This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency posted the 2016 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) data online. While there are positive trends in the type of data included and the ways that data are measured, the general picture is of an industry with many remaining opportunities to reduce emissions. The GHGRP is an emissions reporting […]

The post What’s new for the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program? appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By David Lyon

This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency posted the 2016 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) data online. While there are positive trends in the type of data included and the ways that data are measured, the general picture is of an industry with many remaining opportunities to reduce emissions.

The GHGRP is an emissions reporting program for large facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) of methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The data provided by the GHGRP are invaluable for understanding the sectors and sources responsible for GHG emissions and can guide the design of effective policies for reducing emissions.

Additionally, EPA has been incorporating GHGRP data into the Greenhouse Gas Inventory, an annual report that estimates U.S. GHG emissions. In 2016, 7,631 facilities reported emitting almost 3 billion MT CO2e GHGs. After power plants, which are responsible for 63% of reported emissions, the oil and gas (O&G) sector is the largest source of GHG emissions. This year there are three major changes to the reporting protocols for oil and gas facilities.

Onshore production facilities now identify individual wells

Onshore production facilities are defined by the GHGRP as all of an operator’s well pads in a geologic basin. This made it difficult to match up GHGRP data to individual wells, especially since companies are constantly acquiring, divesting, drilling, and shutting in wells. Starting this year, onshore production facilities must include a list of individual wells identified by unique API identification numbers. This will make it much easier to link and compare GHGRP data with other data sources like Drillinginfo. Inclusion of the API well numbers is a great step for increasing the transparency and value of the reporting program data. For example, we now know that 450,000 wells, about half the U.S. population, report emissions to the GHGRP.

Transmission pipeline facilities report emissions for the first time

When compressor stations and pipelines require maintenance, it is often necessary to remove pressurized natural gas from equipment for safety reasons; this gas is often vented to the atmosphere as a “blowdown”. Previously, transmission stations had to report blowdown emissions if they vented from within the station fence line, but not the pipeline between stations. Transmission pipelines are now considered separate facilities from the stations and operators must report blowdown emissions if they exceed the reporting threshold. In 2016, 26 transmission pipeline facilities reported emissions from over 9,000 blowdowns.  Astonishingly, these blowdown emissions were greater than the entire reported emissions from transmission stations. This indicates the importance of implementing mitigation actions for capturing or preventing pipeline blowdown emissions, such as lowering gas line pressure before maintenance.

Gathering and boosting facilities report emissions for the first time

Gathering and boosting facilities are a network of pipelines and compressor stations that collect gas from multiple wells and transport it to processing plants or transmission pipelines. For the GHGRP, gathering and boosting facilities are defined as all of a company’s gathering pipelines and stations in a geologic basin. Initially excluded from the GHGRP, there were 299 gathering and boosting facilities reporting almost one million metric tons of methane emissions in 2016, or 25% of the total reported methane emissions from the O&G sector. It is no surprise that gathering emissions are large:  the CSU/EDF gathering and processing study estimated that the entire U.S. gathering sector emits 1.9 million metric tons of methane. The three biggest emission sources – storage tanks, equipment leaks, and pneumatic devices – account for 75% of reported emissions. Luckily, there are proven mitigation options for these sources that can help reduce emissions from this important sector.

EPA continues to make progress on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The change in reporting protocols, including the new addition of gathering and transmission pipeline facilities, complicates a year-to-year comparison of the data. From 2015 to 2016, reported oil and gas methane emissions increased 37% from 2.8 to 3.8 million metric tons CH4, but this increase was mainly caused by the addition of these new sources. If you exclude these sources, there has only been a 3% decrease in O&G methane emissions – the biggest reductions have been from liquids unloading and associated gas venting and flaring.  Given that oil and gas liquids production has decreased by 6% in the same time period, we would hope that emissions would decrease at least a similar rate. Although some companies have made progress reducing emissions, the industry as whole needs to increase their efforts at mitigating methane emissions.

The most recent release of data reflect helpful updates to the data from the oil and natural gas sector, and we encourage EPA to continue to make changes to increase the accuracy of its reporting protocols, such as requiring greater use of direct measurements instead of emission factors.

By David Lyon

This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency posted the 2016 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) data online. While there are positive trends in the type of data included and the ways that data are measured, the general picture is of an industry with many remaining opportunities to reduce emissions.

The GHGRP is an emissions reporting program for large facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) of methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The data provided by the GHGRP are invaluable for understanding the sectors and sources responsible for GHG emissions and can guide the design of effective policies for reducing emissions.

Additionally, EPA has been incorporating GHGRP data into the Greenhouse Gas Inventory, an annual report that estimates U.S. GHG emissions. In 2016, 7,631 facilities reported emitting almost 3 billion MT CO2e GHGs. After power plants, which are responsible for 63% of reported emissions, the oil and gas (O&G) sector is the largest source of GHG emissions. This year there are three major changes to the reporting protocols for oil and gas facilities.

Onshore production facilities now identify individual wells

Onshore production facilities are defined by the GHGRP as all of an operator’s well pads in a geologic basin. This made it difficult to match up GHGRP data to individual wells, especially since companies are constantly acquiring, divesting, drilling, and shutting in wells. Starting this year, onshore production facilities must include a list of individual wells identified by unique API identification numbers. This will make it much easier to link and compare GHGRP data with other data sources like Drillinginfo. Inclusion of the API well numbers is a great step for increasing the transparency and value of the reporting program data. For example, we now know that 450,000 wells, about half the U.S. population, report emissions to the GHGRP.

Transmission pipeline facilities report emissions for the first time

When compressor stations and pipelines require maintenance, it is often necessary to remove pressurized natural gas from equipment for safety reasons; this gas is often vented to the atmosphere as a “blowdown”. Previously, transmission stations had to report blowdown emissions if they vented from within the station fence line, but not the pipeline between stations. Transmission pipelines are now considered separate facilities from the stations and operators must report blowdown emissions if they exceed the reporting threshold. In 2016, 26 transmission pipeline facilities reported emissions from over 9,000 blowdowns.  Astonishingly, these blowdown emissions were greater than the entire reported emissions from transmission stations. This indicates the importance of implementing mitigation actions for capturing or preventing pipeline blowdown emissions, such as lowering gas line pressure before maintenance.

Gathering and boosting facilities report emissions for the first time

Gathering and boosting facilities are a network of pipelines and compressor stations that collect gas from multiple wells and transport it to processing plants or transmission pipelines. For the GHGRP, gathering and boosting facilities are defined as all of a company’s gathering pipelines and stations in a geologic basin. Initially excluded from the GHGRP, there were 299 gathering and boosting facilities reporting almost one million metric tons of methane emissions in 2016, or 25% of the total reported methane emissions from the O&G sector. It is no surprise that gathering emissions are large:  the CSU/EDF gathering and processing study estimated that the entire U.S. gathering sector emits 1.9 million metric tons of methane. The three biggest emission sources – storage tanks, equipment leaks, and pneumatic devices – account for 75% of reported emissions. Luckily, there are proven mitigation options for these sources that can help reduce emissions from this important sector.

EPA continues to make progress on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The change in reporting protocols, including the new addition of gathering and transmission pipeline facilities, complicates a year-to-year comparison of the data. From 2015 to 2016, reported oil and gas methane emissions increased 37% from 2.8 to 3.8 million metric tons CH4, but this increase was mainly caused by the addition of these new sources. If you exclude these sources, there has only been a 3% decrease in O&G methane emissions – the biggest reductions have been from liquids unloading and associated gas venting and flaring.  Given that oil and gas liquids production has decreased by 6% in the same time period, we would hope that emissions would decrease at least a similar rate. Although some companies have made progress reducing emissions, the industry as whole needs to increase their efforts at mitigating methane emissions.

The most recent release of data reflect helpful updates to the data from the oil and natural gas sector, and we encourage EPA to continue to make changes to increase the accuracy of its reporting protocols, such as requiring greater use of direct measurements instead of emission factors.

By attempting to repeal America's Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are casting the future of our world into great jeopardy. MCAF. C3. Regional.

By attempting to repeal America's Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are casting the future of our world into great jeopardy. MCAF. C3. Regional.

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

Safe drinking water largely depends on the integrity of the public water system and the vigilance of the state regulatory agency. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the standards, conducts the research, and oversees the state regulatory agencies. As we saw in Flint, Michigan, these protections break down when the state regulatory agency fails to identify and address potential compliance issues. Criminal charges have been filed against both state and local officials.

The Flint tragedy prompted EPA to send letters in February 2016 to governors and state agencies reminding of them of their responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act and asking for a meeting with each state to discuss concerns and a written response to key compliance challenges under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). EPA posted the state responses online.

The tap sampling required under the LCR is critical since it triggers treatment of the water for small and medium systems and public education and lead service line replacement for all systems if treatment is insufficient. Given this central role, the LCR requires water systems to take water samples from the taps of properties most likely to have lead. For small and medium systems, single family homes with lead service lines are a top priority.

The sampling requirement is challenging since it depends on the cooperation of the resident to let the water stagnate in the lines for at least six hours and then take a first draw sample before anyone uses the water. Residents may need an incentive to cooperate, especially over many years.

A disturbing, three-part investigative report by WebMD and Georgia Health News provided insight into potential shortcomings by utilities that are likely to underestimate the levels. It also highlights Georgia’s apparent failure to identify the problems. The investigators checked on changes in the sampling sites over the years and looked up the sampling locations to determine if they fit the criteria laid out in EPA’s rule. It is an impressive deep dive into LCR compliance sampling issues.

Working from Georgia’s March 2016 response to EPA’s letter, the reporters reviewed the lead testing records for community water systems serving at least 10,000 people. Of these 105 community water systems:

• 58 (55%) tested some sites at lower risk for lead problems instead of focusing solely on those at highest risk. EPA’s LCR allows these lower risk sites to be tested when all of the higher risk sites had been eliminated: an unlikely situation.
• 49 (46%) labelled some lower-risk sites as higher risk, giving the misleading appearance that they were following the law. The reporters could not find evidence that the state had identified the problems.

Some examples to illustrate the extent of the compliance issues:

• The Northeast Georgia town of Demorest tested 30 addresses for lead in 2015. Only 10 were homes. Others included a hair salon, convenience stores, two doctors’ offices, a fire house, metal fabricator, a well driller, the police department and City Hall. Commercial sites may only be tests if there are no high-risk homes.
• The Southwest Georgia city of Albany tested seven businesses for lead but labeled them on test forms as single-family homes.
• The Notla Water Authority tested a gas station, a marina boathouse, and a service garage owned by the Water Authority, but labeled them as private homes.

The report noted that EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) asked state officials to explain how they “ensure that the high-risk homes are sampled for lead,” and about other challenges with lead sampling.

WebMD and Georgia Health News have provided us with critical information from this investigative report. Until there is a similar review in other states, it is difficult to say with confidence whether water systems in other states are also falling short of their regulatory obligations and whether state agencies are ensuring compliance.

One challenge faced by state drinking water programs is insufficient funding to effectively oversee the compliance of the LCR and other rules for 152,000 public water systems. In December 2013, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators estimated that states collectively needed 60% more funding to have a basic program. To ensure that drinking water is safe, we need adequate funding of state programs and vigilance within communities water systems.

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director Safe drinking water largely depends on the integrity of the public water system and the vigilance of the state regulatory agency. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the standards, conducts the research, and oversees the state regulatory agencies. As we saw in Flint, Michigan, these protections break down […]

New Mexico's Public Education Department recently unveiled proposed Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with politicized edits that would omit references to evolution, rising global temperatures, and the age of the earth. MCAF. C3. Regional.

New Mexico's Public Education Department recently unveiled proposed Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with politicized edits that would omit references to evolution, rising global temperatures, and the age of the earth. MCAF. C3. Regional.

New Mexico's Public Education Department recently unveiled proposed Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with politicized edits that would omit references to evolution, rising global temperatures, and the age of the earth. MCAF. C3. Regional.

2017 is on track to be one of the worst years for wildfires in the U.S. on record. President Trump's proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency would make matters worse. Regional. C4.

By Lauren Navarro

Lawmakers recently addressed many critical issues for California: the housing shortage, parks bond, and early on in this year’s legislative session, climate change.

We urge Governor Brown to sign the important pieces of clean energy legislation that made it to his desk, including AB 1239 to support electric vehicle charging and AB 523 to protect clean energy funding for disadvantaged communities).

We are thrilled about three recent enactments: AB 1400 disallows Energy Commission funding of diesel generators in microgrids, and SB 242 and AB 1284, which standardize best practice guidelines for third parties administering Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) projects that finance energy efficiency upgrades or renewables installation for homes and businesses.

However, we can’t help but note that the biggest issues in electricity were left on the table to be further developed and voted on this fall and in 2018: SB 100, and AB 813. This extra time will give us the full, transparent, and deliberate legislative process that stakeholders were looking for in the last few weeks of session. So, what would these bills do?

Two important clean energy bills

• SB 100, authored by Sen. Kevin de León, would have increased the state’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (the amount of electricity utilities have to provide with renewables) from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030 and created a 100 percent renewables and zero-carbon electricity policy target for 2045. Updating this policy is important because the state is well ahead of meeting its current goal of 50 percent renewables by 2030, with the major utilities on target to reach an average of 43 percent by 2020. If we don’t raise the target, it could lead to a slowdown in clean energy development and the sector’s associated jobs.
• AB 813, authored by Assemblymember Chris Holden, was introduced very late in the legislative session and would have integrated our electric grid with other states. With more legislative deliberation, an integrated Western energy grid can help California meet existing and future clean energy goals by creating a broader footprint in which California utilities could easily trade electricity with their counterparts in other western states with high levels of renewables. California has a considerable amount of solar power, largely only available when the sun is shining. When the sun sets, electricity has to come from somewhere else – and just as California could sell its excess solar to other states, these states can help fill in the gaps for California. In doing so, California can help its nearby neighbors meet their climate and clean energy goals at a lower cost, while saving money for its citizens.

These policies would not only help secure California’s position as the North Star of policies that promote clean energy and policies that combat climate change, but would directly help the people of California, as well.

The two clean energy bills that could take California’s climate action to the next level
Click To Tweet

Increasing clean energy goals brings major benefits

Pursuing large, ambitious clean energy policies could continue to benefit the Golden State in the following ways: 

California’s clean energy targets have fostered billions of dollars of economic activity in our state.

• Keeping our energy system affordable by taking steps to better integrate renewables, like connecting the Western grid. Californians pay less for electricity each month compared to people in all but seven other U.S. states, but our monthly bills matter to us. So, to keep costs low, SB 100 includes language to prevent unreasonable bill impacts. Renewables are already cost-competitive with fossil-fuel energy resources, and because their fuels come from the wind and the sun, their prices don’t go up and down, avoiding the price spikes associated with fossil fuels. But how they are built into the grid influences how they affect our costs. This is why connecting our grid with utilities in nearby states is so important. In combination with solutions like demand response and energy storage, sharing energy with our neighbors can help us bring more renewables online at a lower cost.
• Clean energy creates jobs. While organized labor opposed SB 100 very late in the legislative session, they had been supportive during the rest of year for a good reason. California’s clean energy targets have fostered billions of dollars of economic activity in our state, and hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. Now is not the time to give up on defining the next step of this policy, but instead, to keep working towards strong clean energy legislation that creates good, clean jobs and elevates our economy.
• Cleaner air for Californians. Renewables help to reduce pollution, even as they create jobs. Moving to an electric grid that relies on higher amounts of renewable resources, that are integrated well, will reduce harmful fossil-fuel pollution in California. As we move forward on these polices, we need to ensure local job benefits and that emissions from fossil fuel power plants go down swiftly in California’s pollution hotspots.

Fortunately, we are entering the second year of a two-year legislative session, and have another year to set a high target for clean energy. There are vital issues to work out amongst stakeholders, and we should focus on finding solutions, something embedded in Environmental Defense Fund’s DNA. Empowered by those solutions, California will once again rise as a clean energy leader.

Lawmakers recently addressed many critical issues for California: the housing shortage, parks bond, and early on in this year’s legislative session, climate change. We urge Governor Brown to sign the important pieces of clean energy legislation that made it to his desk, including AB 1239 to support electric vehicle charging and AB 523 to protect […]

Lawmakers recently addressed many critical issues for California: the housing shortage, parks bond, and early on in this year’s legislative session, climate change. We urge Governor Brown to sign the important pieces of clean energy legislation that made it to his desk, including AB 1239 to support electric vehicle charging and AB 523 to protect […]

Lawmakers recently addressed many critical issues for California: the housing shortage, parks bond, and early on in this year’s legislative session, climate change. We urge Governor Brown to sign the important pieces of clean energy legislation that made it to his desk, including AB 1239 to support electric vehicle charging and AB 523 to protect […]

By Lauren Navarro

Lawmakers recently addressed many critical issues for California: the housing shortage, parks bond, and early on in this year’s legislative session, climate change.

We urge Governor Brown to sign the important pieces of clean energy legislation that made it to his desk, including AB 1239 to support electric vehicle charging and AB 523 to protect clean energy funding for disadvantaged communities).

We are thrilled about three recent enactments: AB 1400 disallows Energy Commission funding of diesel generators in microgrids, and SB 242 and AB 1284, which standardize best practice guidelines for third parties administering Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) projects that finance energy efficiency upgrades or renewables installation for homes and businesses.

However, we can’t help but note that the biggest issues in electricity were left on the table to be further developed and voted on this fall and in 2018: SB 100, and AB 813. This extra time will give us the full, transparent, and deliberate legislative process that stakeholders were looking for in the last few weeks of session. So, what would these bills do?

Two important clean energy bills

• SB 100, authored by Sen. Kevin de León, would have increased the state’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (the amount of electricity utilities have to provide with renewables) from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030 and created a 100 percent renewables and zero-carbon electricity policy target for 2045. Updating this policy is important because the state is well ahead of meeting its current goal of 50 percent renewables by 2030, with the major utilities on target to reach an average of 43 percent by 2020. If we don’t raise the target, it could lead to a slowdown in clean energy development and the sector’s associated jobs.
• AB 813, authored by Assemblymember Chris Holden, was introduced very late in the legislative session and would have integrated our electric grid with other states. With more legislative deliberation, an integrated Western energy grid can help California meet existing and future clean energy goals by creating a broader footprint in which California utilities could easily trade electricity with their counterparts in other western states with high levels of renewables. California has a considerable amount of solar power, largely only available when the sun is shining. When the sun sets, electricity has to come from somewhere else – and just as California could sell its excess solar to other states, these states can help fill in the gaps for California. In doing so, California can help its nearby neighbors meet their climate and clean energy goals at a lower cost, while saving money for its citizens.

These policies would not only help secure California’s position as the North Star of policies that promote clean energy and policies that combat climate change, but would directly help the people of California, as well.

The two clean energy bills that could take California’s climate action to the next level
Click To Tweet

Increasing clean energy goals brings major benefits

Pursuing large, ambitious clean energy policies could continue to benefit the Golden State in the following ways: 

California’s clean energy targets have fostered billions of dollars of economic activity in our state.

• Keeping our energy system affordable by taking steps to better integrate renewables, like connecting the Western grid. Californians pay less for electricity each month compared to people in all but seven other U.S. states, but our monthly bills matter to us. So, to keep costs low, SB 100 includes language to prevent unreasonable bill impacts. Renewables are already cost-competitive with fossil-fuel energy resources, and because their fuels come from the wind and the sun, their prices don’t go up and down, avoiding the price spikes associated with fossil fuels. But how they are built into the grid influences how they affect our costs. This is why connecting our grid with utilities in nearby states is so important. In combination with solutions like demand response and energy storage, sharing energy with our neighbors can help us bring more renewables online at a lower cost.
• Clean energy creates jobs. While organized labor opposed SB 100 very late in the legislative session, they had been supportive during the rest of year for a good reason. California’s clean energy targets have fostered billions of dollars of economic activity in our state, and hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. Now is not the time to give up on defining the next step of this policy, but instead, to keep working towards strong clean energy legislation that creates good, clean jobs and elevates our economy.
• Cleaner air for Californians. Renewables help to reduce pollution, even as they create jobs. Moving to an electric grid that relies on higher amounts of renewable resources, that are integrated well, will reduce harmful fossil-fuel pollution in California. As we move forward on these polices, we need to ensure local job benefits and that emissions from fossil fuel power plants go down swiftly in California’s pollution hotspots.

Fortunately, we are entering the second year of a two-year legislative session, and have another year to set a high target for clean energy. There are vital issues to work out amongst stakeholders, and we should focus on finding solutions, something embedded in Environmental Defense Fund’s DNA. Empowered by those solutions, California will once again rise as a clean energy leader.

By Martha Roberts

Today, a draft proposal emerged of the latest step in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attack on clean air and climate security – a proposal to revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from power plants.

The proposal offers no commitment to do anything to address dangerous carbon pollution from existing power plants – our nation’s largest industrial source of this harmful pollution.

Here are five key takeaways from the proposal that emerged today.

1. Devaluing the health and well-being of all Americans

The Clean Power Plan would deliver tremendous benefits to American communities by reducing harmful pollution. For example, EPA estimates the Clean Power Plan will prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 childhood asthma attacks every year once it is fully implemented.

But in a vivid example of how little Administrator Pruitt prioritizes public health, this proposal uses discredited methods to justify the view that premature deaths and other significant health impacts from harmful air pollution don’t exist and don’t matter. It even undercuts the harms we face from carbon pollution by using methods at odds with leading experts, including the National Academy of Sciences.

Administrator Pruitt is trying to paint over the fact that undoing the Clean Power Plan will expose Americans to dirtier air, and will delay urgently needed action to address climate change.

Asthma attacks, heart attacks, floods and storm surges, wildfires, droughts, and heat waves hurt real people. EPA has a responsibility to protect the public — but Pruitt has made a priority of protecting the fossil fuel interests that have propelled his political career.

2. Repeal-without-replace

Across America, the past weeks of extreme weather have provided a tragic reminder of the threats we face from climate change. Hurricanes exacerbated by climate change – like Maria, Harvey, and Irma – have left millions reeling, with lives lost and communities profoundly disrupted for years to come.

Yet the draft proposal makes no commitment to protect Americans from dangerous climate change. Instead it “continues to consider” whether to protect Americans from carbon pollution from existing power plants (ignoring settled law that EPA must issue safeguards against climate pollution under the Clean Air Act – as the Supreme Court has already concluded three times.)

Administrator Pruitt chastised others for asking about climate change after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma hit, saying the timing was “insensitive.” But at that same time, he was working to roll back our nation’s most significant effort to protect Americans from climate change.

3. America should be moving ahead on clean power – not going backwards

Power market trends are moving towards cleaner power sources, creating jobs and shared economic prosperity across the country.

More and more evidence shows that achieving the Clean Power Plan’s goals will be even cheaper than expected. Yet Administrator Pruitt’s draft uses accounting gimmicks to claim costs would somehow be higher than originally anticipated.

If anything, the Clean Power Plan’s targets should be stronger. But Administrator Pruitt now seems to be pulling out the stops to shield polluting power plants from taking any steps to reduce their harmful impacts.

4. Who benefits? Pruitt’s political allies

Scott Pruitt built his political career by suing relentlessly to block EPA safeguards, including the Clean Power Plan.

Pruitt’s campaigns and political organizations received extensive contributions from Clean Power Plan opponents, including $25,000 from coal company Murray Energy just one month before the Clean Power Plan oral argument.

Those Clean Power Plan opponents now stand to benefit from this draft proposal – at the expense of the health and safety of American families.

5. Americans speak out for the Clean Power Plan

When President Trump issued an executive order in March that threatened to roll back the Clean Power Plan, Americans across the country responded with an outpouring of support.

Groups supporting the Clean Power Plan included: faith organizations; health associations; at least 75 mayors, state governors, and attorneys general representing nearly half the U.S. population; power companies; and leading companies like Apple, General Electric, and Walmart.

A similarly broad and diverse coalition has been defending the Clean Power Plan in court –including eighteen states and sixty municipalities across the country; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; consumer and ratepayer advocates; and many others.

In a recent nationwide poll, almost 70 percent of Americans expressed support for strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants – including a majority of Americans in every Congressional district in the country.

Please join us to fight for the Clean Power Plan. You can take action here.

Today, a draft proposal emerged of the latest step in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attack on clean air and climate security – a proposal to revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The proposal offers no commitment to do anything to address dangerous carbon […]

Today, a draft proposal emerged of the latest step in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attack on clean air and climate security – a proposal to revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The proposal offers no commitment to do anything to address dangerous carbon […]