That growth brings investment and economic opportunity. It also raises important questions about the electricity, water and other resources these facilities require and their potential impacts on surrounding communities. For instance, rapid growth can drive costly grid upgrades, and without the right safeguards, Texas families and businesses could end up footing part of the bill. Texans need better information to understand such impacts.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas is considering new disclosure requirements that could help. As part of its large load interconnection rulemaking, the commission would require large-load customers such as data centers to report information about water use, air impacts and environmental permits to their utility. But utilities collecting information alone is not enough. The proposed disclosures will do little to improve accountability or community awareness if they are submitted only to utilities and never shared with the public.

The PUCT should ensure that information about water use, air impacts, permitting and other key project characteristics is transparently reported and readily accessible to regulators, planners, local governments and affected communities. Otherwise, the disclosure requirements risk becoming a check-the-box exercise rather than a meaningful tool for informed decision-making as growth accelerates, especially near communities already experiencing disproportionate air quality and water-related burdens.

Texas needs a clearer picture of data centers’ water demands

Data centers can require substantial amounts of water, both for cooling and to generate the electricity for computational loads, especially if that electricity is generated from coal or natural gas. In Texas, that water demand could grow quickly. Houston Advanced Research Center estimates Texas data centers consumed about 25 billion gallons of water in 2025. By 2030, that demand could climb to as much as 161 billion gallons annually, or 2.7% of all water used in Texas – roughly the amount used by 1.3 million average U.S. households.

But even the state does not yet have a complete picture. While researchers have estimated data center water demand, Texas does not yet systematically estimate or track this usage. The state has historically lacked specific data on how much water data centers use, making it difficult to fully account for their demands in state water planning. The Texas Water Development Board has begun taking steps to improve tracking and reporting, but significant gaps remain.

These concerns have also drawn the attention of Governor Abbott, who has called for regulators to scrutinize the water and energy demands of proposed data centers seeking to connect to the grid before those projects move forward. As data center growth accelerates, greater transparency and better data will be essential to managing Texas’ water resources responsibly and protecting communities already facing water supply challenges.

That information gap makes the PUCT’s new disclosure requirements particularly important. The latest proposal would require large-load customers to report anticipated water use, water source, water supplier and cooling technology to their utility – but not to the state, so it may not become publicly available. That would be progress, but Texas should go further.

EDF recommends requiring information that provides a fuller picture of a facility’s water footprint.  In addition to disclosing anticipated water use, data centers should report their water replenishment volumes, or other measures taken to mitigate water impacts, for the watersheds in which data centers are operating. This would help stakeholders better understand facility-specific water risk, manage long-term water availability and reduce exposure to escalating community and regulatory risk in water-constrained areas.

Data centers should also disclose anticipated water use and discharges and locate projects where adequate water supplies can support them without straining local resources, particularly in communities that depend on groundwater and water-scarce areas like Texas and much of the western U.S. That information also needs to reach the people who can use it. Water-use information matters to local governments, water planners and communities that must make decisions about increasingly constrained resources. Today, communities have limited access to reliable information about the water impacts associated with major data center development.

Collecting better information is only half the job. If that information remains with utilities and never reaches regulators, planners, local governments and affected communities, it can hardly be called disclosure. Under the PUCT proposal, data centers and other large-load customers would report information to their utilities, but the rule does not clearly establish how utilities must use that information in their planning or whether relevant information will become publicly available.

Air impacts deserve greater transparency too

The proposed rule would also require large-load customers to report the status of air permits but does not require disclosure of emissions levels or criteria air pollutants that harm public health. Data centers do not just draw electricity from the grid. Some rely on dozens or even hundreds of diesel generators or other on-site generation sources for primary or backup power. The scale of that on-site generation is already significant and will grow in the coming years.

Since 2024, at least 38 Texas data centers have received minor permits to operate on-site power sources, resulting in approval for more than 2,100 backup diesel generators statewide, according to a Floodlight analysis. Together, those generators are permitted to emit nearly 2,500 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution each year, more than triple the amount from Texas’ newest coal-fired power plant. NOx pollution can exacerbate asthma and bronchitis and increase the risk of heart disease.

Consider the Stargate data center campus in Abilene. Its developers initially received minor permits for 10 gas turbines and 62 diesel generators. Those turbines and generators are permitted to emit more than 1,000 tons of harmful air pollutants and 1.6 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 373,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. And the issue extends well beyond backup generation. As power demand from data centers grows, developers are increasingly proposing dedicated on-site, pollution-emitting generation projects to supply electricity directly to these facilities.

For example, Amazon has proposed a Texas data center that would rely on a massive new on-site natural gas power plant permitted to emit up to 33 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, which could make it one of the nation’s largest single sources of air pollution. Rather than locking in new sources of pollution, data centers should prioritize clean energy and other lower-emitting resources to meet their growing electricity needs.

Texas needs greater data center transparency

Regulators, planners and affected communities need meaningful information about data centers’ energy and emissions, including the sources and amounts of electricity and fuel used for primary and backup power, as well as the air pollution associated with their expected energy demand. Disclosure requirements should go beyond simply identifying whether backup generators are present. EDF recommends requiring meaningful information about on-site generation as well as emissions and operating characteristics that could affect surrounding communities and landowners.

New electricity demands can have significant implications for grid planning, transmission investment and ultimately the costs borne by Texas ratepayers. Texas is at the beginning of a profound shift in how and where the state uses electricity, water and other resources. The decisions regulators make now will shape communities and infrastructure for years to come.

More disclosure is a good start. Now the PUCT should ensure Texans have a clear picture of how accelerating data center development affects air quality, water, local communities and energy costs.

The post Texas needs greater transparency on data centers’ water and air impacts appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Ari Pottens

Canada has a near-term chance to slow climate pollution by cutting methane from oil and gas operations. But, that opportunity depends on whether provincial rules will be held to the same standard as Ottawa’s. 

As of today, there are over 600 active forest fires spreading across Canada, destroying millions of hectares of forest and sending billowing smoke into communities. From Newfoundland to Ontario to British Columbia, this year’s destruction has been gargantuan, totaling an area the size of Switzerland. 

Climate change, which causes lengthy droughts, dried vegetation and extreme heat events, has made it easier for forest fires to spark and spread. The cheapest and easiest way for Canada to cut back on its climate pollution? Tackling unnecessary and wasteful methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.     

Methane is the main chemical found in natural gas. It’s also a super-pollutant that is more than 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over the near term. Scientists estimate methane is responsible for 30% of global warming to date. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane breaks down after about a decade in the atmosphere. Cutting these emissions can slow warming faster than many other climate actions. 

The majority of Canada’s methane comes from the oil and gas sector in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia – the country’s largest onshore oil and gas producing provinces. These emissions, which occur both intentionally and accidentally, can be reduced at relatively minimal cost. Capturing methane means capturing natural gas, a valuable economic commodity. A study commissioned by EDF showed that a 75% reduction in these emissions, generated through federal regulations, could conserve enough energy to power nearly 800,000 homes in a year. 

In December 2025, the federal government finalized regulations estimated to reduce methane emissions by 72%. Doing so would equate to taking approximately 70 million gas-powered cars off the streets for one year. 

However, once new rules are passed at the federal level, provinces have a chance to create their own standards to achieve comparable reductions but designed to suit their unique conditions. British Columbia has already passed regulations targeting a 75% reduction by 2030. In contrast, Alberta has proposed rules that are estimated to be roughly 80% less effective than the federal standard.  

The federal government has the power to approve Alberta’s rules only if they are deemed to deliver the same outcome as Ottawa’s recently passed standards. The Carney government now faces a clear choice. Give Alberta special treatment and risk business as usual for climate, or require the province to develop equally robust rules and help Canada pull the emergency brake on methane pollution. 

The post Methane is the simple, cost-effective action to cut back on climate change as wildfires burn across Canada appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By: Adam Peltz and Meg Coleman

Pennsylvania has been drilling oil and gas wells for more than 160 years. But generations of development have left the Commonwealth with 30,000 documented and potentially as many as 300,000 undocumented orphan wells.  

New research sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund and led by Jade Boutot of McGill University shows how emerging technology could help change that. 

Multi-technology Detection of Undocumented Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells: A Large-Scale Drone and Ground-Based Survey in Pennsylvania used drones, magnetic sensors, methane detection technology and boots-on-the-ground field investigations to search for undocumented oil and gas wells. The results demonstrate how pairing remote-sensing technologies with targeted field investigations can help find wells that have effectively disappeared from the historical record. 

The findings point toward a potentially powerful new approach for addressing one of Pennsylvania’s oldest environmental challenges: before we can assess and plug the wells left behind by generations of oil and gas development, we have to find them. In the meantime, these old, leaky wells can emit oil, gas and other toxic chemicals into the groundwater, soil and air.  

We can’t fix a well we can’t find 

Pennsylvania’s long history as an oil and gas producing state means that many wells were drilled decades before modern recordkeeping, permitting and location technologies existed.  

Finding undocumented wells there can be challenging, as they can require the piecing together of old records, maps and other evidence, coupled with the verification of their existence in the field. 

That can be especially difficult in the state’s rugged and heavily forested landscape. Old wells may be hidden by vegetation, located far from roads or trails, or have little visible infrastructure remaining above ground. 

So the team, which also included researchers and experts from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sawback Technologies, looked for them from the air. This work is part of a broader effort at EDF to pilot new methods of finding and remitting orphan and abandoned wells. 

Using drones to find hidden wells from above 

First the team used drone-based magnetometer surveys to look for signs of hidden oil and gas wells. The equipment detected magnetic signals that could point to buried metal well casing or other underground infrastructure, rather than relying only on what was visible from the air. 

Field checks confirmed that some of the locations identified by the surveys were oil and gas wells, including wells that had not been previously documented. 

That finding highlights one of the most promising aspects of the research:. A well doesn’t necessarily stop being a potential environmental concern simply because its infrastructure can no longer be seen from the surface. Technologies capable of identifying buried well infrastructure could help locate wells that sight inspections might miss. 

New tools for an old problem 

Pennsylvania’s orphaned and abandoned well problem was created more than a century ago. And it’s certainly not the only state facing this challenge. Undocumented orphan wells are problem anywhere in the U.S. that experienced early oil and gas development, especially Appalachia, the southern mid-continent and Southern California.   

While solving the challenge will take time, this research shows how better technology can make that work smarter. 

The study also demonstrates why locating undocumented wells should remain an important part of the country’s broader orphaned well strategy. Finding additional wells means states can build a more complete picture and make better decisions about which sites warrant further investigation and, ultimately, plugging.

Drone magnetometers won’t eliminate the need for boots on the ground. But this study has demonstrated how these technologies can work together to narrow the search area, identify previously undocumented wells and provide better information about where to focus limited resources. 

The post New Study: How drones and other new technologies can help find hidden oil and gas wells appeared first on Energy Exchange.

For many Americans, keeping the lights on and paying the electric bill have become growing concerns. The average U.S. household is expected to pay about $197 a month for electricity this summer, up 6% from last year. At the same time, extreme heat and rising electricity demand are straining parts of the power grid.

Time-of-use electricity rates can help address both challenges. These rates charge customers less for electricity during off-peak hours, when demand is lower, and more when demand is highest. By encouraging customers to shift when they use electricity, well-designed TOU rates can lower bills, reduce strain on the grid and support clean energy.

That said, not everyone can easily change when they use electricity. Customers who rely on 24-hour medical equipment, work fixed schedules conflicting with off-peak hours or otherwise lack flexibility may end up paying more under a TOU rate. As more utilities propose these rates, strong consumer protections are essential to ensure TOU programs deliver benefits without leaving vulnerable customers behind.

TOU programs also differ in how customers enroll. Some jurisdictions allow customers to opt in, while others transition customers to a TOU rate by default. Both approaches should include customer protections, but these safeguards are especially important for default rates so automatically enrolled customers retain meaningful choice.

EDF has championed TOU rates for more than a decade because, when designed well, they can lower electricity costs, reduce peak demand and support a cleaner, more reliable grid. As far back as 2013, EDF advocated for TOU rates while emphasizing the importance of customer choice. As TOU rates become more common, getting the details right is more important than ever.

Early education is essential

Customer education is key to a successful TOU rate. Customers need clear, accessible information about how TOU rates work, how prices vary throughout the day and personalized strategies to lower their bills. This education should begin long before customers transition to a TOU rate, giving them time to learn and adapt and reducing the risk unexpectedly high bills. Effective education helps the rate work as intended and gives customers greater power to lower their bills.

Shadow billing helps customers prepare

Shadow billing can be one of a utility’s most valuable tools for successfully implementing a TOU rate, providing both customer protection and education. A customer receives an alternate “shadow bill” for several months that compares their current bill with what they would pay under a TOU rate. This personalized information helps customers become familiar with the TOU rate, identify opportunities to save money by changing their behavior and better understand utility billing, which can strengthen trust.

In Massachusetts, Groton Electric Municipal Light Plant used shadow billing as part of a TOU rate pilot. A subsequent case study from American Public Power showed that this method contributed meaningfully to reductions in peak electricity usage. In California, utilities must provide shadow bill comparisons for at least a year before transitioning a customer to a TOU rate and continue providing them while the customer remains on the rate. This gives customers advance information on how their bill can change so they can make informed decisions about their electricity use.

Bill stabilization helps protect customers as they adjust

Bill stabilization helps protect customers from paying more under a TOU rate than they would have on their standard rate plan. During California’s statewide TOU transition beginning in 2019, the state required utilities to stabilize customers’ bills for 12 months. Utilities automatically calculated whether each customer was saving money or paying more under the TOU rate. Customers who paid more received a credit for the difference. This approach gave customers time to adapt their household electricity use while eliminating the financial risk of trying a new rate.

Post-implementation shadow billing can reinforce this protection. By showing customers what they would have paid under the standard rate, utilities give them the information they need to decide whether to remain on the TOU rate or switch back.

Not every customer can shift their electricity use

TOU rates are designed for customers who can shift when they use much of their daily electricity, but that flexibility is not universal. Some states exclude certain customer classes from the default rate. California exempts many vulnerable customer classes, including certain low-income households, customers with medical needs and older adults, from automatic enrollment. 

Choice builds trust

Customers should maintain control of their electricity plan. TOU rate programs should provide a clear and guaranteed way to opt out without enrollment fees or cancellation penalties. Customers should be able to opt out online, on paper or by phone. 

Research conducted for the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office reinforced the importance of this “choice builds trust” principle. Customer outreach found that people wanted utilities to preserve agency, choice and control when changing how they are charged for electricity. Meaningful choice is especially important when customers must navigate a new and unfamiliar rate. If customers know they can leave without financial consequences, they have greater freedom to try a TOU rate and determine whether it works for their household.

TOU rates should work for everyone

As states expand TOU rates, they should measure success not only by the impacts on the electric grid and customers’ bills, but also by how well customers understand their rates, whether they believe the rates benefit them and whether they are adequately protected.

The strongest TOU programs recognize the importance of all these factors. EDF advocates for TOU programs that work for all customers and encourages individuals, utilities and other stakeholders to support customer choice and protections.

The post How to make time-of-use electricity rates work for everyone appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By John Rutecki

In the Governor’s updated Regulatory Agenda, published in the July 25, 2026 Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection proposed two rulemakings to regulate methane emissions from new and existing sources at conventional and unconventional oil and gas well sites.

Then at the August 6, 2026, Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee meeting, DEP outlined their approach and proposed to submit draft rules utilizing their authority under the Air Pollution Control Act to the Environmental Quality Board in 2027. 

Governor Shapiro’s administration listened to overwhelming public support for durable methane protections while considering permit updates last summer.  They took the important next step for Pennsylvania, directing the Commonwealth to move forward with rules that cut methane pollution from oil and gas, modeled on federal existing source standards known as OOOOc. That is leadership. The significance of these rules should not be overlooked. The nation’s second-largest natural gas producer is now moving forward with comprehensive regulations to reduce methane. As Washington retreats from federal methane protections, Pennsylvania is moving forward, and the Governor deserves our thanks for this leadership.   

Now the task remains to get it right, because a methane rule only delivers if it covers every source of the problem. 

Pennsylvania has long been at the center of America’s energy economy. What we do here doesn’t just affect our own communities. It shapes markets, jobs, and energy policy across the country. That’s why the conversation around methane emissions matters so much. 

There is united agreement on the need to reduce methane emissions through a state rulemaking

Industry groups, policymakers, and advocates all acknowledge that methane is both a valuable energy resource and a pollutant that should be addressed. In an April 21, 2026, House Natural Resources methane hearing, stakeholders agreed that Pennsylvania should do so through a state rulemaking.  

That’s an important place to start. 

The question facing Pennsylvania is no longer whether to act, but whether the eventual rules will reflect the full environmental, economic and scientific picture – or leave significant sources of pollution unaddressed.  

This is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss 

Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and the very product Pennsylvania produces more of than any state except Texas. When methane leaks, it isn’t just pollution. It’s wasted energy. 

In 2023 alone, Pennsylvania’s oil and gas sector emitted: 

• 1.05 million metric tons of methane.  

• The equivalent of roughly $178 million in wasted natural gas.  

• Enough to serve the heating and cooking needs of more than 820,000 households – or nearly enough for every household in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh combined.  

If market incentives alone were enough to prevent methane loss, we would not be wasting this much product every year. The scale of that waste makes one thing clear: voluntary efforts, while valuable, are not enough on their own. 

The market is already moving towards near-zero emissions.

There’s a competitive dimension, too. Buyers are demanding cleaner sources of energy, and the European Union’s new import rules will require measurement and verification of the emissions tied to the gas it buys by 2029. Importers will need to meet a set methane intensity (or methane loss rate) standard by 2030.  

Producers that can document low-emission output will have the advantage. Those that cannot may face growing commercial and regulatory risk. Clear, statewide standards give Pennsylvania operators the certainty and the credentials to compete, turning strong methane performance into a market asset rather than a liability. 

As demand for Pennsylvania gas grows – from LNG exports to manufacturing and new data center development – the question is not simply how much energy the Commonwealth will produce. The question is whether that production will be managed responsibly and competitively.

Industry data shows a huge disparity in methane loss rates between conventional and unconventional well sites

The Appalachian Basin has among the lowest methane intensity or loss rates in the country. That broad statement leaves out important differences among operators and well types. 

A recent study by the Appalachian Methane Initiative (AMI) offers a fuller picture of methane emissions in the Appalachian Basin based on real-world measurement data.  

Here are a few key findings:  

• Low-producing, conventional well sites had an 18.3% methane loss rate  

• High-producing, unconventional well sites had a 0.09% methane loss rate. 

• Conventional well sites generated 63.5% of emissions. 

• The basin’s overall methane loss rate was an estimated 0.52% (Industry target is a 0.2% loss rate). 

This tracks with earlier work by EDF scientists on the outsized role of low-producing well sites. EDF estimates that about half of all emissions in Pennsylvania are from low-producing well sites that contribute just 1% of total production. 

Some operations perform extremely well, while others do not. Top-performing operators have already shown that low-emissions production is possible. However, the basin’s overall methane performance is undermined by approximately 175,000 low-producing well sites – including more than 73,500 in Pennsylvania—that contribute disproportionately to methane pollution. Ignoring that reality would risk designing policy around the industry’s best performers while leaving a significant share of emissions unaddressed.  

The rules must address every major source

This is why the details of the Pennsylvania rules will matter so much. To deliver real, meaningful reductions, they need to cover all sources, including low-producing, conventional well sites.  

That runs against a familiar argument: that regulation will put small, independent “mom and pop” operators out of business. Legitimate operational realities deserve a real answer, and flexibility can and should be built in to protect truly small operators. Nearly $1 billion in Methane Emission Reduction Program grants, much of which target low-producing well sites, are moving forward that can offer assistance.  

Flexibility should be targeted since most Pennsylvania’s low-producing well sites are owned by larger oil and gas corporations.  

Here in Pennsylvania, just 11 oil and gas corporations owned nearly half, 49%, of all low-producing well sites in Pennsylvania with portfolios of more than 1,000 low-producing well sites and generated $2.7 million to $298 million in revenue.  

Operators of most low-producing well sites have the means

Just over 100 oil and gas corporations owned nearly 90% of all low-producing well sites with portfolios of 100 low-producing well sites or more. Operators with portfolios of 100-200 low-producing well sites generated an average of $2.7 million of revenue. 

Just 3.6% of sites are owned by operators with 30 or fewer well sites with an average revenue of $472,000.  

Pennsylvania should address the genuine challenges facing a discreet subset of operators without allowing those challenges to become a shield against action across the entire sector. 

The industry has the capacity to address this problem and cut a substantial share of emissions. 

The 2024 U.S. EPA methane rule built in flexibility such as allowing well sites near the end of their useful life to forgo equipment upgrades.  

Emissions-reduction requirements should focus on the sources responsible for the greatest pollution. Flexibility can and should be built into the rule to minimize costs for truly small operators. 

There is also a smarter path for the lowest-producing well sites, where emissions are disproportionately high, production is minimal, and the economics often do not support long-term operation. Rather than allowing pollution in perpetuity, the state should prioritize these well sites for plugging and remediation, cutting emissions at the source while preventing future orphaned well sites and taxpayer liability.

There is a practical path forward

The data points toward a clear, workable approach. A smart methane policy should: 

• Build on what’s already working. Many operators are demonstrating that low-emissions production is achievable today. 

• Strong rules are critical, and flexibility should be targeted. Most low-producing well sites are owned by corporations with the means to address emissions. Flexibility should target truly small operators and well sites nearing the end of their useful life. 

• Strengthen competitiveness. Global markets increasingly demand low-emissions natural gas, and clear standards help Pennsylvania compete. 

• Deliver real benefits for communities. Reducing methane also reduces harmful co-pollutants, improving air quality for all of the Commonwealth, including the nearly one million Pennsylvanians living near oil and gas operations.

It is time to get to work

Often, stakeholders do not begin with a shared premise, but here we do. We agree on three things: methane emissions must be reduced, solutions exist and policy should be practical.  

Governor Shapiro has taken the first step, and both he and DEP Secretary Jessica Shirley have our thanks for it.  

The work ahead is to carry that commitment through a lengthy rulemaking process and ensure the final standards reflect reality. That means covering the major sources of pollution, supporting DEP in designing solutions that match the problem and avoiding broad exemptions that would leave significant emissions unaddressed.  

Pennsylvania has the tools, the data, and now the momentum to lead.  

As the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer, Pennsylvania now has an opportunity to demonstrate that energy leadership and methane accountability can go hand in hand. Governor Shapiro and Secretary Shirley should continue to carry this process forward with strong and commonsense rules that reduce waste, protect communities, and strengthen the Commonwealth’s energy economy. 

The work has just begun. Now we roll up our sleeves to get the job done.  

The post Pennsylvania steps up to address methane pollution. Here is what is at stake.   appeared first on Energy Exchange.

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 undoubtably see more big announcements, and we’ll be here to showcase the biggest orders and deployments of zero-emission trucks happening around the country.

DSV deploys 10 Windrose electric Class 8 trucks, in step towards cross-border electric freight between the U.S. and Mexico

DSV, a global transportation firm, is set to deploy 10 new Windrose Class 8 electric trucks in collaboration with Allogic and Greenspace E-Mobility. The trucks will operate between distribution centers in Loredo and Dallas, Texas. Greenspace E-Mobility, acting as Windrose’s strategic infrastructure partner across South Texas and Mexico, is building a network of dedicated charging hubs along the route.

Paper Transport begins Tesla Semi pilot

Paper Transport announced they are evaluating a Tesla Semi for daily freight operations in the Chicago area. The company is testing the long-range truck within their dedicated operating model, with predictable routes and consistent mileage to evaluate performance compared to diesel models. The Tesla Semi has seen an uptick in adoption and new pilot projects since it entered mass production earlier in 2026, with many fleets testing the vehicle in their operations.

Duluth Transit Authority expands electric bus fleet with two GILLIG vehicles

The Duluth Transit Authority in Duluth, Minnesota has deployed two new electric buses, manufactured by GILLIG, for passenger service. The transit authority first started introducing electric buses into their operations in 2018 and continues to build on the zero-emission fleet. The buses were purchased with remaining funds from a previous Federal Transit Authority grant awarded to the city.

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 August. In the meantime, check out EDF’s Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List to track announcements as they happen in real time, and view all July announcements.

Check out last month’s announcements here.

The post July 2026: Electric trucks, buses round-up appeared first on Energy Exchange.

That is the central issue before the Louisiana Public Service Commission as it considers Entergy Louisiana’s request to build two new gas-fired power plants, Waterford 6 and Westlake, at an estimated cost of $4.1 billion. If approved, the projects could add nearly $15 a month to the average residential customer’s electric bill, with those costs ultimately recovered through customer rates.

In testimony filed on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund with the Louisiana Public Service Commission, energy planning expert Dr. Maria Roumpani concludes that Entergy has not demonstrated these plants are the lowest-cost, lowest-risk option for customers and that regulators should require a more rigorous evaluation before committing ratepayers to decades of costs.

Why this matters

Louisiana is experiencing one of the fastest periods of projected electricity demand growth in its history, driven by major industrial development. Meeting that demand will require significant investment, but regulators must ensure utilities invest in resources that are the lowest-cost, lowest-risk option and continue to deliver value for customers if conditions change, including load forecasts, commodity prices or policy constraints. The Commission must also evaluate these proposed plants in the context of Louisiana’s broader electricity system and the additional infrastructure and generation being planned to support future industrial growth, including data centers.

No one disputes that Louisiana needs reliable electricity to support a growing economy. The question is whether building two large gas plants now is the smartest way to deliver it. Once customers begin paying for these facilities, they could be responsible for their costs for decades, making today’s decisions critical for the future of customer bills, fuel reliance and grid reliability.

Main reasons for concern

First, Entergy has not demonstrated that Louisiana needs two new gas plants of this size. The testimony finds that the company’s demand forecasts rely heavily on projected large industrial customers without adequately accounting for uncertainty, changing customer plans or the possibility that some projects never materialize. For example, if one or more of the largest proposed industrial projects are delayed, reduced in scope or never built, one of the proposed generators may no longer be needed, yet customers could still be on the hook for its costs. The company also has not committed to retirement dates for aging power plants or completed analyses showing these new facilities are the best replacement option.

Second, Entergy did not adequately evaluate whether more incremental, cost-effective solutions could meet Louisiana’s growing electricity needs. Rather than asking which combination of resources would best meet future demand, Entergy largely compared different gas plant proposals with one another. That means alternatives like energy efficiency, demand response, solar power, battery storage, transmission upgrades and customer-owned energy resources were never fully evaluated alongside the new proposed fossil fuel plants.

Third, the economic case is weaker than it appears. Entergy’s economic analysis relies on assumptions that have not been sufficiently supported. The testimony finds that the projected benefits depend on assumptions about costs and future demand that may not hold. A modest increase in project costs or a likely shortfall in projected load growth could erase the projected savings altogether, leaving customers to bear the costs without receiving the promised benefits.

Finally, the proposal shifts substantial risk onto customers. If construction costs increase, fuel prices rise, or anticipated industrial demand fails to materialize, Louisiana ratepayers could remain responsible for paying for infrastructure they may not need. They would also face decades of exposure to natural gas price volatility because fuel costs are passed directly through on electric bills. Louisianans have already seen what those price swings can mean. Between October 2025 and February 2026, higher natural gas prices added about $16 to the monthly bill of a household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity.

A smarter path to affordable growth

As Louisiana plans for future electricity demand, EDF recommends evaluating more incremental, cost-effective solutions before committing customers to major new gas generation. That broader portfolio includes energy efficiency, demand response, customer-owned resources like rooftop solar and battery storage, transmission improvements, grid-enhancing technologies, and incremental utility-scale solar and battery storage. Together, these resources can improve reliability, meet growing demand and reduce the need for costly new power plants.

Together, these resources can improve reliability, meet growing demand and reduce the need for costly, customer-funded gas investments. With important regional transmission studies already underway, it’s worth waiting for more information and evaluating additional technologies that could improve reliability while reducing costs before committing customers to major new generating facilities.

What we recommend

EDF recommends that the Commission deny certification of both plants at this time. Before reconsidering the proposal, the Commission should require Entergy to:

• Conduct a competitive all-source procurement.
• Better document and validate future electricity demand.
• Commit to retirement plans for existing generating units.
• Demonstrate stronger use of energy efficiency and demand response through the Commission’s Proactive Utility Energy Needs process.
• Evaluate transmission solutions and grid-enhancing technologies.
• Analyze how customers would be affected if projected industrial growth does not occur.
• Cap recoverable construction costs if any project ultimately moves forward.

Building the right grid for Louisianans

Louisiana’s economy is changing rapidly, and the electric grid must evolve with it. But planning for growth should not mean assuming that expensive investments automatically deliver better outcomes. Before asking customers to pay billions of dollars for new infrastructure, regulators should require utilities to demonstrate that those investments are the most cost-effective way to meet the state’s growing energy needs.

The Commission has an opportunity to require utilities to compare competing solutions, evaluate customer risks and pursue the most cost-effective path forward. With billions of customer dollars at stake, regulators should insist on a thorough evaluation of all viable alternatives before asking Louisianans to pay for decades to come.

The post Before approving $4.1B in new gas plants, Louisiana regulators should compare all options appeared first on Energy Exchange.

The first statistical analysis of Peoples Gas’ leak records, pipeline maps and neighborhood demographic data, commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund and conducted by methane scientist Dr. Joe von Fischer, reveals an important challenge. Chicago neighborhoods with higher percentages of people of color have approximately 30% more leak-prone pipe per person, 40% more gas leaks per capita, 43% more leaks per mile of gas main and nearly 80% more leaks per mile of leak-prone pipe than neighborhoods with lower percentages of people of color. 

The analysis also found these neighborhoods are more likely to rely on residents reporting the smell of gas, rather than proactive utility surveys, to identify leaks. Together, these findings raise an important question: Are customer dollars being invested where they can make the biggest difference? The good news is that they can be. 

Peoples Gas already collects detailed information about the condition of its gas system and has invested in Advanced Methane Leak Detection technology, which can identify leaks more accurately and estimate how much methane each leak releases. By making better use of the data and reporting it publicly, the utility can reduce pollution, improve safety, make smarter infrastructure investments, deliver greater value for customers and increase transparency and accountability.  

Customers deserve confidence that every dollar they invest is improving safety, reducing methane emissions and reaching the communities where it can make the greatest difference. On behalf of EDF, Dr. von Fischer’s testimony before the Illinois Commerce Commission outlines practical steps to help achieve that goal. 

Better data should drive smarter investments 

Advanced Methane Leak Detection is an important step, but once it has the data, Peoples Gas should use it to prioritize repairs and pipeline replacement where they will have the greatest impact. The largest leaks often account for a disproportionate share of methane emissions, meaning that fixing them first can reduce pollution more quickly while making the best use of customer dollars. 

Not every segment of leak-prone pipe requires the same solution. In some cases, targeted repair can extend a pipe’s useful life at lower cost. In others, replacement is the best option. And in some areas, retirement – taking pipe out of service entirely – may deliver the greatest value, particularly where Non-Pipeline Alternatives such as electrification or energy efficiency can meet customer needs without investing in costly, long-lived gas infrastructure. 

Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the global warming the world is experiencing today. Reducing methane emissions is one of the fastest ways to slow near-term warming while preventing customers from paying for natural gas that escapes into the atmosphere before it can be used. 

Customers deserve to know what’s working 

Customers are paying for infrastructure improvements, so they should be able to see whether those investments are delivering results. Today, Peoples Gas does not publicly share enough information for customers or regulators to evaluate its performance. EDF recommends publishing annual information on leaks, repairs, pipeline replacement projects and overall system performance. 

Greater transparency would help regulators, consumer advocates and the public assess whether customer-funded investments are improving safety, reducing methane emissions and delivering value. It would also help communities understand whether those investments are reaching the neighborhoods with the greatest need. 

Transparency also builds accountability. When utilities clearly explain how they prioritize projects and publicly report measurable outcomes, regulators can make more informed decisions, communities can better track progress and customers gain confidence that their money is being spent wisely. 

Investments should reduce inequities, not reinforce them 

Every customer helps pay to maintain and modernize the gas system. Those investments should improve safety and reliability for everyone, especially the communities facing the greatest risk of leaks. 

The statistical analysis found significant disparities in aging gas infrastructure across Chicago neighborhoods. Communities with higher percentages of people of color have more leak-prone pipe, more gas leaks and are more likely to rely on residents reporting gas odors than on proactive utility leak surveys. While repairing or replacing older pipes will eventually reduce risks, the order in which projects are completed determines which communities benefit first. If communities are not prioritized effectively, disparities will remain. 

As the Commission considers Peoples Gas’ rate request, it should require the company to prioritize repairs and pipeline replacement using engineering data, informed by environmental justice considerations. Doing so would help ensure customer investments improve safety, reduce methane emissions and deliver benefits more equitably across Chicago. 

Illinois has an opportunity to lead 

Illinois has long been a leader in modernizing energy policy. As the Illinois Commerce Commission considers Peoples Gas’ rate request, it has an opportunity to ensure customers receive the greatest possible value from every dollar they invest. 

EDF’s recommendations offer a practical path forward. By making better use of data, improving transparency and prioritizing investments where they will have the greatest impact, Peoples Gas can reduce methane emissions, strengthen safety and address longstanding inequities in its system. 

Customers should not have to choose between affordability, safety and climate progress. By making better use of data, increasing transparency and directing investments where they will have the greatest impact, Illinois can deliver all three. 

The post Smarter investments can build a safer, more equitable Chicago gas system  appeared first on Energy Exchange.

When severe storms knock out power, reliable electricity becomes more than a convenience. It becomes a lifeline. I know this firsthand. I grew up in a household that experienced energy insecurity. High utility bills piled up, poor insulation drove up energy costs and financial stress touched every part of daily life.

My family’s experience was not unique. Across Illinois and throughout the country, many communities face rising utility bills, deteriorating infrastructure and increasingly frequent climate disasters. These challenges motivated me to learn more about our electric grid and advocate for meaningful public participation in grid planning.

At the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), I work to advance building and  transportation decarbonization policies that help clear the air and lower energy burdens for communities across Illinois. For more than 30 years, LVEJO has worked alongside residents in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood to address pollution, improve public health and advocate for the clean energy investments our community deserves.

​A stronger, more resilient grid can help deliver those benefits while enabling cleaner transportation and healthier communities.

Testifying before the Illinois Commerce Commission

For many families struggling to afford housing, groceries, and other necessities, participating in utility planning processes may not seem like a priority. Yet decisions about the grid affect nearly every aspect of our lives – from keeping the lights on during extreme weather to enabling clean transportation options that reach neighborhoods that have long borne the burden of pollution. This is why I chose to testify in a ComEd grid planning proceeding. I wanted to use my voice to shape the future of my community’s energy system.

Through my testimony, I was able to paint a picture for the commissioners about the Little Village community, hoping to make them feel the health effects of the energy system, the diesel truck traffic that causes those problems, and the community’s desire to find solutions, including grid investments that will allow electric trucks to deliver goods in the neighborhood without making people sick.

A stronger grid for cleaner transportation

​For fenceline communities like Little Village, a stronger grid is essential to reducing freight pollution. Thousands of diesel trucks move through neighborhoods every day, delivering goods from across the country and around the world. While these trucks support economic activity, they also release harmful air pollution that contributes to asthma, respiratory illness and other health impacts in communities located near truck routes, warehouses and industrial facilities.

trucks and buses offer a cleaner alternative. Because they don’t produce tailpipe emissions, they can improve air quality for drivers, warehouse workers and residents living near heavily trafficked roads. But transitioning to cleaner freight transportation requires more than vehicles. It requires charging infrastructure and a grid capable of supporting new electricity demand.

Too often, opponents of freight electrification point to charging capacity as a barrier to progress. That challenge underscores why proactive grid planning matters. Communities like Little Village need utilities, regulators and policymakers to invest in grid upgrades before demand arrives, particularly in areas where freight electrification is expected to grow. Planning ahead reduces costs, improves reliability and accelerates the transition to cleaner transportation.

Centering communities in grid planning

Historically, grid investments have often failed to reflect the needs of environmental justice communities. Without meaningful public participation, investments can bypass the communities that stand to benefit most or even place new costs on residents by raising electric rates, without delivering clear benefits. The transition to a cleaner energy future will only succeed if the communities most affected by pollution and energy insecurity help shape it.

As climate impacts intensify, resilient grid infrastructure is becoming increasingly essential to public health and community wellbeing. Illinois recently experienced a record number of tornadoes, underscoring the need for a grid that can withstand extreme weather and keep critical services running when communities need them most.

A resilient, clean energy grid is more than an infrastructure investment. It is an investment in public health, cleaner air, reliable power and a more equitable future. The transition to a cleaner, more resilient energy system will only succeed if environmental justice communities have a meaningful voice in shaping the grid investments that affect their lives.

(This blog post was cross posted from Community Voices in Energy)

The post Grid stability is an environmental justice issue appeared first on Energy Exchange.

Just over eighteen months from today, the world’s first truly global carbon market will face a consequential deadline. Airline operators will be required to fulfill their offsetting obligations under the first phase of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Carbon Offsetting Reduction Scheme for International Aviation.

This deadline has weighed heavily on many of us who have worked hard over the years to make CORSIA a success. CORSIA was designed to achieve carbon-neutral growth in international aviation from 2021-2035. However, as airlines approach the January 31, 2028 deadline to retire Eligible Emissions Units covering 2024-2026 emissions, supply for these units faces tight constraints.

What happens over the course of the next year will define CORSIA’s role, not just to decarbonize the aviation sector, but as a backbone of global carbon markets.

Where are we: CORSIA 2024-2026

This coming October will mark CORSIA’s tenth anniversary. Adopted in October 2016, the flagship United Nations market-based mechanism for international aviation is designed to be implemented in three phases: (1) the pilot phase (2021-2023); (2) Phase 1 (2024-2026); and (3) Phase 2 (2027-2035). The pilot and first phase are voluntary, but in 2027, CORSIA will be mandatory for States with a larger aviation footprint. As of July 2025, 130 States confirmed voluntary participation in CORSIA’s pilot and first phase.

The impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry significantly reduced emissions in the sector, which meant that CORSIA’s pilot phase did not create offsetting obligations. However, due to CORSIA’s tightened cap and the industry’s quick recovery with record-breaking volumes of passenger traffic in 2025, Phase 1 of CORSIA is expected to generate offsetting requirements of 100-150 million tonnes of CO2, according to ICAO.

To fulfill their offsetting obligations, air carriers can either use CORSIA eligible fuels, including sustainable aviation fuels and lower carbon aviation fuels of fossil origin, or purchase and cancel CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units (EEUs) that meet specific emission unit criteria and can only be issued by eligible offsetting programs. Each EEU represents 1 tonne of CO2 reduction, avoidance or removal outside of the aviation sector. As of today, ICAO has recognized ten emission unit programs that can issue EEUs for Phase 1 covering activities such as: high integrity jurisdictional REDD+, carbon capture and storage, clean cook stoves projects and certain renewable electricity projects, among other activities.

According to ICAO’s own live tracker, there are only around 41 million EEUs verified, issued and labeled as eligible by the programs. Considering an expected demand of between 100-150 million tCO2 for 2024-2026 according to ICAO, this implies that we still need up to four times the current level of eligible EEUs for air carriers to meet their offsetting obligations in time for the first consequential deadline in January 2028 – making this one of the strongest demand signals in global carbon markets today.

As of today, host-country authorization – a critical requirement to avoid double counting and ensuring the integrity of the units – continues to be the main hurdle to a robust EEU supply. Nonetheless, as reported by the Article 6 Implementation Partnership, progress is evident. Fourteen countries have authorization and tracking arrangements in place while an additional eighty-six countries are either considering or in the process to have these in place.

Some potential turbulence and bright developments along the way

Over the last couple of years, new geopolitical shifts, weakened climate momentum and renewed energy insecurity have complicated countries’ efforts to meet CORSIA obligations and sustain focus on long-term climate solutions. Recent volatility in global oil markets has also shifted the aviation industry’s focus away from decarbonization.

Adding another layer of complexity, the EU Commission last week issued its assessment of CORSIA to date and its effectiveness as a tool to reduce climate pollution from aviation within the European Economic Area. CORSIA owes its existence, in part due to the EU’s proposal in 2008 to include all flights arriving and departing from European airports in its EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS). Major backlash from the United States, China, Japan and other countries led to a decision by the EU to “stop the clock” and allow for a global measure (what is now CORSIA) to address international aviation emissions. On July 17, 2026, the European Commission proposed to partially lift that measure for four years for some routes beginning in 2029.

In its environmental integrity assessment of CORSIA, the Commission underscored that ICAO had not strengthened its ambition and that State participation in the global market-based measure still represented less than 70% of international aviation emissions. The Commission also underscored the need to address “hub leakage” to inform its proposal.

The EU Commission is proposing to:
• Expand EU ETS coverage to international aviation covering all routes departing from the EEA and landing within 5,000 kilometers from the largest hub in central Europe (presumably Frankfurt), including flights to hubs in the Middle East and North Africa but effectively excluding flights landing from the United States, Latin America or China.
• Deduct the cost of emissions covered by CORSIA from the newly covered routes in the EU ETS based on a credit price index.
• Expand coverage for all business jet flights that otherwise fell below a minimum emissions threshold.
• Review the EU ETS coverage of international aviation and restrict its application if by July 2032: (1) CORSIA has been strengthened to achieve ICAO’s long-term aspirational goal, towards meeting the Paris Agreement goals; (2) States participating in CORSIA represent more than 70% of international aviation emissions.

In parallel, the EU Commission is reviewing whether to allow the purchase of international carbon credits toward its 2040 climate targets, which could expand the global supply of carbon credits in the coming years and improve the EU’s position in global climate diplomacy. If greenlit, this could create an additional market signal for investors and project developers of offsetting programs. The framework expected later this year will set the environmental integrity and quality bar, government standards and safeguards that will shape the relevant offset supply markets from the start. Though not directly involving CORSIA initially, this will inevitably have an impact – CORSIA offset supply markets will quickly see dramatic improvement around the world as host countries finalize terms and put relevant infrastructure into place, incentivized as sellers to the European buyer.

From a legislative perspective, it is important to recall that the July 17 EU Commission proposal is simply the beginning of a long and unpredictable EU co-decision legislative process that will end up with a Trialogue involving the co-legislators and the Commission sometime in 2027.

Moving forward with a stronger integration of global carbon markets

At this crossroads, and to ensure CORSIA’s success in the near term, it is crucial to support and build capacity for host countries to be able to generate high integrity EEU-generating units. It is crucial that sufficient credit supply is generated in the coming 18 months, and that such supply is indeed leading to not only emission reductions but with adequate safeguards and co-benefits.

In that regard, EDF will continue to support that effort by providing host country support and advice on how to consider and structure their authorization processes, while helping proof of concept carbon credit transactions at large scale in the immediate future. EDF will also continue working toward strengthening CORSIA’s ambition in line with ICAO’s net zero carbon goal by 2050 and expanding its scope to cover all climate impacts, notably from condensation trails and nitrogen oxides, while minimizing public health impacts.

A narrow window and a real opportunity

The tenth anniversary of CORSIA’s adoption arrives alongside its first real test: a supply of eligible emissions units that, as it stands, covers only a fraction of what airlines will need to meet their Phase 1 obligations by January 2028 – not to mentioned larger demand for Phase 2 covering 2027-2035, which ICAO estimates between 880 and 1350 million tons. Closing the supply gap will take sustained, practical work in the countries positioned to generate units, paired with the kind of integrity and safeguards that make those credits trustworthy.

None of this is guaranteed, and the flight path between now and 2028 will have real challenges. But the pieces are visibly moving in the right direction, and the next year offers a rare opportunity to prove that a truly global carbon market can work – for aviation, and as a model for the climate finance architecture the world still needs to build.

The post CORSIA at a crossroads: The next year will determine its course appeared first on Energy Exchange.