On January 20, 2015, the third and final phase of the BP trial began. We need to send a strong message to BP and its lawyers that it's time to come clean and accept responsibility.

By Michael Panfil

Over the past several months, we’ve been providing updates on the ongoing litigation surrounding Order 745 – a vital, federal rule on demand response. As a low-cost, environmentally beneficial resource, demand response relies on people and technology, not power plants, to manage stress on the electric grid during periods of peak energy demand. Simply put, demand response pays people to conserve energy when it matters most – a win-win for people and the environment.

But this critical energy management tool has also been subject to an amazing amount of scrutiny (which we’ve covered here, here, and yes, here, as well). In short, the thorny issue boils down to this: a recent court decision found that the federal agency responsible for regulating demand response didn’t have the authority to do so.

When the decision came down, many were shocked. The general assumption had been that this agency (known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or “FERC”) certainly was within its rights to issue Order 745, a set of rules for how demand response would function in our nation’s energy markets.

And last week, the United States Solicitor General sided with the “general consensus” on Order 745.

How? The Solicitor General’s office, on behalf of FERC, has formally asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the lower court’s decision and overturn its ruling. Stating that the lower court invalidated an important rule “for ensuring the efficiency and reliability” of electricity markets, the Solicitor General argued that “the court…seriously misinterpreted” the relevant law and “misapplied basic principles” of how courts should review agency action.

The Solicitor General formally asked SCOTUS to review FERC #demandresponse order. What does it all...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

What does it all mean?

“Jurisdiction” lies at the heart of this prickly debate – a word only a lawyer could love. Simply put, jurisdiction involves the question of who should be able to create a set of rules relating to an issue – the federal government or state governments. As a rule of thumb, if the issue is one that crosses state lines, the federal government is responsible for creating rules, laws, and regulations; if the issue is entirely within the state, then it’s the responsibility of the state. In the Order 745 case, the lower court found that demand response is a state-only issue, and thus FERC – a federal agency – cannot help to create a set of rules for demand response, even if those rules only applied to interstate (i.e., crossing state lines) questions.

Even states disagree with this assessment, and the Solicitor General provided a convincing argument as well, stating that Order 745 “governs only payments made by wholesale power purchasers for demand-response commitments used by wholesale-market operators to set the wholesale price.” As you may have guessed, if something is “wholesale” then it is a federal, not state, issue.

So where do we go from here?

The Supreme Court has a monumental task, with over 10,000 cases brought before it every year. Nine justices have little hope of being able to review each one, and thus have discretion to decide whether to take certain types of cases. Typically, the Supreme Court hears 75-80 cases a year, meaning that less than one percent of all appeals are actually reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Long odds, indeed. However, there is reason to believe that chances are better for this case. Because it deals with “jurisdiction” it is a particularly important case, significant for our legal system, as it deals with a question of what the government can and cannot do. Second, the case was brought by the Solicitor General, a move that improves the odds of being accepted and heard by the Supreme Court.

It’s unclear at this point whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case, and we won’t know more until later this year. But the Solicitor General’s decision to petition the Supreme Court to hear Order 745 is a move in the right direction. It signals the importance of this case, which will no doubt shape how demand response is valued in our energy markets, and to what extent Americans are able to reap the full benefits of this important resource.

By Michael Panfil

Over the past several months, we’ve been providing updates on the ongoing litigation surrounding Order 745 – a vital, federal rule on demand response. As a low-cost, environmentally beneficial resource, demand response relies on people and technology, not power plants, to manage stress on the electric grid during periods of peak energy demand. Simply put, demand response pays people to conserve energy when it matters most – a win-win for people and the environment.

But this critical energy management tool has also been subject to an amazing amount of scrutiny (which we’ve covered here, here, and yes, here, as well). In short, the thorny issue boils down to this: a recent court decision found that the federal agency responsible for regulating demand response didn’t have the authority to do so.

When the decision came down, many were shocked. The general assumption had been that this agency (known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or “FERC”) certainly was within its rights to issue Order 745, a set of rules for how demand response would function in our nation’s energy markets.

And last week, the United States Solicitor General sided with the “general consensus” on Order 745.

How? The Solicitor General’s office, on behalf of FERC, has formally asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the lower court’s decision and overturn its ruling. Stating that the lower court invalidated an important rule “for ensuring the efficiency and reliability” of electricity markets, the Solicitor General argued that “the court…seriously misinterpreted” the relevant law and “misapplied basic principles” of how courts should review agency action.

The Solicitor General formally asked SCOTUS to review FERC #demandresponse order. What does it all...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

What does it all mean?

“Jurisdiction” lies at the heart of this prickly debate – a word only a lawyer could love. Simply put, jurisdiction involves the question of who should be able to create a set of rules relating to an issue – the federal government or state governments. As a rule of thumb, if the issue is one that crosses state lines, the federal government is responsible for creating rules, laws, and regulations; if the issue is entirely within the state, then it’s the responsibility of the state. In the Order 745 case, the lower court found that demand response is a state-only issue, and thus FERC – a federal agency – cannot help to create a set of rules for demand response, even if those rules only applied to interstate (i.e., crossing state lines) questions.

Even states disagree with this assessment, and the Solicitor General provided a convincing argument as well, stating that Order 745 “governs only payments made by wholesale power purchasers for demand-response commitments used by wholesale-market operators to set the wholesale price.” As you may have guessed, if something is “wholesale” then it is a federal, not state, issue.

So where do we go from here?

The Supreme Court has a monumental task, with over 10,000 cases brought before it every year. Nine justices have little hope of being able to review each one, and thus have discretion to decide whether to take certain types of cases. Typically, the Supreme Court hears 75-80 cases a year, meaning that less than one percent of all appeals are actually reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Long odds, indeed. However, there is reason to believe that chances are better for this case. Because it deals with “jurisdiction” it is a particularly important case, significant for our legal system, as it deals with a question of what the government can and cannot do. Second, the case was brought by the Solicitor General, a move that improves the odds of being accepted and heard by the Supreme Court.

It’s unclear at this point whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case, and we won’t know more until later this year. But the Solicitor General’s decision to petition the Supreme Court to hear Order 745 is a move in the right direction. It signals the importance of this case, which will no doubt shape how demand response is valued in our energy markets, and to what extent Americans are able to reap the full benefits of this important resource.

By Michael Panfil

Over the past several months, we’ve been providing updates on the ongoing litigation surrounding Order 745 – a vital, federal rule on demand response. As a low-cost, environmentally beneficial resource, demand response relies on people and technology, not power plants, to manage stress on the electric grid during periods of peak energy demand. Simply put, demand response pays people to conserve energy when it matters most – a win-win for people and the environment.

But this critical energy management tool has also been subject to an amazing amount of scrutiny (which we’ve covered here, here, and yes, here, as well). In short, the thorny issue boils down to this: a recent court decision found that the federal agency responsible for regulating demand response didn’t have the authority to do so.

When the decision came down, many were shocked. The general assumption had been that this agency (known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or “FERC”) certainly was within its rights to issue Order 745, a set of rules for how demand response would function in our nation’s energy markets.

And last week, the United States Solicitor General sided with the “general consensus” on Order 745.

How? The Solicitor General’s office, on behalf of FERC, has formally asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the lower court’s decision and overturn its ruling. Stating that the lower court invalidated an important rule “for ensuring the efficiency and reliability” of electricity markets, the Solicitor General argued that “the court…seriously misinterpreted” the relevant law and “misapplied basic principles” of how courts should review agency action.

The Solicitor General formally asked SCOTUS to review FERC #demandresponse order. What does it all...
Click To Tweet - Powered By CoSchedule

What does it all mean?

“Jurisdiction” lies at the heart of this prickly debate – a word only a lawyer could love. Simply put, jurisdiction involves the question of who should be able to create a set of rules relating to an issue – the federal government or state governments. As a rule of thumb, if the issue is one that crosses state lines, the federal government is responsible for creating rules, laws, and regulations; if the issue is entirely within the state, then it’s the responsibility of the state. In the Order 745 case, the lower court found that demand response is a state-only issue, and thus FERC – a federal agency – cannot help to create a set of rules for demand response, even if those rules only applied to interstate (i.e., crossing state lines) questions.

Even states disagree with this assessment, and the Solicitor General provided a convincing argument as well, stating that Order 745 “governs only payments made by wholesale power purchasers for demand-response commitments used by wholesale-market operators to set the wholesale price.” As you may have guessed, if something is “wholesale” then it is a federal, not state, issue.

So where do we go from here?

The Supreme Court has a monumental task, with over 10,000 cases brought before it every year. Nine justices have little hope of being able to review each one, and thus have discretion to decide whether to take certain types of cases. Typically, the Supreme Court hears 75-80 cases a year, meaning that less than one percent of all appeals are actually reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Long odds, indeed. However, there is reason to believe that chances are better for this case. Because it deals with “jurisdiction” it is a particularly important case, significant for our legal system, as it deals with a question of what the government can and cannot do. Second, the case was brought by the Solicitor General, a move that improves the odds of being accepted and heard by the Supreme Court.

It’s unclear at this point whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case, and we won’t know more until later this year. But the Solicitor General’s decision to petition the Supreme Court to hear Order 745 is a move in the right direction. It signals the importance of this case, which will no doubt shape how demand response is valued in our energy markets, and to what extent Americans are able to reap the full benefits of this important resource.

By Tim O'Connor

Make no mistake, California is a leader when it comes to improving air quality and deploying unprecedented amounts of cleaner, low-carbon fuels. However, despite years of efforts to cut vehicle emissions and reduce fossil fuel consumption, California remains in the top spot nationally for gasoline use, and is home to the top five most polluted cities in the country.

In addition, as the state and surrounding region continues to cut petroleum usage and clean up the environment – yielding major climate benefits – economic growth in emerging markets across the world means that our efforts are being undercut by increases in use elsewhere.

For California to truly deliver in in the fight against climate change, we must not only cut fossil fuel use and deploy cleaner alternatives at home, but also create solutions that deliver benefits abroad. In other words, we should aim to export our best transportation policies abroad – the ones that have helped California reduce fossil fuel use yet still help foster economic opportunities and growth.

A range of current policies are helping drive new technologies that yield low carbon vehicles and fuels

Over the past 15 years, California has given birth to the some of the most ambitious and successful climate change related transportation policies imaginable. For example, in 2002 the legislature adopted the Pavley Clean Cars law (AB 1493) which set greenhouse gas standards for automobiles. This law eventually led to new national vehicle efficiency standards and the production of a new wave of more efficient and cleaner cars and trucks.

In 2007 the state adopted AB 118 (later reauthorized under AB 8 in 2013). This policy helped create major economic incentives for low-carbon fuel production, with both public and private dollars.

Similarly, the state has in place a nation-leading cap-and-trade program and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, both of which place a price on carbon to stimulate private investment in low-carbon vehicles and fuel technology. Like the Pavley car standards, the LCFS program is ripe for replication – with similar programs adopted or considered in both Oregon and Washington.

Moving forward, California’s dedication to cleaning up transportation is expected to continue as evidenced by a recent commitment by Governor Brown to cut petroleum use by 50% over the next 15 years.

Putting California in context

California, working in concert with states like Oregon and Washington, is making headway to develop and deploy transportation solutions. But home-grown solutions can only go so far toward battling climate change if they remain local. To make a real dent in climate change, our state policies must help

Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency

move people away from fossil fuels and inject new technologies into the global multi-trillion-dollar transportation fuels market.

Case in point: The world’s four largest countries not including the U.S. (China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil) are home to about three billion of the world’s seven billion people. With a couple of exceptions due to fluctuations in Brazil’s fuels market, petroleum use in these countries has been increasing steadily: both in total volume and in the amount used per person. Furthermore, accordingly to documents like Exxon’s Energy Outlook report – world oil consumption is expected to rise 19% over the next 25 years.

Source: ExxonMobil, The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040

As countries see their populations and spending power increase, this will likely be manifested through more cars, more traffic jams, and more pollution. In other words, the world’s climate and public health is being further pushed to the brink because more people are spending more money to buy and burn more liquid fossil fuels every single year.

California policy is spawning companies that are well-positioned to export low-carbon transportation solutions

Based on world petroleum use statistics, major investments across the world are going to be needed to cut world oil use and address climate change. And, as shown by California policy projections, the state and region has learned how to do it.

For example, according to modeling we performed in 2014, by 2025, under existing policies California will cut fuel use by 4.5 billion gallons of gas and diesel every year. Similarly, under new modeling by the International Council on Clean Transportation, west coast clean fuels are likely to yield a reduced overall carbon intensity of on-road transportation fuels in the region by 14-21% by 2030.

One major reason for California’s and the larger region’s transportation progress are the numerous business located here that are thriving by deploying fuel and vehicle solutions. In 2014, we mapped over 300 such companies in the low-carbon transportation space, many of which have been instrumental in California’s recent success. And, as shown in the most recent energy policy report by the California Energy Commission (CEC), the state gets about 8% of its fuel from alternatives and boasts world-leading penetration of electric, natural gas, and hydrogen vehicles.

Deploying California solutions internationally is an old idea with new urgency

In April of 2014, economist Severin Bornstein wrote about the need and value of developing solutions that have a, “greater emphasis on technology creation, both in the lab and downstream, where a lot of the learning goes on.” As Bornstein put it, California climate policy should “invent and develop the technologies that can replace fossil fuels, allowing the poorer nations of the world – where most of the world’s population lives – to achieve low-carbon economic growth. If we can do that, we can avert the fundamental risk of climate change. If we don’t do that, reducing California’s carbon footprint won’t matter.”

Consider the direct investment the state is making in developing and deploying transportation solutions. In the CEC’s 2014 Integrated Energy Policy Report update, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) detailed almost $500 million in investments in fuel, vehicle, and infrastructure technology that California has made recently. This is money on top of hundreds of millions being used to develop mass transit, fleet modernization, and clean vehicle deployment in the state.

As California companies grow and thrive through the deployment of clean transportation solutions, their ability to capture market share in emerging markets will also grow. Not only will this provide new opportunity for business, but the spread of California transportation solutions across the globe will signal increased hope for the chance to solve climate change.

At a time when we need leadership and solutions, not denial and obstruction, Senator Gardner's climate denial vote isn't merely disappointing. It's reckless. Regional.

At a time when we need leadership and solutions, not denial and obstruction, Senator Gardner's climate denial vote isn't merely disappointing. It's reckless. Regional. C4.

BP oil spill rippled through ‘fabric of Gulf Coast economy,’ witness testifies
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 22, 2015
“The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill took an economic toll that "reached out into the fabric of the entire Gulf Coast economy," an impact only modestly countered by BP's spending and investment in the region, an economic expert testified on Thursday (Jan. 22).” (Read More)

In BP oil spill trial, U.S. witness to outline how much BP can afford to pay in fines
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 23, 2015
“The U.S. government plans to call its final witnesses Friday (Jan. 23) as it seeks the maximum $13.7 billion penalty against BP for its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The testimony will estimate the impact such a fine would have on BP's finances.” (Read More)

Coastal Master Plan could grow by $20 billion, state planners say
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 21, 2015
“The state's coastal protection and restoration Master Plan could grow by $20 billion, based on additional projects being reviewed for the plan's 2017 revision, a senior planner with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority said Wednesday (January 21).” (Read More)

These Native American Tribes are fighting to stop their land from literally disappearing
By Kira Lerner & Alice Ollstein, ThinkProgress. Jan. 22, 2015
“The group came together on tribal lands that are quickly disappearing into the Gulf of Mexico — taking not only the ground beneath their feet but generations of culture and their traditional way of life.” (Read More)

BP oil spill rippled through ‘fabric of Gulf Coast economy,’ witness testifies
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 22, 2015
“The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill took an economic toll that "reached out into the fabric of the entire Gulf Coast economy," an impact only modestly countered by BP's spending and investment in the region, an economic expert testified on Thursday (Jan. 22).” (Read More)

In BP oil spill trial, U.S. witness to outline how much BP can afford to pay in fines
By Jennifer Larino, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 23, 2015
“The U.S. government plans to call its final witnesses Friday (Jan. 23) as it seeks the maximum $13.7 billion penalty against BP for its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The testimony will estimate the impact such a fine would have on BP's finances.” (Read More)

Coastal Master Plan could grow by $20 billion, state planners say
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. Jan. 21, 2015
“The state's coastal protection and restoration Master Plan could grow by $20 billion, based on additional projects being reviewed for the plan's 2017 revision, a senior planner with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority said Wednesday (January 21).” (Read More)

These Native American Tribes are fighting to stop their land from literally disappearing
By Kira Lerner & Alice Ollstein, ThinkProgress. Jan. 22, 2015
“The group came together on tribal lands that are quickly disappearing into the Gulf of Mexico — taking not only the ground beneath their feet but generations of culture and their traditional way of life.” (Read More)

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for The Huffington Post:

Last night in the State of the Union Address, President Obama laid out an agenda to protect and grow America’s middle class. From spurring innovation and creating high-skilled jobs here in the U.S. to protecting our homes and businesses, acting on climate change is crucial to achieving this vision.

Fueled by carbon pollution, climate change poses a serious threat to our economy.2014 was the hottest year on record — and as temperatures and sea levels rise, so do insurance premiums, property taxes, and food prices. The S&P 500 recently said climate change will continue to affect financial performance worldwide.

And when climate disasters strike — like more frequent droughts, storms, fires, and floods — low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are the hardest hit. Climate action is crucial to helping reduce barriers to opportunity that keep people out of the middle class.

That’s why EPA is taking action, delivering on a key part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan with the first-ever carbon pollution standards for our nation’s largest source — power plants. When we act, we deliver the certainty companies need to drive innovation and create new jobs.

And the proof is in the numbers. U.S. solar companies grew their workforce by 22% last year. Since President Obama took office, we use three times more wind power, while solar power has grown ten-fold. And the president’s proposal to offer free community college to anyone willing to work for it means we’ll train thousands more workers in solar, wind and other renewable energy installations for years to come — growing high-paying, high-skilled American jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.

The American auto industry has come roaring back to life — and it’s greener than ever. President Obama visited Wayne, Michigan, earlier this month, where he spoke about his decision to rescue the floundering American auto industry in 2009, protecting millions of middle-class jobs. In exchange for the help, he demanded responsibility. Companies innovated environmental safeguards that have fueled the American auto industry’s resurgence. We’re now on track to double average gas mileage and cut carbon pollution from our cars in half by 2025 — all while producing more vehicles than we have in a dozen years.

Climate action drives other transportation solutions, like high-speed rail. Earlier this month, I visited Fresno, California, for the groundbreaking of a new high-speed rail line connecting the northern and southern parts of the state. The initial phase of the project alone will create 20,000 jobs lasting at least five years — with tens of thousands more jobs to come as the project is completed. High-speed rail travel will cut carbon pollution, smog and other dangerous pollutants — helping residents in places like Fresno, who suffer from higher-than-average rates of asthma and respiratory illness and who are vulnerable to climate impacts.

EPA climate action also encourages energy efficiency. Existing technologies can help us use electricity more efficiently in our homes and businesses — cutting carbon pollution and saving consumers money. Efficiency is always a win-win, because the cheapest kilowatt of electricity to generate is the one we never need in the first place.

As President Obama has made clear, the stakes are high. But when we act on climate, we embrace economic opportunity and build middle-class security. And that’s an agenda every American can get behind.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





By Victoria Mills

Business leaders have long agreed on the “why” of environmental management: seeing the value in increased profits, reduced waste, and a smaller carbon footprint. But the “how” has often been the stumbling block.

Two case studies released today from adidas Group and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver (DHA) help to answer that question, detailing energy management strategies that deliver tremendous value and are great examples for other organizations to follow.

The adidas Group tackled the dual challenge of improving efficiency in existing distribution centers as well as when specifying material handling equipment in new facilities. Recognizing that only reducing upfront costs during design won’t optimize efficiency over the long term, the adidas Group is now analyzing the lifecycle cost of conveyer belts and other equipment. See the full case study here.

Meanwhile, DHA tackled the challenge of expanding renewable energy resources despite limited capital funds. The solution: an innovative power purchase agreement that enabled the installation of a 2.5 megawatt solar project with minimal upfront costs and a stream of lease payments to benefit DHA. If the 3,300 housing authorities in the U.S. duplicated Denver’s success, their rooftops could produce enough solar energy to power more than 1 million homes. See the full case study here.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the recently released case studies of JLL andUrban Innovations, which have risen to the City of Chicago’s challenge to reduce commercial building energy consumption by 20 percent in the next five years. By focusing on education, automation, and data, JLL and Urban Innovations each took leaps forward in energy efficiency.

EDF is thrilled to share these case studies as scalable solutions that companies across a wide range of industry sectors can adopt. Together, they show the diversity of organizations that benefit from EDF Climate Corps, and whet our appetite for the projects on tap for the summer of 2015, including Verizon, Shorenstein Properties, and Hill+Knowlton Strategies.

This post originally appeared on our EDF Climate Corps blog.

By Victoria Mills

Business leaders have long agreed on the “why” of environmental management: seeing the value in increased profits, reduced waste, and a smaller carbon footprint. But the “how” has often been the stumbling block.

Two case studies released today from adidas Group and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver (DHA) help to answer that question, detailing energy management strategies that deliver tremendous value and are great examples for other organizations to follow.

The adidas Group tackled the dual challenge of improving efficiency in existing distribution centers as well as when specifying material handling equipment in new facilities. Recognizing that only reducing upfront costs during design won’t optimize efficiency over the long term, the adidas Group is now analyzing the lifecycle cost of conveyer belts and other equipment. See the full case study here.

Meanwhile, DHA tackled the challenge of expanding renewable energy resources despite limited capital funds. The solution: an innovative power purchase agreement that enabled the installation of a 2.5 megawatt solar project with minimal upfront costs and a stream of lease payments to benefit DHA. If the 3,300 housing authorities in the U.S. duplicated Denver’s success, their rooftops could produce enough solar energy to power more than 1 million homes. See the full case study here.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the recently released case studies of JLL andUrban Innovations, which have risen to the City of Chicago’s challenge to reduce commercial building energy consumption by 20 percent in the next five years. By focusing on education, automation, and data, JLL and Urban Innovations each took leaps forward in energy efficiency.

EDF is thrilled to share these case studies as scalable solutions that companies across a wide range of industry sectors can adopt. Together, they show the diversity of organizations that benefit from EDF Climate Corps, and whet our appetite for the projects on tap for the summer of 2015, including Verizon, Shorenstein Properties, and Hill+Knowlton Strategies.

This post originally appeared on our EDF Climate Corps blog.

By Victoria Mills

Business leaders have long agreed on the “why” of environmental management: seeing the value in increased profits, reduced waste, and a smaller carbon footprint. But the “how” has often been the stumbling block.

Two case studies released today from adidas Group and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver (DHA) help to answer that question, detailing energy management strategies that deliver tremendous value and are great examples for other organizations to follow.

The adidas Group tackled the dual challenge of improving efficiency in existing distribution centers as well as when specifying material handling equipment in new facilities. Recognizing that only reducing upfront costs during design won’t optimize efficiency over the long term, the adidas Group is now analyzing the lifecycle cost of conveyer belts and other equipment. See the full case study here.

Meanwhile, DHA tackled the challenge of expanding renewable energy resources despite limited capital funds. The solution: an innovative power purchase agreement that enabled the installation of a 2.5 megawatt solar project with minimal upfront costs and a stream of lease payments to benefit DHA. If the 3,300 housing authorities in the U.S. duplicated Denver’s success, their rooftops could produce enough solar energy to power more than 1 million homes. See the full case study here.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the recently released case studies of JLL andUrban Innovations, which have risen to the City of Chicago’s challenge to reduce commercial building energy consumption by 20 percent in the next five years. By focusing on education, automation, and data, JLL and Urban Innovations each took leaps forward in energy efficiency.

EDF is thrilled to share these case studies as scalable solutions that companies across a wide range of industry sectors can adopt. Together, they show the diversity of organizations that benefit from EDF Climate Corps, and whet our appetite for the projects on tap for the summer of 2015, including Verizon, Shorenstein Properties, and Hill+Knowlton Strategies.

This post originally appeared on our EDF Climate Corps blog.

By Steven Hamburg

The everyday use of natural gas across the greater Boston area is resulting in much higher emissions of methane than previously thought, according to a study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These emissions represent the waste of a valuable energy resource as well as an important source of greenhouse gas, since methane—the main component of natural gas—is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere.

The reported emissions are more than two times higher than previously estimated using state emissions inventory data, with a yearly average loss rate from delivery and use of natural gas in the Boston urban region of 2.7 percent (with a margin of error of 0.6 percent). That’s enough natural gas to fuel about 200,000 homes each year.

While EPA data indicates that investments by many gas utilities in reducing leaks have made a difference, this study, led by scientist at Harvard University, demonstrates that the national statistics may mask significantly higher emissions in some parts of the country.

Though the Boston area is home to a large proportion of old, cast iron natural gas distribution pipes, that aging infrastructure does not necessarily fully explain the high emissions rates found in this study, suggesting that there may be sources of natural gas emissions that are not currently accounted for. The study points to the importance of collecting data about emissions from appliances and industries for which there is little current information.

These additional emissions might be coming from a diversity of end uses, e.g., incomplete combustion in furnaces, boilers, hot water heaters or in power plants and industrial applications.

However, a recent decision by Massachusetts—to encourage accelerated replacement by natural gas utilities of the cast iron and uncoated steel pipes used to distribute natural gas to customers—will certainly help reduce the methane losses observed. Recent surveys highlight the location and magnitude of those losses.

Looking Beyond End-Use  Sources

The fact that there are unaccounted for emissions suggests that state policies focused on end-use efficiency of natural gas may also be of value in reducing methane emissions in the state. The study is another among a growing number of recent analyses documenting methane emissions along the natural gas supply chain – from the well sites where the gas is produced, to the facilities that process the natural gas, as well as through the many thousands miles of pipes and compressors that bring the gas to our homes and businesses.

If natural gas is going to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, emissions of methane from the entire supply chain must be substantially reduced to less than one percent of the total natural gas produced.

In 2012, EDF launched a major research effort working collaboratively with nearly 100 different groups (universities, research institutes, government and companies) to undertake a series of 16 independent, peer-reviewed studies designed to understand how much and from where methane is escaping into the atmosphere across the entire natural gas supply chain. This analysis is one of those studies.                                            

Groundbreaking Methods

A team of scientists from Harvard and collaborating institutions gathered data at four sites, two on the top of buildings in downtown Boston and two at upwind locations outside the city. Continuous methane observations were collected for a year from the four stations and, using a high-resolution atmospheric model, the regional average methane emissions were calculated.

To understand how much of the observed emissions were coming from natural gas rather than biological sources such as landfills and sewer systems, the team also measured ethane, which is found in natural gas but is not associated with biologically produced methane. The scientists found that depending on the season, natural gas accounted for 60 to 100 percent of the total methane emissions observed. The methods deployed by the researchers can be used as a model for monitoring natural gas emissions in other cities around the world.

Important Implications

Methane emissions are bad for the environment.  But they are also bad for customers.  Natural gas emissions in the urban environment mean that some of the natural gas purchased to meet customer needs does not serve a useful purpose; it is lost either on the way to being delivered or in the process of getting burned.  Imagine a tanker truck full of home heating oil driving down the street, with a spigot that isn’t tightly closed, then delivering to a home with a leaky holding tank—you get the idea.

The good news is that national and state policymakers are increasingly realizing the importance of addressing methane emissions and are taking steps to tackle the problem.

The Obama administration just announced a plan for reducing methane emissions across the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent, and Massachusetts recently enacted a new law intended to improve the classification, reporting and repair of natural gas leaks from the local gas distribution pipes. Putting new emissions standards in place through regulations at the state and federal levels is a critical step to ensure that methane emissions are reduced.

Local Utility Working to Improve

I am pleased to note that National Grid, the local gas utility in Boston, has been working closely with EDF on ways to improve how the utility measures leaks from its distribution pipes. National Grid will use that information to make its existing efforts to reduce leaks across its system more effective.  Thus far, National Grid is the only gas utility in the United States to support the Obama administration’s plan to reduce methane emissions across the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent.  There’s more for National Grid to do, but it deserves credit for being constructively engaged.

These results are yet another call to action on natural gas. The study also suggests that in addition to reducing emissions from gas delivery infrastructure, we need to take a closer look at how natural gas is used and where emissions can be reduced or eliminated on the customer side of the meter.

Photo source: Flickr/Michael Krigsman

The everyday use of natural gas across the greater Boston area is resulting in much higher emissions of methane than previously thought, according to a study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These emissions represent the waste of a valuable energy resource as well as an important source of […]

By Steven Hamburg

The everyday use of natural gas across the greater Boston area is resulting in much higher emissions of methane than previously thought, according to a study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These emissions represent the waste of a valuable energy resource as well as an important source of greenhouse gas, since methane—the main component of natural gas—is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere.

The reported emissions are more than two times higher than previously estimated using state emissions inventory data, with a yearly average loss rate from delivery and use of natural gas in the Boston urban region of 2.7 percent (with a margin of error of 0.6 percent). That’s enough natural gas to fuel about 200,000 homes each year.

While EPA data indicates that investments by many gas utilities in reducing leaks have made a difference, this study, led by scientist at Harvard University, demonstrates that the national statistics may mask significantly higher emissions in some parts of the country.

Though the Boston area is home to a large proportion of old, cast iron natural gas distribution pipes, that aging infrastructure does not necessarily fully explain the high emissions rates found in this study, suggesting that there may be sources of natural gas emissions that are not currently accounted for. The study points to the importance of collecting data about emissions from appliances and industries for which there is little current information.

These additional emissions might be coming from a diversity of end uses, e.g., incomplete combustion in furnaces, boilers, hot water heaters or in power plants and industrial applications.

However, a recent decision by Massachusetts—to encourage accelerated replacement by natural gas utilities of the cast iron and uncoated steel pipes used to distribute natural gas to customers—will certainly help reduce the methane losses observed. Recent surveys highlight the location and magnitude of those losses.

Looking Beyond End-Use  Sources

The fact that there are unaccounted for emissions suggests that state policies focused on end-use efficiency of natural gas may also be of value in reducing methane emissions in the state. The study is another among a growing number of recent analyses documenting methane emissions along the natural gas supply chain – from the well sites where the gas is produced, to the facilities that process the natural gas, as well as through the many thousands miles of pipes and compressors that bring the gas to our homes and businesses.

If natural gas is going to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, emissions of methane from the entire supply chain must be substantially reduced to less than one percent of the total natural gas produced.

In 2012, EDF launched a major research effort working collaboratively with nearly 100 different groups (universities, research institutes, government and companies) to undertake a series of 16 independent, peer-reviewed studies designed to understand how much and from where methane is escaping into the atmosphere across the entire natural gas supply chain. This analysis is one of those studies.                                            

Groundbreaking Methods

A team of scientists from Harvard and collaborating institutions gathered data at four sites, two on the top of buildings in downtown Boston and two at upwind locations outside the city. Continuous methane observations were collected for a year from the four stations and, using a high-resolution atmospheric model, the regional average methane emissions were calculated.

To understand how much of the observed emissions were coming from natural gas rather than biological sources such as landfills and sewer systems, the team also measured ethane, which is found in natural gas but is not associated with biologically produced methane. The scientists found that depending on the season, natural gas accounted for 60 to 100 percent of the total methane emissions observed. The methods deployed by the researchers can be used as a model for monitoring natural gas emissions in other cities around the world.

Important Implications

Methane emissions are bad for the environment.  But they are also bad for customers.  Natural gas emissions in the urban environment mean that some of the natural gas purchased to meet customer needs does not serve a useful purpose; it is lost either on the way to being delivered or in the process of getting burned.  Imagine a tanker truck full of home heating oil driving down the street, with a spigot that isn’t tightly closed, then delivering to a home with a leaky holding tank—you get the idea.

The good news is that national and state policymakers are increasingly realizing the importance of addressing methane emissions and are taking steps to tackle the problem.

The Obama administration just announced a plan for reducing methane emissions across the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent, and Massachusetts recently enacted a new law intended to improve the classification, reporting and repair of natural gas leaks from the local gas distribution pipes. Putting new emissions standards in place through regulations at the state and federal levels is a critical step to ensure that methane emissions are reduced.

Local Utility Working to Improve

I am pleased to note that National Grid, the local gas utility in Boston, has been working closely with EDF on ways to improve how the utility measures leaks from its distribution pipes. National Grid will use that information to make its existing efforts to reduce leaks across its system more effective.  Thus far, National Grid is the only gas utility in the United States to support the Obama administration’s plan to reduce methane emissions across the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent.  There’s more for National Grid to do, but it deserves credit for being constructively engaged.

These results are yet another call to action on natural gas. The study also suggests that in addition to reducing emissions from gas delivery infrastructure, we need to take a closer look at how natural gas is used and where emissions can be reduced or eliminated on the customer side of the meter.

Photo source: Flickr/Michael Krigsman

By Steven Hamburg

The everyday use of natural gas across the greater Boston area is resulting in much higher emissions of methane than previously thought, according to a study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These emissions represent the waste of a valuable energy resource as well as an important source of greenhouse gas, since methane—the main component of natural gas—is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide for the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere.

The reported emissions are more than two times higher than previously estimated using state emissions inventory data, with a yearly average loss rate from delivery and use of natural gas in the Boston urban region of 2.7 percent (with a margin of error of 0.6 percent). That’s enough natural gas to fuel about 200,000 homes each year.

While EPA data indicates that investments by many gas utilities in reducing leaks have made a difference, this study, led by scientist at Harvard University, demonstrates that the national statistics may mask significantly higher emissions in some parts of the country.

Though the Boston area is home to a large proportion of old, cast iron natural gas distribution pipes, that aging infrastructure does not necessarily fully explain the high emissions rates found in this study, suggesting that there may be sources of natural gas emissions that are not currently accounted for. The study points to the importance of collecting data about emissions from appliances and industries for which there is little current information.

These additional emissions might be coming from a diversity of end uses, e.g., incomplete combustion in furnaces, boilers, hot water heaters or in power plants and industrial applications.

However, a recent decision by Massachusetts—to encourage accelerated replacement by natural gas utilities of the cast iron and uncoated steel pipes used to distribute natural gas to customers—will certainly help reduce the methane losses observed. Recent surveys highlight the location and magnitude of those losses.

Looking Beyond End-Use  Sources

The fact that there are unaccounted for emissions suggests that state policies focused on end-use efficiency of natural gas may also be of value in reducing methane emissions in the state. The study is another among a growing number of recent analyses documenting methane emissions along the natural gas supply chain – from the well sites where the gas is produced, to the facilities that process the natural gas, as well as through the many thousands miles of pipes and compressors that bring the gas to our homes and businesses.

If natural gas is going to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, emissions of methane from the entire supply chain must be substantially reduced to less than one percent of the total natural gas produced.

In 2012, EDF launched a major research effort working collaboratively with nearly 100 different groups (universities, research institutes, government and companies) to undertake a series of 16 independent, peer-reviewed studies designed to understand how much and from where methane is escaping into the atmosphere across the entire natural gas supply chain. This analysis is one of those studies.                                            

Groundbreaking Methods

A team of scientists from Harvard and collaborating institutions gathered data at four sites, two on the top of buildings in downtown Boston and two at upwind locations outside the city. Continuous methane observations were collected for a year from the four stations and, using a high-resolution atmospheric model, the regional average methane emissions were calculated.

To understand how much of the observed emissions were coming from natural gas rather than biological sources such as landfills and sewer systems, the team also measured ethane, which is found in natural gas but is not associated with biologically produced methane. The scientists found that depending on the season, natural gas accounted for 60 to 100 percent of the total methane emissions observed. The methods deployed by the researchers can be used as a model for monitoring natural gas emissions in other cities around the world.

Important Implications

Methane emissions are bad for the environment.  But they are also bad for customers.  Natural gas emissions in the urban environment mean that some of the natural gas purchased to meet customer needs does not serve a useful purpose; it is lost either on the way to being delivered or in the process of getting burned.  Imagine a tanker truck full of home heating oil driving down the street, with a spigot that isn’t tightly closed, then delivering to a home with a leaky holding tank—you get the idea.

The good news is that national and state policymakers are increasingly realizing the importance of addressing methane emissions and are taking steps to tackle the problem.

The Obama administration just announced a plan for reducing methane emissions across the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent, and Massachusetts recently enacted a new law intended to improve the classification, reporting and repair of natural gas leaks from the local gas distribution pipes. Putting new emissions standards in place through regulations at the state and federal levels is a critical step to ensure that methane emissions are reduced.

Local Utility Working to Improve

I am pleased to note that National Grid, the local gas utility in Boston, has been working closely with EDF on ways to improve how the utility measures leaks from its distribution pipes. National Grid will use that information to make its existing efforts to reduce leaks across its system more effective.  Thus far, National Grid is the only gas utility in the United States to support the Obama administration’s plan to reduce methane emissions across the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent.  There’s more for National Grid to do, but it deserves credit for being constructively engaged.

These results are yet another call to action on natural gas. The study also suggests that in addition to reducing emissions from gas delivery infrastructure, we need to take a closer look at how natural gas is used and where emissions can be reduced or eliminated on the customer side of the meter.

Photo source: Flickr/Michael Krigsman

Written by Dominique Browning

We are in sore need, these days, of Republican leadership on climate change. So Mitt Romney’s recent comments were right on:

“I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that,” he said, charging that federal leaders have failed to enact global agreements needed to tackle the problem.

A recent vote in Washington got us a count of where Senators stand on climate change. Nearly all agreed that climate change is happening. But when asked the key question–whether human activity contributed significantly to climate change now–the drop-off in science intelligence was frightening.

Only five Republican Senators are ready to face reality and get to work on solutions: Senators Alexander, Ayotte, Collins, Graham, and Kirk.

Why does this matter?

Because it means HOPE. If we caused the problem, we can solve the problem.

Yes, the climate has been changing for millions of years. Our planet has endured deep freezes, when earth was covered with ice—and super heat, when it was covered with water. We know this only because of scientific research.

Humans were not around during the past big climate shifts—because humans cannot survive climate extremes.

Human civilization has thrived for the last 10,000 years or so because we have enjoyed a stable climate. We cannot compromise our world.

We cannot ignore human contribution to climate change now—and that’s why Mr. Romney’s recent comments are so deeply important. Perhaps his leadership will open up space for more Republicans to roll up their sleeves and create policies Republicans can rally around to cut the carbon and methane pollution that is so radically altering our world. Or, miracle of miracles, they will see that the President’s proposals make good sense for all parties concerned.

JOIN MCAF

By Jon Goldstein

Wyoming has a long history of living with the oil and gas industry that goes back to the nineteenth century, but that doesn’t mean that new drilling projects in new parts of the state don’t get the public’s attention. New neighbors are always a source of local interest and an approach to air quality regulations that includes different requirements for different parts of the state can lead local residents to ask what new oil and gas development will mean for their neighborhoods, for their air, and for their quality of life.

If the robust turnout of several hundred people at two recent public meetings in Laramie and Converse counties is any indication, there is significant interest in how potentially rapid oil and gas development could impact local communities.

Laramie County has seen a tenfold increase in drilling applications in recent years from 147 applications in 2013 to 1,570 in 2014. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management is currently considering a proposal that could bring as many as 5,000 new wells to Converse County. State and federal officials therefore deserve praise for providing the public with a forum to air their questions and concerns.

Oil and gas has long been a bulwark of the Wyoming economy, but large new drilling projects can have unintended consequences such as elevated levels of unhealthy ozone pollution. That is why the state has historically designed stronger air regulations for the parts of the state witnessing the most intense drilling.

In southwestern Wyoming ‘s Pinedale area, the state is in the process of finalizing strong, sensible rules requiring things like regular inspections to detect and fix pollution leaks at both new and existing oil and gas wells. These pollution reduction strategies will not only help clear the air, but because they also limit methane pollution, they will reduce natural gas waste as well. Every hydrocarbon molecule that stays out of the air and in the pipe creates an economic and environmental win/win for the state.

Unfortunately, the same sensible, cost-effective requirements don’t apply in eastern Wyoming where the lion’s share of drilling is now occurring. Since Jan. 1, 2013 Converse and Laramie counties have ranked 1 and 2 in Wyoming for new drilling applications. Despite this, these counties have the most lenient air quality requirements in the state.

The Pinedale requirements were spurred by rapid oil and gas development and related ozone pollution that threatened the health of local residents and triggered federal requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency. As oil and gas drilling ramps up in the east other communities could face similar problems if the state doesn’t act proactively to head off the problem at the pass.

It’s an issue that has public health advocates concerned. As the Wyoming Public Health Association stated in the Casper Star Tribune this week, “The cost-effective, common-sense air protections developed in Pinedale should be applied on a statewide basis as soon as possible. Residents of the Equality State deserve equal access to healthy, clean air.”

EDF agrees and will continue to support leveling the playing field by advocating for an extension of smart pollution controls across Wyoming.

 Photo Source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

By Jon Goldstein

Wyoming has a long history of living with the oil and gas industry that goes back to the nineteenth century, but that doesn’t mean that new drilling projects in new parts of the state don’t get the public’s attention. New neighbors are always a source of local interest and an approach to air quality regulations that includes different requirements for different parts of the state can lead local residents to ask what new oil and gas development will mean for their neighborhoods, for their air, and for their quality of life.

If the robust turnout of several hundred people at two recent public meetings in Laramie and Converse counties is any indication, there is significant interest in how potentially rapid oil and gas development could impact local communities.

Laramie County has seen a tenfold increase in drilling applications in recent years from 147 applications in 2013 to 1,570 in 2014. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management is currently considering a proposal that could bring as many as 5,000 new wells to Converse County. State and federal officials therefore deserve praise for providing the public with a forum to air their questions and concerns.

Oil and gas has long been a bulwark of the Wyoming economy, but large new drilling projects can have unintended consequences such as elevated levels of unhealthy ozone pollution. That is why the state has historically designed stronger air regulations for the parts of the state witnessing the most intense drilling.

In southwestern Wyoming ‘s Pinedale area, the state is in the process of finalizing strong, sensible rules requiring things like regular inspections to detect and fix pollution leaks at both new and existing oil and gas wells. These pollution reduction strategies will not only help clear the air, but because they also limit methane pollution, they will reduce natural gas waste as well. Every hydrocarbon molecule that stays out of the air and in the pipe creates an economic and environmental win/win for the state.

Unfortunately, the same sensible, cost-effective requirements don’t apply in eastern Wyoming where the lion’s share of drilling is now occurring. Since Jan. 1, 2013 Converse and Laramie counties have ranked 1 and 2 in Wyoming for new drilling applications. Despite this, these counties have the most lenient air quality requirements in the state.

The Pinedale requirements were spurred by rapid oil and gas development and related ozone pollution that threatened the health of local residents and triggered federal requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency. As oil and gas drilling ramps up in the east other communities could face similar problems if the state doesn’t act proactively to head off the problem at the pass.

It’s an issue that has public health advocates concerned. As the Wyoming Public Health Association stated in the Casper Star Tribune this week, “The cost-effective, common-sense air protections developed in Pinedale should be applied on a statewide basis as soon as possible. Residents of the Equality State deserve equal access to healthy, clean air.”

EDF agrees and will continue to support leveling the playing field by advocating for an extension of smart pollution controls across Wyoming.

 Photo Source: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission