By EDF Blogs

Energy Exchange is changing how our blog subscriptions are managed. If you subscribe to our blog, please update your RSS feed URL to the following:

http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/feed/

– Energy Exchange 

By Ben Ratner

This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Recently, at an oil and gas industry event co-hosted by Energy Dialogues and Shell in Houston, Ben Ratner, a Director at Environmental Defense Fund, met up with Michael Maher, presently with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former longtime economist with ExxonMobil, to discuss the future of the natural gas industry. Specifically, they talked about the growing divide between those—in government and in the industry—who want less environmental regulation, particularly over the issue of methane emissions, and those who see sensible regulation as the best way for the industry to assure its future as offering a cleaner alternative to other, dirtier, fossil fuels.

Since Michael and Ben met in Houston, the Trump Administration announced the U.S. departure from the Paris climate agreement and postponements and potential weakening of methane emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management. These new developments put the industry divide into sharper focus.

States could now step up to address issues that the federal government was poised to take the lead on under rules promulgated by President Obama toward the end of his term. But will states act without industry prodding or at least, support for action? And will companies most worried about license to operate intervene against delays, weakening, or even elimination of nationwide standards? Mike and Ben discuss below.

Ben: As a former oil and gas industry employee, how do you think the industry should respond to the regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration?

Michael: This administration is moving rapidly away from a federal role in climate change policies. The question for the oil and gas industry is whether to sit back and coast on the federal failure to act or to work with states to address greenhouse emissions. Coasting may look like a cost saver for the near term, but the pendulum will eventually swing back, and a reversal of Trump’s policies is a real prospect down the road. However, if enough states—with industry support—were to effectively address methane emissions it could provide guidance for federal action down the road and protect the industry against the reputational damage of being seen to have resisted sound environmental regulation.

Michael: In the current political climate, what do you see as the role of leading companies?

Ben: The great irony here is that while the Trump attacks on environmental standards are intended to help industry by reducing costs in the short term, they may end up inflicting much greater long-term damage. A classic case of “short term gain, long term pain.”

Energy consumers, institutional investors and citizens want cleaner energy, and scrapping rules that help the industry clean up may ultimately endanger the industry’s social license to operate and make it more difficult to do business. So we will be looking hard to see which companies step forward to slow down the deregulatory torrent that is tarnishing the industry’s reputation just as demand for cleaner energy is lifting off.

In recent days, Shell and Exxon reportedly stated that they are complying with EPA’s contested methane rules, but other companies have stayed silent. Companies like ConocoPhillips and BP voiced their support for the Paris international climate agreement. With the U.S. now withdrawing from the Paris accord, will companies like these make good on addressing climate change by publicly supporting policies aimed at reducing methane emissions? We haven’t seen true industry support at the federal regulatory level, at least not yet.

At the same time, regardless of what happens in Washington, states have a golden opportunity to develop their own methane policies. In Colorado, for example, companies like Noble Energy and Anadarko worked with EDF and the state to negotiate methane and air pollution standards that work for business and the environment.

Industry played a vital role in Colorado’s success, and there will be more opportunities for industry leaders to participate in regulatory development in other states.

Ben: Are there business and reputational impacts of failing to address methane emissions?

Michael: Natural gas has historically competed with other sellers with other fuels almost totally on price. But customers and officials are increasingly looking at energy options based on environmental benefits and not just price. There is a robust debate in the Northeast, for example, about how to move forward in decarbonizing their electric power system and it is not focused solely on the costs of alternatives.

In this regard, it is in the interest of the natural gas industry to be able to promote natural gas as a much cleaner alternative to coal. But methane and associated emissions from natural gas drilling operations cloud that cleaner-than-coal claim and plays into the hands of those supporting a more rapid shift to renewables and who argue for “keeping it in the ground.”

Michael: How does EDF view methane control as part of a company’s social responsibility?

Ben: How a company manages its natural gas leaks tells you a great deal about how responsible it is, because leaks cause climate damage and can harm people’s health—especially among the most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. Also, since methane is a commercial product, if a company doesn’t know or care how much of its own product is going into thin air, that’s not a good sign.

Southwestern Energy is one example of a leader that sets a methane target, conveys to its people the value of methane management, and implements leading practices in the field. Another is Statoil, which is working with EDF and an entrepreneur to pioneer efficient new automated methane monitoring technology. These kinds of efforts can deliver financial value by recouping lost product, and demonstrating to investors, communities and other key stakeholders their lived commitment to responsible corporate behavior.

Ben: How do you see the industry tackling the methane problem?

Michael: Farsighted, well operated companies are already taking action to cut emissions, but sometimes the policy advocacy lags behind. There needs to be leadership on this issue from major players—not just singly but as a coalition urging federal agencies to retain or improve rules, rather than delay or weaken them. This coalition should also engage states in developing sound regulation of new drilling and older wells.

Some in industry are already pushing ahead with testing new technology that would reduce the cost of controlling emissions. That effort should continue, but voluntary action of this sort is not a replacement for regulations that apply across the entire industry. Nor will piecemeal voluntary efforts of a few overcome the stigma of hundreds of other companies abstaining from action to reduce their methane emissions.

Michael Maher is a senior program advisor at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Ben Ratner is a Director with EDF+Business at Environmental Defense Fund

By Ben Ratner

This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Recently, at an oil and gas industry event co-hosted by Energy Dialogues and Shell in Houston, Ben Ratner, a Director at Environmental Defense Fund, met up with Michael Maher, presently with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former longtime economist with ExxonMobil, to discuss the future of the natural gas industry. Specifically, they talked about the growing divide between those—in government and in the industry—who want less environmental regulation, particularly over the issue of methane emissions, and those who see sensible regulation as the best way for the industry to assure its future as offering a cleaner alternative to other, dirtier, fossil fuels.

Since Michael and Ben met in Houston, the Trump Administration announced the U.S. departure from the Paris climate agreement and postponements and potential weakening of methane emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management. These new developments put the industry divide into sharper focus.

States could now step up to address issues that the federal government was poised to take the lead on under rules promulgated by President Obama toward the end of his term. But will states act without industry prodding or at least, support for action? And will companies most worried about license to operate intervene against delays, weakening, or even elimination of nationwide standards? Mike and Ben discuss below.

Ben: As a former oil and gas industry employee, how do you think the industry should respond to the regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration?

Michael: This administration is moving rapidly away from a federal role in climate change policies. The question for the oil and gas industry is whether to sit back and coast on the federal failure to act or to work with states to address greenhouse emissions. Coasting may look like a cost saver for the near term, but the pendulum will eventually swing back, and a reversal of Trump’s policies is a real prospect down the road. However, if enough states—with industry support—were to effectively address methane emissions it could provide guidance for federal action down the road and protect the industry against the reputational damage of being seen to have resisted sound environmental regulation.

Michael: In the current political climate, what do you see as the role of leading companies?

Ben: The great irony here is that while the Trump attacks on environmental standards are intended to help industry by reducing costs in the short term, they may end up inflicting much greater long-term damage. A classic case of “short term gain, long term pain.”

Energy consumers, institutional investors and citizens want cleaner energy, and scrapping rules that help the industry clean up may ultimately endanger the industry’s social license to operate and make it more difficult to do business. So we will be looking hard to see which companies step forward to slow down the deregulatory torrent that is tarnishing the industry’s reputation just as demand for cleaner energy is lifting off.

In recent days, Shell and Exxon reportedly stated that they are complying with EPA’s contested methane rules, but other companies have stayed silent. Companies like ConocoPhillips and BP voiced their support for the Paris international climate agreement. With the U.S. now withdrawing from the Paris accord, will companies like these make good on addressing climate change by publicly supporting policies aimed at reducing methane emissions? We haven’t seen true industry support at the federal regulatory level, at least not yet.

At the same time, regardless of what happens in Washington, states have a golden opportunity to develop their own methane policies. In Colorado, for example, companies like Noble Energy and Anadarko worked with EDF and the state to negotiate methane and air pollution standards that work for business and the environment.

Industry played a vital role in Colorado’s success, and there will be more opportunities for industry leaders to participate in regulatory development in other states.

Ben: Are there business and reputational impacts of failing to address methane emissions?

Michael: Natural gas has historically competed with other sellers with other fuels almost totally on price. But customers and officials are increasingly looking at energy options based on environmental benefits and not just price. There is a robust debate in the Northeast, for example, about how to move forward in decarbonizing their electric power system and it is not focused solely on the costs of alternatives.

In this regard, it is in the interest of the natural gas industry to be able to promote natural gas as a much cleaner alternative to coal. But methane and associated emissions from natural gas drilling operations cloud that cleaner-than-coal claim and plays into the hands of those supporting a more rapid shift to renewables and who argue for “keeping it in the ground.”

Michael: How does EDF view methane control as part of a company’s social responsibility?

Ben: How a company manages its natural gas leaks tells you a great deal about how responsible it is, because leaks cause climate damage and can harm people’s health—especially among the most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. Also, since methane is a commercial product, if a company doesn’t know or care how much of its own product is going into thin air, that’s not a good sign.

Southwestern Energy is one example of a leader that sets a methane target, conveys to its people the value of methane management, and implements leading practices in the field. Another is Statoil, which is working with EDF and an entrepreneur to pioneer efficient new automated methane monitoring technology. These kinds of efforts can deliver financial value by recouping lost product, and demonstrating to investors, communities and other key stakeholders their lived commitment to responsible corporate behavior.

Ben: How do you see the industry tackling the methane problem?

Michael: Farsighted, well operated companies are already taking action to cut emissions, but sometimes the policy advocacy lags behind. There needs to be leadership on this issue from major players—not just singly but as a coalition urging federal agencies to retain or improve rules, rather than delay or weaken them. This coalition should also engage states in developing sound regulation of new drilling and older wells.

Some in industry are already pushing ahead with testing new technology that would reduce the cost of controlling emissions. That effort should continue, but voluntary action of this sort is not a replacement for regulations that apply across the entire industry. Nor will piecemeal voluntary efforts of a few overcome the stigma of hundreds of other companies abstaining from action to reduce their methane emissions.

Michael Maher is a senior program advisor at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Ben Ratner is a Director with EDF+Business at Environmental Defense Fund

Written by Molly Rauch

More than 500 moms, dads, and children gathered on US Capitol grounds last week for the fourth-annual Play-In for Climate Action. Yes, there were bubbles, hula hoops, and giant puppets—but our playing was serious business: We came to call on our leaders to champion solutions to climate change.
We couldn’t have done it without you, our million-strong membership, reminding lawmakers, reporters, and passers-by through our sheer numbers what most Americans know. Climate change is here, it’s happening now, and we need our leaders to solve this problem. Thank you for being part of this rising tide of parent voices protecting the health of America’s children from the urgent climate crisis.

5 REASONS WHY WE PLAYED:

1. MOMS ARE PROTECTING CHILDREN
There is no better way to appreciate the beauty of children than to watch them play. They danced and clapped to drums and music; they built innovative towers from giant cardboard building blocks; they figured out the best ways to use hula hoops; they giggled with glee while cooperating on parachute games. Their joy is why we do this work. We are uniting to protect their health and future.

2. MOMS ARE FOSTERING BIPARTISAN COOPERATION
Elected officials from both sides of the aisle came to the Play-In to speak to hundreds of families from almost 40 states. Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-08), member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Representatives, spoke about how a meeting with our Philadelphia members opened his eyes to the importance of air quality in his region. Also speaking at the event were climate champions Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Republicans and Democrats, on the same stage at the same event. It’s possible, and we’re doing it.

3. MOMS ARE VISITING LAWMAKERS
As the Play-In for Climate Action was wrapping up, families headed over to the office buildings on the Hill for more than 100 meetings with lawmakers and their staff. We brought personal stories about how climate change and air pollution impact our families, right now. We asked our lawmakers to take action to defend EPA’s budget from draconian budget cuts, to defend bedrock clean air protections currently under attack, and to take action on climate change.

Visiting Senator Lamar Alexander’s office

4. MOMS ARE DEFEATING HEAD-IN-THE-SAND CLIMATE DENIAL
Hours after the Play-In concluded, the House took an important vote about climate change – and lawmakers made the right decision. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act includes language acknowledging climate change as a direct threat to our national security. Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) had offered an amendment to scrub that language, but it failed by a wide margin of 185 to 234—including 46 Republicans joining nearly all House Democrats in voting no. Some of those lawmakers took the vote minutes after speaking with our members in their offices. Despite an all-out assault on climate action waged by the Trump administration, a bipartisan majority stood on the side of science, common sense—and most importantly, what is right for America’s families.

5. MOMS ARE GETTING ATTENTION
The Play-In for Climate Action was covered in both English and Spanish language media outlets from across the country. We spoke up, and reporters listened, helping amplify the solutions-oriented message that our members brought to Capitol Hill. Mom and actress Megan Boone, of the Blacklist, joined us to share her hope that we act on climate right now and for future generations. We are spreading the word far beyond DC that moms and dads are taking action to protect children from climate change.

We could not host this incredible event each year without the amazing support of our members and partners. Please continue to support our efforts HERE. Thank you!

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Martha Roberts

My EDF colleagues and fellow attorneys won an important victory for public health this month when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an effort by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to suspend vital limits on oil and gas pollution. 

There’s an important detail to this story that you might have missed. Turns out the public got no opportunity to provide any feedback on Pruitt’s decision, even though it put their health at risk. Instead, Pruitt abruptly declared he was granting this suspension through a letter to industry, with no formal notice given to the public until well afterwards — and no opportunity provided for public input.   

Unfortunately, this is just one example of a consistent pattern of conduct. Again and again, Pruitt has shut the public out of key decisions while giving a direct line to industry laggards and their allies.

Public safeguards undermined without public input 

Early in his tenure, one of Pruitt’s very first actions was to withdraw a request for information on pollution levels from oil and gas facilities — acting unilaterally, with no advanced notice and no opportunity for public input.

Most of what we know about Pruitt’s decision comes from Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, who has battled pollution safeguards while fundraising from fossil fuel interests, mirroring Pruitt’s approach as Oklahoma Attorney General.

Paxton openly bragged about his role in driving Pruitt to eliminate this information request:

I personally handed him the letter, and the next day the rule was personally withdrawn.

While Paxton got an opportunity for input, the public never had a chance to weigh in on this decision. Not surprisingly, Pruitt’s announcement hailed the withdrawal’s benefits for the oil and gas industry while ignoring Americans’ right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

A pattern of shutting out everyday Americans

This practice has been repeated across different sectors and different safeguards.

Pruitt delayed the implementation of health-based limits on ground-level ozone, commonly called smog, without any opportunity for public input. The standards would prevent 230,000 childhood asthma attacks every year.

Pruitt delayed toxic wastewater standards for power plants without public input. Same for a program to manage risks of accidents at petroleum refineries and other major chemical plants.

A recent rollback request from the landfills industry called for a delay to important improvements to pollution standards that had not been substantially updated in 20 years. The request was granted via a letter from Pruitt to industry representatives with no opportunity for public comment — and formal public notice wasn’t provided until more than two weeks after the delay was granted.  

Who is guiding Pruitt’s decisions? The public is in the dark

Pruitt has made the unusual and troubling decision to end public access to his calendar and the calendar of senior EPA managers in spite of a bipartisan EPA history of making those calendars public. Without access to the calendars, it’s impossible to know who is meeting with the Administrator or his senior staff — and who is informing their decision-making.

What little information we’ve learned about his calendar is that it’s been “filled” with meetings with industry interests. Many of these meetings are with the same individuals or companies benefiting from his rollbacks. In just one example, Pruitt gathered with the American Petroleum Institute board of directors behind closed doors early in his tenure, soon before rolling back oil and gas protections.

Pruitt’s intertwined relationship with major industry interests goes back to before he became EPA Administrator to his time as the Attorney General of Oklahoma. In a 2014 exposé, he was documented copying and pasting industry requests and sending them to EPA, nearly word for word, on Oklahoma Attorney General letterhead. Pruitt has defended this conduct as “representative government in my view,” begging the question of who Pruitt thinks he’s supposed to represent.

Industry representatives in senior leadership

Pruitt isn’t only hearing from industry voices outside the agency. Within EPA, his leadership team is filled with former industry representatives.

In just one recent example, the agency’s new senior deputy general counsel, Erik Baptist, was previously a top lawyer at the American Petroleum Institute — which has been lobbying, among other things, to repeal EPA safeguards that reduce harmful methane pollution from oil and gas operations. Baptist is just the latest example of the pervasive conflicts of interest among Pruitt’s senior staff.

Accountable to the law 

Fortunately, Pruitt’s practice of leaving the public in the dark is getting pushback. The recent D.C. Circuit decision in the oil and gas methane case is an important step in holding him accountable to the law. Pruitt must listen to all voices — including those of members of the public — as he makes decisions with serious implications for public health and welfare. 

 

By Martha Roberts

My EDF colleagues and fellow attorneys won an important victory for public health this month when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an effort by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to suspend vital limits on oil and gas pollution. 

There’s an important detail to this story that you might have missed. Turns out the public got no opportunity to provide any feedback on Pruitt’s decision, even though it put their health at risk. Instead, Pruitt abruptly declared he was granting this suspension through a letter to industry, with no formal notice given to the public until well afterwards — and no opportunity provided for public input.   

Unfortunately, this is just one example of a consistent pattern of conduct. Again and again, Pruitt has shut the public out of key decisions while giving a direct line to industry laggards and their allies.

Public safeguards undermined without public input 

Early in his tenure, one of Pruitt’s very first actions was to withdraw a request for information on pollution levels from oil and gas facilities — acting unilaterally, with no advanced notice and no opportunity for public input.

Most of what we know about Pruitt’s decision comes from Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, who has battled pollution safeguards while fundraising from fossil fuel interests, mirroring Pruitt’s approach as Oklahoma Attorney General.

Paxton openly bragged about his role in driving Pruitt to eliminate this information request:

I personally handed him the letter, and the next day the rule was personally withdrawn.

While Paxton got an opportunity for input, the public never had a chance to weigh in on this decision. Not surprisingly, Pruitt’s announcement hailed the withdrawal’s benefits for the oil and gas industry while ignoring Americans’ right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

A pattern of shutting out everyday Americans

This practice has been repeated across different sectors and different safeguards.

Pruitt delayed the implementation of health-based limits on ground-level ozone, commonly called smog, without any opportunity for public input. The standards would prevent 230,000 childhood asthma attacks every year.

Pruitt delayed toxic wastewater standards for power plants without public input. Same for a program to manage risks of accidents at petroleum refineries and other major chemical plants.

A recent rollback request from the landfills industry called for a delay to important improvements to pollution standards that had not been substantially updated in 20 years. The request was granted via a letter from Pruitt to industry representatives with no opportunity for public comment — and formal public notice wasn’t provided until more than two weeks after the delay was granted.  

Who is guiding Pruitt’s decisions? The public is in the dark

Pruitt has made the unusual and troubling decision to end public access to his calendar and the calendar of senior EPA managers in spite of a bipartisan EPA history of making those calendars public. Without access to the calendars, it’s impossible to know who is meeting with the Administrator or his senior staff — and who is informing their decision-making.

What little information we’ve learned about his calendar is that it’s been “filled” with meetings with industry interests. Many of these meetings are with the same individuals or companies benefiting from his rollbacks. In just one example, Pruitt gathered with the American Petroleum Institute board of directors behind closed doors early in his tenure, soon before rolling back oil and gas protections.

Pruitt’s intertwined relationship with major industry interests goes back to before he became EPA Administrator to his time as the Attorney General of Oklahoma. In a 2014 exposé, he was documented copying and pasting industry requests and sending them to EPA, nearly word for word, on Oklahoma Attorney General letterhead. Pruitt has defended this conduct as “representative government in my view,” begging the question of who Pruitt thinks he’s supposed to represent.

Industry representatives in senior leadership

Pruitt isn’t only hearing from industry voices outside the agency. Within EPA, his leadership team is filled with former industry representatives.

In just one recent example, the agency’s new senior deputy general counsel, Erik Baptist, was previously a top lawyer at the American Petroleum Institute — which has been lobbying, among other things, to repeal EPA safeguards that reduce harmful methane pollution from oil and gas operations. Baptist is just the latest example of the pervasive conflicts of interest among Pruitt’s senior staff.

Accountable to the law 

Fortunately, Pruitt’s practice of leaving the public in the dark is getting pushback. The recent D.C. Circuit decision in the oil and gas methane case is an important step in holding him accountable to the law. Pruitt must listen to all voices — including those of members of the public — as he makes decisions with serious implications for public health and welfare. 

 

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has officially suspended vital air pollution safeguards that protect Americans from dangerous methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds, and toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants like benzene. C3. Regional.

Welcome to Delta Dispatches with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Brady Couvillion, Geographer with the Coastal Restoration Assessment Branch of the USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, joins the program to talk with Simone about mapping Louisiana’s coast. He's followed by Dr. Scott Hemmerling, the Director of Human Dimension for The Water Institute of the Gulf, who stops by to talk with Simone about the human dimension of the loss of Louisiana’s wetlands and the atlas ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Mapping Louisiana appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Welcome to Delta Dispatches with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Brady Couvillion, Geographer with the Coastal Restoration Assessment Branch of the USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, joins the program to talk with Simone about mapping Louisiana’s coast. He's followed by Dr. Scott Hemmerling, the Director of Human Dimension for The Water Institute of the Gulf, who stops by to talk with Simone about the human dimension of the loss of Louisiana’s wetlands and the atlas ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Mapping Louisiana appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Welcome to Delta Dispatches with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Brady Couvillion, Geographer with the Coastal Restoration Assessment Branch of the USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, joins the program to talk with Simone about mapping Louisiana’s coast. He's followed by Dr. Scott Hemmerling, the Director of Human Dimension for The Water Institute of the Gulf, who stops by to talk with Simone about the human dimension of the loss of Louisiana’s wetlands and the atlas ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Mapping Louisiana appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Abbey Brown

Climate of Hope, United States Climate Alliance… These are a couple of initiatives and organizations formed by individual citizens, cities, and states to fight climate change since the President withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreements. And, I’m proud to say New York City is in on it.

Earlier last month, the New York City Council introduced a package of bills designed to make buildings more energy efficient. Given that about 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the City come from heating and cooling buildings, regulating how buildings manage energy is crucial to reaching Mayor Bill de Blasio’s goal of reducing citywide emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The bills

Here’s a rundown:

• 1629: Proposes that the mayor’s administration be required to submit recommendations to the Council for a more stringent energy code. Going forward, new construction, or buildings which undergo substantial renovation would be required to comply with these more energy efficient codes.
• 1632: Proposes that property owners be required to disclose information about a building’s energy efficiency at the point of sale.
• 1637: Proposes to establish a city energy policy task force that would be responsible for the creation of a long-term energy plan in 2019 and every four years going forward.
• 1639: Proposes that the city be required to create a plan for encouraging business improvement districts (BIDS) to increase solar energy use.
• 1644: Proposes the establishment of a ‘green project accelerator’, which would be a program within the NYC Dept. of Buildings. This program would simplify and accelerate the retrofitting permit process by answering questions buildings have and making it easier for projects to move forward to the construction phase.
• 1651: Proposes the amendment of the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to real-time monitoring of energy use and heat loss in city buildings.

What’s missing

While these bills represent an important step in the right direction, there are opportunities to strengthen them so the intended reduction in pollution is more effective and long-lasting. For example, Int. 1644, only refers to only renewable energy projects and distributed energy resource projects and does not make mention of energy efficiency projects, which aim to reduce energy use.

Energy efficiency should be included in the bill to complement clean energy sourcing and encourage projects that will limit energy consumption. Our path to achieving 80×50 goals will greatly benefit from this.

How to pack more power into NYC’s energy-efficiency bill package
Click To Tweet

Slight changes

The other bills on the package are necessary, but some seem to duplicate existing processes.

As it is already required, the city’s energy code goes through review and is upgraded with more stringent standards every three years, which would make Int. 1629 duplicative. Why not improve the existing process to make it more efficient, transparent, and open to public feedback?

Also, while solar is an abundant and important source of renewable energy, Int. 1639 could expand on the renewable technologies that can be used to reduce pollution, such as geothermal or solar-thermal.

It is up to cities and states to do the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting the environment, especially now that the federal government is not engaging in these efforts. The New York City Council’s commitment to making the mayor’s climate goals a reality is commendable, and taking time to enhance this bill package is vital to make progress.  EDF looks forward to working with Council Members on this undertaking.

By Abbey Brown

Climate of Hope, United States Climate Alliance… These are a couple of initiatives and organizations formed by individual citizens, cities, and states to fight climate change since the President withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreements. And, I’m proud to say New York City is in on it.

Earlier last month, the New York City Council introduced a package of bills designed to make buildings more energy efficient. Given that about 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the City come from heating and cooling buildings, regulating how buildings manage energy is crucial to reaching Mayor Bill de Blasio’s goal of reducing citywide emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The bills

Here’s a rundown:

• 1629: Proposes that the mayor’s administration be required to submit recommendations to the Council for a more stringent energy code. Going forward, new construction, or buildings which undergo substantial renovation would be required to comply with these more energy efficient codes.
• 1632: Proposes that property owners be required to disclose information about a building’s energy efficiency at the point of sale.
• 1637: Proposes to establish a city energy policy task force that would be responsible for the creation of a long-term energy plan in 2019 and every four years going forward.
• 1639: Proposes that the city be required to create a plan for encouraging business improvement districts (BIDS) to increase solar energy use.
• 1644: Proposes the establishment of a ‘green project accelerator’, which would be a program within the NYC Dept. of Buildings. This program would simplify and accelerate the retrofitting permit process by answering questions buildings have and making it easier for projects to move forward to the construction phase.
• 1651: Proposes the amendment of the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to real-time monitoring of energy use and heat loss in city buildings.

What’s missing

While these bills represent an important step in the right direction, there are opportunities to strengthen them so the intended reduction in pollution is more effective and long-lasting. For example, Int. 1644, only refers to only renewable energy projects and distributed energy resource projects and does not make mention of energy efficiency projects, which aim to reduce energy use.

Energy efficiency should be included in the bill to complement clean energy sourcing and encourage projects that will limit energy consumption. Our path to achieving 80×50 goals will greatly benefit from this.

How to pack more power into NYC’s energy-efficiency bill package
Click To Tweet

Slight changes

The other bills on the package are necessary, but some seem to duplicate existing processes.

As it is already required, the city’s energy code goes through review and is upgraded with more stringent standards every three years, which would make Int. 1629 duplicative. Why not improve the existing process to make it more efficient, transparent, and open to public feedback?

Also, while solar is an abundant and important source of renewable energy, Int. 1639 could expand on the renewable technologies that can be used to reduce pollution, such as geothermal or solar-thermal.

It is up to cities and states to do the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting the environment, especially now that the federal government is not engaging in these efforts. The New York City Council’s commitment to making the mayor’s climate goals a reality is commendable, and taking time to enhance this bill package is vital to make progress.  EDF looks forward to working with Council Members on this undertaking.

By Abbey Brown

Climate of Hope, United States Climate Alliance… These are a couple of initiatives and organizations formed by individual citizens, cities, and states to fight climate change since the President withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreements. And, I’m proud to say New York City is in on it.

Earlier last month, the New York City Council introduced a package of bills designed to make buildings more energy efficient. Given that about 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the City come from heating and cooling buildings, regulating how buildings manage energy is crucial to reaching Mayor Bill de Blasio’s goal of reducing citywide emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The bills

Here’s a rundown:

• 1629: Proposes that the mayor’s administration be required to submit recommendations to the Council for a more stringent energy code. Going forward, new construction, or buildings which undergo substantial renovation would be required to comply with these more energy efficient codes.
• 1632: Proposes that property owners be required to disclose information about a building’s energy efficiency at the point of sale.
• 1637: Proposes to establish a city energy policy task force that would be responsible for the creation of a long-term energy plan in 2019 and every four years going forward.
• 1639: Proposes that the city be required to create a plan for encouraging business improvement districts (BIDS) to increase solar energy use.
• 1644: Proposes the establishment of a ‘green project accelerator’, which would be a program within the NYC Dept. of Buildings. This program would simplify and accelerate the retrofitting permit process by answering questions buildings have and making it easier for projects to move forward to the construction phase.
• 1651: Proposes the amendment of the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to real-time monitoring of energy use and heat loss in city buildings.

What’s missing

While these bills represent an important step in the right direction, there are opportunities to strengthen them so the intended reduction in pollution is more effective and long-lasting. For example, Int. 1644, only refers to only renewable energy projects and distributed energy resource projects and does not make mention of energy efficiency projects, which aim to reduce energy use.

Energy efficiency should be included in the bill to complement clean energy sourcing and encourage projects that will limit energy consumption. Our path to achieving 80×50 goals will greatly benefit from this.

How to pack more power into NYC’s energy-efficiency bill package
Click To Tweet

Slight changes

The other bills on the package are necessary, but some seem to duplicate existing processes.

As it is already required, the city’s energy code goes through review and is upgraded with more stringent standards every three years, which would make Int. 1629 duplicative. Why not improve the existing process to make it more efficient, transparent, and open to public feedback?

Also, while solar is an abundant and important source of renewable energy, Int. 1639 could expand on the renewable technologies that can be used to reduce pollution, such as geothermal or solar-thermal.

It is up to cities and states to do the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting the environment, especially now that the federal government is not engaging in these efforts. The New York City Council’s commitment to making the mayor’s climate goals a reality is commendable, and taking time to enhance this bill package is vital to make progress.  EDF looks forward to working with Council Members on this undertaking.

Climate of Hope, United States Climate Alliance … These are a couple of initiatives and organizations formed by individual citizens, cities, and states to fight climate change since the President withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreements. And, I’m proud to say New York City is in on it. Earlier last month, the New […]

As special interests weigh in, he needs to hear from you. Take action today, and thank Governor Cooper for prioritizing North Carolina's coastal communities. Regional.

As special interests weigh in, he needs to hear from you. Take action today, and thank Governor Cooper for prioritizing North Carolina's coastal communities. Regional.

As special interests weigh in, he needs to hear from you. Take action today, and thank Governor Cooper for prioritizing North Carolina's coastal communities. Regional.

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Michael Maher

This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Recently, at an oil and gas industry event co-hosted by Energy Dialogues and Shell in Houston, Ben Ratner, a Director at Environmental Defense Fund, met up with Michael Maher, presently with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former longtime economist with ExxonMobil, to discuss the future of the natural gas industry. Specifically, they talked about the growing divide between those—in government and in the industry—who want less environmental regulation, particularly over the issue of methane emissions, and those who see sensible regulation as the best way for the industry to assure its future as offering a cleaner alternative to other, dirtier, fossil fuels.

Since Michael and Ben met in Houston, the Trump Administration announced the U.S. departure from the Paris climate agreement and postponements and potential weakening of methane emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management. These new developments put the industry divide into sharper focus.

States could now step up to address issues that the federal government was poised to take the lead on under rules promulgated by President Obama toward the end of his term. But will states act without industry prodding or at least, support for action? And will companies most worried about license to operate intervene against delays, weakening, or even elimination of nationwide standards? Mike and Ben discuss below.

Ben: As a former oil and gas industry employee, how do you think the industry should respond to the regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration?

Michael: This administration is moving rapidly away from a federal role in climate change policies. The question for the oil and gas industry is whether to sit back and coast on the federal failure to act or to work with states to address greenhouse emissions. Coasting may look like a cost saver for the near term, but the pendulum will eventually swing back, and a reversal of Trump’s policies is a real prospect down the road. However, if enough states—with industry support—were to effectively address methane emissions it could provide guidance for federal action down the road and protect the industry against the reputational damage of being seen to have resisted sound environmental regulation.

Michael: In the current political climate, what do you see as the role of leading companies?

Ben: The great irony here is that while the Trump attacks on environmental standards are intended to help industry by reducing costs in the short term, they may end up inflicting much greater long-term damage. A classic case of “short term gain, long term pain.”

Energy consumers, institutional investors and citizens want cleaner energy, and scrapping rules that help the industry clean up may ultimately endanger the industry’s social license to operate and make it more difficult to do business. So we will be looking hard to see which companies step forward to slow down the deregulatory torrent that is tarnishing the industry’s reputation just as demand for cleaner energy is lifting off.

In recent days, Shell and Exxon reportedly stated that they are complying with EPA’s contested methane rules, but other companies have stayed silent. Companies like ConocoPhillips and BP voiced their support for the Paris international climate agreement. With the U.S. now withdrawing from the Paris accord, will companies like these make good on addressing climate change by publicly supporting policies aimed at reducing methane emissions? We haven’t seen true industry support at the federal regulatory level, at least not yet.

At the same time, regardless of what happens in Washington, states have a golden opportunity to develop their own methane policies. In Colorado, for example, companies like Noble Energy and Anadarko worked with EDF and the state to negotiate methane and air pollution standards that work for business and the environment.

Industry played a vital role in Colorado’s success, and there will be more opportunities for industry leaders to participate in regulatory development in other states.

Ben: Are there business and reputational impacts of failing to address methane emissions?

Michael: Natural gas has historically competed with other sellers with other fuels almost totally on price. But customers and officials are increasingly looking at energy options based on environmental benefits and not just price. There is a robust debate in the Northeast, for example, about how to move forward in decarbonizing their electric power system and it is not focused solely on the costs of alternatives.

In this regard, it is in the interest of the natural gas industry to be able to promote natural gas as a much cleaner alternative to coal. But methane and associated emissions from natural gas drilling operations cloud that cleaner-than-coal claim and plays into the hands of those supporting a more rapid shift to renewables and who argue for “keeping it in the ground.”

Michael: How does EDF view methane control as part of a company’s social responsibility?

Ben: How a company manages its natural gas leaks tells you a great deal about how responsible it is, because leaks cause climate damage and can harm people’s health—especially among the most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. Also, since methane is a commercial product, if a company doesn’t know or care how much of its own product is going into thin air, that’s not a good sign.

Southwestern Energy is one example of a leader that sets a methane target, conveys to its people the value of methane management, and implements leading practices in the field. Another is Statoil, which is working with EDF and an entrepreneur to pioneer efficient new automated methane monitoring technology. These kinds of efforts can deliver financial value by recouping lost product, and demonstrating to investors, communities and other key stakeholders their lived commitment to responsible corporate behavior.

Ben: How do you see the industry tackling the methane problem?

Michael: Farsighted, well operated companies are already taking action to cut emissions, but sometimes the policy advocacy lags behind. There needs to be leadership on this issue from major players—not just singly but as a coalition urging federal agencies to retain or improve rules, rather than delay or weaken them. This coalition should also engage states in developing sound regulation of new drilling and older wells.

Some in industry are already pushing ahead with testing new technology that would reduce the cost of controlling emissions. That effort should continue, but voluntary action of this sort is not a replacement for regulations that apply across the entire industry. Nor will piecemeal voluntary efforts of a few overcome the stigma of hundreds of other companies abstaining from action to reduce their methane emissions.

Michael Maher is a senior program advisor at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Ben Ratner is a Director with EDF+Business at Environmental Defense Fund

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Michael Maher

This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Recently, at an oil and gas industry event co-hosted by Energy Dialogues and Shell in Houston, Ben Ratner, a Director at Environmental Defense Fund, met up with Michael Maher, presently with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former longtime economist with ExxonMobil, to discuss the future of the natural gas industry. Specifically, they talked about the growing divide between those—in government and in the industry—who want less environmental regulation, particularly over the issue of methane emissions, and those who see sensible regulation as the best way for the industry to assure its future as offering a cleaner alternative to other, dirtier, fossil fuels.

Since Michael and Ben met in Houston, the Trump Administration announced the U.S. departure from the Paris climate agreement and postponements and potential weakening of methane emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management. These new developments put the industry divide into sharper focus.

States could now step up to address issues that the federal government was poised to take the lead on under rules promulgated by President Obama toward the end of his term. But will states act without industry prodding or at least, support for action? And will companies most worried about license to operate intervene against delays, weakening, or even elimination of nationwide standards? Mike and Ben discuss below.

Ben: As a former oil and gas industry employee, how do you think the industry should respond to the regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration?

Michael: This administration is moving rapidly away from a federal role in climate change policies. The question for the oil and gas industry is whether to sit back and coast on the federal failure to act or to work with states to address greenhouse emissions. Coasting may look like a cost saver for the near term, but the pendulum will eventually swing back, and a reversal of Trump’s policies is a real prospect down the road. However, if enough states—with industry support—were to effectively address methane emissions it could provide guidance for federal action down the road and protect the industry against the reputational damage of being seen to have resisted sound environmental regulation.

Michael: In the current political climate, what do you see as the role of leading companies?

Ben: The great irony here is that while the Trump attacks on environmental standards are intended to help industry by reducing costs in the short term, they may end up inflicting much greater long-term damage. A classic case of “short term gain, long term pain.”

Energy consumers, institutional investors and citizens want cleaner energy, and scrapping rules that help the industry clean up may ultimately endanger the industry’s social license to operate and make it more difficult to do business. So we will be looking hard to see which companies step forward to slow down the deregulatory torrent that is tarnishing the industry’s reputation just as demand for cleaner energy is lifting off.

In recent days, Shell and Exxon reportedly stated that they are complying with EPA’s contested methane rules, but other companies have stayed silent. Companies like ConocoPhillips and BP voiced their support for the Paris international climate agreement. With the U.S. now withdrawing from the Paris accord, will companies like these make good on addressing climate change by publicly supporting policies aimed at reducing methane emissions? We haven’t seen true industry support at the federal regulatory level, at least not yet.

At the same time, regardless of what happens in Washington, states have a golden opportunity to develop their own methane policies. In Colorado, for example, companies like Noble Energy and Anadarko worked with EDF and the state to negotiate methane and air pollution standards that work for business and the environment.

Industry played a vital role in Colorado’s success, and there will be more opportunities for industry leaders to participate in regulatory development in other states.

Ben: Are there business and reputational impacts of failing to address methane emissions?

Michael: Natural gas has historically competed with other sellers with other fuels almost totally on price. But customers and officials are increasingly looking at energy options based on environmental benefits and not just price. There is a robust debate in the Northeast, for example, about how to move forward in decarbonizing their electric power system and it is not focused solely on the costs of alternatives.

In this regard, it is in the interest of the natural gas industry to be able to promote natural gas as a much cleaner alternative to coal. But methane and associated emissions from natural gas drilling operations cloud that cleaner-than-coal claim and plays into the hands of those supporting a more rapid shift to renewables and who argue for “keeping it in the ground.”

Michael: How does EDF view methane control as part of a company’s social responsibility?

Ben: How a company manages its natural gas leaks tells you a great deal about how responsible it is, because leaks cause climate damage and can harm people’s health—especially among the most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. Also, since methane is a commercial product, if a company doesn’t know or care how much of its own product is going into thin air, that’s not a good sign.

Southwestern Energy is one example of a leader that sets a methane target, conveys to its people the value of methane management, and implements leading practices in the field. Another is Statoil, which is working with EDF and an entrepreneur to pioneer efficient new automated methane monitoring technology. These kinds of efforts can deliver financial value by recouping lost product, and demonstrating to investors, communities and other key stakeholders their lived commitment to responsible corporate behavior.

Ben: How do you see the industry tackling the methane problem?

Michael: Farsighted, well operated companies are already taking action to cut emissions, but sometimes the policy advocacy lags behind. There needs to be leadership on this issue from major players—not just singly but as a coalition urging federal agencies to retain or improve rules, rather than delay or weaken them. This coalition should also engage states in developing sound regulation of new drilling and older wells.

Some in industry are already pushing ahead with testing new technology that would reduce the cost of controlling emissions. That effort should continue, but voluntary action of this sort is not a replacement for regulations that apply across the entire industry. Nor will piecemeal voluntary efforts of a few overcome the stigma of hundreds of other companies abstaining from action to reduce their methane emissions.

Michael Maher is a senior program advisor at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Ben Ratner is a Director with EDF+Business at Environmental Defense Fund

By EDF Blogs

By Ben Ratner and Michael Maher

This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Recently, at an oil and gas industry event co-hosted by Energy Dialogues and Shell in Houston, Ben Ratner, a Director at Environmental Defense Fund, met up with Michael Maher, presently with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former longtime economist with ExxonMobil, to discuss the future of the natural gas industry. Specifically, they talked about the growing divide between those—in government and in the industry—who want less environmental regulation, particularly over the issue of methane emissions, and those who see sensible regulation as the best way for the industry to assure its future as offering a cleaner alternative to other, dirtier, fossil fuels.

Since Michael and Ben met in Houston, the Trump Administration announced the U.S. departure from the Paris climate agreement and postponements and potential weakening of methane emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management. These new developments put the industry divide into sharper focus.

States could now step up to address issues that the federal government was poised to take the lead on under rules promulgated by President Obama toward the end of his term. But will states act without industry prodding or at least, support for action? And will companies most worried about license to operate intervene against delays, weakening, or even elimination of nationwide standards? Mike and Ben discuss below.

Ben: As a former oil and gas industry employee, how do you think the industry should respond to the regulatory rollbacks of the Trump administration?

Michael: This administration is moving rapidly away from a federal role in climate change policies. The question for the oil and gas industry is whether to sit back and coast on the federal failure to act or to work with states to address greenhouse emissions. Coasting may look like a cost saver for the near term, but the pendulum will eventually swing back, and a reversal of Trump’s policies is a real prospect down the road. However, if enough states—with industry support—were to effectively address methane emissions it could provide guidance for federal action down the road and protect the industry against the reputational damage of being seen to have resisted sound environmental regulation.

Michael: In the current political climate, what do you see as the role of leading companies?

Ben: The great irony here is that while the Trump attacks on environmental standards are intended to help industry by reducing costs in the short term, they may end up inflicting much greater long-term damage. A classic case of “short term gain, long term pain.”

Energy consumers, institutional investors and citizens want cleaner energy, and scrapping rules that help the industry clean up may ultimately endanger the industry’s social license to operate and make it more difficult to do business. So we will be looking hard to see which companies step forward to slow down the deregulatory torrent that is tarnishing the industry’s reputation just as demand for cleaner energy is lifting off.

In recent days, Shell and Exxon reportedly stated that they are complying with EPA’s contested methane rules, but other companies have stayed silent. Companies like ConocoPhillips and BP voiced their support for the Paris international climate agreement. With the U.S. now withdrawing from the Paris accord, will companies like these make good on addressing climate change by publicly supporting policies aimed at reducing methane emissions? We haven’t seen true industry support at the federal regulatory level, at least not yet.

At the same time, regardless of what happens in Washington, states have a golden opportunity to develop their own methane policies. In Colorado, for example, companies like Noble Energy and Anadarko worked with EDF and the state to negotiate methane and air pollution standards that work for business and the environment.

Industry played a vital role in Colorado’s success, and there will be more opportunities for industry leaders to participate in regulatory development in other states.

Ben: Are there business and reputational impacts of failing to address methane emissions?

Michael: Natural gas has historically competed with other sellers with other fuels almost totally on price. But customers and officials are increasingly looking at energy options based on environmental benefits and not just price. There is a robust debate in the Northeast, for example, about how to move forward in decarbonizing their electric power system and it is not focused solely on the costs of alternatives.

In this regard, it is in the interest of the natural gas industry to be able to promote natural gas as a much cleaner alternative to coal. But methane and associated emissions from natural gas drilling operations cloud that cleaner-than-coal claim and plays into the hands of those supporting a more rapid shift to renewables and who argue for “keeping it in the ground.”

Michael: How does EDF view methane control as part of a company’s social responsibility?

Ben: How a company manages its natural gas leaks tells you a great deal about how responsible it is, because leaks cause climate damage and can harm people’s health—especially among the most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. Also, since methane is a commercial product, if a company doesn’t know or care how much of its own product is going into thin air, that’s not a good sign.

Southwestern Energy is one example of a leader that sets a methane target, conveys to its people the value of methane management, and implements leading practices in the field. Another is Statoil, which is working with EDF and an entrepreneur to pioneer efficient new automated methane monitoring technology. These kinds of efforts can deliver financial value by recouping lost product, and demonstrating to investors, communities and other key stakeholders their lived commitment to responsible corporate behavior.

Ben: How do you see the industry tackling the methane problem?

Michael: Farsighted, well operated companies are already taking action to cut emissions, but sometimes the policy advocacy lags behind. There needs to be leadership on this issue from major players—not just singly but as a coalition urging federal agencies to retain or improve rules, rather than delay or weaken them. This coalition should also engage states in developing sound regulation of new drilling and older wells.

Some in industry are already pushing ahead with testing new technology that would reduce the cost of controlling emissions. That effort should continue, but voluntary action of this sort is not a replacement for regulations that apply across the entire industry. Nor will piecemeal voluntary efforts of a few overcome the stigma of hundreds of other companies abstaining from action to reduce their methane emissions.

Michael Maher is a senior program advisor at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

Ben Ratner is a Director with EDF+Business at Environmental Defense Fund