Growing up in the 1970s, Mischief Night was a big deal for me. When I was in grade school, hoards of us kids took to our neighborhood just after dark to wreak innocent havoc. More fun than Halloween, I recall soaping up car windows and decorating neighbors’ trees with toilet paper. (What were our parents thinking?)

When a wonder toy called Silly String hit the stores, Mischief Night turned psychedelic with crazy vibrant colors issuing in long streams from an aerosol can! And what was the harm? Silly String simply dried up and blew away. Who knew that we might actually be spewing a brew of toxic chemicals? 

Polyisobutyl methacrylate, hexabromobenzene, dibutyl phthalate, dimethyl siloxane, dichloromethane and sorbitan trioleate. While the current formulation of Silly String is claimed to be confidential business information, these are some of the ingredients in the product’s original formula. This, according to a fun little fluff piece that ran in a recent issue of Chemical & Engineering News titled “Silly String: It’s a party for polymer chemistry, all in a can.”

Some of these chemicals — hexabromobenzene (a brominated flame retardant), dibutyl phthalate (an endocrine disruptor) and dichloromethane (also known as methylene chloride, a carcinogen) — ought to rank high on anyone’s list of chemicals of concern.

But am I just being a killjoy when I ask why we should be letting our kids play with this stuff?

I don’t think so, and here is why: While thousands of synthetic chemicals are integral parts of our modern lives, this does not mean that any chemical can and should be used in any product. In particular, how chemicals like the ones I just noted are used should get intense scrutiny, to say the least.

It may be that some of the offending chemicals are no longer used in the current Silly String formula – but that’s something we don’t know because its maker is allowed to claim such information proprietary. It may be that some of the toxic chemicals used to make the polymer fully react, so that they aren’t present in the Silly String itself, at least in normal use – but we can’t know this either, because no one requires such testing for residuals.

Whatever the risk, I would still assert the following:

• Chemicals with such clear toxicity should not be used in children’s toys. Period. 
• Workers should not have to risk being exposed to such chemicals for the purpose of making toys.
• Society should not have to risk having such chemicals released into the environment as a consequence of making toys, whether during the chemicals’ or product’s manufacture or transport or after disposal of the product itself.

The C&E News article highlights an unplanned and highly novel use of Silly String: Soldiers in combat zones have learned to spray it ahead of themselves when in confined spaces to help detect the presence of deadly trip wires. Another possible future use is as an adhesive for medical use. 

Those potentially life-saving applications for this admittedly nifty polymer technology certainly call for a different calculus, where the outcome could be quite different than for its use as a children’s toy. (I’m not suggesting, however, that the hazards of such uses should not also be scrutinized, or that safer alternatives not be identified or sought.) 

But the problem is that, at this point, no one is even bothering to do the calculation. It is telling that the obvious questions as to whether this use of these kinds of chemicals might pose a risk to kids, or whether it is worth taking any such risk, were not even raised by the article’s author. Nor does our current chemicals management system effectively raise them, let alone demand they be answered.

This “silly” example is yet another reminder of why EDF believes we must fundamentally reform the law that governs how we manage these kinds of chemicals.

Today we celebrate the remarkable recovery of the brown pelican from the brink of extinction.

The state bird of Louisiana, the brown pelican was nearly wiped out in the state and throughout its ranges along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic coast and in southern California.

Today, more than 650,000 can be found across Florida, and the Gulf and Pacific coasts, as well as in the Caribbean and Latin America.

Please take a moment to share your views on this landmark conservation victory.

The following account of Tom’s professional life was written by longtime friend and colleague Tom Philp. Readers are invited to share memories of Tom in the comment space below.

Thomas J. Graff
Thomas J. Graff, a Harvard-educated attorney whom California Lawyer once dubbed “The Godfather” for transforming the politics and policies of California water and power through a unique style of litigation and persuasion via his Rolodex of trusted inside connections, has died after a prolonged battle with cancer. Graff was 65.

Graff in 1971 founded the California office of the Environmental Defense Fund. There, he pioneered a new style of environmental activism by hiring PhD economists and computer specialists who developed a mastery of energy and water issues that would rival their many adversaries. Whether by using the courts, regulatory proceedings, legislation or public opinion via national media contacts that he assembled over the years, Graff advanced EDF’s trademark philosophy that embraced a positive role for markets in solving environmental problems.

“If a resource is scarce, we ought to put a price on it that reflects its value,” Graff said in an interview last year. “Otherwise there’s an incentive to over-consume the resource.”

“Tom was the thought leader of a new wave of environmentalism that uses market incentives to solve some of the most intractable environmental problems.” Fred Krupp, president of EDF.

Graff is survived by his loving wife, Sharona Barzilay, daughter Rebecca Graff; son Benjamin Graff; daughter Samantha Graff, son-in-law Miguel Helft, and grandchildren Avi and Rafael Helft, and sister Claudia Bial and her family.

Graff was born in Honduras in January of 1944, the son of German Jewish refugees. He grew up in Syracuse, New York, where he excelled at both academics and athletics even before attending Phillips Exeter Academy. He graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He was a clerk for federal judge Carl McGowan in Washington D.C. and a legislative assistant to New York Mayor John Lindsay before moving in 1970 to California to work for Howard, Prim, Smith, Rice & Downs, a San Francisco law firm.

Graff later would confide that his father wondered if he was “making a big mistake” by leaving a private law practice and launching the California office for the Environmental Defense Fund. But it would not take long for Graff to begin leaving his mark on state resource policy.

Graff laid the groundwork in the 1970s for California to become a world leader in battling climate change by reducing carbon emissions. Concerned about plans of the state’s largest investor-owned utilities to construct a fleet of coal-burning power plants, Graff took on the utilities by challenging rate proposals before the California Public Utilities Commission. This stiff resistance prompted the utilities to abandon coal as a major source of baseline power for California. Years later, in 2006, Graff and EDF were at the center of the effort to pass landmark state legislation (Assembly Bill 32) that would require California by 2020 to cap its total greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels.

But it was California water, from upstream battles on the American River to numerous conflicts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where Graff arguably left his greatest mark on state and federal politics.

With Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Congressman George Miller of Martinez, Graff was a guiding force behind the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1991, a milestone in the environmental movement to protect the Delta.

In terms of policy, the CVPIA established a new accounting system to ensure additional water for the environmental needs of the Delta from the Central Valley Project, which captures water upstream of the Delta via Shasta and Folsom dams and diverts the supplies from the Delta to Central Valley farms and communities via an aqueduct system. The CVPIA also established important ground rules for a “water market” so that the dam and aqueduct system could be used to connect buyers and sellers of water. Graff’s hope was to encourage farmers to both conserve and sell supplies to cities as a more efficient, environmentally-friendly approach to securing new supplies rather than additional, costly reservoir construction.

But in terms of politics, the CVPIA represented a new alliance in political power between the environmental movement and the urban water community, particularly the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Both supported the CVPIA and the concept of water markets.

The CVPIA was staunchly opposed by Central Valley agriculture and would have likely been vetoed by then-president George Herbert Walker Bush had it been a stand-alone bill. But Graff and its authors maneuvered the CVPIA into a broader piece of legislation that was known to be popular with the president, assuring its package. It was one of many moves that develop Graff’s mystique as a master of both politics and policy.

Closer to home in Alameda County, Graff fought his own water provider, the East Bay Municipal Utility District. With its primary supply from the Sierra Nevada’s Mokelumne River, EBMUD had sought a second source above Sacramento from the American River, known for its crystal blue water and abundant fall salmon run. Concerned for the health of the river, Environmental Defense Fund filed suit against EBMUD. Seventeen years later, a landmark decision would designate a baseline environmental flow need for the American River that stands to this day as a benchmark in river policy.

The utility eventually abandoned its effort to divert water upstream on the American River and is now in the final stages of constructing a diversion facility downstream on the Sacramento River with Sacramento County, which along with Environmental Defense Fund had fought EBMUD for years.

Graff spoke at the groundbreaking ceremony of the Sacramento River diversion facility in May of 2007, battling at the time a scratchy throat condition that would later be diagnosed as cancer. In that year he was awarded the Jean Auer Award for a lifetime of service to protecting the Delta, among his many honors. An endowed professorship is in his honor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he had been a guest lecturer.

The years of activism taught Graff that it wasn’t necessarily about winning wars, but avoiding them. “We can not repeat the water wars of the past,” he said in an interview last year. “We have to find a way to work together, or we’ll all lose.”

______________________________________________________

Other words of tribute to Tom:
“Without Tom Graff, whose good sense and judgment guided its path, there never would have been a major reform of California’s water law in 1992, the Central Valley Improvement Act. He was also a personal friend and a very special human being.”
Senator Bill Bradley

“On the Central Valley Improvement Act, no person was more important than Tom Graff. It wasn’t just his knowledge of water. It was his knowledge about the stewardship of the environment and what this state had to consider if it really thought about its future.”
Congressman George Miller

“Tom Graff was the architect of the best aspects of California water policy. I hope that his vision on that water policy becomes reality as part of his legacy.”
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

At this point only a few of the costs are known or even quantifiable, particularly the transmission and fossil fuel costs to the system. In looking at Austin Energy’s report, the cost for new transmission to bring more wind to Texas will be less – about 0.7¢/month for the average customer in 2015. If fossil fuel prices don’t increase more than they have over the past six years, the General Fund Transfer costs associated with fossil fuels might be only 0.4¢/kWh by 2015. Of course, that’s assuming that Austin Energy stays smart and doesn’t put too many more eggs in the fossil fuel basket.

The rate increase doesn’t really have a direct relationship with Austin Energy’s forward-looking generation plan because rates are based on historical costs, not future costs. Still, in recognition of increased conventional utility costs, Austin Energy has developed an investment plan that will use zero fuel sources such as wind, solar and energy efficiency to contain future costs. Some people discuss Austin Energy’s plan by comparing it to our current costs, as if by doing nothing we will ensure that gas prices won’t rise 300 percent again and Texas power prices remain at their lowest point since 2001. The comparison to current costs is important as a place marker, but I think it’s more informative to look at what could happen down the road if Austin Energy makes no changes.

As our analysis shows under a “business as usual” scenario, following the historical trends of the last 10 years, average residential power prices in Austin could increase another $60 per month excluding carbon costs. This is due largely to an increasing dependency on fossil fuels and buying electricity on the Texas deregulated marketplace. Similar proposals to “save money” would only do so in the near term at the expense of future exposure to volatile fossil fuel and deregulated market prices.

The Austin Generation Task Force – whose members include Austin’s business, environmental, and industrial communities – acknowledged those risks in a milestone vote last week. The board voted unanimously on several recommendations to the city council, including increasing energy efficiency goals, and developing a solar market in Texas to bring at least 300 MW of distributed solar to the city by 2020. While members couldn’t come to an agreement on a specific quantity for Austin Energy in 2020, all members strongly reaffirmed Austin’s commitment to a solar goal.

All of this is to say that it’s important to keep future plans in the perspective of future costs, and avoid the trap of comparing them to present costs. Most forecasters acknowledge that as our economy recovers, the price of oil and natural gas will resume its upward climb. With carbon regulation sure to happen one way or another, the cost of coal will increase as well, leading to an overall increase in fossil fuel prices for a utility that already shells out plenty for those fuels. Energy efficiency and renewable energy have a proven track record of saving Austin customers money over time, even if they have some upfront costs.

I commend Austin Energy both for its clean energy leadership and its recognition that to save customers from dangerously high future costs, some upfront investment is needed.

The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign today released the results of a nationwide poll conducted in August by renowned pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners. The most striking finding: Majorities of Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats strongly support adoption of new legislation that would give EPA the power to immediately restrict the use of dangerous chemicals.

It seems that all that’s left is for Congress to act … 

The poll reached a demographically and geographically representative group of 1,000 registered voters across the country. It found that voters across political affiliations are seriously concerned about the limitations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including that:

• TSCA did not require testing and a demonstration of safety of the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce in 1976 (87% of voters are concerned);
• EPA is unable to take dangerous chemicals off the market, even ones as dangerous as asbestos (80% concerned); and
• TSCA has allowed EPA to require testing for only a small fraction of chemicals on the market (84% concerned).

When various proposals for TSCA reform were described, large majorities of voters expressed strong support:

• “If a chemical is detected in babies at birth or in infants, it will be taken off the market”
  • 84% of voters support
  • 60% strongly support:
    • 66% of Democrats
    • 52% of Independents
    • 59% of Republicans
• “Exposure to other toxic chemicals, such as formaldehyde, that have been extensively studied, will be reduced to the maximum extent possible”
  • 85% of voters support
  • 59% strongly support:
    • 69% of Democrats
    • 51% of Independents
    • 57% of Republicans

Voters also express strong support for a systematic overhaul of TSCA that requires the safety of all chemicals to be demonstrated:

• “A process will be created so that all chemicals in use must be tested and shown to be safe over the next 15 years”
  • 81% of voters support
  • 57% strongly support (breakdown by political affiliation not available to me)

It seems that all that’s left is for Congress to act! Click here to help make sure they get the message: EDF Action Alert: Help Strengthen America’s Toxic Chemicals Standards

 And to learn more about this issue, visit our website and blog.

As our recent blog highlights , there are many reasons to be pleased about the recent passage of the water policy reform package[1]. As a member of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee, I think it’s also worth enumerating how the legislation provides significant environmental safeguards for this process. After all, the BDCP is where new conveyance around the Delta, (otherwise known as the peripheral canal) is being analyzed as part of a habitat conservation plan with the aim of ensuring both water supply reliability and ecosystem recovery.

 What does the legislation mean for the BDCP?

It doesn’t authorize a canal.

Many are concerned that the legislation authorizes a peripheral canal. This is simply not true. In fact, the legislation includes an important new layer of oversight of the BDCP—the Delta Stewardship Council. Before it can be implemented, the BDCP will need to demonstrate to the Council that it meets both the water supply reliability and ecosystem recovery goals it set out to achieve, and will have to consider Council recommendations on both the design and implementation of the Plan (Sec 85320 (g)). In addition, the BDCP will have to show that it is consistent with the overall Delta plan and other existing environmental mandates. The legislation also requires the Department of Fish and Game to report regularly to the Council on results from monitoring and adaptive management to make sure BDCP implementation is moving in a positive direction (Sec 85320 (f)). 

It outlines a process to resolve the instream flow debate.

Another key provision related to the BDCP is the requirement for the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct a public trust needs assessment to determine instream flows for the Bay-Delta (Sec 85085 (c) 1) within nine months of the effective date of the bill. The BDCP has grappled with this tough question for a few years and still has yet to provide an adequate answer. These newly developed flow criteria will be informed by biological objectives developed by state and federal fish agencies and will specify the volume, quality and timing of water necessary for a healthy Delta ecosystem under different conditions. Existing bond moneys will be allocated to strengthen the Board’s ability to make these flow determinations in a timely manner so that they can be incorporated into the development of the BDCP.

It establishes the highest environmental standards for the BDCP.

The legislation requires that the BDCP meet the high recovery standards of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act. If the plan doesn’t meet the NCCP standard, no public funding will be allocated to its implementation (Sec 85320 (e)). 

It improves the decision-making ability of the fishery agencies related to water operations

Historically, there has not been an understandable and transparent process that allows the fishery agencies to make necessary decisions to provide flows for fish without, at times, being overruled by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The legislation improves this by requiring that the BDCP include transparent real-time decision-making of water operations that allows the fishery agencies to take protective actions in the Delta so that biological performance objectives are achieved (Sec 85321). More simply put, if it is determined that salmon need more water at a specific time within the prescribed range of flows, the fish agencies, after consultation with DWR and BOR, get to make the ultimate call on the action. I think his is a clear improvement on the way some decisions have been made in the past.

For all these reasons, it’s clear to me that the legislation sets out specific guidelines that hardly make the BDCP or the approval of a canal a slam dunk. Indeed, the BDCP must complete many critical steps in order for the plan to be approved. I, for one, think this is a huge step forward and provides necessary direction and oversight that is critically needed. 

When the chemical industry talks about prioritization – a central question in the debate over TSCA reform – more often than not it quickly reduces the question down to the argument that we should focus only on those chemicals, however hazardous or untested they may be, to which we know people are exposed. In a perfect world, that might suffice. But, as this post will explore, the world of exposure assessment is anything but perfect. 

While both hazard and exposure are clearly relevant in determining chemical risks, there are critical differences between our ability to assess hazard and exposure that have implications for the development and application of chemicals policies. And real-world experience in chemical assessment programs that have attempted to rely on exposure information to prioritize chemicals also offers lessons for exposure assessment.

Critical differences between assessing hazard and exposure

Approaches that seek to rely on exposure to prioritize or assess chemicals need to acknowledge and account for a number of critical differences between the nature of hazard and exposure information and their relative extent of availability. Certain characteristics of exposure information pose serious challenges to sound decision-making. Here are several reasons why.

1. Hazard is largely inherent to a chemical and (aside from degradation or metabolism) doesn’t fundamentally change over space or time, whereas any exposure information necessarily represents only a “snapshot” in both space and time.

A chemical’s hazard is an intrinsic property, one that is directly related to the chemical’s composition. While manifestation of a hazard can of course vary by route of exposure, it otherwise exists largely independent of how the chemical is used, where or how it enters the environment, or other factors that vary with time and place. Hazard data are therefore relevant and needed regardless of how the chemical is used. That is, such data are useful in understanding any actual or potential use or release of a chemical – and in deciding what kind of exposure-reducing efforts may need to be taken.

Just the opposite is true for exposure, which can change dramatically depending on how a chemical is produced, used, transported and discarded or released. The consequences of exposure depend on who or what might be exposed, and the level, frequency and duration of the exposure. 

Conditions that determine exposure can and often do differ enormously for every setting and point in time that a chemical is present. Basic physiological differences (including those associated with age and life stage) as well as cultural factors (e.g., extent of fish consumption) and activity patterns also amplify the variability in exposure to a chemical. And even if a “snapshot” of current exposure is able to be assembled, the next new use or activity leading to a release alters the exposure picture.

The highly variable nature of exposure poses a major challenge to exposure (and risk) assessment: It means that exposure assessment must be an ongoing activity, with the scope and frequency of its measurement sufficient to characterize the variation (spatial and temporal) in, as well as magnitude of, exposure. 

That’s but one reason why exposure assessment is often called the “weakest link” in risk assessment.

2. Mechanisms for generating and collecting exposure information are undeveloped relative to those for hazard information.

An extensive body of methods developed through international consensus specifies how to test a chemical for most hazardous properties. And while new hazard concerns and new test methods emerge over time and must be incorporated, the infrastructure for doing so is largely in place: detailed government-sanctioned procedures, guidelines, criteria and standards have been specified for conducting hazard tests, for assuring the quality and reliability of the results, and for determining whether the results constitute evidence of a particular hazard. Moreover, these measures allow that results are reproducible and can be independently verified.

In contrast, virtually none of these mechanisms are in place or established to assure that exposure information is complete and accurate. Debates over what constitutes adequate exposure assessment and how to address the “moving target” nature of such information are far from resolved. Government-sanctioned procedures for generating, evaluating the adequacy of and interpreting exposure data have yet to be developed or validated, including testing and measurement standards, guidance, methods and tools.

Use and exposure information is rarely systematically collected and even less often made public in any useful form. For the first time, beginning in 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to require the reporting of basic information relevant to understanding uses of and exposure to chemicals. But that program is fraught with limitations, as I’ve described in detail in earlier posts here and here.

Because of these and other factors, estimates of chemical exposures typically depend on severely limited sources of information. In many instances, little or no information is publicly available on how chemicals are manufactured, processed, used, or discarded; the numbers of workers and consumers exposed; quantities released to the environment; how chemicals are distributed and transformed in the environment; and other parameters necessary for estimating exposures. 

3. Assumptions and modeling used to characterize exposure are notoriously inaccurate.

As a result of the information constraints just discussed, exposure-driven prioritization initiatives and exposure modeling exercises may well utilize incorrect exposure assumptions. Biomonitoring has revealed such instances by “ground-truthing” exposure assumptions – providing objective, incontrovertible evidence of the extent to which chemicals end up in people. Recent biomonitoring data on both phthalates and poly-brominated diphenyl ethers amply illustrate this point. 

Phthalates are very widely used in products ranging from plastics to cosmetics and other personal care products. They exhibit a range of toxicity, including to the liver, kidney, and male reproductive system. The first CDC National Report demonstrated surprisingly high levels of di-butyl phthalate (DBP) and di-ethyl phthalate (DEP) in U.S. residents in general, and for DBP, in women of child-bearing age in particular (see the first two letters here). Indeed, these data demonstrated high-end levels of DBP that were an order of magnitude higher than a prior estimate that had been developed based on industry-provided use data and expert judgment.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are widely used flame retardants. Different species of PBDEs are used in products ranging from plastics (such as computer cases) to upholstery foam. Toxicological studies indicate that they can disrupt thyroid metabolism and may have effects on other organs, including the liver. Because PBDEs are not very volatile or water soluble, they were assumed to more or less stay in place in products, and were not believed to have a high potential for exposure. However, biomonitoring studies from around the world have demonstrated that levels of PBDEs in peoples’ bodies have been dramatically increasing over the past two decades, with the highest levels currently reported in the United States; see, for example, this paper).

4. Differential access to both exposure data and the means to generate them severely limit the “reproducibility” of such data.

In addition to the variability and absence of agreed-upon procedures noted above, other factors limit “reproducibility,” that is, the ability to readily and independently measure or verify exposure data. Most exposure data and the means to generate them reside virtually exclusively with industry. It simply must be acknowledged that industry has a strong interest in maintaining that exposure to its chemicals is low, so the ability to independently measure and verify exposure data is critical. Yet physical access to many exposure “settings” (e.g., workplaces) is very limited and infrequent at best, even for government officials. 

Broader access to exposure-relevant information is even more restricted: Wide latitude is typically provided to claim chemical use and exposure information as CBI, preventing even its review outside government; this situation is often in contrast to that applying to hazard data, which is more likely to be deemed ineligible from designation as CBI. 

Finally, even chemical manufacturers have incomplete access to and information on their customers and how their chemicals are used. Intermediaries (vendors, brokers, distributors) are a formidable information flow bottleneck, as is the often-proprietary nature of information concerning downstream use and competition among suppliers. These factors serve to impede information-sharing even within supply chains, which in turn affects the extent and accuracy of exposure-relevant information that any one entity in a supply chain can provide if asked or required to do so; see this paper and Modules 1 and 2 of this report for more discussion of these limitations.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, we cannot continue to rely on assumptions about chemical exposure or on the industry-supplied or otherwise-limited exposure information that is currently available. That is simply too uncertain and unreliable a basis on which to set aside hazardous or untested chemicals as low-priority, or to decide for which chemicals hazard data should be developed. 

Of course, where affirmative evidence indicates exposure to a chemical is occurring, for example as revealed through biomonitoring, this should clearly suffice to prioritize such a chemical at a minimum for further testing, assessment or control. But the converse cannot be said: that in the absence of reliable information about exposure we can simply drop a chemical from further consideration.

_____

There is actually considerable real-world experience that documents the adverse consequences of an over-reliance on exposure to prioritize chemicals. For more detail, see our analyses of:

• EPA’s recently replaced ChAMP Initiative;
• Canada’s Chemical Categorization; and
• the Existing Chemicals Program of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – see the paper included as pages 109-114 of this OECD report, which I wrote several years ago and from which this post is derived.

Hybrid trucks can reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption by 30-50%. Over the 8-15 year lifetime of a truck, those fuel savings add up. Still, in a tough economy, many fleets who want to purchase hybrids don’t have the cash to do it. That’s why we’ve created an incentives guide, to help fleets find funding opportunities for hybrids.

Over a dozen states have funding programs to help bring down the cost of a hybrid, and several of these are open right now. For current opportunities see our pages for New York, Texas, New Jersey and New Hampshire.

One brand new state program that will open this winter is California’s Hybrid Voucher Incentive Program (HVIP). The program will reduce the cost of an eligible hybrid truck up to $45,000 at the point of sale. There are no applications to fill out and no waiting around for a rebate. The California Air Resources Board has selected CALSTART to administer the program, and CALSTART is working with CARB to finalize the implementation manual in the next few weeks. Take a look and let CALSTART know ASAP if you have any comments.

At the national level, EPA is now accepting applications for the 2009-2010 National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program (DERA). Last year’s program was extremely competitive – EPA received over 600 applications – totaling over $2 billion in requests — for the $300 million it eventually funded.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. While many hybrid replacement projects submitted by private fleets last year did not get funded, EPA tells us that those applications scored favorably and is encouraging fleets to try again.

If you know of any opportunities we’ve missed, please let us know!

Because electricity is so readily available, we take it for granted. We forget how quickly we’ve gotten used to turning on the lights. As recently as the 1930s and ’40s—within living memory—Lyndon Johnson was just beginning to electrify rural areas of central Texas, which today include the state’s high-tech corridor. Watching the lights come on across the beautiful Hill Country was one of the proudest moments of Johnson’s life.

So it is fitting that the most exciting new development in the story of electricity is happening in the capitol city of Austin. The city is becoming a clean energy lab, staking out a leadership position in our energy future. The goal of the ambitious Pecan Street Project is to invent and deploy, at a significant scale, the most innovative urban power system possible. EDF has partnered with the city, Austin Energy, the University of Texas and corporate partners like Cisco, Oracle, Gridpoint and Applied Materials to develop the project.

Read the rest of the post on Dominique's blog.

And now they need to blog, tweet and manage Facebook fan sites—so said the line up of experts at the recent Social Media for Sustainability conference, hosted by Just Means.

Panel after panel covered the hows and whys of using social media to engage employees, customers and other stakeholders. But the big idea, underscored in nearly every presentation, was much more fundamental: It's all about transparency.

The rapid rise in social media has heightened our society's expectations for transparency. Writer and psychologist Daniel Goleman calls it the new "radical transparency."

In our brave new world of camera phones and Twitter, the "closed door meeting" has become a quaint, old-fashioned notion. The idea of "message control" is as antiquated as the fax machine. In the conference's opening panel, Seventh Generation's Jeffrey Hollender got our attention with a prediction: "Successful companies will be those brave enough to expose what their competitors won't."

Many companies are already exploring this new frontier, particularly for their supply chains. Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles and China's PCH International, offer interesting examples.

But what does all this have to do with the already overloaded sustainability manager? At EDF's Innovation Exchange, we believe transparency is actually going to make his or her job easier. Reducing a company's footprint is just too complex to tackle alone. Sustainability managers need to be able to share more, collaborate more and get comfortable with learning right out in the open—both within and across industries.

So how can anyone carve out the time to tweet and blog?

The conference offered a couple of ideas. For starters, in-house communications staff can help. Given the changes in the media landscape, they should be spending less time issuing news releases and more on social media.

Perhaps the most exciting idea was offered by eBay: The company had to figure out how to keep 2,000 members of its employee green team engaged. The solution? Let them be social media ambassadors. You'll now find eBay Green Team members carrying on a lively conversation with eBay shoppers, and the world at large, via Facebook, Twitter and a website.

Photo by Tony Zelenoff

This tri-national meeting, organized by our colleagues at the Cuban environmental ministry and the US-based NGO 1Planet1Ocean, was the third in a series of meetings in which scientists from the three countries have exchanged science and ideas for restoring marine resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

Later in the week, EDF and Cuban experts hosted a workshop on how marine protected areas and innovative fisheries management tools, like catch shares, can be used together to restore important ocean fish populations. I greatly appreciate the warm welcome we have consistently received from our colleagues in Cuba. They deserve great credit for making this collaboration work. It is clear that greater cooperation on environmental protection in the Gulf of Mexico has real potential to bridge the political gulf that still exists between Cuba and the US.