By Peter Zalzal

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt withdrew the agency’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, abruptly halting the gathering of information on harmful methane, smog-forming and toxic pollution from these industrial sources.

In announcing the move, Administrator Pruitt hailed the benefits for the oil and gas industry, but notably ignored the interests of everyday Americans right to know about harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities.

Pruitt’s action also stops EPA from obtaining information that can inform future safeguards against this pollution. Even though cost-effective, common-sense best practices and technologies exist to reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities, most existing facilities in this sector are largely exempt from any requirements to control the vast quantities of pollution they emit.

This flawed decision is at odds with the core tenets of the agency Administrator Pruitt is entrusted to lead and inimical to the health and environmental laws he has committed to faithfully execute. Unfortunately, it is also altogether predictable. Indeed this action—which allows oil and gas companies to withhold vital pollution data from thousands of sites across the country— reflects and reinforces concerns raised about Administrator Pruitt’s ability to lead an agency that he has persistently sought to undermine.

1. Pruitt Chooses Secrecy Over Transparency.

EPA has a long bipartisan history of providing data to the public about pollution in their communities. Indeed, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, which included provisions for EPA to create a publicly-available inventory of toxic chemicals down to the local level. Similarly, President George W. Bush signed a bill requiring EPA to collect and disseminate greenhouse gas emissions data from industrial sources across the country.

By withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt aims to shield the oil and gas sector from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, his penchant for secrecy with respect the oil and gas sector is familiar. During his controversial Senate confirmation process, Pruitt sought to withhold thousands of emails related to his ties to major energy interests who have donated to his political causes. While a number of those e-mails have been released, many more remain hidden from public view.

In the face of last week’s action by Administrator Pruitt, EDF has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all ICR data that has been submitted along with all records related to EPA’s decision to halt data collection.

2. Pruitt Places a Premium on the Views of Industry and Their Allies

In recent years, EPA has undertaken a careful, data-driven process to put in place protections to reduce pollution from the oil and gas sector. Often, EPA undertook such extensive data gathering to address industry concerns. The ICR was the latest data gathering effort, designed to ensure EPA had the full complement of information on existing oil and gas facilities. These existing facilities account for the vast majority of the sector’s pollution in coming years, yet remain largely exempt from any methane pollution control requirements.

To tailor its data request, EPA carried out two rounds of public comments, assessed significant stakeholder feedback, and substantially altered the request in response in order to leverage existing data and use electronic reporting frameworks.

In contrast to this careful and deliberative process, Administrator Pruitt withdrew the ICR with just one paragraph of explanation, just one day after receiving a request to do so from the Texas and Oklahoma Attorneys General and others.

Coincidentally, when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General, he was aligned with the oil and gas industry in legal challenges seeking to undermine EPA’s oil and gas methane standards. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he did not solicit input or wait to hear from any of the many other stakeholders involved in this process. Pruitt’s decision to withdraw the ICR may likewise raise conflicts of interest and should be closely scrutinized in light of his ethical obligations as administrator of EPA.

The Administrator has taken similar approaches in the past. As Oklahoma AG, for example, Pruitt simply copied and pasted industry requests and sent them to senior government officials under his own official seal.

EPA is legally required to protect the public from harmful pollution from oil and gas facilities. In carrying out that obligation, it is critical that public officials base decisions that affect our health and safety on careful review of the most rigorous scientific information available—and not simply accept, without any deliberation or inquiry, the recommendations of parties that have a vested interest in weakening health protections.

3. Pruitt’s Selective View of States Rights

As reason for withdrawing the ICR, Administrator Pruitt pointed to the request from the Texas Attorney General and the need to, in his words, “strengthen … our partnership with the states.”

But Pruitt’s notion of cooperative federalism bears no resemblance to the collaborative approach that EPA and states have taken to solving air pollution problems over the last four decades. Indeed, the Administrator seems comfortable with states’ rights when those states are seeking to hide emissions information and block clean air safeguards, but opposes states’ rights when they want stronger protections for their citizens.

For instance, large oil and gas producing states like Colorado and California have in place standards to reduce oil and gas sector emissions. Last Thursday, Ohio adopted stronger standards for certain sources. Eleven states – including major energy-producing states like New Mexico and California – have intervened in court to defend the same EPA emission standards for the oil and gas sector that the Texas Attorney General and his allies attacked in their letter. And many states have likewise supported EPA’s information collection request.

The Administrator’s decision ignores these views and undermines stronger state-level partnership. This is the very same disregard for state efforts to reduce pollution that Administrator Pruitt demonstrated when, during his confirmation hearing, he conveyed reservations about California’s longstanding authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards to address the state’s unique air pollution problems. And, over the weekend, additional reports surfaced suggesting that the Administration was planning attacks on California’s authority, which could be initiated as soon as this week.

This concept of states’ rights as a one-way justification to erode clean air protections is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act’s framework.

The underminer

During his confirmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt committed to carrying out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment using rigorous data.  Unfortunately, with one of his first actions, he chose to undermine both.

By Karen Chapman

Applying the right amount of fertilizer to a grower’s field is tricky: too little fertilizer means lost yields; too much fertilizer means wasted costs and potential runoff that causes air and water pollution. Meanwhile, farmers cannot control the weather, which can wreak havoc on the best-laid plans.

One important tool used to answer the question of the right rate, timing, placement and source of nutrient application to croplands (the “4Rs”) is on-farm research trials. Farmers establish trials using their own fields and equipment, usually with guidance from a trusted advisor, university researcher or extension agent. Trials can inform many practices like nutrient management and seeding rate. Typically, they are conducted to determine practices’ effects on yield, nutrient use efficiency, soil health and profitability.

Using the data generated from these field trials, experts are now updating the Tri-State Fertility Guide for Corn, Soybean, Wheat and Alfalfa. This 22-year old document still serves as the main guidance on fertilizer applications for the Buckeye state as well as Michigan and Indiana.

Here’s how the update will benefit farmers.

New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond, via…
Click To Tweet

Maximum Return to Nitrogen 

“We’re looking at farmer profitability as the primary target.” Steve Culman, Soil Fertility Specialist at Ohio State University

The Tri-State guide has not been updated to include significant advancements in agriculture over the past two decades, so it lags behind in supporting farmers’ efforts to be more efficient.

The guide would benefit significantly from an influx of more recent data collected on farms using modern equipment, hybrids and management practices. The guide, which still relies on the outdated yield-based goal approach to determine nutrient application rates, also would benefit from a greater focus on “Maximum Return to Nitrogen” (MRTN), a newer approach to rate recommendations developed by a number of land grant universities.

For this reason, many Corn Belt states adopted the MRTN calculator, which is informed by on-farm or university research trials, as the preferred method of recommending the right rate of N for a given farm.

Profitability over yield

In Ohio, fertility experts are moving away from yield-goal based recommendations still featured in the Tri-State guide.

“We’re looking at farmer profitability as the primary target,” says Steve Culman, Soil Fertility Specialist at Ohio State University (OSU). Steve is leading efforts to update the Tri-State Guide using data from on-farm research trials. So far, his team has conducted 150 trials testing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium rates in order to fine tune guidance.

Since farm income has been suffering during the past four years, Culman feels a particular obligation to advise farmers on economic models that work for them. “In an era of variable grain prices and variable nitrogen fertilizer prices, it’s an economic model that accounts for those uncertainties and helps farmers,” he said.

Maumee Farmer Network

Over the past nine years, EDF and independent crop consultants in the Lake Erie basin and beyond have collected data from 200 trials on nitrogen rate through the Maumee Farmer Network. Participating farmers received information after each season with a “post-mortem” report on how close they were to optimizing their nutrient rate on their own farms – and to obtaining the most yield and profit from each pound of fertilizer used.

After two to three years participating in the program, farmers saw trends that informed their management decisions in the next season. Some increased fertilizer use on certain acres while decreasing its use on others – the trick is to learn where that makes sense according to the soil biology and its ability to process nutrients for greater uptake into the crop, to optimize fertilizer use, not necessarily minimize fertilizer use.

These data collected will supplement the OSU effort, while all of the trial data will used to inform the new Tri-State recommendations.

The more regional data can be collected, interpreted, shared and understood, the better off farmers and the environment will be.

Related:

New guidebook explains how and why to build a farmer network >>

Farmers' voices are essential to sustainability. Let's listen up >>

From my grandfather's farm to NutrientStar: Why I believe in growers >>

By Karen Chapman

Applying the right amount of fertilizer to a grower’s field is tricky: too little fertilizer means lost yields; too much fertilizer means wasted costs and potential runoff that causes air and water pollution. Meanwhile, farmers cannot control the weather, which can wreak havoc on the best-laid plans.

One important tool used to answer the question of the right rate, timing, placement and source of nutrient application to croplands (the “4Rs”) is on-farm research trials. Farmers establish trials using their own fields and equipment, usually with guidance from a trusted advisor, university researcher or extension agent. Trials can inform many practices like nutrient management and seeding rate. Typically, they are conducted to determine practices’ effects on yield, nutrient use efficiency, soil health and profitability.

Using the data generated from these field trials, experts are now updating the Tri-State Fertility Guide for Corn, Soybean, Wheat and Alfalfa. This 22-year old document still serves as the main guidance on fertilizer applications for the Buckeye state as well as Michigan and Indiana.

Here’s how the update will benefit farmers.

New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond, via…
Click To Tweet

Maximum Return to Nitrogen 

“We’re looking at farmer profitability as the primary target.” Steve Culman, Soil Fertility Specialist at Ohio State University

The Tri-State guide has not been updated to include significant advancements in agriculture over the past two decades, so it lags behind in supporting farmers’ efforts to be more efficient.

The guide would benefit significantly from an influx of more recent data collected on farms using modern equipment, hybrids and management practices. The guide, which still relies on the outdated yield-based goal approach to determine nutrient application rates, also would benefit from a greater focus on “Maximum Return to Nitrogen” (MRTN), a newer approach to rate recommendations developed by a number of land grant universities.

For this reason, many Corn Belt states adopted the MRTN calculator, which is informed by on-farm or university research trials, as the preferred method of recommending the right rate of N for a given farm.

Profitability over yield

In Ohio, fertility experts are moving away from yield-goal based recommendations still featured in the Tri-State guide.

“We’re looking at farmer profitability as the primary target,” says Steve Culman, Soil Fertility Specialist at Ohio State University (OSU). Steve is leading efforts to update the Tri-State Guide using data from on-farm research trials. So far, his team has conducted 150 trials testing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium rates in order to fine tune guidance.

Since farm income has been suffering during the past four years, Culman feels a particular obligation to advise farmers on economic models that work for them. “In an era of variable grain prices and variable nitrogen fertilizer prices, it’s an economic model that accounts for those uncertainties and helps farmers,” he said.

Maumee Farmer Network

Over the past nine years, EDF and independent crop consultants in the Lake Erie basin and beyond have collected data from 200 trials on nitrogen rate through the Maumee Farmer Network. Participating farmers received information after each season with a “post-mortem” report on how close they were to optimizing their nutrient rate on their own farms – and to obtaining the most yield and profit from each pound of fertilizer used.

After two to three years participating in the program, farmers saw trends that informed their management decisions in the next season. Some increased fertilizer use on certain acres while decreasing its use on others – the trick is to learn where that makes sense according to the soil biology and its ability to process nutrients for greater uptake into the crop, to optimize fertilizer use, not necessarily minimize fertilizer use.

These data collected will supplement the OSU effort, while all of the trial data will used to inform the new Tri-State recommendations.

The more regional data can be collected, interpreted, shared and understood, the better off farmers and the environment will be.

Related:

New guidebook explains how and why to build a farmer network >>

Farmers' voices are essential to sustainability. Let's listen up >>

From my grandfather's farm to NutrientStar: Why I believe in growers >>

Applying the right amount of fertilizer to a grower’s field is tricky: too little fertilizer means lost yields; too much fertilizer means wasted costs and potential runoff that causes air and water pollution. Meanwhile, farmers cannot control the weather, which can wreak havoc on the best-laid plans. One important tool used to answer the question […]

The post New guidance to maximize every drop of fertilizer in Ohio and beyond first appeared on Growing Returns.

By Chris Meyer

REDD+ activity has shifted from securing recognition in the global agreement to focusing on development and implementation at the national and subnational levels. Image source: flickr

The director general of a leading tropical forest research center recently told a Yale conference of international forest experts that Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (known as REDD+) was a “good idea [that] didn’t work,” and has now “disappeared” (video clip at 1hr 9min). But far from having vanished, REDD+ is steadily advancing in countries and states around the world.

Emerging REDD+ programs at national and subnational levels

For much of the past decade, REDD+ was a hot topic of global conferences, and a standout success at the UN climate negotiations, where it received explicit recognition in 2015’s international Paris climate agreement.

Now enshrined at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), REDD+ is experiencing a groundswell of action at the national and subnational levels. Tropical forest countries are designing and implementing their REDD+ programs at home, as well as submitting documentation to the UNFCCC and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) for review and funding.

Here are some examples of REDD+ programs and activities that are demonstrating progress at the national and subnational levels:

• Brazil has taken the lead and submitted to the UNFCCC 1) a national REDD+ strategy, 2) a forest reference level (i.e. a baseline for deforestation), 3) information on safeguards to protect the environment and society, and 4) a national forest monitoring system. These four elements are vital to ensuring that emissions reductions for REDD+ are real, measurable and provide benefits to the environment and society. 

  REDD+ is experiencing a groundswell of action at the national and subnational levels.

• The Democratic Republic of Congo and Ecuador also submitted their national REDD+ strategies to the UNFCCC.
• 25 countries have submitted their forest reference levels to the UNFCCC, 10 of which were submitted at the end of 2016.
• Chile, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mexico all had their REDD+ programs approved by the FCPF in 2016; these programs will begin generating emissions reductions this year. The World Bank plans to sign purchase agreements with some of the programs by the end of 2017.
• The Green Climate Fund approved in 2016 two REDD+ implementation grants worth tens of millions of dollars for Ecuador and Madagascar.
• Germany, UK, and Norway pledged $5 billion for results-based payments between 2016 and 2020.
• The Green Climate Fund will define its criteria for REDD+ results-based payments for approval by April 2017, unlocking another pathway for REDD+ financing.

Results-based REDD+ financing still needed

REDD+’s explicit recognition in the Paris Agreement politically secured its future in the post-2020 climate framework. But for REDD+ to be fully implemented, it needs adequate and sustainable financing to support a results-based payment system that includes:

• The UNFCCC should finish its guidance on International Transfers of Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs), which will facilitate REDD+ market transactions.
• The Green Climate Fund should complete its REDD+ results-based payments criteria for those countries interested in non-market finance.
• Other potential compliance markets in California and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) need to give their approval to REDD+ offsets.

In conclusion, I do partially agree that REDD+ has “disappeared” in that certain – the parts facets and activities of REDD+ that needed to disappear are no longer. REDD+ activity has – appropriately – shifted from securing recognition in the global agreement to focusing on development and implementation at the national and subnational levels.

Now, building on the momentum from the Paris Agreement’s entry into force, countries need to expedite the process of creating the results-based payment mechanisms to ensure a sustainable and reliable REDD+ finance system.

By Chris Meyer

REDD+ activity has shifted from securing recognition in the global agreement to focusing on development and implementation at the national and subnational levels. Image source: flickr

The director general of a leading tropical forest research center recently told a Yale conference of international forest experts that Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (known as REDD+) was a “good idea [that] didn’t work,” and has now “disappeared” (video clip at 1hr 9min). But far from having vanished, REDD+ is steadily advancing in countries and states around the world.

Emerging REDD+ programs at national and subnational levels

For much of the past decade, REDD+ was a hot topic of global conferences, and a standout success at the UN climate negotiations, where it received explicit recognition in 2015’s international Paris climate agreement.

Now enshrined at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), REDD+ is experiencing a groundswell of action at the national and subnational levels. Tropical forest countries are designing and implementing their REDD+ programs at home, as well as submitting documentation to the UNFCCC and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) for review and funding.

Here are some examples of REDD+ programs and activities that are demonstrating progress at the national and subnational levels:

• Brazil has taken the lead and submitted to the UNFCCC 1) a national REDD+ strategy, 2) a forest reference level (i.e. a baseline for deforestation), 3) information on safeguards to protect the environment and society, and 4) a national forest monitoring system. These four elements are vital to ensuring that emissions reductions for REDD+ are real, measurable and provide benefits to the environment and society. 

  REDD+ is experiencing a groundswell of action at the national and subnational levels.

• The Democratic Republic of Congo and Ecuador also submitted their national REDD+ strategies to the UNFCCC.
• 25 countries have submitted their forest reference levels to the UNFCCC, 10 of which were submitted at the end of 2016.
• Chile, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mexico all had their REDD+ programs approved by the FCPF in 2016; these programs will begin generating emissions reductions this year. The World Bank plans to sign purchase agreements with some of the programs by the end of 2017.
• The Green Climate Fund approved in 2016 two REDD+ implementation grants worth tens of millions of dollars for Ecuador and Madagascar.
• Germany, UK, and Norway pledged $5 billion for results-based payments between 2016 and 2020.
• The Green Climate Fund will define its criteria for REDD+ results-based payments for approval by April 2017, unlocking another pathway for REDD+ financing.

Results-based REDD+ financing still needed

REDD+’s explicit recognition in the Paris Agreement politically secured its future in the post-2020 climate framework. But for REDD+ to be fully implemented, it needs adequate and sustainable financing to support a results-based payment system that includes:

• The UNFCCC should finish its guidance on International Transfers of Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs), which will facilitate REDD+ market transactions.
• The Green Climate Fund should complete its REDD+ results-based payments criteria for those countries interested in non-market finance.
• Other potential compliance markets in California and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) need to give their approval to REDD+ offsets.

In conclusion, I do partially agree that REDD+ has “disappeared” in that certain – the parts facets and activities of REDD+ that needed to disappear are no longer. REDD+ activity has – appropriately – shifted from securing recognition in the global agreement to focusing on development and implementation at the national and subnational levels.

Now, building on the momentum from the Paris Agreement’s entry into force, countries need to expedite the process of creating the results-based payment mechanisms to ensure a sustainable and reliable REDD+ finance system.

Written by Dominique Browning

Ivanka Trump and family on Air Force One

Dear Ivanka,

Persist on Paris.

We’ve been reading that you are fighting to keep the US in the Paris Climate Agreement, and this is an argument you have to win—on behalf of all of us.

Our participation in an agreement to get climate pollution under control is the most important thing we can do to protect our children’s futures.

You’re a mom—and I’ve become a grandmother this year, for the first time. We both know that nothing motivates us more than doing everything we can to make our children’s lives as good and happy and healthy as possible. As a grandmother, I’ve been thinking a lot about the world I will leave behind, and what part I played in making it safer. That’s why I started Moms Clean Air Force. And that’s why I’m so passionate about explaining to other parents the part we play in climate pollution, why it is so important, and what we can do about it.

You clearly get it. And though people will accuse your father of using you for “greenwashing” purposes, I believe that a strong, persuasive daughter can make all the difference in the world. I know, because my own father, a deeply conservative Southerner, was once a climate denier himself. But he agreed to read up, and study the research (he has a science and engineering kind of brain). And he was completely persuaded of the urgency and danger we are in.

Mothers have to deal with a thousand decisions a day. But we also think longterm. And we dream longterm—what will our children’s worlds be like? What will they do when they grow up? What kind of people do we want to help them to become?

So, persist, Ivanka. (Tweet this) It isn’t too much to say to you that our futures depend upon your getting through to our President. You are on the right side, the side of the better angels of all our Nature.

And thank you so much for trying.

Photo: Ivanka Trump Facebook

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

By Diane Regas

Last Friday, students at UC Berkeley hosted their 8th annual Energy Summit about the future of federal energy policy under the Trump Administration. It was refreshing to hear a respectful discussion — participants from people from private industry, non-profits and business exploring serious solutions — and listening with respect to all sides — including a conservative Trump supporter on a panel with me.

There was a remarkable amount of agreement — which is very surprising in these divisive times. But we should not be surprised: When we get together we can find a lot of common ground. The reality is that most Americans want clean energy and the freedom and prosperity that comes with it. Yes, there is controversy about the future of coal — but there is consensus in our country about the future for clean energy.

Renewable energy created 769,000 jobs last year

We need to be concerned about the families communities have lost jobs the energy industry. The number of coal jobs has been cut in half since 1980, even though the industry produces more coal now than it did 37 years ago. It surprises most people that while production has gone up and down, increased mechanization in the industry has dramatically cut jobs.

The good news is that solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy as demonstrated in EDF’s newest clean energy jobs report. Even more encouraging, is that solar jobs are growing fastest in states that have been hit hard by coal job losses – states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Clean energy is creating a pipeline of well-paying jobs across all 50 states. Most of these jobs cannot be outsourced.

The President Should Understand Clean Energy is a Bi-Partisan Issue
Click To Tweet

There are more renewables in “red” than in “blue” congressional districts, and 83% of conservatives favor more solar development and 75% favor more wind development. Why? Because it makes economic sense.

Two weeks ago, a bipartisan coalition of governors wrote Trump a letter that argued that the nation’s wind and solar energy resources are transforming low-income rural areas “in ways not seen since the passage of the Homestead Act over 150 years ago.” U.S. wind facilities pay rural landowners $222 million a year. By 2030 rural landowners are projected to reap as much as $900 million a year by leasing land to wind developers.

Clean energy also creates energy independence. My co-panelist at the BERC conference, conservative activist Debbie Dooley said it best: “I love individual liberty and individual freedom, and to me solar, wind, clean energy mean liberty.”

Another point that Dooley made – and one which we agree on – is that conservative lawmakers should be fighting to ensure consumers have multiple energy options. There are terrific opportunities to create policies that allow markets to operate more competitively in the energy industry — and clean energy can thrive.

Even without new policies, many corporations are choosing to invest in renewable energy — it facilitates independence and serves the bottom line.

While no regulations require this, leading companies like Microsoft, Nike, Nestlé, Walmart and many others are committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewable energy.

And despite the threat of environmental rollbacks in the current administration, savvy companies continue to set aggressive, science-based climate goals for the decades ahead.

Energy efficiency creates millions of jobs

With almost 2.2 million jobs, energy efficiency employment represents a sizable portion of the national energy economy. Roughly 32% of the 6.5 million employees in the U.S. construction industry work on energy or building energy efficiency projects. Nearly 300,000 Americans manufacture energy efficient products. These jobs grew from sensible policy and regulations, but also from choices that homeowners, consumers, and businesses made to save money in the face of rising energy costs.

Fellow panelist, Ken Alston, Investment Manager at California Clean Energy Fund, reminded our audience that, “we are well on our way to a transition to a clean energy economy.” Environmental protection and economic prosperity do not need to be at odds. As Michael Wheeler, Vice President of Policy Initiatives at Recurrent Energy noted, utility scale solar can thrive in current market conditions. “Solar can thrive under a Trump Administration as long as the administration does nothing to sabotage progress made to date,” Wheeler added.

Rolling back environmental safeguards and reigniting a U.S. reliance on coal and oil is short-term thinking that puts us on a dangerous path. Our path to prosperity must be driven by long-term economics and science, not short-term politics.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

By Diane Regas

Last Friday, students at UC Berkeley hosted their 8th annual Energy Summit about the future of federal energy policy under the Trump Administration. It was refreshing to hear a respectful discussion — participants from people from private industry, non-profits and business exploring serious solutions — and listening with respect to all sides — including a conservative Trump supporter on a panel with me.

There was a remarkable amount of agreement — which is very surprising in these divisive times. But we should not be surprised: When we get together we can find a lot of common ground. The reality is that most Americans want clean energy and the freedom and prosperity that comes with it. Yes, there is controversy about the future of coal — but there is consensus in our country about the future for clean energy.

Renewable energy created 769,000 jobs last year

We need to be concerned about the families communities have lost jobs the energy industry. The number of coal jobs has been cut in half since 1980, even though the industry produces more coal now than it did 37 years ago. It surprises most people that while production has gone up and down, increased mechanization in the industry has dramatically cut jobs.

The good news is that solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy as demonstrated in EDF’s newest clean energy jobs report. Even more encouraging, is that solar jobs are growing fastest in states that have been hit hard by coal job losses – states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Clean energy is creating a pipeline of well-paying jobs across all 50 states. Most of these jobs cannot be outsourced.

The President Should Understand Clean Energy is a Bi-Partisan Issue
Click To Tweet

There are more renewables in “red” than in “blue” congressional districts, and 83% of conservatives favor more solar development and 75% favor more wind development. Why? Because it makes economic sense.

Two weeks ago, a bipartisan coalition of governors wrote Trump a letter that argued that the nation’s wind and solar energy resources are transforming low-income rural areas “in ways not seen since the passage of the Homestead Act over 150 years ago.” U.S. wind facilities pay rural landowners $222 million a year. By 2030 rural landowners are projected to reap as much as $900 million a year by leasing land to wind developers.

Clean energy also creates energy independence. My co-panelist at the BERC conference, conservative activist Debbie Dooley said it best: “I love individual liberty and individual freedom, and to me solar, wind, clean energy mean liberty.”

Another point that Dooley made – and one which we agree on – is that conservative lawmakers should be fighting to ensure consumers have multiple energy options. There are terrific opportunities to create policies that allow markets to operate more competitively in the energy industry — and clean energy can thrive.

Even without new policies, many corporations are choosing to invest in renewable energy — it facilitates independence and serves the bottom line.

While no regulations require this, leading companies like Microsoft, Nike, Nestlé, Walmart and many others are committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewable energy.

And despite the threat of environmental rollbacks in the current administration, savvy companies continue to set aggressive, science-based climate goals for the decades ahead.

Energy efficiency creates millions of jobs

With almost 2.2 million jobs, energy efficiency employment represents a sizable portion of the national energy economy. Roughly 32% of the 6.5 million employees in the U.S. construction industry work on energy or building energy efficiency projects. Nearly 300,000 Americans manufacture energy efficient products. These jobs grew from sensible policy and regulations, but also from choices that homeowners, consumers, and businesses made to save money in the face of rising energy costs.

Fellow panelist, Ken Alston, Investment Manager at California Clean Energy Fund, reminded our audience that, “we are well on our way to a transition to a clean energy economy.” Environmental protection and economic prosperity do not need to be at odds. As Michael Wheeler, Vice President of Policy Initiatives at Recurrent Energy noted, utility scale solar can thrive in current market conditions. “Solar can thrive under a Trump Administration as long as the administration does nothing to sabotage progress made to date,” Wheeler added.

Rolling back environmental safeguards and reigniting a U.S. reliance on coal and oil is short-term thinking that puts us on a dangerous path. Our path to prosperity must be driven by long-term economics and science, not short-term politics.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

By Diane Regas

Last Friday, students at UC Berkeley hosted their 8th annual Energy Summit about the future of federal energy policy under the Trump Administration. It was refreshing to hear a respectful discussion — participants from people from private industry, non-profits and business exploring serious solutions — and listening with respect to all sides — including a conservative Trump supporter on a panel with me.

There was a remarkable amount of agreement — which is very surprising in these divisive times. But we should not be surprised: When we get together we can find a lot of common ground. The reality is that most Americans want clean energy and the freedom and prosperity that comes with it. Yes, there is controversy about the future of coal — but there is consensus in our country about the future for clean energy.

Renewable energy created 769,000 jobs last year

We need to be concerned about the families communities have lost jobs the energy industry. The number of coal jobs has been cut in half since 1980, even though the industry produces more coal now than it did 37 years ago. It surprises most people that while production has gone up and down, increased mechanization in the industry has dramatically cut jobs.

The good news is that solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy as demonstrated in EDF’s newest clean energy jobs report. Even more encouraging, is that solar jobs are growing fastest in states that have been hit hard by coal job losses – states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Clean energy is creating a pipeline of well-paying jobs across all 50 states. Most of these jobs cannot be outsourced.

The President Should Understand Clean Energy is a Bi-Partisan Issue
Click To Tweet

There are more renewables in “red” than in “blue” congressional districts, and 83% of conservatives favor more solar development and 75% favor more wind development. Why? Because it makes economic sense.

Two weeks ago, a bipartisan coalition of governors wrote Trump a letter that argued that the nation’s wind and solar energy resources are transforming low-income rural areas “in ways not seen since the passage of the Homestead Act over 150 years ago.” U.S. wind facilities pay rural landowners $222 million a year. By 2030 rural landowners are projected to reap as much as $900 million a year by leasing land to wind developers.

Clean energy also creates energy independence. My co-panelist at the BERC conference, conservative activist Debbie Dooley said it best: “I love individual liberty and individual freedom, and to me solar, wind, clean energy mean liberty.”

Another point that Dooley made – and one which we agree on – is that conservative lawmakers should be fighting to ensure consumers have multiple energy options. There are terrific opportunities to create policies that allow markets to operate more competitively in the energy industry — and clean energy can thrive.

Even without new policies, many corporations are choosing to invest in renewable energy — it facilitates independence and serves the bottom line.

While no regulations require this, leading companies like Microsoft, Nike, Nestlé, Walmart and many others are committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewable energy.

And despite the threat of environmental rollbacks in the current administration, savvy companies continue to set aggressive, science-based climate goals for the decades ahead.

Energy efficiency creates millions of jobs

With almost 2.2 million jobs, energy efficiency employment represents a sizable portion of the national energy economy. Roughly 32% of the 6.5 million employees in the U.S. construction industry work on energy or building energy efficiency projects. Nearly 300,000 Americans manufacture energy efficient products. These jobs grew from sensible policy and regulations, but also from choices that homeowners, consumers, and businesses made to save money in the face of rising energy costs.

Fellow panelist, Ken Alston, Investment Manager at California Clean Energy Fund, reminded our audience that, “we are well on our way to a transition to a clean energy economy.” Environmental protection and economic prosperity do not need to be at odds. As Michael Wheeler, Vice President of Policy Initiatives at Recurrent Energy noted, utility scale solar can thrive in current market conditions. “Solar can thrive under a Trump Administration as long as the administration does nothing to sabotage progress made to date,” Wheeler added.

Rolling back environmental safeguards and reigniting a U.S. reliance on coal and oil is short-term thinking that puts us on a dangerous path. Our path to prosperity must be driven by long-term economics and science, not short-term politics.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

By Diane Regas

Last Friday, students at UC Berkeley hosted their 8th annual Energy Summit about the future of federal energy policy under the Trump Administration. It was refreshing to hear a respectful discussion — participants from people from private industry, non-profits and business exploring serious solutions — and listening with respect to all sides — including a conservative Trump supporter on a panel with me.

There was a remarkable amount of agreement — which is very surprising in these divisive times. But we should not be surprised: When we get together we can find a lot of common ground. The reality is that most Americans want clean energy and the freedom and prosperity that comes with it. Yes, there is controversy about the future of coal — but there is consensus in our country about the future for clean energy.

Renewable energy created 769,000 jobs last year

We need to be concerned about the families communities have lost jobs the energy industry. The number of coal jobs has been cut in half since 1980, even though the industry produces more coal now than it did 37 years ago. It surprises most people that while production has gone up and down, increased mechanization in the industry has dramatically cut jobs.

The good news is that solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy as demonstrated in EDF’s newest clean energy jobs report. Even more encouraging, is that solar jobs are growing fastest in states that have been hit hard by coal job losses – states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Clean energy is creating a pipeline of well-paying jobs across all 50 states. Most of these jobs cannot be outsourced.

The President Should Understand Clean Energy is a Bi-Partisan Issue
Click To Tweet

There are more renewables in “red” than in “blue” congressional districts, and 83% of conservatives favor more solar development and 75% favor more wind development. Why? Because it makes economic sense.

Two weeks ago, a bipartisan coalition of governors wrote Trump a letter that argued that the nation’s wind and solar energy resources are transforming low-income rural areas “in ways not seen since the passage of the Homestead Act over 150 years ago.” U.S. wind facilities pay rural landowners $222 million a year. By 2030 rural landowners are projected to reap as much as $900 million a year by leasing land to wind developers.

Clean energy also creates energy independence. My co-panelist at the BERC conference, conservative activist Debbie Dooley said it best: “I love individual liberty and individual freedom, and to me solar, wind, clean energy mean liberty.”

Another point that Dooley made – and one which we agree on – is that conservative lawmakers should be fighting to ensure consumers have multiple energy options. There are terrific opportunities to create policies that allow markets to operate more competitively in the energy industry — and clean energy can thrive.

Even without new policies, many corporations are choosing to invest in renewable energy — it facilitates independence and serves the bottom line.

While no regulations require this, leading companies like Microsoft, Nike, Nestlé, Walmart and many others are committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewable energy.

And despite the threat of environmental rollbacks in the current administration, savvy companies continue to set aggressive, science-based climate goals for the decades ahead.

Energy efficiency creates millions of jobs

With almost 2.2 million jobs, energy efficiency employment represents a sizable portion of the national energy economy. Roughly 32% of the 6.5 million employees in the U.S. construction industry work on energy or building energy efficiency projects. Nearly 300,000 Americans manufacture energy efficient products. These jobs grew from sensible policy and regulations, but also from choices that homeowners, consumers, and businesses made to save money in the face of rising energy costs.

Fellow panelist, Ken Alston, Investment Manager at California Clean Energy Fund, reminded our audience that, “we are well on our way to a transition to a clean energy economy.” Environmental protection and economic prosperity do not need to be at odds. As Michael Wheeler, Vice President of Policy Initiatives at Recurrent Energy noted, utility scale solar can thrive in current market conditions. “Solar can thrive under a Trump Administration as long as the administration does nothing to sabotage progress made to date,” Wheeler added.

Rolling back environmental safeguards and reigniting a U.S. reliance on coal and oil is short-term thinking that puts us on a dangerous path. Our path to prosperity must be driven by long-term economics and science, not short-term politics.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

By Martha Roberts

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.

 

By Martha Roberts

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.

 

By Liz Delaney

For companies, future planning is simply good business. This is why many in Corporate America – having long accepted that climate change is real – are continuing to transition towards low-carbon energy options and to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Recently, it was reported that under the watch of newly-appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the environmental agency’s budget could be cut by 24 percent – to roughly $6 billion, its lowest since the mid-1980's. If this happens, it may be up to the business community to maintain its vigilant eye on the environment and future while helping today’s economy thrive.

Here’s a look at just two of the many EPA programs that have helped business transition to a clean energy future.

The Clean Power Plan

Many in the business community strongly supported the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) – the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants. The argument? Dirty sources of energy generation are becoming a growing concern for corporate America. These energy sources are increasingly uneconomic. Fortune 500 companies routinely set renewable energy and emissions reduction goals, but find roadblocks in many energy markets around the country.

Companies Want Clean Energy – These 2 EPA Programs Help Them Get It.
Click To Tweet

Fortunately, the CPP can open new opportunities for businesses interested in operating in a clean energy economy. The rule’s flexible framework puts states in the driver’s seat to set plans that call for the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions for meeting pollution reduction targets while spurring innovation.

The CPP is positioned to do the following:

• Generate $155 billionin consumer savings between 2020-2030
• Create 3x as many jobs per $1 investedin clean energy as compared to $1 invested in fossil fuels
• Lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $54 billion, including avoiding 3,600premature deaths in 2030

The Green Power Partnership

The Green Power Partnership is a voluntary program launched by the EPA to increase the use of renewable electricity in the U.S. Under the program, businesses are armed with resources and provided technical support to identify the types of green power products that best meet their goals. Since its inception, the Partnership has made notable progress in addressing market barriers to green power procurement.

We don’t know what will happen in Washington over the next few years. But many businesses are moving forward.

Through the Partnership, companies can reduce their carbon footprints, increase cost savings, and demonstrate civic leadership, which further drives customer, investor and stakeholder loyalty. At the end of 2015, over 1,300 Partners were collectively using more than 30 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually, equivalent to the electricity use of more than three million average American homes.

Long-term economics versus short-term politics

We don’t know what will happen in Washington over the next few years. But many businesses are moving forward. Rather than shift course, corporations are increasing investments in clean, reliable power, a move that is consistent with sound business practices.

But business can’t do it alone. The EPA supports responsible companies who have committed to reducing their carbon footprints while safeguarding our planet. It’s time for business to not just leverage their scale and buying power to help accelerate the transition to a clean energy future, but to speak up in favor of maintaining a well-funded agency that continues to make decisions based on sound science and the law.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

By Liz Delaney

For companies, future planning is simply good business. This is why many in Corporate America – having long accepted that climate change is real – are continuing to transition towards low-carbon energy options and to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Recently, it was reported that under the watch of newly-appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the environmental agency’s budget could be cut by 24 percent – to roughly $6 billion, its lowest since the mid-1980's. If this happens, it may be up to the business community to maintain its vigilant eye on the environment and future while helping today’s economy thrive.

Here’s a look at just two of the many EPA programs that have helped business transition to a clean energy future.

The Clean Power Plan

Many in the business community strongly supported the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) – the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants. The argument? Dirty sources of energy generation are becoming a growing concern for corporate America. These energy sources are increasingly uneconomic. Fortune 500 companies routinely set renewable energy and emissions reduction goals, but find roadblocks in many energy markets around the country.

Companies Want Clean Energy – These 2 EPA Programs Help Them Get It.
Click To Tweet

Fortunately, the CPP can open new opportunities for businesses interested in operating in a clean energy economy. The rule’s flexible framework puts states in the driver’s seat to set plans that call for the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions for meeting pollution reduction targets while spurring innovation.

The CPP is positioned to do the following:

• Generate $155 billionin consumer savings between 2020-2030
• Create 3x as many jobs per $1 investedin clean energy as compared to $1 invested in fossil fuels
• Lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $54 billion, including avoiding 3,600premature deaths in 2030

The Green Power Partnership

The Green Power Partnership is a voluntary program launched by the EPA to increase the use of renewable electricity in the U.S. Under the program, businesses are armed with resources and provided technical support to identify the types of green power products that best meet their goals. Since its inception, the Partnership has made notable progress in addressing market barriers to green power procurement.

We don’t know what will happen in Washington over the next few years. But many businesses are moving forward.

Through the Partnership, companies can reduce their carbon footprints, increase cost savings, and demonstrate civic leadership, which further drives customer, investor and stakeholder loyalty. At the end of 2015, over 1,300 Partners were collectively using more than 30 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually, equivalent to the electricity use of more than three million average American homes.

Long-term economics versus short-term politics

We don’t know what will happen in Washington over the next few years. But many businesses are moving forward. Rather than shift course, corporations are increasing investments in clean, reliable power, a move that is consistent with sound business practices.

But business can’t do it alone. The EPA supports responsible companies who have committed to reducing their carbon footprints while safeguarding our planet. It’s time for business to not just leverage their scale and buying power to help accelerate the transition to a clean energy future, but to speak up in favor of maintaining a well-funded agency that continues to make decisions based on sound science and the law.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

By Pablo Garza

Crews are working to repair damage to the Central Valley's levee system.

The situation at Oroville Dam garnered national attention and brought into clear focus the limitations of our aging flood protection infrastructure – California’s complex system of dams, levees, and bypasses – as well as the need for greater investment in maintaining and upgrading this system.

It is appropriate, then, that Governor Brown recently unveiled a plan to bolster dam safety and flood protection. By requiring emergency action plans, beefing up our dam inspection program and increasing our investment in emergency response, Governor Brown is taking an important first-step in tackling this difficult problem.

This comes at an especially important time as infrastructure maintenance is at the forefront of state and national discussions, and we still have a few months to go before we are out of the rainy season.

A drop in the bucket

To pay for his plan, the governor is proposing a $437 million down payment from the general fund and Proposition 1. At the same time, Senator de Leon has offered a proposal (SB 5) to invest $500 million in flood protection and infrastructure repair.

This is a good starting point, but it’s clear that more funding is needed to address the state’s known infrastructure needs. In fact, in a 2013 report, the Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified an “immediate need for more than $50 billion to complete flood management improvements and projects.”

So how will California address this serious funding gap?

Federal investment and participation in dam inspections will be a key part of the solution. The $1 trillion infrastructure package touted by the Trump Administration, importantly, must include funding for water infrastructure and not exclusively focus on roads and bridges.

What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure, via…
Click To Tweet

New solutions are needed

But California can’t wait for the federal government to meet this urgent need. Nor should we depend on intermittent bond funding to address something so critical to our state’s people and economy.

A stable, consistent source of funding is needed to support ongoing infrastructure maintenance and upkeep as well as mitigating the impacts that infrastructure has had on the environment. Luckily discussions about regular, long-term funding have started at the local and state level, with the governor even alluding to this during his announcement last week – “The Administration will continue to work with the Legislature through the budget process on solutions.”

Taking care of the whole system

Floodplains in Butte County, CA play a crucial role in California's water management system.

Critically, we must also utilize and enhance our natural infrastructure to reduce the strain on our water system.

This means investing in forest management to provide a clean and reliable water supply, setting back levees to give floodwaters more space to spread out and maximizing opportunities to recharge groundwater aquifers so that we are better prepared for the next, inevitable drought.

Stable funding and better use of our natural infrastructure will provide enhanced protection for California communities while also supporting our economy, environment and high quality of life.

As Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, John Laird stated during a hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Wednesday, “We must not simply view infrastructure through the lens of single purpose, single function undertakings, but instead should use the opportunity to fund innovative projects that leverage science to meet the challenge of extreme weather and variable precipitation, and accomplish multiple benefits and goals with the investment.”

Related:

Why one wet winter won't solve California's water problems >>

What the Oroville Dam crisis tells us about natural infrastructure >>

By Pablo Garza

Crews are working to repair damage to the Central Valley's levee system.

The situation at Oroville Dam garnered national attention and brought into clear focus the limitations of our aging flood protection infrastructure – California’s complex system of dams, levees, and bypasses – as well as the need for greater investment in maintaining and upgrading this system.

It is appropriate, then, that Governor Brown recently unveiled a plan to bolster dam safety and flood protection. By requiring emergency action plans, beefing up our dam inspection program and increasing our investment in emergency response, Governor Brown is taking an important first-step in tackling this difficult problem.

This comes at an especially important time as infrastructure maintenance is at the forefront of state and national discussions, and we still have a few months to go before we are out of the rainy season.

A drop in the bucket

To pay for his plan, the governor is proposing a $437 million down payment from the general fund and Proposition 1. At the same time, Senator de Leon has offered a proposal (SB 5) to invest $500 million in flood protection and infrastructure repair.

This is a good starting point, but it’s clear that more funding is needed to address the state’s known infrastructure needs. In fact, in a 2013 report, the Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified an “immediate need for more than $50 billion to complete flood management improvements and projects.”

So how will California address this serious funding gap?

Federal investment and participation in dam inspections will be a key part of the solution. The $1 trillion infrastructure package touted by the Trump Administration, importantly, must include funding for water infrastructure and not exclusively focus on roads and bridges.

What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure, via…
Click To Tweet

New solutions are needed

But California can’t wait for the federal government to meet this urgent need. Nor should we depend on intermittent bond funding to address something so critical to our state’s people and economy.

A stable, consistent source of funding is needed to support ongoing infrastructure maintenance and upkeep as well as mitigating the impacts that infrastructure has had on the environment. Luckily discussions about regular, long-term funding have started at the local and state level, with the governor even alluding to this during his announcement last week – “The Administration will continue to work with the Legislature through the budget process on solutions.”

Taking care of the whole system

Floodplains in Butte County, CA play a crucial role in California's water management system.

Critically, we must also utilize and enhance our natural infrastructure to reduce the strain on our water system.

This means investing in forest management to provide a clean and reliable water supply, setting back levees to give floodwaters more space to spread out and maximizing opportunities to recharge groundwater aquifers so that we are better prepared for the next, inevitable drought.

Stable funding and better use of our natural infrastructure will provide enhanced protection for California communities while also supporting our economy, environment and high quality of life.

As Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, John Laird stated during a hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Wednesday, “We must not simply view infrastructure through the lens of single purpose, single function undertakings, but instead should use the opportunity to fund innovative projects that leverage science to meet the challenge of extreme weather and variable precipitation, and accomplish multiple benefits and goals with the investment.”

Related:

Why one wet winter won't solve California's water problems >>

What the Oroville Dam crisis tells us about natural infrastructure >>

By Pablo Garza

Crews are working to repair damage to the Central Valley's levee system.

The situation at Oroville Dam garnered national attention and brought into clear focus the limitations of our aging flood protection infrastructure – California’s complex system of dams, levees, and bypasses – as well as the need for greater investment in maintaining and upgrading this system.

It is appropriate, then, that Governor Brown recently unveiled a plan to bolster dam safety and flood protection. By requiring emergency action plans, beefing up our dam inspection program and increasing our investment in emergency response, Governor Brown is taking an important first-step in tackling this difficult problem.

This comes at an especially important time as infrastructure maintenance is at the forefront of state and national discussions, and we still have a few months to go before we are out of the rainy season.

A drop in the bucket

To pay for his plan, the governor is proposing a $437 million down payment from the general fund and Proposition 1. At the same time, Senator de Leon has offered a proposal (SB 5) to invest $500 million in flood protection and infrastructure repair.

This is a good starting point, but it’s clear that more funding is needed to address the state’s known infrastructure needs. In fact, in a 2013 report, the Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified an “immediate need for more than $50 billion to complete flood management improvements and projects.”

So how will California address this serious funding gap?

Federal investment and participation in dam inspections will be a key part of the solution. The $1 trillion infrastructure package touted by the Trump Administration, importantly, must include funding for water infrastructure and not exclusively focus on roads and bridges.

What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure, via…
Click To Tweet

New solutions are needed

But California can’t wait for the federal government to meet this urgent need. Nor should we depend on intermittent bond funding to address something so critical to our state’s people and economy.

A stable, consistent source of funding is needed to support ongoing infrastructure maintenance and upkeep as well as mitigating the impacts that infrastructure has had on the environment. Luckily discussions about regular, long-term funding have started at the local and state level, with the governor even alluding to this during his announcement last week – “The Administration will continue to work with the Legislature through the budget process on solutions.”

Taking care of the whole system

Floodplains in Butte County, CA play a crucial role in California's water management system.

Critically, we must also utilize and enhance our natural infrastructure to reduce the strain on our water system.

This means investing in forest management to provide a clean and reliable water supply, setting back levees to give floodwaters more space to spread out and maximizing opportunities to recharge groundwater aquifers so that we are better prepared for the next, inevitable drought.

Stable funding and better use of our natural infrastructure will provide enhanced protection for California communities while also supporting our economy, environment and high quality of life.

As Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, John Laird stated during a hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Wednesday, “We must not simply view infrastructure through the lens of single purpose, single function undertakings, but instead should use the opportunity to fund innovative projects that leverage science to meet the challenge of extreme weather and variable precipitation, and accomplish multiple benefits and goals with the investment.”

Related:

Why one wet winter won't solve California's water problems >>

What the Oroville Dam crisis tells us about natural infrastructure >>

The situation at Oroville Dam garnered national attention and brought into clear focus the limitations of our aging flood protection infrastructure – California’s complex system of dams, levees, and bypasses – as well as the need for greater investment in maintaining and upgrading this system. It is appropriate, then, that Governor Brown recently unveiled a […]

The post What it’s going to take to fund California’s water infrastructure first appeared on Growing Returns.

The 2017 Master Plan is the road map that will guide Louisiana's efforts to protect the coast over the next 50 years. As the plan comes up for a vote, our best weapon is your voice! Help us tell the story of our coast so legislators across the state can make the easy choice: to pass the master plan.  Everyone's interactions with Louisiana's coast is different, so we expect your stories to be, too. Here are a few ideas to ...

Read The Full Story

The post Why Does the Coast Matter to You? Tell Us Your Story appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.