POUs must procure a cumulative amount of electricity for each compliance period, they can determine their rate of investment within that timeframe. In other words, they will not be required to show specific percentages for the years between 2013, 2016, and 2020 but they must procure a total amount within each compliance period equivalent to the area under the curve in this graph. This is an important way of making sure the POUs make progress between the years, but have the flexibility to determine their own individual rate of progress.

The importance of POUs in California’s clean energy future
Collectively, the POUs supply about a quarter of all the electricity used in the state. A few large ones play major roles in shaping California’s electricity mix. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is the largest POU in the country and the third-largest utility in California. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District is number five in the state, and the Imperial Irrigation District is number six.

In the past, the POUs have generally relied on a dirtier mix of resources to supply electricity than their privately-owned counterparts. They therefore have an important role to play in helping the state transition away from fossil fuels and meet statewide greenhouse gas emissions goals. By 2010, the POUs still relied on coal and natural gas for two-thirds of their retail sales, and supplied about half of the coal-fired electricity consumed in the state. But, this is changing…

How are the POUs doing so far?
To gain a better understanding of how prepared the POUs are to meet the 33% RPS, we released a report last summer that analyzed the progress made by the top-ten largest POUs since 2003, and the degree to which these investments promoted the development of new renewable energy projects. For a quick summary of the report and its findings, you can check out my blog post or download the utility-specific fact sheets, which provide details on each POU’s investments.

We found that collectively, these utilities increased their clean energy investments from 4% to nearly 19% of retail electricity sales by the end of 2010. However, the degree to which these investments promoted the development of new clean energy resources varied significantly among the utilities. The graph to the right (click it for a larger view) shows how each utility has done so far.

Full steam ahead
Now that the RPS program rules have been adopted by the Energy Commission, the POUs have the regulatory certainty they need to start making renewable energy investments. Our report shows that for many POUs, investing in renewables is nothing new. But some will need to make a deliberate effort to get on board. For updates on how the POUs’ renewable energy and other clean energy investments are progressing, check out the Energy Commission’s “Tracking Progress” webpage.

The Energy Commission should be proud of the work accomplished so far to get the POU RPS program on its feet. There were many stakeholders including UCS involved in shaping these rules, and some of the issues were highly technical. It’s never easy to balance good policy development with the strong opinions of utilities and public interest groups, and the CEC struck a reasonable balance between allowing the POUs to autonomously develop their own programs, while ensuring all utilities in California are subject to the same rules and expectations. I look forward to watching the POUs play a larger role in our state’s clean energy transition.

Today, Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, in his maiden speech to the full Senate, clearly re-affirmed not only the importance of that mission but the feasibility of achieving it. Maiden speeches are a big deal for senators. Usually there is a watching and learning period before he or she feels it’s appropriate to address the world’s “greatest deliberative body.” Sen. Heinrich’s decision to emphasize science in such a personally significant speech is a welcome sign. Too often, elected officials ignore or dismiss science for political reasons. We know that’s a mistake. Instead, Sen. Heinrich made the fundamental connection between science, democracy and our prosperity crystal clear.

Here are some of the Senator’s words that compellingly state the case:

I applaud Senator Heinrich for committing himself in this work on behalf of his state and this country to starting with the facts and emphasizing that science is the starting point for reaching good policy solutions. Of course many other factors come into play as citizens and our elected officials form their views about critical issues facing each of us, our families, communities and the country. But starting with a common understanding of the scientific evidence is the first step in moving away from hyper-partisan rancor to reasonable, democratic dialogue and better decisions.

We can’t afford to lose sight of the evidence. We can’t afford to allow information to be hidden or obfuscated by politics or special interests.

Senator Heinrich, thank you. I am sure you will continue as you began—as a champion for science and public policy based on the facts. Just as our founding fathers intended.

With Warren Buffet behind the wind decision, (MidAmerican is a subsidiary of Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway), and a new financial model possibly cracking the nut on building owner and utility ambivalence about deep energy retrofits for commercial buildings, these are important developments.

To summarize what just happened:

1. The best-known investor in the utility arena is raising its stake in wind in Iowa $1.9 billion, adding 1,050 megawatts of wind generation to bring MidAmerican’s total wind generation capacity in Iowa by year-end 2015 to 3,335 megawatts, without raising rates. MidAmerican was the #1 utility owner of windpower in America in 2012.
2. MidAmerican is cancelling its pursuit of new small modular nuclear power options and refunding $8.8 million it was allowed to collect from ratepayers.  Company stated that the lack of certainty about the technology from potential manufactures hurt further investment.  MidAmerican also stated that it sees risks with more natural gas impacting the global climate, and uncertain costs that will fall on greenhouse gas sources.
3. Seattle City Light, the 10^th largest public power system, is contracting with a new firm, EnergyRM, for energy from making commercialbuildings  more efficient. The new approach can overcome the greatest obstacles to investing in energy efficiency in tenant-occupied buildings. The investor will own the energy savings, and pay rent to the building owner. The utility will buy the energy savings in a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), the same sort of contract used by independent power plants to sell electricty to utilities.

These are important deals, as they demonstrate what choices we have for getting off fossil fuels for electric power. Iowa has championed large-scale windfarms since 1983, creating a model for renewable electricity standards. Iowa has demonstrated how to ramp up renewables, and already uses wind for 25 percent of the electricity supply.  The new announcement will put the state at about 30percent windpower. MidAmerican apparently doesn’t see a problem with that level of wind, and has no plans to raise consumer rates as it increases its own supply of windpower.

On the conservation front, the Seattle deal addresses the basic objection by utilities to improving efficiency and customers needing less energy. Solving this objection with a better contracting approach opens a huge potential for meeting climate and energy goals.Commercial buildings use roughly one-third of the electricity in the U.S.  I wrote recently how the goal of a utility company to increase sales volume is in conflict with state policies for conservation and customer-owned renewables.  The utility lobby group Edison Electric Institute  has declared these popular policies for reducing climate-harming emissions look like a death spiral to utilities because they reduce utility revenues.

The deal piloted in Seattle uses a PPA for Metered Energy Efficiency. This is one of are several innovations that the utilities have to be happy about. In the PPA-style approach, the utility pays the developer for value of the delivered savings, and the building owner and utility customer continue to pay the utility the same amount for retail electric service. This is a change from the usual scenario where the utility revenues decline from efficiency investments.  This is similar to a Feed-In Tariff or the Value of Solar approach to rooftop solar pioneered by Austin Energy. To make this work for the building owner, they get payments from the investor, who is acting like a new tenant that is renting the walls, windows and pipes to make them more efficient.

These solutions clear the way for private investment in clean energy, reduce our use of fossil fuel, and keep the utility industry healthy despite the changes and challenges. Innovations that support new investment in our existing buildings, and capture clean energy available from farmers make sense. The news this week is, these also make dollars.  Your state utility commission should hear about these choices. The consumer is better off with wind and efficiency investments than with the uncertainties of natural gas or nuclear. Let them know.

Tampering with science behind the health effects of asbestos

For decades, however, some companies have fought efforts to regulate asbestos, even tampering with the science behind our understanding of its health effects. And, sadly, a recent court ruling indicates that the tampering may have been more widespread than anyone previously knew.

Last week, a New York Appeals Court ruled unanimously that that Georgia Pacific, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, must hand over internal documents pertaining to the publication of 11 studies published in reputable scientific journals between 2008 and 2012. At issue in the case: whether the firm can be held accountable for engaging in a “crime-fraud” by planting misinformation in these journals intending to show that the so-called chrysotile asbestos in its widely used joint compound doesn’t cause cancer.

Science falsely presented as independent research—with lawyers suggesting revisions

Here’s what we know. The articles were published in the following scientific journals: Inhalation Toxicology, The Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, and Risk Analysis. The studies were authored by conflicted experts who were hired by Georgia Pacific; the company’s lawyers were involved throughout the process and, even more alarming, these conflicts of interest were not disclosed in the studies. As a result, the articles in question were untruthfully presented as independent, bona fide research.

The court noted that the studies were intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile asbestos to cause cancer and that the authors did not disclose that Georgia Pacific’s lawyers participated in lengthy discussions of the manuscripts and suggested revisions. As Justice Richard Andrias wrote in the court ruling demanding the internal documents that will shed light on the extent of wrongdoing, “The public has an interest in resolving disputes on the basis of accurate information.”

The difference between funding for science and paying for specific scientific conclusions

Of course, there is no surprise that companies such as Georgia Pacific have scientists working on research. Private companies are a significant funder of science, especially as public funding options for scientists have decreased. But there is a bright line between the funding of science—whatever outcome it reaches—and paying scientists to reach a specific scientific conclusion. Such efforts to manufacture false scientific evidence as part of a legal or marketing strategy are reprehensible.

The process of science has both a logic and rhythm to it, from research and analysis, to peer review, comparison and publication for consideration by other scientists.  It is about discovery, building knowledge and understanding of the natural and human world.  Many in society— and many, many companies—have benefited from this open process of science.  But everyone is threatened when companies manipulate the scientific process itself in the name of marketing and profit—and, most disturbingly, when the actions put people directly at risk as they did in this case.

Ghost-writing scientific papers undermines science and threatens public safety

Asbestos is but one case of “ghost-writing” of counterfeit science for academic publications in an effort to market or cast doubt on scientific results.  Recently, the editors of the Public Library of Science (PloS) Medicine, a respected open-access scientific journal, published a series of articles highlighting how widespread the problem has become in the pharmaceutical field and the difficulties academic journals are facing as they try to combat the problem.

Perhaps the most telling article in the series was written by a former ghost-writer who detailed her company’s role in creating scientific papers and presentations solely as a marketing tool.  According to her account, her company was unconcerned about discovery and expanding knowledge, but rather sought to push its drugs to new markets – effective or not, dangerous or not.

As a scientist, it goes against my teaching and experience to accept that ghost-writing of fraudulent scientific papers in the name of commerce should be allowed to continue unabated. Not only does it undermine the entire scientific enterprise, it poses an enormous potential threat to the public. Everyone, knowingly or not, is affected by scientific evidence about what is safe, what can help or hurt them, and how best to keep their families safe.  Everyone makes choices, and should be free to do so, based on this information.

Deliberately falsifying science isn’t just a financial matter for shareholders and company managers.  It has real impacts—potential life-and-death impacts in the case of asbestos.  Companies: by all means, market your products; tell us why you think they are good choices.  But keep your lawyers, public relations, and marketing people out of the science we depend on.  There are lives at stake.

After years of political interference spanning four presidential terms, the FDA will soon be able to use the best available science in determining whether emergency contraception can be sold safely over the counter. Photo: Flickr user Josepha

I started working on this issue in 2005 when Dr. Susan Wood, then head of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health, resigned in protest over the Bush administration’s decision to overrule the scientific determinations of FDA staff and an independent advisory committee. The issue has had enough twists and turns to make your head spin.

It is sad how many thousands of hours and millions of dollars were spent over the past decade trying to get this decision right. It is sad how many unintended pregnancies and abortions could have been prevented had the FDA been allowed to do its job and make a science-based decision. And it is sad that both a Republican president and a Democratic president lacked the political will to disregard those who chose to misrepresent the science behind emergency contraception.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has a nice timeline of events through April 2012, which I won’t repeat. Here’s what’s happened since that date:

November 26, 2012: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that doctors preemptively give Plan B prescriptions to teens to overcome the unnecessary access barriers.

December 2012: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states its support of over-the-counter access.

December 7, 2012: UCS joins public health and other scientific organizations on a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius in urging the administration to revisit its decision.

April 7, 2013: Federal Judge Edward Korman orders the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make “Plan B” emergency contraception available to women of all ages without a prescription, calling efforts to stop the FDA from doing so “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”

April 30, 2013: The FDA fails to comply with the judge’s order, announcing it will approve sales for women fifteen years and older for sale on store shelves.

May 1, 2013: The Department of Justice appeals Judge Kornan’s ruling and requested that the ruling be suspended until the appeals court hears the case.

May 7, 2013: Judge Kornan hears oral arguments regarding the administration’s appeal and stay request, using the opportunity to rip into the administration’s flimsy arguments.

May 11, 2013: Judge Kornan refuses the administration’s request for a stay. The Obama administration subsequently asks the appeals court to delay implementation of Judge Kornan’s ruling.

June 5, 2013: The appeals court rules that the two-pill generic version of the drug should be available to women of all ages over the counter while the court considers the administration’s appeal of the one-pill brand name version.

June 10, 2013: The administration announces that it will drop its appeal and outlines plans to promptly approve the drug for over the counter sales.

It’s still possible, of course, that the administration will drag its feet when it comes to implementing the FDA’s decision to allow over the counter access to Plan B. And there may be unexpected hurdles that we haven’t even thought of.

But hopefully, we can now turn our attention to other problems that the Obama administration has with scientific integrity–such as the White House’s tendency to hold up science-based public protections it doesn’t like.