Complete list of press releases

(Washington, D.C. – February 10, 2022) By 2027, electric freight trucks and buses will become less expensive to purchase and to operate than their combustion engine counterparts, according to a new study done by Roush Industries for Environmental Defense Fund.

The detailed study was released today. It evaluates both the upfront and ongoing costs of electrifying several types of medium and heavy-duty vehicles that are commonly used in urban areas, including transit buses, school buses, garbage trucks, shuttle buses and delivery trucks.

The study finds that, when considering upfront purchase price alone, by 2027 electric freight trucks and buses will be less expensive than their combustion engine counterparts in all categories except shuttle buses (which are close to price parity). Electric vehicles will also be less expensive on a total cost of ownership basis in all categories in the same time frame.

“Pollution from freight trucks and buses is dangerous to people’s health and accelerates climate change,” said Peter Zalzal, EDF Associate Vice President for Clean Air Strategies. “This study finds that zero-emitting solutions are available and can help save truckers and fleets money, and it adds to the large body of evidence documenting the feasibility of deploying zero emitting solutions – including actions by states across the country and leading fleets. It also helps underscore the urgent opportunity EPA has in its upcoming proposed standards for heavy-duty vehicles to ensure meaningful deployment of life-saving, zero-emitting freight trucks and buses.”

Freight trucks and buses are less than 10% of the vehicles on U.S. roads, but they are responsible for almost a quarter of all climate pollution from the transportation sector. They also emit more than half of the transportation sector NOx and particulate pollution that causes serious heart and lung diseases. EPA is expected to soon propose pollution standards for model year 2027 through at least 2030 medium and heavy-duty vehicles, and President Biden has directed EPA to consider the role that zero-emitting vehicles can play in eliminating harmful pollution.

The Roush study develops projections for incremental costs and total cost of ownership for electric vehicles in years 2027 to 2030. It compares those costs to equivalent internal combustion vehicles that meet EPA Greenhouse Gas Phase 1 and 2 rules, as well as California Low NOx regulations.

The study determines the total cost of ownership for all financial aspects of ownership, including vehicle purchase cost of either an internal combustion engine or electric freight truck or bus, fuel or energy costs, charging or fueling infrastructure costs, maintenance costs, and vehicle mid-life refresh if applicable. It focuses exclusively on the direct financial costs and savings related to vehicle ownership and does not include the substantial health and welfare benefits associated with switching to electric trucks.

The study finds the general trend across all categories is for decreasing upfront costs for electric freight trucks and buses, driven largely by steeply decreasing battery costs. It also finds that in 2027, electric vehicle costs will be less than internal combustion vehicles costs over the life of the vehicle, largely because maintenance and energy costs will be lower, and finds the cost savings will be more than enough to overcome any added costs from charging infrastructure and will allow for cost parity immediately or very quickly.

The study concludes that “In all cases, there is an incremental cost scenario that favors electrification.”

You can read the full study here, read the fact sheet about the report here, and read EDF’s fact sheet Clean Trucks, Clean Air American jobs here.  

New York will soon begin reaping rewards from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program established by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with today’s announcement from the U.S. Department of Transportation kicking off a $5 billion construction project to build out a national network of electric vehicle charging stations. Of that amount, New York has been slated to get $175.4 million over 5 years for charging infrastructure construction – meaning less pollution, more jobs and cleaner air throughout the state. 

“Building a national network of charging stations will mean less pollution and cleaner cars – and help for clean trucks and buses that may need to charge en route. This will expand the market for electric vehicles, encourage New Yorkers to drive electric vehicles, and facilitate truck and bus fleet electrification for businesses – all while reducing pollution and improving New York’s position as a clean energy leader.”                                                              

• Mary Barber, Director, State Affairs at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

(Harrisburg, PA — February 10, 2022) Pennsylvania will soon begin reaping rewards from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed by Congress last year, with today’s announcement from the Biden Administration kicking off a $5 billion construction project to build out a national network of electric vehicle charging stations. Of that amount, Pennsylvania is slated to receive roughly $171.5 million over five years, the fifth highest amount of any state, to support the buildout of an EV charging network in the state. The Biden administration further stated that its $2.5 billion competitive grant program "will support innovative approaches and ensure that charger deployment" supports "rural charging, improving local air quality and increasing EV charging access in disadvantaged communities."

“Funding from the bipartisan infrastructure package is already on its way to help Pennsylvania ramp up clean electric cars, cut harmful pollution and create jobs in the process,” said Mandy Warner, Pennsylvania State Director for Environmental Defense Fund.

“This funding could not be timelier, seeing as how the transportation sector is responsible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gas pollution in Pennsylvania, with the majority of those emissions coming from gas-fueled cars and trucks. It’s a critical piece of the equation of 100 percent electrification of the transportation economy. The buildout of an EV infrastructure is essential to achieving that goal as it will make adoption of EV cars and trucks significantly easier. Electric vehicles are critical to reducing climate- and public health-harming carbon pollution, and Pennsylvania is well-positioned to get to work now to help clear the way for a clean, EV-powered economy in the state.

“Congress and the President are smartly investing in our economy by passing clean energy investments that will power millions of electric trucks, buses and cars built in the U.S. We thank President Biden for quickly moving these funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support Pennsylvania citizens and communities.”

The move to EVs is quickly gaining momentum in the Keystone state. As noted by the Department of Environmental Protection, “More than 29,000 electric passenger vehicles were registered in Pennsylvania as of November 2020. While this is a fraction of vehicles in the state, it’s more than double the number in December 2017.”

(St. Petersburg - Feb. 10, 2022) Florida will soon begin reaping rewards from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed by Congress last year, with today’s announcement from the Biden Administration kicking off a $5 billion program to build out the national network of electric vehicle charging stations. Of that amount, Florida has been slated to get nearly $200 million for charging infrastructure construction, though the White House is expected to release updated figures later this week.

“The distribution of funds from the bipartisan infrastructure package is well-timed. Florida Department of Transportation’s recently adopted Electric Vehicle Master Plan affirms the benefits of building out the network of vehicle charging stations to improve air quality, increase energy diversity and independence, and lower the cost of electric vehicle ownership for Florida families. These resources will allow Florida to double down on its commitment to convert to electric school bus fleets - reducing greenhouse gas emissions and health risks to children.”

“Florida faces many threats from climate change and continued investments like these are essential to ensure Florida is able to reduce carbon pollution, make clean energy reliable, equitable and affordable, safeguard the economy, and preserve the natural resources of the Sunshine State.”

• EDF Florida Director Dawn Shirreffs

(Washington, D.C.- February 10, 2022) Today, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) introduced bipartisan legislation that will address the climate-fueled flood crisis facing our nation. The Shoreline Health Oversight, Restoration, Resilience, and Enhancement Act (SHORRE Act) will deliver significant investments in solutions, such as natural infrastructure, to better protect communities from comprehensive flood risks. 

“From coast to coast, more Americans are experiencing the effects of worsening floods, and the climate crisis is only increasing these impacts. The SHORRE Act is an important piece of legislation to address our nation’s flood crisis. It will empower the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop holistic solutions to address comprehensive flood risks across our nation’s coasts and watersheds. It will advance bold solutions, including major investments in nature-based solutions, to increase the climate resilience of communities from the flood risks that are here and growing. We have an urgent window of opportunity to act, and we need legislation like the SHORRE Act to provide a vital lifeline for our most vulnerable communities. We thank Sens. Carper and Cassidy and Rep. Blunt Rochester for their leadership in introducing this innovative legislation, and we look forward to working with other members of Congress to move this and similar solutions forward.” 

• Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President, Political Affairs, Environmental Defense Fund

(Washington, D.C. – February 8, 2022) EPA’s scientific advisors have told the agency that our nation’s current standard for particulate pollution is inadequate to protect public health and must be strengthened.

EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) put their findings into a draft letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan. They publicly released the draft letter on Friday.

“CASAC’s draft letter provides additional, strong support for EPA’s decision to revisit our national health-based standards for particulate pollution,” said EDF analyst Taylor Bacon. “Strengthening our particulate pollution standards will protect the health of millions of Americans, especially those who are now facing disproportionate harm from this dangerous pollution.”

CASAC’s draft letter is in response to EPA’s Science and Policy Assessments supporting the reconsideration of our national standard for particulate pollution. Particulate pollution is made up of small toxic airborne particles like dust and soot, as well as traces of dangerous liquids – or aerosols. The tiny particles penetrate deep into people’s lungs and cause multiple serious health problems, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and tens of thousands of early deaths each year. Scientific evidence links particulate pollution to lung disease, heart attacks, strokes, asthma and cancer.

Millions of Americans are living with unhealthy air and suffering from the health impacts if particulate pollution. These harms are more severe in communities of color. A 2018 study by EPA scientists published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “Non-White populations overall experienced 1.28 times the burden of the general population, and Black populations, specifically, experienced the greatest degree of disparity in the siting of PM emitting facilities at national, state, and county levels, burdened with 1.54 times the PM emissions faced by the general population.”

EPA is now in the process of considering whether to strengthen our national standards for particulate pollution and is expected to issue a new proposed standard this summer. As part of that process, CASAC has been reviewing reports about the science and policy considerations underlying our national particulate pollution standard.

In its draft letter, CASAC reached the consensus that our current annual standard for particulate pollution does not adequately protect public health and must be strengthened. A majority of CASAC members affirmed that an annual standard of 8 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air is appropriate based on the epidemiological evidence, especially when emphasis is placed on protecting vulnerable populations and communities. CASAC also encouraged EPA to consider strengthening the 24-hour standard to ensure it delivers important protections for short-term exposures, particularly in vulnerable population and communities.

FEBRUARY 7, 2022 — A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) identifies prevailing misconceptions about land use and provides 10 core principles that can be used to develop more effective and fair ways to use land to support sustainability.  

Authored by a group of scholars led by the Global Land Programme, including experts from the Environmental Defense Fund, the article “Ten facts about land systems for sustainability” highlights “hard truths”, supported by strong empirical evidence from land system science. The core principles that form the truths explain to scientists, policy makers, practitioners and societies why achieving sustainability in land use is so complex.  

“Many mainstream ideas about land use and sustainability are misguided at best and, at worst, harmful. These facts about land should serve as a common ground for anyone aiming to conserve life-giving natural resources, protect precious biodiversity, build more equitable societies, and address climate change,” said Suzi Kerr, Chief Economist at the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the study. 

The ten facts are:  

1. Meanings and values of land are socially constructed and contested. Different groups place different values on what makes land useful, degraded, or culturally important. Top-down policy agendas are often rooted in one dominant value system.  

2. Land systems exhibit complex behaviors with abrupt, hard-to-predict changes. Policy interventions are typically intended to solve a particular problem, but often fail when they ignore system complexity. Addressing one problem in isolation can result in unintended harm to natural areas and people.  

3. Irreversible changes and path dependence are common features of land systems. Converting land from one use to another, such as the clearing of old-growth forests, leads to changes felt decades to centuries later. Restoration rarely brings land back to a state that truly matches original conditions.  

4. Some land uses have a small footprint but very large impacts. Cities, for instance, consume large amounts of resources that are often produced elsewhere using vast amounts of land; they also reduce negative impacts by concentrating human populations on a relatively small land. Net impacts are hard to measure and predict.  

5. Drivers and impacts of land-use change are globally interconnected and spill over to distant locations. Due to globalization, land use can be influenced by distant people, economic forces, policies, or organizations, and decisions.  

6. We live on a used planet where all land provides benefits to societies. People directly inhabit, use, or manage over three-quarters of Earth’s ice-free land, with more than 25% inhabited and used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC).   

7. Land-use change usually entails trade-offs between different benefits —"win–wins" are rare. While land use delivers a range of benefits, such as food, timber, and sacred spaces, it also often involves trade-offs for both nature and some communities of people. Land use decisions involve value judgments to determine which benefits to prioritize, and for whom.  

8. Land tenure and land-use claims are often unclear, overlapping, and contested. Rights to use and access land can overlap, belong to different people, or to different kinds of access as in rights to ownership or use.  

9. The benefits and burdens from land are unequally distributed. A small number of people own a disproportionate amount of land area and land value in most countries around the world.  

10. Land users have multiple, sometimes conflicting, ideas of what social and environmental justice entails. There is no single form of justice that is fair for all. Justice means different things to and for different people, from recognizing the claim of indigenous groups to land, to impacts on future generations, to what systems are used to determine whose claims are given priority. 

"Land use is the foundation for so many resources that support humanity - among them food, livelihoods, and energy – as well as habitat for non-human life. With careful attention to the complex realities highlighted in the paper, land use can be part of solutions to climate change and other environmental problems,” said Ruth de Fries, a professor of ecology and sustainable development at Columbia University and EDF Trustee, who co-authored the paper. “EDF’s long-standing economics- and science-driven approach does not look for easy solutions, rather the approaches look for solutions that work based on these realities.” 

Two of these truths – numbers 2 and 5 – argue for a strong need to approach land use issues at a system-wide level.  

For example, when aiming to conserve tropical forests, using a jurisdictional approach that considers an entire region’s diverse ecosystems, natural resources, and local economies. The jurisdictional approach encourages companies sourcing agricultural commodities to collaborate with local governments, communities, and producers in their sourcing region. By working together, stakeholders ensure that local laws, regional efforts, and corporate policies work in concert to reduce deforestation and increase economic productivity across an entire region — not just within a single project area. 

One of the leading jurisdictional approaches is the Produce, Conserve, Include (PCI) strategy in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Agricultural powerhouse Mato Grosso state, with a third of Brazil’s soy production and the biggest cattle herd in the country, is a case in point. In 2004, were Mato Grosso a country, it would have been the 10th largest emitter in the world1. In 2018, it would have been 55th – because of federal and state-led programs to reduce deforestation in both the Amazon forest and tropical savanna biomes. Yet, soy production and cattle herds also increased over the same period. While state action can do a lot, lack of cooperation from the federal government has created challenges and deforestation has risen sharply in the 2020/2021 monitoring season. Nonetheless, accumulated deforestation reductions since 2004 far exceed last year’s spike.   

“Mato Grosso’s achievements are the gold standard of what it means to take a systemic and broad view of land use and sustainability. The state decreased emissions while it satisfied economic demand for its products, decoupling emissions from deforestation, which historically always moved in lock step with agricultural production,” said Kerr.  

The study also emphasizes justice for local and Indigenous communities as a core requirement to achieving sustainability in land use — and underscores that just solutions require acknowledging multiple visions of justice and power differentials.  

The report identified four types of justice when it comes to land use: recognition justice, in which distinct identities and histories are particularly and intimately linked to lands; procedural injustices, which relate to decision making about land and how and on what terms interests are considered; distributive injustices, or how harms, ownership, or access are distributed or concentrated among people; and intergenerational justice, including the presence of irreversible impacts on land that occur over multiple human generational timescales. Policy and governance processes that do not acknowledge these multiple forms of justice are likely to be considered unjust by some actors. 

“These truths about land offer us a new framework – a new path forward to achieving true sustainability that respects land as a complex and interconnected system, weighs the trade-offs of our actions, and brokers a more just and equitable future," said Kerr.  

These facts do not provide answers to current land-related debates on how to manage tradeoffs or set up fair land use policies. However, they do point to how answers could be developed, as well as a research agenda. Actors ranging from policymakers to business leaders and civil society may use these principles to build land management practices, governance approaches and arrangements, strategic visions, and policy instruments that can rise to the challenge of sustainable land use globally. 

(SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO – 2 de febrero del 2022) El Gobierno de Puerto Rico y tres agencias federales, los Departamentos de Energía, Seguridad Nacional y Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano, firmaron un memorando de entendimiento para alinear los fondos federales con las políticas locales establecidas por el territorio para que éste pueda obtener el 100 por ciento de su electricidad de fuentes renovables para el 2050. Dicho acuerdo incluye una encuesta con la comunidad para hacer que la red eléctrica de Puerto Rico sea más resiliente, más inversión en microrredes y otros recursos de energía renovable para uso residencial. Además, provee espacio para que se atiendan las preocupaciones que puedan surgir respecto a los proyectos de energía propuestos.

“Este acuerdo impulsará a Puerto Rico en una dirección de sustentabilidad y equidad energética. El documento proporciona un marco de trabajo para construir comunidades resilientes en toda la isla mediante la producción de energía renovable, dando a Puerto Rico una solución a largo plazo para la crisis energética”.

• Agustín F. Carbó, Gerente Senior, Transición Energética, Environmental Defense Fund

                                                             ###

(SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO) The Government of Puerto Rico and three federal agencies — the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development — signed a Memorandum of Understanding to align federal funds with local policies established by the territory so it can source 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. The agreement includes a community-driven study to make Puerto Rico’s electric grid more resilient, investment in microgrids and other renewable energy resources for residential use and collaboration on a public engagement plan to address concerns regarding energy project proposals.

“This Memorandum of Understanding is the springboard to a more sustainable and equitable Puerto Rico. It will make a real difference in building resilient communities across the island by providing a framework that supports the production of clean, affordable and reliable energy and a long-term solution to Puerto Rico’s energy crisis.”

• Agustín F. Carbó, Senior Manager, Energy Transition

Environmental Defense Fund seeks to identify effective and equitable energy solutions that can bring clean, community-centered electricity to Puerto Rico and can meet the daily needs of its residents, while making the island more resilient to climate change. Our work centers on advancing a community-driven solar and storage project on the island of Culebra and supporting a range of partners who are driving systemic change to the energy system across Puerto Rico. We approach this work holistically, leveraging our technical expertise, sustainable financing tools and energy reform experience to help develop long-term solutions to the territory’s energy crisis. For more information, visit www.edf.org/PuertoRico.

(New York – February 2, 2022) Environmental Defense Fund today announced the hiring of two global leaders for new positions that will strengthen the nonprofit’s capacities around the world. Headquartered in New York, EDF scientists, economists, attorneys and policy experts work in 28 countries to turn our solutions into action.

Angela Churie Kallhauge will join EDF in April as Executive Vice President for Impact. In this newly created role, she will focus on using inclusive processes and economic approaches to achieve ambitious climate solutions that deliver equitable benefits to people around the world. Churie Kallhauge joins EDF from the World Bank Group where for the past five years she has led the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, a voluntary partnership of governments, businesses, and civil society organizations working to advance carbon pricing on the global agenda. Before joining the World Bank, she spent a decade in senior roles in the Swedish government as a negotiator to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and led the European Union’s team that negotiated adaptation, loss, damage, and capacity development issues. For two years she worked at the International Renewable Energy Agency in Abu Dhabi, where she developed and coordinated an agency-wide strategy on climate change issues. A native Kenyan, Churie Kallhauge is passionate about climate solutions that improve human well-being globally and, in particular, in the developing world. She will be based at EDF’s office in Washington, D.C.

Pete Harrison will join EDF in April as Executive Vice President for Regions, a new role that fosters an impactful and integrated EDF agenda across our four anchor geographies – China, Europe, India and the United States. Based in Brussels, Harrison has been a leader at the European Climate Foundation (ECF) for more than ten years. Since 2018, he has been the ECF’s executive director for EU policy during a period that included preparations for the EU Green Deal, with the goal of making Europe the world’s first climate neutral continent. Prior to that, he spent four years as director of the ECF’s Transport Program, where he deployed strategies that have contributed to Europe’s rapid advances toward phasing out combustion engines and bringing in an era of e-mobility. EDF and ECF have long been allies and look forward to even closer partnership going forward. A former award-winning correspondent at Thomson Reuters, Harrison also serves as vice chair of the Buildings Performance Institute Europe, which is accelerating the transition to zero-carbon buildings. He serves on the sustainability board of aviation biofuels producer SkyNRG.  He is an oceans enthusiast, a surfer and a SCUBA instructor.

Churie Kallhauge and Harrison join an EDF global leadership team that includes regional heads Joe Bonfiglio (U.S), Jill Duggan (Europe,) Hisham Mundol (India) and Zhang Jianyu and Qin Hu (China). 

“Because climate change is a global crisis that demands urgent global solutions, EDF has long worked in countries around the world,” said EDF President Fred Krupp. “With the addition of Angela Churie Kallhauge and Pete Harrison, EDF continues to strengthen our international leadership team as we simultaneously build our strength in the U.S.”

“Having been at the nexus of global climate policy, resilience and adaptation, and economic transitions – especially in the developing world – Angela is the perfect person to serve as EDF’s first-ever head of Impact,” said EDF Executive Director Amanda Leland.  “Pete brings an invaluable combination of humble leadership, systems thinking and actionable results to this new role, in which he will support our regional teams as they collaborate, learn, and drive progress.”

“I am looking forward to joining this team of world class experts,” said Churie Kallhauge, “and to contribute to taking EDF's vision and mission to the global level – to drive action that is informed by science and inclusive of all stakeholders.”

“I am honored to be supporting such a talented team in confronting environmental challenges across four important regions of the world,” said Harrison. “For the past decade in Brussels and across Europe, I have learned the value of focusing intently on enabling key climate solutions for the built environment, and now I’m excited to expand that approach to helping land and ocean ecosystems thrive in the face of climate impacts.”

(WASHINGTON) As the public comment period for proposed oil and gas methane rules from the Environmental Protection Agency closes, significant public support alongside new data and cost-effectiveness analyses highlight the importance and feasibility of strong rules that comprehensively cut pollution from the oil and gas industry, including addressing pollution from smaller, leak-prone wells and ending routine flaring.

A diverse range of frontline and tribal community members, climate and public health advocates, and others from across the country submitted over 450,000 public comments to EPA in support of rules that fully safeguard public health and the climate. EDF, along with 17 other environmental and public health organizations, summited comments detailing the strong legal and scientific foundation for protective EPA standards.

“Hundreds of thousands of people from communities across the country support strong EPA rules to slash methane from oil and gas production,” said Jon Goldstein, senior director of regulatory & legislative affairs at EDF. “This proposal is an important step and both the public and the latest science are unequivocal that EPA will need to further strengthen it by tackling methane pollution from smaller, leak-prone wells and ending the practice of routine flaring to fully protect communities and our climate.”

• Download EDF comments here

Meanwhile, new data and analysis submitted along with the comments underscores the feasibility and cost effectiveness of protective standards EPA has proposed for equipment like pneumatic controllers and the importance of rigorous community-based monitoring solutions.

These analyses also show the critical importance of further strengthening the standards, including by identifying solutions to end routine flaring that are overwhelmingly cost-effective and the importance of extending emissions monitoring safeguards across well sites – including smaller, leak-prone ones (failure to do so could reduce the amount of fugitive methane pollution EPA rules could cut by up to 50%).

With fully comprehensive rules that include regular monitoring across facilities, EDF analysis finds EPA could reduce oil and gas methane pollution by nearly 7 million tons in 2026 alone.

Tackling smaller, leak-prone wells

EDF’s comments to EPA note the importance of final rules that address leak emissions from all wells – including smaller, leak-prone ones. Under EPA’s current proposal, operators of smaller leak-prone facilities with estimated emissions under 3 tons of methane per year would only be required to conduct a one-time inspection of their sites. EDF analysis finds that exempting these smaller sites from regular monitoring could reduce the amount of leaked methane cut by EPA’s rule by up to half.

“While EPA’s proposal is an important step, final rules must comprehensively address methane pollution from smaller, leak-prone wells,” said Rosalie Winn, EDF director and senior attorney. “We have a chance to make urgently-needed progress for public health and the climate, but can’t afford to let millions of tons of pollution go unchecked in the process.”

Smaller well sites like those EPA’s proposal would exempt have been shown to be major sources of pollution. Recent surveys from the Permian Basin found that one third of smaller well sites had large emissions that persisted for days, while the latest peer-reviewed science shows these sites to be outsized sources of methane and air pollution relative to the amount of oil and gas they produce.

Furthermore, an EDF analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data included in today’s comments reveals that these provisions must be strengthened to ensure all communities are protected from pollution. For instance, Native Americans live near wells at rates more than 30% higher than would be expected based on nationwide statistics (and almost 90% higher near new low-producing wells).

New analysis on solutions to end routine flaring

New analysis from Rystad, submitted as part of EDF’s comments to EPA, reveals that solutions to end routine flaring of associate gas at oil wells are not only broadly available, but overwhelmingly cost-effective to implement. These solutions can frequently turn a profit for operators who, in 2019, vented and flared approximately 1.48 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of gas – enough to meet 25% of the country’s home heating needs for a year.

To curb the massive amounts of gas flared – and methane emitted in the process – EPA’s final rules should direct operators to capture and sell, productively use or reinject the gas, and the agency should prohibit venting and flaring except in case of emergency.

• Download Rystad analysis here

“Routine flaring is more than a blatant waste of resources. It’s a major driver of methane and air pollution that undercuts communities’ health and the stability of our climate,” said Goldstein. “This analysis makes clear that ending routine flaring is possible and even profitable, and that EPA has the opportunity to ensure solutions are deployed to stop needless waste and pollution.”

Finalizing critical solutions for pneumatics and community monitoring

EDF’s comments also urge EPA to finalize a community-based monitoring program, building from EPA’s proposal. EPA can ensure reported data submitted as part of such a program is accurate, that the program helps to empower communities to use different technologies and methods, and that technologies are used safely and properly. Such a program will foster public trust and accountability, while increasing knowledge on leaks and helping to further reduce emissions.

In addition, EPA’s proposal stands to deliver important progress on major pollution sources, such as pneumatic controllers – which are the industry’s second-largest source of methane pollution. As detailed in EDF’s comments, transitioning to zero-emitting alternatives cost-effectively cuts pollution.

“EPA has proposed landmark standards to transition away from intentionally-pollution equipment like pneumatic controllers,” added Winn. “It’s critical that the agency finalize protective standards to cut pollution from this equipment while delivering a final rule that that fully protects and empowers our communities while safeguarding our climate.”

“Today, EPA released its proposed finding that is it ‘appropriate and necessary’ under the Clean Air Act to limit mercury and other toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants. This proposal will serve as a robust legal basis for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which protect Americans from some extremely dangerous types of pollution – including mercury, which causes brain damage in babies and is associated with heart disease, arsenic, and other substances that cause cancer and lung disease. Since 2012, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have slashed pollution by as much as 80 percent and have done it at a fraction of the expected cost. Recent studies prove that reducing toxic pollution has provided greater health benefits than anticipated, for less money.

"The previous administration tried to weaken the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by attacking the ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding – the legal underpinnings of this resounding success story. Today, EPA has taken a welcome first step toward reversing that wholly unfounded action and restoring the finding. EPA is also requesting comments on whether it should take further steps to strengthen these critical safeguards. We believe it absolutely should. While the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have been successful, there are still many coal plants that release significant amounts of mercury pollution and put American families at risk. EDF has published a map highlighting the top thirty mercury polluters and their locations around the country. 

"EPA has a clear authority and responsibility to protect Americans from mercury and other toxic pollution from power plants, and today’s finding reflects that. Next we must strengthen the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards so we can do more to protect our children and communities from toxic pollution.”

            - Michael Panfil, Lead Counsel and Director of Climate Risk Strategies, Environmental Defense Fund

“The Environmental Protection Agency today took a significant step on the march toward justice for communities that it for too long had failed to fully protect.

“Two months ago, EPA Administrator Michael Regan sat on porches and in front yards of people in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas overburdened by air pollution and threatened by climate change. He clearly heard them. The solutions he has put forward help every community and address specific needs in each of them.

“The issues in Houston’s Fifth Ward are not the same as those in Mossville, Louisiana, but they share the desire for a healthier and more prosperous future for everyone.  

“EDF encourages the expansion of these efforts through legislative opportunities like the Technology Assessment for Air Quality Management Act, introduced by Senator Markey. The bill would not only strengthen hyper local air quality insights, but also require EPA to better integrate environmental justice mapping tools, focus on cumulative harms, and improve the quantitative use of low-cost sensors and data from satellites in decision making.

“Moving forward, it’s critical that the Biden administration seriously considers and implements the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council’s recommendations, which outline a strong path for equitable and just climate solutions.

“This is an all-of-government approach built on an all-of-community approach, which relies on advocates like local leaders, large environmental groups and leaders in philanthropy and business to support community centric-responses. Government cannot solve the climate crisis by itself.”

          - Heather McTeer Toney, Vice President of Community Engagement, Environmental Defense Fund

A coalition of physicians, scientists, and public health and environmental organizations today sent a formal petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), calling on the agency to rescind its approvals for bisphenol A (BPA) in adhesives and coatings and set strict limits on its use in plastics that contact food.

New findings from a panel of experts convened by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) indicate that the harmful effects from BPA exposure can occur at levels 100,000 times lower than previously thought. This new safe level ‒ based on recent scientific evidence ‒ is more than 5,000 times below what FDA says most Americans are exposed to.

Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe. The petition calls on FDA to limit uses of BPA in food contact articles that may result in migration into food above 0.5 nanograms per kilogram of food.

“The process EFSA used to reassess the safety of bisphenol is a template for how FDA should be doing it for the hundreds of chemicals it approved decades ago. Transparent, thorough, and grounded in the science,” said Tom Neltner, EDF’s senior director for safer chemicals. “With Americans overexposed to BPA by more than 5,000 times, the agency must make this a top priority and make a final decision by the 180-day statutory deadline.”

The petition was filed by Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Endocrine Society, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, Dr. Maricel Maffini, and Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.

BPA is used to make polycarbonate and other plastics, which are commonly used in hard items such as food containers, pitchers, tableware, storage containers, and more. The chemical is also used in epoxy resins that line the inside of metal products and bottle tops. Small amounts of BPA can migrate from containers or equipment into food and beverages.

Industry has taken steps in the past to limit the use of BPA in can linings and plastic baby bottles. These actions followed 2008 findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicating the chemical showed up in 92% of US adults and additional studies that showed BPA can act like the female sex hormone, estrogen, in humans and disrupt normal development.

Findings from EFSA’s expert panel show that BPA’s effects are much worse than previously understood and that people are exposed at levels dramatically above what is safe. Extremely low exposures to BPA can lead to an overactive immune system producing out of control inflammation, as well as changes in the ovaries, endocrine disruption, and reduced learning and memory, according to the EFSA panel.

“FDA has an obligation to protect us from toxic chemicals that can come in contact with our food,” said Dr. Maricel Maffini, scientist and coauthor of the petition. “These new findings should be a wakeup call to the FDA and all of us that our health is in jeopardy unless we take swift action to limit the amount of BPA that can come into contact with our food.”

FDA has long collaborated with EFSA on risk assessment and risk communication related to food safety, including working together to increase understanding of risks from chemicals used in food packaging, like PFAS. The agency now needs to listen to the warnings on BPA from its expert counterparts at EFSA and take steps to dramatically reduce our exposures to the chemical.

Quotes from petitioners:

“Now that the European Food Safety Authority has found harm at levels vastly lower than our typical daily exposures to Bisphenol A, it’s time for the FDA to take immediate action to protect the public from food-based exposures to this hormonally active chemical that increases our risk of breast cancer, and of other serious health problems,” says Lisette van Vliet, Senior Policy Manager from Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.

“FDA needs to act immediately to get BPA out of plastics that contact food, adhesives, and coatings in order to protect people’s health. Early action to curb BPA use will also prevent ongoing release of BPA into the environment, including into water bodies used as drinking water sources,” said Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund National Campaigns Director. 

“Given this new data points to the significant health risks associated with BPA, it is critical that the FDA set a maximum limit of BPA in food that is safe for consumers,” said Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports. “The constant exposure consumers have to BPA in food could pose an unacceptable danger and increases the likelihood of harmful outcomes, such as limiting brain development in children and negatively impacting reproductive health, so it is essential those levels be reduced to an acceptable level."

“These findings are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior and metabolism,” said Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, Ph.D., of North Carolina University in Raleigh, N.C. “The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health.”

“It’s unacceptable that the FDA is allowing Americans to be exposed to BPA at levels over 5,000 times above what’s safe,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group. “The Food and Drug Administration must heed EFSA’s warnings and take immediate and decisive action to lower our exposures to this dangerous chemical.”

"EFSA's findings expand on our knowledge of BPA including data generated by the NTP-FDA joint CLARITY project. And the results are sobering, indicating that the harmful effects from BPA can occur at minuscule levels, far below what we’re exposed to. The scientific evidence is now more than enough to require strict limits on the use of BPA in packaging and plastics that come in contact with our food," said Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director at NIEHS and NTP.

Contacts:

Terry Hyland, Environmental Defense Fund, 202-907-5265, thyland@edf.org

Erika Wilhelm, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, 415-539-5005, erika@bcpp.org

Michael Kelly, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, 202-895-0420(x103), mkelly@cleanwater.org

Michael McCauley, Consumer Reports, 415-431-6747(x7606), michael.mccauley@consumer.org

Colleen Williams, Endocrine Society, 202-971-3611, cwilliams@endocrine.org

Paige Glidden, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, 443-801-3074, pglidden@hbbf.org

Iris Myers, Environmental Working Group, 202-939-9126, iris@ewg.org 

Washington, D.C. (January 26, 2022) – In new briefs filed with the Supreme Court yesterday, a diverse array of public health experts, electric utilities, major corporations, legal scholars, scientists, mayors and cities, and current and former government officials urge the Court to reject the coal industry’s radical attempt to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to enforce the Clean Air Act, limit carbon pollution and confront the climate crisis.

By contrast, no electric utilities are petitioners in this case. Instead, the so-called friend of the court filings in favor of the petitioners are a who’s who of dark money groups that have spent decades promoting pro-polluter policies and questioning or outright denying the science of climate change. 

In their briefs in support of EPA, filers demonstrate how the petitioners lack standing to pursue this case because there is no rule in effect for carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Several briefs also reiterate that the Environmental Protection Agency’s mandate to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is vital to protecting public health and the environment, and to bringing innovation and stability to the U.S. economy. The electric utilities argue that blocking EPA authority would leave them exposed to federal court tort litigation. Former FERC commissioners note that there is no conflict between EPA’s authority over air pollution and FERC’s authority over wholesale electricity rates. Grid experts also argue that the U.S. power sector is already shifting toward cleaner generation and propping up uneconomic coal generation is not necessary to maintain the reliability of the grid.  Former utility executives defend the flexible, cost-effective compliance approach that EPA has long adopted using its authority under the Clean Air Act.

Prominent legal scholars caution the Court against invoking the nondelegation doctrine or judge-made “major questions” doctrine in order to override EPA’s clear statutory authority and regulatory approach. And one of the nation’s foremost experts on the drafting, history, and implementation of the Clean Air Act explains how and why Congress granted EPA significant rulemaking authority to implement the Act’s directive to protect public health and welfare, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed requires EPA to regulate carbon emissions.

Amici filing with the Court include:

• Electric Utilities and Utility Industry Experts
  • Edison Electric Institute
  • Electrical grid experts
  • Former power industry executives
  • Former FERC commissioners
• Major Corporations 
  • Apple, Amazon, Cummins, Danone, Google, Johnson Controls, Levi Strauss, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Netflix, Paypal, Salesforce, Siemens, Tesla, and Workday
• Climate Scientists and Environmental Experts
  • Climate scientists Michael Oppenheimer, Noah Diffenbaugh, Christopher Field, Stephen Pacala, Daniel Schrag, and Susan Solomon
  • National Parks Conservation Association
• Medical and Public Health Experts
  • American Thoracic Society, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, and Leaders of Public Health Schools
• Legal Scholars and Clean Air Act Experts
  • Professor Julian Mortenson, University of Michigan Law School
  • Professor Richard Revesz, NYU School of Law
  • Thomas Jorling, a leading expert on the drafting, implementation, and evolution of the Clean Air Act
• Cities and Mayors
  • National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors
• Current and Former Government Officials
  • 192 Members of Congress
  • Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders
• Advocacy Organizations
  • Public Citizen

Additionally, the groups urge the Court to reject the radical reinterpretation of the “major questions” doctrine advocated for by coal executives and their political allies. These extremists are pushing the Court to use this case to undermine the federal government’s ability to carry out vital Congressional directives, including the federal government’s ability to investigate fraud, ensure the safety of food and drugs, and punish exploitative employers.

The coal companies and their allies behind this case want to prevent the EPA from limiting carbon pollution, and are attempting to thwart the fight against climate change. If they succeed, the coal companies would move the United States back toward the pre-1970s' era, when few pollution controls existed before the Clean Air Act was signed into law. 

There is strong legal support for the EPA’s authority to regulate power sector pollution in order to protect clean air and public health. The EPA’s authority and responsibility to act is consistent with the Constitution, the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Massachusetts v. EPA and American Electric Power v. Connecticut. 

Additional Resources 

• Filings in the case can be found here.
• EDF blog post: An Attack On Hypothetical Climate Pollution Safeguards Lands At The Supreme Court. EDF Will Fight To Protect Climate Action.
• Press release: Leading Environmental Groups and Trade Associations Ask Supreme Court to Reject Attack on the Clean Air Act.
• Sierra Club blog post: Sierra Club and Partners File Brief in High Stakes West Va v. EPA Case.
• NRDC blog post:  What’s at Stake in the Latest SCOTUS Power Plant Cases.
• EDF blog post: Safeguarding EPA’s Authority at the Supreme Court is a Climate Imperative.
• Sierra Club blog post: Coal Companies and their Political Allies Attack Agency Authority in Supreme Court Briefs.

Media Contact

For more information or for media inquiries, contact CleanAir@skdknick.com