Monday, July 25, 2016

WARNING! Toxic Waters Ahead. Florida’s proposed rule would pose grave risk to human health and environment.

Sierra Club calls upon the Environmental Regulatory Commission (ERC) to protect Floridians from toxic chemicals

Tomorrow, 7/26/16, the ERC will hear the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)'s proposal and the comments of many citizens trekking to Tallahassee to protect our waters from toxic pollution. Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Watch live here 

TAKE ACTION: Email commissioners, attend the rally and hearing. Details at bottom of page.

The following letter was sent today from the Florida Chapter by our Big Bend Group leader Anne Harvey Holbrook to the Standards Development Section at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Sierra Club Florida acknowledges that it is past time for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to develop surface water quality criteria for the toxic contaminants that are the subject of this rulemaking.  However, with this proposed rule, DEP is codifying an open door for water pollution that poses grave risks to human health and the environment.

DEP has been reprehensible in its attempts to push through this rule on an accelerated schedule this summer while much of the state is looking the other way, focused on algae blooms from Lake Okeechobee discharges, and while environmental watchdogs’ resources are tied up with that issue.  Moreover, DEP is seeking approval from the Environmental Regulatory Commission (ERC) at a time when two seats (including the seat to be filled by someone from the environmental community) on the seven member panel are vacant.  At a minimum, we request that DEP delay this rulemaking until Fall as originally scheduled, and hold additional hearings in more locations throughout the state. Otherwise, this rulemaking will be simply the latest effort to trample citizens’ concerns and push through regulations that favor industry at the expense of Floridians’ health and environment.

Substantively, the proposed rule is insufficiently protective of human health and the designated uses of the Florida’s waters.  The Department acknowledges that consumption of fish among Floridians is substantially higher than the national average used by EPA in deriving its recommendations.  Given this fact, it is therefore puzzling that DEP would propose any standards less stringent than the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s recommendations.  As apparent justification, the final baseline risk analysis states that the EPA’s toxicity values for regulatory risk assessment are “inherently conservative,” and therefore risk is overestimated.  This assumption of EPA’s conservatism is unwarranted, and DEP should independently justify any instances where its standards are less protective than EPA’s, especially given that the EPA’s risk calculations assume lower seafood consumption and toxin susceptibility than DEP estimates of the average Floridian’s exposure.

Moreover, the Department’s Final Baseline Risk Analysis states that a probabilistic risk assessment was used to derive the criteria, in order to consider risk factors as distributions.  The use of this method has resulted in standards that are less protective than those recommended by EPA.  It is particularly mystifying why and how the Department determined that a 1-in-10,000 risk of cancer is acceptable for subsistence fishermen.  Additionally, the baseline risk analysis states that separate risk analyses were not developed for children.  Children spend more time swimming, are more likely to accidentally ingest water while swimming and be exposed through other pathways, and have a lifetime for bioaccumulating contaminants to build up in their tissues and cause potential health problems.  Sierra Club urges DEP to instead develop its criteria using a precautionary principle approach, using the most vulnerable groups of Floridians – including children and subsistence fishermen - as the target for protections.

From a human health perspective, especially for the direct consumption of Class I waters as drinking waters, it is unclear why DEP would set any of its standards to be less protective than that of EPA’s recommended human health criteria.  At the very least, DEP’s standards should be at least as stringent as those recommended by EPA.  In particular, Sierra Club echoes the concerns of other citizens and organizations that arsenic should be stringently regulated to protect both human health and the environment.  Currently allowable arsenic levels are several orders of magnitude higher than the EPA recommends.  Likewise, although the Department has revised its Benzene standards from the draft rule, the level set in the final rule is still dangerously high, and concerns that DEP is holding the door open for fracking and acid stimulation for fossil fuel extraction seem warranted.

With regard to Class II and Class III waters, for shellfish propagation and harvesting and waters for the propagation and maintenance of and wildlife, respectively, standards must be set not only to protect human health from exposure to contaminants through fish and shellfish consumption, but the criteria must also be sufficient to protect the designated use of the waterbodies.  In other words, criteria must reflect safe levels of exposure for aquatic organisms.  Indeed, nowhere does the rule justify setting standards that are protective of only human health.  DEP’s public workshops PowerPoint indicates that criteria protective of aquatic life would require higher standards for at least 7 pollutants.

Sierra Club Florida is concerned that standards are generally insufficiently protective of aquatic life, as required by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.  For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Library of Medicine Center for Biotechnology open chemistry database and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database state that several of the chemicals whose criteria have been revised to be less protective are proposed at levels detrimental to aquatic life.  For example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as acenapthene and anthracene, are so toxic that there is no safe level at which they should be discharged into the environment, according to the NIH and CDC. Indeed, anthracene bioaccumulates not only in fish, but also in the waxy leaves of plants. Therefore the presence of anthracene in irrigation water poses a risk both to human health and the environment. Several of DEP’s proposed standards are far in excess of those proposed for EPA’s aquatic life criteria. These criteria should be revised to be consistent with criteria recommended by EPA, or revised to be more protective than EPA’s recommendations, considering the Florida economy’s reliance on tourism and ecosystem-based recreation.

The proposed rule also fails to consider cumulative impacts as required by 373.016(2), Florida Statutes.   The Department did not evaluate the possible combined effects of multiple contaminants on both human health and the aquatic environment. By considering each chemical in isolation, the Department neglects to consider the additive or greater than additive risks of contaminants and chemical interactions.  The uncertainty posed by possible interactions and additive effects should at the very least necessitate a cautionary and conservative approach to risk assessment for individual toxics.  Additionally, the proposed rulemaking does not consider the effects of prolonged environmental exposure and accumulation of these chemicals.  According to the NIH and CDC, some of the regulated pollutants exhibit a tendency to sink into sediments, where they can accumulate in muck and may become re-suspended during severe weather or upwelling events, entering the environment and the food chain in concentrated doses. DEP fails to consider these characteristics and the potential long-term harm these chemicals pose to human health and the environment.

Lastly, the proposed rule makes no attempt to regulate an additional 25 toxic chemicals for which EPA has offered proposed criteria.  Even if this rulemaking were protective for the contaminants it does regulate, it would only be doing half the job.

Sierra Club urges the Department to reconsider its proposed criteria, and to issue a final rule that includes standards that are at least as protective as those recommended by EPA, both for human health and for aquatic organisms.  FDEP must, at a minimum, delay this rulemaking until it holds additional hearings throughout the state and responds to citizen concerns about industry capture.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any help in developing these standards, or if you have any questions with regard to these comments.


for Sierra Club Florida Chapter

Anne Harvey Holbrook, JD, MS
Vice Chair, Big Bend Group, Sierra Club



Environmental Regulatory Commissioners

Joe Joyce
Adam R. Gelber
Sarah S. Walton
Craig D. Varn
Eric Shaw, DEP Environmental Manager,

Watch the hearing LIVESTREAM here.

Please plan to attend RALLY on sidewalk, as early as possible!
PRESS CONFERENCE is at 8:30 am- on sidewalk.
DEP HEARING BEGINS promptly at 9:00 am.  Please sign in to speak.
LOCATION:  Marjory Stoneman Douglas Bldg., 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., (just off I-10).  NEED  HUGE TURNOUT!! 
YOUR presence is needed at this most important DEP- ERC Hearing!  Come tell DEP's Environmental Regulatory Commission (ERC) we will NOT stand idly by-- while DEP is proposing to increase the levels of toxic chemicals in FL waters!!
Never have Florida waters been in such a MESS!  As toxic algae clogs FL waters, harming human health and our endangered environment and chemical discharges are already at high levels, DEP is, once again (as in 2013, when fracking hearings first began) proposing increasing levels of toxic chemicals!!   MONEY speaks, but we must speak louder!!  
DEP's convoluted Monte Carlo "probabalistic" method they use to determine "safe"discharge levels for toxic chemicals differs from EPA's method and those used by other states. FL Clean Water Network calls DEP's Monte Carlo Method" a "Cancer Lottery for Florida", as it allows higher levels of toxic chemicals to be discharged into FL waters.  It is gambling with our lives and with Florida's endangered environment. This method favors industry demands over human health and Florida's environment!
DEP's 2013 proposals to increase chemical limits in FL waters was unacceptable then, AND it is still unacceptable --especially when the seven member ERC Board is missing two key members which the Governor says he will not replace until after this ERC Hearing -- meaning this critical VOTE only requires THREE vote to pass!  
Should a vote to decide such a critical issue be decided by such a diminished ERC Board? Many of you have received a list of ERC members from Linda Young. 
So, tomorrow, when DEP, once again, seeks ERC approval to increase the levels of major fracking chemicals like Benzene, which causes leukemia, and many other dangerous industrial pollutants,  please remind ERC that Florida's increasing population, agriculture, important tourist industries and human health demands that DEP develop SAFER, not more polluting, water standards to safeguard our dwindling supply of clean water which serves twenty million Floridians.  Remind DEP  that 75% of Floridians voted for FL waters to be restored! 
Water is our most valuable resource.  Our Florida Constitution guarantees all Floridians the Right to Clean Water. Every FL official takes an oath to uphold Florida's Constitution. Those oaths MUST honored --NOT ignored! Never has YOUR voice been more important.  Your presence will matter! So, please join us tomorrow!
Hope to see you bright and early! 
Gale Dickert , Water & Wetlads Chair,Madison Garden Club, Member FFGC

Further reading:

Miami Herald: Regulators want to allow more toxic chemicals in Florida’s water,

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Sierra Club’s Statement to Governor Scott on the Florida Algae Crisis

Sierra Club’s Statement to Governor Scott on the Florida Algae Crisis 

- Presented by Diana Umpierre, Sierra Club Everglades Coordinator, to the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board on July 14, 2016

For six years, the Scott Administration has failed to acquire Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) land, despite repeated ecological collapses in our estuaries from Lake Okeechobee pollution and the insufficient flows of freshwater going to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay. Our coastal communities along the Indian River Lagoon and the Southwest Florida Gulf Coast continue to face complete devastation. The water is guacamole thick. The air is rancid. Even those who wear industrial respirators are overcome.

You must stop releasing Lake Okeechobee water east to the Indian River Lagoon, southeast to the Lake Worth Lagoon, or west to Fort Myers and the Gulf of Mexico. You must take emergency action to move that water south. And you must start planning now for storage, treatment, and conveyance in the EAA for the purpose of Everglades Restoration, and do so in a way that does not negatively impact the residents of the EAA represented here today. Sierra Club joins the communities around Lake Okeechobee in demanding immediate federal and state action to expedite needed repair and strengthen the Herbert Hoover Dike.

The world has taken notice. The national and international press has descended. The state’s
tourism brand is tainted. Fish and manatees are dying. Beaches are closed. As the algae
spreads, home values are plummeting. It’s a taking, depriving residents of the value of their
property. It’s hard to find someone who wants to buy a home surrounded by foul-smelling,
green algae.

Governor Rick Scott is squarely to blame. The South Florida Water Management District’s near
daily press releases mirror the talking points of the sugar industry. Governor Scott’s 2013
hunting trip to Big Sugar’s King Ranch in Texas is indicative of just how inseparable they have
become. If he had pursued the US Sugar land purchase years ago, we could be sending this
water south today. But now he protects them by shifting blame to the coasts. He says septic
tanks are the cause, but this is a red-herring. The proof is the algae bloom in Lake Okeechobee,
now seen from space, so large it has a footprint the size of Orlando and Tampa combined. It’s
time to send the water south.

We need a plan to store, clean and convey the water south in the sugar lands. This has to begin
now. The money is there to acquire the land. The voters voted for it. The sugar industry must
share some adversity in this time of emergency. Why is it okay to flood the estuaries, but not the
land planted in sugar? Why aren’t the sugar growers offering to help? Why don’t you make
them? There is too much pain going around. It’s devastating people’s health and their property.
It’s killing fish and manatees. It’s hurting Florida. It’s time to send water south for the sake of
us all.


Monday, July 11, 2016

Tuesday Night: Speak Up for BP Oil Disaster $$ for PSTA's New Oil-Free Electric Buses!

What more appropriate way to use BP oil disaster funds than to help move the County beyond its dependence on oil with its 1st electric buses? COME AND LEAVE ANY TIME Tuesday evening, July 12, between 6:00 & 9:00 pm as you drop by and have your say! 

WHAT:    Pinellas County Commission Public Input Session on Proposals for Use of its BP Economic Settlement Funds

WHERE: Pinellas County Commission Assembly Room, 5th floor, 315 Court St., downtown Clearwater

WHEN:    Tues., July 12, 6:00 - 9:00 PM - Come ANY TIME to speak.

WHY:       Support PSTA's request for funds for its 1st Electric Bus Charging Station
On route charging station in service
In Tallahassee with their electric
buses for past 4 years. 

Tuesday night the Pinellas County Commission will listen to all Pinellas resident speaking bewtween 6 & 9 pm in support of proposals for how to spend the County's $7 million in BP oil disaster fundsLet's pack the room Tuesday night to show support for Comm. Ken Welch's idea to give PSTA just 9% of its BP oil disaster money to allow it to buy an electric bus charging station for downtown St. Pete

If the County does provide these BP funds, PSTA will buy its 1st 2 (or more) electric buses to use in downtown St. Pete, a number that could soon grow to 9 zero emission electric buses, all using the same charging station. 

Great idea! Why isn't this a slam dunk, you ask? Surprise: numerous proposals to spend far more than the $7 million the County has available have been submitted. While we're sure they're all good things to do, we doubt any idea is as directly related to the reason the County has the funds - the impact of the BP gulf oil disaster - as is helping PSTA begin oil-free, emission-free transit next year. After all, if we use less oil, the pressure to drill for oil lessens - the rule of supply and demand. 

Besides, people are excited about these new clean, quiet buses, both the people who'll ride them and those who won't hear or smell them as they go by their homes, restaurants, etc. 

Speakers will get up to the usual 3 minutes, or may give their time to another person who'd like to speak longer.  All we need to make Zero Emission Electric Transit a reality in Pinellas is YOU - TOMORROW NIGHT! 
Sierra Club will have these great 3" X 3" stickers
for everyone to wear
 tomorrow night

For more info, contact Phil Compton! See you there! 

Phil Compton, Senior Organizing Representative
Sierra Club National Beyond Oil / Florida Healthy Air Campaign 
1990 Central Avenue    St. Petersburg, FL 33712
office: 727-824-8813, ext. 303      cell: 813-841-3601

Find out how you can help make our air healthier to breathe @ and

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Florida Wildlife Commission Decides No Black Bear Hunt in 2016

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissioners (FWC) on June 22nd rejected the recommendation by FWC staff to hold a modified hunt this year and approved Option 3 of four considered, postponing the black bear hunt until 2017.  Click here & scroll to page 8 for all 4 options considered.  

It was good news for Florida black bears, and a major victory for environmental and animal rights activists.  Sierra Club members joined thousands of Floridians who protested, made calls, and sent comments opposing the hunt. 

The vote was 4-3.  Voting in favor of postponing the hunt until 2017 were Ronald M. Bergeron, Brian Yablonski, Bo Rivard, and Robert A. Spottswood.  Voting for a hunt this year were Aliese P. "Liesa" Priddy, Richard Hanas, and Charles W. Roberts III. Information about the Commissioners and how to contact them can be found at this link.  

The FWC made it clear that it was delaying, not ending, its bear hunt in a news release following the vote. "Although the framework for bear hunting in Florida remains in place, there will be a zero hunt objective set for 2016 and the Commission could consider future bear hunting in 2017," said the FWC release.   

Sierra Club Florida Statement to the FWC Opposing Black Bear Hunting - 6/22/16:

Sierra Club Florida, representing 31,000 members from Pensacola to Key West, vigorously opposes hunting of Florida black bears. Sierra Club Florida joins millions of Florida citizens who are against the hunt.

We support the no hunt option being considered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

The survival of the Florida black bear is threatened by destruction and fragmentation of its habitat, hundreds of road collisions, and a diminished food supply. Hunting doesn’t just reduce bear numbers. When added to the other threats faced by bears, it increases the risk of the bears' extinction.

In March, Sierra Club Florida joined the Center for Biological Diversity, several other organizations, and nationally-prominent conservation biologists in a petition to the US Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Florida black bear as an endangered species. Our call to the federal government is to protect the bear from extinction, and our call to the state government is to provide more habitat to facilitate the full recovery of the black bear.

Last year we witnessed the heart-rending massacre of 304 Florida black bears over the course of just two days. FWC staff grossly miscalculated how easy it would be for hunters to find the bears and kill them. According to FWC’s own report, 59 percent of the bears killed statewide were females, while 21 percent of those were lactating females. We reject the false promises offered that the hunt will be carried out in a more humane and measured manner this year.

We believe that the impetus for hunting in Florida comes from the development industry and its supporters in government, including Governor Rick Scott. It is no secret that the Governor and his developer friends want to build new roads and cities across the state. And it’s no accident that the majority of the members of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission appointed by Governor Scott have major employment or financial interests in the development industry.

The Governor’s master plan would double the human population in Florida over the next few decades and move the new inhabitants to the rural and wild heartland of the state. It would open up existing black bear areas to intense development, leading to more road collisions and more conflicts with bears. It is the opposite of what needs to be done. What’s needed is to use documentary stamp dollars mandated by the voters in approving Amendment One to acquire the land needed to restore the black bear’s habitat.

The only beneficiary to expanded development and destruction of the heart of wild Florida will be the greedy developers and the political leaders who feed off their trough. The rest of us will suffer a diminished quality of life and the tourist industry that serves as the backbone of Florida’s economy will decline as wild Florida disappears.

Last year, the FWC staff stated that the goal of the hunt was to reduce the number of Florida Black Bears to sustain its population and it wasn’t intended to resolve conflicts between humans and bears. We find that argument disingenuous.  The demand for hunting was stimulated by bear-human conflicts, not overpopulation of the bears. It’s conflict reduction that’s needed, not a reduction of the number of bears, and there are several ways to do that. The best approach is to use Florida Forever funds to purchase land needed to restore the black bear’s natural habitat and to stop encroaching on that habitat through continued urban development and sprawl in Florida’s heartland. We also need to require bear proof garbage containers in residential communities adjacent to black bear areas, and we need to make sure that the bear’s food source in its natural habitat is plentiful and not threatened by human encroachment. 

There are currently 4,000 black bears and 20 million people in the state of Florida. That’s 5,000 people for every black bear. Certainly we can find a way to protect this population of bears that is much, much smaller than our own. We can protect the bears and let them live in peace in their native homeland.

Florida Sierra Club urges the FWC to adopt the no hunt option -- and to reject the other three options.


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Pinellas Moves Forward To Add New Zero Emission Electric Buses to Fleet

Victory! Members of the Tampa Bay Zero Emissions Coalition celebrate today's victory as
PSTA moves forward to add its 1st zero emission electric buses to its fleet of diesel and diesel hybrid buses. 
Now it's up to YOU to take the next step: Fill out Pinellas County's survey on how to spend its BP $$. Details below

(St. Petersburg) As dozens of supporters of electric buses looked on, the Board of Directors of PSTA today voted by a 12-2 margin to acquire its first ever zero emission electric buses - IF the Pinellas County Commission votes to allocate funds to PSTA for an on route charging system. 

What you can do now to get electric buses in Pinellas: Go to the Pinellas County BP survey today and ask for funding for electric bus charging infrastructure. Note that it meets the County’s top priority for allocation of BP funds, transportation, and that it also qualifies under the criteria of an innovative pilot program. What better way to use these funds, provided to the county as recompense for the economic damage done by the 2010 BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, than to provide the essential basis for the county’s transit system that show the community and its millions of visitors, in a very visible way, that we are moving away from our vulnerability to the oil industry, by switching to transportation that will never need any oil? Please act today - the deadline for online comments is Thursday, June 30. 

The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority board also directed staff to immediately issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for electric buses, and to include in the RFP the stipulation that applicants include an option for the lease of the battery (about 1/3 of the total cost of an electric bus). 

The RFP for electric buses came at the recommendation of members of the Tampa Bay Zero Emission Coalition, a Pinellas based group of 39 businesses, neighborhood associations, churches and non-profit organizations, which urged PSTA to start making the switch to electric buses in earnest by considering bus purchases in as thorough and serious a manner as it does the purchase of any type of equipment or service.  PSTA CEO Brad Miller told the board that he would get busy working on the RFP “as soon as this meeting adjourns”. 

In voting to start making the switch to electric, the board rejected staff’s recommendation that they purchase its first diesel buses since adopting a policy on sustainability that has resulted in the agency exclusively buying the cleanest running buses previously available, diesel hybrids, for the past 8 years. The board soundly rejected the Finance and Performance Committee’s recommendation to buy three new diesel and 2 electric buses, preferring County Commissioner Ken Welch’s Planning Committee recommendation to the board to instead buy 3 diesel hybrid and 2 electric buses.

The purpose of leasing the electric bus battery to is to shift about 1/3 of the capital expense of this type of bus from PSTA's limited capital funds to operating expenses, the area where electric buses save transit agencies hundreds of thousands of dollars over the life of a bus, due to their drastically reduced fuel and maintenance expense. The Tampa Bay Zero Emission Coalition recommended that PSTA buy 5 electric buses, as it is likely that the RFP with a battery lease option will clearly show that PSTA can, in fact, better afford electric buses than either diesel or diesel hybrid. 

The purchase of any electric buses is still contingent upon allocation of BP settlement funds by Pinellas County to PSTA for the express purpose of covering the cost of an on route quick charging system that would enable as many as nine electric buses to serve various routes in the same general area. Downtown St. Petersburg was identified by PSTA staff as the most feasible location to initiate zero emission electric bus service. Many on the board as well as citizens commented on the benefits to both riders and residents of the downtown area. Rebecca Falkenberry, owner of a townhouse in downtown St. Petersburg that PSTA diesel buses now drive past, told how she is now forced to spend $10,000 to soundproof her windows that she now must keep closed at all times to keep out noise and toxic diesel soot, issues that would both be completely eliminated by electric buses. 

PSTA’s vote means that, should the County Commission allocate funds for a one time purchase of electric charging infrastructure, PSTA will acquire its first two electric buses and put them in service by next year. Moreover, such an allocation would make it possible to acquire as many as seven additional electric buses that would all use the same charging system. The Pinellas County Commission is taking comments through June 30 via an online survey. Commissioner Ken Welch and other commissioners on the PSTA board encourage citizens to ask for funds for electric bus charging infrastructure, as it meets the County’s top priority, transportation, as well as meeting criteria for innovative pilot programs, using only about 9% of the County’s BP settlement funds. 

St. Petersburg citizen representative Ben Diamond questioned the procurement process that PSTA staff is following with regards to electric buses, with CEO Brad Miller revealing to the board for the first time that if the agency’s federal “Low/No” grant proposal to acquire funds for 5 electric buses fails (a likely outcome, considering the number of applicants nationally for extremely limited funds and the widespread desire to acquire electric buses) that it is his plan to develop a procurement process for electric buses. Miller stated he would do so “immediately following this meeting.” Having heard this explanation, and being assured that the RFP would include a request for the option to lease the electric bus battery, Commissioner Welch stated he would not amend his Planning Committee motion to include this stipulation, as this action would be taken immediately by staff. 

The Tampa Bay Zero Emissions Coalition led off two hours of public comment and discussion with the recommendation that PSTA issue an RFP for electric buses. While PSTA has had 4 electric bus manufacturers come by in the last year with their buses to show PSTA, it has never formally issued an RFP as is done as a matter of course with all procurements. The fact that PSTA staff made its case for acquiring its first new diesel buses in eight years solely on the basis of the premise that the agency could afford only diesel buses in order to not have to cut back on service, while failing to actually perform a routine, thorough review of all options available from electric bus manufacturers, makes one wonder how seriously PSTA staff has ever regarded the possibility of including electric buses in its fleet. Against the consensus expressed by the eighteen members of the public who spoke, as well as all 15 board members, that PSTA should move forward to electric buses, it is now clear to all that agency staff must now do what it has neglected to do for over a year: follow its standard business procurement practice, and end all negative, baseless speculation about what electric buses might cost, how well they might perform, etc. 

Over 50 supporters of electric buses packed the PSTA board room, many wearing red along with red stickers that read: “STOP Polluting Pinellas: Zero Emission Electric Buses Now!” Speakers included representatives of Chart 411, Environment Florida, Florida Food & Water Watch, Florida Consumer Action Network, The Electric Marina, as well as team members of the Sierra Club’s Florida Healthy Air Campaign. Greenpeace members wore red shirts that read “STOP Global Warming”. In addition to the coalition's letter to the board, the coalition presented petitions signed by 625 local residents. Despite fear by staff of their traditional tea party opponents, just one lone representative spoke against new, clean and quiet electric transportation technology.  

Sierra Club and its 38 allies in the Tampa Bay Zero Emission Coalition look forward to the day when modern, clean, quiet, oil and emission free transportation is available in Pinellas County. If you act now to complete the survey, that day can come next year. Do it today – the deadline for comments is just a week away: June 30

Phil Compton, Senior Organizing Representative
Sierra Club National Beyond Oil / Florida Healthy Air Campaign Lead Organizer
1990 Central Avenue    St. Petersburg, FL 33712
office: 727-824-8813, ext. 303      cell: 813-841-3601

Find out how you can help make our air healthier to breathe at 

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Tomorrow, June 22: Tell PSTA: Start the Switch Now to Clean, Quiet Zero Emission Electric Buses!

PSTA Votes Wednesday Morning on Electric Buses

PSTA (the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority) votes Wednesday June 22 on whether to buy new diesel buses or new zero emission electric buses. Sierra Club and the Tampa Bay Zero Emission Coalition support the addition of zero emission electric buses to PSTA’s fleet. 

What you can do right now to help:
  • Sign the community petition to PSTA to ask them to start making the switch this year to zero emission electric buses. 
  • Attend PSTA’s June 22 Board of Directors meeting and tell them face to face to make the switch to electric buses this year. Wear red to help tell PSTA to STOP Polluting Pinellas with toxic diesel emissions. The Board will vote on its 2016 bus purchase at its 9:00 am meeting. PSTA is at 3201 Scherer Drive, St. Petersburg, 33716 – behind the St. Petersburg Clearwater Marriott on Roosevelt.
  • If you represent a business or community organization, join the Tampa Bay Zero Emission Coalition by signing our community letter to PSTA asking it to start making the switch now to zero emission electric buses. Email for the letter. Thanks to the 39 local businesses, neighborhood associations and organizations who have joined the Coalition. 
  • Call and email PSTA board members today and ask them directly yourself to make the switch this year to zero emission electric buses. You can find contact information for all 15 board members at
  • And after the June 22 Board meeting: Tell the County Commission to help PSTA make the switch with funding from the BP oil disaster settlement for electric bus charging infrastructure, a one-time cost that can make it possible for PSTA to run up to 9 electric buses in downtown St. Pete that would all take turns charging at the same centrally located station.
Why make the switch to electric buses?
They provide a totally different experience for riders: clean, quiet and safe. Passengers find they can carry on a conversation, and neighbors don't hear or smell them as they go by. No more toxic diesel soot! 

They help preserve Pinellas County's future as they cut net greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, even including today’s sources of electricity, coal and natural gas: 270,000 pounds of carbon/year compared to diesel or natural gas. Over the 12 year life of an electric bus, their overall net pollution will decline towards zero as utilities like Duke Energy add more solar power to their grid.

They slash fuel and maintenance cost, giving them the lowest overall cost of ownership of
any bus. As with any electric vehicle, there’s far less to maintain, so PSTA staff will be more certain they’re keeping all buses in the fleet running safely at all times.

And they reduce the demand for oil that today drives oil companies to continue to push to drill for oil off Florida’s beaches, both the Gulf and the Atlantic. The surest way to end the push for offshore drilling is to reduce our demand for oil. Electric buses never use any oil, period.

What is an electric bus? A bus that, rather than run on diesel or compressed natural gas, uses electricity to power a battery. This means no gasoline, no dirty oil changes, no internal combustion engine, no dirty diesel exhaust, and no greenhouse gas emissions.  They charge up in anywhere between five and 360 minutes and go between 30 and 195 miles between charges, depending on the model.

Zero emission buses already provide a clean and quiet way to get around in noisy cities like:
  1. Worcester, MA
  2. Seattle, WA
  3. New York City
  4. Transit systems in Los Angeles area, including Antelope Valley, Palm Springs.
  5. Tallahassee, FL
  6. Philadelphia, PA
  7. Dallas, TX
  8. San Antonio, Texas
  9. Louisville, KY
  10. Lexington, KY
  11. Nashville, TN
  12. Seneca/Clemson, SC
  13. Duluth, MN
  14. And the University of Montana in Missoula. 
  15. As well as cities all over the world, including China, where 170,000 electric buses are fighting smog and climate change today. 

Thanks for asking PSTA to start making the switch now to clean, quiet, safe electric buses. New buses, either polluting diesels or pollution-free electrics, will be on our streets until the 2030s. Let's make the right choice for our future now! 

For more information, contact Sierra Club’s Florida Healthy Air Campaign at 727-824-8813, ext. 303, or email

Phil Compton, Senior Organizing Representative
Sierra Club National Beyond Oil / Florida Healthy Air Campaign Lead Organizer
1990 Central Avenue    St. Petersburg, FL 33712       727-824-8813, ext. 303    

Find out more about how you can help make our air healthier to breathe at