Complete list of press releases

(Washington, D.C. – April 30, 2019) The Office of Management and Budget today confirmed today that the Trump administration sent it a draft rule that is expected to eviscerate the Clean Power Plan.

Sending a draft rule to OMB is the last major step before finalizing it.

“Andrew Wheeler’s proposal was an abomination. While the Clean Power Plan would protect Americans from climate change and unhealthy air pollution, Wheeler’s substitute would expose us to more climate pollution and would cause more deaths and disease from soot and smog,” said Tomás Carbonell, EDF lead attorney and director of regulatory policy. “If the proposal just sent to OMB is similar, it will be an unlawful and unacceptable substitute for the historic Clean Power Plan. We will pursue every avenue to oppose a harmful rollback and fight for stronger clean air and climate protections.”

The Clean Power Plan establishes America’s only nationwide limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants. It would reduce climate pollution to 36 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and would also reduce deadly soot and smog.

In August, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler unveiled a proposal to weaken the Clean Power Plan and instead adopt a rule with no substantial limits on health-harming pollution from coal power plants.

Wheeler’s proposal contained no quantitative limits or compliance deadlines at all. It required only that states establish their own standards based on a narrow and ineffective set of operational efficiency tweaks. The proposal also included harmful revisions to long-standing New Source Review protections that would allow power plants to increase health-harming pollution without installing modern pollution controls.

By EPA’s own estimates, Wheeler’s proposal could result in as many as 1,630 extra American deaths per year by 2030.

EDF submitted comments to EPA strenuously opposing the administration’s proposal. You can read those, and find more resources about the Clean Power Plan, on EDF’s website.

(SACRAMENTO, CA – April 29, 2019) Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order today that directs the secretaries of the California Natural Resources Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Food and Agriculture to identify and assess a suite of complementary actions to build a climate-resilient water system.

“In a state as diverse as California, it’s inevitable that our water challenges will be complicated, especially with the extra stress of climate change. We are pleased water is a top priority for Gov. Newsom and that he recognizes multiple strategies are required to create a secure water future in the face of climate change and a growing population.

“We agree a portfolio approach that balances diverse needs is the most promising path toward building a more resilient water system in California. EDF looks forward to working with Gov. Newsom and state agencies on developing a suite of approaches to bring California water management into the 21st century. No single solution is the answer to sustainably managing water, one of our state’s most precious resources, to ensure the health of our people, economy and wildlife.”

• Maurice Hall, Associate VP, Ecosystems – Water, Environmental Defense Fund

(HARRISBURG, Pa.) Gov. Tom Wolf today released the state’s Climate Action Plan, which assesses a suite of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania. The plan, crafted for a state that has become one of the nation’s leading energy exporters, is a critical step in the fight against climate change and makes clear that emissions from the state’s power sector must be addressed in order to meet Gov. Wolf’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Signaling the gravity of his commitment to combat the worst elements of climate change, Gov. Wolf also announced he will join other leading states and governments in the pledge to meet the goals under the Paris Climate Accord by formally becoming a member of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of states committed to the objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change that now represents over 50 percent of the U.S. population.

This announcement comes after Gov. Wolf signed an executive order on Jan. 8 committing Pennsylvania to greenhouse gas reductions of 26 percent by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. The plan underscores the need – and real opportunity – for Pennsylvania to move forward in setting a binding, declining limit on carbon emissions from the power sector that facilitates energy markets appropriately valuing lowest-cost, least-polluting energy resources. Pennsylvania is currently the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the U.S.

“The Climate Action Plan unveiled today by Gov. Wolf presents Pennsylvania with the opportunity to take meaningful climate action while protecting Pennsylvania communities and preserving a healthy economy. The biggest area of opportunity is aggressively limiting carbon emissions from the power sector. Power sector limits coupled with direct regulation of methane emissions are the 1-2 punch in the fight against climate change that, if implemented, can put Pennsylvania on the road to success.”

• Andrew Williams, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs

(April 26, 2019 – Washington, D.C.) Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a strong rebuke to the Trump Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the nation’s chemical safety law, protecting key aspects of the public’s right to know about the toxic chemicals in our homes, schools, and workplaces.  

The Court agreed with EDF that EPA had failed to require companies to show that the identities of their chemicals cannot be reverse-engineered in order to claim them confidential under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Court remanded the rule back to EPA to require that companies make this showing to claim confidentiality. The Court also affirmed that other key TSCA requirements apply to confidentiality claims despite EPA’s failure to include them in its regulations.

“This decision is a significant win for public disclosure and a strong affirmation by the Court of the public’s right to know about the chemicals to which we all are or may be exposed. The Court ruled that EPA must require companies to provide real substantiation for their claims for confidentiality – and that EPA had failed to do so in the rule we challenged,” said Robert Stockman, Senior Attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “EPA will now have to require significantly more evidence from companies before they can conceal the identities of chemicals they make and sell.  As a result, fewer such claims will be allowed and workers, consumers and the public will gain access to more information about those chemicals.”

In the case, EDF v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 17-1201), EDF aimed to ensure that EPA upholds the requirements set forth in the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to maximize transparency and public knowledge about which chemicals are currently in use by narrowing the grounds for asserting confidentiality claims and requiring more scrutiny of them. The Court affirmed that these requirements apply despite EPA’s failure to incorporate them into its regulation.

“A key goal of the reformed chemical safety law is to make more information public about the chemicals we’re exposed to at home, in our workplaces and schools, and through our environment.” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “While the Trump EPA has taken every opportunity to skirt its responsibility and conceal information that the public has a right to know, the Court’s decision today affirms that the law trumps those efforts.” 

On some issues, the Court gave deference to EPA in interpreting the law as it did:  EPA’s decision to delay assigning “unique identifiers” to certain chemicals with confidential chemical identities; and its decision to exempt chemicals made only for export from the law’s Inventory notification requirement. Finally, the Court unfortunately ruled that EPA could in its discretion allow any manufacturer or processor to make a claim for the confidentiality of a chemical, regardless of whether that company had previously made such a claim. While EDF does not agree with the Court’s characterization of our position, the Court cited the Chevron standard that provides agencies with considerable deference.

For more background on the decision; see the bullets below. For more information on this and other lawsuits challenging EPA’s implementation of TSCA, see: https://www.edf.org/health/tsca-case-resources. 

Additional background on today’s decision:

• The Court ruled that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to require companies to “substantiate” that a chemical identity they wish to keep confidential is not “readily discoverable through reverse engineering.”  “[EPA’s] omission of any inquiry into a chemical identity’s susceptibility to reverse engineering effectively excised a statutorily required criterion from the substantiation process.”  Based on this ruling, the Court remanded the Rule back to EPA to revise its substantiation process and require companies’ substantiations to address reverse engineering when claiming confidentiality for their chemicals.  As a result, fewer such claims will be allowed and workers, consumers, and the public will gain access to more information about those chemicals.
• While EDF did not win on our claim that EPA erred by failing to incorporate certain statutory requirements for confidentiality claims into its regulation, the Court ruled that those requirements are nevertheless binding on EPA regardless of the regulation and affirmed that EPA must comply with those requirements going forward. “Should the EPA’s future implementation of these provisions of the Inventory Rule fall short of statutory mandates, a challenge can be raised then.”  Our goal was to ensure that EPA would be bound by those requirements despite the regulation, and the Opinion ensures that is the case.
• With respect to unique identifiers, the Court ruled that EPA has discretion to address those requirements separately through another process.  EDF participated in that process and succeeded in convincing EPA to adopt a significantly better system than it originally proposed.  EDF continues to urge EPA to develop and timely implement the unique identifier system, which to date has fallen well short of the mark:  Despite EPA’s allowance for hundreds of chemical identities to be kept confidential, to date it has assigned only 157 unique identifiers.  
• Unfortunately, the Court ruled that EPA has discretion to allow any manufacturer or processor to make a claim for confidentiality regardless of whether that company had previously made such a claim.  EDF does not agree with the Court’s characterization of our position as only allowing the original claimant to make a claim.  Our view was that any manufacturer or processor who had previously made a claim could maintain an existing claim through this process; our objection is that persons making new claims through this process are not maintaining an existing claim within the meaning of the statute.  Nonetheless, the Court reached a different conclusion under the Chevron standard that provides agencies with considerable deference.
• Similarly, the Court ruled that EPA has discretion to exempt export-only chemicals from reporting under Section 8 despite the fact that Section 8 applies to export-only chemicals.  The Court agreed with EDF that Section 8 does apply to export-only chemicals, but found that EPA could nonetheless exempt them from Inventory notification.  The consequence of the Court’s decision is that the public will not know that chemicals produced solely for export in the United States are being produced. 

 (Washington, D.C. – April 23, 2019) Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doubled-down on its flawed 2005 and 2017 decisions to allow the hazardous chemical, perchlorate, to be added to dry food packaging. FDA denied a request by Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, and Improving Kids’ Environment for a public hearing to challenge the agency’s conclusions. 

The group’s request had demonstrated both that the agency grossly underestimated the amount of perchlorate that gets into food from packaging and ignored its own studies showing young children’s exposure to the neurotoxin increased after its 2005 decision to allow the chemical’s use in food packaging. By taking almost two years to reaffirm its overly narrow reading of the law, the agency dodged accountability for its flawed science and is allowing exposure to perchlorate – a chemical that harms fetal and infant brain development – to continue. 

Perchlorate 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.

“It is outrageous that FDA took almost two years to simply reaffirm its flawed interpretation of the law. The agency originally agreed that a 2014 petition to ban perchlorate was properly filed and asked for public comments. FDA then changed its view of the law in its May 2017 denial of the petition,” said Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director at Environmental Defense Fund.  “By denying our challenge today, FDA is avoiding an opportunity to protect kids from the irreversible harm posed by perchlorate exposure.”

Erik D. Olson, Senior Director for Health and Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said “pregnant moms shouldn’t have to worry when they sit down for a meal that they may be threatening the health of their babies with a toxic chemical in their food. FDA is falling down on the job. The agency should be protecting kids’ developing brains from the dangers posed by hazardous perchlorate in our food.”

“FDA’s decision to continue allowing this neurotoxic chemical in dry food packaging is a big mistake - babies bear the brunt of the risk and impact,” said Jane Houlihan, Research Director for Healthy Babies Bright Futures. “With FDA’s failure to protect children, it falls on perchlorate maker BASF to do the right thing and withdraw this unnecessary chemical from the food packaging market.”

“FDA’s actions show its callous disregard for the risks perchlorate poses to pregnant women, infants and children, and put process ahead of its mission to keep food safe,” said Lisa Lefferts, Senior Scientist at Center for Science in the Public Interest. 

“Perchlorate—an ingredient in rocket fuel—harms fetal and infant brain development. It should never be used in food packaging, let alone food packaging for kids products,” said Scott Faber, Vice President for Government Affairs at Environmental Working Group, “It’s unacceptable that FDA is allowing this hazardous substance to continue to be used and won’t even allow a hearing on the science.” 

“The development of the brain is like a one-way street; there is no U-turn to go back and fix the problems perchlorate exposure may have caused,” said Dr. Maricel Maffini. “It is absolutely unnecessary to use this well-known endocrine disrupting chemical in contact with food.”

FDA approved perchlorate for use in plastic packaging for food in 2005 – despite evidence that it harms fetal and infant brain development. In May 2017, the agency rejected a petition to ban the chemical as a food additive – in a decision that EDF has shown relied on flawed science. Advocates responded by challenging the move and requesting a formal evidentiary public hearing in June 2017. 

An FDA report published in 2016 found that virtually all foods sampled had detectable levels of perchlorate. Even more concerning – FDA’s own studies show increased levels of perchlorate in foods such as baby food dry cereal, indicating the chemical’s intentional use in dry food packaging is the likely source of increased exposure for young children. Dry rice cereal—often the first solid food given to a baby—and barley cereal showed the greatest increase from before and after the decision.

The June 2017 objection cited the agency’s refusal to acknowledge evidence that perchlorate exposure increased significantly after its 2005 decision to allow perchlorate in packaging. Additionally, the groups cited evidence that FDA’s initial decision to approve perchlorate grossly underestimated the amount of perchlorate migrating into dry food. By denying those objections today, FDA is once again ignoring these critical details. We will consider our legal options to challenge this decision. 

(Washington, D.C. – April 18, 2019) Environmental Defense Fund joined a broad coalition of health, environmental and community groups to file strenuous objections to the Trump administration’s attack on the foundations of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has proposed to reverse the finding underlying the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – safeguards that are successfully protecting Americans from some of the most dangerous types of pollution, including mercury, which causes brain damage in babies, arsenic, lead, chromium and nickel, which cause cancer, and acid gases, which cause serious lung disease. EPA’s own estimates show the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths each year. Wheeler has proposed finding that regulating these toxic emissions is not “appropriate.”

In their comments filed with EPA, the groups call Wheeler’s proposal:

“[U]nlawful, arbitrary, and senseless; it is an exercise in selective myopia and outcome-driven inconsistency … the Proposal rests on a preposterously incomplete analysis of the health and environmental consequences of regulating, and essentially no analysis of the real-world consequences of abandoning already implemented regulations. EPA’s proposal, without reasoned explanation, contradicts EPA’s own findings affirming the serious and widespread public health hazards posed by mercury and other [pollutants].” (Comments, page 6)

The power industry is already in compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and since 2011 mercury pollution from power plants has dropped by more than 80 percent. Power sector industry and labor leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, Members of Congress from both parties, health organizations, environmental groups, moms’ groups, Native American tribal organizations, and faith groups have all asked Wheeler to leave the standards in place. Wheeler is moving ahead with his proposal in spite of the overwhelming opposition.

EPA accepted public comments on the proposal through yesterday. EDF joined with Air Alliance Houston, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Wisconsin, Conservation Law Foundation, Downwinders at Risk, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Ohio Environmental Council, Sierra Club, and Southern Environmental Law Center to file comments last night.

You can read the full comments here.

(HARRISBURG, Pa.) Today, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board voted to accept a petition submitted by the Clean Air council and citizen petitioners that creates a pathway toward developing an economy-wide carbon limit. The next step is for the Department of Environmental Protection to study the potential impacts of the petition and develop a suggested path forward. The acceptance of the petition is a significant step toward a durable, market-based solution to curb power sector emissions Pennsylvania, the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the nation. ­

The foundation of any sustainable, long-term energy strategy in Pennsylvania is a binding, declining limit on carbon emissions. Developing a carbon market fosters the flexible, low-cost solutions that cut pollution and spur deployment of zero-emission technologies. Clean Air Council brought together a powerful coalition of citizens across the state to ensure Pennsylvania isn’t left behind as other states step up with real climate solutions.

“Pennsylvania’s energy sector is among the nation’s dirtiest, and without a comprehensive approach to carbon pollution it will be stuck at a competitive disadvantage compared to its neighbors. A binding, declining limit on carbon pollution could harness the power of the market to spur zero-carbon energy growth and drive down consumer costs.”

• Andrew Williams, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs

(Denver, CO – April 16, 2019) The Colorado House of Representatives today passed common sense legislation to put Colorado in driver’s seat in the race to protect all Coloradans from climate pollution. The bill passed by an overwhelming 41-to-23 vote, under the leadership of House Speaker KC Becker and Representative Dominique Jackson.

“Climate change is the pivotal challenge of our time,” said EDF senior director of climate regulatory strategy Pam Kiely. “Colorado’s policy makers are meeting this urgent challenge head on with bold leadership to address our state’s dangerous climate pollution, and they’re doing it in a way that’s consistent with science and that will strengthen our clean energy economy and create jobs.”

Colorado faces severe threats from climate change, including intensifying and more frequent wildfires, worsening summer smog that causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems, catastrophic flooding, and prolonged drought that threatens our farmers and our national and state parks.

House Bill 19-1261, which passed today, establishes Colorado climate pollution reduction goals anchored in science and provides for the development of cost-effective solutions to achieve these pollution cuts.

The bill provides for Colorado to cut climate pollution by at least 26 percent by 2025, 50 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2050 (relative to 2005 pollution levels). It also directs the Air Quality Control Commission  to take cost-effective action to achieve these reductions and to protect the health and well-being of all Coloradans from climate pollution.

Colorado has a strong foundation to achieve these vital climate pollution reduction goals:

• Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest power provider, committed to achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon pollution by 2030 and to eliminate all carbon pollution from its power generation for Colorado by 2050.
• The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment recently adopted clean car standards that will save Coloradans hundreds of dollars at the gas pump annually and reduce dangerous climate and smog pollution.
• The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment has also required Colorado’s oil and gas industry to achieve reductions in dangerous methane pollution. Those reductions will also reduce the unnecessary waste of Colorado’s oil and gas resources. Under new legislation the department will work to modernize these important pollution limits to protect public health and the environment based on advances in technologies and common sense clean air solutions.

“This bill is a win for Coloradans on so many fronts – it will help protect our health, protect our environment, and secure clean energy economic prosperity for our state,” said Kiely. “We should all be grateful to the Colorado House of Representatives, and especially Speaker of the House KC Becker and Representative Dominique Jackson, for their great work today.”

(WASHINGTON, DC) President Trump signed a bill today authorizing a drought contingency plan (DCP) to protect the Colorado River, following the bill’s passage through Congress with bipartisan support.

The law follows years of negotiations and effort among the seven Colorado River basin states. It will allow for voluntary, proactive conservation measures to take effect and bolster water levels in Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the country. 

“This is a historic moment for the Colorado River, the West and the entire country. Passing the drought contingency plan sets in place a foundation for conservation that will ensure a more secure future for the American Southwest.

“Now comes the hard work of implementing the DCP in each state. We look forward to continuing to partner with the basin states, farmers, cities, water agencies, tribes and businesses to drive implementation forward.”

• Kevin Moran, Senior Director, Colorado River Program, Environmental Defense Fund

(Washington, D.C. – April 15, 2019) The U.S. Supreme Court will not reconsider two lower court decisions upholding state climate and clean energy policies, declining industry-led petitions designed to overturn important state protections.

The Court today denied certiorari – or, refused to hear – challenges to circuit court decisions in Illinois and New York that affirmed the states’ right to create robust climate policies to address climate change and protect people from dangerous pollution.

“In case after case, our courts have confirmed that states have the fundamental legal authority to craft clean energy policies, address climate change, and work to reduce unhealthy air pollution in order to safeguard the welfare and well-being of their people. The Supreme Court’s order today puts any lingering questions to rest. It’s great news for all states that are working to create their best possible climate and clean energy policies,” said EDF Senior Attorney Michael Panfil.

In September of 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a clean energy policy created by the state of Illinois that provided Zero Emission Credits (ZEC) to qualifying nuclear plants. Later the same month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a similar New York state clean energy policy. The aim of the programs, as stated by the Second Circuit, is “to prevent nuclear generators that do not emit carbon dioxide from retiring until renewable sources of energy can pick up the slack.”

Both state ZEC programs were part of larger energy reforms designed to spur transitions to renewable energy and increase energy efficiency and secure major reductions in climate and air pollution.

EDF filed amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs in both cases supporting the states’ right to craft their own clean energy and climate policies.

Power producers asked the Supreme Court to rehear the cases, claiming that federal policies should overrule the state programs. Today the Supreme Court announced it would not accept that appeal.

(Washington, D.C. – April 11, 2019) EDF applauds Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) for their continued effort to address the dangers of climate change.

The Senators updated and reintroduced the American Opportunity and Carbon Fee Act. The bill would put a fee on emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas. It also covers the largest emitters of non-fossil fuel greenhouse gases.

“This legislation would make a big difference to reduce climate pollution, protect our children’s future, and boost job-creating clean energy solutions. With the lack of leadership from the Administration, it is even more important for Congress to step up to the plate,” said Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President of EDF. “We look forward to working with the sponsors and all Members of Congress to help make good climate bills even better. For any carbon fee legislation, that means including an Environmental Integrity Mechanism that includes specific emissions reduction targets and timelines, as well as provisions to ensure they are met.”

(AUSTIN, TX) EPA released its final Greenhouse Gas Inventory today, showing oil and gas methane emissions are basically unchanged. Methane pollution from oil and gas activity worsens climate change, yet technologies are available to significantly reduce it. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is actively working to roll back important methane reduction regulations.

“To see virtually no change in methane emissions is simply unacceptable. Reducing methane across the oil and gas industry is not rocket science—it is straightforward and cost effective to do. EPA needs to listen to the public officials, communities and even oil and gas companies, who are insisting they keep these important rules in place.”

· Matt Watson, Vice President, Energy Program

In the coming weeks, the Trump EPA is expected to send the White House a proposal to eliminate direct regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. This, along with an earlier methane rollback, is an effort to dramatically weaken pollution limits at new and recently built oil and gas wells, and prevent any oversight of pollution from the nearly one million wells that went into operation before current methane rules were in effect.

Real-world methane emissions are much higher that EPA estimates. Comprehensive science conducted over the past decade has concluded EPA is underestimating emissions by about 60 percent, as a result of outdated reporting requirements and modeling formulas. Just today, yet another report showed that methane emissions in New Mexico are approximately five times more than is reported to the EPA.

(NEW YORK, NY – Apr. 11, 2019) Gov. Ricardo Rosselló today signed into law a landmark bill that creates a pathway for Puerto Rico to move to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. The new law, “Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act,” (SB 1121), will spur the development of clean distributed electricity sources that include solar power, low-carbon microgrids and energy storage, and remove the barriers for connecting these systems into the island’s electric grid. Importantly, the law also strengthens oversight authority of Puerto Rico’s Energy Bureau.

“Gov. Rosselló’s resolve for Puerto Rico to emerge as a clean energy powerhouse is exactly what the island needs to transform into a better version of itself. With this new law, Puerto Rico incentivizes the development and use of more affordable clean energy that will improve the quality of life and environment for all of its residents.

“This law makes clean energy a cornerstone of Puerto Rico’s reimagined energy economy. Swift implementation is a critical next step for the island to reap the full benefits. We stand ready to help Puerto Rico restore and reboot its electricity system to build a future that is economically and environmentally sustainable for all.”

• Fred Krupp, EDF President

Environmental Defense Fund is developing an innovative project to demonstrate the feasibility of low-carbon microgrids. These mini-energy service stations will fuel up on solar power and run backed by battery storage and intelligent software. Linked to the larger grid — ensuring the delivery of affordable, clean and reliable energy every day — these systems will be designed to also separate from the grid during emergencies, like Hurricane Maria, to keep the lights on in remote parts of the island. For more information, visit www.edf.org/PuertoRico.

(HARRISBURG, Pa.) Today, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) discussed its revised draft rule to address air emissions from existing unconventional natural gas operations at the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee Meeting (AQTAC). Unfortunately, the proposed rule, if not fixed, will be the least protective methane rule in the country. Pennsylvania is the second largest natural gas producing state in the nation.

The rule as currently drafted would capture only 21 percent of methane emissions. A 2018 report by Environmental Defense Fund estimated that emissions of methane, a potent climate forcing agent, from Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry are up to five times higher than what is reported to DEP, or potentially 520,000 tons per year. DEP’s current draft focuses almost entirely on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), not methane.

“The scope of DEP’s air emissions rule needs to be expanded – capturing only 21 percent of methane emissions leaves far too much pollution on the table and in our air. Simply removing the threshold for low-producing wells will allow for much more methane capture. DEP has got to get this right if Pennsylvania is to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change as directed by Gov. Wolf in his executive order earlier this year.”

• Andrew Williams, Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs

(SANTA FE, N.M.) In New Mexico, a new analysis from Environmental Defense Fund finds that methane emissions from oil and gas activity are five times higher than EPA data suggest, largely driven by expanding production in the Permian Basin. EDF experts analyzed data gathered by University of Wyoming researchers that provide the first publicly available emission measurements from the Permian since the oil boom there began three years ago.

Methane pollution is not a new challenge for New Mexico. The state made national headlines when European Space Agency satellite data exposed a massive concentration over the Four Corners Region in 2014. This new scientific data reveals how the methane problem has grown statewide.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the primary component of natural gas, making it a valuable energy resource. Methane waste also carries a high financial cost for New Mexicans.

"Rapid growth in the Permian is causing an unprecedented surge in pollution that threatens the health of local residents and hurts the state's taxpayers through wasted revenue," said Jon Goldstein, EDF Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs. "These findings make clear the true scale of the problem and underscore the importance of Gov. Lujan Grisham's commitment to curb methane waste and protect New Mexico's health and future prosperity."

EDF estimates that venting, flaring and leaks waste $275 million of natural gas per year. If captured, this would translate to $43 million per year in additional tax and royalty revenue that could otherwise be invested in things like education and infrastructure. For example, the lost state revenue from methane waste would be enough to increase pre-K enrollment by 80% and enroll more than 7,300 additional New Mexico kids in early education programs.

EDF's analysis estimates upstream oil and gas operations in New Mexico emit at least 1 million metric tons of methane a year. This wasted gas has the same near-term climate impact as 22 coal-fired power plants.

This analysis continues a trend uncovered by previous EDF research: direct measurement of methane emissions reveals levels far higher than those reported by industry.

Why the difference:

• EDF's emissions estimate is based on the latest peer-reviewed methods along with new empirical emissions data from measurements taken at oil and gas sites in the Permian Basin.
• EPA's emissions estimate is based on basin-level emissions data that operators calculate and report to EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Previous work has shown GHGRP substantially underestimates emissions due to a number of factors.

Earlier this year, Gov. Lujan Grisham issued a bold executive order that set ambitious climate goals and ordered rulemakings to curb methane pollution and waste. Cutting emissions of oil and gas methane is crucial for cutting waste, improving air quality and meeting the state’s climate goals. This analysis underscores that need and the case for nationally leading controls.

Oil and gas emissions are also taking a toll on New Mexicans’ health. EDF’s analysis estimates oil and gas companies emit over 300,000 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are a precursor to ground-level ozone, or “smog,” and can cause respiratory illness as well as other acute and chronic health problems for vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly and people who work or recreate outside. Several of the state’s largest oil and gas producing regions, like San Juan and Eddy Counties, already struggle with ozone pollution levels and are at risk of violating federal health-based air quality standards.

EDF’s analysis includes an online toolkit that allows users to view county-by-county pollution levels and see how EDF’s science-based measurements compare with EPA-derived estimates.

Later this year, EDF will be adding new features to this toolkit that will allow users to explore emission mitigation scenarios and solutions.

The full report is now available online at edf.org/NewMexicoMethane