David McNew/Getty Images

An eye-opening new study by Environment California finds that 2.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the state’s waterways in 2010. The Santa Monica Bay ranked 2^nd in the state for the most toxic discharge at 750,000 pounds. That number was only surpassed by the San Pablo Bay, which clocked just over 1 million pounds of toxic discharge.

“California’s waterways are a polluter’s paradise right now," said Sean Carroll, a federal field associate with Environment California in the Pacific Palisades Patch. "Polluters dump 2.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals into California’s lakes, rivers and streams every year. We must turn the tide of toxic pollution by restoring Clean Water Act protections to our waterways.”

Among the offending toxins include Arsenic, Mercury and Benzene, which have been linked to cancer, reproductive disorders and other health and developmental issues.

Environment California recommends a three-part plan to help curb toxic discharge, starting with the obvious and reducing the amount generated by the polluting industrial facilities. From there they suggest that President Obama clarify the Clean Water Act, and that the EPA and state agencies set and enforce more stringent limits when issuing permits for such companies.

Mark Dadswell/Getty Images

The waters of California are swirling. As we reported recently, the controversial Water Reliability Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but heavy-hitting senators like Dianne Fienstein and Barbara Boxer are mobilized against it going any further. We also reported on the sobering new report from UC Davis regarding water contamination in California’s farm regions.

Now there’s a new report from Environment California expected tomorrow (which, coincidentally, is World Water Day) that will detail exactly the “total amount of toxic chemicals released by industrial facilities into California’s rivers, lakes, and streams, as ranked by waterway, watershed, type of pollution, polluter, and state.”

As outlined in a press release, this new report will explain the “total figures for direct releases of chemicals that cause cancer, reproductive, and developmental harm.” In short, it’s something that most of us will be eager to see. We will be sure to bring you those figures as they arrive.

In the meantime, TreeHugger is reporting on an inventive new bottle that purifies water in just 60 seconds using UV rays. While the CamelBak All Clear water bottle retails for a cool $99, it looks to be worth the price. Utilizing a UV light in the cap powered on two rechargeable Li-Ion batteries, this bottle purifies any tap, spigot or even stream water with a good, hard shake.

Depending on what that report says tomorrow, the self-purifying water bottle market in general could be on the upswing around here.

mollyali/Flickr

The Santa Monica Public Library is a LEED-Gold certified building. And it's 6 years old.

With the LEED-gold certified Santa Monica Public Library as its backdrop, Environment California today released a new energy efficiency report called "Building a Better America." In it, the group argues the best place to start saving energy is probably the house or office you're sitting in.

The building sector consumes more energy than any other sector of the economy, including transportation and industry. The buildings where we live and work account for about 40 percent of our total energy consumption and nearly three quarters of our electricity use. This level of energy use costs the United States approximately $400 billion every year.

EC says that, by following recommendations it lays out in a 2-dozen page report, California will cut its greenhouse gas emissions from buildings by "11 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030." 

Other environment groups are concerned about energy efficiency in buildings too. As the Natural Resources Defense Council reports, California's Energy Commission is considering an update of its standards for new and renovated buildings; its Title 24 program.

The Commission’s proposed standards for new buildings are projected to reduce annual energy use of single family homes by 30% (compared to a home built to the current 2008 code), and over 30% for commercial buildings on their regulated loads – lighting, heating and ventilation, and cooling. Once the standard is in full effect in 2014, California will save at least $100 million a year in the form of lower electricity bills.

Those standards got developed over two years, with business, government and environmental groups weighing in. NRDC's Jamy Bacchus also writes that these "aggressive" standards, once passed, will yield loads of greenhouse gas savings: "300,000 tons of CO2 emissions in the first year (equivalent to removing 53,000 cars off the road), prevent the need to build 8 or more large 500 MW power plants over next 30 years, and create up to 3,500" new jobs.

Environment California's report highlights work to cut energy demand at the California Public Utilities Commission via BBEES: "Big, Bold, Energy Efficiency Strategies" for achieving zero-net energy in buildings, developed jointly by private industry, regulators, the investor-owned utilities (who are required to care about energy efficiency, and are part of the conversation) and efficiency boosters and laid out in a 3-year plan. 

Thing is, the progress report from last winter doesn't make it sound like the strategies are working as well as they could:

There is a real risk that the Strategic Plan will not meet its goals, unless the next decade sees a more concerted effort on the part of the IOUs [investor-owned utilities, like Southern California Edison & PG&E], state and federal agencies and market actors. Some of the constraints California faces include an unprecedented state budget deficit, which has hampered the ability to timely hire and retain staff at the CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to oversee progress on strategic action plans...[F]ully achieving the Plan goals will require sustained leadership and new approaches to organization and funding of this ambitious long-term agenda.

Maybe it's not as bad as it sounds; maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. Top-to-bottom change has consequences. Even advocates for putting building energy efficiency on a fast track say zero-net-energy buildings "could have unintended consequences for the electrical grid and/or miss opportunities for additional value creation."

What Environment California is saying to the public with a report like this is, talking about energy efficiency is great, but don't forget to do the energy efficiency too.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Ah, high school. Those were the days. Well, not really. I couldn’t wait to get out of that place. Then again, my high school was the kind of place that turns up in horror movies. But hey, it’s Friday night. I’d rather imagine that I went to high school in Dillon, Texas, and Tami Taylor was my sympathetic counselor. But I digress.

I’d like to think that the students of St. Francis High School in Sacramento will go on to have much happier memories of the best years of their lives. They’ll certainly have good stories to tell their kids, like how they remember when most schools were powered by expensive electricity, and not primarily powered by the sun.

St. Francis recently installed a 253-kilowatt solar energy system to seven buildings on campus, which is expected to generate up to 31 percent of the school’s electricity, and save them a whopping $1 million in energy costs over the next 20 years.

The school’s new energy system is showcased in a new report from the Environment California Research & Policy Center, “California’s Solar Cities 2012: Leaders in the Race Toward a Clean Energy Future.” Paid for through a grant from the U.S. Treasury and through rebates from the Sacramento Municipal Utility Department (SMUD).

“Our students are excited and happy to have solar panels here at the high school,” explained Ingrid Niles, the communications director of St. Francis to the Valley Community News (wow, high schools have communications directors now?) “I think overall, our kids think having something like this is pretty cool and we hope we inspire a few of them to look at this stuff after high school.”

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

You can breathe easy, Team California Solar: we’re still Number One.

According to a report from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, the state of California is responsible for close to half of America’s photovoltaic activity through 2010 (869 megawatts of installed capacity out of the nation’s total of 1,831 megawatts).

Within the state, San Diego reigns as California’s top solar-powered city, according to a new report from the Environment California Research & Policy Center. The city boasts more than 4500 solar-topped homes, businesses and government facilities, double the number of just two years ago.  San Diego accounts for close to 37 megawatts of the state’s sun-juiced energy.

“San Diego didn’t become the state’s Number One solar city by happenstance,” said mayor Jerry Sanders in a press release. “It was the result of local policies and programs that encourage investment in solar power.”

Los Angeles comes in second place with over 4,000 installations, while San Jose takes the bronze at over 2700 installations.