Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘PR stunt’: how US utilities use housing non-profit partnerships to promote gas

News Feed
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

US gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use.The houses, which are sold at affordable rates to low-income families, are weatherized and meticulously insulated to boost efficiency and equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they also come with appliances powered by gas, a planet-heating fossil fuel that has been shown to degrade indoor air quality.The utilities say the homes provide lower electricity bills and affordable mortgages for vulnerable families.“It’s part of our culture to really give back to the communities that we serve,” Jennifer Altieri, vice-president of public affairs for Atmos Energy’s Colorado-Kansas division, said in a video announcing the utility’s first Habitat home in Evans, Colorado, in September 2021, which was provided to a single mother and her children.Yet Atmos has privately described the project as something closer to a public relations tactic, intentionally launched in a state that is “on the frontlines” of attempts to quell reliance on gas.Atmos has since expanded the Habitat partnerships to seven communities, with plans to launch similar initiatives in at least two more. National Fuel in the north-east, SoCal Gas in southern California, and Nicor in Illinois have also partnered with Habitat on zero-net energy (ZNE) projects.Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity International work on a house in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2019. Photograph: Jason Asteros/APThe moves by utilities to attach themselves to social justice causes come as the US is embroiled in a broader political culture war over federal, state and local attempts to phase out gas and make new buildings electric.The projects by Atmos and others have won widespread praise from gas interest groups. An autumn 2022 feature in Southeast Gas’s magazine Natural Living says the Atmos-Habitat partnerships promote “healthy living”, and that same year, its Evans, Colorado, home was a finalist for an ESG award from the Southern Gas Association.“These ZNE homes demonstrate that natural gas is a part of the solution to achieve our low-carbon energy future,” the award submission says.Habitat for Humanity International has participated in international climate negotiations and says it prioritizes climate safety. In a statement, the non-profit said: “We know that innovation is required so future construction doesn’t exacerbate the climate crisis.”Habitat for Humanity says it helps millions of people access affordable homes each year who are often “among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change”. But to do so, it relies on independent, locally run affiliates, which can decide how houses are built and funded.Asked about the perceived conflict between the gas utility partnerships and its climate-related statements, a spokesperson for the organization said the group’s affiliates “engage a wide range of partners”. The world is “facing a growing crisis in affordable, adequate housing” which requires “a multi-faceted challenge that demands non-profit organizations, individuals, corporate partners, elected officials and more to work alongside one another”, he said.A Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland, California, on 16 April 2010. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesHe said Habitat’s advocacy and partnerships were “designed to confront the housing crisis and ensure more people have a decent place to call home”. But critics say those arrangements appear to have opened the door for gas utilities to attach themselves to the organization and its reputation.“It’s a cynical PR stunt by the gas utilities,” said Itai Vardi, research and communications manager at the utility watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute, which provided some research about the partnerships to the Guardian. “We know that we need to transition very rapidly and dramatically off of fossil fuels, and there’s really no good reason to build new construction that is not all electric.”Zero-net energy homes“Zero-net energy” is a building standard requiring a home to produce as much energy as it uses. Builders first work to boost a home’s efficiency with insulation and air sealing, then equip the home with energy production capacity, such as solar panels.But efficient homes that still use gas should not be considered climate-friendly, said Mike Henchen, who leads the carbon-free buildings program at the pro-electrification non-profit RMI. “When it comes to climate, gas is part of the problem,” he said. “There’s this effort to hype natural gas as clean energy, but it’s not.”Gas is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more planet-warming than carbon dioxide in the short term.In the US, gas accounts for the vast majority of planet-heating pollution from buildings, which makes up more than one-10th of all US greenhouse gas emissions.The utilities say the projects illustrate that gas can be part of decarbonization efforts. Describing its Habitat partnerships to American Gas Magazine, a representative from the gas utility Nicor said: “These homes demonstrate the importance of natural gas as part of a diverse energy mix in a net-zero future.”Jennifer Golz, spokesperson for Nicor, said that “research shows a hybrid energy approach will help drive greater emissions reductions at lower overall costs” while improving reliability during extreme weather. A spokesperson for Atmos said: “We believe a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and preserves energy choice, rather than supporting specific fuels or technologies, will achieve goals of reducing emissions while maintaining energy reliability.”But climate experts agree that gas must be swiftly curbed to avert climate catastrophe.Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not directly respond to questions about that scientific consensus.In an emailed comment, a representative from Colorado’s Greeley-Weld Habitat affiliate said: “We have long constructed homes with a variety of energy sources, including natural gas and electricity.”Daniel Aldana Cohen, a co-director of the progressive thinktank Climate and Community Project, said the gas-powered ZNE projects made an unnecessary compromise: they tie access to affordable housing to increased planet-heating pollution.“The two great existential crises that most people face are eviction and climate breakdown, and the second one is making the first one worse,” said Aldana Cohen, whose research has informed federal Green New Deal for Public Housing proposals.Health concernsExperts have long warned that gas appliances can emit pollutants, including carcinogens. In recent years, a slew of studies have linked gas stoves to increased risk of childhood asthma, chronic lung disease and other health impacts.Low-income people and people of color may be at higher risk if exposed to these pollutants, as they are more likely to have asthma and other underlying respiratory issues due to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants.Gas trade groups note a recent World Health Organization-funded study found gas stoves had a non-significant impact on childhood asthma. The same study noted a connection between gas use and pneumonia and lower respiratory infections.Last year, US regulators suggested a potential eventual nationwide gas stove ban, though Biden later ruled out such a policy.A Nicor gas facility in Skokie, Illnois, in 2003. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty ImagesYet the utilities behind the partnerships have repeatedly referred to gas as “clean”. And during a dedication ceremony for a zero-net energy home built by a Habitat affiliate and Atmos in Lafayette, Louisiana, a representative from the utility claimed that the air quality in the home would be of “the best quality breathing air that you can have”.Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not respond to inquiries about whether the ZNE homes included gas stoves. But an Atmos representative in a December 2023 industry webinar said there was “natural gas cooking in these homes, in every single one of them”.Asked about concerns that gas appliances can degrade indoor air quality, a representative for Atmos Energy directed the Guardian to claims made by the American Gas Association, a major trade group for private gas utilities.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPublic relationsDespite evidence of the dangers of gas, utilities and their interest groups are using the Habitat partnerships as a public relations tool. The Energy Solutions Center, a trade association of gas utilities, cited the partnerships in a gas-promoting marketing document for its members, which was reviewed by the Guardian. (In an emailed statement, the executive director of Energy Solutions Center, Sonia Vahedian, pointed to recent studies that it said showed gas “remains essential for energy security and will significantly contribute to economic security beyond 2050”.)And during a December 2023 industry webinar, a recording of which was also reviewed by the Guardian, a representative from Atmos said that the project began as a response to attempts to ban gas in buildings.“In Colorado, they are a little bit on the frontlines, as far as some of the efforts to maybe dissuade people from utilizing natural gas,” a representative of the utility said. “And as such, that became the chosen site for our very first natural gas-fueled ZNE home build.”Another representative went on to describe the need to produce a “marketable” product. “Like everyone in the natural gas industry … we’ve kept an eye on the growing loud voice for green energy and squeezing out fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said, adding that the partnerships sought to show that “natural gas can be a part of that future solution or transition state”.The choice to “combine with renewables”, the representative says, is “kind of a great talking point that ‘hey, we’re partnering with renewables, we’re not against them.’”It’s a strategy that was highlighted in a congressional report last month, based on a tranche of subpoenaed internal documents. A 2018 draft presentation from BP said one way to “harness excitement” about renewables was to suggest gas could be a backup fuel source for wind and solar.Atmos representatives on the call also said Habitat had a “well-oiled machine in terms of public relations”.“Utilities enter into places where government investment is lacking and use that to promote its product, but also brandish its image through these kinds of PR stunts,” Vardi said.Environmental justiceEach ZNE home in these projects has gone to low-income members of vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people of color and veterans.“The gas companies,” said Aldana Cohen, “are essentially using poor people as human shields to perpetuate a business model that is going to do the most harm to poor people.”It’s not the only instance of fossil fuel interests hitching their wagon to this kind of advocacy. Reports show that utilities have long funded Black civil rights leaders; the NAACP in 2020 urged local chapters to stop accepting this funding.Promotional materials often say the ZNE homes can help lower energy bills.“Natural gas is really important to the homes we build because it’s reliable, predictable and affordable month to month,” a representative of the Habitat affiliate in Austin, Texas, said in a 2021 report on environmental, social and governance investments.In a 2022 call with financial analysts shared with the Guardian by the Energy and Policy Institute, Atmos’s CEO, Kevin Akers, said the ZNE homes demonstrated “the value and vital role natural gas plays in helping customers reduce their carbon footprint in a cost-effective manner”.Recent research, however, shows that newer, efficient electric appliances – such as heat pumps and induction stoves – can cost the same amount or even less to run as their gas-powered counterparts, though they can be more expensive to install.In some cases, utilities are also using customers’ money to pay to build the homes. In Mississippi, public utility commission documents shared by the Energy and Policy Institute show Atmos is recovering costs to build the ZNE homes from ratepayers.Zero-net?Though the projects are billed “zero-net energy” homes, it is not clear that they are always meeting that goal.SoCal Gas in 2017 partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Orange county on a ZNE home, and has touted the benefits of “dual-fuel” ZNE homes over all-electric ones, saying customers prefer them.But a 2021 study funded by SoCalGas and the California Energy Commission comparing two ZNE homes in the city of Stockton – one fully electric model and another home that included both solar panels and gas appliances – seemed to undercut the purported benefits of gas. Researchers found that the all-electric home produced more energy than it used, but the gas-powered model did not achieve ZNE status.In webinars held last year researchers noted that even when ZNE homes do not achieve “absolute zero”, they can still help to promote efficiency.ZNE homes with gas can meet the zero-net benchmark – in a statement, Atmos said its Habitat homes have done so – and not all fully electric ZNE homes necessarily achieve the goal. Still, Vardi said the SoCal Gas-funded study provided yet more evidence that gas is unnecessary. “There is really no reason to build new construction that is not all electric,” he said.Some Habitat partnerships show that this is possible.Habitat’s affiliate in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, built all-electric homes in partnership with a Cape Cod utility, which in 2021 were the “best-rated” Habitat homes in the nation in terms of efficiency. Another affiliate in Massachusetts’s Pioneer Valley built an affordable, all-electric ZNE home that won praise from the federal government.This year, the federal government announced $2bn for a coalition of non-profits including Habitat for Humanity International and Rewiring America to build fully electric low-income housing.The costsThe projects began amid a widespread lack of affordable housing in the US. A poll this year found that most US renters believe they will never be able to afford a home, and that a majority live in areas that are so unaffordable that they are “barely livable”. Meanwhile, US public housing stock shrank by 25% between 2009 and 2022, according to a recent analysis of federal data by Climate and Community Project.Habitat depends on financial donations to fund their work, which Aldana Cohen said created the opportunity for “dramatic inconsistency or contradiction, like using affordable housing to prop up the gas industry”.In another example, Habitat International, has accepted donations from the multinational fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries.“When you delegate things to any number of non-profits and for-profit companies, you’re far more likely to just get totally self-serving interventions,” he said.“There’s no reason to lock a single social policy priority, like affordable housing, into the survival of the fossil fuel industry,” he said.

Revealed: Four gas utilities have teamed up with Habitat for Humanity to build ‘zero-net energy homes’, investigation showsUS gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use. Continue reading...

US gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.

Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use.

The houses, which are sold at affordable rates to low-income families, are weatherized and meticulously insulated to boost efficiency and equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they also come with appliances powered by gas, a planet-heating fossil fuel that has been shown to degrade indoor air quality.

The utilities say the homes provide lower electricity bills and affordable mortgages for vulnerable families.

“It’s part of our culture to really give back to the communities that we serve,” Jennifer Altieri, vice-president of public affairs for Atmos Energy’s Colorado-Kansas division, said in a video announcing the utility’s first Habitat home in Evans, Colorado, in September 2021, which was provided to a single mother and her children.

Yet Atmos has privately described the project as something closer to a public relations tactic, intentionally launched in a state that is “on the frontlines” of attempts to quell reliance on gas.

Atmos has since expanded the Habitat partnerships to seven communities, with plans to launch similar initiatives in at least two more. National Fuel in the north-east, SoCal Gas in southern California, and Nicor in Illinois have also partnered with Habitat on zero-net energy (ZNE) projects.

Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity International work on a house in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2019. Photograph: Jason Asteros/AP

The moves by utilities to attach themselves to social justice causes come as the US is embroiled in a broader political culture war over federal, state and local attempts to phase out gas and make new buildings electric.

The projects by Atmos and others have won widespread praise from gas interest groups. An autumn 2022 feature in Southeast Gas’s magazine Natural Living says the Atmos-Habitat partnerships promote “healthy living”, and that same year, its Evans, Colorado, home was a finalist for an ESG award from the Southern Gas Association.

“These ZNE homes demonstrate that natural gas is a part of the solution to achieve our low-carbon energy future,” the award submission says.

Habitat for Humanity International has participated in international climate negotiations and says it prioritizes climate safety. In a statement, the non-profit said: “We know that innovation is required so future construction doesn’t exacerbate the climate crisis.”

Habitat for Humanity says it helps millions of people access affordable homes each year who are often “among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change”. But to do so, it relies on independent, locally run affiliates, which can decide how houses are built and funded.

Asked about the perceived conflict between the gas utility partnerships and its climate-related statements, a spokesperson for the organization said the group’s affiliates “engage a wide range of partners”. The world is “facing a growing crisis in affordable, adequate housing” which requires “a multi-faceted challenge that demands non-profit organizations, individuals, corporate partners, elected officials and more to work alongside one another”, he said.

A Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland, California, on 16 April 2010. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

He said Habitat’s advocacy and partnerships were “designed to confront the housing crisis and ensure more people have a decent place to call home”. But critics say those arrangements appear to have opened the door for gas utilities to attach themselves to the organization and its reputation.

“It’s a cynical PR stunt by the gas utilities,” said Itai Vardi, research and communications manager at the utility watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute, which provided some research about the partnerships to the Guardian. “We know that we need to transition very rapidly and dramatically off of fossil fuels, and there’s really no good reason to build new construction that is not all electric.”

Zero-net energy homes

“Zero-net energy” is a building standard requiring a home to produce as much energy as it uses. Builders first work to boost a home’s efficiency with insulation and air sealing, then equip the home with energy production capacity, such as solar panels.

But efficient homes that still use gas should not be considered climate-friendly, said Mike Henchen, who leads the carbon-free buildings program at the pro-electrification non-profit RMI. “When it comes to climate, gas is part of the problem,” he said. “There’s this effort to hype natural gas as clean energy, but it’s not.”

Gas is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more planet-warming than carbon dioxide in the short term.

In the US, gas accounts for the vast majority of planet-heating pollution from buildings, which makes up more than one-10th of all US greenhouse gas emissions.

The utilities say the projects illustrate that gas can be part of decarbonization efforts. Describing its Habitat partnerships to American Gas Magazine, a representative from the gas utility Nicor said: “These homes demonstrate the importance of natural gas as part of a diverse energy mix in a net-zero future.”

Jennifer Golz, spokesperson for Nicor, said that “research shows a hybrid energy approach will help drive greater emissions reductions at lower overall costs” while improving reliability during extreme weather. A spokesperson for Atmos said: “We believe a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and preserves energy choice, rather than supporting specific fuels or technologies, will achieve goals of reducing emissions while maintaining energy reliability.”

But climate experts agree that gas must be swiftly curbed to avert climate catastrophe.

Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not directly respond to questions about that scientific consensus.

In an emailed comment, a representative from Colorado’s Greeley-Weld Habitat affiliate said: “We have long constructed homes with a variety of energy sources, including natural gas and electricity.”

Daniel Aldana Cohen, a co-director of the progressive thinktank Climate and Community Project, said the gas-powered ZNE projects made an unnecessary compromise: they tie access to affordable housing to increased planet-heating pollution.

“The two great existential crises that most people face are eviction and climate breakdown, and the second one is making the first one worse,” said Aldana Cohen, whose research has informed federal Green New Deal for Public Housing proposals.

Health concerns

Experts have long warned that gas appliances can emit pollutants, including carcinogens. In recent years, a slew of studies have linked gas stoves to increased risk of childhood asthma, chronic lung disease and other health impacts.

Low-income people and people of color may be at higher risk if exposed to these pollutants, as they are more likely to have asthma and other underlying respiratory issues due to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants.

Gas trade groups note a recent World Health Organization-funded study found gas stoves had a non-significant impact on childhood asthma. The same study noted a connection between gas use and pneumonia and lower respiratory infections.

Last year, US regulators suggested a potential eventual nationwide gas stove ban, though Biden later ruled out such a policy.

A Nicor gas facility in Skokie, Illnois, in 2003. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Yet the utilities behind the partnerships have repeatedly referred to gas as “clean”. And during a dedication ceremony for a zero-net energy home built by a Habitat affiliate and Atmos in Lafayette, Louisiana, a representative from the utility claimed that the air quality in the home would be of “the best quality breathing air that you can have”.

Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not respond to inquiries about whether the ZNE homes included gas stoves. But an Atmos representative in a December 2023 industry webinar said there was “natural gas cooking in these homes, in every single one of them”.

Asked about concerns that gas appliances can degrade indoor air quality, a representative for Atmos Energy directed the Guardian to claims made by the American Gas Association, a major trade group for private gas utilities.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Public relations

Despite evidence of the dangers of gas, utilities and their interest groups are using the Habitat partnerships as a public relations tool. The Energy Solutions Center, a trade association of gas utilities, cited the partnerships in a gas-promoting marketing document for its members, which was reviewed by the Guardian. (In an emailed statement, the executive director of Energy Solutions Center, Sonia Vahedian, pointed to recent studies that it said showed gas “remains essential for energy security and will significantly contribute to economic security beyond 2050”.)

And during a December 2023 industry webinar, a recording of which was also reviewed by the Guardian, a representative from Atmos said that the project began as a response to attempts to ban gas in buildings.

“In Colorado, they are a little bit on the frontlines, as far as some of the efforts to maybe dissuade people from utilizing natural gas,” a representative of the utility said. “And as such, that became the chosen site for our very first natural gas-fueled ZNE home build.”

Another representative went on to describe the need to produce a “marketable” product. “Like everyone in the natural gas industry … we’ve kept an eye on the growing loud voice for green energy and squeezing out fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said, adding that the partnerships sought to show that “natural gas can be a part of that future solution or transition state”.

The choice to “combine with renewables”, the representative says, is “kind of a great talking point that ‘hey, we’re partnering with renewables, we’re not against them.’”

It’s a strategy that was highlighted in a congressional report last month, based on a tranche of subpoenaed internal documents. A 2018 draft presentation from BP said one way to “harness excitement” about renewables was to suggest gas could be a backup fuel source for wind and solar.

Atmos representatives on the call also said Habitat had a “well-oiled machine in terms of public relations”.

“Utilities enter into places where government investment is lacking and use that to promote its product, but also brandish its image through these kinds of PR stunts,” Vardi said.

Environmental justice

Each ZNE home in these projects has gone to low-income members of vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people of color and veterans.

“The gas companies,” said Aldana Cohen, “are essentially using poor people as human shields to perpetuate a business model that is going to do the most harm to poor people.”

It’s not the only instance of fossil fuel interests hitching their wagon to this kind of advocacy. Reports show that utilities have long funded Black civil rights leaders; the NAACP in 2020 urged local chapters to stop accepting this funding.

Promotional materials often say the ZNE homes can help lower energy bills.

“Natural gas is really important to the homes we build because it’s reliable, predictable and affordable month to month,” a representative of the Habitat affiliate in Austin, Texas, said in a 2021 report on environmental, social and governance investments.

In a 2022 call with financial analysts shared with the Guardian by the Energy and Policy Institute, Atmos’s CEO, Kevin Akers, said the ZNE homes demonstrated “the value and vital role natural gas plays in helping customers reduce their carbon footprint in a cost-effective manner”.

Recent research, however, shows that newer, efficient electric appliances – such as heat pumps and induction stoves – can cost the same amount or even less to run as their gas-powered counterparts, though they can be more expensive to install.

In some cases, utilities are also using customers’ money to pay to build the homes. In Mississippi, public utility commission documents shared by the Energy and Policy Institute show Atmos is recovering costs to build the ZNE homes from ratepayers.

Zero-net?

Though the projects are billed “zero-net energy” homes, it is not clear that they are always meeting that goal.

SoCal Gas in 2017 partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Orange county on a ZNE home, and has touted the benefits of “dual-fuel” ZNE homes over all-electric ones, saying customers prefer them.

But a 2021 study funded by SoCalGas and the California Energy Commission comparing two ZNE homes in the city of Stockton – one fully electric model and another home that included both solar panels and gas appliances – seemed to undercut the purported benefits of gas. Researchers found that the all-electric home produced more energy than it used, but the gas-powered model did not achieve ZNE status.

In webinars held last year researchers noted that even when ZNE homes do not achieve “absolute zero”, they can still help to promote efficiency.

ZNE homes with gas can meet the zero-net benchmark – in a statement, Atmos said its Habitat homes have done so – and not all fully electric ZNE homes necessarily achieve the goal. Still, Vardi said the SoCal Gas-funded study provided yet more evidence that gas is unnecessary. “There is really no reason to build new construction that is not all electric,” he said.

Some Habitat partnerships show that this is possible.

Habitat’s affiliate in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, built all-electric homes in partnership with a Cape Cod utility, which in 2021 were the “best-rated” Habitat homes in the nation in terms of efficiency. Another affiliate in Massachusetts’s Pioneer Valley built an affordable, all-electric ZNE home that won praise from the federal government.

This year, the federal government announced $2bn for a coalition of non-profits including Habitat for Humanity International and Rewiring America to build fully electric low-income housing.

The costs

The projects began amid a widespread lack of affordable housing in the US. A poll this year found that most US renters believe they will never be able to afford a home, and that a majority live in areas that are so unaffordable that they are “barely livable”. Meanwhile, US public housing stock shrank by 25% between 2009 and 2022, according to a recent analysis of federal data by Climate and Community Project.

Habitat depends on financial donations to fund their work, which Aldana Cohen said created the opportunity for “dramatic inconsistency or contradiction, like using affordable housing to prop up the gas industry”.

In another example, Habitat International, has accepted donations from the multinational fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries.

“When you delegate things to any number of non-profits and for-profit companies, you’re far more likely to just get totally self-serving interventions,” he said.

“There’s no reason to lock a single social policy priority, like affordable housing, into the survival of the fossil fuel industry,” he said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Dakota Access Pipeline Should Continue Operating, US Army Corps of Engineers Says

By Georgina McCartneyHOUSTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The ‌U.S. ​Army Corps of ‌Engineers on Friday released a long-anticipated Environmental Impact ​...

HOUSTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The ‌U.S. ​Army Corps of ‌Engineers on Friday released a long-anticipated Environmental Impact ​Statement for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), recommending that operations of the ‍oil pipeline continue with ​some conditions.The EIS, a document required by U.S. law ​to ⁠evaluate the environmental effects of major federal actions, is a win for DAPL operator Energy Transfer and a step closer to the end of a lengthy court battle between the company and ‌nearby Native American tribes, who have been fighting for ​the pipeline's ‌closure.The document recommends the continued ‍operation ⁠of DAPL, on the grounds that safeguards are put in place such as groundwater monitoring, fish tissue residue analyses and water and sediment sampling, as well as the deployment of new leak detection technology.A U.S. court in 2022 ordered the federal government to undertake a more intensive ​EIS of the 1,100-mile (1,800-km) crude pipeline's route as part of the dispute between Energy Transfer and the tribes who have cited risks to water quality as the pipeline runs through Lake Oahe, with the crossing around half a mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.The pipeline has continued to operate while the review is being carried out. It is the biggest oil pipeline ​from the Bakken shale oil basin and can transport up to 750,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois.It is not known whether USACE's ​recommendation will be implemented. (Reporting by Georgina McCartney in Houston; Editing by Paul Simao)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

We need to grow the economy. We need to stop torching the planet. Here’s how we do both.

The first thing that struck me about this year’s most talked-about policy book, Abundance (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), is a detail almost no one talks about.  The book’s cover art sketches a future where half of our planet is densely woven with the homes, clean energy, and other technologies required to fill every human […]

The first thing that struck me about this year’s most talked-about policy book, Abundance (perhaps you’ve heard of it?), is a detail almost no one talks about.  The book’s cover art sketches a future where half of our planet is densely woven with the homes, clean energy, and other technologies required to fill every human need, liberating the other half to flourish as a preserve for the biosphere on which we all depend — wild animals, forests, contiguous stretches of wilderness. It’s a beautiful ecomodernist image, suggesting that protecting what we might crudely call “nature” is an equal part of what it means to be prosperous, and that doing so is compatible with continued economic growth. It’s a visual rebuke to those who argue that we must choose between the two.  How would we do it?  The US and its peer countries today are spectacularly rich — unimaginably so, from the vantage of nearly any point in human history — and it might be tempting to think that we have grown enough, that our environmental crisis is so grave that we should save our planet by shrinking our economy and freeing ourselves from useless junk. I understand the pull of that vision — but it’s one that I think is illusory and politically calamitous, not to mention at odds with human freedom. A world where economic growth goes into reverse is a world that would see ever more brutal fighting over shrinking wealth, and it is far from guaranteed to benefit the planet. Yet that doesn’t change the essential problem: Climate change and the destruction of the natural world pose grave immediate threats to humans, and to the nonhuman life that is valuable in itself. And we are not on track to manage it.  It’s not easy to reconcile these realities, but it is possible and necessary to do so in a way that’s consistent with liberal democratic principles. Instead of deliberately shrinking national income, we can seek out the areas of greatest inefficiency in our economy and chart a path that gets the most economic gain for the least environmental harm. If growing the economy without torching the planet is feasible in principle — and I think it is — then we should fight for it to grow in the best direction possible.  Inside this story • Meat and dairy, plus our extreme dependence on cars, are two huge efficiency sinks: they produce a big share of emissions and devour land, and they aren’t essential to economic growth or human flourishing. • Shifting diets toward plant-based foods and freeing up land could act like a giant carbon-capture project, buying time to decarbonize. • Reducing car dependence would slash transport emissions, make land use more efficient, and make Americans healthier and safer — without sacrificing prosperity. We’ll need to build out renewables at breakneck speed and electrify everything we can, of course. But some of the most powerful levers we have to decouple economic growth from environmental impact challenge us to do something even harder — to begin outgrowing two central fixtures of American life that are as taken-for-granted as they are supremely inefficient: our extreme dependence on meat and cars.  Changing those realities is so culturally and politically heretical in America that this case is almost never made in climate politics, but it deserves to be made nonetheless. And doing so will require examining the trade-offs that we too often treat as defaults.  Two great efficiency sinks It’s probably not news to you that cars and animal-based foods are bad for the planet — together they contribute around a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and within the US. Animal agriculture also devours more than a third of habitable land globally (a crucially important part of our planetary crisis) and 40 percent of land in the lower 48 US states, while car-dependent sprawl fragments and eats into what’s left at the urban fringe.  We obviously need food and transportation, but meat and cars convert our planet’s resources into those necessities much more wastefully than the alternatives: plant-based food, walking, public transportation, and so on. And in a climate-constrained economy that still needs to grow, we don’t have room to waste. Beef emits roughly 70 times more greenhouse gases per calorie than beans and 31 times more than tofu; poultry emits 10 times more than beans and four to five times more than tofu. Mile-for-mile, traveling by rail transit in the US emits about a third as much as driving on average, while walking doesn’t emit anything.  For all that resource use, animal agriculture and autos are not indispensable to our economy or to our continued economic growth. The entire US agricultural sector, plus the manufacture and servicing of automobiles, make up a tiny share of our GDP; like other advanced economies, America’s is largely service-based, employing workers in everything from health care to law firms to restaurants and retailers like Amazon and Walmart. Of course, agriculture, energy, and manufacturing are foundational to everything else in the economy — without farming, Chipotle and Trader Joe’s would have no food to sell, and more importantly, we would starve. To say that agriculture isn’t a major part of our economy isn’t to say that it’s not really important to having an economy.  But it is, unsurprisingly, those foundational parts of the economy that disproportionately drive resource use and environmental impact — and because they’re a small share of the economy, we have a lot of room to change their composition without crashing GDP.  If we shifted a chunk of our food production away from meat and dairy and toward plant-based foods, for example, the already economically tiny ag sector might shrink somewhat. Meanwhile, we would save a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and land, and it would be reasonable to infer that the food service and retail sectors, which make up a significantly larger share of US GDP than agriculture does, would function all the same because we’d still eat the same number of calories and buy the same amount of food. With less meat consumption, the US might even have a significantly bigger alternative protein sector, with cleaner, better jobs than farm or slaughterhouse work.   Which is not to say there wouldn’t be any losers in the short run — job losses and stranded capital in industries that are regionally concentrated and politically powerful. But those transitions can be managed, just as we have been managing the transition away from fossil fuels.   This is exactly what decoupling — the idea that we can grow richer while decreasing emissions and other environmental impacts — looks like. The US, like a lot of other developed countries, has largely managed that in carbon emissions from energy consumption, which have fallen around 20 percent since 2005, even as the economy has grown about 50 percent in real terms. Agriculture has become more efficient, too, but it still lags on decoupling; the sector’s emissions are mostly flat or rising. Road transport tells a similar story: cars and trucks have gotten more efficient, but total emissions from driving are still stuck near their mid-2000s levels. Admittedly, it’s easier to decouple for energy than it is to change the way we eat or move around. A megawatt is a megawatt, whether it’s produced by coal or solar, while switching from steak to beans is not the same experience. But learning how to use resources more efficiently is, after all, a big part of how wealthy nations have become wealthy, including in these tougher sectors. Despite how inefficient our food system still is, the US has managed to significantly decrease how much land it uses for farming over the last century, while producing much more food. We could go much further if we weren’t so reliant on eating animals.  Now, you might be thinking, so what if American GDP doesn’t depend on meat and cars? People like them, and they’re part of what it means to be rich and comfortable in the modern world. And you would have a point. No one would say that heating and cooling shouldn’t exist (well, the French might) just because they use a lot of energy and make up a tiny share of the economy.   But every choice we make in the economy is a trade-off against something else, and everything we spend our limited carbon budget on is a choice to forgo something else. Our task is to decide whether high meat intake and extreme car dependence are worth that trade — whether they make up for their toll on the planet in contributions to our economy or to our flourishing as human beings.  The “eating-the-Earth” problem We can start with animal agriculture, because however bad for the planet it looks on first impression, it’s actually worse.  Estimates of the livestock industry’s greenhouse gas emissions range from around 12 to 20 percent globally; in the US, it’s around 7 percent (despite the lower percentage, per capita meat consumption is substantially higher in the US than it is globally — it’s just that our other sources of emissions are even higher). But those numbers don’t account for what climate scientists call the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture’s land use.  This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect’s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com! Recall that farming animals for food takes up a massive amount of land, because we need space for the animals and for the crops needed to feed them. Meat and dairy production hogs 80 percent of all agricultural land to produce what amounts to 17 percent of global calories. Much of it could instead be rewilded with climate-stabilizing ecosystems, which would support biodiversity and also happen to be among our best defenses against global warming because of how good they are at sequestering carbon.  How big would the impact be? The canonical paper on the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture finds that a 70 percent reduction in global meat consumption, relative to projected consumption levels in 2050, would remove the equivalent of about nine years of carbon emissions, while a global plant-based diet would remove 16 years of emissions; another study concludes that a rapid phaseout of animal agriculture could effectively freeze increases in all greenhouse gases over the next 30 years, and offset most carbon emissions this century. It’s worth pausing to appreciate just how miraculous that is. Freeing up even some of the land now used for meat and dairy turns it into a negative-emissions machine better than any existing carbon capture technology, giving us a carbon budget windfall that could ease the phaseout of fossil fuels and buy time for solving harder problems like decarbonizing aviation. This is as close as it gets to a free lunch, as long as you’re willing to make it a vegan lunch.  Organizing society around cars doesn’t make sense  We can think of car dependence as the other big resource black hole in US society. Transportation is the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and cars are the biggest source within that category, accounting for about 16 percent of all US emissions. Globally, gas-powered cars are in retreat — a very good thing for both climate change and deadly air pollution, though the US is increasingly falling behind peer countries in auto electrification.  Still, if it were just a matter of swapping out gas-guzzlers for EVs, auto transportation wouldn’t be an obstacle to truly sustainable growth. But EVs alone aren’t a silver bullet for repairing the environmental problems of cars.  One influential paper on the subject found as much in 2020, concluding that, at any realistic pace of electrification, EV growth wouldn’t be enough to meet climate targets, and even with universal adoption, EVs aren’t emissions-free. They take lots of energy to make — especially those heavy batteries — and an enormous amount of steel and critical minerals. These are scarce inputs that we also need to decarbonize the electric grid and build other green infrastructure.  That isn’t to say that EVs aren’t better for the climate than gas-powered vehicles — they absolutely are. But as the lead author of that paper wrote in an accompanying commentary, “The real question is, do you even need a car?” The problem is not the existence of cars, but our total dependence on them. In most of the country, Americans have no other convenient transportation options. And remember, we’re trying to optimize for the least resources used for the most economic upside. Organizing society around the movement of hundreds of millions of two-ton metal boxes is… obviously not that, and the reasons why go well beyond emissions from the cars themselves. The car-dependent urban form that dominates America forces us to build things spread far apart — sprawl, in other words — which forces us to use more land. As of 2010, according to one estimate, the US devoted a land area about the size of New Jersey to parking spots alone.   Our cities and suburbs occupy less than one-tenth as much land as farming — about 3 percent of the US total — but they still matter for the environment, fragmenting the habitats on which wildlife and ecosystems depend. Plus, housing in the US is sprawling enough that some exurban communities stretch across outlying rural counties, occupying an unknown additional share of land that’s not included in the 3 percent figure.   Perhaps most damaging from an economic perspective, the sprawling development pattern that car dependence both enables and relies upon has driven the misallocation of valuable land toward low-density single-family homes, driving our national housing crisis. Cars are by no means the sole reason behind the housing shortage, but without mass car dependence, it would be vastly harder to lock so much of our land into inefficient uses. Meanwhile, Americans pay dearly for car dependence in the form of costly infrastructure and tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year. Urbanists sometimes like to say that the US prioritizes cars over people — that an alien arriving on Earth would probably think cars are our planet’s apex species. In some senses, that’s certainly true — the privileges that we’ve reserved for cars make it harder to meet the basic human need of housing, which makes us poorer and diminishes the agglomeration effects that make cities dynamic and productive. One widely cited paper estimated, astonishingly, that housing supply constraints, especially in the highest-productivity cities, cut US economic growth by 36 percent, relative to what it would have been otherwise, from 1964 to 2009. Imagine how much higher the GDP of Los Angeles would be if it doubled its housing stock and population and, with its freeways already maxed out, enabled millions more people to get around on foot, bike, and transit.  And, of course, since autos and animal products are both very high in negative externalities, the benefits of reducing our collective dependence on them go well beyond the strictly economic or environmental. Americans would spend less money managing chronic disease and die fewer premature deaths (in the case of meat and dairy, probably, and in the case of cars, undoubtedly). We would torture and kill fewer animals (and fewer people would have to spend their working lives doing the killing). We would help keep antibiotics working, and we might even prevent the next pandemic.  But will we do it? The growth that brought us industrial modernity is an awe-inspiring thing: It’s given us an abundance of choices, and it’s made obsolete brutal ways of life that not long ago were a shorthand for prosperity, like coal mining or the hunting of whales to make industrial products. Prosperity can be measured concretely in rising incomes and lengthening lifespans, but it’s also an evolving story we tell ourselves about what constitutes the good life, and what we’re willing to trade to get it.  With cars, at least, we might have the seeds of a different story. Dethroning the automobile in car-loving America remains a grueling, uphill battle, and I wouldn’t necessarily call myself optimistic, but transportation reform flows quite naturally from the changes we already know we need to make to solve our housing shortage.  The best way to reduce the number of miles we drive is to permit a greater density of homes anywhere where there’s demand for it, especially in the parts of cities that already have the affordances of car-free or car-light life (and it’s definitely not all or nothing — I own a car and can appreciate its conveniences, while driving maybe a quarter as much as the average American). The housing abundance movement is winning the intellectual argument necessary to change policy in that direction. And maybe most crucially, we know many Americans want to live in these places — some of the most in-demand homes in the country are in walkable neighborhoods. If we make it easy to build lots of housing in the centers of growing cities, people will move there.  But animal agriculture, barring a game-changing breakthrough in cell-cultivated meat, is a somewhat different story. It’s one thing to show that we’re not missing out on economic growth by forgoing meat, and quite another to persuade people that eating less of it isn’t a sacrifice — something the plant-based movement hasn’t yet figured out how to do. At bare minimum, we ought to be pouring public money into meat alternatives research. There’s no shortage of clever policy ideas to nudge consumer choices in the right direction — but for them to succeed rather than backfire terribly, people have to want it. And to that end, I’d encourage anyone to discover the abundance of a low- or no-meat diet, which is an easier choice to make in most of America than escaping car dependence.  Right now, our livestock and our automotive herd squander the resources that could be used to make industrial modernity sustainable for everyone. We grow less than we might because we waste so much on cars and meat. Reclaiming even a fraction of that capacity would make the math of decoupling less brutal, freeing us to build whatever else we can imagine. There’s no guarantee we’ll make that choice, or make it in time — but the choice is ours.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

India’s Push for Battery Recycling Promises Jobs, Clean Energy and Mineral Security

Reusing, recycling and repurposing batteries can reduce dependence on hard to obtain critical minerals and create a $9 billion industry, according to energy analysts

BENGALURU, India (AP) — Across India, battery recycling faces a mixture of challenges and opportunity as it plays an important role in the country's shift to clean power.A fledgling system has taken off in the past decade for recovering materials from the batteries used in electric vehicles, smartphones and other consumer electronics. The valuable minerals these companies recover — such as lithium, cobalt and nickel — are then reused in India’s growing fleet of electric vehicles and solar power installations. Recycling and repurposing batteries is a key to reducing dependence on imports for hard-to-obtain metals. “More than 40% of the country's copper and aluminum needs are met by recycling scrap and we want to aspire for the same when it comes to lithium, cobalt and nickel,” said Rajat Verma, founder and CEO of Lohum Cleantech, a 7-year-old battery manufacturing and recycling company based in Noida near India's capital New Delhi.A formalized system can potentially create 100,000 green jobs and meet nearly 40% of the country’s demand for key minerals, according to a November study by the renewable energy think tank RMI. The report found that an industry around recycling and reusing batteries could be worth $9 billion as India's battery demand skyrockets, mostly due to EVs.“What’s exciting about these materials is it’s not like plastics. You can recycle them for perpetuity and they can still have material strength and the quality you need once you refine them,” said Marie McNamara, a manager with RMI’s India program who was one of the authors of the report.But the system faces challenges. India currently has 60,000 tons of battery recycling capacity, but not all of it is used because supply chains are still being developed to supply the recovered materials to factories. One reason for this is that most of India's waste recycling is done by informal workers — estimated to be as many as four million, who deal with a variety of scrap materials beyond batteries and work without any formal contracts. Gaps between policy and implementation India is among the highest emitters of planet-heating gases as the world’s most populous nation provides power for billions of people. At the same time, its clean energy sector has grown rapidly, led by adoption of solar power and electric vehicles. India's government passed battery waste management rules in 2022 that mandate environmentally safe disposal and management of battery waste. But given the largely informal nature of scrap recycling in India, experts and recycling companies said the rule has been poorly implemented so far. Recycling in an environmentally friendly way is another challenge.The rules mandate producers meet specific collection and recycling targets for various battery types. The rules include heavy fines for violators. However, there are no specific outlets for discarded batteries and each company has to set up their own systems for recycling. Experts said a lack of a well-structured recycling industry makes it difficult for companies to implement the rule. Jaideep Saraswat, an energy expert with New Delhi-based Vasudha Foundation, said India has moved “surprisingly fast from a policy perspective,” but the right battery recycling supply chain is still missing. How battery recycling works A typical electric car battery is about 1.5 meters (5 feet) long, weighs up to 400 kilograms (882 pounds) and is usually designed to last for at least 160,000 kilometers (99,400 miles) which is usually reached after 8 to 12 years of use. Up to 90% of an EV battery's contents can be extracted after use if recycled properly.Recycling processes vary, but two common means are “shredding” battery modules into fine powder using machines or smelting them in industrial furnaces. The products of these processes are often then processed using acids or other chemicals to recover specific metals.Alternatively, discarded batteries can be repurposed to store excess solar and wind energy for homes and small shops. Repurposing involves testing the battery for defects and cleaning its components before it is sold for reuse. Toxic contaminants are at times dumped illegally by recyclers, which can cause environmental pollution, said Nishchay Chadha, CEO of U.S.-based ACE Green recycling, which has operations in India. If not done properly, recycling lithium batteries can emit carbon monoxide and other hazardous gases. The recycling process also usually produces wastewater containing heavy metals that can contaminate soil and water if improperly disposed. “We’ve not expanded much in India because we don’t see much appreciation for clean operations, whether it’s lead or lithium,” he said.RMI’s McNamara urged India to set up training programs to help scrap workers transition to more formal jobs. She said the government at the federal and state level should also provide support to the businesses who can hire these workers. “Formalization will really help drive safety and accountability, especially considering that batteries are both defined by their toxicity as well as their potential,” she said. Reducing dependence on imported minerals Globally, critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt are essential for products ranging from smartphones to electric cars. However, China controls much of the critical mineral supply chain through mining, refining and processing, according to the International Energy Agency.India doesn’t yet have any operational mines for lithium and some other key minerals, and like most of the world is dependent on its Asian neighbor. Energy experts said that effectively recovering minerals from used products can meet an important need.However, India should take baby steps first, said Chadha of ACE Green Recycling. Chadha said China takes recycling seriously because it's an important part of the supply chain, even though it’s often unprofitable by itself. “They also actually lose money on recycling, but they look at it as part of the whole puzzle where recycling is a critical part and they’re looking at making money across the whole value chain,” he said.Others in the battery sector are optimistic. “If the momentum that is there in India today continues, in my opinion, we can probably create five multibillion dollar giants in this industry,” said Verma of Lohum Cleantech.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

House Backs Bill to Speed Permitting Reviews for New Energy and Infrastructure Projects

The House has approved bipartisan legislation aimed at speeding up permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects and limiting judicial review

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House approved legislation Thursday aimed at speeding up permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects and limiting judicial review.The bill, dubbed the SPEED Act, would enact the most significant change in decades to the National Environmental Policy Act, a bedrock environmental law that requires federal agencies to consider a project’s possible environmental impacts before it is approved. The bill was approved, 221-196, and now goes to the Senate.Republicans and many Democrats believe the 55-year-old law has become mired in red tape that routinely results in years-long delays for major projects. The law requires detailed analysis for major projects and allows for public comments before approvals are issued. A recent study found that environmental reviews total hundreds of pages and take nearly five years to complete.The House bill would place statutory limits on environmental reviews, broaden the scope of actions that don’t require review and set clear deadlines. It also limits who can bring legal challenges and legal remedies that courts can impose. “The SPEED Act is a focused, bipartisan effort to restore common sense and accountability to federal permitting,'' said Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, the bill's chief sponsor.While NEPA was passed “with the best of intentions,” it has become unwieldly in the decades since, said Westerman, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and has long pushed for permitting reform."Unfortunately, what was meant to facilitate responsible development has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our country run,'' Westerman said Thursday on the House floor.Democrats agreed that the permitting process has become unwieldy, but said the House bill does not address the real causes of delay and undercuts public input and participation while overly restricting judicial review.“The SPEED Act treats environmental reviews as a nuisance rather than a tool to prevent costly, harmful mistakes," said California Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources panel. “Weakening environmental review won’t fix permitting challenges (and) won’t help us build the clean energy future that we need,” Huffman said. "Gutting NEPA only invites more risk, more mistakes, more litigation, more damage to communities that already face too many environmental burdens.”Huffman and other Democrats also complained that the bill could harm wind and solar projects that are being shut down by the Trump administration. A last-minute change this week allows the administration to continue to block some offshore wind projects, bending to demands by conservatives who oppose offshore wind.The American Clean Power Association, which represents wind developers, pulled its support for the bill because of the changes, which were demanded by Republican Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.The GOP amendment “fundamentally changed legislation that represented genuine bipartisan progress on permitting reform,'' said Jason Grumet, the group's CEO. “It’s disappointing that a partisan amendment .... has now jeopardized that progress, turning what should have been a win for American energy into another missed opportunity.”Harris, who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, defended the change, which he said “will protect legal actions the Trump administration has taken thus far to combat the Biden offshore wind agenda,” including a project in Maryland that the administration has moved to block. Westerman called the change minor and said that without it, "we probably would not have gotten permitting reform done.” Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, the bill's co-sponsor, said lawmakers from both parties have long agreed that "America’s broken permitting system is delaying investments in the basics we need — energy, transportation and housing. Support for the measure "gives me hope that Congress is finally ready to take the win'' on permitting reform, Golden said.House approval of the permitting measure shifts focus to the Senate, where a broader deal that includes changes to the Clean Water Act to facilitate pipeline projects and transmission lines is being considered. Democrats, including Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, also are pursuing legislation to make it harder for Trump to cancel permits for clean-energy projects. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Texas environmental agency struggles with backlogs after years of budget cuts, study finds

Years of budget reductions have left the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality struggling to investigate complaints, with over 1,000 cases stuck in backlog.

The Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The Environmental Protection Agency rejected a permit this week for a proposed oil export terminal offshore from Corpus Christi. (Pu Ying Huang | The Texas Tribune)The Texas Commission for Environmental Quality has struggled to keep up with enforcement claims amid years of cuts to the state environmental agency’s budget, according to a recent study. When adjusted for inflation, TCEQ’s budget was cut by roughly one-third between 2010 and 2024, even as the number of regulated industrial facilities in the state increased, according to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project. The agency in 2010 had a budget of $539 million. The agency most recently worked on a $407 million budget in 2024. That reduction coincides with a case backlog TCEQ faces. As of August, the agency reported a backlog of 1,480 enforcement cases. In some cases, claims remain untouched for several years, said Kathryn Guerra, a former TCEQ employee who now works as an agency watchdog with the nonprofit group Public Citizen. “Historically, the agency’s own enforcement policy was to hold enforcement cases for several years,” said Guerra, who also worked with EIP for their Texas analysis. “And that unfortunately created for the TCEQ a really extensive backlog of pretty complex cases. In one instance, very recently, we saw an enforcement case go before the commissioners for approval, that was 10 years of enforcement action.” RELATED: Harris County secures legal win against TCEQ over grace period for concrete plants According to the TCEQ, of the 9,198 complaints filed in 2025, just 6% of claims were investigated within five days. Nearly 55% of claims took a month or more to address. That could leave some communities without recourse, said Andrew Quicksall with SMU’s environmental health and compliance quality program. “It’s like any other sort of enforcement or investigation that you may do,” Quicksall said. “Eventually things get backlogged to a point where you can’t address them. And we have those problems where we have environmental claims that go without investigation because the backlog is so large.” Quicksall also said cuts at the federal level have also strained the TCEQ’s enforcement bandwidth. In the past, the EPA would help investigate state claims, but as the federal agency faces its own cuts, state cannot rely as much as in year prior. The EIP’s report also found that during the last legislative session, TCEQ requested nearly $60 million in additional funding and over 150 new staff positions to address its growing workload. Following the 2025 Legislative Session, lawmakers only approved part of TCEQ’s $60 million and increased staffing request only granting the agency 67 new positions and a $47 million budget. That limited funding can shape how vigorously the agency pursues enforcement, Guerra said. “TCEQ has discretion to implement its own enforcement policies, and we’re seeing those policies be very lenient towards industry,” he said. “The agency can be its own worst enemy with those enforcement policies because they’ve created a really complex backlog of cases by just holding them. Ultimately, what that means is that the communities that are suffering from environmental harm are not seeing any relief.” TCEQ declined to provide a comment for this story, but the agency did send its annual enforcement policy report. In that report the agency says nearly a third of complaints are never investigated by the TCEQ but are either referred to another agency or are closed because of insufficient information. The agency does acknowledge in its report that it has steered away investigators from enforcing new complaints because they were assigned to reducing its backlog. Texas has seen a boom in industry and population in recent years. Advocates warn that if those trends continue, the reduced TCEQ budget may not be able to keep up with new enforcement claims in both existing and new sectors like data centers coming into the state. In North Texas, Google already has two data centers in Red Oak and Midlothian with plans to build two more centers in the coming years. Google alone plans to invest $40 billion in Texas over the next two years. Other companies have also made plans in recent months, with millions of dollars coming to the state. While state leaders have been eager to bring in these facilities, the massive centers use a significant amount of energy and water. TCEQ, in a letter to the state legislature, warned increases in permits and new technologies like AI data centers could strain the agency’s operation. “Without additional resources, it will be difficult for TCEQ to meet the increasing demands placed on the agency, including emerging technologies, and maintain state primacy for many of its programs.” the agency told lawmakers ahead of this year’s session. Guerra worries growing industry could strain the already stretched investigators. “I’m very concerned about the TCEQ’s capacity to regulate the industries it presently regulates and with this really booming expansion of AI and data centers that, by nature, take up significant resources and thereby need regulating,” said Guerra. Despite seeing a marginal increase in the past few years, the TCEQ is not positioned to handle growing demand, according to SMU’s Quicksall. “Our population is exploding,” Quicksall said. “And that’s kind of a hidden issue here. We should be increasing [the budget] because of our increasing population. These state budget numbers that come out are not per capita of the total budget. But of course, our emissions, our environmental needs, roughly, are per capita. And so while you see the last three and now four years as increases, in reality, we’ve only just now gotten back to where we were 15 years ago.” Emmanuel Rivas Valenzuela is KERA’s breaking news reporter. Got a tip? Email Emmanuel at erivas@kera.org. KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.