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 […]

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?

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 […]

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 out of Columbia University.

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 [PDF] 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 [PDF], 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 energy 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 Hartnett White would add ignorance to injury.

Tell Congress: Protect and defend environmental standards

By EDF Blogs

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 EDF Blogs

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 EDF Blogs

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 EDF Blogs

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.

When Scott Pruitt was trying to get confirmed as chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, he conceded that “ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that can cause respiratory and cardiovascular harm.” The EPA, he told senators, should focus on helping polluted areas “meet that standard.”

Except now that Pruitt is in office, it turns out his meaning might have been far more Orwellian, and dangerous, than anyone imagined. Meanwhile, a new court decision allowing Pruitt an opportunity to argue his case has added fresh urgency to the ozone matter.

25 million Americans at risk

The ground-level ozone Pruitt was talking about is better known as smog and causes serious health problems.

Smog increases asthma attacks in kids and literally kills people, especially the elderly. In fact, it is estimated more than 25 million Americans have asthma and are at risk for health problems or premature death because of this kind of air pollution.

In response to growing scientific evidence of harm, the EPA tightened its health standards for smog. The change, announced in October 2015, would lower the allowable amount of smog particles in our air from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb.

This still isn’t as low as many science and health advisors recommended, however. They want something closer to 60ppb – but it was an important step in the right direction.

This is also important to remember as we try to understand where Pruitt may be taking us next.

To Pruitt, science is irrelevant

During his confirmation hearings, Pruitt sounded very concerned about this air pollution problem. He cited it as one of the areas that the EPA should be focused on, rather than being distracted by issues like carbon pollution.

(Pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that an EPA administrator considers global climate change, an urgent threat to our health and safety that will cost our economy trillions, a distraction.)

But it turns out that Pruitt’s solution to the fact that more than half of all Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution might be to – well, redefine what’s healthy.

Court just granted EPA’s “review” of smog limits

Pruitt’s recent actions suggest he may simply declare that the pollution levels his agency’s independent science advisors have said are unhealthy – 70 parts per billion – are now acceptable. It’s like the diet which lets you eat ice cream by saying it only counts as 50 calories. Or a plan to improve education by changing all the C’s to A’s.

Responding to a request from Pruitt for more time to “fully review” the issues, a federal court on April 11, 2017, postponed oral arguments on the smog limits.

Many observers consider this a prelude to potentially weakening the standards.

Given Pruitt’s close political and financial ties to companies that would benefit from looser pollution rules – and his recent decision to ignore science and refuse to ban a pesticide that causes developmental problems in children – it’s hardly a leap to imagine he’ll continue to disregard public health.

Tell Congress to protect environmental safeguards

RT @dickmunson: Ohio nuclear bill could clash with federal law, conceals info from public midwestenergynews.com/2017/04/12/ohi…

By EDF Blogs

By Andrew Williams and Isabel Mogstad

For decades, the polluter lobby has argued that environmental regulations are too costly and kill jobs. A new report out today is calling their bluff.

The report, from international consulting firm Datu Research, looks at a sector of the economy that focuses on finding and fixing oil and gas leaks – which contribute to climate change, waste energy, and damage local air quality. A growing number of states  have been requiring companies to reduce emissions by regularly checking their equipment for leaks. In those regions, companies that provide pollution control services have grown up to 30%.

This could mean big things for Pennsylvania – which has committed to implementing its own oil and gas pollution protections targeted at cutting methane from new and existing natural gas infrastructure.

Other notable findings include:

• LDAR requires boots-on the-ground to check oil and gas equipment for leaks, which means these jobs carry an important trait: they can’t be sent overseas.
• This industry is also unique in that it offers a variety of high-paying jobs and opportunity for upward mobility from high school grads to PhDs. According to the report, a common entry-level job starts at $27,040. From there, salaries increase to upward of $100,000.
• Companies included in the research anticipate future growth despite signals that federal methane regulation is unlikely; according to the report “the rate of growth will vary based on the regulatory direction chosen at the national level and in key states.”

Pennsylvania is among a growing number of states that have signaled interest in reducing industry’s emissions. In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf committed to implementing comprehensive methane standards in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, the State Department of Environmental Protection started to make good on that promise by introducing a new permit policy that, once finalized, will reduce emissions from new wells.   However, perhaps due to pressure from industry groups, the administration has delayed finalizing the proposal.

That’s unfortunate since the report reveals that states that have previously clamped down on methane have experienced higher-than-average job growth in this sector. For example, in 2014 Colorado became the first state to require companies to reduce their methane emissions, and as a result it boasts more homegrown methane mitigation businesses than Pennsylvania, despite producing less energy. As the second largest gas producing state in the country, Pennsylvania should be in the lead. By standardizing methane protection Pennsylvania has a real opportunity to catch up with other energy producing states to reduce pollution and prevent jobs from leaving the state.

Multiple analyses have shown that hiring third-party leak detection and repair companies, like those featured in the report, is one of the most cost-effective ways for energy companies to reduce their emissions.  In a recent survey in Colorado, seven out of 10 oil and gas operators said the benefits of regularly checking their equipment for leaks far outweighed the costs.

This report makes clear that economic opportunity and a healthy environment can go hand-in-hand. Smart environmental protections are more important now than ever before as our national environmental protections are under attack. If Pennsylvania policymakers care about increasing the number of good-paying American jobs and ensuring industry is held accountable for its pollution, methane regulations must be a priority.

By EDF Blogs

By Andrew Williams and Isabel Mogstad

For decades, the polluter lobby has argued that environmental regulations are too costly and kill jobs. A new report out today is calling their bluff.

The report, from international consulting firm Datu Research, looks at a sector of the economy that focuses on finding and fixing oil and gas leaks – which contribute to climate change, waste energy, and damage local air quality. A growing number of states  have been requiring companies to reduce emissions by regularly checking their equipment for leaks. In those regions, companies that provide pollution control services have grown up to 30%.

This could mean big things for Pennsylvania – which has committed to implementing its own oil and gas pollution protections targeted at cutting methane from new and existing natural gas infrastructure.

Other notable findings include:

• LDAR requires boots-on the-ground to check oil and gas equipment for leaks, which means these jobs carry an important trait: they can’t be sent overseas.
• This industry is also unique in that it offers a variety of high-paying jobs and opportunity for upward mobility from high school grads to PhDs. According to the report, a common entry-level job starts at $27,040. From there, salaries increase to upward of $100,000.
• Companies included in the research anticipate future growth despite signals that federal methane regulation is unlikely; according to the report “the rate of growth will vary based on the regulatory direction chosen at the national level and in key states.”

Pennsylvania is among a growing number of states that have signaled interest in reducing industry’s emissions. In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf committed to implementing comprehensive methane standards in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, the State Department of Environmental Protection started to make good on that promise by introducing a new permit policy that, once finalized, will reduce emissions from new wells.   However, perhaps due to pressure from industry groups, the administration has delayed finalizing the proposal.

That’s unfortunate since the report reveals that states that have previously clamped down on methane have experienced higher-than-average job growth in this sector. For example, in 2014 Colorado became the first state to require companies to reduce their methane emissions, and as a result it boasts more homegrown methane mitigation businesses than Pennsylvania, despite producing less energy. As the second largest gas producing state in the country, Pennsylvania should be in the lead. By standardizing methane protection Pennsylvania has a real opportunity to catch up with other energy producing states to reduce pollution and prevent jobs from leaving the state.

Multiple analyses have shown that hiring third-party leak detection and repair companies, like those featured in the report, is one of the most cost-effective ways for energy companies to reduce their emissions.  In a recent survey in Colorado, seven out of 10 oil and gas operators said the benefits of regularly checking their equipment for leaks far outweighed the costs.

This report makes clear that economic opportunity and a healthy environment can go hand-in-hand. Smart environmental protections are more important now than ever before as our national environmental protections are under attack. If Pennsylvania policymakers care about increasing the number of good-paying American jobs and ensuring industry is held accountable for its pollution, methane regulations must be a priority.

By EDF Blogs

By Andrew Williams and Isabel Mogstad

For decades, the polluter lobby has argued that environmental regulations are too costly and kill jobs. A new report out today is calling their bluff.

The report, from international consulting firm Datu Research, looks at a sector of the economy that focuses on finding and fixing oil and gas leaks – which contribute to climate change, waste energy, and damage local air quality. A growing number of states  have been requiring companies to reduce emissions by regularly checking their equipment for leaks. In those regions, companies that provide pollution control services have grown up to 30%.

This could mean big things for Pennsylvania – which has committed to implementing its own oil and gas pollution protections targeted at cutting methane from new and existing natural gas infrastructure.

Other notable findings include:

• LDAR requires boots-on the-ground to check oil and gas equipment for leaks, which means these jobs carry an important trait: they can’t be sent overseas.
• This industry is also unique in that it offers a variety of high-paying jobs and opportunity for upward mobility from high school grads to PhDs. According to the report, a common entry-level job starts at $27,040. From there, salaries increase to upward of $100,000.
• Companies included in the research anticipate future growth despite signals that federal methane regulation is unlikely; according to the report “the rate of growth will vary based on the regulatory direction chosen at the national level and in key states.”

Pennsylvania is among a growing number of states that have signaled interest in reducing industry’s emissions. In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf committed to implementing comprehensive methane standards in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, the State Department of Environmental Protection started to make good on that promise by introducing a new permit policy that, once finalized, will reduce emissions from new wells.   However, perhaps due to pressure from industry groups, the administration has delayed finalizing the proposal.

That’s unfortunate since the report reveals that states that have previously clamped down on methane have experienced higher-than-average job growth in this sector. For example, in 2014 Colorado became the first state to require companies to reduce their methane emissions, and as a result it boasts more homegrown methane mitigation businesses than Pennsylvania, despite producing less energy. As the second largest gas producing state in the country, Pennsylvania should be in the lead. By standardizing methane protection Pennsylvania has a real opportunity to catch up with other energy producing states to reduce pollution and prevent jobs from leaving the state.

Multiple analyses have shown that hiring third-party leak detection and repair companies, like those featured in the report, is one of the most cost-effective ways for energy companies to reduce their emissions.  In a recent survey in Colorado, seven out of 10 oil and gas operators said the benefits of regularly checking their equipment for leaks far outweighed the costs.

This report makes clear that economic opportunity and a healthy environment can go hand-in-hand. Smart environmental protections are more important now than ever before as our national environmental protections are under attack. If Pennsylvania policymakers care about increasing the number of good-paying American jobs and ensuring industry is held accountable for its pollution, methane regulations must be a priority.

By EDF Blogs

By Andrew Williams and Isabel Mogstad

For decades, the polluter lobby has argued that environmental regulations are too costly and kill jobs. A new report out today is calling their bluff.

The report, from international consulting firm Datu Research, looks at a sector of the economy that focuses on finding and fixing oil and gas leaks – which contribute to climate change, waste energy, and damage local air quality. A growing number of states  have been requiring companies to reduce emissions by regularly checking their equipment for leaks. In those regions, companies that provide pollution control services have grown up to 30%.

This could mean big things for Pennsylvania – which has committed to implementing its own oil and gas pollution protections targeted at cutting methane from new and existing natural gas infrastructure.

Other notable findings include:

• LDAR requires boots-on the-ground to check oil and gas equipment for leaks, which means these jobs carry an important trait: they can’t be sent overseas.
• This industry is also unique in that it offers a variety of high-paying jobs and opportunity for upward mobility from high school grads to PhDs. According to the report, a common entry-level job starts at $27,040. From there, salaries increase to upward of $100,000.
• Companies included in the research anticipate future growth despite signals that federal methane regulation is unlikely; according to the report “the rate of growth will vary based on the regulatory direction chosen at the national level and in key states.”

Pennsylvania is among a growing number of states that have signaled interest in reducing industry’s emissions. In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf committed to implementing comprehensive methane standards in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, the State Department of Environmental Protection started to make good on that promise by introducing a new permit policy that, once finalized, will reduce emissions from new wells.   However, perhaps due to pressure from industry groups, the administration has delayed finalizing the proposal.

That’s unfortunate since the report reveals that states that have previously clamped down on methane have experienced higher-than-average job growth in this sector. For example, in 2014 Colorado became the first state to require companies to reduce their methane emissions, and as a result it boasts more homegrown methane mitigation businesses than Pennsylvania, despite producing less energy. As the second largest gas producing state in the country, Pennsylvania should be in the lead. By standardizing methane protection Pennsylvania has a real opportunity to catch up with other energy producing states to reduce pollution and prevent jobs from leaving the state.

Multiple analyses have shown that hiring third-party leak detection and repair companies, like those featured in the report, is one of the most cost-effective ways for energy companies to reduce their emissions.  In a recent survey in Colorado, seven out of 10 oil and gas operators said the benefits of regularly checking their equipment for leaks far outweighed the costs.

This report makes clear that economic opportunity and a healthy environment can go hand-in-hand. Smart environmental protections are more important now than ever before as our national environmental protections are under attack. If Pennsylvania policymakers care about increasing the number of good-paying American jobs and ensuring industry is held accountable for its pollution, methane regulations must be a priority.

Collaborative Governance. A concept that is exactly what it sounds like. The involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders, both public and private, that meet to inspire and attain a common agreement on public policy. Getting multiple stakeholder groups together to formulate a common understanding is imperative for the survival of coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta. With each passing hour, day and year, Louisiana’s coast disappears into the Gulf of Mexico. It isn’t just one landowner or community ...

Read The Full Story

The post Collaborative Governance: How We Can All Guide the Future of Our Coast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Collaborative Governance. A concept that is exactly what it sounds like. The involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders, both public and private, that meet to inspire and attain a common agreement on public policy. Getting multiple stakeholder groups together to formulate a common understanding is imperative for the survival of coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta. With each passing hour, day and year, Louisiana’s coast disappears into the Gulf of Mexico. It isn’t just one landowner or community ...

Read The Full Story

The post Collaborative Governance: How We Can All Guide the Future of Our Coast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Collaborative Governance. A concept that is exactly what it sounds like. The involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders, both public and private, that meet to inspire and attain a common agreement on public policy. Getting multiple stakeholder groups together to formulate a common understanding is imperative for the survival of coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta. With each passing hour, day and year, Louisiana’s coast disappears into the Gulf of Mexico. It isn’t just one landowner or community ...

Read The Full Story

The post Collaborative Governance: How We Can All Guide the Future of Our Coast appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Ben Ratner

The biggest irony of the Trump Administration’s attack on environmental safeguards is that it will undermine a central promise of his candidacy: supporting boots on the ground, American jobs in growth sectors. One prime example? The emerging service industry that puts people to work finding and fixing harmful natural gas leaks.

American workers in the methane mitigation industry keep the product, methane (the main ingredient in natural gas), in the pipes and out of the sky. That’s a win for workers, who receive technology training, competitive wages, and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s a win for surrounding communities, as methane emission reductions also help keep smog-forming pollutants out of the air they breathe. It’s a win for oil and gas operators, which make operations more efficient and improve safety. And it’s a win for the climate, since methane is 84 times more potent in the near term than carbon dioxide.

In other words, if winning were more than a campaign slogan, supporting America’s methane mitigation industry would be an obvious opportunity to seize. Unfortunately, President Trump’s anti-jobs approach to undermining methane safeguards does just the opposite.

In attempting to justify rollbacks, the Trump Administration trotted out the familiar argument that environmental safeguards cost jobs. But in reality, the opposite is often true.

Datu Research, in a new report commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, studied the leak detection and repair service industry by speaking with employers and workers in states like Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas. Importantly, Datu found that “rules cutting methane emissions create jobs cutting methane emissions”.

Safeguards requiring methane leak detection and repair increase market demand for those services, thus supporting opportunities for workers including high school graduates to get trained in infrared camera inspection technology.

In fact, mitigation firms reported as much as 30% growth in states with methane regulations. And, companies interviewed by Datu reported plans to grow their workforce by as much as 15% annually.

In other words: More methane safeguards = More leak detection jobs. Fewer methane safeguards = Fewer leak detection jobs.

For an Administration allegedly committed to job creation, it’s baffling why President Trump would move to put such valuable American jobs at risk. All the more so when you consider that 55% of leak detection service companies are small businesses – the growth engine of the America.

Yet, where the Trump Administration falls down, state leaders can stand up for good jobs and a healthy environment.

One immediate opportunity arises in Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Wolf has committed to cut methane emissions from new and existing sources. With four methane mitigation businesses already headquartered in Pennsylvania, and 11 companies operating in the state, Pennsylvania is poised for significant growth.

Or take New Mexico, a state that unfortunately leads the nation in unemployment rate, but where small businesses like Dexter – who employs a majority Native American leak detection and repair crew to cut methane waste – offer needed job growth. As oil and gas production continues to heat up in the resource-rich Permian Basin, New Mexico’s leaders will have the opportunity and obligation to establish the policy environment in which industry operates responsibly and more methane mitigation jobs are created.

As governors and state legislatures square their energy mix with the dual needs of job creation and environmental protection, supporting an industry that makes oil and gas cleaner should be an easy answer.

American workers don’t want potential jobs to slip through their fingers like lost methane into the atmosphere. After all, that’s not what winning looks like.

By Ben Ratner

The biggest irony of the Trump Administration’s attack on environmental safeguards is that it will undermine a central promise of his candidacy: supporting boots on the ground, American jobs in growth sectors. One prime example? The emerging service industry that puts people to work finding and fixing harmful natural gas leaks.

American workers in the methane mitigation industry keep the product, methane (the main ingredient in natural gas), in the pipes and out of the sky. That’s a win for workers, who receive technology training, competitive wages, and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s a win for surrounding communities, as methane emission reductions also help keep smog-forming pollutants out of the air they breathe. It’s a win for oil and gas operators, which make operations more efficient and improve safety. And it’s a win for the climate, since methane is 84 times more potent in the near term than carbon dioxide.

In other words, if winning were more than a campaign slogan, supporting America’s methane mitigation industry would be an obvious opportunity to seize. Unfortunately, President Trump’s anti-jobs approach to undermining methane safeguards does just the opposite.

In attempting to justify rollbacks, the Trump Administration trotted out the familiar argument that environmental safeguards cost jobs. But in reality, the opposite is often true.

Datu Research, in a new report commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, studied the leak detection and repair service industry by speaking with employers and workers in states like Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas. Importantly, Datu found that “rules cutting methane emissions create jobs cutting methane emissions”.

Safeguards requiring methane leak detection and repair increase market demand for those services, thus supporting opportunities for workers including high school graduates to get trained in infrared camera inspection technology.

In fact, mitigation firms reported as much as 30% growth in states with methane regulations. And, companies interviewed by Datu reported plans to grow their workforce by as much as 15% annually.

In other words: More methane safeguards = More leak detection jobs. Fewer methane safeguards = Fewer leak detection jobs.

For an Administration allegedly committed to job creation, it’s baffling why President Trump would move to put such valuable American jobs at risk. All the more so when you consider that 55% of leak detection service companies are small businesses – the growth engine of the America.

Yet, where the Trump Administration falls down, state leaders can stand up for good jobs and a healthy environment.

One immediate opportunity arises in Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Wolf has committed to cut methane emissions from new and existing sources. With four methane mitigation businesses already headquartered in Pennsylvania, and 11 companies operating in the state, Pennsylvania is poised for significant growth.

Or take New Mexico, a state that unfortunately leads the nation in unemployment rate, but where small businesses like Dexter – who employs a majority Native American leak detection and repair crew to cut methane waste – offer needed job growth. As oil and gas production continues to heat up in the resource-rich Permian Basin, New Mexico’s leaders will have the opportunity and obligation to establish the policy environment in which industry operates responsibly and more methane mitigation jobs are created.

As governors and state legislatures square their energy mix with the dual needs of job creation and environmental protection, supporting an industry that makes oil and gas cleaner should be an easy answer.

American workers don’t want potential jobs to slip through their fingers like lost methane into the atmosphere. After all, that’s not what winning looks like.