Thanks for listening to the latest episode of Delta Dispatchers with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. This week's episode is dedicated to just one thing: funding! Simone and Jacques will talk to their guests about the complex realities of funding coastal restoration in Louisiana. In the first half the show, Jacques will speak with Elizabeth Mabry, Senior Policy Manager, Ecosystems, Environmental Defense Fund to talk about the opportunities and challenges in securing funding in today's political realities. On the second ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast – Funding Coastal Restoration appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By David Lyon

In its 2017 GHGI Inventory, published last week, the EPA estimates 2015 methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry were 8.1 million metric tons over 5 million homes.

In addition to estimating 2015 emissions, EPA has revised their estimates of previous years’ emissions based on new scientific data. The lower estimates compared to the 2016 Inventory is almost entirely due to new accounting methods – the actual decrease in emissions from 2014 to 2015 was only 2% and this was due to fewer well completions resulting from lower oil and gas prices.

The EPA still has room for improvement

Although the estimate of O&G emissions went down in this year’s report, it should not be viewed as a final answer since EPA plans to make further improvements including better accounting of super-emitters. These changes likely would counteract the decreases in other emission sources.

While the inventory represents progress in that EPA is continuing the process of incorporating new data such as the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, much work remains to be done.  For example, the inventory still largely ignores “super-emitters,” which science has shown to be a major source of emissions. EPA has made an important step by including emissions from the Aliso Canyon blowout, but they exclude other transmission and storage super-emitters, which an EDF/CSU study found to account for almost a quarter of the T&S sector’s emissions. They also have started to account for production super-emitters by including estimates of emissions from stuck dump valves, but the underlying data for this source are flawed and likely greatly underestimate emissions. EPA’s current estimate of production super-emitters only account for 0.1% of production sector emissions. In contrast,

The EPA needs to continue publishing the GHGI

EDF submitted comments to the EPA after the draft version in February. In part, we said:

Over the last twenty-five years, EPA’s national Greenhouse Gas Inventory has become the most authoritative and widely-used source of information about the nature, scale, and trajectory of U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks. Developed with extensive public input and in collaboration with other federal agencies, the Inventory provides a rigorous understanding of sector-by-sector contributions to emissions of major greenhouse gases, and trends in those emissions over time, in a way that enables consistent comparisons with trends in other major emitting countries. Industry, scientific researchers, and a wide variety of other organizations utilize the data in the Inventory to identify and prioritize opportunities for emission reduction. And the Inventory serves as an invaluable tool for scientific research on climate and air quality. EDF strongly supports EPA’s continued efforts to update, improve, and refine the Inventory over time, in fulfillment of the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only does the Inventory meet legal obligations, it also demonstrates global leadership by the U.S. EPA’s commitment to submitting a highly detailed, scientifically rigorous, and continuously improved inventory that has been the gold standard internationally. The U.S. should continue to show leadership by adhering to these principles.

In order for EPA to continue their progress in updating the inventory, it is critical that they are allowed to rely on the best science without political interference. We must not be misled by interest groups who claim that the updated inventory is the final answer because it gives the false impression of a large emissions decrease. As a start, EPA should continue collecting data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, assure the data are publically available, and make scientifically supported changes to the GHGRP to increase the accuracy of reported emissions. EPA should also review existing and forthcoming studies that evaluate the contribution of super-emitters and determine the best approach for fully incorporating super-emitters into the inventory.

Additionally, we are dismayed that the EPA has withdrawn their Information Collection Request, as this would have helped resolve some of the outstanding questions about oil and gas methane emissions.

Image source: Wikimedia commons

By David Lyon

In its 2017 GHGI Inventory, published last week, the EPA estimates 2015 methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry were 8.1 million metric tons over 5 million homes.

In addition to estimating 2015 emissions, EPA has revised their estimates of previous years’ emissions based on new scientific data. The lower estimates compared to the 2016 Inventory is almost entirely due to new accounting methods – the actual decrease in emissions from 2014 to 2015 was only 2% and this was due to fewer well completions resulting from lower oil and gas prices.

The EPA still has room for improvement

Although the estimate of O&G emissions went down in this year’s report, it should not be viewed as a final answer since EPA plans to make further improvements including better accounting of super-emitters. These changes likely would counteract the decreases in other emission sources.

While the inventory represents progress in that EPA is continuing the process of incorporating new data such as the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, much work remains to be done.  For example, the inventory still largely ignores “super-emitters,” which science has shown to be a major source of emissions. EPA has made an important step by including emissions from the Aliso Canyon blowout, but they exclude other transmission and storage super-emitters, which an EDF/CSU study found to account for almost a quarter of the T&S sector’s emissions. They also have started to account for production super-emitters by including estimates of emissions from stuck dump valves, but the underlying data for this source are flawed and likely greatly underestimate emissions. EPA’s current estimate of production super-emitters only account for 0.1% of production sector emissions. In contrast,

The EPA needs to continue publishing the GHGI

EDF submitted comments to the EPA after the draft version in February. In part, we said:

Over the last twenty-five years, EPA’s national Greenhouse Gas Inventory has become the most authoritative and widely-used source of information about the nature, scale, and trajectory of U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks. Developed with extensive public input and in collaboration with other federal agencies, the Inventory provides a rigorous understanding of sector-by-sector contributions to emissions of major greenhouse gases, and trends in those emissions over time, in a way that enables consistent comparisons with trends in other major emitting countries. Industry, scientific researchers, and a wide variety of other organizations utilize the data in the Inventory to identify and prioritize opportunities for emission reduction. And the Inventory serves as an invaluable tool for scientific research on climate and air quality. EDF strongly supports EPA’s continued efforts to update, improve, and refine the Inventory over time, in fulfillment of the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only does the Inventory meet legal obligations, it also demonstrates global leadership by the U.S. EPA’s commitment to submitting a highly detailed, scientifically rigorous, and continuously improved inventory that has been the gold standard internationally. The U.S. should continue to show leadership by adhering to these principles.

In order for EPA to continue their progress in updating the inventory, it is critical that they are allowed to rely on the best science without political interference. We must not be misled by interest groups who claim that the updated inventory is the final answer because it gives the false impression of a large emissions decrease. As a start, EPA should continue collecting data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, assure the data are publically available, and make scientifically supported changes to the GHGRP to increase the accuracy of reported emissions. EPA should also review existing and forthcoming studies that evaluate the contribution of super-emitters and determine the best approach for fully incorporating super-emitters into the inventory.

Additionally, we are dismayed that the EPA has withdrawn their Information Collection Request, as this would have helped resolve some of the outstanding questions about oil and gas methane emissions.

Image source: Wikimedia commons

In its 2017 GHGI Inventory, published last week, EPA estimates 2015 methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry were 8.1 million metric tons,which is enough to fulfill the domestic heating needs for over 5 million homes. In addition to estimating 2015 emissions, EPA has revised their estimates of previous years’ emissions based on […]

By David Lyon

In its 2017 GHGI Inventory, published last week, the EPA estimates 2015 methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry were 8.1 million metric tons over 5 million homes.

In addition to estimating 2015 emissions, EPA has revised their estimates of previous years’ emissions based on new scientific data. The lower estimates compared to the 2016 Inventory is almost entirely due to new accounting methods – the actual decrease in emissions from 2014 to 2015 was only 2% and this was due to fewer well completions resulting from lower oil and gas prices.

The EPA still has room for improvement

Although the estimate of O&G emissions went down in this year’s report, it should not be viewed as a final answer since EPA plans to make further improvements including better accounting of super-emitters. These changes likely would counteract the decreases in other emission sources.

While the inventory represents progress in that EPA is continuing the process of incorporating new data such as the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, much work remains to be done.  For example, the inventory still largely ignores “super-emitters,” which science has shown to be a major source of emissions. EPA has made an important step by including emissions from the Aliso Canyon blowout, but they exclude other transmission and storage super-emitters, which an EDF/CSU study found to account for almost a quarter of the T&S sector’s emissions. They also have started to account for production super-emitters by including estimates of emissions from stuck dump valves, but the underlying data for this source are flawed and likely greatly underestimate emissions. EPA’s current estimate of production super-emitters only account for 0.1% of production sector emissions. In contrast,

The EPA needs to continue publishing the GHGI

EDF submitted comments to the EPA after the draft version in February. In part, we said:

Over the last twenty-five years, EPA’s national Greenhouse Gas Inventory has become the most authoritative and widely-used source of information about the nature, scale, and trajectory of U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks. Developed with extensive public input and in collaboration with other federal agencies, the Inventory provides a rigorous understanding of sector-by-sector contributions to emissions of major greenhouse gases, and trends in those emissions over time, in a way that enables consistent comparisons with trends in other major emitting countries. Industry, scientific researchers, and a wide variety of other organizations utilize the data in the Inventory to identify and prioritize opportunities for emission reduction. And the Inventory serves as an invaluable tool for scientific research on climate and air quality. EDF strongly supports EPA’s continued efforts to update, improve, and refine the Inventory over time, in fulfillment of the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only does the Inventory meet legal obligations, it also demonstrates global leadership by the U.S. EPA’s commitment to submitting a highly detailed, scientifically rigorous, and continuously improved inventory that has been the gold standard internationally. The U.S. should continue to show leadership by adhering to these principles.

In order for EPA to continue their progress in updating the inventory, it is critical that they are allowed to rely on the best science without political interference. We must not be misled by interest groups who claim that the updated inventory is the final answer because it gives the false impression of a large emissions decrease. As a start, EPA should continue collecting data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, assure the data are publically available, and make scientifically supported changes to the GHGRP to increase the accuracy of reported emissions. EPA should also review existing and forthcoming studies that evaluate the contribution of super-emitters and determine the best approach for fully incorporating super-emitters into the inventory.

Additionally, we are dismayed that the EPA has withdrawn their Information Collection Request, as this would have helped resolve some of the outstanding questions about oil and gas methane emissions.

Image source: Wikimedia commons

By David Lyon

In its 2017 GHGI Inventory, published last week, the EPA estimates 2015 methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry were 8.1 million metric tons over 5 million homes.

In addition to estimating 2015 emissions, EPA has revised their estimates of previous years’ emissions based on new scientific data. The lower estimates compared to the 2016 Inventory is almost entirely due to new accounting methods – the actual decrease in emissions from 2014 to 2015 was only 2% and this was due to fewer well completions resulting from lower oil and gas prices.

The EPA still has room for improvement

Although the estimate of O&G emissions went down in this year’s report, it should not be viewed as a final answer since EPA plans to make further improvements including better accounting of super-emitters. These changes likely would counteract the decreases in other emission sources.

While the inventory represents progress in that EPA is continuing the process of incorporating new data such as the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, much work remains to be done.  For example, the inventory still largely ignores “super-emitters,” which science has shown to be a major source of emissions. EPA has made an important step by including emissions from the Aliso Canyon blowout, but they exclude other transmission and storage super-emitters, which an EDF/CSU study found to account for almost a quarter of the T&S sector’s emissions. They also have started to account for production super-emitters by including estimates of emissions from stuck dump valves, but the underlying data for this source are flawed and likely greatly underestimate emissions. EPA’s current estimate of production super-emitters only account for 0.1% of production sector emissions. In contrast,

The EPA needs to continue publishing the GHGI

EDF submitted comments to the EPA after the draft version in February. In part, we said:

Over the last twenty-five years, EPA’s national Greenhouse Gas Inventory has become the most authoritative and widely-used source of information about the nature, scale, and trajectory of U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks. Developed with extensive public input and in collaboration with other federal agencies, the Inventory provides a rigorous understanding of sector-by-sector contributions to emissions of major greenhouse gases, and trends in those emissions over time, in a way that enables consistent comparisons with trends in other major emitting countries. Industry, scientific researchers, and a wide variety of other organizations utilize the data in the Inventory to identify and prioritize opportunities for emission reduction. And the Inventory serves as an invaluable tool for scientific research on climate and air quality. EDF strongly supports EPA’s continued efforts to update, improve, and refine the Inventory over time, in fulfillment of the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only does the Inventory meet legal obligations, it also demonstrates global leadership by the U.S. EPA’s commitment to submitting a highly detailed, scientifically rigorous, and continuously improved inventory that has been the gold standard internationally. The U.S. should continue to show leadership by adhering to these principles.

In order for EPA to continue their progress in updating the inventory, it is critical that they are allowed to rely on the best science without political interference. We must not be misled by interest groups who claim that the updated inventory is the final answer because it gives the false impression of a large emissions decrease. As a start, EPA should continue collecting data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, assure the data are publically available, and make scientifically supported changes to the GHGRP to increase the accuracy of reported emissions. EPA should also review existing and forthcoming studies that evaluate the contribution of super-emitters and determine the best approach for fully incorporating super-emitters into the inventory.

Additionally, we are dismayed that the EPA has withdrawn their Information Collection Request, as this would have helped resolve some of the outstanding questions about oil and gas methane emissions.

Image source: Wikimedia commons

If you want evidence that elections matter, check your kid’s drinking water for lead. And arsenic. And mercury in her body. Because a series of new actions by the Trump administration mean the progress we’ve made on those public health threats is under attack.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a series of actions last week meant to kick off a public relations tour to promote his agenda – and perhaps gain a little exposure for his widely rumored Senate campaign.

These actions are an assault on public health and will result in more dangerous neurotoxins in our water, food, and bodies, and developmental problems for children, dangers for pregnant women, and others.

More toxic rivers and waterways

Pruitt said he was halting a rule that would limit dumping of coal ash, and the toxic chemicals it carries, into rivers and waterways. Starting next year, power plants, which account for about 30 percent of all toxic industrial discharges into our nation’s waterways, were supposed to use the latest technology to remove metals like lead, arsenic, and mercury from their wastewater.

These discharges cause lowered IQ in children, elevated cancer risk for humans, and deformities in fish and wildlife; but Pruitt is postponing the deadlines and said he will “reconsider” the rule.

More mercury in the air

The Trump administration may seek to delay a court hearing on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which keeps these same chemicals out of the air, our lakes and rivers, and the fish we eat. These standards are already fully implemented and delivering life-saving protections. The air is cleaner at fraction of cost that industry predicted. Yet Pruitt seems ready to revisit these standards.

More regulations under the axe

Pruitt held a press event at a mine in Pennsylvania which was fined by EPA for 350 cases of dumping pollution into a river. The message seems to be that the ideology of cutting regulations trumps the value of keeping seriously dangerous chemicals out of our water supply.

Pruitt is counting the modest price of corporate compliance, but apparently not the human and economic cost of developmental problems and sickness from more toxic pollution.

More to come

Trump and Pruitt’s attack on public health is not likely to stop. By May 15, all agencies are supposed to have completed a process of finding rules and protections they’d like to cut. Pruitt has set up an internal process for hunting safeguards to kill, apparently seeking input from industry and few others. I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising from an Administrator who seemed to indicate last week that he might rather define “healthy” smog levels than listen to scientists.

The public does not appear to be happy with the direction things are going. Trump’s approval rating on environmental issues is at 29%. But even more than polls, elected officials know from long experience that the public cares deeply about clean air and water. Pruitt might get some credit from big energy companies who will now get to cut corners, but it’s hard to believe there will be cheering from the parents whose children will only get more pollution.

Tell Congress to protect environmental standards

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

For the past 20 years, the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC), with its diverse members that include pediatricians and industry toxicologists, has been responding to requests for guidance from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrators. In December 2016, EPA’s Administrator asked CHPAC to provide the agency with its “highest priority advice” on lead. Citing the children’s health risks posed by lead, the economic and racial disparities and the demonstrated effectiveness of national leadership on the issue, on April 6, CHPAC sent the new administrator, Scott Pruitt, a letter with its four recommended priorities:

1. Strengthen the Agency’s Lead-Based Paint Hazards Standard for lead in paint, dust, and soil. CHPAC stated that the “best evidence shows that a young child living in a home meeting the current lead dust standard still has a 50% chance of exceeding the CDC reference level for blood lead.” The EPA standard is so insufficient and outdated that on February 1, 2017, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said it would require its lead hazard control grantees to meet a more protective level that is one-fourth of EPA’s standard.

1. Revise the Lead and Copper Rule to reduce lead in drinking water. CHPAC highlighted several high profile incidents of high levels of lead in drinking water and called for EPA to overhaul its 1991 Lead and Copper Rule to better protect children, especially infants dependent on formula for nutrition. CHPAC recommended the revisions be consistent with the recommendations from the agency’s National Drinking Water Advisory Committee and the lessons from recent water system lead contaminations.

1. Improve risk communication efforts to provide clarity and consistency. CHPAC asked that EPA revise its “Protect Your Family from Lead In Your Home” booklet that is given to every family buying or renting a home built before 1978 so that it more effectively helps families make decisions regarding the risks posed by lead. The committee cited three problems with the booklet, it:
   • “insufficiently describes other important lead sources including, but not limited to, drinking water faucets, plumbing, traditional and cultural products, and take-home exposures from work”;
   • “treats all homes built before 1978 as equal and does not explain that the likelihood of having lead-based paint varies dramatically based on the age of the home”; and
   • “relies heavily on text rather than graphics making it less effective for some audiences.”

1. Encourage the Administration’s infrastructure investment program to support healthy housing, childcare facilities, and schools, and safe drinking water. CHPAC recommended that EPA work closely with other federal partners on the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children to help ensure that all Administration infrastructure investment programs make housing, childcare facilities, and schools healthier, and drinking water safer.

The letter was sent a day after the Washington Post reported on a leaked March 21, 2017 agency memo that details how EPA plans to execute the 31% cuts to its overall budget called for in the President’s proposed budget. The article’s headline says it all: “Trump’s EPA moves to dismantle programs that protect kids from lead paint.” If Congress goes along with these cuts, it is difficult to imagine how the agency could fulfill its basic responsibilities much less implement CHPAC’s recommendations to protect kids from lead.

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director For the past 20 years, the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC), with its diverse members that include pediatricians and industry toxicologists, has been responding to requests for guidance from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrators. In December 2016, EPA’s Administrator asked CHPAC to provide the agency with its “highest […]

By John Finnigan

Today’s American nuclear power industry is in a state of upheaval. Four new, large-scale nuclear power plants are under construction in the United States, helped by large federal subsidies. All are being built by Westinghouse, and all have faced massive cost overruns and delays. Westinghouse’s parent company, Toshiba, recently posted a $6 billion loss due to Westinghouse’s nuclear woes. (For context, that loss is half a billion more than Toshiba spent to buy Westinghouse a decade ago.) Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection on March 29.

Westinghouse’s bankruptcy shines a spotlight on nuclear power’s role as an electricity source – currently providing about 17 percent of our electricity in the U.S. – and raises issues concerning whether we can count on low-carbon electricity from nuclear power. The Energy Information Administration projects nuclear power’s share of electricity generation will decline slightly through 2040, but these projections don’t reflect current trends.

Existing plants face challenging economics

Nuclear plants have long been very expensive to build, and the continued low price of natural gas has only increased cost pressure. Many nuclear plants are losing money, leading utilities to consider retiring them. Total nuclear capacity is declining, and will continue to decline in the near future as plant retirements exceed the capacity of Westinghouse’s Vogtle and Summer plants, expected to come online in 2019-2020.

In states with retail competition (like New York, Illinois, and Ohio), nuclear plants compete against all other plants in regional auctions, which select power from the lowest-cost options. In recent years, lower-cost natural gas and renewable plants have sometimes displaced nuclear plants from the auction process. Nuclear plants were designed to run 24-7, so the plants cannot recover their costs when they’re unable to compete in the auctions. This leads to plant retirements and has led some utilities to seek subsidies to keep their plants afloat.

Why We Still Need America’s Nuclear Power Plants — At Least for Now
Click To Tweet

Zero-emission credits

Some states have developed “zero-emission credit” (ZEC) programs to subsidize nuclear plants that can’t compete on price. These programs pay a credit for power generated by nuclear reactors, based on the  social cost of carbon, a calculation of the cost to society of each ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuel plants. As part of larger initiatives that advance energy efficiency and renewables, New York was the first state to adopt such a program in August 2016, followed by Illinois in December 2016. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut and New Jersey are deciding whether to adopt a ZEC program. One consequence of President Trump’s plans to roll back protections against carbon emissions is to undercut the application of the social cost of carbon.

Certainly, ZEC programs benefit the nuclear companies. But if they are designed and implemented right, they can yield significant long-term environmental benefits. For example, ZEC programs in New York and Illinois prolonged the lives of nuclear plants, avoiding higher levels of carbon emissions from the natural gas plants that would have replaced them.

While EDF has opposed direct subsidies to utilities for nuclear plants, we supported the New York and Illinois ZEC programs.  ZEC programs need to be strategic and beneficial to more than the nuclear companies. For example, to work well, a ZEC program should:

1. Be limited to states with competitive electricity markets – Traditional, vertically-integrated utilities can already recover nuclear costs from ratepayers;
2. Be limited in duration – Market conditions and available technology for replacing nuclear plants could change in a few years (such as the deployment of small nuclear plants), eliminating the need for subsidies; and
3. Be holistic – Long-term carbon reduction must be a core strategy of ZEC programs. As such, a comprehensive ZEC approach should include grid modernization, energy efficiency, and peak demand reduction.

Future power sources

During the next 20 years, nuclear power will produce less of our electricity, while natural gas and renewables will produce a greater share.

The drivers for this trend are the low cost of natural gas and the steadily declining costs for renewables, coupled with federal and state policies that support renewables. Technology is a factor, too. The grid will integrate higher levels of renewables as more utilities modernize their grids. Grid modernization is important because it allows utilities to monitor and regulate the power flows on the grid from greater numbers of distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar, energy efficiency, batteries, and electric vehicles.

When a nuclear plant is retired today, there is a greater chance the plant will be replaced by a natural gas plant than a renewable energy plant. This might change in the future as the cost of renewables continues to decline, with more grid modernization and improved capability to integrate renewables. ZEC programs can postpone the retirement date for some nuclear plants, until a time when the retiring nuclear plant might be more likely to be replaced by a renewable energy plant than a natural gas plant. Energy efficiency should also be part of the discussion, because it is the lowest-cost option (you don’t pay for energy you don’t use).

In sum, we may see more ZEC programs over the next few years and, as long as they are designed properly, this will be a prudent step and good for the environment.

By John Finnigan

Today’s American nuclear power industry is in a state of upheaval. Four new, large-scale nuclear power plants are under construction in the United States, helped by large federal subsidies. All are being built by Westinghouse, and all have faced massive cost overruns and delays. Westinghouse’s parent company, Toshiba, recently posted a $6 billion loss due to Westinghouse’s nuclear woes. (For context, that loss is half a billion more than Toshiba spent to buy Westinghouse a decade ago.) Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection on March 29.

Westinghouse’s bankruptcy shines a spotlight on nuclear power’s role as an electricity source – currently providing about 17 percent of our electricity in the U.S. – and raises issues concerning whether we can count on low-carbon electricity from nuclear power. The Energy Information Administration projects nuclear power’s share of electricity generation will decline slightly through 2040, but these projections don’t reflect current trends.

Existing plants face challenging economics

Nuclear plants have long been very expensive to build, and the continued low price of natural gas has only increased cost pressure. Many nuclear plants are losing money, leading utilities to consider retiring them. Total nuclear capacity is declining, and will continue to decline in the near future as plant retirements exceed the capacity of Westinghouse’s Vogtle and Summer plants, expected to come online in 2019-2020.

In states with retail competition (like New York, Illinois, and Ohio), nuclear plants compete against all other plants in regional auctions, which select power from the lowest-cost options. In recent years, lower-cost natural gas and renewable plants have sometimes displaced nuclear plants from the auction process. Nuclear plants were designed to run 24-7, so the plants cannot recover their costs when they’re unable to compete in the auctions. This leads to plant retirements and has led some utilities to seek subsidies to keep their plants afloat.

Why We Still Need America’s Nuclear Power Plants — At Least for Now
Click To Tweet

Zero-emission credits

Some states have developed “zero-emission credit” (ZEC) programs to subsidize nuclear plants that can’t compete on price. These programs pay a credit for power generated by nuclear reactors, based on the  social cost of carbon, a calculation of the cost to society of each ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuel plants. As part of larger initiatives that advance energy efficiency and renewables, New York was the first state to adopt such a program in August 2016, followed by Illinois in December 2016. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut and New Jersey are deciding whether to adopt a ZEC program. One consequence of President Trump’s plans to roll back protections against carbon emissions is to undercut the application of the social cost of carbon.

Certainly, ZEC programs benefit the nuclear companies. But if they are designed and implemented right, they can yield significant long-term environmental benefits. For example, ZEC programs in New York and Illinois prolonged the lives of nuclear plants, avoiding higher levels of carbon emissions from the natural gas plants that would have replaced them.

While EDF has opposed direct subsidies to utilities for nuclear plants, we supported the New York and Illinois ZEC programs.  ZEC programs need to be strategic and beneficial to more than the nuclear companies. For example, to work well, a ZEC program should:

1. Be limited to states with competitive electricity markets – Traditional, vertically-integrated utilities can already recover nuclear costs from ratepayers;
2. Be limited in duration – Market conditions and available technology for replacing nuclear plants could change in a few years (such as the deployment of small nuclear plants), eliminating the need for subsidies; and
3. Be holistic – Long-term carbon reduction must be a core strategy of ZEC programs. As such, a comprehensive ZEC approach should include grid modernization, energy efficiency, and peak demand reduction.

Future power sources

During the next 20 years, nuclear power will produce less of our electricity, while natural gas and renewables will produce a greater share.

The drivers for this trend are the low cost of natural gas and the steadily declining costs for renewables, coupled with federal and state policies that support renewables. Technology is a factor, too. The grid will integrate higher levels of renewables as more utilities modernize their grids. Grid modernization is important because it allows utilities to monitor and regulate the power flows on the grid from greater numbers of distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar, energy efficiency, batteries, and electric vehicles.

When a nuclear plant is retired today, there is a greater chance the plant will be replaced by a natural gas plant than a renewable energy plant. This might change in the future as the cost of renewables continues to decline, with more grid modernization and improved capability to integrate renewables. ZEC programs can postpone the retirement date for some nuclear plants, until a time when the retiring nuclear plant might be more likely to be replaced by a renewable energy plant than a natural gas plant. Energy efficiency should also be part of the discussion, because it is the lowest-cost option (you don’t pay for energy you don’t use).

In sum, we may see more ZEC programs over the next few years and, as long as they are designed properly, this will be a prudent step and good for the environment.

By John Finnigan

Today’s American nuclear power industry is in a state of upheaval. Four new, large-scale nuclear power plants are under construction in the United States, helped by large federal subsidies. All are being built by Westinghouse, and all have faced massive cost overruns and delays. Westinghouse’s parent company, Toshiba, recently posted a $6 billion loss due to Westinghouse’s nuclear woes. (For context, that loss is half a billion more than Toshiba spent to buy Westinghouse a decade ago.) Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection on March 29.

Westinghouse’s bankruptcy shines a spotlight on nuclear power’s role as an electricity source – currently providing about 17 percent of our electricity in the U.S. – and raises issues concerning whether we can count on low-carbon electricity from nuclear power. The Energy Information Administration projects nuclear power’s share of electricity generation will decline slightly through 2040, but these projections don’t reflect current trends.

Existing plants face challenging economics

Nuclear plants have long been very expensive to build, and the continued low price of natural gas has only increased cost pressure. Many nuclear plants are losing money, leading utilities to consider retiring them. Total nuclear capacity is declining, and will continue to decline in the near future as plant retirements exceed the capacity of Westinghouse’s Vogtle and Summer plants, expected to come online in 2019-2020.

In states with retail competition (like New York, Illinois, and Ohio), nuclear plants compete against all other plants in regional auctions, which select power from the lowest-cost options. In recent years, lower-cost natural gas and renewable plants have sometimes displaced nuclear plants from the auction process. Nuclear plants were designed to run 24-7, so the plants cannot recover their costs when they’re unable to compete in the auctions. This leads to plant retirements and has led some utilities to seek subsidies to keep their plants afloat.

Why We Still Need America’s Nuclear Power Plants — At Least for Now
Click To Tweet

Zero-emission credits

Some states have developed “zero-emission credit” (ZEC) programs to subsidize nuclear plants that can’t compete on price. These programs pay a credit for power generated by nuclear reactors, based on the  social cost of carbon, a calculation of the cost to society of each ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuel plants. As part of larger initiatives that advance energy efficiency and renewables, New York was the first state to adopt such a program in August 2016, followed by Illinois in December 2016. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut and New Jersey are deciding whether to adopt a ZEC program. One consequence of President Trump’s plans to roll back protections against carbon emissions is to undercut the application of the social cost of carbon.

Certainly, ZEC programs benefit the nuclear companies. But if they are designed and implemented right, they can yield significant long-term environmental benefits. For example, ZEC programs in New York and Illinois prolonged the lives of nuclear plants, avoiding higher levels of carbon emissions from the natural gas plants that would have replaced them.

While EDF has opposed direct subsidies to utilities for nuclear plants, we supported the New York and Illinois ZEC programs.  ZEC programs need to be strategic and beneficial to more than the nuclear companies. For example, to work well, a ZEC program should:

1. Be limited to states with competitive electricity markets – Traditional, vertically-integrated utilities can already recover nuclear costs from ratepayers;
2. Be limited in duration – Market conditions and available technology for replacing nuclear plants could change in a few years (such as the deployment of small nuclear plants), eliminating the need for subsidies; and
3. Be holistic – Long-term carbon reduction must be a core strategy of ZEC programs. As such, a comprehensive ZEC approach should include grid modernization, energy efficiency, and peak demand reduction.

Future power sources

During the next 20 years, nuclear power will produce less of our electricity, while natural gas and renewables will produce a greater share.

The drivers for this trend are the low cost of natural gas and the steadily declining costs for renewables, coupled with federal and state policies that support renewables. Technology is a factor, too. The grid will integrate higher levels of renewables as more utilities modernize their grids. Grid modernization is important because it allows utilities to monitor and regulate the power flows on the grid from greater numbers of distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar, energy efficiency, batteries, and electric vehicles.

When a nuclear plant is retired today, there is a greater chance the plant will be replaced by a natural gas plant than a renewable energy plant. This might change in the future as the cost of renewables continues to decline, with more grid modernization and improved capability to integrate renewables. ZEC programs can postpone the retirement date for some nuclear plants, until a time when the retiring nuclear plant might be more likely to be replaced by a renewable energy plant than a natural gas plant. Energy efficiency should also be part of the discussion, because it is the lowest-cost option (you don’t pay for energy you don’t use).

In sum, we may see more ZEC programs over the next few years and, as long as they are designed properly, this will be a prudent step and good for the environment.

Today’s American nuclear power industry is in a state of upheaval. Four new, large-scale nuclear power plants are under construction in the United States, helped by large federal subsidies. All are being built by Westinghouse, and all have faced massive cost overruns and delays. Westinghouse’s parent company, Toshiba, recently posted a $6 billion loss due […]

Today’s American nuclear power industry is in a state of upheaval. Four new, large-scale nuclear power plants are under construction in the United States, helped by large federal subsidies. All are being built by Westinghouse, and all have faced massive cost overruns and delays. Westinghouse’s parent company, Toshiba, recently posted a $6 billion loss due […]

Right now, EPA is considering rolling back crucial public health protections. Before they make that any decisions, they need to hear from you. Regional.

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

After the tragedy in Flint, Michigan, there is broad agreement that lead service lines (LSLs) need to be replaced. While corrosion control is essential, it isn’t a fail-safe, long-term solution. With the risks posed by lead to children’s brain development, we must eliminate LSLs – which currently account for an estimated 50 to 75% of the lead in drinking water.

One of the most significant challenges is determining who pays for replacing the portion of a LSL on private property and how it can be done in a way that does not leave low-income residents behind. Most utilities consider service lines on private property to be the responsibility of the property owner. They see replacing customer-owned portions of LSLs as improvements to private property and are typically restricted from using funds collected from all customers to fund an upgrade that benefits only a few. States often impose restrictions as well.

The interpretation that customers are responsible for LSLs on their property is ironic in communities such as Chicago, which mandated the use of LSLs until Congress banned them in 1986.  Given that they had a hand in creating the problem, it seems that they have at least some responsibility in fixing it. The threat posed by lead was well known for decades before Congress acted. Cities such as Cincinnati banned the use of lead pipes in 1927 and Boston in the 1930s.

It is difficult to put responsibility solely on the homeowner since they are unlikely to have been told they have a LSL by the seller. Even if they were aware that their home is serviced by an LSL, the risk a LSL poses to their family’s health is only now becoming clear.

Without support, low-income residents often cannot afford to pay for their portion of the LSL replacement, even if they get zero- or low-interest loans. However, wealthy residents have more options to make the investment than their low-income neighbors and landlords should be making the investment as part of their business.

In December 2016, Congress weighed in and authorized EPA “to establish a $300 million grant program to replace lead service lines on residential property in disadvantaged communities.”[1] It is up to Congress to appropriate the funds as part of its infrastructure investments and ensure that the grant program will not be a hollow promise.

But many states are not waiting on Congress. Three states, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have been wrestling with whether to allow communities to use a portion of rates paid by customers to pay for LSL replacements. Collectively, these states have an estimated 690,000 LSLs, 11% of the national estimate. In this blog, we will explore these three state approaches.

Pennsylvania

York Water System estimates that it has 1,660 LSLs serving about 3% of its customers. In its 2016 round of triennial compliance water testing for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), 6 of the 50 samples exceeded the lead action level of 15 ppb. Pursuant to the LCR, it needed to begin replacing at least 7% its LSLs each year.

To comply with the LCR, the utility asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to allow it to add the average contracted cost of replacing customer-owned portions of LSLs into the rates it charges all customers. The utility argued that it was in the public interest to replace the entire line because it would avoid the haphazard approach of relying on property owners to replace their portion. The utility rejected replacing only the part it owned because partial replacements would not significantly reduce lead levels at the tap and may temporarily increase tap levels, presenting a potential public health hazard. The utility proposed to pay for replacement of a customer-owned LSL even if it was connected to a utility-owned service line not made of lead.

On March 8, 2017, the Commission approved a compromise negotiated between the utility and the State’s Office of Consumer Advocate that agreed with the overall approach but raised concerns with some details. The agreement gave the utility 4-years to replace customer-owned LSLs found when replacing utility-owned LSLs and 9-years to replace LSLs on private property whenever they are discovered. Funds for replacing customer-owned LSLs will be tracked separately and the utility is not permitted to capitalize the investment. After such time, the customer must pay for replacement. The utility agreed to:

• Provide annual progress reports;
• Search for opportunities for low- or no-cost funding for the utility to replace of customer-owned services;
• Advise customers to check their services for the possibility of lead and report LSLs to the utility;
• Investigate customer reports that it may have a LSL and offer water testing kits to customers; and
• Replace a customer's LSL if report is confirmed.

Pennsylvania has an estimated one LSL for every 30 households, so the decision serves as a useful precedent to other utilities in the state. However, it may be limited to those who exceed the lead action level and are required to replace LSLs under the LCR.

Indiana

In August 2016, the City of East Chicago asked the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for permission to include the $3 million cost of replacing 500 LSLs on private property in the rates it charges all customers as part of an $18 million upgrade to its infrastructure.  The State’s Office of Utility Consumer Counselor objected and negotiated a compromise that would allow the lower interest rate provided by the Indiana Financing Authority—resources from the state revolving loan fund—to be considered as a grant to cover the $3 million cost.  The Commission has not yet made a final decision on the request.

On April 12, 2017, the Indiana General Assembly unanimously passed a bill that would allow the Commission to approve a utility’s request to fold the cost of LSL replacement into the rates. To qualify, a utility would have to submit a plan addressing 10 elements and demonstrate that the proposal was reasonable and in the public’s interest.  The elements include:

• Use of available grants or low interest loans;
• Description of how the replacement will be accomplished in conjunction with other distribution system infrastructure projects;
• Estimated savings in cost per service line that would be realized by the utility replacing the LSL versus the customer doing it separately;
• Number of LSLs that are part of the utility’s system;
• Range of number of customer-owned LSLs to be replaced annually;
• Proposal to address costs of unusual site restoration work above customer-owned portion of LSLs;
• Proposal to communicate to customers regarding plan and document customer’s consent or lack of consent to LSL replacement on their property;
• Proposal regarding responsibility for future replacement or report of new service line; and
• Estimate of total cost to replace all customer-owned LSLs and estimated cost to be incurred by the water utility.

If signed by Governor Eric Holcomb as anticipated, the law will provide a path forward for utilities across the state and may serve as a model for other states. With an estimated 290,000 LSLs and almost 2.5 million households in Indiana, about one in every 10, having clear criteria for communities and the Commission to follow should accelerate progress in reducing lead levels in drinking water.

 Wisconsin

Like Indiana, Wisconsin has about 1 LSL for every 10 households. The state was one of the first to take action to specifically address the funding problem when it offered $14.5 million to low-income municipalities to subsidize LSL replacement on private property. This action should benefit as many as 79 municipalities in the state.

A Senate bill, which has bipartisan support from more than half of senators, passed out of committee on March 29 and is awaiting a full Senate vote.  The bill also has support of more than 1/3 of representatives.  It states that:

(a) It is not unjust, unreasonable, insufficient, unfairly discriminatory, or preferential or otherwise unreasonable or unlawful for a water public utility to provide financial assistance as specified in [paragraph] (b) to a customer solely for private infrastructure improvements with the purpose of replacing service lines containing lead if the city, town, or village in which the water public utility operates has enacted an ordinance that permits the water public utility to provide the financial assistance. If a water public utility provides financial assistance under this paragraph, the commission shall include in the determination of water rates the cost of providing that financial assistance.

Paragraph (b) says that the utility’s portion of the service line either must not contain lead or must be replaced at the same time as the private infrastructure improvements.

If the bill passes, it would allow a utility to pay for replacing LSLs on private property as long as the municipality in which the utility operates enacts an ordinance permitting financial assistance.

Summary

Each state has taken a different approach to empowering communities to protect people from lead in drinking water. Pennsylvania’s decision is helpful but likely limited to communities that are required to replace LSLs under the LCR. Indiana's bill, if signed by the governor, would authorize the utility commission to approve a utility’s proposal if specific criteria are met. Wisconsin provides critical funding for local communities to help low-income residents and, if the bill passes, empowers utilities to cover some or all of the costs to replace LSLs on private property if the municipality supports it with an ordinance. Despite these differences, each of the states provide a path forward for their peers in finding ways to ensure LSLs are replaced efficiently and equitably.

[1] S.612. P.L. 114-322 (2106). See https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612.

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

After the tragedy in Flint, Michigan, there is broad agreement that lead service lines (LSLs) need to be replaced. While corrosion control is essential, it isn’t a fail-safe, long-term solution. With the risks posed by lead to children’s brain development, we must eliminate LSLs – which currently account for an estimated 50 to 75% of the lead in drinking water.

One of the most significant challenges is determining who pays for replacing the portion of a LSL on private property and how it can be done in a way that does not leave low-income residents behind. Most utilities consider service lines on private property to be the responsibility of the property owner. They see replacing customer-owned portions of LSLs as improvements to private property and are typically restricted from using funds collected from all customers to fund an upgrade that benefits only a few. States often impose restrictions as well.

The interpretation that customers are responsible for LSLs on their property is ironic in communities such as Chicago, which mandated the use of LSLs until Congress banned them in 1986.  Given that they had a hand in creating the problem, it seems that they have at least some responsibility in fixing it. The threat posed by lead was well known for decades before Congress acted. Cities such as Cincinnati banned the use of lead pipes in 1927 and Boston in the 1930s.

It is difficult to put responsibility solely on the homeowner since they are unlikely to have been told they have a LSL by the seller. Even if they were aware that their home is serviced by an LSL, the risk a LSL poses to their family’s health is only now becoming clear.

Without support, low-income residents often cannot afford to pay for their portion of the LSL replacement, even if they get zero- or low-interest loans. However, wealthy residents have more options to make the investment than their low-income neighbors and landlords should be making the investment as part of their business.

In December 2016, Congress weighed in and authorized EPA “to establish a $300 million grant program to replace lead service lines on residential property in disadvantaged communities.”[1] It is up to Congress to appropriate the funds as part of its infrastructure investments and ensure that the grant program will not be a hollow promise.

But many states are not waiting on Congress. Three states, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have been wrestling with whether to allow communities to use a portion of rates paid by customers to pay for LSL replacements. Collectively, these states have an estimated 690,000 LSLs, 11% of the national estimate. In this blog, we will explore these three state approaches.

Pennsylvania

York Water System estimates that it has 1,660 LSLs serving about 3% of its customers. In its 2016 round of triennial compliance water testing for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), 6 of the 50 samples exceeded the lead action level of 15 ppb. Pursuant to the LCR, it needed to begin replacing at least 7% its LSLs each year.

To comply with the LCR, the utility asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to allow it to add the average contracted cost of replacing customer-owned portions of LSLs into the rates it charges all customers. The utility argued that it was in the public interest to replace the entire line because it would avoid the haphazard approach of relying on property owners to replace their portion. The utility rejected replacing only the part it owned because partial replacements would not significantly reduce lead levels at the tap and may temporarily increase tap levels, presenting a potential public health hazard. The utility proposed to pay for replacement of a customer-owned LSL even if it was connected to a utility-owned service line not made of lead.

On March 8, 2017, the Commission approved a compromise negotiated between the utility and the State’s Office of Consumer Advocate that agreed with the overall approach but raised concerns with some details. The agreement gave the utility 4-years to replace customer-owned LSLs found when replacing utility-owned LSLs and 9-years to replace LSLs on private property whenever they are discovered. Funds for replacing customer-owned LSLs will be tracked separately and the utility is not permitted to capitalize the investment. After such time, the customer must pay for replacement. The utility agreed to:

• Provide annual progress reports;
• Search for opportunities for low- or no-cost funding for the utility to replace of customer-owned services;
• Advise customers to check their services for the possibility of lead and report LSLs to the utility;
• Investigate customer reports that it may have a LSL and offer water testing kits to customers; and
• Replace a customer's LSL if report is confirmed.

Pennsylvania has an estimated one LSL for every 30 households, so the decision serves as a useful precedent to other utilities in the state. However, it may be limited to those who exceed the lead action level and are required to replace LSLs under the LCR.

Indiana

In August 2016, the City of East Chicago asked the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for permission to include the $3 million cost of replacing 500 LSLs on private property in the rates it charges all customers as part of an $18 million upgrade to its infrastructure.  The State’s Office of Utility Consumer Counselor objected and negotiated a compromise that would allow the lower interest rate provided by the Indiana Financing Authority—resources from the state revolving loan fund—to be considered as a grant to cover the $3 million cost.  The Commission has not yet made a final decision on the request.

On April 12, 2017, the Indiana General Assembly unanimously passed a bill that would allow the Commission to approve a utility’s request to fold the cost of LSL replacement into the rates. To qualify, a utility would have to submit a plan addressing 10 elements and demonstrate that the proposal was reasonable and in the public’s interest.  The elements include:

• Use of available grants or low interest loans;
• Description of how the replacement will be accomplished in conjunction with other distribution system infrastructure projects;
• Estimated savings in cost per service line that would be realized by the utility replacing the LSL versus the customer doing it separately;
• Number of LSLs that are part of the utility’s system;
• Range of number of customer-owned LSLs to be replaced annually;
• Proposal to address costs of unusual site restoration work above customer-owned portion of LSLs;
• Proposal to communicate to customers regarding plan and document customer’s consent or lack of consent to LSL replacement on their property;
• Proposal regarding responsibility for future replacement or report of new service line; and
• Estimate of total cost to replace all customer-owned LSLs and estimated cost to be incurred by the water utility.

If signed by Governor Eric Holcomb as anticipated, the law will provide a path forward for utilities across the state and may serve as a model for other states. With an estimated 290,000 LSLs and almost 2.5 million households in Indiana, about one in every 10, having clear criteria for communities and the Commission to follow should accelerate progress in reducing lead levels in drinking water.

 Wisconsin

Like Indiana, Wisconsin has about 1 LSL for every 10 households. The state was one of the first to take action to specifically address the funding problem when it offered $14.5 million to low-income municipalities to subsidize LSL replacement on private property. This action should benefit as many as 79 municipalities in the state.

A Senate bill, which has bipartisan support from more than half of senators, passed out of committee on March 29 and is awaiting a full Senate vote.  The bill also has support of more than 1/3 of representatives.  It states that:

(a) It is not unjust, unreasonable, insufficient, unfairly discriminatory, or preferential or otherwise unreasonable or unlawful for a water public utility to provide financial assistance as specified in [paragraph] (b) to a customer solely for private infrastructure improvements with the purpose of replacing service lines containing lead if the city, town, or village in which the water public utility operates has enacted an ordinance that permits the water public utility to provide the financial assistance. If a water public utility provides financial assistance under this paragraph, the commission shall include in the determination of water rates the cost of providing that financial assistance.

Paragraph (b) says that the utility’s portion of the service line either must not contain lead or must be replaced at the same time as the private infrastructure improvements.

If the bill passes, it would allow a utility to pay for replacing LSLs on private property as long as the municipality in which the utility operates enacts an ordinance permitting financial assistance.

Summary

Each state has taken a different approach to empowering communities to protect people from lead in drinking water. Pennsylvania’s decision is helpful but likely limited to communities that are required to replace LSLs under the LCR. Indiana's bill, if signed by the governor, would authorize the utility commission to approve a utility’s proposal if specific criteria are met. Wisconsin provides critical funding for local communities to help low-income residents and, if the bill passes, empowers utilities to cover some or all of the costs to replace LSLs on private property if the municipality supports it with an ordinance. Despite these differences, each of the states provide a path forward for their peers in finding ways to ensure LSLs are replaced efficiently and equitably.

[1] S.612. P.L. 114-322 (2106). See https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612.

From a video wherein Ms. White discusses the "benefits" of carbon pollution.

By: Keith Gaby, Senior Communications Director – Climate, Health, and Political Affairs

For the top White House environmental position, Director of the Council on Environmental Quality, President Trump is considering Kathleen Hartnett White. She’s a registered lobbyist, and is currently with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an advocacy group funded in large part by the energy industry. She seems to have spent most of her time there spreading “alternative facts” on air pollution and climate change.

As my colleague Jeremy Symons wrote when White was considered to lead EPA, she has long been a critic of the EPA’s efforts to reduce toxic air pollution such as soot and mercury. In a 2016 op-ed for The Hill she attacked the agency for pursuing standards to reduce air pollution from fossil fuels.

Continuing a pattern

Unfortunately, this appointment would be part of a pattern. Nearly one-fourth of all Trump administration officials who deal with environmental regulations had connections to energy companies, according to a new study. This is on top of an energy and environment cabinet that represents a single point of view: big energy companies.

Few of the officials seems to have relevant experience or knowledge beyond that. For instance, at the Environmental Protection Agency, only 2 of 11 appointees have germane experience in the primary mission of the agency. Seven had connections to the fossil fuel industry, which EPA regulates.

Rejecting consensus science

Ms. White, a former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, told Rolling Stone, “We’re not a democracy if science dictates what our rules are.” In a 2012 report targeting EPA’s efforts to reduce the fine particle air pollution that exacerbates lung disease and asthma, she lamented that political appointees must weigh the views of what she called “mandarins brandishing their scientific credentials.”

In The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, she called CO2 “the gas that makes life possible on the earth and naturally fertilizes plant growth….Whether emitted from the human use of fossil fuels or as a natural (and necessary) gas in the atmosphere surrounding the earth, carbon dioxide has none of the attributes of a pollutant.”

She is apparently not a fan of the scientists at NASA, the National Academies of Science, and all major American scientific organizations.

Siding with big engery interests over public health

The reviews of her work from some Texans have not been friendly. The Dallas Morning News called her “an apologist for polluters,” saying she’d been “consistently siding with business interests instead of protecting public health. Ms. White worked to set a low bar as she lobbied for lax ozone standards and pushed through an inadequate anti-pollution plan.”

If we are to protect clean air and water, and keep pace in a world moving toward cleaner energy, we need leaders who are looking forward. Right now, with the environmental positions in the cabinet only representing one voice, we risk damaging America’s future. And the addition of Kathleen Harnett White would add ignorance to injury.

Photo source: Texas Public Policy Foundation

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog. 

By Jon Goldstein and Ben Ratner

Much ink has been spilled recently about big new oil and gas investments in the Permian Basin across West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. What some are dubbing “Permania” includes a more than $6 billion investment by ExxonMobil in New Mexico acreage and an almost $3 billion one by Noble Energy across the border in Texas, among others. But a large question remains: will these types of big bets also come with the needed investments to limit methane emissions?

It’s not just an academic question. The answer will go a long way toward revealing if industry actors plan to operate in a way that serves the best interest of local communities and taxpayers. Unfortunately, New Mexico is currently the worst in the nation for waste of natural gas resources from federal lands (such as those that are found in large parts of the state’s Permian Basin). Largely avoidable venting, flaring and leaks of natural gas from these sites also puts a big hole in taxpayers’ wallets, robbing New Mexico taxpayers of $100 million worth of their natural gas resources every year and depriving the state budget of millions more in royalty revenue that could be invested in urgent state needs like education.

Meanwhile, at least one estimate shows a doubling of methane emissions in recent years on 2.1 million acres of Texas’ Permian Basin lands managed by the University of Texas, and students and faculty are calling for needed reductions. There’s good reason to believe that the rest of the Texas Permian has seen similar increases in methane emissions.

The answer to this million dollar waste question will also reveal if these large oil and gas companies plan to “walk the talk” on their commitments to reduce emissions. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas, more than 80 times more potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide in the short term.

For instance, Darren Woods the new Chairman and CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil recently stated in his first blog as CEO: “I believe, and my company believes, that climate risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us – business, governments and consumers – to make meaningful progress.” If Exxon invests $6.6 billion in New Mexico drilling sites (more than the entire U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual budget proposed by President Trump for comparison) but doesn’t make the necessary investments to capture fugitive methane emissions, these words will ring hollow. Conversely, by choosing to set a positive example through implementing methane controls, increasing transparency, and engaging responsibly on methane policy development, Exxon could chart a positive path and set an example worth following.

This is because scientists estimate that methane emissions are already responsible for roughly one quarter of the warming we are experiencing today, and the oil and gas industry is the largest source of industrial methane emissions in the U.S. What’s more, addressing methane pollution will also help alleviate local air quality concerns such as in Eddy County, New Mexico’s number one oil producer and recipient of a failing grade for ozone smog pollution from the American Lung Association.

The “layer cake” of oil and gas resources beneath New Mexico and West Texas may be an energy bounty, but in order for the people of these states to reap the full benefit (and minimize the risks to their health and climate) these companies will have to invest in leading technologies to capture methane waste and pollution. Neighboring states like Colorado have put state methane rules in place for just this reason and their economies have benefited as taxpayer revenue goes up while new methane mitigation small businesses thrive and entrepreneurs invent the next generation of solutions. These states should do the same and oil and gas companies can help show leadership by standing up and advocating for sensible methane policies, just as Noble Energy did with success in Colorado.

As Exxon’s Mr. Woods wrote, “by taking advantage of human ingenuity, embracing free markets and enacting sound government policies, we can meet the world’s energy needs and meet all of our shared aspirations in an environmentally and socially responsible way.” We could not agree more. As all eyes shift to the Permian, there is an opportunity – and an obligation – to put the market to work reducing emissions and to support sound methane emission government policies to set a level playing field and provide an assurance to the public that all companies are operating responsibly.

That’s the only way Texans and New Mexicans will be able to have their cake and eat it too during the next anticipated development boom. And it’s the only way that companies from Exxon and Noble to smaller drillers can address the global concern that methane emissions leaks away the credibility of natural gas in the transition to a low carbon energy economy.

By John Finnigan

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is still deciding whether to approve bailouts for FirstEnergy’s and Dayton Power & Light’s (DP&L) old, inefficient coal plants. The Ohio-based utilities want their customers to shoulder the costs of keeping these unprofitable coal plants running.

Coal plants aren’t cheap to operate. And as natural gas, wind energy, and solar energy have become increasingly affordable in recent years, coal can’t compete anymore. Moreover, subsidizing coal plants is not just a matter of higher electricity bills. We need to take into account the hidden costs of coal, which we all have to pay.

Health costs

Coal pollution harms human health and the environment. The American Lung Association reports that people’s breathing difficulties, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, and lung diseases, are worse when forced to breathe dirty air from coal plants. Coal plant emissions also cause heart attacks, strokes, cancer and birth defects. Lowering pollution from coal plants, on the other hand, can save lives.

Who Pays for the Hidden Costs of Coal?
Click To Tweet

Climate costs

Coal pollution also contributes to climate change, which economists report will result in global costs of $1.2 trillion annually. This includes the costs for health care, premature deaths, harm to our food and water supply, and damage to our economy. We all pay for these costs in the form of higher taxes, higher health insurance premiums, higher food and water costs, repair costs for catastrophic weather events, and higher costs for goods and services.

Clean-up costs

Another area of hidden costs is the clean-up costs. The residue from burning coal is known as coal ash. Utilities bury millions of tons of coal ash in the ground at their power plants, which are often located on rivers to receive coal supplies on barges. The coal ash is stored in underground dams that can break and infiltrate the water supply.

Clean energy resources like wind, solar, and energy efficiency do not spew pollution into the air, meaning they do not lead to the high health or economic costs imposed by dirty coal power.

In 2014, a Duke Energy coal dam collapsed, spewing thousands of tons of coal ash into the Dan River. Duke Energy spent $15 million in direct cleanup costs and paid $102 million in fines and additional cleanup costs. Fortunately, Duke Energy is the largest utility in the country and is well capitalized, so Duke Energy’s shareholders – rather than its customers – had to pay these costs. But that’s not always the case with coal ash spills – some utilities leave customers with the bill.

Coal mining also produces toxic waste, including heavy metal residue from mining and deadly chemicals used for processing the coal. Another disaster occurred in 2014, when a pipe broke at a coal treatment plant, leaking 10,000 gallons of a deadly chemical into the Elk River in West Virginia. For days, the water supply was toxic for the 300,000 residents of Charleston, and the companies responsible paid a $151 million settlement for clean-up costs. Area residents and businesses also incurred $61 million in economic losses.

Bankruptcy costs

Coal plants keep losing money, causing financial stress for the industry. Large companies like Duke Energy are not always available to pay for clean-up costs. Many coal mining companies have filed for bankruptcy in recent years, including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, and Peabody. When these bankruptcies occur, taxpayers are left to pay for the clean-up costs.

For example, when Peabody filed for bankruptcy, the company filed claims for $2.7 billion worth of clean-up costs in the states where it operated mines. Peabody was allowed to emerge from bankruptcy by agreeing to pay $1 billion in clean-up costs. Taxpayers will pick up the tab for the remaining $1.7 billion.

Water costs

As part of the energy-water nexus, different power sources require different amounts of water, and coal plants use a lot of water. Meanwhile, climate change stresses the U.S. water system and enhances the likelihood and severity of drought.

Coal plants also discharge millions of gallons of extremely hot water into our lakes and rivers, killing fish and destroying their habitats.

The upside of clean energy

Clean energy resources like wind, solar, and energy efficiency do not spew pollution into the air, meaning they do not lead to the high health or economic costs imposed by dirty coal power. There is no toxic ash or residue left to clean up at a wind turbine. If a solar company files for bankruptcy, customers won’t be saddled with millions in clean-up costs. Finally, wind, solar, and energy efficiency require virtually no water to make power.

By subsidizing utilities to keep running their old coal plants, we all pay today in the form of higher energy bills. And we will all pay again tomorrow, when we pay for the hidden health, economic, clean-up, and water costs. With all these costs, and all the benefits of clean energy, why in the world should Ohio customers subsidize FirstEnergy and DP&L to keep operating their old coal plants?