News Feeds

 Companies bid on about 2% of the tracts offered for sale in the Gulf of Mexico.

The company will plead no contest to all six charges.

ExxonMobil will be bringing 40 to 60 new permanent jobs to the area.

The multi-year, $5 million software project should help operators better manage, treat and beneficially reuse produced water

Tabbs Bay is east of Houston near Baytown and La Porte. 

State regulators came under intense scrutiny in 2021 when it was discovered that one-third of its leadership lived out of state.

More than half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coast, so offshore wind sites are close to electricity demand centers.

We are able to track who actually builds and owns a large portion of the nation’s renewable energy.

Colorless and odorless, methane is a potent greenhouse gas that traps 83 times more heat in the atmosphere over a 20-year period than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

Two proposed wind farms off the Texas and Louisiana coasts would join offshore oil drilling rigs in the gulf as the Biden administration tries to boost the country’s clean energy supply.

A Morgan Stanley report updated Monday states that retail energy generation company Vistra could see huge windfalls from ERCOT's new 'reliability-based' business model.  

Researchers are increasingly linking oilfield activity and seismic activity, with a new report from the University of Texas at Austin connecting the two in the Delaware Basin.

The cost of electricity in Texas is tightly tied to the price of natural gas.

Lydia Larce has what she calls “storm PTSD.”

Pennsylvania is taking an important step toward reducing methane pollution from oil and gas operations. 

Governor Josh Shapiro and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced today that new methane standards are on the way for Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry, which will help protect public health, reduce climate pollution, and improve air quality for the more than 1.5 million Pennsylvanians who live near oil and gas infrastructure.  

Once finalized, these highly anticipated methane standards will implement the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 methane rule while allowing Pennsylvania to tailor federal standards to serve Pennsylvania’s needs as the country’s second-largest producer of gas.  

Why does methane matter? 

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that also affects the air we breathe. Oil and gas operations that leak methane often release other harmful pollutants at the same time, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These pollutants contribute to smog and have been linked to asthma, respiratory disease, cancer, and other serious health impacts. 

Reducing methane pollution is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to slow climate change while improving air quality, especially for people living closest to oil and gas operations. 

What is changing? 

The new standards are expected to strengthen methane leak detection and repair standards and expand protections to more well sites across the Commonwealth, regardless of size. This will help Pennsylvania dramatically lower air pollution and prevent the wasteful leakage of gas into our atmosphere. 

What comes next? 

DEP will begin developing the proposed standards through Pennsylvania’s regulatory process. There will be opportunities for the public to review the proposal and submit comments. Clean Air Council will continue advocating for strong methane protections that reduce pollution, improve public health, and hold oil and gas companies accountable for preventable methane emissions.  

Alice Lu, Policy Analyst at Clean Air Council, issued the following statement: 

“For decades, Pennsylvanians have fought for safeguards from the oil and gas industry’s methane pollution. Today, Governor Shapiro and DEP are answering that call by taking a much-needed, commonsense action to protect our frontline communities. Reducing methane emissions is one of the most effective ways to tackle climate change and improve air quality.” 

Want to stay informed? As DEP develops these standards, there will be opportunities for Pennsylvanians to weigh in. Sign up for Clean Air Council’s Action Alerts to learn how you can help shape stronger methane protections across the Commonwealth. 
 

By Lien De Brouckere, Global Batteries Lead, GAIA

.stk-6ff2893 {height:5px !important;}

The typical story about second-life EV batteries goes like this: EV batteries degrade, and instead of being sent for recycling, innovative companies give the viable ones a next-best life as stationary energy storage for another 10+ years — storing solar energy, shaving peak demand, keeping the lights on during outages. It’s something that we at GAIA strongly advocate for, and that’s why I visited Moment Energy’s new Megafactory 1 outside Vancouver late last month. 

I went to understand the state of the sector, what’s working, and where policy is falling short. What I didn’t expect was to walk away with an even more compelling story: repurposing surplus new EV batteries, outcompeting recycling companies for feedstock, and the need for more education about the key role stationary batteries play – whether new or repurposed – in reducing reliance on fossil fuels.   

Moment Energy is one of a small number of companies worldwide repurposing retired EV batteries at commercial scale. Their new facility in Surrey, BC is the world’s largest second-life battery operation, manufacturing 1 GWh of battery capacity by 2030.  Sumreen Rattan, one of Moment Energy’s co-founders and Chief Operating Officer, graciously hosted me at their facility that had just been inaugurated the week prior; staff and equipment were still at their other facility. 

Lien and Sumreen in front of the Moment Energy Full Luna 1 MWh battery energy storage system (BESS) — Photo by Matt Tonello. .stk-776650c {height:25px !important;} The Overproduction Problem

Here’s what caught my attention: today, Moment Energy’s primary feedstock isn’t retired EV batteries, because there are just not enough of those yet. It’s surplus battery production — cells and packs manufactured for EVs that were never installed in a vehicle, a direct consequence of the past few years’ massive overproduction. The large wave of genuinely end-of-life EV batteries is still ahead of us, with 953 GWh of capacity expected globally by 2030. Right now, the repurposing sector is partly running on the overflow from a manufacturing boom that outpaced demand.

Inauguration ceremony demonstration set-up of used EV batteries at Megafactory 1. — Photo by Matt Tonello.

This matters for how we frame the problem. Battery waste isn’t only about what happens at the batteries’ end-of-life — it starts upstream, with how many batteries are produced in the first place. GAIA has been drawing attention to the massive scale of battery overproduction – 2 to 5 times global demand – in our work on mineral demand reduction, and it was striking to see it show up so concretely on the factory floor.

.stk-dab987f {height:25px !important;} Outcompeting Recyclers — On Price

The other dynamic I learned about is how Moment Energy acquires batteries to repurpose. They work directly with OEM automakers, typically collecting retired batteries frequently at an average of 80% state of health. A battery leaving a car at that level of health isn’t worn out; it’s just no longer suited to the high-performance demands of an EV drivetrain. For stationary storage — where a battery sits in a stationary unit cycling energy, rather than accelerating a vehicle — it has potentially decades of useful life ahead.

Moment Energy covers all collection and transport costs, built into their business model. In some cases, they receive batteries at no charge, with logistics as the only cost. This means Moment Energy is competing with recyclers at the point of acquisition — and winning on economics. Recyclers typically charge OEMs for collection. Moment Energy doesn’t. For an automaker deciding where a battery goes, that’s a meaningful difference, and it’s one that policy should reinforce rather than leave to chance.

.stk-6a93e83 {height:25px !important;} What the Megafactory Does Differently

The facility is designed to operate under UL 1974 certification — the safety standard for evaluating and grading repurposed or remanufactured electric vehicle (EV) batteries — and backs its systems with a 10-year warranty. These aren’t incidental details. They’re the difference between a product that can be deployed in grid-connected places such as hospitals, airports, and commercial buildings and one that can’t. 

.stk-b43bf93 {height:25px !important;} Promotional video by Moment Energy — June 23, 2026. .stk-81e3b5c {height:25px !important;}

What is more, the Surrey facility is fully vertically integrated: batteries arrive, are tested at the cell level, assessed for second-life viability, repacked with Moment Energy’s own battery management system, assembled into commercial units, and shipped — all in-house.

One genuinely new capability is a cold environment chamber that accelerates battery degradation down to 60% state of health. This might sound like an obscure technical detail, but it matters: almost all existing industry modeling of battery performance stops at 80% SoH, the point at which a battery leaves an EV. Repurposers have largely been operating without good data on what happens after that. Moment Energy is building the testing infrastructure to understand the full second-life performance curve. No one else is doing this at commercial scale.

.stk-56e7529 {height:25px !important;} The Real Education Gap

One exchange from the visit has stayed with me. I asked whether the public and the market still needed convincing about second-life batteries — whether customer skepticism was a significant barrier. Sumreen Rattan pushed back on the framing.

“The education we need to do isn’t really about second-life batteries,” she said. “It’s about batteries in general — helping customers understand how storage saves them money through peak shaving and demand charge reduction. Once they get that, the second-life question takes care of itself.”

The examples that brought this to life were instructive. Moment Energy’s systems have been deployed alongside diesel generators in remote locations — including an island resort where their battery reduced diesel runtime by 75%. 

I was accompanied on the visit by Matthew Tonello, Project Executive at Consigli Construction Co., Inc., who is exploring whether and how Moment Energy’s systems could replace diesel generators in a university and a playhouse project currently in the design phases. This was a concrete illustration of what Moment Energy is selling to commercial and industrial customers facing cost penalties when demand spikes. I learned that the goal isn’t simply to swap one power source for another. What Moment Energy is really selling, increasingly, is participation in a broader energy management logic: a system that can anticipate when a building or facility is about to hit a demand peak, automatically shift to drawing power from the battery, and dial back grid or generator draw before costs spike. This kind of automated load management builds a strong financial case for batteries within a smarter overall energy infrastructure system. 

This education gap is a useful corrective. The conversation in civil society and policy circles often centers on convincing people that repurposed batteries are safe and reliable. But for many potential customers, the threshold issues — why would I want any battery storage at all and how do I use it? — are important first questions to address.

.stk-e0d5900 {height:25px !important;} Sumreen shows samples of battery modules for testing. — Photo by Matt Tonello. .stk-65ac1d1 {height:25px !important;} Where Policy Is Falling Short

Moment Energy has an active policy team in the US and Canada, although this doesn’t yet extend to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). That’s not unusual for a company at their stage, and it makes it all the more important that civil society organizations are present in the rooms where these frameworks are being designed.

Sumreen shared three important policy gaps to address.

There is no waste management hierarchy. In most jurisdictions, nothing requires that a battery be evaluated for second-life viability before it goes to a recycler. Recyclers compete for the same feedstock and have well-established collection infrastructure that gives them a structural advantage. Codifying a highest-and-best-use principle — second-life before recycling — would change the incentive structure in ways that market economics alone won’t deliver.

Data doesn’t travel with the battery. Assessing whether a battery is viable for repurposing requires its history: state of health, charge cycles, active faults, internal monitoring data. That information typically lives with the automaker and isn’t transferred when the battery changes hands. Without it, repurposers are partly testing blind. Battery passport frameworks need to address this directly, and civil society should be pushing for provisions that make this data accessible to the repurposing sector.

Tax incentives are doing heavy lifting — inconsistently. In the US market, Investment Tax Credit eligibility has been decisive for Moment Energy’s competitiveness against cheaper imported alternatives. But ITC rules weren’t designed with second-life batteries in mind, and eligibility isn’t always certain. Explicit policy design here — rather than leaving repurposers to navigate rules built for new battery manufacturing — would do more to level the playing field.

.stk-385dabd {height:25px !important;} What Comes Next

The repurposing sector is further along than many people realize — commercially viable, technically credible, and already out-competing recyclers on price for batteries that have years of useful life remaining. The feedstock wave is coming. The infrastructure is being built. What’s lagging is the policy environment.

For those of us working on battery waste, the task is ensuring that the frameworks being developed now — on extended producer responsibility, battery passports, safety certification — treat second-life as a genuine priority not only for retired EV batteries, but to leverage surplus batteries. 

The post A Visit to the World’s Largest Second-Life EV Battery Megafactory first appeared on GAIA.

Rachelle Vance was determined to see another flamingo. Two months after Hurricane Idalia swept a pink wave of the gangly birds through Florida and beyond in August 2023, the photographer from Crystal...

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

As exciting events continue in Philadelphia, learn how you can get around to major summer 2026 events without a car, or being stuck in traffic with GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes Map!

Image Source: WHYY

WHYY: Leave something on the train, bus or trolley? Here’s how to find it on SEPTA – Riders can look for lost items from SEPTA in the lost and found, but there’s more than one depending on where you left your item. For regional rail riders, the lost and found is in Suburban Station in Center City. Broad Street Line holds items at Fern Rock Transit Center and SEPTA headquarters on Market. Market-Frankford riders need to check the 69th Street Transit Center, and the depot holds unclaimed items from buses and trolleys.

Image Source: whyy

WHYY: Schuylkill River Passenger Rail Authority takes a baby step toward resurrecting passenger rail between Philadelphia and Reading – Amtrak and the Schuylkill River Passenger Rail Authority (SRPRA) signed a formal commitment to attempt to bring back passenger rail service between Philadelphia, Phoenixville, Pottstown, and Reading. It’s been over 40 years since passenger rail trains stopped in Phoenixville. The agreement means SRPRA intends for Amtrak to operate the lines, and Amtrak is willing to see the project through to the next phase.

Image Source: Zummo Bikes

Philadelphia Today: Young Mechanics Take the Lead in FOX 29’s Look Inside Zummo Bike – A non-profit in Chester County, Zummo Bikes is collecting, repairing, selling, and donating refurbished bicycles. Zumme Bikes is also a workforce development program, training students to fix bicycles and other components, see inside a small business, and develop customer service skills. Visit Zummo Bike’s website here.

Other Stories

6ABC: Pep rally held for Philadelphia Cycling Classic

Safe Routes Partnership: Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day Mini-Grants are Open!

BillyPenn: The Wissahickon’s 100 Steps connect a natural oasis to the city

WHYY: Philly-area police launch aggressive-driver campaign to reduce highway fatalities

Axios Philadelphia: SEPTA’s AI-powered cameras generated $14.5M in fines in the first year

Mass Transit Mag: Amtrak selects STV for static frequency converter replacement in Philadelphia

Farms.org: Why Rural Roads Account for 40% of U.S. Traffic Fatalities

There appears to be broad support for strengthening the independence of the grid operator’s board, possibly by moving to an advisory stakeholder process, and giving states more influence. Some also called for codifying the public interest in PJM’s mission.

This story was originally reported by Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter of The 19th. Meet Jenae and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.

While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.

“What if I were to tell you that every time you fill up a glass of water at your kitchen sink from the tap, you were actually *drinking* someone else’s abortion,” influencer Isabel Brown wrote in an Instagram post in May. In the accompanying video, the Gen Z conservative content creator, who has more than 1 million followers on her platform, talks to Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion organization, and contends that anti-abortion medication is “poisoning” the water.

The claim isn’t new. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have argued that abortion medications, primarily mifepristone, pollute the environment and put pregnant people’s health at risk. But the argument has now become part of a widespread and often coordinated effort to create federal and state policy that further suppresses abortion access.

On June 5, 14 Republican state attorneys general and 19 GOP lawmakers in Congress urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify and regulate mifepristone as a water contaminant. In two concurrent letters, officials argued that the abortion medication, part of a safe and effective two-drug regimen to terminate pregnancies, is “a growing threat to the country’s waterways” and violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

One letter was signed by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The other letter, led by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, made similar claims and was signed by 18 other GOP lawmakers.

Environmental health experts have consistently said there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication causes harm to the environment — or to humans. Both reproductive rights advocates and environmental scientists have said that the argument co-opts environmental policy as a pathway to weaponize and stigmatize health care.

“This is really part of a broader effort to restrict access to medication abortion,” said Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights. She said anti-abortion activists are increasingly turning to “every lever they can” as medication abortion has become the largest share of abortion care nationwide. Medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute data.

Does Oral Abortion Medication Really End Up in Drinking Water?

Anti-abortion advocates contend that over 50 tons of medical waste “including blood, placental tissue, and human remains” are flushed into water systems each year as a result of these drugs. They argue high concentration of the elements of mifepristone in water, specifically a hormone called progesterone, disrupts and reduces fertility in women. They also say that previous results of federal testing of mifepristone’s environmental impact are outdated.

Environmental health experts dismiss these claims. These experts consistently point out that there is no scientific basis for treating mifepristone or other abortion medication as a water contaminant. Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that mifepristone is used by a small fraction of the population and is typically taken as a one-time dose. By comparison, many pharmaceuticals taken daily by tens of millions of Americans enter wastewater systems in far greater quantities. He also noted that mifepristone was not included among nearly 700 pharmaceutical compounds the EPA previously screened for potential water contamination concerns.

Instead, Donley described the effort as an attempt to use environmental concerns as a pretext for limiting reproductive rights. He noted that while proponents are seeking to add mifepristone to the EPA’s 6th Contaminant Candidate List (CCL6), a preliminary list of substances that could potentially be considered for future drinking water regulation, placement on the list would not itself regulate the drug but could begin a lengthy review process.

Donley added that focusing on mifepristone distracts from well-documented water quality threats, including PFAS — known as forever chemicals — pesticides, lead and nitrate contamination.

“There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner. And then there are things that are out in the left field that just distract people,” Donley said.

Where Did This Argument Come From and Why Is It Gaining Traction Again Now?

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tested for the environmental effects of mifepristone and found “no significant impact.” In the June letter, lawmakers cite the FDA study, and urge “reconsideration” of potential harm to the environment.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, opponents have increasingly focused on limiting access to abortion medication and prescribing it through telehealth, which has become a critical pathway for people living in states with abortion bans.

But anti-abortion groups have ramped up efforts during the second Trump administration to advocate for the official classification of mifepristone as a water contaminant.

Last November, Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national anti-abortion group, met with the EPA to advocate for adding mifepristone to the CCL6 as the agency carried out a routine update to a separate list of health benchmarks for pharmaceuticals that must be tracked in drinking water.

The coordinated letters in June were timed toward the EPA’s 60-day comment period, which began in April and allowed members of the public to submit their thoughts on draft proposals to be reviewed by the agency.

“SFLA asks that mifepristone be tracked, given the reasonable cause for concern that regular and ongoing exposure to a progesterone blocker is impacting public health, endangered species, and the environment,” the anti-abortion group said in a statement on their website, adding that the group plans to take on the issue in every state. “You don’t have to be pro-life to want clean drinking water. You don’t have to be pro-life to be concerned that we are being ‘microdosed’ by progesterone blockers, which are a factor in rising infertility.”

The SFLA said it collected over 1,700 public comments to send to the EPA, and helped spearhead the 14-state campaign of letters from attorneys general to the EPA ahead of its public comment period for the CCL6.

The draft for the CCL6 received nearly 22,000 public comments before closing on June 5, public records show.

How Are Lawmakers Trying to Change Environmental Abortion Policies?

In 2025, anti-abortion policymakers introduced nine bills in seven states tying medication abortion to water pollution, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That same year, 25 members of Congress sent a similar letter asking the EPA to monitor for environmental harms of mifepristone. This March, U.S. Rep Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, introduced a Clean Water for All Life Act, citing similar claims of environmental degradation from abortion medication.

According to Bernstein and Guttmacher state policy adviser Kimya Forouzan, some proposals would require state agencies to test wastewater for abortion medications. Others would require patients to use so-called “catch kits” and medical waste bags to collect and return pregnancy tissue after taking abortion medication. Some bills would create liability for drug manufacturers if abortion medications were detected in wastewater.

While the bills vary, abortion rights advocates say they share a common goal: creating additional barriers to medication abortion access.

“The CCL is one part of a broad regulatory process. This draft list is then used to inform another list, which determines which contaminants are monitored and regulated, but the surveillance really does happen at a municipality and then state level,” Bernstein said, adding: “So this would be setting federal benchmarks for localities to monitor in their wastewater.”

To date, neither President Donald Trump nor EPA chief Lee Zeldin have explicitly spoken to any health risks of mifepristone in water. But the president and leading administration officials’ decision to stay silent on the issue may increase pressure from anti-abortion advocates, according to Bernstein.

“We anticipate that disinformation campaigns surrounding mifepristone, including these false claims on the environmental impact, will continue to escalate — particularly as abortion opponents are frustrated at a perceived lack of action by the Trump administration,” Bernstein told The 19th. “We know, however, that restricting access to abortion is politically unfavorable, and candidates may be hesitant to focus on these efforts before the midterm elections.

What Are the Stakes for Pregnant People?

As abortion rights and access have shrunk, Forouzan said that medication abortion has become a “lifeline” for many people seeking care after Dobbs, particularly through telehealth providers operating under shield laws, which are state-by-state legal protections to safeguard practitioners from being sued by states with abortion bans. As a result, anti-abortion officials at the state and federal level have increasingly focused on restricting the remaining ways people can access abortion care.

Forouzan said the push to monitor abortion medication in wastewater contributes to a broader “culture of surveillance” surrounding abortion. She said proposals to test wastewater for mifepristone raise concerns about how such monitoring data could eventually be used and whether it could increase scrutiny of people who obtain medication abortions.

Do These Claims Have the Potential to Affect Federal Policy?

The potential of environmental harms continues to shape policy for abortion and anti-abortion advocates. On the anniversary of Dobbs, Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat from Colorado, submitted a resolution to address the disinformation campaign, saying that water systems should “not be weaponized for the purposes of surveilling, tracking, or detecting use of, stigmatizing, and further restricting access to medication abortion care.”

Advocates also point to what they see as a contradiction in the campaign. Many of the same advocates and elected officials who support mifepristone monitoring have opposed other environmental hazard regulations. For example, in Indiana, where the state’s attorney general co-signed the letter, state lawmakers recently passed legislation to deregulate the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, an agency in charge of limiting pollution in the state’s air, water and soil.

The EPA has already taken action to recommend states begin testing drinking water for abortion medications. In April, the agency released a list of 374 drugs that states should monitor. While it does not include mifepristone, it does include other medications used in abortions such as misoprostol and methotrexate, commonly used in daily birth control and the NuvaRing contraceptive. It’s the first time the agency has designated pharmaceuticals as a contaminant group, according to an April press release.

The EPA did not respond to The 19th’s request for comment.

The EPA’s comment period allowed 60 days for the public to weigh in on the list before agency staff began reviewing the feedback and finalizing. Now that the June comment period has closed, whether the agency will ultimately add the medication to the list remains uncertain. However, when federal regulators previously reviewed environmental concerns related to mifepristone, they found no evidence warranting restrictions, according to Bernstein.

Bernstein and Forouzan said that anti-abortion states and lawmakers often learn from each other in order to pass bills in their respective states. Forouzan added these efforts work “parallel” to federal bill proposals, both with the same goal: to restrict further access.

“Its really just to restrict access to mifepristone and specifically to roll back requirements to force in-person dispensation, which would really limit access to a lot of folks.”

Four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, reproductive advocates say the evolution of anti-abortion campaigns continue to “severely restrict” access to care across the country. Thirteen states currently enforce total bans, and 6 explicitly prohibit telehealth use to provide abortion pills, according to Guttmacher Institute.

“It’s contributing to this culture of surveillance around medication abortion at a time when that is already increasing, and folks, especially in banned states, are facing increasing fear of criminalization,” Bernstein said. “There are concerns whether it will be eventually used for the criminalization of patients, in addition to creating a broader restriction of mifepristone and perpetuating these myths.”

The post No, Drinking Water Isn’t Contaminated By Abortion Pills appeared first on The Revelator.