By Irene Burga

For decades communities in California who live close to oil and gas facilities have reported experiencing unbearable odors of gas, headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and even cardiac complications as a result of the industry’s emissions. The health impacts of oil and gas pollution were made crystal clear last year after a massive gas leak at a Southern California storage facility led to mass hospitalizations and forced hundreds of families to evacuate their homes.

But massive gas leaks like the one at Aliso Canyon aren’t the only cause for alarm. A string of new reports confirm what many concerned communities have known for years: oil and gas emissions from across the entire supply chain can wreak havoc on our health, and are often higher than experts previously thought.
Toxic chemicals, many sources

One report from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) looked at data collected from 39 different production facilities across the state. Of the 211 different gas leaks recorded, nearly half of them included the cancer-causing chemical benzene. According to the Centers for Disease Control, chronic exposure to this toxic carcinogen can also cause leukemia, blood disorders and reproductive problems. High levels can affect the central nervous system and even lead to death. While it is unclear from the report whether the leaks occurred near residential areas, the frequency at which toxic chemicals were measured is concerning.

This is not solely a problem at production facilities. A separate CARB study focused on emissions from the ponds where drillers store wastewater that comes from oil extraction. According to the report, some California wastewater ponds emit substantial levels of toxic air contaminants like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. This is problematic  given that California allows some of this wastewater to be directly injected into aquifers that millions of Californians rely on for drinking water.

Emissions are higher than we thought

Not only are researchers finding toxic emissions coming from all segments of the supply chain, they are also measuring emissions at higher levels than previously estimated.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District, for example, conducted mobile monitoring around six different refineries and crude oil processing facilities in the South Coast air basin in 2016. In the study, they measured smog-forming pollutants at levels that were up to 12 times greater than what refineries reported to local officials. Smog and other types of air pollution reportedly kill more than 5.5 million people a year. These higher-than-expected levels of pollution not only threaten public health, it also verifies that the manner in which emissions have been reported may be inadequate and misleading.

Additionally, a 2017 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study found that methane emissions in California’s Bay Area are approximately twice as high as previously believed. While, not a direct threat to our health, this is particularly troubling news for our climate since methane is responsible for about a quarter of current global warming.

Emissions from transmission and distribution pipelines, as well as natural gas storage facilities, also are higher than previously reported according to a report commissioned by CARB and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The report finds that methane emissions increased 70% from 2014 to 2015 – most likely due to better reporting requirements and the use of new technology to find gas leaks that had been persisting all along.

Using the data to deliver results through smart regulations

California has made good faith efforts to try to fight dangerous emissions. The state’s signature climate legislation, SB 32 and its predecessor AB 32, aims to reduce 40% of California’s climate pollution by the year 2030, and part of that plan includes recommendations for oil and gas utilities to reduce emissions from leaky pipelines. According to CARB’s Scoping Plan, refineries may also be required to reduce emissions by 20%.

This progress is promising but there is more to do, especially since the impacts of runaway emissions can persist over time. Case in point: months after the Aliso Canyon leak was plugged, researchers detected trace levels of benzene, toluene and xylene in the air. Researchers also found traces of barium in the dust at homes near the leak. When combined, these chemicals may have produced symptoms like headaches, nausea, and nose-bleeds reported months after the incident occurred.

The fact that we continue to find toxic pollutants with such frequency near oil and gas facilities should be an alarm bell to the leaders in Congress who are trying to strip away protections that could directly benefit public health.  It should also signal to CARB and the CPUC the need to finalize strong policies that reduce methane emissions and co-pollutants like benzene from the vast majority of oil and gas facilities and pipelines across the state. We’ve seen the data, now we must put it to work.

 

By Irene Burga

For decades communities in California who live close to oil and gas facilities have reported experiencing unbearable odors of gas, headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and even cardiac complications as a result of the industry’s emissions. The health impacts of oil and gas pollution were made crystal clear last year after a massive gas leak at a Southern California storage facility led to mass hospitalizations and forced hundreds of families to evacuate their homes.

But massive gas leaks like the one at Aliso Canyon aren’t the only cause for alarm. A string of new reports confirm what many concerned communities have known for years: oil and gas emissions from across the entire supply chain can wreak havoc on our health, and are often higher than experts previously thought.
Toxic chemicals, many sources

One report from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) looked at data collected from 39 different production facilities across the state. Of the 211 different gas leaks recorded, nearly half of them included the cancer-causing chemical benzene. According to the Centers for Disease Control, chronic exposure to this toxic carcinogen can also cause leukemia, blood disorders and reproductive problems. High levels can affect the central nervous system and even lead to death. While it is unclear from the report whether the leaks occurred near residential areas, the frequency at which toxic chemicals were measured is concerning.

This is not solely a problem at production facilities. A separate CARB study focused on emissions from the ponds where drillers store wastewater that comes from oil extraction. According to the report, some California wastewater ponds emit substantial levels of toxic air contaminants like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. This is problematic  given that California allows some of this wastewater to be directly injected into aquifers that millions of Californians rely on for drinking water.

Emissions are higher than we thought

Not only are researchers finding toxic emissions coming from all segments of the supply chain, they are also measuring emissions at higher levels than previously estimated.

In one recent study, methane emissions from three different refineries were anywhere from 11 to 90 times higher than what had been reported to the federal government.  In another study  the South Coast Air Quality Management District conducted mobile monitoring around six different refineries and crude oil processing facilities in the South Coast air basin in 2016. In the study, they measured smog-forming pollutants at levels that were up to 12 times greater than what refineries reported to local officials. Smog and other types of air pollution reportedly kill more than 5.5 million people a year. These higher-than-expected levels of pollution not only threaten public health, it also verifies that the manner in which emissions have been reported may be inadequate and misleading.

Additionally, a 2017 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study found that methane emissions in California’s Bay Area are approximately twice as high as previously believed. While, not a direct threat to our health, this is particularly troubling news for our climate since methane is responsible for about a quarter of current global warming.

Emissions from transmission and distribution pipelines, as well as natural gas storage facilities, also are higher than previously reported according to a report commissioned by CARB and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The report finds that methane emissions increased 70% from 2014 to 2015 – most likely due to better reporting requirements and the use of new technology to find gas leaks that had been persisting all along.

Using the data to deliver results through smart regulations

California has made good faith efforts to try to fight dangerous emissions. The state’s signature climate legislation, SB 32 and its predecessor AB 32, aims to reduce 40% of California’s climate pollution by the year 2030, and part of that plan includes recommendations for oil and gas utilities to reduce emissions from leaky pipelines. According to CARB’s Scoping Plan, refineries may also be required to reduce emissions by 20%.

This progress is promising but there is more to do, especially since the impacts of runaway emissions can persist over time. Case in point: months after the Aliso Canyon leak was plugged, researchers detected trace levels of benzene, toluene and xylene in the air. Researchers also found traces of barium in the dust at homes near the leak. When combined, these chemicals may have produced symptoms like headaches, nausea, and nose-bleeds reported months after the incident occurred.

The fact that we continue to find toxic pollutants with such frequency near oil and gas facilities should be an alarm bell to the leaders in Congress who are trying to strip away protections that could directly benefit public health.  It should also signal to CARB and the CPUC the need to finalize strong policies that reduce methane emissions and co-pollutants like benzene from the vast majority of oil and gas facilities and pipelines across the state. We’ve seen the data, now we must put it to work.

 

By Irene Burga

For decades communities in California who live close to oil and gas facilities have reported experiencing unbearable odors of gas, headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and even cardiac complications as a result of the industry’s emissions. The health impacts of oil and gas pollution were made crystal clear last year after a massive gas leak at a Southern California storage facility led to mass hospitalizations and forced hundreds of families to evacuate their homes.

But massive gas leaks like the one at Aliso Canyon aren’t the only cause for alarm. A string of new reports confirm what many concerned communities have known for years: oil and gas emissions from across the entire supply chain can wreak havoc on our health, and are often higher than experts previously thought.
Toxic chemicals, many sources

One report from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) looked at data collected from 39 different production facilities across the state. Of the 211 different gas leaks recorded, nearly half of them included the cancer-causing chemical benzene. According to the Centers for Disease Control, chronic exposure to this toxic carcinogen can also cause leukemia, blood disorders and reproductive problems. High levels can affect the central nervous system and even lead to death. While it is unclear from the report whether the leaks occurred near residential areas, the frequency at which toxic chemicals were measured is concerning.

This is not solely a problem at production facilities. A separate CARB study focused on emissions from the ponds where drillers store wastewater that comes from oil extraction. According to the report, some California wastewater ponds emit substantial levels of toxic air contaminants like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. This is problematic  given that California allows some of this wastewater to be directly injected into aquifers that millions of Californians rely on for drinking water.

Emissions are higher than we thought

Not only are researchers finding toxic emissions coming from all segments of the supply chain, they are also measuring emissions at higher levels than previously estimated.

In one recent study, methane emissions from three different refineries were anywhere from 11 to 90 times higher than what had been reported to the federal government.  In another study  the South Coast Air Quality Management District conducted mobile monitoring around six different refineries and crude oil processing facilities in the South Coast air basin in 2016. In the study, they measured smog-forming pollutants at levels that were up to 12 times greater than what refineries reported to local officials. Smog and other types of air pollution reportedly kill more than 5.5 million people a year. These higher-than-expected levels of pollution not only threaten public health, it also verifies that the manner in which emissions have been reported may be inadequate and misleading.

Additionally, a 2017 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study found that methane emissions in California’s Bay Area are approximately twice as high as previously believed. While, not a direct threat to our health, this is particularly troubling news for our climate since methane is responsible for about a quarter of current global warming.

Emissions from transmission and distribution pipelines, as well as natural gas storage facilities, also are higher than previously reported according to a report commissioned by CARB and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The report finds that methane emissions increased 70% from 2014 to 2015 – most likely due to better reporting requirements and the use of new technology to find gas leaks that had been persisting all along.

Using the data to deliver results through smart regulations

California has made good faith efforts to try to fight dangerous emissions. The state’s signature climate legislation, SB 32 and its predecessor AB 32, aims to reduce 40% of California’s climate pollution by the year 2030, and part of that plan includes recommendations for oil and gas utilities to reduce emissions from leaky pipelines. According to CARB’s Scoping Plan, refineries may also be required to reduce emissions by 20%.

This progress is promising but there is more to do, especially since the impacts of runaway emissions can persist over time. Case in point: months after the Aliso Canyon leak was plugged, researchers detected trace levels of benzene, toluene and xylene in the air. Researchers also found traces of barium in the dust at homes near the leak. When combined, these chemicals may have produced symptoms like headaches, nausea, and nose-bleeds reported months after the incident occurred.

The fact that we continue to find toxic pollutants with such frequency near oil and gas facilities should be an alarm bell to the leaders in Congress who are trying to strip away protections that could directly benefit public health.  It should also signal to CARB and the CPUC the need to finalize strong policies that reduce methane emissions and co-pollutants like benzene from the vast majority of oil and gas facilities and pipelines across the state. We’ve seen the data, now we must put it to work.

 

By Irene Burga

For decades communities in California who live close to oil and gas facilities have reported experiencing unbearable odors of gas, headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and even cardiac complications as a result of the industry’s emissions. The health impacts of oil and gas pollution were made crystal clear last year after a massive gas leak at a Southern California storage facility led to mass hospitalizations and forced hundreds of families to evacuate their homes.

But massive gas leaks like the one at Aliso Canyon aren’t the only cause for alarm. A string of new reports confirm what many concerned communities have known for years: oil and gas emissions from across the entire supply chain can wreak havoc on our health, and are often higher than experts previously thought.
Toxic chemicals, many sources

One report from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) looked at data collected from 39 different production facilities across the state. Of the 211 different gas leaks recorded, nearly half of them included the cancer-causing chemical benzene. According to the Centers for Disease Control, chronic exposure to this toxic carcinogen can also cause leukemia, blood disorders and reproductive problems. High levels can affect the central nervous system and even lead to death. While it is unclear from the report whether the leaks occurred near residential areas, the frequency at which toxic chemicals were measured is concerning.

This is not solely a problem at production facilities. A separate CARB study focused on emissions from the ponds where drillers store wastewater that comes from oil extraction. According to the report, some California wastewater ponds emit substantial levels of toxic air contaminants like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. This is problematic  given that California allows some of this wastewater to be directly injected into aquifers that millions of Californians rely on for drinking water.

Emissions are higher than we thought

Not only are researchers finding toxic emissions coming from all segments of the supply chain, they are also measuring emissions at higher levels than previously estimated.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District, for example, conducted mobile monitoring around six different refineries and crude oil processing facilities in the South Coast air basin in 2016. In the study, they measured smog-forming pollutants at levels that were up to 12 times greater than what refineries reported to local officials. Smog and other types of air pollution reportedly kill more than 5.5 million people a year. These higher-than-expected levels of pollution not only threaten public health, it also verifies that the manner in which emissions have been reported may be inadequate and misleading.

Additionally, a 2017 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study found that methane emissions in California’s Bay Area are approximately twice as high as previously believed. While, not a direct threat to our health, this is particularly troubling news for our climate since methane is responsible for about a quarter of current global warming.

Emissions from transmission and distribution pipelines, as well as natural gas storage facilities, also are higher than previously reported according to a report commissioned by CARB and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The report finds that methane emissions increased 70% from 2014 to 2015 – most likely due to better reporting requirements and the use of new technology to find gas leaks that had been persisting all along.

Using the data to deliver results through smart regulations

California has made good faith efforts to try to fight dangerous emissions. The state’s signature climate legislation, SB 32 and its predecessor AB 32, aims to reduce 40% of California’s climate pollution by the year 2030, and part of that plan includes recommendations for oil and gas utilities to reduce emissions from leaky pipelines. According to CARB’s Scoping Plan, refineries may also be required to reduce emissions by 20%.

This progress is promising but there is more to do, especially since the impacts of runaway emissions can persist over time. Case in point: months after the Aliso Canyon leak was plugged, researchers detected trace levels of benzene, toluene and xylene in the air. Researchers also found traces of barium in the dust at homes near the leak. When combined, these chemicals may have produced symptoms like headaches, nausea, and nose-bleeds reported months after the incident occurred.

The fact that we continue to find toxic pollutants with such frequency near oil and gas facilities should be an alarm bell to the leaders in Congress who are trying to strip away protections that could directly benefit public health.  It should also signal to CARB and the CPUC the need to finalize strong policies that reduce methane emissions and co-pollutants like benzene from the vast majority of oil and gas facilities and pipelines across the state. We’ve seen the data, now we must put it to work.

 

By Keith Gaby

Earth as seen from a NOAA weather satellite. Photo: NASA

A very familiar type of full-page ad recently appeared in the New York Times. It was the sort of fact-free manifesto normally found only on the fringes of the Internet, until someone with enough money decides to buy a full page in a newspaper.

These kinds of public declarations can be about anything from ancient nationalist grudges to fad nutritional theories. This one, by an obscure South Korean firm called Samsung Chemical Coating Company (no apparent relation to the electronics company), declared that carbon dioxide pollution isn’t causing climate change and that global warming will end in 2060 and be replaced by a destructive ice age, among other similarly oddball assertions.

Usually this kind of claim is barely worth refuting, as it is flatly contradicted by the consensus of the international scientific community. But one important detail made this ad different, and more dangerous.

First, let’s be clear about the substance of the ad and the real scientific facts.

There is absolutely no scientific basis or merit to the claims being made in the ad. No actual climate scientist takes seriously catastrophes in movies like The Day After Tomorrow becoming reality, or strange theories like the idea that creatures mutated from sunlight at the end of an ice age. No information about their “study” is available on the Internet, nor in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There is no explanation about how they arrived at their conclusions, or any discussion of the information or data that served as the basis for their claims. And if you try Googling information about the authors, you’ll come up empty.

Even the more nuanced statements in the ad about the relationships between Earth’s precession, glacial cycles, and sea level rise are unsubstantiated. The authors use these unsupported claims as “proof” that carbon dioxide emissions do not cause global warming — an argument that should not be taken seriously given the lack of any supporting data. Their claims also demonstrate a profound ignorance of established physics. And the direct “certainty” throughout the ads about specific events – such as the disappearance of Earth’s magnetic field – adds to the characteristically unscientific approach.

All of these are hallmarks of the Crazy Full Page Ad.

Here is the truth:

• The fact that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are changing our climate in dangerous ways has been established by decades of scientific research and mountains of data – from ice core samples, satellites, and other monitoring and analysis.
• It is a conclusion strongly endorsed by the National Academies of Science, the scientists at NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and all major American scientific organizations.
• These climate pollutants, which have the known physical property of trapping heat, have been building up in our atmosphere since the world started burning lots of coal for the Industrial Revolution, and global average temperatures have risen right along with that accumulation.

So if all of this is nonsense, why protest so much?

Because at this moment in history, we have – amazingly, shockingly, dangerously – an Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who makes similarly outlandish claims. In an appearance on CNBC last week, Scott Pruitt said:

I would not agree that [carbon dioxide] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.

In essence, he said he doesn’t know if the greatest environmental challenge of our time, his biggest responsibility, is real. It’s like having a surgeon general who doubts the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Or an attorney general who doesn’t consider the drug cartels to be dangerous organizations.

The result of Pruitt’s statements was a flood of outrage, reportedly locking up EPA’s switchboards like never before. (The agency had to set up an impromptu call center, according to leaks from employees.) Commentators on the left and right were stunned, even in an era when it’s a challenge to say something crazy enough to make the front page.

So what could normally be dismissed as a fringe ad cannot be ignored. We must, unfortunately, remind Americans who instinctively assume an EPA administration would know basic environmental science of the real facts. We must stand up and calmly explain what is at stake for our children and grandchildren. At EDF, we will continue to do that.

By Keith Gaby

Earth as seen from a NOAA weather satellite. Photo: NASA

A very familiar type of full-page ad recently appeared in the New York Times. It was the sort of fact-free manifesto normally found only on the fringes of the Internet, until someone with enough money decides to buy a full page in a newspaper.

These kinds of public declarations can be about anything from ancient nationalist grudges to fad nutritional theories. This one, by an obscure South Korean firm called Samsung Chemical Coating Company (no apparent relation to the electronics company), declared that carbon dioxide pollution isn’t causing climate change and that global warming will end in 2060 and be replaced by a destructive ice age, among other similarly oddball assertions.

Usually this kind of claim is barely worth refuting, as it is flatly contradicted by the consensus of the international scientific community. But one important detail made this ad different, and more dangerous.

First, let’s be clear about the substance of the ad and the real scientific facts.

There is absolutely no scientific basis or merit to the claims being made in the ad. No actual climate scientist takes seriously catastrophes in movies like The Day After Tomorrow becoming reality, or strange theories like the idea that creatures mutated from sunlight at the end of an ice age. No information about their “study” is available on the Internet, nor in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There is no explanation about how they arrived at their conclusions, or any discussion of the information or data that served as the basis for their claims. And if you try Googling information about the authors, you’ll come up empty.

Even the more nuanced statements in the ad about the relationships between Earth’s precession, glacial cycles, and sea level rise are unsubstantiated. The authors use these unsupported claims as “proof” that carbon dioxide emissions do not cause global warming — an argument that should not be taken seriously given the lack of any supporting data. Their claims also demonstrate a profound ignorance of established physics. And the direct “certainty” throughout the ads about specific events – such as the disappearance of Earth’s magnetic field – adds to the characteristically unscientific approach.

All of these are hallmarks of the Crazy Full Page Ad.

Here is the truth:

• The fact that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are changing our climate in dangerous ways has been established by decades of scientific research and mountains of data – from ice core samples, satellites, and other monitoring and analysis.
• It is a conclusion strongly endorsed by the National Academies of Science, the scientists at NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and all major American scientific organizations.
• These climate pollutants, which have the known physical property of trapping heat, have been building up in our atmosphere since the world started burning lots of coal for the Industrial Revolution, and global average temperatures have risen right along with that accumulation.

So if all of this is nonsense, why protest so much?

Because at this moment in history, we have – amazingly, shockingly, dangerously – an Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who makes similarly outlandish claims. In an appearance on CNBC last week, Scott Pruitt said:

I would not agree that [carbon dioxide] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.

In essence, he said he doesn’t know if the greatest environmental challenge of our time, his biggest responsibility, is real. It’s like having a surgeon general who doubts the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Or an attorney general who doesn’t consider the drug cartels to be dangerous organizations.

The result of Pruitt’s statements was a flood of outrage, reportedly locking up EPA’s switchboards like never before. (The agency had to set up an impromptu call center, according to leaks from employees.) Commentators on the left and right were stunned, even in an era when it’s a challenge to say something crazy enough to make the front page.

So what could normally be dismissed as a fringe ad cannot be ignored. We must, unfortunately, remind Americans who instinctively assume an EPA administration would know basic environmental science of the real facts. We must stand up and calmly explain what is at stake for our children and grandchildren. At EDF, we will continue to do that.

Thanks for listening to the second episode of Delta Dispatchers with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Bren Haase& Dr. Denise Reed to talk about the Master Plan. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe to our feed in iTunes and Google Play.     Listen to Episode 2 now! Show Transcript Jacques: Hello, you're listening to Delta Dispatches. We're discussing Louisiana's coast, its people, wildlife, ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast March 9, 2017 appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Thanks for listening to the second episode of Delta Dispatchers with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Bren Haase& Dr. Denise Reed to talk about the Master Plan. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe to our feed in iTunes and Google Play.     Listen to Episode 2 now! Show Transcript Jacques: Hello, you're listening to Delta Dispatches. We're discussing Louisiana's coast, its people, wildlife, ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast March 9, 2017 appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Thanks for listening to the second episode of Delta Dispatchers with hosts Simone Maloz & Jacques Hebert. On today’s show Bren Haase& Dr. Denise Reed to talk about the Master Plan. Below is a transcript of this week's Delta Dispatches Podcast. Listen to the full recording here or subscribe to our feed in iTunes and Google Play.     Listen to Episode 2 now! Show Transcript Jacques: Hello, you're listening to Delta Dispatches. We're discussing Louisiana's coast, its people, wildlife, ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast March 9, 2017 appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Tomas Carbonell

This week has brought alarming indications that the Trump Administration is poised to roll back life-saving, common-sense climate protections with no plan for replacing them — and that the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejects basic facts about climate change and the clean air laws he is charged with carrying out.

These developments fundamentally threaten efforts to address climate change – the direst environmental challenge of our time.

News reports say that President Trump is on the verge of signing an executive order aimed at revoking the Clean Power Plan – the only national limits on climate-destabilizing carbon pollution from existing power plants, which are our nation’s largest source of these emissions.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt did an interview with CNBC in which he made the wildly inaccurate statement that there’s “tremendous disagreement” about the role climate pollution plays in climate change, and said that he does “not agree that [carbon dioxide] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

And in a second interview, on Fox Business, Pruitt questioned whether EPA has “the tools in the tool box to address [climate change],” and said “Congress has never spoken on this issue” — even though the Supreme Court has determined that the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress, does provide those “tools.”

Pruitt does not have a scientific background — just an extensive history of bringing highly politicized lawsuits against environmental protections, and of using his public office on behalf of the fossil fuel interests that have helped fund his political career.

His statements are not just false and misleading representations of climate science. They also call into question whether he can faithfully discharge his clear responsibility under our nation’s clean air laws to protect the public from climate pollution.

Pruitt Is Wrong on Climate Science

The U.S. government’s leading scientific agencies have conclusively determined that climate change is “due primarily to human activities” and is already manifesting itself in rising sea levels, heat waves, more intense storms, and other severe impacts felt by communities across the country.

Just in the last year, respected scientists have reported that the impact of human emissions on climate change is evident in February heat waves, devastating Louisiana storms, and flooded coastal communities.

Contrary to Pruitt’s statement that there’s “tremendous disagreement” about human impacts on climate, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide are destabilizing our climate. This consensus has been affirmed by many of our nation’s most respected scientists and scientific institutions, including:

NASA

Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived ‘forcing’ of climate change. – NASA website

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. – NASA press release

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere and in air trapped in ice show that atmospheric CO2 increased by about 40% from 1800 to 2012. Measurements of different forms of carbon … reveal that this increase is due to human activities. Other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide) are also increasing as a consequence of human activities. The observed global surface temperature rise since 1900 is consistent with detailed calculations of the impacts of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 (and other human-induced changes) on Earth’s energy balance. – Climate Change: Evidence & Causes, page 5 (issued jointly with the Royal Society)

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Evidence from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans, collected by scientists and engineers from around the world, tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity — predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. – U.S. Global Change Research Program website

More than 800 Earth Scientists (in a letter to then-President-Elect Donald Trump)

Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat. If not, you will become the only government leader in the world to deny climate science. Your position will be at odds with virtually all climate scientists, most economists, military experts, fossil fuel companies and other business leaders, and the two-thirds of Americans worried about this issue. – scientists’ letter

Pruitt either refuses to accept this science, or is unaware of it – and either possibility presents a huge problem for the nation’s top environmental official.

Pruitt Has a Legal Obligation to Protect the Public from Climate Pollution

Pruitt’s assertions that “Congress has not spoken” on climate change and that EPA may lack the “tools” to address the issue show that he is just as wrong on the law as he is on climate science.

Our nation’s clean air laws require EPA to protect public health and well-being from all forms of dangerous pollution, and the Supreme Court has recognized on three separate occasions that this responsibility clearly applies to carbon dioxide and other climate-destabilizing pollutants. Contrary to Pruitt’s comments, the courts have consistently found that Congress has directly “spoken” to the issue of climate change by vesting EPA with broad responsibility and tools to address this and other emerging threats to human health and welfare.  And EPA has, in fact, put these tools into practice over the last few years by establishing common-sense protections that are reducing pollution, protecting public health, and strengthening our economy – including fuel efficiency and emission standards for cars and trucks, emission standards for power plants, and standards for oil and gas facilities.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, decided a decade ago, the Supreme Court found “without a doubt” that EPA is authorized to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants under the Clean Air Act:

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. — Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007

The Supreme Court then ordered EPA to make a science-based determination as to whether carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants endanger public health and welfare. In 2009 – after an exhaustive review of the scientific literature and over 380,000 public comments – EPA released its nearly 1,000-page finding that climate pollutants posed such a danger.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld this finding against a barrage of legal attacks by polluters and their allies (including a lawsuit by Scott Pruitt, who was then Attorney General of Oklahoma). The Supreme Court allowed that decision to stand without further review.

Two years after EPA made its determination, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in American Electric Power v. Connecticut that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the provision that EPA relied upon in issuing the Clean Power Plan – clearly authorizes EPA to regulate emissions from existing power plants:

[Massachusetts v. EPA] made plain that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the Act … And we think it equally plain that the [Clean Air] Act ‘speaks directly’ to emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendants’ plants. – American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011)

And in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA in 2014 the Supreme Court once again affirmed EPA’s responsibility to address climate pollution by finding that the Clean Air Act requires new and modified industrial facilities to adopt limits on climate pollution. Notably, at the oral arguments in both American Electric Power v. Connecticut and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, attorneys for some of the same coal-based power companies that now oppose the Clean Power Plan recognized EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution from power plants.

As George W. Bush’s former EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, said in a recent interview:

I think, as a matter of law, that carbon is a pollutant has been settled. – (Climatewire, The Clean Power Plan is gone — and there's no 'replace' – March 9, 2017)

Notably, Scott Pruitt told the Senate under oath that he would abide by this framework. He specifically said that Massachusetts v. EPA and the Endangerment Finding are the “law of the land” and that “the endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected.” Pruitt ought to keep that testimony in mind should he try to attack the bedrock legal principles requiring EPA to protect the public from harmful climate pollution.

The Facts Are Clear

There is scientific consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants are driving dangerous climate change. And under our nation’s clean air laws, EPA is required to protect Americans from this pollution – a responsibility that Pruitt’s predecessors have carried out by taking common-sense, cost-effective steps to reduce pollution from power plants, cars and trucks, oil and gas facilities, and other sources.

It’s outrageous and unacceptable that the principal federal official charged with carrying out this solemn responsibility is relying on “alternative facts” peddled by climate deniers to shirk his responsibility under the law.

 

This week has brought alarming indications that the Trump Administration is poised to roll back life-saving, common-sense climate protections with no plan for replacing them — and that the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejects basic facts about climate change and the clean air laws he is charged with carrying out. These […]

By Tomas Carbonell

This week has brought alarming indications that the Trump Administration is poised to roll back life-saving, common-sense climate protections with no plan for replacing them — and that the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejects basic facts about climate change and the clean air laws he is charged with carrying out.

These developments fundamentally threaten efforts to address climate change – the direst environmental challenge of our time.

News reports say that President Trump is on the verge of signing an executive order aimed at revoking the Clean Power Plan – the only national limits on climate-destabilizing carbon pollution from existing power plants, which are our nation’s largest source of these emissions.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt did an interview with CNBC in which he made the wildly inaccurate statement that there’s “tremendous disagreement” about the role climate pollution plays in climate change, and said that he does “not agree that [carbon dioxide] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

And in a second interview, on Fox Business, Pruitt questioned whether EPA has “the tools in the tool box to address [climate change],” and said “Congress has never spoken on this issue” — even though the Supreme Court has determined that the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress, does provide those “tools.”

Pruitt does not have a scientific background — just an extensive history of bringing highly politicized lawsuits against environmental protections, and of using his public office on behalf of the fossil fuel interests that have helped fund his political career.

His statements are not just false and misleading representations of climate science. They also call into question whether he can faithfully discharge his clear responsibility under our nation’s clean air laws to protect the public from climate pollution.

Pruitt Is Wrong on Climate Science

The U.S. government’s leading scientific agencies have conclusively determined that climate change is “due primarily to human activities” and is already manifesting itself in rising sea levels, heat waves, more intense storms, and other severe impacts felt by communities across the country.

Just in the last year, respected scientists have reported that the impact of human emissions on climate change is evident in February heat waves, devastating Louisiana storms, and flooded coastal communities.

Contrary to Pruitt’s statement that there’s “tremendous disagreement” about human impacts on climate, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide are destabilizing our climate. This consensus has been affirmed by many of our nation’s most respected scientists and scientific institutions, including:

NASA

Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived ‘forcing’ of climate change. – NASA website

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. – NASA press release

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere and in air trapped in ice show that atmospheric CO2 increased by about 40% from 1800 to 2012. Measurements of different forms of carbon … reveal that this increase is due to human activities. Other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide) are also increasing as a consequence of human activities. The observed global surface temperature rise since 1900 is consistent with detailed calculations of the impacts of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 (and other human-induced changes) on Earth’s energy balance. – Climate Change: Evidence & Causes, page 5 (issued jointly with the Royal Society)

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Evidence from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans, collected by scientists and engineers from around the world, tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity — predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. – U.S. Global Change Research Program website

More than 800 Earth Scientists (in a letter to then-President-Elect Donald Trump)

Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat. If not, you will become the only government leader in the world to deny climate science. Your position will be at odds with virtually all climate scientists, most economists, military experts, fossil fuel companies and other business leaders, and the two-thirds of Americans worried about this issue. – scientists’ letter

Pruitt either refuses to accept this science, or is unaware of it – and either possibility presents a huge problem for the nation’s top environmental official.

Pruitt Has a Legal Obligation to Protect the Public from Climate Pollution

Pruitt’s assertions that “Congress has not spoken” on climate change and that EPA may lack the “tools” to address the issue show that he is just as wrong on the law as he is on climate science.

Our nation’s clean air laws require EPA to protect public health and well-being from all forms of dangerous pollution, and the Supreme Court has recognized on three separate occasions that this responsibility clearly applies to carbon dioxide and other climate-destabilizing pollutants. Contrary to Pruitt’s comments, the courts have consistently found that Congress has directly “spoken” to the issue of climate change by vesting EPA with broad responsibility and tools to address this and other emerging threats to human health and welfare.  And EPA has, in fact, put these tools into practice over the last few years by establishing common-sense protections that are reducing pollution, protecting public health, and strengthening our economy – including fuel efficiency and emission standards for cars and trucks, emission standards for power plants, and standards for oil and gas facilities.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, decided a decade ago, the Supreme Court found “without a doubt” that EPA is authorized to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants under the Clean Air Act:

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. — Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007

The Supreme Court then ordered EPA to make a science-based determination as to whether carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants endanger public health and welfare. In 2009 – after an exhaustive review of the scientific literature and over 380,000 public comments – EPA released its nearly 1,000-page finding that climate pollutants posed such a danger.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld this finding against a barrage of legal attacks by polluters and their allies (including a lawsuit by Scott Pruitt, who was then Attorney General of Oklahoma). The Supreme Court allowed that decision to stand without further review.

Two years after EPA made its determination, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in American Electric Power v. Connecticut that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the provision that EPA relied upon in issuing the Clean Power Plan – clearly authorizes EPA to regulate emissions from existing power plants:

[Massachusetts v. EPA] made plain that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the Act … And we think it equally plain that the [Clean Air] Act ‘speaks directly’ to emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendants’ plants. – American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011)

And in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA in 2014 the Supreme Court once again affirmed EPA’s responsibility to address climate pollution by finding that the Clean Air Act requires new and modified industrial facilities to adopt limits on climate pollution. Notably, at the oral arguments in both American Electric Power v. Connecticut and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, attorneys for some of the same coal-based power companies that now oppose the Clean Power Plan recognized EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution from power plants.

As George W. Bush’s former EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, said in a recent interview:

I think, as a matter of law, that carbon is a pollutant has been settled. – (Climatewire, The Clean Power Plan is gone — and there's no 'replace' – March 9, 2017)

Notably, Scott Pruitt told the Senate under oath that he would abide by this framework. He specifically said that Massachusetts v. EPA and the Endangerment Finding are the “law of the land” and that “the endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected.” Pruitt ought to keep that testimony in mind should he try to attack the bedrock legal principles requiring EPA to protect the public from harmful climate pollution.

The Facts Are Clear

There is scientific consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants are driving dangerous climate change. And under our nation’s clean air laws, EPA is required to protect Americans from this pollution – a responsibility that Pruitt’s predecessors have carried out by taking common-sense, cost-effective steps to reduce pollution from power plants, cars and trucks, oil and gas facilities, and other sources.

It’s outrageous and unacceptable that the principal federal official charged with carrying out this solemn responsibility is relying on “alternative facts” peddled by climate deniers to shirk his responsibility under the law.

 

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

You would think that with the former CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson and the climate denying Scott Pruitt, ensconced in Trump’s cabinet…Big Oil and Gas would be resting easy.

Not so.

They’re on a renewed mission to convince the public that domestic oil and natural gas are essential to personal well-being.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn who is funding this agenda.

In a totally cynically move, backed by Koch brothers’ dollars (nefarious for putting their unlimited financial resources behind climate disinformation), Fueling U.S. Forward was launched. Its goal is to specifically target minorities about the “benefits” of fossil fuel energies.

This latest move is particularly outrageous in light of the EPA regulations that are in line to be rescinded, particularly the cuts planned for staffers tasked with serving those impacted by Environmental Justice concerns.

Pruitt, who has done the bidding for companies like Devon Energy while serving as the Attorney General of Oklahoma, is at the forefront of the EPA budget axing. Projections of a 25 percent reduction have been floated. Other estimates suggest that one in five workers will be removed from their positions. Many of the jobs and programs destined for the trash heap are those from the Office of Environmental Justice.

Low-income communities and African American and Hispanic populations are struggling to cope with the disproportionate impacts of toxic sitings in their neighborhoods. Yet, they are being pitched a Madison Avenue type story about how fossil fuels makes life great.

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Pruitt claimed that he was aware of the Environmental Justice concept (kind of like Jeff Sessions saying that he’s aware of the Voting Rights Act). Pruitt is gearing up to roll back the Clean Power Plan, methane gas emissions, and the Water of the United States Rule — on the basis of aiding “industry” to build jobs. A review of Pruitt’s past actions demonstrate that he considers “industry” a more important “stakeholder” than people.

It’s clear who is going to end up in the crosshairs.

U.S. Forward is a slick example of the money and profit agenda at play, and in a most egregious way. Under the “Who We Are” paragraph, there is no reference to the funding or the Board of this: “non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public about the value and potential of American energy, the vast majority of which comes from fossil fuels.”

I’m not sure how many people are rushing to this website. However, according to a New York Times article, U.S. Forward is sponsoring events such as concerts. At one of these gatherings, those who were present received complimentary payment for one month’s utility bill. Mixed in with the program was plentiful messaging and kudos for the cheap energy that is furnished by gas and oil.

However, not everyone is willing to stand by as fossil fuel behemoths scheme to direct the agenda of our current government, exploit the underserved, and work to influence public opinion.

Earlier this year, Sarah Labowitz, who had been serving on the External Citizenship Advisory Panel for ExxonMobil, resigned. Labowitz cited her unease with how the oil giant was trying to muzzle nonprofits and individuals (Think State Attorney Generals investigating corporate investor fraud.). What were they trying to shut down? The work of those engaged in revealing ExxonMobil’s role in keeping scientific research about climate change a secret. Research dated back to the end of the 1970s. Hiding the worldwide impact of the information from the public was a bombshell.

I contacted Jacqui Patterson, the Director of the Environmental and Climate Justice Program for the NAACP. Her response to the U.S. Forward initiative was succinct:

“When we know that the price we pay for fossil fuel based energy production is asthma-related hospitalizations and climate change induced disasters (displacement from sea level rise and deepening food insecurity for our neighborhoods), there is a lot missing from any equation that claims net benefits to communities of color from the use of fossil fuels.

Given that we, as communities of color, pay a higher proportion of our incomes to energy costs, this is a crowning outrage. The same entities making money from energy bills revenues that gouge our bank accounts, are driving this false narrative around the benefits of fossil fuels.”

There seems to be no end to the effrontery. As I was polishing up this post, Jake Tapper wrote on Twitter:

“White House press release plagiarizes paragraph from Exxon press release.”

Score one for the big money kids. Score zero for our kids.

 

Editor’s Note: On March 8, Mustafa Ali, who headed up the EPA program focused on environmental justice initiatives resigned. He had served at the EPA for 24 years.

Image: Fueling U.S. Forward

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Martha Roberts. It originally posted on Climate 411:

New legislative proposals on the Hill put long-standing public health, safety and environmental protections at risk.

These so-called “regulatory reform” efforts sound innocuous, but they would dramatically increase red tape and industry lobbyist influence – eviscerating bedrock statutory protections for American communities.

Take just one example – the Senate version of the Regulatory Accountability Act from 2015, which is widely seen as a potential foundation for legislation in this new Congress.

With this legislation, the development of any new protections – new clean air protections, new food safety requirements, new care standards for veterans, new child safety regulations – would be subject to a range of needless additional hurdles. And if the protections couldn’t get through the hurdles in time, then the whole process would have to start again, from scratch. Important safeguards would face time-consuming, costly new burdens – burdens that would fall on the public, on businesses, and anyone trying to participate in the decision-making process.

These additional, costly hurdles will give powerful interests that can afford expensive lawyers a leg up in the rulemaking process – allowing them to delay and obstruct protections they don’t like, as well as boosting their chances of fighting in court – while tilting the playing field against everyone else.

Here’s a head-spinning diagram showing what the process for drafting a new safeguard would look like if this proposed legislation became law:

Here are just some of the burdensome new requirements included in the 2015 version of this legislation:

Paralysis by Analysis to Derail Vital Safeguards

The Regulatory Accountability Act would impose needless analytic requirements on proposed new protections that would add a heavy burden without any benefit. Agencies already exhaustively assess the costs and benefits of new protections, but this legislation would require agencies to analyze and compare a potentially limitless number of proposed alternatives to the plan they think is best, using a variety of new, additional analyses.

A new crib safety regulation, for example, put forth in response to evidence of a real threat to babies, might have to wait years while an agency completed a host of vague, undefined analyses for each alternative proposed by industry — as detailed in the diagram above. A court would then have broad authority to scrutinize the analyses’ adequacy, giving industry attorneys another chance to challenge and block important safeguards.

Thumb on the Scale Against Protecting Americans from Serious Harm

Not surprisingly, within the very long list of additional requirements in the Regulatory Accountability Act, there’s barely a hint of considering any of the benefits of health and safety protections – healthier and safer lives, stronger communities, new jobs in clean energy and health and safety fields, among many others.

Least Common Denominator

Under the Regulatory Accountability Act, at the initiation of rulemaking an agency would have to solicit alternatives for accomplishing the objectives of the agency “with the lowest cost.” For many rules, the agency would generally be required to adopt the least-costly option considered – regardless of the benefits of the different options.

Under this reasoning, a drinking water protection that imposes no costs would beat out one that imposes $1 in costs, even if the latter yielded substantially better protection and major health benefits.

While the Regulatory Accountability Act would permit an agency to adopt a rule that is “more costly than the least costly alternative,” it would only be authorized where the agency has completed additional burdensome analysis and explanation that would be subject to challenge in court – creating obvious pressure to default to the least protective approach.

More generally, this rigid requirement would override existing laws and leave safeguards more vulnerable to challenge in court from those opposed to protection.

Science on Trial

The Regulatory Accountability Act would allow anyone to request a formal hearing on the record with cross-examination of the parties over disputed facts. This addition would amount to a trial-like procedure at the proposal stage, and could be invoked in a wide range of circumstances. Echoing a theme of this legislation, the burden of proof would be against protection. There’s no clarity about what counts as a disputed fact – meaning that this burdensome, needless exercise could be invoked to rehash long-settled issues about health and environmental risks.

Consider a new air pollution protection – EPA might now be subject to an entire hearing procedure to re-prove that smog causes asthma attacks and other lung diseases. This requirement would add major delays and costs to implementation of any protection, and would put industry and other moneyed interests at a considerable advantage over organizations and individuals who are less able to retain expensive lawyers and expert witnesses.

Less Science, More Cost

The Regulatory Accountability Act includes new requirements for the publication of any and all data that an agency requests, receives, or relies on during a rulemaking process. Transparency is important – and it is a foundation of current rulemaking processes. But these requirements have significant similarities with the misguided Secret Science bill that has been considered in past Congressional terms in that it is incompatible both with ethical and legal requirements to keep personal health records confidential and is designed to obstruct consideration of major rigorous peer reviewed studies that properly rely on but do not disclose private individual health data.

Safeguard Guillotine

Under the proposed legislation, if an agency cannot meet newly imposed deadlines for finalizing a rule, it gets one extension. If the agency misses the second deadline, the proposal is null and void, and the agency must start over from scratch. No exceptions — not for veterans, not for airplane safety, not for children’s health, not for common sense, none. The agency must re-propose and start over from square one.

These arbitrary deadlines would be challenging to meet even under current procedures. With all the requirements imposed by this bill, anyone opposed to a new safeguard would have innumerable opportunities to drag out the process and force an agency to miss this arbitrary deadline – derailing vital safeguards and sending expert agencies back to the drawing board.

The Result: More Red Tape, Less Protection for Our Communities and Families

Why are supporters of this legislation arguing for more red tape?

The Regulatory Accountability Act is not designed to streamline and improve the regulatory process. It’s designed to bog down development of any new safeguard — any new protection. This bill offers countless new hurdles that can block new safeguards, or create new grounds for litigation and lawsuits. For big polluters, that would be great news.

For everyone else, this legislation would mean more delay, more burden, and more uncertainty in establishing basic protections. Many of these requirements substantially increase barriers for ordinary citizens and small businesses to participate and inform the decision-making process. The result, in practice, would be that big-money interests would have a big edge in influencing final decisions, at the expense of small businesses and everyday citizens.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

By Jorge Madrid

This week, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the largest municipal utility in the country, released the Equity Metrics Data Initiative (EMDI) “to track, measure, and report on how its programs are provided to all customers and residents of Los Angeles.” This data will help ensure the utility’s investments and programs are reaching all Angelenos.

EMDI is the LADWP’s first effort to use data in the pursuit of equity in planning a clean energy future for all of us. Data gathered during the initiative will be used to create a baseline for measuring the impacts of and access to investment and services from LADWP. These include things like energy efficiency programs, solar incentives, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure ─ tracking how they reach different neighborhoods and customers, particularly those with economic and environmental vulnerabilities.

We know this is just the beginning of a process to refine and optimize all aspects of data collection and reporting. Most importantly, it is the start of a dialogue between customers, community organizations, decision makers within the department, and our elected leaders to address any disparities or challenges illustrated by this data tool.

LADWP has commendably worked with us and our colleagues at the REPOWER LA coalition to bring the EMDI to fruition. We’re committed to helping the department and Mayor’s office further develop and deploy it.

Largest U.S. city-owned utility uses Equity Metrics to ensure all residents have clean energy
Click To Tweet

Looking ahead

These equity metrics could serve as a model for other California utilities, public power providers, and relevant state agencies, as we work toward reducing barriers low income and disadvantaged communities face in accessing clean and affordable energy.

While off to a brilliant start, there’s at least one caveat: In addition to continued stakeholder engagement, we strongly recommend the department engage an academic institution or specialized contractor to provide third-party analysis of the tool and its efficacy in measuring appropriate equity indicators. This will ensure our model is technically sound and can be replicated in other jurisdictions and by other utilities.

While it is still too soon for us to comment on specifics of the data LADWP has reported, we expect a much more robust analysis and dialogue for the next release in August 2017. For now, we’ll continue to champion efforts by cities, states, and utilities to enhance access to data, which provides a platform for innovation in better service, lower costs, cleaner energy, and more equity and access for all customers.

By Jorge Madrid

This week, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the largest municipal utility in the country, released the Equity Metrics Data Initiative (EMDI) “to track, measure, and report on how its programs are provided to all customers and residents of Los Angeles.” This data will help ensure the utility’s investments and programs are reaching all Angelenos.

EMDI is the LADWP’s first effort to use data in the pursuit of equity in planning a clean energy future for all of us. Data gathered during the initiative will be used to create a baseline for measuring the impacts of and access to investment and services from LADWP. These include things like energy efficiency programs, solar incentives, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure ─ tracking how they reach different neighborhoods and customers, particularly those with economic and environmental vulnerabilities.

We know this is just the beginning of a process to refine and optimize all aspects of data collection and reporting. Most importantly, it is the start of a dialogue between customers, community organizations, decision makers within the department, and our elected leaders to address any disparities or challenges illustrated by this data tool.

LADWP has commendably worked with us and our colleagues at the REPOWER LA coalition to bring the EMDI to fruition. We’re committed to helping the department and Mayor’s office further develop and deploy it.

Largest U.S. city-owned utility uses Equity Metrics to ensure all residents have clean energy
Click To Tweet

Looking ahead

These equity metrics could serve as a model for other California utilities, public power providers, and relevant state agencies, as we work toward reducing barriers low income and disadvantaged communities face in accessing clean and affordable energy.

While off to a brilliant start, there’s at least one caveat: In addition to continued stakeholder engagement, we strongly recommend the department engage an academic institution or specialized contractor to provide third-party analysis of the tool and its efficacy in measuring appropriate equity indicators. This will ensure our model is technically sound and can be replicated in other jurisdictions and by other utilities.

While it is still too soon for us to comment on specifics of the data LADWP has reported, we expect a much more robust analysis and dialogue for the next release in August 2017. For now, we’ll continue to champion efforts by cities, states, and utilities to enhance access to data, which provides a platform for innovation in better service, lower costs, cleaner energy, and more equity and access for all customers.

By Jorge Madrid

This week, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the largest municipal utility in the country, released the Equity Metrics Data Initiative (EMDI) “to track, measure, and report on how its programs are provided to all customers and residents of Los Angeles.” This data will help ensure the utility’s investments and programs are reaching all Angelenos.

EMDI is the LADWP’s first effort to use data in the pursuit of equity in planning a clean energy future for all of us. Data gathered during the initiative will be used to create a baseline for measuring the impacts of and access to investment and services from LADWP. These include things like energy efficiency programs, solar incentives, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure ─ tracking how they reach different neighborhoods and customers, particularly those with economic and environmental vulnerabilities.

We know this is just the beginning of a process to refine and optimize all aspects of data collection and reporting. Most importantly, it is the start of a dialogue between customers, community organizations, decision makers within the department, and our elected leaders to address any disparities or challenges illustrated by this data tool.

LADWP has commendably worked with us and our colleagues at the REPOWER LA coalition to bring the EMDI to fruition. We’re committed to helping the department and Mayor’s office further develop and deploy it.

Largest U.S. city-owned utility uses Equity Metrics to ensure all residents have clean energy
Click To Tweet

Looking ahead

These equity metrics could serve as a model for other California utilities, public power providers, and relevant state agencies, as we work toward reducing barriers low income and disadvantaged communities face in accessing clean and affordable energy.

While off to a brilliant start, there’s at least one caveat: In addition to continued stakeholder engagement, we strongly recommend the department engage an academic institution or specialized contractor to provide third-party analysis of the tool and its efficacy in measuring appropriate equity indicators. This will ensure our model is technically sound and can be replicated in other jurisdictions and by other utilities.

While it is still too soon for us to comment on specifics of the data LADWP has reported, we expect a much more robust analysis and dialogue for the next release in August 2017. For now, we’ll continue to champion efforts by cities, states, and utilities to enhance access to data, which provides a platform for innovation in better service, lower costs, cleaner energy, and more equity and access for all customers.

By Martha Roberts

18 states, the District of Columbia, 60 municipalities and 11 utilities have filed in support of the Clean Power Plan

According to news reports, we may soon see an executive order designed to make the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever nationwide limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

Revoking the Clean Power Plan would be monumentally bad public policy, placing our families and communities at greater risk from the dangers of climate change and threatening America's vibrant clean energy potential.

But to fully understand all the reasons revoking the Clean Power Plan is the wrong choice, it’s important to dig into the facts – which demonstrate that the Clean Power Plan is broadly supported, bolsters economic vitality, and fosters America's tremendous momentum in reducing carbon pollution from the power sector.

It’s especially important to dig into the facts now, because we can’t have confidence in what we’ll hear from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt whenever this announcement is made.

• Yesterday, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt denied that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming — contradicting NASA, VOAA, and well-settled science. Pruitt is known for mischaracterizing the science of climate change, doubling down in his written Senate testimony on some of the most widely debunked and discredited arguments put forward by climate skeptics.
• Pruitt has also repeatedly mischaracterized EPA’s rock-solid legal authority to address climate pollution – even though it’s supported by three straight Supreme Court opinions affirming that duty.
• Last week, it emerged that he misled the Senate during his confirmation process by falsely stating that he did not use his personal email account for official business.

Pruitt also has a long history of interwoven ties with big fossil fuel interests that stand to gain from undercutting common sense protections like the Clean Power Plan. He’s even been identified as leading an “unprecedented, secretive alliance” with them to oppose important safeguards.

So let's dig in to the real facts on the Clean Power Plan, and better understand what's at stake:

The Clean Power Plan Has Broad, Diverse Support Across the Country

The Clean Power Plan would reduce climate-destabilizing pollution from power plants – our nation’s largest source of this pollution – to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

It would save lives and protect public health as well, avoiding an estimated 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 childhood asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed school and work days each year by 2030.

Its approach reflects the power sector’s already ongoing, market-driven transition to low cost, low carbon electricity, and is firmly anchored in law.

So it’s not surprising that it enjoys widespread support. In court, the Clean Power Plan is supported by a broad and diverse coalition that includes eighteen states and sixty municipalities across the country; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.

Since November 2016, nearly 900 businesses and major investors have called on the new Administration to continue policies that address climate pollution —underscoring that “failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.” Signatories include DuPont, Gap Inc., General Mills, Hewlett Packard, Hilton, IKEA, Johnson & Johnson, The Kellogg Company, Levi Strauss & Co., L’Oreal USA, NIKE, Mars Incorporated, Pacific Gas and Electric, Schneider Electric, Sealed Air, Starbucks, Unilever, and many others. These signatories collectively earn almost $1.15 trillion in annual revenue, are headquartered across 44 states, and employ about 1.8 million people.

Large majorities of Americans, in red and blue states alike, support the Clean Power Plan and other actions to protect our families and communities from climate pollution. In a recent nationwide poll, 70 percent of Americans expressed support for the Clean Power Plan – including two-thirds of respondents in states that are challenging these vital protections.

Low-Carbon Energy Helps Fuel a Vibrant Economy

Reducing carbon pollution will create jobs and economic benefits across the country.

For everyday consumers, the Clean Power Plan incentivizes energy efficiency investments that save money. EPA estimates that by 2030, the average American family will save approximately $85 every year on their electric bill.

It also bolsters use of low-carbon power sources — which are already driving growth and vitality across the country. More than two million Americans now work in energy efficiency jobs, while solar and wind employ almost half a million people. Collectively, this represents more than twice the number of Americans employed through fossil fuel generation.

Clean energy investments frequently create jobs in low-income and rural communities that stand to benefit most. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that 70 percent of wind farms are located in low-income counties, and that wind developers currently pay $222 million a year in lease payments to U.S. farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners. The bi-partisan Governors’ Wind and Solar Coalition, led by Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, recently sent a remarkable letter to President Trump highlighting the impressive contributions of wind and solar to the American economy —particularly to low-income rural communities.

The Clean Power Plan Builds on — and Secures the Promise of — America’s Transition to Low-Carbon Energy

The Clean Power Plan’s targets are eminently achievable thanks to the powerful expansion of low-cost clean energy, which is increasingly out-competing other sources of electricity in the market. Rolling back the Clean Power Plan puts at risk America’s tremendous momentum and progress in reducing carbon pollution from the power sector.

Carbon pollution from the power sector has decreased by more than 20 percent since 2005, meaning that we’re already about two-thirds of the way toward meeting the Clean Power Plan requirements for 2030. In fact, most states that are litigating against the Clean Power Plan are on track to meet its requirements. Having the Clean Power Plan in place provides a policy framework and establishes an important, stable signal for investors—one that’s essential to make sure we build on the progress so far, and make strategic, sensible decisions for the long-term.

Clean energy is increasingly out-competing other sources of electricity — in particular, the market is seeing a surge in renewable energy development. One report estimated that 85 gigawatts of new wind and solar generation capacity will be added to the grid between 2016 and 2021. Thanks to dramatically declining costs, a recent extension of federal tax credits, and sustained technological advances, low carbon electricity is the increasingly preferred energy source. For example, from 2007 through 2015 alone, the price of solar photovoltaic modules fell by more than 80 percent. Meanwhile, coal-powered electricity is increasingly uneconomic compared to other forms of electricity, even without considering its substantial carbon pollution burden.

Consider these statements from power sector officials affirming their commitment to greater reliance on low-carbon power sources – made after the Nov. 2016 election:

• “It can't just be, ‘We're going to get rid of these regulations, and you guys can party until the next administration comes,’” Cloud Peak Energy Vice President Richard Reavey said. “There are serious global concerns about climate emissions. We have to recognize that's a political reality and work within that framework.”
• “We've always had a point of view at Southern that there's a reasonable trajectory in which to move the portfolio of the United States to a lower carbon future,” said Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning. “There's a way to transition the fleet now.” In a later interview, Fanning added: “It's clear that the courts have given the EPA the right to deal with carbon in a certain way.”
• “Regardless of the outcome of the election,” said Frank Prager, Xcel Energy’s Vice President of Policy and Federal Affairs, “Xcel Energy will continue pursuing energy and environmental strategies that appeal to policymakers across the political spectrum because we are focused on renewable and other infrastructure projects that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions without increasing prices or sacrificing reliability.”

And consider these actions by power companies to expand their renewable investments while phasing out high-carbon generation, putting them in a solid position to comply with robust carbon pollution regulations:

• Florida Power & Light (FPL) just announced it will install eight new solar power plants this year, building on its existing plants to expand reliance on low-carbon power sources. At the end of December 2016,  FPL announced plans to shut down the recently-acquired 250-megawatt Cedar Bay coal plant at the end of the year. “I'm very proud of our employees for proposing this innovative approach that's environmentally beneficial and saves customers millions of dollars,” said CEO Eric Silagy. FPL plans to replace the retired power with natural gas and solar — the company added 224 megawatts of solar capacity in 2016.
• On December 30, 2016, Southern Company announced an agreement with Renewable Energy Systems America to develop 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy scheduled to come online between 2018 and 2020. The agreement comes as Southern Company continued to boost its renewable portfolio with the acquisition of 300 megawatts of wind power in late December, bringing its total to more than 4,000 megawatts of renewable generation added or announced since 2012.
• PNM Resources spokesman Pahl Shipley said the company has no change in plans for replacing generation from retiring two units at a New Mexico plant, totaling 837 megawatts of capacity, with solar and nuclear power.

These developments make clear that continued progress towards a low-carbon future is within reach. The Clean Power Plan provides a sensible framework to help ensure we protect our communities and achieve the tremendous potential of America’s low-cost, low-carbon electricity resources.

The Clean Power Plan Provides a Path Forward that Will Protect and Strengthen American Communities

Let’s hope Scott Pruitt listens to the facts – and turns away from wrong-headed plans to stymie common sense climate protection. Moving forward on the Clean Power Plan will ensure the continuation of tremendous momentum towards a low-carbon future, save lives and improve public health, and help protect American families and communities from the worst ravages of climate change.

The Clean Power Plan is the right path forward for a stronger and safer America.

 

 

 

 

By Martha Roberts

18 states, the District of Columbia, 60 municipalities and 11 utilities have filed in support of the Clean Power Plan

According to news reports, we may soon see an executive order designed to make the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoke the Clean Power Plan, America’s first-ever nationwide limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

Revoking the Clean Power Plan would be monumentally bad public policy, placing our families and communities at greater risk from the dangers of climate change and threatening America's vibrant clean energy potential.

But to fully understand all the reasons revoking the Clean Power Plan is the wrong choice, it’s important to dig into the facts – which demonstrate that the Clean Power Plan is broadly supported, bolsters economic vitality, and fosters America's tremendous momentum in reducing carbon pollution from the power sector.

It’s especially important to dig into the facts now, because we can’t have confidence in what we’ll hear from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt whenever this announcement is made.

• Yesterday, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt denied that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming — contradicting NASA, VOAA, and well-settled science. Pruitt is known for mischaracterizing the science of climate change, doubling down in his written Senate testimony on some of the most widely debunked and discredited arguments put forward by climate skeptics.
• Pruitt has also repeatedly mischaracterized EPA’s rock-solid legal authority to address climate pollution – even though it’s supported by three straight Supreme Court opinions affirming that duty.
• Last week, it emerged that he misled the Senate during his confirmation process by falsely stating that he did not use his personal email account for official business.

Pruitt also has a long history of interwoven ties with big fossil fuel interests that stand to gain from undercutting common sense protections like the Clean Power Plan. He’s even been identified as leading an “unprecedented, secretive alliance” with them to oppose important safeguards.

So let's dig in to the real facts on the Clean Power Plan, and better understand what's at stake:

The Clean Power Plan Has Broad, Diverse Support Across the Country

The Clean Power Plan would reduce climate-destabilizing pollution from power plants – our nation’s largest source of this pollution – to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

It would save lives and protect public health as well, avoiding an estimated 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 childhood asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed school and work days each year by 2030.

Its approach reflects the power sector’s already ongoing, market-driven transition to low cost, low carbon electricity, and is firmly anchored in law.

So it’s not surprising that it enjoys widespread support. In court, the Clean Power Plan is supported by a broad and diverse coalition that includes eighteen states and sixty municipalities across the country; power companies that own and operate nearly ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Apple, Google, Mars, and IKEA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others.

Since November 2016, nearly 900 businesses and major investors have called on the new Administration to continue policies that address climate pollution —underscoring that “failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.” Signatories include DuPont, Gap Inc., General Mills, Hewlett Packard, Hilton, IKEA, Johnson & Johnson, The Kellogg Company, Levi Strauss & Co., L’Oreal USA, NIKE, Mars Incorporated, Pacific Gas and Electric, Schneider Electric, Sealed Air, Starbucks, Unilever, and many others. These signatories collectively earn almost $1.15 trillion in annual revenue, are headquartered across 44 states, and employ about 1.8 million people.

Large majorities of Americans, in red and blue states alike, support the Clean Power Plan and other actions to protect our families and communities from climate pollution. In a recent nationwide poll, 70 percent of Americans expressed support for the Clean Power Plan – including two-thirds of respondents in states that are challenging these vital protections.

Low-Carbon Energy Helps Fuel a Vibrant Economy

Reducing carbon pollution will create jobs and economic benefits across the country.

For everyday consumers, the Clean Power Plan incentivizes energy efficiency investments that save money. EPA estimates that by 2030, the average American family will save approximately $85 every year on their electric bill.

It also bolsters use of low-carbon power sources — which are already driving growth and vitality across the country. More than two million Americans now work in energy efficiency jobs, while solar and wind employ almost half a million people. Collectively, this represents more than twice the number of Americans employed through fossil fuel generation.

Clean energy investments frequently create jobs in low-income and rural communities that stand to benefit most. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that 70 percent of wind farms are located in low-income counties, and that wind developers currently pay $222 million a year in lease payments to U.S. farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners. The bi-partisan Governors’ Wind and Solar Coalition, led by Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, recently sent a remarkable letter to President Trump highlighting the impressive contributions of wind and solar to the American economy —particularly to low-income rural communities.

The Clean Power Plan Builds on — and Secures the Promise of — America’s Transition to Low-Carbon Energy

The Clean Power Plan’s targets are eminently achievable thanks to the powerful expansion of low-cost clean energy, which is increasingly out-competing other sources of electricity in the market. Rolling back the Clean Power Plan puts at risk America’s tremendous momentum and progress in reducing carbon pollution from the power sector.

Carbon pollution from the power sector has decreased by more than 20 percent since 2005, meaning that we’re already about two-thirds of the way toward meeting the Clean Power Plan requirements for 2030. In fact, most states that are litigating against the Clean Power Plan are on track to meet its requirements. Having the Clean Power Plan in place provides a policy framework and establishes an important, stable signal for investors—one that’s essential to make sure we build on the progress so far, and make strategic, sensible decisions for the long-term.

Clean energy is increasingly out-competing other sources of electricity — in particular, the market is seeing a surge in renewable energy development. One report estimated that 85 gigawatts of new wind and solar generation capacity will be added to the grid between 2016 and 2021. Thanks to dramatically declining costs, a recent extension of federal tax credits, and sustained technological advances, low carbon electricity is the increasingly preferred energy source. For example, from 2007 through 2015 alone, the price of solar photovoltaic modules fell by more than 80 percent. Meanwhile, coal-powered electricity is increasingly uneconomic compared to other forms of electricity, even without considering its substantial carbon pollution burden.

Consider these statements from power sector officials affirming their commitment to greater reliance on low-carbon power sources – made after the Nov. 2016 election:

• “It can't just be, ‘We're going to get rid of these regulations, and you guys can party until the next administration comes,’” Cloud Peak Energy Vice President Richard Reavey said. “There are serious global concerns about climate emissions. We have to recognize that's a political reality and work within that framework.”
• “We've always had a point of view at Southern that there's a reasonable trajectory in which to move the portfolio of the United States to a lower carbon future,” said Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning. “There's a way to transition the fleet now.” In a later interview, Fanning added: “It's clear that the courts have given the EPA the right to deal with carbon in a certain way.”
• “Regardless of the outcome of the election,” said Frank Prager, Xcel Energy’s Vice President of Policy and Federal Affairs, “Xcel Energy will continue pursuing energy and environmental strategies that appeal to policymakers across the political spectrum because we are focused on renewable and other infrastructure projects that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions without increasing prices or sacrificing reliability.”

And consider these actions by power companies to expand their renewable investments while phasing out high-carbon generation, putting them in a solid position to comply with robust carbon pollution regulations:

• Florida Power & Light (FPL) just announced it will install eight new solar power plants this year, building on its existing plants to expand reliance on low-carbon power sources. At the end of December 2016,  FPL announced plans to shut down the recently-acquired 250-megawatt Cedar Bay coal plant at the end of the year. “I'm very proud of our employees for proposing this innovative approach that's environmentally beneficial and saves customers millions of dollars,” said CEO Eric Silagy. FPL plans to replace the retired power with natural gas and solar — the company added 224 megawatts of solar capacity in 2016.
• On December 30, 2016, Southern Company announced an agreement with Renewable Energy Systems America to develop 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy scheduled to come online between 2018 and 2020. The agreement comes as Southern Company continued to boost its renewable portfolio with the acquisition of 300 megawatts of wind power in late December, bringing its total to more than 4,000 megawatts of renewable generation added or announced since 2012.
• PNM Resources spokesman Pahl Shipley said the company has no change in plans for replacing generation from retiring two units at a New Mexico plant, totaling 837 megawatts of capacity, with solar and nuclear power.

These developments make clear that continued progress towards a low-carbon future is within reach. The Clean Power Plan provides a sensible framework to help ensure we protect our communities and achieve the tremendous potential of America’s low-cost, low-carbon electricity resources.

The Clean Power Plan Provides a Path Forward that Will Protect and Strengthen American Communities

Let’s hope Scott Pruitt listens to the facts – and turns away from wrong-headed plans to stymie common sense climate protection. Moving forward on the Clean Power Plan will ensure the continuation of tremendous momentum towards a low-carbon future, save lives and improve public health, and help protect American families and communities from the worst ravages of climate change.

The Clean Power Plan is the right path forward for a stronger and safer America.

 

 

 

 

By Jim Marston

Evidently, President Trump and his environmental protection chief Scott Pruitt are just getting warmed up.

Now they’ve set their sights on one of the most successful and noncontroversial energy-related programs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ever managed – Energy Star, a program that saves consumers more than $30 billion a year.

According to E&E News, Trump’s draft budget encourages the EPA to “begin developing legislative options and associated groundwork for transferring ownership and implementation of Energy Star to a non-governmental entity.”

Translation: Energy Star, you’re dead.

85% of Americans know Energy Star

If you’ve shopped for a refrigerator, television, washing machine or computer in the last 25 years, you’ve likely run across a product that’s been certified by Energy Star. The voluntary program reviews the energy efficiency of a variety of electronic product categories, and labels the best performers – usually the top 25 percent – Energy Star Certified.

85% of Americans Know and Love the Energy Star Program. So, Why Cut It?
Click To Tweet

It’s a clever concept, like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for energy, but with better measurement and verification. By highlighting a product’s energy performance and projected annual energy cost, Energy Star made energy efficiency a feature.

The EPA says the program has an 85 percent brand recognition rate [PDF], a level most ad execs would kill for.

One of the reasons it has worked so well is its credibility and objectivity.

Program's transparency, credibility stand out

Customers like it. Manufacturers like it. And it works.

Since Energy Star is government-run, it has the impartiality and transparency that a membership-driven industry organization can’t achieve. A company can’t shove its products through by “donating” to the organization. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find another government initiative with Energy Star’s credibility.

Over the years, being certified grew into a full-blown marketing advantage for companies with efficient products.

Best Buy brags about being Energy Star’s partner of the year for the past three years in a row. Search for a flat-screen TV on Amazon.com or a refrigerator at Sears.com, and Energy Star is one of the “certifications” you can use to filter your search.

Companies benefit while consumers save

Since its creation, Energy Star has saved consumers $430 billion [PDF] – $34 billion in 2015 alone – and prevented 2.7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Customers like it. Manufacturers like it. And it works.

Not too shabby, especially for a program that is completely voluntary.

Yet, even being a smashing success isn’t enough for President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

So what happens if they go ahead and kill Energy Star? We’ll see higher electric bills, less competitive manufacturing, wasted energy, more pollution and more sick kids. Is that making America great again?

This post originally appeared on our Voices blog.