Blog: Pacific Swell | 89.3 KPCC

Vernon battery recycling plant can reopen despite health risks

Molly Peterson — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:52:24 -0700

An employee wearing a breathing mask works at Exide Technologies, a battery recycling plant has discharged harmful amounts of lead into surrounding communities.; Credit: Mae Ryan/KPCC

A lead battery recycler in Vernon shuttered as a public health threat two months ago has won the right to reopen, at least temporarily.

In April, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) ordered Exide Technologies to suspend operations. The company's own inspection video had revealed holes in underground pipes that leaked wastewater into the soil. A health risk assessment released by air regulators had found sharply elevated cancer risks from cyanide and lead emissions for nearby workers and people who lived near the facility.

The company challenged the closure in an administrative proceeding which started earlier this month. But the overworked state Office of Administrative Hearings has not been able to schedule enough time to finish hearing the dispute.

Exide's Vernon plant recycled up to 40,000 batteries each day; it's one of only two lead-battery recycling facilities west of the Mississippi. The company filed for bankruptcy protection last week.

Last week Exide went to Superior Court to ask a judge there to block the suspension. Judge Luis Lavin Monday issued a temporary restraining order against the DTSC, writing that Exide would be irreparably harmed by a slow administrative hearing, and that the public interest will not suffer by allowing the lead recycler to get the Vernon plant back to work.

Supreme Court dials 867-5309 as it leaves Port of LA's Clean Trucks Program alone (for now)

Molly Peterson — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:10:02 -0700

The Clean Trucks Program, a centerpiece of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's environmental agenda, remains alive after a Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday. ; Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

The US Supreme Court gave the trucking industry a victory when it struck down part of the Port of L.A.'s Clean Trucks Program. But the narrow ruling in American Trucking Association vs. City of Los Angeles left the main part of the program alone, so the port can continue to require that cargo haulers use newer, clean fuel burning trucks.

At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge 31-year-old songs wherever you find them - especially if they're buried in a Supreme Court decision.

Justice Elena Kagan revealed herself as a pop aficionado as she described the two provisions of the concession agreements (between the port and the trucking companies) that the Court ruled violated federal law. She wrote:

The two directly at issue here compel the company to (1) affix a placard on each truck with a phone number for reporting environmental or safety concerns (You’ve seen the type: “How am I driving? 213–867–5309”) and (2) submit a plan listing off-street parking locations for each truck when not in service.

"867-5309" was a song by Tommy Tutone that made it to #4 on the Billboard charts in 1982. Kudos to Justice Kagan (or her clerk) for getting this song stuck in my head.

Even if that reference to the song is humorous, the opinion itself remains serious business for the Port of Los Angeles, for the movement trying to clean up the air around ports, and for clean air advocates around the country.

This opinion is a win for the trucking industry. But it’s not as large as it could have won, and it’s probably not as large as it would have liked.

While the Court knocked out the placard and the off-street parking provisions, the agreements themselves can remain in effect. I asked Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, David Pettit, about that. NRDC lawyers worked alongside the city’s lawyers over the last five years as the legal challenges wended their way up through the courts. Pettit found some silver linings:

They did not say that the Port can't have a concession agreement with trucking companies. They did not say that the Port can't ban old trucks. They did not cast any doubt on the maintenance provision which, in my view, is the most important. As a practical matter, the Port does not have to change anything in its day-to-day operations. If the Port finds dirty trucks, those trucks can be forbidden to enter Port property.

Environmentalists had worried about the second question before the Court, which concerned the port’s right to enforce maintenance and financial capability requirements. Under the terms of the concession agreement, the port can deny access to trucks that don’t keep up with these responsibilities. So far, that hasn’t happened. Justice Kagan wrote that the court won't decide this question for now, since the port hasn't tried to enforce that rule. But she also wrote that nothing the court had previously said on the question “prevents a State from taking off the road a vehicle that is contemporaneously out of compliance with such regulations.” In other words, it seems the port still has the right to prevent ongoing violations of maintenance and financial-capability rules on its property.

Questions still abound. The American Trucking Association wasn’t crazy about the idea of concession agreements from the beginning; its lawyers may still seek to undermine them as an enforcement history builds up.

The bottom line for now: if you run another public port elsewhere in the U.S., and you’re interested in making a Clean Trucks Program of your own, you might not want to use L.A.'s model, unless you like multi-year litigation.

Still, one thing the Court clearly established is that a good pop song lives forever.

PUC head and judge differ on putting Southern California Edison transmission lines underground in Chino Hills

Molly Peterson — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:59:14 -0700

Chino Hills residents have waged a 6-year campaign against high voltage transmission lines wedged into narrow right-of-ways among homes that Southern California Edison says will connect Kern County wind energy to the LA Basin. ; Credit: Courtesy Hope for the Hills

After a years-long fight over whether to place high-voltage transmission lines above ground or underground through a stretch of Chino Hills, California's Public Utilities Commission is set to decide in July between two competing proposals: an administrative law judge says putting the lines underground would be too expensive, while the PUC's own president says the cost would be "reasonable."

The PUC approved Southern California Edison's Techachapi Renewable Transmission Project back in 2009; it's designed to bring wind energy from Kern County to the L.A. basin. But the project's been on hold for four years as Chino Hills city leaders and residents have complained that the right of way is too narrow, and that putting high-voltage transmission lines so close to residents could create unknown health impacts.

Of particular concern to residents is segment 8A of the project, a 3.5 mile section that weaves through the city of Chino Hills. City officials had appealed a 2009 ruling that rejected placing the transmission lines underground. In her proposed decision issued late Tuesday, administrative law judge Jean Vieth agreed with the 2009 ruling, and found that while putting power lines underground through the city “is feasible and could be completed on a timely basis,” she argued that “the cost is prohibitive [she estimated the cost at between $268 million and $296 million] and should not be borne by ratepayers at large for the benefit of the City and its residents.”

But PUC President Michael Peevey issued an alternate proposed decision Tuesday that calls for putting the lines underground in segment 8A, pleasing Chino Hills residents who have campaigned against the project for years. Peevey's proposal estimates the cost of putting the lines underground at $224 million.

Bob Goodwin is with a group called Hope for the Hills, which has fought the project on a variety of fronts, and which supports the underground option for segment 8A. “We have been very passionate, we have been very serious, and we have been dedicated to doing whatever we can to make sure it gets addressed the way it should have in the first place,” Goodwin said.

Goodwin had positive words for both rulings. While Vieth’s proposed decision went against Chino Hills, Goodwin points out that the judge said underground construction of power lines is feasible and could be completed on time: two points that Edison has disputed.

But Chino Hills residents including Goodwin are throwing support behind Peevey’s proposal. In it, Peevey notes that the proposed transmission towers would be more than double the height of the ones in Chino Hills now, set in a narrow, 150-foot “right of way” among houses.

All five PUC commissioners toured Chino Hills after a prolonged public campaign by Hope for the Hills. Goodwin believes that getting public utilities officials to the city helped. “We’ve been very successful in putting a name, a face, a community to this project,” Goodwin says.

In a written statement, Edison says that the company "disagrees with the alternate decision and believes that the full commission should adopt the administrative law judge's proposed decision." Edison maintains that putting transmission lines underground in Chino Hills would "burden California energy users with additional costs that SCE estimates would range from $368 million to $722 million for an approximately 3.5 mile stretch of the 173-mile transmission line route" -- a much higher estimate than either Peevey's or Vieth's.

The PUC has until the end of July to consider which alternative to choose. The next commission meeting is July 11th.

Troubled battery-recycling plant owner Exide Technologies files for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection

Molly Peterson — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:26 -0700

State officials shut down operations at Exide Technologies in Vernon, Calif. in April due to toxic air pollution that may pose health risks to members of the surrounding community. The plant is now open again.; Credit: Mae Ryan/KPCC

The owner of a troubled lead-battery recycling plant in Vernon has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Exide Technologies reported $1.9 billion in assets and $1.1 billion in liabilities as of the end of last quarter. By entering Chapter 11, the company is likely to avoid paying off maturing bonds and payments for debt interest, both due later this year.

The state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control shuttered Exide’s Vernon plant in April. DTSC justified its suspension order two ways. First, a health risk assessment prepared by regional air officials found sharply elevated cancer risk in the surrounding areas from arsenic emissions. Second, an inspection of the stormwater system at the facility revealed gashes in underground pipes rendering the system faulty.

Exide had filed a notice of defense to challenge the DTSC’s suspension. What was supposed to be a three-day hearing last week proved more complicated than lawyers anticipated. Now the Office of Administrative Hearings is seeking to schedule and complete the hearing sometime this summer.

Exide's stock has dropped precipitously over the last year, losing more than 90 percent of its value. News of the bankruptcy filing has sent it down further, with shares trading around 17 cents apiece as of mid-day Monday.

Ratepayer advocate says DWP overpaying for large-scale solar power, but others say program off to a "promising start"

Molly Peterson — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:00:27 -0700

The DWP's "feed-in tariff" program aims to encourage solar projects larger than those on typical residential homes in the LA basin by buying back energy through long-term contracts.; Credit: Metro Transportation Library & Archive/Flickr

Six months in to the L.A. Department of Water and Power’s “feed-in tariff” program, the jury’s still out about whether the program’s working. But it’s clear the DWP’s ratepayer advocate, Fred Pickel, hasn’t exactly warmed up to the utility’s efforts to put more solar panels on big rooftops in the L.A. basin.

First, a reminder about what “feed-in tariff” is. State law requires utilities to encourage larger projects, such as on commercial rooftops and parking lots, by purchasing power from the developers and companies that set them up. So under the “feed in tariff” program, these rooftop owners feed solar onto the grid and get paid for it by the DWP in long-term contracts. Environmentalists and business lobbies alike are bullish on the prospects for such a program. Check this Los Angeles Business Council video touting its awesomeness.

An average home’s roof has about three kilowatts of energy producing capacity. This feed-in tariff program encourages projects at least 10 times larger. The total amount of energy the DWP says it will buy is 100 MW, broken up into 20 MW “tranches” to be distributed by lottery. The first lottery happened back in February; the DWP paid 17 cents a kilowatt hour for projects in that first batch.

In January, solar developers, lobbyists and companies that might take advantage of the program argued for higher prices and more room for smaller projects (on this scale, that means projects 30 kw to 150 kw). Was that necessary?

Ratepayer advocate Fred Pickel would say no. He concludes that DWP customers will pay significantly more than they need to for projects in the first batch: between $61-$68 million.

Pickel says the DWP should stop signing contracts with the companies that won the February lottery. He also argues that the DWP shouldn’t go forward with seeking more large-scale projects in a scheduled July 8 lottery.

Pickel compares the DWP’s feed-in tariff program to the California Public Utilities Commission’s “renewable market adjusting tariff.” That program pegs the price for renewable energy to the contracts the investor-owned utilities signed with solar providers, and lets the price float some with market conditions.

Near as I can tell, DWP liked the fixed pricing mechanism for predictability reasons. DWP’s contracts also extend longer, in some cases twice as long, as the CPUC ones. So far the DWP contracts only cover solar, not all renewables.

It’s worth checking out the blog by Run on Sun’s Jim Jenal on this subject; he’s been reading the technical work on this and other similar programs for years. For his part, Jenal says DWP is off to a “promising start.” He mapped projects in the first batch, flagging zip codes where the initial phase of the program had two or more projects proposed. The map reveals that most of the projects are in the northern part of L.A., the north San Fernando Valley; few are in the south bay or central Los Angeles, or even on the west side.

Jenal argues the DWP may be paying too much for the largest projects, and for those located in the Owens Valley, based on the deep demand in those areas. But Jenal believes that the DWP should keep the rate it pays for smaller projects right where it is.

The DWP will open the lottery for the next 20 megawatts of solar contracts fairly soon. The base price for these projects will be lower – 16 cents per megawatt.

Something interesting to watch going forward is how many local jobs this will create. Jenal, in his analysis, suggests seven of the top 10 contracting companies from the first round of the feed-in tariff lottery are actually out-of-state corporations. To him, that seems to suggest that those companies will bring people with them, or hire from out of state. If he's right, that could weaken the blue-green alliance on renewable development.

Environmentalists, city of Long Beach, air regulators all file CEQA challenges to proposed rail transfer yard

Molly Peterson — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:11:45 -0700

Supporters and opponents of the Southern California International Gateway project express their opinions on t-shirts at a harbor commissioners meeting in March. ; Credit: Molly Peterson/KPCC

Environmental groups, the city of Long Beach, and air regulators are all challenging the city of Los Angeles' approval for a proposed $500 million rail transfer yard near Wilmington and the 710 freeway.

A complaint filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Friday is the third filed in Superior Court about the Southern California International Gateway.

The BNSF railway’s project would serve as a transfer point between the harbor complex and rail. Short-haul trucks would travel four miles up the freeway to move containers of cargo onto trans. Trucks taking containers to BNSF trains now must travel to Commerce, about 20 miles farther away from the port.

L.A. port officials, politicians, business interests and some residents tout the project's economic value. They say it will keep the port competitive by helping to to handle more traffic more efficiently. They also say it will create hundreds of jobs.

Air regulators argue that the city of Los Angeles’s approval for the project violates the California Environmental Quality Act because the railyard’s environmental impact report is inadequate.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, acting on behalf of several environmental and community groups, filed a similar suit Friday. Long Beach filed its own legal challenge to the project on Wednesday.

“I think the CEQA violations are just too egregious,” said NRDC attorney David Pettit, who points out that the project’s own environmental review admits health and other impacts will be worse in the area’s mostly poor and minority neighborhoods.

The NRDC also claims that the project uses creative math to hide the extent of the pollution that would come with more cargo trucks.

If a CEQA claim succeeds before a judge, BNSF will have to submit a new environmental impact report and gain a new set of approvals from port commissioners and the L.A. city council.

The railyard won approval first from L.A.’s harbor commissioners, and then from the Los Angeles City Council.

The NRDC is also targeting how the city council handled a hearing about the project. NRDC’s Pettit criticized councilman Herb Wesson for limiting public comment, and the council for failing to consider all evidence submitted at the hearing. “The whole process was standardless in terms of even the conduct of the hearing. It was completely arbitrary,” he said.

NRDC also argues that the railyard project is “environmental racism,” in Pettit’s words, and that it violates state and federal civil rights laws.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District's legal challenge to the project is an unusual step. The AQMD's executive director, Dr. Barry Wallerstein, foreshadowed the filing when he testified against the railyard before the L.A. City Council in May.

"BNSF [the project's backer] and the port argue that pollution levels in the adjacent community will be lower," Wallerstein told councilmembers. "Our review with our air quality experts indicates that that is not so, that the EIR [environmental impact report] overstates future pollution levels without SCIG, making the project appear more beneficial" than it would be.

In a written statement issued after the Long Beach filing, BNSF spokeswoman Lena Kent criticized the city of Long Beach for “inaccurate statements and assertions” in its complaint. Kent pointed to an analysis by Port of Los Angeles officials, who concluded that health impacts will decrease for West Long Beach and other local communities if the railyard gets built.

Kent also touted commitments BNSF made to reduce emissions, including having zero-emission cranes on site and requiring low-emission and liquid natural gas trucks to serve the railyard.

“We are confident that when the court hears this case that it will find the City of Los Angeles acted appropriately,” Kent wrote.

Behind the $2.5M deal for Facebook co-founder's 'Lord of the Rings' Big Sur wedding

Molly Peterson — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 06:27:59 -0700

This is what the site where Sean Parker got married looked like before he "enhanced" it. ; Credit: California Coastal Commission

A Facebook co-founder’s Big Sur wedding this past Saturday might have looked like Rivendell, but regulators say illegal development has turned central California coastal land into Mount Doom... and the whole ruckus should turn the Eye of Sauron onto the regulators themselves.

For those of you who don’t speak "The Lord of the Rings": Sean Parker (you know, Justin Timberlake in "The Social Network") got hitched beneath a canopy of ancient redwoods at the Ventana Inn and Spa. (The Tolkien references were for the costume designer who styled the event and, earlier, costumes for "The Lord of The Rings.") The California Coastal Commission says construction for the $10 million wedding is actually not permitted development under the Coastal Act:

including grading, change in use from campground to private event, construction of multiple structures including a gateway and arch, an artificial pond, a stone bridge, multiple event platforms with elevated floors, rock walls, artificially created ruins of cottages and castle walls, multiple locations with rock stairways, a dance floor, installation of numerous potted trees, potted plants and flowers, event tents, port-a-potties, generators, lighting, and wedding facilities ...

That’s from the commission’s staff report, which describes legal settlements for the damage, requiring $2.5 million in fines, restitution and restoration of the land. Parker created a company just to run the wedding.

Initial coverage of this settlement has focused on the mindset of Facebook’s founders and Silicon Valley. I like the way The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal put it:

[T]hat’s … part of the new Silicon Valley parable: dream big, privatize the previously public, pay no attention to the rules, build recklessly, enjoy shamelessly, invoke magic, and then pay everybody off.

It’s not just Sean Parker or Neraida, the company he created just for the wedding, who are settling liability, so the proposed settlement deserves a deeper look. The other party to the settlement is the Ventana Inn and Spa, where the wedding took place. Ventana cut a deal with Parker and Neraida to secure his wedding business and that of his elite guest list.

So it bears mentioning that the proposed settlement also clears up Ventana’s liability going back to 2007 — liability that coastal regulators seem to indicate they wouldn’t have known of without the Parker wedding.

The permit for Ventana’s high-end rooms (if you have to ask, you can’t afford them) required the private company to operate a public campground with 100 sites. That use balances access along the coast for the Sean Parkers of the world with access for, say, a Molly Peterson.

Except Ventana closed the campground six years ago, because of problems water regulators found with the septic system. Ventana never told the Coastal Commission about the closed campground.

Ventana made an agreement with Parker to lease out the campground area back in January. Work for the wedding started in March. “A member of the public” tipped the Coastal Commission to possible illegal development in late April; enforcement showed up in May.

What this means is that the state came to an agreement in late May, before the wedding even happened, for Coastal Act violations it found earlier that month. Not just that, but the state is willing to settle over six years of mostly unrelated Coastal Act violations by the property owner, Ventana, in the same agreement.

So the $2.5 million fine for Sean Parker’s Elven-style bridges and stone ruins covers a neglect that well predates the wedding. Ventana seems to have figured out how to violate the Coastal Act for six years and get a big fancy wedding to pay for it.

In the news release announcing the settlement, California Coastal Commission Executive Director Charles Lester described Sean Parker as “extremely cooperative and actively involved” in discussions about his illegal development and touts Sean and Alexandra Parker’s green cred.

That's a little curious, since the way commission staffers write up the violations suggests that violating the Coastal Act is serious, that digging unnatural ponds is a bad idea, that adding sediment into waterways where fish spawn is bad for wildlife and that building stone fences without a permit over the roots of redwoods could harm the trees’ roots and the ecosystem.

Still, it's not like the commission’s lead regulator or his staff explain why it didn’t stop Parker’s construction when it was discovered before the wedding. (I don’t think the Coastal Act was going to leave the state on the hook for Emma Watson’s plane ticket.) And could the Coastal Commission really not have known for six years that a popular campground was closed? Guess they don’t have Google searches.

“Move fast, break things” is Facebook’s expression of the hacker way. It’s a great mantra for achieving a fast rise from nimble startup to global behemoth. But does a huge check after the fact mean it’s OK to do that to California’s coast?

We'll have a chance to hear more about what regulators think on this subject soon enough. On Friday, June 14, coastal commissioners will consider whether to approve the deal that their staff is recommending.

Until then, you can read the California Coastal Commission's report on the wedding, and the settlement:

Move Fast. Break Things. by Sam Biddle

Exide Technologies FAQ: Everything you need to know about recycling lead batteries in LA

Molly Peterson — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:13:17 -0700

Exide Technologies in Vernon.; Credit: Mae Ryan/KPCC

On Monday I reported on Exide Technologies' effort to persuade a judge to let it reopen after the Department of Toxic Substances Control suspended operations at its Vernon plant in April. Here are answers to common questions about Exide and battery recycling.

What do battery recyclers like Exide Technologies in Vernon do?

Old lead-acid batteries, like those you see under the hood of your car, are gathered up and shipped to secondary recycling facilities. (Motorcycle batteries and other commercial batteries go to Vernon too.) They’re disassembled or otherwise broken down; first, plastic casings and hardware are pulled off and separated. Then the lead is melted down in furnaces, to separate it from the acid parts. The lead is smelted into ingots, lead-alloy bars, or blocks as large as a ton, and then re-used in batteries and other similar products.

How many battery recyclers are there in California?

Two. The only two battery recyclers in the U.S. west of the Rockies are Exide Technologies, in Vernon, and Quemetco, in the City of Industry.

Where else does Exide operate?

Exide’s global headquarters are in Milton, Georgia. It manufactures batteries in numerous U.S., Pacific Rim, European and Australian locations. Exide recycles batteries in the U.S. at plants in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Canon Hollow, Missouri; Muncie, Indiana; and Reading, Pennsylvania.

At present, Exide’s Frisco, Texas and Vernon, California plants are closed. Exide shut down its Frisco plant last year. Cleanup work at that plant has been stalled since March 2013, when environmental quality regulators found higher-than-expected amounts of lead and cadmium onsite. Exide has said that it remains on schedule to finish cleaning the property by May 2014, and it’s just waiting for the go-ahead from environmental regulators.

What are the potential environmental hazards in battery recycling?

Lead is a toxic metal. According to CalRecycle, "Symptoms of low-level lead exposure include fatigue, impaired central nervous system functions, and impaired learning. Severe lead poisoning can result in coma, convulsions, irreversible mental retardation, seizures, and even death."

The concerns about recycling lead stem from potential failures to control air emissions or hazardous waste during the recycling process. Emissions can transport particulate matter, including lead and arsenic. Poorly contained lead waste, including waste water, can leach toxic materials into soil and groundwater surrounding a recycling facility.

Exposure to lead in all three media - air, soil, and water - can harm humans and wildlife.

Who regulates Exide in California?

The Department of Toxic Substances Control regulates companies that handle hazardous waste under authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Under federal law, regulators permit companies like Exide to handle hazardous materials like lead as long as they do so safely. DTSC writes permits, inspects facilities, issues violations of hazardous waste rules, and monitors corrective action at sites.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District regulates Exide’s air emissions, in part with what’s called a Title V permit, which allows the company to release pollutants into the air up to certain levels.

The L.A. Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for protecting water quality around Exide (as well as around the Los Angeles River and along the coast). Exide has wastewater treatment systems, and a stormwater system that includes a retention basin. Water regulators set standards for water that flows away from Exide’s property into the sewer.

The City of Vernon issues health and other permits to Exide.

How could Exide operate with just a temporary permit since 1981?

The Vernon plant was owned by a company called Gould when it first applied for a permit in the 1980s. Exide took it over in 2000.

The most recent time Exide filed a complete permit application was 2006.

Is there concrete evidence that Exide’s operation has caused health problems in the surrounding communities?

No. In heavily industrial urban areas, it is exceedingly difficult to determine a direct link between a specific facility and an individual’s health condition.

Are there alternatives to recycling lead batteries at plants like Exide’s?

Not really. In principle, lead recycling is considered a successful way to reuse materials. Ninety seven percent of battery lead gets recycled.

Adam Schiff and Mitch O'Farrell urge Metrolink to study health risks of Taylor Yards soot

Molly Peterson — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:19:22 -0700

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) stands at the podium flanked by LA City Councilman-elect Mitch O'Farrell and Elysian Valley and Cypress Park residents to urge Metrolink to study the health risk posed by diesel soot emissions from Taylor Yards. ; Credit: Courtesy Congressman Adam Schiff Office

A congressman and a councilman-elect are urging Metrolink to assess the health risks of its operations at Taylor Yards on surrounding communities in Cypress Park and Elysian Valley.

People living in northeast L.A. have long expressed concern about diesel particulate matter emitted by locomotives and other equipment at the Metrolink facility. So far, Metrolink has resisted community calls to conduct a health risk assessment.

Congressman Adam Schiff said Taylor Yard trains are noisy and dirty. “Metrolink has consistently failed to address community fears about the health risk of living near the facility and stonewalled calls for a health assessment," said Schiff.

L.A. City Councilman-elect Mitch O’Farrell also boosted calls for a study. “As a Councilmember, I will demand nothing less than a health risk assessment, because if we don’t have a baseline of where we are now, then we won’t know how to proceed,” said O’Farrell.

Metrolink has long defended its operations at Taylor Yards, pointing out that mass transit helps keep freeway maintenance and construction costs down, even as it touted its efforts to cut emissions.

Last year the yard's neighbors wrote to Metrolink’s John Fenton arguing that “with more than 30 locomotives serviced daily, often idling for 2 or more hours each, they are creating a hazardous environment for our community’s health and our children.” Following petitions and public meetings, Metrolink began running a quarter of its trains on electric power while they were idling, and taking other measures to cut pollution.

Northeast LA Residents for Clean Air Coalition has commended Metrolink for its voluntary measures to cut emissions. But concerns about the health effects of diesel soot loom large, inflamed by the World Health Organization’s finding last summer that particulate matter from diesel engines causes cancer.

Last year KCET’s Departures talked to Ceci Dominguez, a 40-year Elysian Valley resident:

When you went to the doctor, you didn't question him, you drink your medicine. You listen to what the teachers have to say about your children. We now realize that's not the case with our air quality. No one is watching this yard. What about the health of our community? We have now become the caretakers.

Californians Against Fracking will launch coordinated protests around state

Molly Peterson — Thu, 30 May 2013 06:00:26 -0700

Activists say the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can pollute the air and groundwater. They're protesting around California on Thursday. ; Credit: Calif. Dept. of Conservation

Opponents of a controversial method of extracting oil and gas will deliver petitions to lawmakers around California on Thursday urging them to limit or ban the controversial practice.

Groups against fracking say the method could damage groundwater supplies and harm unspoiled habitat for native animals like the kit fox.

Organizers say around 70 groups are involved in the coordinated effort. One of the largest, MoveOn.org, plans to deliver petitions to a dozen assembly members asking for limits on the oil extraction method. The group is also organizing protests in Sacramento, San Jose, San Diego, San Ramon, and Los Altos, among other places.

Food and Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity are planning similar marches in San Francisco and here in Los Angeles. Documentary filmmaker Josh Fox, who directed "Gasland," will join activists as they protest outside Governor Brown's Los Angeles office on Spring Street.

THE SKY IS PINK by Josh Fox and the GASLAND Team from JFOX on Vimeo.

The federal government estimates that as much as 15 million barrels of oil and gas are trapped in a rock formation that sprawls across southern and central California called the Monterey Shale. Petroleum companies say breaking open that rock will unleash an economic boom, including fuel, jobs and tax revenue.

Next10 challenges you to cut California's carbon, balance the cost of policies

Molly Peterson — Wed, 29 May 2013 16:47:33 -0700

A compressed natural gas (CNG) hose dispenses gas to a Honda Civic at a clean energy fuel station January 18, 2007 in San Francisco, California. Rebates for clean fuel cars are among policy choices on Next10's California Carbon Challenge website. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Frustrated by a lack of federal climate policy? Ever considered back seat driving California’s efforts to cut tailpipe emissions? A hypnotic new website could be just the ticket for the secret policy wonks among us.

A group called Next10 has launched the “California Carbon Challenge,” where you can “decide how to reach the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal” by selecting different programs and balancing their cost with their effectiveness.

Policy choices are broken out into various categories like vehicle technology, green buildings, and government operations. Each one features pro and con arguments, and assesses whether the initial cost falls most directly on people, businesses or government.

The authors of the website note that if you choose the same options that state officials have already started implementing, you’ll meet the goal of AB 32, the landmark California greenhouse gas law passed back in 2006.

But they offer other options as well, some of which are popular with visitors.

For example, pay-as-you-go car insurance, which hasn’t gained a lot of traction in the real world, has the support of about 75 percent of the site’s visitors right now. Those who drive more would pay higher rates of insurance.

The added cost would be an incentive for people to drive less and could cut more than 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. And, according to the site’s methodology, would save money, presumably by acting as a price signal to would-be drivers.

People also seem to like more bike lanes, renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency for government buildings. Fully implementing California’s Title 24 standards is one of the least sexy policy choices, but it’s another one that gets a good bang for the buck: a reduction of more than 4 million metric tons of carbon, for its cost – which, as with pay-as-you-go insurance, is expressed in negatives because it’s anticipated to save money.

If you do everything the site offers as a policy choice, you’d cut carbon emissions by more than 92 million metric tons – almost twice as much as the state’s minimum requirement – at a cost of $60 a ton.

Dry winter keeps Heal the Bay's beach grades high, but usual suspects remain dirty

Molly Peterson — Thu, 23 May 2013 13:20:16 -0700

The beach at Avalon Harbor has made Heal the Bay’s "Ten Worst Bummers” list for more than a decade thanks to ancient clay and metal pipes in the Catalina Island city’s sewage system.; Credit: Jonathan Moore/Getty Images

Santa Monica based Heal the Bay’s annual Beach Report Card is out, just as school’s about to be out for summer. The group found cleaner beaches overall in Los Angeles county, but the dirtiest spots are familiar ones.

Heal the Bay graded 89 LA county beaches for bacterial contamination in wet and dry weather. Eighty-four percent of them scored As or Bs on an A-to-F scale.

Seven of the worst beaches in the state are in southern California, according to the group’s analysis.

In Los Angeles County, Redondo Pier, Cabrillo Beach, Malibu Pier, and Avalon topped the “beach bummers” list. Orange County’s Poche Beach and Doheny in Dana Point also scored poorly. In San Diego, Imperial Beach near the Tijuana River’s mouth is closed as a result of sewage-contaminated runoff in the river. Sewage has contaminated the river several times over the past four years.

Ventura County’s beaches were the cleanest in the region, with perfect scores in dry weather and only one spot, Hobie Beach, scoring an F for wet weather. The overall coastal water quality in Orange County remains excellent, with beaches again scoring above the state average.

Heal the Bay’s Kirsten James says we shouldn't get too happy about the preponderance of high grades. She suggests lower rainfall contributes to southern California beaches’ higher scores.

“We are heartened by numerous individual beach success stories, but extremely dry weather is likely masking the severity of stormwater pollution,” James said.

Regional regulators and city officials have pursued stormwater control programs in southern California in recent years. A set of rules passed by water regulators for Ventura County promotes green infrastructure and low-impact development. In the last year, Los Angeles County’s department of Public Works pursued a plan to charge property owners for stormwater controls and water supply programs. County supervisors sent the parcel tax back to the drawing board after some cities and property owners protested.

The report card comes weeks after the federal Environmental Protection Agency again proposed slashing $10 million in beach water-quality monitoring funds, $500,00 of which comes to California counties. The EPA argues that states should pick up the tab for bacterial testing. The state of California does set aside some money; federal grants supplement it. Other states, including Oregon, rely entirely on the EPA to pay for coastal water quality testing.

Heal the Bay has an interactive map listing local beaches along with their report card grades, updated weekly. Alternately, mobile users can download the Beach Report Card app to their iOS or Android devices.

Long Beach to sue Los Angeles over Southern California International Gateway

Molly Peterson — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:24:37 -0700

A cargo ship in Long Beach harbor. The SCIG railyard will enable trucks to transfer cargo onto trains closer to the port. ; Credit: JOE KLAMAR/AFP/Getty Images

In a completely unsurprising move, the Long Beach City Council has authorized the city attorney to sue the city of Los Angeles over the Southern California International Gateway.

It’s not surprising because, at hearings over the last several months, lots of folks, including Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, have been asking L.A. to reconsider the $500 million privately-funded railyard proposed for a site along the 710 freeway near Wilmington and West Long Beach.

Foster told L.A. harbor commissioners back in March that BNSF, the project’s sponsor, has been unresponsive to community concerns. “What they really said is…we’re going to wait 'til you sue us before we deal with these concerns," Foster told the harbor commissioners, in unusually public criticism of the port. “This body has done precious little to mitigate the impacts of what we see. I hope that changes."

Last night’s vote in Long Beach sets up the likelihood of two lawsuits challenging SCIG’s environmental impact report. Environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, also have repeatedly raised objections to the project. As recently as last week, the NRDC said legal challenges were certain, with a federal civil rights challenge possible.

In a letter to the L.A. City Council, NRDC attorney David Pettit wrote that the SCIG project “exudes environmental injustice,” and noted that the project’s EIR admitted that significant impacts “would fall disproportionately on minority and low-income populations" living near the railyard.

All of the legal threats may make it hard to remember that these same entities – the city of L.A., the city of Long Beach, and environmental groups, including the NRDC – united in support of the Clean Air Action Plan, and, for a while at least, the Clean Trucks Program. At the time, the plan represented a renewed effort by the ports to incorporate the concerns of environmental and community groups into its planning.

One project does not a trend make. But here’s what comes next at the port of Los Angeles: more expansion. BNSF’s competitor, UP, will be looking to enhance its own railyard capabilities, for example. So what this project might signal is more legal costs for the city and for the community at a time when everyone’s saying they’re broke.

Gov. Brown wants to grab $500 million in cap-and-trade proceeds for general fund

Molly Peterson — Wed, 15 May 2013 10:22:34 -0700

California's carbon-credit market has raised $500 million in revenue, which Governor Brown wants to borrow to balance general fund expenses. ; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

Gov. Jerry Brown plans to borrow $500 million from a program to fight climate change, as part of his effort to balance the budget - a move that has stirred up clean air advocates.

California has begun auctioning off carbon emission permits as part of its cap-and-trade program. They're basically licenses to pollute that businesses can buy to offset their emissions. The money -- $500 million collected so far -- goes into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Brown wants to use that money to cover the state's general fund expenses, and pay it back later, with interest. He argues that it's okay to borrow the money because greenhouse gas reduction programs are just getting off the ground.

The Sierra Club, the Greenlining Institute and other environmental groups say the permit fees can only be spent on programs that reduce greenhouse gases.

They argue that some of the money the governor wants to borrow was going to fund clean air programs in low-income and minority neighborhoods near refineries and other sources of pollution.

The governor did sign a law last year meant to protect carbon fees from being diverted for general fund use. But SB 535 doesn't stop him from borrowing the money.

Controversial railyard expansion gets a hearing at LA City Council

Molly Peterson — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:19:03 -0700

At a March harbor commission meeting, supporters of the Southern California International Gateway project wore orange. Opponents wore white. ; Credit: Molly Peterson/KPCC

Businesses and labor unions working at the ports will square off against community groups Wednesday as the L.A. city council considers approving a $500 million railyard planned near Wilmington.

The Southern California International Gateway planned by the BNSF railway would enable cargo trucks to take shorter trips from dockside to train. The trucks would spew less pollution on a shorter trip, but the project's critics say the new railyard would add a million truck trips and thousands of train trips to the region each year. And that, they say, would cause significant health and environmental damage in the surrounding neighborhoods. Local opponents, including the East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, the Coalition for Clean Air, and the Natural Resources Defense Council want the railyard to be closer to the docks.

The city of Long Beach, its school district, and an L.A. County health official oppose the project, too. But trade unions and the L.A. Chamber of Commerce have lobbied hard for the railyard. They insist it will reduce pollution, and they say it will create thousands of jobs.

The railyard also has the support of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the harbor commission. Because the proposed deal includes a 50-year lease, it will need the backing of two-thirds of the city council.