The EPA published a news release last week stating that fast food giant McDonald’s is number eleven on the EPA’s 2012 list of top 50 green-powered organizations.  I was intrigued by this.  Were they re-using their fry oil to create bio-diesel to run their supply trucks?  They have a guaranteed supply of used oil, that’s for sure.  (A little Googling reveals that, in fact, McDonald’s in some foreign countries are already doing this)  A little further digging on the EPA website revealed that McDonald’s spot in the top 50 was earned through the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from U.S. wind sources.  Renewable energy certificates are tradable energy commodities representing proof that 1 megawatt-hour of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source.  Whether they are truly using green power depends on how you define “use.”  In addition to the purchase of RECs, McDonald’s has also worked on reducing energy consumption via energy efficiency initiatives and technical innovations, including the installation of photovoltaic panels and energy efficient lighting in some restaurants.

 A further look at the top 50 list revealed some interesting (to me) entries.  WalMart is number four on the list, getting 28% of their total electricity use in California and Texas stores from biogas, solar and wind energy.  Lockheed Martin is number fifteen, getting 15% of their total electricity use from solar and wind energy. Boeing of South Carolina (#36 on the list) comes in at 100% of their total electricity use from biomass and solar energy, with some generated on-site.  Carnegie Mellon University (#40 on the list) appears to actually be giving back (or buying) extra green energy, as, according to the EPA list, it gets 103% of its total electricity use from solar and wind energy, again with some generated on-site.  Leave it to an educational institution to get “extra credit.”

 While all of the entries on the list may not actually be using green energy, to me, it’s a step in the right direction.  While I’m sure the merits of using RECs, as well as what kind and how much, run deeper than this blog will get in to, the bottom line is that something is better than nothing.  While companies may strive to produce their own power or recycle/reuse their water, that is not always attainable or profitable for them.  As always, profit is the bottom line.  Until that changes (not likely) or until the company’s users push for a change (and are willing to pay for it), companies will do what they can.  So, next time you pull through the McDonald’s drive-thru for some french fries, be it in your Hummer, Smart Car or something in between, remember that a little bit of green power was used to help make them.

Required by the Clean Air Act, and beating a court deadline, the US EPA issued a news release on April 18, 2012 stating that they have finalized air pollution standards related to oil and natural gas production. The updated standards are a result of input from the industry, public, public health groups and states. These include the first federal air rules for hydraulically fractured natural gas wells, and rules for emissions from storage tanks and other equipment.

The EPA estimates that the updated standards will save the industry $11 to $19 million annually.

Based on information collected from public comments, the updated standards establish a phase-in period to ensure that the necessary emissions-reduction technology is widely available. During the phase-in, until January 2015, natural gas well operators must flare their emissions or use “green completions” technologies that are already used at many wells. In 2015, the EPA will require each new fractured well to use green completions. This will not require new federal permits.

Costs to implement the updated standards are reduced as they are achievable with cost-effective, widely-available technologies combined with processes already used by an estimated 50% of fractured natural gas wells across the US. The combination will not only reduce harmful emissions by 95%, but will allow operators to sell additional natural gas collected.

During the production of natural gas, some gas escapes, causing air pollution. The updated standards require that operators capture the gas, which the operators can then sell, offsetting the cost of compliance. And, as approximately 13,000 wells are fractured or re-fractured each year, it is expected that reducing methane – the primary component of natural gas – will greatly benefit the environment.

It is the EPA’s goal that these standards will expand production of clean energy in the US while reducing negative impacts to public health.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson states, "The president has been clear that he wants to continue to expand production of important domestic resources like natural gas, and today’s standard supports that goal while making sure these fuels are produced without threatening the health of the American people. By ensuring the capture of gases that were previously released to pollute our air and threaten our climate, these updated standards will not only protect our health, but also lead to more product for fuel suppliers to bring to market. They're an important step toward tapping future energy supplies without exposing American families and children to dangerous health threats in the air they breathe.”

For more information, check out the EPA Web site.

After years of research and analysis, the US Environmental Protection Agency has finally passed the first Clean Air Act standard for future power plants. The rule is a step towards creating cleaner energy and decreasing pollution levels generated by the energy sector. The new standard is a result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision in the case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, wherein several states sued the EPA to force the agency to begin regulating air pollution caused by carbon dioxide (CO₂) and greenhouse gases.

The Clean Air Act will only apply to future power plants, but even these can qualify for exemption. According to the EPA, the passed standard would exclude: new plants that have permits and plan to begin construction within the next 12 months; power plants renewing permits that are already a part of a Department of Energy demonstration project; plants that will not burn any fossil fuels; and any power plants not located in the continental US.

The Clean Air Act is a standard based on compromise with the energy sector, allowing for slower change over the long term, if at all, where necessary. The EPA already believes that most of the new natural gas combined cycle units (95% of them) will not need to adjust at all to meet the carbon pollution standard. Further to that, any new power plants that plan to employ a carbon capture and storage scheme will not need to meet the pollution cap average each year, as long as the plant’s 30 year average is lower than the proposed standard’s average over the same period of time.

According to ThinkProgress.org, the carbon pollution rule sets the standard at no more than 1,000 pounds of CO₂ per megawatt hour of electricity that is produced. Average natural gas units only emit approximately 800-850 pounds, while coal plants emit over 1,700 pounds of CO₂ per MWh. While this is well above the EPA’s standard, it does not apply to already existing plants, and new plants have a wider range of technology available to help them meet this standard.

While the new Clean Air Act for carbon pollution is a landmark piece of regulation in that it is one of the first federal rules for CO₂ pollution, it will be another 30 years before it can be determined successful or not. Furthermore, the public and health sector demand for cleaner energy has already resulted in the energy sector searching for cleaner solutions to air and waste pollution and a departure from such heavy coal and oil dependency, without the EPA passing a rule for it.

Sunday, April 22 is the 42^nd celebration of Earth Day. While the very early celebrations of Earth Day helped to bring about such watershed changes as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the day has continued to be important as a way to disseminate knowledge and appreciation for the environment. There are bound to be local celebrations and initiatives for you to participate in wherever you live, but there are also national and global initiatives.

A Billion Acts of Green® is an environmental service campaign started in 2011 by the Earth Day Network. It gives people a place to pledge a commitment they’ve made to help the earth. Recent entries include, “I pledge to reduce my use of products with disposable packaging.” And, “I pledge to plant an herb garden on my balcony.” The goal is to reach 1 billion “Acts of Green” by the June 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. There are currently over 980 million pledges.

This year’s push by the Earth Day Network is to Mobilize the Earth™. It is a campaign to “demand action from the world’s governments to embrace renewable energy, invest in energy efficiency, end dirty fuel subsidies, and make energy accessible to all.” The goal is to assemble the necessary support, through actions like petitions and voter registration, to present their demands at the June 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro.

Whether you plan to do something large or something simple, like turning the water off while you brush your teeth, I think it is important to remember all of these pledges and promises the rest of the year as well. Oftentimes there is a big push on a celebratory day, like Earth Day, to do something “big” or “meaningful” (the same could be said of Valentine’s Day). Unfortunately, after the excitement and fervor of the crowd is gone, so is the incentive to follow through on any pledges that were signed or promises that were made. The Earth Day Network seems to be trying to keep the spirit going, but, as always, is up to the individual to follow through on their own pledges and promises. So please, celebrate Earth Day on Sunday, but remember to celebrate it throughout the year, too.

In the largest-ever fine handed down under the 1994 Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Environment and Resources Management (DERM) has fined the former owners, Copperco, Ltd., of the Lady Annie Mine A$500,000 for causing serious harm to the environment after discharging contaminated water from the mine site.

The Mt. Isa Magistrates Court imposed an additional A$83,110 for investigative costs.

The fines came on top of the A$11 million DERM had already obligated the mine's former owning entit to spend in cleanup and rehabilitation costs associated with what has been called the most serious water contamination in Queensland history.

During the wet season of 2009, the company had an uncontrolled release of highly toxic, acidic water into stormwater ponds and creeks that extended for 52 kilometers, killing freshwater crabs and fish in its wake. Complaints also came from downstream landholders that the water might harm livestock. The floods had exceeded the design capacity of Lady Annie stormwater ponds.

The Lady Annie Mine is located 120 kilometers northwest of Mt. Isa in Queensland, Australia, and from it Copperco had planned to produce 19 to 25 thousand tons of copper per year. Copperco was forced to put the mine up for sale to fund the cleanup. In 2010, Hong Kong's CST Mining Group, Ltd. purchased the site for A$135 million.

The Lady Annie Mine decision concludes actions against mines in the North West for serious breaches of the Environmental Protection Act. Actions against other mining entities included MMG Century, Ltd., which was fined A$130,000, and the Ernst Henry Mine, which was fined A$100,000 in the aftermath of the 2008/2009 wet season.

There is increased pressure, both legislatively and socially, for companies – and not just those in the EH&S sphere – to decrease their carbon footprint and implement more “green” workplace policies. Most employers can implement something as simple as a recycling program with little trouble, but few are willing to take on the expense of installing solar panels in their office space, for example. So what’s a company to do that wants a reduced carbon footprint at minimal cost, and with benefit to the bottom line?

One possible solution is implementing an employee telework initiative. According to the Telework Research Network, half-time telework (defined as employees working remotely 2-3 days a week) can accomplish the following:

• Reduce Gulf Oil imports by 45%.
• Save 281 million barrels of oil worth $22 billion in oil imports.
• Reduce carbon emissions by over 51 million metric tons a year (the equivalent of taking all of New York’s commuters off the road!)
• Reduce office energy consumption, roadway repairs, urban heating, office construction, business travel, and paper usage.
• Reduce road wear and tear (and associated repair costs) by 112 billion miles a year.

In addition,

• 70% of employees report they would see their companies in a more favorable light if they helped them reduce their carbon emissions.
• 24% of employees say they’d take a pay cut of up to 10% to help the environment.

Sun Microsystems reported that 19,000 U.S. employees (approximately 56% of their workforce) participated in their Open Work Program and avoided producing 52,000 tons of CO₂-equivalents emissions in 2008 by driving less often to and from work.

AT&T’s telework program enabled the employees who participated to avoid 175 million commute miles per year, with annual fuel savings of approximately 8 million gallons and a net reduction of 76,273 metric tons of CO₂-equivalents emissions per year.

A telework initiative also can be a way to cheaply implement some Clean Air Act requirements, as well as ADA accommodations for disabled employees.

How can you, as an employer, simply and easily initiate a telework program for your employees? There are many free resources available:

• The Telework Research Network has a Telework Savings Calculator so companies can quantify the potential cost savings
• ValleyMetro – the public transportation provider for the Phoenix metro area – has multiple tools available, such as a Cost-Benefit Analysis, sample telework plans and policies, and a free webinar. 
• The State of Arizona, long a proponent of telework policies, also has free online training available.

Maybe it’s easy to be green after all!

On April 2, 2012, Oakland, CA-based Solar Trust of America, LLC filed for Chapter 11 protection in a US Bankruptcy Court in Delaware (Case No. 12-11136). The company's Chief Operating Officer, Edward Kleinschmidt, stated that the company had missed two quarterly rent payments to the Bureau of Land Management, and was unable to make further payments that were coming due.

Solar Trust owns the development rights for the Blythe Solar Power Project as well as three other projects under development in the Southeastern California desert. The company listed assets of up to $10 million and debts of up to $100 million.

By far the largest enterprise, the Blythe Solar Project is a 7000-acre site dedicated to producing nearly 1000 megawatts of electric power, enough to supply about 300,000 homes, utilizing Concentrated Solar Power technology. CSP concentrates the sun's radiation into troughs of parabolic mirrors that superheat fluid-filled tubes resting at the center of the troughs. The tubing conveys the heat to a boiler, which in turn runs a turbine, producing electricity. The power produced was to go through a 230 kW transmission line to the Devers-Palo Verde #2 500 kV line on the Colorado River.

Initiated with great fanfare on June 17, 2011, at a ceremony attended by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and California Governor Jerry Brown, the project was to have created 1000 construction jobs, 3000 supply-chain jobs and 220 permanent jobs. Solar Trust also received a conditional commitment for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy (DOE), one of the largest ever granted.

The project had been inconvenienced initially by lawsuits brought by environmentalists and Native American communities, and its German parent, Solar Millennium, LLC was required to provide funding for more than 8000 acres of habitat for the desert tortoise, and other species endangered by the presence of the project.

In August, 2011, Solar Trust abruptly changed its rollout plans from CSP to photovoltaic (PV) production, reacting to plunging PV panel prices. During this strategic shift, the company lost its access to the massive DOE loan guarantee.

In December, 2011, Germany's Solar Millennium, a 70% stakeholder in Solar Trust, sought court protection. Solar Millennium attempted to sell its stake in Solar Trust to solarhybrid AG [sic]; however, that company went belly up as well. Millennium and solarhybrid both fell victim to subsidy cuts and equipment oversupply in the German market.

Ferrostaal AG owns the other 30% of Solar Trust, but has not made any financial contributions in the past two years.

Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources, LLC stepped up to provide financing and has expressed an interest in becoming an initial bidder for Solar Trust's assets, which include essential permits and a connection agreement with Southern California Edison's power grid. SCE has committed to $200 million in network upgrades. The Blythe project must come up with $27 million to support this connection agreement, and COO Kleinschmidt intimated that lenders, including NextEra, are poised to put up the money for those payments. According to Kleinschmidt, losing the connection agreement with SCE would render the entire project valueless.

Both federal and state energy goals were invested in the Blythe Solar Project. It would have impacted the Obama Administration's goal to have 80% of US energy production from renewable sources by 2035. It would have had even greater impact on California's mandated goal to have 33% of its energy production from renewables by 2020. Being the only city within 100 miles of the project, Blythe, CA, would have benefited by the influx of jobs.

There has been some misinformation posted on several blogs making comparisons between Solar Trust and Solyndra. Unlike Solyndra, a solar panel company that declared bankruptcy in 2011 owing $528 million to the US government, Solar Trust never finalized its federal loan guarantee. Solar Trust was actually paying rent to the federal government's Bureau of Land Management before its Chapter 11 filing.

Solar Trust of America, tragically, ran a gamut replete with a turn in the renewable energy market in Germany, lawsuits, and change of strategy that cost the company its government funding. The project still has the potential of bettering local economies and providing a source of cheap, clean energy. Hopefully, the entrepreneurial spirit has not left the California desert and someone will step up to continue the project in the near future.

While the debate continues on the viability of renewable energy on a national level, one community in Minnesota has shown that it can create a well-functioning renewable source of energy on a smaller scale. Through a combination of biomass fuel production, wind energy, and water reclamation, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) is able to power the town through sustainable energy, reducing its dependency on oil production and natural gas.

As the SMSC’s Web site points out, the Dakota phrase for earth is “Unci Maka,” which literally translates to “Grandmother Earth.” With this focus on the close relationship with the earth, the SMSC has taken several important strides towards environmentally friendly energy resources.

One of the biggest steps has been the construction of the Koda Energy plant, which burns malting and food processing byproducts, raw materials such as wood chips and sawdust, biosolids, and dry grasses. The burned biomass generates approximately 12.5 – 24.1 megawatts of electricity. Waste heat created from the electrical generation is put to use by Rahr Malting, one of Koda’s partners and a main source for the biomass material. Excess energy that is not used by Rahr or the SMSC is sold to Xcel Energy and placed back on the grid.

A wind turbine also provides a primary energy source for the Shakopee Community. The 1.5 megawatts of energy created by the wind turbine are metered at the nearby Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative and later sold to Basin Energy, the supplier for MVEC. While the Community is located in a low-wind site, the wind turbine generates enough energy during high-wind periods that energy can be stored for use during low-wind periods.

Water reclamation has been an important interest area for the SMSC over the past twenty years. Until 2006, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community had to make use of an older regional government facility for its sewer system.

This created several problems. First, the facility dumped waste directly into the Minnesota River, acting as a leading cause of water pollution in the area. Second, because the sewer system was outsourced to the other facility, the Community was required to make formal requests for extra units whenever new housing was built. But in 2005, the SMSC was able to begin building its own Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).

With the help of the current WRF, the Community is able to use treated effluent for irrigation purposes, and as a result has reduced groundwater use by 35 million gallons per year. The facility can also boast the latest technology in water reclamation by using biologically aerated filtration systems to clean the reclaimed water. Biosolids that are left after the water has been treated and removed to the irrigation system are dried, compressed, and used as fertilizer at the local golf resort and farms.

While technology continues to make energy sources such as solar and wind power a more manageable solution to oil and gas, the latter options still dominate the national fuel and energy sectors due to the immediate availability of cheap energy on a larger scale. However, as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community has shown, a combination of energy resources can reduce almost 100 percent of a small area’s dependency on oil and natural gas.

San Francisco, CA. Horizon Lines, LLC was fined $1,500,000 after pleading guilty to two felony charges of making false statements concerning the Oil Record Book for their vessel, S/S Horizon Enterprise. Instead of maintaining an accurate account of all oil transfers and discharges, ship engineers sabotaged pollution control equipment, which normally ensures oily waste is not discharged into the ocean. To hide this from the US Coast Guard during routine inspections, engineers covered their tracks by making false entries in the Oil Record Book stating they had operated equipment correctly and in compliance with both international and national oil pollution laws. Horizon Lines has admitted that this practice occurred for a number of years.

US Attorney Melinda Haag stated, “Horizon’s intentional tampering with its pollution control equipment showed a blatant disregard for the environment. This case demonstrates our commitment to enforcing US and international oil pollution laws to protect our natural resources.”

The $1,500,000 is a plea agreement, with $500,000 going towards environmental projects in the San Francisco area. Horizon Lines must also implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan to reduce the chance of repeating this behavior on any vessel in their fleet.

The charges and plea agreement are the result of a joint investigation conducted by the EPA’s Criminal Investigative Division and US Coast Guard Investigative Services.

“We are pleased this case has been resolved, but even more satisfied to hear the company is taking steps to prevent any further incidents of pollution,” said Cynthia Stowe, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of San Francisco. “US Coast Guard inspectors and investigators are hard at work each and every day inspecting ships for compliance with environmental protection laws and regulations. When violations are found, we will continue to work closely with our partners to ensure violators are brought to justice and steps are taken to protect and restore the maritime ecosystems and natural resources important to the environmental and economic health of our nation and coastal communities.”

Facebook is in the news again.  But this time it’s not what the social media giant is doing, but what Facebook users are being asked to do.  Stories surfaced a few weeks ago about employers asking potential employees for their Facebook username and password.  There is no question that savvy employers are using simple searches on the internet to find out what potential employees are up to.  But asking for their username and password crosses a boundary that most people are uncomfortable with, as well as bringing up questions about the legality of the practice.  Given the still shaky job market, many people feel that they have no choice but to surrender this private information in order to get a job.

All of this lands us in the murky waters of internet regulation.  Facebook released a statement warning employers against the practice of asking for Facebook passwords. Two U.S. senators are working to get this practice under control.  Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate these claims under the argument that the practice violates the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  In addition, Senator Leland Yee of California plans to sponsor a bill that would stop employers from asking potential employees for their social network passwords.

I think it’s interesting that employers are prohibited by state and federal laws from asking about your race, religion, marital status, age, or sexual preference, yet these are all things that are available in your Facebook profile.  These laws have not yet caught up with social media.  Catherine Crump, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “I think it’s going to take some years for courts to decide whether Americans in the digital age have the same privacy rights.”  I wonder if we’ll look back on this in five or ten years and think it was no big deal.  We are certainly in uncharted territory as far as social media and what may be considered crossing the line.  What seems outrageous to adults now may seem like nothing to kids who have grown up with the technology that lets them share minute details of their lives.  When they enter the workforce, maybe it won’t be such a big issue for them.  What do you think?