By Michael Panfil

Late Wednesday night, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released its so-called “study” on grid reliability.

Secretary Perry commissioned the report in this April memo, asking the DOE to investigate whether our electric grid’s reliability is threatened by the “erosion of critical baseload resources,” meaning coal and nuclear power plants. Perry took the unusual step of providing his own, pre-study conclusion, claiming that “baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid.”

His own report disagrees. It’s largely a backward-looking report that sometimes argues with itself, but comes, albeit grudgingly, to the same conclusion as every other recent study: the electric grid continues to operate reliably as uneconomic coal diminishes. Moreover, coal is declining because it can’t compete, and other resources are ensuring reliability at more affordable rates.

Perry seems undeterred by the evidence however, and the report’s accompanying cover letter and recommendations appear ready to double down on his pro-coal agenda. Here are three ways he tries to twist the facts in favor of dirty coal – a move that ignores more efficient, affordable, and innovative solutions and comes at a cost to Americans.

The misdirection spin

Perry’s letter accompanying the report included this nugget:

“It is apparent that in today’s competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix.”

Although Secretary Perry continues to blame “regulations and subsidies” for “challenging” the power generation mix (despite the mix becoming more, not less, diverse as more renewables come online), he would be well advised to read his own report if he’s looking for the real driver of coal retirements. The report he commissioned clearly states:

“The biggest contributor to coal and nuclear plant retirements has been the advantaged economics of natural gas-fired generation.”

Secretary Perry continues to ignore the evidence on grid reliability, even his own
Click To Tweet

This is hardly new information; extensive study has found that “decreases in natural gas prices have had a much larger impact on the profitability of conventional generators than the growth of renewable energy.” Coal is simply too costly to compete. And low natural gas prices, in addition to flat demand for electricity, are making energy more affordable.

The reliability spin

On reliability, again Perry’s letter takes one stance:

“The industry has experienced massive change in recent years, and government has failed to keep pace.”

And the report states the opposite:

Grid operators “are working hard to integrate growing levels of [renewable energy] through extensive study, deliberative planning, and careful operations and adjustments.”

Although Perry appears unaware of the thorough performance his own study references, grid operators are required by law to ensure reliable electricity at affordable rates. And indeed, government has kept pace. As the DOE report noted, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s most recent annual State of Reliability analysis concluded that the electric grid was reliable in 2016. And 2015. And 2014. And 2013. And although the DOE report neglected to mention it, this same State of Reliability analysis found that reliability has been increasing.

Certainly, more can and should be done. As the DOE report mentions, increasing the use of fast, flexible resources support a healthy grid. Unfortunately for Perry, coal can’t provide what’s needed, as the DOE report notes,

“For a power plant to make money today, it must be able to ramp up and down to coincide with the variable levels of renewable generation coming online. That makes combined cycle natural gas plants profitable…but coal plants have relatively high and fixed operating costs and are relatively inflexible.”

Coal, simply put, is too slow and old to respond nimbly.

The resiliency spin

Perry also attempts to pivot from focusing on reliability to resiliency, a lesser defined term:

“Customers should know that a resilient electric grid does come with a price.”

Like everything worth having, resiliency comes at a price, but that price should be cost-effective. But coal is part of the problem, not the solution to achieving affordable, resilient, and reliable electricity. Not only do coal-fired power plants unexpectedly break down more than any other resource, they have performed poorly during extreme weather events, as his report notes:

During extreme weather events in 2014 “many coal plants could not operate due to conveyor belts and coal piles freezing.”

During extreme weather events in 2014 “many coal plants could not operate due to conveyor belts and coal piles freezing.”

“Forced outages,” meaning the instance when a power station is unavailable to produce power due to an unexpected breakdown, are higher for coal than any other resource – almost twice as high, in fact, as the next highest resource. Coal also needs twice as much scheduled maintenance, referred to as “planned outages,” as any other resource.

A terrible solution in search of a problem

When Secretary Perry originally requested the DOE report, he already knew the grid reliability answer he was looking for. Unfortunately for him, the final report – despite best efforts – only further illustrates why his pre-study pro-coal conclusion is wrong. The report’s recommendations and his letter double down on coal despite the evidence, no matter the cost to the American public; no matter the cost to human health and the environment; and no matter the cost to the well-being of the electric grid itself.

Now that the report is finally here, coal companies likely will continue complaining and seeking help for their uneconomic power plants. Meanwhile, America’s grid will continue to embrace new, innovative technology that builds a cleaner, reliable, affordable, and resilient energy system.

By Michael Panfil

Late Wednesday night, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released its so-called “study” on grid reliability.

Secretary Perry commissioned the report in this April memo, asking the DOE to investigate whether our electric grid’s reliability is threatened by the “erosion of critical baseload resources,” meaning coal and nuclear power plants. Perry took the unusual step of providing his own, pre-study conclusion, claiming that “baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid.”

His own report disagrees. It’s largely a backward-looking report that sometimes argues with itself, but comes, albeit grudgingly, to the same conclusion as every other recent study: the electric grid continues to operate reliably as uneconomic coal diminishes. Moreover, coal is declining because it can’t compete, and other resources are ensuring reliability at more affordable rates.

Perry seems undeterred by the evidence however, and the report’s accompanying cover letter and recommendations appear ready to double down on his pro-coal agenda. Here are three ways he tries to twist the facts in favor of dirty coal – a move that ignores more efficient, affordable, and innovative solutions and comes at a cost to Americans.

The misdirection spin

Perry’s letter accompanying the report included this nugget:

“It is apparent that in today’s competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix.”

Although Secretary Perry continues to blame “regulations and subsidies” for “challenging” the power generation mix (despite the mix becoming more, not less, diverse as more renewables come online), he would be well advised to read his own report if he’s looking for the real driver of coal retirements. The report he commissioned clearly states:

“The biggest contributor to coal and nuclear plant retirements has been the advantaged economics of natural gas-fired generation.”

Secretary Perry continues to ignore the evidence on grid reliability, even his own
Click To Tweet

This is hardly new information; extensive study has found that “decreases in natural gas prices have had a much larger impact on the profitability of conventional generators than the growth of renewable energy.” Coal is simply too costly to compete. And low natural gas prices, in addition to flat demand for electricity, are making energy more affordable.

The reliability spin

On reliability, again Perry’s letter takes one stance:

“The industry has experienced massive change in recent years, and government has failed to keep pace.”

And the report states the opposite:

Grid operators “are working hard to integrate growing levels of [renewable energy] through extensive study, deliberative planning, and careful operations and adjustments.”

Although Perry appears unaware of the thorough performance his own study references, grid operators are required by law to ensure reliable electricity at affordable rates. And indeed, government has kept pace. As the DOE report noted, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s most recent annual State of Reliability analysis concluded that the electric grid was reliable in 2016. And 2015. And 2014. And 2013. And although the DOE report neglected to mention it, this same State of Reliability analysis found that reliability has been increasing.

Certainly, more can and should be done. As the DOE report mentions, increasing the use of fast, flexible resources support a healthy grid. Unfortunately for Perry, coal can’t provide what’s needed, as the DOE report notes,

“For a power plant to make money today, it must be able to ramp up and down to coincide with the variable levels of renewable generation coming online. That makes combined cycle natural gas plants profitable…but coal plants have relatively high and fixed operating costs and are relatively inflexible.”

Coal, simply put, is too slow and old to respond nimbly.

The resiliency spin

Perry also attempts to pivot from focusing on reliability to resiliency, a lesser defined term:

“Customers should know that a resilient electric grid does come with a price.”

Like everything worth having, resiliency comes at a price, but that price should be cost-effective. But coal is part of the problem, not the solution to achieving affordable, resilient, and reliable electricity. Not only do coal-fired power plants unexpectedly break down more than any other resource, they have performed poorly during extreme weather events, as his report notes:

During extreme weather events in 2014 “many coal plants could not operate due to conveyor belts and coal piles freezing.”

During extreme weather events in 2014 “many coal plants could not operate due to conveyor belts and coal piles freezing.”

“Forced outages,” meaning the instance when a power station is unavailable to produce power due to an unexpected breakdown, are higher for coal than any other resource – almost twice as high, in fact, as the next highest resource. Coal also needs twice as much scheduled maintenance, referred to as “planned outages,” as any other resource.

A terrible solution in search of a problem

When Secretary Perry originally requested the DOE report, he already knew the grid reliability answer he was looking for. Unfortunately for him, the final report – despite best efforts – only further illustrates why his pre-study pro-coal conclusion is wrong. The report’s recommendations and his letter double down on coal despite the evidence, no matter the cost to the American public; no matter the cost to human health and the environment; and no matter the cost to the well-being of the electric grid itself.

Now that the report is finally here, coal companies likely will continue complaining and seeking help for their uneconomic power plants. Meanwhile, America’s grid will continue to embrace new, innovative technology that builds a cleaner, reliable, affordable, and resilient energy system.

Late Wednesday night, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released its so-called “study” on grid reliability. Secretary Perry commissioned the report in this April memo, asking the DOE to investigate whether our electric grid’s reliability is threatened by the “erosion of critical baseload resources,” meaning coal and nuclear power plants. Perry took the unusual step […]

The post Secretary Perry continues to ignore the evidence on grid reliability, even his own appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Michael Panfil

Late Wednesday night, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released its so-called “study” on grid reliability.

Secretary Perry commissioned the report in this April memo, asking the DOE to investigate whether our electric grid’s reliability is threatened by the “erosion of critical baseload resources,” meaning coal and nuclear power plants. Perry took the unusual step of providing his own, pre-study conclusion, claiming that “baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid.”

His own report disagrees. It’s largely a backward-looking report that sometimes argues with itself, but comes, albeit grudgingly, to the same conclusion as every other recent study: the electric grid continues to operate reliably as uneconomic coal diminishes. Moreover, coal is declining because it can’t compete, and other resources are ensuring reliability at more affordable rates.

Perry seems undeterred by the evidence however, and the report’s accompanying cover letter and recommendations appear ready to double down on his pro-coal agenda. Here are three ways he tries to twist the facts in favor of dirty coal – a move that ignores more efficient, affordable, and innovative solutions and comes at a cost to Americans.

The misdirection spin

Perry’s letter accompanying the report included this nugget:

“It is apparent that in today’s competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix.”

Although Secretary Perry continues to blame “regulations and subsidies” for “challenging” the power generation mix (despite the mix becoming more, not less, diverse as more renewables come online), he would be well advised to read his own report if he’s looking for the real driver of coal retirements. The report he commissioned clearly states:

“The biggest contributor to coal and nuclear plant retirements has been the advantaged economics of natural gas-fired generation.”

Secretary Perry continues to ignore the evidence on grid reliability, even his own
Click To Tweet

This is hardly new information; extensive study has found that “decreases in natural gas prices have had a much larger impact on the profitability of conventional generators than the growth of renewable energy.” Coal is simply too costly to compete. And low natural gas prices, in addition to flat demand for electricity, are making energy more affordable.

The reliability spin

On reliability, again Perry’s letter takes one stance:

“The industry has experienced massive change in recent years, and government has failed to keep pace.”

And the report states the opposite:

Grid operators “are working hard to integrate growing levels of [renewable energy] through extensive study, deliberative planning, and careful operations and adjustments.”

Although Perry appears unaware of the thorough performance his own study references, grid operators are required by law to ensure reliable electricity at affordable rates. And indeed, government has kept pace. As the DOE report noted, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s most recent annual State of Reliability analysis concluded that the electric grid was reliable in 2016. And 2015. And 2014. And 2013. And although the DOE report neglected to mention it, this same State of Reliability analysis found that reliability has been increasing.

Certainly, more can and should be done. As the DOE report mentions, increasing the use of fast, flexible resources support a healthy grid. Unfortunately for Perry, coal can’t provide what’s needed, as the DOE report notes,

“For a power plant to make money today, it must be able to ramp up and down to coincide with the variable levels of renewable generation coming online. That makes combined cycle natural gas plants profitable…but coal plants have relatively high and fixed operating costs and are relatively inflexible.”

Coal, simply put, is too slow and old to respond nimbly.

The resiliency spin

Perry also attempts to pivot from focusing on reliability to resiliency, a lesser defined term:

“Customers should know that a resilient electric grid does come with a price.”

Like everything worth having, resiliency comes at a price, but that price should be cost-effective. But coal is part of the problem, not the solution to achieving affordable, resilient, and reliable electricity. Not only do coal-fired power plants unexpectedly break down more than any other resource, they have performed poorly during extreme weather events, as his report notes:

During extreme weather events in 2014 “many coal plants could not operate due to conveyor belts and coal piles freezing.”

During extreme weather events in 2014 “many coal plants could not operate due to conveyor belts and coal piles freezing.”

“Forced outages,” meaning the instance when a power station is unavailable to produce power due to an unexpected breakdown, are higher for coal than any other resource – almost twice as high, in fact, as the next highest resource. Coal also needs twice as much scheduled maintenance, referred to as “planned outages,” as any other resource.

A terrible solution in search of a problem

When Secretary Perry originally requested the DOE report, he already knew the grid reliability answer he was looking for. Unfortunately for him, the final report – despite best efforts – only further illustrates why his pre-study pro-coal conclusion is wrong. The report’s recommendations and his letter double down on coal despite the evidence, no matter the cost to the American public; no matter the cost to human health and the environment; and no matter the cost to the well-being of the electric grid itself.

Now that the report is finally here, coal companies likely will continue complaining and seeking help for their uneconomic power plants. Meanwhile, America’s grid will continue to embrace new, innovative technology that builds a cleaner, reliable, affordable, and resilient energy system.

By Ben Ratner

Chevron, the nation’s second largest oil and gas producer, is in the news this week as reports surface that long-time CEO John Watson is expected to step down. It’s no secret that Mr. Watson has too often lagged on his response to climate change. As the board selects a new CEO, it has a chance to turn a new leaf and move Chevron toward the right side of history on climate change, better positioning the company to address investor and social demands for cleaner energy and climate risk management.

Here’s what their new CEO should bring to the table:

A vision for how the company adapts and leads in the low carbon transition

Chevron withheld support for the Paris climate accord even as peers like Exxon and Shell supported it. Opposing the vast majority of the rest of the world is not an economically sustainable posture for a global company –and it creates unnecessary risks for shareholders. The board should select a CEO with a vision to adapt and lead in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. Simply acknowledging the reality of climate change is no longer enough – a 21st century energy leader also develops a sound business plan to navigate that reality and help the global community address one of its costliest challenges.

A strategy to engage constructively on GHG policies in the states and federally

While companies like Noble and Anadarko supported sensible methane protections in Colorado, and some in industry stood quietly on the sidelines or worked through trade associations, Chevron vociferously opposed standards. Years later, we know that the methane standards work by cutting emissions and helping businesses reduce waste and earn their license to operate.

As other states size up the opportunity to tackle methane emissions, Chevron’s new CEO should recognize state-level environmental protections for what they are: an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility and secure progress that investors and customers demand. A compelling CEO candidate will seek appropriate balance in securing short-term cost efficiencies that help margins in a challenging price environment, while also investing in supporting public policy development that furthers license to operate for the longer term, at reasonable cost.

Chevron peers like Exxon and Shell have been recognized for complying with EPA methane safeguards despite regulatory uncertainty, yet Chevron has remained quiet. The new CEO should recognize the value of national protections that create a level playing field. He or she should signal a responsible path in the first 100 days by committing to stay the course with basic, proven controls that keep product in the pipeline.

A commitment to address methane emissions in its global operations

As a global company with a global footprint, Chevron has an opportunity to magnify the positive impact of environmental commitments. Strong CEO candidates will look for tangible, cost-effective actions that show a dedication to reduce Chevron’s global greenhouse gas footprint.

While it’s positive that Chevron reports its baseline emissions and conducts some level of leak detection and repair, investors and other stakeholders have little detail beyond this to understand how the company is managing methane. Also, while Chevron is part of the World Bank flaring reduction initiative, they should also set a quantitative methane reduction target or join others like BP and Statoil in the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, a UN sponsored initiative to boost transparency and spur best practice adoption to control emissions from top known sources.

As Chevron trumpets its “Human Energy” campaign, it is time to select a CEO who will harness the company’s energy to become part of the climate solution. Shareholders and society stand to benefit.

By Ben Ratner

Chevron, the nation’s second largest oil and gas producer, is in the news this week as reports surface that long-time CEO John Watson is expected to step down. It’s no secret that Mr. Watson has too often lagged on his response to climate change. As the board selects a new CEO, it has a chance to turn a new leaf and move Chevron toward the right side of history on climate change, better positioning the company to address investor and social demands for cleaner energy and climate risk management.

Here’s what their new CEO should bring to the table:

A vision for how the company adapts and leads in the low carbon transition

Chevron withheld support for the Paris climate accord even as peers like Exxon and Shell supported it. Opposing the vast majority of the rest of the world is not an economically sustainable posture for a global company –and it creates unnecessary risks for shareholders. The board should select a CEO with a vision to adapt and lead in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. Simply acknowledging the reality of climate change is no longer enough – a 21st century energy leader also develops a sound business plan to navigate that reality and help the global community address one of its costliest challenges.

A strategy to engage constructively on GHG policies in the states and federally

While companies like Noble and Anadarko supported sensible methane protections in Colorado, and some in industry stood quietly on the sidelines or worked through trade associations, Chevron vociferously opposed standards. Years later, we know that the methane standards work by cutting emissions and helping businesses reduce waste and earn their license to operate.

As other states size up the opportunity to tackle methane emissions, Chevron’s new CEO should recognize state-level environmental protections for what they are: an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility and secure progress that investors and customers demand. A compelling CEO candidate will seek appropriate balance in securing short-term cost efficiencies that help margins in a challenging price environment, while also investing in supporting public policy development that furthers license to operate for the longer term, at reasonable cost.

Chevron peers like Exxon and Shell have been recognized for complying with EPA methane safeguards despite regulatory uncertainty, yet Chevron has remained quiet. The new CEO should recognize the value of national protections that create a level playing field. He or she should signal a responsible path in the first 100 days by committing to stay the course with basic, proven controls that keep product in the pipeline.

A commitment to address methane emissions in its global operations

As a global company with a global footprint, Chevron has an opportunity to magnify the positive impact of environmental commitments. Strong CEO candidates will look for tangible, cost-effective actions that show a dedication to reduce Chevron’s global greenhouse gas footprint.

While it’s positive that Chevron reports its baseline emissions and conducts some level of leak detection and repair, investors and other stakeholders have little detail beyond this to understand how the company is managing methane. Also, while Chevron is part of the World Bank flaring reduction initiative, they should also set a quantitative methane reduction target or join others like BP and Statoil in the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, a UN sponsored initiative to boost transparency and spur best practice adoption to control emissions from top known sources.

As Chevron trumpets its “Human Energy” campaign, it is time to select a CEO who will harness the company’s energy to become part of the climate solution. Shareholders and society stand to benefit.

By Ben Ratner

Chevron, the nation’s second largest oil and gas producer, is in the news this week as reports surface that long-time CEO John Watson is expected to step down. It’s no secret that Mr. Watson has too often lagged on his response to climate change. As the board selects a new CEO, it has a chance to turn a new leaf and move Chevron toward the right side of history on climate change, better positioning the company to address investor and social demands for cleaner energy and climate risk management.

Here’s what their new CEO should bring to the table:

A vision for how the company adapts and leads in the low carbon transition

Chevron withheld support for the Paris climate accord even as peers like Exxon and Shell supported it. Opposing the vast majority of the rest of the world is not an economically sustainable posture for a global company –and it creates unnecessary risks for shareholders. The board should select a CEO with a vision to adapt and lead in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. Simply acknowledging the reality of climate change is no longer enough – a 21st century energy leader also develops a sound business plan to navigate that reality and help the global community address one of its costliest challenges.

A strategy to engage constructively on GHG policies in the states and federally

While companies like Noble and Anadarko supported sensible methane protections in Colorado, and some in industry stood quietly on the sidelines or worked through trade associations, Chevron vociferously opposed standards. Years later, we know that the methane standards work by cutting emissions and helping businesses reduce waste and earn their license to operate.

As other states size up the opportunity to tackle methane emissions, Chevron’s new CEO should recognize state-level environmental protections for what they are: an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility and secure progress that investors and customers demand. A compelling CEO candidate will seek appropriate balance in securing short-term cost efficiencies that help margins in a challenging price environment, while also investing in supporting public policy development that furthers license to operate for the longer term, at reasonable cost.

Chevron peers like Exxon and Shell have been recognized for complying with EPA methane safeguards despite regulatory uncertainty, yet Chevron has remained quiet. The new CEO should recognize the value of national protections that create a level playing field. He or she should signal a responsible path in the first 100 days by committing to stay the course with basic, proven controls that keep product in the pipeline.

A commitment to address methane emissions in its global operations

As a global company with a global footprint, Chevron has an opportunity to magnify the positive impact of environmental commitments. Strong CEO candidates will look for tangible, cost-effective actions that show a dedication to reduce Chevron’s global greenhouse gas footprint.

While it’s positive that Chevron reports its baseline emissions and conducts some level of leak detection and repair, investors and other stakeholders have little detail beyond this to understand how the company is managing methane. Also, while Chevron is part of the World Bank flaring reduction initiative, they should also set a quantitative methane reduction target or join others like BP and Statoil in the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, a UN sponsored initiative to boost transparency and spur best practice adoption to control emissions from top known sources.

As Chevron trumpets its “Human Energy” campaign, it is time to select a CEO who will harness the company’s energy to become part of the climate solution. Shareholders and society stand to benefit.

By Ben Ratner

Chevron, the nation’s second largest oil and gas producer, is in the news this week as reports surface that long-time CEO John Watson is expected to step down. It’s no secret that Mr. Watson has too often lagged on his response to climate change. As the board selects a new CEO, it has a chance to turn a new leaf and move Chevron toward the right side of history on climate change, better positioning the company to address investor and social demands for cleaner energy and climate risk management.

Here’s what their new CEO should bring to the table:

A vision for how the company adapts and leads in the low carbon transition

Chevron withheld support for the Paris climate accord even as peers like Exxon and Shell supported it. Opposing the vast majority of the rest of the world is not an economically sustainable posture for a global company –and it creates unnecessary risks for shareholders. The board should select a CEO with a vision to adapt and lead in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. Simply acknowledging the reality of climate change is no longer enough – a 21st century energy leader also develops a sound business plan to navigate that reality and help the global community address one of its costliest challenges.

A strategy to engage constructively on GHG policies in the states and federally

While companies like Noble and Anadarko supported sensible methane protections in Colorado, and some in industry stood quietly on the sidelines or worked through trade associations, Chevron vociferously opposed standards. Years later, we know that the methane standards work by cutting emissions and helping businesses reduce waste and earn their license to operate.

As other states size up the opportunity to tackle methane emissions, Chevron’s new CEO should recognize state-level environmental protections for what they are: an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility and secure progress that investors and customers demand. A compelling CEO candidate will seek appropriate balance in securing short-term cost efficiencies that help margins in a challenging price environment, while also investing in supporting public policy development that furthers license to operate for the longer term, at reasonable cost.

Chevron peers like Exxon and Shell have been recognized for complying with EPA methane safeguards despite regulatory uncertainty, yet Chevron has remained quiet. The new CEO should recognize the value of national protections that create a level playing field. He or she should signal a responsible path in the first 100 days by committing to stay the course with basic, proven controls that keep product in the pipeline.

A commitment to address methane emissions in its global operations

As a global company with a global footprint, Chevron has an opportunity to magnify the positive impact of environmental commitments. Strong CEO candidates will look for tangible, cost-effective actions that show a dedication to reduce Chevron’s global greenhouse gas footprint.

While it’s positive that Chevron reports its baseline emissions and conducts some level of leak detection and repair, investors and other stakeholders have little detail beyond this to understand how the company is managing methane. Also, while Chevron is part of the World Bank flaring reduction initiative, they should also set a quantitative methane reduction target or join others like BP and Statoil in the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, a UN sponsored initiative to boost transparency and spur best practice adoption to control emissions from top known sources.

As Chevron trumpets its “Human Energy” campaign, it is time to select a CEO who will harness the company’s energy to become part of the climate solution. Shareholders and society stand to benefit.

Written by Molly Rauch

MCAF supermom, Tammi Bernardi-Bathke, NJ state organizer, Kate Schumacher with Senator Cory Booker

 

On Friday, August 4, Kate Schumacher, Moms Clean Air Force’s New Jersey organizer, brought four volunteers to a Community Town Hall with Senator Cory Booker and Congressman Donald Norcross (CD-1). The event took place at Rutgers University in Camden, NJ, and was moderated by the campus’s chancellor, Phoebe Haddon.

The intimate town hall, attended by less than one hundred people, provided an opportunity for moms to talk directly with lawmakers about New Jersey’s air.

Issues discussed at the meeting ranged from prison reform to bringing dignity back to politics. Senator Booker discussed problems that are impacting New Jersey’s children, and touched on lead, smog, and superfund sites.

After the discussion, Kate greeted the lawmakers and hand-delivered 25 notecards that New Jersey members had written to Senator Booker. He was appreciative and gracious. Senator Booker even wrote a note card back that read: “Keep Leading Change.”

Kate has been working to bring the stories and dedication of New Jersey’s moms to the ears of her lawmakers, and the town hall affirmed that she has been effective. Senator Booker recognized Moms Clean Air Force as an important group of powerful advocates. Toward the end of the evening, Kate asked the Senator if he would write a notecard back to the Moms Clean Air Force members of New Jersey. When he did, Kate was delighted. “I think I may have it framed,” she says.

 

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Written by Molly Rauch

On July 29th, the Texas chapter of Moms Clean Air Force hosted “Monarch Butterflies and Climate Change” in partnership with the San Antonio Public Library, the University of Texas School of Nursing, and the University of Texas Monarch and Milkweed Project. This family-friendly STEM event included a panel discussion, butterfly and plant activities, and a demonstration that explored climate change and its effect on monarch butterflies, plants, and animals.

People of all ages and walks of life attended: Families with young children, grassroots advocates, people of faith, retirees, grandparents, gardeners, and military personnel. Children eagerly made their own craft butterflies, played with models of the butterfly life cycle, and watched a live chrysalis and caterpillar inching along a plant.

San Antonio is a Monarch Champion City, and the city recently passed a resolution in support of the Paris Climate Agreement. Educating the community about the connection between climate change and monarch butterflies was a great fit for San Antonio’s leadership and direction.

“It was truly inspiring to see,” says Krystal Henagan, the San-Antonio-based Texas field consultant for Moms Clean Air Force. “The event brought together a very diverse audience, with unified interest on a single issue. It is so important to have meaningful and educational events in our community.”

There couldn’t have been a more appropriate time to discuss global warming: With sustained daytime heat indexes above 108 degrees, San Antonio’s Health Department had issued a Level II heat advisory. That day, San Antonio hit its tenth consecutive day of 100+ degree temperatures.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

Written by Molly Rauch

Moms Clean Air Force members meet with Senator Durbin.

The Southeast side of Chicago has always been concerned about the high-level of pollutants in their community. Organizer Peggy Salazar and her team at the Southeast Environmental Task Force knew that there were chemicals like manganese, a neurotoxic metal used in steel production, and petcoke, a byproduct of petroleum refining, being stored in giant open-air piles in their neighborhood, but it was difficult to get city officials to engage on the issue. Four years ago, they asked Senator Durbin to implore the city to monitor for pollutants in their community. When the resulting report turned up appreciable levels of manganese in addition to petcoke, local organizers weren’t surprised, but it further propelled them into action. Since then, families in the predominately Latino and low-income neighborhood have been fighting to get this problem fixed. 

But efforts to get the city and EPA to take swift action had stalled. So when some Southeast Side families had the chance to travel to Washington DC last month to talk to their lawmakers about air pollution, they put this issue at the top of their talking points. At a meeting with Senator Durbin, they thanked him for helping to get the monitors installed, and let him know that they had detected the neurotoxic metal manganese, which drifts as dust into their nearby residential neighborhood. They asked Senator Durbin again to help protect their families. 

Manganese is being stored and handled in a facility owned by S.H. Bell, and is near residences, parks, playgrounds, and schools in the community. There are thousands of children living within one-mile of S.H. Bell.

Senator Durbin was listening. After the meeting, he wrote letters to S.H. Bell, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the EPA about the manganese exposures on the Southeast Side. The letters seem to have infused new energy into the city’s and EPA’s timeline for taking action. A recent community meeting found community members, city officials, and the EPA working through a timeline for monitoring and eliminating exposure to the dangerous pollution.

By speaking directly to their lawmakers about the manganese problem in their community, these Southeast Side moms were able to make a difference.

“Like all moms, I want the places where our families live, work, and play to be free from pollution and hazardous waste,” says Kelly Nichols, our Chicago-based field organizer. Kelly has been working closely with the Southeast Side community to help seek a solution to the manganese piles. “We are pleased at the importance Senator Durbin has placed on this issue. No mother should have to worry that her children are breathing unsafe levels of in chemicals that can damage their developing brains.”

Says community organizer Olga Bautista of the Southeast Coalition to Ban Petcoke, “[The recent] meeting reaffirmed that both the EPA and the City must work with the community residents and regard them as experts on the day to day experience of living alongside dirty industry. An equitable solution must be fashioned with their input to ensure that they are not at risk from manganese, or more broadly from the toxic soup on the Southeast Side.”

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

This is a polluters dream and will put enforcement of our bedrock environmental protections at grave risk. C4. DOF. Regional.

In mid-July, I traveled to Louisiana with fellow ELI Gulf Team member Teresa Chan to host three workshops with the Restore the Mississippi River Delta coalition. Held in three different parishes, these workshops were intended to help the community meaningfully participate in the “scoping” process for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion by providing some background on the project, explaining what scoping is, and discussing how the public can participate. Nearly 60 people attended the workshops, where there were lots of lively discussions!  Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion ...

Read The Full Story

The post Helping Communities Participate in the NEPA Scoping Process appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

In mid-July, I traveled to Louisiana with fellow ELI Gulf Team member Teresa Chan to host three workshops with the Restore the Mississippi River Delta coalition. Held in three different parishes, these workshops were intended to help the community meaningfully participate in the “scoping” process for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion by providing some background on the project, explaining what scoping is, and discussing how the public can participate. Nearly 60 people attended the workshops, where there were lots of lively discussions!  Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion ...

Read The Full Story

The post Helping Communities Participate in the NEPA Scoping Process appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

In mid-July, I traveled to Louisiana with fellow ELI Gulf Team member Teresa Chan to host three workshops with the Restore the Mississippi River Delta coalition. Held in three different parishes, these workshops were intended to help the community meaningfully participate in the “scoping” process for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion by providing some background on the project, explaining what scoping is, and discussing how the public can participate. Nearly 60 people attended the workshops, where there were lots of lively discussions!  Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion ...

Read The Full Story

The post Helping Communities Participate in the NEPA Scoping Process appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.