President-Elect Obama Addresses Governors' Global Climate Summit

Nov 18: In Los Angeles , Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger welcomed more than 800 attendees from more than 50 states, provinces and countries to the Governors' Global Climate Summit. Following the Governor's opening remarks, a pre-recorded video message aired from President-Elect Barack Obama on global warming and supporting the states that have taken decisive action to address this urgent issue. The Governors' Summit brings together U.S. and international leaders to develop cooperative partnerships and promote collaborative actions needed to combat climate change. The forum also provides an opportunity for states and provinces to partner to reduce emissions, to grow their green economies and to influence the position their national governments take in the next global agreement on climate change.

The U.S. governors co-hosting the event and who were in attendance at the summit are Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich; Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius; and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island, so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could. We teamed up with Great Britain, the Canadian provinces, the Western and Northeastern states and with states like those of my co hosts-Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and more. And right here, for the first time, we have officials from China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and across the world in the same summit, working toward the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and growing green economies in our own backyards."

In a video address to the Summit's attendees, President-elect Obama emphasized his enthusiasm for the Poznan, Poland Conference and promised that his administration would mark a "new chapter in American leadership on climate change." He said, "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. Many of you are working to confront this challenge....but too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office.

"Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather in Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be President at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one President at a time, I’ve asked Members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there."

He also said, "Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security." He said the U.S. will establish a federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." He called for investments of "$15 billion each year" to assist private efforts to develop a clean energy future. He said, ". . . we'll tap nuclear power while making sure its safe, and we will develop clean coal technology." He said he looks forward to working with "all nations to meet this challenge in the coming year." He said when he takes office the United States will "engage vigorously" in the climate change negotiations and "help lead the world in a new era of global cooperation on climate change."

The Summit emphasizes a "sectoral" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with sector-specific breakout sessions focusing on specific actions in the following industries: forestry; cement, iron, steel and aluminum; energy; and transportation. Together, these sectors account for the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to a release, the approach is considered a "promising mechanism to support the actions of developing nations with technical and financial assistance from developed nations."

With representatives from the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the Governors' Summit provides "an important forum to discuss solutions to meeting our mutual environmental goals while creating an economic advantage for states, provinces and nations that take early and aggressive action." Showcasing the economic success of California's environmental leadership, the Governors' Summit will feature more than 30 clean-tech companies displaying innovative green technologies including electric cars, solar-powered flashlights and non-toxic cleaning products during the two-day Climate Solutions Showcase.

On September 17, in advance of the Conference, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 (EO) to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. The Governor said, "I am proposing we set the most aggressive target in the nation for renewable energy -- 33 percent by the year 2020 -- that's a third of our energy from sources like solar, wind and geothermal. But we won't meet that goal doing business as usual, where environmental regulations are holding up environmental progress in some cases. This executive order will clear the red tape for renewable projects and streamline the permitting and siting of new plants and transmission lines. With this investment in renewable energy projects, California has a bright energy future ahead that will help us fight climate change while driving our state's green economy."

Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access a link to a high quality version of the Obama webcast released from the transition office (click here). Access the Conference website for complete details (click here). Access a live webcast and subsequent archival video and podcasts of all events in the International Ballroom (click here). Access a release on the Governor's executive order including the full text and related links (click here). [*Climate]

FWS Notices New Wilderness Wildlife Refuge Stewardship Policy

Nov 17: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a notice in the Federal Register [73 FR 67876-67882] announcing an updated and revised Wilderness Stewardship Policy which they say will improve the National Wildlife Refuge System's stewardship of lands designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The policy is the Service's first revision since the original Wilderness Stewardship Policy was issued in 1986.

FWS said the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy clarifies that refuge visitors may use only non-motorized and non-mechanized equipment in designated wilderness areas while hunting, fishing or enjoying other appropriate wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. In addition, it provides Service managers with the first-ever guidance on wilderness review of Refuge System lands to help them determine whether those lands should be recommended for wilderness designation. Such reviews are primarily conducted during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, which establishes long-term management objectives for each refuge.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said, "Our Wilderness Stewardship Policy reconfirms the Service's commitment to protecting and preserving the wilderness resource while accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System. This policy will preserve the wild and natural character of wilderness within the Refuge System while providing opportunities for the public to enjoy the solitude of these special areas." Among its many other provisions, the Wilderness Stewardship Policy also provides guidance on development of wilderness stewardship plans and clarifies when prohibited uses may be necessary for wilderness preservation.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and a process for Federal land management agencies -- including the Service -- to recommend wilderness areas to Congress. Only Congress has the authority to designate lands and water as wilderness. Congress has designated more than 20 million acres on 63 national wildlife refuges as wilderness. Nearly 20 percent of the 107-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System is on Refuge System lands.

FWS said the updated Wilderness Stewardship Policy will ensure consistency with several new management policies established in recent years -- including those governing the Mission, Goals and Refuge Purposes, Appropriate Refuge Uses, and Wildlife-Dependent Recreation -- as well as the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. It also reflects other developments in the policy and science of managing the Refuge System and wilderness.

According to a release from FWS, some provisions of the policy are: (1) The policy affirms that the Refuge System generally will not modify ecosystems, such as creating new impoundments, species population levels or natural processes in refuge wilderness unless doing so maintains or restores biological integrity, diversity or environmental health that has been degraded or is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endangered species. (2) The policy guides the determination of whether a proposed refuge management activity, such as protecting habitat for a threatened or endangered species, constitutes the minimum requirement for managing a refuge as wilderness.

(3) The policy permits appropriate recreational uses in wilderness areas in accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act, if such wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) is non-motorized, non-mechanized and compatible with the refuge purpose and mission. (4) The policy describes the process that the Refuge System follows in conducting wilderness reviews in accordance with the refuge planning process as outlined in the planning policy. (5) The policy addresses special provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act for wilderness stewardship in Alaska.

Congress has designated 75 wilderness areas on 63 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 26 states. About 90 per cent -- or 18.6 million acres -- of Refuge System wilderness is in Alaska. The remaining 2.5 million wilderness acres are in the lower 48 states. This represents approximately 22% of the National Wilderness Preservation System (over 106 million acres), that the Refuge System administers in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. The largest wilderness area in the Refuge System is 8 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Access a release from FWS (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the new Wilderness Stewardship Policy (click here). Access the National Wildlife Refuge System website for links to additional information (click here). Access the Wilderness Information Network for more information (click here). [*Land]

EPA Appeals Board Sets Stage For CO2 Pollutant Regulation

Nov 13: In a move that Sierra Club says "signals the start of the our clean energy future," the U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled that EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions. In the case, Sierra Club sought review of a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit that EPA Region 8 issued to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative on August 30, 2007. The permit would authorize Deseret to construct a new waste-coal-fired electric generating unit at Deseret’s existing Bonanza Power Plant, located near Bonanza, Utah.

The highly controversial case involved interventions by National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce who joined in filing the brief in the appeals supporting construction of the new power plant and arguing the U.S. EPA's permitting process should not be turned into a regulatory tool to control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [See WIMS 3/26/08].

Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case said, “Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”

The Deseret Power facility has also been the subject of an investigation of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Concern, Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) which held a hearing on November 8, 2007, regarding EPA Approval of New Power Plants: Failure to Address Global Warming Pollutants. The hearing examined the implications of U.S. EPA's refusal to consider the global warming effects of a coal-fired power plant’s greenhouse gas emissions in a recent permitting decision in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07]. On March 11, 2008, Waxman introduced H.R. 5575, to require new coal-fired electric generating units to use state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign said, “Coal plants emit 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country. Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric. Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover.”

The Environmental Appeals Board said the Sierra Club petition raised two issues. First, Sierra Club argues that the Region’s permitting decision violates the public participation provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 165(a)(2), which require the Agency to consider “alternatives” to the proposed facility. Sierra Club argued that the Region erred by failing to consider alternatives to the proposed facility. Second, Sierra Club argues that the Region violated CAA sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) by failing to apply best available control technology (BACT), to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the facility. Sierra Club pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, contending that because CO2 is an air pollutant, the permit violates the requirement to include a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under CAA.

The Appeals Board indicated that it, ". . . denies review of the Region’s alleged failure to consider alternatives to the proposed facility, but remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision."

Clarifying further, the Appeals Board said, "Having determined that the Region has discretion under the statute to interpret the term 'subject to regulation under this Act' and that the Region wrongly believed that its discretion was limited by an historical Agency interpretation, the Board remands the permit to the Region for it to reconsider whether to impose a CO2 BACT limit and to develop an adequate record for its decision. In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding. The Board suggests that the Region consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to regulation under this Act' in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding."

Access a release from Sierra Club with links to additional information (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board 69-page Deseret Power decision (click here). Access the Environmental Appeals Board Deseret Power website with links to all of the extensive briefs and filings in the case (click here). Access the SourceWatch Coal Issues Portal (click here). Access the Sierra Club data (click here). [*Energy, *Air, *Climate]

Investors Call For Climate Agreement Despite Financial Crisis

Nov 11: More than 130 leading investors, representing assets worth $6.4 trillion, warned world leaders that any global agreement on climate change must be strong and binding to guarantee necessary financing for global emissions reduction and adaptation efforts, and that the financial crisis should not delay efforts to address rising global temperatures. In a joint Statement sent to Heads of State and climate negotiators, investors called for a strong, binding framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, warning that clear and long-term policy signals are essential if investors are to allocate the huge amounts of private capital required to fund the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Statement was sent by some of the world’s largest asset managers and pension funds, collectively representing $6.4 trillion in assets. It was coordinated by three leading investor groups on climate change -- (the US-based Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), and the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand). Peter Dunscombe, Chairman, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change said, "We are urging world leaders to provide the policy framework that will help investors drive the financial flows necessary to address this urgent crisis. A strong global agreement will provide companies, governments and investors with the incentives to act quickly and efficiently in tackling climate change”.

According to a release, the investors believe that the downturn in the global economy should not delay an international agreement on climate change, and that the agreement must be concluded by the end of 2009. As investors with diversified portfolios, they are concerned about the impacts of climate change on investments in individual companies and other asset classes such as property and the global economy as a whole. Mindy Lubber, Ceres President and Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, “The climate crisis is a multi-generational challenge that requires strong national and international policies immediately. World leaders must shun the excuse that it is too expensive to act to curb global warming. It is too expensive not to act.”

The Statement outlines in detail what investors are looking for from policymakers in order to allocate capital in a way that supports both the transformation to a low carbon economy and the development of adaptation measures. The investors are calling for: A binding global target for reducing greenhouse gas emission reductions informed by the latest available scientific evidence for avoiding dangerous climate change (which suggests that global greenhouse gas emissions must decline by 50-85% by 2050 against a base year of 2000); Long and medium-term emission reduction targets for developed countries which will be backed up by effective national action plans; Contributions from developing countries, initially in the form of national action plans focused on energy efficiency commitments, but with the ultimate aim of absolute emission reductions;

"Continuity in the legally binding framework underpinning the carbon markets and provisions for an expanded and more liquid global carbon market; A review, reform, and expansion of the Clean Development Mechanism; Clear measures to reverse deforestation and value forests as carbon sinks; A commitment to adaptation in order to prepare for, and respond to the physical impacts of climate change."

Access a joint release from the three groups (click here). Access the letter to Heads of State (click here). Access the complete Investor Statement (click here). [*Climate]

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]