Search

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2ybupRgffE

EquiTable is a new app that allows users to split their group dinner bill into equitable (not equal) portions based on privilege. The app, which was the Grand Prize Winner of the 2016 Comedy Hack Day in San Francisco, uses real labor statistics to address income disparities between races and genders. Just put in your info, and EquiTable’s advanced “history-based algorithm” takes care of the rest. The app's creators call it, “Affirmative Fractions."

“For centuries, women and people of color have worked day-in and day-out only to be burdened by unequal pay for equal work,” Luna Malbroux, a San Francisco-based comedian and the 'chief equality officer' for the app, explained at Comedy Hack Day 2016.

Gesturing toward a four-person judging panel of three white men and a white woman: “You’re a black woman, so you understand the harsh realities.” The crowd exploded into laughter. She continued: “Congress, civil rights leaders, business people, Obama -- all have tried for years to solve the problem of wage equality and all have failed, until now.”

One of the primary features of the app is a built-in diversity tracker which tracks the level of diversity within a dining group. It ranges from “Oscars” (all white men) to “San Francisco Startup” (including Asian men), with the most diverse group being “College Brochure” (which accounts for women and minorities).

Once the bill has been split into equitable portions, it gives users the opportunity to either accept or protest the amount and “claim less privilege." “This curated list of common objections is for people who confuse equity for white oppression,” Malbroux explained in a promo video for the app.

Excuses range from, “I’m conventionally unattractive” to “I’m aware of my privilege” or “I pulled myself up by my bootstraps." However, pretty much all of the options end up with the user still paying the amount that was quoted to them. The only way you pay less is if you get paid less.

One of the options, “this isn’t an issue anymore,” offers a very comedic run-down of the very real social and political factors that make an app like this relevant. This includes the fact that most women earn 78 cents for every dollar that men make. Black women earn 64 cents, and Latinas earn a mere 56 cents. It also asks users to consider unemployment rates and the lack of diversity within certain industries, like tech.

So, why would anyone want to use an app like this, especially if you are on the higher side of the privilege/pay spectrum (i.e., white and Asian males)? “Well, aside from slowly undoing centuries of disenfranchisement, for the same reason you would do anything: to make yourself look more considerate on social media,” Malbroux explained. “We at Equipay know that people love social recognition for being socially conscious. So, we incorporated a share feature which allows users to let the world know of their achievement."

But what if you don’t hang out with a diverse group of friends? The app creators have thought about that, too. If you’re dining with an “Oscars 2016” friend group of all white guys, EquiTable automatically adds a Pay It Forward Surcharge for homogeneous groups. This suggested donation will help solve the wage gap, even if your meal won't.

One of the judges asked if the app might one day be programmed to account for other aspects of privilege like disabilities or sexual orientation, to which Malbroux responded, “We thought about adding a feature that would incorporate all of these different options, but it would still only calculate for race and gender.”

And, for those who think the app is unfairly prejudiced against white males, the team addressed the fact that Asian males actually make 20 percent more than their white male counterparts, so they are the ones who are actually hit the hardest. “Also, who do you think built the app?” another team member chimed in.

EquiTable is not the first app to address privilege head-on. The winner of last year's Comedy Hack Day, WellDeserved, an app that exploits the power of privilege (particularly within the tech industry), follows a similar theme.

The fact of the matter is that privilege is still a very touchy subject in our country. To speak openly about it is often considered inappropriate or taboo. This app, (regardless of it being real or not) does something that most social justice causes are unable to do: openly discuss equity, primarily as it relates to race and gender, in a tangible way. It is starting a necessary (and long overdue) conversation, so kudos to the app creators and the Comedy Hack Day judges for bringing this project to the forefront.

Portland, Seattle and Spokane, Washington, and Berkeley, Oakland, San Diego and San Jose, California, are aiming to hold Monsanto liable for several billion dollars in cleanup costs related to the harmful chemical PCBs the company produced for years, which are still impacting the environment today.

Polychlorinated biphenyls, more commonly known as PCBs, were produced for decades, mainly for use in electrical equipment, surface coatings and paints. They don't exist naturally, so all PCBs anywhere in the world are man-made. They are very stable and persist in the environment indefinitely, unless removed and intentionally destroyed.

During the years PCBs were in wide use, the chemical was found in breast milk and was linked to birth defects, immune disorders and more, in both animals and humans. This led to their widespread banning in the 1970s, though evidence suggests Monsanto may have known about these harmful effects long before then.

Monsanto claims it is not the same Monsanto that operated back in the '60s and '70s and produced 99 percent of America's PCBs. Sadly, this is a common form of corporate duplicity: Use mergers, name changes and “strategic bankruptcies” to avoid liability for your past actions. In the end, it is taxpayers, or low-income residents, who are left with the impacts of corporate negligence.

If successful, this case could have major repercussions. Corporations have rarely been held responsible for their negligence, especially when concerning the environment. If Monsanto is held responsible for its actions 40 years ago, the company -- along with others -- would be more careful about what it releases into the environment.

The Monsanto case also shows that, when we're talking complex chemicals, the impacts can last for decades, if not centuries, after they are no longer used. PCB hasn't been manufactured since the '70s, yet it's still found in rivers and waterways across the country. Monsanto, of course, now manufactures pesticides, fertilizers and GMO seeds, the impacts of which we're still not entirely sure. Who would be surprised if in 30 years we're trying to get the negative impacts of RoundUp out of the environment?

Here's the worst part: Monsanto is using its political clout in an attempt to build immunity into a house bill entitled, without irony, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which would explicitly exempt the company from liability for injuries caused by PCBs.

“The TSCA’s shield provision would dismiss all those lawsuits. Congress would have the public, not the polluters, pay to clean up Monsanto’s monumental mess,” Robert Kennedy Jr, wrote in a blog post. “If Monsanto gets its way, the American people will pay a high price for corporate greed and political corruption.”

To many, this is just another page in Monsanto's playbook – avoid responsibility, and then use back-doors to get your way. If there's one thing you can be sure of it's that Monsanto will use every trick in the book to get out of paying for its present, and future, adverse environmental impacts, just as it is trying to skirt responsibility for PCBs today. For the sake of our health, let's hope the cities' lawsuit succeeds.

Image credit: Andrew Pirodi via Wikimedia

One of the biggest challenges when trying to determine who was responsible for last year's devastating fires in Indonesia was the lack of reliable information on concessions – namely, who, or what entity, was responsible for the land that burned. Greenpeace has done its best to fill this gap with a just-released land use map that is, by far, the best of its kind.

The map was no easy effort, with Greenpeace Indonesia staff digitizing paper maps and PDF files that they collected from numerous companies. They also made the data easy to use -- using the World Resources Institutes's open-source Global Forest Watch tool to turn it into a user-friendly website entitled Kepo Hutan, or “Curious about Forests.”

“Kepo Hutan allows the public to see the most detailed-ever company information, showing the borders of concessions and who owns them, and how it relates to peatlands, fire hotspots and deforestation alerts,” said Teguh Surya, Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner, in a statement.

Greenpeace released this map not as an end-all solution, but to spur the Indonesian government to move forward with its efforts to release a similar map, which, due to numerous factors, have stalled. This goes back to the decentralization plan pushed forward after the fall of General Suhato in 1998 (just a year after the last round of massive, El Nino-triggered fires), when Indonesia devolved significant natural-resources governance to the district and provincial level. What resulted was different ministries having different concessions maps at different levels, making the One Map initiative launched by previous President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono now a multi-year, long-overdue process will a final date still yet-to-be determined.

“The transparency promised by President Joko Widodo, which includes the One Map agenda, is still an urgent and unmet need,” Surya said. “Greenpeace is making this map data available today both to spur progress on the stalled One Map, and to allow the public to prevent another crisis by monitoring fires in forests and peatlands.”

Kepo Hutan will allow us to better understand where fires burned last year, and also to monitor the next wave of fires that is already beginning across the region. The disaster – in which 2 million hectares burned – has resulted in some small-scale changes in Indonesia, but little accountability among the many corporations along the palm oil supply chain, such as PepsiCo, which, to this day, refuses to trace its palm oil openly and transparently.

With better information, and more tools like Kepo Hutan, we can better understand how fires connect to global supply chains. Let's hope the Indonesian government releases its One Map soon, so that we can begin the long process toward ensuring that, in the near future, no more fires burn through Indonesia's tropical heritage.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Darden Restaurants, the parent company of Olive Garden, has long promoted itself as a sustainability leader within the food industry. And with 1,500 restaurants that generate about $6.7 billion in sales, the company is in a position to lead on efforts related to animal welfare, labor rights and environmental sustainability. Working on efforts related to hunger, sustainable seafood and, of course, recycling, the company says it is approaching a bevy of issues to show that it is a responsible corporate citizen.

A coalition of environmental groups, labor organizations and animal rights activists, however, are not having it.

Led by Friends of the Earth (FOE), this crew of 51 organizations sent a letter to Darden’s corporate headquarters late last year that urged the company to ramp up its social and environmental responsibility. The company responded with a rather pallid letter, insisting that it has improved its environmental performance. But when it came to concerns over labor matters, the company was silent. As for animal welfare, the company gave the response that it follows a principle of “five freedoms,” which is completely tone deaf when you consider that an animal raised to be slaughtered hardly experiences anything remotely free.

Hence, FOE and its allies, including the Animal Welfare Institute, have launched a site, GoodFoodNow.com, that aims to pressure Darden to adopt five basic principles: environmental stewardship, improved working conditions, more local economic support, improved health and nutrition, and, finally, more attention paid to animal welfare. They are urging anyone interested to join their social media campaign, using the hashtag #GoodFoodNow.

Darden is facing the conundrum many corporations in the U.S. confront when it comes to corporate responsibility. While efforts to improve on waste diversion, supply chain efficiency, and donating food to fight hunger are noble, one huge question emerges: What about making the company’s employees a priority?

Organizations such as the Food Chain Workers Alliance have pointed out what they describe as Darden’s shortcomings: keeping most of its workforce part-time so it doesn't have to pay for benefits such as health care, fighting to keep the minimum wage for service workers at $2.13 per hour, and dealing with suppliers accused of tolerating terrible working conditions. Many of these labor groups have also been part of another social media campaign, #DignityAtDarden, to improve wages and overall working conditions at the company’s U.S. restaurants. Darden definitely has work to do on this front it and has been accused of wage violations, although a motion to file a class-action lawsuit was dismissed by a U.S. judge in Florida.

As for this coalition’s social media campaign, while it had a decent start last Thursday, it has sputtered since. If this social blitz is going to catch fire, the employees and allies of these 50-plus groups could be more aggressive and succeed in having #GoodFoodNow trend on Twitter.

The current narrative in the media is on the overall strong performance of Darden, with some analysts describing its stock as a strong buy. These groups, however, have an opportunity to prove to Darden that improved sustainability performance is important to the company’s long-term bottom line — a strategy worth trying as this current sabre-rattling is not going very far.

Image credit: Flickr/Bev Sykes

The following is an article by Mike Carlson, president of Siemens Digital Grid, about his keynote presentation taking place at this year’s Energy Thought Summit in Austin, Texas, which brings together thought leaders, entrepreneurs and innovators for smart, engaging dialogue about how to innovate and elevate the energy industry.

By Mike Carlson

I recently read an article in the Harvard Business Review that indicated companies waste 30 percent of the energy they consume. And it’s not for lack of technology, but for many companies, it’s because of the way they’re structured and managed. Most organizations don’t have the data and knowledge around their energy consumption, much less the expertise, tools and technology to manage it.  Combine that challenge with the organizational impacts of “who owns energy,” and you have a less-than-optimal environment for effective energy management.

I think this scenario offers some parallels for many utilities today. Companies are not the only entities that remain siloed in their approach to energy. Utilities themselves are still working on ways to break down barriers so they can serve a shifting, changing market — in a recent survey only 38 percent of utilities indicated they have the ability to share data across their entire organization.

But there is no doubt utilities want to be able to take advantage of the value data provides. The same survey showed that 47 percent strive to be digitally-driven organizations across every business unit. But, to be digitally-driven, they have to be agile.

The energy landscape

There is what seems like a laundry list of catalysts and accelerators driving the evolution of our energy industry. They include pressure to create more resilient power systems with near century-old infrastructure, coal retirements combined with the low price of natural gas, and the ever increasing input from renewable sources, all of which drive shifts in power creation and lead to the growth alternative generation and distribution models such as microgrids. Finally, our policy and regulatory environment is calling for cleaner, more reliable power while we need to prepare for threats both natural and man-made which further challenge our systems.

Most of us across the industry are aware of these challenges. We experience them every day when we read about them in our newspapers, listen to our customers talk about them and talk about them within our own companies.  In order to realize how to turn these challenges into opportunity, we have to look to technology to address a changing demand and drive an exciting opportunity to reform this industry.

We simply cannot address a 21^st century energy landscape with the status quo. We must bring together our physical and virtual worlds to move the power industry into the next century and beyond.

The power of valuable data

So, how do we get there? We can start with a focus on the data we’re already collecting. The volume of digital information in today’s society is staggering and expected to increase tenfold every five years. Utilities certainly reflect this trend. They collect vast amounts of data—just think about the proliferation of smart meters over the past 10 years. We now have over 50 million smart meters gathering energy data across the U.S. And in North America alone, utility spending on data analytics is expected to grow 29% each year, totaling over $2 billion this year.

We are in an era of unprecedented data collection. But the key word we should focus on is “collection." We need to be asking ourselves not are we collecting enough data, but are we collecting the right data and more importantly, what do we do with it once collected. Obtaining data is the easy part – utilizing it is the challenge the industry must step-up to.  It may help to think about this scenario similar to security camera footage. Often, security cameras are only capturing film on two to four second intervals. But, this still allows someone watching the footage to determine who entered a building or what type car drove through an intersection. These cameras aren’t collecting every single millisecond of footage, but they are capturing footage of value.

What we must do as an industry is use technology that makes transforms data into valuable information and more importantly, leads to knowledgeable actions.

When Siemens deployed our EnergyIP meter data management platform for JEA in Jacksonville, Florida, the remote connect-disconnect function allowed the utility to avoid 130,000 truck rolls and realize $1.6 million in savings in just a year and a half. We’re excited to announce this week that we’ll be deploying the same type of meter data management technology for ConEdison to help them intelligently manage new customer engagement initiatives.

But value doesn’t just mean monetary returns, though it certainly helps justify some of the cost. Value can mean managing intermittent generation to provide reliable power for millions. Our software system in California is helping the California Independent System Operator do just this by intelligently managing renewable generation to meet energy needs across six states, analyzing exact power generation and demand on the grid every five minutes.

Value can mean satisfying end-users by keeping the lights on during extreme weather events. A new Distribution Feeder Automation System we designed specifically for ConEdison in Lower Manhattan splits grid networks during flooding so issues can be isolated and power remains flowing for more customers.

Value can also mean embracing new energy models that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving reliability. Like at Blue Lake Rancheria, a Native American reservation that will use our microgrid management software to manage a low-carbon microgrid powered by a photovoltaic solar installation, battery storage and a biomass fuel system. Siemens software provides the operators the ability to manage and control the energy resources so they can deliver reliable power to the 100-acre reservation, operating on or off the grid in coordination with their local utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, and reduce an estimated 150 tons of carbon per year.

There’s no doubt it’s an exciting time to be a part of the energy industry. I might guess that in 50 years, someone in my position will look back on this era as one that transformed how energy is produced, transmitted and consumed. As demonstrated in the Siemens work across the U.S., we’re certainly excited to be a part of this evolution as a technology partner for utilities and energy providers who are agile enough to turn challenge into opportunity and embrace the digital world.

Image credit: GarettTT

Mike Carlson is a global management executive with more than 25 years of experience in finance, technology and operations management across industries. Currently Mike is President of Siemens Digital Grid North America. Mike’s initial background started in finance and systems and he has dedicated his 15+ years in the utility industry to harnessing technology to achieve value through business transformation and grid modernization. As the former CIO of Xcel Energy, Mike was a key player in designing and implementing the utility’s business transformation and smart grid strategy. In his current role at Siemens Mike is responsible for driving the business strategy and execution for the Digital Grid North America business and global software development.

By Georgia Gifford

Renewable energy is becoming more and more relevant to our current and future lives. Some of the fastest growing industries are the ones focused on green technology, renewable energy, energy storage and basically anything that will reduce our harm to the planet. Industries appear to be moving and changing rapidly, with a buzz surrounding a new innovation in solar power, the latest wind farm or renewable technologies pushing fossil fuels to the side.

One central buzz-phrase is the ‘solar power revolution,' an emerging boom in the uptake of renewable energy worldwide. So, how much is solar really taking over? The answer is 1 percent. Solar Power Europe’s Global Market Outlook revealed solar power is supplying 1 percent of the world’s energy needs. Today, we will discuss who is leading this so-called solar revolution and why.

Well, many are suggesting that Australia is the solar leader of the world. But is this really the case? And if so, what are they doing right? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 19 percent of Australian households now have either rooftop solar panels or solar-powered hot water systems -- this is 1 in 5 households nationally.

The global market: How does Australia measure up?

In terms of an international comparison, the Energy Supply Association of Australia found that Australia is, in fact, world No. 1 in terms of residential rooftop solar -- at 15 percent, with this rooftop solar penetration expected to rise to 50 percent within the next decade.

The Energy Supply Association’s CEO Matthew Warren described Australia as a “pioneer” in the area of rooftop solar. The small global player has seen some positive international acknowledgement for these achievements.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance revealed that while Australia does have a high capacity of rooftop solar per capita, where it falls behind is in the area of large, nationally- or state-run public solar projects. Just 15 percent of Australia’s solar industry is made up of large-scale, utility-level solar projects -- something that is almost the opposite of the U.S., where utility-scale solar makes up the majority of solar capacity.

 

The cause: Australia’s coal economy

In addition to previous statistics from the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report, the penetration of large-scale solar in Australia was said to be as low as 300 megawatts in 2015 -- compared to 7.3 gigawatts of large-scale solar projects in California alone.

The reason for the marked disparity between Australia’s private and public solar sectors is an interesting one. High levels of solar in general should not come as a shock with Australia experiencing one of the world’s highest amounts of sunlight year round.

The relatively free market that solar has become in Australia is what has caused the unusually high levels of residential solar and lower levels of public projects. In other words, consumer demand and small business supply have carried Australia’s solar boom.

Looking even deeper, the Australian economy’s long history of reliance on the coal and fossil fuel industries can explain a lack of action on large-scale and public solar projects on the part of the government and big business.

The perpetrator: Australia’s notorious energy utilities

On the topic of fossil fuels, the utilities that sell this energy are the key players that have inhibited the growth of large-scale solar projects in Australia – and for good reason, as renewables are a direct competitor. The control of utilities over this natural competition, however, is beginning to fail.

The long-standing oligopoly that has controlled energy prices in Australia is being slowly broken down by the entry of renewable energy alternatives into the market. The poor relationship between energy utilities and their consumers has pushed the Australian public to take solar energy consumption into their own hands.

An IPSOS-Mori survey conducted in the U.K. revealed that in Australia only 22 percent of the population have a favorable view of the mainstream energy industry. The variety of reasons given for this poor industry-consumer relationship points to things like gas supply, controversial coal seam gas projects, and the alleged neglectful customer service attitudes of large energy retailers that have long had the power to control energy prices.

The result: A solar leader with a long way to go

As is often the case, the market dynamics that have led to Australia’s successful solar industry can be put down to a number of players and a particular set of circumstances. This doesn’t mean, however, that lessons cannot be taken from the Australian model. This will be particularly the case when we follow the growth of newly introduced battery storage systems by Tesla and its many emerging competitors.

Likewise, Australia has some learning to do within sectors of its own renewable energy industry. The global community should take note of Australia’s successful balance between government support through strategic financial incentives and a thriving economic market bouncing off this government support.

On the other hand, Australia must not be let off the hook for its surprisingly low large-scale renewable energy action. Following strong commitments that emerged from the Paris climate summit in 2015, there is no room for any nation to hide behind favorable statistics in one sector to divert attention from disappointing ones in another.

Australia must follow the lead of Europe and the U.S. in terms of deploying commercial, utility-scale solar projects just as much as it should set an example in the rooftop solar sector. After all, if we’re striving for a better planet, there’s nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Alan Levine 2) Bloomberg New Energy Finance 

Georgia Gifford is Public Relations Manager for Australian Solar Quotes. She is also a sustainability and renewable energy writer with a passion for environmental issues and social impact. She seeks to inform and educate others on sustainable practices like using renewable energy and reducing their carbon footprint.

I invite you to join the conversation by commenting below with your thoughts!

Join the ‘sustainable business” debate and leave your carbon footprint at the door!

12 May The Crystal, London

World record-breaking adventure rower, Roz Savage MBE, the first woman to row solo across the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, has been announced as keynote speaker for the National CSR & Sustainability Conference. She will be joined by Olympic rower Adam Freeman-Paskto deliver an ‘In Conversation’ session, speaking candidly about their personal experiences and aspirations of a sustainable future.

The CSR & Sustainability Conferenceboasts an outstanding range of expert speakers representing the breadth and depth of business responsibility. Join us to recognise the leaders and challenge the laggards. We will learn hard truths about the scale of the challenges as well as innovative and unprecedented opportunities for real change.

Sustainability expert, Paul Monaghan, who was voted as the most influential CSR leader in 2015 by a Global poll, will be on the opening panel, focusing on ‘Transforming Business – The Ethical Challenge’. Other sessions will discuss and debate trending issues such as Circular Economy, Corporate Taxation and COP21.

The conference will be held at ‘the most sustainable event space in the World’, The Crystalin Royal Victoria Docks, London. Tickets cost £175 and include refreshments, buffet lunch and admission to the Siemens ‘Future of Cities’ exhibition. Concessional tickets available on request.

BOOK TICKETSHERE

 

Volkswagen Group has one month to come up with a plan to resolve its emissions scandal. U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer granted an extension to the deadline, after VW said it needed more time to finalized a proposal on how to fix cars that were outfitted with deceptive software in order to meet state and federal emission standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board backed VW's request, even though Tod Sax, who runs CARB's enforcement division, admitted there is a possibility that there won't be a comprehensive solution available for all of the malfunctioning vehicles. That's because earlier and later TDI (turbocharged direct injection) models -- a concept for which VW won the Green Car of the Year award in 2009) -- utilize two different exhaust systems. The earlier models depend on NOx traps that would take a considerably more modification than later emission systems.

Judge Breyer warned both sides, however, that if a settlement isn't reached by April 21 of this year, he may send the case to trial. Doing so may not only make it harder for VW to negotiate a settlement, but it could also slow down a 'fix' to the environmental problems -- something that environmental organizations suggest should be at the top of the list when it comes to hammering out a court settlement.

There's considerable disagreement as to how that should be accomplished. Environmental groups are calling for a remedy that will not only focus on the environmental impacts of the VW cheating scandal, but also provide remedy for car owners that are now stuck with non-compliant vehicles.

"The polluting vehicles need to be fixed or taken off the road, and the consumers who trusted they were buying less-polluting cars need to be compensated. Period," said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California, in a statement released last week. "Otherwise the legacy of Volkswagen’s deceitful actions will be as dirty and dangerous as the smog left behind by their vehicles -- people will continue to breathe dirtier air, consumers will lose faith in watchdog agencies, and manufacturers will believe they can cheat and get away without feeling the full consequence."

Environmental groups also suggested that VW should be fully prosecuted, and the penalties it pays should go toward building an electric car industry that could open the doors for lower-income families to afford more environmentally-sustainable transportation.

Members of the Union of Concerned Scientists, however, suggest that forcing VW to buy back the defective vehicles would be the best remedy, because it would take the offending products off the roads and give consumers a means to buy compliant vehicles. It would also send a strong message to the auto industry that tinkering with emissions systems that can't meet state or federal standards will lead to more than just penalties.

"Forcing VW to buy back any vehicles that could not be fully fixed would not just eliminate future environmental risks, but it would also compensate consumers who were deceived by VW and have seen the resale value of these vehicles plummet," explained Dave Cooke, a senior analyst for UCS' Clean Vehicles Program. At the same time, he continued, if regulatory agencies decide to let the vehicles stay on the streets, then "VW must be forced to offset the continuing damages."

The environmental lobby and those supporting the UCS' stance agree on one thing: They don't feel that VW should be nudged toward ramping up the electric car industry without some sort of compensation for its violations. Both have also expressed concerns about the idea of letting the defective vehicles stay on the road for lack of an available fix.

It's also unclear how regulatory agencies would be able to fairly enforce emissions standards for other vehicles if it had tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles with excessively high emissions that it could not regulate because of the cost and complexity of fixing them.

Meanwhile, the suits against VW continue to mount. Kentucky is one of the latest states to mount a suit against the embattled car manufacturer, in this case for violating its consumer protection act. The suit also names the Audi and Porche divisions of the corporation. At least five states so far have filed suit, and 48 state attorney's offices have launched investigations of its practices. At least two county regulatory agencies in Florida and Texas have also announced their plans to go after the automaker, citing violations of their emission standards.

VW released a statement confirming its commitment to "resolving the U.S. regulatory investigation into the diesel emissions matter as quickly as possible and to implementing a solution for affected vehicles." It said it is working with the courts in an effort to "bring about a prompt and fair resolution of the U.S. civil litigation."

None of the litigants have offered a statement on what that solution ultimately may entail. But with suits still mounting and organizations still debating over the outcome, next month's court hearing may get almost as much media coverage as the rhetoric of this year's divisive presidential primaries.

Flickr/Abhijeet Rane

The biggest wind energy project in U.S. history is one giant step closer to reality, thanks to the Energy Department's approval for construction on a 705-mile transmission line called the Plains and Eastern Clean Line. The project will bring 4,000 megawatts of wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle through Arkansas to Tennessee, from which point it will be distributed to consumers in South and Southeastern states.

That's welcome news to electricity consumers in the South-Southeastern business sector, who will be able to tout their location in a region with amped-up access to clean energy. However, some property owners and other stakeholders along the potential route in Arkansas and Oklahoma are gearing up for a fight that could involve eminent domain takings.

Who hates the Plains and Eastern Clean Line?

TriplePundit first took note of Plains and Eastern Clean Line wind energy project last fall, when the Energy Department released its final Environmental Impact Statement for the project. In addition to spurring wind development in the Oklahoma panhandle, the new line would also contribute to wind industry growth in nearby Texas.

The exact route has not been determined, but the company behind the project -- Clean Line Energy -- has roughed out the potential route.

It won't be smooth sailing. Local property owners and other opponents have been prepping for a fight since the project was first proposed in 2009. Impacts on property values and culturally-significant sites are a major concern for stakeholders along the route, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Other issues include disruption of scenic areas.

A number of state officials have also stated their opposition to the project, one notable example being U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), a known Koch brothers beneficiary. He has joined with several other Arkansas representatives to argue that the Energy Department has no authority to approve the new line.

Arkansas has also affirmed its authority to deny public utility status to the new line. That would effectively prevent Clean Line Energy from exercising eminent domain, except for one thing.

Who loves the Plains and Eastern Clean Line?

That one thing is the Energy Department, and this is where it gets interesting. With the Energy Department in the picture, eminent domain is available under federal authority regardless of state-level opposition.

Last week, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced that his agency would in fact help develop the new wind energy line, exercising its authority under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

As explained by Secretary Moniz:

"Congress recognized the need for a modern and resilient grid that could accommodate increasing demands for power with newly available resources. Based on our thorough review of the Clean Line project, it satisfies the goals for which Congress established DOE’s authority."

Covering the announcement last week, Bloomberg noted that the decision "provides a potential workaround" for clean-energy transmission line development. As indicated by the map above, Clean Line alone has four such projects in the works, including Plains and Eastern. So, if the Energy Department's authority holds up in court, the floodgates will be open.

Even before the approval was announced, Clean Line Energy was busy lining up support from the business community in Sen. Cotton's home state. According to the Energy Department, Clean Line has three Arkansas companies on board to build transmission conductors, glass insulators and other infrastructure.

In addition, Clean Line also reached an agreement with the Oklahoma company Pelco for a $300 million order to construct steel transmission structures for the project.

It's also worth noting that Arkansas will get a piece of the clean-energy pie. One consequence of the years-long review and public input process is an agreement to ensure that wind energy from the new line will be distributed in that state.

Rumble over wind energy is just beginning

The Energy Department is emphatic that eminent domain will only be used as a last resort. But based on the opposition so far, it's fair to assume that there will be a long, hard battle over the route for the new transmission line.

The Energy Department's exercise of its authority is also sure to fuel the red-hot "states rights" issue, which has been boiling over lately -- one recent example being the armed occupation of Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

One way or another, though, further development of the nation's wind resources is inevitable.

If the Energy Department loses the Plains and Eastern fight, for example, there's still plenty of action in the offshore wind energy scene. Despite Koch-linked efforts to stymie renewable energy development all along the Eastern Seaboard, Rhode Island already has one offshore wind farm under construction, and it's only a matter of time before other Atlantic coast states follow.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post referenced residential and stakeholder opposition in Texas. The post has been updated to the correct state, Arkansas. 

Image (screenshot) via Clean Line Energy.

The armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon has been over for a month, but the after-effects continue to ripple out from one state to another with the arrest of Ammon Bundy, his father Cliven, and dozens of their gang. Now it looks like Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Third District) is raising the stakes. In support of the Bundy position on public land use, last week Rep. Chaffetz introduced legislation that would make county sheriffs responsible for all law enforcement on federal lands.

Ammon and Cliven Bundy have served as the voice of grassroots support for the land-privatization position espoused by the powerful business lobbying organization ALEC, and the new legislation puts Chaffetz squarely in the same camp.

New legislation backs Bundys on local sheriff authority

Last week, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service released 28 photographs charting the destruction left behind by Ammon Bundy and his Oregon occupiers. The photos clearly demonstrate that ad-hoc groups of private citizens, operating under their own made-up rules, are unfit to set their own standards for behavior in public parks.

Cliven Bundy himself has proven that point over a 20-year period during which his destructive "trespass" cattle ran wild over federal lands in the Gold Butte area of Nevada, a designated Area of Environmental Concern. Bundy has finally been called to account for an armed standoff with federal agents and he is being held in jail pending his trial, but continuing tension in the area has precluded attempts to remove the cattle.

Despite the reckless behavior exhibited by Ammon and Cliven Bundy, the new legislation would eliminate federal oversight of federal land. It would strip the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service of their law enforcement authority, and provide federal block grants to local law enforcement instead.

In a brief press release announcing the new legislation, Chaffetz and his co-sponsors in the Utah delegation offered this explanation:

"Federal agencies do not enjoy the same level of trust and respect as local law enforcement that are deeply rooted in local communities. This legislation will help deescalate conflicts between law enforcement and local residents while improving transparency and accountability. The BLM and U.S. Forest Service will be able to focus on their core missions without the distraction of police functions. This is a win all around."

The bill itself does not mention the word "sheriff," but in a section of the press release titled "What the Bill Does," Chaffetz and his co-sponsors elaborate on what they mean by "local" law enforcement:

"[The bill] restores responsibility for law enforcement to elected officials who are accountable to the local community."

In an interview cited by the Salt Lake Tribune last week, Chaffetz was much more forthcoming about the actual intention of the bill:

"The first line of defense should be the sheriff," Chaffetz said Tuesday.

Sheriff or not, here we come

As for why the Chaffetz legislation focuses on county sheriffs, it's critical to the "states rights" movement advocated by the Bundys on behalf of ALEC.

According to the Bundy's (and ALEC's) offbeat interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the county sheriff is the only constitutionally-authorized law enforcement on federal land outside of Washington, D.C.

Whether or not that makes sense to constitutional scholars, the concept of the constitutional sheriff provides local citizens with direct access to a constitutional center of law enforcement authority.

In a perfect world that might work out nicely for every local stakeholder, but in reality it would provide the most powerful local citizens with even more power than they currently exercise -- and it would empower others from outside the community as well.

That reality is once again amply illustrated by the Bundys. Weeks before leading his gang of armed thugs into the Malheur refuge, Ammon Bundy met with the local sheriff to advocate for two local ranchers who were headed for jail on arson charges.

Bundy demanded that the sheriff do something to prevent the ranchers from jail, and when the sheriff refused, Bundy warned that there would be "extreme civil unrest."

In other words, the whole "constitutional sheriff" concept is a smokescreen for being able to do whatever you want. Rather than respecting the ultimate voice of local authority espoused by his own stated philosophy, Bundy pushed forward with his own agenda.

Despite the threat of violence, the intimidation of Malheur refuge employees and local citizens, and the open display of weaponry, now that they are facing serious felony charges, Bundy and his supporters are trying to portray the Oregon occupation as an act of civil disobedience by peaceful "cowboy campers."

The ALEC connection

As for ALEC, the constitutional sheriff concept provides the organization with a powerful law enforcement foot in the door for business interests, local or not.

The ALEC influence was clearly at play from the earliest days of the Oregon occupation, throughout which Ammon Bundy claimed to champion the cause of local ranchers, miners and loggers. As it happens, mining and logging -- and, to a lesser extent, ranching -- are of great interest to one of ALEC's main funders, the Koch brothers.

ALEC appears to be behind a movement to organize sympathetic sheriffs to promote its causes, and it is not shy about demonstrating its influence by show of force.

In one notable episode last summer, an NBC affiliate in Atlanta, Georgia described ALEC as a "shadowy organization that uses off-duty police officers to keep the public out of meetings between legislators and corporate lobbyists." That commentary came after the station's investigative team was kicked out of a resort hotel where ALEC was meeting:

"Chatham County Sheriff's deputies, directly hired and paid by ALEC, were used to remove us from the entire hotel even though we had paid for a room."

Given this scenario, it seems that the Chaffetz legislation is aimed at enabling powerful stakeholders to pick and choose who gets access to public parks.

Photo: "Damage at Malheur NWR" by USFWS-Pacific Region via flickr.com, creative commons license.