By Irene Burga

Cities across the U.S. are taking the reins on climate leadership, and Los Angeles has emerged as a hotbed for new solutions that will improve air quality and move the needle toward reaching local and state climate goals.

Strong mayoral commitment across the country

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has made it clear that growing the city sustainably is a priority. In his State of the City address in April, he assured that “if the White House pulls out of the Paris climate agreement, we’re going to adopt it right here in L.A.” – and so far he has shown commitment to that promise. The Mayors National Climate Action Agenda, co-founded by Garcetti, established a network of 367 U.S. mayors and counting, representing over 67 million Americans, committed to implementing the Paris climate agreement of limiting atmospheric temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius in their own localities. This commitment from cities across the country demonstrates that local solutions are leading the way, and Los Angeles is at the forefront.

Looking to a clean energy future in the City of Angels

Under the LA Sustainability Plan, Los Angeles must cut greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2025, 60% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. A crucial part of reaching these aggressive goals is transitioning to a clean energy future. To that end, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), launched a study to analyze how the largest municipal utility in the U.S. can run on 100% clean energy.

LADWP has already committed to eliminating its dependence on coal by 2025, and now this study – in combination with a roadmap to get L.A. powered by clean energy resources – will ensure the region’s reliance on other fossil fuels like natural gas and crude oil also decreases, a critical step in reducing harmful emissions.

More than 4 million people and almost 500,000 businesses are located in Los Angeles – and delivering affordable, reliable, clean energy to this massive population will be a challenge. But by integrating more renewables onto the grid and focusing on reducing emissions, the city can keep energy bills low while improving air quality and creating more opportunity for clean energy businesses.

Los Angeles County tests avenues for deploying more clean energy

Not only is the city seriously looking into how to decrease fossil fuel energy usage, but the County of Los Angeles is also testing models. In April, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a plan to drive more renewable energy into the county, allocating $10 million to get the Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) program up and running. The program plans to bring together several cities within the county to purchase clean electricity in the wholesale power market as an alternative to purchasing electricity directly from local investor owned utilities, in order to create a greener electricity mix.

Coordinated state and local action is a force to be reckoned with

California as a state has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% and getting at least half of its energy from renewables by 2030. With SB 100 now making its way through the legislature, California has the opportunity to set an ambitious target of reaching 100% clean energy by 2045.

Los Angeles’ local actions fit squarely into the state’s goals. In some cases they are more ambitious and may push California to reach even higher ground. These local efforts also signal other cities across the country that transitioning to a clean energy future is not only possible but is already happening.

State and local targets are meant to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, improve air quality, and spur innovation in renewable technology – an outcome that has been observed over the last decade as California has integrated the most renewables onto the grid out of any other state in the country, all while steadily increasing jobs and becoming the sixth largest economy in the world. Last year, 27% of the state’s electricity came from wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy, and hydroelectric sources. We now have the ability to grow that percentage and make an even greater impact.

Taking action when it counts

Progress in this area can’t come soon enough. Last year, California endured a fifth consecutive year of its worst drought in over a millennium, followed by a deluge of rain and snow that broke records dating back 122 years. Following this torrent of rain, the state has repeatedly seen massive forest fires and states of emergency. With advancing climate change, these seesaw conditions are likely to continue, causing real problems for the Golden State. Coupled with extreme heat waves, expansive wild fires, increasing sea level rise, and fluctuating food production, California has a lot at stake. Additionally, poor air quality, which is exacerbated by rising temperatures, continues to plague Los Angeles which once again ranks as the city with the worst ozone pollution in the country.

With so much on the table, it is imperative for Los Angeles to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. While there will be challenges in navigating this goal, the leadership the city is demonstrating shows us that Los Angeles is up for the challenge.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

We’re sharing these nontoxic baby and child tips from MADE SAFE to take some of the guesswork out of what’s toxic and what’s not.

Have you heard the saying that a worried mother does better research than the FBI? Unfortunately, parents almost have to be professional sleuths to figure out what’s safe to use for their children. Scant regulation of chemicals, confusing labeling, and rampant greenwashing can make the simple act of going shopping for your family feel like you’re navigating a minefield. And when our children’s health is at stake, a misstep is not an option.

Avoiding toxic chemicals is particularly crucial when it comes to protecting our babies and children, who are uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemicals. They aren’t just little adults; their immune, neurological, endocrine and entire bodily systems are still developing, and studies show that even small exposures during critical windows can lead to breast cancer, infertility, learning disabilities, and other serious health problems later in life.

The good news is that there are simple steps you can take to reduce your children’s exposure to toxic chemicals. Start by avoiding these five common chemicals!

FLAME RETARDANTS

Where: Bedding, car seats, and foam baby products like nursing pillows and nap mats.

Problem: Studies show that flame retardants appear immediately in the bloodstream and urine, and have linked these chemicals to long-term impacts like endocrine disruption, lower IQ, ADD, fertility issues, thyroid disease and cancer. What’s worse, studies show that these chemicals can’t prevent fires and aren’t necessary.

Avoid it: Switch to 100% cotton or wool bedding, or place an organic cotton or wool topper on top of a regular mattress to minimize exposure. Avoid foam baby products where possible.

PHTHALATES

Where: Fragrance in cleaning and personal care products, and plastics, as it’s a plastic softener.

Problem: Phthalates are endocrine disruptors that are linked to reproductive malformations in baby boys, reduced fertility, developmental disorders, asthma, and increased allergic reactions. They’ve also been identified by Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks) as “a prime example of chemicals of emerging concern to brain development.”

Avoid it: Go for fragrance-free cleaners and personal care products. Look for baby bottles with nipples made from hospital-grade silicon and skip plastic food containers where possible.

HIGH-RISK PESTICIDES

Where: Bug repellent, disinfectant cleaners and hand soaps, and residues in non-organic produce.

Problem: Cancer rates in children are up 25% since 1975 according to Pesticide Action Network, which has taken a very clear stand relating the increasing rates to the increase in use of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to pesticide residue in food as the most critical route of exposure, which luckily, is one we have some control over.

Avoid it: Buy organic food where possible, and refer to resources like Pesticide Action Network to find foods grown with less pesticides. Reduce use of disinfectant cleaners and hand soaps, and opt for regular cleaners and soaps for everyday use. Learn more about choosing bug repellents without high-risk pesticides.

BPA & BPA SUBSTITUTES

Where: Plastic containers like baby bottles, sippy cups, and other feeding containers, plastic food packaging and canned food liners.

Problem: The good news is that the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and children’s sippy cups in 2012. The bad news is that research is emerging that its replacements (BPS, BPE, BPF and numerous others) are also toxic. Some studies suggest that almost all plastics have estrogenic activity and therefore could leech endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Avoid It: Switch to glass and stainless steel where possible, and don’t reuse one-time use plastic bottles. Avoid microwaving plastic containers or putting them through the dishwasher as high heat causes toxics to leech.

FORMALDEHYDE AND FORMALDEHYDE RELEASERS

Where: Baby personal care products like shampoo and liquid soaps.

The Problem: Formaldehyde is linked to cancer and considered a known human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Formaldehyde can be added directly to personal care products or it can be released over time in small amounts from certain preservatives in the product.

Avoid it: Read ingredient lists to avoid formaldehyde, quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, polyoxymethylene urea, sodium hydroxymethylglycinate, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (bromopol) and glyoxal.

Find MADE SAFE certified bottles, bedding, cleaners, personal care, and more!

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

SaveSave

SaveSave

By Matt Watson

Let me first make this important point: I’ve met and worked with a lot of folks in the oil and gas industry who are truly dedicated to making their operations as safe and clean as possible – people who care about the communities they live and work in and who take pride in the reputation of the companies they work for.

That said, I’ve always rolled my eyes a little when I see companies boast in sustainability reports that they comply with all applicable federal and state laws.  Really?  Not breaking the law is the high bar you’re shooting for?

But , as it turns out, one of the nation’s largest oil and gas trade associations is now saying that not only does it oppose common-sense laws requiring companies to reduce their emissions of methane and other harmful air pollution, it’s casting doubt on the extent to which companies should even comply.

The courts have repeatedly struck down efforts by the Trump administration and industry lobbyists to suspend these pollution standards.  And these rules are now in full legal effect.

Yet, in last week’s Inside EPA/Climate, Lee Fuller of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is quoted saying that the court’s rejection of these efforts makes compliance “an EPA enforcement issue, and we have had no guidance from EPA on the enforcement process that they will undertake.”

There should be no confusion here. Compliance is not an enforcement issue. Compliance is a legal obligation. Any company that refuses to meet that obligation is operating outside of the law, regardless of how EPA decides to approach enforcement.

Cries that companies haven’t had enough time to get ready for these standards also fail to pass the straight-face test.  These rules were issued in June 2016 and gave the industry a full year to start taking basic steps to detect and repair leaks – using cost-effective techniques that were pioneered in the states and which have long been in use by leading oil and gas operators.

In fact, operators were required to conduct their first leak surveys at well sites and compressor stations by June 3, 2017, several days before EPA’s unlawful 90-day suspension of the standards was published. Any company that wasn’t implementing these find-and-fix practices was breaking the law then.  And any company that isn’t complying since the court ruled the suspension illegal is violating the law now.

Some in industry have bemoaned the cost and confusion of “regulatory uncertainty” as the Trump EPA attempts to roll back basic public health and environmental protections and the courts time and time again rule those efforts illegal. Even now, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt – backed by players who represent industry’s lowest common denominator – is attempting another delay of the methane rules, this time for two years.

If the industry is truly worried about regulatory uncertainty, trade groups and the industry lobby should stop litigating against these vital protections, cease sowing doubt about their legal effect and urge Scott Pruitt to abandon his lawless efforts to undermine them. The chaos they bemoan is entirely of their own making.

It’s worth noting that not everyone in industry is playing that game.  Leaders aren’t throwing up smoke screens and dodging the issue, they’re moving forward.  In fact, both Exxon and Shell confirmed their compliance with the operational requirements of the methane rules even before the 90-day stay had been overturned by the court. That’s the kind of responsible action that’s not only good for communities and the environment, it’s good for business – in terms of both bottom-line and reputation.

As I said at the outset, I know a lot of good people in the oil and gas world – people who don’t like the turn things have taken in D.C. and who know that any short-lived upside will pale against the backlash this industry will face at home and abroad if it’s seen as doing nothing but fighting against the shift to a cleaner, lower-carbon future.

It’s time for leaders in industry to step out from behind the shadows.  If the IPAA’s of the world are allowed to speak for everyone, companies that are trying to do the right thing will be tagged as retrograde thinkers right along with them. Instead of proving that they can evolve, adapt and be part of the solutions demanded by and owed to both their host communities and the planet, they’ll be riding a side-car to obsolescence.

By Matt Watson

Let me first make this important point: I’ve met and worked with a lot of folks in the oil and gas industry who are truly dedicated to making their operations as safe and clean as possible – people who care about the communities they live and work in and who take pride in the reputation of the companies they work for.

That said, I’ve always rolled my eyes a little when I see companies boast in sustainability reports that they comply with all applicable federal and state laws.  Really?  Not breaking the law is the high bar you’re shooting for?

But , as it turns out, one of the nation’s largest oil and gas trade associations is now saying that not only does it oppose common-sense laws requiring companies to reduce their emissions of methane and other harmful air pollution, it’s casting doubt on the extent to which companies should even comply.

The courts have repeatedly struck down efforts by the Trump administration and industry lobbyists to suspend these pollution standards.  And these rules are now in full legal effect.

Yet, in last week’s Inside EPA/Climate, Lee Fuller of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is quoted saying that the court’s rejection of these efforts makes compliance “an EPA enforcement issue, and we have had no guidance from EPA on the enforcement process that they will undertake.”

There should be no confusion here. Compliance is not an enforcement issue. Compliance is a legal obligation. Any company that refuses to meet that obligation is operating outside of the law, regardless of how EPA decides to approach enforcement.

Cries that companies haven’t had enough time to get ready for these standards also fail to pass the straight-face test.  These rules were issued in June 2016 and gave the industry a full year to start taking basic steps to detect and repair leaks – using cost-effective techniques that were pioneered in the states and which have long been in use by leading oil and gas operators.

In fact, operators were required to conduct their first leak surveys at well sites and compressor stations by June 3, 2017, several days before EPA’s unlawful 90-day suspension of the standards was published. Any company that wasn’t implementing these find-and-fix practices was breaking the law then.  And any company that isn’t complying since the court ruled the suspension illegal is violating the law now.

Some in industry have bemoaned the cost and confusion of “regulatory uncertainty” as the Trump EPA attempts to roll back basic public health and environmental protections and the courts time and time again rule those efforts illegal. Even now, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt – backed by players who represent industry’s lowest common denominator – is attempting another delay of the methane rules, this time for two years.

If the industry is truly worried about regulatory uncertainty, trade groups and the industry lobby should stop litigating against these vital protections, cease sowing doubt about their legal effect and urge Scott Pruitt to abandon his lawless efforts to undermine them. The chaos they bemoan is entirely of their own making.

It’s worth noting that not everyone in industry is playing that game.  Leaders aren’t throwing up smoke screens and dodging the issue, they’re moving forward.  In fact, both Exxon and Shell confirmed their compliance with the operational requirements of the methane rules even before the 90-day stay had been overturned by the court. That’s the kind of responsible action that’s not only good for communities and the environment, it’s good for business – in terms of both bottom-line and reputation.

As I said at the outset, I know a lot of good people in the oil and gas world – people who don’t like the turn things have taken in D.C. and who know that any short-lived upside will pale against the backlash this industry will face at home and abroad if it’s seen as doing nothing but fighting against the shift to a cleaner, lower-carbon future.

It’s time for leaders in industry to step out from behind the shadows.  If the IPAA’s of the world are allowed to speak for everyone, companies that are trying to do the right thing will be tagged as retrograde thinkers right along with them. Instead of proving that they can evolve, adapt and be part of the solutions demanded by and owed to both their host communities and the planet, they’ll be riding a side-car to obsolescence.

By Matt Watson

Let me first make this important point: I’ve met and worked with a lot of folks in the oil and gas industry who are truly dedicated to making their operations as safe and clean as possible – people who care about the communities they live and work in and who take pride in the reputation of the companies they work for.

That said, I’ve always rolled my eyes a little when I see companies boast in sustainability reports that they comply with all applicable federal and state laws.  Really?  Not breaking the law is the high bar you’re shooting for?

But , as it turns out, one of the nation’s largest oil and gas trade associations is now saying that not only does it oppose common-sense laws requiring companies to reduce their emissions of methane and other harmful air pollution, it’s casting doubt on the extent to which companies should even comply.

The courts have repeatedly struck down efforts by the Trump administration and industry lobbyists to suspend these pollution standards.  And these rules are now in full legal effect.

Yet, in last week’s Inside EPA/Climate, Lee Fuller of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is quoted saying that the court’s rejection of these efforts makes compliance “an EPA enforcement issue, and we have had no guidance from EPA on the enforcement process that they will undertake.”

There should be no confusion here. Compliance is not an enforcement issue. Compliance is a legal obligation. Any company that refuses to meet that obligation is operating outside of the law, regardless of how EPA decides to approach enforcement.

Cries that companies haven’t had enough time to get ready for these standards also fail to pass the straight-face test.  These rules were issued in June 2016 and gave the industry a full year to start taking basic steps to detect and repair leaks – using cost-effective techniques that were pioneered in the states and which have long been in use by leading oil and gas operators.

In fact, operators were required to conduct their first leak surveys at well sites and compressor stations by June 3, 2017, several days before EPA’s unlawful 90-day suspension of the standards was published. Any company that wasn’t implementing these find-and-fix practices was breaking the law then.  And any company that isn’t complying since the court ruled the suspension illegal is violating the law now.

Some in industry have bemoaned the cost and confusion of “regulatory uncertainty” as the Trump EPA attempts to roll back basic public health and environmental protections and the courts time and time again rule those efforts illegal. Even now, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt – backed by players who represent industry’s lowest common denominator – is attempting another delay of the methane rules, this time for two years.

If the industry is truly worried about regulatory uncertainty, trade groups and the industry lobby should stop litigating against these vital protections, cease sowing doubt about their legal effect and urge Scott Pruitt to abandon his lawless efforts to undermine them. The chaos they bemoan is entirely of their own making.

It’s worth noting that not everyone in industry is playing that game.  Leaders aren’t throwing up smoke screens and dodging the issue, they’re moving forward.  In fact, both Exxon and Shell confirmed their compliance with the operational requirements of the methane rules even before the 90-day stay had been overturned by the court. That’s the kind of responsible action that’s not only good for communities and the environment, it’s good for business – in terms of both bottom-line and reputation.

As I said at the outset, I know a lot of good people in the oil and gas world – people who don’t like the turn things have taken in D.C. and who know that any short-lived upside will pale against the backlash this industry will face at home and abroad if it’s seen as doing nothing but fighting against the shift to a cleaner, lower-carbon future.

It’s time for leaders in industry to step out from behind the shadows.  If the IPAA’s of the world are allowed to speak for everyone, companies that are trying to do the right thing will be tagged as retrograde thinkers right along with them. Instead of proving that they can evolve, adapt and be part of the solutions demanded by and owed to both their host communities and the planet, they’ll be riding a side-car to obsolescence.

Let me first make this important point: I’ve met and worked with a lot of folks in the oil and gas industry who are truly dedicated to making their operations as safe and clean as possible – people who care about the communities they live and work in and who take pride in the reputation […]

The post Methane standards are the law of the land; it’s time to stop litigation and start complying appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Matt Watson

Let me first make this important point: I’ve met and worked with a lot of folks in the oil and gas industry who are truly dedicated to making their operations as safe and clean as possible – people who care about the communities they live and work in and who take pride in the reputation of the companies they work for.

That said, I’ve always rolled my eyes a little when I see companies boast in sustainability reports that they comply with all applicable federal and state laws.  Really?  Not breaking the law is the high bar you’re shooting for?

But , as it turns out, one of the nation’s largest oil and gas trade associations is now saying that not only does it oppose common-sense laws requiring companies to reduce their emissions of methane and other harmful air pollution, it’s casting doubt on the extent to which companies should even comply.

The courts have repeatedly struck down efforts by the Trump administration and industry lobbyists to suspend these pollution standards.  And these rules are now in full legal effect.

Yet, in last week’s Inside EPA/Climate, Lee Fuller of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is quoted saying that the court’s rejection of these efforts makes compliance “an EPA enforcement issue, and we have had no guidance from EPA on the enforcement process that they will undertake.”

There should be no confusion here. Compliance is not an enforcement issue. Compliance is a legal obligation. Any company that refuses to meet that obligation is operating outside of the law, regardless of how EPA decides to approach enforcement.

Cries that companies haven’t had enough time to get ready for these standards also fail to pass the straight-face test.  These rules were issued in June 2016 and gave the industry a full year to start taking basic steps to detect and repair leaks – using cost-effective techniques that were pioneered in the states and which have long been in use by leading oil and gas operators.

In fact, operators were required to conduct their first leak surveys at well sites and compressor stations by June 3, 2017, several days before EPA’s unlawful 90-day suspension of the standards was published. Any company that wasn’t implementing these find-and-fix practices was breaking the law then.  And any company that isn’t complying since the court ruled the suspension illegal is violating the law now.

Some in industry have bemoaned the cost and confusion of “regulatory uncertainty” as the Trump EPA attempts to roll back basic public health and environmental protections and the courts time and time again rule those efforts illegal. Even now, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt – backed by players who represent industry’s lowest common denominator – is attempting another delay of the methane rules, this time for two years.

If the industry is truly worried about regulatory uncertainty, trade groups and the industry lobby should stop litigating against these vital protections, cease sowing doubt about their legal effect and urge Scott Pruitt to abandon his lawless efforts to undermine them. The chaos they bemoan is entirely of their own making.

It’s worth noting that not everyone in industry is playing that game.  Leaders aren’t throwing up smoke screens and dodging the issue, they’re moving forward.  In fact, both Exxon and Shell confirmed their compliance with the operational requirements of the methane rules even before the 90-day stay had been overturned by the court. That’s the kind of responsible action that’s not only good for communities and the environment, it’s good for business – in terms of both bottom-line and reputation.

As I said at the outset, I know a lot of good people in the oil and gas world – people who don’t like the turn things have taken in D.C. and who know that any short-lived upside will pale against the backlash this industry will face at home and abroad if it’s seen as doing nothing but fighting against the shift to a cleaner, lower-carbon future.

It’s time for leaders in industry to step out from behind the shadows.  If the IPAA’s of the world are allowed to speak for everyone, companies that are trying to do the right thing will be tagged as retrograde thinkers right along with them. Instead of proving that they can evolve, adapt and be part of the solutions demanded by and owed to both their host communities and the planet, they’ll be riding a side-car to obsolescence.

I grew up on levees of both rice and crawfish fields along the coast of southern Vermilion Parish. To some that might sound like a boring childhood but to me, it was my own paradise and playground. This unique upbringing greatly influenced the person I have become, as well as my understanding of the importance of Louisiana’s coast and the many unique communities that comprise it.   I was born into a family which was, and still is, deeply invested ...

Read The Full Story

The post From Cattle Farming to Pageant Queen: A Coastal Advocate All the Way appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

I grew up on levees of both rice and crawfish fields along the coast of southern Vermilion Parish. To some that might sound like a boring childhood but to me, it was my own paradise and playground. This unique upbringing greatly influenced the person I have become, as well as my understanding of the importance of Louisiana’s coast and the many unique communities that comprise it.   I was born into a family which was, and still is, deeply invested ...

Read The Full Story

The post From Cattle Farming to Pageant Queen: A Coastal Advocate All the Way appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

I grew up on levees of both rice and crawfish fields along the coast of southern Vermilion Parish. To some that might sound like a boring childhood but to me, it was my own paradise and playground. This unique upbringing greatly influenced the person I have become, as well as my understanding of the importance of Louisiana’s coast and the many unique communities that comprise it.   I was born into a family which was, and still is, deeply invested ...

Read The Full Story

The post From Cattle Farming to Pageant Queen: A Coastal Advocate All the Way appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

96 Tomorrow is judgment day for FirstEnergy's bailout p{ margin:10px 0; padding:0; } table{ border-collapse:collapse; } h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{ display:block; margin:0; padding:0; } img,a img{ border:0; height:auto; outline:none; text-decoration:none; } body,#bodyTable,#bodyCell{ height:100%; margin:0; padding:0; width:100%; } .mcnPreviewText{ display:none !important; } #outlook a{ padding:0; } img{ -ms-interpolation-mode:bicubic; } table{ mso-table-lspace:0pt; mso-table-rspace:0pt; } .ReadMsgBody{ width:100%; } .ExternalClass{ width:100%; } p,a,li,td,blockquote{ mso-line-height-rule:exactly; } a[href^=tel],a[href^=sms]{ color:inherit; cursor:default; text-decoration:none; } p,a,li,td,body,table,blockquote{ -ms-text-size-adjust:100%; -webkit-text-size-adjust:100%; } .ExternalClass,.ExternalClass p,.ExternalClass td,.ExternalClass div,.ExternalClass span,.ExternalClass font{ line-height:100%; } a[x-apple-data-detectors]{ color:inherit !important; text-decoration:none !important; font-size:inherit !important; font-family:inherit !important; font-weight:inherit !important; line-height:inherit !important; } .templateContainer{ max-width:600px !important; } a.mcnButton{ display:block; } .mcnImage{ vertical-align:bottom; } .mcnTextContent{ word-break:break-word; } .mcnTextContent img{ height:auto !important; } .mcnDividerBlock{ table-layout:fixed !important; } h1{ color:#222222; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:40px; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:150%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:center; } h2{ color:#222222; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:34px; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:150%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:left; } h3{ color:#444444; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:22px; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:150%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:center; } h4{ color:#999999; font-family:Georgia; font-size:20px; font-style:italic; font-weight:normal; line-height:125%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:left; } #templateHeader{ background-color:#ffffff; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0px; padding-bottom:0px; } .headerContainer{ background-color:transparent; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0; } .headerContainer .mcnTextContent,.headerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ color:#808080; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:16px; line-height:150%; text-align:left; } .headerContainer .mcnTextContent a,.headerContainer .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#00ADD8; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } #templateBody{ background-color:#FFFFFF; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:27px; padding-bottom:54px; } .bodyContainer{ background-color:transparent; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0; } .bodyContainer .mcnTextContent,.bodyContainer .mcnTextContent p{ color:#808080; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:16px; line-height:150%; text-align:left; } .bodyContainer .mcnTextContent a,.bodyContainer .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#00ADD8; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } #templateFooter{ background-color:#333333; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:45px; padding-bottom:63px; } .footerContainer{ background-color:transparent; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0; } .footerContainer .mcnTextContent,.footerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; line-height:150%; text-align:center; } .footerContainer .mcnTextContent a,.footerContainer .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#FFFFFF; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } @media only screen and (min-width:768px){ .templateContainer{ width:600px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ body,table,td,p,a,li,blockquote{ -webkit-text-size-adjust:none !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ body{ width:100% !important; min-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImage{ width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnCartContainer,.mcnCaptionTopContent,.mcnRecContentContainer,.mcnCaptionBottomContent,.mcnTextContentContainer,.mcnBoxedTextContentContainer,.mcnImageGroupContentContainer,.mcnCaptionLeftTextContentContainer,.mcnCaptionRightTextContentContainer,.mcnCaptionLeftImageContentContainer,.mcnCaptionRightImageContentContainer,.mcnImageCardLeftTextContentContainer,.mcnImageCardRightTextContentContainer{ max-width:100% !important; width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnBoxedTextContentContainer{ min-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupContent{ padding:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnCaptionLeftContentOuter .mcnTextContent,.mcnCaptionRightContentOuter .mcnTextContent{ padding-top:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardTopImageContent,.mcnCaptionBlockInner .mcnCaptionTopContent:last-child .mcnTextContent{ padding-top:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardBottomImageContent{ padding-bottom:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupBlockInner{ padding-top:0 !important; padding-bottom:0 !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupBlockOuter{ padding-top:9px !important; padding-bottom:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnTextContent,.mcnBoxedTextContentColumn{ padding-right:18px !important; padding-left:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardLeftImageContent,.mcnImageCardRightImageContent{ padding-right:18px !important; padding-bottom:0 !important; padding-left:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcpreview-image-uploader{ display:none !important; width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h1{ font-size:30px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h2{ font-size:26px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h3{ font-size:20px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h4{ font-size:18px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .mcnTextContent,.mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:14px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .headerContainer .mcnTextContent,.headerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:16px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .bodyContainer .mcnTextContent,.bodyContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:16px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .footerContainer .mcnTextContent,.footerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:14px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } Tuesday August 15, 2017

Hope you’ve all enjoyed your summer break from Ohio utilities’ subsidy-seeking antics. Unfortunately, the poster child for bailouts – FirstEnergy – is back.

Tomorrow, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) will issue its rehearing order on FirstEnergy’s bailout plea.

If, like us, you have vacation brain, here’s a refresher: Last October, the PUCO gave a tentative $625-million subsidy to reduce FirstEnergy’s debt associated with its bad business decisions. Admittedly less than the $12 billion the utility giant requested, it was still an unnecessary bailout and tax on Ohioans. 

While the PUCO has been mulling over whether to give final approval to that bailout for ten months, FirstEnergy has been raking in the big bucks. In fact, our ticker shows Ohioans likely have paid the utility more than $80 million dollars for the bailout as the regulators have delayed making a decision. And no matter what they decide tomorrow, the PUCO’s rules allow FirstEnergy to keep the $80+ million.

It was a bad decision in October, and it only got more indefensible after the Ohio legislature rejected a measure that would have let utility giants bolster their credit ratings through higher electricity rates. In other words, utilities were asking the legislators for a no-strings-attached bailout so they could borrow more money – the PUCO’s very argument to give FirstEnergy credit support. If state legislators are unwilling to force Ohioans to pay for utilities’ financial mistakes, regulators should follow suit.

Finally, it’s judgment day. If the PUCO rubber stamps the subsidy tomorrow, EDF and others will say, “See you in the Ohio Supreme Court.” 

In other FirstEnergy bailout news… When it comes to uneconomic power plants, FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones knows when to hold ‘em, but seems less clear on when to fold ‘em.

The utility has been trying – to no avail – to get customers to prop up its nuclear plants. The legislation stalled in both the Ohio House and Senate earlier this year, but John Funk of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that FirstEnergy’s not throwing in the towel just yet. Instead, Jones said, “I am going to continue to fight.”

Keep an eye out for the nuclear bailout to rear its head when state lawmakers are back in session later this year. A growing chorus of bailout opponents will be waiting. Profits rolling in FirstEnergy recently reported a profit of $174 million in the second quarter of 2017, following a first quarter of $205 million. FirstEnergy’s profits include the $80+ million that Ohioans have paid unnecessarily this year.

Makes you wonder why the utility “deserves” a bailout – and why Ohioans should foot the bill. --> Copyright © 2017 Environmental Defense Fund |Energy, All rights reserved.


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

96 Tomorrow is judgment day for FirstEnergy's bailout p{ margin:10px 0; padding:0; } table{ border-collapse:collapse; } h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{ display:block; margin:0; padding:0; } img,a img{ border:0; height:auto; outline:none; text-decoration:none; } body,#bodyTable,#bodyCell{ height:100%; margin:0; padding:0; width:100%; } .mcnPreviewText{ display:none !important; } #outlook a{ padding:0; } img{ -ms-interpolation-mode:bicubic; } table{ mso-table-lspace:0pt; mso-table-rspace:0pt; } .ReadMsgBody{ width:100%; } .ExternalClass{ width:100%; } p,a,li,td,blockquote{ mso-line-height-rule:exactly; } a[href^=tel],a[href^=sms]{ color:inherit; cursor:default; text-decoration:none; } p,a,li,td,body,table,blockquote{ -ms-text-size-adjust:100%; -webkit-text-size-adjust:100%; } .ExternalClass,.ExternalClass p,.ExternalClass td,.ExternalClass div,.ExternalClass span,.ExternalClass font{ line-height:100%; } a[x-apple-data-detectors]{ color:inherit !important; text-decoration:none !important; font-size:inherit !important; font-family:inherit !important; font-weight:inherit !important; line-height:inherit !important; } .templateContainer{ max-width:600px !important; } a.mcnButton{ display:block; } .mcnImage{ vertical-align:bottom; } .mcnTextContent{ word-break:break-word; } .mcnTextContent img{ height:auto !important; } .mcnDividerBlock{ table-layout:fixed !important; } h1{ color:#222222; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:40px; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:150%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:center; } h2{ color:#222222; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:34px; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:150%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:left; } h3{ color:#444444; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:22px; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; line-height:150%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:center; } h4{ color:#999999; font-family:Georgia; font-size:20px; font-style:italic; font-weight:normal; line-height:125%; letter-spacing:normal; text-align:left; } #templateHeader{ background-color:#ffffff; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0px; padding-bottom:0px; } .headerContainer{ background-color:transparent; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0; } .headerContainer .mcnTextContent,.headerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ color:#808080; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:16px; line-height:150%; text-align:left; } .headerContainer .mcnTextContent a,.headerContainer .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#00ADD8; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } #templateBody{ background-color:#FFFFFF; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:27px; padding-bottom:54px; } .bodyContainer{ background-color:transparent; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0; } .bodyContainer .mcnTextContent,.bodyContainer .mcnTextContent p{ color:#808080; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:16px; line-height:150%; text-align:left; } .bodyContainer .mcnTextContent a,.bodyContainer .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#00ADD8; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } #templateFooter{ background-color:#333333; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:45px; padding-bottom:63px; } .footerContainer{ background-color:transparent; background-image:none; background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:center; background-size:cover; border-top:0; border-bottom:0; padding-top:0; padding-bottom:0; } .footerContainer .mcnTextContent,.footerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px; line-height:150%; text-align:center; } .footerContainer .mcnTextContent a,.footerContainer .mcnTextContent p a{ color:#FFFFFF; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } @media only screen and (min-width:768px){ .templateContainer{ width:600px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ body,table,td,p,a,li,blockquote{ -webkit-text-size-adjust:none !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ body{ width:100% !important; min-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImage{ width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnCartContainer,.mcnCaptionTopContent,.mcnRecContentContainer,.mcnCaptionBottomContent,.mcnTextContentContainer,.mcnBoxedTextContentContainer,.mcnImageGroupContentContainer,.mcnCaptionLeftTextContentContainer,.mcnCaptionRightTextContentContainer,.mcnCaptionLeftImageContentContainer,.mcnCaptionRightImageContentContainer,.mcnImageCardLeftTextContentContainer,.mcnImageCardRightTextContentContainer{ max-width:100% !important; width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnBoxedTextContentContainer{ min-width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupContent{ padding:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnCaptionLeftContentOuter .mcnTextContent,.mcnCaptionRightContentOuter .mcnTextContent{ padding-top:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardTopImageContent,.mcnCaptionBlockInner .mcnCaptionTopContent:last-child .mcnTextContent{ padding-top:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardBottomImageContent{ padding-bottom:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupBlockInner{ padding-top:0 !important; padding-bottom:0 !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageGroupBlockOuter{ padding-top:9px !important; padding-bottom:9px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnTextContent,.mcnBoxedTextContentColumn{ padding-right:18px !important; padding-left:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnImageCardLeftImageContent,.mcnImageCardRightImageContent{ padding-right:18px !important; padding-bottom:0 !important; padding-left:18px !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcpreview-image-uploader{ display:none !important; width:100% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h1{ font-size:30px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h2{ font-size:26px !important; line-height:125% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h3{ font-size:20px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ h4{ font-size:18px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .mcnTextContent,.mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:14px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .headerContainer .mcnTextContent,.headerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:16px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .bodyContainer .mcnTextContent,.bodyContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:16px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .footerContainer .mcnTextContent,.footerContainer .mcnTextContent p{ font-size:14px !important; line-height:150% !important; } } Tuesday August 15, 2017

Hope you’ve all enjoyed your summer break from Ohio utilities’ subsidy-seeking antics. Unfortunately, the poster child for bailouts – FirstEnergy – is back.

Tomorrow, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) will issue its rehearing order on FirstEnergy’s bailout plea.

If, like us, you have vacation brain, here’s a refresher: Last October, the PUCO gave a tentative $625-million subsidy to reduce FirstEnergy’s debt associated with its bad business decisions. Admittedly less than the $12 billion the utility giant requested, it was still an unnecessary bailout and tax on Ohioans. 

While the PUCO has been mulling over whether to give final approval to that bailout for ten months, FirstEnergy has been raking in the big bucks. In fact, our ticker shows Ohioans likely have paid the utility more than $80 million dollars for the bailout as the regulators have delayed making a decision. And no matter what they decide tomorrow, the PUCO’s rules allow FirstEnergy to keep the $80+ million.

It was a bad decision in October, and it only got more indefensible after the Ohio legislature rejected a measure that would have let utility giants bolster their credit ratings through higher electricity rates. In other words, utilities were asking the legislators for a no-strings-attached bailout so they could borrow more money – the PUCO’s very argument to give FirstEnergy credit support. If state legislators are unwilling to force Ohioans to pay for utilities’ financial mistakes, regulators should follow suit.

Finally, it’s judgment day. If the PUCO rubber stamps the subsidy tomorrow, EDF and others will say, “See you in the Ohio Supreme Court.” 

In other FirstEnergy bailout news… When it comes to uneconomic power plants, FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones knows when to hold ‘em, but seems less clear on when to fold ‘em.

The utility has been trying – to no avail – to get customers to prop up its nuclear plants. The legislation stalled in both the Ohio House and Senate earlier this year, but John Funk of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that FirstEnergy’s not throwing in the towel just yet. Instead, Jones said, “I am going to continue to fight.”

Keep an eye out for the nuclear bailout to rear its head when state lawmakers are back in session later this year. A growing chorus of bailout opponents will be waiting. Profits rolling in FirstEnergy recently reported a profit of $174 million in the second quarter of 2017, following a first quarter of $205 million. FirstEnergy’s profits include the $80+ million that Ohioans have paid unnecessarily this year.

Makes you wonder why the utility “deserves” a bailout – and why Ohioans should foot the bill. --> Copyright © 2017 Environmental Defense Fund |Energy, All rights reserved.


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Written by Diane MacEachern

If you ask uber climate activist Al Gore whether all your Capitol Hill visits and letters to your elected officials and contributions to organizations and town hall meetings and street protests matter when it comes to climate change, he won’t hesitate when he answers.

They do.

In fact, they matter so much that whatever you’re doing, keep doing it, do more of it, and rope in your friends, family and colleagues so they can do it, too.

That is essentially the big message of his powerful new movie, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” a gripping documentary that is worth watching for these surprising reasons:

An “Inconvenient Sequel” lays unequivocally bare the impact climate change is having on humanity.

“An Inconvenient Sequel comes eleven years after its blockbuster progenitor, “An Inconvenient Truth”. That film won two Academy Awards for doing a masterful job explaining the science of climate change and convincing many climate deniers that global warming is real.

“An Inconvenient Sequel” updates the science, showing just how much hotter the world has gotten since “Truth” premiered. But “Sequel” also demonstrates the devastation a decade’s worth of unchecked greenhouse gas build-up has wrought on the planet, not just in melting ice bergs and the spread of Zika-carrying mosquitoes, but in the death tolls and community wreckage superstorms like Sandy have left in their wake. One of the most heartbreaking and powerful scenes in the film features workers in Pakistan digging graves in anticipation of the hundreds and possibly thousands of people who will die when — not if — an extreme climate-change related heat wave rolls over their country.

The film shows just how significant solar and wind have become as a source of both electricity and jobs. 

As Gore told CBS, “There are now twice as many jobs in the solar industry as in the coal industry. Solar jobs are growing 17 times faster than other jobs in the U.S…. It’s one of the brightest spots in our economic revival.

“The single fastest-growing job over the next ten years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is wind turbine technician. And if you take the efficiency jobs and the renewable energy jobs and add them together, they’re significantly more numerous now than all of the jobs in fossil energy. Fossil jobs are declining while the renewable jobs are growing fasters than other jobs.”

In the film, Gore visits Georgetown, Texas, “the reddest city in the reddest county in the reddest state” in the U.S., Mayor Dale Ross proudly reports. And yet, they’ve committed to going 100% renewable because it’s cleaner, more economical, and the wave of the future.

Declares Mayor Ross, “The less junk you put in the air, the better.”

An “Inconvenient Sequel” reveals some of the nail-biting negotiations that led to the unprecedented Paris climate agreement, along with Gore’s disdain for President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from those agreements.

Agreement in Paris was not fore ordained by any means, especially since the U.S. has been notoriously behind the curve in acknowledging the role burning coal and oil have played on the build-up of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Watching the agreement being unanimously ratified brought me to tears. Who knew it could be so emotional?

Gore credits one unexpected player with having a particularly outsized role in helping to convince the public that climate change is happening: Mother Nature.

“Mother Nature has entered the debate,” he says.

“In the last seven years we’ve had 11 “One-in-1,000-year” downpours in the U.S. We have these floods, and droughts, and sea level rise events, and the melting ice, and tropical diseases. Every night now on the television news is like a nature hike through the book of Revelation. And even if some of the newscasters don’t connect the dots, people themselves are. People who don’t want to use the phrase “global warming” or “climate crisis” are saying, “Wait a minute. Something’s going on here that’s not right.

“Mother Nature is persuading a lot of people who weren’t ready to believe what the scientists were saying.”

As Gore reflects on this, he projects the questions he expects future generations will ask: “What were you thinking? Couldn’t you hear what Mother Nature was screaming at you?”

“An Inconvenient Sequel” starts off a bit slowly, with a long focus on Al Gore himself and his day-to-day work networking, advocating, and the teaching he still does at workshops that help train climate change activists to carry his message into their communities.

There also could have been a much bigger focus on energy efficiency as a critical climate change solution. While people argue about whether to use coal or wind, no one should be arguing about insulating their homes, pumping up their tires, or reducing the energy that’s lost when power is produced hundreds of miles away from where it’s needed then delivered via aging transmission lines that leak power all along the route.

But those are minor flies in a very rich ointment. One other detail the film gets exactly right is its call to action.

In “An Inconvenient Truth,” so many “what you can do” suggestions rolled across the screen at the end that even my eyes glazed over.

The recommendation at the end of “Sequel” is solid and unequivocal: Convince your town to go 100% renewable. Yes. Absolutely.

Says Gore: “If President Trump refuses to lead, the American People will.”

That includes you and all of the million+ members of Moms Clean Air Force.

So follow the recommendation of the film’s hashtag and #beinconvenient. Why? Because Mother Nature expects no less.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Philadelphia, PA’s Mayor Jim Kenney:

Philadelphia’s Mayor Jim Kelly

What is unique about protecting your city’s resources?

Thankfully, what we’re doing isn’t unique. Like most other cities we’re embracing clean, renewable energy sources and working to lessen our carbon footprint so that future generations will have a clean and livable Philadelphia. I am proud of our Greenworks program and how it engages our citizens directly and provides them with information about what they can be doing to make sure Philadelphia is a sustainable city for everyone. I’m also extremely proud of the school district’s Greenfutures program which teaches the next generation of leaders in Philadelphia how important this is.

Are you concerned about the effects of climate change on the children of your city?

As a human being I’m concerned. Climate change affects everyone, but it hurts our vulnerable populations, like older adults, young children, and people with health problems, more. Excessive heat makes diseases like asthma and hypertension worse, which means our residents with those issues miss more days of work and have to stay in the hospital longer. Addressing climate change will help make our city a more just place for everyone.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important, and how can efforts to address clean air and climate change be achieved in our current political climate? 

Climate doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. At the local level, 362 mayors – both Republicans and Democrats – representing 66 million Americans have pledged to meet the international climate goals set by the Paris Agreement. Yes, national leadership on climate change is necessary and critical, but there are plenty of other people who have power to improve things from governors and state legislatures, to public utility commissions, and large companies and institutions.

Is there anything you would like to share with Moms Clean Air Force’s million members?

Now more than ever local governments and households have to take the lead on addressing climate change and converting to clean, renewable energies. In Philadelphia, we have had our sustainability plan, Greenworks, in place for some time now. This plan envisions a city where all Philadelphians are prepared for climate change and reduce carbon pollution. In addition to Greenworks, the Office of Sustainability is completing a municipal Energy Vision to identify opportunities to reduce carbon emissions from building and industry, which emit 79% of Philadelphia’s carbon pollution. The Office of Transportation and Infrastructure Systems just launched a transportation planning process to increase the equity, safety, and sustainability of our transportation systems. The city has also embarked on plans to reduce waste generation through the creation of the Zero Waste and Litter Cabinet. The Office of Sustainability’s Energy Office is developing and implementing energy efficiency projects at city buildings including City Hall and the Philadelphia Museum of Art to reduce carbon pollution through the reduction of energy use. Also, the Philadelphia Energy Authority recently launched a Soloraize program aimed at lowering the costs of solar energy deployment for all Philadelphians. We encourage residents to check out our action guides to learn more about what they can do to help.

A lifelong city resident, Mayor Jim Kenney grew up the oldest of four children in a South Philadelphia rowhome. A decade after graduating from college, Philadelphians elected him to serve as a City Councilman At-Large and, over the next twenty years, Jim stood up for Philadelphia’s working families, fighting for a real living wage and increased funding for public education. In January 2016, Jim was sworn in as the 99th Mayor of Philadelphia. In his first budget, the Mayor worked closely with City Council to fund bold anti-poverty initiatives, including expansion of quality pre-k, the creation of 25 community schools, and $300M investment in parks, rec centers and libraries.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

By Jon Goldstein

Be Prepared. It’s not just the Boy Scout motto, it’s also the way most smart businesses try to operate. Better to anticipate future compliance issues today and bake them into your forward planning, than to be caught flatfooted tomorrow.

That is a big part of the reason major multinational oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil and Shell have said they are already following methane pollution rules finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year. Despite EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s best efforts to delay implementation of these rules, the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of their speedy and complete implementation.

Most recently the DC Circuit last week rejected the latest attempt to undermine methane pollution limits for sources in the oil and gas sector and put those standards into full force and effect. It’s a decision that shows the wisdom of ExxonMobil’s and Shell’s strategy to lean in on regulatory compliance (and highlights the danger for other oil and gas producers that seem to be content dragging their feet and exposing their investors to compliance risk).

A second policy shift last week again underlines the benefits of proper prior preparation from the oil and gas industry. Last Wednesday, the Pruitt EPA withdrew its attempt to extend the deadline for compliance with the new, more protective, health based standard for ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. This decision came one day after a coalition of 16 state Attorneys General joined a lawsuit challenging the delay (EDF and partners also challenged the delay). This means that EPA will now again have to meet an Oct. 1 deadline for determining which areas of the country fail to meet healthy air standards.

This ozone decision is terrific news for residents of areas that struggle with smog pollution tied to under-regulated oil and gas development. With this decision, EPA and states should now have the impetus to continue working on a more expedited timeline to reduce oil and gas pollution and restore healthy air.

It’s also a workable development for the forward thinking oil and gas companies since compliance with EPA’s methane rules will also help reduce the emissions that lead to the formation of unhealthy smog. By thinking ahead on methane, these producers have also put themselves in a better position to address smog problems.

There is a real danger for the oil and gas industry in this era of federal regulatory uncertainty. By pushing the pendulum so far toward deregulation, the worst actors in oil and gas may find themselves creating the very regulatory confusion they and their investors loathe. But you don’t have to take our word for it, as Kevin Book Managing Partner with ClearView Energy Partners recently told Pamela King of E&E News, “If the Trump administration veers more toward a 'rip it up' approach to rulemaking, the implication could be that uncertainty limits future investments."

A stable regulatory environment, investment certainty and cleaner air. Addressing methane is the smart move for the oil and gas industry no matter how you look at it.

By Jon Goldstein

Be Prepared. It’s not just the Boy Scout motto, it’s also the way most smart businesses try to operate. Better to anticipate future compliance issues today and bake them into your forward planning, than to be caught flatfooted tomorrow.

That is a big part of the reason major multinational oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil and Shell have said they are already following methane pollution rules finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year. Despite EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s best efforts to delay implementation of these rules, the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of their speedy and complete implementation.

Most recently the DC Circuit last week rejected the latest attempt to undermine methane pollution limits for sources in the oil and gas sector and put those standards into full force and effect. It’s a decision that shows the wisdom of ExxonMobil’s and Shell’s strategy to lean in on regulatory compliance (and highlights the danger for other oil and gas producers that seem to be content dragging their feet and exposing their investors to compliance risk).

A second policy shift last week again underlines the benefits of proper prior preparation from the oil and gas industry. Last Wednesday, the Pruitt EPA withdrew its attempt to extend the deadline for compliance with the new, more protective, health based standard for ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. This decision came one day after a coalition of 16 state Attorneys General joined a lawsuit challenging the delay (EDF and partners also challenged the delay). This means that EPA will now again have to meet an Oct. 1 deadline for determining which areas of the country fail to meet healthy air standards.

This ozone decision is terrific news for residents of areas that struggle with smog pollution tied to under-regulated oil and gas development. With this decision, EPA and states should now have the impetus to continue working on a more expedited timeline to reduce oil and gas pollution and restore healthy air.

It’s also a workable development for the forward thinking oil and gas companies since compliance with EPA’s methane rules will also help reduce the emissions that lead to the formation of unhealthy smog. By thinking ahead on methane, these producers have also put themselves in a better position to address smog problems.

There is a real danger for the oil and gas industry in this era of federal regulatory uncertainty. By pushing the pendulum so far toward deregulation, the worst actors in oil and gas may find themselves creating the very regulatory confusion they and their investors loathe. But you don’t have to take our word for it, as Kevin Book Managing Partner with ClearView Energy Partners recently told Pamela King of E&E News, “If the Trump administration veers more toward a 'rip it up' approach to rulemaking, the implication could be that uncertainty limits future investments."

A stable regulatory environment, investment certainty and cleaner air. Addressing methane is the smart move for the oil and gas industry no matter how you look at it.

Be Prepared. It’s not just the Boy Scout motto, it’s also the way most smart businesses try to operate. Better to anticipate future compliance issues today and bake them into your forward planning, than to be caught flatfooted tomorrow. That is a big part of the reason major multinational oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil […]

By Jon Goldstein

Be Prepared. It’s not just the Boy Scout motto, it’s also the way most smart businesses try to operate. Better to anticipate future compliance issues today and bake them into your forward planning, than to be caught flatfooted tomorrow.

That is a big part of the reason major multinational oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil and Shell have said they are already following methane pollution rules finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year. Despite EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s best efforts to delay implementation of these rules, the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of their speedy and complete implementation.

Most recently the DC Circuit last week rejected the latest attempt to undermine methane pollution limits for sources in the oil and gas sector and put those standards into full force and effect. It’s a decision that shows the wisdom of ExxonMobil’s and Shell’s strategy to lean in on regulatory compliance (and highlights the danger for other oil and gas producers that seem to be content dragging their feet and exposing their investors to compliance risk).

A second policy shift last week again underlines the benefits of proper prior preparation from the oil and gas industry. Last Wednesday, the Pruitt EPA withdrew its attempt to extend the deadline for compliance with the new, more protective, health based standard for ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. This decision came one day after a coalition of 16 state Attorneys General joined a lawsuit challenging the delay (EDF and partners also challenged the delay). This means that EPA will now again have to meet an Oct. 1 deadline for determining which areas of the country fail to meet healthy air standards.

This ozone decision is terrific news for residents of areas that struggle with smog pollution tied to under-regulated oil and gas development. With this decision, EPA and states should now have the impetus to continue working on a more expedited timeline to reduce oil and gas pollution and restore healthy air.

It’s also a workable development for the forward thinking oil and gas companies since compliance with EPA’s methane rules will also help reduce the emissions that lead to the formation of unhealthy smog. By thinking ahead on methane, these producers have also put themselves in a better position to address smog problems.

There is a real danger for the oil and gas industry in this era of federal regulatory uncertainty. By pushing the pendulum so far toward deregulation, the worst actors in oil and gas may find themselves creating the very regulatory confusion they and their investors loathe. But you don’t have to take our word for it, as Kevin Book Managing Partner with ClearView Energy Partners recently told Pamela King of E&E News, “If the Trump administration veers more toward a 'rip it up' approach to rulemaking, the implication could be that uncertainty limits future investments."

A stable regulatory environment, investment certainty and cleaner air. Addressing methane is the smart move for the oil and gas industry no matter how you look at it.