Energy Department Update On Renewable Loans & Projects

Apr 5: In follow-up to a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee hearing where Secretary Chu was asked how the Department of Energy (DOE) planned to move forward on providing loans and loan guarantees for the deployment of new technologies, the Department has provided an update on the status of the loan program. DOE submitted a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member - Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), respectively -- on the process for making loan guarantees under the 1703 loan program. DOE indicates:

"As you know, the §1703 loan program was adopted as part of the landmark, bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide loan guarantees to cutting edge clean energy projects that, because of the risks involved with newer technologies, are typically unable to obtain conventional bank financing.  Last April's budget agreement reached by U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Boehner and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Reid provided an additional $170 million in loan loss reserve funding to support §1703 loan guarantees that could not be funded under the expiring §1705 loan guarantee program that was funded by the Recovery Act.  Separately, the bipartisan agreement provided the Department with $1.5 billion in additional loan guarantee authority for projects where the loan loss reserve is funded by the project sponsor.

"The §1705 loan program included a September 30, 2011 deadline by which projects had to not only complete due diligence and close on their loans, but also start construction.  Faced with a large volume of worthy projects, but a limited number able to meet this mandate, in May 2011 the Department sent letters to more than three dozen project sponsors, informing them that they would not qualify under §1705, but could be considered in the future for loan guarantees under the §1703 program.  As the letter noted, this was not a statement of the quality or worthiness of those projects; it was simply a matter of timing.   

"Following the completion of the Independent Consultants Review by Mr. Herb Allison [See WIMS 2/13/12], the Department has worked to develop a process for considering pending applications for the §1703 funding.  Today, the Department is sending a letter to project sponsors with pending applications that could not be considered for the Recovery Act-funded §1705 program due to eligibility requirements or time constraints around the September 30, 2011 deadline for that program.  These projects are still being given the opportunity to be considered for a loan guarantee under the §1703 program. 

"The exact number of projects and the total dollar value of the loan guarantees in this §1703 pipeline will depend on the government's assessment of the risk level of the projects selected.  The Department expects to begin issuing conditional commitments over the next several months after completing a rigorous internal and external review of each application.  This evaluation will build on the extensive work that had already begun last year prior to the applications being put on hold. 

"Consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Allison review, projects selected will be subject to a robust monitoring effort to ensure that taxpayers' investments are protected.  It is important to note that the Allison review found that the Department's overall loan portfolio was strong and that expected losses would likely be less than the loan loss reserves Congress set aside for the §1705 loan program and the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. 

"I would also like to take this opportunity to update the Committee on the significant progress being made around the country on projects funded by the Department's loan programs.

"From solar energy to wind to biofuels and more, the global market for clean energy technologies reached $260 billion last year and is growing rapidly.  Recognizing the enormous economic opportunities ahead, countries like China, Germany, and others around the world have established programs to provide government-backed financing for innovative technologies and companies.  Such support is crucial because private lenders are often unwilling or unable to absorb the risks associated with financing truly innovative or advanced technology projects at scale until such projects have been proven in the marketplace.

"By any measure, the Energy Department's loan programs have helped the United States keep pace in the fierce global race for clean energy technologies.  Over the past three years, the loan programs have invested in some of the world's biggest, most innovative, and most ambitious clean energy projects to date, supporting a balanced portfolio of American clean energy projects that are creating tens of thousands of jobs nationwide and are expected to provide power to nearly three million U.S. households. 

"For example, NRG Solar's Agua Caliente project in Yuma County, Arizona will be the world's largest solar photovoltaic installation when it is finished later this year.  The project is more than 70 percent complete with nearly three million solar panels already installed that span more than 2,300 acres – and the project has started delivering clean, renewable energy to the power grid.  For the 600 workers on the site today, the project provides steady income, marketable skills, and the opportunity to contribute in shaping the nation's energy economy. 

"In wind energy too, the Energy Department is supporting the world's largest project.  The Caithness Shepherds Flat wind farm in eastern Oregon features 338 turbines spread across two counties.  With more than half of the turbines already installed, the project is operating and contributing clean wind power to the grid.  It is supporting thousands of jobs beyond the 1,000 construction workers on site.  The project will utilize 15 suppliers in nine states to fulfill orders for the 845 megawatt wind farm, including General Electric assembly facilities in Pensacola, Florida and Tehachapi, California.  Logistics companies, indirect suppliers, and site contractors are also playing an important role in the project.  

"Several other completed projects are generating clean power and are repaying their loans.  First Wind's Kahuku Wind project in Oahu, Hawaii, for example, has been operating since March of last year, providing clean, renewable power to 6,000 homes.  The economic benefits of the project are substantial – with wind turbines assembled in Iowa, an advanced energy storage system supplied by a Texas company, and a supply chain that extended to more than 100 businesses in 20 states.

"Solar generation projects like California Valley Solar Ranch, Antelope Valley Solar Ranch, and Abengoa Solana are reinvigorating the local construction industry and contributing to a boom for American solar companies.  New manufacturing facilities are opening across the country to support America's renewable energy sector.  In fact, according to the U.S. Solar Energy Industry Association, in 2010 and 2011, 41 new U.S. solar manufacturing facilities began operations across America, including in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  These facilities have fostered new steel manufacturing facilities, glass producers, and tool dye manufacturing facilities for solar electronics and tracking equipment.

"In part because of these cutting edge projects and the private sector investment enabled through the loan program, the United States has nearly doubled renewable energy generation since 2008, and last year U.S. solar installations grew by nearly 110 percent.

"But given how intense the global competition is -- China offered $30 billion in government-backed financing to solar companies in 2010 alone -- we cannot afford to stop moving forward. Our historic investment in clean energy is paying off, and it will come back to us many times over -- in jobs, in clean energy for our communities, and in leadership in the technologies of the 21st century."

    Access the complete letter which includes links to many of the referenced projects and letters (click here). [#Energy/Renewable]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

House Dems Urge EPA To Consider Fracking Impact Report

Apr 3: House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) sent a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting that the EPA consider a new study by the Colorado School of Public Health that reveals potential increased health threats from exposure to toxic chemicals near natural gas wells. They noted that EPA is currently finalizing new standards for natural gas operations to reduce emissions that can cause cancer and other serious health effects.

 

    In their letter, the Member indicate, ". . .we ask that you consider a new study from the Colorado School of Public Health that raises concerns about the potential public health impact of air emissions from unconventional gas drilling operations. The findings from this study, while preliminary, reinforce the importance of your forthcoming rules and the need for additional research.

 

    "Scientists at the Colorado School of Public Health examined three years of air monitoring data in Garfield County, Colorado and concluded that residents living near natural gas wells may face increased exposure to benzene, a known human carcinogen, and other toxic chemicals, such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. The researchers found higher lifetime cancer risks for people living closer to the wells. They also concluded that these nearby residents have a higher risk of experiencing neurological and respiratory health effects, such as headaches, throat and eye irritation, impaired lung capacity, dizziness, fatigue, numbness in the limbs, and tremors. The authors concluded:

"[P]reliminary results indicate that health effects resulting from air emissions during development of unconventional natural gas resources are most likely to occur in residents living nearest to the well pads and warrant further study.  Risk prevention efforts should be directed towards reducing air emission exposures for persons living and working near wells during well completions."

    The report entitled, Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources, by Lisa M. McKenzie, Roxana Z. Witter, Lee S. Newman, and John L. Adgate, Colorado School of Public Health, was released on March 19, 2012. The report is posted on the site of Erie Rising, "a grassroots, mom (parent) powered organization, dedicated to protecting our children, our health, our environment and our community."

 

    Erie Rising, based in Erie, CO, indicates that its position on natural gas drilling and mining using hydraulic fracturing is: "We believe the onus lies squarely with the gas companies and our elected officials to prove that natural gas drilling and mining by fracturing is safe and does not pose a real or imminent threat to our children, our health or our environment. We are seeking scientific studies and other information to prove we are not at risk from this activity. We pledge that, in the absence of that proof, we will take action to keep it out of our community and away from our schools until such proof is available."

 

    Access a release and the letter from the Members (click here). Access the complete report with extensive links to referenced documents (click here). Access the Erie Rising (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Air, #Toxics]

The Role Of Job Impact Analyses In Environmental Policy Debates

Apr 3: The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at the New York University School of Law has released a report entitled, The Regulatory Red Herring: The Role of Job Impact Analyses in Environmental Policy Debates. IPI is a non-partisan think-tank

using economics and law to protect the environment, public health, and consumers. According to a release from IPI, "Estimates of jobs gained or lost due to environmental regulations require much closer scrutiny than they're given. Very often these claims are made dramatically out of context, based on economic analyses that may not have been meant to support them." These are the main findings of a report.

 

    The study discusses how cost-benefit analysis can evaluate the effect of environmental regulation on layoffs and hiring, and criticizes the tendency for jobs impact models to be used in ways that are not helpful in debates over environmental protections. The report finds that too often, model results are cited without calling adequate attention to their limitations and assumptions. Different modeling choices can lead to drastically different conclusions.

 

    Michael Livermore, IPI's executive director and lead author of the report said, "Because these models are so sensitive, their results must be communicated properly. They do not lend themselves to the kinds of sweeping rhetorical statements you often hear in the political arena. Many times, claims about jobs and regulation find their way into a faulty conventional wisdom far removed from the evidence these analyses provide."

 

    The release indicates that while environmental regulation can lead to layoffs or hiring in specific regions or sectors, in a dynamic economy like America's, the overall effect is difficult to capture. For any particular environmental regulation, these offsetting effects are ambiguous and hard to predict. To better inform policymaking, model limitations and uncertainty should be acknowledged, and the impacts of regulation on employment must then be weighed against all the other costs and benefits of a rule.

 

    Livermore said, "The effect of a regulation on jobs is important, especially in a downturned economy. But those effects are likely much smaller than you might think by tuning into the political debate. Rather than staking the utility of a policy solely on this one element, basic economic principles would call for a more holistic view of regulation."

 

    The report points out that, "In an advocacy context, job impact analyses can tell very different stories, often depending on the narrator. In one revealing example, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity estimated that two EPA rules on power plant emissions would trigger a 1.4 million job loss; meanwhile, using a different model and different assumptions, the Political Economy Research Institute predicted the same two rules would generate a 1.4 million job gain."

 

    By way of background, the report notes that, "Claims that environmental regulations cause unemployment have been a staple of political discourse for decades. But as the American economy continues to struggle in the aftermath of the 2008 recession, assertions about the negative employment impacts of environmental regulations have resurfaced with increasing volume and frequency. During roughly the first twenty days the 112th U.S. House of Representatives sat in session, congressional committees scheduled at least twenty separate hearings on the purported link between regulations and the nation's job woes. From 2007 to 2011, the phrase 'job-killing regulations' underwent a 17,550% increase in usage in U.S. newspapers (from just four appearances in 2007 to over seven hundred in 2011)."

 

    According to the report, "Perhaps most importantly, analysts and policymakers must recognize that even the most sophisticated job impact analyses have only limited predictive power in our complex and dynamic economy. While research should be carried out to refine and improve these models, the degree of uncertainty associated with estimates of employment impacts should be acknowledged.

 

    "This report examines the use of job impact analysis by the federal government and advocacy groups, discussing how cost-benefit analysis can incorporate regulatory effects on layoffs and hiring, and how job impact models can be used and misused in the public policy debate. On the basis of this analysis, several recommendations are offered:

• Job impact analysis is not an alternative to, or substitute for, cost-benefit analysis. Rather, employment effects should be incorporated into cost-benefit analysis on the basis of traditional economic principles.
• The difference between short-term and long-term unemployment should be taken into account when determining the economic costs of layoffs.
• The potential for regulations to positively and negatively affect workers should be recognized.
• Economic models used to predict employment effects should be well suited to the type of regulatory effect being estimated (e.g., regional versus nationwide and multi-sector versus single industry).
• Uncertainty surrounding model predictions should be acknowledged by analysts and policymakers, and all assumptions and modeling choices should be disclosed.

    Access a release from IPI (click here). Access the complete 35-page report (click here). [#All]

EPA Releases Final Report To Congress On Black Carbon

Apr 2: U.S. EPA released its final Report to Congress on Black Carbon which has been in the making for several years. The October 2009 Interior Appropriations bill (P.L. 111-88) required EPA, in consultation with other Federal agencies, to prepare a comprehensive report to Congress on the climate effects of black carbon. Black carbon, or soot, results from incomplete combustion of organic matter such as fossil fuels and biomass. The report to Congress evaluates and synthesizes available information on sources of black carbon, impacts of black carbon on global and regional climate, and the potential utility and cost-effectiveness of mitigation options for reducing climate and public health impacts of black carbon.

    EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) submitted a draft report to its Science Advisory Board Advisory, Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis in March of 2011. EPA requested that the Council review the draft report to evaluate the report's scientific rigor and technical accuracy. The SAB completed its review in August 2011 [See WIMS 8/15/11].

 

    The final report indicates that black carbon (BC) emissions have important impacts on public health, the environment, and the Earth's climate. BC is a significant component of particle pollution, which has been linked to adverse health and environmental impacts through decades of scientific research. Recent work indicates that BC also plays an important role in climate change, although there is more uncertainty about its effects on climate than for greenhouse gases (GHG), such as carbon dioxide and methane. BC has been linked to a range of climate impacts, including increased temperatures, accelerated ice and snow melt, and disruptions to precipitation patterns. Importantly, reducing current emissions of BC may help slow the near-term rate of climate change, particularly in sensitive regions such as the Arctic. However, BC reductions cannot substitute for reductions in long-lived GHGs, which are necessary for mitigating climate change in the long run.

    Despite the rapidly expanding body of scientific literature on BC, there is a need for a more comprehensive evaluation of both the magnitude of particular global and regional climate effects due to BC and the impact of emissions mixtures from different source categories. To advance efforts to understand the role of BC in climate change, on October 29, 2009, Congress requested EPA to conduct a BC study as part of H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (i.e. P.L. 111-88). Specifically, the legislation stated that: "Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with other Federal agencies, shall carry out and submit to Congress the results of a study on domestic and international black carbon emissions that shall include:

• "an inventory of the major sources of black carbon,
• "an assessment of the impacts of black carbon on global and regional climate,
• "an assessment of potential metrics and approaches for quantifying the climatic effects of black carbon emissions (including its radiative forcing and warming effects) and comparing those effects to the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,
• "an identification of the most cost-effective approaches to reduce black carbon emissions, and
• "an analysis of the climatic effects and other environmental and public health benefits of those approaches."

    To fulfill the charge, EPA conducted an intensive effort to compile, assess, and summarize available scientific information on the current and future impacts of BC, and to evaluate the effectiveness of available BC mitigation approaches and technologies for protecting climate, public health, and the environment. As requested by Congress, EPA has consulted with other Federal agencies on key elements of this report, including inventories, health and climate science, and mitigation options. The report draws from recent BC assessments, including work under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), and the Arctic Council. Each of the individual efforts provides important information about particular sectors, regions, or issues. The task outlined for EPA by Congress is broader and more encompassing, requiring a synthesis of currently available information about BC across numerous bodies of scientific inquiry. The results are presented in the Report to Congress on Black Carbon.

    Allen Schaeffer, Executive Director of the Diesel Technology Forum (DTF), issued a statement regarding the U.S. EPA's new Report to Congress and said, "While there may still be some debate about the role of black carbon on the earth's climate, this report assures that there is no doubt about the benefits and importance of clean diesel technology in reducing black carbon emissions in the U.S. Thanks to the switch to ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel coupled with advances in diesel engine design and emissions control technology, fine particulate emissions have been virtually eliminated from new diesel vehicles and equipment in the U.S. Today diesel engines are responsible for less than six percent of all particulate emissions in the U.S. . .

    "In the past decade, emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses have been reduced by 99 percent for nitrogen oxides (NOx) -- an ozone precursor -- and 98 percent for particulate emissions which include black carbon. Today, clean diesel technology with near zero emissions is standard equipment in nearly all off-road diesel vehicles and equipment such as construction equipment, agricultural vehicles, stationary generators, locomotives and marine vehicles. Not only are the clean diesel engines near zero emissions, they are also achieving important gains in fuel efficiency of anywhere from two to 10 percent, bringing valuable savings to owners and operators of new clean diesel engines.

    "According to the report, the U.S. currently accounts for about eight percent of the global black carbon emissions, with 52 percent of that coming from mobile sources, and 93 percent of the mobile sources attributed to diesel engines. On top of the 32 percent reduction from 1990-2005, EPA projects this percentage will decline by 86 percent by 2030 'largely due to controls on new mobile diesel engines'. As clean diesel technology continues to advance, these improvements may be even more significant.

    "This report also highlights the far greater role of other sources of black carbon in developing countries such as Asia, Latin America and Africa, where residential cooking and biomass burning are the primary sources of black carbon. It also recognizes the challenges in reducing emissions from both mobile and stationary diesel engines in these developing countries since they typically do not have ready access to cleaner low sulfur fuels that are required for most advanced emissions control technologies."   

    A number of environmental groups indicated their support for the report in a joint release. Brooke Suter of the Clean Air Task Force said, "We applaud EPA's comprehensive report, the results of which underscore the need to reduce black carbon, a major component of soot, in order to protect public health and the climate. This information makes clear the need to support measures to reduce black carbon at all levels ‐‐ from funding of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act in Congress, to Mayors and University presidents acting on climate agreements, to organizations working on climate action plans."

 

    Erika Rosenthal, an Earthjustice attorney said, "Science tells us that we have a limited window of opportunity to reduce emissions of black carbon and other short‐lived pollutants to slow the rate of warming and melting from the Arctic to the Andes to the Sierra, as well as to have any chance at keeping global temperature rise at 2 degrees C or less. This report give the U.S. a unique opportunity to provide greater leadership to the international community by taking action to reduce emission at home –a win‐win for public health and climate." 

 

    The groups indicated that internationally, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the Convention on Long‐Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and the Arctic Council have concluded that black carbon pollution plays a significant role in a range of climate impacts, particularly for sensitive regions such as the Arctic and high elevation mountain ranges both in and outside of the US, including increased temperatures, accelerated ice and snow melt, and disruptions to precipitation patterns.

    Access EPA's Black Carbon website for the report highlights, executive summary and full text (click here). Access the SAB Review Council website for additional background, information and meetings on the draft report (click here). Access the release from DTF (click here). Access the DTF website for more information (click here). Access a release from the environmental groups (click here). [#Air, #Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

States Question Federal Commitment To Environmental Protection

Mar 26: A release from the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) indicates that upcoming budget cuts have state environmental agency leaders concerned about the commitment of the Federal government to environmental protection. Gathered March 19-21 at the ECOS Spring Meeting in Austin, Texas, leaders of 41 state and territorial environmental agencies discussed the likely impacts of "unliquidated obligations" (ULO, or obligated but unexpended state grant dollars), "budget sequestration," and other budget tricks likely to yield the largest reductions ever in U.S. EPA funding. 

 

    Steve Brown, ECOS Executive Director said, "The latest budget trick is to appropriate money and then rescind it before it is even distributed to the states and local governments. Even worse, Congress is considering taking back money already awarded to local governments, which will force them to break contracts with construction firms and lose jobs."

    ECOS members stressed that state grants from the nonpoint source program and clean water and drinking water State Revolving Loan Funds -- grants with the largest ULO balances -- assist all communities and are vital for improving their water quality and infrastructure. States understand the need to be diligent in spending funds but emphasized that it often takes three to five years to execute construction projects and other water quality improvements following the obligation of grant dollars.

 

    States also expressed concern about an automatic 8.8% federal budget "sequestration" (cut) slated for January 2, 2013, that could result in the lowest EPA budget in decades. Most likely to be affected: funds used to build drinking water plants and sewers. Also expected to be impacted are the budgets for protection of air and water bodies and management of hazardous waste. Brown said, "It's not just Congress -- even EPA is proposing cuts to eliminate safe beaches and radon protection." 

    In a separate session on enforcement and compliance issues with leadership of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), ECOS members touched on several issues. EPA officials shared with states their vision of Next Generation compliance, with states expressing interest in collaborating with EPA on innovative ideas related to enforcement and compliance. After hearing about OECA's plans for disinvestments in FY13, states requested similar flexibility from EPA in light of continuing budget challenges.

 

   States adopted several resolutions at the Spring Meeting, including two major policy positions on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. The first resolution calls on Congress and the Obama Administration to address, in cooperation with states, how best to achieve substantial GHG reductions over the next several decades. Noting the challenges of achieving significant cuts, ECOS urges Federal lawmakers and the Obama Administration to provide one or more scenarios that will produce an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions nationally, from a 2005 baseline, in 2050 or beyond. The resolution also seeks an analysis, with a national and regional scope, of the costs and benefits associated with each scenario, as well as an analysis of the costs and benefits of a no-action alternative. A second resolution on the matter is designed to protect the states' rights in regulating GHG emissions in the face of any Federal legislative or regulatory action.

    In other resolutions, ECOS members adopted a statement recognizing that innovative approaches hold great promise for building upon environmental successes and are often necessary to address the nation's most pervasive environmental problems. States noted that innovation can supplement traditional regulatory approaches to achieve Federal and state environmental and public health goals, including those outside the purview of traditional regulatory systems, by testing new approaches and integrating stewardship and sustainability initiatives. ECOS also updated its resolution on federalism, noting, among other things, that meaningful, timely, and substantial involvement of the states, as partners with EPA, is critical to the development and implementation of environmental programs, budgets, rules, guidance, and interpretation of federal regulations. The states adopted a number of resolutions including the following:

• Concerning Environmental Enforcement Training for State and Local Environmental Regulators
• On Innovative Approaches to Protecting Human Health and the Environment
• State/EPA Commitment to the Full Implementation of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network
• On Coordination with the National Governors' Association
• On Environmental Federalism
• Endorsement of the National Mercury Switch Recovery Program Memorandum of Agreement that Reduces Mercury in the Environment and Provides Flexibility to the States
• Clarification of CERCLA Sovereign Immunity Waiver for Federal Facilities
• Mercury Reduction, Stewardship, and Retirement
• Challenges of Achieving Significant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reductions
• Preserving States' Rights to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Principles of Product Stewardship
• Supporting Work on Contaminated Site Response to Emerging Contaminants and Related Risk Communication Issues 

    Access a release from ECOS (click here). Access the Executive Director's presentation at the Spring Meeting (click here). Access links to the full text of the resolutions passed at the meeting (click here). Access the ECOS website for more information (click here). [#All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

GOP Members Call On OMB To Reject EPA/USACE Water Guidance

Mar 28: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, joined Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Pat Roberts (R-KS), as well as Representatives John Mica (R-FL), Frank Lucas (OK), and Bob Gibbs (OH) to send a letter to Cass Sunstein Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) asking that the document, "Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Air Act," put forth by U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) not be finalized. They said, "This guidance document seeks to give the federal government control over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small."

 

    In their lengthy letter, the Members said in part, "We continue to be concerned that this so-called guidance misconstrues and manipulates the legal standards announced in the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions [i.e. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159 (2001); and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715 (2006)], and will not further the goal of clarifying which waters are subject to CWA jurisdiction. We are also concerned that the Administration is seeking, through so-called guidance, to change the scope and meaning of the CWA.

 

    "If the Administration seeks statutory changes to the Clean Water Act, a proposal must be submitted to Congress for legislative action. If the Administration seeks to make regulatory changes, a notice and comment rulemaking is required, following the proper, transparent rulemaking process that is dictated by the Administrative Procedure Act. We have informed the Agencies of this, and that we expect them to formally withdraw this guidance and undertake a formal rulemaking to address the definition of "waters of the United States" in the context of the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. However, the Agencies have repeatedly ignored our calls to not finalize the guidance. . .

 

    "Further, we remain concerned that the Agencies have not fully taken into account the full extent of the changes the guidance would make in expanding the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the CWA. . . the guidance is intended to apply to more jurisdictional interpretations, under other CWA programs, than just those covered by the Army Corps in making §404 determinations.  Specifically, the guidance also would apply to jurisdictional determinations made under §402, which governs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, §311, covering oil spills and SPCC plans, §303, dealing with water quality standards and total maximum daily loads, and §401, involving State water quality certifications. . .

 

    "Finally, it was reported recently that there is no clear path forward on when or how the Agencies will proceed with a rulemaking. . . Changes in guidance will only exacerbate the confusion and legal uncertainty that surrounds the CWA and continue to embroil the States and regulated community in unending legal challenges. The scope of those affected by the guidance document is far reaching and it is clear that sufficient review of the impacts has not been considered by the agencies.  We request that the guidance document not be finalized."

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "The Obama-EPA continues to pursue a water guidance document that sets the stage for the federal government to take over virtually every body of water in the United States from irrigation ditches to puddles of water on the road. Republicans believe that any changes to the Clean Water Act through the Administration should be done through rulemaking, which requires a transparent process that allows for a public comment period.  Instead, the Agencies appear to be skipping these required steps and relying on this guidance document to change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act. We will continue fighting this every step of the way." 

 

    House Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas said, "The EPA has ignored repeated requests from Congress to abandon a guideline that creates a foundation to regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch. Through this measure the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers would assume broad and expanded authorities under the Clean Water Act to further regulate land use for farmers and ranchers. Similar legislative proposals have already been rejected by Congress, yet this Administration continues down a path of regulatory overreach. The vitality and health of our nation's waterways are important to all of us.  Our disagreement is how we achieve this goal."

 

    Access a release from the GOP Members including the complete letter and additional comments (click here). [#Water]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

51-47 Vote Will Allow Oil Subsidies To Continue

Mar 29: President Obama delivered a statement at the White House at 11:00 AM prior to a vote in the Senate on a motion to invoke cloture on S.2204; a bill to "eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and promote renewable energy and energy conservation." The bill sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), would end taxpayer-funded loopholes to the five largest, most profitable oil companies in the world (i.e. the Big 5, BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) and use those savings to extend for one year expiring energy tax provisions and reduce the deficit [See WIMS 3/27/12].

    The President said in part, "Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people. Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits -- profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station. But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year -- billions a year in taxpayer subsidies -- a subsidy that they've enjoyed year after year for the last century. . .

    "It's not as if these companies can't stand on their own. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profits. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies' profits. In fact, one analysis shows that every time gas goes up by a penny, these companies usually pocket another $200 million in quarterly profits. Meanwhile, these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments, partly because we're giving them billions in tax giveaways every year. . .

    "Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising -- investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; investments in fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and energy-efficient homes and buildings. That's the future. That's the only way we're going to break this cycle of high gas prices that happen year after year after year.  As the economy is growing, the only time you start seeing lower gas prices is when the economy is doing badly. That's not the kind of pattern that we want to be in. We want the economy doing well, and people to be able to afford their energy costs. . .

    "We're going to keep investing in clean energy like the wind power and solar power that's already lighting thousands of homes and creating thousands of jobs. We're going to keep manufacturing more cars and trucks to get more miles to the gallon so that you can fill up once every two weeks instead of every week. We're going to keep building more homes and businesses that waste less energy so that you're in charge of your own energy bills. . . Today, the American people are going to be watching Congress to see if they have that same faith."

    While the President was speaking a majority of the Senate, 51 Senators voted for the bill to end the subsidies; however, under Senate rules 60 votes were required to approve the measure. Thus, the subsidies will continue, as 43 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the measure. The four Democrats included Senators Begich (D-AK), Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-NE), and Webb (D-VA). Two Republicans, joined the Democrats and two Independents in supporting the measure -- Senators Collins (R-ME) and Snowe (R-ME). Two Republican Senators did not vote.

    Senator Menendez issued a statement following the vote saying, "Today, we had a very simple choice to make -- stand up for hard working middle class families struggling with sky high gas prices, or stand with Big Oil executives raking in record profits with the help of taxpayer-funded handouts. With their votes, Republicans said loudly and clearly that they're on the side of Big Oil. I will keep fighting for middle class families, for fairness and against these ridiculous, needless subsidies." Sen. Menendez also delivered a lengthy floor speech prior to the vote which is available from the link below.

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), welcomed the defeat and said, "I am pleased that President Obama and the Democrats' latest proposal to raise taxes on American energy producers was rejected today. We all know that when you tax something you decrease supply and when you decrease supply prices go up. Last time they tried this, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Menendez, made the shocking admission, 'Nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices.' He's right, it's not about reducing gas prices, it's about attempting to deflect blame for their policies that continue to make gas prices go up.

 

    "The Republican plan is about reducing gas prices. It's about increasing supply by taking advantage of the immense resources of oil, gas and coal that our nation possesses so that American families can have affordable electricity and lower prices at the pump. That is why I offered three common sense amendments that would dramatically spur American energy production and stop the overregulation by the Obama- EPA.

 

    "During the Senate debate this week, Republicans provided a stark contrast to the Democrats' war on affordable energy.  Remember when President Obama said that under his plan of a cap-and-trade system electricity rates would 'necessarily skyrocket'? He went on to explain that this is 'because I'm capping greenhouse gases...they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.' Significantly raising taxes on oil and gas is just part of this same cap-and-trade agenda: those extra costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the pump. There was never any way the Senate would pass such a measure, especially at a time when gas prices are already skyrocketing.  Its defeat is a good thing for the American people."

 

    Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC) said, "The spectacle of the Senate Republican leadership unabashedly preserving corporate welfare for the oil industry -- at a time of skyrocketing industry profits and soaring gas prices -- is mindboggling. Rather than continuing to subsidize the richest companies in the world, we should be supporting policies that encourage more choices for Americans beyond the oil industry's monopoly on our transportation system. We ought to be supporting the clean energy entrepreneurs and American innovators who are developing ways we can reduce our addiction to oil, decrease pollution and improve our national security -- not the giant oil conglomerates who are keeping us stuck in the past."

 

    Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, issued a statement saying, "Today's vote is the latest reminder of what we knew all along: big oil companies and their lackeys in Congress will do whatever it takes to squeeze every penny possible out of American families, whether it's shirking taxes or price-gouging at the gas pump. It is obscene that a handful of wealthy oil executives are demanding billions in handouts from the government while ordinary Americans pay their fair share of taxes on top of four-dollar-a-gallon gas. And, it is shameful that a minority of obstructionist Senators are doing big oil's bidding against the will of their constituents -- the majority of whom support ending unfair tax subsidies for big oil. Big oil companies and speculators who are driving up prices at the pump don't need any more of our help. We need our leaders to focus on real solutions to break our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels, and invest in clean energy solutions to ease Americans' pain at the pump and create jobs. Unfortunately, the Senate missed an opportunity today to take an important step in moving beyond oil."   

 

    Just prior to the vote, American Petroleum Institute (API)'s Chief Economist John Felmy told reporters that the proposal before the Senate [i.e. S.2204] "to raise taxes on selected oil and natural gas companies ignores what could really work to reduce gasoline prices and help our economy: create jobs and produce at home more of the oil and natural gas we know our nation will be using. He said, "A recent Gallup poll shows the nation has little confidence our government is moving in the right direction on energy. Unfortunately, the discriminatory tax proposal before the Senate today aimed at a handful of oil and natural gas companies isn't going to inspire more. The proposal -- which is expected to fail with bipartisan opposition -- is a political distraction from high gasoline prices and our nation's failed energy policies. 

 

     "Solving our energy and economic challenges requires a different approach. It requires doing something we know works: producing at home more of the oil and natural gas that our nation will need for decades to come. While the economy has been struggling, our industry has been an engine of job creation and energy production. For example, in 2011, we created 150,000 jobs, almost one in every ten of all created nationwide, according to a study by the World Economic Forum and IHS-CERA. If our companies are permitted to produce more of America's ample oil and natural gas resources, they'll create even more jobs, more government revenue for critical programs, and more energy security. It's time to stop bringing up the same bad proposals again and again and take action that actually helps address the real energy and economic problems Americans are facing." 

    Access the complete statement from the President (click here). Access the roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for S.2204 (click here). Access the statement and floor speech from Sen. Menendez (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from NRDC with links to related information (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). [#Energy/OilNatGas]

Reactions To EPA's Proposed CO2 Rule For New Power Plants

Mar 27: Yesterday, WIMS reported on EPA's proposed the first-ever national regulations to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from "new" power plants [See WIMS 3/27/12]. EPA indicated that the proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act follow the 2007 Supreme Court ruling -- i.e. Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120 [See WIMS 4/2/07]. The New Source Performance (NSP) standard, would limit emissions from new power plants to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. EPA emphasized that the proposed rulemaking "only concerns new generating units that will be built in the future, and does not apply to existing units already operating or units that will start construction over the next 12 months." The Agency also said, ""Even without today's action, the power plants that are currently projected to be built going forward would already comply with the standard. As a result, EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard."

 

    In the article, WIMS included some preliminary reaction's to the proposal. Subsequently, EPA and others have issued statements and releases reacting to the proposal. In a separate release EPA summarized some of the positive reaction it had received. For example, John Arensmeyer, CEO, Small Business Majority said, "…National opinion polling we released in September found 76 percent of small business owners support the EPA regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. Another 87 percent believe improving innovation and energy efficiency are good ways to increase prosperity for small businesses…" Albert A. Rizzo, M.D., Chair, Board of Directors of the American Lung Association said, "…By proposing standards for carbon pollution from new facilities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is setting the stage for the next generation of America's power plants to be the least toxic and most modern in the world…"

 

    EPA also received support from: The Clean Energy Group's Clean Air Policy Initiative; Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk; Dick Munson, SVP, Recycled Energy Development; Ralph Izzo, CEO, Public Service Electric and Gas; Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety; Bill Ritter Jr., Former Colorado Governor; Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT; Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources; and the American Sustainable Business Council, Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) and Main Street Alliance.

 

    Reactions from Congressional Republicans and major industry organizations was harsh and severe. Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee leaders expressed "outrage" at EPA's proposal. Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "This rule is part of the Obama administration's aggressive plan to change America's energy portfolio and eliminate coal as a source of affordable, reliable electricity generation. EPA continues to overstep its authority and ram through a series of overreaching regulations in its attack on America's power sector. This rule effectively bans new coal plants and sets the stage for higher electricity prices in many regions of the country, which is precisely what Congress and the American public rejected with the failure of cap-and-trade legislation. President Obama likes to say he is for 'all of the above' American energy, but his policies prove otherwise."

 

    Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee said, "I am gravely concerned about the proposed regulation's impact on jobs and the economy. President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson are circumventing the will of Congress and the American people by moving forward with a standard today that threatens our most abundant, reliable, and affordable domestic electricity source - coal. President Obama is also putting our economy at risk at a time when it is most vulnerable. Congress has said no to regulating greenhouse gases because of the impact it will have on the economy, and what we are seeing is that EPA's regulations already are having a devastating impact on jobs and supply. We're seeing coal-fired electricity plants close and will likely see electricity rates skyrocket because of other EPA regulations and the greenhouse gas standards will only make matters worse."

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), announced at an EPW hearing his intentions "to put a stop to President Obama's new electricity tax that would have a devastating impact on American consumers at a time when gas prices are skyrocketing." Senator Inhofe said, "It is hard to believe that the Obama-EPA is announcing a massive energy tax today on American families at a time when they are already reeling from skyrocketing gas prices. So much for President Obama's claims to be for an 'all-of-the-above' approach -- these regulations are designed specifically to kill coal in American electricity generation, which will significantly raise energy prices on American families. This plan is the most devastating installment in the Obama administration's war on affordable energy: it achieves their cap-and-trade agenda through regulation instead of legislation. Today, Americans can be certain that the President is going forward to fulfill his campaign promise that under his plan of a cap-and-trade system electricity prices would 'necessarily skyrocket.' 

 

    "Remember these greenhouse gas regulations are all economic pain for no environmental gain. Their sole purpose is aimed supposedly at stopping global warming, yet even the administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, has admitted these regulations will have no impact on the climate. Why at a time when energy prices are skyrocketing is the administration working to impose tax increases that have no benefit? Today, as the Obama administration rolls out its immense energy tax, I am announcing my intent to kill this proposal by bringing it to a vote before the US Senate through a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). We were successful in stopping their job-killing agenda through legislation when we defeated cap-and-trade, now our fight is to stop them from forcing it on the American people through regulations. An overwhelming number of Senators have insisted they want to rein in the Obama-EPA; the CRA I will introduce will give them the opportunity to decide whether they will stand with President Obama and his destructive war on affordable energy, or their constituents back home, who will suffer the most from hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and the skyrocketing electricity and gas prices this agenda will impose on them."

 

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Bruce Josten said, "With today's proposed rule on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, EPA has once again shown that the administration's 'all of the above' energy policy is really 'some of the above.' Today's proposal could lead to higher energy costs that are bad for families and businesses. Having been thoroughly rejected by Congress, EPA is now attempting an end-around designed to place an indefinite ban on the construction of conventional coal-fired power plants in America. Coal is an essential part of a diverse, reliable, and affordable energy mix, supplying nearly 40 percent of our electricity. It remains a cost-effective and secure source of power in a time of soaring energy prices. The proposed rule could also affect natural gas generation, because several types of natural gas-fired generation plants may not meet EPA's prescribed greenhouse gas emissions standards.

    "EPA's proposal is rife with legal and structural deficiencies that could ultimately allow the scope of the rule to expand well beyond the entities EPA seeks to regulate. Even worse, the agency has proposed this dubious new regulation while a legal cloud hangs over the fundamental question of whether it can regulate greenhouse gases at all. Today's announcement is another in a long string of actions this administration has taken that weaken our energy security and raise energy prices. Given recent court decisions finding that EPA overreached—including three in the last week—the Chamber will be evaluating all of its options to overturn this rule if it is ultimately issued."

 

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons said, "Today, the EPA proposed yet another regulation that will hurt manufacturers, consumers and jobs. Looking at the broad range of costly EPA regulations, from Boiler MACT, Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to coal ash and other greenhouse gas regulations, it's evident that the Administration is playing a primary role in the 20 percent cost disadvantage facing manufacturers in the United States. The cumulative impact of these regulations is bad news for our manufacturing economy and will result in less reliable electricity at a higher price.

    "Specifically, this latest proposed regulation would limit the construction of new coal fuel power plants, taking a stable and affordable source of energy off the table and putting the power grid at further risk. The impact will be higher electricity prices on manufacturers and consumers versus lower energy prices that allow manufacturers to continue to lead the economic recovery and create jobs. With this latest action from the EPA to effectively take clean coal off the table, it is clear the agency doesn't understand the benefits of a true 'all of the above' energy strategy that grows jobs and enhances our energy security. Manufacturers and the 12 million people making things in America want a strategy that includes all available domestic sources of energy, including clean coal. Piling on with more costly regulations is not the answer."

    Access a release and supporting statements from EPA (click here). Access a release from House Republican members of the E&C Committee (click here). Access a release and video from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from the Chamber of Commerce (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access details from EPA (click here). Access the prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (click here).  [#Climate, #Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

EPA Proposes First-Ever CO2 Standards For New Power Plants

Mar 27: U.S. EPA has proposed the first-ever national regulations to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from "new" power plants. EPA issued a release saying that following a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, it was proposing the first Clean Air Act standard for carbon pollution from new power plants. The New Source Performance (NSP) standard, would limit emissions from new power plants to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. EPA said the proposed standard reflects the ongoing trend in the power sector to build cleaner plants that take advantage of American-made technologies, including new, clean-burning, efficient natural gas generation, which is already the technology of choice for new and planned power plants. At the same time, the rule creates a path forward for new technologies to be deployed at future facilities that will allow companies to burn coal, while emitting less carbon pollution. EPA emphasized that the proposed rulemaking "only concerns new generating units that will be built in the future, and does not apply to existing units already operating or units that will start construction over the next 12 months."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "Today we're taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy. Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies -- and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow. We're putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can't leave to our kids and grandkids."

    Currently, there is no uniform national limit on the amount of carbon pollution new power plants can emit. As a direct result of the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling, EPA in 2009 determined that greenhouse gas pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading to long lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment.

    EPA indicated that the proposed standard is flexible and would help minimize carbon pollution through the deployment of the same types of modern technologies and steps that power companies are already taking to build the next generation of power plants. EPA said its proposal is in line with these investments and will ensure that this progress toward a cleaner, safer and more modern power sector continues. The proposed standards can be met by a range of power facilities burning different fossil fuels, including natural gas technologies that are already widespread, as well as coal with technologies to reduce carbon emissions. EPA said that, "Even without today's action, the power plants that are currently projected to be built going forward would already comply with the standard. As a result, EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard."

 

    The proposed requirements, which are strictly limited to new sources, would require new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs) greater than 25 megawatt electric (MWe) to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (lb CO2/MWh), based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) technology. Because of the economics of the energy sector, EPA and others project that NGCC will be the predominant choice for new fossil fuel-fired generation even absent this rule. In its base case analysis, the EPA does not project any new coal-fired EGUs without CCS to be built in the absence of this proposal through 2030.

 

    EPA indicated that new coal-fired or pet coke-fired units could meet the standard either by employing carbon capture and storage (CCS)1 of approximately 50% of the CO2 in the exhaust gas at startup, or through later application of more effective CCS to meet the standard on average over a 30-year period. The 30-year averaging option could also provide flexibility for owners and operators of coal or pet coke units implementing CCS at the outset of the unit's operation that were designed and operated to emit at less than 1,000 lb CO2/MWh to address startup concerns or short term interruptions in their ability to sequester captured carbon dioxide.

    EPA said that prior to developing this standard, it engaged in an extensive and open public process to gather the latest information to aid in developing a carbon pollution standard for new power plants. The Agency is seeking additional comment and information, including public hearings, and will take that input fully into account as it completes the rulemaking process. EPA's comment period will be open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

 

    National Mining Association (NMA) President and CEO Hal Quinn issued a statement saying, "EPA's proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from about half the nation's electric power supply is a poorly disguised cap-and-tax scheme that represents energy and economic policy at its worst. Higher utility bills and fewer jobs are the only certain outcomes from this reckless attempt to override Congress's repeated refusal to enact punitive caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Requiring coal-based power plants to meet an emissions standard based on natural gas technology is a policy overtly calculated to destroy a significant portion of America's electricity supply. This is a movie we have seen before, and the script remains unchanged. Volatile natural gas prices will, once again, expose millions of households to higher utility bills, threaten hundreds of thousands of workers with unemployment and weaken both the competitiveness of basic industries and the reliability of the nation's electricity grid.

 

    "This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA's regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop. It is not an "all of the above" energy strategy; it does not create jobs; and it does not make it easier for Americans to pay their mortgages. Instead, the proposed New Source Performance Standards would deliberately push America to abandon coal, its most abundant and reliable energy source in favor of costlier fuels -- even though Congress has repeatedly rejected this policy. NMA urges Congress to assert its authority over an agency that disregards the public need for affordable electricity and ignores the overwhelming costs of its regulations."

 

    Eileen Claussen, President of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) said, "We welcome EPA's proposal today to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants and urge the Administration to quickly move forward with rules for existing plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Power companies face huge investment decisions as they meet new pollution standards and retire or upgrade outdated plants. They need to know the full picture - including future greenhouse gas requirements - in order to keep our electricity supply as reliable and affordable as possible.

    "While highly efficient natural gas-fired power plants would meet the standard proposed today, new coal-fired power plants not already in the pipeline could likely meet the standard only by capturing and permanently sequestering their greenhouse gas emissions. This underscores the urgency of stronger public and private investment in carbon capture and storage technologies. The United States, China and India -- the world's three largest greenhouse gas emitters -- all have substantial coal reserves. If we can't figure out how to get the energy value out of coal with a minimal carbon footprint, we will not solve the climate problem. With prospects for substantial public investment in CCS unclear, C2ES is now working with policymakers and stakeholders on ways to expand enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon dioxide -- an approach that can boost domestic oil production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help lay the groundwork for full-scale carbon capture and storage."

    Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, issued a statement in response to EPA's proposal saying, "The Sierra Club applauds President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's announcement today to establish new safeguards under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from dangerous carbon pollution. Their action today follows the actions of thousands of families and activists over the last several years to prevent 166 dirty coal plants from polluting their communities, air and water.

 

    "These first-ever carbon pollution standards for new power plants mean that business as usual for the nation's biggest sources of carbon pollution, dirty coal-burning utilities, is over.  Cleaning up dangerous carbon pollution from new power plants and modernizing the way we power our nation will help secure Americans' health and future, and prevent against life-threatening air pollutants like dirty soot, toxic mercury and smog. Most of all, these carbon pollution protections mark the end of an era for antiquated, dirty coal plants and continue the momentum behind clean energy to ensure healthier kids, families and workers, as well as much-needed job creation and a more secure climate future."

 

    Kevin Kennedy, U.S. Climate Director, World Resources Institute (WRI) said, "For the first time, EPA has proposed standards to reduce harmful carbon pollution from power plants. The power sector produces one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and it's critical to reduce these emissions if we're going to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. These standards will ensure that any new power plants will be designed to protect people's health and the planet. A quarter of the nation's fossil fuel-based generation capacity is more than 40 years old, and many plants are approaching retirement. Any plants built today would likely be standing in 2050 and beyond, making strong rules for new plants an important part of the picture.

    "We commend EPA for this step to advance the Administration's commitment to reduce U.S. emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Today's announcement follows the Administration's introduction of historic standards for light-duty vehicles in November 2011. Moving forward, it will be important for EPA to address carbon emissions for existing power plants as well. Existing plants represent a significant opportunity to improve efficiency and reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. We can achieve these reductions at low cost while providing power plants flexibility in complying with them."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access details from EPA (click here). Access the prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (click here). Access a release from NMA (click here). Access a release from C2ES (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from WRI including links to related information (click here). [#Climate, #Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals