Market Forces

Canada’s 34,000-Job Opportunity: Finalizing Canada’s Methane Regulations

This post by Environmental Defense Fund economist Luis Fernández Intriago; Senior Campaign Manager, Canada, Ari Pottens; Senior Manager of Economics and Policy Analysis, Maureen Lackner; and former EDF intern, Chi Chia (Gina) Chen. 

  • Canada has a methane problem, but solving it with smart national regulations could create around 34,000 jobs and recover billions in revenue. 
  • The job growth would support lower-emissions energy production in the west and manufacturing in the east, helping to conserve a valuable economic commodity – natural gas – while offering economic growth throughout the nation. 

Canada’s oil and gas sector has a methane problem. The best available data suggests that the industry emitted 1.9 million metric tons of methane gas in 2023. While it only lasts in the atmosphere for a short period, this powerful greenhouse gas contributes 84 times more to near-term warming than CO2. Scientists estimate that nearly 30% of the warming experienced today can be attributed to methane from human activity. 

It’s not just a climate problem either: because methane is the primary component of natural gas, methane emissions also result in the loss of a valuable energy resource. An analysis by Environmental Defense Fund found that Alberta’s 2022 methane emissions translated to a waste of over $670 million in natural gas revenue and a loss of over $120 million in uncollected royalties and corporate taxes.  

Preventing methane waste is good for Canada’s economy and good for Canada’s climate. 

Canada’s proposed methane regulations could tackle methane emissions and create about 34,000 jobs.  

The methane problem can be a methane opportunity, if the Canadian government continues taking steps to seize it. In 2021, Canada announced a goal to reduce oil and gas methane emissions 75% below 2012 levels by 2030. In 2023, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) proposed amendments to the existing federal methane regulation that would impose strict limits on venting and flaring, mandate the installation of low- or zero-emissions equipment, and require regular monitoring for unintended emissions leaks at new and existing facilities.  

If implemented, ECCC projects that between 2027 and 2040 these rules would prevent the release of over 5 million metric tons of methane, conserving a valuable commodity that can generate revenue for producers. The rules would also prevent the release of 1.5 million metric tons of volatile organic compounds and smog-forming local air pollutants. The benefits don’t even stop with recovered gas, cleaner air and less climate pollution: we estimate that these regulations would also create approximately 34,000 total jobs, or 95,000 person-years of employment, across Canada.  

Growing Canada’s economy, sustainably  

Canada’s oil and gas industry is well-positioned to tackle Canada’s ambitious climate goal. The sector enjoyed record revenues in 2022 and 2023 and has potential to play a major role in meeting growing international demand for gas produced with minimal methane emissions.  According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the industry contributed $71.4 billion CAD (3%) to Canada’s GDP in 2022, employs 450,000 workers directly and indirectly, and supports an additional 450,000 induced jobs. 

The oil and gas industry’s efforts to limit harmful methane emissions could drive significant growth from Canada’s methane-mitigation sector. As identified in a recent report commissioned by EDF and the Pembina Institute, 81 manufacturing firms and 55 service firms provide oil and gas operators with the equipment and services needed to cut methane emissions. These firms have locations across Canada and offer high-quality, well-paying jobs. 

Jobs from coast to coast to coast: A national economic opportunity 

Our upcoming economic analysis reveals that finalizing Canada’s methane regulations would generate substantial employment nationwide.  

ECCC’s proposed regulations mandate quarterly leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections at high-risk sites and annual checks at lower-risk ones. Large emission sources would need repair within 24 hours and smaller ones within 90 days. The rules would also restrict intentional methane releases, generally prohibiting venting and requiring flaring only when capturing the gas is not feasible. Achieving compliance with these new standards will take a lot of labor and create a lot of employment across Canada.  

These requirements create two main types of work. First, regulatory compliance demands on-site work, including installation, monitoring, and field services, which must take place at the oil and gas facilities themselves, concentrated in Canada’s energy-producing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. Second, it requires the purchase of new manufactured hardware (such as compressor vents and control devices), which are concentrated in Canada’s industrial heartland, primarily, in Ontario and Quebec (which make up the majority of our “Rest of Canada” or ROC economic region jobs).

Canada methane jobs

Between 2027 and 2040, our analysis of the approximately 34,000 total jobs or 95,000 person-years of employment shows this national split: 

  • Installation and field operations (~16,300 unique jobs or ~70,700 person-years): Equipment installation, leak detection and repair services, ongoing monitoring, and operations at oil and gas facilities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. 
  • Manufacturing and specialized services (~17,500 unique jobs or~25,000, person-years): Most of the equipment manufacturing would be in ROC producing compressors, vapor recovery units, pneumatic devices, and monitoring systems required for compliance. Engineering firms and technology companies provide specialized services both remotely and on-site. 

This distribution reflects existing industrial supply chains: equipment is manufactured where manufacturing capacity exists, while installation and operations occur at the facility.  

 

How $15.4 Billion in Compliance Spending Creates Jobs 

Our analysis is a detailed, bottom-up approach. We followed ECCC’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) and modeled how the estimated cost for industry to comply with the regulations would be spent year by year from 2027 to 2040.  

Our total jobs estimate represents the number of unique positions that would be created across Canada between 2027-2040 to fulfill the requirements under the regulations. In contrast, person-years refers to the amount of work a person will contribute in one year to support compliance with the regulations. This means that 14 person-years of employment could translate to a single person in the same job working over the 2027-2040 period. Estimates for both total jobs and person-years of employment include direct, indirect, and induced jobs.  

Employment estimates are based on economic input-output analysis using Statistics Canada multipliers and compliance cost data from the RIAS. The analysis accounts for capital and operating expenditures associated with mitigation efforts across nine emission source categories and across four regions (Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Rest of Canada (ROC)). Then we allocate capital and operational costs to the appropriate Statistics Canada Business Sector (BS) Industries. Finally, we apply the input-output multipliers to the industries and location-specific costs.  

Manufacturing employment is allocated based on Statistics Canada BS 333200 (Industrial Machinery Manufacturing) employment distribution, which shows 83% of Canada’s industrial machinery manufacturing capacity is in the Rest of Canada (primarily Ontario and Quebec), 13% in British Columbia, and 4% in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Field service employment is allocated based on the facility locations where on-site work must be performed. 

Applying input-output multipliers to the full annual flow of expenditures estimated in the ECCC RIAS yields an aggregated person-years employment estimate of approximately 95,000. As noted above, this should be interpreted as the sum of full-time positions the regulations will require in each year.  

In contrast, our estimate of 34,000 total jobs created by the regulations reflects unique positions created and is based on two assumptions. First, we assume that jobs required to carry out field operations will be filled, primarily, in 2030, the first year the new standards will activate, and that operating costs in subsequent years will not generate additional jobs. Second, we assume only 70% of workers are new hires rather than internal reassignments. 

Methane Mitigation: A win for the Climate and a win for the Economy 

Tackling the methane problem is one of the fastest, cheapest ways to slow the rate of warming, and supports the growth of Canada’s economy. The government has an opportunity to grab both of those benefits and make Canada a worldwide leader in methane mitigation. 

Previous EDF reports and analyses have demonstrated that the proposed regulations are affordable, that they will generate revenue for provinces, and that they will strengthen a new sector of the economy, the methane mitigation industry.   

This analysis proves something we’ve suspected for a long time: Canada’s proposed regulations are a clear win for Canadian jobs in the energy-producing West and the industrial East. These jobs are financed through private-sector compliance expenditures rather than public funding, meaning they redistribute oil and gas industry revenues to employment across multiple economic sectors, including oil and gas itself, manufacturing, engineering services, and technical consulting.  

With 34,000 jobs at stake, billions in potential revenue recovered, and the opportunity to position Canadian energy as among the cleanest in the world, finalizing the methane regulations isn’t just the right thing to do on climate, it’s the smart thing to do for the economy.  

Also posted in Economics, emissions / Tagged , | Comments are closed

Your Health, Your Wallet, Your Future: Americans Can’t Afford EPA Rollbacks

This blog was written by: Aurora Barone, manager of economics and policy; Talley Burley, manager, climate risk and insurance; Jesse Gourevitch, economist; Abhinand Krishnashankar, senior economics and policy analyst; Jeremy Proville, director, economics.

The Clean Air Act, a landmark piece of U.S. legislation, has quietly been protecting not just our lungs, but also our wallets for many years. Then, on July 29, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to rescind a crucial part of this protection: the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The finding, rooted in extensive science with robust public input, determined that climate pollution threatens the public health and welfare of Americans. Now, the very real benefits – including economic benefits – stemming from this finding are at risk. Understanding what is at stake is more important than ever. 

Americans face new and rising costs due to climate change.  

The impacts of climate change are already costing us. Climate-related disasters already saddle the U.S. with an estimated $150 billion (about $460 per person in the US) bill each year. Studies project that a person born in 2024 could face nearly $500,000 in climate-related costs over their lifetime if we fail to take action.    Read More »

Also posted in air pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Politics, Social Cost of Carbon, Trump's energy plan / Comments are closed

The Economic Case for Preserving Clean Energy Tax Incentives

This blog was authored by EDF economists Aurora Barone, Luis Fernandez Intriago and Jeremy Proville.

As Congress returns to debate the future of clean energy tax incentives, sound economic analysis should drive decisions.

These incentives aren’t just climate policy; they represent strategic investments in America’s economic future, energy security, and global competitiveness. As Congress considers major changes to clean energy incentives, focusing on economic fundamentals reveals the substantial risks that come with repeal. 

The Stakes 

The debate over clean energy tax incentives comes at a pivotal moment for American economic competitiveness. U.S. electricity demand is surging and projected to increase 54% by 2035 and 135% by 2050, driven by new data centers, new manufacturing facilities in the US, and electrification of buildings, transportation and industry. This dramatic increase raises fundamental questions about how the US can power our growing economy affordably and reliably. Early evidence shows that clean energy incentives are delivering strong economic returns. They’ve already created more than 400,000 new jobs across multiple sectors.

Repealing them would threaten American livelihoods, energy affordability, and domestic production capabilities. According to multiple economic studies, repealing these incentives would increase consumer energy costs while undermining America’s energy independence during heightened global instability. 

Employment and Investment Impacts: The Numbers 

Multiple independent economic analyses demonstrate that repealing clean energy tax incentives would cause significant economic harm. This wide range of estimates reflects different modeling approaches and assumptions, but the consistent conclusion is that repeal of the clean energy provisions would significantly harm American employment and economic growth: 

  • Aurora Energy Research: Net loss of 97,000 clean energy jobs across 31 states (103,000 fewer clean energy jobs, only partially offset by 6,000 new fossil fuel jobs; does not include job impacts on manufacturing)  
  • International Council on Clean Transportation: 130,000 auto manufacturing jobs directly threatened, plus 310,000 additional indirect jobs by 2030 
  • Energy Innovation: Nearly 790,000 jobs lost by 2030, over 700,000 still missing by 2035 
  • Brattle Group: Cumulative loss of 3.8 million job-years through 2035 (averaging 345,000 jobs annually) 

Clean Energy Tax Incentives as Job Creation Engines 

The reason why reversing these clean energy incentives has such a sweeping impact that could eliminate so many jobs is because they take a comprehensive approach to job creation. Unlike narrow policies targeting single industries, these incentives offer broader economic signals that stimulate job creation:

  • Investment and Production Tax Credits: Providing tax credits for companies that produce goods or materials in the US, drives American construction and manufacturing to create long-term operations jobs in renewable energy and clean transportation. 
  • Clean Energy Manufacturing Credits: Boosting domestic manufacturing of batteries, EVs, and solar panels, making us competitive within global markets. 
  • Direct Pay Provisions: Allowing tax-exempt entities, like municipal governments and schools, to receive direct cash payments from the IRS without having to wait until tax filing to receive the benefit. Direct pay provides more flexibility for the school or church or local government to finance the project independently. 
  • Domestic Content Bonuses: Boosting American manufacturing of iron, steel, and manufactured products used in clean energy projects like solar and wind farms. 
  • Energy Community Incentives: Targeting job creation in regions transitioning from fossil fuels.

The geographic distribution of these benefits is particularly impressive. The top 20 congressional districts account for over 100,000 operational jobs from announced projects catalyzed by these incentives. These incentives significantly impact employment in construction across diverse South, Midwest, Southwest, and Mountain West regions. Of 390 announced clean energy projects, over 60% are in Republican congressional districts. 

Clean energy worker looking at solar panels, with text that says "60% of clean energy projects are in Republican districts"

Notably, these job figures primarily reflect announced projects and may underestimate the full employment impact. The Department of Energy’s U.S. Energy Employment Report (USEER) methodology captures a broader range of indirect and induced jobs throughout supply chains and local economies that aren’t always reflected in project announcements. This suggests the economic benefits of clean energy incentives may be even more substantial and widespread than current estimates indicate. 

Public Health and Economic Savings 

A crucial but often overlooked economic dimension is reduced air pollution’s substantial public health benefits. The Treasury Department projects health benefits valued at $20-49 billion annually by 2030 from clean energy tax incentives. These represent real economic savings that offset a significant portion of the program’s fiscal expenses, including avoided healthcare costs, increased productivity, and reduced mortality risk. 

Energy Security and Strategic Competition 

As of 2024, nearly half (42%) of U.S. electricity comes from low-carbon sources. This diversification strengthens American energy security and energy dominance – strategic advantages that would be undermined by repeal. Solar and wind generation are playing dual roles: both replacing retiring coal capacity and meeting rapidly rising electricity demand, particularly during extreme weather events that are increasingly straining the grid. 

Repealing clean energy tax incentives would leave the United States more dependent on natural gas to meet rising demand, creating multiple vulnerabilities: 

  • Price Volatility: Natural gas prices can spike dramatically during extreme weather events, affecting consumer costs and economic stability 
  • Geopolitical Exposure: Greater reliance on a single fuel source increases vulnerability to global energy market disruptions 
  • Supply Constraints: Natural gas infrastructure requires significant lead time to develop, potentially creating bottlenecks 
  • Strategic Disadvantage: While global competitors like China and India rapidly build clean energy capacity, repealing incentives would cede America’s competitive position 

Understanding Fiscal vs. Economic Costs 

Critics often focus exclusively on fiscal costs, presenting an incomplete economic picture. The Treasury Department’s analysis distinguishes between fiscal costs (payments from the government to individuals, e.g. a government bailout or government spending on infrastructure) and true economic costs (net losses to the overall economy, e.g. costs of pandemic, natural disasters on an economy). 

Multiple forecasts estimate the fiscal costs of these clean energy tax incentives: 

  • Credit Suisse: $800+ billion 
  • Brookings Institution: $780 billion through 2031 
  • Goldman Sachs: $1.2 trillion 
  • University of Pennsylvania: Just over $1 trillion (2023-2032) 

However, as Treasury explains, in the context of clean energy incentives, “fiscal costs are the wrong costs to consider.” The Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-4 recommends that transfers be excluded entirely from economic analysis or counted as both a cost to the government and a benefit to taxpayers. 

An economic analysis must account for the full value generated, including jobs, consumer savings, health improvements, and environmental benefits. A recent report estimated that the tax credits will deliver a 4x return on investment that grows the economy by $1.9 trillion over the next ten years, and further comprehensive studies will be key in better assessing impacts on American households.  

Conclusion: Policy Stability Drives Economic Growth 

Any subsidy can spark job growth, so the real question is: which types of jobs will last and lift communities for years to come? The ones spurred on by clean energy incentives are creating durable opportunities in manufacturing, construction, and research that far surpass job quality from sunsetting legacy energy industries with high social and environmental costs. 

The economic case for preserving clean energy tax incentives is compelling across multiple dimensions: 

  • Employment Impact: Preserving millions of job-years across diverse regions and sectors 
  • Consumer Protection: Preventing $75-400 in increased annual household electricity costs that would function as a regressive tax 
  • Health Economics: Delivering tens of billions in annual health benefits from reduced air pollution 
  • Energy Security: Strengthening America’s resilience against price volatility and geopolitical tensions 
  • Regional Development: Driving investment to communities across the country, including those transitioning from fossil fuel economies 

While more ambitious climate policies theoretically exist, the clean energy incentives are already working and have earned broad, bipartisan support. Repealing them now would introduce harmful volatility that undercuts American jobs, economic growth, investment certainty, and global competitiveness. The evidence is clear: preserving these incentives represents prudent economic policy that strengthens America’s future. 

Also posted in Climate Change, Economics, Politics, Trump's energy plan / Comments are closed

Insuring the transition: Underwriting as a tool on climate

This blog was authored by Andrew Howell, Senior Director of Sustainable Finance at EDF. 

This is the fourth blog in a multi-part series on how insurers can support decarbonization and the energy transition.

More than any other, the property and casualty insurance industry sits on the front lines of climate risk. Global economic losses from natural disasters in 2023 are estimated at $280 billion, with insured losses at $110 billion. So far in 2025, the economics of insurance looks set for what may be an even more challenging year, as the effects of a warming planet continue to be felt.  

But insurers are not only involved after climate-change-fueled disasters hit as funders of the recovery. Amidst the mounting impacts from extreme weather, the insurance sector is also emerging as a potentially important player in supporting and accelerating a transition to a lower-emissions future. In a series of blogs on insurance and the energy transition, EDF has discussed various ways in which the insurance industry can respond to the challenge of climate change. These include requiring climate-friendly rebuilding, and adapting insurance tools to accelerate technological innovation. To this can be added a third lever: using the underwriting process to accelerate customers’ energy transition.    

How to bring down insured emissions  Read More »

Also posted in Economics / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

Unlocking Insurance to Rebuild Stronger and Greener after Disasters

This blog was authored by Talley Burley, Manager, Climate Risk & Insurance and Carolyn Kousky, Associate Vice President for Economics and Policy. 

This is the third blog in a multi-part series on how insurers can support decarbonization and the energy transition. This series explores opportunities and challenges and highlights emerging insurance innovations that can drive emissions reductions. In this post, we discuss how insurance can support climate-friendly rebuilding after a disaster.  

Professional Workers Installing the Window Frame

In the United States, buildings account for more than a third of national CO2 emissions and many buildings are not able to withstand the impacts of future climate extremes. As the risks of climate disasters grow, our buildings require updates to decarbonize and improve energy efficiency and better protect inhabitants from intensifying weather-related events. State and local building codes are important tools to shrink emissions and improve resilience for new buildings. But 75% of existing residential buildings will still be standing in 2050, which means these structures will need retrofits in the coming years to improve efficiency and resiliency.  

The rebuilding process after a natural disaster can be an opportunity to build back stronger and greener. Insurance can help to drive climate-smart upgrades and support retrofits that lead to savings over time from lower future losses and reduced energy use. Unfortunately, too often post-disaster rebuilding proceeds without these upgrades, replacing the structure and its components exactly as it was before. This is due to a variety of factors: high upfront costs, households lacking information on what changes to make, a shortage of appropriately trained builders or contractors, or concern that changes to the building will slow the recovery process. Insurance can also be a barrier, because of common restrictions that require covered repairs to restore the original structure.  Read More »

Also posted in Economics / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

The Power of Electricity Modeling in the U.S. Clean Energy Transition

The journey toward a clean energy economy is complex and filled with technical, economic, and social challenges. Electricity models are key tools for driving this transformation, providing precision and insight into the potential outcomes of energy policies and technological shifts. At the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), we are working to make these tools more accessible through the U.S. Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), which brings together leading developers of open-source planning models to help steer the nation toward a sustainable energy future.  Read More »

Also posted in Economics, Technology / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed