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.

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.

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.

By Boma Brown-West

American businesses benefit tremendously from the robust voluntary and regulatory programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These programs are now under threat of massive budget cuts and regulatory roll backs. This blog, focusing on chemical safety, is the latest in a series from EDF + Business highlighting how industry stands to lose from a weakened agency. To prevent these negative consequences, the business community needs to be at the forefront and demand policymakers support the U.S. EPA and its critical mission. 

Recent attacks against EPA for purported regulatory overreach and an anti-business agenda ignore EPA’s crucial work on safer chemicals in the marketplace. EDF + Business works closely with leading companies to address public health and consumer concerns regarding exposure to chemicals. Leading companies rely on smart, science-backed regulations to provide market certainty and protect their industries from bad actors. Threats to underfund and deregulate EPA could jeopardize its continued leadership, which is desperately needed on chemical safety.

In June 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Act was signed into law. The Lautenberg Act was the result of a strong bipartisan effort to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and finally give EPA the means to protect Americans from exposure to toxic chemicals. The Lautenberg Act not only had strong support from both sides of the aisle in Congress, it also had strong support from business: including trade groups like the American Chemistry Council, the Chamber of Commerce and individual companies like BASF and SC Johnson. Why? Because they agreed that empowering EPA to review both new and existing chemicals and make affirmative decisions about their safety – thereby providing a consistent foundation for the safety of chemicals in the marketplace – would not only be good for improving public health, it would be good for business. The EPA’s job is to ensure a clean, healthy environment for all Americans. After years of input and strong bipartisan support, the reformed TSCA gave EPA the necessary tools to protect the public from toxic chemicals.

Business stands to benefit from greater market certainty and consumer confidence under the reformed TSCA. For example, product manufacturers should worry less about investing in the commercialization and usage of a chemical that years later could be found to imperil human health. And if the law meets its expectation, companies may in the long-term have less to fear about the state activity that had picked up when the federal government was not equipped to do its job. This action had been filling the void but led to a patchwork of requirements and regulations that bedeviled companies and left consumers confused about which chemicals in products were safe. The promise of greater market certainty and greater consumer confidence was critical to the Lautenberg Act’s support in Congress. Republican Senate sponsor David Vitter said, “Republicans agree to give EPA a whole lot [of] new additional authority. . . In exchange, that leads to … a common rulebook.”

However, fulfilling the promise of market certainty for industry and greater protection of consumer health depends on a funded and staffed EPA.  If some in industry and their allies in Congress seek to undermine EPA at every turn – whether through budget cuts, anti-regulatory legislation, or stall tactics – they will stymie the promise of the Lautenberg Act and find themselves back at square one. If on the other hand, business, environmentalists, Democrats and Republicans cooperate as they did to get the Lautenberg Act passed – but this time to ensure that EPA is enabled to implement the Lautenberg Act successfully, putting public health first – we could see a new era of chemical safety and innovation in the industry. And finally achieve what business and everyday Americans need.

Effective enforcement of bipartisan legislation is not the only place that the EPA can and must continue to lead. Creating opportunities for business leadership is also important. The innovative Energy Star program, a joint EPA-DOE voluntary energy efficiency program, is a great example of successful collaboration between business and federal agencies.  The EPA is also the architect of another, perhaps lesser known, voluntary corporate leadership program called Safer Choice.

The Safer Choice program is widely used by companies, celebrated by consumer advocacy groups, and helps to reduce the level of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. Touted by Consumer Reports as a meaningful tool for shoppers, the Safer Choice program recognizes products whose chemical ingredients are the safest within their function (e.g. solvents). Each product bearing the Safer Choice label – over 2000 today – has been evaluated by EPA scientists to ensure that the product’s ingredients meet the program’s rigorous human health and environmental safety criteria. BASF, Levi Strauss, Clorox, Staples, AkzoNobel, Sun Products are just a few of the 500 companies in the retail supply chain that have made the offering of Safer Choice ingredients or products a key part of their business. Likewise, influential trade associations such as The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association (ISSA), with over 7000 members, and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), with over 250 companies representing $100 billion in sales annually, have recognized and promoted Safer Choice as a program that can give companies a competitive edge in the marketplace. In a recent op-ed, CSPA called for the new EPA Administrator to support Safer Choice because it “has provided tangible, bottom-line results for consumers, businesses and environmental advocates.”

EPA regulatory enforcement to protect health, and voluntary programs that recognize leading companies, benefit all Americans.

American businesses benefit tremendously from the robust voluntary and regulatory programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These programs are now under threat of massive budget cuts and regulatory roll backs. This blog, focusing on chemical safety, is the latest in a series from EDF + Business highlighting how industry stands to lose from a […]

By Boma Brown-West

American businesses benefit tremendously from the robust voluntary and regulatory programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These programs are now under threat of massive budget cuts and regulatory roll backs. This blog, focusing on chemical safety, is the latest in a series from EDF + Business highlighting how industry stands to lose from a weakened agency. To prevent these negative consequences, the business community needs to be at the forefront and demand policymakers support the U.S. EPA and its critical mission. 

Recent attacks against EPA for purported regulatory overreach and an anti-business agenda ignore EPA’s crucial work on safer chemicals in the marketplace. EDF + Business works closely with leading companies to address public health and consumer concerns regarding exposure to chemicals. Leading companies rely on smart, science-backed regulations to provide market certainty and protect their industries from bad actors. Threats to underfund and deregulate EPA could jeopardize its continued leadership, which is desperately needed on chemical safety.

In June 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Act was signed into law. The Lautenberg Act was the result of a strong bipartisan effort to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and finally give EPA the means to protect Americans from exposure to toxic chemicals. The Lautenberg Act not only had strong support from both sides of the aisle in Congress, it also had strong support from business: including trade groups like the American Chemistry Council, the Chamber of Commerce and individual companies like BASF and SC Johnson. Why? Because they agreed that empowering EPA to review both new and existing chemicals and make affirmative decisions about their safety – thereby providing a consistent foundation for the safety of chemicals in the marketplace – would not only be good for improving public health, it would be good for business. The EPA’s job is to ensure a clean, healthy environment for all Americans. After years of input and strong bipartisan support, the reformed TSCA gave EPA the necessary tools to protect the public from toxic chemicals.

Business stands to benefit from greater market certainty and consumer confidence under the reformed TSCA. For example, product manufacturers should worry less about investing in the commercialization and usage of a chemical that years later could be found to imperil human health. And if the law meets its expectation, companies may in the long-term have less to fear about the state activity that had picked up when the federal government was not equipped to do its job. This action had been filling the void but led to a patchwork of requirements and regulations that bedeviled companies and left consumers confused about which chemicals in products were safe. The promise of greater market certainty and greater consumer confidence was critical to the Lautenberg Act’s support in Congress. Republican Senate sponsor David Vitter said, “Republicans agree to give EPA a whole lot [of] new additional authority. . . In exchange, that leads to … a common rulebook.”

However, fulfilling the promise of market certainty for industry and greater protection of consumer health depends on a funded and staffed EPA.  If some in industry and their allies in Congress seek to undermine EPA at every turn – whether through budget cuts, anti-regulatory legislation, or stall tactics – they will stymie the promise of the Lautenberg Act and find themselves back at square one. If on the other hand, business, environmentalists, Democrats and Republicans cooperate as they did to get the Lautenberg Act passed – but this time to ensure that EPA is enabled to implement the Lautenberg Act successfully, putting public health first – we could see a new era of chemical safety and innovation in the industry. And finally achieve what business and everyday Americans need.

Effective enforcement of bipartisan legislation is not the only place that the EPA can and must continue to lead. Creating opportunities for business leadership is also important. The innovative Energy Star program, a joint EPA-DOE voluntary energy efficiency program, is a great example of successful collaboration between business and federal agencies.  The EPA is also the architect of another, perhaps lesser known, voluntary corporate leadership program called Safer Choice.

The Safer Choice program is widely used by companies, celebrated by consumer advocacy groups, and helps to reduce the level of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. Touted by Consumer Reports as a meaningful tool for shoppers, the Safer Choice program recognizes products whose chemical ingredients are the safest within their function (e.g. solvents). Each product bearing the Safer Choice label – over 2000 today – has been evaluated by EPA scientists to ensure that the product’s ingredients meet the program’s rigorous human health and environmental safety criteria. BASF, Levi Strauss, Clorox, Staples, AkzoNobel, Sun Products are just a few of the 500 companies in the retail supply chain that have made the offering of Safer Choice ingredients or products a key part of their business. Likewise, influential trade associations such as The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association (ISSA), with over 7000 members, and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), with over 250 companies representing $100 billion in sales annually, have recognized and promoted Safer Choice as a program that can give companies a competitive edge in the marketplace. In a recent op-ed, CSPA called for the new EPA Administrator to support Safer Choice because it “has provided tangible, bottom-line results for consumers, businesses and environmental advocates.”

EPA regulatory enforcement to protect health, and voluntary programs that recognize leading companies, benefit all Americans.

This is the new EPA Administrator's first step in unraveling the crucial climate protections we have spent the last decade creating.

This is the new EPA Administrator's first step in unraveling the crucial climate protections we have spent the last decade creating.

This is the new EPA Administrator's first step in unraveling the crucial climate protections we have spent the last decade creating.

Written by Judith A. Ross

A few months ago, my husband and I decided to buy an older house in Portland, Oregon. We didn’t want a house that was already “done,” because we wanted to make renovations that met our own needs and taste.

Making the place more energy efficient is high on our list, and at the top of that list is replacing old, inefficient home appliances with new ones bearing the Energy Star seal of approval.

We’d been in the house one week and a day when I saw this headline in the Washington Post,

“The Energy Star program is good for the climate and the economy. Trump wants to kill it anyway.”

Wait, what? Even businesses like this program – it gives their higher-end products a consumer-pleasing caché that comes with a big, fat, money-making selling point. Isn’t President Trump all about helping business? Didn’t he promise during his campaign to boost our economy to “make America great again”?

And, more to the point, the Energy Star label helps environmentally conscious consumers like myself cut our emissions, and reduce our energy bills.

According to the Post,

“A new White House proposal would slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 24 percent and eliminate 38 of its programs. One of the programs on the kill list is the Energy Star program, an initiative that experts say is as much about saving money as it is about saving the climate. Should it be eliminated, they argue, both consumers and businesses could suffer.”

Why would anyone suggest transforming a win-win program into a lose-lose one? The stupidity of it all makes my head spin.

Facts don’t seem to matter to you, Mr. President, but here are a few pertaining to my government’s Energy Star program.

• Established in 1992 by the EPA, Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• While computers and monitors were the first labeled products, EPA expanded the label to additional office equipment products and residential heating and cooling equipment. In 1996, EPA partnered with the US Department of Energy for particular product categories.

• As noted by the Post, “…the program now sets an international standard for energy-efficient products, including heating and cooling systems, appliances, and electronics. Homes and other buildings may also receive Energy Star certification by meeting certain standards for energy efficiency.”

• Energy Star told the Post that since its inception, “it has saved consumers an estimated $430 billion on utility bills and avoided 2.7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.”

The White House proposes turning this program over to a non-governmental entity, perhaps one run by industry. Energy experts told E&E News that doing so would result in a less trusted, less competent Energy Star. According to Lowell Ungar, senior policy adviser at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),

“An internal industry label is not going to be as effective, is not going to be as reliable. The consumers aren’t going to know whether that really is representing energy savings and savings in their wallet.”

And, with more than 16,000 partners, who also like the program, perhaps consumers will have some industry help in protesting this latest affront to environmental health. Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy told the Post,

“My hope is that the 16,000 partners really step up and stand firm and say it’s penny-wise and pound-foolish, to put it as politely as possible, to take money from this program or to try to suspend it when it’s clearly something that is doing so much good across so many fronts. I can’t imagine honestly that the manufacturers won’t fight very, very hard to keep this program in place.”  

And I have no doubt that consumers will be right there with them.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

U.S. states are accelerating steps to reduce oil and gas air pollution. Just last week Ohio – which has a Republican Governor, and Republican-controlled Senate and House – joined the list of states targeting oil and gas emissions with a new methane policy that requires operators to check for leaks at compressor stations four times […]

The post States Underscore U.S. Methane Momentum, Latest Reason for Canada to Press Ahead appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Drew Nelson

U.S. states are accelerating steps to reduce oil and gas air pollution. Just last week Ohio – which has a Republican Governor, and Republican-controlled Senate and House – joined the list of states targeting oil and gas emissions with a new methane policy that requires operators to check for leaks at compressor stations four times a year. Showing that it’s not a matter of politics, but smart policy to require oil and gas companies to regularly inspect for and repair leaky equipment.

At the same time, Canada is developing its own requirements to cut oil and gas methane emissions by 45 percent, an effort that some in industry are resisting over concerns of possible U.S. federal policy changes. But Canada needs to keep its eyes on the states where action has taken hold for good reason.

Methane, a powerful pollutant, has emerged as a key energy and environmental challenge.

Natural gas is mostly methane. When it leaks and is vented from thousands of oil and gas facilities, methane loss to the atmosphere is wasted energy that hurts not only businesses but local economies.

Oil and gas operations also release smog-forming pollution that degrades air quality and can impact the health of people living near this development.

Companies in the oil and gas sector are among the largest sources of man-made methane emissions, which are responsible for about 25 percent of today’s warming.

States see clear benefits

Tighter controls for oil and gas emissions are popping up in red and blue states – including California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.

Colorado was the first state to institute methane standards in 2014, and the pay-off has already been seen across the state. A recent industry survey reveals that the majority of companies have found the benefits outweigh the costs of complying with Colorado’s methane regulations.

States are seeing the job creation potential by managing methane emissions. There are hundreds of companies in the U.S. that manufacture products and provide methane mitigation services – and the prospects are growing to put thousands of more people to work.

Individual companies are also realizing the financial upside of controlling their emissions. In Wyoming, for example, one operator was able to boost operational efficiencies and recoup $5 million in what otherwise would have been wasted gas by enhancing leak detection and repair practices.

Will Canada catch up?

Reports find that similar routine leak inspection and maintenance efforts are a low-cost, high-impact opportunity that Canada can use to deliver sizeable methane emission reductions. In 2014 alone, nearly $550 million dollars (CAN) of natural gas (110 billion cubic feet) leaked from Canada’s industry. That’s enough gas to serve all of the households in Montreal every year – a terrible waste.

Right now, the Canadian federal government is developing oil and gas methane standards as part of its Pan-Canadian Climate Framework. And Alberta is working on its own set of methane regulations. Getting these regulations right and following in the steps of several U.S. states that have proven methane regulations are a win-win, will help Canada not only fulfill its climate goals but ensure that oil and gas companies operating in Canada and the states remain on an even playing field.

Consider this: more oil and gas production is covered by existing or pending U.S. state regulations than what the federal Canadian regulations will cover. This is a powerful data point that speaks to the feasibility of addressing oil and gas methane emissions, both politically and technically.

There is enormous upside for Canada to move ahead with strong methane rules. The trend toward action among major oil-and-gas producing states, now including Ohio’s quarterly methane leak inspection requirements, is one more sign that the case for methane regulations is clear. Now it’s time for Canada to show that it won’t be left behind.

By Drew Nelson

U.S. states are accelerating steps to reduce oil and gas air pollution. Just last week Ohio – which has a Republican Governor, and Republican-controlled Senate and House – joined the list of states targeting oil and gas emissions with a new methane policy that requires operators to check for leaks at compressor stations four times a year. Showing that it’s not a matter of politics, but smart policy to require oil and gas companies to regularly inspect for and repair leaky equipment.

At the same time, Canada is developing its own requirements to cut oil and gas methane emissions by 45 percent, an effort that some in industry are resisting over concerns of possible U.S. federal policy changes. But Canada needs to keep its eyes on the states where action has taken hold for good reason.

Methane, a powerful pollutant, has emerged as a key energy and environmental challenge.

Natural gas is mostly methane. When it leaks and is vented from thousands of oil and gas facilities, methane loss to the atmosphere is wasted energy that hurts not only businesses but local economies.

Oil and gas operations also release smog-forming pollution that degrades air quality and can impact the health of people living near this development.

Companies in the oil and gas sector are among the largest sources of man-made methane emissions, which are responsible for about 25 percent of today’s warming.

States see clear benefits

Tighter controls for oil and gas emissions are popping up in red and blue states – including California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.

Colorado was the first state to institute methane standards in 2014, and the pay-off has already been seen across the state. A recent industry survey reveals that the majority of companies have found the benefits outweigh the costs of complying with Colorado’s methane regulations.

States are seeing the job creation potential by managing methane emissions. There are hundreds of companies in the U.S. that manufacture products and provide methane mitigation services – and the prospects are growing to put thousands of more people to work.

Individual companies are also realizing the financial upside of controlling their emissions. In Wyoming, for example, one operator was able to boost operational efficiencies and recoup $5 million in what otherwise would have been wasted gas by enhancing leak detection and repair practices.

Will Canada catch up?

Reports find that similar routine leak inspection and maintenance efforts are a low-cost, high-impact opportunity that Canada can use to deliver sizeable methane emission reductions. In 2014 alone, nearly $550 million dollars (CAN) of natural gas (110 billion cubic feet) leaked from Canada’s industry. That’s enough gas to serve all of the households in Montreal every year – a terrible waste.

Right now, the Canadian federal government is developing oil and gas methane standards as part of its Pan-Canadian Climate Framework. And Alberta is working on its own set of methane regulations. Getting these regulations right and following in the steps of several U.S. states that have proven methane regulations are a win-win, will help Canada not only fulfill its climate goals but ensure that oil and gas companies operating in Canada and the states remain on an even playing field.

Consider this: more oil and gas production is covered by existing or pending U.S. state regulations than what the federal Canadian regulations will cover. This is a powerful data point that speaks to the feasibility of addressing oil and gas methane emissions, both politically and technically.

There is enormous upside for Canada to move ahead with strong methane rules. The trend toward action among major oil-and-gas producing states, now including Ohio’s quarterly methane leak inspection requirements, is one more sign that the case for methane regulations is clear. Now it’s time for Canada to show that it won’t be left behind.

By Drew Nelson

U.S. states are accelerating steps to reduce oil and gas air pollution. Just last week Ohio – which has a Republican Governor, and Republican-controlled Senate and House – joined the list of states targeting oil and gas emissions with a new methane policy that requires operators to check for leaks at compressor stations four times a year. Showing that it’s not a matter of politics, but smart policy to require oil and gas companies to regularly inspect for and repair leaky equipment.

At the same time, Canada is developing its own requirements to cut oil and gas methane emissions by 45 percent, an effort that some in industry are resisting over concerns of possible U.S. federal policy changes. But Canada needs to keep its eyes on the states where action has taken hold for good reason.

Methane, a powerful pollutant, has emerged as a key energy and environmental challenge.

Natural gas is mostly methane. When it leaks and is vented from thousands of oil and gas facilities, methane loss to the atmosphere is wasted energy that hurts not only businesses but local economies.

Oil and gas operations also release smog-forming pollution that degrades air quality and can impact the health of people living near this development.

Companies in the oil and gas sector are among the largest sources of man-made methane emissions, which are responsible for about 25 percent of today’s warming.

States see clear benefits

Tighter controls for oil and gas emissions are popping up in red and blue states – including California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.

Colorado was the first state to institute methane standards in 2014, and the pay-off has already been seen across the state. A recent industry survey reveals that the majority of companies have found the benefits outweigh the costs of complying with Colorado’s methane regulations.

States are seeing the job creation potential by managing methane emissions. There are hundreds of companies in the U.S. that manufacture products and provide methane mitigation services – and the prospects are growing to put thousands of more people to work.

Individual companies are also realizing the financial upside of controlling their emissions. In Wyoming, for example, one operator was able to boost operational efficiencies and recoup $5 million in what otherwise would have been wasted gas by enhancing leak detection and repair practices.

Will Canada catch up?

Reports find that similar routine leak inspection and maintenance efforts are a low-cost, high-impact opportunity that Canada can use to deliver sizeable methane emission reductions. In 2014 alone, nearly $550 million dollars (CAN) of natural gas (110 billion cubic feet) leaked from Canada’s industry. That’s enough gas to serve all of the households in Montreal every year – a terrible waste.

Right now, the Canadian federal government is developing oil and gas methane standards as part of its Pan-Canadian Climate Framework. And Alberta is working on its own set of methane regulations. Getting these regulations right and following in the steps of several U.S. states that have proven methane regulations are a win-win, will help Canada not only fulfill its climate goals but ensure that oil and gas companies operating in Canada and the states remain on an even playing field.

Consider this: more oil and gas production is covered by existing or pending U.S. state regulations than what the federal Canadian regulations will cover. This is a powerful data point that speaks to the feasibility of addressing oil and gas methane emissions, both politically and technically.

There is enormous upside for Canada to move ahead with strong methane rules. The trend toward action among major oil-and-gas producing states, now including Ohio’s quarterly methane leak inspection requirements, is one more sign that the case for methane regulations is clear. Now it’s time for Canada to show that it won’t be left behind.

U.S. states are accelerating steps to reduce oil and gas air pollution. Just last week Ohio – which has a Republican Governor, and Republican-controlled Senate and House – joined the list of states targeting oil and gas emissions with a new methane policy that requires operators to check for leaks at compressor stations four times […]

By Drew Nelson

U.S. states are accelerating steps to reduce oil and gas air pollution. Just last week Ohio – which has a Republican Governor, and Republican-controlled Senate and House – joined the list of states targeting oil and gas emissions with a new methane policy that requires operators to check for leaks at compressor stations four times a year. Showing that it’s not a matter of politics, but smart policy to require oil and gas companies to regularly inspect for and repair leaky equipment.

At the same time, Canada is developing its own requirements to cut oil and gas methane emissions by 45 percent, an effort that some in industry are resisting over concerns of possible U.S. federal policy changes. But Canada needs to keep its eyes on the states where action has taken hold for good reason.

Methane, a powerful pollutant, has emerged as a key energy and environmental challenge.

Natural gas is mostly methane. When it leaks and is vented from thousands of oil and gas facilities, methane loss to the atmosphere is wasted energy that hurts not only businesses but local economies.

Oil and gas operations also release smog-forming pollution that degrades air quality and can impact the health of people living near this development.

Companies in the oil and gas sector are among the largest sources of man-made methane emissions, which are responsible for about 25 percent of today’s warming.

States see clear benefits

Tighter controls for oil and gas emissions are popping up in red and blue states – including California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.

Colorado was the first state to institute methane standards in 2014, and the pay-off has already been seen across the state. A recent industry survey reveals that the majority of companies have found the benefits outweigh the costs of complying with Colorado’s methane regulations.

States are seeing the job creation potential by managing methane emissions. There are hundreds of companies in the U.S. that manufacture products and provide methane mitigation services – and the prospects are growing to put thousands of more people to work.

Individual companies are also realizing the financial upside of controlling their emissions. In Wyoming, for example, one operator was able to boost operational efficiencies and recoup $5 million in what otherwise would have been wasted gas by enhancing leak detection and repair practices.

Will Canada catch up?

Reports find that similar routine leak inspection and maintenance efforts are a low-cost, high-impact opportunity that Canada can use to deliver sizeable methane emission reductions. In 2014 alone, nearly $550 million dollars (CAN) of natural gas (110 billion cubic feet) leaked from Canada’s industry. That’s enough gas to serve all of the households in Montreal every year – a terrible waste.

Right now, the Canadian federal government is developing oil and gas methane standards as part of its Pan-Canadian Climate Framework. And Alberta is working on its own set of methane regulations. Getting these regulations right and following in the steps of several U.S. states that have proven methane regulations are a win-win, will help Canada not only fulfill its climate goals but ensure that oil and gas companies operating in Canada and the states remain on an even playing field.

Consider this: more oil and gas production is covered by existing or pending U.S. state regulations than what the federal Canadian regulations will cover. This is a powerful data point that speaks to the feasibility of addressing oil and gas methane emissions, both politically and technically.

There is enormous upside for Canada to move ahead with strong methane rules. The trend toward action among major oil-and-gas producing states, now including Ohio’s quarterly methane leak inspection requirements, is one more sign that the case for methane regulations is clear. Now it’s time for Canada to show that it won’t be left behind.

Conservation groups, Coast Builders Coalition support investments in large-scale coastal restoration and protection (NEW ORLEANS – March 8, 2017) This morning, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards sent a letter to the Administration outlining the state’s coastal restoration and protection infrastructure priorities. In his letter, Governor Edwards proposes that the Administration give high priority status to five projects included in the state’s Coastal Master Plan: Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion, Houma Navigation Canal Lock Complex, Calcasieu Salinity Control Measures, and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana Governor Calls on President Trump to Expedite Coastal Infrastructure Projects appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Conservation groups, Coast Builders Coalition support investments in large-scale coastal restoration and protection (NEW ORLEANS – March 8, 2017) This morning, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards sent a letter to the Administration outlining the state’s coastal restoration and protection infrastructure priorities. In his letter, Governor Edwards proposes that the Administration give high priority status to five projects included in the state’s Coastal Master Plan: Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion, Houma Navigation Canal Lock Complex, Calcasieu Salinity Control Measures, and ...

Read The Full Story

The post Louisiana Governor Calls on President Trump to Expedite Coastal Infrastructure Projects appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.