House Hearing On Keystone XL "Red Tape"

Sep 19: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, Chaired by Representative Lee Terry (R-NE), held a hearing on entitled "Keystone's Red Tape Anniversary: Five Years of Bureaucratic Delay and Economic Benefits Denied." Witnesses included: Reps. Steve Daines (R-MT); Ted Poe (R-TX); Rush Holt (D-NJ); Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and representatives from Welspun Tubular LLC; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Institute for 21st Century Energy; Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce; Laborers Local 1140; Energy Policy Research Foundation; Bold Nebraska; and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) International Program.

 

    Full Committee chairman, Fred Upton (R-MI) said in an opening statement, "TransCanada first submitted its application to build the Keystone XL pipeline to U.S. the State Department exactly five years ago today. In the fall of 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the department was "inclined" to approve the project. In 2011, in opposing our initial Keystone bill, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy, stating that the bill expediting the pipeline was unnecessary because the State Department was "committed to reaching a decision" before the end of that year. But here we are today, five years after the application was filed, and we still don't have approval. . .

 

    "Despite the added safety controls, exhaustive studies, and 15,500 pages of State Department analysis, thousands of jobs are still being held hostage to an ever-moving goal line. Our friend and ally Canada is pursuing other options, now considering building a new trans-Canadian pipeline to their eastern seaboard for refining and export. The Keystone pipeline is an important component of our architecture of abundance that is necessary to achieve energy self-sufficiency. In January of 2012, the president resolved to 'do whatever it takes' to create jobs, but here we still are today. It is time for the president to join the broad coalition of job creators, labor unions, Republicans, and Democrats alike, and say 'yes' to this jobs and energy project."

 

    Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) countered saying, "I oppose this tar sands pipeline because it locks us into decades of higher carbon pollution. It is a big step in the wrong direction on climate change, and that's something we simply cannot afford to do. Yesterday, the Energy and Power Subcommittee of this Committee held its first hearing in years on climate change. . . Yesterday, I posed one question to those who oppose the President's action on climate change: what's your plan? Don't just say no – propose an alternative. We heard nothing. Instead of doing something to address climate change, today we're holding the eleventh hearing since 2011 to push one favored project that would make climate change worse. This single tar sands pipeline would increase America's carbon pollution equivalent to building seven new coal-fired power plants. . .

 

    Today's hearing is misplaced for another reason. For months we have required the government to work under sequestration, with its ill-conceived and indiscriminate cuts. There are eleven days left before the federal government will shut down, and about 30 days until our country hits its debt ceiling. We should be dealing with these pressing issues, not a tar sands pipeline that will create only a handful of jobs. . . If our goal is creating jobs, Keystone XL is not the answer. Instead, we should be working to ensure broad opportunity for the middle class. We should be fixing America's crumbling roads and bridges. And we should be investing in the clean energy technologies of the future. . ."

 

    The U.S. Chamber testified, "The failure of the federal government after five years to grant a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline exemplifies perhaps better than anything the challenges of building energy infrastructure in the United States. This failure has not only denied Americans the benefits of the economic shot in the arm this project would provide, it also has tarnished America's image as a "can do" country open to investment, a failure that can be difficult to shake from investors' minds. . . Unfortunately, our energy sector suffers from a lengthy, unpredictable, and needlessly complex regulatory maze that delays, and often halts, the construction of new energy infrastructure. Federal and state siting and permitting reviews and rules are used routinely to block the construction and expansion of needed energy infrastructure. . ."

 

    NRDC testified, "The Keystone XL tar sands project would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America to be shipped overseas through the Gulf of Mexico. Financial analysts, industry commentators, and the environmental community agree that Keystone XL is a lynchpin for tar sands expansion and the significant carbon pollution associated with it. TransCanada's reapplied for a Presidential Permit to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in May 4th, 2012 after its first permit application was rejected. Since the original application, the federal review of Keystone XL has revealed significant major risks associated with the proposed tar sands project and shown that the project's benefits have been overstated. Significant new information that has been uncovered since Keystone XL was proposed. . ."   

 

    Access the Republican hearing website for background, statements, testimony and video (click here). Access the Democrats hearing website for background, statements, testimony and video (click here). [#Energy/KXL, #Climate]

House Hearing On President's Climate Action Plan

Sep 18: U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), on the President's Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13]. Chairman Whitfield sent requests to 13 federal agencies to testify at the hearing, and sent a follow up letter September 4 reiterating his request. Although agencies were given over six weeks notice, the only attendees were DOE Secretary Moniz and EPA Administrator McCarthy. Chairman Whitfileld expressed disappointment that the other agencies chose not to attend. He said, "What does it say about an administration that is largely unwilling to testify on its top policy initiative? More than $77 billion was spent between 2008 and 2013 across the government on climate activities, and yet the 'most transparent administration in history' can only find two people to testify from these agencies that employ tens of thousands of employees and receive significant funding for climate change related activities." In general, Republicans on the Subcommittee expressed extreme concern about the science, cost, and impact of addressing climate change. Democrats generally supported the need to address climate change and supported the President's plan.

 

    EPA's McCarthy testified, "Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human caused climate change is occurring. If our changing climate goes unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet." She concluded, "The President's Plan provides a roadmap for federal action to meet the pressing challenge of a changing climate -- promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and drive economic growth. EPA looks forward to working with other federal agencies and all stakeholders on these critical efforts."

 

   DOE's Moniz testified, "The evidence is overwhelming, the science is clear, and the threat from climate change is real and urgent. This is my judgment and it is the almost universal judgment of the scientific community. The basic science behind climate change is simple: greenhouse gases make the earth warmer, and we are emitting more and more of them into the atmosphere." He concluded, "With new technologies, the recent growth in unconventional gas and oil production, the continued decrease in the costs of renewable energy and our reserves of traditional forms of energy, like coal, the United States may be entering into a period of unprecedented energy abundance. We believe in an all-of-the-above approach to ensure that this energy is used wisely and cleanly in a low carbon economy, and we are putting resources behind it: advanced fossil energy, nuclear power, renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced transportation.

 

   "History has shown repeatedly that we can grow the economy while making tremendous strides in reducing pollution, including acid rain, ozone, lead and other hazardous emissions. I have no doubt that transforming our energy economy will be a challenge. And new technology will be key. We will need our smartest scientists, our brightest engineers, and visionary policy makers to get this done. The President has put forth a smart and prudent plan to slow the effects of climate change, to prepare for worsening climate impacts and ensure a safer, healthier future for our children, and I am excited to be a part of it."

 

    Access the Republican hearing website for background, statements, testimony and video (click here). Access the Democrats hearing website for background, statements, testimony and video (click here). [#Climate]

Disagreement Over Study Of Methane Emissions From Fracking

Sep 16: The first of sixteen methane emissions studies in a comprehensive research initiative organized by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and involving more than 90 partners -- universities, scientists, research facilities, and oil and gas companies -- is now available. The paper, "Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States," was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Led by Dr. David Allen at The University of Texas at Austin (UT), the study took direct measurements of methane emissions associated with unconventional natural gas production -- specifically, shale gas wells that use hydraulic fracturing or fracking. EDF together with many oil and gas companies funded and supported the research effort.

    The UT study, which only deals with the extraction phase of the natural gas supply chain, is the opening chapter in this broader scientific effort designed to advance the current understanding of the climate implications of methane emissions resulting from the U.S. natural gas boom. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas -- 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. The nation's largest single source of methane emissions is the vast network of infrastructure, including wells, pipelines and storage facilities, that supplies U.S. natural gas. Experts agree that methane leaked or vented from natural gas operations is a real concern, yet estimated emission rates vary greatly -- from 1 to 8 percent of total production.

    Fred Krupp, president of EDF said, "We know that immediate methane reductions are critical to slow climate change. But we don't yet have a handle on how much is being emitted. We need better data, and that's what this series of studies will deliver. As we understand the scope of what's happening across the natural gas system, we will be able to address it. We already know enough to get started reducing emissions, and thanks to the first study, we know that new EPA regulations to reduce wellhead emissions are effective. EPA got it right."

    Launched last year, the overall research effort is designed to collect methane emissions data associated with natural gas production, gathering lines and processing facilities, long-distance pipelines and storage, local distribution, and commercial trucks and refueling stations. A variety of scientific methods are being used across the various studies, including approaches that measure emissions directly at the source and those that use airplanes or towers equipped with sensors to measure total emissions in a given area. In some cases, these methods are paired to provide greater insight and certainty. EDF anticipates all of the projects will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

    EDF Chief Scientist Steve Hamburg said, "The scientific talent leading these studies, the partnership with industry and access to their facilities, and the diverse research methods used, gives us the confidence that when the project concludes in late 2014, we'll be able to greatly increase our understanding of the climate impacts of switching to natural gas from other fossil fuels, through this unprecedented collective research effort."

    UT's peer-reviewed study, the first work published in this overall series, reports data from emission sources from natural gas production -- the first part of the supply chain. Study results show that total emissions are in line with EPA estimates from the production of natural gas, yet the distribution of those emissions among activities differ. Methane emissions are lower than estimated by EPA for well completions and higher for valves and equipment used to control routine operations at the well site. All of the data generated in the study are available for public scrutiny. According to Hamburg, UT's low well emissions finding indicates an early phase-in of EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which requires all new fractured natural gas wells to either burn-off or use "green completions" (an emissions control method that routes excess gas to sales), is working. Results also suggest that these new regulations, which will be fully implemented in 2015, are having the desired effects. No national survey of how many operators currently use green completions is available, but the data suggest that once this practice is required, emissions from this phase of the production process will decline.

    Hamburg also noted that the higher-than-estimated emissions from valve controllers (also known as pneumatics) and equipment leaks show important opportunities for reducing methane emissions in the future. Considerable opportunities exist under the Clean Air Act to strengthen NSPS, including requiring emissions controls for equipment routinely found at oil and natural gas production sites, such as valves or connectors at the well pad or pressure relief valves on storage tanks, and controls for nearly half a million existing pneumatics at natural gas wells and for the thousands of existing compressors that move gas from the well through the system to the end user. Similarly the NSPS do not contain requirements to reduce well completion emissions from hybrid wells that produce both oil and natural gas, which are becoming much more common as the price of oil remains high. Robust leak detection and repair requirements are also necessary to assure the equipment in the field is operated and maintained properly at all times. Many of the same cost-effective clean air measures that the NSPS deploys can be used to reduce emissions from these potentially significant sources. Additional emissions reduction opportunities should be considered as further data unfolds around liquids unloading.

    EDF indicates in a release that a key element of UT's study, and the other EDF-industry collaborative studies, is the focus on ensuring their scientific integrity. Built into the research process of each of these studies is a Scientific Advisory Panel, experts from academic and other institutions serve as external advisors and review the procedures, results and conclusions. An additional independent review is conducted by the scientific journal to which the study is submitted for publication -- in this case, PNAS -- a key step in all studies within this methane research series. Findings from this effort will help inform policymakers, researchers and industry, providing new insights and data about the sources of methane emissions and illuminating ways to reduce those emissions. The full set of studies is expected to be published by the end of 2014.

    Despite EDF assurance of scientific integrity, the organization, Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE), has severely criticized the report. PSE said in a release, "This new study of methane leakage appears fatally flawed. This important research bears directly on the powerful GHG/global warming effects of methane and thus the implications for regulation and continued widespread development of shale gas. But it has concluded that methane leakage at well sites, selected in time and location by industry participants, is so low as to be nearly trivial. This is a finding at odds with other researchers' work that shows much higher rates. . . "

 

    PSE says the study ". . .is based on a small sampling of hydraulically fractured wells which may not adequately represent national oil and gas activity and the variability within and across production basins. Furthermore, the fugitive losses reported by Allen and colleagues are 10 to 20 times lower than those calculated from more complete (field-level) measurements. Allen and colleagues do not address this large discrepancy or even reference these other studies. . ."

   

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman commented on the study saying, "The industry has led efforts to reduce emissions of methane by developing new technologies and equipment, and these efforts are paying off. This latest study shows that methane emissions are a fraction of estimates from just a few years ago. The industry will continue to make substantial progress to reduce emissions voluntarily and in compliance with EPA's recent emissions standards. Capturing methane is helping operators deliver more natural gas to consumers, creating a built-in incentive to continue reducing these emissions. The oil and natural gas revolution has been one of the few bright spots in our economic recovery, driving unprecedented job growth, providing Americans with affordable energy, and helping to reduce emissions. In fact, safe and responsible development of energy from shale has helped the U.S. cut CO2 emission to near 20-year lows."

 

    Feldman said that additional regulation on top of existing federal, state and local regulations are not necessary. The study found that the emissions measured at wells during the completion phase are, on average, nearly 50 times lower than previously estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Total emissions are also lower than EPA's latest estimate, which had already been drastically reduced from previous estimates.

 

    Access a lengthy release with additional details from EDF and links to the paper on PNAS (click here). Access full details on the UT study findings, access to the dataset and an overview of the second phase of data collection, already underway at the UT methane website (click here). Access the 78-page detailed appendix to the study (click here). Access a lengthy release from PSE with detailed criticism of the study (click here). Access the PSE library on unconventional oil and gas development for additional information (click here). Access a blog posting on the study from EcoWatch with multiple links to related information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Climate]

States Raise Concerns About Coal Power & EPA GHG Regs

Sep 13: House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) released a white paper report by the Attorneys General from seventeen states (+Indiana DEQ) and one senior environmental regulator relating to U.S. EPA's planned new regulations for existing electricity power plants fueled by coal. The coalition of Attorneys General express concern about whether in developing and implementing these regulations the EPA will adhere to the limitations of its authority under the Clean Air Act. The states signing on to the white paper include: NE, OK, AK, FL, KS, MT, MI, AL, AZ, GA, KY, ND, OH, SD, WI, SC, WV, & IN.

    Rep. Whitfield  said, "The Obama Administration continues to unilaterally bypass the role of the states, while stifling job creation by eliminating affordable energy through new regulations that will only be another blow to our fragile economy. The most frustrating part is the Administration is doing this with no public debate, and many in the United States Congress and individual states have been expressing deep concern about the impact that this will have on our ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace."

    As set forth in the white paper by the Attorneys General sent to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, "EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act is limited to developing a procedure for states to establish emissions standards for existing sources [such as existing coal-fired power plants]." Rep. Whitfield and the Attorneys General express concern over the impact that overreaching emissions standards on existing plants will have on the economy. They state that, "The elimination of coal as a fuel for new electric generation would have highly concerning implications for electricity prices and for the economy and job-creation in general, as well as the competitiveness of American manufacturing."

    The white paper concludes, "The prospect for EPA adoption of GHG performance standards for new or existing coalbased EGUs raises serious concerns. EPA's aggressive standards for new coal-based EGUs indicate a similarly aggressive approach to existing coal-based EGUs. While EPA is authorized to require States to submit plans containing performance standards, EPA may not dictate what those performance standards shall be. Nor may EPA require States to adopt GHG performance standards that are not based on adequately demonstrated technology or that mandate, in the guise of 'flexible approaches,' the retirement or reduced operation of still-viable coal-based EGUs. These concerns are serious. EPA regulations may harm the nascent economic recovery. Moreover, our federalist system of government, as implicated in the CAA, requires that EPA recognize the rights and prerogatives of States. The extent and form of greenhouse gas regulation is important to the States; it is critical that States be allowed to play their proper roles in making the significant policy judgments that are required in adopting any such regulation."

 

    On Wednesday, September 18, Rep. Whitfield's subcommittee will hold a hearing on the President's climate change agenda. Although other agencies were invited, only EPA and the Department of Energy will be testifying. The subcommittee is seeking information and testimony regarding the Administration's current and planned climate change activities, including standards for new and existing power plants. Rep. Whitfield said he is also seeking information regarding the impact that the President's climate change agenda will have on states, the economy and job creation. Rep. Whitfield reported that the Department of Labor's Jobs Report for August found that  the Labor Force Participation Rate, which identifies the number of people who are active participants in the labor force (relative to the total population), decreased from 63.4% in July to 63.2% in August. This is the lowest level since August, 1978, during the Carter Administration.

    Access a release from Rep. Whitfield (click here). Access the white paper (click here). Access the upcoming hearing website for a notice and background document (click here). [#Climate, #Energy/Coal, #Air/GHG, #MIClimate]

House Bipartisan Water Resources Act; H.R.3080

Sep 11: Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced what they called "unprecedented bipartisan water resources reform legislation that cuts federal red tape and bureaucracy, streamlines the infrastructure project delivery process, promotes fiscal responsibility, and strengthens our water transportation networks to promote America's competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth."

    H.R.3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 (WRRDA), was introduced in the House by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall, II (D-WV), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Tim Bishop (D-NY).

    Through WRRDA, Congress authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out its missions to develop, maintain, and support the Nation's vital port and waterways infrastructure needs, and support effective and targeted flood protection and environmental restoration needs.  Historically, Congress has passed such legislation every two years to provide clear direction to the Administration and the Corps, but no bill has been signed into law since 2007. 

    Chairman Shuster said, "WRRDA 2013 is the most policy and reform focused legislation of its kind in the last two decades. The bill contains no earmarks and makes major programmatic reforms to increase transparency, accountability, and Congressional oversight of federal water resources development activities.  Most importantly, WRRDA is about jobs and improving America's competitiveness.  A strong, effective water transportation network is essential to keeping pace with other nations that are improving their own infrastructure networks and gaining ground in an increasingly competitive global marketplace." Ranking Member Rahall said, "This bill is about jobs. It boosts our ports, strengthens our maritime economy, and allows commodities to move more efficiently along our inland waterways, saving time and money.  When we invest in these corridors of commerce we are investing in a more competitive nation and enabling our water transportation network to support increased economic opportunity." The Members highlighted the following features of the bill:

• Sets hard deadlines on the time and cost of studies
• Consolidates or eliminates duplicative or unnecessary studies and requires concurrent reviews 
• Streamlines environmental reviews
• Deauthorizes $12 billion of old, inactive projects that were authorized prior to WRDA 2007
• Fully offsets new authorizations with deauthorizations
• Sunsets new authorizations to prevent future project backlogs
• Reduces the inventory of properties that are not needed for the missions of the Corps
• No earmarks
• Establishes a new, transparent process for future bills to review and prioritize water resources development activities with strong Congressional oversight 
• Maximizes the ability of non-federal interests to contribute their own funds to move authorized studies and projects forward
• Expands the ability of non-federal interests to contribute funds to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits
• Establishes a Water Infrastructure Public Private Partnership Program
• Authorizes needed investments in America's ports
• Supports underserved, emerging ports
• Reforms and preserves the Inland Waterways Trust Fund

• Authorizes priority water resources infrastructure improvements recommended by the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers to improve navigation and commerce and address flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and environmental restoration needs

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, issued a statement after the House leaders released H.R.3080 and said, "Earlier this year, the Senate overwhelmingly approved critical legislation to invest in the nation's aging water infrastructure. I am pleased that Republican and Democratic leaders on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked together to develop a bipartisan bill, and I urge the House to move quickly so that we can reconcile the House and Senate approaches and get a water resources development bill to the President's desk." On May 15, the Senate passed S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 [See WIMS 5/15/13], with strong bipartisan support (83 to 14). S. 601 provides critical flood protection for communities across the country, maintains navigation routes and the flow of commerce, restores vital ecosystems, and sustains up to 500,000 new jobs.

    Access a joint release from the Members with additional comments and links to the bill text, background and a video of the press conference (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3080 (click here). Access legislative details for S.601 (click here). [#Water]

UN Report Says 1/3 Of All Food Produced Goes To Waste

Sep 11: A report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released today indicates that the waste of a staggering 1.3 billion tonnes of food per year is not only causing major economic losses but also wreaking significant harm on the natural resources that humanity relies upon to feed itself. The report -- Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources -- is the first study to analyze the impacts of global food wastage from an environmental perspective, looking specifically at its consequences for the climate, water and land use, and biodiversity.

 

    Among its key findings: Each year, food that is produced but not eaten guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the annual flow of Russia's Volga River  and is responsible for adding 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the planet's atmosphere. In addition to its environmental impacts, the direct economic consequences to producers of food wastage (excluding fish and seafood) run to the tune of $750 billion annually.

    FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva said, "We all -- farmers and fishers; food processers and supermarkets; local and national governments; individual consumers --must make changes at every link of the human food chain to prevent food wastage from happening in the first place, and re-use or recycle it when we can't. In addition the environmental imperative, there is a moral one: We simply cannot allow one-third of all the food we produce to go to waste, when 870 million people go hungry every day, "

    As a companion to its new study, FAO has also published "tool-kit" that contains recommendations on how food loss and waste can be reduced at every stage of the food chain. The tool-kit profiles a number of projects around the world that show how national and local governments, farmers, businesses, and individual consumers can take steps to tackle the problem.

    Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director said, "UNEP and FAO have identified food waste and loss -- food wastage -- as a major opportunity for economies everywhere to assist in a transition towards a low carbon, resource efficient and inclusive Green Economy. Today's excellent report by the FAO underlines the multiple benefits that can be realized -- in many cases through simple and thoughtful measures by for example households, retailers, restaurants, schools and businesses -- that can contribute to environmental sustainability, economic improvements, food security and the realization of the UN Secretary General's Zero Hunger Challenge.We would urge everyone to adopt the motto of our joint campaign: Think Eat Save-Reduce Your Foodprint!" UNEP and FAO are founding partners of the Think Eat Save-Reduce Your Foodprint campaign that was launched earlier in the year and whose aim is to assist in coordinating world-wide efforts to manage down wastage.

    Fifty-four percent of the world's food wastage occurs "upstream" during production, post-harvest handling and storage, according to the FAO's study. Forty-six percent of it happens "downstream," at the processing, distribution and consumption stages. As a general trend, developing countries suffer more food losses during agricultural production, while food waste at the retail and consumer level tends to be higher in middle- and high-income regions -- where it accounts for 31-39 percent of total wastage -- than in low-income regions (4-16 percent). The later a food product is lost along the chain, the greater the environmental consequences, the FAO's report notes, since the environmental costs incurred during processing, transport, storage and cooking must be added to the initial production costs. To tackle the problem, FAO's toolkit details three general levels where action is needed:

• High priority should be given to reducing food wastage in the first place. Beyond improving losses of crops on farms due to poor practices, doing more to better balance production with demand would mean not using natural resources to produce unneeded food in the first place.

• In the event of a food surplus, re-use within the human food chain- finding secondary markets or donating extra food to feed vulnerable members of society- represents the best option. If the food is not fit for human consumption, the next best option is to divert it for livestock feed, conserving resources that would otherwise be used to produce commercial feedstuff.

• Where re-use is not possible, recycling and recovery should be pursued: by-product recycling, anaerobic digestion, compositing, and incineration with energy recovery allow energy and nutrients to be recovered from food waste, representing a significant advantage over dumping it in landfills. (Uneaten food that ends up rotting in landfills is a large producer of methane, a particularly harmful GHG.

    Access a lengthy release from UNEP with additional details including key facts and figures and links to related information (click here). Access a separate release from FAO (click here). Access the 63-page summary report (click here). Access the Toolkit  (click here). [#Agriculture, #Solid, #P2]

Another Hearing On Trying To Revive Yucca Mountain

Sep 10: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), held a hearing on "Implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act – Next Steps." The hearing comes on the heels of the August 13 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must resume its review of the Department of Energy's license application for the Yucca Mountain repository, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [See WIMS 8/13/13]. NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane testified along with Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Peter Lyons on their plans to comply with the court's order. 

    According to a Republican release, Yucca Mountain has long enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and members of the committee urged NRC and DOE to follow the law and move forward with efforts to build the repository. Committee members believe the first step in complying with the court's mandate is for NRC to complete the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on Yucca Mountain and release it publicly. Former NRC chairman Gregory Jazcko ceased the staff's review of the license application one month before a key volume of this safety report was scheduled for release. NRC staff previously testified that the commission currently has the funds on hand to complete the SER and provide the public the first independent agency assessment of the Yucca application.

    Full committee chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Congress needs the opportunity to examine the NRC's long-overdue unredacted technical analysis, and the public who paid for it deserve to know the report's conclusions. During the three years the administration has been suppressing this document, Congress has been denied an informed discussion about next steps. … The path forward is unmistakable. Compliance with the law is not optional. Despite the court's ruling and the funds available for the license review, Chairman Macfarlane refused to commit to issuing the all-important safety report. When asked by Chairman Shimkus if she saw a scenario where the NRC would decide not issue the SER, Macfarlane responded, "We are still deliberating on that."

    Chairman Shimkus expressed concern about the potential for the commission to engage in stall tactics saying, "Here we are, nearly a month after the DC Circuit issued a writ of mandamus, and the NRC's only action we've seen so far is to invite the parties to comment by September 30. Electricity consumers and taxpayers have waited 30 years and paid $15 billion dollars to find out whether our independent nuclear safety regulator concluded that Yucca Mountain would be safe or not. Releasing the SER is the next step in the NRC's process. The NRC has the money to do it, a federal court has ruled that the NRC must proceed, and the NRC says 'hold on, let's ask the parties what they think'. … I strongly believe the NRC's first order of business is to complete and release the Safety Evaluation Report. Transparency in this matter is essential to rebuilding the agency's reputation as an independent and objective regulator."

    Republicans indicated that the committee will continue to hold the administration accountable to following the law, and both NRC and DOE committed to providing the committee with monthly reports detailing actions and expenditures concerning resumption of the license review. Representative Upton concluded, "This issue has enjoyed a long history of bipartisanship and we will work to continue that tradition until the job gets done."

    Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a statement and background document. He said, "Our nuclear waste laws are not working. Instead of holding yet another hearing on Yucca Mountain, this Committee should be working to reform them. In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the sole site to be considered for a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. There was no Plan B. This decision to short-circuit the site selection process was widely viewed as political and provoked strong opposition in Nevada. Twenty-five years later, it is clear that this top-down approach has broken down."

    Rep. Waxman cited the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission and  the recommendations that resulted from their two-year effort. He said Energy Secretary Moniz has testified about DOE's strategy for implementing many of those recommendations and argued that a consent-based approach to siting was essential. "Answering these questions requires an open mind and a willingness to move past a narrow obsession with Yucca Mountain. But this Committee seems fixated on Yucca. . . The reality is that the Court decision has not really changed anything. The decision does nothing to reduce the longstanding public opposition to Yucca Mountain. It does not establish a consent-based siting process or a new organization to focus on the waste problem. And it does not solve the tricky funding and appropriations issues to make sure that the funds put aside for constructing a repository or storage facility can actually be used for that purpose. A court decision was never going to resolve any of these issues. . . Yucca Mountain has become a hopelessly divisive issue. The sooner we recognize this and start considering true reform, the sooner we will be able to fulfill our responsibility to craft a sustainable nuclear waste policy for the nation."

    Access a release from Committee Republicans (click here). Access the Republican website for the hearing with links to testimony, background and video (click here). Access the Democrat website for the hearing with links to testimony, background and video (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear]

GAO Finds Major Faults In Pesticides "Conditional Registration"

Sep 9: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Pesticides: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Oversight of Conditional Registrations (GAO-13-145, August 8, 2013). In background information GAO indicates that as of September 2010, more than 16,000 pesticides were registered for use in the United States, according to EPA. EPA reviews health and environmental effects data submitted by a company and may register a pesticide or, alternatively, grant a "conditional registration" for a pesticide under certain circumstances, even though some of the required data may not have been submitted or reviewed. The company must provide the missing data within a specified time. In 2010, environmental and other groups charged that EPA had overused conditional registrations and did not appear to have a reliable system to identify whether the required data had been submitted. GAO was asked to examine issues related to EPA's use of conditional registrations for pesticides. The report examines: (1) number of conditional registrations EPA has granted and the basis for these; (2) extent to which EPA ensures that companies submit the required additional data and EPA reviews the data, and (3) views of relevant stakeholders on EPA's use of conditional registrations. GAO reviewed EPA data and surveyed stakeholders, among other things.

    GAO found that the total number of conditional registrations granted is unclear, as EPA reports that its data are inaccurate for several reasons. First, the database used to track conditional registrations does not allow officials to change a pesticide's registration status from conditional to unconditional once the registrant has satisfied all requirements, thereby overstating the number of conditional registrations. Second, EPA staff have misused the term "conditional registration," incorrectly classifying pesticide registrations as conditional when, for example, they require a label change, which is not a basis in statute for a conditional registration. According to EPA documents and officials, weaknesses in guidance and training, management oversight, and data management contributed to these misclassification problems. For example, according to EPA documents, there was limited, organized management oversight to ensure that regulatory actions were not misclassified as conditional registrations. As of July 2013, EPA officials told GAO that the Agency has taken or is planning to take several actions to more accurately account for conditional registrations, including beginning to design a new automated data system to more accurately track conditional registrations.

    The extent to which EPA ensures that companies submit additional required data and EPA reviews these data is unknown. Specifically, EPA does not have a reliable system, such as an automated data system, to track key information related to conditional registrations, including whether companies have submitted additional data within required time frames. As a result, pesticides with conditional registrations could be marketed for years without EPA's receipt and review of these data. In the absence of a reliable system for managing conditional registrations, EPA relies on a variety of routine program operations, such as its review of a company's changes to a pesticide registration, to discover that data are missing. However, these methods fall short of what is needed because they are neither comprehensive nor do they ensure timely submission of these data. According to federal internal control standards, EPA's lack of a reliable system for managing conditional registrations constitutes an internal control weakness because the agency lacks an effective mechanism for program oversight and decision making.

    Stakeholders GAO surveyed -- representatives of consumer, environmental, industry, legal, producer, science, and state government groups -- generally said EPA needs to improve its conditional registration process. For example, some stated EPA should improve its data systems for tracking conditional registrations to ensure that required data are submitted and reviewed in a timely manner. However, stakeholder views varied on the benefits and disadvantages of conditionally registering pesticides. For example, some consumer, industry, legal, producer, and state government stakeholders stated that the conditional registration process promotes innovation by bringing new technologies to the marketplace more quickly. In contrast, some consumer, environmental, legal, science, and state government stakeholders voiced concerns that conditional registration allows products with safety that has not been fully evaluated into the marketplace. GAO recommends, in part, that EPA consider and implement options for an automated system to better track conditional registrations. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them.

    Access the complete 56-page report (click here). [#Toxics]

U-M Releases 7 Technical Reports On Fracking In MI

Sep 5: University of Michigan (U-M) researchers released seven technical reports that together form the most comprehensive Michigan-focused resource on hydraulic fracturing, the controversial natural gas and oil extraction process commonly known as fracking. The studies, totaling nearly 200 pages, examine seven critical topics related to the use of hydraulic fracturing in Michigan, with an emphasis on high-volume methods: technology, geology and hydrogeology, environment and ecology, public health, policy and law, economics, and public perceptions.

    The U-M researchers concluded that while considerable natural gas reserves are believed to exist in the State and high-volume hydraulic fracturing has the potential to help access them, possible impacts to the environment and to public health must be addressed. Though modern high-volume hydraulic fracturing is not widely used in Michigan today, a main premise of the U-M study is that the technique could become more widespread due to a desire for job creation, economic growth, energy independence and cleaner fuels.

    John Callewaert, project director and director of integrated assessment at U-M's Graham Sustainability Institute, which is overseeing the project said, "There's a lot of interest in high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but there really isn't much activity at the moment in Michigan. That's why now is a good time to do this assessment."

    These reports conclude the first phase of a two-year U-M project known formally as the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment. The seven documents -- which should not be characterized or cited as final products of the integrated assessment -- provide a solid informational foundation for the project's next phase, an analysis of various hydraulic fracturing policy options. That analysis is expected to be completed in mid-2014 and will be shared with government officials, industry experts, other academics, advocacy groups and the general public.

    Callewaert said, "Nothing like this has been done before in Michigan. Having this comprehensive, state-specific set of reports will be an invaluable resource that will help guide future decision-making on this issue -- and hopefully will help Michigan avoid some of the pitfalls encountered in other states." Conclusions of the reports, which were written by faculty-led, student-staffed teams from various disciplines, include:

• Technology. In view of the current low price of natural gas, the high cost of drilling deep shale formations and the absence of new oil discoveries, it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas industry in Michigan in the near-term future. However, considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood, which underlies much of Michigan and eastern Lake Huron and extends into Ontario, Canada.
  
• Geology/hydrogeology. A recent flurry of mineral rights acquisitions in the state associated with exploratory drilling suggests the potential for growth in natural gas production through high-volume hydraulic fracturing, though only a handful of such wells have been drilled to date. "Michigan is thus in a unique position to assess the future of high-volume hydraulic fracturing before the gas boom begins."
• Environment/Ecology. Potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment are significant and include increased erosion and sedimentation, increased risk of aquatic contamination from chemical spills or equipment runoff, habitat fragmentation and resulting impacts on aquatic and terrestrial organisms, loss of stream riparian zones, and reduction of surface waters available to plants and animals due to the lowering of groundwater levels.
• Public health. Possible hazards in the surrounding environment include impaired local and regional air quality, water pollution and degradation of ecosystems. Possible hazards in nearby communities include increased traffic and motor vehicle accidents, stress related to risk perception among residents, and boomtown-associated effects such as a strained health care system and road degradation.
• Policy/Law. The State is the primary source of law and policy governing hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. The operator of a high-volume hydraulically fractured well must disclose the hazardous constituents of chemical additives to the State Department of Environmental Quality for each additive within 60 days of well completion. Unlike most other states, MDEQ does not require operators to report to FracFocus.org, a nationwide chemical disclosure registry.
• Economics. The gas extraction industry creates employment and income for Michigan, but the employment effects are modest compared with other industries and not large enough to "make or break" the state's economy. In the future, the number of technical jobs in the industry will likely increase, while less-skilled laborer positions will decline.
• Public Perceptions. A slight majority of Michigan residents believe the benefits of fracking outweigh the risks, but significant concerns remain about the potential impacts to human health, the environment and groundwater quality. The public tends to view the word "fracking" as the entirety of the natural gas development process, from leasing and permitting, to drilling and well completion, to transporting and storing wastewater and chemicals. Industry and regulatory agencies hold a much narrower definition that is limited to the process of injecting hydraulic fracturing fluids into a well. These differences in perceived meaning can lead to miscommunications that ultimately increase mistrust among stakeholders.

    The researchers indicate that chief among the technical advances are directional drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which are often used together. In directional drilling, the well operator bores vertically down to the rock formation, then follows the formation horizontally. High-volume fracking—the focus of recent attention and public concern—is defined by the state of Michigan as a well that uses more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid. For reference, an Olympic-size swimming pool holds about 660,000 gallons of water.

    Since the late 1940s, an estimated 12,000 gas and oil wells have been drilled in Michigan using hydraulic fracturing, without any reported contamination issues. Most of those wells have been relatively shallow vertical wells that each used about 50,000 gallons of water. But recently, a small number of deep, directionally drilled, high-volume hydraulically fractured wells have been completed in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. Those wells sometimes use several million gallons of water, and one Michigan well required more than 20 million gallons.

    Since 2010, when the Petoskey Pioneer Well spurred interest in high-volume hydraulically fractured wells in Michigan, 19 such wells are known to have been completed in the State, according to Sara Gosman, a lecturer at the U-M Law School and author of the technical report on policy/law.

    The U-M hydraulic fracturing study is expected to cost at least $600,000 and is being funded by U-M through its Graham Sustainability Institute, Energy Institute and Risk Science Center. State regulators, oil and gas industry representatives, staffers from environmental nonprofits, and peer reviewers provided input to the technical reports, and more than 100 public comments were considered.

    Public comments are being accepted on the reports until October 7, however, U-M notes that comments will not be used to revise the technical reports. Rather, submitted comments will be used with the technical reports to inform the integrated assessment to be completed during the second phase of the project. Additionally, a free webinar for the general public will be held September 9, noon-12:30 PM ET (registration required).

    Access a lengthy release and summary of the reports from U-M (click here). Access links to all technical reports and an overview (click here). Access the U-M Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan website for complete background including comment form, videos, presentations, etc. (click here). [#MIEnergy/Frack, #Energy/Frack]

First-Of-Its-Kind Settlement For GHG & Ozone Protection Requirements

Sep 4: U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with Safeway, the nation's second largest grocery store chain, that has agreed to pay a $600,000 civil penalty and implement a corporate-wide plan to significantly reduce its emissions of ozone-depleting substances from refrigeration equipment at 659 of its stores nationwide, estimated to cost approximately $4.1 million. The settlement involves the largest number of facilities ever under the Clean Air Act's regulations governing refrigeration equipment. Safeway, headquartered in Pleasanton, CA, is the second largest grocery chain with 1,412 stores in the U.S. and 2012 revenues of $44.2 billion. The settlement covers 659 Safeway stores – all Safeway stores in the U.S. that have commercial refrigeration equipment regulated by the Clean Air Act, except for those stores in Safeway's Dominick's Division, which was the subject of a 2004 settlement with the U.S. The settlement was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.

    The settlement resolves allegations that Safeway violated the Clean Air Act by failing to promptly repair leaks of HCFC-22, a hydro-chlorofluorocarbon that is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and ozone-depleting substance used as a coolant in refrigerators, and failed to keep adequate records of the servicing of its refrigeration equipment. Safeway will now implement a corporate refrigerant compliance management system to comply with Federal stratospheric ozone regulations. Safeway will also reduce its corporate-wide average leak rate from 25 percent in 2012 to 18 percent or below in 2015. The company will also reduce the aggregate refrigerant emissions at its highest-emission stores by 10 percent each year for three years.

    Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "Safeway's new corporate commitment to reduce air pollution and help protect the ozone layer is vital and significant. Fixing leaks, improving compliance, and reducing emissions will make a real difference in protecting us from the dangers of ozone depletion, while reducing the impact on climate change." Robert Dreher, DOJ Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division said, ""This first-of-its-kind settlement will benefit all Americans by cutting emissions of ozone-depleting substances across Safeway's national supermarket chain. It can serve as a model for comprehensive solutions that improve industry compliance with the nation's Clean Air Act."

    HCFC-22 is up to 1,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming emissions. The measures that Safeway has committed to are expected to prevent over 100,000 pounds of future releases of ozone-depleting refrigerants that destroy the ozone layer. EPA regulations issued under Title VI of the Clean Air Act require that owners or operators of commercial refrigeration equipment that contains over 50 pounds of ozone-depleting refrigerants, and that has an annual leak rate greater than 35 percent repair such leaks within 30 days.

    HCFCs deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, which allows dangerous amounts of cancer-causing ultraviolet rays from the sun to strike the earth, leading to adverse health effects that include skin cancers, cataracts, and suppressed immune systems. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is implementing strict reductions of ozone-depleting refrigerants, including a production and importation ban by 2020 of HCFC-22, a common refrigerant used by supermarkets.

    The settlement is part of EPA's national enforcement initiative to control harmful air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including large grocery stores. Corporate commitments to reduce emissions from refrigeration systems have been increasing in recent years. EPA's GreenChill Partnership Program works with food retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer and climate change by transitioning to environmentally friendlier refrigerants, using less refrigerant and eliminating leaks, and adopting green refrigeration technologies and best environmental practices.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access links to the consent decree and complaint (click here). [#Air, #Climate]

EPA Proposes Changes To Federal Water Quality Standards

Sep 4: U.S. EPA announced in the Federal Register [78 FR 54517-54546] that it is proposing changes to the Federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation which helps implement the Clean Water Act. EPA said the changes will improve the regulation's effectiveness in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. EPA is seeking comments from interested parties on these proposed revisions and comments must be received on or before December 3, 2013. EPA notes that the core of the current regulation has been in place since 1983; and since then, a number of issues have been raised by states, tribes, or stakeholders or identified by EPA in the implementation process that will benefit from clarification and greater specificity. The proposed rule addresses key program areas including: Administrator's determinations that new or revised WQS are necessary; designated uses; triennial reviews; antidegradation; variances to WQS; and compliance schedule authorizing provisions.

 

    EPA indicates that it has had ongoing dialogue with states, tribes and stakeholders on key issues that are central to assuring effective implementation of the WQS program. As part of this process, the Agency has considered several fundamental questions in evaluating opportunities to improve implementation of the WQS program including which recurring implementation issues would benefit most from a regulatory clarification or update, whether there are emerging issues that could be more effectively addressed through regulatory revisions, whether the regulation continues to have the appropriate balance of consistency and flexibility for states and tribes, and whether the resulting program effectively facilitates public participation in standards decisions.

 

    As a result of this evaluation and consideration of continuing input from states, tribes and stakeholders, the EPA is proposing changes to key program areas of its WQS regulation at 40 CFR part 131 that the Agency believes will result in improved regulatory clarity and more effective program implementation, and lead to environmental improvements in water quality. This proposed rulemaking requests comment on regulatory revisions in the following six key issue areas: (1) Administrator's determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) compliance schedule authorizing provisions.   

• (1) EPA is proposing to amend paragraph (b) of Sec.  131.22 to add a requirement that an Administrator's determination must be signed by the Administrator or his or her duly authorized delegate, and must include a statement that the document is a determination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
  
• (2) First, EPA is proposing to amend paragraph (g) at Sec.  131.10 to provide that where a state or tribe adopts new or revised water quality standards based on a use attainability analysis (UAA), it must adopt the highest attainable use (HAU). States and tribes must also adopt criteria, as specified in Sec.  131.11(a), to protect that use. The EPA is also proposing to add a definition of HAU at Sec. 131.3(m). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to define HAU as "the aquatic life, wildlife, and/or recreation use that is both closest to the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act and attainable, as determined using best available data and information through a use attainability
  analysis defined in Sec. 131.3(g)." Second, the EPA is making appropriate edits to Sec. 131.10(g) to be clear that the factors listed in Sec. 131.10(g) must be used when a UAA is required by Sec. 131.10(j), and is restructuring Sec. 131.10(k) to clearly articulate when a UAA is not required.
  
• (3) EPA is proposing to amend the triennial review requirements of paragraph (a) of Sec. 131.20 to clarify that a state or tribe shall re-examine its water quality criteria during its triennial review to determine if any criteria should be revised in light of any new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations to assure that designated uses continue to be protected.
  
• (4) EPA is proposing to amend several provisions of Sec. 131.12 related to implementing the antidegradation requirements. These include (1) clarifying the options available to states and tribes when identifying Tier 2 high quality waters, (2) clarifying that states and tribes must conduct an alternatives analysis in order to support state and tribal decision-making on whether to authorize limited degradation of high quality water, and (3) specifying that states and tribes must develop and make available to the public implementation methods for their antidegradation policies. The EPA is also proposing to add language to Sec. 131.5(a) describing the EPA's authority to review and approve or disapprove state-adopted or tribal-adopted antidegradation policies. The language at Sec. 131.5(a) will further specify that if a state or tribe has chosen to formally adopt implementation methods as water quality standards, the EPA would review whether those implementation methods are consistent with 131.12.
  
• (5) EPA is proposing and soliciting comment on revisions to the WQS regulation that will provide more specificity and clearer requirements on the development and use of variances. Such revisions will establish requirements to help improve water quality by allowing states and tribes time to work with stakeholders to address any challenges and uncertainties associated with attaining the designated use and the associated criterion. These revisions will also provide assurance that further feasible progress toward the designated use and criterion will be made during the variance period.
  
• (6) EPA is proposing to add a new regulatory provision at Sec. 131.15 to be consistent with the decision of the EPA Administrator in In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. (1990 WL 324290 (EPA), 1990 EPA App. LEXIS 45, 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990)). This provision would clarify that a permitting authority may only issue compliance schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits if the state or tribe has authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or tribal law in its water quality standards or implementing regulations. Any such compliance schedule authorizing provision is a WQS subject to the EPA's review and approval. The proposed provision would also clarify that individual compliance schedules issued pursuant to such authorizing provisions are not themselves WQS but must be consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state's or tribe's EPA-approved compliance schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.47.

    Access the complete FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for further details and to submit and review comments (click here). [#Water]

Major Report On GHG Emissions & Sinks From Farm & Forest Activities

Aug 27: The Climate Change Program Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of the Chief Economist released and requested public comments on the 564-page report Science-Based Methods for Entity-Scale Quantification of Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks from Agriculture and Forestry Practices. The report is the work of 38 scientists from across academia, USDA and the Federal government, who are experts in greenhouse gas (GHG) estimation in the cropland, grazing land, livestock and forest management sectors. The report has undergone technical review by an additional 29 scientists. The report outlines a set of consensus methods for quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon storage at the local farm, ranch or forest scale. It is important that the methods exhibit scientific rigor, transparency, completeness, accuracy, and cost effectiveness, as well as consistency and comparability with other USDA GHG inventory efforts.

    Comments which must be received by received by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on October 11, 2013, will be used to further refine the methods report in preparation for publication as a USDA Technical Bulletin. USDA said the comments submitted will help it gauge the appropriateness and completeness of the proposed methods as well as methodological or data concerns that should be considered. A series of questions have been provided in the supplementary information to aid review and comments.

    The Climate Change Program Office (CCPO) operates within the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA and functions as the Department-wide focal point on agriculture, rural, and forestry-related climate change activities. The CCPO ensures that USDA is a source of objective, analytical assessments of the effects of climate change and proposed response strategies. This project addresses the need for scientifically-sound, Department-wide guidelines for quantifying GHG emissions and carbon sequestration at the farm-,
forest- and entity-scale. The report and other products developed by the project will be useful in assessing the carbon and GHG related environmental service benefits of various agricultural and forestry management practices and technologies.

    USDA has created a comprehensive set of GHG inventory methods that builds upon existing estimation and inventory efforts with the aim of providing transparent and robust inventory guidelines and reporting tools. The methods address direct greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration from agriculture and forest management at the farm, ranch or forest boundary. The report does not establish a GHG crediting framework or address policy issues related to crediting GHG reductions such as additionality or leakage. The specific questions that USDA requests comments on include:

1. Are sources of GHG emissions or sinks missing? Are the methods provided complete? Are there potential inconsistencies in and across the methods?

2. Are the proposed methods suitable for estimating GHG emissions at the farm-, forest- or entity-scale while meeting the selection criteria of transparency, consistency, comparability, completeness, accuracy, cost effectiveness, and ease of use?

3. Are new (or additional) data sources available for calculating emission factors?

4. Are there additional management practices for which the science and data are clear, and which should be addressed in the methods report? If yes, please provide details.

5. Are the methods appropriate across a variety of farm and forest entities as well as applicable to operations of any size?

6. Are the research gaps clearly identified? Are there additional gaps to note, or new data sources that significantly address any of the listed gaps?

    Access a brief release from USDA (click here). Access the draft report (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access additional background and supporting data for the report (click here). Access the USDA docket for this action for documents and to submit and review comments (click here). [#Agriculture, #Climate, #Land]

Subscribers & Readers Notice

Subscribers & Readers Notice:

 

WIMS is on our late Summer publication break continuing through Labor Day. We will resume publication on Tuesday, September 3, 2013.

Comments Wanted On Microwave Rule & Social Cost Of Carbon

Aug 16: The Department of Energy (DOE) has received a Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Comments [78 FR 49975-49978] involving the controversial issue of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The notice from DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy indicates that the Agency has received a petition from the Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF), requesting that DOE reconsider its final rule of Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens, published on June 17, 2013 (i.e. Microwave Final Rule). Comments on the petition must be received by DOE not later than September 16, 2013.

 

    Specifically, LLF requests that DOE reconsider the Rule because the final rule used a different Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) than the figure used in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR). LLF indicates that "The final rule uses a new valuation for SCC that is different from -- and dramatically higher than -- that used in the proposed rule during the notice and comment period." DOE is requesting comments on whether to undertake the reconsideration suggested in the petition.

    DOE explains that In developing the Microwave Rule, it issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) on February 14, 2012 (77 FR 8555). In this SNOPR, as part of its economic analysis of the proposed rule, DOE sought to monetize the cost savings associated with the reduced carbon missions that would result from the expected energy savings of the proposed rule. To do this, DOE used "the most recent values [of SCC] identified by the interagency process," which, at the time, was the SCC calculation developed by the "Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2010." The 2010 figure was developed through an interagency process in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

 

    In May 2013, subsequent to the SNOPR but prior to DOE's issuance of the final Microwave Rule, the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon released revised SCC values. (Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, 2013) As these were "the most recent (2013) SCC values from the interagency group," DOE included these revised SCC values in the Rule. (78 FR 36316).

 

    Landmark petitions DOE to reconsider the Rule on the grounds that this change in the values used in estimating the economic benefits of the Rule should have been subject to a prior opportunity for public comment because the 2013 SCC values were not the "logical outgrowth" of the 2010 SCC values. Further, Landmark asserts that without reconsideration of the Rule, DOE might now rely on its prior use of the 2013 SCC values in the Rule when it endeavors to enact new energy conservation standards in the future.

 

    Specifically, in its petition, Landmark indicates, "Landmark objects to the Department's (and unnamed other agencies) decision to utilize an "Interagency Update" to justify increasing the "social cost" of carbon dioxide without any opportunity for public comment. Finalizing such a far reaching decision without notice and public comment violates the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) and Executive Order 13563's tenets of transparency, objectivity and fairness in promulgating and finalizing regulations. Landmark submits this document as a Petition for Reconsideration. However, the egregious violations of the APA as documented in this Petition demand rescission of the Rule. Landmark respectfully requests the DOE halt implementation and begin the regulatory process anew. At a minimum, the DOE's action must be reconsidered and presented to the public for proper consideration and comment. . ."

 

    Landmark notes further that, "The new [SCC] value is important because it serves as a key data factor in all cost-benefit analyses performed involving carbon dioxide. Despite its curious and surreptitious integration into a rule pertaining to microwave ovens, this new estimate appears to apply to all federal agencies engaging in cost-benefit analyses involving carbon dioxide emissions. . . For example, in the proposed rule, the Social Cost of Carbon, under one discount rate is estimated to be $23.80 dollars per metric ton by 2015. 77 FR 8555. That number rises to $38 dollars per metric ton under the new estimates provided in the final rule. 78 FR 36351. . . 

 

    "Landmark respectfully requests DOE immediately halt implementation and rescind the Rule. In the alternative, Landmark requests DOE adhere to the mandates of the APA, and subject the changes documented in this Petition to a proper notice and comment."

 

    Access the FR announcement which includes the complete LLF petition, background, and commenting procedures (click here). Access EPA's SCC website for more information (click here). [#Energy/Efficiency, #Climate]

Risk Management & Governance Issues In Shale Gas Development

Aug 15: The National Academy of Sciences(NAS), National Research Council (NRC) established a steering committee and organized two detailed workshops to examine the range of social and decision-making issues in risk characterization and governance related to gas shale development. Central themes include risk governance in the context of: (a) risks that emerge as shale gas development expands; and (b) incomplete or declining regulatory capacity in an era of budgetary stringency.

 

    The first workshop was held on May 30 & 31 and followed the systematic approach to risk characterization recommended in a 1996 NRC report, Understanding Risk. It engaged experts and practitioners in addressing the concerns of a range of interested and affected parties to identify key issues and discussed the state and limits of scientific knowledge on those issues. The second workshop, currently being held August 15 & 16,  is engaging social scientists from several research traditions to apply a variety of insights about risk management institutions to the shale gas case, while interacting with each other and with practitioners.

 

    A rapporteur will write a summary of the risk issues raised in the first workshop, the risk management and governance concepts presented at the second workshop, and the discussions at both workshops. The summary may include a selection of signed papers by workshop presenters, after appropriate review. It would note the risk questions posed at the workshops for future analysis and the risk management challenges and opportunities identified, which could be considered in future national discussions about the development and implementation of the technology. It will not offer consensus judgments or recommendations.

 

    In background material NAS indicates that extraction of gas from shale via hydraulic fracturing (fracking) presents two faces: (1) an attractive path to inexpensive energy for the foreseeable future, and (2) a number of perceived or real potential risks to the environment and communities. To date, risk management has been almost entirely oriented toward the extraction technology -- there has been no systematic effort to characterize the full range of risks that cause citizen concern. It is also not known if the management regime for these risks is adequate, although it is apparent that it is fragmented if not fragmentary across the country.

 

    NAS indicates, "Risk characterization for shale gas development does not now follow best practices; thus, it may engender mistrust. Moreover, current governmental environmental protection institutions may be unequal to the tasks of risk management. The use of fracking technology appears headed toward a pattern of confrontation that may undermine goals for both energy production and health and environmental protection. Recent efforts by the energy policy community to address the risks, even with the addition of the ongoing EPA drinking water study, seem unlikely to address all the fundamental social and decision-making issues."

 

    NAS says, "What is needed is a risk-analytic approach aimed at more adequately informing public choices, and governance models that include more than just legislated regulation, that may hold promise for meeting the challenges of environmental protection in an era of declining regulatory capacity. Fundamental social challenges -- not just technological ones -- need to be included in the development of policies and best practices."

    Access links to the two workshops which include the agendas, video archives, PowerPoint presentations, detailed abstracts of presentations with links to references and more (click here). [#Energy/Frack]

Difficulties Mitigating Canadian Tar Sands Expansion

Aug 14: A release from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicates that President Obama has made it clear that the central factor in his decision to approve or reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is whether the pipeline project will significantly exacerbate climate pollution [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13].  NRDC says Canada is striving to present itself as a sustainable manager of the tar sands that has the tools to mitigate the substantial carbon emissions and pass President Obama's climate test. NRDC indicates, "Unfortunately, a multi-million dollar PR campaign cannot erase Canada's lackluster climate record or make it any easier to cancel out the emissions from tar sands. There is no credible mitigation plan proposed or even being considered by Canadian provincial or federal governments that would address greenhouse gas pollution from its growing tar sands industry. There are tremendous technological and policy barriers that make mitigation of Canada's tar sands carbon pollution problems highly unlikely. The gap between Canada's rhetoric and its environmental performance raise serious questions regarding the credibility of the federal government's commitments on climate."

    Canadian advocates and experts hosted a press call today to release a new backgrounder from Environmental Defence Canada -- "Mitigating climate impacts of the tar sands: political and policy barriers to greenhouse gas reduction in Canada" -- and discuss the unlikelihood of successful mitigation. Danielle Droitsch, Canada Program Director at NRDC said, "America's shrinking coal emissions are a stark contrast to the rapidly expanding tar sands industry which is dragging down any Canadian hopes of being part of a climate solution. By pushing for a dramatic expansion of tar sands oil development and the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to carry it, Canada will never meet its international climate commitments."

    Dr. Mark Jaccard, Professor of Environmental Economics at Simon Frasier University and former chair of British Columbia Utilities Commission said, "Mitigation of Canada's increasing carbon pollution is incompatible with the Harper government's policy of unchecked oil sands expansion, which is driving their push for Keystone XL. The Canadian government has failed to reign in the skyrocketing emissions from this carbon intensive industry and we are now at a point where the only acceptable alternatives for the U.S. government to reject Keystone XL."

    NRDC indicates that the tar sands are Canada's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution, and if they continue to expand as government and industry project, they will cancel out every other effort across the country to mitigate emissions. Emissions from the tar sands are projected to double by 2020, which will send Canada soaring past the 2020 climate change target it shares with the United States. Models show that in order to curb soaring tar sands pollution and meet Canada's shared 2020 climate goal with the United States, regulations on the tar sands would have to establish a price on carbon of at least $100 per tonne. But that level of regulation -- or any meaningful regulation -- is highly unlikely.

    NRDC said the Canadian government is well aware of the mounting pressure to limit carbon emissions. The government has been aggressive in its talking points, but passive in action. While they have made multiple public promises, no Federal regulations on emissions from the oil and gas sector have yet been proposed in Canada. This means that the tar sands sector is currently expanding without any attention given to soaring greenhouse gas pollution. Canada is currently on track to miss its international climate commitments by a wide margin that is greater than all of the carbon produced by the combined emissions of Canada's power plants or the combined emissions of all of Canada's passenger vehicles.

    Dr. Danny Harvey, Climate Scientist at University of Toronto, "It will be very difficult for the Canadian government to achieve its own emissions reduction target for 2020 even without tar sands expansion, and more so if it continues to pursue tar sands expansion. In any case, deep reductions in overall emissions, beyond the 2020 target, will be required in the following decades that will be impossible to achieve if we lock in 40 years of increased tar sands emissions by building more pipelines." Due to political and policy barriers, it is highly unlikely that Canada would be able to mitigate the carbon emissions from the tar sands in order to meet President Obama's climate test for Keystone XL.

    Access a release from NRDC with links to related information and the backgrounder on barriers to mitigating the climate impacts of the tar sands (click here). [#Energy/KXL, #Energy/TarSands, #Climate]