Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
By Rosalie Winn
This week, the Trump EPA proposed to rollback methane standards for the oil and gas industry, paving the way for more climate and health-harming pollution. The proposal would also enable waste of American energy resources at a time when Americans are squeezed by high energy prices.
Rollback Would Result in Additional Wasted Energy and Pollution
The Trump EPA’s own estimates show that its proposal would add methane pollution with the equivalent climate impact of over 1 billion gasoline-powered passenger vehicles or 1,100 coal fired power plants operated for one year. The administration’s analysis projects an additional 60 million short tons of methane will be emitted over the next several decades as a result of their proposal (EPA Regulatory Analysis at Table 33), enough natural gas to fuel 49 million homes for a year – that’s more than every home in California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania.
A Trojan Horse to Further Eviscerate Protections?
The proposed changes are deeply troubling, but EPA is also opening the door to potentially even broader rollbacks.
The proposal raises questions about EPA’s authority to regulate methane as a greenhouse gas under section 111 of the Clean Air Act at all, with EPA indicating it may open another rulemaking to further attack these protections in a manner similar to the Trump EPA’s claims that it lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the power sector under section 111.
Beyond that, EPA broadly solicits comment on “lawfulness” and “reasonableness” of 2024 rules. This backwards approach to rulemaking essentially invites the worst of industry to provide EPA with reasons to further weaken or eliminate these important standards.
Specific Areas Targeted for Rollback Are Major Sources of Pollution
Low Production Wells: EPA proposes to create a sweeping carve-out from standards for low-production well sites—those that produce 15 barrels of oil equivalent a day or less—including allowing those sites to forgo equipment-based inspections for leaks, use polluting process controllers, and simply vent gas without any pollution controls in some circumstances. Alternatively, EPA proposes allowing these approaches at conventional well sites.
The problem? These wells produce relatively little oil and gas but account for an enormous share of methane pollution. EPA acknowledges these sites account for just 7% of the nation’s oil and gas supply but are responsible for 60% of upstream methane emissions.
And despite the narrative that these protections primarily impact small, independent operators, EPA’s own analysis shows that more than half of low-production well sites are owned by large and well-resourced companies with more than 1,000 wells.
Associated Gas Flaring: EPA’s proposal would allow oil companies to routinely flare—or burn off—the natural gas produced alongside oil, walking back a commonsense requirement to capture that gas for sale and productive use.
Put simply, this means allowing valuable American energy to go up in smoke. Many operators have recognized routine flaring as one of the most wasteful practices in the industry, with operators and companies responsible for 60 percent of total global gas flaring committed to ending routine flaring by 2030.
That waste also comes with a human cost. Flaring releases a variety of health-harming pollution, increasing risks of respiratory and heart diseases, strokes, and pre-term birth.
Major oil and gas producing states, such as Colorado and New Mexico, already have strong protections in place for flaring and low production wells, and have moved forward to implement the 2024 EPA standards.
Super Emitter Program: At a time when satellites and other technologies are making it easier to identify major methane releases, EPA proposes to eliminate the Super Emitter Program, which leveraged satellite and other remote monitoring data to address the very largest and most harmful emission events.
EPA is accepting public comment until December 16. Now is the time to speak out against this damaging rollback.
By Hanling Yang and Aaron Feng
September 2026 marked a milestone of EDF’s work in Central Asia, with a workshop in Uzbekistan convened with our partner the Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC) and key government, industry and academic stakeholders from across the region. The gathering reflected on progress achieved during our first year of engagement and helped chart a path toward deeper collaboration in the years ahead.
Long a bridge connecting East and West, Central Asia is emerging as a critical frontier for methane mitigation, given its importance as an oil and gas supplier to markets in Europe and Asia and its substantial potential to reduce emissions.
The region contains some of the world’s most methane-intensive oil and gas operations. The good news is that more than 70% of the region’s oil and gas methane emissions could be reduced with existing technologies, and more than half of these emissions could be reduced at no net cost. Methane is not only a powerful short-lived climate pollutant responsible for roughly 30% of the global warming today, but also the primary component of natural gas. Cutting methane waste delivers important energy, economic and climate benefits, particularly for a region facing shrinking glaciers, growing water stress, and continued dependence on the oil and gas sector.
Better methane performance also helps strengthen producers’ competitiveness. As major oil and gas buyers in Europe and Asia pay greater attention to supply chain methane emissions, the ability to measure, manage and demonstrate methane reductions can help producers meet evolving market expectations and enhance market access.
Central Asia has significant opportunities to act on methane now. Encouraging signs of commitment and progress are emerging. Notably, all three oil and gas producing countries in the region have joined the Global Methane Pledge. Kazakhstan strengthened its commitment at COP30 by joining a near-zero fossil fuel methane emissions declaration and is developing methane regulations. Uzbekistan is advancing methane monitoring and policy development. Turkmenistan has undertaken methane mitigation pilots. The challenge now is to translate this growing momentum into action, accelerating regional coordination and moving beyond planning and piloting.
Over the past year, EDF has focused much of its Central Asia engagement on Uzbekistan, working closely with CAREC, to strengthen methane measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) capacity and policy readiness. We delivered webinars and in-person training on methane MRV based on ground-, aerial-, and space-based monitoring technologies, and partnered with local experts to evaluate inventory methodologies, identify data gaps, and assess how satellite observations can strengthen national emission inventories. This work helped strengthen local capacity to interpret and apply satellite data, while improving the analytical skills needed to build a more complete emissions profile, including both point source and area source emissions and the relative contributions of super emitters and low-emitting sources.
We also supported an assessment of Uzbekistan’s methane policy landscape and identified priorities for strengthening policy frameworks. In parallel, we worked with the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter (OGDC) and the Oil & Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 (OGMP 2.0) to engage national oil companies across the region, build methane management capacity, and support the implementation of their methane commitments.
Additionally, EDF joined UNEP’s International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) in delivering training on satellite monitoring and measurement as well as best practices for methane mitigation in oil and gas operations and coal mining in Kazakhstan. By providing practical toolkits and facilitating peer exchanges, EDF aims to foster broader collaboration among stakeholders across the region.
Building on the first year’s foundation, we will deepen our support for evidence-based methane action in the region. Prospective priorities include working with CAREC and its Regional Climate Action Transparency Hub (ReCATH) to accelerate MRV operationalization and national uptake in Uzbekistan and expand regional collaboration. Working with multilateral development banks and private investors, we will conduct scoping studies for innovative financing pilots, identify investment barriers, assess stakeholder readiness, and develop practical financing approaches to advance viable methane mitigation projects in emerging markets.
As more Central Asian countries advance their methane efforts, the region has a significant opportunity to strengthen cooperation and accelerate implementation. COP31 offers an important platform for countries to demonstrate progress on methane action and highlight the climate, energy security, and economic benefits of reducing emissions across the region.
Medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles are hitting the road in 2026, and we’ve collected last month’s most exciting news. In 2025, EDF delivered monthly deployment updates on the biggest zero-emission transportation stories. By the end of 2025, it was clear that momentum was sustained throughout a challenging year. This year will undoubtedly see more big announcements, and we’ll be here to showcase the biggest orders and deployments of zero-emission trucks happening around the country.
September announcements saw a large volume of truck orders announced, with over 4,500 medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles being placed on order. The announcements focused on Tesla’s new semi-truck, which recently entered mass production, and a medium-duty delivery truck manufactured by startup Harbinger. September marks the largest cumulative order announcements of 2026.
Largest electric truck order will nearly double the U.S. electric Class 8 fleet
Catalyst Mobility (formerly CALSTART) and the Smart Freight Centre announced an order of Class 8 electric trucks that is the largest single order to date and will nearly double the existing electric Class 8 fleet. The order consists of 2,500 Tesla Semis, with other manufactures like Kenworth and Volvo as additional options, being distributed to major shippers such as PepsiCo and Microsoft through Catalysts ZET SCALE alliance initiative. By aggregating demand, the initiative enables manufacturers to offer lower prices and makes electric trucks more commercially competitive with diesel. Initial deployments will focus on major freight hubs across California, Texas, the Pacific Northwest, Chicago, Atlanta and the New York/New Jersey region.
FedEx orders 2,000 electric trucks from Harbinger
FedEx has placed an order for 2,000 electric delivery trucks from startup Harbinger. The trucks are expected to be delivered to FedEx by the end of 2027. FedEx previously contributed to a funding round for Harbinger, contributing $160 million, and has 53 Harbinger trucks already in operation.
Google to deploy 25 new electric semi-trucks in Texas
Google has partnered with Nevoya and the Center for Green Market Activation to deploy 25 electric Tesla Semis and the associated charging infrastructure in Texas. The trucks will operate in an electric corridor between Houston and Dallas. Nevoya and GMA are working to deploy 38 additional trucks through the same program with other companies.
IMC Logistics adds 50 Tesla Semis to California fleet
IMC Logistics announced plans to add 50 Tesla Semis to its California fleet, with a mix of standard models offering up to 325 miles and long-range models capable of up to 500 miles. The trucks will support local drayage and longer-haul routes between Southern California and inland destinations. ICM says the order will expand its zero-emission capabilities while supporting a flexible, multi-technology approach to meeting different routes and customer needs.
Now is a critical time for fleets to invest in medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks. These vehicles improve public health and help combat the climate crisis by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Unlike traditional diesel-powered trucks, electric trucks produce no tailpipe emissions, which significantly cuts down on health-harming pollution. Adoption represents a key step toward a more sustainable and resilient transportation industry.
Check back here next month to see a collection of the most exciting zero-emission vehicle announcements from October. In the meantime, check out EDF’s Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List to track announcements as they happen in real time, and view all September announcements.
Check out last month’s announcements here.
By Tianyi Sun, Senior Climate Scientist & Stephane Sartzetakis, Senior Research Analyst, Environmental Defense Fund
Hydrogen has significant potential to cut climate emissions from some of the hardest-to-abate sectors. But producing more hydrogen will not, by itself, deliver a global climate benefit, and using it where electrification is readily available could undercut potential climate benefits. Those are just two of the findings of a recent climate impact assessment created by Environmental Defense Fund and published in Frontiers in July.
Presented in Hydrogen in context: comparative climate impact assessment across multiple decarbonization pathways, the assessment examined hydrogen’s climate benefit across 57 decarbonization pathways and 11 uses. It compared renewable hydrogen, hydrogen made from fossil fuels with carbon capture, hydrogen-based fuels, direct electrification and other options.
The results point toward a practical strategy: electrify with clean energy where feasible, use hydrogen where its unique capabilities are most needed, and require hydrogen projects to demonstrate their climate performance from production through use.
The bottom line: like other available energy options, hydrogen is neither a climate panacea nor a climate liability. Its climate benefits depend on how it’s made, how it’s used, and how well its lifecycle emissions are measured and managed.
Putting hydrogen to work where it adds the most value
Renewable hydrogen makes a particularly strong case as an industrial feedstock because it can serve as a chemical input, not just an energy source, in processes such as steel and fertilizer production. In the study, renewable hydrogen used for steel production delivers the largest climate benefit per unit of renewable electricity among the hydrogen applications examined.
Hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels can also help in applications where direct electrification faces practical limits, including parts of shipping and aviation. Where electricity can do the job directly, however, the comparison changes significantly. For home heating, for example, direct electrification delivers 8 to 16 times the near-term climate benefit per unit of renewable electricity as using that electricity to make hydrogen and using the hydrogen for heat. For road transportation, the advantage of direct electrification is 2 to 5 times. Converting electricity into hydrogen, moving it and using it as fuel consumes energy that could otherwise serve the same need directly.
Every kilowatt-hour of clean electricity has an opportunity cost. Policymakers and companies should ask where that kilowatt-hour will cut the most pollution.
Measure the whole hydrogen climate footprint across the value chain
Production is only part of hydrogen’s climate story. Regardless of how it’s made, hydrogen that escapes during production, storage, transport or use contributes to warming. Across the pathways examined, each additional 1% of lost hydrogen reduces near-term climate benefits by about 3% (and 1.5% in the long term), on average. That makes loss prevention and mitigation an integral part of a credible hydrogen industry.
Hydrogen made from fossil fuels with carbon capture can deliver substantial benefits under favorable conditions. However, upstream methane emissions and proven carbon capture performance can make or break the deal. Here, every 1% reduction in methane emissions brings a 15% improvement in near-term benefits (and 9% in the long term); and every 1% improvement in carbon capture rate brings about a 1% improvement in benefits.
However, even with the best carbon capture, high emissions of methane and hydrogen can still make fossil-based hydrogen produce net near-term warming in eight of the 11 uses examined.
The study underscores the importance of accurate, transparent and trustworthy measurement and management of methane, carbon and hydrogen emissions throughout the entire supply chain.
Renewable hydrogen faces a different test: its electricity supply. If an electrolyzer uses clean power that would otherwise serve the grid, it’s likely that additional fossil generation will fill the gap. New clean electricity, matched to hydrogen production in time and location, can help avoid that result.
Build the market around results
This study modeled possible pathways; it did not measure the performance of operating hydrogen projects. Its findings show why better measurement and transparent lifecycle accounting are essential as projects scale up. Policy should reward verified emissions reductions, industry should manage hydrogen and methane losses as operating priorities, and investors should examine the electricity supply and intended use alongside production capacity.
Hydrogen has an important role in a cleaner economy. The strongest projects will demonstrate where they create genuine climate value and can prove they deliver it.
Leaky oil and gas wells are a problem worldwide. In the United States alone, of the 3.5 million abandoned oil and gas wells, roughly 2.3 million wells remain unplugged, including an estimated 1 million orphan wells with no responsible owner. Another 700,000 low-producing wells are responsible for about half of the country’s well-site methane emissions.
While EDF strongly supports a “polluter pays” approach and strong regulations requiring operators to mitigate methane emissions while producing and plugging their unproductive wells, we recognize that the scale and urgency of this problem is so vast in the U.S. and especially beyond that we must consider other tools, including market mechanisms. But for those tools to work, they must be rigorous and trustworthy, or else they will collapse.
Voluntary Carbon Markets could speed well decommissioning. Under a VCM, emissions reductions from plugging old wells would be independently verified and sold to companies, who could credit them towards voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals. Revenue from the sale of carbon credits could facilitate accelerated plugging of leaky wells.
It’s a promising idea. But one that could easily go wrong. For these markets to achieve their purpose and maintain both integrity and financial stability, all stakeholders will need to properly design them. If they don’t, they risk misleading accounting over real emission reductions, and inducing a moral hazard where operators are not held to account for their legal responsibilities.
Clear market VCM standards are essential to ensure wells are properly plugged and credits represent real, lasting emissions reductions. Without credible credits, trust, prices, and financing could quickly collapse.
This isn’t just about orphan wells. VCM players have also shown interest in generating carbon credits from accelerated plugging of marginal wells. Could the VCM deliver emissions reductions from orphan and marginal wells that go beyond what regulations require? Quite possibly, but getting the details right is essential.
The marketplace for orphan and marginal well carbon credits is only a few years old. There are disagreements between stakeholders over the methods and protocols for estimating emissions reductions and awarding carbon credits to project developers.
In fact, last year a major VCM registry suspended the issuance of carbon credits tied to orphan wells to allow for more scrutiny of its underlying methodology. However, other VCM registries continue to issue orphan well credits – and some are preparing to expand into marginal well carbon credits, too.
Under current conditions, there is a risk that carbon crediting for orphan and marginal wells could expand too fast, embrace illegitimacy, and erode public trust in this fledgling market.
EDF has been working with VCM stakeholders and partners, led by the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis at the University of Texas at Austin, to build a real scientific foundation for market mechanism design.
We’re publishing two new issues primers on carbon markets for orphan and marginal wells. They will set the table for deeper conversations about the environmental integrity of these markets, and in the coming months, the development of targeted technical guidance on key unresolved questions.
Want to dive deeper into the science and strategy behind credible carbon markets? Watch EDF and leading experts on the recorded webinar unpacking our latest findings and key safeguards for well-plugging credits.
Credibly designed carbon markets can make a rapid and material difference on emissions reductions. For more than three decades, EDF has helped design market-based programs to cut emissions. From the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment’s sulfur-dioxide trading program to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and beyond, thoughtfully designed solutions have proven successful.
Given the scale and scope of the world’s end-of-life well problem, we are obligated to investigate and improve carbon market mechanisms for orphan and marginal wells. Through that process, they can deliver real environmental outcomes beyond what regulation and public financing can achieve alone.
By Ari Pottens and Mina Berkow
A period of massive economic disruption is reshaping how countries understand the links between energy security, trade, and decarbonization.
In the Persian Gulf, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off 20% of the LNG supply the world relies on. In North America, U.S. tariffs have prompted allies such as Canada to pursue new trade relationships.
On September 10, EDF in partnership with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and supported by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) organized a panel discussion hosted by the Embassy of Canada to Japan in Tokyo.
The event brought together Japanese and Canadian perspectives including the Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC), The Mitsubishi Corporation and GORads and, from Canada, Professor Matthew Johnson at Carleton University and PETRONAS Canada. Together, panelists explored a question at the heart of these economic disruptions: how can strong methane performance by energy-producing countries help meet the long-term energy security needs of major LNG importers?
Importers are seeking verifiable low-emission energy
After China, Japan is the world’s largest importer of LNG. It also coordinates the Coalition for LNG Emission Abatement Toward Net Zero (CLEAN), a public-private initiative launched by major LNG buyers in Japan and South Korea to improve emissions transparency and drive methane reductions across the LNG value chain. Several participants pointed to CLEAN as an indication that LNG buyers are paying increasing attention to methane performance and emissions transparency.
Canada is the world’s fifth-largest producer of natural gas. One major export facility is already operating with the capacity to send 14 million tonnes overseas each year, and planned projects could more than triple that capacity by the end of the decade. Canada also has some of the world’s leading methane regulations, which are estimated to reduce methane emissions by 72% by 2030 if every province implements them with the same stringency.
Panelists speaking from the importer perspective made clear that there is demand for low-emission natural gas that can provide a secure source of energy. The discussion highlighted that credible methane performance can support supplier credibility, improve transparency and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of LNG supply chains.
Canadian Minister and Deputy Head of Mission, Laurie Peters, delivers opening remarks at the Canadian Embassy’s Oscar Peterson Theatre
How to deliver emission reductions and transparency
Exporter representatives highlighted Canada’s progress in reducing methane emissions, the leadership of British Columbia, and the country’s potential to help meet Asian demand for lower-emission LNG. Realizing that potential depends on robust implementation of Canada’s national regulations across all major producing provinces.
For this to happen, Canada will need to determine that provincial regulatory proposals will have the same outcome as the federal regulation leading to the finalization of equivalency agreements. Any credible assessment of equivalency will need to be based on credible measured emission data found in Canada’s national inventory.
All too often stakeholder groups fall into competition or conflict. This is a rare example where stakeholders representing very different constituencies appear to have found common ground: mitigating methane is a win for the planet, for energy security and trade or, what hockey fans from the Canada panel might call a hat trick.
