Cleaning Up U.S. Ports

  • The Matson Line Container ship is unloaded at the Port of Oakland. It takes up to 48 hours and hundreds of trucks to unload the world's large container ships. Everything except the white cranes runs on diesel (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

U.S. ports are among the biggest sources of air pollution in the cities they are in. Some
ports are making progress in cleaning up their emissions. But Lisa Ann Pinkerton
reports, critics say the pace is slow:

Transcript

U.S. ports are among the biggest sources of air pollution in the cities they are in. Some
ports are making progress in cleaning up their emissions. But Lisa Ann Pinkerton
reports, critics say the pace is slow:

The Matson Line cargo ship is laden with hundreds of shipping
containers and looks like a floating building, rather than a ship. It’s in
from a recent trek across the Pacific Ocean and it’s docked here at
the Port of Oakland.

It’s being unloaded one container at a time by a row of cranes
towering over the ship.

“And they’re either loading them on to a truck chassis to go directly out of the port, or
they’re going to store it in the yard, sort it out, put it on a rail car or send it out on the
regional freeways.”

That’s Richard Sincoff. He directs the environmental projects at the
Port of Oakland.

He says it can take crews 24 to 48 hours to fully unload just one ship,
and all that the activity creates a lot of the air pollution surrounding
West Oakland.

The trucks moving containers around the port run on diesel, and
recently, the port banned all pre 1994 trucks from shuttling shipping
containers.

Delphine Prevost, who manages truck programs at the port says goal
is to ensure the thousands trucks serving the port emit low levels of
diesel pollution.

“These are engine models we are talking about, and generally the older, the more
pollution it is. Just like anything else, trucks get cleaner as technology for truck engines
get cleaner.”

Since most of the truck drivers are independent contractors and can’t
always afford a brand new truck, the port has set up a grant program
to help them cover the costs.

Los Angeles has done this, too, and it is the biggest port in the
country. Since last fall, it’s removed forty-five hundred dirty trucks
from its operations.

David Abby says the region’s seen a nearly 35% improvement to the
local air quality and a reduction of 500 tones of nitrous oxide or NOX.

“And to put that into prospective, that 500 tons of NOX is like taking 1300 cars off the
road for a year.”

But truck exhaust represents only about 4% of all diesel emissions in
America’s ports. It’s ships that emit the most. They burn dirty bunker
fuel on their way in to the port. Then they’re docked, they keep
burning it for electricity.

James Cannon is with Energy Futures – an environmental advocacy
group. He says these big ships are just like a power plant on land.
But, because they are in the water, the US Clean Air Act doesn’t
apply.

“Because the power plant is just a few feet off the berth on the ship, it’s totally
unregulated and this has led to emissions that are literally thousands of times higher
than if it were just a few feet away.”

Cannon says ports are exploring ways to cut these emissions, but the
pace is slow. He says the most ideal solution is to allow the ships to
plug into the electrical grid while at berth. A few ships docking in the
Port of Long Beach can do this now.

These California ports are greening their operations, because state
law is pushing them. Cannon says America’s seven other ports have
much farther to go.

He says they should take advantage of the lower shipping activity
during this recession – and spend money to green up their
operations.

“Rather than endlessly expanding their container ports or endlessly expanding volume
they now have a chance to restructure their ports and put them on a cleaner basis.”

US EPA has pledged to regulate air within 230 miles of US Coasts by
2012.

If the agency stays true to its word, all of the nation’s ports will have
to green their operations eventually. Whether it will be as much as
California’s ports have done remains to be seen.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links

Sunny Forecast for Solar Power?

  • North America's largest solar plant, covering 140 acres (Photo courtesy of the Nellis Air Force Base)

President Barack Obama’s visit
to Nellis Air Force Base near
Las Vegas has more to do with
what’s on the ground than it
does the fighter jets in the air.
Lester Graham reports on the base’s
solar energy project:

Transcript

President Barack Obama’s visit
to Nellis Air Force Base near
Las Vegas has more to do with
what’s on the ground than it
does the fighter jets in the air.
Lester Graham reports on the base’s
solar energy project:

Nellis Air Force Base is home to the nation’s largest solar photovoltaic power plant. The system generates enough electricity to power the equivelent of more than 13,000 homes.

The Air Force’s partner in the solar plant is MMA Renewable Ventures. Matt Cheney is CEO.

Cheney says there are lots of advantages, starting with no need for foreign or domestic fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases.

“It gets its energy from the sun. And, by the way, the sun is pretty predictable and effectively the energy we get from it is free.”

That’s not to say solar energy is free. The array at Nellis Air Force Base cost 100-million dollars to build.

The Air Force saves about a million dollars a year. So, it’s going to take a while to break even.

But as the demand for more solar goes up, the technology gets cheaper, in just a few years you might be able to get solar energy for about the same price as from coal-burning power plants.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Zapping Germs Off Your Food

  • Researcher Kevin Keener has been working on a device that turns the air inside food packaging into ozone (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)

Researchers are working overtime to find ways to kill dangerous bacteria in food such as Salmonella and E. coli. Rebecca Williams reports one researcher has found a new way to kill bacteria:

Transcript

Researchers are working
overtime to find ways to kill dangerous bacteria in food such as Salmonella and E. coli. Rebecca Williams reports one researcher has found a new way to kill bacteria:

Food processors expose produce like lettuce to ozone for a few seconds or minutes to kill bacteria.

Kevin Keener has been working on a device that turns the air inside food packaging into ozone.

Keener is a food process engineer at Purdue University.

He attaches the device to the outside of food packages – like a bag of lettuce – and applies electrodes that send high voltage through the bag.

“Visually it’s very Frankenstein-ish. It’s a safe process, there is a high voltage, but it’s similar to a spark you’d get with an electric fence.”

Keener says the ozone spends more time with the food so it kills more bacteria.

There’s a problem though – in some of their tests the device turned green spinach white.

So there are a few kinks to work out. But food companies are interested and we might see this commercialized in a year or two.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Cap and Trade Program Hits a Snag

A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:

Transcript

A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:

Ten northeastern states have been working for years on an agreement to reduce the emissions that cause global warming.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative limits the amount of carbon dioxide power plants will be allowed to emit and puts a price on carbon allowances.

But, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, is changing the rules for his state.

The New York power generators complained existing contracts don’t include all the costs of the allowances. So, Governor Paterson plans to give those power generators some free allowances. That puts the other nine states’ power companies at a disadvantage.

Luis Martinez is with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council.

“You know, I’m wishing, I’m hoping that he changes his mind once he realizes how important this is not only for the people of New York, but as a precedent for federal policy-making.”

Martinez hopes the other governors in the Northeast don’t follow Paterson’s example.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Getting People to Stop Burning Trash

  • Robert Olsen used to burn his trash. Now he drives his trash into town. (Photo by Todd Melby)

Getting rid of your trash in the city
is easy. Take it to the curb on pickup
day and the city does the rest. In rural
areas, many people don’t have garbage pickup.
So they burn their trash. And that causes
pollution. Todd Melby tells us about one
place that’s trying to change its burning
habits:

Transcript

Getting rid of your trash in the city is easy. Take it to the curb on pickup day and the city does the rest. In rural areas, many people don’t have garbage pickup. So they burn their trash. And that causes pollution. Todd Melby tells us about one place that’s trying to change its burning habits:


Robert Olsen lives out in the country. He used to burn his garbage. But not any more.


(Pickup hatch opens)


On this windy morning, Olsen has driven his pickup into town to dump his trash.


“I think this is probably a week’s worth for us.”


He grabs the blue plastic bin from the back of his pickup and dumps it into a green Dumpster.


“Not too difficult.”


Olsen runs the environmental office here in Lincoln County, Minnesota. It was his idea to set-up nine Dumpsters throughout this sparsely populated county. He did it because he knows that burning garbage pollutes.


“The issue is that when you burn garbage at home, in the country, the first people or persons who are going to experience any harmful effects from that garbage are going to be you.”


That’s because a lot of trash — including even plain old paper — contains chlorine that produce dioxins when burned at home. Plastic is even worse.


Mark Rust is a solid waste expert with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.


“If you’re using a burn barrel or fire pit or you’re burning garbage in any way on your own property, you’re creating a perfect factory for producing dioxins.”


Smoke from burn barrels and fire pits are now the leading source of dioxins in air pollution. Some studies have connected dioxins to cancer. Burning garbage is especially bad because there are no anti-pollution scrubbers on do-it-yourself burners.


“With a burn barrel, it’s all right there.”


Melby: “It all just goes right up into the air?”


“Into the air, into the soil. Ultimately, we’re going to be taking it in on the dinner table.”


Most states still allow people living in the country to burn their garbage. In Minnesota, only farmers and those without access to affordable garbage pickup can burn. A 2005 survey found that about half of the people living in rural Minnesota burn at least occasionally.


Which is why the state offered rural counties some start up money to get people to burn less.


Rural residents in Lincoln County, Minnesota have had access to drop-off sites for seven months now. When the program started, haulers took away about 8 tons of trash every month. Now it’s up to 15 tons.


Back at one of the county’s drop-off sites, Clarence Lietz is getting of his Buick and grabbing newspapers for the nearby recycling bin. What doesn’t get recycled, gets burned, he says.


“What garbage we have like small things for the yard we just burn right at home, you know. I’d say about a five-gallon pail full or something like that.”


Another elderly customer — she didn’t want her name used — says she burns junk mail and envelopes at home.


“Papers. That’s all you can burn. I don’t burn garbage.


Melby: “And why don’t ya?”


“It’s not right to burn garbage. It don’t burn any good anyway.”


Melby: “Why isn’t it right to burn it?”


“You know why, don’t cha?”


I do now.


For The Environment Report, I’m Todd Melby.

Related Links

Will Coal Ash Spill Get Into the Air?

  • Airborne toxins could be causing health problems for residents near this coal ash spill (seen in the background) in Tennessee. (Photo by Matt Shafer Powell)

Environmentalists don’t want a lot of new coal-burning power plants to be built. They’re concerned about more greenhouse gases from the plants and environmental damage from mining the coal. Late last year, another concern came to light. For decades a power plant disposed of coal ash in a pond next to it. The dam holding back the coal ash sludge failed. Matt Shafer Powell reports more than a billion gallons of the sludge caused plenty of damage to the soil and water. Now, there’s concern about the air:

Transcript

Environmentalists don’t want a lot of new coal-burning power plants to be built. They’re concerned about more greenhouse gases from the plants and environmental damage from mining the coal. Late last year, another concern came to light. For decades a power plant disposed of coal ash in a pond next to it. The dam holding back the coal ash sludge failed. Matt Shafer Powell reports more than a billion gallons of the sludge caused plenty of damage to the soil and water. Now, there’s concern about the air:

In December, the massive coal ash spill at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in East Tennessee made people aware of a hazard they’d never really considered before. And no one knows how much of a problem it’s going to be.

“We’re looking across the Emory River.”

Matt Landon is a volunteer for the environmental group United Mountain Defense. These days, he spends a lot of time near the Tennessee Valley Authority’s ash spill site. His double respirator mask, his personal video camera and his vocal criticism of the T.V.A. have all become fixtures here. It was on one of his recent rounds near the Emory River that he saw something that scared him.

“I drove around the bend here on Emory River Road and I witnessed a massive dust storm coming off the entire coal ash disaster site.”

Landon says the dust cloud was about 70-to-80 feet high and about a half mile wide. Coal ash can contain several toxic heavy metals — like arsenic, lead, and mercury. For Landon, the site of this swirling cloud was a sobering and frightening reminder that it wouldn’t take much for the toxic materials contained in the wet cement-like sludge to dry out and become airborne.

When Landon walks up to Diana Anderson’s house on the Emory River, her shih-tzus go nuts. And no wonder. Here’s this tall, lanky guy in a double-respirator mask headed their way.

Anderson has lived here for forty years now, just downwind from the plant. And she never worried about it. But since the spill, she’s begun to notice changes in her health.

“My sinuses are irritated, I have a raspy throat, and I do a lot of coughing and my head hurts and I feel very, very, very fatigued.”

Anderson has volunteered to let Matt Landon test the air near her home. So, the two head to her kitchen sink, where they wash and prepare Pyrex dishes.

They’ll set the dishes out on Anderson’s back porch to collect dust. After a while, Landon will send the dust samples off to a lab to find out what’s in the air.

The T.V.A. is also testing the air, with help from the state of Tennessee and the E.P.A. T.V.A. Spokesman Gil Francis says they’ve already collected more than 10-thousand air samples.

“We’re taking samples 24/7, the samples are coming back that the air quality is meeting the National Air Ambient Standards and we’re going to continue to work hard to make sure that’s what the case is going forward.”

That might be easier said than done. Francis says the T.V.A. has done a lot to keep the ash from drying out and blowing around. They’ve dropped straw and grass seed from helicopters and coated the ash in an acrylic mixture. But Steven Smith of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy says nobody really knows what it’s going to take to clean this mess up. Or how the people who live downwind will be affected.

“There are still a lot of unknowns about this. We’ve never had an ash spill this size and I think people ought to err on the side of caution.”

If there’s one bit of consolation for the people living near the Kingston coal ash spill, it’s this: the National Weather Service says that during the summer months this region is among the least windy and most humid in the country.

For the Environment Report, I’m Matt Shafer Powell.

Related Links

Paint Regs Better for Environment?

  • Most paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds (Source: DanielCase at Wikimedia Commons)

When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:

Matt Testa started painting for his family’s real estate
business when he was a kid. He remembers his parents
worrying that all the chemicals in the paint would ignite a fire
– so they turned off appliance pilot lights before painting a
kitchen.

(sound of painting)

Today, as a builder and general contractor, Testa says most
paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds.
Even though a lot of people don’t like it.

“Well, when we’ve used some high VOC products, of course
there’s occasional dizziness on large commercial jobs.
We’ve had to clear buildings at times because of people
reporting headaches and other things with the fumes that
were being given off.”

Testa says you can almost taste those chemicals in your
nose and mouth hours after painting. But the VOCs don’t
just affect painters. When you open a can of paint, or
primer, or wood stain, the chemicals get into the air – and
cause ozone pollution, which contributes to smog.

“When you do the math, they’re talking about a quarter
pound per gallon. And you think of the millions and millions
of gallons of paints that are used, you’re talking about a
huge amount of VOCs.”

In recent years, states on the east and west coasts have
started cracking down on paint makers. Smoggy southern
California has the toughest laws against VOCs in paints.
The Northeast has also forced manufacturers to reduce their
chemical load.

And now tougher paint laws are spreading to states in the
middle of the country. Ohio, for instance, has had a tough
time meeting federal clean air standards. It’s hoping that
stirring up the paint laws will make a difference.

(sound of paint store)

That’ll mean changes at the store. When you buy paints,
primers, stains – they will be based less on oil – and more
on water.

Steve Revnew is marketing director for Sherwin Williams –
and its 3,300 stores nationwide. Walking around one of his
Ohio stores, he says they have to roll out a new line of
products.

“For example, some of the oil based stains, wiping stains
that you traditionally would use on your wood work and
those types of things, as they’re known today, that
technology will no longer be available.”

Companies such as Sherwin Williams have seen the
chemical limits coming for many years. Revnew says
they’ve developed new stains, paints and enamels with
fewer harsh chemicals – using new resin and polymer
technology.

He picks up a can of enamel – “In 2009, we’ll be introducing
a whole new product line that is VOC compliant. It will still
provide you the hard, durable finish for metal, wood,
concrete – those types of things. Only it will be VOC
compliant.”

The changes have some professional painters in the store
concerned. They worry that water-based paints and stains
won’t coat as well or last as long as the oil-based coatings.

Now that contractor Matt Testa has kids of his own, he’s glad
VOCs are being brushed aside. But if reducing the
chemicals means things need to be re-painted more often,
he says the changes won’t do anything to improve air
quality.

“Yeah, if you have to go back and repaint it, you’re really
going to leave a bigger footprint environmentally from the
truck trips, the amount of the paint you put back up, all the
delivery of that paint, etc.”

Testa says consumers will have to see for themselves if
these new, environmentally friendly products work as well as
the higher VOC paints.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Air Pollution Rule Has Some Fuming

Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:

The proposed rule change would change how air pollution is measured from power plants
that expand their operations.

Right now, the air pollution is capped at a certain amount
per year. The new rule would cap the amount of air pollution allowed by the hour.

That
means a power plant could put out a lot more air pollution over the course of a year.

John Walke is a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says
this little change in the rule could have a big impact.

“So as soon as these utility companies began to expand their plants and to pump out more
smog and soot pollution. People in surrounding communities would see their air quality
worsen.”

Six northeastern states are urging the EPA not to go forward with the rule change. In a
recent letter sent to the EPA they say the rule change – quote “threatens the quality of our
states’ air and the health of our citizens.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Choking on Construction Dust

  • Scientists say that inhaling those fine particles often found at construction sites is bad for the lungs and the heart (Photo courtesy of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction)

For most of us, the dust kicked
up by a construction site seems like a
minor nuisance. But it can be a health
hazard. As Karen Kelly reports, construction
dust is one source of air pollution that’s
largely been ignored:

Transcript

For most of us, the dust kicked
up by a construction site seems like a
minor nuisance. But it can be a health
hazard. As Karen Kelly reports, construction
dust is one source of air pollution that’s
largely been ignored:

If you’ve ever had the good fortune of living near a construction site, you
probably know a bit about dust.


Here in Ottawa, Canada, Mahad Adam can tell you all about it.

(construction sound)

For the past year, he’s lived across the street from a construction site that fills
an entire city block.

And he says the air quality can be terrible.

“Sneezing a lot, yes. Since the dust comes in during the whole day that they’ve
been working, it was constant dust inside the room so it was like having an
allergy.”

Trucks and bulldozers drive in and out of the site all day. They’re tracking mud
on the streets and the air is filled with dust.

Once that dirt is on the pavement, it’s kicked back up by every car that passes
by.

The construction site’s supervisor, Brad Smith, says he’s received lots of
complaints about the dust from nearby residents, especially seniors.

“I’m used to the dust and the dirt, whereas some of the people with breathing
problems and stuff that live in the community will be affected negatively more
than we are.”

In fact, too much dust can even be dangerous for people with respiratory
illnesses such as asthma.

To keep it under control, he says his company flushes the dirt off the streets
twice a week and then vacuums the rest up with a special truck.

He says the amount of cleaning they do depends on who they’re working for.

“My client is the city of Ottawa and they wrote that into the contract during
tender time. Whereas other projects I’ve been on, it can get into a bit of an
argument because it costs us and we push back a little bit.”

Smith says his company could get a fine if they leave debris on the roads.

But it’s hard to find a specific law – whether here in Canada or in the U.S. –
either at the national level, the state level, or even the local level that deals
directly with the dust coming off of construction sites.

The officials I talked to said that’s because it’s a temporary nuisance.

But what got me thinking about it was the research from Professor Brian
McCarry at McMaster University in Ontario.

He drove around his city measuring air pollution at different sites and he found
the cloud of dust kicked up when you pass a construction site is not something
you want to be breathing.

“In some cases you’re kicking up so much dust that the fine particles –
the things that cause health effects – are at levels that are there for concern.”

Scientists say that inhaling those fine particles is bad for the lungs and the
heart.

But McCarry says keeping the air clean around a construction site is actually
not that hard.

“It’s just housekeeping, it’s nothing more complex than that, and if you tell
them the housekeeping is higher in this area than elsewhere, they’ll do it.”

That can mean spraying down dusty roads with water or a sticky pine
substance.

Or using the vacuum truck more frequently in areas where there’s construction.

When companies started doing that, McCarry says there was a big drop in the
air pollution at those sites.

Now, local laws require that cleanup.

McCarry argues those laws should be everywhere.

For The Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

New Central Air Units Save Energy

  • John Proctor in his workshop (Photo by Amy Standen)

It happens every year. Temperatures
get hot, and people crank up the air conditioning.
That means using more electricity from the
power grid. It means creating more greenhouse
gas emissions. And that could lead to global
warming and warmer temperatures. That means,
even more air conditioning! There are a few
ways to halt this vicious cycle, one of which
starts with a makeover for the air conditioner
itself. Amy Standen reports:

Transcript

It happens every year. Temperatures
get hot, and people crank up the air conditioning.
That means using more electricity from the
power grid. It means creating more greenhouse
gas emissions. And that could lead to global
warming and warmer temperatures. That means,
even more air conditioning! There are a few
ways to halt this vicious cycle, one of which
starts with a makeover for the air conditioner
itself. Amy Standen reports:

“Hi there! This is Al.”

Temperatures were expected to hit 105 degrees on the day I visited Al Mason’s Northern
California bungalow. But, standing in his very cool living room, he wasn’t too concerned.

Al Mason: “During the summer without the air, it was miserable.”

Amy Standen: “What’s it like now?”

Mason: “Oh it’s wonderful.”

That’s because Mason just bought himself a $10,000 central AC and heating system.

(sound of motor starting up)

Installer Jeff Scalier of the Blue Star Heating and Air Conditioning Company takes me
outside to show off the motor.

“This particular unit, I call it the Cadillac. It’s an HDL is the name of the unit, it’s side
discharged.”

New units like this are about twice as energy efficient as those sold thirty years ago.
That’s when the 1970s oil embargo inspired a slew of federal efficiency rules.

But Al Mason’s brand-new AC system still uses a lot more electricity than it needs to. At
least, that’s what John Proctor says. He’s an air conditioning entrepreneur in San Rafael,
just north of San Francisco.

“Air conditioners are designed one size fits all for the whole country. So you have a
hammer where you really would like something a little more precise.”

In other words, different climates require different air conditioners. For example, the day
I met John Proctor, it was about 75 degrees outside, maybe 25% humidity.”

“There’s a reason why we live here!” (laughs)

Meanwhile, about 3,000 miles east, residents of Tampa, Florida were wiping their brows
in 80% humidity. In other words, a completely different climate, where air conditioners
have a different job to do.

“In South Florida you have to do a lot of dehumidification, whereas in California, you
don’t have to do any dehumidification at all. So what they’re doing is taking moisture
out of the air and dumping it down the drain.”

In other words, because air conditioners are built for all climates, they don’t work
perfectly in any climate.

That fact inspired Proctor – with funding from the state of California – to design AC
systems for three different climates – the hot dry west, the soggy southeast, and the more
temperate Midwest. So that’s one model for Phoenix, another for Tampa, and a third for
St. Louis. He built them in an attic workshop upstairs from his office.

“So where does that data point show up on the graph?”

Proctor says these climate-specific units can use as much as 20% less electricity than the
one-size fits all models. But that doesn’t mean we can expect manufacturers to start
making them any time soon.

“From a manufacturing perspective, if you can just make lots of one air conditioner,
it’s easier, it’s cheaper. And that’s how they’re set up to do it.”

That’s why Proctor, along with California energy officials, went to Washington earlier
this year. Their goal was to get Congressional support for new, regional AC standards.
And it worked.

But putting these standards into law is another step. That’ll take a ruling from the Federal
Department of Energy – something, Proctor believes, is unlikely to occur until next
administration takes the White House.

For The Environment Report, I’m Amy Standen.

Related Links