Appeals Court Rules Unanimously In Favor Of EPA GHG Regulations

Jun 26: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. U.S. EPA; American Chemistry Council v. U.S. EPA; and various intervenors including the State of Michigan, et al. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 09-1322, consolidated with a number of cases. On Petitions for Review of Final Actions of the Environmental Protection Agency. And, consolidated with dozens of cases and involving hundreds of attorneys. This is a highly controversial, complicated and critically important decision regarding U.S. EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A unanimous Appeals Court has provided an complete ruling in support of U.S. EPA and Administration.

 

    The Appeals Court outlines the history as follows: Following the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) -- which clarified that greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) -- U.S. EPA promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules. First, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it

determined that greenhouse gases may "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Next, it issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light trucks. Finally, EPA determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. But because immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules, in which it determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.

 

    Petitioners, various states and industry groups, challenge all these rules, arguing that they are based on improper constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The Appeals Court rules, "But for the reasons set forth below, we conclude: (1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; (2) EPA's interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and (3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions."

 

    The Appeals Court explains the organization of the seven part, 82-page decision saying, "This opinion proceeds in several steps. Part II explains why the Endangerment Finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious, while Part III does the same for the Tailpipe Rule. Turning to stationary source regulation, Part IV examines whether any petitioners may timely challenge EPA's longstanding interpretation of the PSD statute. Because we conclude that they may, Part V addresses the merits of their statutory arguments, and explains why EPA's interpretation of the CAA was compelled by the statute. Next, Part VI explains why petitioners lack standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules themselves. Finally, Part VII disposes of several arguments that have nothing to do with the rules under review, and thus are not properly before us."

 

    On the issue of the scientific basis for the endangerment finding, the Appeals Court said in part, "State and Industry Petitioners next challenge the adequacy of the scientific record underlying the Endangerment Finding, objecting to both the type of evidence upon which EPA relied and EPA's decision to make an Endangerment Finding in light of what Industry Petitioners view as significant scientific uncertainty. Neither objection has merit. . . Based on this scientific record, EPA made the linchpin finding: in its judgment, the 'root cause' of the recently observed climate change is 'very likely' the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. . . EPA had before it substantial record evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases 'very likely' caused warming of the climate over the last several decades. . ."

 

    On the subject of the Endangerment Finding being arbitrary and capricious and "just a "subjective conviction" of EPA, the Appeals Court said in part, "EPA relied on a substantial record of empirical data and scientific evidence, making many specific and often quantitative findings regarding the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate change and the effects of climate change on public health and welfare. Its failure to distill this ocean of evidence into a specific number at which greenhouse gases cause "dangerous" climate change is a function of the precautionary thrust of the CAA and the multivariate and sometimes uncertain nature of climate science, not a sign of arbitrary or capricious decision-making."

 

    On the subject of standing, the Appeals Court summarizes the arguments and its ruling as follows: "Petitioners fall far short of these 'irreducible constitutional . . . elements' of standing, id. at 560. Simply put, Petitioners have failed to establish that the Timing and Tailoring Rules caused them 'injury in fact,' much less injury that could be redressed by the Rules' vacatur. Industry Petitioners contend that they are injured because they are subject to regulation of greenhouse gases, Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 14. State Petitioners claim injury because they own some regulated sources and because they now carry a heavier administrative burden. State Pet'rs' Timing & Tailoring Br. 22–23. But as discussed above, see supra Part V, the CAA mandates PSD and Title V coverage for major emitters of greenhouse gases. Thus, Industry Petitioners were regulated and State Petitioners required to issue permits not because of anything EPA did in the Timing and Tailoring Rules, but by

automatic operation of the statute. Given this, neither the Timing nor Tailoring Rules caused the injury Petitioners allege: having to comply with PSD and Title V for greenhouse gases."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The Appeals Court's decision to unambiguously affirm EPA's clean air efforts to reduce dangerous carbon pollution is a big victory for the health of the American people."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA.), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released a statement saying, "Today's ruling is a grand slam for the EPA and the health of the American people, and another strikeout for the fossil fuel special interests trying to block clean energy progress. The DC Appeals Court now joins the Supreme Court in saying that climate science is sound and the EPA has the authority to regulate dangerous heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. Three years ago today, the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill, and the problems addressed by that legislation remain with us today. With the science affirmed and the authority granted, EPA should continue their important work to address the greatest challenge of our generation in dealing with global warming. At the same time, Congressional Republicans should stop denying the science and start working with Democrats to craft more comprehensive and bipartisan responses to the threat posed by global warming."

 

    Sierra Club issued a release on the decision calling it "a sweeping victory for public health and clean air." Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club said, "Today's decision is a huge victory for American families and everyone concerned about protecting the air we breathe and the health of our children. The role of the Clean Air Act in protecting our families from dangerous carbon pollution and climate disruption should never have been in doubt, and this decision is a big step forward in putting the well-being of Americans before the boundless profits of big polluters. Carbon pollution is dangerous to our planet and our health. The Environmental Protection Agency has the right and the duty to keep our communities healthy and now the path is clear for them to curb this dangerous pollution, which threatens our families and planet. We applaud the court's decision and stand with the EPA as they continue to fight for the health of American families."

 

    Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's ruling by the court confirms that EPA's common sense solutions to address climate pollution are firmly anchored in science and law. This landmark decision will help secure a healthier and more prosperous future for all Americans. Today is a good day for climate progress in America and for the thin layer of atmosphere that sustains life on Earth." EDF's outside legal counsel Sean Donahue, who presented oral arguments to the court in defense of these protections said, "EPA's reasonable steps to reduce climate pollution will benefit our environment, our economy, our health and our national security. Today's court ruling will help our country move forward toward a clean energy future."

 

    [Note: No immediate reaction to the ruling was available from industry or state government participants at press time.]

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). [#Climate, #Air, #MIAir, #MIClimate]

 

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

 

Two Reports On U.S. Atlantic & Pacific Sea Level Rises

Jun 24: Two separate reports, one by the U.S. Geological Survey and the other by the National Academy of Sciences, warn of rising sea levels along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the fact that levels are rising at faster than average rates.

 

    The report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published in Nature Climate Change, indicates that the rates of sea level rise are increasing three-to-four times faster along portions of the U.S. Atlantic Coast than globally. Since about 1990, sea-level rise in the 600-mile stretch of coastal zone from Cape Hatteras, NC to north of Boston, MA -- coined a "hotspot" by scientists -- has increased 2 - 3.7 millimeters per year; the global increase over the same period was 0.6 – 1.0 millimeter per year. Based on data and analyses included in the report, if global temperatures continue to rise, rates of sea level rise in this area are expected to continue increasing.

 

    USGS indicated that the report shows that the sea-level rise hotspot is consistent with the slowing of Atlantic Ocean circulation. Models show this change in circulation may be tied to changes in water temperature, salinity and density in the subpolar north Atlantic. USGS Director Marcia McNutt said, "Many people mistakenly think that the rate of sea level rise is the same everywhere as glaciers and ice caps melt, increasing the volume of ocean water, but other effects can be as large or larger than the so-called 'eustatic' rise. As demonstrated in this study, regional oceanographic contributions must be taken into account in planning for what happens to coastal property."

 

    USGS said that though global sea level has been projected to rise roughly two-to-three feet or more by the end of the 21st century, it will not climb at the same rate at every location. Differences in land movements, strength of ocean currents, water temperatures, and salinity can cause regional and local highs and lows in sea level.

 

    A separate report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC), released on June 22, indicates that the sea level off most of California is expected to rise about one meter over the next century, an amount slightly higher than projected for global sea levels, and will likely increase damage to the State's coast from storm surges and high waves.  Sea levels off Washington, Oregon, and northern California will likely rise less, about 60 centimeters over the same period of time.  However, the report warns that an earthquake magnitude 8 or larger in this region could cause sea level to rise suddenly by an additional meter or more. 

 

    Global sea level rose during the 20th century, and projections suggest it will rise at a higher rate during the 21st century. A warming climate causes sea level to rise primarily by warming the oceans -- which causes the water to expand -- and melting land ice, which transfers water to the ocean. However, as also indicated in the USGS paper, sea-level rise is uneven and varies from place to place. Along the U.S. west coast it depends on the global mean sea-level rise and regional factors, such as ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, melting of modern and ancient ice sheets, and tectonic plate movements. California Executive Order S-13-08 directed State agencies to plan for sea-level rise and coastal impacts and asked the Research Council to establish a committee to assess sea-level rise. Oregon, Washington, and several Federal agencies joined California to sponsor the study.  The report estimates sea-level rise both globally and for those three states for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100.  

 

    The committee that wrote the report projected that global sea level will rise 8 to 23 centimeters by 2030, relative to the 2000 level, 18 to 48 centimeters by 2050, and 50 to 140 centimeters by 2100. The 2100 estimate is substantially higher than the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projection made in 2007 of 18 to 59 centimeters with a possible additional 17 centimeters if rapid changes in ice flow are included. 

 

    The NAS report indicates that extreme events could raise sea level much faster than the rates projected by the committee. For example, they say an earthquake magnitude 8 or greater north of Cape Mendocino, which occurs in this area every several hundred to 1,000 years with the most recent in 1700, could cause parts of the coast to subside immediately and the relative sea level to rise suddenly by a meter or more. 

 

    The report indicates that most of the damage along the west coast is caused by storms, particularly the confluence of large waves, storm surges, and high tides during El Niño events. Significant development along the coast -- such as airports, naval air stations, freeways, sports stadiums, and housing developments -- has been built only a few feet above the highest tides. For example, the San Francisco International Airport could flood with as little as 40 centimeters of sea-level rise, a value that could be reached in several decades. The committee also ran a simulation that suggested sea-level rise could cause the incidence of extreme water heights in the San Francisco Bay area to increase from about 9 hours per decade, to hundreds of hours per decade by 2050, and to several thousand hours per decade by 2100.

 

    Access a release on the USGS report and link to the complete report (click here). Access a release on the NAS report and link to the complete report (click here). [#Climate, #Water]

 

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

 

Rio+20 Adopts "The Future We Want" Declaration

Jun 22: At the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 to 22 June 2012, the Heads of State and Government and high-level representatives, from more than 190 countries issued a 53-page declaration entitled, "The Future We Want.'' So early reactions to the widely publicized meeting are included below from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). A link to the full declaration is provided below.

 

    UCS released comments on what they called the "political declaration" Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at UCS issued a statement saying:

"The political declaration issued by leaders in Rio has no hope of giving the peoples of the world 'the future we want.' Without much stronger action, we are clearly headed for a future we can't live with -- and quicker than most leaders realize.

 

"The message from scientists and other experts is crystal clear: humanity is placing stresses on the Earth's carrying capacity that threaten the health and wellbeing of both current and future generations. The response to this threat from world leaders in Rio is totally inadequate, as many of them would readily admit. Today's declaration is the result of several factors: the focus of most leaders on current short-term economic challenges, the untoward influence of corporate polluters over public policy, and sharp divisions among countries on key issues such as equity and finance.

 

"But Rio also saw numerous initiatives launched and commitments made by countries, companies and other actors. More than 400 companies which comprise the Consumer Goods Forum pledged to achieve zero net deforestation in their supply chains by 2020. While collectively these initiatives are significant and offer some hope, they simply aren't adequate to the scale of the challenges we face.

 

"Fortunately, we have the solutions we need, and they are far more affordable than the impacts we will suffer if we don't implement them.  For example, the cost of electricity from clean renewable sources has dropped significantly in recent years, and there are tremendous opportunities to use energy more efficiently in every sector of our economies. What's in short supply is political will by leaders to rise above pressure from polluters and their own short-term thinking, and do the right thing for the future of all of us. 

 

"Despite the disappointing outcome in Rio, we will continue to press for the actions  to move us onto the sustainable path the people of the world deserve." 

    NRDC President Frances Beinecke commented on the overall summit saying:

"Government negotiators at the Rio+20 Earth Summit did not produce the prescription for the planet that is needed. But you can't save the planet with a document.

"That does not mean Rio+20 was a failure. Some 50,000 people attended and hundreds of thousands more participated virtually to make their voices heard like never before. Countries, communities and companies worldwide announced hundreds of individual commitments to instigate real change - irrespective of any United Nations document.

"It's unequivocally clear now that we can't depend only on the slow wheels of bureaucracy and government negotiators to address the urgent problems our planet faces.

"But it's also clear from what we witnessed in Rio that we can – and must - harness the collective power and will of individuals worldwide to hold our government leaders accountable while simultaneously taking real action on our own to leave a better world for our children.

"Rio+20 showed us what we can and must do. It's just the starting place for real action."

    Access the complete Rio+20 declaration (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access the release from NRDC which includes additional comments from the NRDC delegation (click here). Access the Rio+20 website for complete details (click here). Access more information on Rio+20 (click here). [#Sustain, #Climate, #Energy]

 

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

House Passes Controversial Domestic Energy & Jobs Act; 248-163

Jun 21: The U.S. House passed the Republican sponsored Domestic Energy and Jobs Act (H.R.4480), a legislative package comprised of a series of bills which they say "aim to increase access to American energy resources and prevent misguided federal policies that will drive energy prices higher." [See WIMS 6/7/12]. The bill passed largely along party lines with a vote of 248-163, with 21 Representatives not voting. Nineteen Democrats joined 229 Republicans to approve the bill.

 

    Yesterday (June 20) on the House Floor, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman delivered a statement in support of H.R.4480, saying in part, "The price of gasoline and the unemployment rate both remain far too high, and American families are struggling as a result. That's why I support H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. This bill is truly a win-win -- the steps it takes to expand supplies of affordable domestic energy will create many jobs in the process.

    "It's no secret that I don't see eye-to-eye with President Obama on energy policy, but perhaps the most inexplicable energy policy move this administration has made was the June 2011 decision to withdraw 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no plan to replace them. It is hard to understand why the President would take oil from the nation's emergency stockpile while at the same time keeping off-limits the far greater amounts beneath federally controlled lands and offshore areas. It's like a couple pawning their wedding rings for cash while ignoring a major gold discovery in their backyard. The amount of untapped oil in areas kept out of reach by the Obama administration is estimated to exceed the entire Strategic Petroleum Reserve dozens of times over. . ."

    Following approval today, Representative Cory Gardner's (R-CO) sponsor of the package of domestic energy production legislation, said, "The package of seven bills enjoyed bipartisan support in the House," and urged the United States Senate to consider the legislation. He said, "There is no reason for the United States Senate not to consider the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act and send it to President Obama's desk this summer. The seven bills in this package provide an opportunity for job growth and energy security. These bipartisan pieces of legislation make sure that we move forward on oil and gas development in the western United States and on federal lands, and that we take steps to ensure our nation relies on American made energy, provided by American jobs."

 

    However, it is unlikely the Democratically-controlled Senate will consider the bill and the White House has already issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the bill saying that if the bill were presented to the President, White House senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill [See WIMS 6/19/12]. The White House said the bill would, ". . .undermine the Nation's energy security, roll back policies that support the continued growth of safe and responsible energy production in the United States, discourage environmental analysis and civic engagement in Federal decision-making, and impede progress on important Clean Air Act (CAA) rules to protect the health of American families. H.R. 4480 would threaten energy security and broader national security by attaching conditions to the drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) that could hinder the President's ability to respond appropriately and lawfully to a disruption in the Nation's energy supply. . . H.R. 4480 also would reverse Administration oil and gas leasing reforms that have established orderly, open, efficient, and environmentally sound processes for energy development on public lands. . ."

 

    Bills included in House-passed Domestic Energy and Jobs Act:

• Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, H.R. 4480 (Rep. Cory Gardner, CO)
• Gasoline Regulations Act of 2012, H.R. 4471 (Rep. Ed Whitfield, KY)
• Planning for American Energy Act of 2012, H.R.4381 (Rep. Scott Tipton, CO)
• Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 2012, H.R 4382 (Rep. Mike Coffman, CO)
• Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act of 2012, H.R. 4383 (Rep. Doug Lamborn, CO) 
• National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, H.R. 2150 (Rep. "Doc" Hastings, WA) 
• BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, H.R. 2752 (Rep. Bill Johnson, OH)

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, "Today, the House will pass the Domestic Energy & Jobs Act, which will help create good-paying jobs by expanding American energy production. This is the latest in a series of more than 30 House-passed jobs bills that have removed government barriers to economic growth and stopped policies that are driving up gas prices. I also want to be clear about something: House Republicans want to get a highway bill done. We want a bill, and our colleagues are working toward producing a bill. We just want to make sure it's a bill that includes real reforms, to ensure that taxpayer funds are paying for legitimate projects that support economic activity -- not planting more flowers and beautification projects around the country. We also continue to support bipartisan, job-creating initiatives like the Keystone pipeline."

 

    House Democratic environmental leaders, Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) indicated that they "denounced the bill as yet another large-scale giveaway to oil companies by House Republicans, who have established the most anti-environmental and pro-oil company agenda in the history of Congress." They said the bill would transfer hundreds of thousands of square miles of America's public lands to oil companies, while protecting the $4 billion in subsidies the biggest oil companies receive from taxpayers each year."

 

    Rep. Markey, the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee said, "Republicans passed a bill that would cede nearly all of America's public lands to oil companies within just a few short years, but wouldn't even allow a debate on wind, solar, and a real 'all of the above' energy strategy. This debate was a sham, this legislation is a scam, and the American people need to know these are the 'oil above all' policies that a Mitt Romney administration would put into place. Rep. Waxman, the Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "This bill is a stealth attack on the Clean Air Act. It might be great news for big oil, but it means more pollution for the American people." They said, while the bill will not be considered further it, "contains a dangerous preview of the policies that would be implemented if Mitt Romney and Republicans retake the White House and Congress."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute's (API) Executive Vice President Marty Durbin applauded the House action saying, "Greater access to domestic energy resources combined with smarter policies that boost our refining industry will benefit consumers in the long run. More home grown energy is good for all Americans. . . The legislation would establish an 'all the above' energy program for federal lands that would open up more areas for energy production while streamlining the permitting process. . . KXL [Keystone XL pipeline] will put thousands of Americans to work. It has and continues to be one of the greatest shovel-ready projects awaiting approval. We urge the transportation conferees to include the Keystone provision in the final Highway bill agreement. Unemployment remains high, now is not the time to deny good paying energy jobs. We cannot have regulations that are solutions in search of a problem. Consumers should be informed about the costs certain regulations have on the price of producing gasoline and diesel." 

 

   Sierra Club issued a statement saying, "John Boehner and his House Republicans have regurgitated Big Oil's playbook and called it a jobs plan. If you're looking for an example of why Congress' approval rating is dipping to all-time lows, look no further. This disgraceful legislation is just their latest attempt to put oil above all -- especially the needs of American families. While Americans are paying more for gas, House Republicans are more concerned about coddling Exxon and BP and forking over our public lands for more drilling and destruction. While families are struggling to make ends meet, Boehner and his ilk are turning over billions in tax giveaways to companies already making record profits. If we've learned one thing this Congress it's that House Republicans are asking 'how high?' before Big Oil even asks them to jump."

 

    Access the floor statement and video from Rep. Upton (click here). Access a release from Rep. Gardner (click here). Access the statement and video from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access the joint release from Reps. Markey and Waxman (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the floor consideration and amendment votes for H.R.4480 (click here). Access the roll call vote details (click here). Access the Policy Statement for H.R.4480 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4480 (click here). [#Air, #Energy]

 

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

G20 Leaders Address Energy & Climate Change At Mexico Meeting

Jun 19: The Leaders of the G20, meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico on 18-19 June 2012 adopted an 84 point Declaration that included statements relating to energy and climate change. We The G20 nations will next convene in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2013. The G20 includes 19 country members and the European Union, which together represent around 90% of global GDP, 80% of global trade and two-thirds of the world's population. The member countries include: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The following are the statements related to energy and climate change:

• We recognize that excessive price volatility in energy commodities is also an important source of economic instability. We remain committed to well-functioning and transparent energy markets. We will continue to work to improve the timeliness, completeness and reliability of JODI-Oil and look forward to a progress report next year. We will work on the JODI-Gas database on the same principles. We expect the International Energy Forum (IEF) report on improving the reliability of the JODI-Oil database and the report on transparency in international gas and coal markets submitted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), IEF, and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to be discussed by our Finance Ministers in November. We also look forward to IOSCO's recommendations to improve the functioning and oversight of Price Reporting Agencies in November 2012, which will be produced in collaboration with other mandated organizations (IEF, IEA and OPEC), and task Finance Ministers to take concrete measures in this area as necessary.
  
• We commit to continue to help developing countries sustain and strengthen their development through appropriate measures, including those that encourage inclusive green growth. We will reaffirm our commitment to sustainable development at the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). We commit to maintaining a focus on inclusive green growth as part of our G20 agenda and in the light of agreements reached at Rio+20 and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
  
• Climate change will continue to have a significant impact on the world economy, and costs will be higher to the extent we delay additional action. We reiterate our commitment to fight climate change and welcome the outcome of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN climate change conferences. We are committed to the full implementation of the outcomes of Cancun and Durban and will work with Qatar as the incoming Presidency towards achieving a successful and balanced outcome at COP-18. We emphasize the need to structurally transform economies towards a climate-friendly path over the medium term. We welcome the creation of the G20 study group on climate finance, in order to consider ways to effectively mobilize resources taking into account the objectives, provisions and principles of the UNFCCC in line with the Cancun Agreement and ask to provide a progress report to Finance Ministers in November. We support the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund.
  
• In Cannes we committed to promote low-carbon development strategies in order to optimize the potential for green growth and ensure sustainable development in our countries and beyond. We therefore welcome the report on clean energy and energy efficiency technologies and acknowledge the G20 countries' efforts to foster investment in these technologies through the sharing of national experiences regarding challenges for technology deployment.

    The members also agreed on a globally coordinated economic plan to achieve those goals through their Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth. The plan incorporates and extends the Cannes Action Plan, and significantly intensifies the efforts to achieve a stronger, more durable recovery. The Los Cabos Growth and Jobs Action Plan starts from the premise that cooperation and coordination will result in better economic outcomes. The members said they are united in their commitment to take strong and decisive action to deliver on the itemized commitments.

 

    Access the complete 84 point Declaration (click here). Access an overview and link to the Los Cabos Growth and Jobs Action Plan (click here). Access the G20 Mexico website for complete information on the meeting (click here). [#Energy, #Climate]

White House Recommends Veto For S.J. Res. 37 & H.R. 4480

Jun 19: The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued two Statements of Administration Policy on recent House and Senate measures to role back EPA air regulations, oil and gas leasing reforms and regulate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Policy Statements indicate that White House senior advisors would recommend that the President veto S.J. Res. 37 that would overturn EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS, or Utility MACT) and H.R.4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

 

    Regarding S.J. Res. 37, sponsored by Senator Inhofe (R-OK), a June 18, statement indicates the measure would, "overturn long-overdue national clean air standards limiting power plant emissions of toxic air pollution, including mercury. As a result, this resolution would cause substantial harm to public health and undermine our Nation's longstanding commitment to clean up pollution from power plants. . . S.J. Res. 37 would undermine more than forty years of CAA progress by blocking the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the first national standards to protect American families from harmful power plant emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gases, nickel, and chromium. . ."

 

    The Statement indicates that, "The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will ensure that the Nation's power plants install modern, widely available technologies to limit harmful pollution -- leveling the playing field for power plants that already have such controls in place. The standards are achievable; pollution control equipment that can help meet them already is installed at more than half of the Nation's coal-fired power plants. Numerous studies, including analysis by the Department of Energy, have projected that the standards can be met without adversely affecting the adequacy of electric generation resources in any region of the country."

 

    Additionally, the Statement notes that, "if a rule is disapproved under the Congressional Review Act, an agency may not issue a rule that is 'substantially the same.' In this case, because EPA has adhered closely to its narrowly circumscribed authority under the CAA in promulgating these standards, the enactment of S.J. Res. 37 could effectively prevent EPA from ever limiting mercury and air toxics pollution from power plants."

 

    Regarding H.R.4480, sponsored by Representative Gardner (R-CO) and 21 cosponsors, a June 19 statement indicates the bill would, ". . .undermine the Nation's energy security, roll back policies that support the continued growth of safe and responsible energy production in the United States, discourage environmental analysis and civic engagement in Federal decision-making, and impede progress on important Clean Air Act (CAA) rules to protect the health of American families. H.R. 4480 would threaten energy security and broader national security by attaching conditions to the drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) that could hinder the President's ability to respond appropriately and lawfully to a disruption in the Nation's energy supply. . .

 

    "H.R. 4480 also would reverse Administration oil and gas leasing reforms that have established orderly, open, efficient, and environmentally sound processes for energy development on public lands. Specifically, this bill would favor an arbitrary standard for leasing in open areas over leasing on the basis of greatest resource potential. . . H.R. 4480 also would impede progress on important protections for the health of American families. The bill would undermine the longstanding principle of the CAA that air quality standards must be set at levels requisite to protect public health, based first and foremost on sound science. The bill also would impose an unnecessary and redundant requirement for analysis of certain regulations, including some that have never been proposed. . ."

 

    Access the Policy Statement for S.J. Res. 37 (click here). Access the Policy Statement for H.R.4480 (click here). Access legislative details for S.J. Res. 37 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4480 (click here). [#Air, #Energy]

 

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

EPA Proposes New, More Strict PM2.5 Standards

Jun 15: U.S. EPA announced that in response to a court order, it is proposing updates to its national air quality standards for harmful fine particle pollution, including soot (PM2.5). The microscopic particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and have been linked to a wide range of serious health effects, including premature death, heart attacks, and strokes, as well as acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma among children. A Federal court ruling required EPA to update the standard based on best available science. EPA said its proposal, which meets that requirement, builds on smart steps already taken by the Agency to slash dangerous pollution in communities across the country. EPA said, "Thanks to these steps, 99 percent of U.S. counties are projected to meet the proposed standard without any additional action."

    EPA's said its proposal would strengthen the annual health standard for harmful fine particle pollution (PM2.5) to a level within a range of 13 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The current annual standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter [See WIMS 9/21/06]. The proposed changes, which are consistent with the advice from the Agency's independent science advisors, are based on an extensive body of scientific evidence that includes thousands of studies -- including many large studies which show negative health impacts at lower levels than previously understood. By proposing a range, the agency will collect input from the public as well as a number of stakeholders, including industry and public health groups, to help determine the most appropriate final standard to protect public health. It is important to note that the proposal has zero effect on the existing daily standard for fine particles or the existing daily standard for coarse particles (PM10), both of which would remain unchanged.

 

   The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review its standards for particle pollution every five years to determine whether the standards should be revised. The law requires the Agency to ensure the standards are "requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety" and "requisite to protect the public welfare." A Federal court ordered EPA to sign the proposed particle pollution standards by June 14, 2012, because the agency did not meet its five-year legal deadline for reviewing the standards. EPA indicated it will accept public comments for 63 days after the proposed standards are published in the Federal Register. The Agency will hold two public hearings; one in Sacramento, CA and one in Philadelphia, PA. Details on the hearings will be announced shortly. EPA will issue the final standards by December 14, 2012.

 

    EPA said that because reductions in fine particle pollution have direct health benefits including decreased mortality rates, fewer incidents of heart attacks, strokes, and childhood asthma, these standards have major economic benefits with comparatively low costs. Depending on the final level of the standard, estimated benefits will range from $88 million a year, with estimated costs of implementation as low as $2.9 million, to $5.9 billion in annual benefits with a cost of $69 million -- a return ranging from $30 to $86 for every dollar invested in pollution control. EPA indicated that while it cannot consider costs in selecting a standard under the Clean Air Act, those costs are estimated as part of the analysis undertaken for all significant regulations, as required by Executive Order 13563 issued by President Obama in January 2011.

 

    Last week, House Energy and Commerce (E&C) leaders including Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) wrote to EPA urging the Agency to include retention of its current PM2.5 standards. They issued a statement on the proposal saying, "We are disappointed that EPA did not heed our request to include retention of the current annual standard as an alternative in its proposal. Any change to these regulatory standards could result in significant adverse economic consequences and job losses. Given the weak state of our economy, it is imperative the administration allow for a full and thorough review of all the alternatives, including retention of the current standards. Particulate matter standards should be based on a full scientific and economic review, and proper consideration of reasonable alternatives. Before ramming through new standards that could threaten jobs and our economy, we need to be sure of the science and the costs. Overly strict standards could force local economies into non-attainment, stifle economic growth, and lead to further job losses."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, released a statement saying, "The EPA's proposed rule on deadly toxic soot is an important step forward in protecting our families and children. Continued exposure to this very dangerous form of air pollution leads to asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, and even premature death. When the rule to reduce soot pollution is finalized, there will be far fewer of these harmful health impacts, and it will have substantial health benefits in California and communities across the nation."

 

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons issued a statement saying, "The scope and damaging impact the EPA's new standard will have on manufacturers across the country, both large and small, is troubling. Essentially this standard will result in strict regulations on any kind of existing facility, while restricting new permit requirements for the development of new facilities. This standard will also place certain counties in a 'penalty box' and make them less attractive to new business. Simply put, new facilities won't be built unless others are shut down to meet the EPA's standard. The end result will have a devastating impact on our economy and job creation when we already face 8.2 percent unemployment."

 

    Environmental organizations applauded the action. Albert Rizzo, MD, Chair of the Board of the American Lung Association said, "Particle pollution kills -- the science is clear, and overwhelming evidence shows that particle pollution at levels currently labeled as officially 'safe' causes heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks. The Clean Air Act gives the American public the truth about pollution that is threatening their lives and health -- just as they would expect the truth from their doctor." Paul Cort, the Earthjustice attorney who represented the Lung Association and NPCA in legal proceedings said, "This proposal is long overdue. The fact that the EPA has been put back on track by the courts is an important first step in this process, but now the agency needs to set strong final standards to protect people from this deadly pollution. The law requires it, and the millions of Americans who live in areas made filthy by particle pollution desperately need it."

    Access the a release from EPA with links to a map showing counties in attainment in 2020 and more information including the proposed rule, fact sheets and support documents (click here). Access a release from E&C Republican leaders (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from environmental organizations (click here). [#Air]

 

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

Temporary Break This Week; We're Back On June 18

WIMS is on break this week due to a family emergency.

 

We'll be back on June 18, 2012.

 

............................................................................................................................

Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS), Since 1980
Newsletter Publishers: Michigan Waste Report; REGTrak; WIMS Daily; & eNewsUSA
Blog Publishers: eNewsUSA; Environmental - Appeals Court; Great Lakes Environment; & Environmental Federal Register

No. 1 Environmental Business Portal: EcoBizPort.com

Jeff Dauphin, President
767 Kornoelje Dr. NE, Comstock Park, MI 49321-9537
Phone: 231-408-2868

Appeals Court "Game Changer" On Nuclear Waste In NY v. NRC

Jun 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1045, 11-1051, 11-1056, 11-1057. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Appeals Court explains that four states, an Indian community, and a number of environmental groups petition this Court for review of a NRC rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The Appeals Court rules, "We hold that the rulemaking at issue here constitutes a major federal action necessitating either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant environmental impact. We further hold that the Commission's evaluation of the risks of spent nuclear fuel is deficient in two ways: First, in concluding that permanent storage will be available 'when necessary,' the Commission did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent storage -- a possibility that cannot be ignored.

 

    "Second, in determining that spent fuel can safely be stored on site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a plant's license, the Commission failed to properly examine future dangers and key consequences. For these reasons, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the Commission's orders, and remand for further proceedings."

 

    The Appeals Court further concludes, "We recognize that the Commission is in a difficult position given the political problems concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Nonetheless, the Commission's obligations under NEPA require a more thorough analysis than provided for in the WCD [Waste Confidence Decision] Update. We note that the Commission is currently conducting an EIS regarding the environmental impacts of SNF [spent nuclear fuel] storage beyond the sixty-year post-license period at issue in this case, and some or all of the problems here may be addressed in such a rulemaking. In any event, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the WCD Update and TSR [Temporary Storage Rule], and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

 

    New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the decision "a landmark victory." He said the decision means that the NRC cannot license or re-license any nuclear power plant, including the Indian Point facility in Westchester County, until it examines the dangers and consequences of long-term on-site storage of nuclear waste. He said the appeals court found that the spent nuclear fuel stored on-site "poses a dangerous, long-term health and environmental risk."

    Schneiderman said, "This is a landmark victory for New Yorkers, and people across the country living in the shadows of nuclear power plants. We fought back against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rubber stamp decision to allow radioactive waste at our nation's nuclear power plants to be stored for decades after they're shut down -- and we won. The Court was clear in agreeing with my office that this type of NRC 'business as usual' is simply unacceptable. The NRC cannot turn its back on federal law and ignore its obligation to thoroughly review the environmental, public health, and safety risks related to the creation of long-term nuclear waste storage sites within our communities. Whether you're for or against re-licensing Indian Point and our nation's aging nuclear power plants, the security of our residents who live in the areas that surround these facilities is paramount. I am committed to continuing to use the full force of my office to push the NRC to fully evaluate -- and ensure -- the safety of Indian Point and our other nuclear plants."

    Schneiderman indicated that the Court of Appeals agreed with him that the NRC violated NEPA when it found -- without conducting the necessary studies -- that no significant safety or environmental impacts will result from storing highly radioactive nuclear wastes onsite at the more than 100 operating reactors around the country, including from the Indian Point reactors in Westchester County, for 60 or more years after the reactors are closed. He said the Court also found that the NRC violated the law when it found "reasonable assurance" that sufficient, licensed, off-site storage capacity will be available to dispose of nuclear power plant waste "when necessary."  Efforts to site the only nuclear waste storage facility in the United States, the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada, were suspended in 2010 and no replacement facility has yet been identified. The appeals court wrote that the NRC "apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository." 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) one of the parties in the case said the decision will send the NRC back to square one to determine the safety and consequences of allowing nuclear reactors to produce and accumulate radioactive nuclear waste, including the potential environmental effects of the failure to develop a geologic repository. Geoff Fettus, senior project attorney in the nuclear program at NRDC said, "This is a game changer. This forces the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of producing highly radioactive nuclear waste without a long-term disposal solution. The court found: 'The Commission apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.'"

    Representative Ed Markey (D- MA) released a statement saying, "It comes as no surprise that the court has no confidence in NRC's waste confidence decision. The NRC relied on what seemed to be a faith-based methodology to conclude that highly radioactive nuclear waste can be left simply sitting in the giant swimming pools and parking lots in which it is currently stored for an additional 60 years. There was a collective failure on the part of both Congress and the Department of Energy to enable a credible, science-based search for a permanent nuclear waste repository."

    The Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's) Ellen Ginsberg, vice president and general counsel, made the following remarks in reaction to the ruling saying, "We are disappointed by the court's decision as we believe that the NRC supported its conclusions in the waste confidence decision. Nonetheless, we urge the commission to act expeditiously to undertake the additional environmental analysis identified by the court in the remand. We also encourage the agency to reissue the rule as soon as possible. We are pleased that the court specifically affirmed the agency's discretion to address the environmental issues in a generic fashion using an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment with a finding of no significant impact."

    Ironically, on June 6, Senator Pete Domenici and Dr. Pete Miller hosted the fourth and final event in the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Nuclear Initiative event series -- Near-Term Progress on Nuclear Waste Management: Implementing the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Both BPC Nuclear Initiative Co-Chairmen believe there is an urgent need to break the current stalemate on nuclear waste management in the United States and to develop an effective system to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator Domenici was a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) which released a final report in January 2012 detailing recommendations for creating a safe, long-term solution for managing and disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high‐level radioactive waste [See WIMS 2/2/12].

    Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, discussed their ongoing collaboration with Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Alexander (R-TN) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, to develop comprehensive bipartisan legislation on nuclear waste management. With taxpayer damages and liability obligations projected to reach $50 billion by 2021, Senator Murkowski expressed concern that inaction is hurting both the future of nuclear power in the United States and our country's fiscal situation. Senator Murkowski acknowledged that, while many legislators are focused solely on the potential Yucca Mountain repository, she is also looking at new options and strategies, particularly those that achieve local support.

 

    Senator Bingaman discussed the key issues that their legislative proposal will address. He emphasized the importance of having a unified, systematic approach that links interim storage to a final repository. While both Senators Bingaman and Murkowski were pessimistic about the potential to pass such legislation in this Congress, they both stressed the importance of laying out a clear legislative path forward and advancing the process one step further. Building on a successful year-long event series, the BPC Nuclear Initiative will release a high-level report this summer.

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the NY AG (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a lengthy meeting summary and links to related information from the BPC (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear, #CADC]

 

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

House Republicans Introduce Domestic Energy & Jobs Act

Jun 6: Members of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT) unveiled the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, a legislative package comprised of a series of bills which they say "aim to increase access to American energy resources and prevent misguided federal policies that will drive energy prices higher." Energy and Commerce Committee member Cory Gardner (R-CO) will sponsor the "legislative collection" that will help "spur job creation by removing roadblocks to American energy production." Included in the package are two proposals advanced by the Energy and Commerce Committee: the Strategic Energy Production Act and the Gasoline Regulations Act.

    According to a release, the Strategic Energy Production Act, authored by Rep. Gardner, "will hold the president accountable to long-term domestic energy supply solutions over short-term political gimmicks. The proposal requires that any future drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be coupled with a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas exploration, development, and production." Rep. Gardner said, "Our country is in desperate need of a national energy strategy, and increasing domestic production should be a major component of that plan. By increasing oil and gas leases on federal land to match what is released from our emergency energy reserves, we can turn a short-term supply fix into a long-term policy that promotes America's energy independence."

    The Gasoline Regulations Act, introduced by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), promotes a "look before you leap" approach to regulation. It requires an interagency committee to conduct a cumulative analysis on certain EPA regulations affecting transportation fuels to better understand their impact on gas prices, jobs, and the economy. The legislation also prevents the agency from finalizing three of its most costly rules -- Tier 3 standards, NSPS standards for petroleum refineries, and new ozone standards -- until after the study is completed and policymakers have time to assess the consequences. Rep. Whitfield said, "Over the past three years, prices at the gas pump have roughly doubled, and that is unacceptable. That is why I introduced commonsense legislation that will ensure that the federal government doesn't add to the pain at the pump by implementing regulations without first understanding the full costs they will have on consumers, jobs, and economic growth."

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) praised the introduction of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act and commended his colleagues for their work on these common-sense solutions. He said, "President Obama likes to talk about what the government can't do when it comes to energy policy, but we prefer to focus on what we can do. I want to congratulate Rep. Gardner for leading the charge, and thank all the members who authored bills as a part of this effort."

    Bills Included in Domestic Energy and Jobs Act:

• Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, H.R. 4480 (Rep. Cory Gardner, CO)
• Gasoline Regulations Act of 2012, H.R. 4471 (Rep. Ed Whitfield, KY)
• Planning for American Energy Act of 2012, H.R.4381 (Rep. Scott Tipton, CO)
• Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 2012, H.R 4382 (Rep. Mike Coffman, CO)
• Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act of 2012, H.R. 4383 (Rep. Doug Lamborn, CO) 
• National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, H.R. 2150 (Rep. "Doc" Hastings, WA) 
• BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, H.R. 2752 (Rep. Bill Johnson, OH)

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a release saying it welcomed the legislation "that would create a real U.S. energy policy to increase production of the domestic oil and natural gas that America needs." Conrad Lass, API senior director of federal relations said, "Americans want to access more of our own energy resources, not only to enhance energy security, but also to put downward pressure on prices. The oil and natural gas industry can help revitalize the economy, create new jobs, and generate millions of dollars of new federal and state revenue, by safely accessing areas currently off limits. Excessive regulations can make it harder for refineries to compete and stay in business," said Lass. "Decisions made by policy makers should always be guided by a firm understanding of all the costs and impacts to the economy." API thanked sponsors of this legislation for continuing to showcase the importance of advancing comprehensive energy legislation.

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a release commenting on the Republican bills saying, "House Republicans are trotting out a series of bills that would give oil companies control over taxpayer-owned lands, put a short 'shot clock' on the safety review of drilling permits, and say that oil and gas production has priority over any and all other activity on public lands, like hunting or fishing." He said, "Instead of sending a thank you note to President Obama for increasing oil production and decreasing our foreign oil dependence through his 'all of the above' energy strategy, House Republicans are sending a love letter to the oil industry in the form of another oil-above-all scheme. These bills allow oil companies to say what lands they want to drill, even if Americans use them for hunting or fishing. And just in time for the NBA playoffs, it puts a 'shot clock' on the safety review of drilling permits, sending America back to the speed-over-safety days of the BP spill."

   Access a release from the Energy & Commerce Committee (click here). Access a release from HEAT with further information on each of the bills (click here). Access a release from Rep. Gardner (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4480 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4471 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4381 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4382 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4383 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2150 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2752 (click here). [#Energy]

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

ACEEE Reports On New Energy Find "Intelligent Efficiency"

Jun 5: A report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) indicates that America now has a major new source of energy that could rival the contribution made to the economy by natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The report concludes that up to about a quarter (22 percent) of current U.S. energy consumption could be replaced by what experts are calling "intelligent efficiency." The key to understanding the rise of "intelligent efficiency" is to stop thinking about energy efficiency simply in terms of individual devices (e.g., autos or refrigerators) and to start thinking about it in terms of complex systems (e.g., entire cities, transportation systems, and other networks) connected through Internet and computer technologies. 

    As the ACEEE report concludes: "System efficiency opportunities produce energy savings that dwarf component-based efficiency improvements by an order of magnitude. System efficiency is performance-based, optimizing the performance of the system overall -- its components, their relationships to one another, and their relationships to human operators. One of the cornerstones of systems-based efficiency is information and communication technologies, such as the Internet, affordable sensors, and computing capacity that are the foundation upon which systems efficiency are built…If homeowners and businesses were to take advantage of currently available information and communications technologies that enable system efficiencies, the United States could reduce its energy use by about 12-22 percent and realize tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in energy savings and productivity gains."

    R. Neal Elliott, ACEEE's associate director for research, "This is not your father's device-driven approach to energy efficiency. A large portion of our past efficiency gains came from improvements in individual products, appliances, and equipment, such as light bulbs, electric motors, or cars and trucks. And while device-level technology improvements will continue to play an important role, looking ahead we must take a systems-based approach to dramatically scale up energy efficiency to meet our future energy challenges. Through intelligent efficiency, utility systems, interconnected cities, transportation systems, and communications networks can become the new normal across the United States and will undergird national and regional economies that, even in the face of increasingly scarce resources, grow and thrive."

    Stephen Harper, global director of environment and energy policy, Intel Corporation said, "There is resounding agreement that information and communications technology can make a huge impact in addressing the twin challenges of energy security and climate change. This new work by ACEEE should help both industry and government better understand 'smart policies' necessary to fully realize the potential of technology in this arena." Larry Plumb, executive director, Verizon said, "ACEEE's report highlights that communications and digital technologies are transforming how efficiently we use energy, from appliances in customers' homes, to cars and roads in transportation systems, to the power lines and generators in the electric system. It's well understood that digital communications has boosted economic productivity. Now people are recognizing this technology also has a big role to play in addressing society's long-term energy challenges."

    Arkadi Gerney, senior director for policy Opower said, "As devices get smarter and the communications networks that connect those devices become more ubiquitous, the potential for efficiency gains that save energy and save businesses and families money are increasing. And, as this report shows, truly unlocking the potential of intelligent efficiency systems also depends on engaging energy consumers with smarter behavioral strategies and advanced analytics that turns an avalanche of data into actionable insight."

    Clay Nesler, vice president, global energy and sustainability, building efficiency, Johnson Controls said, "Johnson Controls has many real life examples where intelligent efficiency solutions have dramatically reduced building energy use, most notably at the Empire State Building. This practical and effective approach to improving and managing building energy efficiency can be cost-effectively applied to both new and existing commercial buildings." Paul Hamilton, vice president, government affairs, Schneider Electric said, "This report is further evidence of the real revolution happening in our industry, the convergence of energy management and information that's allowing companies to achieve significant savings of 30 percent or more. It's time for businesses and government to get involved and engaged in the partnerships and programs that will make this more of an everyday reality."

    According to ACEEE, opportunities exist along a continuum of technology and human behavior, and we classify the resource into three broad categories across this continuum: (1) People-centered efficiency; (2) Technology-centered efficiency; and (3) Service-oriented efficiency. There are technologies that are just beginning to be implemented that promise even greater savings. The report provides ten case studies of intelligent efficiency in our homes, buildings, industry, and transportation sectors that demonstrate the potential benefits of scaling up this resource.

 

    ACEEE says tremendous potential exists for greater adoption of intelligent efficiency, but significant barriers exist. Policy can facilitate the deployment of systems built around intelligent efficiency in several key ways, such as leading by example in the public and private sectors, enhancing information infrastructure, and redefining regulatory business models to promote greater system efficiency.

 

    Access a release from ACEEE and link to the complete 63-page report (click here, registration required for the report). [#Energy/Efficiency]

 

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