By Mark Brownstein

The questions the EPA Inspector General appears to be interested in are ones that have been widely and publicly addressed over the past three years, including in peer-reviewed scientific literature. For reference, see our blog posts from here (December 9, 2016), here (June 9, 2016), and here (March 9, 2015).

The most important thing to understand is that there is an extensive body of scientific research, including substantial research produced just over the last four years documenting the significant problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, of which the two studies cited in the IG letter are just a small part. Together, this body of research presents a clear and compelling picture of the magnitude of the methane emissions problem and the urgent need for action to address it.

For example, EDF has helped organize 16 different research projects looking at emissions from on the ground and in the air. So far 33 peer-reviewed papers have been published on those projects. More than 35 different research institutions and over 120 individual co-authors have been involved in the work published to date.

(It’s worth noting that the two studies mentioned by the Inspector General were carried out with the cooperation and collaboration of several major oil and gas producers, including Anadarko, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Encana, Pioneer, Shell, Statoil, Southwestern Energy and XTO.)

The central principle of our methane research efforts has been to examine the question from as many angles as possible, using the fullest possible suite of methods and technologies, precisely in order to see where the results were mutually reinforcing, and where differences might point to the need for additional study.

The picture developed from dozens of scientific studies published since the initial UT study was released encompasses a diverse range of measurement techniques, both top-down and bottom-up, that have also been cross-compared with one another.

Bottom line: It is clear that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are too high – higher than EPA had long estimated, and that strong regulations are necessary to reduce them. What’s more, these emissions are frequently accompanied by smog-forming contaminants, toxic benzene – all of which further underscores the urgency of action.

Fortunately, research has also shown just how effective these solutions can be when properly implemented. We look forward to continuing to work with the federal government, the states and other stakeholders to reduce harmful methane emissions.

By Mark Brownstein

The questions the EPA Inspector General appears to be interested in are ones that have been widely and publicly addressed over the past three years, including in peer-reviewed scientific literature. For reference, see our blog posts from here (December 9, 2016), here (June 9, 2016), and here (March 9, 2015).

The most important thing to understand is that there is an extensive body of scientific research, including substantial research produced just over the last four years documenting the significant problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, of which the two studies cited in the IG letter are just a small part. Together, this body of research presents a clear and compelling picture of the magnitude of the methane emissions problem and the urgent need for action to address it.

For example, EDF has helped organize 16 different research projects looking at emissions from on the ground and in the air. So far 33 peer-reviewed papers have been published on those projects. More than 35 different research institutions and over 120 individual co-authors have been involved in the work published to date.

(It’s worth noting that the two studies mentioned by the Inspector General were carried out with the cooperation and collaboration of several major oil and gas producers, including Anadarko, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Encana, Pioneer, Shell, Statoil, Southwestern Energy and XTO.)

The central principle of our methane research efforts has been to examine the question from as many angles as possible, using the fullest possible suite of methods and technologies, precisely in order to see where the results were mutually reinforcing, and where differences might point to the need for additional study.

The picture developed from dozens of scientific studies published since the initial UT study was released encompasses a diverse range of measurement techniques, both top-down and bottom-up, that have also been cross-compared with one another.

Bottom line: It is clear that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are too high – higher than EPA had long estimated, and that strong regulations are necessary to reduce them. What’s more, these emissions are frequently accompanied by smog-forming contaminants, toxic benzene – all of which further underscores the urgency of action.

Fortunately, research has also shown just how effective these solutions can be when properly implemented. We look forward to continuing to work with the federal government, the states and other stakeholders to reduce harmful methane emissions.

By Mark Brownstein

The questions the EPA Inspector General appears to be interested in are ones that have been widely and publicly addressed over the past three years, including in peer-reviewed scientific literature. For reference, see our blog posts from here (December 9, 2016), here (June 9, 2016), and here (March 9, 2015).

The most important thing to understand is that there is an extensive body of scientific research, including substantial research produced just over the last four years documenting the significant problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, of which the two studies cited in the IG letter are just a small part. Together, this body of research presents a clear and compelling picture of the magnitude of the methane emissions problem and the urgent need for action to address it.

For example, EDF has helped organize 16 different research projects looking at emissions from on the ground and in the air. So far 33 peer-reviewed papers have been published on those projects. More than 35 different research institutions and over 120 individual co-authors have been involved in the work published to date.

(It’s worth noting that the two studies mentioned by the Inspector General were carried out with the cooperation and collaboration of several major oil and gas producers, including Anadarko, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Encana, Pioneer, Shell, Statoil, Southwestern Energy and XTO.)

The central principle of our methane research efforts has been to examine the question from as many angles as possible, using the fullest possible suite of methods and technologies, precisely in order to see where the results were mutually reinforcing, and where differences might point to the need for additional study.

The picture developed from dozens of scientific studies published since the initial UT study was released encompasses a diverse range of measurement techniques, both top-down and bottom-up, that have also been cross-compared with one another.

Bottom line: It is clear that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are too high – higher than EPA had long estimated, and that strong regulations are necessary to reduce them. What’s more, these emissions are frequently accompanied by smog-forming contaminants, toxic benzene – all of which further underscores the urgency of action.

Fortunately, research has also shown just how effective these solutions can be when properly implemented. We look forward to continuing to work with the federal government, the states and other stakeholders to reduce harmful methane emissions.

Written by Dominique Browning

The joy, the bliss, the giddy freedom and adventure of summer days. For kids, that is.

For moms and dads, not so much, maybe.

Never mind all the usual things parents and caretakers have to worry about, without the help of those extra teacher eyes on their charges.

Most parents don’t realize it, but for decades there have been other eyes watching out for the health of our children, too. I had no idea myself as I was raising my two boys. Those eyes belong to the dedicated people of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who have worked tirelessly to make sure our air is cleaner and our water is safer.

Now those protections are being jeopardized by budget cuts that will slash health protections for our families. These days, among the summer worries we face are exploding tick and mosquito populations bearing diseases that didn’t used to occur in the US. Rising temperatures mean greater danger of suffering heat stroke and a greater risk of poor air quality days. States across the country have already experienced a number of “code orange” days — those days when air pollution is so bad it’s dangerous for children with asthma to play outside. We can expect “code red” days this summer, too. Who detects and issues those code orange and red days? EPA — our own families’ silent guardian.

We can keep ourselves and our children cool, hydrated, and safe. But we can also teach them one really important life lesson this summer, too: How to be a good citizen.

While your senators and representatives are on their summer breaks, go to their town halls and tell them what you care about: Clean air. A stable climate. A safer world. When everyone’s talking about health care, point out that cutting EPA budgets means it will be easier to get sick — and harder to get well.

School may be out. But learning never stops. And neither does the job of lovingly protecting our families.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Tom Murray

In the absence of federal leadership and oversight, who will be the standard-bearer for the environment?

You will.

The opportunity and need for bolder private sector leadership has never been greater. Business must continue to step up and lead the way to a more sustainable world where companies, communities, and the environment thrive. Your legacy must now be a legacy of leadership and stewardship. One cannot exist without the other.

Long-term economic growth and business competitiveness depends on a thriving environment. By 2050 there will be 9.5 billion consumers on our planet, all demanding more energy, food, products and services than ever before. This presents a huge challenge, and a huge opportunity for business leadership, collaboration and advocacy.

Tom Murray, VP EDF+Business

It is up to you to inspire, influence and innovate for a future where both the economy and the environment can prosper. We know this is achievable because we’ve proven it. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has been at the forefront of this change for 25 years, bringing cutting edge science, policy, and economic expertise to high-impact companies – including McDonalds, Walmart, and KKR – to transform business as usual in their products, operations, and advocacy. But now it’s time for all of us to raise the bar.

Set big goals

When companies like Walmart, PepsiCo and Microsoft set aggressive sustainability targets, three very important things happen:

1. Loud and clear signals are sent to employees, customers, investors, competitors and other stakeholders that they are planning for long-term competitiveness; not short-term politics. By publicly committing to bold environmental goals that reflect their impact and influence, business leaders are building a legacy of responsible prosperity for their organizations.
2. Big public goals inspire competition and results. There’s never been a more important time for business to create a race to the top, not because regulations demand it, but because employees, customers, the economy, and the planet deserve it. And, business operates on a global scale. Environmental leadership and oversight –or lack thereof — in the U.S. is no reason to fall behind in the global race to dominate the clean energy sector.
3. Big challenges breed big innovations. Rarely do business leaders know exactly how they will achieve their aggressive sustainability goals; but instead use goals as an impetus to innovate. Sustainability is a business challenge like any other – solutions and efficiencies are found through strategic, innovative thinking and an openness to bring the right people to the table to find the most transformative solutions.

This effort is well underway.  To date, over 275 companies are taking action on science-based targets. Here’s a step-by-step guide to learn more about setting your own science-based target.

Collaborate for scale

Private sector leaders must work together and use their purchasing power to inspire a future where both business and the environment can prosper. There is too much rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC today about a false choice between a healthy environment and a growing economy. To borrow a well-used phrase from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich …that’s rubbish. The good news is that we can have both.  There are currently over four million jobs in the clean energy and sustainability sectors across all U.S. states. The solar industry is growing at a rate of 12 times faster than the U.S. economy. Business is innovating to create cleaner air and water, safer products and abundant, low-cost energy supplies while figuring out how to accommodate a growing population without decimating natural resources.

Business leaders must look beyond the four walls of their own operations and drive broader change across their industries and global supply chains.

Get started with EDF’s supply chain solutions center.

It's time for business to raise the bar. We can drive a healthy economy AND a healthy environment.
Click To Tweet

Shape future safeguards

The good news is that the momentum for a sustainable future is not going to come to a screeching halt now that Trump has said the U.S. will pull out of the Paris Agreement. Business leaders have voiced their intent to stay the course, loud and clear. But business has always relied on regulatory guardrails for long-term planning when it comes to the environment. What happens now?

First, if your company is already on the front-lines of climate policy, keep your foot on the gas and your brand at the forefront. If you need help stepping up your sustainability, EDF and other NGOs are here to help to drive business- and planet-worthy victories.

Second, if you’ve been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens, now is the time to join the conversation. Step up and voice your business-first reasoning for a clean energy, sustainable future. Collaborate with others in your industry to amplify the message. Join other like-minded business leaders to uphold strong, global commitments.

How you can get involved:

• Add your brand to the 1,219 mayors, governors, college and university leaders, businesses and investors who have voiced their continued support for the Paris Agreement – We Are Still In.
• Join the world’s most influential companies in committing to 100% renewables
• Ask your Representatives to join the Climate Solutions Caucus

In the absence of federal safeguards for our environment, it is time for business to lead from the front.

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Tom Murray

In the absence of federal leadership and oversight, who will be the standard-bearer for the environment?

You will.

The opportunity and need for bolder private sector leadership has never been greater. Business must continue to step up and lead the way to a more sustainable world where companies, communities, and the environment thrive. Your legacy must now be a legacy of leadership and stewardship. One cannot exist without the other.

Long-term economic growth and business competitiveness depends on a thriving environment. By 2050 there will be 9.5 billion consumers on our planet, all demanding more energy, food, products and services than ever before. This presents a huge challenge, and a huge opportunity for business leadership, collaboration and advocacy.

Tom Murray, VP EDF+Business

It is up to you to inspire, influence and innovate for a future where both the economy and the environment can prosper. We know this is achievable because we’ve proven it. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has been at the forefront of this change for 25 years, bringing cutting edge science, policy, and economic expertise to high-impact companies – including McDonalds, Walmart, and KKR – to transform business as usual in their products, operations, and advocacy. But now it’s time for all of us to raise the bar.

Set big goals

When companies like Walmart, PepsiCo and Microsoft set aggressive sustainability targets, three very important things happen:

1. Loud and clear signals are sent to employees, customers, investors, competitors and other stakeholders that they are planning for long-term competitiveness; not short-term politics. By publicly committing to bold environmental goals that reflect their impact and influence, business leaders are building a legacy of responsible prosperity for their organizations.
2. Big public goals inspire competition and results. There’s never been a more important time for business to create a race to the top, not because regulations demand it, but because employees, customers, the economy, and the planet deserve it. And, business operates on a global scale. Environmental leadership and oversight –or lack thereof — in the U.S. is no reason to fall behind in the global race to dominate the clean energy sector.
3. Big challenges breed big innovations. Rarely do business leaders know exactly how they will achieve their aggressive sustainability goals; but instead use goals as an impetus to innovate. Sustainability is a business challenge like any other – solutions and efficiencies are found through strategic, innovative thinking and an openness to bring the right people to the table to find the most transformative solutions.

This effort is well underway.  To date, over 275 companies are taking action on science-based targets. Here’s a step-by-step guide to learn more about setting your own science-based target.

Collaborate for scale

Private sector leaders must work together and use their purchasing power to inspire a future where both business and the environment can prosper. There is too much rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC today about a false choice between a healthy environment and a growing economy. To borrow a well-used phrase from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich …that’s rubbish. The good news is that we can have both.  There are currently over four million jobs in the clean energy and sustainability sectors across all U.S. states. The solar industry is growing at a rate of 12 times faster than the U.S. economy. Business is innovating to create cleaner air and water, safer products and abundant, low-cost energy supplies while figuring out how to accommodate a growing population without decimating natural resources.

Business leaders must look beyond the four walls of their own operations and drive broader change across their industries and global supply chains.

Get started with EDF’s supply chain solutions center.

It's time for business to raise the bar. We can drive a healthy economy AND a healthy environment.
Click To Tweet

Shape future safeguards

The good news is that the momentum for a sustainable future is not going to come to a screeching halt now that Trump has said the U.S. will pull out of the Paris Agreement. Business leaders have voiced their intent to stay the course, loud and clear. But business has always relied on regulatory guardrails for long-term planning when it comes to the environment. What happens now?

First, if your company is already on the front-lines of climate policy, keep your foot on the gas and your brand at the forefront. If you need help stepping up your sustainability, EDF and other NGOs are here to help to drive business- and planet-worthy victories.

Second, if you’ve been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens, now is the time to join the conversation. Step up and voice your business-first reasoning for a clean energy, sustainable future. Collaborate with others in your industry to amplify the message. Join other like-minded business leaders to uphold strong, global commitments.

How you can get involved:

• Add your brand to the 1,219 mayors, governors, college and university leaders, businesses and investors who have voiced their continued support for the Paris Agreement – We Are Still In.
• Join the world’s most influential companies in committing to 100% renewables
• Ask your Representatives to join the Climate Solutions Caucus

In the absence of federal safeguards for our environment, it is time for business to lead from the front.

Follow Tom on Twitter, @tpmurray

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

By Martha Roberts

In the few months of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s tenure, we’ve already seen ample cause for concern when it comes to how he spends his time – a steady stream of meetings with major industry, together with rollbacks that harm communities and put children’s health at risk.

Last week, we learned that Administrator Pruitt gathered with the American Petroleum Institute board of directors at the Trump Hotel early in his tenure, just weeks before carrying out a host of actions to benefit oil and gas polluters. Just one of those actions — delaying implementation of a national smog health standard — will alone will result in 230,000 more asthma attacks for kids.

These actions have been taken with no meaningful public input or engagement. Meanwhile, the intermittent information we glean about Administrator Pruitt’s calendar and his schedule underscores his extensive meetings and visits with major industry.

Underlying these distressing developments, there’s something even more fundamental at play. How has the American public learned how Administrator Pruitt, a taxpayer-funded public servant, spends his time? How have we gotten information on the company he keeps?

Under past EPA Administrators, the calendars of senior managers — including the Administrator — were released to the public via accessible, concurrent platforms.

Troublingly, Scott Pruitt has ended this practice. We’ve only gotten information about his activities through intermittent information shared with the press, or months after the fact through time-consuming, burdensome Freedom of Information Act requests.

EDF calls on Pruitt to follow long-standing EPA practice and make his calendar public

EPA has an important job to do on behalf of the American public — protecting our health and welfare from dangerous pollution. Without timely information on the activities and schedule of Administrator Pruitt and his senior staff, members of the public cannot have full confidence that EPA’s leadership is working on their behalf.

Administrator Pruitt’s lack of transparency raises serious questions about potential abuse of EPA’s limited resources for activity that contravenes or is in serious tension with important legal and ethical requirements.

That’s why today EDF called on Pruitt to make his schedule, and that of his senior officials, available to the public on a widely accessible platform. Administrator Pruitt should immediately carry out this fundamental transparency practice, followed by EPA administrations of both parties. EDF is simultaneously submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain this information — a public record — in order to assure that the public at least obtains more up to date information on Pruitt’s activities.

EPA is supposed to operate “in a fishbowl”

The important transparency practice of sharing senior policy leaders’ schedules has a long history at EPA.

In 1983, William Ruckelshaus — the first EPA Administrator — was brought back to lead EPA by President Ronald Reagan in order to restore public trust after the scandal-plagued tenure of Administrator Anne Gorsuch. One of Administrator Ruckelshaus’ first actions was to issue was his “Fishbowl Memo,” which vowed that EPA would “operate in a fishbowl” and “attempt to communicate with everyone from the environmentalists to those we regulate and we will do so as openly as possible.”

Ruckelshaus’ Fishbowl Memo adopted as EPA policy a number of specific activities that are the hallmark of fair and transparent government. In particular, Ruckelshaus included a commitment to share senior leadership schedules as the Memo’s very first transparency directive:

In order to make the public fully aware of my contacts with interested persons, I have directed that a copy of my appointment calendar for each week be placed in the Office of Public Affairs and made available to the public at the end of the week. The Deputy Administrator, and all Assistant Administrators, Associate Administrators, Regional Administrators, and Staff Office Directors shall make their appointment calendars available in a similar manner.

This commitment to transparency and public access to EPA calendars has continued across administrations. For example, Administrator Lisa Jackson echoed this commitment upon her arrival, writing that “[t]o keep the public fully informed of my contacts with interested persons,” she would make available to the public, every day via the EPA website, “a working copy of my appointment calendar, showing meetings with members of the public.” She directed her senior staff to do the same. Administrator Gina McCarthy and Acting Administrator Catherine McCabe similarly continued this practice.

Yet Administrator Pruitt has ended the foundational transparency measure of making his and his senior policy leaders’ schedules readily available to the public. The policy change is illustrated by these two snapshots of EPA’s website from six months apart.

EPA’s website on January 19, 2017:

And the same page today:

A true back to basics approach

Pruitt has recently made a show of focusing on “EPA Originalism” and getting EPA “Back to Basics.” We suggest he follow long-standing EPA practice and the guidance of EPA’s original Administrator, William Ruckelshaus. Pruitt should make his calendar, and those of his senior leadership, widely and promptly available to the public.

By Martha Roberts

In the few months of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s tenure, we’ve already seen ample cause for concern when it comes to how he spends his time – a steady stream of meetings with major industry, together with rollbacks that harm communities and put children’s health at risk.

Last week, we learned that Administrator Pruitt gathered with the American Petroleum Institute board of directors at the Trump Hotel early in his tenure, just weeks before carrying out a host of actions to benefit oil and gas polluters. Just one of those actions — delaying implementation of a national smog health standard — will alone will result in 230,000 more asthma attacks for kids.

These actions have been taken with no meaningful public input or engagement. Meanwhile, the intermittent information we glean about Administrator Pruitt’s calendar and his schedule underscores his extensive meetings and visits with major industry.

Underlying these distressing developments, there’s something even more fundamental at play. How has the American public learned how Administrator Pruitt, a taxpayer-funded public servant, spends his time? How have we gotten information on the company he keeps?

Under past EPA Administrators, the calendars of senior managers — including the Administrator — were released to the public via accessible, concurrent platforms.

Troublingly, Scott Pruitt has ended this practice. We’ve only gotten information about his activities through intermittent information shared with the press, or months after the fact through time-consuming, burdensome Freedom of Information Act requests.

EDF calls on Pruitt to follow long-standing EPA practice and make his calendar public

EPA has an important job to do on behalf of the American public — protecting our health and welfare from dangerous pollution. Without timely information on the activities and schedule of Administrator Pruitt and his senior staff, members of the public cannot have full confidence that EPA’s leadership is working on their behalf.

Administrator Pruitt’s lack of transparency raises serious questions about potential abuse of EPA’s limited resources for activity that contravenes or is in serious tension with important legal and ethical requirements.

That’s why today EDF called on Pruitt to make his schedule, and that of his senior officials, available to the public on a widely accessible platform. Administrator Pruitt should immediately carry out this fundamental transparency practice, followed by EPA administrations of both parties. EDF is simultaneously submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain this information — a public record — in order to assure that the public at least obtains more up to date information on Pruitt’s activities.

EPA is supposed to operate “in a fishbowl”

The important transparency practice of sharing senior policy leaders’ schedules has a long history at EPA.

In 1983, William Ruckelshaus — the first EPA Administrator — was brought back to lead EPA by President Ronald Reagan in order to restore public trust after the scandal-plagued tenure of Administrator Anne Gorsuch. One of Administrator Ruckelshaus’ first actions was to issue was his “Fishbowl Memo,” which vowed that EPA would “operate in a fishbowl” and “attempt to communicate with everyone from the environmentalists to those we regulate and we will do so as openly as possible.”

Ruckelshaus’ Fishbowl Memo adopted as EPA policy a number of specific activities that are the hallmark of fair and transparent government. In particular, Ruckelshaus included a commitment to share senior leadership schedules as the Memo’s very first transparency directive:

In order to make the public fully aware of my contacts with interested persons, I have directed that a copy of my appointment calendar for each week be placed in the Office of Public Affairs and made available to the public at the end of the week. The Deputy Administrator, and all Assistant Administrators, Associate Administrators, Regional Administrators, and Staff Office Directors shall make their appointment calendars available in a similar manner.

This commitment to transparency and public access to EPA calendars has continued across administrations. For example, Administrator Lisa Jackson echoed this commitment upon her arrival, writing that “[t]o keep the public fully informed of my contacts with interested persons,” she would make available to the public, every day via the EPA website, “a working copy of my appointment calendar, showing meetings with members of the public.” She directed her senior staff to do the same. Administrator Gina McCarthy and Acting Administrator Catherine McCabe similarly continued this practice.

Yet Administrator Pruitt has ended the foundational transparency measure of making his and his senior policy leaders’ schedules readily available to the public. The policy change is illustrated by these two snapshots of EPA’s website from six months apart.

EPA’s website on January 19, 2017:

And the same page today:

A true back to basics approach

Pruitt has recently made a show of focusing on “EPA Originalism” and getting EPA “Back to Basics.” We suggest he follow long-standing EPA practice and the guidance of EPA’s original Administrator, William Ruckelshaus. Pruitt should make his calendar, and those of his senior leadership, widely and promptly available to the public.

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

President Trump’s tweets get plenty of coverage. Yet, there are currently numerous actions by his administration that are designed to restrict the free flow of information from federal agencies. This is particularly significant in the fight against climate change. A combination of disinformation, suppression of facts that should be in the public domain, and the erasure of elements from federal websites are concerning from agencies set up to protect Americans.

In an effort to learn if staff members were told not to use established scientific language via a “gag order,” the Center for Biological Diversity filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. They directed their inquiries to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Energy. The purpose was to get documentation of directives on the type of verbiage workers could or could not use.

Staff was allegedly instructed to either “remove” or “not use” any vocabulary that related to climate change. Examples include, but are not limited to, “greenhouse gas emissions,” “global warming,” “climate disruption,” and “global warming.” Ironically, “Paris agreement” was also in the mix.

The agencies were also asked to report if they had destroyed any records.

Almost two months later on May 30, the Center sued the Trump administration in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The reason? There had been no response, thereby “violating deadlines established under the law.”

The first point in the legal papers states:

“The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) — An environmental conservation organization that works to protect native wildlife species and their habitats — challenges the failure of the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of State to provide records concerning the Trump administration’s censorship of these federal departments’ and their component agencies’ discussion or dissemination about climate change, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.”

I spoke with Taylor McKinnon, Public Lands Campaigner at the Center. He reiterated reports of EPA workforce harassment, and accounts of web pages taken down. It was apparent that staff and scientists were being intimidated.

“My response,” McKinnon said, “was we need to pry the hood off of this.” A key goal was to establish where the instructions were coming from.

Some records were delivered to the Center. However, for the bulk of what the Center was seeking – they were “stonewalled.” This is what prompted the lawsuit.

“We’re not going to allow the administration to drag its feet,” McKinnon emphasized. “We’re going to hold them to the letter of the law.”

With the belief that what was taking place needed to be “exposed,” McKinnon stated, “We think the information will say volumes.”

The conversation shifted to the EPA under the direction of Scott Pruitt. McKinnon expressed his concern over “fossil fuel corruption.” He underscored, “Pruitt is a catastrophe for America.”

The Center is also pushing back to save data. Along with conservation biologist Stuart Pimm and the Center for Media and Democracy, they have combined forces to save scores of environmental “data sets” on government websites, from removal by the administration.

Back in March, McKinnon released a statement that encapsulates the situation at hand:

“This is like telling government scientists not to mention gravity or the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. The Trump administration can deny the reality of the climate crisis, but it can’t make it go away by simply telling government employees not to mention it anymore. This kind of anti-science meddling leads us straight back to the dark ages.”

Suppressing information, employee gag orders and perpetuating disinformation is a form of political pressure that adds to the weakening of the federal agencies we depend on to protect our families. We deserve better from our elected officials.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Dick Munson

Asim Haque, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

This post was updated on June 20, 2017.

Just think about the number of interactions we have with electricity each day – from our alarm clocks to our toasters to our smart phones and the lights in our homes and offices.

Electricity is undeniably important to our lives and our economy. And unprecedented energy innovation has created the opportunity to build a smarter, cleaner, and more modern electric grid. But modernizing the grid won’t happen on its own.

That’s why The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) convened about a hundred participants for a grid modernization conference last week in Columbus, Ohio. People came together to discuss challenges with our aging and frayed grid as well as opportunities presented by modern sensors and smart meters. Although participants brought different perspectives, everyone agreed now is a critical, opportune time to upgrade our aging electric grid. 

Special guests

The chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), Asim Haque, discussed his agency’s PowerForward initiative that will include a series of workshops about emerging smart-grid technologies and opportunities. Haque said the PUCO effort is based on two core concepts – encouraging energy innovation in Ohio and empowering and enriching the state’s customers.

The Ohio Senate president, Larry Obhof, expressed his interest in developing comprehensive and long-lasting energy policies that would attract investment and innovation in the state. The senator was particularly critical of persistent changes and uncertainties associated with the state’s efficiency and renewable energy standards.

Support from key decision makers, like at the PUCO and Ohio Legislature, will be critical to rewriting outdated rules that prevent progress.

An aging system

Electricity powers our everyday lives, and modernizing the electric grid is important because our current system is old and frayed. On any given day, half a million Americans lose power for two or more hours, and those disruptions cost our economy billions of dollars every year.

Moreover, 70 percent of the U.S. grid that delivers electricity to homes and businesses is at least 25 years old and unreliable, particularly compared with systems in every other developed nation: The U.S. suffers up to 214 minutes of outages each year depending on location, compared with just 15 for Germany and 4 for Japan. Without a more modern and smarter electric grid, the United States – including Ohio – is at a competitive disadvantage.

Opportunities

Grid modernization also is important because there are enormous opportunities to make our current system cleaner, smarter, and more efficient. In fact, there’s a technological revolution associated with sensors, meters, and controls that allows us to reimagine how we generate and deliver power.

For example, new technology provides enormous quantities of energy data, which can empower customers to have greater control over their energy use and electricity bills. It can also enable clean energy entrepreneurs to design new products and services that help customers save money and lower pollution. Forum participants concluded data was key to a smart, modern grid.

Those at the conference admitted that “grid modernization” can mean different things to different stakeholders. They generally agreed, however, that its achievement would be incremental rather than revolutionary. To EDF, a modern grid will reward customers, cleantech entrepreneurs, and power companies for making the nation’s electricity system more reliable, affordable, and clean. EDF will continue to bring different groups together to ensure we achieve a modern grid, one incremental step at a time.

Photo source: The Nature Conservancy.

By Dick Munson

Asim Haque, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

This post was updated on June 20, 2017.

Just think about the number of interactions we have with electricity each day – from our alarm clocks to our toasters to our smart phones and the lights in our homes and offices.

Electricity is undeniably important to our lives and our economy. And unprecedented energy innovation has created the opportunity to build a smarter, cleaner, and more modern electric grid. But modernizing the grid won’t happen on its own.

That’s why The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) convened about a hundred participants for a grid modernization conference last week in Columbus, Ohio. People came together to discuss challenges with our aging and frayed grid as well as opportunities presented by modern sensors and smart meters. Although participants brought different perspectives, everyone agreed now is a critical, opportune time to upgrade our aging electric grid. 

Special guests

The chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), Asim Haque, discussed his agency’s PowerForward initiative that will include a series of workshops about emerging smart-grid technologies and opportunities. Haque said the PUCO effort is based on two core concepts – encouraging energy innovation in Ohio and empowering and enriching the state’s customers.

The Ohio Senate president, Larry Obhof, expressed his interest in developing comprehensive and long-lasting energy policies that would attract investment and innovation in the state. The senator was particularly critical of persistent changes and uncertainties associated with the state’s efficiency and renewable energy standards.

Support from key decision makers, like at the PUCO and Ohio Legislature, will be critical to rewriting outdated rules that prevent progress.

An aging system

Electricity powers our everyday lives, and modernizing the electric grid is important because our current system is old and frayed. On any given day, half a million Americans lose power for two or more hours, and those disruptions cost our economy billions of dollars every year.

Moreover, 70 percent of the U.S. grid that delivers electricity to homes and businesses is at least 25 years old and unreliable, particularly compared with systems in every other developed nation: The U.S. suffers up to 214 minutes of outages each year depending on location, compared with just 15 for Germany and 4 for Japan. Without a more modern and smarter electric grid, the United States – including Ohio – is at a competitive disadvantage.

Opportunities

Grid modernization also is important because there are enormous opportunities to make our current system cleaner, smarter, and more efficient. In fact, there’s a technological revolution associated with sensors, meters, and controls that allows us to reimagine how we generate and deliver power.

For example, new technology provides enormous quantities of energy data, which can empower customers to have greater control over their energy use and electricity bills. It can also enable clean energy entrepreneurs to design new products and services that help customers save money and lower pollution. Forum participants concluded data was key to a smart, modern grid.

Those at the conference admitted that “grid modernization” can mean different things to different stakeholders. They generally agreed, however, that its achievement would be incremental rather than revolutionary. To EDF, a modern grid will reward customers, cleantech entrepreneurs, and power companies for making the nation’s electricity system more reliable, affordable, and clean. EDF will continue to bring different groups together to ensure we achieve a modern grid, one incremental step at a time.

Photo source: The Nature Conservancy.

This post was updated on June 20, 2017. Just think about the number of interactions we have with electricity each day – from our alarm clocks to our toasters to our smart phones and the lights in our homes and offices. Electricity is undeniably important to our lives and our economy. And unprecedented energy innovation […]

Written by Lori Popkewitz Alper

Microfibers, pieces of plastic debris around the size of a sesame seed, are polluting our planet’s waterways. Synthetic fabrics used in our clothing including polyester and fleece are major contributors to the growing problem of microfiber pollution. When we wash these fabrics they shed tiny pieces of plastic into the waste water. Due to their small size, a fair amount of microfibers slide past the filtration systems and enter our waterways. The end result is extensive plastic pollution which pollutes our waterways and places marine life at risk.

A new innovative product is in production to help stop the harmful microfibers from entering our public waterways after every load of laundry. The Rozalia Project, dedicated to protecting and cleaning the ocean, developed the Cora Ball to gather the harmful microfibers that wash into public waterways. I had an opportunity to catch up with the founder of The Rozalia Project and the creator of the Cora Ball, Rachael Z. Miller, to ask her a few questions about this groundbreaking new product.

What is a Cora Ball?

A Cora Ball is the first microfiber-catching laundry ball designed to collect microfibers (and hair) in your wash and help keep them from washing into our public waterways.

What inspired you to create a Cora Ball?

We are an ocean nonprofit working on the problem of marine debris – both macro and micro. When we learned that our clothing and home textiles are breaking up and flowing into our public waterways, we decided right away to use our experience and expertise to come up with a solution. The Cora Ball is an evolution from that realization and commitment.

Briefly, describe how a Cora Ball works.

You just drop it in your washing machine, any washing machine, and it swooshes around with the clothes. As that happens, little pieces of fiber get caught on the Cora Ball’s stalks. Eventually there are enough tiny pieces to make a bigger ball of fuzz that you can remove just like you would clean a hairbrush – just pull it out. Its shape and function are inspired by coral!

What is it made from and how much does it cost?

It is made from 100% recycled soft plastic that is meant to last for thousands of washes, but it is also recyclable. We are still working on final production details, but it looks like the price will be $22 for a single and around $60-62 for a triple pack.

How will use of a Cora Ball impact our waterways?

We estimate that if 10% of US households use a Cora Ball, we can prevent the plastic equivalent of 30 million water bottles from entering our oceans, lakes and rivers every year.

Have you met your initial funding goals and where do you plan to go from here with the Cora Ball?

Yes, thanks to excellent partners, Schmidt Marine Technology Partners and over 8,500 amazing backers through Kickstarter, we are heading for production! We should be shipping Kickstarter rewards in July and make the Cora Ball available for direct purchase online and then soon after in stores across the US and the world in August and early fall.

Stay tuned for the release of the Cora Ball in the fall.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Ben Ratner

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas leaks, which let product go to waste and pollute the air our families breathe.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt slammed the brakes on these regular check-ups for methane emissions (the main component of natural gas), when EPA announced its intention to freeze for two years safeguards that include a national standard for twice annual leak detection inspections at new well pads. And mere hours later, the Bureau of Land Management suspended waste prevention standards on federal and tribal lands. While these actions might initially be popular among some in the oil & gas community in Texas, the long-term repercussions will be severe.

With commodity prices recovering and a wave of development expected in the Permian Basin, the leak detection requirements were to take effect in time to support responsible development of new resources.

The administration attempts to justify abrupt halting of these basic standards as a necessary step to support the competitiveness of industry. However, the facts tell a very different story: compliance with leak detection requirements is cost effective, and an emerging industry of American small businesses stands at the ready to boost conservation, cut waste, and help industry comply.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) works to bring the right people to the table to forge innovative solutions that help people and nature prosper—we’ve proven that market-oriented solutions to environmental challenges not only drive bottom-line gains, but also spur innovation and job creation. Hearing trade association claims that methane standards are too onerous for industry—that small operators cannot afford to purchase pollution control equipment, for example—we wanted to understand what is actually happening on the ground. That is why we recently teamed with Datu Research to study the market solutions for companies needing to comply with the kind of leak detection requirements recently stymied on multiple fronts by the Trump administration.

Datu found that oil and gas companies do not need to purchase their own leak detection equipment. Instead, they can rely on one of 60 companies that provide methane leak detection and repair as a service in 45 states. Signing a contract with these firms eases the compliance burden for operators, because they can rely on third parties to provide trained staff and state of the art equipment like infrared cameras that bring invisible leaks into focus so they can be fixed.

Most third party leak detection firms are located within 100 miles of client sites, allowing for efficient service, and in many cases extra efficiency from “bundling” of multiple sites in a day to manage costs further.

And Texas boasts a Texas-sized leak detection industry, home to nearly two dozen leak detection and repair firms. For example, Dexter ATC, based in Beaumont, TX, serves 27 sites in Texas alone.

Not only do leak detection and repair service firms create cost effective solutions for industry clients, they create offshore-proof jobs working with technology. Dexter’s Nick James, now the Operations Director, explains that leak detection and repair provides young people who lack a college degree the opportunity to acquire skills and earn good entry-level wages. Nick’s story of upward mobility—he started as a field technician detecting leaks—is not unique, as the industry supports six job types, with salaries from $27,000 to the six figures.

Companies like Dexter are ready to help the oil and gas industry operate more cleanly and efficiently, and these small businesses stand to grow. Datu found that requiring methane controls—as the EPA and BLM standards do–creates jobs cutting methane emissions. In fact, companies have already experienced 5-30% business growth in states with methane regulations.

Rolling back methane safeguards isn’t just a step backwards for clean air, resource conservation, and an industry looking to demonstrate responsible operations as demand for clean energy grows—these rollbacks pull the rug out from an emerging industry that puts Americans to work. That’s not what the doctor ordered.

By Ben Ratner

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas leaks, which let product go to waste and pollute the air our families breathe.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt slammed the brakes on these regular check-ups for methane emissions (the main component of natural gas), when EPA announced its intention to freeze for two years safeguards that include a national standard for twice annual leak detection inspections at new well pads. And mere hours later, the Bureau of Land Management suspended waste prevention standards on federal and tribal lands. While these actions might initially be popular among some in the oil & gas community in Texas, the long-term repercussions will be severe.

With commodity prices recovering and a wave of development expected in the Permian Basin, the leak detection requirements were to take effect in time to support responsible development of new resources.

The administration attempts to justify abrupt halting of these basic standards as a necessary step to support the competitiveness of industry. However, the facts tell a very different story: compliance with leak detection requirements is cost effective, and an emerging industry of American small businesses stands at the ready to boost conservation, cut waste, and help industry comply.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) works to bring the right people to the table to forge innovative solutions that help people and nature prosper—we’ve proven that market-oriented solutions to environmental challenges not only drive bottom-line gains, but also spur innovation and job creation. Hearing trade association claims that methane standards are too onerous for industry—that small operators cannot afford to purchase pollution control equipment, for example—we wanted to understand what is actually happening on the ground. That is why we recently teamed with Datu Research to study the market solutions for companies needing to comply with the kind of leak detection requirements recently stymied on multiple fronts by the Trump administration.

Datu found that oil and gas companies do not need to purchase their own leak detection equipment. Instead, they can rely on one of 60 companies that provide methane leak detection and repair as a service in 45 states. Signing a contract with these firms eases the compliance burden for operators, because they can rely on third parties to provide trained staff and state of the art equipment like infrared cameras that bring invisible leaks into focus so they can be fixed.

Most third party leak detection firms are located within 100 miles of client sites, allowing for efficient service, and in many cases extra efficiency from “bundling” of multiple sites in a day to manage costs further.

And Texas boasts a Texas-sized leak detection industry, home to nearly two dozen leak detection and repair firms. For example, Dexter ATC, based in Beaumont, TX, serves 27 sites in Texas alone.

Not only do leak detection and repair service firms create cost effective solutions for industry clients, they create offshore-proof jobs working with technology. Dexter’s Nick James, now the Operations Director, explains that leak detection and repair provides young people who lack a college degree the opportunity to acquire skills and earn good entry-level wages. Nick’s story of upward mobility—he started as a field technician detecting leaks—is not unique, as the industry supports six job types, with salaries from $27,000 to the six figures.

Companies like Dexter are ready to help the oil and gas industry operate more cleanly and efficiently, and these small businesses stand to grow. Datu found that requiring methane controls—as the EPA and BLM standards do–creates jobs cutting methane emissions. In fact, companies have already experienced 5-30% business growth in states with methane regulations.

Rolling back methane safeguards isn’t just a step backwards for clean air, resource conservation, and an industry looking to demonstrate responsible operations as demand for clean energy grows—these rollbacks pull the rug out from an emerging industry that puts Americans to work. That’s not what the doctor ordered.

By Ben Ratner

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas leaks, which let product go to waste and pollute the air our families breathe.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt slammed the brakes on these regular check-ups for methane emissions (the main component of natural gas), when EPA announced its intention to freeze for two years safeguards that include a national standard for twice annual leak detection inspections at new well pads. And mere hours later, the Bureau of Land Management suspended waste prevention standards on federal and tribal lands. While these actions might initially be popular among some in the oil & gas community in Texas, the long-term repercussions will be severe.

With commodity prices recovering and a wave of development expected in the Permian Basin, the leak detection requirements were to take effect in time to support responsible development of new resources.

The administration attempts to justify abrupt halting of these basic standards as a necessary step to support the competitiveness of industry. However, the facts tell a very different story: compliance with leak detection requirements is cost effective, and an emerging industry of American small businesses stands at the ready to boost conservation, cut waste, and help industry comply.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) works to bring the right people to the table to forge innovative solutions that help people and nature prosper—we’ve proven that market-oriented solutions to environmental challenges not only drive bottom-line gains, but also spur innovation and job creation. Hearing trade association claims that methane standards are too onerous for industry—that small operators cannot afford to purchase pollution control equipment, for example—we wanted to understand what is actually happening on the ground. That is why we recently teamed with Datu Research to study the market solutions for companies needing to comply with the kind of leak detection requirements recently stymied on multiple fronts by the Trump administration.

Datu found that oil and gas companies do not need to purchase their own leak detection equipment. Instead, they can rely on one of 60 companies that provide methane leak detection and repair as a service in 45 states. Signing a contract with these firms eases the compliance burden for operators, because they can rely on third parties to provide trained staff and state of the art equipment like infrared cameras that bring invisible leaks into focus so they can be fixed.

Most third party leak detection firms are located within 100 miles of client sites, allowing for efficient service, and in many cases extra efficiency from “bundling” of multiple sites in a day to manage costs further.

And Texas boasts a Texas-sized leak detection industry, home to nearly two dozen leak detection and repair firms. For example, Dexter ATC, based in Beaumont, TX, serves 27 sites in Texas alone.

Not only do leak detection and repair service firms create cost effective solutions for industry clients, they create offshore-proof jobs working with technology. Dexter’s Nick James, now the Operations Director, explains that leak detection and repair provides young people who lack a college degree the opportunity to acquire skills and earn good entry-level wages. Nick’s story of upward mobility—he started as a field technician detecting leaks—is not unique, as the industry supports six job types, with salaries from $27,000 to the six figures.

Companies like Dexter are ready to help the oil and gas industry operate more cleanly and efficiently, and these small businesses stand to grow. Datu found that requiring methane controls—as the EPA and BLM standards do–creates jobs cutting methane emissions. In fact, companies have already experienced 5-30% business growth in states with methane regulations.

Rolling back methane safeguards isn’t just a step backwards for clean air, resource conservation, and an industry looking to demonstrate responsible operations as demand for clean energy grows—these rollbacks pull the rug out from an emerging industry that puts Americans to work. That’s not what the doctor ordered.

By Ben Ratner

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas leaks, which let product go to waste and pollute the air our families breathe.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt slammed the brakes on these regular check-ups for methane emissions (the main component of natural gas), when EPA announced its intention to freeze for two years safeguards that include a national standard for twice annual leak detection inspections at new well pads. And mere hours later, the Bureau of Land Management suspended waste prevention standards on federal and tribal lands. While these actions might initially be popular among some in the oil & gas community in Texas, the long-term repercussions will be severe.

With commodity prices recovering and a wave of development expected in the Permian Basin, the leak detection requirements were to take effect in time to support responsible development of new resources.

The administration attempts to justify abrupt halting of these basic standards as a necessary step to support the competitiveness of industry. However, the facts tell a very different story: compliance with leak detection requirements is cost effective, and an emerging industry of American small businesses stands at the ready to boost conservation, cut waste, and help industry comply.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) works to bring the right people to the table to forge innovative solutions that help people and nature prosper—we’ve proven that market-oriented solutions to environmental challenges not only drive bottom-line gains, but also spur innovation and job creation. Hearing trade association claims that methane standards are too onerous for industry—that small operators cannot afford to purchase pollution control equipment, for example—we wanted to understand what is actually happening on the ground. That is why we recently teamed with Datu Research to study the market solutions for companies needing to comply with the kind of leak detection requirements recently stymied on multiple fronts by the Trump administration.

Datu found that oil and gas companies do not need to purchase their own leak detection equipment. Instead, they can rely on one of 60 companies that provide methane leak detection and repair as a service in 45 states. Signing a contract with these firms eases the compliance burden for operators, because they can rely on third parties to provide trained staff and state of the art equipment like infrared cameras that bring invisible leaks into focus so they can be fixed.

Most third party leak detection firms are located within 100 miles of client sites, allowing for efficient service, and in many cases extra efficiency from “bundling” of multiple sites in a day to manage costs further.

And Texas boasts a Texas-sized leak detection industry, home to nearly two dozen leak detection and repair firms. For example, Dexter ATC, based in Beaumont, TX, serves 27 sites in Texas alone.

Not only do leak detection and repair service firms create cost effective solutions for industry clients, they create offshore-proof jobs working with technology. Dexter’s Nick James, now the Operations Director, explains that leak detection and repair provides young people who lack a college degree the opportunity to acquire skills and earn good entry-level wages. Nick’s story of upward mobility—he started as a field technician detecting leaks—is not unique, as the industry supports six job types, with salaries from $27,000 to the six figures.

Companies like Dexter are ready to help the oil and gas industry operate more cleanly and efficiently, and these small businesses stand to grow. Datu found that requiring methane controls—as the EPA and BLM standards do–creates jobs cutting methane emissions. In fact, companies have already experienced 5-30% business growth in states with methane regulations.

Rolling back methane safeguards isn’t just a step backwards for clean air, resource conservation, and an industry looking to demonstrate responsible operations as demand for clean energy grows—these rollbacks pull the rug out from an emerging industry that puts Americans to work. That’s not what the doctor ordered.

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas […]

By David Lyon

The federal administration’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA are devastating. Nearly all climate-related programs are proposed to be cut or greatly reduced, including the popular ENERGY STAR program.

Yet two critical climate EPA programs have maintained partial funding in the current proposal – the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).  These programs provide critical reports each year outlining U.S. man-made greenhouse emissions across the country. These informative reports are vital to the energy sector and our regional climate initiatives and must be preserved by this and future federal administrations.

If we are not measuring and tracking our annual output of greenhouse gases, our ability to verifiably reduce our emissions becomes severely impaired. Our country – along with public and industry stakeholders across the work –needs access to this U.S. data each year in order to understand patterns and trends in greenhouse gas emissions.  Transparent reporting of GHG data can help hold emitters publicly accountable and facilitate emission reductions.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

The GHGI program was initiated more than 20 years ago and provides detailed, yet incomplete, accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for dozens of U.S. source categories caused by human activities. The report provides an assessment of the country’s GHG emissions history and can guide future reduction targets. The GHGI is also a source of valuable scientific data and can guide investment in emissions research and mitigation. The gases covered by the inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The GHGI has been highly detailed and science-based, and the EPA historically has been committed to making continuous improvements to this report. Great progress has been made in the last few years in regards to updating the estimate of the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions, but additional work is needed to increase its accuracy.

The administration should provide the GHGI with an adequate budget to implement two to three major science-based updates each year, such as fully accounting for oil and gas super-emitters and including estimates of abandoned wells. The EPA should also be free to make updates to the report free of political interference whenever needed.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The GHGRP provides emission data from the largest industrial facilities in the country. Facilities measured under this program emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, supply consumers with fossil fuels, or inject carbon dioxide.  The GHGRP is a mandatory reporting program for U.S. facilities emitting GHGs ≥ 25,000 metric tons CO2e. Facilities have annually reported emissions and associated data since 2010.  In 2015, approximately 8,000 facilities reported 3 billion metric tons CO2e.

The GHGRP data derived from these reports is highly valuable for research into the quantification and mitigation of emissions.  The EPA also started recently integrating GHGRP data into the GHGI, which increases the accuracy of the inventory relying on the most recently available data.

GHGRP reports provide the public with verifiable and standardized data from the largest polluters. The proposed budget mentions potential revisions related to reporting of sensitive business information.  While improvements to the efficiency of the reporting program are welcome, EPA should not weaken the transparency of the program by classifying more data elements as confidential.

Insufficient Budgets Lead to Insufficient Emission Data

The proposed administration budget slashes all of the research funding and most of the implementation funds for the GHGRP. Many science-based updates need to be made to the report, including the use of more direct measurements. The administration should provide the GHGRP with an adequate budget to continuously research and implement updates to improve the accuracy of reported data.

In order for our cities, states and industrial energy facilities to measure and reduce their greenhouse emissions, they must have access to these reports. The value and accuracy of these reports will decrease significantly if they are not funded appropriately. Without sufficient budgets, the EPA will also lose its ability to continuously improve the data quality and reporting efficiency of the reports.  Trump might have pulled the U.S. federal government out of the Paris agreement last week, but 187 U.S. city mayors have already pledged to adopt and commit to the goals outlined in the agreement.

Appropriate budgets are required for these reports, though objectivity and access are paramount, as well. Updates to these reports should be driven by science – not business interests.  And the EPA should assure the public that this data remains publically available.

Without annual U.S. greenhouse gas emission data derived from these reports, polluters and stakeholders will not have the information required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, we will all be flying blind, and now is not the time to lack current climate data.

Image source: Public Domain Pictures

By David Lyon

The federal administration’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA are devastating. Nearly all climate-related programs are proposed to be cut or greatly reduced, including the popular ENERGY STAR program.

Yet two critical climate EPA programs have maintained partial funding in the current proposal – the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).  These programs provide critical reports each year outlining U.S. man-made greenhouse emissions across the country. These informative reports are vital to the energy sector and our regional climate initiatives and must be preserved by this and future federal administrations.

If we are not measuring and tracking our annual output of greenhouse gases, our ability to verifiably reduce our emissions becomes severely impaired. Our country – along with public and industry stakeholders across the work –needs access to this U.S. data each year in order to understand patterns and trends in greenhouse gas emissions.  Transparent reporting of GHG data can help hold emitters publicly accountable and facilitate emission reductions.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

The GHGI program was initiated more than 20 years ago and provides detailed, yet incomplete, accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for dozens of U.S. source categories caused by human activities. The report provides an assessment of the country’s GHG emissions history and can guide future reduction targets. The GHGI is also a source of valuable scientific data and can guide investment in emissions research and mitigation. The gases covered by the inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The GHGI has been highly detailed and science-based, and the EPA historically has been committed to making continuous improvements to this report. Great progress has been made in the last few years in regards to updating the estimate of the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions, but additional work is needed to increase its accuracy.

The administration should provide the GHGI with an adequate budget to implement two-three major science-based updates each year, such as fully accounting for oil and gas super-emitters and including estimates of abandoned wells. The EPA should also be free to make updates to the report free of political interference whenever needed.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The GHGRP program provides emission data from the largest industrial facilities in the country. Facilities measured under this program emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, supply consumers with fossil fuels, or inject carbon dioxide.  The GHGRP is a mandatory reporting program for U.S. facilities emitting GHGs ≥ 25,000 metric tons CO2e. Facilities have annually reported emissions and associated data since 2010.  In 2015, approximately 8,000 facilities reported 3 billion metric tons CO2e.

The GHGRP data derived from these reports is highly valuable for research into the quantification and mitigation of emissions.  The EPA also started recently integrating GHGRP data into the GHGI, which increases the accuracy of the inventory relying on the most recently available data.

GHGRP reports provide the public with verifiable and standardized data from the largest polluters. The proposed budget mentions potential revisions related to reporting of sensitive business information.  While improvements to the efficiency of the reporting program are welcome, EPA should not weaken the transparency of the program by classifying more data elements as confidential.

Insufficient Budgets Lead to Insufficient Emission Data

The proposed administration budget slashes all of the research funding and most of the implementation funds for the GHGRP. Many science-based updates need to be made to the report, including the use of more direct measurements. The administration should provide the GHGRP with an adequate budget to continuously research and implement updates to improve the accuracy of reported data.

In order for our cities, states and industrial energy facilities to measure and reduce their greenhouse emissions, they must have access to these reports. The value and accuracy of these reports will decrease significantly if they are not funded appropriately. Without sufficient budgets, the EPA will also lose its ability to continuously improve the data quality and reporting efficiency of the reports.  Trump might have pulled the U.S. federal government out of the Paris agreement last week, but 187 U.S. city mayors have already pledged to adopt and commit to the goals outlined in the agreement.

Appropriate budgets are required for these reports, though objectivity and access are paramount, as well. Updates to these reports should be driven by science – not business interests.  And the EPA should assure the public that this data remains publically available.

Without annual U.S. greenhouse gas emission data derived from these reports, polluters and stakeholders will not have the information required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, we will all be flying blind, and now is not the time to lack current climate data.

Image source: Public Domain Pictures