By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most. This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping […]

The post How a digital dashboard could make cities’ power, water smarter appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By: Jori Mendel, AT&T Smart Cities, and Chandana Vangapalli, former Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellow Technology revolutionizes the way people interact with the world. From video chats to securing homes from thousands of miles away, digital connections bring us closer to what matters most. This same connectivity can play a critical role in helping […]

The post How a digital dashboard could make cities’ power, water smarter appeared first on Energy Exchange.

Even though Washington policies may be in full retreat concerning the environment, the world’s energy economies are moving toward the future. Growing opportunities in the methane management technology and services industry is one example, where new well-paying jobs in the industry are being created across the U.S. and Canada. These are jobs that could soon […]

The post Numbers don’t lie – finding and fixing methane leaks create jobs across North America appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By EDF Blogs

By Isabel Mogstad

Even though Washington policies may be in full retreat concerning the environment, the world’s energy economies are moving toward the future. Growing opportunities in the methane management technology and services industry is one example, where new well-paying jobs in the industry are being created across the U.S. and Canada. These are jobs that could soon be in high demand in other energy-producing countries.

Billions of dollars’ worth of methane – the primary component of natural gas – is escaping from the world’s oil and gas value chain every year. With proven and low-cost fixes readily available from the methane mitigation industry, global methane emissions represent $10 billion in potential revenue for the oil and gas industry.

Two of the top five polluting countries globally, the U.S. and Canada, are showing there is an economic upside to eliminating methane waste by tapping the offerings of this emerging new industry.

Nearly 180 companies provide methane waste and pollution reduction technologies and services in Canada, according to a new job opportunities report released last week by the Methane Emissions Leadership Alliance (MELA), an association for the Canadian methane emissions management industry.

The report found that 80 percent of the companies surveyed anticipate business growth based on the phase-in of Canadian federal and provincial methane rules, which are due out this year. Local businesses supplying emission controls and inspection services to detect and capture lost methane can help oil and gas companies comply with tighter efficiency standards.

Most of these good-paying jobs are also expected to flourish in Alberta.

The economic growth derived from methane standards is positive for the methane management industry, but it also delivers important outsourcing services to oil and gas industry operators, allowing them to recapture otherwise lost revenue.

This new job growth data comes on the heels of yet another recent report citing the economic and job benefits of methane mitigation, showing at least 136 methane mitigation companies in the United States.

Not surprising, the companies surveyed in this new report have seen up to 30 percent growth in the U.S. states that require oil and gas operators to control their methane emissions. Methane rules in several U.S. states, including California, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are gaining momentum as state leaders see the collective economic, industrial and environmental benefits of the policies. And what has been good for this industry in the U.S. is expected to replicate in Canada when it implements its methane rules.

All of the U.S. and Canadian companies surveyed so far consider new methane requirements a critical driver of their business growth. One of the companies surveyed in the Canadian jobs report went so far as to say “there are stronger oil and gas methane regulations in the U.S. and unless Canada develops comparable regulations, it may be more cost-effective to move some jobs from Canada to the U.S.”

Methane monitoring and mitigation costs for industry have already proven themselves to be inexpensive. Fortunately for the oil and gas industry, short-term methane monitoring costs can be overridden by long-term savings.

Jonah Energy is a good example – the company took methane mitigation into its own hands and reduced emissions by 75 percent and saved $5 million in what would have been lost natural gas product.

None of this data should be surprising to anyone familiar with long-term business and market trends. Regulations can be powerful market drivers.

Look at the automotive industry. It’s been nearly 20 years since U.S. airbag legislation was passed in 1998 to protect the safety of drivers. Today, the global airbag market is worth a whopping $23.6 billion – and thousands of lives have been saved.

Hundreds of companies across North America are depending on methane controls. Let’s keep the jobs intact, along with the methane.

By EDF Blogs

By Isabel Mogstad

Even though Washington policies may be in full retreat concerning the environment, the world’s energy economies are moving toward the future. Growing opportunities in the methane management technology and services industry is one example, where new well-paying jobs in the industry are being created across the U.S. and Canada. These are jobs that could soon be in high demand in other energy-producing countries.

Billions of dollars’ worth of methane – the primary component of natural gas – is escaping from the world’s oil and gas value chain every year. With proven and low-cost fixes readily available from the methane mitigation industry, global methane emissions represent $10 billion in potential revenue for the oil and gas industry.

Two of the top five polluting countries globally, the U.S. and Canada, are showing there is an economic upside to eliminating methane waste by tapping the offerings of this emerging new industry.

Nearly 180 companies provide methane waste and pollution reduction technologies and services in Canada, according to a new job opportunities report released last week by the Methane Emissions Leadership Alliance (MELA), an association for the Canadian methane emissions management industry.

The report found that 80 percent of the companies surveyed anticipate business growth based on the phase-in of Canadian federal and provincial methane rules, which are due out this year. Local businesses supplying emission controls and inspection services to detect and capture lost methane can help oil and gas companies comply with tighter efficiency standards.

Most of these good-paying jobs are also expected to flourish in Alberta.

The economic growth derived from methane standards is positive for the methane management industry, but it also delivers important outsourcing services to oil and gas industry operators, allowing them to recapture otherwise lost revenue.

This new job growth data comes on the heels of yet another recent report citing the economic and job benefits of methane mitigation, showing at least 136 methane mitigation companies in the United States.

Not surprising, the companies surveyed in this new report have seen up to 30 percent growth in the U.S. states that require oil and gas operators to control their methane emissions. Methane rules in several U.S. states, including California, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are gaining momentum as state leaders see the collective economic, industrial and environmental benefits of the policies. And what has been good for this industry in the U.S. is expected to replicate in Canada when it implements its methane rules.

All of the U.S. and Canadian companies surveyed so far consider new methane requirements a critical driver of their business growth. One of the companies surveyed in the Canadian jobs report went so far as to say “there are stronger oil and gas methane regulations in the U.S. and unless Canada develops comparable regulations, it may be more cost-effective to move some jobs from Canada to the U.S.”

Methane monitoring and mitigation costs for industry have already proven themselves to be inexpensive. Fortunately for the oil and gas industry, short-term methane monitoring costs can be overridden by long-term savings.

Jonah Energy is a good example – the company took methane mitigation into its own hands and reduced emissions by 75 percent and saved $5 million in what would have been lost natural gas product.

None of this data should be surprising to anyone familiar with long-term business and market trends. Regulations can be powerful market drivers.

Look at the automotive industry. It’s been nearly 20 years since U.S. airbag legislation was passed in 1998 to protect the safety of drivers. Today, the global airbag market is worth a whopping $23.6 billion – and thousands of lives have been saved.

Hundreds of companies across North America are depending on methane controls. Let’s keep the jobs intact, along with the methane.

By EDF Blogs

By Isabel Mogstad

Even though Washington policies may be in full retreat concerning the environment, the world’s energy economies are moving toward the future. Growing opportunities in the methane management technology and services industry is one example, where new well-paying jobs in the industry are being created across the U.S. and Canada. These are jobs that could soon be in high demand in other energy-producing countries.

Billions of dollars’ worth of methane – the primary component of natural gas – is escaping from the world’s oil and gas value chain every year. With proven and low-cost fixes readily available from the methane mitigation industry, global methane emissions represent $10 billion in potential revenue for the oil and gas industry.

Two of the top five polluting countries globally, the U.S. and Canada, are showing there is an economic upside to eliminating methane waste by tapping the offerings of this emerging new industry.

Nearly 180 companies provide methane waste and pollution reduction technologies and services in Canada, according to a new job opportunities report released last week by the Methane Emissions Leadership Alliance (MELA), an association for the Canadian methane emissions management industry.

The report found that 80 percent of the companies surveyed anticipate business growth based on the phase-in of Canadian federal and provincial methane rules, which are due out this year. Local businesses supplying emission controls and inspection services to detect and capture lost methane can help oil and gas companies comply with tighter efficiency standards.

Most of these good-paying jobs are also expected to flourish in Alberta.

The economic growth derived from methane standards is positive for the methane management industry, but it also delivers important outsourcing services to oil and gas industry operators, allowing them to recapture otherwise lost revenue.

This new job growth data comes on the heels of yet another recent report citing the economic and job benefits of methane mitigation, showing at least 136 methane mitigation companies in the United States.

Not surprising, the companies surveyed in this new report have seen up to 30 percent growth in the U.S. states that require oil and gas operators to control their methane emissions. Methane rules in several U.S. states, including California, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are gaining momentum as state leaders see the collective economic, industrial and environmental benefits of the policies. And what has been good for this industry in the U.S. is expected to replicate in Canada when it implements its methane rules.

All of the U.S. and Canadian companies surveyed so far consider new methane requirements a critical driver of their business growth. One of the companies surveyed in the Canadian jobs report went so far as to say “there are stronger oil and gas methane regulations in the U.S. and unless Canada develops comparable regulations, it may be more cost-effective to move some jobs from Canada to the U.S.”

Methane monitoring and mitigation costs for industry have already proven themselves to be inexpensive. Fortunately for the oil and gas industry, short-term methane monitoring costs can be overridden by long-term savings.

Jonah Energy is a good example – the company took methane mitigation into its own hands and reduced emissions by 75 percent and saved $5 million in what would have been lost natural gas product.

None of this data should be surprising to anyone familiar with long-term business and market trends. Regulations can be powerful market drivers.

Look at the automotive industry. It’s been nearly 20 years since U.S. airbag legislation was passed in 1998 to protect the safety of drivers. Today, the global airbag market is worth a whopping $23.6 billion – and thousands of lives have been saved.

Hundreds of companies across North America are depending on methane controls. Let’s keep the jobs intact, along with the methane.

By EDF Blogs

By Isabel Mogstad

Even though Washington policies may be in full retreat concerning the environment, the world’s energy economies are moving toward the future. Growing opportunities in the methane management technology and services industry is one example, where new well-paying jobs in the industry are being created across the U.S. and Canada. These are jobs that could soon be in high demand in other energy-producing countries.

Billions of dollars’ worth of methane – the primary component of natural gas – is escaping from the world’s oil and gas value chain every year. With proven and low-cost fixes readily available from the methane mitigation industry, global methane emissions represent $10 billion in potential revenue for the oil and gas industry.

Two of the top five polluting countries globally, the U.S. and Canada, are showing there is an economic upside to eliminating methane waste by tapping the offerings of this emerging new industry.

Nearly 180 companies provide methane waste and pollution reduction technologies and services in Canada, according to a new job opportunities report released last week by the Methane Emissions Leadership Alliance (MELA), an association for the Canadian methane emissions management industry.

The report found that 80 percent of the companies surveyed anticipate business growth based on the phase-in of Canadian federal and provincial methane rules, which are due out this year. Local businesses supplying emission controls and inspection services to detect and capture lost methane can help oil and gas companies comply with tighter efficiency standards.

Most of these good-paying jobs are also expected to flourish in Alberta.

The economic growth derived from methane standards is positive for the methane management industry, but it also delivers important outsourcing services to oil and gas industry operators, allowing them to recapture otherwise lost revenue.

This new job growth data comes on the heels of yet another recent report citing the economic and job benefits of methane mitigation, showing at least 136 methane mitigation companies in the United States.

Not surprising, the companies surveyed in this new report have seen up to 30 percent growth in the U.S. states that require oil and gas operators to control their methane emissions. Methane rules in several U.S. states, including California, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are gaining momentum as state leaders see the collective economic, industrial and environmental benefits of the policies. And what has been good for this industry in the U.S. is expected to replicate in Canada when it implements its methane rules.

All of the U.S. and Canadian companies surveyed so far consider new methane requirements a critical driver of their business growth. One of the companies surveyed in the Canadian jobs report went so far as to say “there are stronger oil and gas methane regulations in the U.S. and unless Canada develops comparable regulations, it may be more cost-effective to move some jobs from Canada to the U.S.”

Methane monitoring and mitigation costs for industry have already proven themselves to be inexpensive. Fortunately for the oil and gas industry, short-term methane monitoring costs can be overridden by long-term savings.

Jonah Energy is a good example – the company took methane mitigation into its own hands and reduced emissions by 75 percent and saved $5 million in what would have been lost natural gas product.

None of this data should be surprising to anyone familiar with long-term business and market trends. Regulations can be powerful market drivers.

Look at the automotive industry. It’s been nearly 20 years since U.S. airbag legislation was passed in 1998 to protect the safety of drivers. Today, the global airbag market is worth a whopping $23.6 billion – and thousands of lives have been saved.

Hundreds of companies across North America are depending on methane controls. Let’s keep the jobs intact, along with the methane.

By Dick Munson

Talk about a disruptive technology. The “world's leading software platform for digital assets,” blockchain may be little known, but it could revolutionize electricity markets.

What is blockchain?

Blockchain, in short, is a secure, decentralized, and highly efficient way to manage and keep track of infinite transactions. Rather than being stored on a central server, peer-to-peer transactions are replicated across a number of computers, creating a data store that records exchanges in almost real time. To ensure the transactions are secure, authenticity and identity are maintained through cryptography and digital signatures.

Bitcoin – perhaps the most-recognized blockchain application – already is challenging conventional money exchangers. According to Cambridge University researchers, almost 6 million people use this cryptocurrency in order to make electronic peer-to-peer transactions without an intermediary such as a bank. And because blockchain technology is decentralized and accessible from multiple locations, Bitcoin funds can’t be frozen, withheld, seized, or taken.

New electricity opportunities

When it comes to electricity, blockchain could offer a reliable, rapid, and low-cost means to record and validate financial and operational transactions. These transactions could include selling and buying electricity – again without an intermediary, in this case the incumbent utility monopoly. In light of the rapid rise of distributed (decentralized) energy resources like batteries and solar panels, some analysts even believe the market for blockchain applications is significantly larger in the energy sector than for financial services.

Blockchain could serve as a backbone technology for electricity markets based on multiple sellers and buyers, or peer-to-peer transactions. This type of market stands in contrast to tradition: “The old system of a few big power plants and vertically-integrated utilities didn’t really need blockchain,” says Michael Liebreich, chairman of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

How blockchain could upend power markets.
Click To Tweet

But the new, evolving energy system – which gives people more choice and control over their electricity use and costs – could take advantage of the disruptive technology.

European progress

Blockchain is gaining particular attention in Europe where utilities have less market control and distributed generation, like home solar and electric vehicles, is accelerating:

• German electric utility RWE is testing a blockchain application for charging electric vehicles.
• Vattenfall AB, the largest Nordic utility, plans a blockchain app that would enable customers to buy and sell power independently of the utility.
• Austria’s Wien Energie, is participating in a blockchain trialfocused on energy trading with two other utilities.
• Finland’sFortum aims to enable consumers to control appliances over the internet in connected homes.
• Grid Singularity, a startup firm in Austria,is using blockchain technology to validate electricity trade and monitor grid equipment.

Here in the States, Brooklyn residents are testing blockchain technology to buy and sell solar energy.

What next?       

Who will take most advantage of blockchain remains an open question when it comes to electricity markets.

The ability to trade electricity could increase substantially the power of customers, as well as grid flexibility and efficiency. Blockchain also could enable customers to easily switch to electricity suppliers with better offers. For example, Electron and Data Communications Company have a platform that enables British customers to sign up to a new seller within a day.

Businesses also may benefit. For instance, a factory with solar panels could sell its excess electricity to another manufacturer.

Others argue that a blockchain platform will be a key asset to electric utilities.

So, on one hand, the technology’s ability to circumvent a central point of authority – aka, the utility – suggests individuals and companies will safely and quickly exchange energy services, eliminating a key portion of the utility’s business and revenue.

Yet others argue that a blockchain platform will be a key asset to electric utilities, or:

“… part of the answer to updating and improving centralized, legacy systems with a distributed hybrid system made up of a patchwork of both large power plants and microgrids powered by distributed energy resources such as solar power.”

These analysts admit blockchain will disrupt electricity markets by enabling decentralized power, yet they believe “the established utilities are best placed to evaluate and make strategic bets on blockchain technology’s potential applications.”

Blockchain likely will face opposition from entrenched utilities, and regulators will want to ensure the platform is safe and reliable. Diverse stakeholders in electricity markets also will need to establish common industry standards. Yet as more stakeholders consider grid modernization and new utility business models, this disruptive technology suggests innovative models and approaches for delivering efficient, reliable, affordable, and clean energy.

By Dick Munson

Talk about a disruptive technology. The “world's leading software platform for digital assets,” blockchain may be little known, but it could revolutionize electricity markets.

What is blockchain?

Blockchain, in short, is a secure, decentralized, and highly efficient way to manage and keep track of infinite transactions. Rather than being stored on a central server, peer-to-peer transactions are replicated across a number of computers, creating a data store that records exchanges in almost real time. To ensure the transactions are secure, authenticity and identity are maintained through cryptography and digital signatures.

Bitcoin – perhaps the most-recognized blockchain application – already is challenging conventional money exchangers. According to Cambridge University researchers, almost 6 million people use this cryptocurrency in order to make electronic peer-to-peer transactions without an intermediary such as a bank. And because blockchain technology is decentralized and accessible from multiple locations, Bitcoin funds can’t be frozen, withheld, seized, or taken.

New electricity opportunities

When it comes to electricity, blockchain could offer a reliable, rapid, and low-cost means to record and validate financial and operational transactions. These transactions could include selling and buying electricity – again without an intermediary, in this case the incumbent utility monopoly. In light of the rapid rise of distributed (decentralized) energy resources like batteries and solar panels, some analysts even believe the market for blockchain applications is significantly larger in the energy sector than for financial services.

Blockchain could serve as a backbone technology for electricity markets based on multiple sellers and buyers, or peer-to-peer transactions. This type of market stands in contrast to tradition: “The old system of a few big power plants and vertically-integrated utilities didn’t really need blockchain,” says Michael Liebreich, chairman of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

How blockchain could upend power markets.
Click To Tweet

But the new, evolving energy system – which gives people more choice and control over their electricity use and costs – could take advantage of the disruptive technology.

European progress

Blockchain is gaining particular attention in Europe where utilities have less market control and distributed generation, like home solar and electric vehicles, is accelerating:

• German electric utility RWE is testing a blockchain application for charging electric vehicles.
• Vattenfall AB, the largest Nordic utility, plans a blockchain app that would enable customers to buy and sell power independently of the utility.
• Austria’s Wien Energie, is participating in a blockchain trialfocused on energy trading with two other utilities.
• Finland’sFortum aims to enable consumers to control appliances over the internet in connected homes.
• Grid Singularity, a startup firm in Austria,is using blockchain technology to validate electricity trade and monitor grid equipment.

Here in the States, Brooklyn residents are testing blockchain technology to buy and sell solar energy.

What next?       

Who will take most advantage of blockchain remains an open question when it comes to electricity markets.

The ability to trade electricity could increase substantially the power of customers, as well as grid flexibility and efficiency. Blockchain also could enable customers to easily switch to electricity suppliers with better offers. For example, Electron and Data Communications Company have a platform that enables British customers to sign up to a new seller within a day.

Businesses also may benefit. For instance, a factory with solar panels could sell its excess electricity to another manufacturer.

Others argue that a blockchain platform will be a key asset to electric utilities.

So, on one hand, the technology’s ability to circumvent a central point of authority – aka, the utility – suggests individuals and companies will safely and quickly exchange energy services, eliminating a key portion of the utility’s business and revenue.

Yet others argue that a blockchain platform will be a key asset to electric utilities, or:

“… part of the answer to updating and improving centralized, legacy systems with a distributed hybrid system made up of a patchwork of both large power plants and microgrids powered by distributed energy resources such as solar power.”

These analysts admit blockchain will disrupt electricity markets by enabling decentralized power, yet they believe “the established utilities are best placed to evaluate and make strategic bets on blockchain technology’s potential applications.”

Blockchain likely will face opposition from entrenched utilities, and regulators will want to ensure the platform is safe and reliable. Diverse stakeholders in electricity markets also will need to establish common industry standards. Yet as more stakeholders consider grid modernization and new utility business models, this disruptive technology suggests innovative models and approaches for delivering efficient, reliable, affordable, and clean energy.

Talk about a disruptive technology. The “world's leading software platform for digital assets,” blockchain may be little known, but it could revolutionize electricity markets. What is blockchain? Blockchain, in short, is a secure, decentralized, and highly efficient way to manage and keep track of infinite transactions. Rather than being stored on a central server, peer-to-peer […]

By Dick Munson

Talk about a disruptive technology. The “world's leading software platform for digital assets,” blockchain may be little known, but it could revolutionize electricity markets.

What is blockchain?

Blockchain, in short, is a secure, decentralized, and highly efficient way to manage and keep track of infinite transactions. Rather than being stored on a central server, peer-to-peer transactions are replicated across a number of computers, creating a data store that records exchanges in almost real time. To ensure the transactions are secure, authenticity and identity are maintained through cryptography and digital signatures.

Bitcoin – perhaps the most-recognized blockchain application – already is challenging conventional money exchangers. According to Cambridge University researchers, almost 6 million people use this cryptocurrency in order to make electronic peer-to-peer transactions without an intermediary such as a bank. And because blockchain technology is decentralized and accessible from multiple locations, Bitcoin funds can’t be frozen, withheld, seized, or taken.

New electricity opportunities

When it comes to electricity, blockchain could offer a reliable, rapid, and low-cost means to record and validate financial and operational transactions. These transactions could include selling and buying electricity – again without an intermediary, in this case the incumbent utility monopoly. In light of the rapid rise of distributed (decentralized) energy resources like batteries and solar panels, some analysts even believe the market for blockchain applications is significantly larger in the energy sector than for financial services.

Blockchain could serve as a backbone technology for electricity markets based on multiple sellers and buyers, or peer-to-peer transactions. This type of market stands in contrast to tradition: “The old system of a few big power plants and vertically-integrated utilities didn’t really need blockchain,” says Michael Liebreich, chairman of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

How blockchain could upend power markets.
Click To Tweet

But the new, evolving energy system – which gives people more choice and control over their electricity use and costs – could take advantage of the disruptive technology.

European progress

Blockchain is gaining particular attention in Europe where utilities have less market control and distributed generation, like home solar and electric vehicles, is accelerating:

• German electric utility RWE is testing a blockchain application for charging electric vehicles.
• Vattenfall AB, the largest Nordic utility, plans a blockchain app that would enable customers to buy and sell power independently of the utility.
• Austria’s Wien Energie, is participating in a blockchain trialfocused on energy trading with two other utilities.
• Finland’sFortum aims to enable consumers to control appliances over the internet in connected homes.
• Grid Singularity, a startup firm in Austria,is using blockchain technology to validate electricity trade and monitor grid equipment.

Here in the States, Brooklyn residents are testing blockchain technology to buy and sell solar energy.

What next?       

Who will take most advantage of blockchain remains an open question when it comes to electricity markets.

The ability to trade electricity could increase substantially the power of customers, as well as grid flexibility and efficiency. Blockchain also could enable customers to easily switch to electricity suppliers with better offers. For example, Electron and Data Communications Company have a platform that enables British customers to sign up to a new seller within a day.

Businesses also may benefit. For instance, a factory with solar panels could sell its excess electricity to another manufacturer.

Others argue that a blockchain platform will be a key asset to electric utilities.

So, on one hand, the technology’s ability to circumvent a central point of authority – aka, the utility – suggests individuals and companies will safely and quickly exchange energy services, eliminating a key portion of the utility’s business and revenue.

Yet others argue that a blockchain platform will be a key asset to electric utilities, or:

“… part of the answer to updating and improving centralized, legacy systems with a distributed hybrid system made up of a patchwork of both large power plants and microgrids powered by distributed energy resources such as solar power.”

These analysts admit blockchain will disrupt electricity markets by enabling decentralized power, yet they believe “the established utilities are best placed to evaluate and make strategic bets on blockchain technology’s potential applications.”

Blockchain likely will face opposition from entrenched utilities, and regulators will want to ensure the platform is safe and reliable. Diverse stakeholders in electricity markets also will need to establish common industry standards. Yet as more stakeholders consider grid modernization and new utility business models, this disruptive technology suggests innovative models and approaches for delivering efficient, reliable, affordable, and clean energy.

By Martha Roberts

(This post was co-authored by Tomas Carbonell)

Before he became Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt was relentless in suing to oppose the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever nationwide limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

So relentless, in fact, that as Attorney General of Oklahoma he brought suit four times to block these common sense, cost-effective protections—including litigating to block the proposal, before the Clean Power Plan was even finalized.

Given that history, you’d think that Pruitt would be eager to for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court to continue the current litigation over the Clean Power Plan, which Pruitt helped initiate when he was Attorney General.

Instead, the Trump Administration launched a full-court press to stop the court’s deliberations in their tracks.

The administration filed a motion on March 28 asking the court to suspend the litigation indefinitely – almost a year after the last briefs were filed in the case, and more than six months after oral argument took place before the full en banc court.

Why the sudden aversion to the court considering the case, after such a long history of litigating?

Perhaps Pruitt was afraid that the court would see the Clean Power Plan for what it is – a common sense and achievable plan, firmly grounded in the law and in science, which responds to the most urgent environmental challenge of our time.

Pruitt repeatedly argues that the reason to repeal the Clean Power Plan is because it is “illegal.” Without a D.C. Circuit opinion, all we have are his own claims on that point – and maybe Pruitt prefers it that way, given his poor record in past legal challenges to common sense EPA safeguards.

Whatever the reason, Pruitt pressed ahead to stop the very same case he was instrumental in creating. Last week, the D.C. Circuit partially granted his request. The court put the Clean Power Plan litigation on hold for 60 days, and asked for more information so it can decide how to handle the case going forward.

EPA has a duty to protect Americans from dangerous climate pollution

While last week’s order is disappointing, it has not changed the fact that EPA has a clear duty to act under our nation’s clean air laws to protect the public from harmful climate pollution. That duty is enshrined in three separate Supreme Court opinions that confirm EPA has the authority and responsibility to address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

EPA’s obligation to address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act is a settled question in American law. And EPA’s history of successfully addressing climate pollution from cars and other sources speaks for itself.

The Clean Power Plan itself has a rock solid legal and technical foundation – as recognized by a huge and varied coalition of supporters including former Republican EPA Administrators, the attorneys general of eighteen states, legal experts who helped draft the Clean Air Act, and the nation’s leading experts on the power grid.

As these experts recognize, the Clean Power Plan relies on strategies that are already being deployed successfully across the power sector—continuing and amplifying a transition to low- and zero-carbon energy that is reducing climate-destabilizing pollution while bringing jobs and economic opportunities to communities across the country. America’s clean energy sector is a rapidly growing $200-billion industry that employs 3.3 million Americans.

Regardless of any legal maneuvers, the fundamental truth remains – EPA has a duty to act to protect the public from dangerous climate pollution. Given the clear and present threat that climate change poses to the well-being of communities across America, this duty is urgent.

By Martha Roberts

(This post was co-authored by Tomas Carbonell)

Before he became Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt was relentless in suing to oppose the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever nationwide limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

So relentless, in fact, that as Attorney General of Oklahoma he brought suit four times to block these common sense, cost-effective protections—including litigating to block the proposal, before the Clean Power Plan was even finalized.

Given that history, you’d think that Pruitt would be eager to for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court to continue the current litigation over the Clean Power Plan, which Pruitt helped initiate when he was Attorney General.

Instead, the Trump Administration launched a full-court press to stop the court’s deliberations in their tracks.

The administration filed a motion on March 28 asking the court to suspend the litigation indefinitely – almost a year after the last briefs were filed in the case, and more than six months after oral argument took place before the full en banc court.

Why the sudden aversion to the court considering the case, after such a long history of litigating?

Perhaps Pruitt was afraid that the court would see the Clean Power Plan for what it is – a common sense and achievable plan, firmly grounded in the law and in science, which responds to the most urgent environmental challenge of our time.

Pruitt repeatedly argues that the reason to repeal the Clean Power Plan is because it is “illegal.” Without a D.C. Circuit opinion, all we have are his own claims on that point – and maybe Pruitt prefers it that way, given his poor record in past legal challenges to common sense EPA safeguards.

Whatever the reason, Pruitt pressed ahead to stop the very same case he was instrumental in creating. Last week, the D.C. Circuit partially granted his request. The court put the Clean Power Plan litigation on hold for 60 days, and asked for more information so it can decide how to handle the case going forward.

EPA has a duty to protect Americans from dangerous climate pollution

While last week’s order is disappointing, it has not changed the fact that EPA has a clear duty to act under our nation’s clean air laws to protect the public from harmful climate pollution. That duty is enshrined in three separate Supreme Court opinions that confirm EPA has the authority and responsibility to address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

EPA’s obligation to address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act is a settled question in American law. And EPA’s history of successfully addressing climate pollution from cars and other sources speaks for itself.

The Clean Power Plan itself has a rock solid legal and technical foundation – as recognized by a huge and varied coalition of supporters including former Republican EPA Administrators, the attorneys general of eighteen states, legal experts who helped draft the Clean Air Act, and the nation’s leading experts on the power grid.

As these experts recognize, the Clean Power Plan relies on strategies that are already being deployed successfully across the power sector—continuing and amplifying a transition to low- and zero-carbon energy that is reducing climate-destabilizing pollution while bringing jobs and economic opportunities to communities across the country. America’s clean energy sector is a rapidly growing $200-billion industry that employs 3.3 million Americans.

Regardless of any legal maneuvers, the fundamental truth remains – EPA has a duty to act to protect the public from dangerous climate pollution. Given the clear and present threat that climate change poses to the well-being of communities across America, this duty is urgent.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Last week, as anticipated, Senator Rob Portman introduced his updated Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA).  Sens. Hatch, Heitcamp and Manchin cosponsored the bill.

While it’s new, it can’t be said it’s improved.  Some problems raised with Sen. Portman’s earlier version of the bill were addressed but many were not and quite a few new very problematic provisions were added.

In March, I blogged about the irony that RAA would reinstate a number of requirements that Congress just last June removed from the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) through the Lautenberg Act amendments that were enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Unfortunately, many of those problems remain with Sen. Portman’s new version of RAA.  And, those flawed requirements would be imposed across the entire federal government, effectively rewriting dozens of federal statutes simultaneously.

I have updated my earlier analysis of RAA vs. the new TSCA to reflect the new version of RAA.  

The analysis is divided into two sections:  First, it discusses provisions of RAA that would directly undo critical changes the Lautenberg Act made to TSCA when it passed just last year.  Among them:

• It would still impose a cost test on an agency’s selection of a regulatory option, requiring it to be the “most cost-effective” – a term that is undefined. In contrast, reformed TSCA merely requires EPA to “consider” and “factor in” cost and related factors, to the extent practicable based on reasonably available information.
• It would generally require lengthy formal hearings for any major rule if anyone asks for one. The hearing requirement in original TSCA was struck based on broad agreement that it was an unnecessary and overly time- and resource-consuming step in the rulemaking process.

Second, my analysis describes a few examples of the many other provisions of RAA that could or would affect implementation of the new TSCA (as well as that of all of the dozens of other federal statutes to which RAA would apply).

In providing this new analysis, I want to emphasize that in no way does it capture the full range of problems with the new version of RAA.  RAA amends the Administrative Procedure Act, and the changes it would make are sweeping in nature.  The full implications of this legislation are difficult to discern and would likely not become fully apparent for years after adoption, especially given the extent of litigation it can be expected to engender.

Many provisions of RAA in addition to those discussed above would affect rulemaking activities under the new TSCA – as well as those under all other federal statutes.  My analysis only addresses a subset of these problematic provisions.

 

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Last week, as anticipated, Senator Rob Portman introduced his updated Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA).  Sens. Hatch, Heitcamp and Manchin cosponsored the bill. While it’s new, it can’t be said it’s improved.  Some problems raised with Sen. Portman’s earlier version of the bill were addressed but many were not […]

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Last week, as anticipated, Senator Rob Portman introduced his updated Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA).  Sens. Hatch, Heitcamp and Manchin cosponsored the bill.

While it’s new, it can’t be said it’s improved.  Some problems raised with Sen. Portman’s earlier version of the bill were addressed but many were not and quite a few new very problematic provisions were added.

In March, I blogged about the irony that RAA would reinstate a number of requirements that Congress just last June removed from the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) through the Lautenberg Act amendments that were enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Unfortunately, many of those problems remain with Sen. Portman’s new version of RAA.  And, those flawed requirements would be imposed across the entire federal government, effectively rewriting dozens of federal statutes simultaneously.

I have updated my earlier analysis of RAA vs. the new TSCA to reflect the new version of RAA.  

The analysis is divided into two sections:  First, it discusses provisions of RAA that would directly undo critical changes the Lautenberg Act made to TSCA when it passed just last year.  Among them:

• It would still impose a cost test on an agency’s selection of a regulatory option, requiring it to be the “most cost-effective” – a term that is undefined. In contrast, reformed TSCA merely requires EPA to “consider” and “factor in” cost and related factors, to the extent practicable based on reasonably available information.
• It would generally require lengthy formal hearings for any major rule if anyone asks for one. The hearing requirement in original TSCA was struck based on broad agreement that it was an unnecessary and overly time- and resource-consuming step in the rulemaking process.

Second, my analysis describes a few examples of the many other provisions of RAA that could or would affect implementation of the new TSCA (as well as that of all of the dozens of other federal statutes to which RAA would apply).

In providing this new analysis, I want to emphasize that in no way does it capture the full range of problems with the new version of RAA.  RAA amends the Administrative Procedure Act, and the changes it would make are sweeping in nature.  The full implications of this legislation are difficult to discern and would likely not become fully apparent for years after adoption, especially given the extent of litigation it can be expected to engender.

Many provisions of RAA in addition to those discussed above would affect rulemaking activities under the new TSCA – as well as those under all other federal statutes.  My analysis only addresses a subset of these problematic provisions.

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Last week, as anticipated, Senator Rob Portman introduced his updated Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA).  Sens. Hatch, Heitcamp and Manchin cosponsored the bill.

While it’s new, it can’t be said it’s improved.  Some problems raised with Sen. Portman’s earlier version of the bill were addressed but many were not and quite a few new very problematic provisions were added.

In March, I blogged about the irony that RAA would reinstate a number of requirements that Congress just last June removed from the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) through the Lautenberg Act amendments that were enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Unfortunately, many of those problems remain with Sen. Portman’s new version of RAA.  And, those flawed requirements would be imposed across the entire federal government, effectively rewriting dozens of federal statutes simultaneously.

I have updated my earlier analysis of RAA vs. the new TSCA to reflect the new version of RAA.  

The analysis is divided into two sections:  First, it discusses provisions of RAA that would directly undo critical changes the Lautenberg Act made to TSCA when it passed just last year.  Among them:

• It would still impose a cost test on an agency’s selection of a regulatory option, requiring it to be the “most cost-effective” – a term that is undefined. In contrast, reformed TSCA merely requires EPA to “consider” and “factor in” cost and related factors, to the extent practicable based on reasonably available information.
• It would generally require lengthy formal hearings for any major rule if anyone asks for one. The hearing requirement in original TSCA was struck based on broad agreement that it was an unnecessary and overly time- and resource-consuming step in the rulemaking process.

Second, my analysis describes a few examples of the many other provisions of RAA that could or would affect implementation of the new TSCA (as well as that of all of the dozens of other federal statutes to which RAA would apply).

In providing this new analysis, I want to emphasize that in no way does it capture the full range of problems with the new version of RAA.  RAA amends the Administrative Procedure Act, and the changes it would make are sweeping in nature.  The full implications of this legislation are difficult to discern and would likely not become fully apparent for years after adoption, especially given the extent of litigation it can be expected to engender.

Many provisions of RAA in addition to those discussed above would affect rulemaking activities under the new TSCA – as well as those under all other federal statutes.  My analysis only addresses a subset of these problematic provisions.

 

How hard is it to find products with these toxic chemicals? Shockingly easy.

Last November, the federal government named the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under America’s recently reformed chemical safety law. It made me wonder just how easy it would be to find these potentially dangerous ingredients in every-day consumer products.

The answer: very easy. In fact, while you’ve probably not heard of many of these 10 chemicals – or how they could affect your health – the products that contain them are likely all too familiar.

To round them up, I turned to my usual online and brick-and-mortar retailers: Amazon.com, my local hardware and hobby stores, and my go-to online auto supply provider.

This degreaser kills bugs “instantly”

Amazon is my favorite vendor for everything from diapers to razors. Turns out, it can also bring me products containing PERC, 1-Bromopropane, TCE and many more hazardous chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases.

Purchasers’ Amazon reviews provided interesting insights. For example, Lectra Clean Degreaser, designed to clean electronics and engine parts using PERC, earned 5 out of 5 stars from one Amazon reviewer. 

“I always keep a couple cans of this handy,” this reviewer wrote. “It’s also an amazing bug killer. It will kill any fly, wasp or nuisance bug almost instantly upon contact. Put the small red tube in and you’ve got about 8 feet of accurate Armageddon for our insect friends.”

Of course, what’s bad for bugs often isn’t great for people, either.

You won’t go “green” with this paint stripper

At my local hardware store, I picked up an NMP-based paint stripper. The product is sold under the brand “Back to Nature” and includes a logo that urges customers to “Go Green.” That’s pretty upbeat language for a product that can harm fetal development.

Tell the EPA to ban dangerous chemicals

Generally, hardware stores are easy places to find products with chemicals on the EPA’s first-10 list. So are craft and hobby stores.

In fact, Carbon Tetrachloride, which has been linked to kidney and liver damage in people exposed to it over an extended period of time, can be found in adhesives in stores that cater to artsy people, including children.

Craft and hobby stores are also places where you can find chemicals from the list such as Pigment Violet 29, used in some permanent violet paints. Or 1-Bromopropane, which is used in certain adhesives and has been linked to cancer, neurological disease and reproductive problems.

Asbestos brake pads shipped – loose in flimsy box

Nothing can beat an auto supply provider, however. There you can find degreasing products containing TCE, PERC and 1-Bromopropane. It’s also where I located the ”coup de grace” in my toxic chemical scavenger hunt: asbestos brake pads.

Despite EPA’s inability to ban asbestos under the old chemical law, its use has been significantly curtailed by lawsuits thanks to a clear link to mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer.

But it’s still out there: An online auto supply vendor shipped me asbestos brake pads, loose and unwrapped, rattling around in a flimsy cardboard box that included a small warning label “contains asbestos fibers, avoid breathing dust.”

We can chuckle a bit at how casually a company shipped a product containing a deadly carcinogen, but this is serious stuff. The men and women who work with asbestos brake pads can get deathly ill, and so can their families, when the fibers come home on clothing.

How, you ask, are such blatant health risks be overlooked in a modern, developed nation?

We need your help

Well, for decades, America’s main chemical safety law offered virtually no protection against toxic chemicals that flooded the market. Badly outmoded and outdated, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 could not even restrict a known carcinogen like asbestos.

Fortunately, last year, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed legislation to reform the law, starting with the review of those first 10 chemicals – among other important responsibilities and actions required under the new law.

It’s now up to us to make sure the Trump administration follows through so workers, kids, pregnant women and the rest of us get the protection we deserve.

Tell the EPA to ban dangerous chemicals krives May 3, 2017 - 08:36

How hard is it to find products with these toxic chemicals? Shockingly easy.

Last November, the federal government named the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under America’s recently reformed chemical safety law. It made me wonder just how easy it would be to find these potentially dangerous ingredients in every-day consumer products.

The answer: very easy. In fact, while you’ve probably not heard of many of these 10 chemicals – or how they could affect your health – the products that contain them are likely all too familiar.

To round them up, I turned to my usual online and brick-and-mortar retailers: Amazon.com, my local hardware and hobby stores, and my go-to online auto supply provider.

This degreaser kills bugs “instantly”

Amazon is my favorite vendor for everything from diapers to razors. Turns out, it can also bring me products containing PERC, 1-Bromopropane, TCE and many more hazardous chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases.

Purchasers’ Amazon reviews provided interesting insights. For example, Lectra Clean Degreaser, designed to clean electronics and engine parts using PERC, earned 5 out of 5 stars from one Amazon reviewer. 

“I always keep a couple cans of this handy,” this reviewer wrote. “It’s also an amazing bug killer. It will kill any fly, wasp or nuisance bug almost instantly upon contact. Put the small red tube in and you’ve got about 8 feet of accurate Armageddon for our insect friends.”

Of course, what’s bad for bugs often isn’t great for people, either.

You won’t go “green” with this paint stripper

At my local hardware store, I picked up an NMP-based paint stripper. The product is sold under the brand “Back to Nature” and includes a logo that urges customers to “Go Green.” That’s pretty upbeat language for a product that can harm fetal development.

Tell the EPA to ban dangerous chemicals

Generally, hardware stores are easy places to find products with chemicals on the EPA’s first-10 list. So are craft and hobby stores.

In fact, Carbon Tetrachloride, which has been linked to kidney and liver damage in people exposed to it over an extended period of time, can be found in adhesives in stores that cater to artsy people, including children.

Craft and hobby stores are also places where you can find chemicals from the list such as Pigment Violet 29, used in some permanent violet paints. Or 1-Bromopropane, which is used in certain adhesives and has been linked to cancer, neurological disease and reproductive problems.

Asbestos brake pads shipped – loose in flimsy box

Nothing can beat an auto supply provider, however. There you can find degreasing products containing TCE, PERC and 1-Bromopropane. It’s also where I located the ”coup de grace” in my toxic chemical scavenger hunt: asbestos brake pads.

Despite EPA’s inability to ban asbestos under the old chemical law, its use has been significantly curtailed by lawsuits thanks to a clear link to mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer.

But it’s still out there: An online auto supply vendor shipped me asbestos brake pads, loose and unwrapped, rattling around in a flimsy cardboard box that included a small warning label “contains asbestos fibers, avoid breathing dust.”

We can chuckle a bit at how casually a company shipped a product containing a deadly carcinogen, but this is serious stuff. The men and women who work with asbestos brake pads can get deathly ill, and so can their families, when the fibers come home on clothing.

How, you ask, are such blatant health risks be overlooked in a modern, developed nation?

We need your help

Well, for decades, America’s main chemical safety law offered virtually no protection against toxic chemicals that flooded the market. Badly outmoded and outdated, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 could not even restrict a known carcinogen like asbestos.

Fortunately, last year, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed legislation to reform the law, starting with the review of those first 10 chemicals – among other important responsibilities and actions required under the new law.

It’s now up to us to make sure the Trump administration follows through so workers, kids, pregnant women and the rest of us get the protection we deserve.

Tell the EPA to ban dangerous chemicals krives May 3, 2017 - 08:36