Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

L.A. County faces $12.5 billion in climate costs through 2040, study says

News Feed
Thursday, April 4, 2024

A first-of-its-kind report has estimated that Los Angeles County must invest billions of dollars through 2040 to protect residents from worsening climate hazards, including extreme heat, increasing precipitation, worsening wildfires, rising sea levels and climate-induced public health threats.The report, published this week by the nonprofit Center for Climate Integrity, identified 14 different climate adaptation measures that authors calculated would cost L.A. taxpayers at least $12.5 billion over the next 15 years, or approximately $780 million per year. The vast majority of those costs — more than $9 billion — will be incurred by local municipal governments, including the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Santa Clarita, the report said.“These numbers don’t include the costs of recovering from disasters — from extreme weather events that knock out power or damage infrastructure or do all the kinds of things they do,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. “So it’s a very conservative estimate, and yet it’s a really big number.” Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. Wiles said the costs for L.A. County are nearly as high as for the entire state of Pennsylvania, which faces about $15 billion in climate adaptation costs over roughly the same period. “This is a big number, but this is going to happen,” he said. “These costs will be incurred at some point, and it’s just much better to pay now than it is to pay later. I can’t emphasize that enough.”The most expensive adaptation categories are related to precipitation and heat, including an estimated $4.3 billion for improved stormwater management, $2.5 billion for cool pavement investments and $1.4 billion for tree canopies to combat urban heat islands, the report found. Other costs include wildfire mitigation; coastal defense and infrastructure protection; building upgrades for cooling and air conditioning; and responses to vector-borne diseases such as West Nile virus.County officials said the findings weren’t surprising and agreed that they may even be conservative given the scale of the threats. “The impacts of climate have become more and more visible over the past few years in particular,” said Rita Kampalath, L.A. County’s chief sustainability officer. “We know that we’re facing really, really huge needs in terms of how we prepare our communities to face those, and to be resilient in the face of increased climate impacts. It’s only going to increase from here.”Stormwater capture in particular has been on the minds of many Angelenos this winter as record-breaking rainfall pounded the region. A monster storm in February saw the Los Angeles River roar to life and funnel millions of gallons into the Pacific Ocean.But the river — which was encased in concrete nearly a hundred years ago — and other local flood channels will be no match for climate change-enhanced storms of the future. Though the long-term trend in the West is toward hotter and drier conditions, Los Angeles will still see bouts of severe storms and extreme wet years that will increase flood risk significantly, according to the state’s fourth climate change assessment. To mitigate these impacts, the county must expand its stormwater drainage infrastructure by installing bioswales, porous pavement and other opportunities for stormwater to seep into the ground, the report found. It noted that these “green infrastructure” upgrades are the least expensive option to cope with extreme rainfall events, as opposed to increasing the size and scale of hard infrastructure such as drain pipes. The county is making progress on this work through its Safe Clean Water Program, passed by voters as Measure W in 2018, Kampalath said. The program allocates about $280 million annually to stormwater capture projects, although recent reports have found that progress to date has been slow. “While it is a big need, I do actually feel like the county has been investing, and our residents and voters in particular have shown that this is a high priority,” she said. “We’re not as far as we would like to be — it’s hard to say that about much of anything when it comes to climate — but I do think that we have resources available to try to address some of these needs.” Meanwhile, extreme heat continues to pose a significant threat to L.A. County residents, and it is predicted to only get worse in the years and decades ahead. The region is expected to experience an average of 48.5 days above 90 degrees per year between 2024 and 2040, the report says. That’s about 12.5 more hot days per year than communities experienced between 1994 and 2013. Some of the best methods to combat the dangers of rising heat include installing cool pavements, expanding urban green space, painting railway tracks with reflective paint to keep them at operable temperatures, and upgrading cooling systems for public buildings such as schools, the report says. Converting public parking lots to cool pavements that reflect instead of absorb sunlight can also help lower ambient temperatures.Heat is “the impact that affects communities of color the most, and people less able to adapt themselves and their personal lives,” Wiles said. He noted that some urban areas can simmer up to 20 degrees hotter than surrounding neighborhoods with heavy tree canopies. “From a public health perspective, these types of adaptations are increasingly critical just to make neighborhoods livable,” he said.The report comes at a moment when the state is facing a significant $37.9-billion budget deficit, which has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to slash $2.9 billion from California climate programs, delay an additional $1.9 billion and shift $1.8 billion to other funds. Kampalath said it’s too soon to say whether those cuts will trickle down to L.A. County’s climate efforts, but that they could potentially affect funds officials were hoping to take advantage of through grants and other programs.However, she noted that many of the county’s climate adaptation strategies can have multiple benefits, such as tree canopy programs that help combat heat and improve stormwater management simultaneously.“As we’re looking at how to address these impacts, we do need to think about a multi-benefit approach, and what kind of strategies we can put in place that are really going to address a wide range of things — not only climate, but biodiversity and health impacts and the well-being of our communities as well,” she said.Ultimately, funding for the projects outlined in the report will come from taxpayers, whether at the municipal, state or federal level, Wiles said. But he also hopes that oil and gas companies will be held accountable for their role in the worsening climate crisis, as fossil fuel emissions are by far the largest driver of global warming.Last year, California filed a bombshell lawsuit against five of the largest oil and gas companies for their alleged “decades-long campaign of deception” about the risks posed by fossil fuels, which have forced the state to spend billions of dollars to address environmental-related damages. State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is seeking to create a nuisance abatement fund to finance climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, among other outcomes. “Each and every community in Los Angeles County should consider bringing similar legal actions to hold climate polluters accountable and ensure that taxpayers aren’t left to pay the bill alone,” the report says. Indeed, there are other climate hazards that will cost Angelenos billions in adaptation expenses over the next decade and a half, the report found. They include an increase in vector-borne diseases such as West Nile virus as more mosquitoes are drawn to the area’s changing temperatures and precipitation patterns. About 500,000 new cases of the virus are expected in the county through 2040, which will cost an estimated $993 million to treat. Climate change will also lead to more pediatric asthma cases due to an increase in pollen, with about 160,000 new cases expected through 2040. The county also needs about $680 million in road improvements as heat and rain contribute to more cracks, erosion and soft surfaces. A foot of sea level rise along the coast of L.A. County will require at least $576 million for berms, flood walls, bank stabilization and other infrastructure measures to prevent flooding and to avoid infrastructure damage by 2040. Wildfires, already getting larger, faster and more frequent across California, will necessitate nearly $1 billion just to clear vegetation and other fuels from land around the county’s infrastructure, the report found. It noted that L.A. County will face an average of 36 more high-fire days through 2040 when compared to the 1994-to-2013 baseline. The estimated $919-million wildfire cost does not account for fighting fires or repairing damage from blazes. The 2018 Woolsey fire racked up an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in insured losses alone. Wiles said the expenses outlined in the report won’t solve climate change but will help “hold things where they are today,” or least prevent the hazards from getting worse. He said he hoped the report would help guide county officials as they face difficult choices about where, how and to what limited funds should be allocated. Investing in climate adaptations now can save money — and lives — later, he said. “These costs are still coming,” Wiles said. “The next disaster will happen. This is just what it’s going to cost to prepare.” Newsletter Toward a more sustainable California Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution. You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Protecting Los Angeles County from 14 different climate change impacts will cost taxpayers at least $12.5 billion by the end of 2040, according to new research.

A first-of-its-kind report has estimated that Los Angeles County must invest billions of dollars through 2040 to protect residents from worsening climate hazards, including extreme heat, increasing precipitation, worsening wildfires, rising sea levels and climate-induced public health threats.

The report, published this week by the nonprofit Center for Climate Integrity, identified 14 different climate adaptation measures that authors calculated would cost L.A. taxpayers at least $12.5 billion over the next 15 years, or approximately $780 million per year. The vast majority of those costs — more than $9 billion — will be incurred by local municipal governments, including the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Santa Clarita, the report said.

“These numbers don’t include the costs of recovering from disasters — from extreme weather events that knock out power or damage infrastructure or do all the kinds of things they do,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. “So it’s a very conservative estimate, and yet it’s a really big number.”

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

Wiles said the costs for L.A. County are nearly as high as for the entire state of Pennsylvania, which faces about $15 billion in climate adaptation costs over roughly the same period.

“This is a big number, but this is going to happen,” he said. “These costs will be incurred at some point, and it’s just much better to pay now than it is to pay later. I can’t emphasize that enough.”

The most expensive adaptation categories are related to precipitation and heat, including an estimated $4.3 billion for improved stormwater management, $2.5 billion for cool pavement investments and $1.4 billion for tree canopies to combat urban heat islands, the report found. Other costs include wildfire mitigation; coastal defense and infrastructure protection; building upgrades for cooling and air conditioning; and responses to vector-borne diseases such as West Nile virus.

County officials said the findings weren’t surprising and agreed that they may even be conservative given the scale of the threats.

“The impacts of climate have become more and more visible over the past few years in particular,” said Rita Kampalath, L.A. County’s chief sustainability officer. “We know that we’re facing really, really huge needs in terms of how we prepare our communities to face those, and to be resilient in the face of increased climate impacts. It’s only going to increase from here.”

Stormwater capture in particular has been on the minds of many Angelenos this winter as record-breaking rainfall pounded the region. A monster storm in February saw the Los Angeles River roar to life and funnel millions of gallons into the Pacific Ocean.

But the river — which was encased in concrete nearly a hundred years ago — and other local flood channels will be no match for climate change-enhanced storms of the future. Though the long-term trend in the West is toward hotter and drier conditions, Los Angeles will still see bouts of severe storms and extreme wet years that will increase flood risk significantly, according to the state’s fourth climate change assessment.

To mitigate these impacts, the county must expand its stormwater drainage infrastructure by installing bioswales, porous pavement and other opportunities for stormwater to seep into the ground, the report found. It noted that these “green infrastructure” upgrades are the least expensive option to cope with extreme rainfall events, as opposed to increasing the size and scale of hard infrastructure such as drain pipes.

The county is making progress on this work through its Safe Clean Water Program, passed by voters as Measure W in 2018, Kampalath said. The program allocates about $280 million annually to stormwater capture projects, although recent reports have found that progress to date has been slow.

“While it is a big need, I do actually feel like the county has been investing, and our residents and voters in particular have shown that this is a high priority,” she said. “We’re not as far as we would like to be — it’s hard to say that about much of anything when it comes to climate — but I do think that we have resources available to try to address some of these needs.”

Meanwhile, extreme heat continues to pose a significant threat to L.A. County residents, and it is predicted to only get worse in the years and decades ahead. The region is expected to experience an average of 48.5 days above 90 degrees per year between 2024 and 2040, the report says. That’s about 12.5 more hot days per year than communities experienced between 1994 and 2013.

Some of the best methods to combat the dangers of rising heat include installing cool pavements, expanding urban green space, painting railway tracks with reflective paint to keep them at operable temperatures, and upgrading cooling systems for public buildings such as schools, the report says. Converting public parking lots to cool pavements that reflect instead of absorb sunlight can also help lower ambient temperatures.

Heat is “the impact that affects communities of color the most, and people less able to adapt themselves and their personal lives,” Wiles said. He noted that some urban areas can simmer up to 20 degrees hotter than surrounding neighborhoods with heavy tree canopies.

“From a public health perspective, these types of adaptations are increasingly critical just to make neighborhoods livable,” he said.

The report comes at a moment when the state is facing a significant $37.9-billion budget deficit, which has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to slash $2.9 billion from California climate programs, delay an additional $1.9 billion and shift $1.8 billion to other funds.

Kampalath said it’s too soon to say whether those cuts will trickle down to L.A. County’s climate efforts, but that they could potentially affect funds officials were hoping to take advantage of through grants and other programs.

However, she noted that many of the county’s climate adaptation strategies can have multiple benefits, such as tree canopy programs that help combat heat and improve stormwater management simultaneously.

“As we’re looking at how to address these impacts, we do need to think about a multi-benefit approach, and what kind of strategies we can put in place that are really going to address a wide range of things — not only climate, but biodiversity and health impacts and the well-being of our communities as well,” she said.

Ultimately, funding for the projects outlined in the report will come from taxpayers, whether at the municipal, state or federal level, Wiles said. But he also hopes that oil and gas companies will be held accountable for their role in the worsening climate crisis, as fossil fuel emissions are by far the largest driver of global warming.

Last year, California filed a bombshell lawsuit against five of the largest oil and gas companies for their alleged “decades-long campaign of deception” about the risks posed by fossil fuels, which have forced the state to spend billions of dollars to address environmental-related damages. State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is seeking to create a nuisance abatement fund to finance climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, among other outcomes.

“Each and every community in Los Angeles County should consider bringing similar legal actions to hold climate polluters accountable and ensure that taxpayers aren’t left to pay the bill alone,” the report says.

Indeed, there are other climate hazards that will cost Angelenos billions in adaptation expenses over the next decade and a half, the report found.

They include an increase in vector-borne diseases such as West Nile virus as more mosquitoes are drawn to the area’s changing temperatures and precipitation patterns. About 500,000 new cases of the virus are expected in the county through 2040, which will cost an estimated $993 million to treat. Climate change will also lead to more pediatric asthma cases due to an increase in pollen, with about 160,000 new cases expected through 2040.

The county also needs about $680 million in road improvements as heat and rain contribute to more cracks, erosion and soft surfaces. A foot of sea level rise along the coast of L.A. County will require at least $576 million for berms, flood walls, bank stabilization and other infrastructure measures to prevent flooding and to avoid infrastructure damage by 2040.

Wildfires, already getting larger, faster and more frequent across California, will necessitate nearly $1 billion just to clear vegetation and other fuels from land around the county’s infrastructure, the report found. It noted that L.A. County will face an average of 36 more high-fire days through 2040 when compared to the 1994-to-2013 baseline.

The estimated $919-million wildfire cost does not account for fighting fires or repairing damage from blazes. The 2018 Woolsey fire racked up an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in insured losses alone.

Wiles said the expenses outlined in the report won’t solve climate change but will help “hold things where they are today,” or least prevent the hazards from getting worse.

He said he hoped the report would help guide county officials as they face difficult choices about where, how and to what limited funds should be allocated. Investing in climate adaptations now can save money — and lives — later, he said.

“These costs are still coming,” Wiles said. “The next disaster will happen. This is just what it’s going to cost to prepare.”

Newsletter

Toward a more sustainable California

Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Zeldin says he can 'absolutely' assure public EPA deregulation efforts won’t harm environment

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said he can “absolutely” assure the public that the various deregulation efforts undergone by the agency will not harm the environment. Zeldin joined CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, where he was asked if he could ensure the deregulation wouldn’t have an adverse impact. “Absolutely,” he replied....

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said he can “absolutely” assure the public that the various deregulation efforts undergone by the agency will not harm the environment. Zeldin joined CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, where he was asked if he could ensure the deregulation wouldn’t have an adverse impact. “Absolutely,” he replied. “We have to both protect the environment and grow the economy.” Zeldin argued that it’s what the American people are demanding out of the Trump administration. He criticized Biden-era regulations that were “targeting entire industries.” “When the American public went to vote last November, they were talking about economic concerns, about struggling to make ends meet. That includes the cost of being able to heat their home,” he said. “The choice of whether or not to be able to heat their home or fill up their fridge with groceries or afford prescription medication.” Zeldin’s remarks come about a month after the Trump administration unveiled a list of climate and pollution regulations they were looking to dismantle. Under the reversed regulations are some of the Biden administration’s most championed measures, including increasing electric vehicles and quickly closing coal mines. The Trump administration said it was considering rolling back regulations on the neurotoxic mercury from power plans and general air pollution limits for soot. It will also reconsider that climate change poses a threat to the public, laying regulatory groundwork for future climate action. The agency also indicated that it would be closing offices dedicated to fighting pollution in underserved and minority communities. Zeldin said last month that the deregulation efforts would make it easier for Americans to buy a car and heat their homes. Environmentalists have sounded the alarm over the administration’s plans, but Zeldin remained confident that the public and environment would not be negatively impacted. Zeldin noted that there will be a process for public comment and he encourages the public to “weigh in” when they have that opportunity. “I have a zero tolerance for any waste and abuse. It is my duty to ensure that I’m an exceptional steward of tax dollars,” Zeldin later said.

Tackling Climate Change Must Be Job Number One

This Earth Day, on April 22, you can exercise your power. The wellbeing of our planet and its people is at stake.

Amid the historic and sweeping cuts to federal agencies and programs being carried out by the Trump Administration, one truth has been overlooked: If we’re serious about cutting waste and protecting public funds, we must confront climate change head-on. 2024 was a disaster for the planet and its people. According to NASA, it was the warmest year since temperatures began being recorded in 1880. In the United States alone there were twenty-seven climate and weather events that resulted in at least a billion dollars in damages—second only to 2023, with twenty-eight such events.  These events—wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes—are becoming the norm, and they’re financially devastating.  In January, tens of thousands of acres and more than 16,000 structures burned in southern California. Last month, more than 150 tornadoes tore across the central and southeastern United States, and, this month, historic floods submerged parts of the Midwest and South. In the parts of the United States at higher risk for climate-related extreme weather events, insurance claims are increasing in cost and frequency. Not surprisingly, these high-risk areas are also now seeing the highest increase in cancellations for failure to pay premiums and nonrenewals by the insurance companies. Without insurance, homeowners may not be able to rebuild when disaster strikes. And climate change isn’t the only escalating crisis. The world is also drowning in plastic. On September 5, 2024—Plastic Overshoot Day—the world exceeded its capacity to manage plastic waste. An estimated 220 million tons of plastic are projected to be produced this year alone, and 66 percent of people live in areas where plastic waste exceeds waste management capacity. Meanwhile, new research shows just how dangerous plastics are to human health. Microplastics have been found in human brains, and the World Wildlife Fund estimates that we may be ingesting up to five grams of plastic each week—the weight of a credit card. Plastics are now linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, impaired fertility, and cognitive development issues. Wildlife, too, is suffering from entanglement, starvation, and habitat loss. Here’s the hopeful part: We already have the tools and the power to change this. EARTHDAY.ORG, the network created by the original organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970, is still leading the charge with our campaign, “Our Power, Our Planet.” The goal is to help individuals, cities, and communities act on the environmental challenges of today. The economic upside of environmental action is massive. New solutions to our current environmental crisis rest in the hands of the people. This Earth Day, on April 22, you can exercise your power. Demonstrate to our leaders in government and business that we are still here, we are a witness to their actions, and we will hold them accountable to do right by our planet and its people.  As consumers, we can choose plastic-free products and demand a reduction and transition in the use of plastics from businesses, while at the same time pressuring government leaders to reduce plastic production globally to end the use of toxic ingredients and to improve waste management systems. We have the collective power not only to protect our planet but also to improve lives and livelihoods. The link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is now scientifically indisputable. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, 90 percent of global electricity can and should come from renewable sources by 2050. The transition also promises cleaner air, up to thirty million new jobs, and stronger energy independence. Transitioning to clean energy, reducing plastic waste, and increasing resilience to extreme weather are among the most fiscally responsible actions governments can take. This Earth Day, we must recognize that efficiency isn’t just about cutting—it’s about investing in solutions that protect people and our infrastructure. True government efficiency means reducing risk in order to cut costs—not paying billions each year to clean up after preventable disasters. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Australia opposition leader clarifies he believes in climate change after debate

Peter Dutton is facing outrage after comments he made on climate change during an election debate.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has clarified he believes in climate change after facing backlash for comments made during an election debate on Wednesday night.Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked about the increasing impact of climate change, to which Dutton replied he would "let scientists and others pass that judgment".He had previously said that flooding and natural disasters were "part of the history of our state of this country". The comments generated outrage from climate groups and mockery from Albanese."I believe in climate change, and that it is a reality" Dutton said while campaigning on Monday. During Wednesday's debate, Dutton responded to the moderator's question on whether flooding and natural disasters were getting worse by saying, "I don't know because I'm not a scientist". "I can't tell you whether the temperature has risen in Thargomindah because of climate change or the water levels are up," he added.Meanwhile Albanese, who had said Dutton's words showed "no acceptance of the science of climate change" continued mocking his opponent on Thursday, asking "does he believe in gravity?" Environmental organisations have reacted to Dutton's debate remarks with dismay.Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie told the Guardian "it's outrageous for a senior political leader to be so out of touch that they claim they "don't know" the risks Australians are facing."A report from the non-profit released earlier this month stated one in 23 properties across the country were found to be at high risk from climate change.Australian Conservation Foundation Chief Executive Kelly O'Shanassy called Dutton's words "a serious concern" in an interview with the Canberra Times, adding that "the next parliament is the last parliament that can get Australia's massive contribution to climate change under control."Albanese was also questioned on his climate policy during the debate, though for different reasons. The prime minister has championed renewable energy throughout his time in office, but has faced backlash for rising power bills.Asked when fees would fall, the prime minister did not directly reply. Instead, he stressed renewables were the "cheapest form of power".In March, Labor announced it would extend a relief system for the bills, providing a further automatic $150AUD ($95;£72) rebate to households and small businesses. The hour-long debate also saw the two party leaders pressed on other hot button issues for Australia including housing and foreign policy, in particular Australia's relationship to the US.

Ohio grid disparities leave some areas with older, outage-prone equipment

Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment. Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and…

Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment. Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool were twice as likely to have low-voltage circuits compared to other parts of FirstEnergy’s Ohio territory, according to the study by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Equipment was also generally older and had less capacity for normal and overload situations. The results reflect historical patterns of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities, the report says, but the full scope of the problem — including across Ohio’s other utilities — is unclear due to the lack of information from utilities and regulators. “The public availability of any utility data is very, very limited in Ohio,” said report author Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. The Ohio Environmental Council submitted the report as part of FirstEnergy’s pending rate case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and is asking regulators to address the topic in an evidentiary hearing set for May 5. The state of the local grid matters when it comes to the reliability of customers’ electric service, their ability to add distributed renewable energy resources like rooftop solar, and a community’s potential to attract business investments that could improve its economic conditions. Regulated electric utilities file reliability reports each spring that focus on two commonly used metrics. The system average interruption frequency index, or SAIFI, shows how many outages occurred per customer. The customer average interruption duration index, or CAIDI, measures the average length of time for restoring service to customers who lose power. The annual reports also list factors involved in outages, with breakouts for transmission-related service problems and major events. Major events such as severe weather are considered statistical outliers that don’t count for calculating whether utilities meet their company-specific standards for CAIDI and SAIFI. While weather accounted for the majority of time Ohioans went without power last year, equipment failures also triggered thousands of outages. For the ninth year in a row, at least one Ohio utility company failed to meet reliability standards, reports filed this month show. Both AEP Ohio and FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison missed their marks for the average time before power is restored for customers who experience outages. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also collects data on the worst-performing circuits. Individual circuits serve anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand customers. However, the state doesn’t post these reports online or disclose the circuit’s exact locations, which could be used to show whether they are concentrated in disadvantaged communities. The SAIFI and CAIDI metrics used by state regulators did not show significant disparities between disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas in FirstEnergy’s territory. But Banton said those reliability metrics rely on averages for large groups, which can obscure disparities. They said that utilities should also be required to publicly report the number of customers experiencing frequent service interruptions and the number of customers who faced long outages. Utilities in Ohio tend to be reactive in dealing with circuit problems, Banton said. Communities can face longer outages if utilities wait for equipment to fail before replacing it. Instead, Banton wants utilities’ capital investments to address current disparities and then prevent them from recurring in the future.

Proposed Rule Change on Endangered Species Triggers Alarm for Environmentalists

The Trump administration plans to rewrite part of the Endangered Species Act that prohibits harming the habitats of endangered and threatened species

The Trump administration plans to eliminate habitat protections for endangered and threatened species in a move environmentalists say would lead to the extinction of critically endangered species due to logging, mining, development and other activities.At issue is a longstanding definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act, which has included altering or destroying the places those species live. Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of extinction, said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service said in a proposed rule issued Wednesday that habitat modification should not be considered harm because it's not the same as intentionally targeting a species, called “take.” Environmentalists argue that the definition of “take,” though, has always included actions that harm species, and the definition of “harm” has been upheld by the Supreme Court.The proposed rule “cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act,” said Greenwald. “If (you) say harm doesn’t mean significant habitat degradation or modification, then it really leaves endangered species out in the cold.”For example, he said spotted owls and Florida panthers both are protected because the current rule forbids habitat destruction. But if the new rule is adopted, someone who logs in a forest or builds a development would be unimpeded as long as they could say they didn't intend to harm an endangered species, he said.The proposed rule was expected to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, kicking off a 30-day public comment period.A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman referred The Associated Press to the Department of Interior, which declined to comment.Environmental groups will challenge the rule in court if it is adopted, said Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice.He said the proposal “threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species,” including bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees and humpback whales. He said that's because the current rule “recognizes the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species.”The question is whether the Trump administration is entitled to repeal a rule that was upheld specifically by the Supreme Court and therefore subject to precedent, said Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School who has handled endangered species cases.Because of the current definition of harm, “many, many millions of acres of land has been conserved” to help keep species alive, he said.The issue is of particular concern in Hawaii, which has more endangered species than any other state — 40% of the nation’s federally listed threatened and endangered species — even though it has less than 1% of the land area, according to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Birds are among the most vulnerable. Since humans arrived, 71 birds have gone extinct, according to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thirty-one of the 42 remaining endemic birds are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the department said and ten of these haven’t been seen in decades.Associated Press reporter Audrey McAvoy in Hawaii contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.