An announcement last week from one of the country’s largest natural gas producers may have a major positive impact on revenue and clean air in New Mexico. XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil that made a $6 billion investment in acreage in New Mexico’s Permian Basin earlier this year, has now announced a set of commitments to […]

(This post was co-authored by EDF’s Rama Zakaria) Secretary of Energy Rick Perry today announced a sweeping and unprecedented proposal to pay coal and nuclear power plants, a move that would increase electricity bills and climate pollution for Americans. The proposal would impose a new cost on all electric ratepayers that would be paid primarily […]

The post DOE seeks unprecedented action to exempt coal from competitive markets appeared first on Climate 411.

By Sharyn Stein

(This post was co-authored by EDF’s Rama Zakaria)

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry today announced a sweeping and unprecedented proposal to pay coal and nuclear power plants, a move that would increase electricity bills and climate pollution for Americans.

The proposal would impose a new cost on all electric ratepayers that would be paid primarily to owners of coal plants, undercutting billions of dollars of investment by people risking their capital to compete in and transform our energy markets.

The decision, based on mischaracterized reliability concerns, ignores a recent Department of Energy (DOE) report Secretary Perry commissioned that found no reliability concern. The report’s finding is consistent with voluminous literature and evidence that concludes there are no signs of deteriorating reliability on the grid today, and cleaner resources and new technologies being brought online are strengthening reliability.

DOE’s proposal will increase electricity bills and hurt American families

DOE’s proposal provides cost recovery for uneconomic baseload generators such as coal-fired power plants at the expense of Americans’ electricity bills, families and communities’ health, and the environment.

Cost recovery, put simply, means that no matter how expensive coal-fired power gets Americans must foot the bill. No matter how old, expensive, or dirty a coal plant may be, it would be paid to remain online at the expense of cleaner, newer, and less expensive energy resources.

Such regulatory intervention would stand in the way of an economic and efficient electric grid required by law and would impose massive financial losses on the companies that have been investing to build a new and lower cost power system.

Multiple studies have already shown that coal generators that are retiring are old, inefficient units that are relatively expensive to operate. According to one study, coal units that announced plans to retire between 2010 and 2015 were 57 years old – well past their intended life span of 40 years. These units are not retiring prematurely; they are retiring because they are unable to compete against cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner resources.

As Secretary Perry’s own report stated, coal retirements are primarily driven by low natural gas prices. Yet with this proposal, DOE again appears determined to ignore competitive market forces and instead attempt to bail out coal-fired power plants, no matter the cost to Americans. Not only would this increase electricity bills for the public but also unnecessarily expose the public to dangerous and harmful air pollution.

The costly solution to a non-existent problem

A wide range of literature, including DOE’s own baseload study, confirm that electric reliability remains strong and bulk power system resilience continues to improve. Yet, DOE ignores its own findings and suggests that coal bailouts are needed for reliability and resiliency. Not only is DOE trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, it is doing so by forcing ratepayers to pay for a solution that doesn’t work.

DOE’s proposal would compensate coal units for a 90-day on-site fuel supply, yet just recently we saw in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey that W.A. Parish, one of America’s largest coal plants, was forced to shutter two of its units after its coal piles were flooded. Indeed, available data indicates that coal plants fail more than any other resource.

In contrast, clean energy resources are increasingly demonstrating their ability to support reliable electric service at times of severe stress on the grid. For instance, wind energy contributed critical power during Hurricane Harvey. In another example, during the 2014 polar vortex – when frozen coal stock piles led to coal plant failures – wind and demand response resources were increasingly called upon to help maintain reliability.

Cleaner resources and new technologies boost grid reliability and resiliency

Many studies have highlighted the valuable reliability services that emerging new technologies, such as electric storage, can provide. DOE’s own report found that cleaner resources and emerging new technologies are creating options and opportunities and providing a new toolbox for maintaining reliability in the modern power system.

FERC has also long recognized the valuable grid services that emerging new technologies could provide. From its order on demand response to its order on frequency regulation compensation, FERC recognized the value of fast and accurate response resources in cost-effectively meeting grid reliability needs. More recently, FERC’s ancillary service reforms recognize that, with advances in technologies, variable energy resources such as wind are increasingly capable of providing reliability services such as reactive power.

Any action should allow all technologies to compete to provide the least-cost solution to a reliable and resilient grid

Essential Reliability Services, such as frequency and voltage support, are already being procured today to meet grid reliability needs. For instance, frequency regulation is procured as part of the ancillary services markets. These markets allow all resources to compete and to provide the necessary grid services at least cost to Americans.

FERC should ensure that any additional action taken in response to DOE’s proposal continues to be fuel-neutral, non-discriminatory and in-market. By doing so, Americans can not only have reliable and affordable electricity but can also reap the benefits of cleaner and healthier environment.

By Sharyn Stein

(This post was co-authored by EDF’s Rama Zakaria)

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry today announced a sweeping and unprecedented proposal to pay coal and nuclear power plants, a move that would increase electricity bills and climate pollution for Americans.

The proposal would impose a new cost on all electric ratepayers that would be paid primarily to owners of coal plants, undercutting billions of dollars of investment by people risking their capital to compete in and transform our energy markets.

The decision, based on mischaracterized reliability concerns, ignores a recent Department of Energy (DOE) report Secretary Perry commissioned that found no reliability concern. The report’s finding is consistent with voluminous literature and evidence that concludes there are no signs of deteriorating reliability on the grid today, and cleaner resources and new technologies being brought online are strengthening reliability.

DOE’s proposal will increase electricity bills and hurt American families

DOE’s proposal provides cost recovery for uneconomic baseload generators such as coal-fired power plants at the expense of Americans’ electricity bills, families and communities’ health, and the environment.

Cost recovery, put simply, means that no matter how expensive coal-fired power gets Americans must foot the bill. No matter how old, expensive, or dirty a coal plant may be, it would be paid to remain online at the expense of cleaner, newer, and less expensive energy resources.

Such regulatory intervention would stand in the way of an economic and efficient electric grid required by law and would impose massive financial losses on the companies that have been investing to build a new and lower cost power system.

Multiple studies have already shown that coal generators that are retiring are old, inefficient units that are relatively expensive to operate. According to one study, coal units that announced plans to retire between 2010 and 2015 were 57 years old – well past their intended life span of 40 years. These units are not retiring prematurely; they are retiring because they are unable to compete against cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner resources.

As Secretary Perry’s own report stated, coal retirements are primarily driven by low natural gas prices. Yet with this proposal, DOE again appears determined to ignore competitive market forces and instead attempt to bail out coal-fired power plants, no matter the cost to Americans. Not only would this increase electricity bills for the public but also unnecessarily expose the public to dangerous and harmful air pollution.

The costly solution to a non-existent problem

A wide range of literature, including DOE’s own baseload study, confirm that electric reliability remains strong and bulk power system resilience continues to improve. Yet, DOE ignores its own findings and suggests that coal bailouts are needed for reliability and resiliency. Not only is DOE trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, it is doing so by forcing ratepayers to pay for a solution that doesn’t work.

DOE’s proposal would compensate coal units for a 90-day on-site fuel supply, yet just recently we saw in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey that W.A. Parish, one of America’s largest coal plants, was forced to shutter two of its units after its coal piles were flooded. Indeed, available data indicates that coal plants fail more than any other resource.

In contrast, clean energy resources are increasingly demonstrating their ability to support reliable electric service at times of severe stress on the grid. For instance, wind energy contributed critical power during Hurricane Harvey. In another example, during the 2014 polar vortex – when frozen coal stock piles led to coal plant failures – wind and demand response resources were increasingly called upon to help maintain reliability.

Cleaner resources and new technologies boost grid reliability and resiliency

Many studies have highlighted the valuable reliability services that emerging new technologies, such as electric storage, can provide. DOE’s own report found that cleaner resources and emerging new technologies are creating options and opportunities and providing a new toolbox for maintaining reliability in the modern power system.

FERC has also long recognized the valuable grid services that emerging new technologies could provide. From its order on demand response to its order on frequency regulation compensation, FERC recognized the value of fast and accurate response resources in cost-effectively meeting grid reliability needs. More recently, FERC’s ancillary service reforms recognize that, with advances in technologies, variable energy resources such as wind are increasingly capable of providing reliability services such as reactive power.

Any action should allow all technologies to compete to provide the least-cost solution to a reliable and resilient grid

Essential Reliability Services, such as frequency and voltage support, are already being procured today to meet grid reliability needs. For instance, frequency regulation is procured as part of the ancillary services markets. These markets allow all resources to compete and to provide the necessary grid services at least cost to Americans.

FERC should ensure that any additional action taken in response to DOE’s proposal continues to be fuel-neutral, non-discriminatory and in-market. By doing so, Americans can not only have reliable and affordable electricity but can also reap the benefits of cleaner and healthier environment.

By Lenae Shirley

If you work in the solar industry, want to buy solar panels or care about climate change, you may want to pay attention.

Two floundering solar manufacturers, with no concerns but their corporate bottom line, are about to pull the rug from under one of America’s fastest-growing industries and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

The manufacturers petitioned the U.S International Trade Commission this spring to take action against foreign competitors, claiming overseas rivals export products to America’s solar market at prices they can’t match. This at a time when the United States solar industry as a whole is booming.

In a decision that shook the industry and a host of free-trade advocates, ITC agreed with these single two petitioners and it’s now up to President Trump to decide whether to retaliate with an import tariff or other punitive options.

There’s a good chance he will – and this would be really bad news for American solar companies and consumers alike.

What a solar trade war would mean for you

If you’re thinking about installing solar panels or work in the solar installation industry, you’ll be hit the hardest.

The general consensus is that up to 100,000 American solar jobs are at risk, because placing a tariff or artificial floor price on solar products would make them more expensive for customers.

Prices could double and residential demand could dry up, almost overnight.

This trade dispute could upend America's booming solar industry. Here's what it means for you.
Click To Tweet

Large commercial solar projects would also become less cost-competitive and demand would decline long-term. Solar installation companies – which had the fastest job growth of any industry over the last few years – would be forced to slash jobs.

And the pain would spread beyond solar customers and workers. It would ultimately affect us all.

Solar industry loss a setback for planet

The planet could suffer, because every kilowatt of zero-carbon solar energy that isn’t installed is a kilowatt that will likely be replaced by electricity generated by dirty, fossil fuel. Even though many utilities give customers carbon-free options today, net greenhouse gas emissions would certainly rise.

Indeed, tariffs or other options that Trump may now be mulling could kill nearly two-thirds of potential solar installations in the next five years, according to a recent analysis by Greentech Media. That represents 47 gigawatts of lost solar potential, more than all the solar ever installed in the U.S.

But really, would he want to be responsible for trading 100,000 jobs for a campaign pledge?

Those 47 gigawatts also represent carbon dioxide emissions that could be avoided, possible as much as 110 million metric tons, depending on what replaces the solar demand.

What will happen next?

A remarkable coalition of groups that includes solar and environmental organizations, as well as conservative, free-market groups; are now urging the president to avoid a damaging trade war over solar technology imports. A bipartisan group of 16 senators, led by North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis and New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, has also weighed in.

The president of the Solar Energy Industry Association put it this way: “This is a case about two companies bringing about a petition, with almost the entire rest of the solar industry in entire disagreement.”

Trump, however, campaigned on “fixing” U.S. trade and he may now view solar tariffs as a safe way to keep that promise. As recently as last month, he told his chief of staff, “I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me tariffs.”

But really, would he want to be responsible for trading 100,000 jobs for a campaign pledge? Or for giving consumers fewer options because of two companies that couldn’t compete? We hope not.

This post originally appeared on our Voices blog.

By Lenae Shirley

If you work in the solar industry, want to buy solar panels or care about climate change, you may want to pay attention.

Two floundering solar manufacturers, with no concerns but their corporate bottom line, are about to pull the rug from under one of America’s fastest-growing industries and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

The manufacturers petitioned the U.S International Trade Commission this spring to take action against foreign competitors, claiming overseas rivals export products to America’s solar market at prices they can’t match. This at a time when the United States solar industry as a whole is booming.

In a decision that shook the industry and a host of free-trade advocates, ITC agreed with these single two petitioners and it’s now up to President Trump to decide whether to retaliate with an import tariff or other punitive options.

There’s a good chance he will – and this would be really bad news for American solar companies and consumers alike.

What a solar trade war would mean for you

If you’re thinking about installing solar panels or work in the solar installation industry, you’ll be hit the hardest.

The general consensus is that up to 100,000 American solar jobs are at risk, because placing a tariff or artificial floor price on solar products would make them more expensive for customers.

Prices could double and residential demand could dry up, almost overnight.

This trade dispute could upend America's booming solar industry. Here's what it means for you.
Click To Tweet

Large commercial solar projects would also become less cost-competitive and demand would decline long-term. Solar installation companies – which had the fastest job growth of any industry over the last few years – would be forced to slash jobs.

And the pain would spread beyond solar customers and workers. It would ultimately affect us all.

Solar industry loss a setback for planet

The planet could suffer, because every kilowatt of zero-carbon solar energy that isn’t installed is a kilowatt that will likely be replaced by electricity generated by dirty, fossil fuel. Even though many utilities give customers carbon-free options today, net greenhouse gas emissions would certainly rise.

Indeed, tariffs or other options that Trump may now be mulling could kill nearly two-thirds of potential solar installations in the next five years, according to a recent analysis by Greentech Media. That represents 47 gigawatts of lost solar potential, more than all the solar ever installed in the U.S.

But really, would he want to be responsible for trading 100,000 jobs for a campaign pledge?

Those 47 gigawatts also represent carbon dioxide emissions that could be avoided, possible as much as 110 million metric tons, depending on what replaces the solar demand.

What will happen next?

A remarkable coalition of groups that includes solar and environmental organizations, as well as conservative, free-market groups; are now urging the president to avoid a damaging trade war over solar technology imports. A bipartisan group of 16 senators, led by North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis and New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, has also weighed in.

The president of the Solar Energy Industry Association put it this way: “This is a case about two companies bringing about a petition, with almost the entire rest of the solar industry in entire disagreement.”

Trump, however, campaigned on “fixing” U.S. trade and he may now view solar tariffs as a safe way to keep that promise. As recently as last month, he told his chief of staff, “I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me tariffs.”

But really, would he want to be responsible for trading 100,000 jobs for a campaign pledge? Or for giving consumers fewer options because of two companies that couldn’t compete? We hope not.

This post originally appeared on our Voices blog.

By Lenae Shirley

If you work in the solar industry, want to buy solar panels or care about climate change, you may want to pay attention.

Two floundering solar manufacturers, with no concerns but their corporate bottom line, are about to pull the rug from under one of America’s fastest-growing industries and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

The manufacturers petitioned the U.S International Trade Commission this spring to take action against foreign competitors, claiming overseas rivals export products to America’s solar market at prices they can’t match. This at a time when the United States solar industry as a whole is booming.

In a decision that shook the industry and a host of free-trade advocates, ITC agreed with these single two petitioners and it’s now up to President Trump to decide whether to retaliate with an import tariff or other punitive options.

There’s a good chance he will – and this would be really bad news for American solar companies and consumers alike.

What a solar trade war would mean for you

If you’re thinking about installing solar panels or work in the solar installation industry, you’ll be hit the hardest.

The general consensus is that up to 100,000 American solar jobs are at risk, because placing a tariff or artificial floor price on solar products would make them more expensive for customers.

Prices could double and residential demand could dry up, almost overnight.

This trade dispute could upend America's booming solar industry. Here's what it means for you.
Click To Tweet

Large commercial solar projects would also become less cost-competitive and demand would decline long-term. Solar installation companies – which had the fastest job growth of any industry over the last few years – would be forced to slash jobs.

And the pain would spread beyond solar customers and workers. It would ultimately affect us all.

Solar industry loss a setback for planet

The planet could suffer, because every kilowatt of zero-carbon solar energy that isn’t installed is a kilowatt that will likely be replaced by electricity generated by dirty, fossil fuel. Even though many utilities give customers carbon-free options today, net greenhouse gas emissions would certainly rise.

Indeed, tariffs or other options that Trump may now be mulling could kill nearly two-thirds of potential solar installations in the next five years, according to a recent analysis by Greentech Media. That represents 47 gigawatts of lost solar potential, more than all the solar ever installed in the U.S.

But really, would he want to be responsible for trading 100,000 jobs for a campaign pledge?

Those 47 gigawatts also represent carbon dioxide emissions that could be avoided, possible as much as 110 million metric tons, depending on what replaces the solar demand.

What will happen next?

A remarkable coalition of groups that includes solar and environmental organizations, as well as conservative, free-market groups; are now urging the president to avoid a damaging trade war over solar technology imports. A bipartisan group of 16 senators, led by North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis and New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich, has also weighed in.

The president of the Solar Energy Industry Association put it this way: “This is a case about two companies bringing about a petition, with almost the entire rest of the solar industry in entire disagreement.”

Trump, however, campaigned on “fixing” U.S. trade and he may now view solar tariffs as a safe way to keep that promise. As recently as last month, he told his chief of staff, “I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me tariffs.”

But really, would he want to be responsible for trading 100,000 jobs for a campaign pledge? Or for giving consumers fewer options because of two companies that couldn’t compete? We hope not.

This post originally appeared on our Voices blog.

We live in a nation of laws and rules for a reason. They make democracy possible. That’s why Environmental Defense Fund this week submitted public comments on the Clean Water Rule, which the Trump Administration is proposing to rescind.

By David Festa

The Clean Water Rule was established to clarify which bodies of water are protected by the federal Clean Water Act of 1972. (Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston)

We live in a nation of laws and rules for a reason. They make democracy possible.

That’s why Environmental Defense Fund last week submitted public comments on the Clean Water Rule, which the Trump Administration is proposing to rescind.

The Clean Water Rule, also known as Waters of the United States (WOTUS), was established in 2015 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to clarify which bodies of water are protected by the federal Clean Water Act of 1972.

Soon after it was enacted, stakeholder groups sued – practically standard practice anytime a significant policy is put forward. We recognize the different opinions around WOTUS, but aversion to controversy is not basis for setting policy.

And yet, that’s what the EPA is trying to do – remove a policy not because it is unlawful, but because it is under litigation, which the EPA claims “produces uncertainty.”

An erosion of long-held democratic values

This is exactly the kind of arbitrary action by a government agency that Congress feared and why, in 1946, it passed the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA sets out clear standards that prevent government agencies from undermining the core principles of democracy.

President Harry S. Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. (Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

It was born in a combative political environment not unlike ours today.

In the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began creating new federal agencies to help guide the country through the Great Depression – part of his New Deal package to revive the economy. But many members of Congress grew wary of the powers these new agencies possessed and sought to hold them accountable.

After a more than a decade of study, wrangling and public input, Congress passed the APA to ensure that agencies would only act after providing the public with fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to provide input. The APA also requires that agencies engage in reasoned decision-making – in other words, that they weigh all relevant factors and thoroughly explain their decisions.

If any agency action could be withdrawn solely due to pending or potential litigation and “regulatory uncertainty” – a catch phrase of this administration – our nation’s regulatory structures would be in constant flux, lack rigor and lose factual and scientific basis.

Major policy changes require due process

The EPA’s proposed rescission of the Clean Water Rule is not merely a codification of the “status quo,” or “reopening” of the rule as the agency argues, but is a substantive change in EPA’s interpretation of the law and a major change in policy – which triggers all of the requirements of the APA.

If any agency action could be withdrawn solely due to pending or potential litigation and “regulatory uncertainty” – a catch phrase of this administration – our nation’s regulatory structures would be in constant flux, lack rigor and lose factual and scientific basis.

For example, if the APA allowed an agency to yank a decision simply because of litigation or regulatory uncertainty, EPA could withdraw pesticide approvals as soon as anyone with a lawyer challenged the approval with litigation.

(Photo Credit: USEPA Environmental-Protection-Agency, via Wikimedia Commons)

A dangerous precedent

EPA’s rationale for repealing the Clean Water Rule has sweeping implications for administrative law generally. It undermines basic democratic principles, and it sets a dangerous precedent for rulemaking processes.

EDF supports science-based policy. While we may not agree with every agency action, all Americans should agree that rules must be established, revised, or even rescinded through the transparent and fair process Congress wisely established more than 70 years ago.

With this WOTUS withdrawal proposal, EPA is doing the opposite.

Related:

Why wholesale repeal of environmental protections is a losing business strategy >>

There's no winner takes all when it comes to the environment >>

By Dan Mueller

Oil and gas companies are looking for new ways to reuse salty, toxic wastewater — including crop irrigation.

A recent publication of the Air and Waste Management Association (AMWA) contained a number of articles by academia and industry experts about the many challenges of managing the nearly 900 billion gallons of wastewater (also called produced water) generated every year by oil and gas production. This wastewater is not only very salty but also contains a number of chemicals (many toxic) and potentially radioactive material.

The majority of this wastewater is disposed in deep underground wells to minimize the risks of it coming into contact with humans or the environment (though leaks and spills at the surface are still a big concern). But in hope of lowering costs, in recent years industry has been trending toward finding other ways to either dispose of or recycle this waste – in part because demand for water resources is increasing in drought prone areas and because disposal wells have been linked to a rise in earthquakes.

The articles in AWMA’s magazine suggest that recycling oilfield wastewater to complete new wells is the most viable alternative to traditional disposal methods. Definitely more viable than reusing this water in other ways outside oil and gas operations.

Hydraulic fracturing is a water intensive process. Fracturing just one well can require up to 15 million gallons of water. On the back end, every one barrel of oil produced can produce up to 10 barrels or more of wastewater. Consequently recycling this wastewater for hydraulic fracturing other wells can make a lot of sense.

In this latest issue, Rick McCurdy, who manages corrosion, chemicals and water with Chesapeake Energy Company, presents the various technical and economic issues with recycling oil and gas wastewater instead of disposing of it underground.  He points out that recycling this wastewater replaces the need to purchase an equal volume of fresh water.  Under the right conditions, this recycling “can provide a cost savings over conventional, commercial disposal, and a reduction of stress on local water availability in areas prone to drought.”

This could be a positive development in regions experiencing drought conditions, but experts are advising companies not be too eager to use this water for activities beyond the oil field – like crop irrigation, or livestock watering for example.

“Due to the high concentrations of TDS (total dissolved solids) along with other constituents of concern, reuse options of produced water outside the oil industry, such as streamflow augmentation or irrigation, will most likely require robust treatment including desalination,” according to Emily Nichols, an engineering graduate fellow in the Colorado School of Mines.

Not only is desalinating water extremely costly, in many cases we lack the data to know — with assurance — that water has been treated to reach levels that are clean enough to be used for crops or livestock.

“To answer this question, assessments of the chemical risks of reusing produced water must be undertaken,” write Dr. Dominic DiGiulio and Dr. Seth Shonkoff of the group Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for a Healthy Energy (PSE Health Energy).

Studies have found that even treated wastewater can still contain trace amounts of harmful chemicals — indicating that our current treatment technologies, especially lower cost technologies, may not be advanced enough to guarantee water quality that is truly fit-for-purpose.

Recycling within the oil field is a great idea as long as the wastewater is not spilled. But researchers argue that more disclosure about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, more chemical analysis, improved chemical monitoring technology and better toxicity assessments are needed before expanding reuse options outside of the oilfield. Without these advancements, experts agree reusing wastewater for non-industry related purposes is both cost-prohibitive and exceptionally risky.

By Dan Mueller

Oil and gas companies are looking for new ways to reuse salty, toxic wastewater — including crop irrigation.

A recent publication of the Air and Waste Management Association (AMWA) contained a number of articles by academia and industry experts about the many challenges of managing the nearly 900 billion gallons of wastewater (also called produced water) generated every year by oil and gas production. This wastewater is not only very salty but also contains a number of chemicals (many toxic) and potentially radioactive material.

The majority of this wastewater is disposed in deep underground wells to minimize the risks of it coming into contact with humans or the environment (though leaks and spills at the surface are still a big concern). But in hope of lowering costs, in recent years industry has been trending toward finding other ways to either dispose of or recycle this waste – in part because demand for water resources is increasing in drought prone areas and because disposal wells have been linked to a rise in earthquakes.

The articles in AWMA’s magazine suggest that recycling oilfield wastewater to complete new wells is the most viable alternative to traditional disposal methods. Definitely more viable than reusing this water in other ways outside oil and gas operations.

Hydraulic fracturing is a water intensive process. Fracturing just one well can require up to 15 million gallons of water. On the back end, every one barrel of oil produced can produce up to 10 barrels or more of wastewater. Consequently recycling this wastewater for hydraulic fracturing other wells can make a lot of sense.

In this latest issue, Rick McCurdy, who manages corrosion, chemicals and water with Chesapeake Energy Company, presents the various technical and economic issues with recycling oil and gas wastewater instead of disposing of it underground.  He points out that recycling this wastewater replaces the need to purchase an equal volume of fresh water.  Under the right conditions, this recycling “can provide a cost savings over conventional, commercial disposal, and a reduction of stress on local water availability in areas prone to drought.”

This could be a positive development in regions experiencing drought conditions, but experts are advising companies not be too eager to use this water for activities beyond the oil field – like crop irrigation, or livestock watering for example.

“Due to the high concentrations of TDS (total dissolved solids) along with other constituents of concern, reuse options of produced water outside the oil industry, such as streamflow augmentation or irrigation, will most likely require robust treatment including desalination,” according to Emily Nichols, an engineering graduate fellow in the Colorado School of Mines.

Not only is desalinating water extremely costly, in many cases we lack the data to know — with assurance — that water has been treated to reach levels that are clean enough to be used for crops or livestock.

“To answer this question, assessments of the chemical risks of reusing produced water must be undertaken,” write Dr. Dominic DiGiulio and Dr. Seth Shonkoff of the group Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for a Healthy Energy (PSE Health Energy).

Studies have found that even treated wastewater can still contain trace amounts of harmful chemicals — indicating that our current treatment technologies, especially lower cost technologies, may not be advanced enough to guarantee water quality that is truly fit-for-purpose.

Recycling within the oil field is a great idea as long as the wastewater is not spilled. But researchers argue that more disclosure about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, more chemical analysis, improved chemical monitoring technology and better toxicity assessments are needed before expanding reuse options outside of the oilfield. Without these advancements, experts agree reusing wastewater for non-industry related purposes is both cost-prohibitive and exceptionally risky.

By Dan Mueller

Oil and gas companies are looking for new ways to reuse salty, toxic wastewater — including crop irrigation.

A recent publication of the Air and Waste Management Association (AMWA) contained a number of articles by academia and industry experts about the many challenges of managing the nearly 900 billion gallons of wastewater (also called produced water) generated every year by oil and gas production. This wastewater is not only very salty but also contains a number of chemicals (many toxic) and potentially radioactive material.

The majority of this wastewater is disposed in deep underground wells to minimize the risks of it coming into contact with humans or the environment (though leaks and spills at the surface are still a big concern). But in hope of lowering costs, in recent years industry has been trending toward finding other ways to either dispose of or recycle this waste – in part because demand for water resources is increasing in drought prone areas and because disposal wells have been linked to a rise in earthquakes.

The articles in AWMA’s magazine suggest that recycling oilfield wastewater to complete new wells is the most viable alternative to traditional disposal methods. Definitely more viable than reusing this water in other ways outside oil and gas operations.

Hydraulic fracturing is a water intensive process. Fracturing just one well can require up to 15 million gallons of water. On the back end, every one barrel of oil produced can produce up to 10 barrels or more of wastewater. Consequently recycling this wastewater for hydraulic fracturing other wells can make a lot of sense.

In this latest issue, Rick McCurdy, who manages corrosion, chemicals and water with Chesapeake Energy Company, presents the various technical and economic issues with recycling oil and gas wastewater instead of disposing of it underground.  He points out that recycling this wastewater replaces the need to purchase an equal volume of fresh water.  Under the right conditions, this recycling “can provide a cost savings over conventional, commercial disposal, and a reduction of stress on local water availability in areas prone to drought.”

This could be a positive development in regions experiencing drought conditions, but experts are advising companies not be too eager to use this water for activities beyond the oil field – like crop irrigation, or livestock watering for example.

“Due to the high concentrations of TDS (total dissolved solids) along with other constituents of concern, reuse options of produced water outside the oil industry, such as streamflow augmentation or irrigation, will most likely require robust treatment including desalination,” according to Emily Nichols, an engineering graduate fellow in the Colorado School of Mines.

Not only is desalinating water extremely costly, in many cases we lack the data to know — with assurance — that water has been treated to reach levels that are clean enough to be used for crops or livestock.

“To answer this question, assessments of the chemical risks of reusing produced water must be undertaken,” write Dr. Dominic DiGiulio and Dr. Seth Shonkoff of the group Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for a Healthy Energy (PSE Health Energy).

Studies have found that even treated wastewater can still contain trace amounts of harmful chemicals — indicating that our current treatment technologies, especially lower cost technologies, may not be advanced enough to guarantee water quality that is truly fit-for-purpose.

Recycling within the oil field is a great idea as long as the wastewater is not spilled. But researchers argue that more disclosure about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, more chemical analysis, improved chemical monitoring technology and better toxicity assessments are needed before expanding reuse options outside of the oilfield. Without these advancements, experts agree reusing wastewater for non-industry related purposes is both cost-prohibitive and exceptionally risky.

A recent publication of the Air and Waste Management Association (AMWA) contained a number of articles by academia and industry experts about the many challenges of managing the nearly 900 billion gallons of wastewater (also called produced water) generated every year by oil and gas production. This wastewater is not only very salty but also […]

The post Experts weigh in: we need to learn about chemicals in oilfield wastewater before reusing it outside the oilfield appeared first on Energy Exchange.

Sea turtles, the beloved green jewels of the world’s vast blue oceans, appear to be bouncing back after decades of decline.

The post Sea turtles swim towards a brighter future first appeared on Growing Returns.

Sea turtles, the beloved green jewels of the world’s vast blue oceans, appear to be bouncing back after decades of decline.

By Eric Holst

Sea turtle populations are showing promising signs of recovery after years of decline. (Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region)

There’s some good news in the animal kingdom. Sea turtles, the beloved green jewels of the world’s vast blue oceans, appear to be bouncing back after decades of decline.

Six of seven sea turtle species are currently listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) – the green, loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, olive ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback – and many of them have been on the list since 1970. Since then, conservation efforts have made significant strides in protecting nesting beaches, reducing mortality in fisheries and establishing marine protected areas.

Recent research suggests there is hope for beleaguered sea turtles. Important recovery in some local populations has shown that we can turn things around for sea turtles, especially with effective endangered species policy and improved management.

This comeback is promising, not just for turtles, but also for marine ecosystems and the marine economy at large.

Sea turtles swimming towards a brighter futurehttps://edf.org/8yr
Click To Tweet

Multiple threats and early successes

Sea turtles have been on planet Earth since the time of the dinosaurs – about 110 million years. (Photo credit: Bernard Spragg)

Sea turtles are used to a challenge. Only 1 in 1,000 hatched babies survive to adulthood once they’re in the ocean. From there, they are exposed to multiple threats including deaths from accidental entanglement in fishing gear, destruction of nesting beach habitat, and legal and illegal harvest of adults and eggs. Climate change impacts loom as well. As a result, populations overall have been reduced by approximately 95 percent from original levels.

Historically, one of the biggest threats to sea turtles was direct harvest of eggs and adult turtles for food, which increased steadily until international trade of most species of sea turtles or their eggs became illegal in 1981 under the Convention of the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). CITES and ESA protection have significantly reduced sea turtle deaths over the years.

The commercial fishing industry has posed a critical threat to sea turtles. Kemp’s ridleys were especially hard hit, caught and drowning in fishing nets in the Gulf of Mexico.

In the 1990s, EDF worked with fishermen and managers to develop and adopt gear modifications that have significantly reduced turtle mortality. These gear modifications included turtle excluder devices (TEDs) – specialized nets that work by releasing larger marine organisms through a trap door, while still collecting shrimp. TEDs have helped to lessen sea turtle casualties, while careful husbandry of hatchlings on nesting beaches have helped enhance reproductive success.

A success story in the making

Thanks to effective policy protections and fishing innovations, there has been a marked improvement in some sea turtle populations. In some places, green turtle populations are nesting in record numbers. Hawksbills have reappeared in Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Leatherback numbers are increasing in some places.

Sea turtles are an essential part of beach and dune ecosystems. (Photo credit: Jeroen Looyé)

A recent study shows that globally, where data are adequate to detect trends, increasing nesting populations exceed decreasing nesting populations. The health of many sea turtle populations remains unclear. Nonetheless, this comeback is promising, not just for turtles, but also for marine ecosystems and the marine economy at large.

Sea turtles provide many ecosystem benefits

Sea turtles are essential elements in coral reef, sea grass and mangrove ecosystems. Turtles help maintain sea grass beds, which also provide habitat and nurseries for a wide variety of fish and crustaceans that are harvested for human consumption and support large fishing economies.

On beach and dune ecosystems, sea turtle eggs provide otherwise limited nutrients – from unhatched eggs or leftover shells – that improve vegetation growth.

Sea turtles also offer a number of opportunities for people – locals and tourists, children and adults – to learn more about wildlife and the ocean. From North Carolina to Florida and around the Gulf, people frequently participate in night watches on beaches, hoping to spot turtles crawling ashore to lay eggs, or baby sea turtles hatching and scrambling towards the sea. It’s inspiring to see these creatures and to know that citizens are doing what they can to help protect these vulnerable populations.

With a winning combination of smart policies, industry action and citizen interest, the incipient sea turtle success story is one that should continue to instill pride in the policymakers, fishermen, and individuals who are working together to help save these delicate, ancient, and iconic species.

This blog was co-authored by Doug Rader, Chief Oceans Scientist at EDF. 

Related:

Dear Congress, protect the integrity of the ESA >>

The secret survival of the “masked bandit” in the vanishing prairie>>

How the fastest American raptor nearly nosedived into extinction >>

By Tom Murray

At Environmental Defense Fund, we believe that environmental progress and economic growth can and must go hand in hand. EDF+Business works with leading brands to raise the bar on corporate sustainability leadership by setting aggressive, science-based goals; collaborating for scale across industries and global supply chains; and publicly supporting smart environmental safeguards.

This is the first in a series of interviews with sustainability leaders who are driving the charge towards a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

Linda Fisher is one of corporate sustainability’s trailblazers. In fact, she was named the first chief sustainability officer of a publicly traded company (DuPont) in 2004.

Over the next decade, Linda led DuPont’s efforts to establish the company’s first set of market-facing sustainability goals, which included a strong emphasis on innovation.

Prior to joining DuPont, Linda served as deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she had also spent a decade working to safeguard human health and the environment, including developing the agency’s first position on climate change.

I recently caught up with Linda to talk about her unique career that spanned the public and private sectors, and to hear her insights on how sustainability begets market opportunities and why business leaders are staying the course on sustainability despite an unpredictable political climate. Below is an edited excerpt of our discussion.

*Note: On September 1, 2017 Dow and DuPont completed a planned merger to form DowDuPont.

What attracted you to a career in corporate sustainability?

I got interested in sustainability as an outgrowth of my work at EPA. When you’re at EPA, you spend a lot of time writing rules and regulations preventing people from doing harm to the environment, to public health, and to our natural resources.

When I left EPA for the private sector, I realized there was more to protecting the planet than just telling business what not to do. In fact, at the time, industry was beginning to pursue voluntary initiatives and go beyond regulations that EPA set, particularly in terms of emission reductions.

I also learned that innovative companies were looking at sustainability as a driver for business growth. Companies could develop a growth strategy around new innovation products that would make society more sustainable. And that really appealed to me.

"Many companies see sustainability driving innovation & growth opportunities" former DuPont CSO…
Click To Tweet

How did you take your insights and experiences from EPA to lead the process in developing DuPont’s 2020 Sustainability Goals?

Linda Fisher, former CSO at DuPont and Deputy Administrator of the EPA

DuPont’s early goals were really focused on reducing emissions. And everyone involved in sustainability at DuPont realized no matter how low we drove our emissions, it wouldn’t affect change. We needed a bigger vision, a larger more robust set of goals.

The real significant step change came when we set the 2020 goals. We started the process by talking with our research and development team to get them to build sustainability issues into their product development. I think that was really a big change for the company because those goals were based around: What is the future of DuPont? What are the products that we want to sell in three, five, ten years down the road? And, how can we be sure that our products are addressing some of the societal challenges around sustainability?

The goals were business-driven and market-oriented because we had to think about the sustainability trends that were going to be affecting our customers.

Can you give any examples of how those sustainability goals have played out at DuPont and what benefits the company is experiencing as a result?

Probably the biggest benefit is that DuPont has become a partner of choice for innovative companies. Companies have a problem that they want to solve or an opportunity that they want to create for their customers, and they come to DuPont to help them develop it.

Another example is photovoltaic cells. The amount of energy you’re going to get out of each individual solar cell depends on the quality of materials. DuPont, as the maker of most of the materials that go into solar cells, has partnerships with manufacturers to develop materials to last longer and be more energy efficient, which I think makes great sense to those who are interested in putting solar cells on their roofs or even for commercial grade solar farms.

And finally, when the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards came out, DuPont began a long-lasting partnership with the automobile industry in developing materials to make lighter, more efficient cars that would still be safe. We also developed new refrigerants that had no ozone depletion properties.

How do you see collaboration between industry and government unfolding with regard to sustainability?

The shift I have seen from the late 90s is the environmental community and some in government are seeing industry as the source of solutions.

If we’re going to figure out how to feed nine billion people, we’re going to need the innovation to produce better seeds and grow food in a way that’s less impactful on the environment.

If we’re going to figure out how to transport nine billion people in more and more urbanized environments, we’re going to have to figure out how to make automobiles and other forms of transportation more efficient.

Many companies see sustainability driving innovation and growth opportunities. That mindset shift I think is hugely significant, and I see that gaining momentum.

Innovation in industry can move at a faster pace than government regulation, leaving a gap between the interest and need to bring new innovations to the market and the regulations to assure the public safety of new products. How does industry regard regulation?

I think industry realizes — and I’ll speak for DuPont but I see this in other companies as well — that there is a role for well-written, science-based regulations because those regulations assure the public that new innovative products can be used safely, and are produced in a way that minimizes the impact on the environment.

DuPont was one of the leaders in nanotechnology and we knew that globally this technology might be essential to producing some of the innovative materials that we would need.  But there was no well-written risk framework or regulatory framework on nanotechnology.

At the request of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), we put a team of professionals together from DuPont and EDF to produce a framework for the risk management of new nanotech materials. That partnership produced a great quasi-regulatory document. DuPont committed to following it, and many governments around the world used the framework as a model for how they wanted to develop a regulatory process around nanotechnology.

The EPA plays an important role in ensuring the safety of new products being brought to market. However, the EPA is facing significant leadership, staffing, and resource challenges. What are your thoughts about EPA and what’s happening in Washington right now?

I am very concerned about what’s going on at EPA. It’s an agency that is critical to the US and critical to industry. EPA has a very important role to play in assuring the public that our manufacturing facilities are well-run, and our communities are not at risk. They also have a critical role to play in approving products as quickly as they can.

DuPont is a company that wants to comply with regulations, and tries its best to get good science before the agency around those products. But then DuPont needs a well-staffed, well- run agency to get those products approved.

I am concerned about the discussion around rolling back a lot of the EPA regulations. I don’t think the answer is rolling everything back. In fact, I think that makes US industry less competitive, not more competitive.

We are in many ways the envy of the world in terms of what our environmental regulatory framework has done. There is always room to improve, but I don’t want to see that undone.

A significant reduction in the overall EPA budget can lead to not just a reduction in federal protection but also a reduction in state and ultimately local protection as well, because federal funds appropriated to EPA are then dispersed to state environmental programs.

Where would you like to see sustainability leadership in the future?

There is a part of industry that doesn’t see the opportunity in their future to help solve the world’s sustainability problems. These companies may be less innovative. They may be tied to old systems and old technology.

I think that the future of sustainability is with the companies that have the capacity and skillset to drive innovation and provide society with solutions. I see most of those companies sticking to their commitments on sustainability.

I thought it was very reassuring that hundreds of companies signed and publicly stated that the US should stay in the Paris climate accord. In the face of political pressure, those companies were willing to stand up and be counted and encourage the US government to stick with the accord.

I would say those companies look at the Trump administration’s position on the environment as short term, and they’re looking to build their companies long term. The long-term trend means producing products that put far less demands on the planet. And I think there are a lot of companies that see themselves in that space and they’re not turning back.

What’s next for you personally?

I’m trying to see as much of the world on a bicycle as I can. I’ve been personally trying to make up for lost time in terms of being outside as opposed to being in an office.

But I’m still involved in sustainability. I’m consulting with companies around their opportunities and challenges in sustainability. I get very excited about helping companies solve problems and set a high bar for others in their industry.

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog.

Your Name

Your Email

Both fields are required.

By Tom Murray

At Environmental Defense Fund, we believe that environmental progress and economic growth can and must go hand in hand. EDF+Business works with leading brands to raise the bar on corporate sustainability leadership by setting aggressive, science-based goals; collaborating for scale across industries and global supply chains; and publicly supporting smart environmental safeguards.

This is the first in a series of interviews with sustainability leaders who are driving the charge towards a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

Linda Fisher is one of corporate sustainability’s trailblazers. In fact, she was named the first chief sustainability officer of a publicly traded company (DuPont) in 2004.

Over the next decade, Linda led DuPont’s efforts to establish the company’s first set of market-facing sustainability goals, which included a strong emphasis on innovation.

Prior to joining DuPont, Linda served as deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she had also spent a decade working to safeguard human health and the environment, including developing the agency’s first position on climate change.

I recently caught up with Linda to talk about her unique career that spanned the public and private sectors, and to hear her insights on how sustainability begets market opportunities and why business leaders are staying the course on sustainability despite an unpredictable political climate. Below is an edited excerpt of our discussion.

*Note: On September 1, 2017 Dow and DuPont completed a planned merger to form DowDuPont.

What attracted you to a career in corporate sustainability?

I got interested in sustainability as an outgrowth of my work at EPA. When you’re at EPA, you spend a lot of time writing rules and regulations preventing people from doing harm to the environment, to public health, and to our natural resources.

When I left EPA for the private sector, I realized there was more to protecting the planet than just telling business what not to do. In fact, at the time, industry was beginning to pursue voluntary initiatives and go beyond regulations that EPA set, particularly in terms of emission reductions.

I also learned that innovative companies were looking at sustainability as a driver for business growth. Companies could develop a growth strategy around new innovation products that would make society more sustainable. And that really appealed to me.

"Many companies see sustainability driving innovation & growth opportunities" former DuPont CSO…
Click To Tweet

How did you take your insights and experiences from EPA to lead the process in developing DuPont’s 2020 Sustainability Goals?

Linda Fisher, former CSO at DuPont and Deputy Administrator of the EPA

DuPont’s early goals were really focused on reducing emissions. And everyone involved in sustainability at DuPont realized no matter how low we drove our emissions, it wouldn’t affect change. We needed a bigger vision, a larger more robust set of goals.

The real significant step change came when we set the 2020 goals. We started the process by talking with our research and development team to get them to build sustainability issues into their product development. I think that was really a big change for the company because those goals were based around: What is the future of DuPont? What are the products that we want to sell in three, five, ten years down the road? And, how can we be sure that our products are addressing some of the societal challenges around sustainability?

The goals were business-driven and market-oriented because we had to think about the sustainability trends that were going to be affecting our customers.

Can you give any examples of how those sustainability goals have played out at DuPont and what benefits the company is experiencing as a result?

Probably the biggest benefit is that DuPont has become a partner of choice for innovative companies. Companies have a problem that they want to solve or an opportunity that they want to create for their customers, and they come to DuPont to help them develop it.

Another example is photovoltaic cells. The amount of energy you’re going to get out of each individual solar cell depends on the quality of materials. DuPont, as the maker of most of the materials that go into solar cells, has partnerships with manufacturers to develop materials to last longer and be more energy efficient, which I think makes great sense to those who are interested in putting solar cells on their roofs or even for commercial grade solar farms.

And finally, when the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards came out, DuPont began a long-lasting partnership with the automobile industry in developing materials to make lighter, more efficient cars that would still be safe. We also developed new refrigerants that had no ozone depletion properties.

How do you see collaboration between industry and government unfolding with regard to sustainability?

The shift I have seen from the late 90s is the environmental community and some in government are seeing industry as the source of solutions.

If we’re going to figure out how to feed nine billion people, we’re going to need the innovation to produce better seeds and grow food in a way that’s less impactful on the environment.

If we’re going to figure out how to transport nine billion people in more and more urbanized environments, we’re going to have to figure out how to make automobiles and other forms of transportation more efficient.

Many companies see sustainability driving innovation and growth opportunities. That mindset shift I think is hugely significant, and I see that gaining momentum.

Innovation in industry can move at a faster pace than government regulation, leaving a gap between the interest and need to bring new innovations to the market and the regulations to assure the public safety of new products. How does industry regard regulation?

I think industry realizes — and I’ll speak for DuPont but I see this in other companies as well — that there is a role for well-written, science-based regulations because those regulations assure the public that new innovative products can be used safely, and are produced in a way that minimizes the impact on the environment.

DuPont was one of the leaders in nanotechnology and we knew that globally this technology might be essential to producing some of the innovative materials that we would need.  But there was no well-written risk framework or regulatory framework on nanotechnology.

At the request of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), we put a team of professionals together from DuPont and EDF to produce a framework for the risk management of new nanotech materials. That partnership produced a great quasi-regulatory document. DuPont committed to following it, and many governments around the world used the framework as a model for how they wanted to develop a regulatory process around nanotechnology.

The EPA plays an important role in ensuring the safety of new products being brought to market. However, the EPA is facing significant leadership, staffing, and resource challenges. What are your thoughts about EPA and what’s happening in Washington right now?

I am very concerned about what’s going on at EPA. It’s an agency that is critical to the US and critical to industry. EPA has a very important role to play in assuring the public that our manufacturing facilities are well-run, and our communities are not at risk. They also have a critical role to play in approving products as quickly as they can.

DuPont is a company that wants to comply with regulations, and tries its best to get good science before the agency around those products. But then DuPont needs a well-staffed, well- run agency to get those products approved.

I am concerned about the discussion around rolling back a lot of the EPA regulations. I don’t think the answer is rolling everything back. In fact, I think that makes US industry less competitive, not more competitive.

We are in many ways the envy of the world in terms of what our environmental regulatory framework has done. There is always room to improve, but I don’t want to see that undone.

A significant reduction in the overall EPA budget can lead to not just a reduction in federal protection but also a reduction in state and ultimately local protection as well, because federal funds appropriated to EPA are then dispersed to state environmental programs.

Where would you like to see sustainability leadership in the future?

There is a part of industry that doesn’t see the opportunity in their future to help solve the world’s sustainability problems. These companies may be less innovative. They may be tied to old systems and old technology.

I think that the future of sustainability is with the companies that have the capacity and skillset to drive innovation and provide society with solutions. I see most of those companies sticking to their commitments on sustainability.

I thought it was very reassuring that hundreds of companies signed and publicly stated that the US should stay in the Paris climate accord. In the face of political pressure, those companies were willing to stand up and be counted and encourage the US government to stick with the accord.

I would say those companies look at the Trump administration’s position on the environment as short term, and they’re looking to build their companies long term. The long-term trend means producing products that put far less demands on the planet. And I think there are a lot of companies that see themselves in that space and they’re not turning back.

What’s next for you personally?

I’m trying to see as much of the world on a bicycle as I can. I’ve been personally trying to make up for lost time in terms of being outside as opposed to being in an office.

But I’m still involved in sustainability. I’m consulting with companies around their opportunities and challenges in sustainability. I get very excited about helping companies solve problems and set a high bar for others in their industry.

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog.

Your Name

Your Email

Both fields are required.