By Ana Lucia Garcia Briones

Farms in Kern County along the California Aqueduct, in southern San Joaquin Valley.

National Geographic’s new film, “Water & Power: A California Heist,” explores the impacts of California’s drought and the San Joaquin Valley’s groundwater crisis, and highlights issues surrounding the state’s water rights and the powerful interests that sometimes control them.

The film, which uses beautiful cinematography and testimonials from lawyers, water managers and residents, offers a stark contrast between those who have continued to profit during California’s drought and those who have struggled to meet even their most basic water needs.

The film places an emphasis on the “Monterey Amendments,” a back-room deal struck in 1994 that included the creation of the Kern Water Bank, and opened the door to the bank’s eventual privatization. At the time, well-endowed businesses with large land holdings were given control of these groundwater reserves, which they used to shore up highly profitable agricultural businesses. Since then, groundwater levels have plummeted and become contaminated, impacting safe drinking water supplies for small communities.

While the film skews some of the relationships between agricultural water use and drinking water supplies, and distorts some important historical details, it does appropriately shine a light on the critical drinking water needs of the vulnerable communities in California’s Central Valley, and illuminates the importance of transparency in water management.

Access inequality

It is an absurd notion that, within an easy afternoon’s drive of the hub of the world’s tech industry and several of the country’s most affluent cities, tens of thousands of our fellow Californian’s don’t have access to clean drinking water.

In small, rural towns residents rely on one or two community wells. As reserves run dry and become contaminated, residents don’t have the resources to drill a new well or connect to state distribution systems.

Meanwhile, wealthy farms and large cities have the technology and capital to pump more groundwater and build new water conveyance infrastructure to meet their water needs.

This is the dynamic portrayed in “Water & Power” and it’s a problem that must be fixed. Luckily California has the resources to make this happen.

Community participation

Water board leaders from 13 communities throughout California's Central Valley attended the Leadership Academy to build engagement capacity and share lessons about small water system management. (Credit: Kike Arnal)

We at Environmental Defense Fund are re-doubling our efforts, working alongside environmental justice and water management leaders to bring real solutions to these vulnerable communities.

Last year, alongside our partners at Self-Help Enterprises and Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC), we executed a series of bilingual leadership workshops in small, rural communities throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

Pulling from RCAC’s years of on-the-ground experience, the Leadership Academy aimed to build engagement capacity of rural community leaders and bridge the communications gap with policymakers.

Recommendations

We applaud the tireless efforts of our partners and other organizations like the Community Water Center and Clean Water Action, who have been working for years to address the needs of these vulnerable communities.

Increased attention to water access from influential water interests including the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is a sign that these efforts are starting to pay off.

We look forward to working with these groups to design solutions that quickly bring clean, safe drinking water to all the people of California.

This is a problem that California has the knowledge and resources to solve. Let’s get to it.

 

Related:
What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure >>

Water heroes emerge in California’s Central Valley >>

From Mexico City to San Francisco: A multi-national perspective on water management >>

National Geographic’s new film, “Water & Power: A California Heist,” explores the impacts of California’s drought and the San Joaquin Valley’s groundwater crisis, and highlights issues surrounding the state’s water rights and the powerful interests that sometimes control them. The film, which uses beautiful cinematography and testimonials from lawyers, water managers and residents, offers a […]

The post New film shows that clean water isn’t a guarantee for many in California first appeared on Growing Returns.

By Ana Lucia Garcia Briones

Farms in Kern County along the California Aqueduct, in southern San Joaquin Valley.

National Geographic’s new film, “Water & Power: A California Heist,” explores the impacts of California’s drought and the San Joaquin Valley’s groundwater crisis, and highlights issues surrounding the state’s water rights and the powerful interests that sometimes control them.

The film, which uses beautiful cinematography and testimonials from lawyers, water managers and residents, offers a stark contrast between those who have continued to profit during California’s drought and those who have struggled to meet even their most basic water needs.

The film places an emphasis on the “Monterey Amendments,” a back-room deal struck in 1994 that included the creation of the Kern Water Bank, and opened the door to the bank’s eventual privatization. At the time, well-endowed businesses with large land holdings were given control of these groundwater reserves, which they used to shore up highly profitable agricultural businesses. Since then, groundwater levels have plummeted and become contaminated, impacting safe drinking water supplies for small communities.

While the film skews some of the relationships between agricultural water use and drinking water supplies, and distorts some important historical details, it does appropriately shine a light on the critical drinking water needs of the vulnerable communities in California’s Central Valley, and illuminates the importance of transparency in water management.

Access inequality

It is an absurd notion that, within an easy afternoon’s drive of the hub of the world’s tech industry and several of the country’s most affluent cities, tens of thousands of our fellow Californian’s don’t have access to clean drinking water.

In small, rural towns residents rely on one or two community wells. As reserves run dry and become contaminated, residents don’t have the resources to drill a new well or connect to state distribution systems.

Meanwhile, wealthy farms and large cities have the technology and capital to pump more groundwater and build new water conveyance infrastructure to meet their water needs.

This is the dynamic portrayed in “Water & Power” and it’s a problem that must be fixed. Luckily California has the resources to make this happen.

Community participation

Water board leaders from 13 communities throughout California's Central Valley attended the Leadership Academy to build engagement capacity and share lessons about small water system management. (Credit: Kike Arnal)

We at Environmental Defense Fund are re-doubling our efforts, working alongside environmental justice and water management leaders to bring real solutions to these vulnerable communities.

Last year, alongside our partners at Self-Help Enterprises and Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC), we executed a series of bilingual leadership workshops in small, rural communities throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

Pulling from RCAC’s years of on-the-ground experience, the Leadership Academy aimed to build engagement capacity of rural community leaders and bridge the communications gap with policymakers.

Recommendations

We applaud the tireless efforts of our partners and other organizations like the Community Water Center and Clean Water Action, who have been working for years to address the needs of these vulnerable communities.

Increased attention to water access from influential water interests including the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is a sign that these efforts are starting to pay off.

We look forward to working with these groups to design solutions that quickly bring clean, safe drinking water to all the people of California.

This is a problem that California has the knowledge and resources to solve. Let’s get to it.

 

Related:
What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure >>

Water heroes emerge in California’s Central Valley >>

From Mexico City to San Francisco: A multi-national perspective on water management >>

By Sean Wright

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with over $5 trillion in assets, recently announced a new commitment to focus on the financial risks of climate change, with a specific eye towards the disclosure and governance of climate risk. The company also signaled a potential greater willingness to support shareholder resolutions on climate issues.

Considering Blackrock’s massive size and influence, the significance of these announcements should not be understated. The development has the potential to drive increased attention among corporate executives in all industries on the need for more action on climate.  The move is also another welcome sign that mainstream institutional investors are taking climate risk seriously.

BlackRock’s announcement puts them in-line with other investors already doing good work on climate risk. A robust effort to limit oil and gas methane will be essential to their success, and provides a number of opportunities for BlackRock to truly lead.

Why Methane Matters to Investors

As EDF has previously highlighted, methane is a highly potent form of carbon, and therefore a significant climate risk. In fact, methane is 86 times more harmful to our climate than carbon emissions, and is responsible for a quarter of the warming we are already experiencing today.  The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source globally, and emissions occur across the entire value chain.

From an investor’s perspective, methane poses distinct risks. As the primary component of natural gas, methane represents lost product. All told, the oil and gas industry loses $30 billion a year on otherwise saleable product.  As such, smart investors should look at proactive methane management as a proxy for executive leadership and operational excellence.  In an increasingly carbon-constrained world, unmanaged methane emissions also invite regulatory scrutiny. Smart companies will be prepared. Lastly, methane undercuts the reputation of natural gas being cheaper and cleaner, and jeopardizes its opportunity to play a role in a transition to a lower-carbon economy. This has negative long-term demand implications.

To make its climate commitment a success, BlackRock must focus on methane
Click To Tweet

Leading investors, including Legal & General, BMO Global Asset Management, and CalSTRS already understand that methane poses a significant risk, and BlackRock should too.

How Investors Can Engage Industry

To help investors manage methane risk through engagement, EDF, in partnership with Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), released An Investor’s Guide to Methane.  The publication highlights best practices for measuring and reducing emissions while equipping investors with suggested questions to guide constructive dialogue.

The Guide also focuses on improving disclosure, given recent research from EDF has shown that current methane disclosure is inadequate to meet investor needs.  The methane metrics highlighted in the Guide were designed to provide investors with actionable methane data, and align with The Task Force for Climate-Related Disclosure’s framework and its focus on metrics and targets companies should use to manage climate risk, for which BlackRock prominently highlighted its support recently.

In response to growing investor concerns around methane, PRI is launching a collaborative engagement on methane, and is currently recruiting investors. BlackRock should join this effort to engage with oil and gas companies globally to reduce methane risk and improve disclosure. This is an opportunity for global leadership on climate.

Shareholder Resolutions – An Opportunity for Near-Term Action

As mentioned, BlackRock indicated it is more open to using its voting power on shareholder resolutions to manage climate risk. Currently, there are 8 methane-related shareholder resolutions up for vote this spring, and BlackRock appears to be a top shareholder for 6 of these companies.  The resolutions urge companies to provide better disclosure on methane management, and similar resolutions have earned the support of both ISS and Glass Lewis, the two major proxy advisory firms in the US. They deserve BlackRock’s vote.

New Products – An Opportunity to Innovation and Leadership

One way BlackRock could raise the bar on methane and be a global leader would be to use its platform to develop products to incentivize comprehensive emissions management.  BlackRock has already launched low-carbon exchange traded funds (ETF) that over-weight (i.e. reward) less-carbon intensive companies. Could BlackRock launch a low-methane index that screens in methane leaders and locks out methane laggards, thereby rewarding effective methane management with relatively higher share prices?

So, What is Success?

BlackRock is right to focus on climate risk as a key priority for its engagements over the next two years. If BlackRock is successful, effective methane risk management will be appropriately rewarded in the public markets, and will be par for the course for oil and gas companies who want BlackRock’s significant investment dollars. EDF stands at the ready to help BlackRock in making their important work on climate risk a success.

By Sean Wright

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with over $5 trillion in assets, recently announced a new commitment to focus on the financial risks of climate change, with a specific eye towards the disclosure and governance of climate risk. The company also signaled a potential greater willingness to support shareholder resolutions on climate issues.

Considering Blackrock’s massive size and influence, the significance of these announcements should not be understated. The development has the potential to drive increased attention among corporate executives in all industries on the need for more action on climate.  The move is also another welcome sign that mainstream institutional investors are taking climate risk seriously.

BlackRock’s announcement puts them in-line with other investors already doing good work on climate risk. A robust effort to limit oil and gas methane will be essential to their success, and provides a number of opportunities for BlackRock to truly lead.

Why Methane Matters to Investors

As EDF has previously highlighted, methane is a highly potent form of carbon, and therefore a significant climate risk. In fact, methane is 86 times more harmful to our climate than carbon emissions, and is responsible for a quarter of the warming we are already experiencing today.  The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source globally, and emissions occur across the entire value chain.

From an investor’s perspective, methane poses distinct risks. As the primary component of natural gas, methane represents lost product. All told, the oil and gas industry loses $30 billion a year on otherwise saleable product.  As such, smart investors should look at proactive methane management as a proxy for executive leadership and operational excellence.  In an increasingly carbon-constrained world, unmanaged methane emissions also invite regulatory scrutiny. Smart companies will be prepared. Lastly, methane undercuts the reputation of natural gas being cheaper and cleaner, and jeopardizes its opportunity to play a role in a transition to a lower-carbon economy. This has negative long-term demand implications.

To make its climate commitment a success, BlackRock must focus on methane
Click To Tweet

Leading investors, including Legal & General, BMO Global Asset Management, and CalSTRS already understand that methane poses a significant risk, and BlackRock should too.

How Investors Can Engage Industry

To help investors manage methane risk through engagement, EDF, in partnership with Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), released An Investor’s Guide to Methane.  The publication highlights best practices for measuring and reducing emissions while equipping investors with suggested questions to guide constructive dialogue.

The Guide also focuses on improving disclosure, given recent research from EDF has shown that current methane disclosure is inadequate to meet investor needs.  The methane metrics highlighted in the Guide were designed to provide investors with actionable methane data, and align with The Task Force for Climate-Related Disclosure’s framework and its focus on metrics and targets companies should use to manage climate risk, for which BlackRock prominently highlighted its support recently.

In response to growing investor concerns around methane, PRI is launching a collaborative engagement on methane, and is currently recruiting investors. BlackRock should join this effort to engage with oil and gas companies globally to reduce methane risk and improve disclosure. This is an opportunity for global leadership on climate.

Shareholder Resolutions – An Opportunity for Near-Term Action

As mentioned, BlackRock indicated it is more open to using its voting power on shareholder resolutions to manage climate risk. Currently, there are 8 methane-related shareholder resolutions up for vote this spring, and BlackRock appears to be a top shareholder for 6 of these companies.  The resolutions urge companies to provide better disclosure on methane management, and similar resolutions have earned the support of both ISS and Glass Lewis, the two major proxy advisory firms in the US. They deserve BlackRock’s vote.

New Products – An Opportunity to Innovation and Leadership

One way BlackRock could raise the bar on methane and be a global leader would be to use its platform to develop products to incentivize comprehensive emissions management.  BlackRock has already launched low-carbon exchange traded funds (ETF) that over-weight (i.e. reward) less-carbon intensive companies. Could BlackRock launch a low-methane index that screens in methane leaders and locks out methane laggards, thereby rewarding effective methane management with relatively higher share prices?

So, What is Success?

BlackRock is right to focus on climate risk as a key priority for its engagements over the next two years. If BlackRock is successful, effective methane risk management will be appropriately rewarded in the public markets, and will be par for the course for oil and gas companies who want BlackRock’s significant investment dollars. EDF stands at the ready to help BlackRock in making their important work on climate risk a success.

This blog was co-authored with Martha Roberts It’s reported that the Trump Administration is poised to continue its barrage of attacks on some of our most vital health and environmental protections, following last week’s assault on broadly supported fuel economy and greenhouse gas safeguards for cars and light trucks. Here’s one attack that they may […]

The post Trump Moves to Cook the Books, Undercutting Common Sense Climate Protections appeared first on Market Forces.

By Susanne Brooks

This blog was co-authored with Martha Roberts

It’s reported that the Trump Administration is poised to continue its barrage of attacks on some of our most vital health and environmental protections, following last week’s assault on broadly supported fuel economy and greenhouse gas safeguards for cars and light trucks. Here’s one attack that they may try to sneak under the radar—a move that would undercut common sense climate protection all across the federal government: directing federal agencies to abandon the use of social cost of carbon estimates in their evaluation of new policy.

The social cost of carbon is a measure of the economic harm from the impacts of climate change. Specifically, it’s the dollar value of the total damages from emitting one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Weakening or eliminating the use of the social cost of carbon would result in skewed and biased policy-making that ignores the benefits of crucial safeguards and stacks the deck against actions to protect communities from the mounting costs of climate change.

The devastating impacts of climate change on health and the environment – such as extreme weather events, the spread of disease, sea level rise, and increased food insecurity – can cost American businesses, families, governments and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars through rising health care costs, destruction of property, increased food prices, and more. Many of these impacts are already being felt by communities across the country, as the government’s leading scientific agencies have found.

When the federal government develops policy affecting the carbon pollution causing climate change, it is both reasonable and essential that it takes these costs into account. The social cost of carbon is a tool that allows policy-makers to do just that.

Currently, the federal government uses a social cost of carbon estimate—roughly $40 per ton of carbon pollution—that was developed through a transparent and rigorous interagency process, relied on the latest peer-reviewed science and economics available, and allowed for repeated public comment as well as input from the National Academy of Sciences.

But that may not last much longer. As we’ve seen, the Trump Administration is waging war against an array of our most crucial health and environmental protections, ignoring the urgent threat of climate change while prioritizing fossil fuel interests. President Trump’s new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, denies that carbon pollution is a primary contributor to climate change, and built his political career by suing EPA 14 times as Oklahoma Attorney General to block protections from mercury, arsenic and smog pollution, hand in hand with the worst elements of the fossil fuel industry. Meanwhile the Administration is proposing devastating cuts to the budgets for EPA and climate research, and is moving towards revoking the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever nationwide limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

All of this points to a clear disregard for basic science, economic principles, and our nation’s clean air laws. Eliminating or weakening the social cost of carbon is another pernicious tactic by the Administration to undermine the development of crucial climate safeguards – by erroneously making it appear as though reducing carbon pollution has little or no benefit to society and the economy. Even the current figure is very likely a conservative lower bound since it does not yet include all of the widely recognized and accepted impacts of climate change.

The details of the upcoming attack are still unclear. It’s possible that the Administration may end use of the uniform social cost of carbon estimate at the federal level—despite its rigorous basis and judicial precedent. Other indications suggest that the Administration may choose to artificially and arbitrarily discount the costs of climate change for the health and economic well-being of our kids, grandkids, and future generations—ignoring the growing consensus among economists that supports valuing these impacts more, as does a recent report from the Council of Economic Advisors. Or the Administration may decide to disregard the fact that our greenhouse gas pollution has harmful impacts outside U.S. borders that can have costly repercussions for Americans.

Throwing out the social cost of carbon may play well with President Trump’s supporters in the fossil fuel industry. But the importance and appropriateness of accounting for these costs is a matter of both economics and law. We also know that nearly two thirds of Americans are concerned about climate change. Undermining limits on pollution—protections that are rooted in rigorous scientific research, reflecting long-standing bipartisan economic principles—will ultimately harm the health and environmental safety of all Americans, including Trump’s supporters.

This blog was co-authored with Martha Roberts It’s reported that the Trump Administration is poised to continue its barrage of attacks on some of our most vital health and environmental protections, following last week’s assault on broadly supported fuel economy and greenhouse gas safeguards for cars and light trucks. Here’s one attack that they may […]

Environmental Defense Fund is working together with four local high schools on a new video contest about the value of clean air.

EDF is sponsoring the contest for students at four schools in Houston’s East End – Chavez, Furr, Galena Park and Milby.

Students at those schools can submit short videos about the health effects of air pollution in Houston. Winning videos will be eligible to receive prizes worth up to $2,500. Winning students will also have the opportunity to learn filmmaking, editing and post-production techniques from Houston-area filmmaking professionals.

 Student entry forms and video submission instructions are available at the participating schools.

• Click here for contact information
• Click here for research resources for students

The Challenge

In 2015, Houston experienced 44 days of unhealthy air quality. The region also continues to be unable to meet federal health-based air quality standards for ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog.

This is cause for concern. Poor air quality is associated with a range of adverse health effects, including respiratory diseases like asthma, stroke, heart disease, pre-term birth, and cancer.

The sources and distribution of air pollution vary geographically. For example, the 39 million Americans who live near ports (like Houstonians in the East End near the Ship Channel) may have a higher risk of exposure to harmful air pollution from diesel. That’s due to large volumes of diesel-fueled freight traffic and other port-related emissions, such as from ships docking at port and cargo-handling equipment. Emissions from industrial facilities such as petroleum refineries and power plants, as well as from traffic, can also contribute to poor air quality.

The Contest

A major challenge for community leaders working to protect health and improve air quality in the Houston area is a lack of information available to the public regarding the health effects of air pollution. This is especially true for communities living close to the Houston Ship Channel, in Houston’s East End.

Here is where local teens come in:

Students from Chavez, Furr, Galena Park and Milby High Schools are invited to submit a short video about the health effects of air pollution in Houston.

• Videos should be no longer than 3 minutes in length.
• Students must be currently enrolled at one of these four Houston-area high schools to participate in this competition.
• Bilingual videos are eligible and encouraged.

Winning Videos will receive prizes worth up to $2,500

• First Place Video: $2,500 Visa gift card
• Second Place Video: $1,500 Visa gift card
• Third Place Video: $500 Visa gift card

Winning students may also be eligible to learn filmmaking, editing and post-production techniques from Houston-area industry professionals.

All videos must be submitted to school contest coordinators by April 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM Central Time.

Environmental Defense Fund is working together with four local high schools on a new video contest about the value of clean air. EDF is sponsoring the contest for students at four schools in Houston’s East End – Chavez, Furr, Galena Park and Milby. Students at those schools can submit short videos about the health effects […]

By Mandy Warner

Wikimedia Commons

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) critical mission to protect health and the environment is strongly supported by the public, which is why it is incredibly alarming to see that President’s Trump’s new “skinny budget” would cut EPA’s funding by 31 percent.

Half of EPA’s budget goes to states, tribes, local agencies, and non-profits, which help carry out EPA’s lifesaving mission and provide significant benefits to communities in the process. EPA also provides essential technical guidance, assistance, scientific research, coordination, and more to help states and others protect health and the environment. Budget cuts to EPA would jeopardize Americans’ health and the safety of their communities.

In addition to the vital programs that protect our air and water, these are a few examples of programs that EPA oversees – and that are now at risk.

Cleaning Up Pollution from School Buses

School buses take 25 million American children to and from school every day. Many of these buses are old and their exhaust includes harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and toxics.

Children are particularly vulnerable to pollution given their faster breathing rates and developing respiratory systems. Exposure to this pollution can aggravate asthma and cause other health problems.

Newer diesel engines are 90 percent cleaner than the old ones, however. So EPA administers a program for school districts to help them fix the problem. School districts can apply for rebates to replace or retrofit older buses under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) – a broadly bi-partisan program enacted by Congress. More than 500 school districts applied for this program in 2016 and 88 school bus fleets from 27 states were selected. More than 400 older diesel buses will be retrofitted or replaced thanks to DERA.

The 2016 grant recipients include:

• Marana Unified School District #6 in Arizona, which received $465,000 to replace or retrofit 20 buses
• Three school districts in Michigan (Haslett, Hudsonville, and Whittemore) that received $180,000 for nine buses
• Three school districts in Pennsylvania (Carlisle, Glenmoore, and Philadelphia) that received $305,000 for 17 buses

The school bus program provides essential funding to school districts that need it. And we know that cleaning up buses is working – a recent study found that children in schools that had adopted cleaner fuels and technology were absent less and had improved lung function. Experts estimate that there are 250,000 older, dirtier school buses still in operation, indicating that we – and EPA – have much more work to do to protect children’s health.

(The school bus program is just one part of the DERA program to reduce diesel emissions. Find total DERA allocations to all states, from 2012-2016, here.)

Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem provides more than $100 billion in economic benefits each year to the region’s 18 million residents, yet has for years been threatened by air and water pollution.

The Chesapeake Bay Program, created in 1983, is a partnership of six states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia), the District of Columbia, the federal government, and numerous local governments and NGOs dedicated to restoring this iconic feature of the Mid-Atlantic.

EPA plays a vital coordination and technical advisory role for the Chesapeake Bay Program, setting goals and assisting local jurisdictions’ efforts to meet them. About two-thirds of the $70 million or so EPA dedicates to the Chesapeake Bay Program flows to state and local governments as grants.

Successful — yet ongoing — cleanup efforts include:

• Between 1985 and 2015, the Chesapeake Bay Program has reduced harmful nitrogen water pollution by 30 percent, phosphorus by 40 percent, and sediment by 25 percent.
• The outlook for fish and blue crab habitats, as well as key wetlands and underwater grasses, is also improving.
• A new agreement signed in 2014 launched a more robust, accelerated restoration pathway that is still being implemented and just starting to show signs of progress.

Budget cuts to the Chesapeake Bay Program would jeopardize these encouraging trends.

Cleaning up Brownfields and Toxic Sites

Brownfields – properties contaminated by a hazardous substance – present a significant challenge to communities.

There are almost half a million Brownfields sites across the country. EPA provides technical assistance and administers several grant programs for states, local governments, and tribes to clean these sites up, conduct assessments, do job training, develop plans for use of the properties, and more.

These projects not only protect a community’s health and citizens, they also provide valuable economic and societal benefits by bolstering redevelopment efforts in existing communities —turning abandoned properties and eyesores into engines for job creation and economic growth.

In fiscal year 2016, projects created $16.11 per EPA dollar expended. Brownfields projects have overall created more than 117,000 jobs nationwide and have been found to increase residential property values near a Brownfields site by as much as 15.2 percent when a cleanup is completed.

A few projects funded or completed include:

• $600,000 awarded for cleanup of a former tannery in Berwick, Maine. The vacant property was used for 100 years for leather tanning, woolen milling, and shoe and carriage manufacturing. Contaminants include VOCs, PAHs, and metals in soil and groundwater.
• In Shelby, Montana, a largely abandoned historic school building was assessed for environmental issues, and asbestos and lead were cleaned up as part of a $200,000 EPA grant. The school was turned into a community center and was estimated to create 15 permanent jobs.
• With $250,000 in EPA grant funding, the town of Fletcher, North Carolina turned a former log home manufacturing facility into a town hall. The project included clean-up of dioxin (a chemical that can cause reproductive and developmental problems and cancer) and pentachlorophenol (a chemical associated with cancer and other harmful impacts to human health).

According to EPA and U.S. Census data, approximately 104 million people (one-third of the U.S. population) live within three miles of a Brownfields site that received EPA funding, including more than one-third of all children under the age of five.

Reducing Lead

Thanks to the EPA's decades-long effort to address the threat of lead pollution, blood lead levels across the country have declined more than 90 percent since the mid-1970s (see this interactive EDF graphic to learn more about the policies that helped). These efforts have protected countless children from the lifelong burden of diminished IQ from early childhood lead exposure.

However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least four million households have children living in them who are still being exposed to high levels of lead —highlighting the need for continued EPA efforts and funding in this area.

Over the past five decades, EPA has worked to reduce or eliminate the use of lead in gasoline, paint, plumbing pipes, and soil. EPA provides lead reduction grants to states, territories, and tribes to help them implement programs to mitigate lead-based paint in homes. EPA also conducts extensive outreach to educate the public about the health risks of lead exposure, and manages a national certification program for contractors who work on homes containing lead. Last year, EPA took more than 100 enforcement actions to require property managers and contractors to protect vulnerable communities from the dangers of lead.

<image001.jpg>

A few examples of funded EPA programs include:

• $243,007 awarded to the Arkansas Department of Health to administer and enforce the state's lead based paint program, which will support training for lead inspectors and lead enforcement activities, and will help protect children from lead poisoning.
• One of EPA’s regional offices (representing Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico and 66 tribes) provided $898,384 in grants for work on lead abatement programs,  which include providing training for lead inspectors, conducting outreach, conducting inspections of contractors engaged in lead-based paint abatement activities, and enforcement action.
• The Ohio Department of Health was awarded more than $55,000 to develop and refine its state lead licensing program and almost $375,000 to administer its lead accreditation and certification program in FY 2016.

These programs are just a small snapshot of the lifesaving programs EPA implements to protect public health. Programs like these could be completely eliminated or severely cut if the “skinny budget” is adopted by Congress.

By Mandy Warner

Wikimedia Commons

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) critical mission to protect health and the environment is strongly supported by the public, which is why it is incredibly alarming to see that President’s Trump’s new “skinny budget” would cut EPA’s funding by 31 percent.

Half of EPA’s budget goes to states, tribes, local agencies, and non-profits, which help carry out EPA’s lifesaving mission and provide significant benefits to communities in the process. EPA also provides essential technical guidance, assistance, scientific research, coordination, and more to help states and others protect health and the environment. Budget cuts to EPA would jeopardize Americans’ health and the safety of their communities.

In addition to the vital programs that protect our air and water, these are a few examples of programs that EPA oversees – and that are now at risk.

Cleaning Up Pollution from School Buses

School buses take 25 million American children to and from school every day. Many of these buses are old and their exhaust includes harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and toxics.

Children are particularly vulnerable to pollution given their faster breathing rates and developing respiratory systems. Exposure to this pollution can aggravate asthma and cause other health problems.

Newer diesel engines are 90 percent cleaner than the old ones, however. So EPA administers a program for school districts to help them fix the problem. School districts can apply for rebates to replace or retrofit older buses under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) – a broadly bi-partisan program enacted by Congress. More than 500 school districts applied for this program in 2016 and 88 school bus fleets from 27 states were selected. More than 400 older diesel buses will be retrofitted or replaced thanks to DERA.

The 2016 grant recipients include:

• Marana Unified School District #6 in Arizona, which received $465,000 to replace or retrofit 20 buses
• Three school districts in Michigan (Haslett, Hudsonville, and Whittemore) that received $180,000 for nine buses
• Three school districts in Pennsylvania (Carlisle, Glenmoore, and Philadelphia) that received $305,000 for 17 buses

The school bus program provides essential funding to school districts that need it. And we know that cleaning up buses is working – a recent study found that children in schools that had adopted cleaner fuels and technology were absent less and had improved lung function. Experts estimate that there are 250,000 older, dirtier school buses still in operation, indicating that we – and EPA – have much more work to do to protect children’s health.

(The school bus program is just one part of the DERA program to reduce diesel emissions. Find total DERA allocations to all states, from 2012-2016, here.)

Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem provides more than $100 billion in economic benefits each year to the region’s 18 million residents, yet has for years been threatened by air and water pollution.

The Chesapeake Bay Program, created in 1983, is a partnership of six states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia), the District of Columbia, the federal government, and numerous local governments and NGOs dedicated to restoring this iconic feature of the Mid-Atlantic.

EPA plays a vital coordination and technical advisory role for the Chesapeake Bay Program, setting goals and assisting local jurisdictions’ efforts to meet them. About two-thirds of the $70 million or so EPA dedicates to the Chesapeake Bay Program flows to state and local governments as grants.

Successful — yet ongoing — cleanup efforts include:

• Between 1985 and 2015, the Chesapeake Bay Program has reduced harmful nitrogen water pollution by 30 percent, phosphorus by 40 percent, and sediment by 25 percent.
• The outlook for fish and blue crab habitats, as well as key wetlands and underwater grasses, is also improving.
• A new agreement signed in 2014 launched a more robust, accelerated restoration pathway that is still being implemented and just starting to show signs of progress.

Budget cuts to the Chesapeake Bay Program would jeopardize these encouraging trends.

Cleaning up Brownfields and Toxic Sites

Brownfields – properties contaminated by a hazardous substance – present a significant challenge to communities.

There are almost half a million Brownfields sites across the country. EPA provides technical assistance and administers several grant programs for states, local governments, and tribes to clean these sites up, conduct assessments, do job training, develop plans for use of the properties, and more.

These projects not only protect a community’s health and citizens, they also provide valuable economic and societal benefits by bolstering redevelopment efforts in existing communities —turning abandoned properties and eyesores into engines for job creation and economic growth.

In fiscal year 2016, projects created $16.11 per EPA dollar expended. Brownfields projects have overall created more than 117,000 jobs nationwide and have been found to increase residential property values near a Brownfields site by as much as 15.2 percent when a cleanup is completed.

A few projects funded or completed include:

• $600,000 awarded for cleanup of a former tannery in Berwick, Maine. The vacant property was used for 100 years for leather tanning, woolen milling, and shoe and carriage manufacturing. Contaminants include VOCs, PAHs, and metals in soil and groundwater.
• In Shelby, Montana, a largely abandoned historic school building was assessed for environmental issues, and asbestos and lead were cleaned up as part of a $200,000 EPA grant. The school was turned into a community center and was estimated to create 15 permanent jobs.
• With $250,000 in EPA grant funding, the town of Fletcher, North Carolina turned a former log home manufacturing facility into a town hall. The project included clean-up of dioxin (a chemical that can cause reproductive and developmental problems and cancer) and pentachlorophenol (a chemical associated with cancer and other harmful impacts to human health).

According to EPA and U.S. Census data, approximately 104 million people (one-third of the U.S. population) live within three miles of a Brownfields site that received EPA funding, including more than one-third of all children under the age of five.

Reducing Lead

Thanks to the EPA's decades-long effort to address the threat of lead pollution, blood lead levels across the country have declined more than 90 percent since the mid-1970s (see this interactive EDF graphic to learn more about the policies that helped). These efforts have protected countless children from the lifelong burden of diminished IQ from early childhood lead exposure.

However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least four million households have children living in them who are still being exposed to high levels of lead —highlighting the need for continued EPA efforts and funding in this area.

Over the past five decades, EPA has worked to reduce or eliminate the use of lead in gasoline, paint, plumbing pipes, and soil. EPA provides lead reduction grants to states, territories, and tribes to help them implement programs to mitigate lead-based paint in homes. EPA also conducts extensive outreach to educate the public about the health risks of lead exposure, and manages a national certification program for contractors who work on homes containing lead. Last year, EPA took more than 100 enforcement actions to require property managers and contractors to protect vulnerable communities from the dangers of lead.

<image001.jpg>

A few examples of funded EPA programs include:

• $243,007 awarded to the Arkansas Department of Health to administer and enforce the state's lead based paint program, which will support training for lead inspectors and lead enforcement activities, and will help protect children from lead poisoning.
• One of EPA’s regional offices (representing Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico and 66 tribes) provided $898,384 in grants for work on lead abatement programs,  which include providing training for lead inspectors, conducting outreach, conducting inspections of contractors engaged in lead-based paint abatement activities, and enforcement action.
• The Ohio Department of Health was awarded more than $55,000 to develop and refine its state lead licensing program and almost $375,000 to administer its lead accreditation and certification program in FY 2016.

These programs are just a small snapshot of the lifesaving programs EPA implements to protect public health. Programs like these could be completely eliminated or severely cut if the “skinny budget” is adopted by Congress.

Written by Molly Rauch

This week, Moms Clean Air Force supported the launch of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, a group of 11 medical societies representing half of the nation’s doctors. The mission of the consortium is to raise awareness about the health impacts of climate change and the health benefits of reducing fossil fuel consumption.

The consortium’s first report, Health Alert!, shows how the health impacts of climate change differ by region. Wildfires are a major health threat in the west, for example, and mosquito- and tick-borne infections are a greater problem for the eastern states. But serious health threats are spread throughout the country, making this a health issue for all Americans. The consortium affirms that unless we take action, these health problems will get worse.

Molly Rauch, Moms Clean Air Force Health and Policy Director, at the launch for the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.

I spoke as a patient voice at the launch event, and had the opportunity to tell my story as well as explain why moms are so eager to have health professionals across the country as partners in the fight against climate change. Here is an excerpt from my comments:

As any parent of a school age child knows, asthma is a national epidemic. At my children’s elementary school in DC, the school nurse has two hanging shoe racks covering one wall, which she uses to organize inhalers and treatment plans for the many, many students with asthma. Each of those little shoe-sized compartments represents a child who sometimes needs medicine to be able to breathe.

Parents know that asthma is a complex disease that can have multiple causes and triggers. But we also want the full picture. If air pollution is one of the factors contributing to asthma, and climate change will exacerbate that air pollution, we want to know about it.

I remember visiting a doctor about 10 years ago for some respiratory problems. I was coughing, and I couldn’t catch my breath. I had had bronchitis, but I couldn’t seem to get better even after treatment. My doctor told me I needed an inhaler. Did I have asthma? He shrugged – he wasn’t sure, he said, but the inhaler would make me feel better. Why had I developed these problems? He shrugged – he wasn’t sure, but the inhaler would make me feel better.

The inhaler did give me relief, and it’s something I still use a couple times a year. But it took several months for me to realize that my symptoms flare up on high ozone days – something we have a lot of here in DC.

I wish my doctor had talked to me about the role of air pollution in my lung health, because as a patient, I want to know why. And as a parent, that becomes even more important to me. It’s not just that I want to know why, I actually need to know why, so I can take good care of my children.

Taking good care of my children means not only limiting screen time and making sure they wear a bike helmet – things that are relatively easy for me as an individual to take care of in my home. It also means demanding solutions to climate change from our lawmakers and policymakers, something that’s much harder to do, but just as important for my children’s health and future.

And just like our healthcare providers talk to us about screen time and bike helmets, we want them to talk to us about the risks of unabated fossil fuel consumption.

One of the things we’ve learned from our work with moms across the country, is that parents are hungry for information about how climate change and pollution impacts our families.

We want information about climate change, even if there’s no specific medical cure to this problem. When doctors share information about the health impacts of climate change, they are helping moms and dads everywhere become better parents.

WATCH the panel discussion here.

Map: Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Congress is taking aim at the bears and wolves protected in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. Regional. C4.

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

(Left to right) Reps.Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) lead the Republican climate resolution.

Just when you think that the environmental conversation is going down the drain (think climate deniers in the Presidential cabinet and budget cuts designed to gut the EPA), a group of Republican Congressional members have joined forces to put forth a resolution “expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to conservative environmental stewardship.”

The action is spearheaded by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (FLA), Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY), and Rep. Ryan Costello (PA). The lawmakers were joined by fourteen other Members of Congress: Reps. Mark Amodei (NV), Don Bacon (NE), Barbara Comstock (VA), John Faso (NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), John Katko (NY), Mia Love (UT), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Brian Mast (FL), Pat Meehan (PA), Tom Reed (NY), David Reichert (WA), and Mark Sanford (SC).

I read a copy of the resolution. Taking away the governmental language of “Whereas” to introduce its top points, the document was well-defined and straightforward.

The opening paragraph was clear about aligning “conservative principles” with stewardship of the environment, planning responsibly for “all market factors, and most importantly — basing “policy decisions in science and quantifiable facts on the ground.”

There is a definitive recognition of the “critical responsibility” of those in a position to make a difference, to ensure that future generations have a shot at a livable planet.

An outline of extensive ramifications of climate change are enumerated, including extreme weather, heat waves, rising sea levels, and the disruption of insect, plant, and wildlife cycles.

A specific reference was made to “human health impacts” including “elevated asthma” in children and a greater degree of mercury in fish.

I found it extremely encouraging that there was an elevation of the connection between climate disruption and national security — specifically potential political instability.

Environmental justice issues were embraced via a recognition of “vulnerable populations” being gravely impacted.

The resolution clarifies that actions “should not constrain the United States economy.” I interpreted this to mean that there is not conflict between taking actions and the fiscal well-being of the country. This was reinforced by the following statement outlining the need to “take meaningful and responsible action now to address this issue.” (The call for “economically viable” solutions may find a varying definition, but the tenor of the resolution is extremely proactive.)

I reached out to Representative Stefanik and Representative Love for feedback on their initiative. They each responded via email:

Rep. Stefanik: “I am pleased to introduce this resolution with so many of my Republican colleagues and I thank them for their support on this effort. Clean energy innovation is key to addressing the serious issue of climate change. This resolution brings together the priority of addressing the risks of climate change with the importance of protecting and creating American jobs. Innovation and clean energy are key to solving both.”

Rep. Love: “I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of this resolution, which formally reiterates what I have previously expressed:  We can simultaneously commit to responsible environmental stewardship and a strong economy. I believe that this is the conservative ideal, and I look forward to engaging with my colleagues in crafting appropriate solutions that both preserve the beauty around us and create economic opportunity.”

Scientists, faith leaders, conservative groups, the military, joined large and grassroots environmental groups, by reacting swiftly and positively to the resolution. The top takeaway was that climate disruption should not be a partisan issue.

It’s an exciting start.

On March 13, Co-Chairs of the Climate Solutions Caucus and the Safe Climate Caucus wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. They requested that he stay vigilant in advocating for America’s involvement as a leader and a stakeholder in the Paris agreement.

Let’s hope the Trump administration listens closely to his fellow Republican lawmakers who are dealing with the reality of an impending climate crisis that will affect millions of American families.

Photo: U.S. Congress

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Written by Dominique Browning

DETROIT, US – JANUARY 9,2017: Bill Ford introduces the new F150 during the North American International Auto Show

 

“I don’t know if a company can have a soul, but I like to think it can. And if it can, then I’d like our soul to be an old soul — and everything that implies. I like to talk about things like values and soul. These things aren’t transient. These are things you build forever.” Bill Ford, Chair, Ford Motor Company

***

I first became aware of Bill Ford, grandson of the founder of the company and its current chair, when my friend, architect Bill McDonough, began to work with the company on its new River Rouge facility. The goal was to make the plant as “green” and energy efficient as possible, experimenting with building methods and materials even on down to the carpeting and curtains, making them almost edible, and certainly compostable. Bill Ford had recently dragged Ford Motor out of a large coalition of climate deniers. I was impressed with his vision and dedication.

But this week, Bill Ford came out against fuel standards for cars, supporting Trump’s effort to dismantle the money-saving, health-protecting, energy-independence-building program. What happened to Bill Ford’s soul?

A few days ago, Trump went to Detroit to announce a rollback of EPA’s Clean Car Standards—the fuel efficiency standards that guide car makers. Because of these standards, we save money by not having to make as many trips to the gas station; our cars, including SUVs, go further with each gallon of gas. These standards help push us to energy independence by reducing oil consumption. To top it off, these standards have helped clean up our air, protecting our health. Why would we want to put these protections into reverse gear?

Automakers complained about MPG standards, as they always complain about new protections—they also claimed business would be destroyed by seat belts; they also fought catalytic converters; they also hated the Clean Air Act. Yet, so far the investment in new, more efficient car and fuel technology has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Bill Ford noted as recently as 2015, in his annual report, that Ford was seeing “record profits” after American taxpayers bailed them out in 2008.

The Clean Car Standards, finalized in 2012, clearly didn’t harm his company’s profits. So where’s Bill Ford now? Was all his environmental concern over the River Rouge plant just a way to have fun with design?

I’m sickened by the complete lack of leadership in the auto industry in attacking climate pollution; this is an industry that has contributed a huge amount to the carbon buildup in our atmosphere.

Why isn’t Ford standing up and saying: OK, we don’t like this way of regulating efficiency. But we do know that we are facing an urgent and destructive problem. So here’s our plan. Here’s what we will do to help cut climate pollution.

President Trump’s announcement about cars is just another step down his radical Path of Destruction. So far, this administration has not made a single constructive move in protecting the health and wellbeing of Americans. Trump is all about dismantle, deny, destroy: end health protections; stop talking about climate pollution; kill rules against fracking pollution; abolish the Chemical Safety Board; halt NASA work. He is proposing a budget that cripples the work of the Environmental Protection Agency—including killing the Energy Star program that saves us money on efficient appliances, killing clean-up of the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, and many other programs that keep our air and water clean.

Reality, whether in business or love, science or politics, will eventually trump denial. Polluters and their political cronies can deny climate science, but climate systems will respond to our pollution. That’s why —in contrast to the auto industry — the world’s largest investment manager, BlackRock, responsible for $5 trillion of other people’s money, recently made the stunning announcement that “climate risk disclosure” would be one of a handful of priorities they would use to evaluate companies. This will not be ignored in top-floor executive suites.

Trump, Pence, Pruitt, Inhofe, the Koch Brothers and a legion of others are doing everything they can to confuse Americans about climate science—and to stop all progress against climate pollution. It is dispiriting, and infuriating, to watch corporate leaders bow down before this nonsense, and allow it to go unchallenged.

We are in a battle to protect our children’s future. Bill Ford has talked a good game about values—and I used to admire that. But talk is cheap. An old soul cares about the world we will leave behind for our children.

Where’s Bill Ford’s soul now? Where is the corporate leadership we need?

TAKE OUR POLL: DOES FORD STANDING WITH TRUMP ON REDUCING CLEAN CAR STANDARDS IMPACT YOUR CAR BUYING DECISION?

Photo: Ed Aldridge / Shutterstock.com

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

FirstEnergy’s in a ZEN mood in Ohio. Our newest newsletter: ow.ly/WePa309YEne

By EDF Blogs

By Joe Rudek and David Lyon

A new peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that methane emissions from natural gas power plants and oil refineries may be significantly higher than accounted for in current inventories. The report estimates average hourly methane emissions 11 to 90 times higher for refineries, and 21 to 120 times higher for natural gas power plants than those calculated from data provided by facility operators to Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

By multiplying total CO2 emitted annually by all US natural gas power plants and refineries (as tallied by EPA) by the methane-to-CO2 emission ratio determined in the study, the authors estimate yearly methane emissions from the nation’s refineries and gas-fired power plants are twenty times higher than currently reported.

The new findings are important, because methane – the main ingredient in natural gas – is a powerful contributor to short term climate change.  Methane lost to the atmosphere is also a waste of a valuable energy resource.

Researchers from Purdue University flew an airborne chemistry laboratory over natural gas-fueled power plants and refineries to measure greenhouse emissions, using a mass balance technique to quantify methane and carbon dioxide emissions at three natural gas power plants and three refineries. Although the results are based on a relatively small number of samples, the findings point out a need for more focus on leak detection and repair efforts.

Surprising Result

Most of the methane emissions were associated not with the CO2 plumes from the combustion stacks, but rather from other parts of the facilities (such as compressors, steam turbines, stream boilers and condensers), which indicates that natural gas is leaking before it is burned to generate power. The combustion stack sources, which the EPA GHG Inventory currently estimates to have only minor emissions, may actually contribute only about ten- to twenty percent of the total methane emissions from the facility.

Reasons for the variation in hourly rates are not known, but there was a strong correlation between power plant operating capacity during the time of measurement (as indicated by hourly EPA Air Markets Program Data) and the methane and CO2 emissions rates measured in this study.

What does this mean for natural gas?

Natural gas has been touted as a cleaner replacement fuel for coal, and is an important tool in moving to a lower-carbon energy mix. Power plants currently use more than one third of natural gas consumed in the US and the volume used is expected to increase as market forces drive the replacement of coal with cheaper natural gas. But if natural gas is going to deliver on its promise, methane emissions due to leaks, venting, and flaring need to be kept to a minimum. Finding and fixing leaks from all points in the oil and gas value chain continue to offer the most bang for the buck in achieving this goal.

Next steps

While the findings are based on a small data set, they do show the potential for significant emissions not recognized in official inventories. Some additional natural gas power plant emission measurements are currently being made by the Purdue researchers who published this report. But more measurements will be needed to understand if the findings are representative of the industry profile.

Those measurements and others would be greatly improved if done in collaboration with industry to correlate emissions with plant operations and possibly with onsite measurements.

Along with the potential of higher emissions shown in this report, comes the potential to reduce waste from natural gas value chain and eliminate more of the dangers from methane pollution. EDF has coordinated a number of studies over the last few years with industry leaders resulting in the measurement of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain from the well through gathering and processing to distribution. We invite leaders in the power and refinery sectors to collaborate with us and our partners to gather more data and innovate solutions.

 

By EDF Blogs

By Joe Rudek and David Lyon

A new peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that methane emissions from natural gas power plants and oil refineries may be significantly higher than accounted for in current inventories. The report estimates average hourly methane emissions 11 to 90 times higher for refineries, and 21 to 120 times higher for natural gas power plants than those calculated from data provided by facility operators to Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

By multiplying total CO2 emitted annually by all US natural gas power plants and refineries (as tallied by EPA) by the methane-to-CO2 emission ratio determined in the study, the authors estimate yearly methane emissions from the nation’s refineries and gas-fired power plants are twenty times higher than currently reported.

The new findings are important, because methane – the main ingredient in natural gas – is a powerful contributor to short term climate change.  Methane lost to the atmosphere is also a waste of a valuable energy resource.

Researchers from Purdue University flew an airborne chemistry laboratory over natural gas-fueled power plants and refineries to measure greenhouse emissions, using a mass balance technique to quantify methane and carbon dioxide emissions at three natural gas power plants and three refineries. Although the results are based on a relatively small number of samples, the findings point out a need for more focus on leak detection and repair efforts.

Surprising Result

Most of the methane emissions were associated not with the CO2 plumes from the combustion stacks, but rather from other parts of the facilities (such as compressors, steam turbines, stream boilers and condensers), which indicates that natural gas is leaking before it is burned to generate power. The combustion stack sources, which the EPA GHG Inventory currently estimates to have only minor emissions, may actually contribute only about ten- to twenty percent of the total methane emissions from the facility.

Reasons for the variation in hourly rates are not known, but there was a strong correlation between power plant operating capacity during the time of measurement (as indicated by hourly EPA Air Markets Program Data) and the methane and CO2 emissions rates measured in this study.

What does this mean for natural gas?

Natural gas has been touted as a cleaner replacement fuel for coal, and is an important tool in moving to a lower-carbon energy mix. Power plants currently use more than one third of natural gas consumed in the US and the volume used is expected to increase as market forces drive the replacement of coal with cheaper natural gas. But if natural gas is going to deliver on its promise, methane emissions due to leaks, venting, and flaring need to be kept to a minimum. Finding and fixing leaks from all points in the oil and gas value chain continue to offer the most bang for the buck in achieving this goal.

Next steps

While the findings are based on a small data set, they do show the potential for significant emissions not recognized in official inventories. Some additional natural gas power plant emission measurements are currently being made by the Purdue researchers who published this report. But more measurements will be needed to understand if the findings are representative of the industry profile.

Those measurements and others would be greatly improved if done in collaboration with industry to correlate emissions with plant operations and possibly with onsite measurements.

Along with the potential of higher emissions shown in this report, comes the potential to reduce waste from natural gas value chain and eliminate more of the dangers from methane pollution. EDF has coordinated a number of studies over the last few years with industry leaders resulting in the measurement of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain from the well through gathering and processing to distribution. We invite leaders in the power and refinery sectors to collaborate with us and our partners to gather more data and innovate solutions.

 

By EDF Blogs

By Joe Rudek and David Lyon

A new peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that methane emissions from natural gas power plants and oil refineries may be significantly higher than accounted for in current inventories. The report estimates average hourly methane emissions 11 to 90 times higher for refineries, and 21 to 120 times higher for natural gas power plants than those calculated from data provided by facility operators to Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

By multiplying total CO2 emitted annually by all US natural gas power plants and refineries (as tallied by EPA) by the methane-to-CO2 emission ratio determined in the study, the authors estimate yearly methane emissions from the nation’s refineries and gas-fired power plants are twenty times higher than currently reported.

The new findings are important, because methane – the main ingredient in natural gas – is a powerful contributor to short term climate change.  Methane lost to the atmosphere is also a waste of a valuable energy resource.

Researchers from Purdue University flew an airborne chemistry laboratory over natural gas-fueled power plants and refineries to measure greenhouse emissions, using a mass balance technique to quantify methane and carbon dioxide emissions at three natural gas power plants and three refineries. Although the results are based on a relatively small number of samples, the findings point out a need for more focus on leak detection and repair efforts.

Surprising Result

Most of the methane emissions were associated not with the CO2 plumes from the combustion stacks, but rather from other parts of the facilities (such as compressors, steam turbines, stream boilers and condensers), which indicates that natural gas is leaking before it is burned to generate power. The combustion stack sources, which the EPA GHG Inventory currently estimates to have only minor emissions, may actually contribute only about ten- to twenty percent of the total methane emissions from the facility.

Reasons for the variation in hourly rates are not known, but there was a strong correlation between power plant operating capacity during the time of measurement (as indicated by hourly EPA Air Markets Program Data) and the methane and CO2 emissions rates measured in this study.

What does this mean for natural gas?

Natural gas has been touted as a cleaner replacement fuel for coal, and is an important tool in moving to a lower-carbon energy mix. Power plants currently use more than one third of natural gas consumed in the US and the volume used is expected to increase as market forces drive the replacement of coal with cheaper natural gas. But if natural gas is going to deliver on its promise, methane emissions due to leaks, venting, and flaring need to be kept to a minimum. Finding and fixing leaks from all points in the oil and gas value chain continue to offer the most bang for the buck in achieving this goal.

Next steps

While the findings are based on a small data set, they do show the potential for significant emissions not recognized in official inventories. Some additional natural gas power plant emission measurements are currently being made by the Purdue researchers who published this report. But more measurements will be needed to understand if the findings are representative of the industry profile.

Those measurements and others would be greatly improved if done in collaboration with industry to correlate emissions with plant operations and possibly with onsite measurements.

Along with the potential of higher emissions shown in this report, comes the potential to reduce waste from natural gas value chain and eliminate more of the dangers from methane pollution. EDF has coordinated a number of studies over the last few years with industry leaders resulting in the measurement of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain from the well through gathering and processing to distribution. We invite leaders in the power and refinery sectors to collaborate with us and our partners to gather more data and innovate solutions.