BISMARK, N.D. – Critics are concerned about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's expected proposal to roll back rules regulating methane flaring from oil and gas wells.

The push to limit funding the Obama-era waste rules gained support from North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer in a recent appropriations bill. Supporters of the rollback say the rules are burdensome and that industry needs certainty.

But David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, says oil and gas companies, some of which drill on public lands, would benefit from capturing lost methane.

"Waste has never been conservative,” says Jenkins. “And more importantly, when you're talking about taxpayer resources, allowing those to be frittered away through flaring or leaks and just basically carelessness, that's fiscally irresponsible, which also is not very conservative."

A recent study in the journal Science found methane releases from oil and gas operations in the U.S. are 60 percent higher than previously thought, potentially wasting $2 billion in energy each year.

Although it doesn't last in the atmosphere as long, methane is more than 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas in its first two decades after release than carbon dioxide.

Jenkins says many oil and gas companies actually are on board with these regulations. But he believes Cramer is catering to companies that only want to do the minimum that they can get away with when it comes to waste prevention.

"It seems like when people are too beholden to special interests, all they're doing is looking very short-term and about short-term profit considerations,” says Jenkins. “They're not looking at a long-term policy that's in the best interest of not only our generation, but our children and our grandchildren."

Jenkins adds some Republicans have been reluctant to join the fight against climate change, but regulating methane flaring and venting would be one of the easiest ways to make progress on this problem – short of policies many Republicans object to, such as carbon pricing.


get more stories like this via email

The Keystone 10 Million Trees Partnership is making significant strides in Pennsylvania's environmental efforts.

A $4,000 grant from The GIANT Company and Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful will bring new trees to the City of Lancaster. The trees will be planted by volunteers.

Carla Eissing, Pennsylvania grassroots manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the grant is helping to support their Mira Lloyd Dock partnership diversity award. She added the grant will support a tree planting in November at McCaskey High School.

"We will be planting 56 native trees and shrubs of varying species, depending on what's available," Eissing explained. "We are always working with our growers to ensure that we've got a good selection to choose from."

Eissing added the project leverages community partnerships and leadership. It focuses on urban beautification, stormwater reduction and increasing green spaces. The project builds upon the efforts of previous award winners who engaged with the local school district and community.

Brenda Sieglitz, Pennsylvania director of major giving for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, applied for the grant through Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful to specifically be used for providing and purchasing the trees. She said since several other organizations are also funding this project, it has grown to involve more partners.

"Multiple of the other Mira Lloyd Dock awardees have joined together for this," Sieglitz noted. "We're really excited that we can use this funding from Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful and the GIANT company to work together to leverage such an ambitious project with McCaskey."

Each winner of the Dock Award will get $5,000 to plant trees and $1,000 to take care of them. The trees will be provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tree Pennsylvania program and the partnership.

A proposed rate hike by American Electric Power that would have affected customers in two dozen West Virginia counties is off the table for now.

West Virginia regulators dismissed AEP's case, citing incomplete documents and failure to disclosure financial information.

Courtney MacDonald, coalition coordinator with West Virginians for Energy Freedom, said while advocates would like to cheer the case dismissal, it will likely resurface.

She said residents should stay tuned.

"There were so many eyes on this case," said MacDonald. "There was a lot of outrage and frustration from West Virginians that already can't afford their electricity bills."

The proposal would have raised rates by nearly 18% - or around $29 a month for residential customers, and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for AEP.

The utility argues the rate hike is needed to cover increased costs involved in procuring and supplying energy.

MacDonald contended energy companies should be working to lower costs through efficiency programs and renewable power sources, instead of placing the burden on communities.

"Fifteen to 22% for schools, 25% for churches, and 25% to 30% for small businesses," said MacDonald, "which we all know in this post-COVID world are already struggling."

MacDonald added that residents who want to be involved in the regulatory process and share their views with the Public Service Commission can sign up for alerts online, at energyfreedomwv.org.

"You will get an alert to let you know that it is time to start writing letters again, and we provide a form that makes that easy to do," said MacDonald. "Within two minutes, you can have your own personalized message sent to the PSC."

Mountain State residents saw their average electricity costs jump by 90% between 2005 and 2020, an increase higher than almost all other states, according to the group Conservation West Virginia.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is pausing the state's involvement in a multistate offshore wind development deal.

Lamont cites the projects' potential costs, leaving Rhode Island and Massachusetts to collect proposals.

A Sierra Club report finds offshore wind can save New Englanders $630 million annually.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said offshore wind is essential to the state achieving its climate goals.

"It's a real dangerous game to play, for the rest of us out here trying to get our climate action going, trying to get offshore wind off and running," said Brown. "And it's a huge market, and we're backing away from it for absolutely no good reason whatsoever except political gain."

Postponing offshore wind could prevent Connecticut from reaching its 2030 carbon emission reduction goal. At the same time, the state is building momentum with fossil fuels.

Enbridge is proposing a fracked gas pipeline extension from New Jersey to Rhode Island, much of which would run across Connecticut.

Project Maple is still in its earliest phases, but environmentalists worry about the hazards it can create.

Some environmental organizations feel the state's over-reliance on methane gas has led to increasing price spikes. The state's gas utilities got rate increases earlier this year that many Connecticut residents opposed.

Samantha Dynowski - state director of the Sierra Club Connecticut chapter - said along with offshore wind, the state should pursue all other cost-saving renewable energy options.

"Connecticut really should be moving forward with more solar - particularly on homes, and businesses, and parking lots," said Dynowski. "We also need to be doing more with energy efficiency. We know we can really reduce demand with energy efficiency."

She added the state can also invest in battery storage, which distributes saved-up energy for times when the sun isn't out or the wind has died down.

However, offshore wind is the most abundant renewable resource New England has.

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds offshore wind provides more power for the region in winter than current gas lines do.