Jul 15: U.S. EPA announced its proposed rule to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration that can prevent industrial emissions the greenhouse gas (GHG). Secure, long-term underground storage of GHG is one way scientific innovation could lessen the effects of climate change. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "Today's proposal paves the way for technologies that would protect public health and help reduce the effects of climate change. With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
EPA's proposed regulation creates a consistent, national framework for the injection of carbon dioxide underground and protection of underground drinking water resources. The rule would create a new class of injection wells under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The proposed rule builds on the existing UIC program, including extensive requirements to ensure wells are appropriately located, constructed, tested, monitored, and ultimately, closed with proper funding. It would apply to owners and operators of wells that will be used to inject carbon dioxide into the subsurface for the purpose of long-term storage.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is part of a portfolio of technologies available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is coordinating with the Department of Energy on carbon sequestration research and development. EPA is requesting public comments on the proposed rule for 120 days following publication in the Federal Register.
EPA indicates that while the elements of the proposal are based on the existing regulatory framework of EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, modifications address the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS. The relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, its mobility within subsurface formations, and large injection volumes anticipated at full scale deployment warrant specific requirements tailored to this new practice.
CO2 is captured from flue gas produced by fossil-fueled power plants or industrial facilities, typically compressed to convert it from a gaseous state to a supercritical fluid, and transported to the sequestration site, usually by pipeline. The CO2 is then injected into deep subsurface rock formations through one or more wells, using technologies that have been developed and refined over the past several decades. To store the CO2 as a supercritical fluid, it would likely be injected at depths greater than approximately 800 meters (2,625 feet), where the pressure and temperature below the earth’s surface are sufficient to keep the CO2 in a supercritical state.
When injected in an appropriate receiving formation, CO2 is sequestered by a combination of physical and geochemical trapping processes. Physical trapping occurs when the relatively buoyant CO2 rises in the formation until it reaches a low-permeability layer that inhibits further upward migration, or when residual CO2 is immobilized in formation pore spaces. Geochemical trapping occurs when chemical reactions between the dissolved CO2 and minerals in the formation lead to the precipitation of solid carbonate minerals. Similarly, naturally-occurring CO2 deposits have been physically and geochemically trapped in geologic formations for millions of years.
The United States has abundant CO2 storage potential in onshore and offshore deep saline formations, depleted oil and gas fields, and deep, unmineable coal seams. These formations are present across the country and 95 percent of the largest stationary sources in the nation that emit CO2 are within 50 miles of a candidate CO2 storage reservoir.
On July 10, the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, held a hearing on H.R. 6258, the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act, that was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) on June 12 [See WIMS 6/12/08]. The bipartisan legislation would advance the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies [See WIMS 7/10/08]. The bill, which has strong, bipartisan support, is designed to accelerate the time CCS becomes generally available by creating a Carbon Storage Research Corporation and a $1 billion annual fund to be distributed by the Corporation in the form of grants and contracts to governmental, academic and private entities for projects with the purpose of accelerating the commercial availability of CCS technologies.
Access a release from EPA with links to an audio file of the announcement (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access a fact sheet on the proposal (click here). Access EPA website on Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide for extensive information (click here). Access the H.R. 6258 hearing website for a webcast and links to all testimony (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6258 (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
D.C. Circuit Vacates Clean Air Interstate Rule Citing "Fatal Flaws"
Jul 11: In the case of State of North Carolina v. U.S. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. No. 05-1244 consolidated with 31 other cases involving scores of attorneys. These consolidated petitions for review challenge various aspects of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Appeals Court said, "Because we find more than several fatal flaws in the rule and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the rule as one, integral action, we vacate the rule in its entirety and remand to EPA to promulgate a rule that is consistent with this opinion."
By way of background the Court explains that like the NOx SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule -- Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call, 70 Fed. Reg.25,162 (May 12, 2005) (CIR”) -- is the rule at issue in these consolidated petitions for review. At issue in much of this litigation is the definition of the term “contribute significantly.” In other words, in order to promulgate CAIR, EPA had to determine what amount of emissions constitutes a “significant contribution” to another state’s nonattainment problem.
Recognizing that its actions will result in significant disruption of EPA Clean Air Act activities, the D.C. Circuit said, ". . . the threat of disruptive consequences cannot save a rule when its fundamental flaws 'foreclose EPA from promulgating the same standards on remand,' [citing Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261–62 (D.C. Cir. 2007).]
" We must vacate CAIR because very little will “survive[ ] remand in anything approaching recognizable form.” Id. at 1261. EPA’s approach -- regionwide caps with no state-specific quantitative contribution determinations or emissions requirements -- is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, EPA must redo its analysis from the ground up. It must consider anew which states are included in CAIR, after giving some significance to the phrase 'interfere with maintenance' in section 110(a)(2)(D), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D). It must decide what date, whether 2015 or earlier, is as expeditious as practicable for states to eliminate their significant contributions to downwind nonattainment. The trading program is unlawful, because it does not connect states’ emissions reductions to any measure of their own significant contributions. To the contrary, it relates their SO2 reductions simply to their Title IV allowances, tampering unlawfully with the Title IV trading program. The SO2 regionwide caps are entirely arbitrary, since EPA based them on irrelevant factors like the existence of the Title IV program. The allocation of state budgets from the NOx caps is similarly arbitrary because EPA distributed allowances simply in the interest of fairness. It is possible that after rebuilding, a somewhat similar CAIR may emerge; after all, EPA already promulgated the apparently similar NOx SIP Call eight years ago. But as we have explained, the similarities with the NOx SIP Call are only superficial, and CAIR’s flaws are deep. No amount of tinkering with the rule or revising of the explanations will transform CAIR, as written, into an acceptable rule. Of course the Federal Implementation Plan EPA imposed is intimately connected to CAIR, and we vacate the FIP as well."
The Appeals Court notes that, ". . .in the absence of CAIR, the NOx SIP Call trading program will continue, because EPA terminated the program only as part of the CAIR rulemaking. CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. at 25,317 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 51.121(r)). The continuation of the NOx SIP Call should mitigate any disruption that might result from our vacating CAIR at least with regard to NOx. In addition, downwind states retain their statutory right to petition for immediate relief from unlawful interstate pollution under section 126, 42 U.S.C. § 7426."
In its summary of the decision, the Appeals Court indicates, "To summarize, we grant the petitions of Entergy, SO2 Petitioners, and Minnesota Power. We grant North Carolina’s petition with respect to the 'interfere with maintenance' language, CAIR’s 2015 compliance date, and the unrestricted trading of allowances; we deny it with respect to EPA’s definition of 'will' in 'will contribute significantly,' and the PM2.5 contribution threshold. We deny the petitions of the Florida and Texas petitioners, and the Florida Association of Electric Utilities. Accordingly, we vacate CAIR and its associated FIP and remand both to the EPA."
In a release from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) summarizing the ruling they said, “The government should take immediate corrective action to protect the millions of Americans hard hit by power plant pollution. Power plants must do their part to cut the smog that blankets our cities, the mercury that threatens our children’s development and the greenhouse gases that are recklessly warming the planet. Cost-effective solutions are at hand to protect human health and the environment from power plant pollution while ensuring the steady flow of affordable electricity. . .
"The court agreed with North Carolina that EPA must consider faster reductions that better reflect states’ obligations to restore healthy air and making pollution cuts that help prevent states from backsliding into non-compliance with health-based standards. The court also agreed with North Carolina that EPA must tailor pollution cuts in upwind states with the level of impacts wrought on downwind jurisdictions. The court also agreed with industry litigants that EPA erred in relying on or otherwise interfering with the allowance trading system established to address acid rain while affirming EPA’s broad remedial powers to require interstate air pollution abatement to protect human health. The court agreed with gas-based utilities that EPA unfairly credited coal-based utilities in designing the program. Finally, the court rejected utility claims seeking to exclude Florida and West Texas from the program."
Access the complete 60-page opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). [*Air]
By way of background the Court explains that like the NOx SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule -- Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call, 70 Fed. Reg.25,162 (May 12, 2005) (CIR”) -- is the rule at issue in these consolidated petitions for review. At issue in much of this litigation is the definition of the term “contribute significantly.” In other words, in order to promulgate CAIR, EPA had to determine what amount of emissions constitutes a “significant contribution” to another state’s nonattainment problem.
Recognizing that its actions will result in significant disruption of EPA Clean Air Act activities, the D.C. Circuit said, ". . . the threat of disruptive consequences cannot save a rule when its fundamental flaws 'foreclose EPA from promulgating the same standards on remand,' [citing Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261–62 (D.C. Cir. 2007).]
" We must vacate CAIR because very little will “survive[ ] remand in anything approaching recognizable form.” Id. at 1261. EPA’s approach -- regionwide caps with no state-specific quantitative contribution determinations or emissions requirements -- is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, EPA must redo its analysis from the ground up. It must consider anew which states are included in CAIR, after giving some significance to the phrase 'interfere with maintenance' in section 110(a)(2)(D), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D). It must decide what date, whether 2015 or earlier, is as expeditious as practicable for states to eliminate their significant contributions to downwind nonattainment. The trading program is unlawful, because it does not connect states’ emissions reductions to any measure of their own significant contributions. To the contrary, it relates their SO2 reductions simply to their Title IV allowances, tampering unlawfully with the Title IV trading program. The SO2 regionwide caps are entirely arbitrary, since EPA based them on irrelevant factors like the existence of the Title IV program. The allocation of state budgets from the NOx caps is similarly arbitrary because EPA distributed allowances simply in the interest of fairness. It is possible that after rebuilding, a somewhat similar CAIR may emerge; after all, EPA already promulgated the apparently similar NOx SIP Call eight years ago. But as we have explained, the similarities with the NOx SIP Call are only superficial, and CAIR’s flaws are deep. No amount of tinkering with the rule or revising of the explanations will transform CAIR, as written, into an acceptable rule. Of course the Federal Implementation Plan EPA imposed is intimately connected to CAIR, and we vacate the FIP as well."
The Appeals Court notes that, ". . .in the absence of CAIR, the NOx SIP Call trading program will continue, because EPA terminated the program only as part of the CAIR rulemaking. CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. at 25,317 (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 51.121(r)). The continuation of the NOx SIP Call should mitigate any disruption that might result from our vacating CAIR at least with regard to NOx. In addition, downwind states retain their statutory right to petition for immediate relief from unlawful interstate pollution under section 126, 42 U.S.C. § 7426."
In its summary of the decision, the Appeals Court indicates, "To summarize, we grant the petitions of Entergy, SO2 Petitioners, and Minnesota Power. We grant North Carolina’s petition with respect to the 'interfere with maintenance' language, CAIR’s 2015 compliance date, and the unrestricted trading of allowances; we deny it with respect to EPA’s definition of 'will' in 'will contribute significantly,' and the PM2.5 contribution threshold. We deny the petitions of the Florida and Texas petitioners, and the Florida Association of Electric Utilities. Accordingly, we vacate CAIR and its associated FIP and remand both to the EPA."
In a release from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) summarizing the ruling they said, “The government should take immediate corrective action to protect the millions of Americans hard hit by power plant pollution. Power plants must do their part to cut the smog that blankets our cities, the mercury that threatens our children’s development and the greenhouse gases that are recklessly warming the planet. Cost-effective solutions are at hand to protect human health and the environment from power plant pollution while ensuring the steady flow of affordable electricity. . .
"The court agreed with North Carolina that EPA must consider faster reductions that better reflect states’ obligations to restore healthy air and making pollution cuts that help prevent states from backsliding into non-compliance with health-based standards. The court also agreed with North Carolina that EPA must tailor pollution cuts in upwind states with the level of impacts wrought on downwind jurisdictions. The court also agreed with industry litigants that EPA erred in relying on or otherwise interfering with the allowance trading system established to address acid rain while affirming EPA’s broad remedial powers to require interstate air pollution abatement to protect human health. The court agreed with gas-based utilities that EPA unfairly credited coal-based utilities in designing the program. Finally, the court rejected utility claims seeking to exclude Florida and West Texas from the program."
Access the complete 60-page opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). [*Air]
Friday, July 11, 2008
16 Major Economies Add To G-8 Climate Change Commitments
Jul 9: Not to be confused with the recent G-8 statement on climate change calling for a 50% reduction by 2050 [See WIMS 7/8/08], the so-called "Major Economies" organized by the White House, also met following the G-8 meeting and issued a statement. The Major Economies Meeting (MEM) included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The eleven point statement indicated in part that, "we, the leaders of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, commit to combat climate change in accordance with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and confront the interlinked challenges of sustainable development, including energy and food security, and human health."
They said they will continue working together to strengthen implementation of the Convention [U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC] and support the process designed to reach long-term cooperative action, "now, up to, and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome in December 2009." They said the Major Economies Meetings constructively contributes to the "Bali process."
Without specifying specific targets, the MEM declaration said, "We support a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, that assures growth, prosperity, and other aspects of sustainable development, including major efforts towards sustainable consumption and production, all aimed at achieving a low carbon society. Taking account of the science, we recognize that deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the Convention’s ultimate objective, and that adaptation will play a correspondingly vital role. We believe that it would be desirable for the Parties to adopt in the negotiations under the Convention a long-term global goal for reducing global emissions, taking into account the principle of equity. We urge that serious consideration be given in particular to ambitious IPCC scenarios. Significant progress toward a long-term global goal will be made by increasing financing of the broad deployment of existing technologies and best practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience. However, our ability ultimately to achieve a long-term global goal will also depend on affordable, new, more advanced, and innovative technologies, infrastructure, and practices that transform the way we live, produce and use energy, and manage land."
The said, "We will do more – we will continue to improve our policies and our performance while meeting other priority objectives – in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities [CBDR] and respective capabilities. . . the developed major economies will implement, consistent with international obligations, economy-wide mid-term goals and take corresponding actions in order to achieve absolute emission reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible, reflecting comparable efforts among them. At the same time, the developing major economies will pursue, in the context of sustainable development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual emissions."
Finally, the MEM recognizes that tackling climate change will require greater mobilization of financial resources, both domestically and internationally; the members agreed to seven specific actions to enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention between now and 2012; and said they will continue to work constructively together to promote the success of the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009.
The G-5 countries of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa; issued a separate declaration addressing several issues including climate change. On climate change the G-5 said in part, "We urge the international community to address the challenge of climate change through long term cooperative action in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, especially the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities." Specifically, they said, "It is essential that developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions in accordance with their quantified emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, of at least 25‑40 per cent range for emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2020, and, by 2050, by between 80 and 95 per cent below those levels, with comparability of efforts among them."
"For developing countries, adaptation is of cardinal importance, particularly given their vulnerability, limited capacity and inadequate means. We stress the need of scaling up resources for adaptation and strengthening of adaptive potential in developing countries in order to reinforce capabilities to prevent and confront the increased frequency and scale of natural disasters and the other adverse effects of climate change."
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) attended the meetings and issued a commentary at the conclusion saying, "The only good news about the Bush 'major economies meeting' (MEM) is that it has mercifully now come to an end -- not with a bang, but a whimper. The clear split between the European Union and the United States, Canada and Japan on global warming policy was on full display these past three days. This fissure prevented the G-8 members from reaching any meaningful understanding with the major developing countries that came to Hokkaido for the major economies meeting. President Bush gets the lion's share of the blame for this failure of leadership, but Prime Minister Fukuda and Prime Minister Harper share responsibility as well. . .
"One bright spot at this meeting is that the so-called G-5 countries. . . have developed a unified position on key issues, and issued their own detailed declaration in response to the G-8 leaders' statement. They made it clear that if 'developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions,' they would be 'committed to undertaking nationally appropriate mitigation … actions' aimed at "achieving a deviation from business-as-usual" emissions levels."
Access the declaration statement of the Major Economies meeting (click here). Access the G-8 Summit website which also includes the MEM documents (click here). Access the complete G-5 countries declaration (click here). Access the complete commentary of UCS (click here). Access and explanation of the CBDR principle (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
The eleven point statement indicated in part that, "we, the leaders of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, commit to combat climate change in accordance with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and confront the interlinked challenges of sustainable development, including energy and food security, and human health."
They said they will continue working together to strengthen implementation of the Convention [U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC] and support the process designed to reach long-term cooperative action, "now, up to, and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome in December 2009." They said the Major Economies Meetings constructively contributes to the "Bali process."
Without specifying specific targets, the MEM declaration said, "We support a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, that assures growth, prosperity, and other aspects of sustainable development, including major efforts towards sustainable consumption and production, all aimed at achieving a low carbon society. Taking account of the science, we recognize that deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the Convention’s ultimate objective, and that adaptation will play a correspondingly vital role. We believe that it would be desirable for the Parties to adopt in the negotiations under the Convention a long-term global goal for reducing global emissions, taking into account the principle of equity. We urge that serious consideration be given in particular to ambitious IPCC scenarios. Significant progress toward a long-term global goal will be made by increasing financing of the broad deployment of existing technologies and best practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience. However, our ability ultimately to achieve a long-term global goal will also depend on affordable, new, more advanced, and innovative technologies, infrastructure, and practices that transform the way we live, produce and use energy, and manage land."
The said, "We will do more – we will continue to improve our policies and our performance while meeting other priority objectives – in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities [CBDR] and respective capabilities. . . the developed major economies will implement, consistent with international obligations, economy-wide mid-term goals and take corresponding actions in order to achieve absolute emission reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible, reflecting comparable efforts among them. At the same time, the developing major economies will pursue, in the context of sustainable development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual emissions."
Finally, the MEM recognizes that tackling climate change will require greater mobilization of financial resources, both domestically and internationally; the members agreed to seven specific actions to enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention between now and 2012; and said they will continue to work constructively together to promote the success of the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009.
The G-5 countries of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa; issued a separate declaration addressing several issues including climate change. On climate change the G-5 said in part, "We urge the international community to address the challenge of climate change through long term cooperative action in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, especially the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities." Specifically, they said, "It is essential that developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions in accordance with their quantified emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, of at least 25‑40 per cent range for emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2020, and, by 2050, by between 80 and 95 per cent below those levels, with comparability of efforts among them."
"For developing countries, adaptation is of cardinal importance, particularly given their vulnerability, limited capacity and inadequate means. We stress the need of scaling up resources for adaptation and strengthening of adaptive potential in developing countries in order to reinforce capabilities to prevent and confront the increased frequency and scale of natural disasters and the other adverse effects of climate change."
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) attended the meetings and issued a commentary at the conclusion saying, "The only good news about the Bush 'major economies meeting' (MEM) is that it has mercifully now come to an end -- not with a bang, but a whimper. The clear split between the European Union and the United States, Canada and Japan on global warming policy was on full display these past three days. This fissure prevented the G-8 members from reaching any meaningful understanding with the major developing countries that came to Hokkaido for the major economies meeting. President Bush gets the lion's share of the blame for this failure of leadership, but Prime Minister Fukuda and Prime Minister Harper share responsibility as well. . .
"One bright spot at this meeting is that the so-called G-5 countries. . . have developed a unified position on key issues, and issued their own detailed declaration in response to the G-8 leaders' statement. They made it clear that if 'developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions,' they would be 'committed to undertaking nationally appropriate mitigation … actions' aimed at "achieving a deviation from business-as-usual" emissions levels."
Access the declaration statement of the Major Economies meeting (click here). Access the G-8 Summit website which also includes the MEM documents (click here). Access the complete G-5 countries declaration (click here). Access the complete commentary of UCS (click here). Access and explanation of the CBDR principle (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Thursday, July 10, 2008
House Hearing On Boucher Carbon Capture and Storage Bill
Jul 10: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, held a hearing on H.R. 6258, the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act, that was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) on June 12 [See WIMS 6/12/08]. The bipartisan legislation would advance the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. CCS is a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by capturing and injecting underground the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generation plants that use fossil fuels.
Witnesses included representatives from: American Electric Power; Carnegie Mellon University; Electric Power Research Institute; North Carolina Utilities Commission; Counsel to United Mine Workers of America; and Natural Resources Defense Council.
In a lengthy opening statement Chairman Boucher said, "The bill creates a non-governmental fund operating under the auspices of the Electric Power Research Institute for the purpose of accelerating the early deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. It is a response to recommendations from many individuals and groups, including the Advanced Coal Technology Working Group, that Congress create a CCS early deployment fund. The Advanced Coal Technology Working Group, and advisory committee to the EPA, comprised of a broad cross section of energy and environmental stakeholders, is particularly noteworthy. Its final report issued in January of the year unanimously recommended the early creation of a CCS deployment fund. . .
"The bill before the committee will accelerate the time CCS becomes generally available. . . In order to accelerate the deployment of CCS technologies, the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act authorizes the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation. . . The Corporation will assess fees on distribution utilities for all fossil fuel-based electricity delivered to retail consumers. The assessment will be applied to electricity generated from coal, natural gas and oil and will reflect the relative CO2 emission rates of each fuel. The assessment will total approximately $1 billion annually. The legislation specifies the distribution utilities will be allowed to recover the costs of the fee from retail consumers, resulting in a roughly $10-12 total annual increase in residential electricity rates. . . "The $1 billion annual fund will be distributed by the Corporation in the form of grants and contracts to governmental, academic and private entities for projects with the purpose of accelerating the commercial availability of CCS technologies."
Some cosponsors for the bill include: Representatives Fred Upton (R-MI); John Murtha (D-PA); Joe Barton (R-TX); Nick Rahall (D-WV); Ed Whitfield (R-KY); Jerry Costello (D-IL); John Shimkus (R-IL); Jim Matheson (D-UT); Mike Doyle (D-PA); Tim Holden (D-PA); Brad Ellsworth (D-IN); Baron Hill (D-IN); Charlie Wilson (D-OH); and Deborah Pryce (R-OH).
Access a release from Chairman Boucher (click here). Access the hearing website for a webcast and links to all testimony (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense Fund (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6258 (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Witnesses included representatives from: American Electric Power; Carnegie Mellon University; Electric Power Research Institute; North Carolina Utilities Commission; Counsel to United Mine Workers of America; and Natural Resources Defense Council.
In a lengthy opening statement Chairman Boucher said, "The bill creates a non-governmental fund operating under the auspices of the Electric Power Research Institute for the purpose of accelerating the early deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. It is a response to recommendations from many individuals and groups, including the Advanced Coal Technology Working Group, that Congress create a CCS early deployment fund. The Advanced Coal Technology Working Group, and advisory committee to the EPA, comprised of a broad cross section of energy and environmental stakeholders, is particularly noteworthy. Its final report issued in January of the year unanimously recommended the early creation of a CCS deployment fund. . .
"The bill before the committee will accelerate the time CCS becomes generally available. . . In order to accelerate the deployment of CCS technologies, the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act authorizes the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation. . . The Corporation will assess fees on distribution utilities for all fossil fuel-based electricity delivered to retail consumers. The assessment will be applied to electricity generated from coal, natural gas and oil and will reflect the relative CO2 emission rates of each fuel. The assessment will total approximately $1 billion annually. The legislation specifies the distribution utilities will be allowed to recover the costs of the fee from retail consumers, resulting in a roughly $10-12 total annual increase in residential electricity rates. . . "The $1 billion annual fund will be distributed by the Corporation in the form of grants and contracts to governmental, academic and private entities for projects with the purpose of accelerating the commercial availability of CCS technologies."
Some cosponsors for the bill include: Representatives Fred Upton (R-MI); John Murtha (D-PA); Joe Barton (R-TX); Nick Rahall (D-WV); Ed Whitfield (R-KY); Jerry Costello (D-IL); John Shimkus (R-IL); Jim Matheson (D-UT); Mike Doyle (D-PA); Tim Holden (D-PA); Brad Ellsworth (D-IN); Baron Hill (D-IN); Charlie Wilson (D-OH); and Deborah Pryce (R-OH).
Access a release from Chairman Boucher (click here). Access the hearing website for a webcast and links to all testimony (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense Fund (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6258 (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Boxer Charges White House Of Reckless Cover-Up Of Warming Issues
Jul 8: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, held a press briefing on the issue of White House Interference in Addressing the Dangers of Global Warming. Senator Boxer delivered a statement saying, "You have heard me say many times that this Administration has downplayed the dangers posed by global warming. They have used every excuse to avoid taking action, even hiding behind China and India. Now, thanks to a very brave former EPA official, Jason Burnett, who has responded to an inquiry from this committee, who is here today, we know that the Administration's efforts have been about covering up the real dangers of global warming and hiding the facts from the public. This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the Office of the Vice President."
The Senator's charges add to those that have already been uncovered and revealed previously by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Representative Waxman is still deciding how we should proceed on his investigation of White House interference, since the President asserted executive privilege over thousands of pages of documents that would show whether the President and his staff complied with the Clean Air Act (CAA) in overruling EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on important environmental decisions [See WIMS 6/20/08].
Boxer said she had met with Burnett, who resigned from the Agency after concluding that no constructive action on global warming would take place during this Administration. She said, "What a sad day it is for the American people that they lost a brilliant professional who wanted to protect us from the ravages of global warming. In October of 2007, when we held a hearing on the health impacts of global warming, we were stunned to learn that the testimony of CDC Director Julie Gerberding was watered down and heavily redacted. We now know that this censorship was part of a master plan. The goal of the plan was to ensure that the EPA's response to the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA would be as weak as possible."
On December 10, 2007, Waxman release a proposed report on some of his investigations that highlighted the climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, who appeared before Boxer's Committee and the House Oversight Committee and said their testimony was heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department [See WIMS 12/11/07]. It said, there was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. It indicates the White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment (ROE) were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report.
At that time, White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino, rebuked Waxman and his Committee for releasing the report at the time of the Bali, UNFCCC climate change meeting saying it was "rehashed rhetoric that has come out of the Democrats beforehand, and we just reject it as being untrue." In response to a question stating, Did the White House ever asked employees at agencies like NOAA to suppress climate change information and science?; Perino said, "Not that I'm aware and I do not believe that is true. "
Boxer said at her briefing, "What started in October with Dr. Gerberding's censored testimony [See WIMS 10/24/08] continued into December, when the EPA had finally decided to begin to tell the truth about the dangers posed by unchecked global warming. The Office of Management and Budget at the White House refused to open the e-mail containing the provisional endangerment finding from the EPA. When EPA refused to retract the e-mail, the finding was left in limbo. These two things - the CDC censorship and the stonewall on the endangerment finding -- are obviously related."
Boxer said that the CDC wanted to go into detail in its testimony about: Direct effects of heat [including mortality]; Health and safety effects related to extreme weather events; Air pollution-related health effects; Allergic diseases; Water- and food-borne infectious diseases; Vector-borne diseases; Food and water scarcity for some populations; Mental health problems; and, Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects. But, she said, "their testimony was altered. CDC's work clearly would lead us to the endangerment finding. Fortunately, thanks to the free press and the work of congressional committees, the CDC's concerns were made known, adding to the pressure on the EPA to make the endangerment finding."
As a result of her latest findings, Boxer announced a series of six actions: (1) I am asking EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to release every document related to the Agency's finding that global warming poses a danger to the public, including bringing the endangerment e-mail back to earth. (2) EPA should also immediately release a strong advance notice of proposed rulemaking on global warming emissions. (3) If the information is not released, then I will use every means available to this Committee to obtain it. (4) I am sending Jason Burnett's letter on the Administration's efforts to block action on global warming to the Governor and Attorney General of California so they may be fully informed of the Bush Administration's misconduct relating to global warming, which may directly affect California's efforts to protect the public from this serious threat. (5) I will hold a hearing on July 22 to present the most recent evidence of the serious danger posed by global warming. Mr. Burnett will be a witness. (6) This Committee will also continue its work on how current authorities under the Clean Air Act could be used to address global warming now. We will hold a hearing on that subject in the fall, Mr. Burnett has agreed to give his advice and testimony, and we will issue a Committee report so that the next President can have all of our findings at his disposal at the start of the next Administration.
Boxer concluded saying if Administrator Johnson cannot deliver on items 1 & 2 above, ". . .he should resign. The American people need the head of the EPA to be an independent advocate for their health and their environment." She also said, "This is not about me, or about Mr. Johnson, or President Bush, or Vice President Cheney or Mr. Burnett. It is about protecting the public and the planet. . . History will judge this Bush Administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect."
Access the Boxer press statement and links to the letter from Burnett, CDC testimony and related background documents (click here). [*Climate]
The Senator's charges add to those that have already been uncovered and revealed previously by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Representative Waxman is still deciding how we should proceed on his investigation of White House interference, since the President asserted executive privilege over thousands of pages of documents that would show whether the President and his staff complied with the Clean Air Act (CAA) in overruling EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on important environmental decisions [See WIMS 6/20/08].
Boxer said she had met with Burnett, who resigned from the Agency after concluding that no constructive action on global warming would take place during this Administration. She said, "What a sad day it is for the American people that they lost a brilliant professional who wanted to protect us from the ravages of global warming. In October of 2007, when we held a hearing on the health impacts of global warming, we were stunned to learn that the testimony of CDC Director Julie Gerberding was watered down and heavily redacted. We now know that this censorship was part of a master plan. The goal of the plan was to ensure that the EPA's response to the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA would be as weak as possible."
On December 10, 2007, Waxman release a proposed report on some of his investigations that highlighted the climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, who appeared before Boxer's Committee and the House Oversight Committee and said their testimony was heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department [See WIMS 12/11/07]. It said, there was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. It indicates the White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment (ROE) were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report.
At that time, White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino, rebuked Waxman and his Committee for releasing the report at the time of the Bali, UNFCCC climate change meeting saying it was "rehashed rhetoric that has come out of the Democrats beforehand, and we just reject it as being untrue." In response to a question stating, Did the White House ever asked employees at agencies like NOAA to suppress climate change information and science?; Perino said, "Not that I'm aware and I do not believe that is true. "
Boxer said at her briefing, "What started in October with Dr. Gerberding's censored testimony [See WIMS 10/24/08] continued into December, when the EPA had finally decided to begin to tell the truth about the dangers posed by unchecked global warming. The Office of Management and Budget at the White House refused to open the e-mail containing the provisional endangerment finding from the EPA. When EPA refused to retract the e-mail, the finding was left in limbo. These two things - the CDC censorship and the stonewall on the endangerment finding -- are obviously related."
Boxer said that the CDC wanted to go into detail in its testimony about: Direct effects of heat [including mortality]; Health and safety effects related to extreme weather events; Air pollution-related health effects; Allergic diseases; Water- and food-borne infectious diseases; Vector-borne diseases; Food and water scarcity for some populations; Mental health problems; and, Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects. But, she said, "their testimony was altered. CDC's work clearly would lead us to the endangerment finding. Fortunately, thanks to the free press and the work of congressional committees, the CDC's concerns were made known, adding to the pressure on the EPA to make the endangerment finding."
As a result of her latest findings, Boxer announced a series of six actions: (1) I am asking EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to release every document related to the Agency's finding that global warming poses a danger to the public, including bringing the endangerment e-mail back to earth. (2) EPA should also immediately release a strong advance notice of proposed rulemaking on global warming emissions. (3) If the information is not released, then I will use every means available to this Committee to obtain it. (4) I am sending Jason Burnett's letter on the Administration's efforts to block action on global warming to the Governor and Attorney General of California so they may be fully informed of the Bush Administration's misconduct relating to global warming, which may directly affect California's efforts to protect the public from this serious threat. (5) I will hold a hearing on July 22 to present the most recent evidence of the serious danger posed by global warming. Mr. Burnett will be a witness. (6) This Committee will also continue its work on how current authorities under the Clean Air Act could be used to address global warming now. We will hold a hearing on that subject in the fall, Mr. Burnett has agreed to give his advice and testimony, and we will issue a Committee report so that the next President can have all of our findings at his disposal at the start of the next Administration.
Boxer concluded saying if Administrator Johnson cannot deliver on items 1 & 2 above, ". . .he should resign. The American people need the head of the EPA to be an independent advocate for their health and their environment." She also said, "This is not about me, or about Mr. Johnson, or President Bush, or Vice President Cheney or Mr. Burnett. It is about protecting the public and the planet. . . History will judge this Bush Administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect."
Access the Boxer press statement and links to the letter from Burnett, CDC testimony and related background documents (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
G-8 Ministers Call For 50% GHG Reduction By 2050
Jul 8: According to a release from the G8 summit in Japan, the ministers have said, ". . . the G8 shares the recognition that we seek to adopt, as a global goal, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global greenhouse emission by 2050. We the G8 have confirmed today here at Toyako that this long-term goal is an appropriate and necessary goal for the earth." While the goal 50% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may seem very conservative to many, it is precisely the goal recommended by Tony Blair and The Climate Group last week in their presentation to Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda [See WIMS 6/27/08]. That report, Breaking the Climate Deadlock: A Global Deal for Our Low Carbon Future indicated, "The trend of opinion -- scientific and political -- is clear, for reasons of energy security as well as climate change: we have to change the way we grow, to reduce radically our dependence on carbon. That is why a 2050 target of at least a 50 percent reduction in emissions should now be able to be agreed."
By comparison, Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI) issued a statement on July 2, indicating that it is time to implement Brown's "Plan B," which set as a necessary goal cutting net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020. Brown said, "This would prevent the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, already at 384 parts per million (ppm), from exceeding 400 ppm, thus keeping future global temperature rise to a minimum" [See WIMS 7/2/08]. On June 20, a group of climate change interests launched 350.org, that says, "Below 350 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the number that the most recent science indicates is what must be achieved or the planet will risk huge and irreversible damage."
Various other targets have been set in legislation currently being discussed in Congress. The iCAP bill (H.R. 6186) introduced by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) would caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 [See WIMS 5/28/08]. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) in their many meetings in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, have been discussing a cap-and-trade regulatory program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a specified level of 60-80% by 2050. The highly debated Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 substitute (S. 3036 substitute for S. 2191) would reduce emissions from covered facilities 19% below current levels by 2020, and 71% by 2050. It is estimated to reduce total U.S. emissions (from all sources, capped and non‐capped) by up to 66% by 2050.
The G-8 Ministers indicated that the long-term goal of 50% by 2050 "requires the wisdom and cooperation of the entire world." The G-8 said it will set up a new international initiative for the research and development of innovative technologies to contribute to the realization of a low-carbon society. Furthermore, the G-8 will implement ambitious economy-wide mid-term goals in order to achieve absolute emissions reduction. In addition, new multilateral “Climate investment funds” have been set up to assist the efforts of developing countries [See WIMS 7/7/08]. In this context, Japan said it will promote its “Cool Earth Partnership Initiative.”
The Ministers said, "When we look back, the past year has been a long journey. Since agreeing to 'seriously consider' a long-term goal, at last year, Heiligendamm Summit, Japan, as the Chair of G-8, has repeatedly conducted difficult negotiations. We have arrived at the agreement reached today. It goes without saying that the achievement of the long-term goal will only be realized with the contribution for other major economies. . . Based on the strong resolve expressed here today at Toyako, we will begin efforts to lead to the common action on a global scale."
The Ministers released an "Environment and Climate Change" document summarizing their actions on climate change and other environmental issues such as promoting clean energy, nuclear energy infrastructure, poverty eradication efforts, the partnership between developing and developed countries, support of the IEA [International Energy Agency] to develop roadmaps for innovative technologies (including capture and storage), finance and investments, support of the Action Plan for Climate Change to Enhance the Engagement of Private and Public Financial Institutions adopted by the Finance Ministers, reduction or elimination of trade barriers on environmental and climate change services, encouraging Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity, implementing the principles of the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), and promotion of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).
At a press briefing by the White House officials, Dan Price, Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor, attempted to clarify what the 50% goal really means and said, "The G8 declaration makes clear that the G8 is not seeking to impose its view on anybody. In respect of the goal, the G8 declaration expressly states, we seek to share with all parties to the U.N. Convention the vision of, and together with them, to consider and adopt in the U.N. negotiations the goal of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction of global emissions by 2050. . . expresses the view of the G8 that they are seeking -- seeking -- together with the other parties to the U.N. Convention, to consider and adopt a goal of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction -- all right? I noted that in our view, and in the view of the leaders in the room, this represents substantial progress from last year."
Access a release from the G-8 (click here). Access the Environment and Climate Change document (click here). Access links to all G-8 Summit documents (click here). Access the G-8 Japan Summit meeting website for additional information (click here). Access the Finance Ministers Action Plan (click here). Access the White House press briefing transcript (click here). Access the White House G-8 2008 website for additional information (click here). Access the announcement and links to the Plan B summary report with references (click here). Access the 350.org website (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
By comparison, Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI) issued a statement on July 2, indicating that it is time to implement Brown's "Plan B," which set as a necessary goal cutting net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020. Brown said, "This would prevent the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, already at 384 parts per million (ppm), from exceeding 400 ppm, thus keeping future global temperature rise to a minimum" [See WIMS 7/2/08]. On June 20, a group of climate change interests launched 350.org, that says, "Below 350 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the number that the most recent science indicates is what must be achieved or the planet will risk huge and irreversible damage."
Various other targets have been set in legislation currently being discussed in Congress. The iCAP bill (H.R. 6186) introduced by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) would caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 [See WIMS 5/28/08]. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) in their many meetings in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, have been discussing a cap-and-trade regulatory program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a specified level of 60-80% by 2050. The highly debated Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 substitute (S. 3036 substitute for S. 2191) would reduce emissions from covered facilities 19% below current levels by 2020, and 71% by 2050. It is estimated to reduce total U.S. emissions (from all sources, capped and non‐capped) by up to 66% by 2050.
The G-8 Ministers indicated that the long-term goal of 50% by 2050 "requires the wisdom and cooperation of the entire world." The G-8 said it will set up a new international initiative for the research and development of innovative technologies to contribute to the realization of a low-carbon society. Furthermore, the G-8 will implement ambitious economy-wide mid-term goals in order to achieve absolute emissions reduction. In addition, new multilateral “Climate investment funds” have been set up to assist the efforts of developing countries [See WIMS 7/7/08]. In this context, Japan said it will promote its “Cool Earth Partnership Initiative.”
The Ministers said, "When we look back, the past year has been a long journey. Since agreeing to 'seriously consider' a long-term goal, at last year, Heiligendamm Summit, Japan, as the Chair of G-8, has repeatedly conducted difficult negotiations. We have arrived at the agreement reached today. It goes without saying that the achievement of the long-term goal will only be realized with the contribution for other major economies. . . Based on the strong resolve expressed here today at Toyako, we will begin efforts to lead to the common action on a global scale."
The Ministers released an "Environment and Climate Change" document summarizing their actions on climate change and other environmental issues such as promoting clean energy, nuclear energy infrastructure, poverty eradication efforts, the partnership between developing and developed countries, support of the IEA [International Energy Agency] to develop roadmaps for innovative technologies (including capture and storage), finance and investments, support of the Action Plan for Climate Change to Enhance the Engagement of Private and Public Financial Institutions adopted by the Finance Ministers, reduction or elimination of trade barriers on environmental and climate change services, encouraging Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity, implementing the principles of the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), and promotion of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).
At a press briefing by the White House officials, Dan Price, Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor, attempted to clarify what the 50% goal really means and said, "The G8 declaration makes clear that the G8 is not seeking to impose its view on anybody. In respect of the goal, the G8 declaration expressly states, we seek to share with all parties to the U.N. Convention the vision of, and together with them, to consider and adopt in the U.N. negotiations the goal of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction of global emissions by 2050. . . expresses the view of the G8 that they are seeking -- seeking -- together with the other parties to the U.N. Convention, to consider and adopt a goal of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction -- all right? I noted that in our view, and in the view of the leaders in the room, this represents substantial progress from last year."
Access a release from the G-8 (click here). Access the Environment and Climate Change document (click here). Access links to all G-8 Summit documents (click here). Access the G-8 Japan Summit meeting website for additional information (click here). Access the Finance Ministers Action Plan (click here). Access the White House press briefing transcript (click here). Access the White House G-8 2008 website for additional information (click here). Access the announcement and links to the Plan B summary report with references (click here). Access the 350.org website (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, July 07, 2008
Honigman Alert Re: Corps CWA Jurisdictional Determinations Letter
Jul 3: Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (Honigman), one of the WIMS-EcoBizPort corporate sponsors, issued an Environmental Alert drawing attention to an important June 26, 2008, Regulatory Guidance Letter (No. 08-02, 7-pages+attachment) from the United States Army Corps of Engineers regarding Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Sections 9 and 10 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA).
The Corps issues jurisdictional determinations in order to identify and delineate waters under the Corps’ jurisdiction, such as wetlands or other navigable waters. Honigman indicates that the June 26, 2008, Letter explains the two types of JDs issued by the Corps, i.e., an Approved JD and a Preliminary JD. The Letter also discusses when an Approved JD is required, and when a person can decline to request and obtain an Approved JD and elect to use a Preliminary JD instead.
According to the Letter, an Approved JD "is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional ‘waters of the United States,’ or ‘navigable waters of the United States,’ or both, are either present or absent on a particular site." If jurisdictional water is deemed present, then an Approved JD can serve as an initial step in the permitting process. An Approved JD will specifically identify and delineate the waterbodies and wetlands that are subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Alternatively, an Approved JD may document that no jurisdictional waters exist at a site. An Approved JD can be relied upon for up to five years, can be used as evidence in a CWA citizen suit, and is a final agency action that is immediately appealable.
Honigman explains that a Preliminary JD, on the other hand, is a non-binding opinion that there may be jurisdictional water of the United States on a particular site. It is neither definitive nor authoritative. A Preliminary JD is, therefore, advisory and not appealable. The recipient of a Preliminary JD can later request an Approved JD.
The Corps will provide an Approved JD when: (1) a party requests an Approved JD; (2) a party contests jurisdiction over a particular body of water; (3) a party appeals from a permit decision that was not based on an Approved JD; or (4) if the Corps determines that jurisdiction does not exist over a particular body of water. While a landowner, permit applicant, or other affected party can elect to request an Approved JD, it can also decline to request an Approved JD and may instead obtain a Corps individual or general permit authorization based on either a Preliminary JD, or, where appropriate, no JD at all.
A Preliminary JD may be used, for example, to waive or set aside questions regarding CWA/RHA jurisdiction over a particular site in order to expedite Corps permit authorization. An affected party may even make an informed, voluntary decision to obtain a Preliminary JD in situations where the indications suggest that no jurisdictional waters are present; however, the Letter states that "a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S." The Corps may also use Preliminary JDs instead of Approved JDs in enforcement actions where access to a site is impractical or unauthorized.
The Letter states that the Corps is now required to use a specified form whenever a Preliminary JD is issued. The form, called the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form (Preliminary JD Form), sets forth the minimum requirements for a Preliminary JD and provides information for the requesting party regarding the option to request an Approved JD and appeal rights. According to the Letter, the information on a Preliminary JD Form should be limited to the amount and location of wetlands and waterbodies on a site, and should not contain the level of detail required for a permit decision. The Letter also states that the type of information collected to support the decision on a permit application, such as decisions and judgments on environmental impacts and public interest determinations, will be the same whether the permit application was preceded by a Preliminary JD or an Approved JD.
The Letter notes that a key distinction between an Approved and a Preliminary JD is that a Preliminary JD cannot be used as a finding that there are no jurisdictional waters on a site. Only Approved JDs can make such a determination. However, the Letter states that the Corps retains the right to issue a "no-permit required" letter to indicate that a certain proposed activity is not subject to the CWA or RHA. A "no-permit required" letter, however, does not make any determinations regarding the presence or absence of jurisdictional waterbodies on a site.
Honigman notes that, "The Letter does not address the decision-making process behind the issuance of JDs." For guidance on the jurisdiction of the CWA and the RHA, the Letter refers to regulations promulgated by the Corps, and the Corps’ June 19, 2007 memorandum entitled "Memorandum re: Clean Water Act (CWA) Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Discussion in Rapanos v. United States."
Access the Honigman Alert posted on the WIMS-EcoBizPort website and link to the complete letter and contact information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos decision and related issues (click here) [*Water]
The Corps issues jurisdictional determinations in order to identify and delineate waters under the Corps’ jurisdiction, such as wetlands or other navigable waters. Honigman indicates that the June 26, 2008, Letter explains the two types of JDs issued by the Corps, i.e., an Approved JD and a Preliminary JD. The Letter also discusses when an Approved JD is required, and when a person can decline to request and obtain an Approved JD and elect to use a Preliminary JD instead.
According to the Letter, an Approved JD "is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional ‘waters of the United States,’ or ‘navigable waters of the United States,’ or both, are either present or absent on a particular site." If jurisdictional water is deemed present, then an Approved JD can serve as an initial step in the permitting process. An Approved JD will specifically identify and delineate the waterbodies and wetlands that are subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Alternatively, an Approved JD may document that no jurisdictional waters exist at a site. An Approved JD can be relied upon for up to five years, can be used as evidence in a CWA citizen suit, and is a final agency action that is immediately appealable.
Honigman explains that a Preliminary JD, on the other hand, is a non-binding opinion that there may be jurisdictional water of the United States on a particular site. It is neither definitive nor authoritative. A Preliminary JD is, therefore, advisory and not appealable. The recipient of a Preliminary JD can later request an Approved JD.
The Corps will provide an Approved JD when: (1) a party requests an Approved JD; (2) a party contests jurisdiction over a particular body of water; (3) a party appeals from a permit decision that was not based on an Approved JD; or (4) if the Corps determines that jurisdiction does not exist over a particular body of water. While a landowner, permit applicant, or other affected party can elect to request an Approved JD, it can also decline to request an Approved JD and may instead obtain a Corps individual or general permit authorization based on either a Preliminary JD, or, where appropriate, no JD at all.
A Preliminary JD may be used, for example, to waive or set aside questions regarding CWA/RHA jurisdiction over a particular site in order to expedite Corps permit authorization. An affected party may even make an informed, voluntary decision to obtain a Preliminary JD in situations where the indications suggest that no jurisdictional waters are present; however, the Letter states that "a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S." The Corps may also use Preliminary JDs instead of Approved JDs in enforcement actions where access to a site is impractical or unauthorized.
The Letter states that the Corps is now required to use a specified form whenever a Preliminary JD is issued. The form, called the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form (Preliminary JD Form), sets forth the minimum requirements for a Preliminary JD and provides information for the requesting party regarding the option to request an Approved JD and appeal rights. According to the Letter, the information on a Preliminary JD Form should be limited to the amount and location of wetlands and waterbodies on a site, and should not contain the level of detail required for a permit decision. The Letter also states that the type of information collected to support the decision on a permit application, such as decisions and judgments on environmental impacts and public interest determinations, will be the same whether the permit application was preceded by a Preliminary JD or an Approved JD.
The Letter notes that a key distinction between an Approved and a Preliminary JD is that a Preliminary JD cannot be used as a finding that there are no jurisdictional waters on a site. Only Approved JDs can make such a determination. However, the Letter states that the Corps retains the right to issue a "no-permit required" letter to indicate that a certain proposed activity is not subject to the CWA or RHA. A "no-permit required" letter, however, does not make any determinations regarding the presence or absence of jurisdictional waterbodies on a site.
Honigman notes that, "The Letter does not address the decision-making process behind the issuance of JDs." For guidance on the jurisdiction of the CWA and the RHA, the Letter refers to regulations promulgated by the Corps, and the Corps’ June 19, 2007 memorandum entitled "Memorandum re: Clean Water Act (CWA) Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Discussion in Rapanos v. United States."
Access the Honigman Alert posted on the WIMS-EcoBizPort website and link to the complete letter and contact information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos decision and related issues (click here) [*Water]
Thursday, July 03, 2008
UCS Says Auto Industry Backing Away From CAFE Commitments
Jul 2: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) charge that the auto industry comments submitted yesterday asking the Bush administration to weaken fuel economy standards below levels the industry previously acknowledged it could meet are "a brazen attempt to undermine the intent of the law passed by Congress late last year." The comments were submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by the industry's main trade group, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM). UCS and many other organizations and states also submitted comments to the agency, urging it to strengthen standards.
Jim Kliesch, a UCS senior engineer said, "Americans are paying more than four dollars for a gallon for gas and the auto industry wants to produce more gas guzzlers. That would not only hurt consumers, it would devastate auto dealers. Dealers can't even give away gas guzzlers in a world of high gas prices. Regulators need to reject the auto industry's scare tactics and pass stronger standards based on realistic assumptions about how much better fuel economy will benefit consumers." In its comments to NHTSA, UCS noted that the agency is basing its calculations on a gas price that falls about $1.50 short of current prices. One of UCS's objections to the NHTSA draft rule is that is uses an extremely low estimate for the cost of gas, approximately $2.50 a gallon or less between 2011 and 2030 (in 2007 dollars).
UCS says that last year, the Alliance launched a "disinformation campaign" in an unsuccessful attempt to blunt Congressional support for better fuel economy standards. The Alliance's recent comments repeated many of that campaign's economic scare tactics, Kliesch said, despite the fact that the industry eventually agreed to the standards passed by Congress.
UCS cites for example, a December 1, 2007, statement, from Alliance President Dave McCurdy called the fuel economy bill "realistic and reasonable." He also said, "We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage."
According to UCS calculations, achieving just the minimum 35 miles-per-gallon (mpg) fleet-wide average by 2020 would bolster the auto industry and the economy. The standards would cut oil use by 1.1 million barrels a day. For consumers, that is akin to cutting the cost of gasoline at today's prices by more than a dollar per gallon. Rather than boosting oil industry profits, drivers would spend those fuel savings locally, strengthening local economies. Kliesch said further that producing fuel-efficient technologies and vehicles would generate green, domestic jobs. According to a UCS analysis, achieving a 35-mpg fleet-wide average would create 149,000 new jobs nationwide in 2020.
According to a recent UCS report, NHTSA could set cost-effective fleet average fuel economy standards approaching 40 mpg by 2020, a target achievable even without hybrid technology. With a modest 25 percent hybrid market share in 2020, a fleet average fuel economy of 42 mpg could be achieved, while increased sales of fuel-efficient hybrids could push the average even higher.
Specifically the Alliance said in part, that "The technology analyses used by NHTSA understate the costs and overestimate the benefits associated with the proposed standards. Materials provided by the Alliance raise issues about the net benefits of the proposed standards and in fact indicate that they may create net social costs. NHTSA’s proposed standards exceed the statutory “maximum feasible” criterion, especially for the earlier years of the five year period. The pace of technological development required by the proposed 4.5% growth rate of CAFE standards from MYs 2011 through 2015, year over year, are based on a 'front-loading' of the implementation of technologies, and the results go beyond what it is technologically feasible and economically practicable.
"We urge that the above concerns be taken into account. We believe this will support the conclusion that NHTSA’s average annual increase of 4.5% in CAFE standards for model years 2011-2015 is overly aggressive. The setting of future standards is a complex issue that can have detrimental effects on industry, the economy and consumer choice, if done without proper consideration of all issues. The specific “front loaded” standards proposed in the rulemaking will pose a significant challenge to the automobile industry. Our comments provide suggestions for improving the methodology and assumptions that would lead to an improved final rule."
NHTSA issued its proposed rules -- Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015 -- [See WIMS 4/28/08] on May 2, 2008 [73 FR 24351-24487], with the comment deadline of July 1, 2008. The proposal indicated that, "This document proposes substantial increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks that would enhance energy security by improving fuel economy. Since the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the tailpipes of new motor vehicles is the natural by-product of the combustion of fuel, the increased standards would also address climate change by reducing tailpipe emissions of CO2. Those emissions represent 97 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Implementation of the new standards would dramatically add to the billions of barrels of fuel already saved since the beginning of the CAFE program in 1975."
Access a UCS release with links to extensive additional information (click here). Access a second UCS release regarding the Administrations role in the CAFE standards (click here). Access part of the extensive AAM comments (click here). Access the EPA Docket for the rulemaking with links to the proposed rules, background documents and all public comments (click here). [*Energy]
Jim Kliesch, a UCS senior engineer said, "Americans are paying more than four dollars for a gallon for gas and the auto industry wants to produce more gas guzzlers. That would not only hurt consumers, it would devastate auto dealers. Dealers can't even give away gas guzzlers in a world of high gas prices. Regulators need to reject the auto industry's scare tactics and pass stronger standards based on realistic assumptions about how much better fuel economy will benefit consumers." In its comments to NHTSA, UCS noted that the agency is basing its calculations on a gas price that falls about $1.50 short of current prices. One of UCS's objections to the NHTSA draft rule is that is uses an extremely low estimate for the cost of gas, approximately $2.50 a gallon or less between 2011 and 2030 (in 2007 dollars).
UCS says that last year, the Alliance launched a "disinformation campaign" in an unsuccessful attempt to blunt Congressional support for better fuel economy standards. The Alliance's recent comments repeated many of that campaign's economic scare tactics, Kliesch said, despite the fact that the industry eventually agreed to the standards passed by Congress.
UCS cites for example, a December 1, 2007, statement, from Alliance President Dave McCurdy called the fuel economy bill "realistic and reasonable." He also said, "We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage."
According to UCS calculations, achieving just the minimum 35 miles-per-gallon (mpg) fleet-wide average by 2020 would bolster the auto industry and the economy. The standards would cut oil use by 1.1 million barrels a day. For consumers, that is akin to cutting the cost of gasoline at today's prices by more than a dollar per gallon. Rather than boosting oil industry profits, drivers would spend those fuel savings locally, strengthening local economies. Kliesch said further that producing fuel-efficient technologies and vehicles would generate green, domestic jobs. According to a UCS analysis, achieving a 35-mpg fleet-wide average would create 149,000 new jobs nationwide in 2020.
According to a recent UCS report, NHTSA could set cost-effective fleet average fuel economy standards approaching 40 mpg by 2020, a target achievable even without hybrid technology. With a modest 25 percent hybrid market share in 2020, a fleet average fuel economy of 42 mpg could be achieved, while increased sales of fuel-efficient hybrids could push the average even higher.
Specifically the Alliance said in part, that "The technology analyses used by NHTSA understate the costs and overestimate the benefits associated with the proposed standards. Materials provided by the Alliance raise issues about the net benefits of the proposed standards and in fact indicate that they may create net social costs. NHTSA’s proposed standards exceed the statutory “maximum feasible” criterion, especially for the earlier years of the five year period. The pace of technological development required by the proposed 4.5% growth rate of CAFE standards from MYs 2011 through 2015, year over year, are based on a 'front-loading' of the implementation of technologies, and the results go beyond what it is technologically feasible and economically practicable.
"We urge that the above concerns be taken into account. We believe this will support the conclusion that NHTSA’s average annual increase of 4.5% in CAFE standards for model years 2011-2015 is overly aggressive. The setting of future standards is a complex issue that can have detrimental effects on industry, the economy and consumer choice, if done without proper consideration of all issues. The specific “front loaded” standards proposed in the rulemaking will pose a significant challenge to the automobile industry. Our comments provide suggestions for improving the methodology and assumptions that would lead to an improved final rule."
NHTSA issued its proposed rules -- Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015 -- [See WIMS 4/28/08] on May 2, 2008 [73 FR 24351-24487], with the comment deadline of July 1, 2008. The proposal indicated that, "This document proposes substantial increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks that would enhance energy security by improving fuel economy. Since the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the tailpipes of new motor vehicles is the natural by-product of the combustion of fuel, the increased standards would also address climate change by reducing tailpipe emissions of CO2. Those emissions represent 97 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Implementation of the new standards would dramatically add to the billions of barrels of fuel already saved since the beginning of the CAFE program in 1975."
Access a UCS release with links to extensive additional information (click here). Access a second UCS release regarding the Administrations role in the CAFE standards (click here). Access part of the extensive AAM comments (click here). Access the EPA Docket for the rulemaking with links to the proposed rules, background documents and all public comments (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Mossville, LA Group Submits Environmental Racism Petition
Jun 23: Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (AEHR), a human rights law firm, has submitted a Second Amended Petition and Petitioners’ Observations on the Government’s Reply Concerning the United States Government’s Failure to Protect the Human Rights of the Residents of Mossville, Louisiana, to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS). The submission is on behalf of Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN) and residents of Mossville, Louisiana, pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission.
The 97-page petition charges that the residents of the small unincorporated area of Mossville, composed of approximately 375 households, predominantly African American, located between two incorporated areas suffer from severe health problems, elevated levels of cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals, a devastated environment, and a deteriorated quality of life, all of which arise from governmental approvals of highly toxic industrial development in and around Mossville.
The petition indicates that the United States government and its political subdivisions have authorized fourteen industrial facilities to manufacture, process, store, and discharge toxic and hazardous substances in close geographic proximity to Mossville residents. Three of these facilities -- an oil refinery, a vinyl manufacturer, and a petrochemical facility -- are located within the recognized historic boundaries of Mossville, and eleven other facilities -- three vinyl manufacturers, one coal-fired power plant, and eight petrochemical facilities -- are located within 0.8 kilometers (one-half mile) of the community. Each of the facilities in the Mossville area has received from governmental agencies the requisite permits to pollute the air, water, and land.
The petition charges, "Although the environmental and health agencies of the United States have documented the massive industrial pollution burdens on the Mossville community, as well as residents’ exposure to health-damaging levels of toxic chemicals, these agencies have failed to adequately address this environmental health crisis that denies Mossville residents their fundamental human rights to life, health, and privacy. Furthermore, although the United States government has acknowledged the pervasive pattern of discrimination that subjects Mossville, as well as other African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American communities throughout the nation, to racially disproportionate toxic pollution burdens, the United States government has failed to protect the human right to freedom from racial discrimination."
Mossville and the MEAN group seek remedies for these human rights violations and respectfully requests that the Commission, pursuant to human rights laws and standards, recommend to the United States that it: (1.) provide medical services to Mossville residents suffering from diseases and health problems associated with environmental toxic exposures, including health monitoring services; (2.) offer appropriate relocation to consenting Mossville residents that allows them to live in healthier environs, away from toxic industrial facilities and contaminated sites; (3.) refrain from issuing environmental permits and other approvals that would allow any increase in pollution by existing industrial facilities located in close proximity to the Mossville community, and refrain from issuing any environmental permits and other approvals that would allow the introduction of any new industrial facility in the Mossville area; and (4.) reform its existing environmental regulatory system in a number of specified ways.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is one of two bodies in the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Commission has its headquarters in Washington, DC. The IACHR is an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS). Its mandate is found in the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The IACHR represents all of the member States of the OAS. It has seven members who act independently, without representing any particular country. The members of the IACHR are elected by the General Assembly of the OAS.
Access the complete Mossville petition (click here). Access the AEHR website for more information (click here). Access the IACHR website for additional information (click here).
The 97-page petition charges that the residents of the small unincorporated area of Mossville, composed of approximately 375 households, predominantly African American, located between two incorporated areas suffer from severe health problems, elevated levels of cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals, a devastated environment, and a deteriorated quality of life, all of which arise from governmental approvals of highly toxic industrial development in and around Mossville.
The petition indicates that the United States government and its political subdivisions have authorized fourteen industrial facilities to manufacture, process, store, and discharge toxic and hazardous substances in close geographic proximity to Mossville residents. Three of these facilities -- an oil refinery, a vinyl manufacturer, and a petrochemical facility -- are located within the recognized historic boundaries of Mossville, and eleven other facilities -- three vinyl manufacturers, one coal-fired power plant, and eight petrochemical facilities -- are located within 0.8 kilometers (one-half mile) of the community. Each of the facilities in the Mossville area has received from governmental agencies the requisite permits to pollute the air, water, and land.
The petition charges, "Although the environmental and health agencies of the United States have documented the massive industrial pollution burdens on the Mossville community, as well as residents’ exposure to health-damaging levels of toxic chemicals, these agencies have failed to adequately address this environmental health crisis that denies Mossville residents their fundamental human rights to life, health, and privacy. Furthermore, although the United States government has acknowledged the pervasive pattern of discrimination that subjects Mossville, as well as other African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American communities throughout the nation, to racially disproportionate toxic pollution burdens, the United States government has failed to protect the human right to freedom from racial discrimination."
Mossville and the MEAN group seek remedies for these human rights violations and respectfully requests that the Commission, pursuant to human rights laws and standards, recommend to the United States that it: (1.) provide medical services to Mossville residents suffering from diseases and health problems associated with environmental toxic exposures, including health monitoring services; (2.) offer appropriate relocation to consenting Mossville residents that allows them to live in healthier environs, away from toxic industrial facilities and contaminated sites; (3.) refrain from issuing environmental permits and other approvals that would allow any increase in pollution by existing industrial facilities located in close proximity to the Mossville community, and refrain from issuing any environmental permits and other approvals that would allow the introduction of any new industrial facility in the Mossville area; and (4.) reform its existing environmental regulatory system in a number of specified ways.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is one of two bodies in the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Commission has its headquarters in Washington, DC. The IACHR is an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS). Its mandate is found in the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The IACHR represents all of the member States of the OAS. It has seven members who act independently, without representing any particular country. The members of the IACHR are elected by the General Assembly of the OAS.
Access the complete Mossville petition (click here). Access the AEHR website for more information (click here). Access the IACHR website for additional information (click here).
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Record-Setting Year For Renewable & Efficiency Investments
Jul 1: A new report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008, prepared by UK-based New Energy Finance for United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP's) Paris-based Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative indicates that climate change worries, growing support from world governments, rising oil prices and ongoing energy security concerns, combined to fuel another record-setting year of investment in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries in 2007. Over $148 billion in new funding entered the sustainable energy sector globally last year, up 60% from 2006, even as a credit crunch began to roil financial markets.
Achim Steiner, the head of UNEP said, "The clean energy industry is maturing and its backers remain bullish. These findings should empower governments-both North and South-to reach a deep and meaningful new agreement by the crucial climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009." Wind energy again attracted the most investment($50.2 billion in 2007), but solar power grew most rapidly:attracting some $28.6 billion of new capital and growing at an average annual rate of 254% since 2004, driven by the advent of larger project financings.
The picture since the end of 2007 has been somewhat subdued across the sector, with only mergers and acquisitions up as several substantial wind developers sold their portfolios -- many realizing that with the tightening up of the credit markets they could not finance the growth themselves -- and the U.S. ethanol industry undergoing restructuring. But in the second quarter of 2008 most areas of investment rebounded, even as global financial markets remained in turmoil. Sustainable energy venture capital and private equity in Q2 2008 was up 34% on Q2 2007, new build asset finance was up 8% and public market investment showing a strong recovery with the IPO of Portuguese utility EDP's renewable energy business, EDP Renovaveis.
Steiner, who is also a UN Under-Secretary General said, "Just as thousands were drawn to California and the Klondike in the late 1800s, the green energy gold rush is attracting legions of modern day prospectors in all parts of the globe. A century later, the key difference is that a higher proportion of those looking for riches today may find them. With world temperatures and fossil fuel prices climbing higher, it is increasingly obvious to the public and investors alike that the transition to a low-carbon society is both a global imperative and an inevitability. This is attracting an enormous inflow of capital, talent and technology. But it is only inevitable if creative market mechanisms and public policy continue to evolve to liberate rather than frustrate this clean energy dawn. What is unfolding is nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the world's energy infrastructure."
Most of the new money flowed into Europe, followed by the USA. However, China, India and Brazil are drawing growing investor interest -- their share of new investment growing from 12% in 2004 to 22% in 2007, an increase in absolute terms of 14 times, from $1.8 billion to $26 billion. Total 2007 sustainable energy transaction volume was $204.9 billion, of which $98.2 billion went into new renewable energy generation (especially wind in the US, China and Spain), $50.1 billion went into technology development and manufacturing scale-up, and $56.6 billion changed hands through mergers and acquisitions. With 31 gigawatts of new installed generation, sustainable energy accounted for 23% of new power capacity added globally in 2007, about 10 times that of nuclear.
Sustainable energy companies accounted for 19% of all new capital raised by the energy sector on the global stock markets in 2007. The report indicates that, "Investment in the sustainable energy sectors must continue to grow strongly if targets for greenhouse gas reductions and renewables and efficiency increases are to be met. Investment between now and 2030 is expected to reach $450 billion a year by 2012, rising to more than $600 billion a year from 2020. The sector's overall performance during 2007 and into 2008 sets it on track to achieve these levels."
Access a lengthy release from UNEP with additional details and links to extensive related information (click here). Access links to the complete report, executive summary, and PowerPoint presentation (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, June 30, 2008
Suit Filed Challenging EPA's "Water Transfer Rule"
Jun 27: As previously promised, Earthjustice filed suit in U.S. Circuit Court in Atlanta to challenge the Bush administration's controversial "water transfer rule" announced on June 9, 2008 [See WIMS 6/10/08]. Earthjustice indicates that the new rule "says polluters don't need to comply with the Clean Water Act when they transfer dirty water -- from canals contaminated by urban or agricultural pollution, for example -- directly into public lakes and streams." Representing Florida Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice contends in its lawsuit that such water transfers should be protected by the Clean Water Act. Earthjustice also said the rule is intended to effectively overrule a 2006 Federal court decision which declared the practice of unpermitted pollution pumping to be illegal (See Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.).
According to EPA the final rule defines a water transfer as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This does not apply to pollutants introduced by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred. EPA indicates that water transfers are activities that divert water between waterbodies, typically through the use of pumps or passive redirection through tunnels, channels, and/or natural stream water features.
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) applauded the rule, calling it essential for ensuring adequate water supplies for communities. AMWA said the rule affirms how water transfers have been regulated for decades, and states will retain the authority they have always had to regulate transfers under state law, should they choose to do so. AMWA had said previously in support of the rule [See WIMS 8/16/06] that requiring NPDES permits for water transfers could impermissibly interfere with local water resource management decisions that Congress intended to protect. They said their position is also held by the Supreme Court. AMWA is an organization of the largest publicly owned drinking water systems in the United States. AMWA's membership serves more than 120 million Americans with drinking water from Alaska to Puerto Rico.
Earthjustice attorney David Guest, said, "The Bush administration has no right to create exemptions in the Clean Water Act that endanger public drinking water supplies. The public won't stand for this last-ditch move to protect polluters." Earthjustice indicated that the Federal court case challenged the practice of "backpumping" water from contaminated drainage canals into Lake Okeechobee a major drinking water supply. The federal court ruled that the polluted water, coupled with routine disinfection at public water plants, creates "toxic disinfection byproducts that can sicken humans."
They said that "transfers of contaminated water have already triggered numerous toxic algae blooms around the United States. The algae growths can make people sick and sometimes kill livestock or pets that drink the water. The drinking water supplies for millions of Americans across the country have been affected, including notable cases in Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and California. The dirty water is a health risk for pregnant women, and taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional treatment costs while polluters put more profits in their pockets."
Access a release from Earthjustice and links to background information (click here). Access the petition to vacate the EPA final rule (click here). Access links to the final rule, fact sheet and 19-page interpretation memo from EPA's website (click here). Access the EPA docket for the rulemaking for background information and comments (click here). Access the AMWA website for additional information (click here). [*Water]
According to EPA the final rule defines a water transfer as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This does not apply to pollutants introduced by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred. EPA indicates that water transfers are activities that divert water between waterbodies, typically through the use of pumps or passive redirection through tunnels, channels, and/or natural stream water features.
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) applauded the rule, calling it essential for ensuring adequate water supplies for communities. AMWA said the rule affirms how water transfers have been regulated for decades, and states will retain the authority they have always had to regulate transfers under state law, should they choose to do so. AMWA had said previously in support of the rule [See WIMS 8/16/06] that requiring NPDES permits for water transfers could impermissibly interfere with local water resource management decisions that Congress intended to protect. They said their position is also held by the Supreme Court. AMWA is an organization of the largest publicly owned drinking water systems in the United States. AMWA's membership serves more than 120 million Americans with drinking water from Alaska to Puerto Rico.
Earthjustice attorney David Guest, said, "The Bush administration has no right to create exemptions in the Clean Water Act that endanger public drinking water supplies. The public won't stand for this last-ditch move to protect polluters." Earthjustice indicated that the Federal court case challenged the practice of "backpumping" water from contaminated drainage canals into Lake Okeechobee a major drinking water supply. The federal court ruled that the polluted water, coupled with routine disinfection at public water plants, creates "toxic disinfection byproducts that can sicken humans."
They said that "transfers of contaminated water have already triggered numerous toxic algae blooms around the United States. The algae growths can make people sick and sometimes kill livestock or pets that drink the water. The drinking water supplies for millions of Americans across the country have been affected, including notable cases in Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and California. The dirty water is a health risk for pregnant women, and taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional treatment costs while polluters put more profits in their pockets."
Access a release from Earthjustice and links to background information (click here). Access the petition to vacate the EPA final rule (click here). Access links to the final rule, fact sheet and 19-page interpretation memo from EPA's website (click here). Access the EPA docket for the rulemaking for background information and comments (click here). Access the AMWA website for additional information (click here). [*Water]
Friday, June 27, 2008
Report: Breaking The Climate Deadlock: A Global Deal
Jun 27: Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, in Tokyo presented a report to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to coincide with the upcoming G-8 Leaders’ Summit at Lake Toyako [See WIMS 6/25/08] entitled, Breaking the Climate Deadlock: A Global Deal for Our Low Carbon Future. The report represents the first phase of the broader "Breaking the Climate Deadlock" initiative launched by Tony Blair and The Climate Group in March this year which aims to help build decisive political support, over the next 18 months, among key countries for a new international climate change agreement that will effectively address climate change beyond 2012.
Written by a group of recognized climate change experts drawn together by The Climate Group and under the direction of Blair, the report has three key objectives: (1.) Create a shared vision of what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change and show how this can be achieved without sacrificing countries’ growth and development aspirations; (2.) Establish the core elements of a global deal that would deliver this vision, in particular to drive the necessary investments in emissions reduction and adaptation; and, (3.) Provide clear, ambitious but achievable goals for G-8 Leaders, which would help ensure agreement on a new treaty in Copenhagen in December 2009. The report is supported by a range of expert briefing papers -- to be launched in the coming month -- that provide detailed background information and analysis on specific issues.
In a foreword to the report, Tony Blair presents perhaps the most politically realistic overview of the difficulties in negotiating an international climate change agreement that has been publicly stated thus far. He says, "But we should be open about the substantial present political risk. There is a danger of a yawning chasm between, on the one side, those in the scientific, NGO, and expert community who want very radical action immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and on the other side, those in positions of political leadership who fear they are being asked for something beyond their power to deliver without damage to economic growth. . .
"Essentially, we are asking North America, Europe and Japan to move from a situation of rising or static emissions in the last 12 years, to a significant, unprecedented cut in the next 12 to allow global emissions to peak by 2020. Some will say that to have a reasonable chance of constraining warming to approximately 2°C, we need greenhouse gas concentration to peak at 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv); some 450 ppmv; some even less [See WIMS 6/23/08, Launch Of 350.org; The Red Line For Human Beings]. Some insist that 2020 is the latest peaking moment we can permit, beyond which damage to the climate will become irreversible; some, though generally not in the scientific community, say 2025 or even 2030 may be permissible. . ." Blair points out, "if the US meets the boldest targets for reductions while China continues on its present path, and India follows, the climate will still suffer irreversible damage.
Blair says, "There is also an immense political danger which anyone who has participated in intricate and politically sensitive multilateral negotiations understands. If the Copenhagen meeting happens without a clear political direction already having been given, then it will be a negotiator’s nightmare. What is more, the danger is that countries then approach Copenhagen with minimalist positions, knowing concessions will be dragged out of them; rather than setting out genuinely the maximum that they think they can realistically achieve. The consequence will be an agreement of lowest common denominator, with a hotchpotch of complicated mechanisms that leaves the world little further forward and public opinion disillusioned and dissatisfied.
"There is a different and better way of approaching a global deal. What is essential is that the world, especially the world of business, gets from Copenhagen a clear, unequivocal, radical direction . . . [Blair outlines 9 points around which a deal can be structured, and concludes:] The challenge is not one of will. It is how to get a deal that sets us clearly on a path to a low carbon future; that is fair; and that is do-able. That is radical and realistic. In this report, we describe the elements that could go into such a deal and the thinking behind them."
The °Climate Group is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing business and government leadership on climate change. The organization is based in the UK, the USA, Australia, China and India and operates internationally. It was founded in 2004 by a diverse group of companies, governments and supporters who saw the opportunity to create new momentum in the international effort to stop climate change. The Climate Group works to accelerate international action on global warming with a new, strong focus on practical solutions, and promotes the development and sharing of expertise on how business and government can lead the way towards a low carbon economy whilst boosting profitability and competitiveness. Members include such companies as: Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, BP, Google, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Starbucks, etc.
Access the complete 66-page report (click here). Access more information on the Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative (click here). Access the Climate Group website for more information (click here). Access the G-8 Japan Summit meeting website for additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Written by a group of recognized climate change experts drawn together by The Climate Group and under the direction of Blair, the report has three key objectives: (1.) Create a shared vision of what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change and show how this can be achieved without sacrificing countries’ growth and development aspirations; (2.) Establish the core elements of a global deal that would deliver this vision, in particular to drive the necessary investments in emissions reduction and adaptation; and, (3.) Provide clear, ambitious but achievable goals for G-8 Leaders, which would help ensure agreement on a new treaty in Copenhagen in December 2009. The report is supported by a range of expert briefing papers -- to be launched in the coming month -- that provide detailed background information and analysis on specific issues.
In a foreword to the report, Tony Blair presents perhaps the most politically realistic overview of the difficulties in negotiating an international climate change agreement that has been publicly stated thus far. He says, "But we should be open about the substantial present political risk. There is a danger of a yawning chasm between, on the one side, those in the scientific, NGO, and expert community who want very radical action immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and on the other side, those in positions of political leadership who fear they are being asked for something beyond their power to deliver without damage to economic growth. . .
"Essentially, we are asking North America, Europe and Japan to move from a situation of rising or static emissions in the last 12 years, to a significant, unprecedented cut in the next 12 to allow global emissions to peak by 2020. Some will say that to have a reasonable chance of constraining warming to approximately 2°C, we need greenhouse gas concentration to peak at 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv); some 450 ppmv; some even less [See WIMS 6/23/08, Launch Of 350.org; The Red Line For Human Beings]. Some insist that 2020 is the latest peaking moment we can permit, beyond which damage to the climate will become irreversible; some, though generally not in the scientific community, say 2025 or even 2030 may be permissible. . ." Blair points out, "if the US meets the boldest targets for reductions while China continues on its present path, and India follows, the climate will still suffer irreversible damage.
Blair says, "There is also an immense political danger which anyone who has participated in intricate and politically sensitive multilateral negotiations understands. If the Copenhagen meeting happens without a clear political direction already having been given, then it will be a negotiator’s nightmare. What is more, the danger is that countries then approach Copenhagen with minimalist positions, knowing concessions will be dragged out of them; rather than setting out genuinely the maximum that they think they can realistically achieve. The consequence will be an agreement of lowest common denominator, with a hotchpotch of complicated mechanisms that leaves the world little further forward and public opinion disillusioned and dissatisfied.
"There is a different and better way of approaching a global deal. What is essential is that the world, especially the world of business, gets from Copenhagen a clear, unequivocal, radical direction . . . [Blair outlines 9 points around which a deal can be structured, and concludes:] The challenge is not one of will. It is how to get a deal that sets us clearly on a path to a low carbon future; that is fair; and that is do-able. That is radical and realistic. In this report, we describe the elements that could go into such a deal and the thinking behind them."
The °Climate Group is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing business and government leadership on climate change. The organization is based in the UK, the USA, Australia, China and India and operates internationally. It was founded in 2004 by a diverse group of companies, governments and supporters who saw the opportunity to create new momentum in the international effort to stop climate change. The Climate Group works to accelerate international action on global warming with a new, strong focus on practical solutions, and promotes the development and sharing of expertise on how business and government can lead the way towards a low carbon economy whilst boosting profitability and competitiveness. Members include such companies as: Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, BP, Google, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Starbucks, etc.
Access the complete 66-page report (click here). Access more information on the Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative (click here). Access the Climate Group website for more information (click here). Access the G-8 Japan Summit meeting website for additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Thursday, June 26, 2008
High Court Rules In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
Jun 25: In the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 07-219. In a complicated split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a punitive damage award of $2.5 billion in the tragic Exxon Valdez catastrophe was too large and should not exceed the compensatory damages determined to be $507.5 million. Legal observers are saying the case may established a new legal guideline to use in deciding what is a reasonable dollar value to "punish" a wrong-doer for damages. The new guideline is basically a 1-to-1 ratio of compensatory damages cost to punishment award.
The High Court said in summary, "There are three questions of maritime law before us: whether a shipowner may be liable for punitive damages without acquiescence in the actions causing harm, whether punitive damages have been barred implicitly by federal statutory law making no provision for them, and whether the award of $2.5 billion in this case is greater than maritime law should allow in the circumstances. We are equally divided on the owner’s derivative liability, and hold that the federal statutory law does not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss, but that the award here should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages.
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, in Parts I, II, and III. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas, joined. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
At issue in the case was the $2.5 billion punitive damage verdict that breaks down to $76,500 per individual plaintiff in the class action composed of 32,677 commercial fishermen, related individuals and businesses, private landowners, Native Alaskans, municipalities, and other claimants from across the country. Exxon argued that it should not be punished at all [See WIMS 2/26/08]. The jury awarded $5,000 in punitive damages against Hazelwood and $5 billion against Exxon. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reduced the damage award against Exxon to $2.5 billion.
In its review the High Court considered the question of whether to allow punitive damages for the conduct of any employee and imposing liability for managerial agents and concluded, "The Court is equally divided on this question. . . We therefore leave the Ninth Circuit’s opinion undisturbed in this respect, though it should go without saying that the disposition here is not precedential on the derivative liability question."
On another issue regarding whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) somehow preempts punitive damages, but not compensatory damages, for economic loss, the High Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit and says, "nothing in the statutory text points to fragmenting the recovery scheme this way, and we have rejected similar attempts to sever remedies from their causes of action."
Finally, on the issue of first impression about punitive damages in maritime law, the High Court indicates that, "by most accounts the median ratio of punitive to compensatory awards has remained less than 1:1." The Court also notes that, "Today’s enquiry differs from due process review because the case arises under federal maritime jurisdiction, and we are reviewing a jury award for conformity with maritime law, rather than the outer limit allowed by due process; we are examining the verdict in the exercise of federal maritime common law authority, which precedes and should obviate any application of the constitutional standard."
The Majority rules, "Applying this standard [1:1, punitive to compensatory] to the present case, we take for granted the District Court’s calculation of the total relevant compensatory damages at $507.5 million. See In re Exxon Valdez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1063 (D. Alaska 2002). A punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 1:1 thus yields maximum punitive damages in that amount. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the Court of Appeals to remit the punitive damages award accordingly."
Access the syllabus, complete opinion, concurring opinions and dissents (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket 07-219 (click here). Access the Supreme Court links to all briefs (click here). Access the Whole Truth website for links to extensive information (click here). Access a graphic chronology of the litigation in this case and links to all briefs filed in the Supreme Court case (click here). [*Haz, *Water]
The High Court said in summary, "There are three questions of maritime law before us: whether a shipowner may be liable for punitive damages without acquiescence in the actions causing harm, whether punitive damages have been barred implicitly by federal statutory law making no provision for them, and whether the award of $2.5 billion in this case is greater than maritime law should allow in the circumstances. We are equally divided on the owner’s derivative liability, and hold that the federal statutory law does not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss, but that the award here should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages.
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, in Parts I, II, and III. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas, joined. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
At issue in the case was the $2.5 billion punitive damage verdict that breaks down to $76,500 per individual plaintiff in the class action composed of 32,677 commercial fishermen, related individuals and businesses, private landowners, Native Alaskans, municipalities, and other claimants from across the country. Exxon argued that it should not be punished at all [See WIMS 2/26/08]. The jury awarded $5,000 in punitive damages against Hazelwood and $5 billion against Exxon. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reduced the damage award against Exxon to $2.5 billion.
In its review the High Court considered the question of whether to allow punitive damages for the conduct of any employee and imposing liability for managerial agents and concluded, "The Court is equally divided on this question. . . We therefore leave the Ninth Circuit’s opinion undisturbed in this respect, though it should go without saying that the disposition here is not precedential on the derivative liability question."
On another issue regarding whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) somehow preempts punitive damages, but not compensatory damages, for economic loss, the High Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit and says, "nothing in the statutory text points to fragmenting the recovery scheme this way, and we have rejected similar attempts to sever remedies from their causes of action."
Finally, on the issue of first impression about punitive damages in maritime law, the High Court indicates that, "by most accounts the median ratio of punitive to compensatory awards has remained less than 1:1." The Court also notes that, "Today’s enquiry differs from due process review because the case arises under federal maritime jurisdiction, and we are reviewing a jury award for conformity with maritime law, rather than the outer limit allowed by due process; we are examining the verdict in the exercise of federal maritime common law authority, which precedes and should obviate any application of the constitutional standard."
The Majority rules, "Applying this standard [1:1, punitive to compensatory] to the present case, we take for granted the District Court’s calculation of the total relevant compensatory damages at $507.5 million. See In re Exxon Valdez, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1063 (D. Alaska 2002). A punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 1:1 thus yields maximum punitive damages in that amount. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the Court of Appeals to remit the punitive damages award accordingly."
Access the syllabus, complete opinion, concurring opinions and dissents (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket 07-219 (click here). Access the Supreme Court links to all briefs (click here). Access the Whole Truth website for links to extensive information (click here). Access a graphic chronology of the litigation in this case and links to all briefs filed in the Supreme Court case (click here). [*Haz, *Water]
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
NAFTA CEC's State Of The North American Environment Report
Jun 18: The NAFTA environmental organization, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), has released its latest State Of The North American Environment Report. The report adds to other recently released similar reports including: U.S. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (EPA 2008 ROE) [See WIMS 5/20/08]; the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 2008, released by the Heinz Center on June 17, and its companion policy report, Environmental Information: Roadmap to the Future [See WIMS 6/23/08].
The CEC report addresses issues related to air and atmosphere, biodiversity and ecosystems, pollutants, and water. Specific topics include climate change, species of concern -- including the critically endangered vaquita porpoise -- and the quality and quantity of water shared between the North American nations. The report, The North American Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues, is a follow-up to the CEC’s 2002 state of the environment report and responds to the CEC Secretariat’s obligation to periodically address environmental conditions in Canada, Mexico and the United States. With the advice of environmental reporting experts from the three countries, the report draws on information from national and international sources for a broad overview of North America’s environment. The report was presented to the environment ministers of Canada, Mexico and the United States in advance of their annual meeting, to be held in Ottawa, Canada, on June 26.
CEC Executive Director Adrián Vázquez-Gálvez said, “Over the next year, we will use this report, along with other important information, to engage the public, subject matter experts and governments in evaluating our progress to date and future opportunities for cooperation. It will help us identify the central environmental challenges confronting North America, as well as the top priorities for cooperative action among the three countries to address these environmental challenges.” In addition to the June 26 meeting of environment ministers, the CEC’s Joint Public Advisory Committee is hosting a major conference -- North America 2030: An Environmental Outlook -- to discuss the report and other issues as they pertain to North America’s environmental future on June 25.
The report, conference and council meeting all explore the following questions: What are the central environmental challenges confronting North America?; What are the greatest priorities for cooperative action among our three countries to address these environmental challenges?; How can we measure our progress and create effective feedback mechanisms?; and How can we enhance the relevance of trinational cooperation through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation?
Access a release on the CEC North American Mosaic report (click here). Access the State of the Environment website for links to the complete report, chapters, and related information (click here). Access the Environmental Outlook conference website for an agenda, discussion paper, and webcast (click here). Access details on the 15th CEC Council June 26, meeting including a webcast of the meeting (click here).
The CEC report addresses issues related to air and atmosphere, biodiversity and ecosystems, pollutants, and water. Specific topics include climate change, species of concern -- including the critically endangered vaquita porpoise -- and the quality and quantity of water shared between the North American nations. The report, The North American Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues, is a follow-up to the CEC’s 2002 state of the environment report and responds to the CEC Secretariat’s obligation to periodically address environmental conditions in Canada, Mexico and the United States. With the advice of environmental reporting experts from the three countries, the report draws on information from national and international sources for a broad overview of North America’s environment. The report was presented to the environment ministers of Canada, Mexico and the United States in advance of their annual meeting, to be held in Ottawa, Canada, on June 26.
CEC Executive Director Adrián Vázquez-Gálvez said, “Over the next year, we will use this report, along with other important information, to engage the public, subject matter experts and governments in evaluating our progress to date and future opportunities for cooperation. It will help us identify the central environmental challenges confronting North America, as well as the top priorities for cooperative action among the three countries to address these environmental challenges.” In addition to the June 26 meeting of environment ministers, the CEC’s Joint Public Advisory Committee is hosting a major conference -- North America 2030: An Environmental Outlook -- to discuss the report and other issues as they pertain to North America’s environmental future on June 25.
The report, conference and council meeting all explore the following questions: What are the central environmental challenges confronting North America?; What are the greatest priorities for cooperative action among our three countries to address these environmental challenges?; How can we measure our progress and create effective feedback mechanisms?; and How can we enhance the relevance of trinational cooperation through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation?
Access a release on the CEC North American Mosaic report (click here). Access the State of the Environment website for links to the complete report, chapters, and related information (click here). Access the Environmental Outlook conference website for an agenda, discussion paper, and webcast (click here). Access details on the 15th CEC Council June 26, meeting including a webcast of the meeting (click here).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Raw Sewage Overflow Notification Bill Passes House
Jun 23: the U.S. House of Representatives passed on a voice vote, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative Tim Bishop (D-NY), The Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 2452), which is designed to protect Americans from hazardous overflows in beaches, rivers and lakes. Every year, sewage-contaminated water sickens millions of Americans who unknowingly swim in it. Bishop said New York City alone discharges 27 billion gallons of untreated sewage annually into surrounding bodies of water. There is no Federal law requiring sewage operators to monitor for hazardous leaks or notify the public of such leaks.
Bishop indicated in a release that, “The best way to avoid human health and environmental concerns from sewer overflows is to ensure that they never occur in the first place. However, even with significant increases in investment, sewer overflows will continue to occur. Therefore, it is imperative that we provide the public with comprehensive and timely notification of sewer overflows. I introduced the Right-to-Know Act to ensure that all Americans can protect themselves and their families from contact with untreated sewage and to reduce economic losses due to waterborne illness.”
Currently, instead of clear federal regulations, there is a patchwork of regulations in states and localities. It has been estimated that between 1.8 million and 3.5 million Americans become sick every year just from swimming in waters contaminated by sewer overflows. The loss of recreational revenue due to contamination has been valued at between $1 billion and $2 billion while economic losses due to swimming-related illnesses are estimated at $28 billion annually. In addition to enforcing tougher public health standards, the bill would make sewage operators eligible for federal clean water funds to monitor their systems and to develop procedures to notify the public.
Commenting on the bill, Rebecca Wodder, President of American Rivers said, “The safety of our water should never be a guessing game. Thanks to the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act, people will know when their local rivers have been contaminated by sewage. When contaminated tomatoes were discovered in supermarkets, they were pulled from the shelf. We need the same warning when our waterways are polluted. Knowledge is power, and in this case, knowledge can mean the difference between staying healthy or falling ill.”
The bipartisan legislation, which had 57 cosponsors including Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) who joined with Bishop on the introduction, enjoys broad support from more than 150 groups including numerous public health groups. Companion legislation, S. 2080, has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and is currently in the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Access a release from Representative Bishop (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2452 (click here). Access a release from American Rivers (click here). [*Water]
Bishop indicated in a release that, “The best way to avoid human health and environmental concerns from sewer overflows is to ensure that they never occur in the first place. However, even with significant increases in investment, sewer overflows will continue to occur. Therefore, it is imperative that we provide the public with comprehensive and timely notification of sewer overflows. I introduced the Right-to-Know Act to ensure that all Americans can protect themselves and their families from contact with untreated sewage and to reduce economic losses due to waterborne illness.”
Currently, instead of clear federal regulations, there is a patchwork of regulations in states and localities. It has been estimated that between 1.8 million and 3.5 million Americans become sick every year just from swimming in waters contaminated by sewer overflows. The loss of recreational revenue due to contamination has been valued at between $1 billion and $2 billion while economic losses due to swimming-related illnesses are estimated at $28 billion annually. In addition to enforcing tougher public health standards, the bill would make sewage operators eligible for federal clean water funds to monitor their systems and to develop procedures to notify the public.
Commenting on the bill, Rebecca Wodder, President of American Rivers said, “The safety of our water should never be a guessing game. Thanks to the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act, people will know when their local rivers have been contaminated by sewage. When contaminated tomatoes were discovered in supermarkets, they were pulled from the shelf. We need the same warning when our waterways are polluted. Knowledge is power, and in this case, knowledge can mean the difference between staying healthy or falling ill.”
The bipartisan legislation, which had 57 cosponsors including Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) who joined with Bishop on the introduction, enjoys broad support from more than 150 groups including numerous public health groups. Companion legislation, S. 2080, has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and is currently in the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Access a release from Representative Bishop (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2452 (click here). Access a release from American Rivers (click here). [*Water]
Monday, June 23, 2008
White House Launches Another Environmental Indicators Initiative
Jun 17: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy directed Federal agencies to begin developing a set of national environmental indicators and to kick off a major pilot project in this area. According to an announcement from CEQ National Environmental Status and Trends (NEST) indicators are envisioned as high quality, scientifically based statistical measures of selected conditions of our environment and natural resources that will facilitate public discourse and decision-making. They will be used by Federal decision makers, other partners and stakeholders, and the public to analyze national trends and assess the impact of national programs on the Nation's environment and natural resources.
The pilot project announced will focus on producing consistent, regularly recurring indicators in the area of water quantity and quality. The NEST pilot will demonstrate collaborative interagency processes and provide a forum to engage the public in the identification of questions that should be addressed by the indicators. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton said, "Our Nation will benefit from a consistent set of indicators for our environment and natural resources. Most NEST indicators will be produced from data collected by ongoing Federal and State programs. This action plan will improve the quality and uniformity of those data to provide nationally consistent, and more widely accessible, indicators."
Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget said, "High-quality, statistical measures of conditions and trends are important indicators of the effectiveness of government policies and programs. We currently lack consistent information on the environment and natural resources to analyze national trends. We sought the advice of the National Academy of Public Administration on the best way to move forward, and this action is based on their recommendations." Dr. John H. Marburger III, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy said, "The science community has pilot-tested several approaches to national reporting on environmental conditions over the past decade. For example, the project The State of the Nation's Ecosystems conducted for the government by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, produced a useful, credible set of indicators. But we need to go farther, and the development of such national indicators is a Federal responsibility. So we are moving now to the next level."
Interestingly, the announcement came on the same day that the Heinz Center released its latest, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2008 report. A companion report calls for bold federal and state action to strengthen and integrate the nation’s environmental monitoring. Also, the White House announcement did not mention the May 20, release by EPA of its 2008 Report on the Environment (EPA 2008 ROE) [See WIMS 5/20/08], which it called "an important resource that citizens can use to better understand trends in the condition of the air, water, and land and related changes in human health and the environment in the United States." and "a valuable resource that can inform and focus EPA activities to improve and protect America’s environment." The EPA ROE is a major document that follows a lengthy development process that began in 2003, and a public comment period last year [See WIMS 5/10/07]. EPA says "the 2008 ROE uses scientifically sound indicators to measure and report on overall progress toward protecting the environment and human health."
On June 2, the three White House agencies sent a letter and policy memorandum to agency and department heads indicating that, "We will begin with a pilot project conducted by Federal agencies in collaboration with their non-Federal partners on national status and trend indicators of water availability, including both quantity and quality. The pilot project is designed to test the vision for the NEST Indicators. It will demonstrate the collaborative interagency processes that will be used to select and implement indicators and will improve the consistency and interoperability of data. In addition, a national forum will be convened to identify the topics and questions that should be addressed by the indicators of water availability. The U.S. Forest Service has agreed to lead an Executive Management Team that will guide the pilot project."
In a second phase of the initiative, Federal agencies will work together through an Executive Management Team to convene a national forum on fresh water availability. indicators.The national forum will have broad representation from multiple levels of government and from all affected sectors. Forum participants will identify policy-relevant questions that frame national, cross-cutting concerns as well as regional, state and local concerns for which statistically rigorous, nationally comparable indicators would inform analyses and decision-making at multiple levels of government and across sectors.
According to the policy memo, various Federal Agencies will coordinate their observation and monitoring activities through the subcommittees of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Federal agencies will work together through CENR subcommittees to identify key observations required to provide the consistent statistical basis for the NEST Indicators pilot project.
The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 2008, announced by the Heinz Center shows that the acreage burned every year by wildfires is increasing, non-native fish have invaded nearly every watershed in the lower 48 states, and chemical contaminants are found in virtually all streams and most groundwater wells, often at levels above those set to protect human health or wildlife. In contrast, ecosystems are increasing their storage of carbon, there are improvements in soil quality and crop yields have grown significantly. The companion policy report, Environmental Information: Roadmap to the Future, notes critical gaps in environmental information and highlights the management challenges. Key recommendations in the Roadmap report urge Congress to establish a national environmental indicator initiative, guided by the federal government, states, the private sector, environmental organizations, universities, and others. This effort would link national indicators with information used by local, state, corporate, and other decision makers, and drive an agenda for improving data collection and reporting.
The Roadmap suggests that the executive branch build on the work of the Heinz Center and others to maintain momentum while Congress moves forward, establish internal processes to improve federal data coordination, and expand dialogue among the many users and providers of needed environmental information. The companion report also suggests that Congress and the executive branch provide additional support for monitoring and related activities and that states demonstrate a heightened commitment to providing the information needed by state, local, and other decision makers to improve the state of the nation’s ecosystems.
Access a release from CEQ (click here). Access the letter and policy memorandum (click here). Access the NSTC website for additional information (click here). Access EPA's ROE website with links to the complete document and presentations of data by Regions (click here). Access EPA's ROE 2008 Project Summary website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the Heinz Center (click here). Access summary information and details on obtaining the complete Ecosystem 2008 report and links to the complete 104-page Heinz Roadmap report (click here). [*All]
The pilot project announced will focus on producing consistent, regularly recurring indicators in the area of water quantity and quality. The NEST pilot will demonstrate collaborative interagency processes and provide a forum to engage the public in the identification of questions that should be addressed by the indicators. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton said, "Our Nation will benefit from a consistent set of indicators for our environment and natural resources. Most NEST indicators will be produced from data collected by ongoing Federal and State programs. This action plan will improve the quality and uniformity of those data to provide nationally consistent, and more widely accessible, indicators."
Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget said, "High-quality, statistical measures of conditions and trends are important indicators of the effectiveness of government policies and programs. We currently lack consistent information on the environment and natural resources to analyze national trends. We sought the advice of the National Academy of Public Administration on the best way to move forward, and this action is based on their recommendations." Dr. John H. Marburger III, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy said, "The science community has pilot-tested several approaches to national reporting on environmental conditions over the past decade. For example, the project The State of the Nation's Ecosystems conducted for the government by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, produced a useful, credible set of indicators. But we need to go farther, and the development of such national indicators is a Federal responsibility. So we are moving now to the next level."
Interestingly, the announcement came on the same day that the Heinz Center released its latest, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2008 report. A companion report calls for bold federal and state action to strengthen and integrate the nation’s environmental monitoring. Also, the White House announcement did not mention the May 20, release by EPA of its 2008 Report on the Environment (EPA 2008 ROE) [See WIMS 5/20/08], which it called "an important resource that citizens can use to better understand trends in the condition of the air, water, and land and related changes in human health and the environment in the United States." and "a valuable resource that can inform and focus EPA activities to improve and protect America’s environment." The EPA ROE is a major document that follows a lengthy development process that began in 2003, and a public comment period last year [See WIMS 5/10/07]. EPA says "the 2008 ROE uses scientifically sound indicators to measure and report on overall progress toward protecting the environment and human health."
On June 2, the three White House agencies sent a letter and policy memorandum to agency and department heads indicating that, "We will begin with a pilot project conducted by Federal agencies in collaboration with their non-Federal partners on national status and trend indicators of water availability, including both quantity and quality. The pilot project is designed to test the vision for the NEST Indicators. It will demonstrate the collaborative interagency processes that will be used to select and implement indicators and will improve the consistency and interoperability of data. In addition, a national forum will be convened to identify the topics and questions that should be addressed by the indicators of water availability. The U.S. Forest Service has agreed to lead an Executive Management Team that will guide the pilot project."
In a second phase of the initiative, Federal agencies will work together through an Executive Management Team to convene a national forum on fresh water availability. indicators.The national forum will have broad representation from multiple levels of government and from all affected sectors. Forum participants will identify policy-relevant questions that frame national, cross-cutting concerns as well as regional, state and local concerns for which statistically rigorous, nationally comparable indicators would inform analyses and decision-making at multiple levels of government and across sectors.
According to the policy memo, various Federal Agencies will coordinate their observation and monitoring activities through the subcommittees of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Federal agencies will work together through CENR subcommittees to identify key observations required to provide the consistent statistical basis for the NEST Indicators pilot project.
The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 2008, announced by the Heinz Center shows that the acreage burned every year by wildfires is increasing, non-native fish have invaded nearly every watershed in the lower 48 states, and chemical contaminants are found in virtually all streams and most groundwater wells, often at levels above those set to protect human health or wildlife. In contrast, ecosystems are increasing their storage of carbon, there are improvements in soil quality and crop yields have grown significantly. The companion policy report, Environmental Information: Roadmap to the Future, notes critical gaps in environmental information and highlights the management challenges. Key recommendations in the Roadmap report urge Congress to establish a national environmental indicator initiative, guided by the federal government, states, the private sector, environmental organizations, universities, and others. This effort would link national indicators with information used by local, state, corporate, and other decision makers, and drive an agenda for improving data collection and reporting.
The Roadmap suggests that the executive branch build on the work of the Heinz Center and others to maintain momentum while Congress moves forward, establish internal processes to improve federal data coordination, and expand dialogue among the many users and providers of needed environmental information. The companion report also suggests that Congress and the executive branch provide additional support for monitoring and related activities and that states demonstrate a heightened commitment to providing the information needed by state, local, and other decision makers to improve the state of the nation’s ecosystems.
Access a release from CEQ (click here). Access the letter and policy memorandum (click here). Access the NSTC website for additional information (click here). Access EPA's ROE website with links to the complete document and presentations of data by Regions (click here). Access EPA's ROE 2008 Project Summary website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the Heinz Center (click here). Access summary information and details on obtaining the complete Ecosystem 2008 report and links to the complete 104-page Heinz Roadmap report (click here). [*All]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
