environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-08-26--EWG Analysis: Preventing and Treating Algae Blooms in U.S. Has Cost at Least $1.1 Billion Since 2010

WASHINGTON – Communities across the United States have spent more than $ 1 billion since 2010 dealing with outbreaks of potentially toxic algae in lakes , rivers and drinking water supplies , according to a groundbreaking new analysis by the Environmental Working Group .
EWG identified 85 locations , mostly cities and towns , in 22 states that spent money to prevent or treat algae blooms in the past 10 years .
The staggering price tag : about $ 1,158,245,000 .
And it is almost certainly a significant undercount .
“ This enormous sum is just a drop in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , ” said Anne Schechinger , EWG senior economic analyst and author of the report .
“ The damage toxic algae inflicts on recreation , property values , tourism , commercial fishing and wildlife likely totals billions more every year.
” For its analysis , EWG searched for news reports of algae outbreaks and what communities have spent to protect or clean up the bodies of water they depend on for household use , recreation and tourism .
The cost of improvements to drinking water , stormwater and wastewater made up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures like establishing agricultural conservation practices , and efforts to treat the blooms themselves , made up the rest .
Spending in Ohio accounts for about 70 percent of the nationwide total .
More than $ 815 million has been spent in 11 Ohio communities since 2010 , largely for multiple recurring toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie .
This outlay does not indicate that Ohio has the worst algae issue , Schechinger said , but instead that the state is ahead of others in addressing it .
“ If other communities were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio is , the total cost of treatment and prevention would be larger throughout the country , ” she said .
Algae blooms are triggered by chemical nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus when they get into bodies of water .
In most of these communities , the main source of these nutrients is runoff from crop fields treated with commercial fertilizer or manure , though wastewater and stormwater also contribute to some outbreaks , particularly in urban areas .
Some outbreaks , known as toxic algae blooms , harmful algal blooms or HABs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health hazards to people , pets and aquatic life .
But not all algae outbreaks are toxic , and it is impossible to know whether a bloom is toxic without testing it .
Climate change–associated phenomena like warming air , water and increasing precipitation are making blooms more frequent , widespread and longer in duration , so the cost of treating them will only increase over time .
“ The climate crisis is quickly accelerating what was already a dangerous , expensive problem , ” Schechinger said .
“ The best option is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place by keeping farm chemicals out of water.
” Implementing simple agricultural conservation measures like cover crops , grass waterways in gullies , and buffers between fields and bodies of water have long been proven effective at keeping farm pollution out of waterways .
Such practices , aimed at preventing algae outbreaks , account for some of EWG ’ s estimate , but only a small fraction of farms use conservation best practices .
Stronger state and federal oversight of animal feeding operations would also reduce the animal manure running off farm fields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in places like Ohio .
EWG ’ s ongoing tracking has found more than 1,000 communities in 48 states with news reports of algae blooms since 2010 .
All of the organization ’ s work on algae blooms can be found at www.ewg.org/toxicalgae .
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
Visit www.ewg.org for more information .

WASHINGTON – Communities across the United States have spent more than $1 billion since 2010 dealing with outbreaks of potentially toxic algae in lakes, rivers and drinking water supplies, according to a groundbreaking new analysis by the Environmental Working Group.
EWG identified 85 locations, mostly cities and towns, in 22 states that spent money to prevent or treat algae blooms in the past 10 years. The staggering price tag: about $1,158,245,000. And it is almost certainly a significant undercount.
“This enormous sum is just a drop in the bucket of what algae outbreaks are costing Americans,” said Anne Schechinger, EWG senior economic analyst and author of the report. “The damage toxic algae inflicts on recreation, property values, tourism, commercial fishing and wildlife likely totals billions more every year.”
For its analysis, EWG searched for news reports of algae outbreaks and what communities have spent to protect or clean up the bodies of water they depend on for household use, recreation and tourism. The cost of improvements to drinking water, stormwater and wastewater made up the vast majority of the expenditures. Prevention measures like establishing agricultural conservation practices, and efforts to treat the blooms themselves, made up the rest.
Spending in Ohio accounts for about 70 percent of the nationwide total. More than $815 million has been spent in 11 Ohio communities since 2010, largely for multiple recurring toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie.
This outlay does not indicate that Ohio has the worst algae issue, Schechinger said, but instead that the state is ahead of others in addressing it. “If other communities were proactively tackling their algae problems the way Ohio is, the total cost of treatment and prevention would be larger throughout the country,” she said.
Algae blooms are triggered by chemical nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus when they get into bodies of water. In most of these communities, the main source of these nutrients is runoff from crop fields treated with commercial fertilizer or manure, though wastewater and stormwater also contribute to some outbreaks, particularly in urban areas.
Some outbreaks, known as toxic algae blooms, harmful algal blooms or HABs, can produce toxins that pose serious health hazards to people, pets and aquatic life. But not all algae outbreaks are toxic, and it is impossible to know whether a bloom is toxic without testing it.
Climate change–associated phenomena like warming air, water and increasing precipitation are making blooms more frequent, widespread and longer in duration, so the cost of treating them will only increase over time.
“The climate crisis is quickly accelerating what was already a dangerous, expensive problem,” Schechinger said. “The best option is to prevent algae outbreaks in the first place by keeping farm chemicals out of water.”
Implementing simple agricultural conservation measures like cover crops, grass waterways in gullies, and buffers between fields and bodies of water have long been proven effective at keeping farm pollution out of waterways. Such practices, aimed at preventing algae outbreaks, account for some of EWG’s estimate, but only a small fraction of farms use conservation best practices.
Stronger state and federal oversight of animal feeding operations would also reduce the animal manure running off farm fields into lakes and other bodies of water in places like Ohio.
EWG’s ongoing tracking has found more than 1,000 communities in 48 states with news reports of algae blooms since 2010. All of the organization’s work on algae blooms can be found at www.ewg.org/toxicalgae.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-08-31--Report: Duke Energy Has Squandered Billions in Failed Natural Gas and Nuclear Projects

Report : Duke Energy Has Squandered Billions in Failed Natural Gas and Nuclear Projects WASHINGTON – Since 2013 , Duke Energy and its partners have scrapped natural gas pipelines and nuclear power plants totaling $ 11.6 billion , according to a new report by the Environmental Working Group .
For most businesses , this record of blowing billions of dollars on one failed project and boondoggle after another would send finances reeling and the executives in charge packing .
But not when you are the nation ’ s largest investor-owned electric utility , with a captive ratepayer base of 7.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers and regulators in your pocket who let you pass those losses onto customers through new fees and rate increases .
The latest example of Duke ’ s habit of wasting billions on a project fated for the scrap heap is the decision in July by Duke and Dominion Energy to cancel construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline , whose estimated cost had escalated to $ 8 billion .
Six months earlier , Duke and three partners cancelled the Constitution Pipeline , which would have carried fracked natural gas to customers in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost that had swelled to $ 1 billion .
Despite the pipelines ’ cancellation and the billions in losses , Wall Street has not soured on Duke .
Analysts consider the Atlantic pipeline ’ s cancellation a one-time hit and still view Duke as a sound investment , thanks to its 7.7 million captive customers and its plans to raise their rates .
In an effort to recoup $ 1.6 billion in losses from the Atlantic pipeline and replace the lost capital spending , Duke executives told analysts on its second quarter earnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will spend another $ 2 billion on new projects , including natural gas operations , in hopes it will be profitable enough to fill the gap , as part of a longer-term $ 56 billion investment plan .
But Duke knows the future of its business model is precarious .
In its annual report to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission , the utility warns investors that its profits could be threatened by the climate crisis , tougher clean air regulations , a serious nuclear accident and shrinking demand for electricity as customers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Duke ’ s priority , first and foremost , is to achieve and maintain a high profit margin , not to provide affordable service with a least cost approach to its customers , ” said EWG Senior Energy Policy Advisor Grant Smith , co-author of the report .
“ While other utilities are shedding costly , dangerous and climate-disrupting energy sources for clean , safe , cost-efficient renewables , Duke continues to waste billions with its high-risk , high-reward gambles.
” In addition to Duke ’ s cancelled pipelines , the utility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unloaded billions on customers for failed nuclear and coal-to-gas projects .
“ Duke Energy ’ s “ build plants , raise rates ” business model ties up billions of dollars and many years that we don ’ t have if we are going to avert the worst outcomes of the climate crisis , ” said NC WARN Assistant Director Rita Leadem .
“ Meanwhile , people of color and low-wealth communities bear the brunt of health and economic impacts of Duke Energy 's fossil fuel addiction.
” One of the biggest boondoggles is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana .
The plant ’ s initial cost estimate , in 2006 , was $ 1.6 billion .
By 2012 it had ballooned to more than $ 3.5 billion .
Corruption was rampant , with Duke executives engaging in illegal communications with the chair of the state regulatory commission .
“ Duke Energy ’ s Edwardsport IGCC boondoggle is the posterchild for corruption and malfeasance , ” said Citizen Action Coalition Indiana Executive Director Kerwin Olson .
“ It was made possible only because of Duke ’ s mononpoly stranglehold and oversized influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoosier ratepayers should not be forced to continue paying confiscatory rates for decades to come for a project which never should have been approved to begin with.
” The plant went into operation in 2013 .
But by then it was already obsolete , as wind power capacity in the state was three times Edwardsport ’ s generation capacity .
Failed , costly projects like the ACP and the Edwardsport plant are business as usual for Duke , from the cancelled Lee nuclear plant in South Carolina to the cancelled Levy and shuttered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plans for the construction of the Levy plant first began in 2006 under Progress Energy , which merged with Duke in 2012 .
The original estimate was $ 5 billion to $ 6 billion .
By the time of the merger , the price tag had grown to $ 24 billion and the in-service date was pushed back eight years , to 2024 .
Even in the face of overruns nearly five times higher than the original cost estimates , Duke was unfazed , pressing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRC granted Duke ’ s request in 2016 , but that same year the utility announced it would halt production .
Florida regulators allowed Duke to charge customers $ 800 million for a plant that never delivered a kilowatt of electricity .
To drag Duke and other utilities into the clean energy future , politicians and regulators must disrupt the monopoly model that has ceded control of energy to profit-first corporations .
Electricity rates should be tied to efforts to increase efficiency and promote renewables like rooftop and community solar – both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captive ratepayers in its vast expansive service area .
And stockholders , not ratepayers , should bear the costs and risks of big capital projects .
But not when you are the nation ’ s largest investor-owned electric utility , with a captive ratepayer base of 7.7 million across six states , and state lawmakers and regulators in your pocket who let you pass those losses onto customers through new fees and rate increases .
The latest example of Duke ’ s habit of wasting billions on a project fated for the scrap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duke and Dominion Energy to cancel construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline , whose estimated cost had escalated to $ 8 billion .
Six months earlier , Duke and three partners cancelled the Constitution Pipeline , which would have carried fracked natural gas to customers in New York and Pennsylvania , at an estimated cost that had swelled to $ 1 billion .
Despite the pipelines ’ cancellation and the billions in losses , Wall Street has not soured on Duke .
Analysts consider the Atlantic pipeline ’ s cancellation a one-time hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment , thanks to its 7.7 million captive customers and its plans to raise their rates .
In an effort to recoup $ 1.6 billion in losses from the Atlantic pipeline and replace the lost capital spending , Duke executives told analysts on its second quarter earnings call that in the near term it will spend another $ 2 billion on new projects , including natural gas operations , in hopes it will be profitable enough to fill the gap , as part of a longer-term $ 56 billion investment plan .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model is precarious .
In its annual report to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission , the utility warns investors that its profits could be threatened by the climate crisis , tougher clean air regulations , a serious nuclear accident and shrinking demand for electricity as customers go solar and invest in efficiency .
“ Duke ’ s priority , first and foremost , is to achieve and maintain a high profit margin , not to provide affordable service with a least cost approach to its customers , ” said EWG Senior Energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report .
“ While other utilities are shedding costly , dangerous and climate-disrupting energy sources for clean , safe , cost-efficient renewables , Duke continues to waste billions with its high-risk , high-reward gambles.
” In addition to Duke ’ s cancelled pipelines , the utility has , with regulators ’ complicity , unloaded billions on customers for failed nuclear and coal-to-gas projects .
“ Duke Energy ’ s “ build plants , raise rates ” business model ties up billions of dollars and many years that we don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst outcomes of the climate crisis , ” said NC WARN Assistant Director Rita Leadem .
“ Meanwhile , people of color and low-wealth communities bear the brunt of health and economic impacts of Duke Energy 's fossil fuel addiction.
” One of the biggest boondoggles is Duke ’ s Edwardsport coal-to-gas plant in Indiana .
The plant ’ s initial cost estimate , in 2006 , was $ 1.6 billion .
By 2012 it had ballooned to more than $ 3.5 billion .
Corruption was rampant , with Duke executives engaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state regulatory commission .
“ Duke Energy ’ s Edwardsport IGCC boondoggle is the posterchild for corruption and malfeasance , ” said Citizen Action Coalition Indiana Executive Director Kerwin Olson .
“ It was made possible only because of Duke ’ s mononpoly stranglehold and oversized influence on the State of Indiana .
Captive Hoosier ratepayers should not be forced to continue paying confiscatory rates for decades to come for a project which never should have been approved to begin with.
” The plant went into operation in 2013 .
But by then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power capacity in the state was three times Edwardsport ’ s generation capacity .
Failed , costly projects like the ACP and the Edwardsport plant are business as usual for Duke , from the cancelled Lee nuclear plant in South Carolina to the cancelled Levy and shuttered Crystal River nuclear plants in Florida .
Plans for the construction of the Levy plant first began in 2006 under Progress Energy , which merged with Duke in 2012 .
The original estimate was $ 5 billion to $ 6 billion .
By the time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown to $ 24 billion and the in-service date was pushed back eight years , to 2024 .
Even in the face of overruns nearly five times higher than the original cost estimates , Duke was unfazed , pressing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate the plant .
The NRC granted Duke ’ s request in 2016 , but that same year the utility announced it would halt production .
Florida regulators allowed Duke to charge customers $ 800 million for a plant that never delivered a kilowatt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other utilities into the clean energy future , politicians and regulators must disrupt the monopoly model that has ceded control of energy to profit-first corporations .
Electricity rates should be tied to efforts to increase efficiency and promote renewables like rooftop and community solar – both of which Duke has fought to deny the captive ratepayers in its vast expansive service area .
And stockholders , not ratepayers , should bear the costs and risks of big capital projects .
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
Visit www.ewg.org for more information .

WASHINGTON – Since 2013, Duke Energy and its partners have scrapped natural gas pipelines and nuclear power plants totaling $11.6 billion, according to a new report by the Environmental Working Group.
For most businesses, this record of blowing billions of dollars on one failed project and boondoggle after another would send finances reeling and the executives in charge packing.
But not when you are the nation’s largest investor-owned electric utility, with a captive ratepayer base of 7.7 million across six states, and state lawmakers and regulators in your pocket who let you pass those losses onto customers through new fees and rate increases.
The latest example of Duke’s habit of wasting billions on a project fated for the scrap heap is the decision in July by Duke and Dominion Energy to cancel construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, whose estimated cost had escalated to $8 billion. Six months earlier, Duke and three partners cancelled the Constitution Pipeline, which would have carried fracked natural gas to customers in New York and Pennsylvania, at an estimated cost that had swelled to $1 billion.
Despite the pipelines’ cancellation and the billions in losses, Wall Street has not soured on Duke. Analysts consider the Atlantic pipeline’s cancellation a one-time hit and still view Duke as a sound investment, thanks to its 7.7 million captive customers and its plans to raise their rates.
In an effort to recoup $1.6 billion in losses from the Atlantic pipeline and replace the lost capital spending, Duke executives told analysts on its second quarter earnings call that in the near term it will spend another $2 billion on new projects, including natural gas operations, in hopes it will be profitable enough to fill the gap, as part of a longer-term $56 billion investment plan.
But Duke knows the future of its business model is precarious. In its annual report to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, the utility warns investors that its profits could be threatened by the climate crisis, tougher clean air regulations, a serious nuclear accident and shrinking demand for electricity as customers go solar and invest in efficiency.
“Duke’s priority, first and foremost, is to achieve and maintain a high profit margin, not to provide affordable service with a least cost approach to its customers,” said EWG Senior Energy Policy Advisor Grant Smith, co-author of the report. “While other utilities are shedding costly, dangerous and climate-disrupting energy sources for clean, safe, cost-efficient renewables, Duke continues to waste billions with its high-risk, high-reward gambles.”
In addition to Duke’s cancelled pipelines, the utility has, with regulators’ complicity, unloaded billions on customers for failed nuclear and coal-to-gas projects.
“Duke Energy’s 'build plants, raise rates' business model ties up billions of dollars and many years that we don’t have if we are going to avert the worst outcomes of the climate crisis,” said NC WARN Assistant Director Rita Leadem. “Meanwhile, people of color and low-wealth communities bear the brunt of health and economic impacts of Duke Energy's fossil fuel addiction.”
One of the biggest boondoggles is Duke’s Edwardsport coal-to-gas plant in Indiana. The plant’s initial cost estimate, in 2006, was $1.6 billion. By 2012 it had ballooned to more than $3.5 billion. Corruption was rampant, with Duke executives engaging in illegal communications with the chair of the state regulatory commission.
“Duke Energy’s Edwardsport IGCC boondoggle is the posterchild for corruption and malfeasance,” said Citizen Action Coalition Indiana Executive Director Kerwin Olson. “It was made possible only because of Duke’s monopoly stranglehold and oversized influence on the State of Indiana. Captive Hoosier ratepayers should not be forced to continue paying confiscatory rates for decades to come for a project which never should have been approved to begin with.”
The plant went into operation in 2013. But by then it was already obsolete, as wind power capacity in the state was three times Edwardsport’s generation capacity.
Failed, costly projects like the ACP and the Edwardsport plant are business as usual for Duke, from the cancelled Lee nuclear plant in South Carolina to the cancelled Levy and shuttered Crystal River nuclear plants in Florida.
Plans for the construction of the Levy plant first began in 2006 under Progress Energy, which merged with Duke in 2012. The original estimate was $5 billion to $6 billion. By the time of the merger, the price tag had grown to $24 billion and the in-service date was pushed back eight years, to 2024.
Even in the face of overruns nearly five times higher than the original cost estimates, Duke was unfazed, pressing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate the plant. The NRC granted Duke’s request in 2016, but that same year the utility announced it would halt production. Florida regulators allowed Duke to charge customers $800 million for a plant that never delivered a kilowatt of electricity.
To drag Duke and other utilities into the clean energy future, politicians and regulators must disrupt the monopoly model that has ceded control of energy to profit-first corporations. Electricity rates should be tied to efforts to increase efficiency and promote renewables like rooftop and community solar – both of which Duke has fought to deny the captive ratepayers in its vast expansive service area. And stockholders, not ratepayers, should bear the costs and risks of big capital projects.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-08-31--Bill Requires California To Test Millions of Children for Lead Exposure

SACRAMENTO , Calif. – On Sunday , the California state legislature sent Gov .
Gavin Newsom a bill that would protect millions of children from the developmental and health impacts of toxic lead exposure .
Assembly Bill 2276 addresses the state ’ s poor track record of ensuring that the children most at risk of lead poisoning are screened and tested .
A report by the state auditor found more than 1.4 million children covered by Medi-Cal , California ’ s Medicaid healthcare program , did not receive proper lead tests and that the state Department of Public Health was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This bill ’ s requirements are especially important now that children are primarily confined to their homes during the coronavirus pandemic .
“ It ’ s time that we ensure that all toddlers on Medi-Cal are tested for lead , ” said Susan Little , EWG 's senior advocate for California government affairs .
“ Safeguarding our children ’ s health must be a priority .
This bill holds Medi-Cal managed care plans accountable for testing children in their care .
Plans and doctors will have to pay careful attention to children ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will clearly be able to sanction plans that fail to comply with the testing requirements.
” State law already requires that children enrolled in Medi-Cal receive tests for elevated lead levels between the ages of one and two years old .
Assemblymembers Eloise Reyes ( D-San Bernardino ) , Cristina Garcia ( D-Bell Gardens ) , Bill Quirk ( D-Hayward ) and Rudy Salas ( D-Bakersfield ) are the joint authors of the bill .
“ Lead is a major threat to children ’ s health , ” said Olga Naidenko , Ph.D. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EWG .
“ Exposure to lead can result in developmental delays , attention deficit issues , cognitive disorders , behavioral disorders and a lifetime of severe mental and physical ailments .
There is no safe level of lead in a child ’ s body.
” The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agree there is no safe level of lead in children .
Lead is a carcinogen , harms kidney function and has been linked to delayed growth .
Lead exposure in children can lead to learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January , a study published in the journal Nature Medicine found children of lower-income families who live in neighborhoods with a high risk of lead exposure scored significantly lower on cognitive tests and had smaller brains .
All children can be exposed to lead in drinking water and old paint , but kids in low-income communities are considered most at risk of exposure to dangerous amounts of lead .
“ For decades , California has fallen woefully short of its responsibility to identify , test and treat the children most vulnerable to toxic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Testing is essential to identify highly exposed children and the neighborhoods where kids are at greater risk of lead exposure.
” AB 2276 addresses many of the key issues identified in the state auditor ’ s report , and will require the Department of Health Care Services , managed care plans and providers to prioritize protective lead screening services for Medi-Cal children .
Medi-Cal managed care plans are required to identify enrolled children who have not received the required lead tests , and notify the child ’ s healthcare provider and parent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulators , about the missed tests .
The bill also explicitly allows the state to sanction managed care plans that don ’ t comply with the lead testing requirements .
In addition , it codifies additional risk factors that pediatricians must consider when determining if a child should be screened for lead .
The Department of Public Health is also required to update its funding formula for local lead poisoning prevention programs to account for the presence of all lead-exposed children in a county .
“ We hope Gov .
Newsom gives the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserves , ” said Bill Allayaud , EWG ’ s California director of government affairs .
“ There is no safe level of lead , and the neurological damage it can cause in young children can last a lifetime .
That is why it is so critical the state take these additional steps to protect California ’ s most vulnerable population from further exposure to lead.
” AB 2276 is co-sponsored by EWG , California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations and the Western Center on Law and Poverty .
The Environmental Working Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On Sunday, the California state legislature sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would protect millions of children from the developmental and health impacts of toxic lead exposure. Assembly Bill 2276 addresses the state’s poor track record of ensuring that the children most at risk of lead poisoning are screened and tested.
A report by the state auditor found more than 1.4 million children covered by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid healthcare program, did not receive proper lead tests and that the state Department of Public Health was neglecting the prevention of lead poisoning. This bill’s requirements are especially important now that children are primarily confined to their homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
“It’s time that we ensure that all toddlers on Medi-Cal are tested for lead,” said Susan Little, EWG's senior advocate for California government affairs. “Safeguarding our children’s health must be a priority. This bill holds Medi-Cal managed care plans accountable for testing children in their care. Plans and doctors will have to pay careful attention to children’s lead-testing outcomes, and the state will clearly be able to sanction plans that fail to comply with the testing requirements.”
State law already requires that children enrolled in Medi-Cal receive tests for elevated lead levels between the ages of one and two years old.
Assemblymembers Eloise Reyes (D-San Bernardino), Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) and Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) are the joint authors of the bill.
“Lead is a major threat to children’s health,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., vice president for science investigations at EWG. “Exposure to lead can result in developmental delays, attention deficit issues, cognitive disorders, behavioral disorders and a lifetime of severe mental and physical ailments. There is no safe level of lead in a child’s body.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agree there is no safe level of lead in children. Lead is a carcinogen, harms kidney function and has been linked to delayed growth. Lead exposure in children can lead to learning disabilities and serious health consequences.
In January, a study published in the journal Nature Medicine found children of lower-income families who live in neighborhoods with a high risk of lead exposure scored significantly lower on cognitive tests and had smaller brains. All children can be exposed to lead in drinking water and old paint, but kids in low-income communities are considered most at risk of exposure to dangerous amounts of lead.
“For decades, California has fallen woefully short of its responsibility to identify, test and treat the children most vulnerable to toxic lead exposure,” said Little. “Testing is essential to identify highly exposed children and the neighborhoods where kids are at greater risk of lead exposure.”
AB 2276 addresses many of the key issues identified in the state auditor’s report, and will require the Department of Health Care Services, managed care plans and providers to prioritize protective lead screening services for Medi-Cal children. Medi-Cal managed care plans are required to identify enrolled children who have not received the required lead tests, and notify the child’s healthcare provider and parent or guardian, as well as state regulators, about the missed tests.
The bill also explicitly allows the state to sanction managed care plans that don’t comply with the lead testing requirements. In addition, it codifies additional risk factors that pediatricians must consider when determining if a child should be screened for lead. The Department of Public Health is also required to update its funding formula for local lead poisoning prevention programs to account for the presence of all lead-exposed children in a county.
“We hope Gov. Newsom gives the issue of lead poisoning the action it deserves,” said Bill Allayaud, EWG’s California director of government affairs. “There is no safe level of lead, and the neurological damage it can cause in young children can last a lifetime. That is why it is so critical the state take these additional steps to protect California’s most vulnerable population from further exposure to lead.”
AB 2276 is co-sponsored by EWG, California Coalition of Welfare Rights Organizations and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-08-31--California Bill To Ban Toxic PFAS From Firefighting Foam Heads to Governor

SACRAMENTO , Calif. – On Sunday , the California legislature approved a measure to address the growing contamination crisis of toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS .
The bill would ban the chemicals in PFAS-based firefighting foams , like aqueous film-forming foam , or AFFF – one of the most significant sources of PFAS water contamination .
The bill now goes to Gov .
Gavin Newsom , who has until the end of September to act on it .
Senate Bill 1044 , authored by Sen. Ben Allen ( D-Santa Monica ) , bans the manufacture , sale and use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in most applications by January 1 , 2022 .
The state would be required to track sales and keep the public informed of the ban .
Use in training classes also would be barred , and manufacturers would have to disclose to buyers whether firefighting gear contains the compounds .
The bill would also restrict disposal of the unused foams .
Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $ 5,000 for a first violation and $ 10,000 for each subsequent violation .
“ The toxic PFAS chemicals in firefighting foams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk for cancer and other serious health issues , ” said Bill Allayaud , EWG ’ s director of government affairs for California .
“ At least 7.5 million Californians have PFAS in their drinking water supplies , and the historic use of PFAS-based firefighting foams is one of the sources of this contamination , ” Allayaud said .
Given that the state is in the process of testing its drinking water sources for PFAS , the number is likely much higher .
Even very low doses of PFAS chemicals in drinking water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cancer , reproductive and immune system harm , liver or thyroid disease and other health problems .
PFAS do not break down in the environment , spread quickly and bioaccumulate .
All of the detections in California water systems ’ sources exceeded 1 part per trillion , or ppt , the safe level recommended by the best independent studies and endorsed by EWG .
In 2019 , a white paper by an international team of experts at the International Pollutants Elimination Network , or IPEN , found “ unequivocal evidence ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ unacceptably ” high levels of two types of PFAS in their blood .
“ Firefighters already face especially hazardous conditions while performing lifesaving duties , ” said Allayaud .
“ Forcing them to use firefighting foams that contain toxic chemicals when there are effective alternatives puts their long-term health at unacceptable risk.
” Viable non-PFAS alternatives to AFFF are already on the market and are used all over the world .
As of April 2019 , there were more than 100 fluorine-free foams available from 24 manufacturers .
These fluorine-free foams meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the International Civil Aviation Organization Level B , an internal oil industry standard known as LASTFIRE , and the International Maritime Organization MSC.1/Circ .
1312 .
In December , Congress made the historic decision to phase out PFAS in military firefighting foams by 2024 .
In 2018 , Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration to change its rules so that airports could also switch to PFAS-free foams .
California doesn ’ t want to wait that long to move to safer and effective alternatives .
States including Colorado , New Hampshire , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in firefighting foam , with only limited exceptions , and require reporting of the presence of all PFAS in firefighting gear .
Legislatures in Connecticut , Illinois , Iowa , North Carolina and Vermont are also considering similar bans .
“ We urge Gov .
Newsom to sign this bill and protect the health of its firefighters and first responders , ” said Allayaud .
“ Drinking water for almost one in five Californians is contaminated with toxic PFAS .
It ’ s imperative that we do everything to limit this contamination and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S.B .
1044 is co-sponsored by EWG , Breast Cancer Prevention Partners , the California Professional Firefighters Association , Clean Water Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council .
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
Visit https : //www.ewg.org/pfaschemicals/

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On Sunday, the California legislature approved a measure to address the growing contamination crisis of toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS. The bill would ban the chemicals in PFAS-based firefighting foams, like aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF – one of the most significant sources of PFAS water contamination. The bill now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until the end of September to act on it.
Senate Bill 1044, authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), bans the manufacture, sale and use of firefighting foam containing PFAS from use in most applications by January 1, 2022.
The state would be required to track sales and keep the public informed of the ban. Use in training classes also would be barred, and manufacturers would have to disclose to buyers whether firefighting gear contains the compounds. The bill would also restrict disposal of the unused foams.
Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
“The toxic PFAS chemicals in firefighting foams put our heroic firefighters’ health at risk for cancer and other serious health issues,” said Bill Allayaud, EWG’s director of government affairs for California.
“At least 7.5 million Californians have PFAS in their drinking water supplies, and the historic use of PFAS-based firefighting foams is one of the sources of this contamination,” Allayaud said. Given that the state is in the process of testing its drinking water sources for PFAS, the number is likely much higher.
Even very low doses of PFAS chemicals in drinking water have been linked to an increased risk of cancer, reproductive and immune system harm, liver or thyroid disease and other health problems. PFAS do not break down in the environment, spread quickly and bioaccumulate. All of the detections in California water systems’ sources exceeded 1 part per trillion, or ppt, the safe level recommended by the best independent studies and endorsed by EWG.
In 2019, a white paper by an international team of experts at the International Pollutants Elimination Network, or IPEN, found “unequivocal evidence” that firefighters using foams made with PFAS had “unacceptably” high levels of two types of PFAS in their blood.
“Firefighters already face especially hazardous conditions while performing lifesaving duties,” said Allayaud. “Forcing them to use firefighting foams that contain toxic chemicals when there are effective alternatives puts their long-term health at unacceptable risk.”
Viable non-PFAS alternatives to AFFF are already on the market and are used all over the world. As of April 2019, there were more than 100 fluorine-free foams available from 24 manufacturers. These fluorine-free foams meet internationally accepted certifications and approvals, including the International Civil Aviation Organization Level B, an internal oil industry standard known as LASTFIRE, and the International Maritime Organization MSC.1/Circ. 1312.
In December, Congress made the historic decision to phase out PFAS in military firefighting foams by 2024. In 2018, Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration to change its rules so that airports could also switch to PFAS-free foams.
California doesn’t want to wait that long to move to safer and effective alternatives.
States including Colorado, New Hampshire, New York and Washington have banned all PFAS in firefighting foam, with only limited exceptions, and require reporting of the presence of all PFAS in firefighting gear. Legislatures in Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina and Vermont are also considering similar bans.
“We urge Gov. Newsom to sign this bill and protect the health of its firefighters and first responders,” said Allayaud. “Drinking water for almost one in five Californians is contaminated with toxic PFAS. It’s imperative that we do everything to limit this contamination and reduce the health risks of exposure.”
S.B. 1044 is co-sponsored by EWG, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the California Professional Firefighters Association, Clean Water Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit https://www.ewg.org/pfaschemicals/


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-08-31--Duke Energy’s Epic Fails: $11.6 Billion in Scrapped Projects Since 2013

In July , Duke Energy and Dominion Energy canceled the $ 8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline .
Six months earlier , Duke and three partners canceled the $ 1 billion Constitution Pipeline .
These surprising decisions – made shortly after both ventures seemed assured of going forward – sent shock waves through the industry , with Dominion selling off much of its natural gas infrastructure , even as Duke clings to its plans to spend billions on more projects to supply gas for electricity generation .
But maybe the pipelines ’ failures shouldn ’ t have been so surprising .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pulled the plug on an estimated $ 11.6 billion of failed projects .
EWG ’ s analysis estimates that Duke ’ s share of losses from those failures is more than $ 4.3 billion.1 That ’ s not counting the $ 3.5 billion cost – $ 2 billion more than projected – of its coal-to-gas plant in Edwardsport , Ind.
, which has been plagued by scandal and failed to deliver affordable and efficient electricity .
Such staggering losses and overruns could send a company ’ s finances reeling .
But Duke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric utility , headquartered in Charlotte , N.C. – has continued to reap record profits , in part because its government-protected monopoly status allows it to pass on to ratepayers much of the costs of its failures .
In June , Indiana regulators ruled that Duke could permanently add charges to customers ’ bills to cover three-fourths of the cost of the Edwardsport boondoggle , or $ 2.6 billion .
Regulators in other states in Duke ’ s vast service territory have allowed the company to stick ratepayers with an additional $ 2.6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , Duke customers will be paying for these mistakes : North Carolina customers are also paying $ 787 million to clean up Duke ’ s toxic coal ash pits , and this month , Duke will ask regulators to let it charge customers $ 8 billion more to finish the cleanup .
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was only 6 percent complete when aborted .
If it had gone online , Duke and Dominion could have sought approval to pass on the cost to customers in Virginia and the Carolinas .
Duke had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before soaring costs and protracted legal battles killed it .
But Duke ’ s finances won ’ t suffer much .
Wall Street analysts consider the pipeline ’ s cancellation a one-time hit and still view Duke as a sound investment , thanks to its 7.7 million captive customers and its plans to raise their rates .
Duke also apparently hedged its bet on the pipeline ’ s future last November , when it completed a “ forward sale ” of stock that could return more than $ 2.4 billion by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Why does Duke keep pursuing big and risky investments in dirty and dangerous energy sources when clean , safe , renewable resources – solar , wind , storage batteries and increased efficiency – are already cost competitive or cheaper , and getting cheaper every year ?
As “ Slick ” Willie Sutton reportedly said when asked why he robbed banks : “ That ’ s where the money is.
” Duke ’ s government-protected monopolies are relics of an era when utilities held an iron grip on the generation of electricity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their exclusive territories , monopoly utilities are guaranteed a “ reasonable ” rate of return , through ratepayers ’ monthly bills , on investments in new power plants and distribution grids .
The bigger the investment , the bigger the return and the more profit for shareholders .
If the project fails or is crippled by cost overruns , utilities flex their political clout to get regulators ’ approval to let them recover the costs from customers .
Duke ’ s failed projects constitute a scrap heap of high-cost , high-risk , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re not really gambles , because Duke is playing with house money .
As long as politicians and regulators sanction the customer-gouging , socially unjust , health-threatening and environmentally destructive monopoly model , and as long as Wall Street rewards it , Duke and other profit-first utilities will keep rolling the dice .
‘ Net-Zero ’ Carbon by 2050 – But How ?
In May , Duke announced its goal to reach “ net-zero ” carbon emissions by 2050 .
In September , it will submit to North Carolina regulators its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy mix for the next 15 years .
And in December , the state will consider recommendations on carbon policy and utility regulatory reform , growing out of last year 's Clean Energy Plan , that could push Duke toward more renewables ¬– although on its second-quarter earnings call , CEO Lynn J .
Good said the company doesn ’ t see offshore wind power as viable for at least a decade .
But Duke is maddeningly vague about how it will get to “ net zero ” electricity .
Its most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without new natural gas plants or pipelines and says it will “ depend on our ability to site , construct and interconnect new generation , transmission and distribution resources at an unprecedented scale.
” The report indicates Duke is banking on the doubtful viability of carbon-capture technology , the iffy availability of a new generation of “ modular ” nuclear reactors , and the pipe-dream prospect of using reactors to produce hydrogen – all schemes to boost profits through expensive capital projects .
Clearly , Duke isn ’ t going to stop gambling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon .
Unless it does , its string of epic fails is a good bet to grow longer .
Duke held a 47 percent share in Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC , or ACP .
The 600-mile pipeline was intended to carry fracked natural gas through parts of West Virginia , Virginia and North Carolina .
The original cost estimate was $ 4.5 billion .
Planning began in 2014 , and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , or FERC , approved the project in 2017 .
But then came a seemingly endless series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , the Fish and Wildlife Service denied the pipeline a permit because it threatened a freshwater mussel protected by the Endangered Species Act .
ACP went directly to a deputy secretary at the Interior Department , who directed the agency to issue the permit .
In 2019 , a federal appeals court threw out the permit , saying “ the agency appears to have lost sight of its mandate ‘ to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species and their habitats.
’ ” • In 2018 , the Sierra Club , Defenders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won a stay from the same appeals court , stopping construction for two years .
That decision blocked ACP from tunneling under the Appalachian Trail .
• In 2019 , a predominantly black community in Buckingham County , Va. , sued to block a permit for a pipeline compressor station .
The appeals court ruled against ACP , saying the facility would have “ a disproportionate adverse impact on economically disadvantaged or minority communities.
” • In June , the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court decision that blocked tunneling under the Appalachian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more permits to move forward .
Three weeks later , Duke and Dominion announced the pipeline was dead .
In July , a Synapse Energy Economics analysis of Duke ’ s integrated resource plans , commissioned by the Southern Environmental Law Center , found that electric demand is flat and the Carolinas have enough gas already .
The pipeline , whose estimated cost had ballooned to $ 8 billion , was destined to become a “ stranded asset ” – another white elephant .
Also , Virginia and North Carolina have adopted aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind and solar .
In response , Dominion , which is based in Richmond , Va. , sold off its interstate pipeline business for $ 10 billion .
Duke took a $ 1.6 billion hit , missing its earnings-per-share goal , and said it will spend $ 2 billion on other new projects , in the near term , it hopes will be profitable enough to fill the gap .
The make-up spending plan includes investments in new utility-scale solar and in reinforcements of the electric grid,2 some of which may be needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost-effective way to address climate change and affordability and reach “ net-zero ” carbon remains to be seen .
Burning coal to produce synthetic gas was once touted as “ American coal power 's last , best chance.
” The problem is the cost : In 2014 , an analyst said : “ I think you almost could compare [ coal-to-gas plants ] to nuclear plants , because they have a very high capital cost ... have relatively high fixed costs once they ’ re operating , and you still have uncertainty associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
” By the time of that assessment , U.S. utilities had scrapped plans for dozens of coal-to-gas plants , leaving just two under construction : Southern Company ’ s ill-fated Kemper Project in Mississippi ( see Appendix ) and Duke ’ s Edwardsport plant .
Edwardsport ’ s initial cost estimate , in 2006 , was $ 1.3 billion to $ 1.6 billion .
Eight months later it was nearly $ 2 billion ; by 2012 , more than $ 3.5 billion .
Duke declared the plant in service in 2013 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chair of the state regulatory commission .
During the regulatory process , Duke hired the administrative law judge overseeing the proceeding .
For helping grease the hire , the commission chair was indicted on three felony counts of official misconduct .
Duke ’ s second-in-command resigned after the Indianapolis Star exposed his cozy relationship with the chair and left with a $ 10 million golden parachute .
Duke pushed through legislation to shift construction costs to ratepayers and secured $ 440 million in federal , state and local tax credits , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first large-scale commercial plant of its kind , Edwardsport would be more expensive than a conventional natural gas plant .
Despite the scandals and overruns , regulators approved the plant .
Lawmakers amended Indiana ’ s ethics statute so the commission chair would not serve time in prison .
In 2013 , in a settlement with citizens ’ groups , regulators capped the amount Duke could pass on to ratepayers at $ 2.6 billion – a decision affirmed in June , when the costs of the plant were permanently added to customers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Edwardsport wasn ’ t needed .
Two years before it opened , the amount of wind power in Indiana was about three times Edwardsport ’ s capacity .
In Duke Indiana ’ s most recent rate-hike case , an expert witness used the company 's own data to show : • Because of technical problems , Edwardsport rarely runs at full capacity .
• It costs twice as much to operate as the cost of new wind-plus-storage projects in northwest Indiana .
• The amount of power used to run pollution control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than that of a conventional natural gas plant .
The Constitution Pipeline , which would have delivered natural gas to customers in rural Pennsylvania and New York , was announced in 2012 and approved by FERC in 2014 .
The principal partner was the Williams Companies of Oklahoma .
Piedmont Natural Gas , which Duke acquired in 2016 , held a 24 percent interest .
The initial cost was estimated at $ 700 million .
Williams angered property owners and New York officials by moving too aggressively .
Before getting the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began cutting trees , the debris clogging streams .
In 2016 , the state denied the permit , a decision upheld by a federal appeals court .
Citizens along the pipeline ’ s path flooded FERC with objections to the project , saying it would fell 700,000 trees , cross more than 250 streams without adequately protecting habitats and water quality , and promote fracking , worsening the climate crisis .
In August 2019 , FERC ruled that New York had taken too long to deny the water permit , putting the project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gov .
Andrew Cuomo unveiled a Green New Deal that envisioned moving away from fossil fuels altogether .
That must have concerned investors , because the pipeline still needed additional state and federal permits .
In February , Williams cancelled the pipeline .
Delays had increased the projected cost to about $ 1 billion .
The Charlotte Business Journal reported that Duke had spent about $ 85 million .
The Lee Nuclear Station was a proposed twin-reactor power plant in Cherokee County , S.C .
When Duke first approached regulators in 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recurrent industry fantasy that has never materialized – and said the plant would be a “ least cost resource . ''
But it also noted how financially risky nuclear construction is .
Duke pleaded that it needed assurance it could later recover pre-construction costs from ratepayers because the plant would mean lower electricity rates .
In 2007 , Duke pushed through legislation that ensured future cost recovery .
When Duke applied to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission , or NRC , for a license , it estimated the cost would be $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By 2011 , construction had not begun , but Duke had raised the estimate to $ 11 billion.3 The Fukushima disaster that March cast a pall over the so-called nuclear renaissance .
Duke also faced inconvenient truths : Electric demand had dropped significantly , and nuclear power couldn ’ t compete with the glut of cheaper natural gas flooding the market .
Lee was in limbo .
Duke didn ’ t receive a construction and operating license from the NRC until December 2016 .
Three months later , Westinghouse , maker of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into bankruptcy by huge cost overruns at the V.C .
Sumner and Vogtle nuclear plants under construction in Georgia .
( See Appendix . )
Duke , which had assured regulators it was carefully monitoring the Georgia situation , said the bankruptcy was unexpected and asked for permission to cancel the plant .
Ratepayers were stuck with $ 517 million for an empty lot , but Duke still claimed nuclear power was a “ cost effective ” option .
In 2012 , Duke merged with Progress Energy , which served parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed through Florida legislation to allow for costs of nuclear plants , both before and during construction , to be charged to ratepayers on a pay-as-you-go basis .
The reactors slated for Progress ’ nuclear plant in Levy County , Fla. , were the same flawed models that bankrupted Westinghouse and forced cancellation of Duke ’ s Lee plant .
Predictably , Levy ran into the same problems .
In 2006 , Progress ’ original estimate for Levy was $ 5 billion to $ 6 billion .
By the time of the merger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 24 billion and the projected in-service date had been pushed back eight years , to 2024 .
Undeterred , Duke continued to seek a license from the NRC .
But after it was granted in 2016 , Duke announced it would halt production – again insisting that nuclear power remained a viable option for the future .
Of Progress ’ pre-merger expenditure of $ 1 billion , Florida regulators allowed Duke to charge customers $ 800 million for a plant that never delivered a kilowatt of electricity .
Three years before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generators at its nuclear plant in Crystal River , Fla. That involved opening the containment structure , which in a reactor accident would prevent the escape of radioactive steam .
To save money , Progress moved too quickly , without expert oversight , and damaged the containment structure .
After the merger , an independent review found that repairs could cost more than $ 3 billion .
Knowing state law allowed cost recovery , in 2013 Duke shut the plant down .
Duke Florida customers will pay $ 1.3 billion – about $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – for Progress ’ blunder .
Duke knows the future of its business model is precarious .
In its annual report to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission , Duke warns investors that its profits could be threatened by the climate crisis , tougher clean air regulations , a serious nuclear accident and shrinking demand for electricity as customers go solar and invest in efficiency .
Duke and other investor-owned utilities are required by law to maximize shareholder profits .
But the energy market ’ s inexorable transition to renewables , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of natural gas plants , pipelines and nuclear reactors , mean Duke ’ s reliance on those resources is not in the long-term interest of its shareholders – or its customers .
To push Duke and other utilities into the clean energy future , politicians and regulators must disrupt the monopoly model that has ceded control of energy to profit-first corporations .
• Electricity rates should be tied to efforts to increase efficiency and promote rooftop and community solar .
• Stockholders should bear the costs of big capital projects , to counter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and recovering it through utility bills .
• Regulators should exercise oversight of utilities ’ planning to ensure focus on delivering least-cost and necessary service to customers , not simply increasing profits .

In July, Duke Energy and Dominion Energy canceled the $8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Six months earlier, Duke and three partners canceled the $1 billion Constitution Pipeline. These surprising decisions – made shortly after both ventures seemed assured of going forward – sent shock waves through the industry, with Dominion selling off much of its natural gas infrastructure, even as Duke clings to its plans to spend billions on more projects to supply gas for electricity generation.
But maybe the pipelines’ failures shouldn’t have been so surprising.
Since 2013, Duke and its partners have pulled the plug on an estimated $11.6 billion of failed projects. EWG’s analysis estimates that Duke’s share of losses from those failures is more than $4.3 billion.1 That’s not counting the $3.5 billion cost – $2 billion more than projected – of its coal-to-gas plant in Edwardsport, Ind., which has been plagued by scandal and failed to deliver affordable and efficient electricity.
Such staggering losses and overruns could send a company’s finances reeling. But Duke – the nation’s largest investor-owned electric utility, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C. – has continued to reap record profits, in part because its government-protected monopoly status allows it to pass on to ratepayers much of the costs of its failures.
In June, Indiana regulators ruled that Duke could permanently add charges to customers’ bills to cover three-fourths of the cost of the Edwardsport boondoggle, or $2.6 billion. Regulators in other states in Duke’s vast service territory have allowed the company to stick ratepayers with an additional $2.6 billion for other failed plants.
For decades, Duke customers will be paying for these mistakes:
Edwardsport Coal Gasification Plant, Indiana: $2.6 billion
Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Florida: $1.3 billion
Levy Nuclear Plant, Florida: $800 million
Lee Nuclear Station, South Carolina: $517 million
North Carolina customers are also paying $787 million to clean up Duke’s toxic coal ash pits, and this month, Duke will ask regulators to let it charge customers $8 billion more to finish the cleanup.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was only 6 percent complete when aborted. If it had gone online, Duke and Dominion could have sought approval to pass on the cost to customers in Virginia and the Carolinas. Duke had spent $1.6 billion on the pipeline before soaring costs and protracted legal battles killed it. But Duke’s finances won’t suffer much.
Wall Street analysts consider the pipeline’s cancellation a one-time hit and still view Duke as a sound investment, thanks to its 7.7 million captive customers and its plans to raise their rates. Duke also apparently hedged its bet on the pipeline’s future last November, when it completed a “forward sale” of stock that could return more than $2.4 billion by the end of this year.
Where the Money Is
Why does Duke keep pursuing big and risky investments in dirty and dangerous energy sources when clean, safe, renewable resources – solar, wind, storage batteries and increased efficiency – are already cost competitive or cheaper, and getting cheaper every year?
As “Slick” Willie Sutton reportedly said when asked why he robbed banks: “That’s where the money is.”
Duke’s government-protected monopolies are relics of an era when utilities held an iron grip on the generation of electricity. In return for extending service to everyone in their exclusive territories, monopoly utilities are guaranteed a “reasonable” rate of return, through ratepayers’ monthly bills, on investments in new power plants and distribution grids.
The bigger the investment, the bigger the return and the more profit for shareholders. If the project fails or is crippled by cost overruns, utilities flex their political clout to get regulators’ approval to let them recover the costs from customers.
Duke’s failed projects constitute a scrap heap of high-cost, high-risk, high-reward gambles that crapped out. But they’re not really gambles, because Duke is playing with house money. As long as politicians and regulators sanction the customer-gouging, socially unjust, health-threatening and environmentally destructive monopoly model, and as long as Wall Street rewards it, Duke and other profit-first utilities will keep rolling the dice.
(See the Appendix for a list of other notable boondoggles by big utility companies.)
‘Net-Zero’ Carbon by 2050 – But How?
In May, Duke announced its goal to reach “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050. In September, it will submit to North Carolina regulators its latest Integrated Resource Plan, outlining its energy mix for the next 15 years. And in December, the state will consider recommendations on carbon policy and utility regulatory reform, growing out of last year's Clean Energy Plan, that could push Duke toward more renewables ¬– although on its second-quarter earnings call, CEO Lynn J. Good said the company doesn’t see offshore wind power as viable for at least a decade.
But Duke is maddeningly vague about how it will get to “net zero” electricity.
Its most recent Climate Report views the transition as difficult without new natural gas plants or pipelines and says it will “depend on our ability to site, construct and interconnect new generation, transmission and distribution resources at an unprecedented scale.” The report indicates Duke is banking on the doubtful viability of carbon-capture technology, the iffy availability of a new generation of “modular” nuclear reactors, and the pipe-dream prospect of using reactors to produce hydrogen – all schemes to boost profits through expensive capital projects.
Clearly, Duke isn’t going to stop gambling on costly and risky projects any time soon. Unless it does, its string of epic fails is a good bet to grow longer.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Duke held a 47 percent share in Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC, or ACP. The 600-mile pipeline was intended to carry fracked natural gas through parts of West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. The original cost estimate was $4.5 billion. Planning began in 2014, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, approved the project in 2017.
But then came a seemingly endless series of legal challenges, including:
In 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied the pipeline a permit because it threatened a freshwater mussel protected by the Endangered Species Act. ACP went directly to a deputy secretary at the Interior Department, who directed the agency to issue the permit. In 2019, a federal appeals court threw out the permit, saying “the agency appears to have lost sight of its mandate ‘to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species and their habitats.’ ”
In 2018, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Virginia Wilderness Committee won a stay from the same appeals court, stopping construction for two years. That decision blocked ACP from tunneling under the Appalachian Trail.
In 2019, a predominantly black community in Buckingham County, Va., sued to block a permit for a pipeline compressor station. The appeals court ruled against ACP, saying the facility would have “a disproportionate adverse impact on economically disadvantaged or minority communities.”
In June, the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court decision that blocked tunneling under the Appalachian Trail, but ACP still needed eight more permits to move forward. Three weeks later, Duke and Dominion announced the pipeline was dead.
Legal obstacles aside, the pipeline simply wasn’t needed.
In July, a Synapse Energy Economics analysis of Duke’s integrated resource plans, commissioned by the Southern Environmental Law Center, found that electric demand is flat and the Carolinas have enough gas already. The pipeline, whose estimated cost had ballooned to $8 billion, was destined to become a “stranded asset” – another white elephant.
Also, Virginia and North Carolina have adopted aggressive policies to cut carbon emissions and expand wind and solar. In response, Dominion, which is based in Richmond, Va., sold off its interstate pipeline business for $10 billion. Duke took a $1.6 billion hit, missing its earnings-per-share goal, and said it will spend $2 billion on other new projects, in the near term, it hopes will be profitable enough to fill the gap.
The make-up spending plan includes investments in new utility-scale solar and in reinforcements of the electric grid,2 some of which may be needed. Whether it’s the most cost-effective way to address climate change and affordability and reach “net-zero” carbon remains to be seen.
The Edwardsport Coal-to-Gas Plant
Burning coal to produce synthetic gas was once touted as “American coal power's last, best chance.” The problem is the cost: In 2014, an analyst said: “I think you almost could compare [coal-to-gas plants] to nuclear plants, because they have a very high capital cost ... have relatively high fixed costs once they’re operating, and you still have uncertainty associated with the carbon capture [technology].”
By the time of that assessment, U.S. utilities had scrapped plans for dozens of coal-to-gas plants, leaving just two under construction: Southern Company’s ill-fated Kemper Project in Mississippi (see Appendix) and Duke’s Edwardsport plant.
Edwardsport’s initial cost estimate, in 2006, was $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion. Eight months later it was nearly $2 billion; by 2012, more than $3.5 billion. Duke declared the plant in service in 2013.
Throughout construction, corruption was rampant.
Duke executives engaged in prohibited communication with the chair of the state regulatory commission. During the regulatory process, Duke hired the administrative law judge overseeing the proceeding. For helping grease the hire, the commission chair was indicted on three felony counts of official misconduct. Duke’s second-in-command resigned after the Indianapolis Star exposed his cozy relationship with the chair and left with a $10 million golden parachute.
Duke pushed through legislation to shift construction costs to ratepayers and secured $440 million in federal, state and local tax credits, because the company knew that, as the first large-scale commercial plant of its kind, Edwardsport would be more expensive than a conventional natural gas plant.
Despite the scandals and overruns, regulators approved the plant. Lawmakers amended Indiana’s ethics statute so the commission chair would not serve time in prison. In 2013, in a settlement with citizens’ groups, regulators capped the amount Duke could pass on to ratepayers at $2.6 billion – a decision affirmed in June, when the costs of the plant were permanently added to customers’ bills.
Like the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Edwardsport wasn’t needed. Two years before it opened, the amount of wind power in Indiana was about three times Edwardsport’s capacity. In Duke Indiana’s most recent rate-hike case, an expert witness used the company's own data to show:
Because of technical problems, Edwardsport rarely runs at full capacity.
It costs twice as much to operate as the cost of new wind-plus-storage projects in northwest Indiana.
The amount of power used to run pollution control and other equipment is nearly nine times more than that of a conventional natural gas plant.
The Constitution Pipeline
The Constitution Pipeline, which would have delivered natural gas to customers in rural Pennsylvania and New York, was announced in 2012 and approved by FERC in 2014. The principal partner was the Williams Companies of Oklahoma. Piedmont Natural Gas, which Duke acquired in 2016, held a 24 percent interest. The initial cost was estimated at $700 million.
Williams angered property owners and New York officials by moving too aggressively. Before getting the state water agency’s permit, Williams began cutting trees, the debris clogging streams. In 2016, the state denied the permit, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court.
Citizens along the pipeline’s path flooded FERC with objections to the project, saying it would fell 700,000 trees, cross more than 250 streams without adequately protecting habitats and water quality, and promote fracking, worsening the climate crisis.
In August 2019, FERC ruled that New York had taken too long to deny the water permit, putting the project back on track. But that year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo unveiled a Green New Deal that envisioned moving away from fossil fuels altogether. That must have concerned investors, because the pipeline still needed additional state and federal permits.
In February, Williams cancelled the pipeline. Delays had increased the projected cost to about $1 billion. The Charlotte Business Journal reported that Duke had spent about $85 million.
The Lee Nuclear Station
The Lee Nuclear Station was a proposed twin-reactor power plant in Cherokee County, S.C. When Duke first approached regulators in 2006, it touted a nuclear renaissance – a recurrent industry fantasy that has never materialized – and said the plant would be a “least cost resource." But it also noted how financially risky nuclear construction is.
Duke pleaded that it needed assurance it could later recover pre-construction costs from ratepayers because the plant would mean lower electricity rates. In 2007, Duke pushed through legislation that ensured future cost recovery. When Duke applied to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, for a license, it estimated the cost would be $5 billion to $6 billion.
By 2011, construction had not begun, but Duke had raised the estimate to $11 billion.3 The Fukushima disaster that March cast a pall over the so-called nuclear renaissance. Duke also faced inconvenient truths: Electric demand had dropped significantly, and nuclear power couldn’t compete with the glut of cheaper natural gas flooding the market. Lee was in limbo.
Duke didn’t receive a construction and operating license from the NRC until December 2016. Three months later, Westinghouse, maker of the reactors planned for Lee, was driven into bankruptcy by huge cost overruns at the V.C. Sumner and Vogtle nuclear plants under construction in Georgia. (See Appendix.)
Duke, which had assured regulators it was carefully monitoring the Georgia situation, said the bankruptcy was unexpected and asked for permission to cancel the plant. Ratepayers were stuck with $517 million for an empty lot, but Duke still claimed nuclear power was a “cost effective” option.
The Levy and Crystal River Nuclear Power Plants
In 2012, Duke merged with Progress Energy, which served parts of the Carolinas and Florida. Progress had earlier pushed through Florida legislation to allow for costs of nuclear plants, both before and during construction, to be charged to ratepayers on a pay-as-you-go basis.
The reactors slated for Progress’ nuclear plant in Levy County, Fla., were the same flawed models that bankrupted Westinghouse and forced cancellation of Duke’s Lee plant. Predictably, Levy ran into the same problems.
In 2006, Progress’ original estimate for Levy was $5 billion to $6 billion. By the time of the merger, the price tag had swelled to $24 billion and the projected in-service date had been pushed back eight years, to 2024.
Undeterred, Duke continued to seek a license from the NRC. But after it was granted in 2016, Duke announced it would halt production – again insisting that nuclear power remained a viable option for the future. Of Progress’ pre-merger expenditure of $1 billion, Florida regulators allowed Duke to charge customers $800 million for a plant that never delivered a kilowatt of electricity.
Three years before the merger, Progress began replacing the steam generators at its nuclear plant in Crystal River, Fla. That involved opening the containment structure, which in a reactor accident would prevent the escape of radioactive steam. To save money, Progress moved too quickly, without expert oversight, and damaged the containment structure.
After the merger, an independent review found that repairs could cost more than $3 billion. Knowing state law allowed cost recovery, in 2013 Duke shut the plant down. Duke Florida customers will pay $1.3 billion – about $170 million a year for 20 years – for Progress’ blunder.
The Future
Duke knows the future of its business model is precarious. In its annual report to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, Duke warns investors that its profits could be threatened by the climate crisis, tougher clean air regulations, a serious nuclear accident and shrinking demand for electricity as customers go solar and invest in efficiency.
Duke and other investor-owned utilities are required by law to maximize shareholder profits. But the energy market’s inexorable transition to renewables, and the climate, public health and pollution risks of natural gas plants, pipelines and nuclear reactors, mean Duke’s reliance on those resources is not in the long-term interest of its shareholders – or its customers.
To push Duke and other utilities into the clean energy future, politicians and regulators must disrupt the monopoly model that has ceded control of energy to profit-first corporations.
Electricity rates should be tied to efforts to increase efficiency and promote rooftop and community solar.
Stockholders should bear the costs of big capital projects, to counter the cavalier attitude toward blowing ratepayer billions and recovering it through utility bills.
Regulators should exercise oversight of utilities’ planning to ensure focus on delivering least-cost and necessary service to customers, not simply increasing profits.
Notes
1 Duke held a 47 percent share in the Atlantic Coast pipeline, and at the time of cancellation had spent $1.6 billion. Through its subsidiary Piedmont Natural Gas, it held a 24 percent share in the Constitution Pipeline, whose estimated cost had risen from $700,000 to $1 billion, and Duke had spent about $85 million.
2 Duke’s “grid modernization” scheme in North Carolina has been rejected twice – first by the legislature, then by regulators. Duke claims the plan would prepare the grid for more renewables, but public interest groups say it would actually impede the growth of renewables and storage.
3 The Charlotte Business Journal noted that financing costs would raise the Lee plant’s price to more than $14 billion.
Appendix: Failed Projects Are Rife in the Utility Industry
When it comes to epic failures in the utility industry, Duke has plenty of company.
The industry’s track record of boondoggles is one reason investors are shying away from mega-projects, particularly new, untested designs never built at commercial scale. To get such projects off the ground, utilities have gotten lawmakers to shift construction risks to ratepayers a with pay-as-you-go mechanism called CWIP – construction work in progress – because smart investors won’t finance these engineering experiments unless customers are turned into the utilities’ personal bank.
"Many utilities have already started to focus their capital plans away from mega-projects and more toward smaller, more modular projects," Scotiabank analyst Andrew Weisel told Utility Dive. "You're not going to see many utility holding companies placing big investments … on large-scale midstream projects. … [S]everal utilities have learned the hard way that it might not be as easy as it used to."
Here is just a sample of other utilities’ notable failures and boondoggles.
Source: EWG, from news articles and regulatory filings


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-08-31--California Legislature Sends Landmark Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act to Gov. Newsom

SACRAMENTO , Calif. – On Sunday , the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2762 , the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act .
This landmark legislation bans 12 toxic ingredients , such as PFAS , mercury and formaldehyde , which are already prohibited from cosmetics and other personal care products sold in the European Union and other countries .
The law now goes to Gov .
Gavin Newsom .
“ If signed into law , Californians will have greater assurance of the safety of the consumer products they use every day - like lotion and body wash , toothpaste and dental floss , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Susan Little , EWG ’ s senior advocate for California government affairs .
“ What are harmful chemicals like formaldehyde and mercury doing in our personal care products ?
” Little asked .
“ Now California consumers will join those of 40 other nations who are protected from harmful cosmetics .
This common-sense legislation puts people and public health first.
” The list of banned chemicals includes the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS , mercury , formaldehyde , as well as endocrine-disrupting phthalates and long-chain parabens , preservatives used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little to protect consumers from unsafe ingredients in personal care products .
For more than 80 years , Congress has neglected to increase the scope of the Food and Drug Administration ’ s authority on cosmetics , limiting the agency ’ s ability to ensure the safety of cosmetic products .
By contrast , the EU has performed rigorous research to identify the chemicals that are not safe for use in cosmetics and other personal care products .
By following their science on chemical bans , Californians will be safer , while also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety .
AB 2762 is coauthored by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi ( D-Torrance ) , Bill Quirk ( D-Hayward ) and Buffy Wicks ( D-Oakland ) .
“ This marks a momentous milestone in the history of cosmetics regulation , ” said EWG President Ken Cook .
“ California is the first state to ban ingredients from personal care products .
And for the first time , groups like EWG and the industry ’ s trade association , the Personal Care Products Council , support legislation to modernize the rules governing these everyday products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign this absolutely necessary legislation into law.
” AB 2762 is co-sponsored by EWG , Black Women for Wellness , Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and CalPIRG .
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
https : //www.ewg.org/californiacosmetics

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On Sunday, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2762, the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act. This landmark legislation bans 12 toxic ingredients, such as PFAS, mercury and formaldehyde, which are already prohibited from cosmetics and other personal care products sold in the European Union and other countries. The law now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“If signed into law, Californians will have greater assurance of the safety of the consumer products they use every day - like lotion and body wash, toothpaste and dental floss, shampoo and conditioner, and makeup,” said Susan Little, EWG’s senior advocate for California government affairs.
“What are harmful chemicals like formaldehyde and mercury doing in our personal care products?” Little asked. “Now California consumers will join those of 40 other nations who are protected from harmful cosmetics. This common-sense legislation puts people and public health first.”
The list of banned chemicals includes the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS, mercury, formaldehyde, as well as endocrine-disrupting phthalates and long-chain parabens, preservatives used in skincare products.
The U.S. has done little to protect consumers from unsafe ingredients in personal care products. For more than 80 years, Congress has neglected to increase the scope of the Food and Drug Administration’s authority on cosmetics, limiting the agency’s ability to ensure the safety of cosmetic products.
By contrast, the EU has performed rigorous research to identify the chemicals that are not safe for use in cosmetics and other personal care products. By following their science on chemical bans, Californians will be safer, while also creating a more global standard for cosmetic safety.
AB 2762 is coauthored by Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) and Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).
“This marks a momentous milestone in the history of cosmetics regulation,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “California is the first state to ban ingredients from personal care products. And for the first time, groups like EWG and the industry’s trade association, the Personal Care Products Council, support legislation to modernize the rules governing these everyday products. We urge Gov. Newsom to sign this absolutely necessary legislation into law.”
AB 2762 is co-sponsored by EWG, Black Women for Wellness, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and CalPIRG.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. https://www.ewg.org/californiacosmetics


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-02--Duke Energy’s Shell Game: New Resource Plan Touts Carbon Cuts, But Adds More Gas and Nukes

Duke Energy ’ s Shell Game : New Resource Plan Touts Carbon Cuts , But Adds More Gas and Nukes WASHINGTON – Duke Energy says it will achieve “ net zero ” carbon pollution by 2050 .
But its new resource plan for the Carolinas almost certainly means it will continue to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear reactors as its dominant sources of energy .
On Tuesday , Duke – the largest investor-owned U.S. electric utility , with 7.7 million customers in six states – filed its 2020 Integrated Resource Plan , or IRP , with regulators in North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake of its recent cancellation of the $ 8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline , Duke-watchers expected a turn away from natural gas , they were wrong .
The plan floated six different scenarios to reach “ net zero ” carbon , and all but one relies heavily on fracked natural gas .
It confirmed that Duke will continue to give short shrift to wind power and is betting on the uncertain development of a new generation of small nuclear reactors .
“ If investors and regulators were hoping Duke would put forth a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate , this IRP wasn ’ t for them , ” said Grant Smith , EWG ’ s senior energy policy advisor .
“ Even the most ambitious scenario would only modestly invest in offshore wind , despite the enormous potential in the Carolinas , make paltry advances in solar , spend billions on more nuclear reactors and jack up customers ’ bills by nearly $ 60 a month.
” Only one scenario would reject new gas generation while marginally expanding solar power and spending big on small , “ modular ” nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas emissions by almost three-fourths but would be the most expensive and trigger a $ 58 increase in customers ’ bills .
Those projected costs make it unlikely that regulators would approve , suggesting Duke included it as a sop – and a rebuff – to investors and advocates who want the utility to speed up its transition from fossil fuels .
On last month ’ s earnings call , Duke said it will have a clearer picture of its path to “ net zero ” carbon early next year .
But CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that offshore wind wasn ’ t viable for at least a decade .
The new plan confirms that view and sees only marginal value in onshore wind .
The IRP reaffirms Duke ’ s plans to ask federal regulators to extend the operating licenses for its 11 nuclear reactors , increasing the risk of accidents .
As for its expectations for new modular reactors , there is no working example in the U.S. to indicate the actual costs of building and operating such units .
Earlier this week , EWG released a report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squandered on failed and botched natural gas and nuclear plants across its vast service area .
Duke admits gas and nuclear plants are threatened by the climate crisis and the rapid growth and plummeting price of renewable energy .
But it continues to rationalize buildout of these risky investments , because as a government-protected monopoly it can pass the costs of its failures on to its customers and drive up its stock prices .
“ From Duke ’ s recent climate report and this IRP , you can predict that Duke ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nuclear power and natural gas – along with more billions of blown ratepayer dollars on more failed projects , ” said Smith .
“ It ’ s a shell game – talking a good game on renewables and carbon cuts to distract from its plans for business as usual.
” The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
Visit www.ewg.org for @ @ @

WASHINGTON – Duke Energy says it will achieve “net zero” carbon pollution by 2050. But its new resource plan for the Carolinas almost certainly means it will continue to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear reactors as its dominant sources of energy.
On Tuesday, Duke – the largest investor-owned U.S. electric utility, with 7.7 million customers in six states – filed its 2020 Integrated Resource Plan, or IRP, with regulators in North and South Carolina. If in the wake of its recent cancellation of the $8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Duke-watchers expected a turn away from natural gas, they were wrong.
The plan floated six different scenarios to reach “net zero” carbon, and all but one relies heavily on fracked natural gas. It confirmed that Duke will continue to give short shrift to wind power and is betting on the uncertain development of a new generation of small nuclear reactors.
“If investors and regulators were hoping Duke would put forth a serious plan to reduce emissions and combat climate, this IRP wasn’t for them,” said Grant Smith, EWG’s senior energy policy advisor. “Even the most ambitious scenario would only modestly invest in offshore wind, despite the enormous potential in the Carolinas, make paltry advances in solar, spend billions on more nuclear reactors and jack up customers’ bills by nearly $60 a month.”
Only one scenario would reject new gas generation while marginally expanding solar power and spending big on small, “modular” nuclear reactors. This path would cut greenhouse gas emissions by almost three-fourths but would be the most expensive and trigger a $58 increase in customers’ bills.
Those projected costs make it unlikely that regulators would approve, suggesting Duke included it as a sop – and a rebuff – to investors and advocates who want the utility to speed up its transition from fossil fuels.
On last month’s earnings call, Duke said it will have a clearer picture of its path to “net zero” carbon early next year. But CEO Lynn J. Good also said then that offshore wind wasn’t viable for at least a decade. The new plan confirms that view and sees only marginal value in onshore wind.
The IRP reaffirms Duke’s plans to ask federal regulators to extend the operating licenses for its 11 nuclear reactors, increasing the risk of accidents. As for its expectations for new modular reactors, there is no working example in the U.S. to indicate the actual costs of building and operating such units.
Earlier this week, EWG released a report documenting the billions of dollars Duke has squandered on failed and botched natural gas and nuclear plants across its vast service area.
Duke admits gas and nuclear plants are threatened by the climate crisis and the rapid growth and plummeting price of renewable energy. But it continues to rationalize buildout of these risky investments, because as a government-protected monopoly it can pass the costs of its failures on to its customers and drive up its stock prices.
“From Duke’s recent climate report and this IRP, you can predict that Duke’s energy mix in 2035 will consist mainly of nuclear power and natural gas – along with more billions of blown ratepayer dollars on more failed projects,” said Smith. “It’s a shell game – talking a good game on renewables and carbon cuts to distract from its plans for business as usual.”
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-02--Algae Blooms: More Than 300 Outbreaks So Far This Year

If you ’ re headed for the lake or river this Labor Day weekend , be on the lookout for outbreaks of potentially toxic algae .
Through the end of August , algae blooms have plagued 318 bodies of water across the U.S. , with many more expected in September and beyond .
EWG tracks news reports of algae outbreaks going back to 2010 on our interactive map .
Reports are down compared to last year , but the pandemic may have forced cutbacks in states ’ testing for outbreaks and in news outlets ’ capacity to report them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but microscopic organisms called cyanobacteria .
Blooms are commonly triggered when nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from fertilizer and animal manure run off farm fields and get into bodies of water .
Cyanobacteria thrives with heat and sunlight , so the heat wave that ’ s broiled much of the country this summer is making conditions ripe for outbreaks .
Algae blooms that produce toxins can be hazardous to people , pets and wildlife who come into contact with them through recreation or when they contaminate sources of drinking water .
Algae toxins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health impacts such as nausea , vomiting and respiratory problems , as well as long-term effects , including liver failure or cancer , and newer research is starting to connect algae toxin exposure to degenerative brain disorders .
This year , 86 percent of reported algae outbreaks have affected recreation , for instance , by making it unsafe for people to swim or boat .
This summer , eight reports were of blooms that killed animals : Seven outbreaks killed dogs , and one bloom in a North Dakota stock pond killed nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the end of August , we counted 416 news reports of algae , 98 more than this year .
But that likely does not mean there have been fewer outbreaks .
Because of pandemic-triggered budget cuts , some states have been forced to reduce algae testing .
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality has tested 60 bodies of water for toxins in the past few years , but this year they are only testing 18 .
“ Those 18 are largely state parks , ” the department ’ s director , Erica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They ’ re really the areas where the public is most likely to interact directly with the water body , and where we ’ ve had issues of algal blooms in the past.
” Also , since our map tracks news reports , it ’ s a good bet not all outbreaks are being reported .
Many news outlets have focused most of their coverage on the pandemic , the economy , racial justice and the upcoming election , so they have fewer resources to report on blooms .
Because cyanobacteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical that testing and reporting continue .
Before you head to the lake or river , check out our news report map and check in with your local , county or state health department to see if there has been an algae outbreak .

If you’re headed for the lake or river this Labor Day weekend, be on the lookout for outbreaks of potentially toxic algae. Through the end of August, algae blooms have plagued 318 bodies of water across the U.S., with many more expected in September and beyond.
EWG tracks news reports of algae outbreaks going back to 2010 on our interactive map. Reports are down compared to last year, but the pandemic may have forced cutbacks in states’ testing for outbreaks and in news outlets’ capacity to report them.
Blue-green algae blooms are actually not algae but microscopic organisms called cyanobacteria. Blooms are commonly triggered when nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from fertilizer and animal manure run off farm fields and get into bodies of water. Cyanobacteria thrives with heat and sunlight, so the heat wave that’s broiled much of the country this summer is making conditions ripe for outbreaks.
Algae blooms that produce toxins can be hazardous to people, pets and wildlife who come into contact with them through recreation or when they contaminate sources of drinking water. Algae toxins, such as microcystin, can have short-term health impacts such as nausea, vomiting and respiratory problems, as well as long-term effects, including liver failure or cancer, and newer research is starting to connect algae toxin exposure to degenerative brain disorders.
This year, 86 percent of reported algae outbreaks have affected recreation, for instance, by making it unsafe for people to swim or boat. This summer, eight reports were of blooms that killed animals: Seven outbreaks killed dogs, and one bloom in a North Dakota stock pond killed nine head of cattle.
In 2019, through the end of August, we counted 416 news reports of algae, 98 more than this year. But that likely does not mean there have been fewer outbreaks.
Because of pandemic-triggered budget cuts, some states have been forced to reduce algae testing. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality has tested 60 bodies of water for toxins in the past few years, but this year they are only testing 18.
“Those 18 are largely state parks,” the department’s director, Erica Gaddis, told state lawmakers in mid-August. “They’re really the areas where the public is most likely to interact directly with the water body, and where we’ve had issues of algal blooms in the past.”
Also, since our map tracks news reports, it’s a good bet not all outbreaks are being reported. Many news outlets have focused most of their coverage on the pandemic, the economy, racial justice and the upcoming election, so they have fewer resources to report on blooms.
Because cyanobacteria can harm public health, it is critical that testing and reporting continue. Before you head to the lake or river, check out our news report map and check in with your local, county or state health department to see if there has been an algae outbreak.