High Court Rules In Winter (Navy) v. NRDC On Sonar Issues

Nov 12: In the U.S. Supreme Court, the case of Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., [NRDC] Case No. 07–1239 [See WIMS 10/9/08]. The case was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit [See WIMS 3/3/08]. In this complicated split decision, Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Stevens joined as to Part I. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined.

The questions presented that were stated by the High Court are: The district court found a likelihood that the Navy failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and preliminarily enjoined the Navy’s use of midfrequency active (MFA) sonar during training exercises that prepare Navy strike groups for worldwide deployment. The Chief of Naval Operations concluded that the injunction unacceptably risks the training of naval forces for deployment to high threat areas overseas, and the President of the United States determined that the use of MFA sonar during these exercises is “essential to national security.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), applying a longstanding regulation, accordingly found “emergency circumstances” for complying with NEPA without completing an environmental impact statement. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless sustained the district court’s conclusion that no “emergency circumstances” were present and affirmed the preliminary injunction.

The questions presented are: 1. Whether CEQ permissibly construed its own regulation in finding “emergency circumstances?”2. Whether, in any event, the preliminary injunction, based on a preliminary finding that the Navy had not satisfied NEPA’s procedural requirements, is inconsistent with established equitable principles limiting discretionary injunctive relief.

The majority opinion of the High Court held that the Court of Appeals was wrong in upholding a preliminary injunction imposing restrictions on the Navy’s sonar training and reversed and vacated its decision. The majority noted that even the Appeals Court acknowledged that “the record contains no evidence that marine mammals have been harmed” by the Navy’s exercises. In its opinion, the majority said, "The use of MFA [“mid-frequency active”] sonar during these exercises is 'mission-critical,' given that MFA sonar is the only proven method of identifying submerged diesel-electric submarines operating on battery power."

The Supreme Court said, "The Navy emphasizes that it has used MFA sonar during training exercises in SOCAL [southern California] for 40 years, without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal.The Navy asserts that, at most, MFA sonar may cause temporary hearing loss or brief disruptions of marine mammals’ behavioral patterns."

The Supreme Court ruled, "We agree with the Navy that the Ninth Circuit’s 'possibility' standard is too lenient. Our frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. . . We also find it pertinent that this is not a case in which the defendant is conducting a new type of activity with completely unknown effects on the environment. . . the plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin -- or substantially restrict -- training exercises that have been taking place in SOCAL for the last 40 years."

The majority ruled further, "even if plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury from the Navy’s training exercises, any such injury is outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors. A proper consideration of these factors alone requires denial of the requested injunctive relief. . ." Finally, the Supreme Court majority says, "We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals. Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines. . ."

The High Court also commented on the dissenting opinions in a footnote saying, "As to the injunction, the dissent barely mentions the Navy’s interests. . . We find that those interests, and the documented risks to national security, clearly outweigh the harm on the other side of the balance. We agree with much of Justice Breyer's analysis. . . (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), but disagree with his conclusion that the modified conditions imposed by the stay order should remain in force until the Navy completes its EIS . . ."

NRDC issued a release and further information on the decision. Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s marine mammal program said, “The essential ruling today is that the lower courts did not properly balance the competing interests in issuing and upholding the injunction. However, this is a narrow ruling that leaves in place four of the injunction’s six mitigation measures that protect marine mammals from harm caused by high-intensity sonar during training. The Supreme Court eliminated two of the injunction’s mitigation measures out of deference to the Navy’s claims that they would impinge on training. The court did not upset the underlying determination that the Navy likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement.” Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel said, “It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy’s expansive claims of executive power, and that two thirds of the injunction remain in place." NRDC said, "The Navy acknowledges that sonar can be deadly to marine mammals, and that the exercises at issue would 'take' an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including causing permanent injury to more than 500 whales and temporary deafness to at least 8,000 whales."

Access the complete opinion and dissents (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the oral argument transcript (click here). Access links to briefs filed in the case (click here). Access the opinion of the Ninth Circuit (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to background information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Water]

GAO Report On Speed Limit & Energy Conservation

Readers Note: WIMS will not be publishing tomorrow,
November 11, 2008, in observance of Veterans Day.

Nov 10: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a letter report entitled, Energy Efficiency: Potential Fuel Savings Generated by a National Speed Limit Would Be Influenced by Many Other Factors (GAO-09-153R, November 07, 2008). The report was requested by Senator John Warner (R-VA), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

GAO recounts that Congress previously used a national speed limit as an approach to conserve fuel when, in 1974, it provided for a national 55 mile per hour (mph) speed limit to reduce gasoline consumption in response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The law prohibited federal funding of certain highway projects in any state with a maximum speed limit in excess of 55 mph. In 1987, Congress allowed states to raise the maximum speed limit to 65 mph on rural interstate routes. In 1995, the 55 mph speed limit was repealed. Since then, states have been free to set speed limits without the loss of federal highway funds. Congress expressed interest in obtaining information on using a national speed limit to reduce fuel consumption. In response to the request, we reviewed existing literature and consulted knowledgeable stakeholders on the following: (1) What is the relationship between speed and the fuel economy of vehicles? (2) How might reducing the speed limit affect fuel use?

For a vehicle traveling at high speed, reducing its speed increases fuel economy. In general, at speeds over approximately 35 to 45 mph, if a vehicle reduces its speed by 5 mph, its fuel economy can increase by about 5 to 10 percent, because air resistance, or drag, increases exponentially as a vehicle goes faster. Conversely, air resistance diminishes more rapidly as a vehicle slows down, thus increasing its fuel economy. According to existing literature and knowledgeable stakeholders, there is no single speed that optimizes fuel economy for all vehicles.

Optimal speed for fuel economy for individual vehicles ranges widely, but is generally between 30 and 60 mph, depending on a vehicle's characteristics. However, a vehicle's fuel economy also depends on other factors besides air resistance. Factors that enhance fuel economy include engine efficiency enhancements (e.g., fuel injection), electronic and computer controls, more efficient transmissions, and hybrid technology. However, other factors decrease fuel economy. In general, over the last 2 decades, fuel economy gains resulting from advances in automotive technologies have largely been offset by increases in vehicle weight, performance, and accessory loads.

Specifically, vehicles are heavier than in the past, because they are larger and include more technologies. Further, increased accessory loads, such as air conditioning and electronics, have also reduced fuel economy. For example, average vehicle weight has increased from 3,220 pounds in 1987 to 4,117 in 2008, according to U.S. EPA. According to EPA, from 1987 through 2004, on a fleetwide basis, technology innovation was utilized exclusively to support market-driven attributes other than fuel economy, such as performance. Beginning in 2005, however, according to EPA's analysis of fuel economy trends, technology has been used to increase both performance and fuel economy, while keeping vehicle weight relatively constant.

Lowering speed limits can potentially reduce total fuel consumption. According to literature we reviewed examining the impact of the national speed limit enacted in 1974, the estimated fuel savings resulting from the 55 mph national speed limit ranged from 0.2 to 3 percent of annual gasoline consumption. According to DOE's 2008 estimate, a national speed limit of 55 mph could yield possible savings of 175,000 to 275,000 barrels of oil per day. This range is consistent with estimates of the impact of the past national speed limit.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), total U.S. consumption of petroleum for 2007 was about 21 million barrels of oil per day. However, other factors, including drivers' compliance with a reduced speed limit, would affect the actual impact of a lower speed limit on the amount of fuel savings. Reducing the speed limit does not necessarily mean that drivers will comply. Moreover, a national speed limit would not affect many of the miles driven in the United States, such as those in urban areas, where most vehicles are already traveling at lower speeds due to lower speed limits or congestion.

Other external conditions also affect fuel economy, such as road conditions, including whether a road is steep or flat, and weather conditions, including wind speed and direction. Finally, other aspects of driver behavior may also affect fuel consumption. The speed limit is only one tool among many for potentially conserving fuel. Certain realities, such as congestion on our nation's roads, how people drive and maintain their vehicles, and emerging technologies, are other potential considerations as the nation looks for options to conserve fuel.

Access the brief 8-page report (click here). [*Energy/Efficiency]

"Green Recovery" Report Author Responds To Critic

Nov 7: On September 9, The Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) released a 42-page report entitled, Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy [See WIMS 9/10/08]. According to the organizations, "The report outlines a green economic recovery program to strengthen the U.S. economy over the next two years and leave it in a better position for sustainable prosperity." CAP is headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and professor at the Georgetown University Center of Law, who is now co-chairman of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team.

On November 5, in a "WebMemo" entitled, Impact of CO2 Restrictions on Employment and Income: Green Jobs or Gone Jobs?, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., with the Heritage Foundation criticized the report and two others claiming that policy initiatives to advance a green investment agenda necessarily hurt economic growth and employment. Kreutzer said, "The clear political failure of the Lieberman–Warner bill last spring shows that support for global–warming legislation wanes considerably when the extraordinary costs are compared to the almost insignificant benefits. In response, those pushing restrictions on carbon dioxide (CO2) have tried to repackage global warming legislation as jobs bills. As appealing as the repackaging seems on the surface (lots of high–paid, high–tech workers in lab coats), the support for these claims collapses once it is examined."

Kreutzer concludes, "When all is said and done, restricting CO2 cuts energy, income, and jobs. Pretending that breaking windows creates employment may make choosing among alternatives easier, but it leads to bad policy."

Robert Pollin of CAP and a co-author of the Green Recovery report has responded to the critique with a detailed response. According to Pollin, "Kreutzer claims that 'Green Recovery' is able to show that green investments produce positive job effects only by making an elementary error in logic. He claims we count the jobs that are created by spending a given amount of money, for example, $100, on green investments, but we ignore the jobs that are lost when $100 in new taxes have to be raised to pay for the green investments.

"Kreutzer reaches this conclusion by ignoring all the basic arguments in 'Green Recovery.' Spending $1 million on green investments, for example, will create about 17 jobs within the U.S. economy, while spending that same amount within the oil industry will create about 4.5 jobs. As a short-term stimulus program -- in which an increase in spending is not offset by any corresponding rise in taxes -- a $1 million increase in spending on green investments will therefore produce 17 new jobs, with no job losses elsewhere in the economy.

"Over the longer term, a $1 million increase in green investment spending that is offset by a $1 million reduction in spending within the oil industry will still produce a net increase of 12.5 jobs. Investments in energy efficiency will also reduce energy costs now. Investments in renewable energy are bringing these energy sources into cost competitiveness with fossil fuels. Continued investments in conventional fossil fuels also neglect the economic costs of global warming." Pollin then summarizes the six basic arguments in Green Recovery that underpin the report findings.

The Green Recovery report includes individual state supplements for: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA, WV, and WI.

Access the Heritage Foundation critique (click here). Access the critique response from CAP (click here). Access an overview from CAP and link to the complete report and state reports (click here). Access more information from PERI (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

DOE Issues Advanced Tech Vehicle Incentive Rule

Nov 5: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued an Interim Final Rule that implements the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program authorized by section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The FY09 Continuing Resolution provided DOE with funding to make up to $25 billion in direct loans to eligible applicants for the costs of reequipping, expanding, and establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles, and components for such vehicles. The vehicles must provide "meaningful improvements" in fuel economy performance. In the FY09 Continuing Resolution, Congress required DOE to issue to issue interim final regulations for the section 136 program within 60 days -- that is, by November 29.

DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman said, "Issuance of this interim final rule opens the process for automakers and component manufacturers to immediately apply for government funding under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. Since Congress provided funding for this loan program approximately 30 days ago, the Department has worked quickly and responsibly to draft this rule, set up a loan office, and establish a credit review board to review loan applications."

Congress has appropriated $7.5 billion to cover the subsidy costs of direct loans issued to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under EISA section 136. The actual amount of loans that DOE will be able to issue with this funding, up to the statutory ceiling of $25 billion in loans, will depend on the particular circumstances of specific borrowers and proposed projects. Additionally, the Department must comply with statutory requirements including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the issuance of any loans to be made under the EISA section 136 program. The Department said it intends to act quickly to review and evaluate any applications it receives from eligible applicants under the section 136 program.

Under the Interim Final Rule procedure, the rule becomes effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register; however, comments will be received for 30 days. A final rule will be issued at a later date. Under the proposal the first set of applications for loans must be submitted by December 31, 2008.

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the rule (click here). Access the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (click here). Access a fact sheet on the loan program (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]

Obama Wins - Environment & Energy Reactions And Further Details

Nov 4: Following the victory in the historic and remarkable Presidential race, President-Elect Obama will now face the stark reality of addressing enormous environmental and energy issues facing the U.S. and the world; all within the backdrop of a global financial crisis. Obama said it well in his victory speech, "For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. . . This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. . . Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

Major environmental organizations reacted positively to an Obama Presidency. Audubon Society said, the change offered "a new era of hope for our environment, and the people, birds, and other wildlife that depend on it." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said they are "looking forward to quick and decisive action to combat climate change." The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the Obama election "represents a new day for environmentalists." National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said, "This election was powered by a voting public that wants dramatic and meaningful change, especially for a new energy future. . ." Sierra Club said, "voters solidly rejected policies of the past in favor of energy policies of the future."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a brief statement saying, “America’s oil and natural gas industry looks forward to working with President-elect Barack Obama and Congress to deliver a comprehensive and realistic energy policy that encourages development of all domestic energy sources, including oil and natural gas, for the benefit of consumers." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed to work with President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress "to help quickly restore economic growth, ensure a smooth transition of power, and tackle the many serious issues facing the country." The Chamber also urged "the outgoing Congress and administration to quickly enact additional economic stimulus measures during a lame duck session that will save and expand jobs in critical industries such as autos, housing, infrastructure, and trade."

Reportedly a transition team is working aggressively and key staffers for the new administration could be announced soon. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and former aide to President Bill Clinton has reportedly accepted the role of chief of staff. The organization Beyond Pesticides, posted an article outlining some possible names being mentioned for EPA Administrator include: Mary Nichols, a former Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer and senior official in the Clinton EPA who currently chairs the California Air Resources Board; Kathleen McGinty, former Al Gore aide and first chair of the Clinton Administration’s Center for Environmental Quality who currently serves as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and, Dan Esty, a current top energy advisor to the Obama campaign and former George H.W. Bush EPA official; as candidates for the top EPA position.

Beyond Pesticides says others in the blogosphere have pointed to Robert Kennedy Jr., professor of environmental law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic and founder and chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance; Robert Sussman, Deputy EPA Administrator under the Clinton Administration and currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; and, Bradley Campbell, environmental lawyer and former Commissioner of the New Jersey (DEP).

WIMS previously outlined some of the highlights of the Obama plans for energy, environment and climate [See WIMS 10/21/08]. Complete details on the energy, environment and climate change proposal are contained in the documents referenced below.

Access the Obama victory speech (click here). Access a release from Audubon (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from NWF (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the Beyond Pesticides article (click here). Access a UK Telegraph article outlining a number of possible Obama Cabinet appointees (click here). Access the overview of the Obama New Energy for America Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Environmental Plan (click here). Access the Energy Speculation Plan (click here). Access the Wildfire Prevention Plan (click here).

Rotterdam Convention Adds Pesticide Tributyltin To Global “Watch List”

Oct 31: Over 120 countries, party to the Rotterdam Convention meeting in Rome, Italy, agreed to add the pesticide tributyltin to a global trade “watch list”, but were unable to reach consensus on the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos and the pesticide endosulfan during negotiations last week. The conference also reaffirmed that governments have an obligation to use the Convention’s information-sharing mechanism to inform others about their national decisions on the import and management of hazardous chemicals.

Tributyltin (TBT) compounds are pesticides used in antifouling paints for ship hulls and are toxic to fish, molluscs and other aquatic organisms. The International Maritime Organization has moved to ban the use of antifouling paints containing TBT compounds. Chrysotile asbestos is the most commonly used form of asbestos, accounting for around 94 percent of global asbestos production. It is widely used in building materials, such as asbestos cement, pipe and sheet, and in the manufacture of friction products, gaskets and paper. Endosulfan is a pesticide widely used around the world, particularly in cotton production. It is hazardous to the environment and detrimental to human health, particularly in those countries where safeguards are not adequate.

Bakary Kanté, Director of the Division of Environmental Law and Conventions, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said, “Trade comes with rights and responsibilities, and the discussions this week have shown the strong commitment of many countries to this spirit of reciprocity. UNEP, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), jointly manages the Convention secretariat. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade promotes transparency and information sharing about potential risks to human health and the environment. Its so-called PIC list currently contains 39 hazardous substances, including all other forms of asbestos.

Under the Convention, exports of chemicals and pesticides on the PIC list require the prior informed consent of the importing country. This gives developing countries in particular the power to decide which potentially hazardous chemicals they want to receive and to exclude those they cannot manage safely. Exporting countries are responsible for ensuring that no exports leave their territory when an importing country has made the decision not to accept the chemical or pesticide in question.

During the conference, many governments expressed serious concern about the failure to list chrysotile asbestos. The World Health Organization (WHO) made a statement reminding participants that chrysotile is a human carcinogen and that at least 90,000 people die every year of asbestos-related diseases such as lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer directly linked to asbestos.

UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said, “Clearly the chemical footprint of our modern economies is expanding exponentially today. The transition towards a greener economy touches upon the responsibilities that we have as societies, as governments and as international institutions to look at how the use of chemicals empowers development and not undermines it, not least through the impact it has on the health of our societies.”

According to a UNEP release, some 70,000 different chemicals are available on the market today, and around 1,500 new ones are introduced every year. UNEP says, "This can pose a major challenge to regulators charged with monitoring and managing these potentially dangerous substances. Many pesticides that have been banned or whose use has been severely restricted in industrialized countries are still marketed and used in developing countries."

Access a release from UNEP (click here). Access a second release from the PIC website listing all of the chemicals on the PIC list (click here). Access the Rotterdam Convention website for extensive information on the meeting and background (click here). Access the Interactive Training on the Operation of the Rotterdam Convention (click here). Access the UNEP Activities in Chemicals website (click here). [*Toxics, Haz]

Industry Supports New CAFO Rules; Enviros Oppose

Oct 31: Late Friday (October 31), U.S. EPA announced it has finalized a rule helping to protect the nation’s water quality by requiring concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to safely manage manure. EPA estimates CAFO regulations will prevent 56 million pounds of phosphorus, 110 million pounds of nitrogen, and 2 billion pounds of sediment from entering streams, lakes, and other waters annually. Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles said, “EPA’s new regulation of animal feedlots sets a strong national standard for pollution prevention and environmental protection, while maintaining our country’s economic and agricultural competitiveness. This clean water rule strengthens environmental safeguards by embracing a zero discharge standard and requiring site-specific management plans to prevent runoff of excess nutrients into our nation’s waters.”

EPA indicated that it is the first time it has required a nutrient management plan (NMP) for manure to be submitted as part of a CAFO’s Clean Water Act permit application. Manure contains the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, which, when not managed properly on agricultural land, can pollute nearby streams, lakes, and other waters. Previous rules required a CAFO operator to use an NMP for controlling manure, but the regulation builds on that by requiring the NMP to be submitted with the permit application. The plan will be reviewed by the permitting authority and conditions based on it will be incorporated as enforceable terms of the permit. The proposed NMP and permit will be available for public review and comment before going final.

The regulation also requires that an owner or operator of a CAFO that actually discharges to streams, lakes, and other waters must apply for a permit under the Clean Water Act. If a farmer designs, constructs, operates and maintains their facility such that a discharge will occur, a permit is needed. EPA is also providing an opportunity for CAFO operators who do not discharge or propose to discharge to show their commitment to pollution prevention by obtaining certification as zero dischargers.

In addition, the final rule includes technical clarifications regarding water quality-based effluent limitations and use of best management practices to meet zero discharge requirements, as well as affirming the 2003 rule requirement for reducing fecal coliform through the use of best conventional technology. EPA indicated that it worked closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the development of the rule and will work closely with states during implementation. The rule deadline for newly defined facilities to apply for permits is February 27, 2009, and the rules will become effective 30-days following publication. The final rule responds to a February 2005 federal court decision [Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486] that upheld most of the Agency’s 2003 rule, but directed further action or clarification on some portions.

The National Pork Producer Council (NPPC) called the new regulation “tough but fair rule” and said it sets a high environmental standard for livestock producers. NPPC Environment Committee Chairman Randy Spronk, a pork producer from Edgerton, MN said, “The CAFO regulation issued today is a tough but fair rule and sets a standard that the U.S. pork industry has been and will continue living up to. Pork producers are ready to comply with the new regulation.” NPPC said the new rule is the product of more than 10 years of work to overhaul the federal Clean Water Act rules applicable to livestock operations. Spronk said, “Looking back to where we were in federal policy in 1998, when this all started, through the 2001 proposed rule, the 2003 final rule, a 2005 federal court decision and now this 2008 final rule, EPA is making sweeping policy changes that affect all aspects of pork operations and water quality."

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release calling the final rule a "Halloween Trick from Bush Administration: Treat to Factory Farms." NRDC said under the rule, "Thousands of factory farms will be exempt from needing permits that limit water pollution." Jon Devine, Senior Attorney in the Water Program at NRDC said, “Literally and figuratively, this rule puts the Bush Administration’s stamp of approval on a load of manure. Even though Congress specifically targeted factory farms for regulation under the Clean Water Act in 1972 and EPA has recognized the importance of these operations getting pollution control permits, the Administration stepped in it today.”

Jeffrey Odefey, Staff Attorney at the Waterkeeper Alliance said, “It’s outrageous to see the environmental yard sale that marks the Bush Administration’s final days in office. Clearly, industry lobbyists are picking up last-minute deals intended to preserve their right to pollute for years to come. Instead of offering meaningful protection of our nation’s waters and communities, EPA has come up with an unworkable muddle that sets the country back by decades.” Ed Hopkins, Sierra Club's Environmental Quality Program director said, "Clean water is too important to allow polluting factory farms to continue business as usual. Yet again, the Bush Administration has put private industry profits before public health."

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 240-page final rule (click here). Access a 2-page fact sheet (click here). Access EPA's CAFO rule website for additional background information (click here). Access a release from NPPC (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort CAFO links for additional information (click here). [*Water]

DOE Awards $2.5 Billion For Yucca Mountain Project M&O

Oct 30: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $2.5 billion management and operating (M&O) contract to USA Repository Services (USA-RS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the URS Corporation. USA-RS will be supported by principal subcontractors: Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., and AREVA Federal Services, Inc. USA-RS will provide mission support to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) for the Yucca Mountain Project. As awarded, the contract has a five-year period of performance with a potential five-year option period. If fully exercised, this contract will continue through March 31, 2019.

Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said, “If we are to meet growing energy demand and slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power must be a larger part of our energy mix; it is a mature technology with significant potential to supply large amounts of safe, reliable, emissions-free base load power. In order to ensure that such an expansion can occur, the United States must have a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This contract will enable our national repository program to move forward by securing the necessary management and operations expertise needed as we begin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceedings.”

The subject of Yucca Mountain is one where the presidential candidates have distinct differences. John McCain has supported the administration's plan of licensing and developing the Yucca Mountain repository. McCain says he wants to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 [See WIMS 10/20/08]. He indicates that, "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power." However, at a speech in May of this year he said, "I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada."

Barack Obama says, "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. . . " He said he will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, [Obama & Biden] do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They said they will "lead Federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available." [See WIMS 10/21/08].

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access additional information from the DOE OCRWM (click here). Access the McCain May speech on nuclear security (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]

House Republican Report On Energy & Climate Change

Oct 28: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) and Domestic Policy Subcommittee Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) released a report -- Energy: A Matter of National, Economic, and Environmental Security -- examining challenges and opportunities for the United States amidst changing realities in the global energy economy and debate over climate change. The report affirms that any effective energy solution must take an “all-of-the-above” approach to different methods of achieving energy independence and also warns that energy security and global environmental challenges cannot be effectively addressed separately.

According to an announcement, viewing the energy debate as a choice “between promoting increased domestic oil production vs. encouraging conversation and increasing renewable and alternative fuels” is “flat out wrong” concludes the report. “An energy policy that does not address all facets of energy production is a failure and threatens our economy, our national security, and the environment."

Representative Davis said, "We no longer can ignore the fact that energy policy is intertwined with security policy. We can’t keep pumping money into the economies of countries dedicated to opposing our interests. For that matter, we can’t keep sending billions of dollars overseas every year when we have the means, the technology and the raw materials to alleviate much of our dependence on foreign energy right here at home.” Representative Issa said, “We cannot address the root of many national security concerns, economic troubles, or environmental threats without an effective energy strategy. These issues have all become deeply intertwined -- an effective energy policy cannot address just the cost of energy today.”

According to some of the facts and findings in the report [verbatim with omissions noted]: (1) Whatever one thinks of the science of climate change, with the adoption of the Bali Roadmap, the reality is that all Americans will be adjusting to a carbon constrained world. Energy policy should acknowledge and plan for this reality. (2) Countries hostile to the United States are increasingly using energy as a strategic tool against U.S. interests. (3) Manufacturing processes in China emit at least 300 percent more CO2 than similar processes in the U.S. . . (4) An energy and environment policy that fails to account for competitiveness concerns will cause the U.S. manufacturing base to shift more American jobs overseas and could actually increase carbon emissions. Any meaningful international agreement to reduce carbon emissions must include the developing world since it is an essential part of the problem and the solution.

(5) Nuclear energy and coal must play a role in meeting our nation's future energy needs. Nuclear energy is an emission-free source of electricity. It also provides a roadmap to the hydrogen economy, which could reduce automobile emissions dramatically, if used to power the transportation network. Clean coal technology is critical for electricity generation and for the production of coal-to-liquid fuel. Coal presently accounts for more than half of electricity generation and cannot be replaced in the short or medium term. (6) Conservation and demand-side management should be included in a sensible energy policy. The development of renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal must be pursued, but the reality is that it may take years before any substantial impact is felt. Biofuels, such as ethanol, hold limited promise and cellulosic ethanol, which is yet to be produced commercially, may have negative environmental consequences.

(7) For private business to invest the massive amounts of money necessary to bring more energy to market, government must foster a predictable and hospitable investment environment. Government can foster investment by sharing some of the risk, constructing a sensible regulatory scheme and minimizing litigation risk. The investment decisions made today will affect both our emissions profile and energy independence in the future. (8) Even as the developing world is increasing energy consumption levels, the United States remains one of the most energy-efficient nations. It consumes 25 percent of the world's energy and produces 32.6 percent of the world's GDP.

The report was distributed to Republican Members. According to a cover letter to Members, "This report shows the current state of world energy consumption patterns, as well as likely future scenarios, to bring into focus the challenges we face as we seek to reduce our carbon footprint and wean our nation off fossil fuels. This report also briefly presents the current state of technology for alternative fuel sources -- including biofuels, coal-to-liquid, wind, solar, and geothermal energy -- in order to assess its present and future ability to displace fossil fuel consumption. While the thrust of this report is on securing adequate sources of energy, there is also a discussion of important policies that should be pursued to decrease our national demand for energy."

Access the report announcement from Representative Davis and Issa (click here). Access the complete 43-page report (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

Guidelines For CO2 Carbon, Capture, Transport & Storage

Oct 28: On the heels of a major report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), calling for $20 billion to prove large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology [See WIMS 10/22/08], another major report by World Resources Institute (WRI) says sufficient technical knowledge exists to begin large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstrations in the United States. WRI and a coalition of business, environmental, academic and government groups released their Guidelines for CO2 Carbon, Capture, Transport and Storage, developed by WRI in conjunction with CCS experts from 88 organizations.

The product of more than two years of research is directed at policymakers and players in the emerging U.S. CCS industry. The guidelines are intended to guide full-scale demonstration, and provide recommendations for ensuring that projects are conducted responsibly. Jonathan Pershing, director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program said, “We have known for a long time that renewable energy and energy efficiency are critical to solving the climate crisis. The question has been what role can CCS play? Today’s report offers Congress and regulators a strong technical roadmap to help answer that question.”

WRI convened expert stakeholders for more than two years to develop the guidelines, soliciting expert input from Federal and state government, business and civil society organizations ranging from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Resources Defense Council and the American Petroleum Institute. Dr. S. Julio Friedmann of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, a contributing author to the guidelines said, “This group is a brain trust of CCS experts from all sectors, and their perspectives helped make the guidelines as comprehensive, detailed, and thorough as any work to date."

According to a release from WRI, "For the budding U.S. CCS industry, the guidelines are a significant development. They can help developers, insurers and financers determine that investments can be made with a much higher level of certainty. For a public with questions about storing carbon underground, they provide a set of rules to ensure that CCS projects are safe and effective. For government policymakers and agencies like the EPA, they confirm that large demonstrations can begin, and that regulatory and investment frameworks can move to facilitate deployment of the technology into the U.S. economy."

The guidelines address concerns about CCS projects like: How to handle the environmental impacts of capturing carbon dioxide from a power plant or industrial facility; How to ensure a carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure meets operational standards and environmental requirements; How to select a site; conduct a CO2 injection operation; and measure, monitor and verify that the storage of carbon dioxide underground is safe, and that questions about long-term stewardship are addressed. The authors of the guidelines identify areas where additional research should be pursued, but conclude that large-scale demonstrations of CCS, as part of an assessment of moving to commercial operations, should begin as soon as possible.

Access a release from WRI (click here). Access an overview and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 148-page Guidelines document (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

FWS Reopens Northern Rocky Gray Wolf Delisting Rule

Oct 28: On February 8, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), published a proposed rule to establish a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States and to remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (72 FR 6106). On February 27, 2008, FWS issued a final rule establishing and delisting the NRM gray wolf DPS (73 FR 10514).

Several parties filed a lawsuit challenging the final rule and asking to have it enjoined. On July 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana enjoined the FWS from implementing the final delisting rule, after concluding that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on merits of their claims. In light of the decision, FWS asked the court to vacate the final rule and remand it back to FWS. On October 14, 2008, the court issued an order vacating the February 27, 2008, final rule (73 FR 10514) and remanding it back to the Service for further consideration.

FWS has now issued a new Federal Register notice [73 FR 63926-63932, 10/28/08] indicating that it intends to reconsider the 2007 proposed rule and issue a new listing determination. FWS said it is seeking information, data, and comments from the public regarding the 2007 proposal with an emphasis on new information relevant to this action; the issues raised by the Montana District Court; and the issues raised by the September 29, 2008, ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the Western Great Lakes gray wolf DPS [See WIMS 9/30/08].

FWS notes that if parties have previously submitted comments, they do not need to resubmit them because they have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in the final decision. New comments on the proposal must be submitted by the close of business on November 28, 2008. The area affected by includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon and parts of north-central Utah.

Louisa Willcox, senior wildlife advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a brief statement saying, "This new proposal does little to address the fundamental problem of removing Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in the Northern Rockies -- there simply aren't enough wolves yet. It’s frustrating to be so close to a sustainable population in the region and then to have the Bush Administration push a slipshod proposal undoing this great conservation success story in the 11th hour."

Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, issued a release saying, “It is shocking -- although not entirely surprising -- that the FWS is still trying to push a failed delisting rule out the door before the Bush administration turns out the lights. This hasty action undermines the serious work, consideration and cooperation among all stakeholders that is necessary before proposing any new rule. Rushing to ram this flawed and repackaged rule does not give the Fish and Wildlife Service time to address the flaws underscored by the court when it rebuked the agency earlier this year. . . "

Access the latest FR announcement (click here). Access a news release from FWS (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking to review and submit comments and access documents (click here). Access the FWS NRM Gray Wolf website for extensive information (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Defenders (click here). [*Wildlife]

10 Day Comment Period On Controversial ESA EA

Oct 24: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, Services) previously proposed to amend regulations governing interagency cooperation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (73 FR 47868-47875; August 15, 2008). The Services indicate that it "proposed these regulatory changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the section 7(a)(2) consultation process.

The Services have now issued a Federal Register notice [73 FR 63667-63668] providing notice of a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that assesses the potential environmental effects of the proposed regulatory changes currently under consideration. The services are requesting comments be submitted by November 6, 2008.

John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) said of the original August 15th proposal, “I have been working on the Endangered Species Act for 15 years and have never seen such a sneaky attack. To suggest that our nation's most important wildlife law could be gutted after a mere 60 day written comment period is the height of arrogance and disrespect for wildlife science. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, “The proposed regulations are an absolute disaster for the nation’s endangered species." [See WIMS 8/12/08].

On October 23, in response to reports that the Services were attempting to review 300,000 public comments on the ESA changes in just four days, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, sent a letter to the director of the FWS asking him to stop the “reckless” process. Markey said in a release that, "The proposed rule changes would undermine the Section 7 consultation requirements in the Act and exclude global warming emissions as a consideration for listing animals like polar bears under ESA, even though global warming has been recognized by the Bush administration as a main cause for listing the bear as threatened under ESA earlier this year."

Markey said, "Predictably, the Bush administration is trying to ram through anti-environmental laws in its final days in office, and this is yet another example of their agenda. Attempting to read hundreds of thousands of public comments in a matter of hours is odd given that the Bush administration budget has never contained any money for speed reading classes. After taking years to make a decision on the polar bear and other Endangered Species Act listings, the Bush administration is now taking hours to completely roll back key protections in this cornerstone of our environmental laws.”

Access the latest 10/24/08 Draft EA announcement (click here). Access the DOI website on this action with links to the Draft EA, two appendices and related information (click here). Access the docket for the rulemaking to review and submit comments and access documents (click here). Access the release and letter to FWS from Representative Markey (click here). [*Wildlife]

EDF Will Sue To Upgrade Landfill Gas Emission Standards

Oct 23: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a notice of intent to sue U.S. EPA for its failure to update emission standards for hundreds of landfills nationwide. EDF says that landfills are the nation’s second largest source of manmade methane pollution. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and a contributor to the smog air pollution that is associated with respiratory illnesses affecting millions of Americans. EDF cites a September report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program issued declaring measures to reduce methane emissions a “clear win-win” solution. Vickie Patton, EDF Deputy General Counsel said, “Capturing the waste gas leaking from the nation’s landfills and converting it to a local source of energy is a trifecta for the nation’s economy, environment and energy security. Converting methane pollution to a homegrown energy source is a common sense solution to address global warming and protect our kids’ health while boosting our economy.”

EDF said in a release, "EPA has failed to update the emission standards for landfills for a dozen years, violating its duty under the nation’s clean air laws to modernize the emission standards at least every eight years." According to statistics cited by EDF, methane is a potent global warming gas -- about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2). Municipal solid waste landfills are the second largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly 23 percent (125 Tg CO2 eq.) of emissions in 2006. These emissions are comparable to nearly three times the total carbon dioxide emissions released from all of the nation’s cement manufacturing. And the U.S. is responsible for about 18% of global methane emissions from landfills – equal to the landfill emissions of Canada, Mexico, China and Russia combined.

EDF indicates that a number of landfills around the country are already utilizing this energy from methane. The 16.6 million tons-in-place Lopez Canyon landfill, run by the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, produces 7.1 megawatts of energy, enough to power 4,500 homes. And the Coffin Butte Landfill in Oregon produces enough methane to generate 5.66 MW and power 4,000 homes. While many landfills are realizing the economic benefits of capturing and utilizing the energy from methane, there are still hundreds of landfills across the nation missing this critical opportunity.

As WIMS previously reported on October 1, 2008, Waste Management, Inc. announced its plans to use its expertise as the nation's largest developer of landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) projects to partner with private and municipal landfill owners to develop the country's untapped landfill gas resources. The company said it is the first in the waste management industry to launch such a program [See WIMS 10/3/08]. Last year the company set an ambitious goal to develop up to 60 LFGTE projects at its landfills by 2012. To date the company has completed or launched the development of over a dozen projects across North America.

Waste Management reported that there are currently 445 LFGTE sites in operation across the country, but U.S. EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) has identified 535 additional sites (out of 1,700 total operating landfills) as promising candidates for LFGTE facilities. Fully developed, LMOP estimates these additional landfills could produce over 1,200 megawatts of electricity.

In its notice of intent to commence legal action, EDF calls upon U.S. EPA, "to review and revise its New Source Performance Standards [NSPS] and Emissions Guidelines for emissions of air pollution from new and existing solid waste disposal sites, and hereby provides notice pursuant to Section 304 of the Clean Air Act of its intent to sue the agency for failure to satisfy its statutory obligations to review and revise these standards and guidelines in light of current information concerning the environmental harms associated with these emissions." EPA established the current NSPS for new MSW landfills and emission guidelines for existing landfills in 1996. At that time EPA determined that a gas collection and control system which relied on the use of flares constituted BDT [Best Demonstrated Technology] for new and existing sources subject to the standard and guidelines.

EDF indicates in its notice, "Technological developments and changes in energy markets, including the price of natural gas, since 1996 have significantly altered the feasibility and economics of landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) projects. As EPA itself has recognized, LFGTE is demonstrably feasible even for smaller landfills." EDF notes, under the CAA, EPA must consider reductions achieved in practice when revising the NSPS for a particular source category whenever emissions reductions “beyond those required by the standards…are achieved in practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B). EDF says, ". . .numerous gas capture and reuse technologies are available today that produce significantly greater methane emission reductions than produced by flaring and are economical for a larger number of landfill operators. Accordingly, the NSPS no longer reflects BDT."

Access a release from EDF and link to a FOIA response and the cited CCSP report (click here). Access the 14-page notice of intent to sue (click here). Access a 10/1/08 release from Waste Management with further details (click here). [*Solid, *Air, *Climate]

Interior Launches Geothermal Energy Initiative With 190 Million Acres

Oct 22: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a plan to make more than 190 million acres of Federal land in 12 western states available for development of geothermal energy resources, an initiative that could increase electric generation capacity from geothermal resources ten times over. Kempthorne said, “Geothermal energy will play a key role in powering America’s energy future and 90 percent of our nation’s geothermal resources are found on Federal lands. Facilitating their leasing and development under environmentally sound regulations is crucial to supplying the secure, clean energy American homes and businesses need.”

Under the development scenario outlined in the plan -- known as the Final Geothermal Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) -- the initiative could produce 5,540 megawatts of new electric generation capacity from geothermal resources by 2015. That’s enough to meet the power needs of 5.5 million homes. The plan also estimates an additional 6,600 megawatts by 2025 for a total of 12,100 megawatts -- enough to power more than 12 million homes. When put into action by a Record of Decision (ROD), the plan would identify about 118 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed public lands and 79 million acres of National Forest System lands for future geothermal leasing. It would provide a list of appropriate stipulations to be applied to leases and amend 122 BLM land use plans to allow for geothermal development.

Kempthorne noted the strong interest states, local communities, industry and environmental groups took in the development of this plan. He said, “This process has benefited greatly from the involvement of both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, and from the clear direction Congress gave in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It’s really a model for working together to make decisions about our energy future.” The U.S. is already the world leader in generating electricity using geothermal energy, with about 16,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity generated in 2005. Almost half of this production and 90 percent of U.S. geothermal resources occur on Federal lands.

Geothermal leasing revenues and royalties are shared with the States and counties where the leases are located, with 50 percent going to the State; 25 percent to the county and the remaining 25 percent to the Geothermal Royalty Fund of BLM for investing in further geothermal planning and development. Under Interior’s plan, future geothermal leasing will be subject to all existing laws, regulations and orders, as well as stipulations and terms and conditions. To protect special resource values, the plan identifies a comprehensive list of stipulations, conditions of approval and best management practices required for approval of future leases.

Lands withdrawn from, or administratively closed to geothermal leasing will remain so. For example, lands within a unit of the National Park System, such as Yellowstone National Park, will continue to be unavailable for leasing. The PEIS also excludes wilderness areas and wilderness study areas from analysis. It will allow discretionary closure of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern where the BLM determines that this is appropriate. The BLM may also implement discretionary closures of units of the National Landscape Conservation System.

In addition to laying the foundation for environmental analysis of future geothermal leasing, the plan also provides site-specific environmental analysis of 19 pending geothermal lease applications in seven geographic locations. These leases were filed before Jan. 1, 2005 for specific lands in Alaska, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington managed by the Forest Service or BLM. Decisions on the issuance of these 19 leases could proceed as soon as the Record of Decision is signed which is planned for December 2008. BLM and the U.S. Forest Service will publish the final version of a plan in the Federal Register on Friday, October 24, 2008.

The governors of the 12 states in the plan’s project area (AK, NV, UT, AZ, WY, ID, NM, MT, CO, WA, OR, & CA) will each have the opportunity to review the final document to ensure consistency with state plans, programs, and policies. BLM will wait until the end of the Governor’s consistency review period before signing and issuing the Record of Decision approving the land use plan amendments. Any inconsistencies will be resolved before a Record of Decision is issued. A total of 29 geothermal power plants currently operate on BLM lands in California, Nevada and Utah, with a total generating capacity of 1,250 megawatts.

Access a release from DOI (click here). Access the Geothermal PEIS website for complete information and link to the final PEIS (click here). [*Energy]

IEA Report Calls For $20 Billion To Prove CCS Technology

Oct 20: A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris warns that carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology is necessary to deal with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions emissions; but, many unknowns remain. IEA says CCS is one of the most promising technological solutions to GHG emissions and "to salvage our climate. Still, many questions remain." In the report, Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: A Key Carbon Abatement Option, the IEA points out that to date, only four full-scale CCS projects exist in the world; and none of these projects captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from a coal-fired power plant. Nobuo Tanaka, IEA Executive Director said, "The window of opportunity is closing for the global community to cost-effectively address climate change. CCS technologies must play a key role, but first they must be proven in the next decade.”

The new IEA study demonstrates that CCS can deliver cost-effective emissions reductions, but governments and industry must come forward to finance large-scale CCS demonstrations and to work together more widely. Tanaka said, “The IEA can help with this collaboration. If we do not successfully demonstrate CCS soon, it will raise costs significantly for other climate mitigation options”.

In a release, IEA indicated that "under current energy policies, greenhouse gas emissions are projected to grow rapidly, with a major contribution coming from fossil fuel combustion in power plants and industry. The IEA, in its 2008 Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) study, projects that energy-related CO2 emissions would grow by 130% until 2050 in the absence of new policies. This increase would largely be a result of increased fossil fuel usage. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report indicates that such a rise in emissions could lead to a temperature increase in the range of 4-7oC, with major impacts on the environment and human activity. There is a large consensus that a halving of energy-related CO2 emissions is needed by 2050 to limit the expected temperature increase to less than 3 degrees. Meeting this formidable challenge will take an energy technology revolution. The massive changes will involve enhanced energy efficiency, increased renewable energies and nuclear power, and the decarbonization of power generation from fossil fuels."

The IEA report finds that current CCS spending and activity levels are "nowhere near enough to achieve the G8 goals. CCS technology demonstration has been challenged by a global increase in costs and a lack of suitable financial mechanisms to support it. Foremost, the IEA believes that up to USD 20 billion is needed for near-term demonstrations, in addition to the plants base costs. It is also important to integrate CCS into greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory and incentive schemes."

IEA notes that, "While progress is underway in some countries, no country has yet developed the comprehensive, detailed legal and regulatory framework that is necessary to govern effectively the use of CCS. Also, CCS is poorly understood by the general public with the result that there is a wide-spread lack of public support for this technology as compared to several other GHG mitigation options." On July 15, U.S. EPA announced its proposed rule to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration to prevent industrial emissions the greenhouse gas (GHG) [See WIMS 7/15/08].

Access a release from IEA (click here). Access a 5-page executive summary of the report (click here). Access links to various illustrations and information on obtaining the complete report (click here). [*Climate]

Senator Obama On Energy, Environment & Climate

Oct 21: With the Presidential election just two weeks away, WIMS is focusing on the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates position on energy, environment and climate change. Yesterday, we outlined Senator John McCain's positions [See WIMS 10/20/08]. Today we will outline Senator Barack Obama's plans.

The centerpiece of Senator Obama's energy and environmental proposals is his "New Energy for America Plan." According to his website, "Senator Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence. By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal." Overall his plan calls for 5 Million "Green Collar Jobs" and "a bold new national goal on energy efficiency and American energy."

Senator Obama says his New Energy for America Plan will: "Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump; Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future; Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined; Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America; Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; and Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050."

In further detail, to implement the above goals, Senator Obama proposes to (1) Provide Short-term Relief by proposing to: Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families; Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation; and Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices. (2) Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela by proposing to: Increase Fuel Economy Standards; Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015; Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles; Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard; Establish a “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases; and Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

(3) Create Millions of New Green Jobs by proposing to: Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source -- Energy Efficiency; Weatherize One Million Homes Annually; Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology; and Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. (4) Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions by proposing to: Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050; and Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

Under eliminating Mideast and Venezuelan imports, the Plan says: "An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska." In addition to other items, the Plan also says, "Obama and Biden will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles."

Under his plan to create millions of new "green jobs", the Plan says, "Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology." In addition, Obama says he will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. He says, "Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs."

On the climate change issue, the Plan says, "The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned (generating $15 billion per year), and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families." Also, "Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues."

On the subject of nuclear power, the Obama Plan says, "Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. . . As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, [Obama & Biden] do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available."

In a separate, but somewhat overlapping "Environmental Plan," Obama promises to: restore the force of the Clean Air Act; listen to his scientific advisers on air quality standards; support full funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund; improve the quality of our nation’s lakes, rivers, and drinking water; strictly monitor and regulate pollution from large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); develop the best strategies for protecting and expanding wetlands; push for the passage of the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act; support federal water conservation policies, particularly for Western states; support brownfield redevelopment, and tools for communities to eat healthy foods and expand livable, walkable neighborhoods.

In addition Obama says he will restore the strength of the Superfund program by requiring polluters to pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites they created; make environmental justice policies a priority within U.S. EPA; expand research on toxins and provide the resources to clean up blighted communities; provide funding and emphasize the protection and restoration of our National Forests; provide increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; increase funding for the Conservation Security Program and the Conservation Reserve Program.

Additional programs and proposals are included in the Environmental Plan. Also, Obama-Biden have a separate plan to crack down on excessive energy speculation; and a Wildfire Prevention Plan.

Access the overview of the New Energy for America Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Environmental Plan (click here). Access the Energy Speculation plan (click here). Access the Wildfire Prevention Plan (click here).

John McCain On Energy, Environment, & Climate

Oct 20: As the election draws near, WIMS is focusing on the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates position on energy, environment and climate change. Today we outline Senator John McCain's positions. Tomorrow we will outline Senator Obama's plan.

Senator McCain terms his energy plan -- "The Lexington Project; an all of the above energy solution." According to the plan detailed on the McCain website, "John McCain has made the necessary choices - producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air and addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources. John McCain will lead the effort to develop advanced transportation technologies and alternative fuels to promote energy independence and cut off the flow of oil wealth to repressive dictatorships like Iran."

A highlight of the plan is to Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. McCain says, "There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. . . John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources."

McCain's plan also focuses on the following: Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas; Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector; A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology; Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs); Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline; Eliminate Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies; Enforce Existing CAFE Standards; Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy; Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies; Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030; A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D; Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power; Greening The Federal Government Through Energy Efficiency; Upgrade The Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy; Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices; and Oppose A Windfall Profits Tax.

In further details, Senator McCain says, "We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs." He also says that he has long supported Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards; however he indicates, "Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars." He believes the penalties for not following these standards "must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles."

On the 10% R&D wages tax credit, McCain says, "This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions."

On tax credits for to provide incentives for alternative clean energy development, McCain says, "To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. . . an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars."

On the nuclear power issue, McCain indicates that, "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans."

Senator McCain generally integrates his environmental and climate change positions into his overall energy strategy. Senator McCain calls for A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. His Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables are defined as follows: 2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels); 2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels); 2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels); and 2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels).

Under the McCain plan, the cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets." The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.

On basic environmental issues Senator McCain indicates, "we face immense environmental challenges that will impact the quality of life we leave our children and future generations. A McCain White House will reflect the guiding principles of Theodore Roosevelt, America's foremost conservation president." He faults Congress for failing "to devote the proper resources towards operations and maintenance has caused many park units to fall into disrepair," He says, "These irreplaceable landscapes deserve our renewed attention." He calls for promoting "collaborative public-private partnership initiatives such as the North America Waterfowl Management Plan" and reversing "the declining access to quality hunting and angling opportunities vital to the sportsmen tradition."

He calls for protecting "delicate wetlands" and "employing long-term science-based strategies that properly manage strained freshwater resources, like the Great Lakes watershed, and promote polices that will preserve sensitive areas like the Everglades and the Louisiana coastal marshes." He calls for , promoting "responsible growth and encourage state and local officials to implement open space initiatives and establish green corridors within our communities." and "strengthening federal tools like Land and Water Conservation Fund."

Access the McCain Energy plan with links to related information (click here). Access further details on the McCain Climate Change plan (click here). Access further details on environmental positions (click here).

EU Chemical Agency Identifies 15 REACH Chemicals

Oct 9: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has agreed on the first group of 15 "very high concern" chemicals to the chemical regulation -- Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). At its meeting in Helsinki, Finland on October 7-8, 2008, the ECHA Member State Committee unanimously agreed on the identification of 14 "Substances of Very High Concern" (SVHC) that may become subject to authorization. One additional substance was already identified as SVHC without Member State Committee involvement as no comments were provided during the public consultation.

The 15 substances will be included in the ‘Candidate List’ which will be published on the ECHA website later in October. Executive Director of ECHA Geert Dancet stressed that, “these 15 are only the first substances of very high concern identified through the formal process. The EU Member States and ECHA are preparing new proposals and the Candidate List will thus be updated.”

Proposals for 16 substances to be included in the ‘Candidate’ list were submitted in the form of Annex XV dossiers by seven Member States in June 2008. The proposals were published for public consultation (July-August 2008). The Member State Committee (MSC) debated on 15 substances and found unanimous agreement on the identification of 14 substances as SVHCs that may become subject to authorization, taking into account the comments received from various stakeholders and Member States. On one proposal, Cyclododecane, the MSC unanimously agreed that there was no sufficient scientific data to justify identification under Art. 57. The 16th substance, triethyl arsenate, was already identified as a SVHC without MSC involvement, as no comments had been received during the consultation process.

Once the candidate list is officially published, companies will be obliged to inform consumers within 45 days whether such chemicals are present in the products on sale in the EU common market. A release from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) indicates that, "Faced with this requirement and impending regulation, it is in companies’ own interests that they start replacing them with safer alternatives. Importantly, a brominated flame retardant commonly found in house dust, in wildlife and the wider environment, as well as being detectable in human blood (HBCDD), and three plastic softeners (the phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP) are among the chemicals listed."

The 15 chemicals include: Diarsenic pentaoxide; Diarsenic trioxide; Sodium dichromate; 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene (musk xylene); Bis (2-ethyl(hexyl)phthalate) (DEHP); Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and all major diastereoisomers identified (α – HBCDD, β-HBCDD, γ-HBCDD);Alkanes, C10-13, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins); Bis(tributyltin)oxide; Lead hydrogen arsenate; Benzyl butyl phthalate; and Triethyl arsenate.

Access a release from ECHA with links to additional information (click here). Access the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) website (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace/WWF (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH Program links (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog posts on REACH issues (click here). [*Toxics]