Don't let this attack on Americans' health go by unnoticed. Make sure your Representative hears from you today. C4. Regional.

Don't let this attack on Americans' health go by unnoticed. Make sure your Representative hears from you today. C4. Regional.

Don't let the Trump Administration take us backwards. Tell Scott Pruitt: Revoking the Clean Power Plan is unacceptable.

Don't let the Trump Administration take us backwards. Tell Scott Pruitt: Revoking the Clean Power Plan is unacceptable.

It’s been 100 days (and counting) since Secretary Perry ordered the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a 60-day study of the U.S. electricity system. We expect the final report to be issued any day now. The initial focus of the study was clear: to determine whether renewable energy policies or regulations have accelerated […]

By Jim Marston

It’s been 100 days (and counting) since Secretary Perry ordered the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a 60-day study of the U.S. electricity system. We expect the final report to be issued any day now.

The initial focus of the study was clear: to determine whether renewable energy policies or regulations have accelerated the retirement of coal and nuclear plants. Perry himself admitted the so-called study was intended to reassess “politically driven policies driven by a hostility to coal,” implying he intends to use the study to discriminate against renewables in favor of dirty, expensive coal.

But a bombshell recently hit. A leaked draft of the study seems to contradict Sec. Perry’s pro-coal thesis and rhetoric.

The draft is thoughtful, and it boils down to some conclusions that Sec. Perry’s political appointees – ahem, editors – will be hard pressed to massage into policy recommendations that call for more coal. Namely, America’s grid reliability remains strong with more clean energy and less coal.

Top 5 takeaways

Environmental Defense Fund conducted a detailed analysis of the draft, outlining the top five takeaways that demonstrate a clean grid is a reliable grid. EDF’s analysis can be found here.

1 – “Baseload” resources, as Perry defines them, are not necessary to preserve grid reliability

Sec. Perry refers to coal and nuclear plants as “baseload power plants,” and wants them to appear as critical to grid reliability. But “baseload” is not even a term industry uses to describe reliability.

The draft notes that “baseload” is a dated term and is not a core ingredient of reliability.

“[B]aseload power was useful to a well-functioning grid over the decades from 1960 to 1990, when these plants were initially built. But with technology and market changes, the bulk power system has changed markedly and high-value market and reliability require different services and capabilities to attain high reliability and resilience.”

In other words, America’s energy system is evolving, and coal and nuclear plants aren’t needed like they used to be.

Waiting for Perry: Leaked draft gives us a glimpse into the study he should release
Click To Tweet

2 – Coal and nuclear plants have been retiring primarily due to low gas prices and flattened demand

The draft study concludes that many baseload retirements are consistent with observed market forces, stating quite plainly, “Many baseload plant retirements are not premature.” Nor are they the result of regulations:

“Retirements have been due primarily to flattened demand and low electric prices and the inability to compete successfully due to plant age, inefficiency and capital needs rather than regulatory burdens.”

The draft cites outside studies that address the cause of baseload power plant retirements, noting the key role of low natural gas prices and flattened demand.

Conclusion: You can’t blame coal’s woes on renewable energy.

3 – The U.S. grid is operating reliably, with ample resources to meet demand

This quote pretty much says it all: “Most of the common metrics for grid reliability suggest that the grid is in good shape despite the retirement of many baseload power plants.”

But there’s more. Reserve margins – a measure of whether the grid has extra energy capacity to satisfy potential demand – are “comfortably or significantly higher than the levels which would raise a resource adequacy flag or signal potential reliability problems.”

4 – Renewable energy sources like wind or solar can improve grid reliability

The draft includes an entire section named “High levels of wind penetration can be integrated into the grid without harming reliability.”

The reality is, renewables can be – and have already been – integrated into the grid, and reliability remains strong.

The vice president of Texas’ grid operator, ERCOT, himself recently confirmed "We can perform reliably with renewable generation; there are just things you have to do with renewables that you don't have to do with (conventional) power generation."

5 – Clean energy can lower costs for customers

The draft carefully points out that future electricity costs are hard to predict. But it suggests a diversified fuel mix, including more renewable energy, can help control costs to customers.

For example, the draft reports that:

• Coal and nuclear power have become more costly while natural gas has remained at historic lows;
• Wind and solar generation’s marginal cost is nearly zero; and
• Trying to keep aging baseload plants “may end up raising rather than lowering the average cost of wholesale electricity for many customers.”

Perhaps most important, the draft notes what polling has shown for years: Americans, over 80% in fact,  want more renewable energy.

Fortunately, wind and solar has significant momentum, regardless of policies. The draft asks, “Will removing renewables subsidies and [renewable portfolio standards] make renewable generation go away (and presumably put less pressure on coal and nuclear plants)?” The answer: “No.”

The real vs. the political

The draft study has real conclusions, which should be included in Perry’s final version. But standing between the draft and the final study is a review by Sec. Perry’s political appointees at DOE. Given the administration’s promise to “bring back coal” and attempts to slash important clean energy and efficiency DOE programs, we anticipate Perry’s final study may look quite different from this initial draft. A DOE spokesperson has already confirmed that large chunks of the draft have been deleted.

Extensive research and analysis supports the initial draft’s conclusions, which you can find on EDF’s website here. If Perry’s final study conflicts with these fact-based findings, the administration’s coal propaganda will be on full display.

By Jim Marston

It’s been 100 days (and counting) since Secretary Perry ordered the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a 60-day study of the U.S. electricity system. We expect the final report to be issued any day now.

The initial focus of the study was clear: to determine whether renewable energy policies or regulations have accelerated the retirement of coal and nuclear plants. Perry himself admitted the so-called study was intended to reassess “politically driven policies driven by a hostility to coal,” implying he intends to use the study to discriminate against renewables in favor of dirty, expensive coal.

But a bombshell recently hit. A leaked draft of the study seems to contradict Sec. Perry’s pro-coal thesis and rhetoric.

The draft is thoughtful, and it boils down to some conclusions that Sec. Perry’s political appointees – ahem, editors – will be hard pressed to massage into policy recommendations that call for more coal. Namely, America’s grid reliability remains strong with more clean energy and less coal.

Top 5 takeaways

Environmental Defense Fund conducted a detailed analysis of the draft, outlining the top five takeaways that demonstrate a clean grid is a reliable grid. EDF’s analysis can be found here.

1 – “Baseload” resources, as Perry defines them, are not necessary to preserve grid reliability

Sec. Perry refers to coal and nuclear plants as “baseload power plants,” and wants them to appear as critical to grid reliability. But “baseload” is not even a term industry uses to describe reliability.

The draft notes that “baseload” is a dated term and is not a core ingredient of reliability.

“[B]aseload power was useful to a well-functioning grid over the decades from 1960 to 1990, when these plants were initially built. But with technology and market changes, the bulk power system has changed markedly and high-value market and reliability require different services and capabilities to attain high reliability and resilience.”

In other words, America’s energy system is evolving, and coal and nuclear plants aren’t needed like they used to be.

Waiting for Perry: Leaked draft gives us a glimpse into the study he should release
Click To Tweet

2 – Coal and nuclear plants have been retiring primarily due to low gas prices and flattened demand

The draft study concludes that many baseload retirements are consistent with observed market forces, stating quite plainly, “Many baseload plant retirements are not premature.” Nor are they the result of regulations:

“Retirements have been due primarily to flattened demand and low electric prices and the inability to compete successfully due to plant age, inefficiency and capital needs rather than regulatory burdens.”

The draft cites outside studies that address the cause of baseload power plant retirements, noting the key role of low natural gas prices and flattened demand.

Conclusion: You can’t blame coal’s woes on renewable energy.

3 – The U.S. grid is operating reliably, with ample resources to meet demand

This quote pretty much says it all: “Most of the common metrics for grid reliability suggest that the grid is in good shape despite the retirement of many baseload power plants.”

But there’s more. Reserve margins – a measure of whether the grid has extra energy capacity to satisfy potential demand – are “comfortably or significantly higher than the levels which would raise a resource adequacy flag or signal potential reliability problems.”

4 – Renewable energy sources like wind or solar can improve grid reliability

The draft includes an entire section named “High levels of wind penetration can be integrated into the grid without harming reliability.”

The reality is, renewables can be – and have already been – integrated into the grid, and reliability remains strong.

The vice president of Texas’ grid operator, ERCOT, himself recently confirmed "We can perform reliably with renewable generation; there are just things you have to do with renewables that you don't have to do with (conventional) power generation."

5 – Clean energy can lower costs for customers

The draft carefully points out that future electricity costs are hard to predict. But it suggests a diversified fuel mix, including more renewable energy, can help control costs to customers.

For example, the draft reports that:

• Coal and nuclear power have become more costly while natural gas has remained at historic lows;
• Wind and solar generation’s marginal cost is nearly zero; and
• Trying to keep aging baseload plants “may end up raising rather than lowering the average cost of wholesale electricity for many customers.”

Perhaps most important, the draft notes what polling has shown for years: Americans, over 80% in fact,  want more renewable energy.

Fortunately, wind and solar has significant momentum, regardless of policies. The draft asks, “Will removing renewables subsidies and [renewable portfolio standards] make renewable generation go away (and presumably put less pressure on coal and nuclear plants)?” The answer: “No.”

The real vs. the political

The draft study has real conclusions, which should be included in Perry’s final version. But standing between the draft and the final study is a review by Sec. Perry’s political appointees at DOE. Given the administration’s promise to “bring back coal” and attempts to slash important clean energy and efficiency DOE programs, we anticipate Perry’s final study may look quite different from this initial draft. A DOE spokesperson has already confirmed that large chunks of the draft have been deleted.

Extensive research and analysis supports the initial draft’s conclusions, which you can find on EDF’s website here. If Perry’s final study conflicts with these fact-based findings, the administration’s coal propaganda will be on full display.

By Jim Marston

It’s been 100 days (and counting) since Secretary Perry ordered the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a 60-day study of the U.S. electricity system. We expect the final report to be issued any day now.

The initial focus of the study was clear: to determine whether renewable energy policies or regulations have accelerated the retirement of coal and nuclear plants. Perry himself admitted the so-called study was intended to reassess “politically driven policies driven by a hostility to coal,” implying he intends to use the study to discriminate against renewables in favor of dirty, expensive coal.

But a bombshell recently hit. A leaked draft of the study seems to contradict Sec. Perry’s pro-coal thesis and rhetoric.

The draft is thoughtful, and it boils down to some conclusions that Sec. Perry’s political appointees – ahem, editors – will be hard pressed to massage into policy recommendations that call for more coal. Namely, America’s grid reliability remains strong with more clean energy and less coal.

Top 5 takeaways

Environmental Defense Fund conducted a detailed analysis of the draft, outlining the top five takeaways that demonstrate a clean grid is a reliable grid. EDF’s analysis can be found here.

1 – “Baseload” resources, as Perry defines them, are not necessary to preserve grid reliability

Sec. Perry refers to coal and nuclear plants as “baseload power plants,” and wants them to appear as critical to grid reliability. But “baseload” is not even a term industry uses to describe reliability.

The draft notes that “baseload” is a dated term and is not a core ingredient of reliability.

“[B]aseload power was useful to a well-functioning grid over the decades from 1960 to 1990, when these plants were initially built. But with technology and market changes, the bulk power system has changed markedly and high-value market and reliability require different services and capabilities to attain high reliability and resilience.”

In other words, America’s energy system is evolving, and coal and nuclear plants aren’t needed like they used to be.

Waiting for Perry: Leaked draft gives us a glimpse into the study he should release
Click To Tweet

2 – Coal and nuclear plants have been retiring primarily due to low gas prices and flattened demand

The draft study concludes that many baseload retirements are consistent with observed market forces, stating quite plainly, “Many baseload plant retirements are not premature.” Nor are they the result of regulations:

“Retirements have been due primarily to flattened demand and low electric prices and the inability to compete successfully due to plant age, inefficiency and capital needs rather than regulatory burdens.”

The draft cites outside studies that address the cause of baseload power plant retirements, noting the key role of low natural gas prices and flattened demand.

Conclusion: You can’t blame coal’s woes on renewable energy.

3 – The U.S. grid is operating reliably, with ample resources to meet demand

This quote pretty much says it all: “Most of the common metrics for grid reliability suggest that the grid is in good shape despite the retirement of many baseload power plants.”

But there’s more. Reserve margins – a measure of whether the grid has extra energy capacity to satisfy potential demand – are “comfortably or significantly higher than the levels which would raise a resource adequacy flag or signal potential reliability problems.”

4 – Renewable energy sources like wind or solar can improve grid reliability

The draft includes an entire section named “High levels of wind penetration can be integrated into the grid without harming reliability.”

The reality is, renewables can be – and have already been – integrated into the grid, and reliability remains strong.

The vice president of Texas’ grid operator, ERCOT, himself recently confirmed "We can perform reliably with renewable generation; there are just things you have to do with renewables that you don't have to do with (conventional) power generation."

5 – Clean energy can lower costs for customers

The draft carefully points out that future electricity costs are hard to predict. But it suggests a diversified fuel mix, including more renewable energy, can help control costs to customers.

For example, the draft reports that:

• Coal and nuclear power have become more costly while natural gas has remained at historic lows;
• Wind and solar generation’s marginal cost is nearly zero; and
• Trying to keep aging baseload plants “may end up raising rather than lowering the average cost of wholesale electricity for many customers.”

Perhaps most important, the draft notes what polling has shown for years: Americans, over 80% in fact,  want more renewable energy.

Fortunately, wind and solar has significant momentum, regardless of policies. The draft asks, “Will removing renewables subsidies and [renewable portfolio standards] make renewable generation go away (and presumably put less pressure on coal and nuclear plants)?” The answer: “No.”

The real vs. the political

The draft study has real conclusions, which should be included in Perry’s final version. But standing between the draft and the final study is a review by Sec. Perry’s political appointees at DOE. Given the administration’s promise to “bring back coal” and attempts to slash important clean energy and efficiency DOE programs, we anticipate Perry’s final study may look quite different from this initial draft. A DOE spokesperson has already confirmed that large chunks of the draft have been deleted.

Extensive research and analysis supports the initial draft’s conclusions, which you can find on EDF’s website here. If Perry’s final study conflicts with these fact-based findings, the administration’s coal propaganda will be on full display.

By Martha Roberts

Across Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regularly identified and shared with the public a detailed list of the agency’s upcoming priority policy actions – safeguards that will help protect the air we breathe and the water we drink, assure the safety of chemicals in everyday products, and provide for proper handling of hazardous wastes.

But the Trump Administration unveiled its first such blueprint last week – and it takes dead aim at fundamental public health and environmental safeguards that are essential to protecting our communities and families. It’s an agenda that would lead to more pollution, fewer common sense safeguards, and more asthma attacks and premature deaths in communities across the country.

Here are a few key targets in the Trump Administration’s plan to dismantle vital public health and environmental safeguards:

Imperiled: the Clean Power Plan. The blueprint reiterates the Trump Administration’s intention to withdraw the Clean Power Plan. The agenda indicates no intent to provide a replacement program to limit dangerous climate pollution from existing power plants – one of America’s largest sources of this harmful pollution – despite the growing urgency of climate disruption, and despite three separate Supreme Court decisions underscoring EPA’s duty to protect Americans from this harmful pollution. The agenda’s justification for rolling back the Clean Power Plan rests on faulty legal reasoning that has been forcefully rejected by legal experts and is at odds with EPA’s past practices.

• What’s at stake? The Clean Power Plan is one of the most significant actions America has ever taken to combat climate change. EPA estimates that when fully implemented, it would prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths and up to 90,000 asthma attacks per year.

Imperiled: limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. The Trump Administration also underscored its plans to end existing limits on carbon pollution from new power plants – an important complement to the Clean Power Plan. Yet again, this announcement includes no intention for a replacement safeguard.

• What would be the result? New fossil fuel-fired power plants, which have lifespans in the decades, and emit staggering quantities of carbon pollution over their lifetimes, could be built with needlessly outdated, lower performing technologies.

Imperiled: pollution controls for oil and gas facilities. The Trump Administration’s plan also commits EPA to review pollution limits on new oil and gas facilities. These limits include measures for leak detection and repair – measures that save otherwise wasted natural gas, reduce pollution in surrounding communities, and create well-paying jobs. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has already taken steps to suspend these protections. His actions meant that more than 18,000 natural gas wells across America were no longer required to fix pollution leaks. While Administrator Pruitt’s suspension was recently found unlawful by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the threat remains that EPA may fully revoke these important safeguards.

Imperiled: protections for Americans from smog. The Trump Administration’s plan also highlights Administrator Pruitt’s decision to suspend his duty to identify the regions that are failing to meet national air quality standards for ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. Smog is a dangerous air pollutant linked to premature deaths, asthma attacks, lower birth weight in infants, and serious heart and lung diseases. EPA analysis indicates that Administrator Pruitt’s announced one-year suspension alone will lead to as many as 230,000 more asthma attacks among children.

Imperiled: protections for downwind communities from interstate air pollution. EPA has a long-standing responsibility to ensure that upwind facilities are good neighbors and do not discharge pollution that imperils public health in downwind states. The Trump Administration’s blueprint recognizes that there are six separate petitions pending before EPA in which downwind states are seeking the agency’s assistance to protect themselves against pollution drifting into their communities from dozens of upwind power plants. It is crucial that EPA carry out this responsibility to ensure that all Americans can breathe easier – but the agency is currently failing to act, and its blueprint provides no commitment to act despite clear legal responsibility under our nation’s clean air laws.

Changes to underlying EPA transparency protections

At the same time that the Trump Administration’s blueprint outlines a host of rollbacks for important pollution controls, it also identifies that the administration will be moving ahead with changes to underlying, fundamental EPA procedures and operational practices.

Here’s just one example:

• Under review: EPA’s open records requirements. Under the Freedom of Information Act, EPA is required to share public records with the public. The Trump Administration’s agenda notes that EPA will be updating its own policies for implementation of the agency’s requirements under this vital transparency law. During Administrator Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma Attorney General, he had an extensive, troubling record of stonewalling these types of open records requests.

These changes are just as important to watch carefully, to ensure essential transparency and rigor in the administration’s conduct. So far, Administrator Pruitt has given ample reason for concern: shutting the public out of key decisions; refusing to share how he spends his time and with whom he meets; and a long history of intertwined relationships with the industries he’s supposed to oversee.

Are more rollbacks possible? President Trump and Administrator Pruitt signal yes

The above summary is hardly complete. The Trump Administration’s blueprint also highlights a host of harmful potential rollbacks for important protections for water, hazardous waste, and beyond.

Moreover, this blueprint may not reflect the full scope of future attacks. In other contexts, President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have taken aim at even more EPA protections against air pollution. For instance, President Trump has signaled his willingness to reconsider standards for emissions from cars and trucks – despite their record of saving consumers money, driving auto innovation, and reducing pollution. And Administrator Pruitt’s EPA has moved to pause litigation over mercury protections while the agency evaluates its position. (In the past, Pruitt even expressed doubt about mercury pollution’s well-established harmful impacts on brain development in kids.)

These risks are critical. But together we can turn back these threats, ensure healthier lives for all Americans, address dangerous climate pollution, and grow our clean energy economy.

Here at EDF we will be working to stop these rollbacks. Please join us, and take action! Click here to let EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt know that you support America’s public health and environmental protections.

By Martha Roberts

Across Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regularly identified and shared with the public a detailed list of the agency’s upcoming priority policy actions – safeguards that will help protect the air we breathe and the water we drink, assure the safety of chemicals in everyday products, and provide for proper handling of hazardous wastes.

But the Trump Administration unveiled its first such blueprint last week – and it takes dead aim at fundamental public health and environmental safeguards that are essential to protecting our communities and families. It’s an agenda that would lead to more pollution, fewer common sense safeguards, and more asthma attacks and premature deaths in communities across the country.

Here are a few key targets in the Trump Administration’s plan to dismantle vital public health and environmental safeguards:

Imperiled: the Clean Power Plan. The blueprint reiterates the Trump Administration’s intention to withdraw the Clean Power Plan. The agenda indicates no intent to provide a replacement program to limit dangerous climate pollution from existing power plants – one of America’s largest sources of this harmful pollution – despite the growing urgency of climate disruption, and despite three separate Supreme Court decisions underscoring EPA’s duty to protect Americans from this harmful pollution. The agenda’s justification for rolling back the Clean Power Plan rests on faulty legal reasoning that has been forcefully rejected by legal experts and is at odds with EPA’s past practices.

• What’s at stake? The Clean Power Plan is one of the most significant actions America has ever taken to combat climate change. EPA estimates that when fully implemented, it would prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths and up to 90,000 asthma attacks per year.

Imperiled: limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. The Trump Administration also underscored its plans to end existing limits on carbon pollution from new power plants – an important complement to the Clean Power Plan. Yet again, this announcement includes no intention for a replacement safeguard.

• What would be the result? New fossil fuel-fired power plants, which have lifespans in the decades, and emit staggering quantities of carbon pollution over their lifetimes, could be built with needlessly outdated, lower performing technologies.

Imperiled: pollution controls for oil and gas facilities. The Trump Administration’s plan also commits EPA to review pollution limits on new oil and gas facilities. These limits include measures for leak detection and repair – measures that save otherwise wasted natural gas, reduce pollution in surrounding communities, and create well-paying jobs. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has already taken steps to suspend these protections. His actions meant that more than 18,000 natural gas wells across America were no longer required to fix pollution leaks. While Administrator Pruitt’s suspension was recently found unlawful by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the threat remains that EPA may fully revoke these important safeguards.

Imperiled: protections for Americans from smog. The Trump Administration’s plan also highlights Administrator Pruitt’s decision to suspend his duty to identify the regions that are failing to meet national air quality standards for ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog. Smog is a dangerous air pollutant linked to premature deaths, asthma attacks, lower birth weight in infants, and serious heart and lung diseases. EPA analysis indicates that Administrator Pruitt’s announced one-year suspension alone will lead to as many as 230,000 more asthma attacks among children.

Imperiled: protections for downwind communities from interstate air pollution. EPA has a long-standing responsibility to ensure that upwind facilities are good neighbors and do not discharge pollution that imperils public health in downwind states. The Trump Administration’s blueprint recognizes that there are six separate petitions pending before EPA in which downwind states are seeking the agency’s assistance to protect themselves against pollution drifting into their communities from dozens of upwind power plants. It is crucial that EPA carry out this responsibility to ensure that all Americans can breathe easier – but the agency is currently failing to act, and its blueprint provides no commitment to act despite clear legal responsibility under our nation’s clean air laws.

Changes to underlying EPA transparency protections

At the same time that the Trump Administration’s blueprint outlines a host of rollbacks for important pollution controls, it also identifies that the administration will be moving ahead with changes to underlying, fundamental EPA procedures and operational practices.

Here’s just one example:

• Under review: EPA’s open records requirements. Under the Freedom of Information Act, EPA is required to share public records with the public. The Trump Administration’s agenda notes that EPA will be updating its own policies for implementation of the agency’s requirements under this vital transparency law. During Administrator Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma Attorney General, he had an extensive, troubling record of stonewalling these types of open records requests.

These changes are just as important to watch carefully, to ensure essential transparency and rigor in the administration’s conduct. So far, Administrator Pruitt has given ample reason for concern: shutting the public out of key decisions; refusing to share how he spends his time and with whom he meets; and a long history of intertwined relationships with the industries he’s supposed to oversee.

Are more rollbacks possible? President Trump and Administrator Pruitt signal yes

The above summary is hardly complete. The Trump Administration’s blueprint also highlights a host of harmful potential rollbacks for important protections for water, hazardous waste, and beyond.

Moreover, this blueprint may not reflect the full scope of future attacks. In other contexts, President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have taken aim at even more EPA protections against air pollution. For instance, President Trump has signaled his willingness to reconsider standards for emissions from cars and trucks – despite their record of saving consumers money, driving auto innovation, and reducing pollution. And Administrator Pruitt’s EPA has moved to pause litigation over mercury protections while the agency evaluates its position. (In the past, Pruitt even expressed doubt about mercury pollution’s well-established harmful impacts on brain development in kids.)

These risks are critical. But together we can turn back these threats, ensure healthier lives for all Americans, address dangerous climate pollution, and grow our clean energy economy.

Here at EDF we will be working to stop these rollbacks. Please join us, and take action! Click here to let EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt know that you support America’s public health and environmental protections.

By Suzy Friedman

My first impression of Len Corzine was that he isn’t the kind of guy who sits back and waits for people to bring him ideas on how to innovate or improve stewardship – he actively searches for them himself. He then shares these ideas with peers and colleagues.

When I visited Len’s farm in Assumption, Illinois, five years ago, I immediately saw that Len was an early adopter of tools and technologies to help him grow more with less. Like a kid with a brand new bike, Len could not wait to show me the computer software he was using for soil samples and variable rate application of nutrients, or the maps that helped guide his every decision.

To date, Len’s farm has reduced soil erosion, cut fertilizer use per bushel by half, and adopted satellite-guidance technology in its tractors to reduce fuel and chemical use. All while yield productivity has increased 80 percent.

I asked Len to share his insights on sustainable farming, engaging younger farmers and the importance of partnerships.

How did you get your start in farming?

My ancestors arrived in Assumption in the early 1870s and began farming in this very productive area of Illinois. Today we raise some Angus cows but mostly grow soybeans and corn.

I came back to the farm after college in 1974, and my son Craig now works with me as well – he represents the sixth generation of Corzines to farm here. It’s a lot of effort to keep a farm within a family, and it doesn’t happen automatically. But this is our livelihood, our income, our heritage and our future.

Craig makes just about all of the field decisions about planting and harvesting now, but our motto of leaving the farm better than we found it is still a core value. We’re focused on farming our acres right, and we work really hard at being good stewards of the land.

For six generations, this Iowa farm's motto has been "leave the farm better than we found it." via…
Click To Tweet

Are you anxious about keeping the farming tradition alive with younger generations?

Preparing for the next generation to take over the farm is just a part of the business – you absolutely have to include younger farmers as you move along and help create excitement about agriculture.

The good news is that all of the new technology in ag is extremely exciting on its own. Farming used to be somewhat stagnant, but there is a lot of opportunity right now. Watching precision technologies at work from the cab of a tractor creates a tangible excitement for the next generation. I’ve seen that directly in my work with University of Illinois students who come visit our farm – getting out of the classroom is key to fostering an interest in ag – they get to see both traditional and cutting-edge practices first-hand.

I understand you are a big advocate of the Soil Health Partnership?

Yes! I was involved in leadership with the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) for a long time, and was glad to see the Soil Health Partnership (SHP) is a branch of NCGA.  I also love that Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and Monsanto are involved – to see that linkage of sectors across agriculture is great. We will move forward more quickly if we do it together.

SHP is also a way to get out of our silos and work together. The ideas they have to get more local with research – that’s all really important. What happens with my neighbor across the road is more important than if I was to look at info from a company’s research farm.

What are some of the conservation practices you are implementing on your farm?

We look at the farm as a big experiment, and every year we try a few things differently. With Mother Nature, no two years are exactly alike, so you have to try things for more than one year to see what kind of results you’re going to get.

We’ve also been collecting data for a number of years and we’re starting to see trends. That’s why we are tailoring where we put cover crops, moving to minimum till, side dressing our corn, and using biotech traits to reduce or eliminate the need for insecticides.

The ultimate goal is to utilize all of the nutrients you have. I advise everyone to get outside experts to help conduct an analysis of the nutrient balance you already have, because nutrient reduction could actually make things worse – you could have more runoff. I like to aim for nutrient loss reduction. And being more efficient also means we’re being better stewards.

But we need to remember that to be sustainable, you have to have some profit in there too. Whether you’re in a high price environment or a low one – you still want to be as efficient as you can be.

Related:

Crops, water and habitat: This California farmer's winning trifecta >>>

Conservation relies on profitability >>>

This Iowa farmer proves that profit and sustainability go hand in hand >>>

By Suzy Friedman

My first impression of Len Corzine was that he isn’t the kind of guy who sits back and waits for people to bring him ideas on how to innovate or improve stewardship – he actively searches for them himself. He then shares these ideas with peers and colleagues.

When I visited Len’s farm in Assumption, Illinois, five years ago, I immediately saw that Len was an early adopter of tools and technologies to help him grow more with less. Like a kid with a brand new bike, Len could not wait to show me the computer software he was using for soil samples and variable rate application of nutrients, or the maps that helped guide his every decision.

To date, Len’s farm has reduced soil erosion, cut fertilizer use per bushel by half, and adopted satellite-guidance technology in its tractors to reduce fuel and chemical use. All while yield productivity has increased 80 percent.

I asked Len to share his insights on sustainable farming, engaging younger farmers and the importance of partnerships.

How did you get your start in farming?

My ancestors arrived in Assumption in the early 1870s and began farming in this very productive area of Illinois. Today we raise some Angus cows but mostly grow soybeans and corn.

I came back to the farm after college in 1974, and my son Craig now works with me as well – he represents the sixth generation of Corzines to farm here. It’s a lot of effort to keep a farm within a family, and it doesn’t happen automatically. But this is our livelihood, our income, our heritage and our future.

Craig makes just about all of the field decisions about planting and harvesting now, but our motto of leaving the farm better than we found it is still a core value. We’re focused on farming our acres right, and we work really hard at being good stewards of the land.

For six generations, this Iowa farm's motto has been "leave the farm better than we found it." via…
Click To Tweet

Are you anxious about keeping the farming tradition alive with younger generations?

Preparing for the next generation to take over the farm is just a part of the business – you absolutely have to include younger farmers as you move along and help create excitement about agriculture.

The good news is that all of the new technology in ag is extremely exciting on its own. Farming used to be somewhat stagnant, but there is a lot of opportunity right now. Watching precision technologies at work from the cab of a tractor creates a tangible excitement for the next generation. I’ve seen that directly in my work with University of Illinois students who come visit our farm – getting out of the classroom is key to fostering an interest in ag – they get to see both traditional and cutting-edge practices first-hand.

I understand you are a big advocate of the Soil Health Partnership?

Yes! I was involved in leadership with the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) for a long time, and was glad to see the Soil Health Partnership (SHP) is a branch of NCGA.  I also love that Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and Monsanto are involved – to see that linkage of sectors across agriculture is great. We will move forward more quickly if we do it together.

SHP is also a way to get out of our silos and work together. The ideas they have to get more local with research – that’s all really important. What happens with my neighbor across the road is more important than if I was to look at info from a company’s research farm.

What are some of the conservation practices you are implementing on your farm?

We look at the farm as a big experiment, and every year we try a few things differently. With Mother Nature, no two years are exactly alike, so you have to try things for more than one year to see what kind of results you’re going to get.

We’ve also been collecting data for a number of years and we’re starting to see trends. That’s why we are tailoring where we put cover crops, moving to minimum till, side dressing our corn, and using biotech traits to reduce or eliminate the need for insecticides.

The ultimate goal is to utilize all of the nutrients you have. I advise everyone to get outside experts to help conduct an analysis of the nutrient balance you already have, because nutrient reduction could actually make things worse – you could have more runoff. I like to aim for nutrient loss reduction. And being more efficient also means we’re being better stewards.

But we need to remember that to be sustainable, you have to have some profit in there too. Whether you’re in a high price environment or a low one – you still want to be as efficient as you can be.

Related:

Crops, water and habitat: This California farmer's winning trifecta >>>

Conservation relies on profitability >>>

This Iowa farmer proves that profit and sustainability go hand in hand >>>

By Drew Nelson

Canada’s move to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector passed another milestone this week, as the deadline passed for stakeholders to submit comments about the proposed regulations to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). EDF issued extensive comments commending ECCC for moving forward, but urging decision makers to address some critical weaknesses of the draft rules.

EDF is not alone in this thinking. A group of investors from Canada, US, and Europe, which together represent $89 billion CAD in investments, released a synopsis of their comments. Many leading Canadian NGOs, including the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence (no relation to this EDF), Equiterre, and the Blue Green Alliance, also issued a press release urging ECCC to improve and strengthen the draft regulations.

As Canada’s effort to regulate this potent greenhouse pollutant continues, EDF is focused on ensuring Canada takes advantage of low-cost reduction opportunities, which have the added benefit of improving air quality, eliminating waste, stimulating innovation, and creating jobs. For that to happen, the country’s draft methane regulations need to be strengthened.

Here are four ways that can happen:

1. Fix the Timeline

In the days before the draft regulations were released in May, the oil and gas industry successfully lobbied government officials to delay implementation of the regulations by as much as three years. This would result in the release of an estimated 55 million additional tons of methane compared to the original timelines. Delaying key provisions for five years is excessive and inconsistent with how – for example – US jurisdictions have regulated methane. We urged ECCC to reset the timetable so the regulations begin in 2019 (not 2020) and full implementation occurs by 2022 (not 2023).

1. Require Quarterly Leak Inspections

Because methane is invisible and odorless, and many leaks are intermittent, it’s nearly impossible to find methane leaks unless you’re looking for them. Canada’s proposal calls for leak inspections only three times a year; we urged EEEC to implement inspections four times a year instead. This may seem like a minor detail, but the effectiveness of any detection requirement is better with greater frequency. In fact, the International Energy Agency has said “tracking and fixing these [methane] leaks – which can be short-lived and intermittent – requires a systematic effort of measurement, reporting and monitoring, backed up by effective regulation. More regular inspections mean better odds of catching serious but intermittent problems. Across the United States, regulatory best practice is four times a year. Canada’s rules should follow this industry best practice.

1. Reduce Venting

Unlike leaks, venting is the intentional release of methane, and ECCC has proposed regulations that will significantly reduce venting across Canada. That’s great, but the proposed rules include exceptions and loopholes, and still allow for venting. In recognition of the availability of technologies that eliminate venting, leading U.S. jurisdictions increasingly prohibit venting. Strengthening the venting provisions will ensure that Canada is in line with regulatory best practices on venting.

1. Ensure “equivalent” really means equivalent

Canadian law allows provinces to develop their own regulations and have those regulations take place instead of federal regulations if there are “provisions that are equivalent to a regulation.”  We urged ECCC to ensure that any equivalency agreement show that equal or greater reductions are achieved. If a province’s rules don’t achieve the reductions the federal rules would, they shouldn’t be considered “equivalent.”

These are simple, commonsense steps that are squarely consistent with the goals and intent of the policy, which can make implementation faster, cheap and more effective. We hope the Canadian government will consider these opportunities as they review public comments. Final regulations are expected late this year or early next.

Image source: Flickr user davebloggs007

By Drew Nelson

Canada’s move to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector passed another milestone this week, as the deadline passed for stakeholders to submit comments about the proposed regulations to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). EDF issued extensive comments commending ECCC for moving forward, but urging decision makers to address some critical weaknesses of the draft rules.

EDF is not alone in this thinking. A group of investors from Canada, US, and Europe, which together represent $89 billion CAD in investments, released a synopsis of their comments. Many leading Canadian NGOs, including the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence (no relation to this EDF), Equiterre, and the Blue Green Alliance, also issued a press release urging ECCC to improve and strengthen the draft regulations.

As Canada’s effort to regulate this potent greenhouse pollutant continues, EDF is focused on ensuring Canada takes advantage of low-cost reduction opportunities, which have the added benefit of improving air quality, eliminating waste, stimulating innovation, and creating jobs. For that to happen, the country’s draft methane regulations need to be strengthened.

Here are four ways that can happen:

1. Fix the Timeline

In the days before the draft regulations were released in May, the oil and gas industry successfully lobbied government officials to delay implementation of the regulations by as much as three years. This would result in the release of an estimated 55 million additional tons of methane compared to the original timelines. Delaying key provisions for five years is excessive and inconsistent with how – for example – US jurisdictions have regulated methane. We urged ECCC to reset the timetable so the regulations begin in 2019 (not 2020) and full implementation occurs by 2022 (not 2023).

1. Require Quarterly Leak Inspections

Because methane is invisible and odorless, and many leaks are intermittent, it’s nearly impossible to find methane leaks unless you’re looking for them. Canada’s proposal calls for leak inspections only three times a year; we urged EEEC to implement inspections four times a year instead. This may seem like a minor detail, but the effectiveness of any detection requirement is better with greater frequency. In fact, the International Energy Agency has said “tracking and fixing these [methane] leaks – which can be short-lived and intermittent – requires a systematic effort of measurement, reporting and monitoring, backed up by effective regulation. More regular inspections mean better odds of catching serious but intermittent problems. Across the United States, regulatory best practice is four times a year. Canada’s rules should follow this industry best practice.

1. Reduce Venting

Unlike leaks, venting is the intentional release of methane, and ECCC has proposed regulations that will significantly reduce venting across Canada. That’s great, but the proposed rules include exceptions and loopholes, and still allow for venting. In recognition of the availability of technologies that eliminate venting, leading U.S. jurisdictions increasingly prohibit venting. Strengthening the venting provisions will ensure that Canada is in line with regulatory best practices on venting.

1. Ensure “equivalent” really means equivalent

Canadian law allows provinces to develop their own regulations and have those regulations take place instead of federal regulations if there are “provisions that are equivalent to a regulation.”  We urged ECCC to ensure that any equivalency agreement show that equal or greater reductions are achieved. If a province’s rules don’t achieve the reductions the federal rules would, they shouldn’t be considered “equivalent.”

These are simple, commonsense steps that are squarely consistent with the goals and intent of the policy, which can make implementation faster, cheap and more effective. We hope the Canadian government will consider these opportunities as they review public comments. Final regulations are expected late this year or early next.

Image source: Flickr user davebloggs007

Canada’s move to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector passed another milestone this week, as the deadline passed for stakeholders to submit comments about the proposed regulations to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). EDF issued extensive comments commending ECCC for moving forward, but urging decision makers to address some critical weaknesses […]

The post Four opportunities to strengthen Canada’s draft methane regulations appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Drew Nelson

Canada’s move to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector passed another milestone this week, as the deadline passed for stakeholders to submit comments about the proposed regulations to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). EDF issued extensive comments commending ECCC for moving forward, but urging decision makers to address some critical weaknesses of the draft rules.

EDF is not alone in this thinking. A group of investors from Canada, US, and Europe, which together represent $89 billion CAD in investments, released a synopsis of their comments. Many leading Canadian NGOs, including the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence (no relation to this EDF), Equiterre, and the Blue Green Alliance, also issued a press release urging ECCC to improve and strengthen the draft regulations.

As Canada’s effort to regulate this potent greenhouse pollutant continues, EDF is focused on ensuring Canada takes advantage of low-cost reduction opportunities, which have the added benefit of improving air quality, eliminating waste, stimulating innovation, and creating jobs. For that to happen, the country’s draft methane regulations need to be strengthened.

Here are four ways that can happen:

1. Fix the Timeline

In the days before the draft regulations were released in May, the oil and gas industry successfully lobbied government officials to delay implementation of the regulations by as much as three years. This would result in the release of an estimated 55 million additional tons of methane compared to the original timelines. Delaying key provisions for five years is excessive and inconsistent with how – for example – US jurisdictions have regulated methane. We urged ECCC to reset the timetable so the regulations begin in 2019 (not 2020) and full implementation occurs by 2022 (not 2023).

1. Require Quarterly Leak Inspections

Because methane is invisible and odorless, and many leaks are intermittent, it’s nearly impossible to find methane leaks unless you’re looking for them. Canada’s proposal calls for leak inspections only three times a year; we urged EEEC to implement inspections four times a year instead. This may seem like a minor detail, but the effectiveness of any detection requirement is better with greater frequency. In fact, the International Energy Agency has said “tracking and fixing these [methane] leaks – which can be short-lived and intermittent – requires a systematic effort of measurement, reporting and monitoring, backed up by effective regulation. More regular inspections mean better odds of catching serious but intermittent problems. Across the United States, regulatory best practice is four times a year. Canada’s rules should follow this industry best practice.

1. Reduce Venting

Unlike leaks, venting is the intentional release of methane, and ECCC has proposed regulations that will significantly reduce venting across Canada. That’s great, but the proposed rules include exceptions and loopholes, and still allow for venting. In recognition of the availability of technologies that eliminate venting, leading U.S. jurisdictions increasingly prohibit venting. Strengthening the venting provisions will ensure that Canada is in line with regulatory best practices on venting.

1. Ensure “equivalent” really means equivalent

Canadian law allows provinces to develop their own regulations and have those regulations take place instead of federal regulations if there are “provisions that are equivalent to a regulation.”  We urged ECCC to ensure that any equivalency agreement show that equal or greater reductions are achieved. If a province’s rules don’t achieve the reductions the federal rules would, they shouldn’t be considered “equivalent.”

These are simple, commonsense steps that are squarely consistent with the goals and intent of the policy, which can make implementation faster, cheap and more effective. We hope the Canadian government will consider these opportunities as they review public comments. Final regulations are expected late this year or early next.

Image source: Flickr user davebloggs007

By Drew Nelson

Canada’s move to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector passed another milestone this week, as the deadline passed for stakeholders to submit comments about the proposed regulations to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). EDF issued extensive comments commending ECCC for moving forward, but urging decision makers to address some critical weaknesses of the draft rules.

EDF is not alone in this thinking. A group of investors from Canada, US, and Europe, which together represent $89 billion CAD in investments, released a synopsis of their comments. Many leading Canadian NGOs, including the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence (no relation to this EDF), Equiterre, and the Blue Green Alliance, also issued a press release urging ECCC to improve and strengthen the draft regulations.

As Canada’s effort to regulate this potent greenhouse pollutant continues, EDF is focused on ensuring Canada takes advantage of low-cost reduction opportunities, which have the added benefit of improving air quality, eliminating waste, stimulating innovation, and creating jobs. For that to happen, the country’s draft methane regulations need to be strengthened.

Here are four ways that can happen:

1. Fix the Timeline

In the days before the draft regulations were released in May, the oil and gas industry successfully lobbied government officials to delay implementation of the regulations by as much as three years. This would result in the release of an estimated 55 million additional tons of methane compared to the original timelines. Delaying key provisions for five years is excessive and inconsistent with how – for example – US jurisdictions have regulated methane. We urged ECCC to reset the timetable so the regulations begin in 2019 (not 2020) and full implementation occurs by 2022 (not 2023).

1. Require Quarterly Leak Inspections

Because methane is invisible and odorless, and many leaks are intermittent, it’s nearly impossible to find methane leaks unless you’re looking for them. Canada’s proposal calls for leak inspections only three times a year; we urged EEEC to implement inspections four times a year instead. This may seem like a minor detail, but the effectiveness of any detection requirement is better with greater frequency. In fact, the International Energy Agency has said “tracking and fixing these [methane] leaks – which can be short-lived and intermittent – requires a systematic effort of measurement, reporting and monitoring, backed up by effective regulation. More regular inspections mean better odds of catching serious but intermittent problems. Across the United States, regulatory best practice is four times a year. Canada’s rules should follow this industry best practice.

1. Reduce Venting

Unlike leaks, venting is the intentional release of methane, and ECCC has proposed regulations that will significantly reduce venting across Canada. That’s great, but the proposed rules include exceptions and loopholes, and still allow for venting. In recognition of the availability of technologies that eliminate venting, leading U.S. jurisdictions increasingly prohibit venting. Strengthening the venting provisions will ensure that Canada is in line with regulatory best practices on venting.

1. Ensure “equivalent” really means equivalent

Canadian law allows provinces to develop their own regulations and have those regulations take place instead of federal regulations if there are “provisions that are equivalent to a regulation.”  We urged ECCC to ensure that any equivalency agreement show that equal or greater reductions are achieved. If a province’s rules don’t achieve the reductions the federal rules would, they shouldn’t be considered “equivalent.”

These are simple, commonsense steps that are squarely consistent with the goals and intent of the policy, which can make implementation faster, cheap and more effective. We hope the Canadian government will consider these opportunities as they review public comments. Final regulations are expected late this year or early next.

Image source: Flickr user davebloggs007

By Natalie Karas

New York is a national leader on energy and climate. The state’s Clean Energy Standard provides that half its electricity will come from renewables by 2030. The state has also committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new plan to reduce methane pollution directs state agencies to develop policies to inventory emissions and identify strategies to reduce them.

These are ambitious goals that require proactive, flexible policies from New York regulators. However, embedded within New York Public Service Commission precedent and policies are preferences for utility decisions weighted in favor of natural gas utilization and infrastructure. These policies risk locking in that infrastructure at the expense of alternatives.

Dusting off old policies

One such policy, in place since 1989, incentivizes utilities that expand gas service into new areas by increasing the rate of shareholder return they’re allowed to earn on these investments. Others put the finger on the scale for increased utility investment in natural gas pipelines and delivery infrastructure.

These policies may be sensible as a means to move away from more expensive and more polluting fuels such as oil. As the state looks to comply with its own ambitious climate policies, however, it’s time to revisit this thinking to ensure the rules aren’t biasing investment decisions in favor of gas expansion at the expense of other cheaper and lower-emitting solutions, and that they’re flexible enough to accommodate changes in demand and the emergence of new technologies.

Pipelines v. alternatives

Utilities are charged with ensuring that their systems run reliably. That means they need to have enough natural gas supply to meet all of their customers’ demand under virtually any circumstances. To meet these conservative planning assumptions, the most commonly proposed solution is to build new pipelines, compressor stations and larger gas supply systems. Often, this costly infrastructure is designed to meet extreme conditions — for example, the coldest day in 30 years — and may actually be needed only a few times a year, or sometimes less.

But building infrastructure is how utilities make profit for their shareholders. Once a utility get approval to and builds new supply infrastructure, it locks in returns over the decades-long life of the infrastructure. The incentives imbedded in the market design, coupled with policies weighted towards new gas infrastructure, also risk locking in greenhouse gas emissions over the long lives of those systems. But opportunities are emerging for gas utilities to modernize and expand their systems in new ways to meet increased demand, resulting in both environmental and cost benefits.

Some examples include more robust energy efficiency programs, demand response (where a customer temporarily reduces gas demand, sometimes with the help of technology such as a programmable thermostat, to achieve cost savings), and advanced metering infrastructure (i.e., updated technology to improve communications of gas consumption data to empower customers to better manage their energy usage and bills).

In addition, new household and commercial heating technologies such as air source and geothermal heat pumps have emerged as solutions for communities unserved by a gas distribution utility. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority says these technologies will save both energy and gas bills and help meet aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Solutions like these may very well provide a better, more cost effective solution than new pipeline capacity that may be used only a few days of the year, but locks in natural gas use for years and years to come.

Reforming the gas vision

The New York Public Service Commission has already shown its commitment to developing a comprehensive framework to meet its climate goals—it’s doing just that in the Reforming the Energy Vision initiative. The ultimate aim there is to create a modern, smart interactive electricity system designed to maximize renewable energy, efficiency, and customer choice. But a similar framework does not exist on the gas side.

Some utilities have proposed pilot programs to develop geothermal technology or other gas demand response pilot programs but this has been primarily on a piecemeal basis. Outdated policies mean too much weight is still placed on expanding gas infrastructure.

A proceeding to analyze its policies on the use of natural gas is pending before the commission. In light of New York’s climate policies enacted after that proceeding was opened, it is now the appropriate time to revisit these issues to ensure they are consistent with the state’s climate goals.

This means reevaluating incentives provided to utilities for expanding natural gas supply capability. It means recognizing and promoting non-pipeline alternatives, and accurately measuring the environmental and economic costs of these new technologies when compared to traditional natural gas supply investment. Finally, it means expanding energy efficiency programs, making the gas system more responsive to customer needs, and using new technologies to enhance operational efficiency to ensure that customers enjoy both economic and environmental benefits.

By Natalie Karas

New York is a national leader on energy and climate. The state’s Clean Energy Standard provides that half its electricity will come from renewables by 2030. The state has also committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new plan to reduce methane pollution directs state agencies to develop policies to inventory emissions and identify strategies to reduce them.

These are ambitious goals that require proactive, flexible policies from New York regulators. However, embedded within New York Public Service Commission precedent and policies are preferences for utility decisions weighted in favor of natural gas utilization and infrastructure. These policies risk locking in that infrastructure at the expense of alternatives.

Dusting off old policies

One such policy, in place since 1989, incentivizes utilities that expand gas service into new areas by increasing the rate of shareholder return they’re allowed to earn on these investments. Others put the finger on the scale for increased utility investment in natural gas pipelines and delivery infrastructure.

These policies may be sensible as a means to move away from more expensive and more polluting fuels such as oil. As the state looks to comply with its own ambitious climate policies, however, it’s time to revisit this thinking to ensure the rules aren’t biasing investment decisions in favor of gas expansion at the expense of other cheaper and lower-emitting solutions, and that they’re flexible enough to accommodate changes in demand and the emergence of new technologies.

Pipelines v. alternatives

Utilities are charged with ensuring that their systems run reliably. That means they need to have enough natural gas supply to meet all of their customers’ demand under virtually any circumstances. To meet these conservative planning assumptions, the most commonly proposed solution is to build new pipelines, compressor stations and larger gas supply systems. Often, this costly infrastructure is designed to meet extreme conditions — for example, the coldest day in 30 years — and may actually be needed only a few times a year, or sometimes less.

But building infrastructure is how utilities make profit for their shareholders. Once a utility get approval to and builds new supply infrastructure, it locks in returns over the decades-long life of the infrastructure. The incentives imbedded in the market design, coupled with policies weighted towards new gas infrastructure, also risk locking in greenhouse gas emissions over the long lives of those systems. But opportunities are emerging for gas utilities to modernize and expand their systems in new ways to meet increased demand, resulting in both environmental and cost benefits.

Some examples include more robust energy efficiency programs, demand response (where a customer temporarily reduces gas demand, sometimes with the help of technology such as a programmable thermostat, to achieve cost savings), and advanced metering infrastructure (i.e., updated technology to improve communications of gas consumption data to empower customers to better manage their energy usage and bills).

In addition, new household and commercial heating technologies such as air source and geothermal heat pumps have emerged as solutions for communities unserved by a gas distribution utility. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority says these technologies will save both energy and gas bills and help meet aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Solutions like these may very well provide a better, more cost effective solution than new pipeline capacity that may be used only a few days of the year, but locks in natural gas use for years and years to come.

Reforming the gas vision

The New York Public Service Commission has already shown its commitment to developing a comprehensive framework to meet its climate goals—it’s doing just that in the Reforming the Energy Vision initiative. The ultimate aim there is to create a modern, smart interactive electricity system designed to maximize renewable energy, efficiency, and customer choice. But a similar framework does not exist on the gas side.

Some utilities have proposed pilot programs to develop geothermal technology or other gas demand response pilot programs but this has been primarily on a piecemeal basis. Outdated policies mean too much weight is still placed on expanding gas infrastructure.

A proceeding to analyze its policies on the use of natural gas is pending before the commission. In light of New York’s climate policies enacted after that proceeding was opened, it is now the appropriate time to revisit these issues to ensure they are consistent with the state’s climate goals.

This means reevaluating incentives provided to utilities for expanding natural gas supply capability. It means recognizing and promoting non-pipeline alternatives, and accurately measuring the environmental and economic costs of these new technologies when compared to traditional natural gas supply investment. Finally, it means expanding energy efficiency programs, making the gas system more responsive to customer needs, and using new technologies to enhance operational efficiency to ensure that customers enjoy both economic and environmental benefits.