Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 10/13/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: Our Legislators are Right, Industry Leaders Have Toxic Reasoning
Oct 13, 2015 | The Lexington Local
By Rick Reibstein
A recent article reported on the hearing on H 696/S397, “An Act for Healthy Families and Businesses”, (sponsored by Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, and Sen. Kenneth Donnelly, D-Arlington), which would establish a process to identify toxic chemicals in consumer products. -
You Can Help Get Toxic Fire Retardant Chemicals Out Of Consumer Products
Oct 13, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
More than 97 percent of Americans – including children and pregnant woman – have harmful fire retardant chemicals in their bodies, according to the most recent biomonitoring study by the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. -
Federal Threat-Sharing Program is Slow to Grow in Energy Sector
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
A paradox clouds the federal government's efforts to protect utilities and other critical infrastructure companies from dangerous cybersecurity Internet sites whose identities are classified, said the Department of Homeland Security's Andy Ozment. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Ozone Rule's PSD Permitting Mandates Unclear
Oct 13, 2015 | CQ Roll Call
By Daniel Bloom
Manufacturers are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidance outlining how permitting requirements under its Prevention of Significant Deterioration program will change after new ozone standards go into effect. -
PJM State Officials Discuss Possible Carbon Rule Coordination
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Following the lead of states throughout the Midwest and other regions, counterparts in the Mid-Atlantic have been talking in recent months about ways they could work together to facilitate compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Regional Groups Look to Carbon Trading for Clean Power Plan
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Regional coalitions of states that are exploring Clean Power Plan options are focusing heavily on whether carbon trading might help them meet their goals. -
Behind the Scenes, Most States are Exploring the Benefits of Carbon Trading
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden, Debra Kahn and Jeffrey Tomich,
Swaths of states are engaged in early regional talks about how to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and whether to embrace carbon trading to keep costs down. -
Mo. AG Koster Joins States' Lawsuit
| E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
A frequent critic of U.S. EPA, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, said Friday that he is joining a lawsuit against the agency to block it from implementing its landmark Clean Power Plan to cut power-sector carbon dioxide emissions. -
Ark. Kicks off State Planning Process that May Serve as Model
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
There were no showdowns, no lines in the sand, no prolonged arguments. -
Pollution Violations More Likely at Public Facilities -- Study
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Government-owned entities are more likely to violate certain air and water regulations and less likely to receive sanctions than their private counterparts, according to a new study. -
EDF says Texas Compliance with Carbon Rule within Reach
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
Based on just the title, it's clear a new report on Texas and federal carbon regulation is a departure from the state's default outlook. -
Could The EPA's Clean Power Plan Deliver More Than Just Clean Air?
Oct 13, 2015 | Forbes
By Michael Krancer
In August, the EPA released its Clean Power Plan, which aims to shape the future of American power generation and consumption by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also increasing the grid’s efficiency and reliability. -
Panel Rules Against Consolidating Challenges to WOTUS
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
In a move that stands to seriously complicate an already tangled legal battle over the Obama administration's controversial water rule, a judicial panel this morning ruled against consolidating the nine separate district court cases challenging the regulation. -
Judges Reject CWA Rule Suit Consolidation, Exacerbating Legal Uncertainty
Oct 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Federal judges have rejected EPA's request to consolidate a slew of district court lawsuits over the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule... -
D.C. Judge a Formidable Foe for Obama's Environmental Agenda
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A Republican operative-turned federal judge has emerged as one of the most powerful critics of President Obama's environmental rules. -
Dem Govs: Green Energy Plans Will Help Our Nominee
Oct 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A pair of Democratic governors and climate activists are encouraging the party’s presidential candidates to focus on green energy as a way to win votes in next year’s election. -
Bringing Republicans to the Climate Change Table
Oct 13, 2015 | New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
The climate has been changing forever. It will continue to change. Some scientists believe that humans have a direct impact on it. -
NATO Calls for 'Ambitious, Legally-Binding' Climate Agreement
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the latest organization to weigh in on the need for the world to reach an ambitious agreement in Paris at the end of this year. -
Major World Utilities Seek a Voice in the Outcome of Paris Climate Change Talks
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Eleven of the world's largest utilities are calling on delegates to the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Paris (COP 21) to consider the critical role that the electric power sector plays in addressing the world's climate priorities. -
Senators Call for 'Comprehensive' Action on PTC Process
Oct 13, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
A group of Democratic senators are calling on Senate leaders to take a "comprehensive approach" in considering an extension of the Dec. 31 federal deadline for railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) safety technology.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: Our Legislators are Right, Industry Leaders Have Toxic Reasoning
Oct 13, 2015 | The Lexington Local
By Rick Reibstein
A recent article reported on the hearing on H 696/S397, “An Act for Healthy Families and Businesses”, (sponsored by Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, and Sen. Kenneth Donnelly, D-Arlington), which would establish a process to identify toxic chemicals in consumer products.
The article reports that the proposed legislation was “panned” by industry groups who “said it imposes a burden without improving safety.” While it is important to avoid imposing burdens on companies that are unnecessary, it is also important to maintain a clear perspective on the issues.
It is hard for a reasonable person to deny that consumers have a right to know when there are toxic ingredients in the products they buy. It is hard to argue that there is a business interest greater than these rights. What right of free enterprise can justify frustrating the efforts of parents to protect their children, or the right of citizens to try to reduce their environmental and health impacts?
Some of the statements by industry reported in the article should be seen as efforts to preserve profits, not contributions to the development of policy. The article includes a statement by Steve Rosario of the American Chemical Council (ACC), that the word “toxic” is “a very highly charged word.” This is true, but it is because toxic dangers are real. He comments that “what we really need to be looking at is hazard and exposure. That is what gets you to safety and what these bills don’t look at.”
It is important to understand that this is only true if for some reason you don’t wish to get to the source of the problem.It is true, that if you wish to continue profiting from selling toxic products, then you should only be looking at hazard and exposure. If you don’t want people to know that what you sell has something they might not want, then there should not be any information about that toxic ingredient. But consider that if you don’t know that there are toxic ingredients in the product, you will not likely take steps to avoid its hazards, and you will likely be exposed without even knowing it.
A focus on hazard and exposure only makes sense if it is combined with knowledge of the presence of toxics.The focus recommended by industry can supplement but cannot replace the focus proposed by Kaufman and Donnelly.
The industry has been insisting for decades on an exclusive focus on hazard and exposure, but no one should think you can effectively address these risks without knowledge of toxic ingredients. We have heard these arguments for years with respect to the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA), which, despite the persistent opposition of the ACC and others, has brought about tremendous reductions in toxic input, and thus hazard and exposure.
It is important to know that this law, which does not prevent manufacturers from using toxics, but only requires that they be reported, and that the manufacturer consider their options for not using them, has benefitted most of the regulated entities. Out of the hundreds of companies covered by the act, the great majority have managed to reduce toxics use, and have reported savings as a result. Using toxics often turns out to be unnecessary, and often adds costs over the long run. TURA has reduced sales of toxic chemicals. That is the hazard that concerns the ACC. Kaufman and Donnelly are trying to move us to the next step, for TURA does not cover toxic products, only manufacturing. Industry’s reasoning merits exposure as toxic.
-
You Can Help Get Toxic Fire Retardant Chemicals Out Of Consumer Products
Oct 13, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
More than 97 percent of Americans – including children and pregnant woman – have harmful fire retardant chemicals in their bodies, according to the most recent biomonitoring study by the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
And families everywhere now have the opportunity to do something about it.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a petition to ban all bromine- and chlorine-based fire retardants from four types of consumer products: children’s products, mattresses, furniture and electronic casings.
EWG strongly supports this petition and urges the agency to study alternatives to ensure that any fire retardant chemicals (also known as flame retardant chemicals) that go into consumer products are necessary and safe.
You can take action to keep more than 20 toxic fire retardant chemicals out of your home and away from your children. Sign the petition here.
For years companies have added fire retardant chemicals like polybrominated diphenyl ethers – PBDEs for short – to children’s products and home goods. The chemical industry claimed that these substances make products more fire-safe, but there is little, if any, evidence that this is true. Instead they’ve contaminated our bodies, food and environment.
Scientists raised questions about the toxicity and prevalence of PBDEs early in the 21st Century. These chemicals were phased out of consumer products beginning in the mid-2000s, but most replacement chemicals contain bromine or chlorine and appear to threaten human health, as did their predecessors.
The latest generation of fire retardant chemicals includes chlorinated tris (TDCPP), which California’s Proposition 65 categorizes as a chemical known to cause cancer, and Firemaster 550, which is associated with obesity, early onset of puberty and cardiovascular disease in laboratory animals.
The risk is greatest for children. In 2008 laboratory tests commissioned by EWG found that children had consistently higher exposures to fire retardant chemicals than their mothers, likely the result of in-utero exposure, breastfeeding and kids’ tendency to play on the ground and put non-food items in their mouths.
Last year, EWG researchers, working with Duke University scientists, examined moms and children for exposure to newer fire retardant chemicals and found higher levels in children than their mothers. Read more about the study.
What’s worse, recent research suggests that adding chemicals to foam furniture does not improve fire safety, making it a lose-lose proposition.
-
Federal Threat-Sharing Program is Slow to Grow in Energy Sector
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
A paradox clouds the federal government's efforts to protect utilities and other critical infrastructure companies from dangerous cybersecurity Internet sites whose identities are classified, said the Department of Homeland Security's Andy Ozment.
"We have this information where, if we shared it with you, you could protect yourself. You'd get value out of it," said Ozment, assistant secretary of the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications at DHS. "But then it would lose its value. The adversary would change his behavior. He would know how we got it. If we don't share it, where is the value? So we have a paradox," Ozment told a recent industry conference sponsored by the Utilities Telecom Council.
DHS's answer, he said, is a hybrid threat-sharing program called Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) that the department uses to help companies block intrusions and malware launched from attackers' Internet sites when information about the sites is classified.
The program is expanding, but not far enough, according to a DHS inspector general's report last year.
"Although CS&C [the DHS Office of Cybersecurity and Communications] has made progress, enrollment in the ECS program has been slow because of limited communication and outreach and a necessary in-depth security validation and accreditation process for potential program participants. Further, the lack of analysis and manual reviews has affected the quality of cyber threat information provided to CSP [commercial service provider] participants," the IG found.
An industry official involved in the program, not authorized to speak on the record, said the percentage of U.S. energy companies in the program is still in the "single digits."
"We're still early on in the adoption cycle," said Rich Mahler, director of commercial cyber solutions at Lockheed Martin, one of four companies that have enlisted as intermediaries to provide ECS threat information to companies. "We only see our slice of the program," he added. "I'd say handfuls to dozens at this point, not hundreds."
DHS officials would not make Ozment available for an interview to discuss the ECS program and, specifically, the changes made since the IG's report was received. They did answer a series of written questions.
Nadya Bartol, a vice president and cybersecurity strategist at the Utilities Telecom Council, testified to a House panel in September that the energy industry "suffers from inconsistent threat information throughout the sector. This results in a somewhat fractured response to threats when they arise." She cited efforts by DHS and the industry's Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) to improve the quality and speed of threat sharing but urged action on proposed legislative improvements.
The slow response to ECS by critical infrastructure companies is another data point in the ongoing struggle to achieve effective threat information sharing between the government and private sector. Classified attack sites on the Internet connected to state-backed cyber teams could pose a grave danger to the power grid, for example, but in some cases, U.S. security officials may not want the attackers to know they have been sighted.
White House cybersecurity adviser Michael Daniel told a Washington audience in September, "We need to provide actionable, unique intelligence that only the government has, and be able to figure out ways to share that with the private sector. ... We need to figure out how to enable private companies to share more effectively with each other and share more effectively with the government."
The ECS program began as a strategy to protect high-priority government Internet traffic and was expanded to private-sector critical infrastructure industries by President Obama's 2013 cybersecurity executive order, according to industry officials involved in the program.Cyber filters
To advance the ECS program, DHS relies on four intermediaries that have created secure facilities for handling the classified threat data, and these service providers -- AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon and Lockheed Martin -- provide the cyber protection, for a fee. The four ECS providers filter incoming email traffic and block emails that come from sites that are on the providers' danger list, including those sites whose origins are classified.
Lockheed Martin would not discuss its ECS fee schedule. An informed official with another company who would not speak for attribution said the charges typically are about $5,000 a month. Price is not an issue, the official said. DHS would not discuss the question. A spokesman said DHS does not play any role in establishing or approving charges levied by ECS CSPs. "All conversations regarding pricing and service-level agreements are between the CSP and customer only," the spokesman said.
"We've giving it to them as a service provider," Ozment said of the DHS classified information feeds to the ECS providers. "They turn the classified information into an intrusion prevention service, and you can pay for that. You, as a small or medium [sized] business, don't have to have clearances; you don't have to have analysts who understand this information," he added.
The program works, said Lockheed Martin's Mahler. "It looks at a list of domains" on the Internet, Mahler said. "It compares these with a known list of bad sites. If it gets a hit on the bad site, it redirects the email to a sinkhole or safe landing." The program prevents a utility employee from clicking on an email attachment from a blacklisted Internet site, blocking the most common method of hacking intrusions. The charge for the ECS service varies with the size of the customer, and Lockheed Martin adds its own cyber intelligence for customers as an option, he said.
An industry official who works with the program said some utilities that have deployed the ECS indicators have seen security alarms on monitors "light up like a Christmas tree with things they didn't know were in their environment that can now be eradicated."
The July 2014 report by the DHS inspector general said the agency needed to improve the quality of cyberthreat indicators it provides and find a way to automate delivery. While it provides an average of 50 to 60 threat indicators to the four service companies weekly, one of the four companies told the DHS IG "that some of the information was inconsistent and not exclusive to the ECS program. Specifically, some of the threat indicators provided were redundant, formatting was not standardized, and a majority of the information provided was unclassified and available through other sources."
The principal cybersecurity threat-sharing program for the utility industry is the E-ISAC, operated by the North American Electric Reliability Corp., a collaboration with the Energy Department and the Electricity Sub-sector Coordinating Council (ESCC), a group of top utility executives who receive government briefings on cyberthreats.
NERC's Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program (CRISP) collects threat information from participating companies, which is integrated with information from classified government sources and analyzed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to pinpoint threat patterns and trends, according to NERC. The resulting data are shared with CRISP participants, and then "unattributed" data are shared with a broader E-ISAC membership.
The industry E-ISAC service does not get information directly from ECS, according to NERC. One industry official who did not speak for attribution said some classified information does come to E-ISAC through the Energy Department.
"If I were talking to utilities about email filtering and other inbound filters, they definitely should be doing it," said John Pescatore, a director of the SANS Institute. "But the commercial offerings are more adaptive, flexible and, in many cases, less expensive." He questioned the value of routing confidential attack signatures through the four providers. "If I'm using a commercial service and I'm blocking the attack, the attackers knows that," he said.
Brian Harrell, a director of Navigant's energy consulting practice, said that "the word about ECS simply isn't getting out to cybersecurity executives." He gave high marks to E-ISAC (he formerly headed it) and CRISP, and applauded DHS's voluntary threat sharing. But he added, "While a few major utilities are 'in the know', small to midsize utilities are not familiar with the program."
"If DHS really wants to help utilities, they should work in partnership with the Department of Energy to get utility security professionals additional security clearances, push this information, and create opportunities for training and education," he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Ozone Rule's PSD Permitting Mandates Unclear
Oct 13, 2015 | CQ Roll Call
By Daniel Bloom
Manufacturers are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidance outlining how permitting requirements under its Prevention of Significant Deterioration program will change after new ozone standards go into effect.
The American Chemistry Council — a trade group representing domestic chemical companies — says EPA's smog standard issued Thursday will burden manufacturing facilities with unclear permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act's (PL 88-206) PSD program that will take effect in less than 60 days."There are going to be a number of counties that are deemed attainment with the current 75 ppb ozone standard, but have ozone monitor readings above the new 70 ppb standard," said ACC spokeswoman Lorraine Gershman.
"In these areas, manufacturers will be in a kind of limbo: in order to build or expand a facility, they must obtain a PSD permit showing that the facility will not 'cause or contribute to' a violation of the new 70 ppb standard, but EPA has provided no clear rules as to how to do so," she added.EPA only finished clarifying PSD permit requirements tied to the 2008 ozone standard in March 2015.
Both the ACC and the National Association of Manufacturers say they have initiated discussions with EPA over the ozone "permitting paradox" to provide some degree of certainty to manufacturers.EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said the guidance "will come soon," but did not give a definitive timeframe.
The ACC says EPA must issue guidance including screening tools such as significant impact levels or minimum air quality thresholds, and the agency must tell manufacturers how they can offset PSD mandates, especially in attainment areas that have no formal offset markets where non-attainment designations could be forthcoming."The timelines for permitting, compliance and non-attainment area designations ... are out of sync," Gershman says.
Although the EPA allowed some grandfathering of permit provisions in the new 70 ppb standard, those actions only appear to cover permit applications the agency has already processed or plans to complete prior to rule's effective date of Nov. 30.
Ross Eisenberg, the vice president of policy at NAM, said his group is also urging EPA to consider expanding its five-year review cycle for ozone standards under the CAA in order to allow industry to implement existing limits on ground-level ozone before issuing new, more stringent regulations."The NAM has called for a bipartisan effort to modernize the Clean Air Act so that it operates as efficiently and effectively as possible in changing times," Eisenberg said Monday.
-
PJM State Officials Discuss Possible Carbon Rule Coordination
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Following the lead of states throughout the Midwest and other regions, counterparts in the Mid-Atlantic have been talking in recent months about ways they could work together to facilitate compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
State environmental and utility regulators from Illinois, Michigan and most of the other 14 states in PJM Interconnection LLC, a regional transmission operator, have been talking since June about the carbon rule and potential for multi-state cooperation.
The informal group is similar to the Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators (MSEER), which began holding calls and in-person meetings about a 1 ½ years ago (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014). Like MSEER, the mission of the PJM state regulators is to understand the rule and potential for cooperation.
Also like MSEER, state officials participate under a "no regrets" approach, meaning there's no commitment required and states can walk away at any time. The commitment-free nature of the meetings is key given the political rancor caused by the rule.
"People come and they participate to varying degrees," said Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives at the St. Paul, Minn.-based Great Plains Institute. "Whatever works for them is fine. Our goal is, 'Here's what the rule is, here's our best efforts of trying to explain it and explain what the options are for the states,' and let the states make the decisions of what makes most sense for them."
PJM's grid covers part of far southwest Michigan. The rest of the state is part of another regional grid -- the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). The chairman of the state's Public Service Commission, John Quackenbush, has been part of the MSEER meetings and said it became apparent that PJM states could benefit by talking in the same way as other regional groups (EnergyWire, April 1).
"It seemed like a hole in the country that hadn't been addressed," he said during an interview at the Midwest Energy Policy Conference in St. Louis.
PJM's effort in many ways is a parallel to MSEER, with plans to do some modeling of the Clean Power Plan. A key difference is that many of the PJM states have competitive retail electric markets while MISO is mostly vertically integrated, Quackenbush said.
Scott, who was chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission until last year, was part of the MSEER steering committee as a regulator. He has continued his work with the Midwest group and the PJM states in his new role at Great Plains, which is helping provide technical support along with Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
"Almost all" PJM states are taking part in discussions at some level, Scott said. He declined to specify which states were not.
Besides Illinois and Michigan, PJM covers all or part of Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. Several of the states are among those who are part of a federal lawsuit challenging the Clean Power Plan.
Some states participating in the PJM group also belong to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade system among nine Northeastern states.
"There's nothing in the final rule that would preclude a RGGI state from trading with a non-RGGI state," Scott said.
-
Regional Groups Look to Carbon Trading for Clean Power Plan
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Regional coalitions of states that are exploring Clean Power Plan options are focusing heavily on whether carbon trading might help them meet their goals.
In the West, the Colorado-based Center for the New Energy Economy has organized states in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, which spans from the coast to the eastern edge of Colorado. In the Midwest, the Bipartisan Policy Center is joining forces in coordinating sessions among states within the Midcontinent Independent System Operator. In the Southeast, Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions is holding similar state dialogues. And in the Mid-Atlantic, states in the PJM Interconnection have formed a new coalition to focus on the Clean Power Plan.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
To read more about their discussions, check out this morning's ClimateWire and EnergyWire for dispatches from E&E's regional reporters.
With Congress in recess, the Clean Power Plan agenda of events is light this week.
Starting today, the National Summit on Smart Grid & Climate Change will explore the smart grid's role in plans developed for the Clean Power Plan. Speakers include Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and top officials from the Office of Management and Budget and National Security Council, as well as representatives from state air and energy offices and a number of electric utilities.
In case you missed it:New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced his state will "explore the possibility" of linking the Northeast's carbon cap-and-trade system with California's (ClimateWire, Oct. 9).The director of Georgia's Environmental Protection Division told a packed room of electric utility officials, policymakers, clean energy advocates and others to set aside their personal views of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and help the Peach State draft a plan that would meet its carbon-reduction goals (EnergyWire, Oct. 9).Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee for governor in next month's election, promised not to implement the Clean Power Plan pending litigation against the rule (Greenwire, Oct. 8).North Carolina may limit Clean Power Plan implementation to actions "inside the fence line" of coal-fired power plans, meaning the state would likely fall short of its obligations (EnergyWire, Oct. 8).Fourteen attorneys general submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking evidence that EPA intentionally delayed the rule's publication (ClimateWire, Oct. 8).
-
Behind the Scenes, Most States are Exploring the Benefits of Carbon Trading
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden, Debra Kahn and Jeffrey Tomich,
Swaths of states are engaged in early regional talks about how to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and whether to embrace carbon trading to keep costs down.
These "no regrets" discussions -- mostly coordinated by nongovernmental organizations -- offer a safe space for state air and electric regulators to share ideas and analyze how various paths forward might affect their power systems and economies.
Grid experts broadly agree that reducing nationwide greenhouse gas emissions would be cheaper if states that are short of their goals could purchase allowances or credits from states that can decarbonize at a lower cost. Even conservative states that have railed against cap and trade for years are looking at how those type of programs might be their best bet under the Clean Power Plan. But states are still working out the details.
Sue Tierney, a senior adviser for the Analysis Group, said the first instinct is to "look inward" within the state and not force governors to decide whether a state should trade. Still, "there are quite a few states that are hunkering down to try to figure things out," she said.
Only states that choose similar types of plans will be able to trade with one another. That is why it's so important for them to know what other states are up to, said Doug Scott, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Great Plains Institute, which is providing support to states within the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.
In a change from the draft rule, EPA made it much easier for states to pursue "trading-ready" compliance approaches that would allow them to work together without formally submitting a plan as a group. States around the country are exploring that concept.
In the West, the Colorado-based Center for the New Energy Economy has organized states in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), which spans from the coast to the eastern edge of Colorado. In the Midwest, Scott's group and the Bipartisan Policy Center are coordinating sessions among states within MISO. In the Southeast, Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions is holding similar state dialogues. And in the Mid-Atlantic, states in the PJM Interconnection have formed a new coalition to focus on the Clean Power Plan (see related story).
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) last week also launched an initiative to facilitate more talks among states, cities and companies considering market-based options for cutting carbon.
"Regardless of where states are publicly in their posturing and political maneuvering, at the agency levels and at the technical levels, many of them are also working hard to develop a good understanding of the Clean Power Plan final rule" and how trading may work, said C2ES President Bob Perciasepe.Trading groups may sprawl across the nation
A key decision states must make is whether to pick a mass-based standard -- which would cap annual carbon emissions outright -- or a rate-based standard -- which would require power plants to reach an average rate of emissions (measured in pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity).
EPA has said mass-based states may not trade with rate-based states, and "by choosing a pathway, the state is committing itself to a particular universe of trading," according to Patrick Knight, an associate with Synapse Energy Economics who has written blog posts on the topic.
Air regulators that must write state plans are most familiar with mass-based trading, and if more states choose it, the mass-based market will be bigger and produce cheaper allowances for sale.
"Most of the modeling I'm seeing is suggesting that the larger the bubble of compliance you can put over yourself, the more options, the lower costs you get," said Tim Profeta, director of Duke's Nicholas Institute.
But officials in several states -- including Colorado and Georgia -- have suggested it might make more sense for them to pursue rate-based standards so they can continue to build new natural-gas-fired power plants to meet growing demand without hitting an emissions ceiling.
Analysts working with states believe whatever trading systems emerge will be more national than regional -- not like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which New York's governor said may link with California's cap-and-trade system (ClimateWire, Oct. 9).
States that don't border each other could easily trade, if they adopt similar standards, Tierney explained. Adopting similar standards, however, may mean undergoing tense political negotiations.
For example, preliminary research conducted by the utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for a recent Western states workshop suggests the WECC region would be a net seller of allowances in a national, mass-based trading program. Many states would be well positioned, including Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Others (Colorado, Montana and Wyoming) would "require meaningful additional abatement."
Because WECC is overall well situated to comply, allowance prices would be lower in a regional program than in a national program, according to PG&E. But total system costs decrease as the scope of trading widens.
In other words, some states would benefit more than others in a large trading system. Wyoming's governor, for example, has said trading might be the last resort for his state, but he worries credits will be prohibitively expensive. The state has one of the toughest goals in the country, requiring it to cut its power fleet emissions rate 44 percent below 2012 levels by 2030 (EnergyWire, Oct. 5).
The differing positions of states could make for odd dynamics.
"I've seen lots of circumstances in waste recycling and air emissions and other things where people say, 'Well, this is better for you than for me, so how are we going to split the baby here?' And then it gets into some sort of horse trading," Tierney said.
Those may be the types of discussions states are headed toward through the winter when they start putting pen to paper.
As Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Tony Clark said at a D.C. panel discussion late last month, "Regional compliance would be a more cost-effective way, in almost all cases, to comply with the plan ... [but] the problem is the politics of this."
In a single-state plan, "you can point to the wind farm, you can go to the ribbon-cutting at the new gas plant, you can point to jobs in your state. It's always the challenge where the benefits are diffuse, but the pain is sort of precise in trying to create these regional plans, and I think the politics are going to be very tough in state capitals," he said.
Additionally, a couple of states, including Oklahoma, have said they won't write plans at all, as they plan to sue EPA.
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP), a grid organization that includes Oklahoma, has been critical of the rule but is trying to get ahead of that mentality.
"We encourage states to coordinate with each other and develop plans, even if they're litigating. We understand that the states have rights to do that. We understand and respect that. We encourage them, though, to proceed in a parallel fashion to develop a plan" and not let a federal plan be imposed on them if litigation fails, said Lanny Nickell, vice president of engineering for SPP.Calif., Wash. in a position to help
The West Coast is in a particularly interesting position for trading, as California and Washington state expect to exceed their EPA-assigned goals and are weighing whether to make large amounts of allowances available so that other states can keep fossil fuel generation online.
Utilities in California are pushing the state to consider trading allowances, but regulators have been circumspect (ClimateWire, Oct. 5).
California has an economywide trading system, so to mesh its program with other states', it might need to isolate power plant allowances, market observers said last week at an Argus Media carbon market conference. California also would need to deal with its use of carbon offsets, which EPA does not allow for Clean Power Plan compliance.
Xantha Bruso, a manager in PG&E's long-term energy policy branch, said the rule is "a tremendous opportunity for California to lead in the battle against climate change" by seeking "opportunities to collaborate with other states through regional or multistate approaches." She said a uniform carbon price across WECC could make it easier to expand California's grid operator and burgeoning energy imbalance market.
Washington, meanwhile, is moving fast to write a draft compliance plan by December and a final one by the summer of 2016, and trading is a big part of the ongoing conversation.
Washington can meet its goal with an existing renewable portfolio standard, existing energy efficiency measures and plans to close down its only coal-fired power plant. That likely will leave it with a compliance cushion to spare -- or sell.
The state is considering three separate carbon-capping efforts -- including two by ballot initiative -- that could form the backbone of an interstate trading regime. Gov. Jay Inslee (D) wants to require businesses that emit more than 100,000 tons of carbon per year to reduce carbon within their own operations or buy offsets or credits from other companies.
"In spite of this not being a bona fide cap and trade, we think there's opportunities around having conversations about linkage," said Chris Davis, an energy adviser to Inslee.
"When we think about linkage through the Clean Power Plan, we tend to look at Montana in the hopes we can work something with them that gets us out of what we call 'coal by wire' in Washington," he added.
However, at a listening session in Olympia, Wash., several weeks ago, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission member Philip Jones said it became clear that environmental groups "don't like the idea of emitting more and then trading with neighboring states," even if it brings in revenue for the state. Some suggested retiring allowances instead.
Jones called the feedback "an eye-opener."
"This is a national plan. This is not a Washington state plan, and so EPA is encouraging us to lower U.S. emissions overall. Isn't that a good thing? And if we can help Montana, or Wyoming, or help some of these other states that are deficient, and perhaps even earn some revenue and site some new plants here or there -- what's wrong with that?" he asked.
-
Mo. AG Koster Joins States' Lawsuit
| E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
A frequent critic of U.S. EPA, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, said Friday that he is joining a lawsuit against the agency to block it from implementing its landmark Clean Power Plan to cut power-sector carbon dioxide emissions.
Koster, the lone Democrat running for Missouri governor in 2016, has sued EPA in recent years over other recent regulations, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and Waters of the U.S. rule.
As in the other cases, Koster said EPA is overstepping its legal authority with the Clean Power Plan and in the process jeopardizing an economic advantage for Missouri: low electric rates.
"Missouri enjoys some of the lowest energy costs of any state -- just 9 cents per kilowatt-hour," a reason Ford Motor Co. has expanded work at a Kansas City-area plant, Koster said during a speech at the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives' annual meeting in Branson, Mo. "But the EPA's clean power rule effectively eliminates Missouri's competitive advantage as a low-energy-cost state."
Koster acknowledged that "climate change is real" and cleaner energy is an important state goal. But, he said, the final rule would require the state by 2030 to reduce CO2 emissions to less than two-thirds of the level a decade ago when Missouri had 250,000 fewer residents.
The Clean Air Act gives EPA the right to regulate the source of pollution, but the agency is going beyond its authority by extending its reach "beyond the fence line" of any given power plant, he said. "Nor does it empower the agency to override Missouri's elected representatives in setting energy policy for the state," Koster said.
Missouri gets about 80 percent of its electricity from coal. The EPA rules, finalized in August, call for the state to slash CO2 emissions by as much as 37 percent from 2012 levels.
Ashok Gupta, a senior energy economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Koster's decision to join the lawsuit against EPA is "putting pollution before the people he serves" and a waste of the state's resources.
-
Ark. Kicks off State Planning Process that May Serve as Model
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
There were no showdowns, no lines in the sand, no prolonged arguments.
Arkansas' gathering here Friday to discuss the Clean Power Plan mostly maintained a spirit of cooperation -- save for a tense exchange between the Sierra Club and an industry group -- even as stakeholders alternately praised and ripped U.S. EPA's carbon rule.
The meeting was held as Arkansas regulators, following passage of a state law, explore the best and most cost-effective way to comply with the plan. That comes even while the Natural State pursues litigation to challenge EPA's rule, which aims to slash carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The best way to determine whether to file a state plan would be to prepare one, Ted Thomas, chairman of Arkansas' Public Service Commission (PSC), said in an interview. The filing decision will rest with the state's legislators and governor, but Thomas said the stakeholder process will inform future decisions.
States that don't submit an adequate carbon plan face a potential federal implementation plan, or FIP.
"Prepare a plan, wait till the deadline and compare the benefits of filing your plan with taking a FIP," Thomas said. "At that time, you'll know a lot more about what the prices are, you'll know a lot more about the political environment and you'll know a lot more about the results of the litigation."
Friday's discussion, held in a meeting room at the headquarters of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), drew dozens of people who wanted to participate or listen as interested parties outlined thoughts on the state's options.
The gathering followed previous meetings that occurred after the 2014 release of a draft carbon rule. Several points of agreement began to emerge last week, if not in a final form.
For one thing, stakeholders generally endorsed having Arkansas seek a two-year extension in filing a state plan, meaning it wouldn't be due until September 2018.
Several speakers, while saying more study is needed, suggested a mass-based approach to the carbon rule might be best. Such an option could be used instead of a rate-based avenue as a way to help cap carbon emissions and possibly set up a trading program, according to EPA.
And a number of parties here Friday endorsed the idea of allowing carbon trading in a state plan.
State officials also discussed plans for working groups to help parties dive further into the Clean Power Plan. While the timing of those meetings may vary, the main stakeholder group still is expected to meet again in a couple of months.Setting the table
Arkansas has been held up as an example -- including by Colette Honorable, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a former chairwoman of the Arkansas PSC -- of how a state can plan for the carbon rule even if it pursues a legal challenge (EnergyWire, Oct. 2).
The importance of getting started wasn't lost on people here.
"There's a lot of policy questions that if we don't tackle early we won't have the luxury or time to really fully develop in terms of a state plan should we make that final decision," Becky Keogh, director of ADEQ, said in an interview.
Arkansas listed some 54 units at 19 power plants as being included in a 2012 baseline assessment from EPA.
The Clean Power Plan, as outlined in August, seeks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state, with initial compliance envisioned by 2022.
Under the rule, Arkansas would need to cut its power-sector carbon emissions rate about 38 percent below 2012 levels by 2030, compared with an earlier target of about 44 percent.
There was general agreement Friday that the state fared better in the final rule than in the draft version. Some speakers cited a calculation of a 36 percent rate reduction target.
After Keogh and Thomas gave initial thoughts, Stuart Spencer, an associate director in the Office of Air Quality at ADEQ, set the table with what's at stake. He said Arkansas went from being one of the states with the most stringent goals to one that's more in the middle of the pack.
"That's not a place you want to be in most instances, but in this particular case, Arkansas is better positioned than it was before," Spencer said.
He said all options were open, noting that a number of regulations were interrelated, including ones on regional haze, ozone, mercury and carbon.
The meeting examined potential options, and Spencer said any review would look at environmental, ratepayer and economic impacts.
The building blocks suggested by EPA include improving efficiency at coal-fired power plants, shifting fuel in power generation from coal to natural gas and bolstering generation from renewables. Key dates could include an extension request in September 2016, with a progress report in 2017 and a final plan submitted in September 2018.'Let's be leaders nationally'
Much of Friday's meeting centered on getting reactions from key interest groups -- utilities, regional transmission organizations, fossil fuel representatives, energy efficiency and renewable energy interests, industrial groups and communities.
Curtis Warner of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. expressed hope there could be work toward a state plan to meet targets in a straightforward way while keeping affordable and reliable service. He said new power lines and generators will take time, and he backed a two-year extension for a state plan.
While Warner said a mass-based plan seemed like the simplest way to trade emission allowances and credits, he noted some concern that it could hamper economic growth. Arkansas, he said, also should look into a safety valve to ensure reliable flow of electricity.
A speaker for the Southwest Power Pool made a point of focusing on reliability and the potential for carbon trading provisions and for states to work together.
The Arkansas Advanced Energy Association said the state should try to have a plan ready to go as soon as possible.
Glen Hooks, director of the Sierra Club in Arkansas, called for an emphasis on renewables, energy efficiency and moving away from coal. He said the potential closure by Entergy Corp. of coal-fired generation at its White Bluff plant could help.
"Let's not do the least amount possible," Hooks said. "Let's be leaders nationally on this. Let's seize this opportunity."
That's not to say everyone endorsed or accepted the Clean Power Plan.
A speaker for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said the rule exceeded the authority of EPA, and he applauded Arkansas' legal challenge.
Andrew Parker, representing the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, expressed concerns about legality and warned of a potential double-digit increase in utility rates that could affect competition for new and existing jobs. Still, Parker suggested all avenues be explored.
"Arkansas cannot cede control of the implementation of the Clean Power Plan to the federal government," he said. "We must work together to develop a state plan responding to the rule that works best for Arkansas, its citizens and our communities."
Brent Stevenson, speaking for the Arkansas Forest and Paper Council, loudly proclaimed three words: "Out. Stop. Enough." He said cost remained a big issue with the carbon rule.
In fact, Stevenson said it should be struck down in court but added he didn't know if anyone in the room had much confidence that would happen. "I know I don't," he said.Trading a pickup for a Lamborghini?
Jordan Tinsley, representing Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, a group that includes agricultural and industrial interests, was more optimistic about litigation. He likened the Clean Power Plan to an old truck, with the replacement costs to be borne by ratepayers.
"It is requiring us to demolish our trusty old pickup trucks that we've maintained for years," Tinsley said. "We don't even get the trade-in value for those and then we have to go out and buy shiny new Lamborghinis."
The Sierra Club's Hooks, noting criticism of EPA's plan, called during the meeting for separating opposition to the plan from how to create the best possible plan.
"I don't want to spend a lot of time over the next year arguing about whether the Clean Power Plan is a good idea or bad idea," he said.
Stevenson, speaking on behalf of the Arkansas paper group, said later that all options need to be on the table. That means in the end the answer could be "no."
Then Hooks jumped in: "So saying no is meaning ignoring federal law?"
ADEQ's Spencer defused the situation by reminding everyone that he was the facilitator at the meeting. Tinsley of Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers followed later to advocate for more data and information while saying an array of views couldn't be ignored.
"We are going to be very resistant to any attempts to restrict the viewpoints that can be expressed at these meetings," he said.
Entergy's Chuck Barlow said it would be dangerous to default to a federal plan without knowing what it would say. He said focusing on trading-ready plans could help narrow down the options.
Barlow also noted that with mass-based planning, a certain unit might be able to keep running with allowances. A rate-based plan could have unit operating restrictions, he said.
Entergy said regulated utilities have anti-trust considerations and have to be careful about sharing information.
"You're not going to do this, but if you told us to go off into a room and figure out which units we were going to close and come back and tell you, we can't do that," Barlow said.
Thomas, chairman of the PSC, told the gathering that his focus was on finding the least-cost path of compliance. He called for removing "artificial" barriers, such as on solar leasing.
In an interview after the meeting, Thomas said Arkansas' discussion of the final Clean Power Plan was just getting underway.
"We have enough time to be at the beginning and still be on time," Thomas said. "So it's not a defined process. It's undefined, intentionally so, because you want people's input as you build the process."
-
Pollution Violations More Likely at Public Facilities -- Study
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Government-owned entities are more likely to violate certain air and water regulations and less likely to receive sanctions than their private counterparts, according to a new study.
The study by researchers from Indiana University and Texas A&M University found that public power plants and hospitals were 9 percent more likely to violate Clean Air Act regulations than private-sector facilities.
And public water utilities had 14 percent more Safe Drinking Water Act health violations than private firms.
"We find consistent evidence that publicly owned facilities are more likely than similar privately owned facilities to violate regulatory requirements under the CAA and SDWA," the authors wrote. "We also revealed a tendency for enforcement officials to impose less severe punishment on public agencies violating the CAA and SDWA, when compared to similarly noncompliant private firms."
The study by Indiana University associate professor David Konisky and Texas A&M associate professor Manuel Teodoro was first published online last month in the American Journal of Political Science.
The researchers examined power plant and hospital records from 2000 to 2011 and water utility records from 2010 to 2013. They looked at more than 3,000 power plants, 1,000 hospitals and 4,200 water utilities -- both public and private.
According to the results, public facilities were both more likely to have committed violations of the air and water laws and less likely to have received sanctions than private facilities.
The study found that public power plants and hospitals were 20 percent less likely to be fined for violations of the Clean Air Act and 1 percent less likely to receive a punitive sanction.
Public water utilities were 3 percent less likely to be the subject of enforcement actions for violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, compared to investor-owned utilities.
The authors theorized that was because public and private firms operate in different political environments.
"We argue that government agencies and private firms often face different compliance costs, and that agencies have greater incentives than firms to appeal regulations through political channels," the authors said. "Simultaneously, the typical enforcement instruments that regulators use to influence firm behavior may be less effective against governments."
The authors cautioned against assuming that privatization of public facilities in these sectors was the only solution.
Along with privatization, potential reforms could include subsidies and more aggressive enforcement mechanisms, they wrote.
In a statement, Konisky called for more research to see whether the trend extends to other environmental regulations.
"We also hope the idea of government regulating government will spark interest for research in other domains," he said. "We're investigating the environmental dimensions of the issue, but if other scholars want to pick up these ideas and investigate them in other spaces, that would be great."
-
EDF says Texas Compliance with Carbon Rule within Reach
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
Based on just the title, it's clear a new report on Texas and federal carbon regulation is a departure from the state's default outlook.
The study, called "Well Within Reach: How Texas Can Comply with and Benefit from the Clean Power Plan," is being released today by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
The group used data and observations to argue current trends already are pushing power generators in the Lone Star State toward lower carbon dioxide emissions. Texas, EDF said, can take U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan "from a national environmental standard to a powerful economic engine for the state."
EDF suggested emissions obligations of the plan be handed to generating units or plants, meaning owners and operators could use market-based options to comply. It recommended that Texas create a state plan for the carbon rule, which it said could help promote investment and jobs.
The organization said current trends put Texas on a path to meet interim goals from 2022 to 2029 and push it to 88 percent of the 2030 goal. That final gap could be plugged with a number of policy changes, EDF said, as long as current trends aren't negatively affected.
"We have abundant clean energy resources that are a large part of the solution to complying with the Clean Power Plan," John Hall, state director of the Texas clean energy program with EDF, said in an interview.
Even if the state needs to make some adjustments for compliance, Hall said the plan amounts to "the most favorable set of regulations the EPA has ever adopted with regard to the state of Texas."
A final version of the rule was announced in August, with the aim of reducing carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Initial compliance is envisioned in 2022, and state targets vary. States can develop a response under the rule or face a possible federal plan.
Under the rule, Texas would need to cut its power-sector carbon emissions rate about 33 percent below 2012 levels by 2030, compared with an earlier draft target of more than 38 percent.
EDF said Texas could try to leverage its clean energy assets to help other states, such as by selling credits or allowances related to carbon emissions or possibly by exporting power.Eyeing advantages amid opposition
EDF touted Texas as a U.S. leader in producing natural gas and wind power, as well as with combined heat and power operations, while also having substantial potential in solar, energy efficiency and demand response.
"These advantages, if embraced, can enable the state to achieve deep reductions in carbon pollution while providing direct economic benefits to its citizens," EDF said.
Colette Honorable, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, suggested recently that Texas consider a planning process even as it looks at a legal challenge.
Still, Brandy Marty Marquez, a member of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas, said this month that preparing a potential state plan would be a "waste" of time. She advocated for seeing where potential litigation might go and questioned EPA's authority to proceed with the rule.
The office of Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general in Texas, has discussed potential legal action over the carbon rule if EPA doesn't issue a stay.
A Texas legislative committee will study the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the state's economy, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's office said last week. Doug Domenech, director of the Fueling Freedom Project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has said EPA doesn't have authority to regulate outside the fence line of power plants. He suggested that states not file an implementation plan and has floated the idea of an interstate compact among some states in opposition to the carbon rule.
Domenech said the Clean Power Plan would accomplish little in terms of global temperatures while potentially raising electricity costs and threatening jobs. That's why it's "all pain and no gain," he said, while criticizing the U.S. government for not yet publishing the rule in theFederal Register.
"Companies should be free to choose the lowest-cost fuel for energy," Domenech said, adding: "What we see is the EPA is turning that apple cart over."
But supporters of the rule have called the Clean Power Plan an important part of trying to lower greenhouse gas emissions while also touting health benefits of reduced emissions and saying EPA is providing flexibility. The plan's potential building blocks include boosting plant efficiencies and shifting to cleaner resources such as renewables.
Hall said EDF found some "doomsday scenarios" to be unbelievable. He said Texas should maximize production of clean resources just as it has other types of energy in the past.
Hall made a point of saying natural gas needs to be part of the electricity equation given Texas' population growth and hot summer temperatures, even as breakthroughs are likely to occur in solar energy.
"The worst thing that could happen for those of us who are advocating for increased utilization of clean energy resources is the lights go off," he said. "It's important that the lights stay on."Providing recommendations
Hall said Texas needs to look at ramping up energy efficiency as a cost-effective and clean option. He also said the state's main grid operator can help make the power system more reliable while the market heads toward clean energy.
An EDF scenario on current trends showed Texas at 88 percent of the final goal by 2030. It laid out a 51 percent contribution from natural gas, 19 percent from coal, 21 percent from renewables and 9 percent from nuclear, along with certain energy efficiency savings.
EDF said Texas could reach 102 percent of compliance with more energy efficiency savings, and it said the state could hit 140 percent of compliance in part through more renewables and energy efficiency savings.
The new report recommended a number of steps Texas could pursue.
First, it called for the retention of existing policy framework, including a renewable energy standard and the CREZ infrastructure program for competitive renewable energy zones.
With energy efficiency and demand response, EDF said state lawmakers and regulators should end barriers and expand opportunities, particularly for low-income areas. It said companies need new business models and the proper incentives and compensation for energy efficiency programs for customers. The organization said water efficiency programs also could help.
EDF endorsed an energy efficiency blueprint for the state from the South-Central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource (SPEER). That, along with a study of Texas' potential, could help the state outline a plan that is cost-effective and achievable, according to EDF.
The group also called for full use of the property assessed clean energy, or PACE, program in commercial and industrial sectors, as well as implementation of a residential option.
On natural gas, Texas should follow steps to lower methane emissions from natural gas production and related activities, EDF said. And it suggested industrial developments could be encouraged to use more combined heat and power.
EDF called for a Texas water plan to be changed to show water savings from a "clean energy economy," and it talked of giving power companies flexibility to use new technologies. Finally, it promoted "environmental justice" that envisions low-income areas as part of planning for the Clean Power Plan.
While many in Texas have a different view of EPA's carbon plan, Hall said there will be an effort over the next year to brief state and industry leaders.
"We are hopeful that we are close to the day when the leaders in this state will embrace the facts that exist," Hall said.
-
Could The EPA's Clean Power Plan Deliver More Than Just Clean Air?
Oct 13, 2015 | Forbes
By Michael Krancer
In August, the EPA released its Clean Power Plan, which aims to shape the future of American power generation and consumption by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also increasing the grid’s efficiency and reliability. This comes more than a year after the EPA issued its first proposal for the CPP. The final version hits upon a fair compromise—a rare occurrence in Washington these days—that not only lowers carbon emissions, but also lays the foundation for an economic growth engine.
Critics say that the plan overreaches, unilaterally imposing compliance and energy policy direction for the states. In crafting the final plan, however, the EPA frees the states to make their own or regional compliance programs. And the final CPP also gives states more time to craft their plans. Initial proposals from states are due to the federal government in 2016, but extensions may grant states time until at least 2018. That’s not a punitive timeline. This final version of the CPP also allows states to delay their time of initial compliance all the way until 2022, pushing that line back two years from the initial proposal.
Detractors of the plan harbor instinctive worries that the plan will result in job losses and economic contraction. But a recent study indicates that the kind of mass-based carbon compliance programs that the CPP will encourage may in fact kindle economic activity and growth rather than stymie it. Mass-based carbon programs aim to put a hard cap on the pollutant emitted, whereas rate-based programs seek to limit emissions based on the total power produced. Mass-based programs also tend to be better suited for free-market trading programs; the successful federal program to limit SO2 emissions to curb acid rain took a mass-based approach.
Critics say lowering emissions could ding the American economy, but data suggest otherwise.
The trading dynamic, where entities can buy and sell emissions credits, tends to triage out the most inefficient energy generation processes first, which creates economic efficiency and growth opportunities. In addition, such a trading mechanism evens the playing field among power sources by preventing the further subsidization of carbon intense generation.
Take the real world example of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which operates in Mid-Atlantic states. RGGI simply puts a price on carbon, and then allows for the trading of carbon emissions allowances. And it’s this effect that, according to a study by the Analysis Group of Boston, can create a wave of economic benefits.
The study found that the market-based trading within the RGGI has expanded the economy in these states rather than shrink it. The analysis, which chronicled the effect of the RGGI within the nine states actively participating, noted that during 2012-2014, the carbon control strategy created $1.3 billion of economic value. The RGGI also created an incremental 16,000 new job hours in its first three years across a number of different labor sectors.
The immediate impact of carbon pricing does exert some initial upward lift on wholesale electricity rates. More efficient generation, as required by RGGI and mass-based emissions programs, quickly mitigates any price bump, however. This effect has been on display within the RGGI region. Electricity consumers—among them businesses and manufacturers—saved $341 million on electricity costs from efficiencies gained through the RGGI trading program. Cheaper electricity, of course, is an economic stimulus all its own.
If these lessons hold, the EPA’s final CPP and its incentives will provide opportunities for growth and diversification within the American economy, allowing the CPP to deliver many benefits beyond clean air.
-
Panel Rules Against Consolidating Challenges to WOTUS
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
In a move that stands to seriously complicate an already tangled legal battle over the Obama administration's controversial water rule, a judicial panel this morning ruled against consolidating the nine separate district court cases challenging the regulation.
That means that if the battle stays in district court, the multiple lawsuits challenging the Waters of the U.S. rule will proceed on parallel tracks in seven district courts.
"Conventional wisdom is out the window; I have no idea what's going to happen," said Pat Parenteau, a Vermont Law School professor who has backed broader federal authority under the Clean Water Act. He called the situation "pandemonium."
In its short order denying the government's request to consolidate the cases, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said the situation did not meet the legal standard for when cases should be consolidated.
Under judicial law, the panel can decide to consolidate similar cases filed in different districts for the convenience of witnesses and pretrial discovery. But the panel said the pending district court challenges to U.S. EPA and the Army's Waters of the U.S. rule will involve "only very limited pretrial proceedings" and would turn on questions of the law, rather than questions of fact.
Thus, the panel concluded that "centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation."
The decision comes as a blow to the Department of Justice, which had moved to have the cases consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. States opposing the rule had argued against consolidation.
Now the key question is whether challenges to the water rule will be heard in district court or circuit court.
Under the Clean Water Act, certain types of challenges can go directly to the appeals courts, bypassing district courts. If the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the appeals court challenges have been centralized, decides the water rule constitutes an "effluent limitation" or "other limitation" or directly affects permitting for the challengers in the case, it could claim jurisdiction.
A three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit granted a temporary stay on the rule Friday but said it had not yet decided whether it had jurisdiction over the issue (Greenwire, Oct. 9). The panel said in its order that the question of jurisdiction would be "ripe for decision in a matter of weeks."
-
Judges Reject CWA Rule Suit Consolidation, Exacerbating Legal Uncertainty
Oct 13, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Federal judges have rejected EPA's request to consolidate a slew of district court lawsuits over the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, exacerbating legal uncertainty over the fate of the rule as more than a dozen district courts will now hear cases over the rule while an appellate court also weighs hearing a pending challenge.
All seven members of the federal court's multi-district litigation (MDL) panel signed an Oct. 13 order that says it would be “inappropriate” to centralize the various district court suits in one case since none are expected to involve fact-finding and will instead require judges to rule on whether the rule's text, or the differences between its proposed and final versions, overstep the bounds of the CWA or Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“[C]entralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation,” the order says. The decision clears the way for the several district court cases to proceed, and in at least one of the cases the challengers are citing the order in calling for their suit to advance.
The MDL panel's decision was not unexpected, as Inside EPA reported from Oct. 1 oral arguments that the judges were unconvinced by EPA's call to consolidate the suits to minimize legal confusion in the event that the various cases lead to competing rulings that could then be appealed to higher courts.
At arguments, District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan told Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Martha Mann, “You're going to get rulings in some of these venues you'll be happy with and some you won't, and eventually the Supreme Court will sort it out.”
The subsequent order from the panel says, “The resolution of these actions will involve only very limited pretrial proceedings. Discovery, if any, will be minimal, as these cases will be decided on the administrative record. Motion practice will consist of motions regarding that record, motions for preliminary injunctive relief, and summary judgment motions. In short, these actions will turn on questions of law,” the order says.
It refers to a June 9 order from the MDL panel refusing to consolidate disparate challenges to an Endangered Species Act finding on the sage grouse as demonstrating that the panel generally denies “centralization of regulatory challenges that would be decided on the administrative record.”
The panel also worries that they could create even more confusion by consolidating cases where judges have already issued conflicting orders -- such as two district rulings rejecting jurisdiction over the challenges as opposed to another district court ruling claiming authority over the suits and halting its implementation in 13 states.
“Centralization thus would require the transferee judge to navigate potentially uncharted waters with respect to law of the case. This procedural complication also weighs against centralization in this instance,” the order says.
Competing Rulings
The order means that those competing rulings could now happen in the many district court suits, and those cases could then be appealed. If appellate courts then issue differing opinions, EPA or the rule's opponents could ask the high court to resolve the split. However, the agency's regulation was designed to resolve uncertainty about the scope of the water law following a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that created competing tests for jurisdiction.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly crafted the rule, which critics say exceeds the agencies' authority by extending the law's reach far beyond what Congress intended. Opponents have also raised a host of procedural and other attacks on the rule that they say violate the CWA, APA and other laws.
The Obama administration began implementing the rule Aug. 28, but U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson -- overseeing one of the lower court suits over the rule -- granted an injunction barring the rule's implementation in the 13 states pursuing that case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit then issued an order Oct. 9 blocking implementation of the rule nationwide while it weighs whether it has jurisdiction to hear consolidated appellate court suits over the rule.
The CWA assigns regulatory challenges to district courts in some cases and circuit courts in others. Challengers to the rule, including environmentalists, industry and states, have pushed for the cases to be heard in district courts while EPA and its supporters have claimed that the 6th Circuit is the appropriate venue.
While a suite of early challenges to the rule were consolidated in the 6th Circuit, the Association of American Railroads, which is suing over the rule in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, has filed a separate petition in the 5th Circuit. The sector says the case is “solely to preserve their rights” in case judges eventually agree that appellate courts are the proper venue.
Only the Supreme Court can settle definitively the issue of which court has power to hear the rule. Even if the 6th Circuit finds that it has authority to hear the challenges, district judges would be free to reach the opposite conclusion and issue their own rulings on whether or not the regulation is lawful.
Many of the lower court suits were stayed pending a decision from the MDL panel, but can soon resume briefing. The states of Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, whose joint suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio, filed an Oct. 13 notice with the court touting the panel's order. The states “respectfully request that this Court dissolve its stay and allow this matter to proceed promptly to resolution,” the notice says.
Each district court ruling will in turn be subject to appeal, allowing other courts beyond the 6th Circuit to step in and craft opinions both on the jurisdiction question and the underlying issue of the rule's legality.
One such appeal, of a Georgia federal district court's finding that challenges should be filed in appellate court, is already underway in the 11th Circuit, while a similar decision by a federal district judge in Virginia could be appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Similarly, Erickson's injunction against the rule in 13 states, and the judge's eventual ruling on the substance of the regulation itself, could both be appealed to the 8th Circuit.
Legal Filings
Prior to the MDL panel issuing its order, DOJ, arguing on EPA's behalf, was already asking other courts to wait until the 6th Circuit rules on its jurisdiction over the case before proceeding, regardless of whether the cases were consolidated. For instance, in an Oct. 9 letter to the 11th Circuit, DOJ said that court should await a 6th Circuit decision and follow its lead.
“If this Court waits for the Sixth Circuit -- where all petitions for review have already been consolidated -- to issue its ruling on jurisdiction, then this Court will be able to consider the result in its analysis, potentially avoiding conflicting decisions and confusion about where judicial review of the Rule should occur,” the letter says.
On Oct. 2, DOJ asked Erickson in North Dakota to hold off scheduling briefs in the case until both the consolidation decision and the 6th Circuit's ruling on jurisdiction.
“Proceedings in this Court could prove unnecessary (and improper) if the Sixth Circuit determines that district courts lack jurisdiction over challenges to the Clean Water Rule,” DOJ's filing says.
Briefing in the 6th Circuit case will be extensive. Challengers filed a swath of motions for dismissal in that case Oct. 1 and 2, and EPA has received permission to exceed the court's normal limits on the length of briefs in order to reply to all of the arguments the groups raised
-
D.C. Judge a Formidable Foe for Obama's Environmental Agenda
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A Republican operative-turned federal judge has emerged as one of the most powerful critics of President Obama's environmental rules.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh -- a 50-year-old George W. Bush administration appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- has pounded the administration in a series of legal opinions rebuffing some of its most high-profile air pollution rules. And because he's widely seen as an influential voice with Supreme Court justices and a leading contender for a GOP nomination to the high court, Kavanaugh's legal moves are being closely watched by those on both sides of the environmental debate.
Given Kavanaugh's "track record in these important cases over the last few years, I would think him a judge that is more open to second-guessing the EPA than nearly anyone," said Tom Donnelly, counsel at the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center.
Kavanaugh "happened to be on a bunch of big environmental cases, and he's written separately in several of them and the Supreme Court paid attention," said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who previously clerked on the D.C. Circuit.
With the fate of nearly every major environmental rule hinging on the outcome of lawsuits that could drag out for years, Kavanaugh could play a major role in determining which policies survive. And his take on environmental law will become even more relevant should he ultimately secure a seat on the high court.
Most recently, Kavanaugh has been central to a high-stakes battle surrounding which judges will hear challenges to U.S. EPA's landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants.
In a lucky draw for those looking to pre-emptively challenge the draft rule, three GOP-appointed judges (including Kavanaugh) were selected for the panel picked to hear their arguments. Those judges said the challenge was premature, but that didn't stop EPA's opponents from making some interesting procedural maneuvers in an attempt to secure Kavanaugh and the other two judges on the panel that will ultimately hear challenges to the final rule.
So far, the judges have denied the attempts by states and industry to maintain that panel, but the unusual legal maneuvering is a clear indication that EPA's challengers see those judges as a favorable audience in what promises to be a broad legal assault against the administration's signature climate change rule.
It's unclear what role, if any, Kavanaugh will ultimately play in refereeing the legal disputes over that climate rule. But with a lifetime appointment to the court where many of the administration's most controversial environmental rules are challenged, his environmental opinions are certain to have lasting impacts.'Auxiliary solicitor general'
Kavanaugh's track record on big clean air cases has given the left reason to fret.
In late 2012, after the D.C. Circuit upheld a suite of EPA's early greenhouse gas regulations, Kavanaugh penned his own lengthy opinion dissenting from his colleagues. He argued that EPA "exceeded its statutory authority" and said the whole court should have reheard the case.
The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case and struck down portions of EPA's permitting regime that Kavanaugh, too, had found objectionable.
In a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative wing ruled in 2014 that EPA couldn't force stationary facilities to obtain air pollution permits and install pollution controls based solely on their emissions of greenhouse gases. The court also ruled that EPA unlawfully interpreted the Clean Air Act when it revised the greenhouse gas emission thresholds that trigger permitting rules for factories, for power plants and on industrial facilities.
Kavanaugh had laid out similar reasoning in his at-times sharply worded dissent. "In my view, EPA's reading of the statute was impermissible," he wrote in 2012. "An agency cannot adopt an admittedly absurd interpretation and discard an eminently reasonable one."
While he strongly repudiated the agency's legal rationale, he noted that the climate regulations in question "may well be a good idea as a matter of policy. The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important."
The Supreme Court ruled that EPA could require greenhouse gas reductions for stationary sources that are required to obtain the permits for emissions of other pollutants. That decision was seen largely as a win for EPA, although it did limit the agency's ability to crack down on industrial facilities' emissions (Greenwire, June 23, 2014).
"They didn't adopt all of his reasoning but reached sort of a similar result to what Kavanaugh had suggested in his dissent from rehearing below," said Donnelly of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
"At the time, I thought there's this weird way in these environmental cases where Kavanaugh serves as almost an auxiliary solicitor general, where he can -- for the conservative justices on the court -- signal these cases might be of interest to them," he said.'He doesn't always win'
In another high-profile clean air case surrounding hazardous air pollution from power plants, Kavanaugh appeared again to have some sway with the Supreme Court.
The D.C. Circuit last year upheld EPA standards to curb mercury and other hazardous pollution from power plants. But in the 2-1 opinion, Kavanaugh dissented from his two Democrat-appointed colleagues when it came to EPA's cost considerations.
"[W]hen considering just as a general matter whether it is 'appropriate' to regulate, it is well-accepted that consideration of costs is a central and well-established part of the regulatory decisionmaking process," he wrote. "But EPA did not consider costs here. And EPA's failure to do so is no trivial matter."
In a 5-4 opinion issued in June, the Supreme Court agreed. In the ruling backed by the court's conservative majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Obama administration unlawfully failed to consider compliance costs before issuing the landmark rule.
"It is unreasonable," he added, "to read an instruction to an administrative agency to determine whether 'regulation is appropriate and necessary' as an invitation to ignore cost" (Greenwire, June 29).
In another case, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority in a 2012 ruling that tossed out EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that aimed to rein in harmful emissions that cross state lines. "In this case," he wrote, "we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries."
The Supreme Court agreed to hear that case, too, and in 2014 dealt a blow to Kavanaugh and the D.C. Circuit when it upheld the EPA rule (Greenwire, April 29, 2014).
"He doesn't always win; that's one point that's important," said Simon Lazarus, senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center.
Not all of Kavanaugh's opinions have angered environmentalists.
In a 2014 ruling, Kavanaugh wrote a majority opinion that vacated part of an EPA rule for cement kilns that shielded polluters from lawsuits if they exceeded emission limits during malfunctions, a move that greens welcomed. Industry groups, too, applauded that ruling (Greenwire, April 18, 2014).
And he signed on to a 2013 opinion finding that EPA's 2011 retroactive veto of a major West Virginia mountaintop-removal mining project was legal (Greenwire, April 23, 2013).
"He's been assigned to some high-profile cases in which the EPA was acting particularly aggressively and which presented particularly difficult legal issues," Adler said.
Ultimately, Kavanaugh is someone who "really wants to get the legal questions right and doesn't worry too much about where that leads him," Adler said. "I don't think he's a consistent vote against EPA; I don't think he's a consistent vote against regulation."'Political animal'?
Kavanaugh's judicial tenure began with a political splash.
He was assistant to President George W. Bush and the White House staff secretary in 2003 when the president nominated him to the appeals court. The pick infuriated congressional Democrats, who painted him as a right-wing ideologue.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2006 called Kavanaugh the "go-to guy among young Republican lawyers appearing at the epicenter" of many controversial issues.
Kavanaugh, who was 41 at the time, had helped the Bush White House fill judicial posts with conservatives and was one of the authors of the "Starr report" issued in 1998 that argued for President Clinton's impeachment.
Kavanaugh was sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in the White House Rose Garden in 2006. Photo by Eric Draper, courtesy of the White House.
"[I]f there has been a partisan political fight that needed a very bright legal foot soldier in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there," Schumer said during Kavanaugh's 2006 confirmation hearing. At a previous hearing about Kavanaugh in 2004, Schumer had called the nomination "not just a drop of salt in the partisan wounds, it is the whole shaker."
At a speech earlier this year, Kavanaugh recalled those salt comments. "It's good to have your mom at these hearings," he said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "She said, 'I think he really respects you.' Gotta love your mom."
Despite Democrats' long-running complaints, Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed in 2006.
And in his first decade on the bench, lawyers on the left and the right credit him with being smart, savvy and tough to pigeonhole.
"A lot of people -- like me, for example -- thought he was really a political person who wasn't going to be a formidable jurist as a judge, but I think we were wrong. He's very conservative, but he's clearly a thoughtful judge. ... That's why he's formidable," Lazarus said.
Said Adler, "It's hard to look at [Kavanaugh's] record on the D.C. Circuit and say he's just a political animal. He's written very thoughtful, very detailed, very impressive opinions."
And he's widely seen as a possible GOP Supreme Court nominee.
"He would, I think, be on a short list," Adler said. "He has the characteristics that presidents or those who pick judges tend to look for. Would he be a controversial nominee? I don't know."
Kavanaugh spent a stint at the high court himself; he was a clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy from 1993 until 1994. He now manages an annual basketball game at the Supreme Court that pits its clerks against D.C. Circuit clerks. Kavanaugh and Sri Srinivasan -- an Obama appointee to the D.C. Circuit -- are the only judges who play.
And Kavanaugh is known as a "feeder judge," whose clerks often score clerkships with Supreme Court justices.
Kavanaugh hails from Bethesda, Md.; he's the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. He credits his mother, who was a state prosecutor and judge, with influencing his career path. His father was the longtime head of the trade association representing the cosmetic, toiletries and fragrance industries.
In 2004, Kavanaugh married Ashley Estes, who also worked in the Bush White House as the president's personal secretary. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush (along with their weapon-wielding Secret Service detail) attended their wedding ceremony at Christ Church in Georgetown, The Washingtonian reported. The Kavanaughs have two daughters.
People who know Kavanaugh describe him as a friendly, personable guy.
"Judge Kavanaugh is a real pleasure to appear before -- he's very well prepared and poses thoughtful, incisive questions in a courteous and engaging way," said Sean Donahue, an attorney who frequently represents environmental groups before the D.C. Circuit and who clerked for former Justice John Paul Stevens when Kavanaugh was also a Supreme Court clerk.
When Adler was a summer associate at Kirkland & Ellis, Kavanaugh -- then a partner at the firm -- would see Adler working late into the night and urge him to go out and have fun.
"He's always struck me as a fairly easygoing guy," Adler said. "He's not a firebrand."
-
Dem Govs: Green Energy Plans Will Help Our Nominee
Oct 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A pair of Democratic governors and climate activists are encouraging the party’s presidential candidates to focus on green energy as a way to win votes in next year’s election.
Ahead of Tuesday night’s first Democratic presidential debate, the officials said a plan to boost the American clean energy sector could be a winning issue for the party’s nominee.
“Although this is a Democratic debate, we know that people of all stripes will be watching,” Gov. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said on a call with reporters.
“And Republican voters today — voters, maybe not public officials — accept the need to deal with this threat of carbon pollution.”
Climate activists have pushed Democratic candidates — especially frontrunner Hillary Clinton — to move leftward on climate issues. Clinton’s top rivals — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), among them — have looked to do the same, and brandish their green credentials along the way.
But Democrats say their candidates need to do more than just come out against the Keystone XL pipeline or drilling in the Arctic, as all three have done.
“We need much more to develop the jobs that are inherent in a clean energy economy other than the negative of not building a pipeline,” Inslee said.
“We need to find economic messages, incentives and a leveling of the playing field between fossil fuels and new energy technologies by adopting some measures of restriction of carbon pollution that will inspire, enable and help finance the new systems of energy.”
Tom Steyer, the president of NextGen Climate, said polling has shown support for greening the energy sector among battleground state voters, something he said Democrats should advantage of.
“Clean energy is the ultimate growth strategy for our economy," he said. "Seizing on this growth strategy is the ultimate opportunity for the Democratic Party, especially this year.”
Steyer has spent millions of dollars from his fortune trying to elevate climate change to a top political issue. Much of that funding has gone toward helping Democratic candidates.
In the first two GOP presidential debates, Republicans have fielded few questions on climate change. Democrats hope that changes when their candidates take the stage.
“I’m most interested in understanding how the candidates view dealing with climate change within their broader economic development approach,” Gov. Jack Markell (D-Del.) said.
“For too long, climate change has been an issue that’s only been talked about as an environmental issue. It’s so much more than that.”
-
Bringing Republicans to the Climate Change Table
Oct 13, 2015 | New York Times
By Eduardo Porter
The climate has been changing forever. It will continue to change. Some scientists believe that humans have a direct impact on it. But trying to curb carbon emissions to slow the change could destroy the economy, eliminate millions of jobs, and cast Americans into poverty.
This is what’s known today as the moderate Republican position onclimate change, held by presidential hopefuls like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie.
Then there are Republicans like James Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate committee responsible for the environment, who calls global warming “the greatest hoax,” and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, another presidential contender, who argues that the scientific case for seeking to curb climate change is nothing more than a liberal plot aimed at “massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.”Economic SceneA column by Eduardo Porter that explores the world’s most urgent economic challenges.For Government That Works, Call In the AuditorsOCT 6Getting to $100 Billion in Climate Change AidSEP 29Education Gap Between Rich and Poor Is Growing WiderSEP 22A Migration Juggernaut Is Headed for EuropeSEP 15Corporate Efforts to Address Social Problems Have LimitsSEP 8
See More »
It wasn’t always so. These views, in fact, stand in sharp contrast to the mainstream position of the Republican Party less than a decade ago.
“We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great,” John McCain, the Republican candidate for president, said in the spring of 2008.“Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.”
What accounts for this remarkable collective turnaround, unique among political parties around the world, even as climate scientists have accumulated greater evidence of how humanity is dangerously altering the planet?
As it turned out, a well-financed push by fossil fuel interests to deny climate science dovetailed smoothly with the burst of anti-government anger that gave rise to the Tea Party from the depths of the Great Recession.
“The Republican Party was much less unified around climate before,” said David Goldston, who runs the government affairs program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It has gotten more and more right-wing and become more and more single-minded on the issue.”
President George W. Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, may have been closely tied to Big Oil and done nothing to reduce the emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming the atmosphere. Still, added Mr. Goldston, “it was never ever the position of the Bush administration that climate change was not a real and man-made phenomenon.”
Yet even Senator McCain has now walked away from his previous self,mocking President Obama for “saying that the biggest problem we have is climate change.”
“McCain was a champ,” said Gene Karpinski, head of the League of Conservation Voters, which tracks members of Congress’s stance on environmental issues. “He would go around the country and talk about climate change. Even when he was the nominee, he didn’t walk away. But when a member of the Tea Party ran against him in the 2010 primary, he went south and never came back.”
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
This shift has made it impossible to pass any legislation through Congress to help deal with the problem. That has forced President Obama to adopt a different approach.
After the 2009 defeat in the Senate of the so-called cap-and-tradestrategy, which was originally a Republican idea, Mr. Obama has taken to using the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory powers under the Clean Air Act, circumventing Congress entirely.
This solution is more expensive, however, and makes it more difficult to achieve necessary goals. A more efficient strategy will require bipartisan support. “We can’t win on the federal legislative policy unless we regain Republican support,” Mr. Karpinski said.
Is it possible to turn the Republican Party around?
It won’t be easy. Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are wedded to defending a declining coal industry and advancing the interests of oil companies, most clearly in their support for the Keystone pipeline. Many of the party’s lawmakers and presidential candidates get a lot of money from people like the Koch brothers, who have multimillion-dollar contributions for anybody who will stand against efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels.
But there is more than money to the story. For many Republicans, climate change poses an existential quagmire. “To them it sounds like, ‘Everything we’ve been doing since the Industrial Revolution is going to kill us; the response must be a big government response and, by the way, it has to be international,’” said Mr. Goldston.
For the angry supporters of the Tea Party, opposed to government spending in almost any form, the prescription is anathema. “If you decide climate change is real, there must be a role for government to combat it. So the only way out is to deny it exists,” Mr. Karpinski said.
For all these obstacles, though, it may be possible to thread a solution through the tangle of ideology and money.
For one thing, climate change denial has never been particularly strong among street-level Republicans. Recent polls find that even conservative Republicans believe the climate is changing and humans are, to some extent, to blame.
Last month, 11 Republicans in the House introduced a resolution that — tortuously worded though it may have been — acknowledged the need to “address the causes and effects” of a changing climate.
“I can count eight, 10, maybe 12 Republicans in the Senate who are waiting for the jailbreak,” said Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. “When the moment comes, they could all jump together.”
Straight denial is getting tougher as the scientific consensus strengthens. And China’s efforts to cut emissions have defanged the argument that it is pointless for the United States to act alone.
In this context, the Obama administration’s strategy of using the Clean Air Act to force emissions cuts could help change the politics.
“Some Republican governors will start taking action because the alternative is for the federal government to impose something,” Mr. Goldston said. “This will change the politics. Maybe in the next Congress or the one after that, people will think they need to work something out legislatively.”
The critical thing to understand is that a Republican-compatible strategy to slow the changing climate does, in fact, exist.
Harvard University’s N. Gregory Mankiw, George W. Bush’s former top economic adviser, argues that putting a price on carbon emissions — the preferred prescription of economists across the political spectrum— could fit well within the Republican canon.
“People are afraid this is an excuse to raise taxes and expand government generally,” Professor Mankiw said. “We need to convince them this not a tax increase but a tax shift,” using revenue from a carbon tax to reduce, say, the Social Security payroll tax, while keeping the overall tax burden roughly the same.
This is a message not just for climate deniers on the right but also for environmental activists on the left.
Eli Lehrer, who runs the R Street Institute, a fairly conventional conservative research firm except that it supports a carbon tax to combat climate change, argued that the Republicans’ stance “is a direct reaction to the Democrats’ efforts to use scientific facts to try to dictate public policy.”
Sure, climate change is real, Mr. Lehrer acknowledged. Yet “the science doesn’t — and can’t — demand any particular public policy and certainly doesn’t dictate that we do what the left wants.”
To break the logjam, not to mention overcome the Koch brothers’ money, liberal advocates might have to temper their ambitions. Pushing for a maximalist strategy could be a prescription for ensuring that no environmental agenda is enacted at all.
-
NATO Calls for 'Ambitious, Legally-Binding' Climate Agreement
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the latest organization to weigh in on the need for the world to reach an ambitious agreement in Paris at the end of this year.
The intergovernmental military alliance of 28 nations is poised to adopt a resolution today during its annual Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Stavanger, Norway, that would urge members to pursue "an ambitious, legally-binding, rules-based, universal, flexible, balanced, sustainable and dynamic agreement" during this year's U.N. climate talks.
"In Paris, our governments must take actions that they will not regret in a few years' time," said Baroness Meta Ramsay, chairwoman of the Science and Technology Committee and member of the U.K. House of Lords, in a statement. She added that the Paris conference must not be a repeat of the Copenhagen, Denmark, talks five years ago that failed to produce a deal on emissions to follow the expiring Kyoto Protocol.
The resolution asks nations to make good on their national pledges to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, endorses proposals to periodically review those contributions after an agreement has been reached and calls for an overall goal of keeping warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Scientists say that threshold would allow the world to avoid the worst effects of climate change, but those who track the negotiations say current pledges fall far short of meeting the goal.
The NATO resolution also states that its nations are "fully convinced that climate change-related risks will affect international security through increased natural disasters; stress on economic, food and water security; risks to public health; internal and external migration; and resource competition."
It calls for greater engagement within NATO to respond to these security threats, including a heightened focus on warming during the alliance's summits going forward.
The resolution is one of eight the alliance will vote on today. Other topics include Ukraine and international terrorism -- more traditional areas of concern for the military alliance. But NATO's resolution is consistent with the U.S. military's heightened focus on climate change, which it has called a "threat multiplier."
-
Major World Utilities Seek a Voice in the Outcome of Paris Climate Change Talks
Oct 13, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Eleven of the world's largest utilities are calling on delegates to the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Paris (COP 21) to consider the critical role that the electric power sector plays in addressing the world's climate priorities.
In a 68-page report, the Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership (GSEP) provides a market outlook for 50 power sector technologies that could help the sector achieve a 90 percent reduction in power sector carbon emissions intensity by 2050 while also meeting rising electricity demand and delivering power to vast parts of the world without it.
Meeting those challenges will require what GSEP calls "a high-tech enabled global energy mix" of advanced fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewables such as hydro, wind and solar. It will also hinge on the large-scale deployment of technologies that make power delivery smarter and more efficient.
"Energy efficiency and technological innovation in the electricity sector are essential to both reduce emissions and improve the quality of life of citizens around the world," the report concludes. "COP21 policymakers are well positioned to help accelerate the development and deployment worldwide of energy efficiency measures and of innovative technologies with effective policies."
GSEP's 11 members include North American utility giants American Electric Power Company Inc. of Ohio and Hydro-Qu÷bec of Montreal. They are joined by four European majors, Électricité de France SA, Enel of Italy, Iberdrola of Spain and RWE AG of Germany; two Russian firms, EuroSibEnergo and RusHydro; and Eletrobras of Brazil, Kansai Electric Power Company Inc. of Japan and China's State Grid Corp.
With a combined 1.2 billion customers, the 11 utilities delivered roughly a third of the world's electricity last year, of which approximately 60 percent was generated with no direct CO2 emissions, according to GSEP.
In a telephone interview, GSEP's executive director, Martine Provost, said that the utilities, while operating under very different power markets, "wanted to speak with one voice" because there is a wide consensus that the upcoming U.N. conference in Paris is the right forum to elevate the power sector's voice on four key policy principles.Concerns about long-term policy changes
These include the need for "secure, stable, clear, consistent and long-term policies" around power generation and delivery, and a governing perspective that accounts for the "interrelations and synergies between the various elements of the electricity value chain."
The group also called on governments to "promote and engage in public-private partnerships that foster the development and deployment of new commercially available technologies" and to "make urgent progress" in research and development of technologies that will "stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the efficient generation, delivery and end-use of electricity."
Provost, a senior executive with Hydro-Québec before joining GSEP in 2011, said the group does not seek a prescriptive set of solutions for achieving a lower-carbon power sector. Rather, she said, "the response will differ from one country to another, and energy solutions should be tailored to a particular country's needs and resources."
"What we say is that we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by optimizing technologies in the right mix, amount, time and place," she said.
Paul Loeffelman, managing director of corporate external affairs for American Electric Power, said one of GSEP's primary goals is "to help countries see the future" so they can design and build electric power systems that meet current future power demand while also meeting national and international commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.
"They're going to have to make their own technology decisions based on the pledges they've already submitted" to the United Nations under what's known as the intended nationally determined contributions (INDC) process.Entering a 'different world' from past industry practices
Loeffelman described the upcoming U.N. climate negotiations in Paris as "a different world" from what the power sector has known for more than a century, where decisions about electricity were largely left to utilities' discretion with regulatory oversight from state, regional and national officials.
"It's a slightly different situation today than it was in the past. You've got all of these countries putting their numbers on the table," he said. "What we want to do in this U.N. process is to help these countries see that they have options to meet their environmental goals while continuing to meet electricity demand."
To help facilitate those decision, GSEP's report describes current and future market potential for roughly 50 existing and emerging technologies to generate, distribute, store and save electricity. The organization is bullish on a variety of renewable energy technologies, including hydropower, wind, biomass and solar.
Regarding solar photovoltaics, the report found that the renewable energy technology "has experienced massive growth over the past 10 years, with installed capacity increasing by a factor of more than 40 since 2004." Installed solar PV capacity reached roughly 177 gigawatts in 2014 and produced roughly 170 terawatt-hours of electricity. Yet it amounted to 0.7 percent of global power generation.
Going forward, GSEP said the global solar PV market will continue to shift from Europe to Asia, where improved manufacturing and plant designs, refinements in inverter technology, and other efficiency gains "could bring the cost of ground-mounted PV systems down to $1 per Watt-peak (Wp), substantially enlarging the scope for the development of PV power."
The report also offers generally positive outlooks for wind energy and hydropower. GSEP notes that onshore wind energy "is already competitive in high-wind regions without any direct support mechanisms," while large-diameter turbines "have enabled an increase in the load factor of wind generators in medium and low-wind areas."
Wind turbines provided roughly 3 percent of all electricity consumed in 2014, according to GSEP, compared to 17 percent of global power coming from hydro dams. Four countries -- China, Brazil, Canada and the United States -- accounted for 50 percent of global hydropower output.
-
Senators Call for 'Comprehensive' Action on PTC Process
Oct 13, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
A group of Democratic senators are calling on Senate leaders to take a "comprehensive approach" in considering an extension of the Dec. 31 federal deadline for railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) safety technology.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), the seven Democrats called for a three-year extension of the PTC deadline, swift Senate confirmation of key nominees at the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and federal investment in rail safety and infrastructure needs.
Dated Oct. 8, the letter was signed by U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The letter was released by Booker's office.
"We believe that Congress should agree only to a responsible and comprehensive approach that holds railroads accountable for progress and addresses the looming safety issues that are a consequence of chronic underfunding of our rail infrastructure," the senators wrote.
According to the letter, that comprehensive approach should include:
• a PTC deadline no later than 2018. "A five-year extension as contemplated in the House proposal is unnecessarily long [and] … a blanket extension is unacceptable."
• a commitment to pass rail safety provisions, including for PTC installation and related needs.
• support for dedicated, long-term funding for rail. "Passenger rail should be allocated dedicated annual funding from any new revenue for infrastructure above the current baseline, as well as granted eligibility for existing surface transportation funding streams."
• Senate confirmation of USDOT leadership positions, including the nominees for the administrators of the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration. "Without these pending nominees in place, it is more likely that PTC implementation and oversight could be stalled and plans could be unnecessarily delayed to the detriment of passengers, freight stakeholders, and railroad operators."
A balanced, comprehensive approach would allow railroads more time to implement PTC, but also ensure action that would improve PTC implementation oversight, the senators’ letter concluded.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested