• Waterproof. Nice. (Photo credit: Devin Laney)

Are you giggling? Have you ever thought about this serious issue, you know, seriously? You should.

People worry about what they stick in their mouth — food wise, that is; fat, calories, et al — but get all goofy if you want to talk about what's going into their other orifices. We shouldn't, though. In fact, we should stop being so ridiculous about talking about sex in general in America, but that's a blog rant for another day.

Back to vibrators: There's a new database that can help you find out if your favorite kinky toys are harmful or not: SaferProducts.gov.

Bad news: The site covers a long list of consumer products, not just sex toys ... so don't get too excited.

Here's more on the updated database from Scientific American:

It's entirely possible that someone's favorite cyclotron vibrator can shell-shock nerves, penis rings might lead to a grievous case of penile gangrene or those little vibrating beads could slip upstream and become tragicomically lost in bodily cavities while still in the "on" position.

Not only is it possible, it happens. Yet the same manufacturers go on making the same poorly designed sex toys, and people go on using them in the same poorly informed ways. Education and regulatory oversight are in short supply.

Plus, there's the whole "Who, me?" issue.

"If somebody has an unsafe hair dryer, they aren't going to hesitate to call an attorney and sue about it," says Zach Biesanz, a class action litigation attorney in New York City and author of a 2007 paper, "Dildos, Artificial Vaginas and Phthalates: How Toxic Sex Toys Illustrate a Broader Problem for Consumer Protection," published in Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice. "Nobody is embarrassed about using a hair dryer."

Not so for sexual-enhancement devices, which in several states are deemed "obscene devices" and banned from sale (although possessing them is perfectly legal).

Read the entire article, by Regina Nuzzo, here.

• These two high-hazard, unlined coal ash ponds drain into the water that likely pours from your faucet. Drink up!

I've been thinking about what I'd write about the EPA's failure to keep its word (agency officials said they'd rule on coal ash regulations in December 2009 and still haven't)  for a couple of days.

The only thing I can think to tell you, though, is this is Washington's typical business-before-people bullshit and the EPA is disappointing the president's base in the run up to the next election. Smart.

From The Center for Public Integrity's iWatch newssite:

The operators of at least 70 facilities that store coal ash , the waste byproduct of coal-burning power plants, have crafted safety plans to better prevent the sort of catastrophic accident that flooded Tennessee properties with toxic sludge three years ago.

The Environmental Protection Agency this week released the plans, saying they were an important step toward improving coal ash storage and avoiding a repeat of the 2008 Kingston, Tenn., disaster.

"EPA is committed to making communities across the country safer places to live," said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA?s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. "The information we are releasing today shows that we continue to make progress in our efforts to prevent future coal ash spills."

The plans were crafted by 20 electric utility facilities that operate 70 coal ash impoundments, the agency said.

The new plans come as EPA weighs whether to treat coal ash as a hazardous product that would garner further regulation, a move opposed by some utilities and states. Alabama, for instance, is urging the agency to continue to treat coal ash as a non-hazardous waste product.

Read the entire post, by John Solomon, here.

And read our cover story from September of last year on coal ash: Is coal ash poisoning Charlotte-area drinking water?

• Sen. Dick Burr (Photo Credit: Politico.com)

One of our senators, Richard Burr, is up to no good. He wants to combine the Environmental Protection Agency with the Department of Energy in a move that should make everyone scream: WHAT THE FUCK IS HE THINKING?

Of course, in his latest e-mail to his constituents, he droned on and on (and on) about Osama bin Laden — whose demise he didn't have anything to do with, but failed to mention that he'd love it if the EPA burned in hell, too.

'Cuz, you know, who needs clean air and water when you can have cancer instead? Sell that to your children's children.

Don't doubt for one second that this is all about giant corporations and seriously rich individuals screwing us commoners so they will make more money. And never forget this: The people in power do not care about you, your health or your family. If you don't stand up for yourself, they surely won't.

From the Institute of Southern Studies:

A group of Senate Republicans led by Richard Burr of North Carolina wants to combine the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy into one agency. They claim the merger would save money -- but a deeper look at the plan and its backers raises questions about other, dirtier motives.

"This common-sense approach will reduce duplicative and wasteful functions across these two agencies and streamline our approach to a comprehensive, coordinated energy and environmental policy," Burr said in a statement.

But some experts are questioning the claim that the move is simply about cost savings. They include Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who formerly served as acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.

• McGuire Nuclear Plant on Lake Norman. Photo Credit: Duke Energy

As The Charlotte Business Journal points out, while Duke Energy's new nuclear plant won't be built in Charlotte — the one we ratepayers will be paying for, the one that will be built in Gaffney, S.C., which is only 50 miles west on I-85 — the plant will impact Charlotte in many ways. (Keep in mind, Duke Energy already owns two nuclear plants near Charlotte.)

The most obvious is that the owner of the plant, Duke, is headquartered here. Three other area companies — The Shaw Group, Westinghouse and Mitsubishi — are also working on the nuclear reactor (the item that's up for comment).

Then, of course, there are the health, safety and environmental concerns. From The Charlotte Business Journal:

"The public was given 75 days to comment on a decade's worth of designs," said John Runkle, an environmental attorney for the AP1000 Oversight Group, which believes the safety stakes are too high to rush into building plants.

Here's what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — under fire for lax oversights and for being too close to the industry it's regulating — posted with the federal register, which includes contact information:

• From a Duke Energy protest in October 2010. (Photo credit: Heidi Cabiness of 350.org)

Here's the press release:

Groups to protest Duke Energy’s stockholder meeting Duke’s risky investments in dirty energy will hurt environment and stockholders

Who: NC WARN, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace USA.

What: Street theater, rally, and press conference preceding Duke’s Stockholder meeting

When: Thursday May 5th.  Rally begins 9am, Press Conference at 9:20

Where: Duke Energy Headquarters, 526 S. Church Street, Charlotte, NC 28202

Why: Citing risky and unnecessary business ventures, NC WARN, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace USA will hold a press conference on Thursday, May 5th to urge Duke stockholders to hold their executives accountable. Duke has announced plans for new nuclear plants in Florida and the Carolinas and continues building coal plants in Indiana and North Carolina which have been met with significant protests over the past few years.

Grant Smith, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, said, "Duke's bid to build more coal and nuclear plants has little to do with clean energy, global warming, or modernizing the electric grid.  Instead, the strategy is clearly to make more money with high cost options that are lucrative to the state-franchised monopoly but harbor the greatest financial risk for captive ratepayers and taxpayers."

Of special note are the four aging Duke-owned coal-fired power plants that affect the quality of life in Charlotte and surrounding counties. These plants cause literally hundreds of deaths, hospitalizations, heart attacks and asthma a year. “We can no longer afford the reckless and environmentally detrimental business plan Duke Energy is pursuing. They are putting the well-being of people, the state economies they operate in, their own company, and individual finances at extreme risk.  Their CEO has ignored calls for change.  Stockholders should now step in.” said Monica Embrey, Greenpeace Charlotte Organizer.

"Duke's Indiana scandal shows that they can't build power plants without billion-dollar cost overruns.  Trying to build nuclear plants could bankrupt Duke Energy, but working people shouldn't be bankrupted too -- through annual rate hikes to fund nuclear projects even Wall Street won't gamble on," said Cynthia Brown, a board member of NC WARN.

Duke has also recently announced a weak policy on Mountain Top Removal, saying that they would avoid Mountain Top removal coal only when it wasn’t more expensive to do so.

“Duke Energy needs to look at the "true" costs of coal. Mountain Top Removal is poisoning the people of Central Appalachia with the carcinogenic, heavy metals this method of coal extraction releases into our water supply. The true cost is the death to our Appalachian Mountains and its ecosystem. The true cost is the cancer death rates of our people.  And if Duke Energy is using Mountain Top Removal coal they truly share in a murderous cost, the genocide of an entire culture,” said Appalachian coal activist and movement leader Mickey McCoy.

Due to scheduling conflicts, and late notice from the protesters, we weren't able to cover this protest. However, other media organizations did. Here's a snippet from the Associated Press and RealClearPolitics.com:

Environment, tea party protests target Duke Energy:

Environmental groups and tea party activists protested Thursday outside Duke Energy Corp.'s annual shareholder meeting in Charlotte, with one side opposed to coal and nuclear power plants and the other upset that Duke's CEO helped bring the 2012 Democratic National Convention to town.

About 50 green activists said they were upset that the utility giant is continuing to build coal-fired plants and moving ahead with new nuclear plans.

Monica Embrey, Greenpeace organizer in Charlotte, said shareholders should step in and say no to the risky projects. The groups say the projects threaten public health and have put shareholders at risk.

Grant Smith, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, said the coal-fired plants are "exposing people to harmful emissions."

The meeting also attracted about 50 tea party members, who say Duke chief executive officer Jim Rogers was wrong to give $10 million to help bring the Democratic National Convention to Charlotte.

Jane Bilelle of the Asheville, N.C., Tea Party said Rogers should be ashamed of himself for giving "shareholders' money to the Democratic Party."

"That's theft of shareholder's money," she said.

Read on for the standard defense line from the company.

SECOND UPDATE:

This afternoon, Molly Dorozenski from Greenpeace got in touch with her protest update:

It was pretty interesting ... a lively tea party counter-protest.  They were, somehow, both protesting Duke Energy (for bringing Democratic convention to Charlotte) while also protesting the "green" protest with pro-coal messaging.

Duke Energy didn't respond to our rally or press conference, but Jim Rogers did take questions inside (and answered all of them.)  He answered a question from Mickey McCoy, Mountaintop removal activist -- I'm paraphrasing here because I wasn't there -- and said that if he were king of the world, he'd stop Mountaintop removal today.  a bit disingenuous based on his recent (weak) MTR policy, which is that Duke won't buy Mountaintop coal unless it's cheaper to buy mountaintop coal.

A number of news articles have recently been circulating about renewable energy grants being awarded to operations in North Carolina. Here are a few of the headlines:

Wake Forest gets $145K grant for biodiesel project — The Winston-Salem Journal

Local operations receive $600k for energy efficient projects — The Jacksonville Daily News

Western North Carolina farms get renewable energy grant — The Asheville Citizen-Times

N.C. approves large wind farm in Pasquotank, Perquimans — The Virginian Pilot

In other, related, North Carolina renewable energy news:

Soaking up the sun: In past year, solar panels generated enough energy for 150 homes — The Shelby Star

(Note which city isn't listed above: Charlotte.)

Meanwhile, the North Carolina Housing Coalition issued this press release yesterday, lauding House Bill 874 and calling for greater energy efficiency and weatherization of older homes:

NC SAVE$ ENERGY Bill Filed to Create Statewide Independent Energy Efficiency Program

Over 50 Groups and Businesses Endorse Public Benefit Fund for Efficiency

Raleigh, NC—Representative Paul Luebke of Durham and co-sponsors from Asheville, Greensboro and Winston-Salem have filed House Bill 874 to create an NC SAVE$ ENERGY Public Benefit Fund to increase efficiency in homes and public service buildings across the state.   Luebke noted that increasing energy efficiency in homes and public buildings across the state is critical to reduce energy demand.  "This bill is the best tool we have to prevent costly electricity rate hikes that would pay for new power plant construction," Luebke said.

The Fund would support weatherization of several thousand homes each year, including a revolving loan fund available to residents of all income levels to make improvements affordable. It will maintain jobs and skills that have been developed over the past two years with ARRA funds and would otherwise be lost next spring when that funding ends, while we still have over 200,000 older, inefficient homes. Efficiency improvements are much cheaper per kilowatt hour saved—only 3 to 6 cents--when compared to the cost of providing new energy sources.

“Without a sustainable source of funding for efficiency improvements,” says Chris Estes, executive director of the NC Housing Coalition, “our older housing will continue to fall farther out of repair, causing increased energy costs to folks who can least afford them.”

The Fund would be managed by the State Energy Office, which currently administers federal and state weatherization programs. An independent Board and annual evaluations will optimize programs and prevent conflicts of interest. NC SAVE$ ENERGY would work through contracts with existing small businesses and non-profits, as well as training and certification for new contractors. The Public Benefit Fund would also provide affordable loans, educational programs and incentives for efficient appliances and efficiency improvements.

Richard Fireman of Interfaith Power and Light, a Project of the NC Council of Churches, says “NC SAVE$ ENERGY will serve a broad spectrum of people in North Carolina - a struggling middle class, the under and unemployed, the poor, elderly and others on fixed incomes - by saving them money on energy costs immediately and for the long run. It will also provide more affordable comfort during cold winters and increasingly hot summers.”

Hope Taylor of Clean Water for NC, a group working to reduce energy impacts on water, as well as costs for low income ratepayers, says, “We can’t afford to lose hundreds of jobs and lots of great skills that have been built over the past two years in NC. Public benefit funds have brought major progress in reducing energy demand several states—it’s time we had one, too!”

__________

The Alliance for NC SAVE$ ENERGY is over 50 organizations and small businesses endorsing an independently administered public benefit fund for statewide energy efficiency. Please visit www.ncsavesenergy.org to learn more about the proposal and supporters

Further reading: The Charlotte Business Journal offers some insight into other renewable energy bills circulating around the state house. Read it here: "Energy Inc.: GOP brings shift in N.C. energy policy?" (Subscription required.) The article can be best summed up, however, by a quote from a Duke Energy representative: “There are a lot of interests out there,” he says. “But it looks like there are too many pushing in too many different directions.”

The state of North Carolina requires energy companies, like Charlotte's Duke Energy, to do a lot of things — such as provide electricity to everyone in a certain geographic area, offer low prices, include a certain percentage of renewable energy in their portfolio, avoid pollution, etc.

I don't think anyone will argue that such companies are required to adhere to a lot of regulations, nor will anyone argue that their service is an invaluable one ... as is their need to provide their service without harming the land or people where they operate. All of the regulations, however, could use a regular review so they can be updated as times change.

The regulation I'm going to pick on today is one that the Raleigh News & Observer picked on in an editorial in today's paper: "Fair limit on solar sales?"

It's in reaction to a story its sister paper, The Charlotte Observer, published over the weekend: "Solar bill seeks N.C. policy shift."

Here's the summation: Solar companies feel like they won't be able to compete in a state where a giant energy company — Duke Energy, which is in the process of acquiring the state's other energy giant, Progress Energy — holds the majority of the cards.

While I agree with the News & Observer in that the state shouldn't favor regulations that will benefit one company or industry over another, I assert that current regulations already do just that. (I also disagree with this statement: "... solar is a limited resource ..." No, it's not. Solar fields are limited, in large part because of wishy-washy regulations and funding that comes and goes with the political winds.)

Listen, this is a capitalistic society. We value competition. We value a business person's ability to start with an idea and turn it into something huge. (Example: Duke Energy, which got its start on the Catawba River.) We've even got people who believe in the myth of the free market. (It's a myth because our government will never be able to keep its hands out of the market.)

Ask yourselves: Why are regulations stacked in direct opposition to competition?

It's time for the state to re-evaluate it's idea of fairness when it comes to the renewable energy industry, especially if this state is supposed to be a leader in it, and to remind itself that competition drives innovation.

It's also time to revisit those "decades-old" regulations, as the News & Observer calls them, and bring them up to date ... especially in a time when our local energy giant is suspending solar projects and looking to burn trees and trash instead. (Though those involved hesitate to admit it publicly, it's highly likely that Duke Energy will buy ReVenture's trash-generated electricity, for which the state passed a special law granting it three times the renewable energy credits as other forms of renewable energy.)

If the state can pass special regulations for new energy projects, it can certainly take the time to revamp regulations it has passed for old energy projects. Doing so will offer energy consumers something they aren't used to in this state: Choices.

Here's the background on the solar industry's push for a level playing field from the Observer:

Green energy advocates are pushing for a change in state law to allow solar power producers to sell electricity directly to homeowners and businesses.

Such a change would upend North Carolina's longstanding energy policy, which currently doesn't let consumers choose their electricity provider. The proposal is opposed by the politically powerful electric utilities in the state that don't want to lose customers and sales revenue.

Customers today can buy electricity only from the power supplier in their region - which for most people in the state means Duke Energy, Progress Energy, rural electric cooperatives or municipal power agencies.

Solar power installations can sell electricity they generate but only to those power suppliers, which in turn resell the electricity to homeowners and businesses.

But solar power companies say they could tap into a potentially bigger market if they were also allowed to sell electricity directly to customers, as is allowed in at least 19 other states.

Read the rest of this story, by John Murawski, here.

Also, check this out: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (NC)

• Charlotte (2009) Photo credit: Caleb Howell

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Weather Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have declared this week National Air Quality Awareness Week.

In its honor, we thought we'd remind you that can get daily air quality updates online from the North Carolina Division of Air Quality's website and even on Twitter.

You might also want to check out the American Lung Association's "State of the Air 2011" report for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury areas. Unfortunately, on the organization's "Most Polluted Cities" list, our area ranks No. 10 (out of 277) for ozone and 97 (again, out of 277) for 24-hour, or short-term, particle pollution (think small bits of gunk).

The ALA offers information pages and videos explaining what ozone and particle pollution is, if you'd like to learn more about how those types of pollution are created and how they impact our health. The bottom line: Our air and health would be much better without the stuff.

In good news, our air quality seems to have improved slightly in recent years. Future results may not be so positive, however, since the EPA is expected to set new smog standards this summer.

Susan Stabley, from The Charlotte Business Journal, reported on the EPA's new standards this past December, when they were delayed (again):

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has delayed – for the third time – an announcement on stricter ozone standards that are used as a benchmark for clean air.

The announcement was expected Dec. 31. Now, the EPA says it intends to set a final standard by the end of July.

The new regulations would directly affect the Charlotte region, considered the 10th-worst area in the country for smog, according to the American Lung Association.

The new numbers could be set as low as 60 to 70 parts per billion – and that will almost certainly curtail future recruitment of manufacturing and other industries that contribute to air pollution.

Read the rest of the post, and find out how industry is responding to the proposed change, here.

• Bill Johnson, future CEO of Duke Energy?

As you've probably heard by now, Charlotte's Duke Energy is trying to merge with Progress Energy, which provides electricity to parts of North Carolina. If regulators approve the merger, Progress' Bill Johnson, a lawyer, will likely become Duke's new CEO.

Yesterday, CNBC published an interview with Johnson where he discussed the energy industry, how it makes money, plans for nuclear plants and more.

I'm going to skip to the last question, but you can read the entire interview here.

Q: Will you be comfortable in the role of the CEO of the biggest company in your industry?

A: Oh yeah, I'm quite comfortable with it. I grew up on my feet, trying cases. I'm pretty adept in speaking forums and I'm a pretty quick thinker. The things that matter in business don't change based on the size of the platform. But a couple of things do change. You are the biggest player so your impact on policy changes. I'm going to have to take a higher profile. It'll be a little different, but I'd say I'm looking forward to it.

Alrighty then.