In August, regulators at the DC Public Service Commission unanimously rejected the proposed merger between Pepco and Chicago-based energy giant Exelon. The commissioners said the deal was an inherent conflict of interest and would harm the city’s commitment to clean, renewable energy. Thousands of DC residents voiced their opposition to the merger and over half of DC's ANCs passed resolutions opposing the merger. But, despite this clear rejection by both regulators and the public, Mayor Muriel Bowser cut a backroom deal with Exelon. Now she’s trying to push this deeply flawed settlement, which addresses none of the core problems, through the PSC with an "expedited" process.

As of October 20, 2015, all 10 county supervisors have signed on to seeing how Community Choice Aggregated Energy (CCA, or sometimes called CCE), can be expanded in our 2 counties. WE ASK ANYONE SIGNING THIS PETITION, to be a resident of one of these 7 CITIES REMAINING in the East Bay, that HAVE NOT SIGNED ON WITH A CCA. In ALAMEDA COUNTY, the one city remaining, THAT HAS NOT SIGNED ON TO A CCA is: PLEASANTON In CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, those 6 CITIES that remain, THAT HAVE NOT SIGNED ON TO A CCA are: ANTIOCH, BRENTWOOD, CLAYTON, HERCULES, ORINDA and PLEASANT HILL. There is a white paper on how our 2 counties can procure Renewable Power, which can be seen at www.BeThe100percentChange.vpweb.com We welcome you all on board, who agree to this forward-thinking effort to move Renewable Power to move into the East Bay, bringing ALL 9 COUNTIES in the SF BAY AREA trending towards 100% Renewable Power!

It is unbelievable that these companies are almost completely unregulated. While Californians are forced to face mandatory water restrictions, these plants don’t abide by any. In many cases, companies that bottle water, such as Nestle and Coca-Cola, buy their product straight from municipal supplies (essentially from the tap) - often at the same rate charged to residential or commercial customers (99 cents per 748 gallons from Sacramento municipal water district).[3] This type of business practice gives bottled water companies a financial incentive to draw as much water as they please, then in turn sell it back to customers for huge profits. A lack of statewide groundwater regulations means that anyone who builds a well can basically pump as much water as they like.[4] Water is a precious resource. Californians realize this now more than ever. According to NASA, California could potentially have less than a year left of water and then it’s gone. These companies don’t seem to understand this. They bottle up the limited amount of water we have and sell it back to us for a profit; a process that requires between 1.32 and 1.63 liters of water to produce one liter of bottled water.[5] [6]These companies take water from communities that rely on their wells. When their wells go dry as a result, they are forced to buy bottled water to survive. Nestle argues that they won't halt bottling production because “people need to drink water,” and because doing so “won't fix the drought.”[7] [8] Yes, people need water to survive. But do they need companies to pump water from their own state? No. These companies could move to other states, like Starbucks - who recently decided to move production of its Ethos bottled water to Pennsylvania.[9] So why don’t they? Because other states have more regulations. California is just a money-making scheme. For example, Crystal Geyser recently purchase a plant in Siskiyou County.[10] They could have moved to a new state that is not in a drought, but they chose to stay in California. Most likely due to the lack of regulation. One further example is the fact that Nestle has been piping spring water from the San Bernardino National Forest with a permit that expired 27 years ago, which is still pending renewal.[11] This process of piping spring water from a national forest is being carried out with little to no oversight from the US Forest service, which has resulted in rising concerns regarding potential impacts on the ecosystem and wildlife population.[12] Another entity (besides Nestle) who have come to the defense of bottled water companies is the IBWA (International Bottled Water Association). Their arguments include the fact that the water used by bottled water companies only amounts to 0.002% of the water used in California; a figure which pales in comparison to agriculture, which consumes 80%, and residential use, which consumes 13%.[13] However, we counter that these types of arguments amount to faulty logic. If all consumers of water used this line of reasoning and refused to do their fair share of conservation efforts, then California's drought woes will never be solved. Furthermore, the arguments used by Nestle and IBWA do not take into account the potential environmental and ecological impacts that their activity poses. Advocacy groups such as Courage Campaign have done a great job in raising awareness concerning the business and sourcing practices used by Walmart and Nestle through collecting petition signatures, organizing protests and pushing for legal action. For the purposes of our efforts, we wish to expand our focus to six major bottling companies, which continue to tap into California’s scarce resources in drought stricken regions. These bottlers/distributors are Arrowhead (Nestle), Crystal Geyser, Great Value (Walmart), Dasani (Coca-Cola), Aquafina (Pepsi), and Niagara. Join with us as we demand that California lawmakers impose stricter regulations on bottled water companies. Companies such as Coca-Cola should not be allowed to draw as they please from municipal supplies while the rest of California is forced to comply with mandatory restrictions, and companies such as Nestle and Crystal Geyser should not be allowed to draw spring water until the full impact their practices on the environment and wildlife are properly assessed. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Crystal-Geyser-to-tap-Siskiyou-County-groundwater-6253314.php [2] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/15/californians-pressure-retail-giants-to-stop-bottling-water-during-drought.html [3] http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/bottled-water-california-drought [4] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Crystal-Geyser-to-tap-Siskiyou-County-groundwater-6253314.php [5] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/15/californians-pressure-retail-giants-to-stop-bottling-water-during-drought.html [6] http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/bottled-water-california-drought [7] http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/26/news/companies/california-bottled-water-drought/ [8] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/california-drought/ban-bottled-water-industry-scrutinized-parched-california-n357256 [9] http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article21049293.html [10] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Crystal-Geyser-to-tap-Siskiyou-County-groundwater-6253314.php [11] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/california-drought/ban-bottled-water-industry-scrutinized-parched-california-n357256 [12] http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2015/03/05/bottling-water-california-drought/24389417/ [13] http://www.bottledwater.org/

The board of the League of Conservation Voters has taken the unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries will be cast. It’s far too early in this primary to endorse. In 2004, LCV’s endorsement of John Kerry before the New Hampshire primary was unprecedented, but at least came after Kerry’s strong victory in the Iowa caucuses. There is no such defense today. By LCV’s own metrics, Clinton has the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates. Bernie Sanders is the highest rated candidate in the League of Conservation Voters scorecard. Martin O’Malley was the first, and so far the only candidate to release a comprehensive presidential climate agenda. Sanders led the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline while Clinton's State Department was recommending its construction. In these opening days of the Democratic primary, it's been exciting to see Clinton take stronger stands on behalf of the climate, coming closer to where Sanders and O’Malley already are. Her call for a solar revolution, exceeding previous Sanders legislation, is inspiring and greatly needed. The agreement of the candidates on the need for a federal investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate deception—an issue on which O’Malley led—is electrifying. This primary is teaching millions of Americans the urgency of the climate crisis and the grand possibilities of a true clean-energy revolution. Competitive primaries work! LCV is a very good political organization—one the best in the country working on any issue. The millions of dollars they raise and spend each year, the millions of voters they reach with a pro-climate message are a crucial bulwark against the radical Republican agenda. We know that their board, their staff and their volunteers care deeply about environmental issues and solutions. Nine times out of ten, they do great work, but this time they grossly miscalculated. Obviously, any of the Democratic candidates will be far better than the Koch-soaked Republican climate conspiracy theories, and I'm committed to electing the eventual Democratic nominee on a strong climate platform and crushing the GOP in November. But first, that Democrat - be it Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley - needs to deserve my vote.

Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) is a nonprofit, public interest environmental law firm. For the past six years, WELC has been leading a 100-member coalition seeking to eliminate leaked methane from fossil fuel development on lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. This can be achieved by requiring companies leasing our public lands to implement highly cost-effective, available technologies that have already been successfully deployed in oil and gas producing states like Colorado and Wyoming.

In just a few days, we could see thousands of solar jobs in jeopardy. The solar industry is one of the brights spots in the Massachusetts economy, now employing 12,000 people. But our growing solar businesses could come to a screeching halt if power company lobbyists have their way. Our most successful solar program, called net metering, allows solar panel owners to sell their excess power back. But that program, and the thousands of jobs it helped to create, has reached its cap, meaning that projects all over the state have been put on hold. You'd think raising the cap would be a no-brainer, but thanks to a lobbying blitz by the power industry, we've been stalled for months. We're down to the wire, the last formal session of the year is next week. If legislators don't act this week, we will lose our chance to act in 2015. Both the governor and legislative leadership have said they will act before the end of the year, but if we are going to overcome the industry opposition, they need to hear from you.

Oil companies are trying to expand their Northwest operations, putting our communities at risk from explosive oil train derailments, huge increases in rail traffic, and oil spills from trains, tankers, and barges. And with each additional project, they add to climate disruption. Dangerous types of oil – volatile Bakken crude from the Midwest and toxic tar sands oil from Canada – pose unique dangers to public health and the environment. Unchecked, the oil industry will turn our region into a thoroughfare for crude oil with terminal proposals that impact the Northwest, the country and the world. We remember the disaster in Lac Megantic Canada —a derailment and explosion that killed 47 people. We also remember the Exxon Valdez, the BP Horizon, and the ominous warning of the 1989 Nestucca oil barge spill off Grays Harbor that fouled beaches from Oregon to Vancouver Island, and killed 56,000 sea birds. But we have an opportunity to say no to the oil industry’s proposed expansion through our region: A public comment period is now underway to evaluate the risks of two of the terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington – the Westway and Imperium terminal proposals. Our job is to let the Department of Ecology and the City of Hoquiam know that the risks outweigh the benefits of these projects.

Oil companies are trying to expand their Northwest operations, putting our communities at risk from explosive oil train derailments, huge increases in rail traffic, and oil spills from trains, tankers, and barges. And with each additional project, they add to climate disruption. Dangerous types of oil – volatile Bakken crude from the Midwest and toxic tar sands oil from Canada – pose unique dangers to public health and the environment. Unchecked, the oil industry will turn our region into a thoroughfare for crude oil with terminal proposals that impact the Northwest, the country and the world. We remember the disaster in Lac Megantic Canada —a derailment and explosion that killed 47 people. We also remember the Exxon Valdez, the BP Horizon, and the ominous warning of the 1989 Nestucca oil barge spill off Grays Harbor that fouled beaches from Oregon to Vancouver Island, and killed 56,000 sea birds. But we have an opportunity to say no to the oil industry’s proposed expansion through our region: A public comment period is now underway to evaluate the risks of two of the terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington – the Westway and Imperium terminal proposals. Our job is to let the Department of Ecology and the City of Hoquiam know that the risks outweigh the benefits of these projects.

The December 18th 2015 debut of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is a chance to tell vast audiences to defeat the dark side of man-made climate change and awaken the force of worldwide actions that will allow us to live sustainably on Mother Earth. One excellent series of Hollywood-produced film shorts is the "Nature Is Speaking" series made by Conservation International narrated by major actors, including Harrison Ford and Lupita Nyong'o who are members of the Star Wars cast. Ford and director James Cameron brought us the recent Showtime Documentary series,"Years of Living Dangerously," demonstrating the entertainment industry's ability to elevate environmental realities. Ford spoke out passionately for the earth by confronting Indonesia's president and condemning that country's palm oil industry for destroying its forests. With Ford's return to star in "The Force Awakens" -- a blockbuster that may well set world records for theater viewership -- he and James Cameron should use their star power and status to demand that theaters precede each showing with a film short for the Earth. We are also targeting Star Wars creator George Lucas, distributor Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Director/Producer J.J. Abrams, co-producer Bryan Burk, and Kathleen Kennedy, president of co-producer Lucasfilm. as well as the CEOs of large Theater and Cinema Companies like Carmike, AMC, Regal, Harkins, Cinemark, and more. Perhaps the best film short to suggest is the Louie Schwartzberg/Morgan Freeman film short to the 2014 UN Climate Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4r5OsKyTUU

As Batteries contain dangerous chemicals and valuable resource deposits, and we need to maximize this factor by recycling these batteries more often. Lead acid batteries from cars are one of the most recycled items in America. If this wasn’t the case, lead would slowly be coming out of landfills and polluting lots of land and water, and developing nations typically pay less attention to mounting environmental problems. This would lead to a lot of lead poisoning if the lead got into food or water. To make people recycle batteries (in general) more we could put deposits of 10-20 cents per battery. This would give people more of an incentive to return these batteries to a recycling center. People would get the deposits back after they gave the batteries to the recycling center. With the money that is earned from the batteries not being recycled we could make more recycling centers to bring batteries too. Recycling batteries saves energy in the long run, reduces pollution, reduces the need for a landfill, generates income and jobs, lessens the amount of regulations, and reduces imports. Laws have been passed to promote disposal, and 98% of all lead batteries are recycled. In North America only, one in six households recycles rechargeable batteries. Some steps that we can take to reduce or minimize the damage caused to the environment due to improper battery disposal includes the recycling of used batteries, using rechargeable batteries more, buying batteries containing less mercury, lead and cadmium, providing information to customers about recycling, using alternative energy storage in devices, and looking for renewable sources of energy. The metals in batteries such as, cadmium, nickel, and lead, are harmful to people and the environment. Some of the dangers include burns and danger to the eyes and skin, polluted ground water, and the vaporized form becoming trapped in the atmosphere and polluting lakes and streams through form of rain. Recycling saves the recovered plastics and metals can be used to make new batteries. It also keeps toxic metals out landfills. Additionally, a key step to disposing of any battery is reading the label. With all that being said, batteries contain dangerous chemicals and valuable resource deposits that we can really take advantage of for our own good.

We, the citizens of Escambia County, demand that the Commissioners of Escambia County and the RESTORE Committee Members do not support the development of the Clark Sand Pit property for any use other than what was agreed upon in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the North West Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) and Escambia County. And that the Clark Sand Pit not be developed for a Wakeboard Park or other recreational use for the following reasons: a. The north lake is the only lake in the Clark Sand Pit that may be used for Bayou Chico Sediment. b. If the Clark Sand Pit is developed for recreational use, Bayou Chico sediment will not be permitted in the Pit and the restoration of Bayou Chico will become too costly to fund. c. Escambia County agreed to use the Clark Sand Pit for Bayou Chico dredge sediment and storm water retention as its primary use. See MOU with NWFWMD. d. Recreational use of the Clark Sand Pit jeopardizes the restoration of Bayou Chico and is not in the best interest of the home owners and businesses within the Bayou Chico water shed district comprising of over 24,000 privately owned business and residential land partials.

As a Marine Biologist and lifelong Maui resident, I am passionate about saving Olowalu because I have witnessed the die-offs of coral reefs all around Maui due to land development. I know the importance of Olowalu for the recovery of adjacent reefs, and we can't afford to lose this reef. My kupuna have taught me that we need to try every day to be great ancestors; this is one of those moments when I feel I must do everything in my power to set the stage for future generations here on Maui.