How Reducing Methane Emissions is Fueling Jobs and Innovation At Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship (CRS), we are firm believers in the old adage: waste not, want not. To that end, we have been advocating for standards that reduce the amount of natural gas (methane) we lose through leaks, shoddy maintenance, unnecessary flaring, etc. And as we work to reduce methane waste and pollution, we are witnessing just how conservation and economic prosperity go hand in hand. Not only does this work conserve a valuable energy resource, but it is spurring job growth and economic opportunity. A new analysis by Datu Research shows just how a costly waste problem has spawned a growing industry that is creating jobs, strengthening local economies, and reducing natural gas waste. This ensures that our energy production is cleaner and more efficient. A Booming Industry The methane mitigation industry is rapidly expanding, creating high-quality jobs and driving innovation in emissions-reducing technology. This growth isn’t accidental—it’s fueled by smart policies that provide regulatory certainty, allowing businesses to develop cost-effective solutions. States like Texas, California, and Colorado are leading the way, demonstrating that environmental responsibility and economic opportunity go hand in hand. Datu Research’s latest findings highlight the rapid expansion of methane mitigation: • The number of methane mitigation firms has jumped 23.7% since 2021, reaching 268 companies. • Employee locations have grown by 39%, totaling 1,040 nationwide. • Texas is the industry’s epicenter, home to 291 company locations—28% of the national total. • California and Colorado remain at the forefront of innovation, with 87 and 74 locations, respectively. • Leak detection and measurement technology leads the...
David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, is featured in an op-ed published in The Invading Sea titled Here’s why FPL, Duke and TECO want the Public Service Commission to raise your power bills. The piece looks at a request from Florida’s largest utilities asking state regulators to approve higher electricity rates. It explains how companies like Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, and Tampa Electric rely heavily on natural gas and other fossil fuels, which are tied to volatile global markets. When fuel prices rise, those costs are passed directly through to customers’ monthly bills. The op-ed also points to the role of aging power plants and long-term infrastructure costs, which utilities recover through rate increases approved by the Public Service Commission. The result, according to the piece, is that many of these underlying costs ultimately show up in what households pay each month for electricity. Read the full op-ed here:...
While most Floridians were enjoying some time off over the holidays, the folks at the state’s monopoly utilities — Florida Power & Light (FPL), Duke and Tampa Electric (TECO) — were busy playing Scrooge. They were asking permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to batter their customers with yet another post-hurricane rate hike. On Dec. 27, Duke and TECO filed requests with the PSC to hit their customers up for an extra $262 million and $281 million, respectively. FPL shopped early, securing approval for a $1.2 billion hike on Dec. 4. This is all on top of base rate hikes. The PSC recently approved huge base rate hikes for Duke and TECO. Duke customers are paying an extra $21 per month, with TECO customers on the hook for an extra $9 per month. Those base rates will go up even further in 2026 — and that’s not counting the requested storm-related hikes. FPL customers will likely get the same double whammy. In addition to its hurricane-related charges, on Dec. 30 the utility filed a base rate request to charge customers an extra $1.55 billion starting in 2026. And thanks to some clever, if disingenuous, utility talking points, much of the press coverage has parroted their spin, ludicrously framing these hikes as a win for consumers. For example, when Duke secured its base rate hike, the headline in the Tampa Bay Times was: “Florida Duke Energy customers will see smaller rate hikes on their bills next year.” Smaller than what? Well, smaller than the $820 million hike Duke initially said it wanted. The real headline should have been the...
When it comes to Florida state officials, the lyrics from an old Sam Cooke song come to mind: “Don’t know much about … ,” but instead of “history,” the word here is “energy.” And that would be putting it mildly. Mind-numbing ignorance would be a more accurate description, and Floridians are paying the price with skyrocketing utility bills and unbearable insurance costs. In fact, in 2023 Florida’s energy bills were the fourth highest in the nation. One problem is that most Florida decision-makers either don’t understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge, the basic fundamentals of today’s energy market. While that market, both in the U.S. and globally, has changed dramatically over the past decade, the attitudes of Florida’s officials have not. Energy sources that used to be the cheapest, like coal and natural gas, have gotten much more expensive, while sources that used to be cost prohibitive, like solar, wind and nuclear, are now often the cheapest. There are a few reasons for this change. First, our remaining coal and natural gas-fired power plants are old — between 30 and 50 years old — and cost much more to maintain and operate than they used to. Also, because we now export roughly 13% of U.S. natural gas overseas — and that percentage is expected to double by 2028 — gas prices here are not only increasing, they are becoming more volatile. Just like with gasoline, natural gas is now a global commodity, and its price can suddenly spike due to events halfway around the world. By contrast, the price of solar is cheap and getting cheaper. In sunny states,...
David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, is featured in a Newsweek article covering a dispute over federal land management policy involving Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert and the Bureau of Land Management. The piece focuses on a proposed federal land rule tied to oil and gas leasing and efforts in Congress to overturn it. Jenkins’ comments highlight concerns that rolling back the policy could shift cleanup and environmental restoration costs away from industry and onto taxpayers, particularly when it comes to abandoned wells and long-term land impacts. The broader discussion centers on how public lands are managed and how energy development policies intersect with environmental responsibility and government accountability. Read the full article:...
