Now, 40 years later, the Supreme Court is considering overturning this longstanding precedent in two cases that will be decided any day now, called Loper Bright and Relentless.

The Chevron decision established a framework for judicial review of agency regulations. Known as “Chevron deference,” this framework instructs judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute that it is charged with implementing if that interpretation is reasonable. The approach respects Congress’ decision to delegate certain policy decisions to subject-matter experts at the agencies.

To put it simply, Chevron deference respects the separation of powers, and ensures that agency experts, not judges, make policy decisions.

For example, Congress in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act instructed the Food and Drug Administration to approve new medical devices shown to have reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, leaving it to the medical and scientific experts at the agency to determine what types of studies and evidence provide that assurance. The same is true for laws that Congress passes to protect workers, the environment, public health and safety, and other issues of importance.

Who do you want making decisions about what constitutes safe drinking water or clean air? Subject-matter experts with public input, or judges?  

Gutting Chevron deference will make it harder for federal agencies to carry out their congressionally-mandated missions to protect the public.

Let’s not turn the clock back. The world is better with Prince’s “Purple Rain,” Ghostbusters, and Chevron deference.

The post The People’s Principle: Chevron Deference Protects the Public appeared first on Public Citizen.

Haley Schulz is a Houston-based community organizer for the Texas office of Public Citizen. Haley is a born-and-raised Houstonian and looks forward to advocating for the people of Texas through mobilizing communities and building coalitions.

Tell us a little about yourself.
I am a Houston native and grew up in Sugar Land, just southwest of Houston. I have always been a curious person and enjoy asking “why,” and I really feel that has led me down a unique path when it comes to my career. I constantly look for opportunities to learn and understand. Turning my work toward public advocacy is very rewarding and humbling. I enjoy reading and playing French horn with the Texas Medical Center Orchestra in my free time. I LOVE music and the rich cultural scene Houston has to offer. My family and I also love to travel and enjoy the outdoors whenever possible.

What did you do before joining Public Citizen?
My winding career has led me through MANY different industries. Starting with a summer job at a cough syrup laboratory, I studied Music Business at the University of Houston due to my love of playing music. I had a performance major with a marketing minor and wanted to get into the performing arts on the non-profit/administrative side. I worked with the Houston Symphony and then shifted careers into accreditation. I learned a lot about process improvement and account management. From there, I moved into the energy sector with a company that provides surplus solutions for energy clients. That’s where I got an insight into the oil & gas industry and realized its influence on Houston and the world. Over the past few years, I made it a personal mission to learn what Houston’s environmental justice landscape looked like. I started attending weeknight meetings, and town halls and signing up for any seminar to educate me about the climate movement. I kept looking for opportunities to be an advocate for my community. Those experiences led me to Public Citizen and the fantastic work this organization does at the national level and here in my home state.

That’s an interesting background! How does your experience influence your approach to organizing?
In my career and personal journey, I have met many people from different walks of life. Being empathic and hyper-aware, I enjoy connecting with people but also want to do right by them. So when I woke up to the social justice issues here in Houston, I felt deeply connected with my neighbors and empowered to take action. My experiences each offer me a unique perspective on the work I do today. With my recent work in the energy sector and coming from an industry that is heavily embedded in our economy and day-to-day lives (hello Houston, the “Energy Capitol of the World”), I understand the players and hope to offer creative solutions to the issues. I also have a journalistic approach to understanding scenarios, so my curiosity keeps me enlightened and moving toward solutions. I think these attributes all play a vital role in my work.

In the time you have been at Public Citizen, what have you observed about Houston as it relates to the issue areas in which the Texas office works?
It’s all wholly relevant, and there is much-needed work here in Houston. Houston is home to over 5,000 energy-related firms, accounting for over 42% of the nation’s base petrochemical capacity. Our coastal location bodes well for commerce and exports with the Houston Ship Channel. The industrial buildout in Houston and along the coast is immense, which also means the sacrifice zones and communities bear the brunt of the consequences. Public Citizen is a part of many coalitions tackling various advocacy issues across the state, and I’m eager to join these conversations and affect real change.

What advice would you give someone new to social justice or public advocacy?
To make a difference, start with compassion and ask questions. If we are open-minded, take time to listen, and act in each other’s best interests, we can do so much good in the world. My journey started with curiosity and empathy, but now I get to work daily advocating for my community. I believe we, as people, are innovative and creative and have solutions for a brighter future. But barriers are hindering us from moving forward, and my job is to remove those. I hope to inspire empathy and action, as many others did for me, so we can work together and inspire the next generations.

Any last comments for our readers?
I can’t wait to meet you! This vital work we do at Public Citizen is impossible without connecting. I may have started as a “concerned citizen,” but I’m excited and proud to be in this space as my career.

I look forward to helping build a brighter future for Texans with you.

The post Q&A: Meet Houston Organizer Haley Schulz appeared first on Public Citizen.

Solar 2024: Connecting Technology and Policy brought together experts from many sectors working on solar. While a small conference, its intimate size allowed for many opportunities for relationship-building and collaboration. 

While there, we presented our recent research on rooftop solar compensation rates in Texas alongside dozens of other presenters whose work focuses on a wide range of solar-related fields. There were panels—panels about panels if you will—on everything from home energy efficiency to grid-enhancing technologies to the life cycles of solar panels and how to recycle them.  

We also presented our research in a poster session alongside graduate students, entrepreneurs, young career analysts, government workers, and industry experts with decades of experience.  

The convening of people from all over the country and all in different stages of their careers is what I appreciated most. I found it professionally and personally enriching to hear the different kinds of advice that came from different people—advice that was colored by where someone was in their career. I could talk to people in my generation about things like work-life balance and people much deeper in their careers about the lessons they learned from the grid crisis in California in the early 2000s. Even though it can often feel like we’re fighting an uphill battle in Texas (and from what it sounded like from people in other states—we do have it hard), it’s revitalizing to see so many people dedicated to the same work and willing to share tips on how they do it.  

While this convening was on the smaller side, it allowed for more intimate dialogue and relationship-building. Speakers, volunteers, and visitors could intermingle and talk easily after panels. Experts from Maryland could compare their state’s regulatory structures with organizers in Virginia. Even though our work in the Texas office of Public Citizen is almost entirely focused on Texas, hearing what programs and ideas work for people in other states and power grids was good for inspiring new ideas we could incorporate here.  

One concept that stuck with me came from Paul Fenn, president of Local Power LLC. In his presentation, he spoke of lessons over the past 30 years trying to increase green energy on our grid. He’s most well-known for authoring California’s Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, which allows governmental entities, like cities or counties, to purchase and/or generate electricity within the service area of investor-owned utilities. This allows cities or counties to choose their own electricity.  

After his talk, I asked Paul how a program like that could be implemented in California in the early 2000s, given the power of monopoly utilities at the time. He said it could be implemented after the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001. That crisis gave California regulators so few options that their only choice was implementing CCAs, especially because it had grown a following through his organizing efforts across the state.  

The lesson from this is about organizing: building power and using it strategically. If change seems impossible, keep building power and wait for the opportunity. And when it comes, be ready.  

I’m thankful I was able to attend and present at this conference. Not only did I learn from many of the attendees and presenters, but I also gave my first presentation at a professional conference. I am excited to apply the lessons and ideas I’ve learned here on the ERCOT grid. 

Kamil Cook is a climate and clean energy associate in the Texas office of Public Citizen

The post ASES Conference: A Convening on the ‘Smaller Size’ With Big Implications appeared first on Public Citizen.

The term “sacrifice zone” refers to areas that disproportionately bear the burden of environmental hazards and degradation, often for the benefit of industrial and economic development. For southwest Detroit and neighboring Dearborn, River Rouge, and Ecorse, the expansion of industrial facilities and encroachment into residential neighborhoods created an environmental crisis harming the health and well-being of residents, many of whom are low income and represent already-marginalized identities.

This corner of Michigan is home to a range of industrial operations, including steel mills, oil refineries, and manufacturing plants. The area has some of the highest levels of air pollution in Michigan, with pollutants like sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds regularly exceeding safe limits.

Last month, I joined local government officials and members of the media on a “toxic bus tour” of the many industrial facilities that spew hazardous air pollution throughout these communities.  A newly formed coalition of local environmental justice organizations and community activists called Clear the Air organized the toxic tour as part of a week of action during National Air Quality Awareness Week. 

On the tour, I heard from residents and environmental justice activists that this area has the highest number of asthma-related hospitalizations in the nation. Cancer rates in southwest Detroit, including rare forms of cancer like scalp and nasal cancer, are significantly higher than the national average. These are just a few of the devastating health impacts linked to toxic air pollution.

Clear the Air’s week of action, which also included film screenings, a panel, and a community dialogue was a powerful learning opportunity for me. I had previously read about the horrifying impacts of air pollution on public health, but seeing pictures of community members literally washing the soot from the front of their houses made it seem much more tangible. It’s also completely different to talk with someone who’s lost four of their immediate family members to cancer, or someone who’s had to rush their terrified child to the E.R. because they couldn’t breathe on multiple occasions. 

One of the worst threats to clean air in this community is the Dearborn Works steel mill, operated by Cleveland-Cliffs. This steel mill abuts an elementary school playground where I joined over a dozen local community members for Clear the Air’s week of action press conference. The juxtaposition of the playground and the looming steel mill is striking.

Dearborn Works was originally part of the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge manufacturing complex and was built over 100 years ago. Although the steel mill has changed ownership several times, the technology Dearborn Works uses to make steel has not. This facility’s blast furnace still uses coke, or purified coal, as part of the process to transform iron ore into steel, which also means it generates significant climate-warming carbon pollution in addition to spewing toxic chemicals into the air for local residents to breathe. 

In a few years, Cleveland-Cliffs will need to make a major decision about Dearborn Works: either reline the blast furnace with new refractory tiles, locking in two more decades of toxic air pollution, or invest in modern, cleaner technology that doesn’t rely on burning fossil fuels or toxifying the air for local communities. 

Both of these options require a significant cost for Cleveland-Cliffs, but there’s another kind of cost that needs to be considered—the cost to the local community, not only in lost lives, but also in the form of time and money spent on doctor appointments, pharmacy visits and life-saving treatments, resulting in missed work or school days. 

While Cleveland-Cliffs’ CEO said last year that the company is “committed” to coal-based steelmaking using blast furnaces, investing in fossil-free steelmaking technology is clearly the best option—not only for the planet, but also for residents living near the steel mill.

Throughout Clear the Air’s week of action, I was deeply inspired by all the community activists and residents who continue to work tirelessly to lobby their government officials, hold corporations to account, and ultimately, transform their community into one where everyone can breathe freely and thrive. To me, Clear the Air’s toxic tour was more than an eye-opener, it was a rallying cry, because, as one activist put it, “the right to breathe clean air is far more important than the right for corporations to profit.”

The post The Fight to Breathe Clean Air in Southwest Detroit appeared first on Public Citizen.

The 2024 hurricane season is predicted to be extremely active, according to researchers at Colorado State University, with 23 named storms forecasted, nearly twice the average. While 23 storms represents the highest prediction ever issued with their April outlook, it matches a broader trend of increasing frequency and costs of weather climate-related disasters. In 2023, the United States experienced $28 billion weather or climate disasters. Globally, 398 global natural disaster events created $380 billion in losses, the highest on record.

An intense hurricane season could wreak havoc on coastal insurance markets which already show signs of fragility due to greater climate-related losses. With little visibility on a national crisis, members of Congress are increasingly asking insurance companies and their regulators for answers on how they are adjusting to climate change.  There are several trends worth noting:

1. While multiple factors, including inflation and construction costs, impact insurance premiums, climate change is the factor that will only grow over time. 
2. Market challenges once associated primarily with Florida and Louisiana are becoming national problems plaguing the Midwest and states once seen as climate havens. 
3. While the largest national insurance companies can exit and profit, small insurers and vulnerable consumers, overrepresented in communities of color, are unprepared to absorb the costs.

As global losses have risen, reinsurers, who provide insurance for other insurance companies, raised prices by nearly 40% in the last two years. Primary insurers have passed on those costs to consumers in the form of higher premiums and deductibles or dropped policyholders entirely. In North Carolina, one insurer dropped 10,000 policies in 2023, and the industry proposed a 42% premium increase this year. In Florida, Farmers alone dropped 100,000 policies, and home insurance premiums in Florida increased by an average of 35%.

Coastal states may be hardest hit, but insurance challenges are quickly becoming a national problem. In California, a growing list of insurers, including State Farm, Allstate, and The Hartford are either retreating or pausing coverage in wildfire-prone areas. The Midwest will not be immune either, as smaller events like severe thunderstorms, once known as secondary perils, are increasingly making up a large portion of the losses. Even states like Vermont that might once have seemed like climate havens are recognizing that warmer and wetter weather will increasingly drive up insurance premiums.

What happens when insurers withdraw?

When large national insurers leave entire states, small ones tend to fill their place, creating even more vulnerability. The market in Florida, which experienced an exodus after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, is dominated by small insurers that are less diversified, hold less capital, and are more likely to become insolvent. A combination of small, undercapitalized companies, weak state oversight, and increasingly frequent and intense storms can create a perfect storm for fraud and can threaten the broader economy. 

Backstops to the market are already starting to fray, leaving consumers and taxpayers vulnerable. As consumers increasingly struggle to find insurance on the private market, they are turning to state last resort programs, which offer expensive barebones coverage. Florida’s last resort program, known as Citizens, had over a million policies in force as of April, making it the largest insurer in the state. In the event that losses exceed premiums for these high-risk policyholders, policyholders across the state will be on the hook for increased fees. 

When insurers go under, consumers rely on state-backed guaranty funds, which can pay claims through fees assessed on other policies. However, guaranty funds only cover insurers who are admitted to that state. As those insurers leave, more consumers may be turning to non-admitted carriers, which typically cover uncommon or high risks, leaving those consumers exposed in the event of the insurer’s failure. Still other consumers are opting to forgo insurance entirely. An estimated one in thirteen homeowners across the United States are already uninsured, and communities of color bear a disproportionate burden, with an estimated 22% of Native American, 14% of Hispanic, and 11% of Black homeowners having no homeowners insurance at all. 

Financial regulators are struggling to catch up 

Senator Warren, Congressman Schiff and Congressman Levin recently led a letter to the Federal Insurance Office and National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the convening body for regulators, seeking answers on how regulators will evaluate climate impacts on insurance markets. While insurance is primarily regulated at the state level, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) found that efforts by regulators have been “fragmented” and “limited.” Following that report, the NAIC published a national climate strategy, but delays and ambiguity are already undermining the process. The centerpiece of the NAIC’s strategy is a data collection effort originally proposed by FIO, which would help the NAIC advocate for increased federal investments. Currently, key states like Louisiana and Georgia are opting out of the NAIC’s collection, and the NAIC has not said which data will be shared publicly or even with the federal government. 

The lack of data is a problem for regulators, consumer advocates, and media, but also other actors in the financial system. Because climate risks are concentrated in certain regions, rising costs and falling availability could lead to a foreclosure crisis, which could in turn threaten the tax base needed to fund basic mitigation and increase risks for community and regional banks. In a recent report from the Federal Reserve’s Climate Scenario Analysis with six large banks, participating banks reported significant data challenges in estimating climate-related financial risks due to a lack of comprehensive and consistent data on insurance coverage.

Insurers still aren’t dropping their fossil fuel clients

While insurers are dropping homeowners quickly, that’s not the case for their oil, gas and coal clients. An analysis of insurers investments from California, Washington and Oregon shows insurers’ investments in fossil fuels remain high, while investments in renewables remain low, and these companies could face billions of dollars in losses if they stay on the current course of investments. While some insurers like Zurich have started to limit coverage of certain fossil-fuel exposures, most U.S. insurers continue to insure new projects, potentially in violation of their own climate policies, and the Senate Budget Committee is currently investigating how insurers like Liberty Mutual and State Farm are continuing to invest in or underwrite fossil fuel expansion projects. 

Resources:

• Colorado State University, Forecast for 2024 Hurricane Activity
• Aon, 2024 Climate and Catastrophe Insight
• California Department of Insurance, The Hidden Cost of Delaying Climate Action for West Coast Insurance Markets 
• Public Citizen, Testimony on the Impacts of Extreme Weather on the Property and Casualty Insurance Market 
• Public Citizen, Letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Climate and Resiliency Task Force
• Consumer Federation of America, EXPOSED: A Report on 1.6 Trillion Dollars of Uninsured American Homes
• Senate Budget Committee, Investigation into Climate Change-Fueled Insurance Crisis

# # #

The post Memo: Hurricanes, Severe Weather, Climate Change, and an Unfolding Insurance Crisis appeared first on Public Citizen.

By integrating sustainability into curricula, research agendas, campus programs, and initiatives, colleges can play a huge role in developing students’ values and behaviors towards the environment and, consequently, environmental justice. This commitment can extend beyond campus. By embracing sustainability, higher education institutions prepare students to tackle pressing challenges while positioning them as leaders in transitioning to a more sustainable global community. 

Let’s discuss what’s involved in embracing sustainable procurement at our colleges and universities and what we can all gain from such practices.

Sustainable Procurement

Procurement plans often focus on investing in goods and services with a reduced environmental impact while considering the social and ethical aspects of sourcing—a key component of sustainability. As significant consumers, universities leverage sustainable procurement to promote greener economies by choosing energy-efficient, nontoxic products made from renewable resources and produced using fair labor practices.

Implementing plans of this nature involves setting clear sustainability criteria for procurement, training procurement teams on sustainability issues, and engaging with suppliers to encourage sustainable production. Additionally, sustainable procurement helps universities comply with environmental regulations and meet the expectations of students and staff who may be increasingly conscious of sustainability. 

What is Sustainable Procurement?

The term refers to acquiring goods and services in a manner that minimizes negative environmental, social, and economic impacts and maximizes the positive. 

The fundamentals include:

1. Environmental Responsibility: Procure products and services that have minimal environmental impact throughout their lifecycle, from extraction of raw materials to disposal or recycling.
2. Equity: Ensure fair labor practices, respect human rights, and promote diversity and inclusion in the supply chain.
3. Economic Viability: To make economically sound procurement decisions, consider long-term costs and benefits, including total cost of ownership and life cycle assessments.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Maintain transparency in procurement processes, disclose information about suppliers and their practices, and be accountable for sustainable procurement goals and outcomes.
5. Innovation and Continuous Improvement: Encourage innovation in products and services that contribute to sustainability goals and continuously improve procurement practices based on performance data and feedback.
6. Collaboration and Engagement: Collaborate with suppliers, employees, communities, and government agencies to promote sustainable procurement practices and address shared challenges.
7. Risk Management: Identify and mitigate risks related to sustainability, such as supply chain disruptions, environmental impacts, and reputational risks.
8. Legal Compliance: Ensure compliance with relevant laws, regulations, and standards related to sustainability, including environmental regulations, labor laws, and ethical sourcing guidelines.

What Makes an Effective Sustainable Procurement Plan?

Lifecycle Assessment and Product Evaluation Criteria

A lifecycle assessment (LCA) systematically analyzes a product or service’s environmental impacts, from raw material extraction to disposal. This assessment considers resource amounts, energy consumption, emissions, waste generation, and potential environmental hazards at each stage of the product’s life. LCAs in sustainable procurement plans are valuable because they comprehensively study a product’s environmental footprint, helping organizations make informed decisions that minimize negative impacts.

Product evaluation criteria within sustainable procurement plans are the specific standards or metrics used to assess products or services’ environmental, social, and economic aspects. These criteria guide the evaluation process and help determine whether a product aligns with sustainability goals. Standard product evaluation criteria touch on every area of sustainable procurement.

Image source: https://sievo.com/blog/sustainable-procurement-part1

Examples of University Sustainable Procurement Plans

University of Texas at Austin

When looking for exceptional examples of university-specific plans, the information provided by STARS, “a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance,” is beneficial. STARS — the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System — is run by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, the leader in advancing sustainability in higher education. UT Austin is rated a 3.00/3.00 by STARS for its sustainability initiatives. The university emphasizes responsible purchasing, which considers the total cost of ownership, waste minimization, and future-proofing supply chains. It employs Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) as a standard practice when evaluating energy- and water-using products and systems to ensure cost-effective, sustainable design and enhanced energy efficiency in construction.

Additionally, UT Austin has established sustainability criteria for various products and services, including chemically intensive products, consumable office products, furniture, IT equipment, food service providers, and transportation and fuels. These criteria focus on environmental performance, recycled content, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels. The university engages with suppliers and adheres to sustainability standards set by various organizations. One example is the nonprofit Green Seal, which sets standards based on a life cycle approach that considers impacts from raw materials extraction, manufacturing, use, and disposal. UT Austin sets specific goals to engage underutilized businesses in its professional services procurement, fostering diversity and inclusion. Moreover, the institution has set targets for incorporating alternative fuel vehicles in its fleet, underscoring its commitment to sustainable operations.

Texas A&M University

The rivalry between the two leading Texas public universities continues even in sustainability. Texas A&M received a 1.25/3.00 from the STARS rating of their sustainable procurement plan and other sustainability initiatives. Their “Green Purchasing Initiative” emphasizes the procurement of environmentally preferable products and services if they meet standards such as performance and cost-effectiveness. Support for this is shown at various administrative levels by encouraging departments to engage with management and adopt these practices. Procurement Services play a crucial role by emphasizing sustainability in documentation, facilitating training, and integrating sustainability language into vendor contracts.

Additionally, the university addresses specific categories with published sustainability criteria. A&M has documented and adhered to standards for chemically intensive products that minimize environmental impact and improve indoor air quality. As for furniture, the 2017 Campus Master Plan includes guidelines that align with various green building standards, although it does not mandate LEED certification. LEED is the most widely used green building rating system. Additionally, no published sustainability criteria exist for consumable office products, IT and equipment, food services, transportation, and fuels. Garments and linens are evaluated under the university’s agreement with Barnes and Noble, which adheres to the Fair Labor Association’s Code of Conduct, upholding labor rights in producing college apparel. Though this comprehensive approach demonstrates Texas A&M’s commitment to sustainability, certain areas still lack specific criteria.

Impact and Benefits of Sustainable Procurement in Universities

Sustainable procurement offers numerous benefits. Economically, it helps organizations control costs by adopting a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) approach, which considers all life-cycle costs of products or services, optimizing long-term investments. It also ensures compliance with regulations and applicable laws, which prevent costly legal issues and fines. Additionally, sustainable procurement strategies contribute to the continuity and security of supply chains, minimize business risks related to environmental factors, and create competitive advantages by differentiating products and services in the market. Furthermore, these practices are crucial in managing an organization’s reputation, often appealing to environmentally conscious investors.

Environmentally, sustainable procurement aims to reduce waste and improve efficiency, supporting the transition to a circular economy. It also significantly reduces carbon emissions and energy consumption, crucial in combating climate change. Sustainable procurement practices limit the negative impacts of buying from non-certified sources, ensuring that organizations adhere to stringent environmental guidelines and standards.

Socially, these practices demonstrate a commitment to the communities where organizations operate. This includes eliminating unethical practices such as child labor, securing fair wages, and engaging in community projects that enhance social welfare. Organizations can also foster better community relations by investing in local projects that improve quality of life, thereby building social capital. 

Developing a Sustainable Procurement Plan

Effective supplier engagement and the development of sustainable partnerships are crucial for companies, institutions, and organizations aiming to fulfill their sustainability goals. The process begins with identifying and prioritizing suppliers whose values align with those goals, encouraging active participation in decision-making to solidify plans for achieving sustainability targets. Establishing a transparent system of rewards and penalties, including financial and non-financial incentives, is essential. Simplifying compliance for suppliers by aligning expectations with those of peer organizations can drive substantial progress and foster meaningful collaboration.

The journey toward sustainable procurement involves defining core values and understanding its drivers, such as market demands, stakeholder expectations, or regulations. Determining procurement’s role within the organization and setting realistic and inspiring goals informed by industry benchmarks and standards are essential. Developing specific Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals tailored to the business model and industry, such as achieving full compliance with environmental regulations, ensuring ethical labor practices, and adhering to strict governance standards like anti-bribery laws, is also critical. This includes conducting a current state analysis to identify gaps and set a clear improvement path.

Strategies should include redesigning procurement processes to integrate ESG goals making sustainability a key criterion in purchasing decisions. Tools like the RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed) matrix, which defines employees’ roles and duties for each project task, milestone, and decision, can help foster an environment of clear communication and improvement. Managing supplier performance by setting clear expectations and using a responsible sourcing framework to assess and categorize suppliers based on their sustainability impact is vital. Regular monitoring through sustainability key performance indicators and audits ensures suppliers meet standards and contribute positively to sustainability objectives.

Lastly, implementing sustainability reporting through advanced data tools and analytics is essential for tracking and reporting the sustainability performance of procurement activities. Establishing robust reporting mechanisms provides accurate and actionable insights, ensuring compliance and shaping future strategies. Sharing these insights securely with stakeholders is crucial for maintaining transparency and accountability. Organizations can achieve sustainability objectives through these comprehensive steps and create a responsible supply chain.

Conclusion

The imperative for sustainable procurement in universities is profound, given their influential role in shaping tomorrow’s leaders, innovators, and policymakers. As substantial consumers and community figures, universities have the unique opportunity to set benchmarks for sustainability that reverberate beyond academic confines into broader societal and environmental realms. By embedding sustainability into procurement, universities uphold environmental stewardship and social responsibility and enhance their educational mandate by providing students with a practical framework for ethical decision-making and responsible citizenship.

Bellamy Wooten is a Sustainability Studies and Geography double major at the University of Texas at Austin. She is the Spring 2024 Environmental Policy and Advocacy Intern for the Texas office of Public Citizen in Austin. 

The post The Importance of Sustainability in Higher Ed appeared first on Public Citizen.

Growing up near what became known as the Toxic Triangle, a residential area near Kelly Air Force Base, I witnessed the devastating consequences of contaminated water, alarming cancer rates, asthma and unexplainable illnesses. Moved by this reality, I’ve dedicated myself to empowering communities like Quintana to advocate for the rights and opportunities of its residents, and a better quality of life. In partnership with local groups, we strive to address environmental injustices, like ensuring residents can withstand rising temperatures and breathe clean air. 

My work extends beyond Quintana. Working with residents from all parts of San Antonio, we navigate obstacles and foster positive change. I’m eager to share our progress and continue this journey toward a brighter, healthier future for all. 

An issue is the recurrence of fires from local metal recycling facilities and the fact that recorded violations are sometimes ignored, sometimes for years. Each time there is an incident, those living closest to the smoke endure unclean air for hours. Some families, especially those with children or loved ones with respiratory issues, are forced to leave their homes. It has been especially troubling when some fires lasted approximately 10 hours. Those unable to leave had to stay and risk inhaling whatever could be in the air. Those who can leave are forced to stay away from their homes until the situation improves.

While neighborhood associations surrounding the facilities were discussing these issues with uncertainty, unsure how to resolve the issue, the Thompson Neighborhood Association took action. Its members have been in the direct path of much of the smoke and particulate matter when an incident takes place. The core group – led by association vice president Rudy Lopez, Joey Cipriano, Larry Garcia, restaurant owner Linda Bocanegra, president Tricia Fayuadh, and myself – led the effort. It marked the beginning of neighborhood associations uniting to confront and overcome environmental challenges.

San Antonio City Council Member Teri Castillo deserves credit for taking up our cause by listening to the community outcry and filing a Council Consideration Request (CCR) that would create a task force that would make recommendations for updating the city’s ordinances that govern emissions from metal recyclers and fire prevention requirements.

Council Member Castillo’s CCR is pending at city hall and making steady progress toward a potential vote by the full council.

Starting last November, I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with ten neighborhood associations. Their passionate leaders have come together to drive change and address recycler emissions. We are united in our call for recyclers to be responsible community members.  

We recognize that these companies are important to our community and provide employment opportunities in an industry that helps reduce waste. Many are doing it right. We are deeply concerned about the ones who cause health concerns and worry among our residents.

The crucial step following the potential approval of the CRR  is ensuring that the affected community has representation on the task force. 

We will keep you updated on our progress. 

Debra Ponce is an organizer for the Texas office of Public Citizen. She lives and works in San Antonio.

The post Safe Recycling and Protecting Public Health: An Update on Efforts to Reduce Metal Recycler Emissions in San Antonio appeared first on Public Citizen.

The post Public Citizen Op-ed in the Houston Chronicle: Did Dan Crenshaw Forget the KMCO Explosion in His Own District? appeared first on Public Citizen.

Last week’s public hearings on strategies to advance supply chain resilience in trade negotiations were no exception, and unsurprisingly, Big Tech representatives spouted the same tired talking points that have been effectively rebutted time and again.

The hearings were intended to help the USTR source information “on supply chain challenges across a range of sectors, and identify potential policy solutions.” The hearing focused on how to make progress on ‘friendshoring,’ supply chain diversification, enhance domestic manufacturing capacities, limit trade in goods created through forced labor, and more. 

But representatives from the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Global Data Alliance / BSA Software Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Consumer Technology Association, and the Business Roundtable – industry associations that represent Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Google amongst other tech companies – took the opportunity to regurgitate the same misplaced talking points they have been repeating for months. And to no surprise, Big Tech is just as wrong now as they have been before. 

Once again, they mischaracterized the Biden administration’s position as though its intent was somehow to stop cross-border data flows altogether. The administration has repeatedly clarified that this is not the case, explaining that its goals are to ensure that Congress and the administration can put in place relevant public-interest regulation to protect people’s privacy rights, promote competition in the tech sector, and address potential AI harms. 

The Biden administration’s recent Executive Order to protect sensitive American data from being exploited by countries of concern, is an example of the type of regulation that could be stymied by the Trump-era digital trade provisions pushed by Big Tech companies. Thus, the industry lobbyists’ claims that unrestricted cross-border data flows help diversify supply chains can be seen for what they are: red herrings. 

Allowing governments to implement public-interest regulation over data flows does not equate to a restriction on all data flows. Indeed, there are only a few countries in the world that implement broad restrictions on data transfers, with most only applying them to select categories of particularly sensitive data, such as health or financial data. 

Big Tech yet again rehashed a flawed argument that — by withdrawing support for these specific Trump-era proposals — the US would somehow be unable to influence the “rules of the road” on digital trade. In reality, any serious observer can see that the USTR has continued to engage in negotiations on digital trade issues, including at the WTO’s JSI. In fact, by moving away from these controversial provisions that most of the participating countries refused to support, USTR helped to jumpstart the JSI negotiations in other areas. 

Big Tech claimed that the Trump-era rules would enhance ‘regulatory certainty’ for businesses. This is code for protecting the status quo — where Big Tech continues to be unregulated, exposing consumers to various online harms. The tech industry unsurprisingly continues to complain about being asked to comply with nascent consumer and public safety regulations in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. While they claim to speak for small businesses, it is only the biggest tech companies that benefit from a relatively unregulated digital ecosystem that allows them to strengthen and unfairly profit from their monopoly positions, as many small and medium companies have argued.

Further, claims such as how cybersecurity may be hurt by offshoring data are also questionable. The security of data is guaranteed by the presence of robust data protection and cybersecurity laws, as well technical expertise. In fact, in the absence of modern data protection regulations in the U.S. — reforms that Big Tech has also attempted to derail — user data is likely much safer in jurisdictions such as the EU. Similarly, the claim that offshoring data would lead to a loss of jobs in the U.S. may be slightly more persuasive if tech companies weren’t already exploiting workers in developing countries to whom AI training, data labeling, and other data-oriented jobs are outsourced (usually at pitifully low wages). 

As we have seen over the last few months — including at hearings conducted by the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means Committees — Big Tech and its supporters have yet to come to terms with the USTR’s shift away from certain extreme digital trade provisions at the WTO. The claims spouted at the supply chain hearings were just another attempt by Big Tech to continue pressuring the Biden administration to go back on its decision, thereby insulating them from public-interest regulation that could force them to rethink their exploitative business models. If it wasn’t already clear, the hearings once again demonstrated the steadfast commitment of Big Tech to putting their profits above the legitimate interests of the American public.  

The post Big Tech’s Broken Record: Supply Chains Hearing Edition appeared first on Public Citizen.

In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri – one of the worst winter storms in Texas history – hit. Two years later, also in February, a smaller storm caused havoc in part of the state. 

Then, this past February, the largest wildfire in Texas history burned in the Panhandle. Three people died in the Smokehouse Creek Fire, which burned more than a million acres before it was contained. Four more fires followed in two days: Grape Vine Creek, Windy Deuce, 2277, and Reamer Creek. 

What is happening in Texas? Concerning the wildfires, a special legislative committee sought answers while regrettably ignoring some hard truths.

At the direction of Speaker Dade Phelan, the Texas House Select Investigative Committee on the Panhandle Wildfires was created to investigate and its report was released at the beginning of May. As we feared, the committee’s report failed to mention climate change a single time. The Legislature is after all more likely to protect the state’s powerful fossil fuel interests than it is to take meaningful steps to address the changing climate.

Several causes of wildfires were listed: abundant fuel and a lack of fire breaks, decaying utility poles, and irresponsible oil and gas operators. The report also cites unusual weather conditions–high temperatures, low humidity, and severe wind.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association directly attributes these conditions to climate change, “Research has shown that climate change is likely causing the fire season to start earlier and extend longer.”

But not the Texas Legislature.

It is an egregious oversight that the wildfire report fails to acknowledge climate change. How can Texas rise to the challenge if it is afraid to name what makes such fires more likely?

Though it ignored climate, the report lists four factors contributing to the Panhandle wildfires. 

Downed power lines and decayed poles cause most fires

The report accuses two companies of being the main culprits behind the Smokehouse Creek fire. A tree wore down power lines on a decayed pole owned by Xcel Energy. A service company–Osmose Utility Service–had identified the pole as needing replacement, but nothing was done. 

The Grape Vine Creek Fire, the Windy Deuce Fire, and the Reamer Creek Fire were all caused by failing power poles. Local utility companies are responsible for maintaining poles and lines. The report tasks the Public Utility Commission of Texas with studying and reporting on its procedures to ensure that poles are inspected, restored, and replaced as needed.

The Railroad Commission is “grossly deficient” in oversight of oil and gas wells

Many decayed poles and failing wires were traced back to oil and gas wells. Thousands of wells in the panhandle produce only a few hydrocarbons. Irresponsible operators often neglect these marginal or “stripper” wells, which end up orphaned or abandoned. Many have electrical equipment–breaker boxes, wiring, and poles–failing even as power flows through them.

One landowner testified to the select committee that 85% of the fires on his property were sparked at oil and gas sites.

The Texas Railroad Commission–the agency tasked with regulating oil and gas operations in the state–was typically clueless or feigning cluelessness. A commission executive who testified before the select committee was “unaware” that oil and gas operations were causing wildfires across the Panhandle.

The committee recommended that the Railroad Commission “revisit” its system for prioritizing which orphaned wells to address first. 

But what’s going wrong here? Is it that the Railroad Commission isn’t good at predicting which wells are most likely to cause one disaster or another? Or is it that there are simply too many orphaned wells in Texas? The Railroad Commission hardly keeps pace with the rate of newly  orphaned wells, and they allow active operators to delay well plugging practically indefinitely. In Texas, more than 16,000 inactive wells have been abandoned for twenty years or more.

The real problem is obvious, even if the select committee fails to call it out: the Railroad Commission isn’t doing its job and isn’t even aware of the problems it creates. 

Models and predictions are failing

The Texas A&M Forest Service (TAMFS) is responsible for predicting wildfires. However, TAMFS didn’t expect the devastating fires of February.

According to the longtime chief of the Texas Department of Emergency Management, Nim Kidd, neither did the federal government. He asserts that the feds didn’t take the fire risk in February seriously.

TAMFS Director Al Davis called the February wildfires “a new phenomenon.” For people living in the heart of Texas wildfire country, exceptionally hot, dry weather is becoming the norm. It’s no wonder that Panhandle residents were confused by Davis’ remarks. Maybe he should just call it what it is–climate change. 

Davis’ colleagues at Texas A&M’s Office of the Texas State Climatologist have identified an alarming warming trend in Texas–3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1975. The office’s report, last updated in 2021, is unafraid to recognize climate change as the cause. 

If our predictions and models will work, they need to be based on the best available science. That includes accounting for climate change’s undeniable impacts.

Mitigation works, but there’s no money for it

There are proven strategies to lessen the impact of wildfires, including suppression lines, fire breaks, green strips, safety zones for firefighters, sprinklers, and training programs. All of these strategies have something in common: they cost money.

Fire prevention and mitigation is woefully underfunded in Texas. Nowhere is it more apparent than in our volunteer fire departments (VFDs). In 2002, the Legislature created a funding program for rural VFDs. But the $23 million allocated last year simply wasn’t enough. The select committee report prioritizes funding VFDs and vesting authority to fight fires with them and their allies in local government. 

Other concerns exist

The select committee report also identifies other concerns. Aviation support is challenging to arrange in time. Agencies cannot communicate with each other because they use different or outdated equipment.

The report also claims federal vehicle pollution emission standards are to blame for fire truck failures. Fire trucks in rural areas often go long periods without being used. When they are deployed, they often idle for long periods. The report claims that these driving conditions lead to failures in firetrucks with emissions systems that use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). 

The report refers to these failures as a “potentially lethal danger to firefighters.” But it doesn’t cite a specific example of such a failure or its consequences. It might have happened, and knowing how significant the risk might be is important.

This is because, on the other hand, the risk of operating diesel engines without pollution controls is well known. Some weighing of impacts must happen here. But the Texas Legislature has a history of hyperbole when attacking federal rules it doesn’t like. State regulators have railed against clean car standards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for decades. Given this history, we’d like to see evidence of the risk of fire truck failures before endorsing a blanket exemption from emissions controls.

Legislative recommendations

The report includes many good suggestions for addressing Texas’ wildfire problem. Here are a few suggestions within our areas of expertise that we think could be addressed by the Texas Legislature next year. Each seeks accountability for the industries that cause wildfires and the agencies that fail to regulate them.

Oil and gas operators
Oil and gas operators are already required to remove equipment and disconnect electricity from inactive well sites. But state regulations are too weak to compel action consistently and in a timely manner. The Legislature could impose liability on any owner or operator whose negligence causes a wildfire. The report suggests that the Texas Department of Insurance should study this approach.

The Railroad Commission
Reprioritizing the list of orphaned wells to clean up is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Railroad Commission was clueless about the link between abandoned wells and wildfires. Abandoned wells also cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, and surface breakouts. Let’s get rid of them. The legislature should fund the Railroad Commission to remediate all orphaned wells as soon as possible. Then the agency can focus on other challenges, like the 150,000 shut-in and inactive wells that active operators are still responsible for. 

Utility companies
Utility companies simply are not maintaining their power poles and lines. This was the biggest cause of the Panhandle Wildfires, according to the investigative report. Several companies, including Xcel and Osmoses, are being sued for their role in this year’s wildfires. These suits may be a wake-up call to the industry, although they could take years to resolve.  State regulators need to step in to direct the companies to act.

The Public Utility Commission
The PUC must oversee action by utility companies to remediate wildfire risk from their equipment. However, the agency lacks a budget to inspect power lines, and state law doesn’t allow the agency to conduct such inspections anyway. The report asks the PUC to study and report on how it can ensure that local utilities are doing the necessary work. Indeed, a PUC study would help, but clearly, the Legislature could also fund and authorize the agency to take a more active role in this work. 

The House Select Committee has done significant work identifying the causes and suggesting solutions for Texas’ awful wildfires. But didn’t we know that abandoned oil wells and rotting power poles were dangerous?

It feels a bit like our lawmakers are missing the obvious. It’s like refusing to say the words on everyone’s lips during any extreme weather event today–climate change. 

Adrian Shelley is the Texas director of Public Citizen

The post What Texas Will and Won’t Say: Our Look at the Panhandle Fires Investigative Report appeared first on Public Citizen.