Complete list of press releases

NEWS RELEASE
 
(Washington, D.C. – July 29, 2020) Today a bicameral group of Members of Congress introduced the Public Health Air Quality Act of 2020, a bill that would strengthen air pollution monitoring at high-emitting facilities and in vulnerable communities.

“A lack of adequate air pollution monitoring is a direct threat to the millions of people who live with unhealthy air. The Public Health Air Quality Act would expand the number of air pollution monitors at key industrial facilities around the country, as well as make sure that the pollution data gets put to immediate use to protect the health of communities.

“Expanding air pollution monitoring is especially important because high polluting petrochemical facilities and other industrial facilities are more likely to be located in communities of color and low-income communities, and to have disproportionate adverse health impacts on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.  If we hope to build a just, equitable and livable future for all, our communities and policy makers need better access to information that can hold polluters accountable, lead to community-empowered solutions, and end policies that create vulnerabilities.

“It is crucial that all people and communities across our country – with no one left behind or disparately impacted — have information about the air they breathe, especially as we face a global public health crisis that severely magnifies the respiratory risks and urgent health harms for millions afflicted by air pollution. We thank Senator Duckworth, Representative Blunt Rochester, and Congressional Environmental Justice leaders for their leadership in prioritizing the health of our communities at this crucial time.

“We congratulate fence-line and environmental justice groups on the introduction of this important and urgent legislation. We look forward to working to support your vision and leadership in ensuring it, and other urgent legislative priorities to protect communities living near polluting facilities and in areas with unhealthy air quality, become law.

● Vickie Patton, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund

Background:

The Public Health Air Quality Act would require fence-line monitoring at high-polluting facilities and strengthen the existing network of air monitors around the country. It would also require EPA to issue rules for monitoring and then mitigating identified pollution at petrochemical facilities and other sources of harmful air pollution, as well as deploy a network of air sensors in local communities.

EDF is working with academic, community partners, industry and government officials to collect detailed air pollution data and protect communities. Learn more about this work here.

(NEW YORK, NY – Jul. 29, 2020) E-commerce retailers are carrying potential liability for the hundreds of unsustainable and hazardous products sold on their platforms, finds a new analysis by Environmental Defense Fund­­­. In order to mitigate reputational and liability risks that are increasing amidst the global pandemic, the report calls for more transparency about the products sold on e-commerce platforms, as well as focused efforts on reducing their climate impa­­­cts and toxicity.

The Roadmap to Sustainable E-commerce calls on major e-commerce retailers to take responsibility for their products’ life-cycle impacts, and provides seven recommendations for doing so. The report’s accompanying interactive online shopping model, SustainaBuy, also demonstrates how companies can display environmental and ingredient safety data for the products sold online, in order to reduce risk and capture a rapidly growing market demand for sustainable products.

“Right now, the leaderboard for e-commerce leaves a lot to be desired. Target, Sephora and Credo are among the few companies that have taken encouraging, innovative steps towards reducing these three risk factors, but it’s time for other businesses to follow – fast.” said Boma Brown-West, senior manager of consumer health at EDF. “SustainaBuy shows retailers where they should be, and where they can be, using information they already have.”

E-commerce spending in the U.S. hit $82.5 billion this year, up 77% year-over-year. It typically would have taken four to six years for retailers to experience this same level of growth.

Rapid growth creates three major risks for e-commerce retailers:

• Climate – Customers, investors and employees are demanding bold leadership from companies to take action on climate change. Pressure is increasing on companies to address product sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, use and disposal – all of which involve steep emissions that contribute to climate change. Companies that do not address climate impacts are losing market share, investor confidence and facing bigger hurdles to secure insurance or low-interest loans. At the same time, climate change impacts are already causing supply chain disruptions from extreme weather events, and impairing companies’ ability to manufacture, transport and/or sell products.

• Toxicity – Sixty two percent of chemicals in consumer products are hazardous to humans and the environment, yet today’s shoppers have no guarantee that the products they are buying on e-commerce platforms are free of toxic chemicals. E-commerce retailers aren’t verifying the safety of products, avoiding both responsibility and accountability. While manufacturers are foremost responsible for their own products, the retailer has a shared responsibility for making sure the products they sell are safe. In addition to the risk of losing trust and damaging its reputation with consumers, the retailer is vulnerable to product liability lawsuits.

• Transparency - Millennial and Gen Zers want to buy from brands and companies that are transparent and committed to making a positive social impact. Sixty five percent of consumers expect companies to clearly explain environmental benefits on product labels or websites. Lack of transparency hinders companies’ ability to cultivate customer loyalty and trust, hurting their brand and the bottom line. And, failure to disclose the environmental impacts and ingredient safety of products can result in diminished presence in the market for “greener” products.

“Consumers want to buy sustainable products and e-commerce retailers can help them by sharing environmental and social data on their online platforms,” said Tensie Whelan, Professor and Director of the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, and author of the report’s foreword. “Whether companies choose to jump at this opportunity will determine their ability to cultivate the consumer and remain competitive over the long-run.”

The report advises e-commerce retailers to follow seven steps to strike a competitive edge in the marketplace: assess chemical and carbon footprints, set ambitious goals, align business operations to sustainability goals, engage product suppliers, help consumers make sustainable choices, measure and share progress publicly, and lead the industry forward on sustainability.

(AUSTIN, TX) President Trump will hold a series of events tomorrow in the West Texas cities of Odessa and Midland, the heart of the most highly polluting oil and gas region in the country, where he is expected to promote his administration’s ongoing efforts to roll back fundamental air, water and other pollution standards for the oil and gas industry.  

The latest item on that agenda is the Environmental Protection Agency’s elimination of key safeguards designed to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry — a move that could result in an additional 5 million metric tons of methane pollution released into the atmosphere each year, and would effectively end federal standards for all air pollution from oil and gas pipelines and storage facilities nationwide. Over 100,000 Americans live within half a mile of active oil and gas wells in the tri-county area around Midland and Odessa. 

“It’s ironic that the president is coming to the highest polluting oil and gas region in the country to brag about slashing basic environmental safeguards. Weakening standards will only slow the recovery prospects for an industry facing strong competition from cleaner, more efficient resources. That’s why investors, customers and even many in industry are calling for stronger rules, not weaker ones.”

• Matt Watson, Vice President, Energy, Environmental Defense Fund

Video and photos of methane emissions from the local area are available here.

“Today EPA released a list of potential candidates for a key chemical safety advisory committee that is critically flawed from the outset: Candidates were solicited and screened under an illegal directive issued by scandal-plagued former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that barred any scientist receiving EPA grant funding from serving on the agency’s dozens of advisory bodies.  By using that directive to make this list, EPA is ignoring decisions by three separate Courts ruling the directive illegal. 

“In response to these court rulings, just this week, EDF and other NGOs sent a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler calling on the agency to suspend ongoing processes to fill positions and reopen the nominations process, including that for the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), to specifically solicit and consider nominations of qualified EPA-grant funded scientists. The groups also called on EPA to reinstate advisors whom it had removed or not renewed based on the illegal directive.

“EPA has indicated in statements made to the press in response to this request that it is refusing to undertake these steps. Essentially, this decision means that EPA is refusing to undo the serious damage its illegal directive has caused to the agency’s ability to obtain the best possible independent scientific advice.

“While we have yet to scrutinize the list of candidates in detail, one name does draw immediate deep concern: Michael Dourson – the failed Trump nominee to lead EPA’s chemical safety office. Dourson’s record of mercenary science and downplaying chemical risks to benefit industry drew widespread criticism – and opposition from Senators on both sides of the aisle. The fact that he is included on this list is yet another display of the Administration weighing industry interests over public health protection; it also speaks volumes about the conflicts of interest screening process EPA has used.

“EPA’s perversion of its scientific advisory process under the Trump Administration is deeply disturbing. EDF reiterates its call for the agency to reopen the SACC nomination process to qualified scientists receiving EPA grant funding, and to operate the nominations process in an open and transparent manner.”

Additional Background:

In March of this year, EPA solicited nominations to the SACC – but then failed to post any of the nominations it received to the docket it established for this process. EDF then requested that EPA do so, arguing that the public has a right to know what entities nominated the various candidates EPA has now identified. EPA refused EDF’s request.                 

In response, on June 2, EDF filed a FOIA request for this information. EPA is slow-walking its response to this request. The agency issued a pro forma response indicating it did not expect to provide the requested information to EDF before December 18 of this year – over six months after the initial request – despite the 20 business day requirement for the federal government to respond to FOIAs. EDF has repeatedly followed up with the relevant EPA staff, but has, to date, not received an adequate response.

(WASHINGTON – July 23, 2020) A new report issued today from Environmental Defense Fund’s Oceans Program finds that resource managers, scientists, fishermen and seafood consumers stand to gain significant benefits from fisheries data collected through the increased use of technologies like electronic monitoring and electronic reporting, or EM/ER. Despite these benefits, EM programs have been slow to scale. The EDF report identifies policy and economic obstacles that have stalled a wider deployment of EM/ER in domestic fisheries and provides recommendations to policymakers for accelerating adoption of electronic monitoring and reporting and modernizing fisheries information systems.

“Getting EM/ER policy right is crucial because failing to do so would enshrine cost inefficiencies, outdated technology and burdensome requirements on the fishing industry,” the report states. “These impacts could prevent pilot projects from scaling and dampen enthusiasm from fishermen who might otherwise be interested in using EM/ER. In addition, a lack of clarity regarding how existing policies apply to EM programs can delay implementation.”

The report, Electronic Technologies and Data Policy for U.S. Fisheries: Key Topics, Barriers, and Opportunities, notes that widespread adoption of EM/ER technology could increase profits for fishermen and provide more accurate and robust scientific data to better manage fisheries for sustainability. In addition, with more robust datasets come innovative uses such as predictive mapping to reduce bycatch of protected species, adaptive management of fisheries under stress from climate change and seafood traceability programs that give consumers greater confidence about sourcing and sustainability.

“We are on the crest of a new wave of technological innovations that can make our fisheries smarter, more resilient and more profitable,” said Katie Westfall, director of ocean climate strategies and lead author of the report. “The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of shifting toward electronic data collection that is critical for accountability and sustainable fisheries. The opportunities go even further if we design EM/ER programs and policies that allow both fishermen and managers to maximize the value of fisheries data.”

The report makes a number of recommendations that will accelerate adoption of EM/ER technologies. Some of the recommendations include:

- When designing new programs, create performance standards instead of more prescriptive approaches to allow for innovation, and emphasize cost effectiveness.

- Increase collaboration among all stakeholders and regions by expanding the sharing of best practices and technical guidance.

- Establish national performance standards for critical aspects of EM, such as data transmission, quality and type, but allow the regions to identify ways of meeting their specific EM goals, as appropriate.

- Revise data confidentiality policies for EM data and publish consistent guidance across the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS.

- Implement NMFS’s data modernization recommendations and provide robust funding to support them while advancing regional EM/ER efforts.

“This report underscores that using better technology, such as cameras, wireless data transmission and electronic recordkeeping, can bring a new level of transparency, accountability, sustainability and profitability to U.S. fisheries,” said Eric Schwaab, senior vice president, EDF Oceans. “To achieve that promise we must align economics, regulation and policy to jumpstart what has the potential to become a revolution in how we use fisheries data for the benefit of fishing communities and the oceans.”

(AUSTIN, TX) A new aerial survey reveals that the percentage of malfunctioning flares at oil and gas facilities across the Permian region remains stubbornly high, at the same time that preliminary analysis of federal satellite data shows flaring activity in the basin is on the rise. Together the results suggest that one of the industry’s biggest challenges in the basin is poised for resurgence.

Researchers with Environmental Defense Fund’s PermianMAP initiative found that more than one in every 10 flares surveyed in June were either unlit — venting uncombusted methane straight to the atmosphere — or only partially burning the gas they were releasing. This is consistent with two surveys done before the price crash. Meanwhile EDF scientists evaluating data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s VIIRS satellite instrument say that Permian flaring is on the rebound, with June volume up 50% after a steep slide from February through May.

One of the largest oilfields on Earth, the Permian straddles Texas and New Mexico, neither of which has historically regulated flaring effectively.

“Malfunctioning and unlit flares are a longstanding problem for the industry and one of the largest sources of methane emissions in the Permian,” said EDF scientist David Lyon. “The fact that we have not seen any improvement in flare performance over three separate surveys tells us that industry and regulators need to get much more serious about the problem. The best solution is to eliminate routine flaring altogether.”

According to other satellite data, Permian operators sent 280 billion cubic feet of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019 — more than enough to supply every home in Texas. Historically, Texas and New Mexico have not made flaring or methane a regulatory priority. But policymakers in both states now have important opportunities to institute critical safeguards.

“It’s troubling to see methane pollution from flares persist at the same time it appears flaring activity is on the rise again,” said Jon Goldstein, EDF director of regulatory and legislative affairs. “This data underscores the need for New Mexico’s oil and gas regulators to implement rules that comprehensively address methane waste and pollution. The drafts released this week are a good start, but must be strengthened to close critical loopholes.”

Drafts of the two New Mexico rules can be found here and here. Photos, video, a map and other images for media are available here.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, human sources of which are responsible for more than a quarter of the warming we’re experiencing today. It’s also the main ingredient in natural gas. When methane escapes into the atmosphere, it has over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years.

Although flaring waste and localized emissions are a familiar problem by now, EDF’s helicopter surveys are the first effort ever to assess the methane emissions associated with flaring in the region. It is the latest product of EDF’s year-long PermianMAP initiative to measure methane emissions using aircraft, stationary towers and ground-based mobile sensors.

The survey results come on the heels of satellite data released earlier this year showing total oil and gas methane emissions in the Permian are more than two times higher than federal inventories indicate.

Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its first ever proposal for a greenhouse gas emissions standard covering carbon dioxide from aircraft and aircraft engines. EPA is legally obligated to issue aviation pollution standards and has been working on this proposal since 2016. The proposal will be subject to public comment and Environmental Defense Fund will be providing written objections showing that the proposal, as drafted, contravenes EPA’s responsibilities under our nation’s clean air laws to protect public health and the environment from dangerous air pollution. 

“Airlines need to put climate change at the center of their recovery from COVID-19. But the EPA’s proposed carbon dioxide emissions standard for aircraft is wholly insufficient to put the aviation industry on a trajectory of declining emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

“It will be up to Congress to provide real leadership for the aviation sector, not only by putting in place rules to safeguard airline passengers from COVID-19, but also by making any further aviation bailouts contingent on tough emissions limits for the sector. Opinion leaders, including the UN Secretary General, have said aviation bailouts should be conditioned on aligning with the Paris Agreement, and such conditions have already been adopted by America’s aviation competitors. 

“As the last U.S. bailout showed, simply infusing cash to rebuild the industry on its old template isn’t staunching the hemorrhage of jobs from the aviation sector. Instead, to help support new high quality jobs delivering the sustainable fuels and aircraft of the future, Congress should move swiftly to set aviation on a science-driven path toward net zero climate impacts, with strong emission reduction targets that address all aircraft pollution. That will do far more to aid the sector economically and protect the climate than EPA’s current proposal.”  

• Annie Petsonk, International Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund 

(Washington, D.C. – July 21, 2020) EDF and a coalition of public health and environmental advocates are challenging the Trump EPA’s claim that our current Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants are adequate to protect public health.

The groups filed a petition for review of the agency’s “residual risk and technology review” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. EDF is also part of a separate lawsuit opposing the Trump EPA’s effort to undermine the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards themselves.

“The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards help protect babies and young children from brain damage, protect adults from cancer and lung disease, and save 11,000 lives each year. However, there is still more work to do to protect Americans from toxic air pollution – especially Black, Indigenous, and People of Color who are more likely to live near pollution sources and suffer a disproportionate risk,” said EDF attorney Liana James. “The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are vital for safeguarding Americans’ health, but the facts show they should be even stronger and more protective as required by law.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are the first-ever national policy to reduce the emission of hazardous pollutants – including mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, nickel, and acid gases – from coal-burning power plants.

In April, the Trump administration took two actions regarding the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Both were published in the same Federal Register notice. One was the “residual risk and technology review,” which found the standards were “acceptable” to protect public health and thus no further safeguards were necessary. The other was the “reconsideration of the supplemental finding” which reversed EPA’s own finding, based on a large and robust scientific and technical record, that the regulation of mercury and other toxic emissions is “appropriate and necessary.”

EDF and its allies filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit in June opposing EPA’s rollback of the supplemental finding. EDF is also opposing a lawsuit filed by Westmoreland Mining Holdings, a coal mining company, that is seeking to use the Trump EPA’s supplemental finding rollback to topple the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards themselves.

The latest lawsuit opposes the Trump EPA’s residual risk and technology review on the grounds that the agency used unreliable data that omits the emissions of some dangerous pollutants and understates others. The agency also did not account for health risks during times when coal-fired power plants cycle and are started or shut down – times when the plants release significantly more pollution. EPA’s residual risk and technology review must adequately address all toxic air pollution from coal-and oil-fired power plants in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect human health.

EDF was joined on this filing by Air Alliance Houston, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Clean Air Council, Downwinders at Risk, Environmental Integrity Project, Montana Environmental Information Center, Sierra Club and Texas Campaign for the Environment.

“Today, 32 major energy buyers called on Congress to combat climate change while providing COVID-19 relief and putting Americans back to work. In asking lawmakers to invest in and ensure the viability of the renewable energy sector, these businesses are using their voices to advocate for policies consistent with their environmental goals. They’re also setting an example for others to follow.

“Signatories to today’s letter include Adobe, Cargill, Danone North America, Dell Technologies; DSM North America; Hewlett Packard Enterprise, LafargeHolcim, Levi Strauss & Co, Mars Incorporated, McDonald’s Corporation, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Trane Technologies, Tyson Foods, Inc, Unilever, and Yum! Brands, Inc. The Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance, a leading trade association representing over 120 organizations that purchase renewable energy, also signed.

“These major employers and energy users recognize that one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to use renewable power, and that a vital clean energy sector is also a powerful engine for economic growth and job creation. Before the pandemic, clean energy was one of the nation’s strongest sectors, growing 70% faster than the economy as a whole. As COVID relief and stimulus packages are considered on Capitol Hill, we urge lawmakers to ensure that renewable energy is a key part of any plan for COVID relief and recovery.”

• Victoria Mills, Managing Director, EDF+Business

(SANTA FE, N.M.) New Mexico’s Oil Conservation Division and Environment Department today introduced proposed rules to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. State agencies set out to develop nation-leading regulations to curb emissions at the direction of Gov. Lujan Grisham’s 2019 executive order to slow climate change and reduce energy waste.

Oil and gas operators in New Mexico emit over 1 million tons of methane annually. Recent research suggests companies operating in parts of the Permian Basin release methane at three times the national rate. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of current global warming and is emitted alongside other contaminates that cause smog and threaten public health.

“With these proposals the Lujan Grisham administration is taking an important step toward comprehensive rules that reduce methane pollution and waste. As the Trump administration continues efforts to erase federal methane protections, the need for strong state leadership has never been more urgent. We will be reviewing the proposed regulations carefully to ensure they live up to the promise of the Lujan Grisham administration to minimize the impact of oil and gas operations on the climate and the health of New Mexico’s communities and families.”

• Jon Goldstein, Director of Regulatory & Legislative Affairs, Energy

(Sacramento – July 17, 2020) A federal district court has affirmed that California’s coordination with Quebec to reduce dangerous climate pollution is constitutional, rebuffing the last remaining claim in a lawsuit filed by the Trump Administration last year.

The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California follows a ruling from March 12 of this year – also in favor of California – on two related constitutional claims. EDF and NRDC are parties to the case as intervenors on behalf of California.

“California faces the clear and present danger of climate change, and is innovating and leading with solutions that protect lives, create jobs and strengthen the economy. We need states to take on this role as laboratories of experimentation today more than ever, especially when the federal government fails to provide sound leadership,” said EDF senior attorney Erica Morehouse. “Environmental Defense Fund will continue to stand up for California, and for all states that are taking the reasonable actions they deem most effective to protect people from the grave threats of climate change.”

“The Trump Administration struck out today on its third swing at California’s innovative collaboration with Quebec to curb climate pollution,” said David Pettit, a senior attorney at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “The federal government should be doing everything in its power to fight climate change, not fighting the states that are leading the way.”

California and Quebec developed independent cap-and-trade programs to reduce climate pollution in their respective jurisdictions. They begin coordinating their carbon markets in 2014 in order to create additional benefits for their residents. The Trump Administration filed suit in October, claiming California’s cross-border coordination violated several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The move followed a string of other legal attacks by the Trump Administration on California’s clean air, clean car, and clean water standards.

The court considered the administration’s lawsuit in two stages, first as challenges under the Constitution’s Compact Clause or Treaty Clause, and finally as interfering with the President’s power to conduct foreign affairs.

With today’s decision, the court has ruled for California on all three of the Trump administration’s claims, stating:

“The United States continually stresses that the President withdrew from the Paris Accord in order to negotiate for a ‘better deal.’ However, the United States offers no concrete evidence that California’s cap-and-trade program has interfered with either negotiations for a better deal or the nation’s imminent withdrawal from the Paris Accord.” (Decision, page 28)

Fourteen states – Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – also defended California in court as amici.

(Washington, D.C. – July 16, 2020) Environmental Defense Fund and a dozen other health and environmental groups today told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that EPA has clear legal responsibility to regulate climate pollution from existing power plants – refuting legal challenges brought by the coal industry and its allies alleging that EPA has no authority to do so.

“The law is crystal clear that EPA has both the authority and the responsibility to address climate pollution, and it’s vital to the health and safety of all Americans that it does so,” said EDF lead attorney Tomás Carbonell. “We are asking the court to both uphold EPA’s authority and require that the agency use it effectively.”

The groups filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit today as part of a larger case arising from the Trump administration’s July 2019 decision repealing the Clean Power Plan, which established America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Trump’ s EPA replaced the Clean Power Plan with the ACE rule, which contains no meaningful limits on carbon pollution and would increase harmful soot and smog-forming pollution at nearly one in five of the nation’s power plants.

EDF and a broad coalition of states, cities, other health and environmental advocates, power companies, and clean energy trade associations sued EPA last fall over that rollback, arguing that the repeal of the Clean Power Plan rested on a fundamental misreading of the Clean Air Act and that the ACE rule is unlawful and unjustified.

At the same time, coal companies and their allies sued EPA for a completely different reason. They say EPA should not have finalized the ACE rule because the agency does not have the right to regulate carbon pollution from power plants at all.

EDF and its allies are parties to the case in defense of EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution. In their brief today, they state:

“Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate CO₂ from existing power plants. Yet some Petitioners seek to block the agency from placing any limits on this dangerous pollution, even those found in the pitifully weak Affordable Clean Energy Rule (“ACE”). We support EPA’s rejection of these arguments.” (Brief, page 1)

The American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Appalachian Mountain Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Wisconsin, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club joined EDF on today’s brief.

Twenty-two states (New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia), the District of Columbia and eight cities and counties (Boulder, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, South Miami, and the City and County of Denver) have also intervened in the case in support of EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution.

(July 15, 2020) The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California today ruled that the Trump administration’s reversal of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule was “wholly inadequate” and vacated the action.

The rule reduced the waste of methane and other dangerous pollutants vented, leaked and flared from natural gas operations on public and tribal lands. The Bureau of Land Management, under Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, tried to eliminate key provisions of it in 2018 in flagrant violation of the law. EDF joined the states of California and New Mexico and a broad coalition of health, environmental, tribal citizen and Western groups to challenge in court the rescission of the vital safeguards.

“Since the first day they came into office, the Trump administration has sought and failed to undermine the Methane Waste Prevention Rule at every turn – in Congress, through the regulatory process, and in the courts. Today’s ruling shows their efforts are illegal, and provides for the reinstatement of common sense protections that are in the best interest of the American public,” said EDF senior attorney Rosalie Winn.

Venting, flaring, and leaking of natural gas releases methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, and other hazardous air pollutants like benzene, which causes serious health problems, into our air. It also wastes money; more than $2.5 billion in natural gas has been lost from taxpayer-owned lands through intentional releases and flaring since 2013.

The Methane Waste Prevention Rule was adopted in 2016. It required companies operating on public and tribal lands to carry out common sense policies, using proven and widely-available technologies, to reduce the waste of natural gas.

In 2018, the Trump administration eliminated all measures of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule that would have resulted in natural gas savings, even though BLM’s own analysis found that rolling back the rule would cost Americans more than one billion dollars.

Today the court vacated the rollback, calling the rulemaking process behind it “wholly inadequate” (Decision, page 1) and saying:

“BLM’s backwards approach to rulemaking is not acceptable. It cannot propose a rule based on factual conclusion, provide no evidence for the same, and then, when confronted with the glaring inadequacy, attempt to backfill the record without public comment. … in its zeal, BLMsimply engineered a process to ensure a preordained conclusion.” (Decision, pages 27 and 55)The judge’s decision will go into effect in 90 days.

“This is a victory for communities in New Mexico and across the West. The cost of methane waste and pollution from our public lands is far too high. It robs taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars in revenue for our schools every year, threatens our climate, and makes air pollution worse,” said Don Schreiber, owner of Devil’s Spring Ranch in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. Schreiber is an EDF member and declarant in the litigation. There is federal oil and gas development on the land that he ranches.

The Methane Waste Prevention Rule has wide support from key stakeholders including local elected officials, business groups, methane mitigation companies, Latino organizations, agricultural groups, sportsmen groups, veterans, public health experts, clean air advocacy organizations and taxpayer organizations.

You can read more about the BLM Waste Rule, including all legal briefs, on EDF’s website.

“The Trump administration has attempted to mow down 100 environmental protections over the last three years. Now they are trying to rip those protections up by the roots.

“Today the Trump administration finalized its attack on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA – the bedrock law that underpins our public health and environmental safeguards. NEPA was signed by President Nixon in 1970, and has protected Americans ever since, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. After half a century, and at a time when we see the damage from climate change more clearly every day, the Trump administration wants to drastically curtail the use of our cornerstone environmental protection.

“NEPA requires that large-scale federally-supported industrial projects include rigorous analyses of possible harm to people and the communities where they live. The Trump administration wants to restrict clear-eyed assessments of those threats to our people and communities, and utterly disregard the damage from climate pollution. The result would be more pipelines, chemical plants and other potentially dangerous projects built without the vital community input and care that is essential to prevent harm.

“The administration’s action would hamper public input – a pillar of a fair and just society. NEPA has been one of the key tools that Americans, including Black people, Indigenous people and other people of color, have depended on to be heard in decisions that have a profound impact on their communities, their health and their well-being. Undermining NEPA would unjustly diminish the voices of those at risk at a time when it is imperative that we listen and engage genuinely and with great care.

“EDF will fight to keep strong protections in place so NEPA can protect the health and safety of all Americans in all communities for the next 50 years.”

- Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund

(Washington, D.C. - July 15, 2020) Today, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously passed H.R. 7575, the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020), a key piece of legislation that authorizes vital projects and priorities across the nation’s water infrastructure systems.

“As extreme weather stresses our waterways and infrastructure and puts more communities at risk of flooding, the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today took a big step toward greater resilience. Congress is investing in bipartisan solutions, such as natural infrastructure, that can better protect communities, from our coasts to the heartland, from flooding, while also creating jobs and restoring vital ecosystems. In particular, we are pleased to see a commitment to engage and address the needs of a diverse set of communities that experience disproportionate impacts from extreme weather and flooding in this country.

“We look forward to the full House of Representatives voting on this important bipartisan legislation.”