Category Archives: ALPHA

What does Puerto Rico’s utility privatization mean for solar?

by ArnoldXMLW Posted on June 29, 2018

It’s official: Puerto Rico’s beleaguered, bankrupt, and possibly corrupt power utility is being privatized. The U.S. territory was battered by Hurricane Maria nine months ago, and many homes remain without power amid a deeply flawed recovery effort.

Puerto Rico gets an enormous percentage of its electricity from fossil fuels. In 2016, the territory pulled just 2 percent of its power from renewables and a whopping 98 percent from fossil fuels. These fuels have to be imported, since Puerto Rico has no on-island sources for coal, petroleum, or natural gas, which raises their cost considerably.

It seems like the perfect opportunity to rebuild with cleaner sources of power. And after the storm, communities and companies stepped in with solar arrays and even a solar microgrid. So, what does privatization mean for the territory’s burgeoning installments of solar energy?

Selling the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) could be beneficial for solar, says Masaō Ashtine, who researches energy systems in the Caribbean. The change “will give more power to the industry to plan for renewable energy,” Ashtine says. Privatization could remove the red tape associated with public utility companies, he argues, and thus streamline the energy delivery process.

But others say that it has the potential to make things worse. PREPA’s workers’ union has protested that privatization will likely lead to higher energy prices with few improved services. Puerto Rican customers already pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country and experience an enormous number of service outages.

And, with more influence and control, the industry could leave some of the most promising community energy projects behind. “There’s no talk of community solar in the privatization bill,” says Frederico de Jesus, an affiliate of the advocacy coalition Power4PuertoRico. “They’re putting all their faith in the private companies.”

Arturo Massol-Deyá, the director of community organization at solar hub Casa Pueblo, is doubtful that the newly privatized utility will engage with community groups or with citizens more broadly. “Decisions by PREPA have been made with limited participation of the public, and I think with privatization that’s going to get worse,” he says.

The new bill also weakens the role of Puerto Rico’s Energy Commission, which for the past four years has served as a check on PREPA’s profligate spending and poor management. Without an independent regulatory board like the commission, de Jesus told me, Puerto Ricans face an uncertain future — both in terms of energy pricing and the future of renewables.

But advocates say they will continue to push forward with microgrids and renewables, with or without government support. Although Puerto Rico officials have proposed modest energy goals — 20 percent renewables by 2035 — recent projections from researchers at University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez say that the island has enough solar, wind, biomass, and hydropower potential to generate 200 percent of its needed electricity. And solar is on the front lines.

“Privatization is almost a false choice,” says de Jesus. “There can be a public monopoly or private monopoly. But a decentralized system with microgrids would do a lot to solve these problems.”

Massol-Deyá agrees. Casa Pueblo, he points out, has been running on solar since 1999, and an increasing number of businesses and other community centers are following suit. “Whether it’s in public or private hands, we need to move away from fossil fuel dependency,” he argues. “It’s a matter of changing our obsolete energy system.”

Visit source:  

What does Puerto Rico’s utility privatization mean for solar?

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What does Puerto Rico’s utility privatization mean for solar?

Hurry! Only a few days left to apply for Grist’s fall fellowship.

by NoellaMpylvh Posted on June 29, 2018

Want to flex your skills as a journalist and get paid? You have a few days left to apply for Grist’s fall 2018 fellowship. The deadline is Monday, July 9, 2018.

If you’re just now hearing about the fellowship, here’s the deal: We’re looking for early-career journalists to come work with us for six-month stints. This time around, we’re looking for all-stars in three areas: news, environmental justice, and video. You’ll find a full program description and application requirements here.

Our past fellows are continuing to do high-impact work. Emma Foehringer Merchant has you covered on all things energy and policy at Greentech Media. Sabrina Imbler makes consumers smarter about upcycled bananas and lots more at The Wirecutter, a New York Times Company. Vishakha Darbha, a digital fellow at Mother Jones, produces videos on forced family separations and other of-the-moment topics. Raven Rakia recently received a Livingston Award finalist nod for her powerful piece on The Intercept about women visitors at Rikers Island jail complaining of invasive searches. And break out the bubbly: Recent environmental justice fellow Justine Calma just joined Grist as a staff writer.

So what are you waiting for? Oh, right, the last possible minute. As long as we receive your application by 11:59 p.m. PT on July 9, no judgment here.

Continued:  

Hurry! Only a few days left to apply for Grist’s fall fellowship.

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Ringer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hurry! Only a few days left to apply for Grist’s fall fellowship.

Losing Justice Kennedy puts fundamental environmental protections in peril

by LethaMary9021219 Posted on June 28, 2018

In a letter hand-delivered to President Trump on Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement after 30 years on the Supreme Court.

Trump has already hinted at a list of potential replacements — all of whom are likely to side with the court’s now clear conservative majority. Kennedy has been the swing vote for decades. And without his moderating influence, advocates of the environment will face a steep challenge in winning over a majority of the justices.

With time quickly running out before the world locks in dangerous levels of climate change, that’s a frightening proposition. A more conservative-leaning court could make broad modifications to U.S. law that could last for decades. With environmental protections weakened, future presidents who want to take action on climate will have a much tougher time making lasting policy decisions.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that, when it comes to climate change and environmental protection, the next Supreme Court justice’s opinions will have consequences that are planetary in scope.

Since the implications of a solidly conservative Supreme Court are so far-reaching, Grist reached out to several environmental law experts to learn which specific rulings and regulations could be most at risk. Responses were lightly edited for clarity.

Massachusetts vs. EPA: Gives the government authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Justice Kennedy was in the majority on Massachusetts v. EPA. It would be quite something if a new court, by a 5-4 decision, opted to reverse such recent precedent. But given what we have seen in the last few days [from the Supreme Court], it’s not impossible to see it happening.

—Michael Burger, Columbia University Law School

The Clean Air Act and climate protections are most at risk. Kennedy was the deciding vote on Massachusetts v. EPA, which reaffirmed the Clean Air Act as the most important mechanism for regulating greenhouse pollution economy-wide. We’re one vote away from losing fundamental protections for our climate.

—Kassie Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity

“Waters of the United States” Rule: Provides protection to some wetlands.

The Trump Administration’s proposal to rescind the Obama-era Waters of the United States Rule — which would curtail the federal government’s authority to limit pollution in wetlands and other smaller bodies of water under the Clean Water Act — may well ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s replacement will influence how we protect our air and water, as well as how we respond to climate change, for generations to come.

—Augusta Wilson, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

Clean Power Plan: Limits greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

I’m particularly concerned about the regulations that the Trump administration will introduce to replace Obama-era climate protections — for example the replacement to the Clean Power Plan. The administration will no doubt be gutting some of these rules and potentially violating statutory mandates in the process. It’s much more likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the replacement rules with another Trump nominee replacing Kennedy.

—Jessica Wentz, Columbia University Law School

​There is a good chance that the new justice will go along with the other conservative justices in narrowly reading the regulatory authority that statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act give to EPA and other federal agencies. This could be bad news if the next President tries to revive something like the Clean Power Plan, which was widely portrayed as pushing the envelope of EPA’s authority — an issue the courts still haven’t decided.

—Michael B. Gerrard, Columbia University Law School

Standing: Allows plaintiffs to bring environmental grievances to court more often.

My main concern is how the newly configured court will interpret environmental groups’ standing to sue to enforce federal laws. Justice Kennedy had a nuanced take on standing, and it is likely that Trump’s nominees will have a more blunt approach, one that seeks to significantly curtail the ability of these groups to get into court.

—Burger

The future for environmental laws or standards:

Litigation is often the only option for those seeking to protect air and water and ensure public input on the value of sensitive ecosystems, endangered species, other wildlife species, and for those wanting to preserve important national landscapes. My general thought is that Kennedy was the last bulwark of reasonableness against the Trump Administration’s environmental onslaught. Every environmental lawyer I know is incredibly fearful of what this retirement will mean for the future of environmental protection in the United States.

—Hillary Hoffmann, Vermont Law School

I think just about any environmental rule that makes its way to the Supreme Court after Kennedy’s successor is appointed will be in jeopardy. We already have four hyper-conservative justices who tend to vote along ideological/party lines — and antipathy towards regulation, particularly environmental regulation, is a core part of that ideology. I have no doubt that Trump will nominate another conservative justice who shares his anti-regulation agenda. Through this justice, Trump will be able to continue advancing his deregulatory agenda for years after he his presidency ends.

—Wentz

View article – 

Losing Justice Kennedy puts fundamental environmental protections in peril

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, ONA, Thayer, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Losing Justice Kennedy puts fundamental environmental protections in peril

Trump’s new tariffs could make America suck again for coal miners

by MargeneNeudorf Posted on June 28, 2018

One of President Trump’s new policies is making America less great for the very people he promised to make it great for: coal miners and fossil fuel executives.

Back in March, Trump decided to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum imports — 25 percent on the former, 10 percent on the latter. To no one’s surprise, the two industries in question are pretty overjoyed. You know who’s less enthused? Almost everyone else — particularly U.S. coal miners, who say the levies are dousing China’s appetite for American coal with a bucket of lukewarm water.

And coal isn’t the only sector steeling itself against a trade fallout. Trump’s zeal to boost production in steel country is backfiring on the fossil fuel industry, just as people predicted. Let’s take a closer look:

At the 2018 World Gas Conference on Monday, the CEOs of the biggest oil giants in the world, ExxonMobil’s Darren Woods and Chevron’s Michael Wirth, said the tariffs will likely slow oil and gas growth — right smack in the middle of a pretty historic shale oil and gas boom. The tariffs “run the risk of making [energy] projects less competitive,” Woods said. That’s because the tariffs raise the costs of materials for new pipelines and liquified natural gas facilities.
Last year, Trump and China’s president, Xi Jinping, agreed to build something called the Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub — a multi-billion dollar project composed of an enormous network of pipelines, gas processing facilities, and below-ground storage. If built, the hub would sprawl from Pennsylvania all the way to Kentucky, and it would be the biggest infrastructure project in Appalachia to date. But Trump’s new tariffs, and a possible ensuing trade war, have put the project in jeopardy because they could cost China billions of additional dollars.
America’s coal industry isn’t doing so hot domestically, but coal exports are going through something of a boom right now. Guess what Beijing just put on a list of U.S. products that could get hit with Chinese tariffs, thanks to Trump’s dedication to aluminum and steel? Yep — coal. The tariffs also put a major deal between a big Chinese coal importer and two U.S.-based companies on the rocks. The deal concerned 1 million tons of coal exports per year.

Well, there you have it. Who woulda thunk Trump would be the person to get in the way of his own dumb plan?

View original post here:

Trump’s new tariffs could make America suck again for coal miners

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s new tariffs could make America suck again for coal miners

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring. Here’s what that means for the environment.

by MichaelMahony Posted on June 27, 2018

Anthony Kennedy is retiring, and progressives around the country are trying not to freak out. The 81-year-old justice, who has served on the Supreme Court since 1988, has been a crucial swing vote on many issues from abortion to gay marriage to campaign finance. And — for better or worse — he has also been the deciding vote on environmental issues for the past three decades.

As a moderate on an increasingly divided court, Kennedy has been in the majority in an outstanding number of environmental cases. As Lewis and Clark environmental law professor Michael Blumm writes, “Advocates in environmental cases must tailor their arguments to win his vote or risk losing their appeals.”

Over his 30-year tenure, Kennedy — who was once called by the New York Times an “equal opportunity disappointer” — has been a mixed bag for environmentalists.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the most consequential ruling on climate change in the past two decades, Kennedy was the swing vote. The state of Massachusetts had challenged the EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gases, despite profound and convincing evidence that they are harmful to human health and well-being.

Kennedy joined the four liberal justices, arguing that the EPA would have to treat CO2 like any other pollutant, unless the Bush-era agency provided “scientific basis” for its reasoning. Although he didn’t write the majority opinion, without him — or with a more staunchly conservative justice in his place — we might still be fighting to have CO2 recognized as a pollutant at all.

On the other side of spectrum, Kennedy, again as the swing vote, tempered his support for the EPA by aligning with conservatives in the 2014 decision on Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, joining the late Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion. The majority argued that while the EPA could continue to place limits on CO2 emissions from large stationary pollution sources like power plants, the administration could not regulate smaller sources like schools, apartment buildings, or businesses.

In 2006, a Michigan property owner, John Rapanos, faced criminal charges from the EPA for draining and filling in potentially protected wetlands with earth. Conservative justices wanted to dramatically restrict the definition for wetlands — which would have decimated protected areas across the country.

Kennedy’s decisive opinion in the case, Rapanos v. United States, established a new standard which protected all wetlands that are part of a “significant nexus” of navigable waters. It was a win for environmentalists — but one that still significantly restricted wetland protection under the Clean Water Act.

Despite his mixed record, any replacement for Kennedy will likely have a much, much worse record on environmental issues. Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment — and the son of a former EPA administrator to whom current chief Scott Pruitt has garnered frequent comparisons —  has been an opponent of many Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act protections throughout his career. Some of the other members on Trump’s initial shortlist carried even more alarming disregard both for issues of civil liberties and for the environment. And Kennedy has, at times, provided the much-needed fifth vote to reject restrictions on abortion rights, with significant impacts for both women’s health and our environmental future.

It remains to be seen exactly what the new justice will think of the EPA, clean air protections, and climate change, but the conservative-liberal split on the court will significantly change for the first time in decades. Environmentalists may have gotten lucky with Kennedy’s moderate support of CO2 regulation and protecting wetlands — and chances are their luck has run out.

“I’m fearful,” Blumm, the law professor, told Grist. “And I think all people who watch the court and care about the environment should be fearful.”

Read article here:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring. Here’s what that means for the environment.

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, ONA, OXO, Thayer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring. Here’s what that means for the environment.

With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, Congress will likely gain a new climate champion

by VDCTraceeap Posted on June 27, 2018

On Tuesday night, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez toppled a 10-term Congressman from New York City in a landslide Democratic primary victory. The shocking result virtually assures that the U.S. Congress will welcome its youngest female member ever next year.

The upset win also essentially guarantees that Ocasio-Cortez will bring with her the boldest climate platform of any representative in history.

Ocasio-Cortez, who was without a Wikipedia page on Monday, unseated Joe Crowley, the 20-year representative of New York’s 14th Congressional District who was vying to become the next Speaker of the House. The New York Times, her hometown newspaper, didn’t even cover the race. CNN called the victory “a real wakeup call for Democrats.”

Ocasio-Cortez said her triumph was “the start of a movement.” As a millennial woman of color, she’s already been referred to as the future of the Democratic Party.

Since her district, which comprises parts of Queens and the Bronx, is among the most strongly Democratic in the country, the general election in November likely will not be competitive. Pending the results of other elections across the country, Ocasio-Cortez seems almost certain to join Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as one of the few socialists ever elected to Congress.

Among her many progressive bona fides, it’s really her plan for tackling climate change that deserves the most attention.

In one of her first campaign tweets on the topic of climate change, more than one year ago, Ocasio-Cortez framed the issue as an “existential threat” — one that young people should be taking the lead on.

Ocasio-Cortez is one of the first American politicians to put forward a climate change plan that would keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

To meet that goal while leaving space for developing countries to move at a slower pace, independent assessments suggest that the United States needs to reduce its emissions by approximately 75 to 125 percent or more — actually drawing carbon dioxide out of the air — by 2035. Ocasio-Cortez hopes to move the entire country to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. Even Bernie Sanders’ climate plan didn’t set such an ambitious goal.

The crash carbon diet would require “the complete mobilization of the American workforce to combat climate change,” as Ocasio-Cortez told HuffPost reporter Alexander Kaufman.

On her campaign’s website, she summarizes the danger that climate change poses to the planet:

Climate change is the single biggest national security threat for the United States and the single biggest threat to worldwide industrialized civilization, and the effects of warming can be hard to predict and self-reinforcing. We need to avoid a worldwide refugee crisis by waging a war for climate justice through the mobilization of our population and our government. This starts with the United States being a leader on the actions we take both globally and locally.

According to Ocasio-Cortez, such an effort would cost “trillions of dollars,” but would “not only save our planet from the ravages of climate change but would also lift millions of Americans out of poverty.”

It’s an audacious plan that’s easy to dismiss as wishful thinking. But last night’s results just brought Ocasio-Cortez’s vision a step closer to reality.

Read the article: 

With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, Congress will likely gain a new climate champion

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, Congress will likely gain a new climate champion

Big Oil touts offshore drilling jobs to communities most harmed by oil

by TresaBrickhouse Posted on June 27, 2018

Earlier this month, the American Petroleum Institute, the biggest U.S. trade organization for oil and gas, launched a bipartisan effort to reach out to diverse communities across the Southeastern U.S. The group touts offshore drilling jobs for African American and Latino workers.

“We want to build support in minority communities because the message that increasing the supply of affordable energy and good paying jobs will resonate,” API’s Erik Milito told Reuters.

While the oil and gas lobby is billing offshore drilling as an economic boon, environmental justice leaders caution that it’s pedaling dangerous work to the very communities that Big Oil has hurt the most.

“We used to call that economic extortion — in order to have a job you needed to be in a dirty job,” says Jose Bravo, the executive director of the Just Transition Alliance. Bravo, who organizes for clean jobs in California, says he’s seen decades of false promises by the fossil fuel industry.

Refineries located near neighborhoods of color often promise to hire locally, he says, but then bring on employees from out of town. And oil jobs can be risky.

“There’s a lot of potential damage both to the planet and to health,” Bravo says, citing the Deepwater Horizon explosion off the coast of Louisiana that killed 11 people in 2010. He also points out that the damage eventually makes its way back to land: “Historically, when we bring that oil onshore, we’re bringing it into communities of color.”

Last year, the NAACP published a report that found that over a million African Americans live within a half-mile of oil and natural gas production, processing, or transmission and storage facilities, leading to elevated risks of cancer and asthma attacks from toxic air emissions.

To be sure, many local business organizations have joined API’s effort, including the Florida Black Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce, along with Hispanic chambers of commerce from Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, among others.

Another touchy subject has been the oil lobby’s outreach to Hurricane Maria survivors. Julio Fuentes, president of Florida’s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a partner in API’s initiative, defended the push to hire locals in an email to Grist. “Florida has welcomed many of our friends from Puerto Rico, and it is important to provide secure, high-paying jobs for our residents and evacuees,” he said. “Offshore exploration is one way we can do so.”

Michelle Suarez with Organize Florida, a grassroots nonprofit group that has been assisting hurricane survivors, sees how Big Oil can make an appealing offer to an evacuee who has just lost so much. “We’re in this crisis. And so I imagine that it’s going to be tempting for families that are impacted to get some of those jobs,” Suarez says.

Suarez doesn’t think working in Big Oil, with its links to climate change and more frequent and severe superstorms, is the answer to helping evacuees recover. “We’re talking about the industry that has been one of the causes of these disasters, indirectly through their work,” says Suarez.

Both Suarez and Bravo say that their communities don’t need to choose between jobs and a healthy community and environment.

“We need to switch from that narrative because we do need to take care of the earth. This is our home. We have to make it work so that we have jobs that are not extracting and destroying the environment,” Suarez says.

Bravo believes the U.S. can can still be a global leader in spurring careers in renewable energy.

“We are all for jobs but we’re for jobs that don’t pollute, we’re for jobs that are clean, we’re for jobs that are sustainable,” Bravo says.

Read this article: 

Big Oil touts offshore drilling jobs to communities most harmed by oil

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Oil touts offshore drilling jobs to communities most harmed by oil

A ferry that runs on hydrogen fuel cells is coming to San Francisco

by OlivaTownson Posted on June 25, 2018

After Tom Escher took over his family’s century-old ferry company in 1997, he wanted to buy a zero-emissions vessel that could whisk tourists around San Francisco without spewing harmful pollutants. Escher, who is 71, said he worried about the health of his four grandchildren and the environment they’d live in.

“Our boats were getting greener, and we were cleaning up, but I said, ‘Are we doing the best we can?’” Escher recalled.

A few years ago, he began searching in earnest for a fossil fuel-free ship, but he quickly hit a wall. Even as battery-powered cars and rooftop solar panels proliferated on land, the maritime industry had been slow to embrace clean energy at sea.

An innovative ferry project could soon change that.

On Monday, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced a $3 million grant to help build a hydrogen fuel cell ferry. Once built, it would be be the first of its kind in the United States, and the first commercial hydrogen fuel cell ferry in the world.

The planned vessel, named Water-Go-Round, would carry 84 passengers and stretch 70 feet long. Construction is expected to start early this fall in Alameda, California, and the vessel is slated to hit the water a year later.

The project is one of myriad efforts by cities in the U.S. and globally to clean up their passenger ships. While ferries contribute a relatively small slice of total maritime air pollution and carbon emissions, they typically operate around densely populated areas, where emissions are known to pose the biggest health threats.

Ferries, tug boats, and other harbor craft can be particularly dirty because they often use the same inefficient engines for decades, said Christina Wolfe, who manages the Environmental Defense Fund’s air quality program for ports. “They’re old, high-horsepower, and high-usage, and that just makes a recipe for very high emissions,” she said of ferry engines.

Some local officials are considering more straightforward solutions, like installing efficient Tier 4 diesel engines or adding onshore electricity supplies, so boats can turn off their engines while at port. Other places are taking a more ambitious tack: In rural Alabama, the Gee’s Bend Ferry operators are replacing John Deere engines with a battery-electric propulsion system, which will make it the first zero-emissions ferry of its kind in the United States. A ferry in Skagit County, Washington, may soon follow suit.

The Water-Go-Round hydrogen ferry is also representative of a larger push by the global shipping industry to clean up dirty fuel-burning ships. In April, the International Maritime Organization adopted a landmark deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, a policy that will require a massive uptake of zero-emissions vessels.

Passenger ships are often first to deploy cutting-edge ship technologies because they consume far less fuel and power than ocean-going vessels. Ferries typically keep close to shore, making it easier to recharge batteries or refill hydrogen tanks. And ferry operators face strong public pressure to clean up because they carry throngs of passengers who — unlike lifeless box containers — inhale the diesel fumes, hear the growling engines, and see the noxious black plumes rising from exhaust funnels.

A boat like Water-Go-Round won’t have such concerns.

Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Unlike diesel engines, they don’t emit any carbon dioxide or health-threatening pollutants — only a little heat and water vapor. “I’m going to drink the exhaust,” pledged Escher, who is investing in the new ferry, in addition to operating it.

Hydrogen itself isn’t always “zero-emissions.” The most common methods for producing hydrogen today require fossil fuels — and thus result in some greenhouse gases. But more facilities are starting to produce “green” hydrogen with renewable electricity or biogas.

The idea to build Water-Go-Round came from an extensive 2016 study by Sandia National Labs. Researchers established that a high-speed passenger ferry powered by hydrogen fuel cells was feasible from a technical, regulatory, and economic perspective. Around two dozen early ship projects already deploy the technology, primarily in Europe.

Joseph Pratt, who co-authored the Sandia study, is now the CEO of Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine, one of several partners in the CARB grant project.

“We’re at the point where we’ve studied it enough, we’ve figured out how you can do it,” Pratt said from San Francisco. “Now we just have to do it.”

The ferry Zalophus cruises beneath the Golden Gate Bridge in the San Francisco Bay.Red and White Fleet

The plan is for Escher’s company, Red and White Fleet, to operate the vessel for the first three months — and eventually buy it to add to its fleet. Meanwhile, scientists at Sandia and CARB are expected to collect data on the ship’s operations, performance, and maintenance.

The $3 million CARB grant is part of California’s larger $20 million investment in zero-emissions off-road demonstration projects. The funding comes from revenues raised by the state’s cap-and-trade program. Water-Go-Round’s partners have committed another $2.5 million to help launch the vessel.

The planned ferry would carry onboard storage tanks with enough hydrogen to last about two days before a truck refuels them at port. Lithium-ion batteries and electric motors will round out the ship’s power system. Pratt said the goal is to use green hydrogen supplies when possible.

Marine fuel cells face several hurdles to wider adoption. The technology is still relatively expensive, and shipbuilders and maritime officials in many places may be less familiar with hydrogen than, say, batteries. If successful, a project like Water-Go-Round could nevertheless drive interest in fuel cells and hydrogen — particularly where officials or companies are seeking to curb maritime pollution, said Alan Lloyd, the former secretary of California’s Environmental Protection Agency.

“People are going to want to follow that lead,” said Lloyd, a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.

A similar narrative is already playing out with battery-powered ferries, after Norway launched a fully electric car ferry in 2015.

Dan Berentson, the director of public works in Skagit County, in northwest Washington, said his team is closely following developments in Scandinavia, where more electric ferries are expected to ply the fjords. Skagit County officials are now hoping to build their own electric boat to replace their county’s clunky 39-year-old ferry. If all goes to plan, it could launch in 2020.

“Our hope is that the industry will embrace this,” Berentson said.

Maria Gallucci is the 2017-2018 Energy Journalism Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.

Excerpt from – 

A ferry that runs on hydrogen fuel cells is coming to San Francisco

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, Landmark, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A ferry that runs on hydrogen fuel cells is coming to San Francisco

‘He’s a political prisoner’: Standing Rock activists face years in jail

by MuhammadStillman Posted on June 23, 2018

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Standing Rock saved Little Feather’s life. Then the U.S. government took it from him.

Little Feather was one of thousands of Native Americans who traveled to North Dakota in 2016 to fight the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. The 45-year-old member of the Chumash Nation was battling drug addiction at the time, said his wife, Leoyla Cowboy. But the “water protector” movement gave him a sense of purpose, a renewed connection to indigenous elders, and sobriety.

But last year as the oil pipeline began operations, authorities jailed him and charged him with felonies stemming from his involvement in the demonstrations. Little Feather’s case and the prosecution of hundreds of others is part of what activists say is an aggressive campaign by U.S. law enforcement to suppress indigenous and environmental movements, using drawn-out criminal cases and lengthy prison sentences.

“He has been taken from us, and it’s a huge void in our lives,” Cowboy, 44, told the Guardian in a recent interview after Little Feather, also known as Michael Giron, was sentenced to three years. “He is a political prisoner … We were protecting our land. It’s something we have to do, and we’re going to be met with this violence from these agencies, from the federal government, from the state.”

As Red Fawn Fallis prepares for her sentencing next week in the movement’s most high-profile prosecution, activists are speaking out about the toll the cases have taken — continuing to drag on and tear apart families — all as Standing Rock has almost entirely disappeared from headlines.

After Donald Trump took office and ordered expedited approval of the $3.7 billion pipeline last January, the crackdown on activists escalated. The cases stemmed from clashes with police in late 2016 when thousands gathered at Oceti Sakowin and other campsites by the pipeline, facing a highly militarized operation, brutal shows of force, mass arrests and widely condemned jail conditions.

Under Trump, who has had financial ties with the pipeline company, the U.S. Department of Justice has pressed forward with six cases against Native Americans. North Dakota prosecutors meanwhile have pursued more than 800 state cases against people at Standing Rock, including 165 still pending, according to the Water Protector Legal Collective, a legal support team.

“They needed these convictions to make examples of people,” said Rattler, another federal defendant who, like Little Feather, agreed to a plea deal. “We got their attention, and they are scared of us.”

Rattler, a Lakota Oglala man, and Little Feather were each charged with two felonies — civil disorder and use of fire to commit a felony — related to a standoff on Oct. 27, 2016, when police deployed pepper spray and armored vehicles in response to a roadblock set up by activists. More than 140 people were arrested.

The arson charges related to the fact that “several fires were set by unidentified protesters” to thwart police, as prosecutors wrote in one court filing.

If the men were convicted, they faced a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Activists argued the charges were excessive, and some thought the men would prevail in a courtroom, especially considering reporting by the Intercept, which uncovered how a private security firm had used military-style counter-terrorism methods to target and infiltrate the protests.

But the defendants and their attorneys ultimately had concerns about the risks of a trial. One survey of jury-eligible locals found that 82 percent to 94 percent had prejudged protesters as guilty or were biased against them.

“Having a fair trial in Bismarck was going to be impossible,” said Rattler, 45, whose legal name is Michael Markus. “If you go to court in North Dakota, you are going to get convicted.”

Wasté Win Young, a Standing Rock member who is still facing trespassing and rioting charges in North Dakota court, said she was now regularly targeted and racially profiled by locals and police in the area.

“It’s just surreal still living here,” she said, noting that the fossil fuel industry had a lot of influence in the area and that there was heavy local bias against the demonstrations. “They feel like their security, their well-being was threatened by the so-called violent protesters, which was not the case at all.”

Still, Young said she was not afraid to go to court: “I stood my ground and it was in honor of my ancestors and to protect their way of life.”

Red Fawn Fallis was originally accused of shooting at law enforcement, facing a potential life sentence. The case moved forward even after it was reported that a paid informant for the FBI had developed a romantic relationship with her during the protests and was the owner of the gun she allegedly fired. Prosecutors eventually dropped the charge in exchange for her pleading to lesser offenses, and on Monday, she is expected to receive a seven-year prison sentence.

The U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Rattler, who is expected to get three years in prison, said the pending case meant he was restricted from freely traveling to indigenous ceremonies and other events.

“That’s been going on for hundreds of years — the federal government telling indigenous people where they can and can’t go,” said Ollie, Rattler’s partner who requested not to use her full name. “They do it just because they can.”

Sandra Freeman, Rattler’s attorney, said it had been difficult coming to terms with the reality of his plea agreement: “He is someone who is a really gentle, non-violent person who has accepted significant, significant time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”

Despite everything, Rattler said he was glad he was involved in the movement and wanted to eventually continue the work: “I have no regrets about what I did.”

After Little Feather’s personal transformation at the Standing Rock camps, Cowboy said she was eager to start their lives together: “I have been praying for a person like Little Feather all my life.”

But her husband has been incarcerated since last March when police pulled them over and arrested him while the newlyweds were traveling to an indigenous march in Washington D.C.

With sentencing over, there was some relief in knowing he would eventually come home, Cowboy said. But she also recognized that there would be lasting consequences.

While she was inspired to see the momentum from Standing Rock spread to other fights, she said, it sometimes felt like those still suffering from the North Dakota movement had been left behind. “They are forgetting that we are still here.”

Continue at source:

‘He’s a political prisoner’: Standing Rock activists face years in jail

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ‘He’s a political prisoner’: Standing Rock activists face years in jail

The EPA thinks its hurricane response was so great it ordered special coins for everyone

by WilliamJROJ Posted on June 23, 2018

Welcome to today’s episode of Trump’s America, in which the Mr. Burns of the EPA spent $8,522.50 on some fancy coins to celebrate the way his agency handled last year’s hurricane and wildfire seasons. Excellent.

Here’s the sitch: The EPA contracted with a company called “Lapel Pins Plus” so that it can give its employees commemorative “challenge coins.” The agency ordered 1,750 special little coins with special little display cases to congratulate employees for “PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ALL ACROSS AMERICA.” (That’s written on the coins, OK? It’s very cool and chill.)

The EPA clearly hadn’t been reading the news about Puerto Rico when it ordered the coins. We still don’t know exactly how many people in the U.S. territory died because of Hurricane Maria, but a Harvard study estimates it was around 5,000 or more. Some towns still don’t have power, and it’s been nine months since the storm hit. Residents are struggling with an unprecedented mental health crisis.

And as for the other hurricanes last year: When Harvey and Irma struck, Pruitt kept busy by disparaging discussions about climate change — that is, when he wasn’t giving interviews to right-wing media and attempting to roll back even more regulations. The EPA was slow to respond to Hurricane Harvey, leaving residents exposed to pollution.

Does all of this sound like a job well done to you?

Pruitt seems to think so — or maybe he just really, really wants special coins. He tried to get some last year, but they were never ordered.

Source article: 

The EPA thinks its hurricane response was so great it ordered special coins for everyone

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EPA thinks its hurricane response was so great it ordered special coins for everyone