Source: Soundcheck-WNYC

Yesterday the Bureau of Land management released a new draft of its so-called “fracking rule.” To be fair, the proposed rule does represent a level of progress compared to sorely outdated rules on the books. But we’re dealing with critical issues here – not the kinds of things we can afford to only get half right.  And unfortunately, “half right” is about all we got here.

The most significant failings of the proposed rule have to do with well integrity – the way an oil or gas well is constructed and operated to minimize risks to the environment and public safety. Proper casing, cementing and pressure management are critical to protecting groundwater resources and the lives of the men and women who work the rigs. The rule takes steps in the right direction, but it doesn’t include nearly the level of detail necessary to ensure casing is set where it’s needed, operators are getting good cement jobs and the whole system is checked for mechanical integrity at critical points in the well development process.

The rule also falls short on chemical disclosure. We’re pleased to see the agency propose the same basic disclosure framework that has already been established by leading states – including requirements that operators disclose all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids (not just chemicals subject to OSHA reporting), and requirements to post the information on a user-friendly, publicly accessible website like FracFocus. But the proposal is far too weak on trade secrets. For the public to have confidence trade secret protections aren’t being abused, there needs to be a clear path for challenging trade secret assertions and policing the system.

Finally, while we recognize that you can’t address every issue in a single rule, it’s still worth noting two areas where agency rules are in glaring need of an overhaul. First, BLM needs to improve its rules for the handling, storage and disposal of the huge volumes of wastewater produced by unconventional oil and gas operations (the proposed rule merely asks operators to submit a plan). Second, BLM needs to adopt requirements to minimize emissions of methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas – and other contaminants that create local and regional air quality problems like they’re seeing in Colorado and Wyoming. There’s long been talk of dealing with methane emissions at BLM, but so far we’ve yet to see action. We hope that changes soon.

Moving forward, EDF will submit detailed comments on this rulemaking; and we’ll keep pressing for new and better rules on methane, waste and other key issues. We’ll work with other NGOs, state and federal regulators, forward-thinking companies and anyone else who’s willing to come to the table in good faith and help BLM complete their assignment and improve their grade. As the nation’s largest land holder – with almost 40 million acres leased for oil and gas development, and more than 12 million already under production – it’s critical that BLM set the highest standards for operations on these important public lands. Nothing less than excellence will do.

Source: Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center

This week, the Texas Senate will likely debate House Bill (HB) 3390, introduced by Representative Harvey Hilderbran and sponsored by Senator Bob Deuell.  This bill, which passed in the House and out of the Economic Development Senate Committee on May 14^th, reauthorizes Chapter 313 of the Texas Tax Code – commonly known as the Texas Economic Development Act.  Chapter 313 is an economic development program that allows companies to apply for a temporary reduction in property taxes in exchange for a major capital investment commitment.

Chapter 313 has helped put Texans to work and grow rural economies.  Wind energy is among the industries that take advantage of this program and, in the process, has attracted around $24 billion in wind energy investments to 56 counties throughout the lone star state – $15 billion of which was a direct result of Chapter 313.  Wind energy projects create new jobs and employ meteorologists, surveyors, structural engineers, assembly workers, electrical workers, construction workers, lawyers, bankers, technicians and local service jobs associated with increased growth.

However, Chapter 313 is set to expire in 2014. If the Texas Senate does not renew this crucial bill as is (with renewable energy projects included), then the state stands to lose its competitive advantage in attracting wind and solar development to the state – potentially losing projects to the 34 other states offering clean energy incentives.  Some states don’t impose a property tax on wind projects at all.

Furthermore, including renewables in Chapter 313 helps growing school districts’ tax bases, which benefit from the substantial investment that wind energy projects bring to their communities.  The expected 30+ year life span of these projects makes them lucrative municipal assets.  Additionally, landowners in rural Texas receive lease payments for each turbine installed on their property.  These infusions of capital help farmers and ranchers support their land, particularly during times of extreme drought.  95 percent of land used for wind turbines can still be used for agricultural purposes, allowing farmers and ranchers to benefit from a second harvest – of wind.

Another aspect unique to wind and solar projects is their long, durable life spans. One of the rules of Chapter 313 requires companies who are developing projects to stay in the communities for three years following the limitation period, meaning the life of the contract.  Unlike some other types of development, wind energy and large-scale solar projects are committed for the long haul. The upfront investment is substantial and the large wind turbines and ground-mounted solar arrays are not easy to move.  For taxpayers in Texas, this guarantees long-term benefits for both the state and local communities.

Opponents to clean energy’s continued inclusion in Chapter 313 have attacked the number of jobs created by the industry.  The program reports are misleadingly low because they only count direct jobs created by the participating companies – whereas large-scale wind and solar projects also create indirect jobs from contracted construction, maintenance and operations.  Because they can’t meet Chapter 313’s direct job creation requirement, wind and solar companies typically seek a waiver from the job creation requirement, which local school boards approve.  Now, critics want to move control of these waivers to the Comptroller’s office, and out of local control.  This move concerns those who may be wary of potential political agendas of state agencies in Texas.

While improvement to this waiver process is welcomed, with even the Wind Coalition stating that they support “other changes that would add some state oversight to ensure taxpayers are getting a good deal and that the program is incentivizing projects that would not come to Texas otherwise,” we are concerned that these attacks by critics are designed to unfairly target wind for exclusion by anti-renewable groups with an ideological motive.

Renewable energy needs to remain, as it currently reads, in Chapter 313 with local control maintained when job waivers are considered.  As Chapter 313 is reviewed, we encourage Texas Senators to support clean energy – which is spurring economic development, creating jobs and helping Texas further its leadership position in the multi-trillion dollar clean energy economy.

This past month, we experienced refreshing, cool and somewhat wet weather in Texas.  However, those working on energy issues know all too well that this weather change doesn't mean we have escaped the worst of the “energy crunch.”  As the farmers say: “If you don’t like the weather in Texas, wait ten minutes and it will change.”  Despite cooler temperatures, an unplanned power plant outage during a warm day late last month forced the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to issue an advisory, demonstrating just how quickly things can change.

At the same time, recent ERCOT reports indicate that reserves will be tight this summer due to an anticipated record level of high energy demand and stunted growth in new electricity resources – thus making conservation notices likely and rolling outages probable.  All of this points to the important role conservation programs, like demand response, can play for ERCOT.  Some ERCOT staff and stakeholders have recognized the importance of demand response, which allow customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use in response to a signal from utilities.  Others have called explicitly for programs that pay customers for reducing energy the same way generators are paid for producing energy, an approach EDF has advocated for several years.

ERCOT and a few retail electric providers already have conservation programs, albeit limited, in pilot phases that compensate customers for their participation.  But in comparison to other regions, Texas lags far behind other states – despite having the highest potential for conservation and clean energy resources in the U.S.  That’s why the three remaining weeks of the legislative session are so important: two critical pieces of legislation that would open up demand response in Texas to meet our electricity reliability goals and drive further market competition are under review.

Senate Bill (SB) 1351 from Senate Business & Commerce Chairman John Carona would require ERCOT to allow customers to participate in all competitive energy markets; the bill passed the Senate earlier this week and is now on its way to the House of Representatives.  SB 1351 is an excellent piece of legislation to propel demand response in Texas, but alone it is not enough to ensure Texas can keep the lights on during the hottest summer days.  A separate bill from Senator Kirk Watson, Senate Bill (SB) 1280, would accomplish just that by requiring ERCOT to secure enough demand response to meet its reliability needs if existing resources fall short; the bill passed unanimously out of the Senate Business & Commerce committee.

These bills will make all the difference this summer and for many summers to come.  The Texas Legislature has the opportunity to ensure that ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) have all the necessary tools to avoid rolling blackouts over the next several years as we wait for new energy resources to come online.

The PUC has asked ERCOT to move forward on several issues.  However, many of these suggestions, such as raising electricity price caps or establishing an administrative price curve, won’t do much to improve the energy reliability outlook.  There has been a great deal of talk about demand response at ERCOT and the PUC, but not a lot of progress with the exception of a few small pilots.

For example, earlier this week ERCOT stakeholders (mostly power producers) chose to table a simple proposal that would improve the Emergency Response Service (ERS) – one of ERCOT’s limited demand response programs.  This proposal would have created a more efficient bidding system, one closer in line with emergency demand response programs in other regions.  In fact, such a system has been supported by many market participants since the ERS’ inception in 2006.  However, the subcommittee that oversees these issues, populated mostly by power generation and sales companies, decided more discussion and analysis were needed. This is in large part due to current officials controlling the stakeholder process and deterring competition from new resources, such as demand response.

Currently, only large, centralized energy suppliers can truly participate in the Texas energy market; an approach that is neither balanced nor efficient.  We need action from the legislature and the PUC now more than ever to open up the market to demand response.  Because it opens up the market to customers by giving them the choice to save money by responding to price signals from ERCOT, demand response allows Texans to play an active role in creating a reliable electric grid.  If we want to see a balanced and competitive market in Texas, the legislature and the PUC need to take the lead and make demand response a priority.  Meanwhile, ERCOT stakeholders should learn a lesson from The King: “a little less conversation, a little more action, please.”

Most states have long-term renewable energy and energy efficiency targets.  Ohio’s energy efficiency resource standard saves over 700,000 kilowatt-hours of energy annually, more than the energy generated by a new fossil fuel power plant.  Ohio’s energy efficiency law is under attack, even though Ohio’s targets are right in the middle compared to other states’ targets.

Source: Clean Energy Ohio

Ironically, the consumers who pay for energy efficiency are not leading this attack.  Rather, the attack comes from certain electric utilities and the advocacy groups they support: the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Heartland Institute.  The utilities claim to be protecting consumers from the costs of the energy efficiency programs, but they really want to protect their own electricity sales.

One argument raised against energy efficiency programs is that they cost too much.  Energy programs, however, must pass a cost/benefit test.  The programs will be offered only if the value of energy savings exceeds the program costs.  In many cases, the energy savings are two or three times greater than the program costs.

Another argument is that all consumers pay for the programs, but only those who use the programs benefit.  A few large Ohio industrial companies have raised this argument.  But these companies develop their own energy efficiency programs, so they don’t pay for utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs. 

Recent filings by the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (representing Ohio’s residential consumers), the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association (representing over 1,300 Ohio manufacturing companies) and the Council of Smaller Enterprises (representing 14,000 small businesses in northeast Ohio) reject this argument.  Their members who participate in energy efficiency programs benefit directly by using less energy.  Even those members who don’t use energy efficiency programs benefit through lower wholesale energy costs and by delaying the need for costly transmission and distribution system upgrades.

The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association notes that , through 2020, Ohio’s energy efficiency standards should yield $5.6 billion in savings, more than double the $2.7 billion program cost.  The program will create up to 54,000 new jobs during this period.  If “the customer is always right,” lawmakers will take heed and keep Ohio’s energy efficiency standards intact.

Last week, Hawaii passed a landmark bill, SB 1087, which will allow the state to create and issue a “Green Infrastructure Bond.”  This bond structure will secure low-cost financing for a variety of clean energy installations, with a focus on reaching populations that cannot afford or do not have access to these energy saving improvements today.  The bond proceeds will be used to fund an on-bill program currently under development at the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission (PUC).  The on-bill program, which is very much in line with EDF’s recommendations for on-bill repayment (OBR), will provide access to low-cost financing for clean energy projects for residential and small commercial customers.

The bill’s intent is to use this low-cost capital to expand access to affordable clean energy for all of Hawaii’s consumers, acknowledging that “Existing programs and incentives do not serve the entire spectrum of the customer market, particularly those customers who lack access to capital or who cannot afford the large upfront costs required-thus creating an underserved market.”  Funding projects with a focus on serving populations that do not have access to other means of financing is especially important in the Aloha State, where electricity rates are the highest in the nation.

The state will issue the bonds and then repay bondholders with funds collected from a utility surcharge, providing a secure form of repayment.  The framework enables a portion of the existing Public Benefits Fee (PBF), currently charged to customers, to be redirected so that overall customer bills are not expected to increase.

Raising low-cost capital secured by utility surcharges is not a new concept – in fact, it is a tried and true structure.  Often referred to as ‘rate reduction bonds,’ or RRBs, this form of financing has enabled utilities to recover the costs of ‘stranded’ or ‘uneconomic’ assets over time, at a funding rate lower than the utilities’ cost of funds (thus benefitting customers).  To date, U.S. utilities have issued over $40 Billion in RRBs.

What sets Hawaii’s new “Green Infrastructure Bond” apart from other RRBs is the fact that the low-cost capital will exclusively provide financing for distributed, clean energy projects like installing solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades.  Providing this funding, while at the same time laying the foundation for a successful on-bill financing program, results in a powerful combination that will expand access to underserved markets without leaving the State asking, “If we build a program, will the lenders come?”

In fact, through the deployment of this innovative program and financing structure, Hawaii can collect performance data to help private capital evaluate the opportunity to participate.  Ultimately, scalable private capital would be able to offer clean energy financing even further down the credit spectrum, providing the upfront costs that would enable widespread adoption of clean energy.

Mainland states, many of whom are considering their own forms of clean energy financing, are looking to Hawaii to get it right.  At the end of the day, don’t we all want to live in a clean energy paradise? 

This commentary was originally posted on EDF's California Dream 2.0 blog.

“The cream cheese just fell off the roof of the car,” my 7-year old daughter said as I turned into my driveway after a trip to the grocery store. Right now you might be asking yourself, “What does this have to do with time-of-use pricing?” Allow me to explain.

We live in Alameda, CA, where plastic bags are prohibited and stores must charge for a paper bag. Alas, I had forgotten to bring a reusable one. To teach my children a lesson and avoid the public scorn (not so much the $0.05 per bag), I carried our groceries and asked the kids to lend their hands. And yes, I put the cream cheese on the roof of the car to free a hand to unlock it.

Once home, I realized that, in addition to almost losing my cream cheese, I’d been making potentially risky tradeoffs. After all, exiting the supermarket with full hands prevented me from holding my children’s hands while crossing a busy – and dangerous – parking lot.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not lamenting the ban on plastic shopping bags. I think it makes perfect sense, but it takes time to start making the adjustment and the risk tradeoffs aren’t always obvious.

This scenario– making adjustments that may seem inconvenient and a bit scary, but are well worth the effort– plays out in other areas of life as well. Particularly in rethinking how Americans use and pay for electricity.

Source: Union Atlantic Electricity

Most of us don’t think about how the time of day affects the cost of serving us power. In California, we aim to change that by moving to Time-of-Use (TOU) pricing – which will make electricity more expensive during times of peak, or high, energy demand and cheaper off-peak. In fact, just yesterday, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) recommended moving all residential customers to time-of-use rates by 2018 in an effort to give customers more control over energy costs.

EDF believes that TOU pricing will be best for people and the environment, just as banning plastic shopping bags effectively reduces their environmental impact. This approach can encourage conservation and reduce peak energy use while providing customers with more choices that can ultimately lower their monthly bills. Switching to TOU electricity pricing may feel to some like being thrust into a busy parking lot with an armload of groceries and two children to monitor. When should I use my dishwasher? Do I need to reset my air conditioner? Well, yes and no. You can choose to do nothing, or you can exercise a choice you don’t have with our current pricing structure: shifting energy use to times of lower electricity prices. It’s quite doable.

A recent survey of nearly 5,000 customers by PG&E and So Cal Edison found that 75 percent have tried shifting their energy use already – even though they don’t get paid to do it. Two-thirds of respondents said they’d be willing to risk higher bills for the chance to save energy for environmental purposes. This willingness, combined with wise policies – such as the “Try-Before-You-Buy” bill protection that prohibits bill shocks for up to one year after a customer changes rate plans – bodes well for the union of can-do attitudes and technology innovations like digital electricity meters and automated “set-it-and-forget-it” learning thermostats.

The rewards will be significant: TOU pricing will reduce the amount of peak electricity needed from dirty fossil fuel “peaker” power plants, thereby avoiding costs from blackouts and new energy infrastructure investments. It can also help to incorporate more renewable, clean energy resources onto the grid – like wind and solar – with significant benefits for energy independence and reduced air pollution that will put us on a pathway toward stabilizing our climate.

Source: Citizens Utility Board of Oregon

Most consumers will see lower energy bills from TOU electricity pricing without doing anything. Others will need to make adjustments, particularly homes that use a lot of energy during peak energy times of the day. With a little planning, knowledge and helpful technology, it can be as easy as keeping extra shopping bags in your car.

Just as banning plastic bags is helping to reduce environmental degradation, so too can TOU electricity pricing. We just need to get comfortable with the idea. That way we can have our cream cheese and clean environment, too.

Source: Chucker & Reibach

What makes you slow down more, a speeding ticket with a hefty fine or a warning? For most people, getting a ticket for violating the speed limit and having to fork over some cash to pay the fine is a powerful deterrent. In this case, enforcement has done its job. Giving you a penalty for not following the law makes you more careful in the future.

Air pollution rules are no different. Getting the rules right and then following up with strong, fair enforcement actions incentivizes industry to follow them, reduce pollution and clean up our air.

Since 2011, Wyoming environmental regulators have issued an annual study examining air emissions from numerous engines deployed in the state’s oil and gas fields. These engines power things such as compressors used to deliver natural gas to market.

It’s not surprising that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has singled out these engines for special attention. A 2011 emission inventory for the Upper Green River Basin — a portion of the state that has struggled with ozone problems and is designated a nonattainment area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for high pollution levels — found these engines to be by far the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.

NOx is one of the two air pollutants that lead to harmful ozone, or smog, formation. In fact, the 2011 inventory indicates these engines emitted more than twice the NOx pollution of heaters, the next biggest source in the basin. They accounted for 1,639 of the 4,529 tons, or around 36 percent, of NOx emitted in the basin overall.

Unfortunately, the recent DEQ studies have revealed very poor performance from these engines. In 2011, more than a third of the engines tested statewide and more than half in Sublette County (the heart of the Upper Green River Basin nonattainment area) did not meet pollution standards. While the 2012 results improved somewhat, the state still found more than a quarter of the engines tested statewide to be in violation of air pollution rules. In Sublette County alone the story was even worse with 27 to 38 percent shown to exceed pollution limits. These numbers are far too high.

According to the 2011 report, “all excess emissions noted are attributed to a lack of maintenance or operational problems.” Just like your car, these engines in the oil and gas industry require routine check-ups in order to function at their best. Given the punishing conditions and long hours of operation these engines undergo in Wyoming’s oil and gas fields, this regular maintenance becomes even more important.

And as the DEQ’s 2012 report notes, “[s]imply requiring follow-up testing for failed emissions tests conducted by the Division may be inadequate to ensure that the root cause of exceedances is identified and corrected.” In other words, it may be time for stronger measures to help the oil and gas industry identify and fix these maintenance issues.

Recently the DEQ demonstrated a commitment to increased air pollution enforcement when it issued 20 notices of violation to oil and gas companies in the Niobrara shale area of east central Wyoming. This increased enforcement activity should serve as a model for what measures are needed, among others, to reduce emissions and correct violations in Wyoming’s oil and gas fields statewide — and especially in Sublette County, which recently received an “F” from the American Lung Association for its poor air quality.

The DEQ’s engine study has done its job. It has shown that there is a problem that needs attention. It is now time for the DEQ to follow up with strong enforcement actions to reduce air pollution and bring these engines back into compliance.

Source: Miller Hull Partnership

On Earth Day this year, The Bullitt Center opened its doors in Seattle, Washington.  The six-story building is being hailed as the greenest commercial building in the world.  Its specs are very impressive indeed, including:

• 56,000-gallon cistern for rainwater collection;
• Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roof that are estimated to generate 230,000 kilowatt-hours per year;
• Glass panels to showcase the engineering, including quick response codes to allow visitors to use their smartphones to find out more;
• Real-time measurements of the building’s indoor air quality, energy conservation, PV production and water levels;
• A mini-weather station that sends data to the building so that it can make adjustments to maximize tenant comfort and energy conservation; and
• Measurement of energy use down to the individual socket.

The Bullitt Center aims to be certified through the Living Building Challenge, a rigorous set of standards that requires the building to meet complete water and energy self-sufficiency.  The Living Building Challenge has registered nearly 150 projects in 10 countries, but only three buildings have been certified in the US (in Missouri, New York and Hawaii).  It has been endorsed by the US Green Building Council (USGBC), originator of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard, and is not meant to be a competition, rather a challenge to architects and engineers to aim even higher in their sustainable design efforts.

The Bullitt Center is a project of the Bullitt Foundation, and its leaders state that if the building is still the highest-performing office building in ten years, then they have failed.  They want to demonstrate that a building can be both self-sustaining and commercially viable and to serve as an example for others to learn and innovate beyond what they've done.

This, I think, is the message we need to take away.  Dreaming big inspires others to achieve success beyond today’s standards.  The goal of putting a man on the moon and then allowing the scientists and thinkers to figure out how to do it may be an old example, but it’s a salient one.  Now we face a new goal: how to sustain our water resources, reduce harmful global warming pollution and accelerate the transition to a clean, low-carbon energy future for us and future generations.  And EDF is thinking big.

Imagine a community with solar panels on every home, an electric car charging in the garage and smart appliances that are working to reduce energy use and lower electric bills without sacrificing comfort.  This type of “living smart grid laboratory" is alive and well in Austin, Texas today through Pecan Street Inc.  EDF helped create and is supporting and collaborating with Pecan Street to build an energy system that is cleaner, more reliable and less expensive than anything we’ve seen before.   Through Pecan Street’s research, more than 500 homes in Austin – and soon hundreds more in other cities – are participating in the country’s most advanced and detailed research on consumer energy use.

We must set our own goals high in order to inspire others to not only meet expectations, but also to exceed conventional measures.  Pecan Street is setting a high bar for neighborhoods across the US.  And, much like what the architects of the Bullitt Center and the astronauts of Apollo 11 have taught us, these types of ground-breaking innovations require big ideas and a perseverance to succeed.

Source: Washington Business Journal

As a parent, I would not be pleased if my kids brought home F’s on their report cards.  Stern talks with my children, frantic phone calls and scheduled meetings with teachers and administrators would ensue.  Plans of action would be crafted.  It would be an urgent wake-up call.

This week, several counties in Colorado and Wyoming brought home poor grades on their clean air report cards.  The American Lung Association examined the levels of damaging ozone pollution in counties in these two western states and several of them are simply not making the grade.

High ozone levels are not new to Colorado.  Like many large metropolitan areas, Denver has struggled with ozone pollution (commonly known as smog) for many years. But historically, such problems have been limited to the summertime and to the Denver metropolitan area. Now unhealthy levels of ozone are becoming a common occurrence year-round and are emerging in rural parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

The culprit?  Air pollution from oil and gas development, which is just one of the environmental risks associated with a booming natural gas industry.

ALA’s annual State of the Air report gave failing air pollution grades last week for ozone pollution to Arapahoe and Larimer Counties in Colorado and Sublette County in Wyoming.  In addition, Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado and Fremont County, Wyoming both received D’s.

A deeper look at the subpar performers in Colorado reveals a link between high oil and gas development and high ozone levels. Boulder, Larimer and Weld Counties comprise an oil and gas field called the greater Wattenberg area, a region that accounts for roughly 40 percent of the state’s oil and gas wells and represents two-thirds of all new drilling permits issued in the state. A study released earlier this year by Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences also indicated oil and natural gas operations in Weld County to be the dominant wintertime source of certain gasses that act as precursors for ozone.

Ozone pollution is created by an interaction between two different sorts of air pollutants, oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”).  Oil and gas development provides a significant source for both of these air contaminants. In fact, oil and gas development is the only major emission source for these pollutants in Fremont and Sublette Counties in Wyoming.  Moreover, regulators in Colorado have identified the oil and gas industry as the biggest source of VOC emissions in the state and compressor engines and drill rigs used at oil and gas facilities as the biggest source of oxides of nitrogen in the Front Range ozone nonattainment area.

Health studies have shown that exposure to high levels of ozone pollution leads to lung problems, difficulty breathing, increased susceptibility to infections and other respiratory ailments, such as asthma attacks, a leading cause of hospital visits especially among children, and even premature deaths.

Regulators in Wyoming and Colorado recognize that air pollution from the oil and gas sector is a problem. Wyoming has formed a task force to identify steps to further reduce ozone precursors from oil and gas activities in its Upper Green River Basin.  Colorado regulators have similarly instituted a series of stakeholder meetings to develop requirements to reduce ozone, as well as other pollutants, such as methane (a powerful greenhouse gas), associated with oil and gas activities.

Colorado and Wyoming are rightly recognized as national leaders when it comes to enforcing clean air measures for the oil and gas industry. Both states’ “green completion” requirements for technologies and techniques that limit air pollution during the completion process of oil and gas wells, as well as other requirements for leaky equipment, formed the basis for new national standards to reduce pollution from the oil and gas industry.  And both states’ oil and gas industries have experienced healthy growth since these state clean air measures were put in place, demonstrating that development can go hand in hand with rigorous clean air regulations.

However, the bad ALA report cards illustrate that more must be done. For example, operators must put in place state-of-the-art pollution control devices and practices. This includes requiring producers to search for and fix leaky oil and gas drilling and production equipment, eliminating venting, reducing the waste of natural gas by flaring and ensuring that aging, dirty equipment is subject to available, modern pollution controls.

EDF will remain engaged in the ongoing rulemaking processes in Colorado and Wyoming to help enact commonsense, cost-effective rules that reduce the release of harmful air contaminants in order to protect and improve the air for local residents and to reduce the impact of the oil and gas sector on climate change.

Ozone pollution from oil and gas activity can be reduced significantly with sensible regulations.  It is now up to regulators and policymakers in Colorado and Wyoming to buckle down, get their grades’ up and make cleaner air a reality.  

This commentary was originally posted on our EDF Voices blog.

Source: ali_pk/flickr

Renewable energy enjoyed a record year in 2012 – the U.S. wind industry surpassed 50,000 megawatts of electrical power generation capacity and solar proved once again to be the fastest growing energy source in the United States. That's a milestone worth celebrating, since greater use of clean, homegrown energy resources creates jobs, cuts foreign oil imports, stabilizes prices, makes our system more resilient and reduces harmful pollution. The list of benefits is vast. So who could possibly be upset?

Well, some utilities that own old and often dirty fossil fuel power plants are upset that renewables are making it harder for their older, polluting units to stay in business. Then there are oil and gas industry association leaders like American Petroleum Institute (API) president Jack Gerard, who often talk about wanting a “level playing field” – implying that policies promoting renewable energy are unfair to fossil fuels.

Don’t be fooled. Renewable investments pale in comparison to the amount of money poured into fossil fuel companies since 1918 to fatten their bottom lines and crowd out competition. Fossil fuels have received around 75 times more subsidies than clean energy. Up to 2011 (adjusted for inflation), the oil and gas industry received $446.96 billion in cumulative energy subsidies from 1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just $5.93 billion. An industry that has been enjoying federal tax subsidies for over a century has no standing to argue for a level playing field.

Heavily subsidized fossil fuels may have made sense 100 years ago, when we were racing to build the energy infrastructure of the last century. But today we're racing to build the clean energy infrastructure of the new century — and we need to support a new set of industries. And we're making real progress.

So it is no surprise that we are seeing a well-funded, industry-backed effort to roll back the policies that have been so successful in developing and deploying renewables. Take, for example, the latest assault on a series of state laws around the country that have increased the amount of clean, renewable energy these states produce.

Front Groups do the Dirty Work for Oil and Gas Industry

So far, 29 states have implemented Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) programs that require increased production of energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. They’ve been adopted in red states and blue – from California to Texas to Maine – through democratic processes and with popular support. RPS programs have helped jumpstart an industry that is spurring economic development, creating American jobs, boosting energy independence and cutting our carbon footprint.

A Bloomberg article released last week details how the oil and gas industry, through some self-described free market organizations that they fund, are trying to engineer a legislative massacre of these policies in more than a dozen states.

The groups may sound familiar: American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is currently pushing legislation around the country that would mandate the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems, and The Heartland Institute, which ran a billboard campaign last year comparing global warming "admitters" to Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson. Both have long opposed sensible energy policies. And their funders will sound familiar, too: the oil, gas and coal industries and their owners like the Koch Brothers.

With this new campaign, though, they are not influencing legislation to fill young minds with false propaganda or attacking climate legislation. They're attacking renewable energy. Why? Apparently, an industry that the naysayers loved to call a loser is now threatening fossil fuel profits.

The Clean Energy Economy is Growing Fast

In Texas – a state deeply rooted in oil and gas, where an ALEC-backed bill has been introduced to eliminate the state’s RPS entirely (though the legislation would leave in a similar portfolio standard for natural gas) – renewable energy is booming. Texas blew past the RPS goal set for 2015, and now more than 1,300 companies employ more than 100,000 in industries directly and indirectly related to renewable energy. The state’s own Republican Comptroller has noted that, “After the RPS was implemented Texas wind corporations and utilities invested $1 billion in wind power, creating jobs…and increasing the rural tax base.”

Colorado’s RPS, which is also being targeted by ALEC as well, has been very successful. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that the state’s RPS is supporting at least 5,000 direct and indirect jobs and generating a billion dollars in annual wages along with millions in leasing revenue for landowners who benefit from the policy. Between 2006 and 2011, the Denver-metro area saw a 35% increase in direct employment growth in the clean energy sector; today more people are employed by the solar industry than the coal mining or steel manufacturing industries.

So you can see why some in the oil, gas and coal industry might be getting nervous.

We shouldn’t perpetuate our pollution problems by propping up the 20th century economy with fossil fuel subsidies — payments the industry clearly doesn't need. We should instead be building the 21st century economy by supporting clean, low-carbon energy. But groups like ALEC are trying to turn back the clock and preserve the “unlevel playing field” the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed for over 100 years.

One of the things I've learned over the last 30 years of watching, pushing and fighting various environmental laws is that nothing is ever final. When you lose, there's always tomorrow. Unfortunately, that's how these oil and gas companies see things, too. And even more unfortunately, when they lose, they always have the money to come back and swing harder.

If the oil and gas bosses think they are going to waltz into states and roll back all of the positive progress we've been making, they are in for the fight of their lives.

EDF has created an action alert to help concerned citizens swing back hard, stand up for a clean, low-carbon energy future and have their voices heard, please add your name and tell ALEC “hands off state renewable portfolio standards!”