Complete list of press releases

(WASHINGTON, DC) A bipartisan group of senators today introduced a bill to help agriculture contribute to and benefit from comprehensive climate solutions. The Growing Climate Solutions Act directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a certification program that will make it easier for farmers to develop, verify and sell environmental credits. The bill is sponsored by Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

“Farmers are vital partners in stabilizing the climate and increasing resilience to the impacts we can’t avoid. The Growing Climate Solutions Act makes it easier for farmers to pull up a seat at the table and be part of the climate solution.

“It enables new revenue streams that pay farmers for adopting climate-friendly practices. Those changes will help drive the U.S. toward a 100% clean economy and help ensure farms and rural communities thrive in a changing climate.

“We appreciate this bipartisan group of senators for recognizing the potential of climate-smart agriculture, and we look forward to working with their staff to expedite additional opportunities for farmers to benefit while delivering measurable climate benefits.” 

• Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President, Political Affairs
   

(WASHINGTON, DC – June 3, 2020) “At a time when Americans need it most, Chairman DeFazio’s infrastructure bill will create good jobs and reduce unhealthy air pollution.

“In every corner of our country, we need our elected leaders to step forward with proposals that will rebuild better and invest in proven initiatives that will put people back to work.

“By investing in new incentives for installing electric vehicle charging stations, expanding the adoption of zero-emission buses, easing traffic congestion and spurring innovation in green freight, this bill helps clean up the air in overburdened communities, cut costs and deliver practical and popular solutions to fix our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.

“Rebuilding better starts with strong proposals like Chairman DeFazio’s Invest in America Act and EDF believes this legislation will put us on a path towards a healthier, stronger and safer America where everyone can prosper.”

• Elizabeth Gore, EDF Senior Vice President, Political Affairs

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

(RALEIGH, NC – June 2, 2020) North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper today announced the release of the North Carolina Climate Risk Assessment and Resilience Plan, developed by the North Carolina Climate Change Interagency Council as a result of Executive Order No. 80. The plan includes an update of the available climate science, providing critical information on the growing risks and vulnerabilities for our state, with particular focus on the impacts to marginalized and minority communities. The plan provides a sector-based assessment of those threats and, importantly, outlines common-sense guiding principles that state agencies and the Legislature can adopt to steer policy and funding to these priorities. It also highlights the importance of nature-based solutions to address the growing risk of flooding, drought and fire.

“After devastation from back-to-back hurricanes and in the face of rapidly rising seas, North Carolina must act with urgency to build meaningful resilience,” said EDF Director, Resilient Landscapes Will McDow. “This plan marks an important milestone towards a more resilient future for our state.”  

“The Resilience Plan begins to address protecting vulnerable communities who are bearing a disproportionate share of the climate change burden,” said EDF Manager, Partnerships and Outreach Marilynn Marsh-Robinson. “What’s needed next is additional community engagement and holistic approaches developed hand-in-hand with the communities they are designed to protect. It’s critical to support those most impacted throughout the process and equip them with what is needed to implement long-term solutions.”

“The governor is starting an important dialogue on how best to prepare our state for the impacts of climate change,” added McDow. “We must now work together to move this plan into action to build meaningful resilience for our communities, businesses and ecosystems.”

• Background: North Carolina confronts climate change with forthcoming resilience plan

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) The Environmental Protection Agency today took the next step in its march to roll back 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.

EPA asked the Office of Management and Budget for expedited review of a final rule package that, if similar to the agency’s proposal, would totally eliminate federal regulation of heat-trapping methane emissions from oil and gas well sites nationwide and, additionally, remove standards for all air pollution from oil and gas transmission and storage facilities. If rush review is accepted, the EPA has indicated the rollbacks will be final by the end of July.

“Since 2016, federal methane rules have been helping protect Americans from climate-damaging methane emissions and dangerous pollutants that harm our health. Companies including Shell, BP and ExxonMobil supported keeping and even strengthening these rules. Instead, the EPA has chosen a path that will put public health and the environment at risk and will only weaken the global competitiveness of U.S.-based companies.”

• Matt Watson, Vice President, Energy

“Racism, leads only to harm and death. It has always been so. EDF condemns all racist expressions, actions, and policies. These have been ingrained in our society for far too long.

“The murder of George Floyd, and countless other unarmed Black people, weighs heavily on the conscience of this nation. We all need to speak out against acts of brutality, big and small. It is especially important that White Americans do so.

“EDF demands not only justice, but reform and equity, to end the long train of abuse arising from the same cause: racism.

“For too long conservation and environmental movements have not spoken up to address the long-standing challenges that non-white communities face. Environmental organizations should work to bring down the barriers that affect Black, people of color, and Indigenous communities. EDF will provide support and solutions to achieve environmental justice and equity.”

• EDF President Fred Krupp

(DENVER) Environmental Defense Fund and Healthy Air & Water Colorado today came to the defense of rules adopted last year by the Air Quality Control Commission that strengthened regulations to reduce climate and air pollution from oil and gas industry operations across the state.

Two separate lawsuits were filed in March (one by group of Western Slope counties and another by Weld County) seeking to roll back the new methane and ozone pollution regulations that were adopted unanimously by the AQCC in December of 2019. Thirty- five local government entities including counties, municipalities, and public health departments from across the state as well as thousands of ordinary Coloradans supported the rules. EDF and Healthy Air & Water Colorado filed motions (available here and here) to intervene in both cases in order to defend those rules.

“This policy has been enormously successful and highly cost-effective, elevating Colorado to become a national leader in forward-thinking solutions. Rolling back clean air protections in the middle of the COVID crisis is a disservice to the state, and ultimately to the industry itself. It would compromise our public health at a time when we can least afford it, and amplify our climate problems.”

• Dan Grossman, Senior Director of State Advocacy, Environmental Defense Fund

“These commonsense clean air protections are entirely achievable and will make Colorado’s air healthier for everyone to breathe. Instead of attacking pollution safeguards during a public health crisis, we should seize every opportunity to clean our air and reduce emissions that can make Coloradans sicker. These rules will do just that – and benefit every single one of us”

• Jake Williams, Executive Director, Healthy Air & Water Colorado

“The Trump administration’s rollback of America’s popular and successful Clean Car Standards would be disastrous. It would cause more than 18,000 more premature deaths, add one and a half billion metric tons of climate pollution to our air, and cost Americans $244 billion more at the gas pump. That’s why I’m proud that we joined a large coalition of health, consumer and environmental advocates today in a lawsuit to stop the rollback.

“A coalition of 23 states, four cities and the District of Columbia also sued today to defend our Clean Car Standards in court. I agree with what the Attorneys General of three of those states (California, Michigan and Colorado) said at their news conference – the law, science and facts are on our side. I look forward to standing with those states and cities in court to fight for better, cleaner cars that will protect the American people.”

- Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund

WASHINGTON (May 27, 2020) – Environmental advocates filed lawsuits today in federal court against the Trump administration for its illegal rollback of clean car and fuel economy standards. The administration’s rule is based on massive technical and economic errors – and fails to meet core legal requirements.

The vehicle-emission and fuel-economy standards issued under the Obama administration slashed climate-changing air pollution and cut America’s oil dependence while saving drivers $90 billion at the pump. It’s the single largest action the federal government has taken to address climate change.  

The 12 groups (listed below) sued the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in separate lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“These illegal rollbacks mean more air pollution that harms our health and fuels the climate crisis, while sucking billions of dollars more out of Americans’ pockets at the pump,” said Ben Longstreth, senior attorney for NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council).

“The Trump administration’s reckless reversal of the clean car standards is riddled with mathematical and logical errors, according to the administration’s own economists,” said Joanne Spalding, the Sierra Club’s Chief Climate Counsel. “This flawed rule will increase pollution, endanger public health, cut auto jobs, and further burden American families with higher fueling costs. The Sierra Club has fought for strong clean car standards for decades, and today’s filing is the latest in years of advocacy for climate action that protects people and the planet.”

“The Trump administration’s rollback of the Clean Car Standards will hurt Americans, increase harmful pollution, cause more than 18,000 premature deaths, and cost consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump,” said EDF lead attorney Peter Zalzal. “The rollback is deeply and fundamentally flawed, it is inconsistent with the agencies’ legal duty to reduce harmful pollution and conserve fuel, and we look forward to vigorously challenging it in court.”

“When the Trump administration puts polluters before people, we take them to court and win. The clean cars standards were a straightforward, cost-effective way to reduce carbon pollution and combat the climate crisis. We’ll keep holding this administration accountable for these unlawful rollbacks,” said Paul Cort, a staff attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing the Sierra Club in these cases.

“The Trump administration’s rollback of Clean Car Standards would be wrong-headed and unlawful in the best of times, but is especially irresponsible now during a national public health emergency with the economy falling,” said Rob Michaels, senior attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “The record is filled with overwhelming evidence that the 2012 standards were not only feasible for the auto industry, but they would have created more jobs and reduced dangerous air pollution, saving thousands of lives, compared to the weak new Trump standards. We look forward to challenging the Trump Administration’s reckless and short-sighted rollback in court.”

“The agencies have abandoned their statutory responsibilities to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants and maximize fuel economy to pursue other priorities dictated by the administration’s deregulatory agenda,” said Scott Nelson, attorney for Public Citizen. “But even the rigged cost-benefit analysis that supposedly justifies their actions shows that the rollback of these standards will harm consumers and the environment without achieving any other benefits that could conceivably justify the agencies’ choice.”

“The administration’s final rule that rolls back vehicle standards isn’t just an effort to undo the most significant and successful climate policy on the books. It’s also an absolute travesty of a regulatory process,” said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “In their rush to gut vehicle standards, these agencies abandoned their mission, ignored the evidence, sidelined experts, cut corners, and wound up with an indefensible new rule that will cost consumers $200 billion in extra gasoline costs and result in billions of tons of additional emissions of the heat trapping gases that cause global warming.”

“COVID-19 has laid bare the tragic impact toxic emissions and air pollution can have on our health,” said Emily Green, senior attorney at CLF. “Rolling back rules designed to create cleaner air and reduce climate-damaging emissions defies reason – and the law. We must hold this administration accountable for its continued attacks on our health and our environment.”

“EPA’s own analysis shows that this will reverse climate progress. The clean car standards should protect our climate, our health and the future of our children and grandchildren,” said Morgan Folger, Clean Cars campaign director with Environment America. “This plan is unacceptable. Not only does it fail to adequately address the climate crisis — it sets us back years when we have no time to lose.”

Background

The 12 groups that joined together to file today’s lawsuits are: Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Communities for a Better Environment, Conservation Law Foundation, Consumer Federation of America, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Public Citizen, Inc., Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Since the clean car and fuel economy standards were issued in 2010, the auto industry has thrived, achieving record sales, while drivers saved $90 billion in fuel costs. But the rollback from the EPA and NHTSA, issued at the end of March, will cause at least 867 million metric tons more carbon dioxide pollution, equivalent to the annual emissions of 216 coal plants. And it will cost consumers at least $175 billion in additional fuel costs, according to the EPA’s own calculations.Separately, the administration has tried to block California and other states from setting more ambitious emission standards. That unprecedented move has also been challenged in court.

The lawsuits are available here and here.

(Harrisburg, Pa. – May 22, 2020) The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is publishing a draft rule to further reduce methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas emitted from thousands of well sites across Pennsylvania. Two years ago, the state addressed emissions from new oil and gas sources. This rule would be the first regulation to address emissions from the state’s existing infrastructure. The public will have 66 days to comment on the draft rule.

“Gov. Wolf has demonstrated clear leadership by moving this rulemaking forward. Our analysis found that Pennsylvania oil and gas operators emit more than one million tons of methane annually. Cutting methane pollution from existing oil and gas sources is critical to meeting our climate goals. The Department of Environmental Protection should strengthen the draft rule to address emissions from across the oil and gas supply chain – including low-producing wells that are responsible for half of all emissions statewide.”

• Dan Grossman, Senior Director of State Advocacy, Environmental Defense Fund

“Given that natural gas will remain a large part of Pennsylvania’s electric generation for the foreseeable future, we need to ensure that we don’t lose the progress we’ve made in reducing carbon emissions. One way that that can happen is through fugitive emissions from the gas supply chain. This rulemaking moves us closer to a sustainable and economically viable energy portfolio by holding producers to a reasonable standard that can be met at little or no cost to them.”

• Davitt Woodwell, President, Pennsylvania Environmental Council

(Washington, D.C. – May 21, 2020) Experts from Environmental Defense Fund joined hundreds of Americans from around the country at a public hearing today and asked EPA to strengthen protections against particle pollution, or PM2.5 – commonly called soot. EPA is now considering a proposal that would leave America’s inadequate particle pollution standard in place.

“I am testifying today because the proposal to retain the current PM2.5 standard falls short of EPA’s charge to protect human health and the environment by blatantly ignoring the body of scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates the need for a more protective standard,” said EDF fellow Taylor Bacon in her testimony. “For the sake of millions of Americans, it is crucial that EPA revises this proposal to strengthen the standard and implement meaningful, science-based health protections.”

The particle pollution standard is one of America’s core public health safeguards. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particle pollution every five years, and must establish a standard that protects public health with a margin of safety to protect vulnerable populations. A large body of health science studies show that our current annual threshold – 12 micrograms per cubic meter, set in 2012 – needs strengthening to protect public health and prevent thousands of premature deaths. In spite of that evidence, last month EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler formally proposed to leave the current, inadequate standard in place.

EDF senior health scientist Ananya Roy, an environmental epidemiologist, testified about the consequences of EPA’s proposal.

“The health harms of fine particulate matter are far reaching, even below the current standard. [Particle pollution] causes heart disease, diabetes, and lung cancer. It restricts the growth of children’s lungs, increases risk of asthma attacks; increases hospitalizations and emergency room visits; and eventually results in premature death. An estimated 85,000 deaths were due to [particle pollution] exposure across the country in 2017,” said Roy. “EPA’s proposal to keep the current, inadequate particulate matter standards in place is unacceptable.”

“EPA’s legal obligations during a review of the national ambient air quality standards are clear. The Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to set the primary, health-based standard at a level that is ‘requisite to protect the public health,’ ” said EDF senior attorney Rachel Fullmer in her testimony. “The standard must be set at a level that not only protects the average member of the population, but also guards against adverse effects in vulnerable subpopulations, such as children, seniors, disadvantaged socioeconomic populations, people with heart and lung disease and others particularly vulnerable to air pollution.”

More than 230 people have signed up to testify at the public hearing, which is being held by phone because of the new coronavirus crisis. Testimony will also take place tomorrow and Wednesday May 27^th.

EPA is also accepting public comments on the proposal for an unusually short 60-day period. Prior proposals related to National Ambient Air Quality standards had 90-day comment periods.

“It is manifestly unreasonable and dangerous to take an action of such great importance to our nation’s public health and allow the public only 60 days to comment on the proposal,” said Fullmer in her testimony.

Environmental Defense Fund filed a brief in opposition to the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California’s collaboration with Quebec to cut dangerous climate pollution. The brief is a response to the administration’s latest arguments that make a far-reaching constitutional attack on the successful climate program.

The brief, filed yesterday, opposes a Trump administration motion for summary judgment on a constitutional claim related to the reach of the President’s foreign affairs power. The Trump administration filed this additional motion for summary judgment after the court ruled in favor of California and interveners, including EDF, on March 12, rejecting claims by the Trump administration that California’s voluntary collaboration contravened the Constitution’s Treaty Clause and Compact Clause. The Trump administration has also withdrawn its claims that the collaboration violates the Foreign Commerce Clause. 

“The Justice department’s lawsuit against California for its collaboration with Quebec to cost-effectively reduce dangerous climate pollution is just one more ploy in a series of efforts by the Trump administration to undermine health and environmental safeguards for millions of people,” said EDF Senior Attorney Erica Morehouse. “We strongly oppose the Trump administration’s sweeping and unprecedented claim asserting virtually unlimited authority to deem unconstitutional life-saving state protections that address dangerous air pollution.”

The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. EDF filed its brief jointly with Natural Resources Defense Council. In it they argue:

• Plaintiff’s arguments “risk empowering the President to effectively veto state laws with which he or she simply disagrees, merely by asserting their inconsistency with inchoate foreign policy goals—precisely what Plaintiff is attempting here. To avoid that, courts have cabined the doctrine by requiring clear conflicts with clear executive foreign policy or a clear showing that the state law does not advance a bona fide domestic purpose and that it clearly interferes with the affairs of foreign countries.” (p.11)
• “Plaintiff has utterly failed to show any conflict [with U.S. foreign policy], let alone the necessary “clear conflict” with that policy. Given California’s strong interest in cost-effective control of GHG emissions—as already recognized by this Court—Plaintiff’s burden is especially heavy. It has not come close to carrying it.” (p. 17)

The California Attorney General and the International Emissions Trading Association also filed in oppositions to the Trump administration’s motion. California also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ foreign affairs claims.

Oral arguments will be heard by Judge William Shubb in the Eastern District of California on June 29, 2020.

(Washington, D.C. – May 19, 2020) EPA’s latest effort to censor science is an “irretrievably unlawful and misguided attack on public health” and the agency should abandon it, according to comments filed by Environmental Defense Fund.

Yesterday was the last day for the public to comment on EPA’s expanded proposal to restrict the science the agency can consider when making decisions about vital public health and environmental safeguards. EDF’s comments provide detailed criticism of the proposal itself and EPA’s failure to provide an adequate opportunity for comment.

“Cynically presented under the guise of promoting ‘transparency’ in EPA’s use of science, the Supplemental Notice would in fact censor science at EPA,” EDF states in its comments. “Like its predecessor proposal, the Supplemental Notice lacks any legal or factual basis; would undermine the scientific integrity of the agency’s decisions; and would do deep damage to public health by blinding the agency to life-saving research and hobbling the agency’s ability to carry out our nation’s bedrock health and environmental laws.”

EDF’s comments call on EPA to “immediately withdraw this harmful, misguided, and fatally deficient proposal.”

EPA’s original “censored science proposal” was released two years ago by then-administrator Scott Pruitt. It would bar EPA from using certain scientific studies that examine relationships between hazardous exposures and health effects in its work unless the data underlying those studies – including confidential medical information – are publicly available.

The new expanded proposal makes that already dangerous idea much worse by widening its scope to all data and models used by the agency, and to a vast universe of influential scientific information produced by EPA. Thousands of widely accepted studies that support limits on toxic chemicals, air pollution and water pollution could be thrown out, undermining EPA’s duty to protect American families from those health hazards. The expanded proposal also explicitly states that “personnel and medical information … the disclosure of which would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy … are intended to be subject to this rulemaking.”

EDF’s comments also underscore that EPA has no statutory authority to issue the proposed rule and has failed to provide an adequate opportunity for public input, particularly from public health experts and scientists who are focused on fighting the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus.

“EPA has pointed to no health or environmental benefit that would justify moving forward with this rulemaking: to the contrary, this proposal would harm the public by undermining vital health and environmental protections,” EDF states in its comments. “EPA’s rushed comment process — and its rejection of a legally-required opportunity for hearing — violates the agency’s statutory duty to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to weigh in.”

The New York Times today reported that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to abandon regulation of the chemical perchlorate, dismissing a nearly decades-old finding that the rocket fuel ingredient should not be in our drinking water. Last year, based on a flawed scientific assessment that was inconsistent with its peer reviewers’ conclusions, the EPA proposed a weak limit on perchlorate in water that was more than 3 times less protective than an advisory level set in 2008. Rather than fixing its flawed science, the agency appears to be sticking with its inadequate proposed limits to conclude that too few facilities have enough perchlorate contamination to warrant regulation. 

“This report is very disturbing. In an all-too common scenario for this Administration, EPA is putting its blinders on to ignore the science and the law in its decision-making,” said Tom Neltner, EDF Chemicals Policy Director. “The agency only reached this decision by distorting and rejecting critical scientific evidence linking this potent neurotoxin to development problems in kids. Plain and simple, this would put children at risk.”

Background

Perchlorate, a rocket-fuel ingredient, is a known endocrine disruptor that impairs the thyroid’s ability to use iodine in the diet to make a hormone essential to brain development. For the estimated 20% of pregnant women who are already iodine-deficient, any exposure to perchlorate can pose a risk to a child’s healthy development.

• Analysis of EPA’s proposed MCL: EPA distorts the scientific evidence and fails to protect kids’ brains in its proposed limit for perchlorate in drinking water
• EDF’s efforts to ban perchlorate in food packaging: Perchlorate in food

(Washington, D.C. – May 13, 2010) A coalition of environmental and public health groups led by EDF is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold pollution standards for the freight trailers that carry goods across America’s highways.

The safeguards are part of the Clean Truck Standards, and most large truck manufacturers are complying with them (in fact the standards were issued with broad industry support). However, the trade group representing freight trailer manufacturers is suing, claiming that EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lacked authority to adopt standards that include common sense requirements for freight trailers.

The green groups laid out their case in a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit last night.

“Tractor trailers contribute significantly to climate and other dangerous pollution. These standards protect Americans from this pollution while saving truckers money. The trailer manufacturers’ arguments that these cost-effective clean air measures should not apply to them is unsupported by the law,” said EDF Senior Attorney Alice Henderson.

“With clean air more important than ever, it’s essential that we take steps to reduce pollution from truck trailers,” said Katherine Hoff, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This lawsuit is a desperate attempt by a handful of profit-hungry truck trailer manufacturers to avoid making modest, easily achieved changes that could protect people’s lungs.”

“The trailer makers’ arguments are so extreme not even the Trump EPA supports it,” said Pete Huffman, a lawyer at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “We intervened in this case in support of EPA to ensure trailer makers do their part to clean up their products. Making tractor-trailers more aerodynamic, with smoother-rolling tires, slashes 18-wheeler carbon emissions while paying for itself in fuel savings.”

“Strong standards to clean up our transportation sector, the nation’s biggest source of climate-disrupting pollution, is critical to the health of our communities,” said Andres Restrepo, a staff attorney for Sierra Club. “Eighteen-wheeler trailers are responsible for huge quantities of emissions, yet the lobbyists opposing the EPA’s standards argue that they have no legal responsibilities whatsoever to curb those emissions, contrary to the plain language of the Clean Air Act. That’s why we intervened in this lawsuit, and it’s why we fully expect to prevail.”

EPA and the Department of Transportation adopted the Clean Truck Standards in August 2016, after extensive public comment and engagement with businesses. The standards will reduce carbon pollution by more than one billion metric tons, will reduce petroleum consumption by an estimated two billion barrels, will provide $400 in annual household savings for the average American family, and will save the trucking industry an estimated $170 billion in fuel costs through 2027.

In defending these common sense standards, the green groups write:

“The trade group representing freight trailer manufacturers … contends that Congress did not permit EPA to regulate the 18-wheeler tractor-trailers that actually haul the nation’s freight, but only the tractor cab where the driver sits … [The trade group’s] argument hinges on chopping the motor vehicle in half, focusing solely on the tractor and ignoring the 8-wheel trailer segment of the 18-wheeler. But a tractor is not designed to transport either persons or property by itself … Both halves of the vehicle are necessary to move freight, and both contribute to the dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that Congress sought to control.” (Brief, page 2, 8, 9)

The Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists joined EDF on the brief. The California Air Resources Board and seven states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – are also defending the trailer standards in court.

You can find more information on EDF’s website.

(Harrisburg, Pa.) An updated analysis of Pennsylvania oil and gas methane emissions has found that industry’s methane pollution is estimated to be double what Environmental Defense Fund documented just two years ago.

EDF researchers found that oil and gas operators emit upwards of 1.1 million short tons of methane annually. This is more than 15 times higher than what oil and gas companies reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

“The fact that natural gas operators are emitting well over a million tons of methane pollution each year into the air Pennsylvanians breathe is unacceptable,” said Dan Grossman, senior director of state advocacy at EDF. “The staggering scale of the methane problem in Pennsylvania makes Gov. Wolf’s proposal to reduce emissions from existing oil and gas operations all the more critical.”

Pennsylvania DEP announced at a recent Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee that its draft existing source methane rule would be published in mid-to-late spring, kicking off a 60-day public comment period.

“Gov. Tom Wolf and the DEP are to be commended for advancing a methane rule that addresses emissions from the state’s tens of thousands of existing oil and gas wells,” said Grossman. “It’s essential that the state adopt a strong final rule that protects public health and delivers on the governor’s promise to tackle climate change.”

EDF’s Pennsylvania Methane Data Project is based on 2017 production data and emission modeling from a 2018 Science study, which draws on six years of peer-reviewed research conducted by EDF and over 140 research and industry experts from 40 institutions and 50 companies. The analysis also projects emissions through 2030 using Pennsylvania-specific production projections from Rystad Energy.

Updated emission figures are double EDF’s analysis of 2015 data for three primary reasons: production levels in 2017 were notably higher than two years prior (an upward trend that has carried into 2020); use of additional state-specific data provides a more accurate picture of wells in the state and emission sources; and the 2018 Science study provides the best available scientific methods which demonstrate higher levels of emissions per well.

“Tapping into the latest scientific research and best available data has allowed us to more accurately discern the state’s oil and gas methane emissions in a way that best reflects conditions on the ground,” said Hillary Hull, senior manager, research and analytics, EDF.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, human-made emissions of which account for a quarter of the global warming we are currently experiencing. Climate change can contribute to extreme weather events from floods to longer and hotter summers, which exacerbate air pollution and ozone problems, along with the risk of vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus. Pennsylvania has the highest incidence of Lyme disease in the nation.

Methane is also the primary component of natural gas. The 1.1 million short tons of methane emitted in Pennsylvania equates to 57 billion cubic feet of natural gas that could otherwise be brought to market.

In addition to methane, oil and gas operations were found to emit over 63,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds. Smog and ozone pollution cause heart disease and worsen respiratory diseases, such as asthma and emphysema. The Centers for Disease Control has found that individuals living with those conditions are more at risk for severe illness from other infections, such as COVID-19.

The data project includes updated statewide and county emission estimates for methane and volatile organic compounds, as well as tools for regulators and policymakers to measure the effectiveness of various emission reduction scenarios.

Media assets related to the project are available here.

To view EDF’s updated Pennsylvania Methane Data Project, visit:

https://www.edf.org/energy/explore-pennsylvanias-oil-and-gas-pollution