Amidst Backlash, U.S. Forced To Defend Climate Position In Durban

Dec 8: As the various country representatives attempt to hammer out a "Durban Agreement" during the waning hours of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17/CMP7 meeting being held in Durban, South Africa which concludes today, Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change was dispelling rumors that the United States was proposing to delay action on climate change until 2020.

 

    Stern, who indicated he was heckled at the meeting, emphatically said, "It is completely off base to suggest that the U.S. is proposing that we delay action until 2020. Let's stop and think what's on the table over the next number of years. For one thing, countries -- whether it is the U.S., China, the EU, India, Brazil, whoever it is, and many, many other countries not in the category of majors -- are going to be working hard to implement targets or actions that they committed to in Cancun.

    "We are in the international context going to be, hopefully, and I believe that this will be the case, rapidly setting up the Green Fund, rapidly setting up the Climate Technology Center and Network, setting up the Adaptation Committee, among other things. We will also be working hard to ramp up the funding that is supposed to reach a 100 billion dollars a year by 2020. There's a ton of work to be done in the years. We have been doing a lot of work on this, this year, and we will be continuing to do that as are many other countries. And all at the same time, if we get the kind of roadmap that countries have called for -- the EU has called for, that the U.S. supports -- for preparing for and negotiating a future regime, whether it ends up being legally binding or not, we don't know yet, but we are strongly committed to a promptly starting process to move forward on that.

    "Take all of those things together; it's nonsense to suggest that what we are doing is proposing a kind of hiatus in dealing with climate change until after 2020. So, I just wanted to make that clear because, after I heard it about the fourth or fifth time in the last few days, and again I've heard this from everywhere from ministers to press reports to the very sincere and passionate young woman who was in the hall when I was giving my remarks. I just wanted to be on the record as saying that, that's just a mistake. It is not true."

    Following Stern's initial statement, a further hostile question was asked stating, "The young woman, the Middlebury student, Abigail Borah, [Note: the 21 year old student was ejected from the climate conference after she interrupted Stern accusing the United States of stonewalling an agreement] said we need an urgent path towards a fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty. Mr. Stern, as you pointed out increasingly at this conference, the perception is that the U.S. is blocking any substantive progress towards legally binding agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sixteen CEOs of environmental organizations in the United States said the same thing, that the U.S. is becoming the major obstacle here. Can you talk about the perception, as you've described it, of time out until 2020 when many of, for example, the African nations and the Island nations are talking about, they could be seeing very serious devastation. You yourself just pointed out there is a growing consensus here that the U.S. is blocking progress in any kind of serious commitment to a legally binding mandate here."

 

    Stern answered the question saying, ". . .so I will try to repeat what I said a minute ago on part of your question, then I'll take the other part. But it's not a time out. I mean, it's not remotely a timeout. We reached an important agreement last year. We reached an agreement, which although it is not legally binding, it is a COP decision under a legally binding treaty, which is very serious and which covers more than 80 percent of global emissions as compared to a Kyoto agreement, which people are hoping will cover something in the order of 15 percent this year. It's got nothing to do with the time out. What is embedded in the Cancun agreement is so much more meaningful in terms of potential emission reductions than anything that is in Kyoto that there is no contest.

    "So, I think again that that's a misconception plus, and I won't repeat everything that I just said a second ago about all of the various actions that are going to be taken promptly including the negotiation -- first the preparatory work and then the negotiation of a new regime which, you know, the EU has called for roadmap. We support that and we've -- I talked with the EU at length. I have also talked with my friends in -- from the BASIC countries and others. I mean, if there is a misconception, then it would be a good idea for the word to get out that it is just not accurate.

    "Now, it is also not accurate to say, to describe the U.S. as blocking a legally binding agreement. What we are saying -- we, in the first months after I came into this job, we made a proposal. You can look it up if you'd like in -- to the secretariat, to the COP -- for a full, legally binding agreement. We've got the whole thing in the record, which calls for a legally binding agreement that would actually apply to all the major countries and cover the emissions that need to be covered if we are going to have a chance to solve this problem. That is what we proposed. That is exactly where these negotiations ought to be going. That is exactly where the international climate effort ought to be going. I mean, you can run around and pretend that behind this firewall, you are going to take 30 or 35 percent of global emissions and fix the problem. But you know what? You're not. So what the U.S. has been doing over the last two years, with all due respect, has been showing the leadership necessary to try to drag this process into the 21st century."   

    Back home in the U.S., the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works delivered completely opposite video messages to participants at the Durban meeting. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member and outspoken critic of climate science, delivered a YouTube address from Washington for a press conference organized by Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) held at the Durban meeting.  The press conference featured an analysis from Senator Inhofe on the prospects of a new climate treaty in the U.S. Senate and the release of Marc Morano's (editor in chief of ClimateDepot.com ) new report "From A-Z" which Senator Inhofe indicated "details troubles and failings in what has been falsely proclaimed by global warming advocates to be a 'settled scientific consensus.'"

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "I am confident that the only person left talking about global warming is me. The message from Washington to the UN delegates in South Africa this week could not be any clearer: you are being ignored. And you are being ignored by your biggest allies in the United States: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate." He said the U.S. regulations being implemented and proposed are based "on the science of the now discredited UN IPCC." He indicated that the A-Z report, . . ."shows that on virtually every claim - from A-Z - the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing and the global warming movement is suffering a scientific death of a thousand cuts." In his release, he declared that the "Kyoto Process Is Dead."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in her video message said, "Although I am not there with you in person, it in no way lessens my commitment to the work that you are doing in Durban and the importance of your mission to address climate change. This massive threat to the environment and human health that is posed by climate change requires us to put aside partisan differences, to find common ground, and to demand immediate international action. . . Climate scientists predict increased precipitation, stronger storms, and increased drought. In the U.S. this year we have seen a record number of weather-related disasters. . . greenhouse gas emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010 - the largest jump in emissions in any year since the Industrial Revolution began. . . While time has grown short, it is not too late.

 

    "The message I have for climate deniers is this: you are endangering human kind. It is time for climate deniers to face reality, because the body of evidence is overwhelming and the world's leading scientists agree. . . Wishing that climate change will go away by clinging to a tiny minority view is not a policy - it is a fantasy. . . Climate change marches forward while special interests and their denier friends try to distract us from the work at hand. It is time for that to stop. . . I reaffirm my commitment to work as hard as I can to reduce the dangerous air pollution that causes climate change and harms the health and safety of people around the world. . . The nations of the world must work together to solve this problem, and I call on those gathered in Durban to work toward an international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with transparency and accountability. . ."

 

    Access the complete transcript of the Todd Stern December 8 briefing (click here). Access a report from Think Progress with a video and picture of the Middlebury student disruption at the meeting (click here). Access a complete index of day-by-day briefing session webcasts on-demand including Todd Stern's December 8 briefing and others (click here). Access a release and video from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access a release and video from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the U.S. State Department COP17 website for details on the U.S. activities (click here). Access links to complete information from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the CO.NX digital diplomacy team website with the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) at the U.S. Department of State for a back-stage pass to COP17 (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

 

President Will Veto Keystone Attachment To Payroll Tax Cut

Dec 8: President Obama and the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper met yesterday at the White House. They discussed an number of issue of importance to the two countries. Among the issues discussed was the Keystone XL pipeline and the Administration's recent decision to delay the project which could extend well into 2013, while the various agencies examine in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. [See WIMS 11/14/11 & WIMS 11/11/11]. The President also addressed directly the Republican's plan to attach Keystone XL and other environmental amendments to the payroll tax bill extending tax cuts for lower income workers.

 

    In a release from the White House of the full text of the press briefing following the meeting of the two, President Obama said, "We did discuss the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is very important to Canada. And I think the Prime Minister and our Canadian friends understand that it's important for us to make sure that all the questions regarding the project are properly understood, especially its impact on our environment and the health and safety of the American people. And I assured him that we will have a very rigorous process to work through that issue."

 

    During the question and answer session, a reporter asked: I have Keystone questions for both of you. Mr. President, we've got some House Republicans who are saying they won't approve any extension of the payroll tax cut unless you move up this oil pipeline project. Is that a deal you would consider?  And also, how do you respond to their criticism that you punted this issue past the election for political reasons? And, Prime Minister Harper, you seemed to suggest the other day that politics is behind the way the Keystone issue has been handled. Do you really feel that way?

 

    President Obama's response: First of all, any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject. So everybody should be on notice.  And the reason is because the payroll tax cut is something that House Republicans, as well as Senate Republicans, should want to do regardless of any other issues. The question is going to be, are they willing to vote against a proposal that ensures that Americans, at a time when the recovery is still fragile, don't see their taxes go up by $1,000.  So it shouldn't be held hostage for any other issues that they may be concerned about.

And so my warning is not just specific to Keystone.  Efforts to tie a whole bunch of other issues to something that they should be doing anyway will be rejected by me.

 

    With respect to the politics, look, this is a big project with big consequences. We've seen Democrats and Republicans express concerns about it. And it is my job as President of the United States to make sure that a process is followed that examines all the options, looks at all the consequences before a decision is made.

 

    Now, that process is moving forward.  The State Department is making sure that it crosses all its t's and dots all its i's before making a final determination. And I think it's worth noting, for those who want to try to politicize this issue, that when it comes to domestic energy production, we have gone all in, because our belief is, is that we're going to have to do a whole range of things to make sure that U.S. energy independence exists for a long time to come -- U.S. energy security exists for a long time to come. 

So we have boosted oil production. We are boosting natural gas production.  We're looking at a lot of traditional energy sources, even as we insist on transitioning to clean energy. And I think this shouldn't be a Democratic or a Republican issue; this should be an American issue -- how do we make sure that we've got the best possible energy mix to benefit our businesses, benefit our workers, but also benefit our families to make sure that the public health and safety of the American people are looked after. And that's what this process is designed to do.

 

    Prime Minister Harper's response: I think my position, the position of the government of Canada, on this issue is very well known, and, of course, Barack and I have discussed that on many occasions. He's indicated to me, as he's indicated to you today, that he's following a proper project to eventually take that decision here in the United States, and that he has an open mind in regards to what the final decision may or may not be. And that's -- I take that as his answer.  And you can appreciate that I would not comment on the domestic politics of this issue or any other issue here in the United States.

 

    Follow-up Question to President Obama: Mr. President.  By rejecting a veto, would you veto any payroll tax cuts if it had something else on it?

 

    President Obama's response:  I think it's fair to say that if the payroll tax cut is attached to a whole bunch of extraneous issues not related to making sure that the American people's taxes don't go up on January 1st, then it's not something that I'm going to accept. And I don't expect to have to veto it because I expect they're going to have enough sense over on Capitol Hill to do the people's business, and not try to load it up with a bunch of politics.

 

    On December 8, At a press conference with Republican leaders, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) highlighted ongoing efforts to extend the payroll tax break for working families and help create new American jobs by taking action on the bipartisan Keystone XL energy project. He said, "We had a great conversation with our members about an agreement that we would move a bill that would extend and reform unemployment benefits, that would extend the payroll tax credit, while preserving the Social Security Trust Fund. It would also include some of our jobs initiatives, such as the Keystone pipeline and Boiler MACT.

 

    "You know the president says that the American people 'can't wait' on jobs. Well guess what - we agree wholeheartedly with the president. The Keystone pipeline project will create tens of thousands of jobs immediately.  It has bipartisan support in the House and Senate.  It's pretty clear that the president's decided to push this decision off for a year – conveniently until after his next election.  Well the American people 'can't wait,' as the president said, and at a time when the American people are still asking the question 'where are the jobs?' I think this is a bipartisan proposal that the president ought to endorse."

 

    Access the complete release and transcript (click here). Access a video of the press briefing (click here). Access the statement and video of the Speaker's comments (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation Council Initiatives (click here).[#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/TarSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Economic & Employment Contributions Of Shale Gas In The U.S.

Dec 6: A report by IHS Global Insight, commissioned by the America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), indicates that the natural gas "shale gale" that has "dramatically transformed the outlook for U.S. energy supplies is also having profound economic impacts -- creating jobs, reducing consumer costs of natural gas and electricity, stimulating economic growth and bolstering federal, state and local tax revenue, according to a new IHS Global Insight study." The study found that shale gas production supported more than 600,000 jobs in 2010, a number that is projected to grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015.

    The study, The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States, is reportedly the most definitive study to date tracking the long-term economic impact of U.S. shale gas production. It presents the economic contributions of shale gas in terms of jobs, economic value and government revenues through 2035, as well as the broader macroeconomic impacts on households and businesses. The report is the first of three on the economic effects of unconventional gas and oil development in North America. IHS Vice President John Larson, the lead author of the study said, "The rapid growth in shale gas production -- currently 34 percent of total U.S. production -- is one of the most significant energy developments in recent decades and is having a significant impact on the nation's economy in terms of stimulating job creation and economic growth. This study further informs the discussion with a greater understanding of the economic potential from this vast American energy source." Among the study's key findings:

• Shale gas had grown to 27 percent of U.S. natural gas production by 2010; it is currently 34 percent and will reach 43 percent in 2015 and more than double by 2035 to 60 percent
• In 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; by 2015 the total will likely grow to nearly 870,000 and to more than 1.6 million by 2035
• Nearly $1.9 trillion in cumulative capital investments are expected to be made between 2010 and 2035
• Annual capital expenditures, especially strong in the early years, will grow to $48.1 billion in 2015
• The shale gas contribution to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was more than $76.9 billion in 2010; in 2015 it will be $118.2 billion and will triple to $231.1 billion in 2035
• Over the next 25 years, the shale gas industry will generate more than $933 billion in tax revenues for local, state and the federal governments
• Savings from lower gas prices, as well as the associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, equate to an annual average addition of $926 in disposable income per household between 2012 and 2015, and increase to more than $2,000 per household in 2035 on an annual basis

    According to a release, the report's findings reflect the dramatic impact of shale gas production in the United States. As recently as 2007, it was believed that the country would soon need to import large volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for domestic consumption. Instead, shale gas production has more than doubled the size of the discovered natural gas resource in North America -- enough to satisfy more than 100 years of consumption at current rates. A key reason for the shale gas industry's profound economic impact is its high "employment multiplier" -- the indirect and induced jobs created to support an industry. For every direct job created in the shale gas sector, more than three indirect and induced jobs are created, a rate higher than the financial and construction industries.

    The study also found that shale gas and related jobs pay higher wages on average -- currently $23.16 per hour -- than those paid to workers in manufacturing, transportation and education. The IHS Global Insight study measured the broader impact of lower natural gas prices, finding that over the 2010-2035 period prices on average would be at least two times higher absent shale gas production. This impact is even greater now and over the next few years when prices would have been two-and-a-half to three times higher. The lower natural gas prices have resulted in a 10 percent reduction in electricity costs nationally and that flows through the economy to lead to lower prices for many other consumer purchases.

    Lower gas prices also boost the international competitiveness of domestic manufacturers, resulting in 2.9 percent higher industrial production by 2017 and 4.7 percent higher production by 2035. Larson said, "Absent the added supply from shale gas production, large volumes of LNG imports would be required and U.S. consumers would be paying European or even Asian prices which are two to three times what they are today here in the U.S. The benefits of that savings reverberate through the wider economy."

    In measuring the economic contribution of shale gas, the study fully "sized" the economic influence of the industry by capturing all the supply chain and income effects associated with shale gas activity in the U.S. The results of the production and capital expenditure profile analysis were integrated into a customized modeling approach developed by IHS Global Insight. This approach links Input-Output modeling techniques – similar to those used by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Congressional Budget Office– with the dynamic modeling capabilities of proprietary IHS models to capture the industry's comprehensive contribution and impact on the economy. ... indicated that, "The results represent a conservative estimate."

    Speaking at the "West Virginia: Energy Powering Economic Development" summit called by WV Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, on December 6, American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley reinforced the economic and employment opportunities from shale gas development. Dooley said, "While many experts have focused on the jobs and revenues that could come from exploration and production of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, the manufacturing story is just beginning to be told. Shale gas could generate thousands of new jobs in the chemical industry and its supply chain. It's one of the most promising developments for new manufacturing jobs in at least a decade."

    He said, "Affordable, abundant shale gas is creating a global competitive advantage for the domestic petrochemical industry. After years of high, volatile natural gas prices that helped lead to the loss of 140,000 chemical jobs, the industry is expanding once again. Chemical manufacturers make a key product, ethylene, from the ethane found in shale gas, giving U.S. companies a significant edge over Western European competitors using a more expensive, oil-based feedstock. New chemical business can spur growth in supplier sectors, help produce more materials for export, and create jobs." Dooley noted. A recent ACC study found that the $3.2 billion investment in a major ethylene production complex in West Virginia would generate 12,000 jobs in chemical and supplier industries, $729 million in wages and $95 million in state tax revenue. Nationally, a 25 percent increase in ethane production would result in nearly 400,000 new jobs. He said, "Shale gas is a game changer."

   Dooley pointed out, "However, the full potential from shale gas will only be realized with sound state regulatory policies that allow for aggressive production in an environmentally responsible way. America's chemistry industry supports efforts to continually improve production processes, including the use of best practices. We make many of these advanced production technologies possible." 

    Access a release from IHS Global Insight (click here). Access a required registration form to download the complete report (click here). Access the ANGA website for additional information (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). [#Energy/NatGas]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

U.S. Climate Change Envoy Details U.S. COP17 Agenda

Dec 6: The U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, arrived in Durban, South Africa for the beginning of the second week of the major United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17/CMP7 meeting being held from November 28 – December 9, 2011. In this critical second week the parties will attempt to decide the future of an international agreement on climate change and the details of methods to assist developing nations and halt the rise of the Earth's temperature. Stern held a press briefing on December 5, outlining the U.S. position and responded to questions from reporters.

 

    Stern said in part, "The U.S. is committed to working with our partners to make Durban a success, and for us a balanced package in Durban includes two main elements, two main elements of this negotiation, I think, in general. One is to carry out the agreements that were reached in last year's Cancun negotiation which was a very important negotiation that included for the first time, in an agreement adopted by the COP, undertakings by all the major economies, and many players beyond that, actually, to reduce their emissions as well as a transparency regime, an agreement to set up a Green Climate Fund, a technology center network, an adaptation committee and so forth. So there are important elements of what should become the architecture of an international climate system, and we did those things last year in the sense of agreeing to do them and now we need to follow through and do them. And what can happen this year in Durban is to take important steps to do the guidelines of the transparency system, get the Green Fund going, get the technology center going and so forth, and there will obviously still be further work in the coming year to make those, to get those things fully up and running. But there is important work to be done in that regard here, and that's probably the highest priority for the United States.

 

    "The second set of issues swirls around the Kyoto Protocol, what happens with respect to a potential second commitment period and the closely related issue of what might or might not be said about some future regime. So that's also an issue of a good deal of intensity and focus, and there will be a lot of discussion about that as we go forward this week." He then responded to questions. A sampling of the Q&A is included below.

 

    Question: Can you explain how, how the U.S. hopes to reach that or when we might see an explanation of how the U.S. hopes to reach that goal without a domestic legislation. And secondly, and until that is produced, why should other countries, you know adhere to, to, or answer to the things that the U.S. is concerned about until they show how you're going to cut carbon yourself.

 

    Answer: "There has been very aggressive action taken with respect to the entire transportation sector, which is more than a third of our total emissions. . . EPA is also in the process of doing regulations for stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. Those are things like power plants and so those are two very important elements. . . investment in green technology, some $90 billion, which has gone for renewables, for efficiency, for building a smart grid. . . I think it's quite plausible that there will need to be legislation on the road to 2020. . . I think we are trying to help move this negotiation into a paradigm that makes sense for the future. . . the U.S is a big player, and there are a lot of other big players, and there's a lot of small players who are very important, so I think that negotiation will continue. . ."

 

    Question: Over the weekend, Minister Xie of China said, and repeated again this morning, that China was willing to enter into a binding international treaty on climate after 2020 if five conditions were met, I think you're familiar with the five. Do you consider this a step forward, a step back, or a step sideways for China?

 

    Answer: "This is what I would say generally about a legally binding agreement. What matters in order for there to be a legally binding agreement at such time as that might happen, whenever that may be, it's going to be absolutely critical that all the major players, and China obviously is one of them. At this point China is 70 percent larger than the United States in carbon from energy, which is not everything, but it's most of greenhouse gases, and rising rapidly, which is just a testament to their extraordinary economy. It's no criticism, it's just a fact.

    "So, in order for there to be a legally binding agreement that makes sense, all the major players are going to have to be in with obligations, with commitments that have the same legal force. It doesn't mean they have to be exactly the same thing, but they have to apply with the same legal effect to all parties. And that means there's no conditionality, they're not conditional on receiving technology or financing, there's no trap doors, there's no Swiss cheese in that kind of an agreement. So that's imperative, and there are many parties who talk about a legally binding agreement, which would be kind of consistent with the structure that they see in the Bali Roadmap under which developed countries have legally, mandatory obligations, and developing countries have what are called in the somewhat arcane lexicon of this business, NAMAs -- Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions -- which are understood to be voluntary actions. So a legally binding agreement that is premised on that kind of division would not make any sense.

    "China has not been willing to do the kind of legally binding agreement that I'm talking about. It would also incidentally -- any future legally binding agreement -- could not be premised on a 1992 division of countries. It just doesn't make any sense. The world has changed dramatically since 1992, so to the extent that there is any division of countries in an agreement going forward, it would have to evolve dynamically to reflect the changes in economic and emissions growth over the years."

    On December 6, Stern held another briefing. In response to a question regarding the future of the Kyoto Protocol he said, ". . .it is very kind of normal in this climate change world from the perspective of press, observers, and sort of everybody who is involved to think about the legal-bindingness as the kind of sole indicator of what is important or significant. And we don't agree with that.

    "It is an element and, in the right circumstances, it might be a good element. But it is certainly not the only element. And you know, as I have said on many occasions, when you look at Cancun, you look at Kyoto right now, let's assume, as I said that Kyoto goes forward in some fashion in Durban, it is likely to cover somewhere in the vicinity of 15 percent of global emissions.

    "Cancun includes submissions, either targets or actions from developed and developing countries. I have lost track of the exact number of countries, but it is upwards of 80 or more countries, who made submissions and more than 80 percent of global emissions being covered. And these weren't kind of casual, you know, we'll think about doing X, Y or Z. These were, it was first of all made under the, in the context of a decision of the COP last year. Made under a legally binding treaty—the Framework Convention—and they are serious submissions that I think all the countries who made them intend to carry them out. . ."

    Access the complete December 5 transcript of the press briefing and the Q&A's (click here). Access the complete December 6 transcript of the press briefing and the Q&A's (click here). Access a complete index of day-by-day briefing session webcasts on-demand including Todd Stern's December 5 & 6 briefing (click here). Access the U.S. State Department COP17 website for details on the U.S. activities (click here). Access links to complete information from the UNFCCC website (click here). Access the CO.NX digital diplomacy team website with the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) at the U.S. Department of State for a back-stage pass to COP17 (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Gulf Coast Task Force Releases Final Strategy

Dec 5: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force released its final strategy for long term ecosystem restoration for the Gulf Coast, following extensive feedback from citizens throughout the region. EPA Administrator and Task Force Chair Lisa Jackson, partnering with Task Force Co-Chair Garret Graves, made the announcement during keynote remarks at the 2011 State of the Gulf of Mexico Summit in Houston. Administrator Jackson was joined by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman and several other Task Force members.

    The Task Force delivered the final strategy on Friday, December 2 to President Obama, who established the Task Force by executive order, to continue the Administration's ongoing commitment to the Gulf region [See WIMS 10/6/10]. The group is made up of representatives from the five Gulf States and 11 Federal agencies, including EPA, CEQ, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce (NOAA), Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy and White House Domestic Policy Council.

    The strategy is the first restoration blueprint ever developed for the Gulf to include input from states, tribes, Federal agencies, local governments and thousands of involved citizens and organizations across the region. The plan represents a commitment by all parties to continue to work together in an unprecedented collaboration to prepare the Gulf region to transition from response to recovery and address the decades-long decline that the Gulf's ecosystem has endured.

    EPA Administrator Jackson said, "After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, this Task Force brought together people from across the Gulf Coast in unparalleled ways to talk about how we tackle both the immediate environmental devastation, as well as the long-term deterioration that has for decades threatened the health, the environment and the economy of the people who call this place home. It has all come to this moment -- when we move from planning and researching to supporting real, homegrown actions aimed at restoring this vital ecosystem."

    With the release of the final strategy today, the Task Force marks the beginning of the implementation phase of the strategy by announcing new initiatives, including $50 million in assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service to help agricultural producers in seven Gulf Coast river basins improve water quality, increase water conservation and enhance wildlife habitat. USDA's multi-year environmental restoration effort, known as the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, or GoMI, represents a 1,100% increase in financial assistance for Gulf priority watersheds.

    The natural resources of the Gulf's ecosystem are vital to many of the region's industries that directly support economic progress and job creation, including tourism and recreation, seafood production and sales, energy production and navigation and commerce. The final strategy was developed following more than 40 public meetings throughout the Gulf to listen to the concerns of the public. Among the key priorities of the strategy are:

1) Stopping the Loss of Critical Wetlands, Sand Barriers and Beaches -- The strategy recommends placing ecosystem restoration on an equal footing with historic uses such as navigation and flood damage reduction by approaching water resource management decisions in a far more comprehensive manner that will bypass harm to wetlands, barrier islands and beaches. The strategy also recommends implementation of several congressionally authorized projects in the Gulf that are intended to reverse the trend of wetlands loss.

2) Reducing the Flow of Excess Nutrients into the Gulf -- The strategy calls for working in the Gulf and upstream in the Mississippi watershed to reduce the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf by supporting state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches, and targeted watershed work to reduce agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients.

3) Enhancing Resiliency among Coastal Communities -- The strategy calls for enhancing the quality of life of Gulf residents by working in partnership with the Gulf with coastal communities. The strategy specifically recommends working with each of the States to build the integrated capacity needed through effective coastal improvement plans to better secure the future of their coastal communities and to implement existing efforts underway.

     Access a lengthy release from the Task Force with additional comments and information (click here). Access the final strategy and additional information on the Task Force website (click here). [#Energy/OilSpill]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA Re-Proposes "Boiler MACT" & Incinerator Rules

Dec 2: U.S. EPA is proposing changes to Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators (i.e. "Boiler MACT" rules, Proposed rules; Reconsideration of final rules) based on extensive analysis, review and consideration of data and input from states, environmental groups, industry, lawmakers and the public. EPA said the proposed reconsideration would achieve extensive public health protections through significant reductions in toxic air pollutants, including mercury and soot, while increasing the rule's flexibility and addressing compliance concerns raised by industry and labor groups. The changes also cut the cost of implementation by nearly 50 percent from the original 2010 proposed rule while maintaining health benefits. These standards meet important requirements laid out in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

    EPA indicates that soot and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to adverse health effects including cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death. In addition, toxic pollutants such as mercury and lead that will be reduced by this proposal are linked to developmental disabilities in children. These standards will avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths, prevent 5,100 heart attacks and avert 52,000 asthma attacks per year in 2015.

    According to EPA, more than 99 percent of boilers in the country are either clean enough that they are not covered by these standards or will only need to conduct maintenance and tune-ups to comply. Today's latest proposals focus on the less than one percent of boilers that emit the majority of pollution from this sector. For these high emitting boilers, typically operating at refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities, EPA is proposing more targeted emissions limits that protect Americans' health and provide industry with practical, cost-effective options to meet the standards – informed by data from these stakeholders. The limits are based on currently available technologies that are in use by sources across the country.

    As a result of further information gathered through the reconsideration process, including significant dialog and meetings with stakeholders, the proposal maintains the dramatic cuts in the cost of implementation that were achieved in the final rules issued in March [See WIMS 2/23/11] while continuing to deliver significant public health benefits. As a result, EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see $12 to $30 in health benefits, including fewer premature deaths.

    Using a wide variety of fuels, including coal, natural gas, oil and biomass, boilers are used to power heavy machinery, provide heat for industrial and manufacturing processes in addition to a number of other uses, or heat large buildings. EPA's proposal recognizes the diverse and complex range of uses and fuels and tailors standards to reflect the real-world operating conditions of specific types of boilers. Some of the key changes EPA is proposing include:

    Boilers at large sources of air toxics emissions: The major source proposal covers approximately 14,000 boilers – less than one percent of all boilers in the United States – located at large sources of air pollutants, including refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. EPA is proposing to create additional subcategories and revise emissions limits. EPA is also proposing to provide more flexible compliance options for meeting the particle pollution and carbon monoxide limits, replace numeric emissions limits with work practice standards for certain pollutants, allow more flexibility for units burning clean gases to qualify for work practice standards and reduce some monitoring requirements. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing these standards remains about $1.5 billion less than the April 2010 proposed standards. Health benefits to children and the public associated with reduced exposure to fine particles and ozone from these large source boilers have increased by almost 25 percent and are estimated to be $27 billion to $67 billion in 2015.

    Boilers located at small sources of air toxics emissions: The proposal also covers about 187,000 boilers located at small sources of air pollutants, including commercial buildings, universities, hospitals and hotels. However, due to how little these boilers emit, 98 percent of area source boilers would simply be required to perform maintenance and routine tune-ups to comply with these standards. Only 2 percent of area source boilers may need to take additional steps to comply with the rule. To increase flexibility for most of these sources, EPA is proposing to require initial compliance tune-ups after two years instead after the first year.

    Solid waste incinerators and revisions to the list of non-hazardous secondary materials: There are 95 solid waste incinerators that burn waste at a commercial or an industrial facility, including cement manufacturing facilities. EPA is proposing to adjust emissions limits for waste-burning cement kilns and for energy recovery units.

    EPA is also proposing revisions to its final rule which identified the types of non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned in boilers or solid waste incinerators. Following the release of that final rule, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the regulatory criteria for a non-hazardous secondary material to be considered a legitimate, non-waste fuel, and how to demonstrate compliance with those criteria. To address these concerns, EPA's proposed revisions provide clarity on what types of secondary materials are considered non-waste fuels, and greater flexibility. The proposed revisions also classify a number of secondary materials as non-wastes when used as a fuel and allow for a boiler or solid waste operator to request that EPA identify specific materials as a non-waste fuel.

    Following the April 2010 proposals [See WIMS 4/30/10], the agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses, communities and other key stakeholders. As part of the reconsideration process, EPA also received additional feedback after the agency issued the final standards in March 2011 [See WIMS 2/23/11]. EPA will accept public comment on these standards for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. EPA intends to finalize the reconsideration by spring 2012.

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons issued this statement on the revised Boiler MACT rules issued by EPA saying, "The EPA's revised Boiler MACT rules will do significant harm to job growth and investment at a critical time in our recovery. This is yet another example of the EPA pursuing an aggressive agenda that is putting jobs at risk and creating uncertainty throughout the economy. Factoring in regulatory costs currently in place, it is already 20 percent more expensive to manufacture in the United States compared to our major trade partners.

    "We will continue to urge the EPA to extend the compliance time frame and consider a more reasonable approach to setting the emission standards to ensure additional jobs are not put at risk. As long as these rules remain open to court challenges, legislation is needed to give manufacturers more certainty so they can begin to invest and create jobs. The House passed legislation earlier this year, and we strongly encourage the Senate to take a stand for jobs and pass the EPA Regulatory Relief Act as soon as possible [H.R.2250, See WIMS 10/14/11]. America's job creators can no longer afford to be saddled with costly, burdensome and unrealistic regulations.

    "The employment report released today shows that only 2,000 new manufacturing jobs were created last month -- we have to do better. Growth in manufacturing employment has stalled in recent months, and manufacturers are encouraging Congress to adopt policies that will enable manufacturers to invest in the future and create jobs."

    Earthjustice Attorney James Pew issued a statement saying, "Industry has assailed these clean air standards from the moment they were proposed, and they've largely achieved their goals in the updated version released today by the EPA. All the while, communities across the country that are overburdened by air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators continue to suffer the impacts of breathing dirty air. With this reproposal, we hope industry will abandon its effort in Congress to kill these standards entirely and instead let the EPA begin the important job of improving air quality. Despite the standard's many flaws, it will reduce premature death, asthma attacks and other serious disease, and that work should begin without any further delay."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access complete details including an overview, presentation, prepublication copies of each of the three proposed rules, fact sheets for each rule and additional information on the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material proposed changes (click here). Access the release from NMA (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access multiple WIMS postings on the Utility MACT rules (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA Issues Two Proposed Vessel General Discharge Permits

Nov 30: U.S. EPA announced that it is issuing two draft vessel general permits that would regulate discharges from commercial vessels -- excluding military and recreational vessels. EPA said the proposed permits would help protect the nation's waters from ship-borne pollutants and reduce the risk of introduction of invasive species from ballast water discharges.

    The draft Vessel General Permit, which covers commercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length, would replace the current 2008 Vessel General Permit, when it expires in December 2013. Under the Clean Water Act, permits are issued for a five-year period after which time EPA generally issues revised permits based on updated information and requirements. The new draft Small Vessel General Permit would cover vessels smaller than 79 feet in length and would provide such vessels with the Clean Water Act permit coverage they will be required to have as of December 2013.

    Both permits will be subject to a 75-day public comment period, which will allow a broad array of stakeholders, including industry and communities, to provide feedback. That information will help inform EPA's decision on the final permits, which are expected to go into effect in 2013. EPA intends to issue the final permits in November 2012, a full year in advance, to allow vessel owners and operators time to prepare for new permit requirements.

    Information on the draft Vessel General Permit: EPA said the updated permit would reduce the administrative burden for vessel owners and operators, eliminating duplicative reporting requirements, clarifying that electronic recordkeeping may be used instead of paper records, and streamlining self-inspection requirements for vessels that are out of service for extended periods. The permit would continue to regulate the 26 specific discharge categories that were contained in the 2008 permit and, for the first time, manage the discharge of fish hold effluent.

    A key new provision of the permit is a proposed "numeric standard" to control the release of non-indigenous invasive species in ballast water discharges. The new ballast water discharge standard addressing invasive species is based upon results from independent EPA Science Advisory Board and National Research Council National Academy of Sciences studies. These limits are generally consistent with those contained in the International Maritime Organization's 2004 Ballast Water Convention.

 

   EPA said the new standard is expected to substantially reduce the risk of introduction and establishment of non-indigenous invasive species in U.S. waters. The draft Vessel General Permit also contains updated conditions for mechanical systems that may leak lubricants into the water and exhaust gas scrubber washwater, which would reduce the amount of oil and other pollutants that enter U.S. waters. EPA will take comment on potentially more stringent requirements for bilgewater discharges.

    Information on the draft Small Vessel General Permit: EPA indicates that this permit would be the first under the Clean Water Act to address discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length. Recognizing that small commercial vessels are substantially different in how they operate than their larger counterparts, the draft Small Vessel General Permit is shorter and simpler. The draft permit specifies best management practices for several broad discharge management categories including fuel management, engine and oil control, solid and liquid maintenance, graywater management, fish hold effluent management and ballast water management, which consists of common sense management measures to reduce the risk of spreading invasive species. The permit would go into effect at the conclusion of a current moratorium enacted by Congress that exempts all incidental discharges from such vessels, with the exception of ballast water, from having to obtain a permit until December 18, 2013. 

    A number of Great Lakes oriented environmental organization reacted immediately to EPA's proposals and said, "Unfortunately, EPA's new limits are pegged to standards established by the International Maritime Organization [IMO], which while supported by the shipping industry, are not strict enough to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive organisms which currently cost the eight Great Lakes states over $1 billion every five years. Thom Cmar, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "It is hard to see the movement of invasive species until it is too late. Unfortunately, out of sight, out of mind has meant that we have not dealt with the problem of 'living pollution' as aggressively as other environmental threats like oil spills or toxic releases. The new proposed ballast water permit is par for that course --- it is a start, but nowhere near what is needed to stop these uninvited critters from sapping our most valuable water resources."

    The groups -- National Wildlife Federation, NRDC Great Lakes United, Alliance for the Great Lakes, and Healing Our Waters Coalition -- indicated that the permit update comes on the heels of a long legal battle to force EPA to regulate ballast water under the Clean Water Act. They said protective limits on invasive species in vessels' ballast discharges are necessary to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species carried in the ballast tanks from overseas ports. Species like the zebra and quagga mussels, spiny water fleas, and round gobies have all arrived to the Great Lakes via the unregulated discharge of contaminated ballast water.
    
    In a release the groups said, "While the new permit represents an improvement over previous versions, conservation groups and scientists are concerned that the weak international standards are not strict enough to prevent the next major invasive species threat. International Maritime Organization ballast water standards are not scientifically based and offer only a marginal improvement over the current practice of flushing ballast tanks with saltwater."

 

    They said the federal Clean Water Act requires EPA to give states an opportunity to add requirements to the proposed permit if the states find that more stringent provisions are necessary to protect against vessels' pollution. The states of New York and California have already adopted far more stringent standards, based on their own scientific determinations that anything less protective would leave their waters vulnerable to new species invasions. As part of EPA's permit update, all of the states will have the opportunity to decide whether they will adopt their own more stringent ballast water standards. In addition, the Coast Guard has finally sent its final rulemaking to set standards for living organisms in Ships' ballast water to the Office of Budget and Management. By contrast, recent legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would also adopt the weak International Maritime Organization ballast water standards, but it would do so while also eliminating EPA's authority to require more protections under the Clean Water Act, as well as states' authority to create more stringent requirements under tougher state laws. 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access complete details including the two proposed permits, fact sheets, scheduled meetings, commenting procedures and economic analyses (click here). Access complete background and information on Vessel Discharges (click here). Access a lengthy release from the environmental groups with further comments (click here). [#Water, #Wildlife, #GLakes]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

GOP Senators' Bill Would Force Decision On Keystone XL In 60 Days

Nov 30: U.S. Senators introduced legislation to force the Obama Administration to issue a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline in 60 days. Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), the lead sponsor of the bill said, "Jobs will be created right away and billions of dollars in investment will be unleashed through legislation introduced to permit the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, the largest infrastructure project ready in the United States, to commence construction. This is no time for delay." Additional lead cosponsors are John Hoeven (R-ND) and David Vitter (R-LA) and 34 other Senate Republicans are cosponsoring the bill

 

    Senator Lugar continued, "Building the TransCanada Keystone pipeline NOW is a dramatic opportunity to change that energy and national security equation. At the same time, we have a dramatic opportunity to create American jobs NOW! Job creation is the number one issue in our nation. The Keystone XL pipeline is the largest infrastructure project ready, NOW, for construction in the United States. President Obama has the opportunity of creating 20,000 new jobs NOW. Incredibly, he has delayed a decision until after the 2012 election apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base and even risking the ire of construction unions who support the pipeline." [emphasis in original]

 

    According to a release, the North American Energy Security Act [no bill number yet] would: Create 20,000 direct jobs in building the pipeline and manufacturing; Reduce need for foreign oil from volatile regions by increasing secure trade with Canada and encouraging production in the U.S. Bakken area; and Boost more than 1,400 U.S. companies that directly sell their products and services for oil sands production and transport.

 

    Additionally, the $7 billion pipeline cost to be paid by the Keystone XL consortium will fund nearly half a billion dollars in salaries and purchase $6.5 billion worth of materials, services, and other local economic activity. Over time, strengthening U.S.-Canada oil sands energy cooperation can create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Trade with Canada will accelerate America's independence from overseas oil and will maximize benefits to complement increased U.S. domestic oil production, usage of more alternative fuels, and vehicle innovation to save fuel and dollars at the gas pump.

 

    The legislation being referred to as the "Lugar-Hoeven-Vitter KXL" bill: Establishes Congressional affirmation that Keystone XL is good for job creation, economic growth, and national security; Requires the Secretary of State to issue a permit within 60 days to allow the Keystone XL project to move ahead, unless the President publicly determines that it is not in the national interest; Requires the permit for Keystone XL to contain strong and specific environmental protections and protect states' rights;

Requires the Federal permit to recognize an alternative route approved by Nebraska, protecting their ability to shift the route of the pipeline to avoid the Sand Hills while not holding up construction elsewhere; and Concludes more than three years of Federal review by deeming the Final Environmental Impact Statement to be adequate.

 

    On November 10, the State Department announced that it had determined it was necessary to delay the project, which could extend well into 2013, while it examines in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. The State Department noted that the Sand Hills area includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater. The final decision had originally been scheduled for the end of this year. The President issued a statement in support of the State Department decision [See WIMS 11/14/11 & WIMS 11/11/11].

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) expressed immediate support for the North American Energy Security Act. Marty Durbin API executive vice president issued a statement saying, "Delaying Keystone XL is denying thousands of Americans good paying jobs. We need to do what we can to address high unemployment and strengthen our nation's energy security. Keystone XL is capable of doing both. The project will immediately create 20,000 American jobs and enhance our energy security because we will be getting more oil from our number one supplier of imported oil, Canada. We applaud Senator Lugar's efforts to move forward a job creating project that has already undergone an extensive environmental review. . . President Obama should approve it and make it part of his jobs program because, as he has said, 'we can't wait'."

 

    Access a lengthy release from Sen. Lugar with extensive comments from cosponsoring Senators and background (click here). Access the full text of the bill, a summary, a video of today's press conference and additional information (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). Access a release from API (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/OilSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Reports On EPA Rules Impact On Electric System Reliability

Nov 28: On November 21, M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC (MJB&A) and the Analysis Group issued a 24-page, Fall 2011 update to an earlier analysis, Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability, published in August 2010. The report is the third installment in a series of reports focusing on the reliability implications of two U.S. EPA clean air rules affecting the electric power sector: (1) the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule or CSAPR); and (2) the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (Utility Toxics Rule or Utility MACT). The report was prepared on behalf of several utility companies including: Calpine Corporation; Constellation Energy; Exelon Corporation; NextEra Energy; National Grid; and Public Service Enterprise Group.

 

    The first report, published in August 2010, concluded that the electric industry is well-positioned to comply with EPA's proposed air regulations without threatening electric system reliability. The Summer 2011 update, published in August, supplemented the original analysis in light of new information and reaffirmed the prior report's major conclusion that the electric industry can comply with EPA's air pollution rules without threatening electric system reliability. The August report noted that proper planning and implementation can secure important public health benefits, reliable electric service, and efficient market outcomes.

    The "Fall 2011 Update" focuses on the many tools that are available for ensuring electric reliability as companies comply with the EPA rules by installing modern pollution control systems, utilizing allowances or retiring portions of the fleet that are uneconomic to retrofit. Federal and state regulators agree that the industry has the tools to maintain electric system reliability even in the face of coal plant retirements.

    On November 28, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC), whose mission it is to ensure the reliability of the North American bulk power system and which is the electric reliability organization (ERO) certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish and enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system, issued another report -- NERC 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. That report indicates, "A decrease in projected generation resources leads to declining planning reserve margins in some areas; however, a majority of areas appear to have adequate resource plans to meet projected peak demands over the next ten years." Regarding environmental regulations, the NERC report indicates, "While more flexibility is provided in some proposed rules, the cumulative effect from environmental regulations may reduce reserve margins in ways that could affect bulk power system reliability, depending on the scope and timing of final regulation implementation."

    The NERC report also provides a section that updates NERC's 2010 Special Reliability Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential U.S. Environmental Regulations. The update indicates, "In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of promulgating four regulations: the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals rule, the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Utilities, the proposed Cooling Water Intake Structures rule -316(b), and the final Cross-State Air Pollution rule.

 

    "While not all of these four regulations are final, and their affects cannot be completely measured, material changes have occurred to these regulations since NERC's 2010 assessment. While many factors affect an owner's decision to retire or retrofit a facility, NERC's analysis of the integrated impact of these regulations on planning decisions shows 36 GW in the 2018 moderate case of projected accelerated retirements and derates. Though this amount appears lower than the 2010 assessment projected, 25 GW of retirements have been announced since then and are no longer included in the projected retirement numbers. More importantly, industry information continues to show that significant retrofits will be needed over the next four years in order to comply with proposed utility air toxics regulations."

 

    Gerry Cauley, president and chief executive officer at NERC said, "With MACT as the primary driver, the industry faces considerable operational challenges to complete, coordinate and schedule the necessary environmental retrofits. To ensure bulk power system reliability, sufficient time and certainty to schedule retrofits of more than 500 units, as well as acquire replacement resources or prepare system reinforcements is needed."

 

    Also on November 28, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff released a 3-page fact sheet on both the NERC and the MJB&A updated studies and said, the "EPA air rules do not threaten electric reliability." The fact sheet indicates, "These assessments are still based in large part on proposed, rather than final rules. Nevertheless, they provide substantial assurance that the nation can achieve significant air quality improvements from cleaning up old polluting power plants without threatening the reliability of electricity supplies."

 

    On the NERC assessment, the Democrats said, "Small though they are, NERC's estimated effects of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule are likely overstated because they are based on assumptions that are unrealistically stringent. For example, instead of assuming that, under the final rule, utilities will select the least costly option to comply with the rule among a range of options permitted by the rule, NERC assumed that every plant without controls would be forced to install more expensive options (wet scrubbers and baghouses). When the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined this assumption from NERC's 2010 report, it found: 'NERC assumed requirements that appear to be substantially more stringent than what EPA proposed.'"

 

    On the MJB&A study, the Democrats comment, "One reason M.J. Bradley predicts no impact on reliability is that '[c]ompanies representing half of the nation's coal-fired generating capacity -- eleven out of the top 15 largest coal fleet owners in the U.S -- have indicated that they are well positioned to comply with EPA's clean air rules because of early investments in their generating fleets.' The report also finds that EPA and the states have legal authority to address potential reliability concerns if necessary."

    Access a announcement of the MJB&A report (click here). Access the complete MJB&A report (click here). Access a release on the NERC assessment (click here). Access the 559-page NERC 2011 assessment (click here). Access the 2010 99-page NERC EPA assessment (click here). Access the Democratic Staff fact sheet (click here). [#Energy/Grid, #Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

UNFCCC COP17/CMP7 Kicks Off In Durban, South Africa

Nov 28: A press release from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) indicates that against a background of record greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, but also growing momentum for action to fight climate change, the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa  kicked off today. The conference runs from November 28 to December 9, 2011. At the start of the conference, South African President Jacob Zuma pointed to the climate impacts in Africa as a reason for all governments to take action. He said, "We have experienced unusual and severe flooding in coastal areas in recent times, impacting on people directly as they lose their homes, jobs and livelihoods. Given the urgency, governments need to strive to find solutions here in Durban. Change and solutions are always possible, and Durban must take us many steps forward towards a solution that saves tomorrow today."

 

    The newly elected President of the conference, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, stressed that Durban would be a decisive moment for the future of the multilateral rules-based regime. She said, "In Durban, we need to show the world that we are ready to tackle and solve our very real problems in a practical manner.

 

    The UN's top climate change official, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said governments can take two major, decisive steps in Durban. The first step relates to completing the most comprehensive package ever to help developing countries adapt to climate change and to limit the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions, which was decided at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun last year. She said, "The Technology Mechanism and the Adaptation Committee agreed in Cancun can be completed here in Durban so that they can begin benefitting people in 2012. And in Durban, the first phase of the design of the Green Climate Fund can be approved, as a major step on the road towards better supported climate action." Governments can also ramp up funding towards the $100 billion USD of long-term climate finance they have already agreed to provide by 2020 and need to work out the 'what' and the 'how' for a review agreed in Cancun that will assess the adequacy of a below 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit, including in relation to 1.5 degrees Celcius."

 

    The second decisive step that can be made in Durban relates to how governments will work together to achieve their common goal of limiting the global temperature rise to a level which will prevent the worst ravages of climate change. She said, "This means, as a central task for Durban, answering the very important question of the future of the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, governments will need to agree on how they want to pursue a broader framework to reduce greenhouse gases under the Climate Change Convention."

 

    Figueres also drew attention to the fact that action on climate change is presently building nationally, regionally and at all levels of society, and that this positive momentum can feed into the UN climate change process. She said, "These negations are about securing a better future and improving the quality of life of people. The momentum for change is building, not least in developing countries. More can be achieved if governments and the private sector work in partnerships." 

 

    Together with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and South African President Jacob Zuma, the UN Climate Change secretariat will in Durban launch a "Momentum for Change" initiative on December 6, designed to demonstrate how the public and private sectors are already working together to fight climate change.

 

    Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a leading U.S. environmental group, said in a release, "Although the ideal outcome of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) gathering is for countries to extend the Kyoto Protocol climate change agreement – significant parts of which will expire next year – and to set the course for a comprehensive binding agreement in the near future, those goals do not appear to be achievable." Jennifer Haverkamp, EDF's international climate program director said, "Given the current global political and economic situations, renewal of the Kyoto Protocol is highly unlikely. But that is no excuse for the world to sit back and do nothing. We need to build on the efforts of individual countries and regions so that every nation does their part to reduce the emissions that are harming our way of life." 

 

    EDF has prepared a report on recommendations and expectations for the Durban climate conference and is urging the climate conference to move forward in four key areas: A negotiating work plan with concrete goals for the next two years and a clear path toward a comprehensive, binding agreement; Agreements on financing arrangements for the Green Climate Fund, which will be dedicated to helping developing countries address and adapt to climate change; Positive signals to the carbon market that there's life after Durban, encouraging more countries to follow Europe, New Zealand, and most recently Australia's lead in setting a domestic carbon price; and Accounting rules for measuring emissions from land-use change and forestry that accurately determine whether countries have reduced their emissions and met their obligations.  

 

    On November 25, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) announced that Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) recently met with Representatives of CFACT and invited CFACT to co-sponsor a press conference at COP17, tentatively scheduled for Monday, December 5. CFACT said, "Senator Inhofe has for years questioned the direction of U.S. and world global warming policy in the Senate and has consistently led efforts to balance the climate debate. Senator Inhofe has a long-standing relationship with Marc Morano who publishes CFACT's award-winning Climate Depot website.  Morano previously served on Senator Inhofe's staff. Morano will feature his report "From A-Z" which details a full gamut of failures in the argument for global warming."

 

    Access the UNFCCC release (click here). Access the opening address of Christiana Figueres (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for more information and details on the upcoming COP17/CMP7 meeting (click here). Access the host country website for additional information (click here). Access Earth Negotiations Bulletin daily coverage in Durban (click here). Access a release from EDF and link to their report (click here). Access a release from CFACT (click here). [#Climate] 

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)