Monday, March 25, 2013

Presidential Advisors Issue Report On Climate Change Options

Mar 22: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a letter report to the President describing six key components the advisory group believes should be central to the Administration's strategy for addressing climate change. The 9-page letter responds to a November request from the President for advice as the Administration prepares new initiatives to tackle the challenges posed by Earth's changing climate. The letter calls for a dual focus on mitigation -- reducing the pace and magnitude of climate-related changes -- and adaptation -- minimizing the unavoidable damage that can be expected to result from climate change.

    The letter states, "Both approaches are essential parts of an integrated strategy for dealing with climate change. Mitigation is needed to avoid a degree of climate change that would be unmanageable despite efforts to adapt. Adaptation is needed because the climate is already changing and some further change is inevitable regardless of what is done to reduce its pace and magnitude." The six key components identified by PCAST are:

  • Focus on national preparedness for climate change, which can help decrease damage from extreme weather events now and speed recovery from future damage;
  • Continue efforts to decarbonize the economy, with emphasis on the electricity sector;
  • Level the playing field for clean-energy and energy-efficiency technologies by removing regulatory obstacles, addressing market failures, adjusting tax policies, and providing time-limited subsidies for clean energy when appropriate;
  • Sustain research on next-generation clean-energy technologies and remove obstacles for their eventual deployment;
  • Take additional steps to establish U.S. leadership on climate change internationally; and
  • Conduct an initial Quadrennial Energy Review.

    On the matter of decarbonizing the economy, PCAST indicates the Administration could:

  • "Support continuing expansion of shale-gas production, ensuring that environmental impacts of production and transport do not curtail the potential of this approach. Continuing substitution of gas for coal (and in some instances for oil) will remain an effective short- and middle-term decarbonization measure and an economic boon only insofar as methane leakage from production and transport is held to low levels and drinking water is not adversely impacted. The Federal Government has an important role to play in both of these respects, through collecting and distributing reliable data and through strengthened regulation where the data indicate this is required.
  • "Continue implementation of Clean Air Act requirements on criteria pollutants (such as SO2 and NOx) and hazardous air pollutants (such as mercury) to include creating new performance standards for CO2 emissions from existing stationary sources, which would follow the performance standards for new plants released in March 2012.
  • "Accelerate efforts to reduce the regulatory obstacles to deployment of CCS, and continue political support for the large CCS projects currently underway. Successful demonstration of CCS will provide a role for coal in a carbon-constrained future. CCS will eventually be necessary for other large, stationary sources of CO2, including natural gas power plants and biofuel refineries. In February 2010, you created the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, charging it with proposing "a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016." The Task Force issued a report in August 2010, recommending reforms including better Federal coordination and several possible approaches to managing long-term liability. We recommend that these findings be the basis for a directive to the relevant officials. There are several commercial CCS projects underway in the United States that have received grants from the Department of Energy (DOE). Continued support for these projects is important not only for the purpose of establishing the technical and regulatory basis for CCS in the United States, but also because U.S. support for and success with this technology will likely be influential in moving other countries such as China and India toward CCS use."
    Access a blog posting announcing the report from Rick Weiss Assistant Director for Strategic Communications and Senior Policy Analyst at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (click here). Access the complete letter report (click here). Access more information about PCAST (click here). [#Climate]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company
Posted by JPMcJ at 3/25/2013 03:49:00 PM 0 comments

Friday, March 22, 2013

Groups Sue EPA For Failing To Protect Bees From Pesticides

Mar 21: One year after groups formally petitioned the U.S. EPA, four beekeepers and five environmental and consumer groups filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the Agency for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The coalition, represented by attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), seeks suspension of the registrations of insecticides that have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD) [See WIMS 4/4/07]. The suit challenges EPA's ongoing handling of the pesticides as well as the agency's practice of "conditional registration" and labeling deficiencies.
 
        In March 2012, CFS and a coalition of prominent beekeepers, along with Pesticide Action Network and Beyond Pesticides filed an Emergency Petition with the EPA asking the agency to suspend the use of clothianidin. Yet, a year later, the agency has refused and indicated it will not finish its Registration Review for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as other neonicotinoids, until 2018. Plaintiffs include four beekeepers, Steve Ellis of Old Mill Honey Co. (MN, CA), Jim Doan of Doan Family Farms (NY), Tom Theobald of Niwot Honey Farm (CO) and Bill Rhodes of Bill Rhodes Honey (FL) as well as Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, Sierra Club, and the Center for Environmental Health.

    One plaintiff Steve Ellis, a Minnesota and California beekeeper said, "America's beekeepers cannot survive for long with the toxic environment EPA has supported. Bee-toxic pesticides in dozens of widely used products, on top of many other stresses our industry faces, are killing our bees and threatening our livelihoods. Our country depends on bees for crop pollination and honey production. It's time for EPA to recognize the value of bees to our food system and agricultural economy."

    The suit comes on the heels of a challenging season for California's almond farmers, who produce 80% of the world's almonds. Almond growers rely on beekeepers to bring literally billions of bees from across the country to pollinate their orchards. However, many beekeepers are reporting losses of over 50% this year and the shortages have left many California almond growers without enough bees to effectively pollinate their trees. This is a vivid demonstration of why the Plaintiffs are demanding EPA to classify these bee-toxic pesticides as an "imminent hazard" and move swiftly to restrict their use.

    According to a release, the pesticides involved -- clothianidin and thiamethoxam -- are "neonicotinoids," a newer class of systemic insecticides that are absorbed by plants and transported throughout the plant's vascular tissue, making the plant potentially toxic to insects. Clothianidin and thiamethoxam first came into heavy use in the mid-2000s, at the same time beekeepers started observing widespread cases of colony losses, leaving beekeepers unable to recoup their losses.
 
    CFS attorney Peter Jenkins said, "Beekeepers and environmental and consumer groups have demonstrated time and time again over the last several years that EPA needs to protect bees. The agency has refused, so we've been compelled to sue. EPA's unlawful actions should convince the Court to suspend the approvals for clothianidin and thiamethoxam products until those violations are resolved."

    The case also challenges the use of so-called "conditional registrations" for these pesticides, which expedites commercialization by bypassing meaningful premarket review. Since 2000, over two-thirds of pesticide products, including clothianidin and thiamethoxam, have been brought to market as conditional registrations. Paul Towers, a spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network said, "Pesticide manufacturers use conditional registrations to rush bee-toxic products to market, with little public oversight. As new independent research comes to light, the agency has been slow to re-evaluate pesticide products and its process, leaving bees exposed to an ever-growing load of hazardous pesticides."

    In addition, the plaintiffs challenge the inadequacies of existing pesticide labels meant to ensure environmental and health protections. Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides said, "EPA has ignored its responsibility to protect bees by allowing impractical labels and lax enforcement. Despite clear evidence and on-the-ground feedback to the contrary, EPA has failed to ensure that bees, birds and ecosystems are protected."

    Independent scientists have assessed the effects of clothianidin and thiamethoxam on honey bee colony health and development, examining both sub-lethal exposure effects and acute risks. Scientists have also identified massive data gaps that prevent accurate assessments as to their continued safety, not just for honey bees but for ecosystem integrity on the whole. A major new report issued this week by the American Bird Conservancy, The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds, sounds dire warnings about EPA's failures to assess threats to birds and to the aquatic ecosystems many species depend upon.
 
    On March 19, 2013, as part of a study on impacts from the world's most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) announced that it has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products' effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation's leading bird conservation organizations said, "It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns."
 
    ABC commissioned world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research. The 100-page report, "The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds," reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act. The report evaluates the toxicological risk to birds and aquatic systems and includes extensive comparisons with the older pesticides that the neonicotinoids have replaced. The assessment concludes that the neonicotinoids are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.

    Access a release from the groups and beekeepers (click here). Access the 48-page emergency petition filed one year ago (click here). Access a lengthy release from ABC with additional details (click here). Access the ABC report (click here). Access additional WIMS coverage on CCD (click here). [#Toxics, #Wildlife]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals
Posted by JPMcJ at 3/22/2013 03:20:00 PM 0 comments

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Mar 20: In the U.S. Supreme Court, Case Nos. 11–338 and 11–347. The decision also decides the case of Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) (No. 11-347). Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit [See WIMS 5/19/11]. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion in which Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined and Justice Scalia, joined in parts I & II. Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito joined. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases [See WIMS 11/26/12].
 
    The three questions at hand are:
  • Is the Silvicultural Rule defining these roads as nonpoint sources a valid interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA)?
  • Did the U.S. EPA exclude logging from the industrial activity category which requires stormwater discharge (NPDES) permits?
  • Does the CWA allow NEDC to file this case in a Federal district court 30 years after the Silvicultural Rule became final?
    According to the majority opinion, these cases present the question whether the Clean Water Act (Act) and its implementing regulations require permits before channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads can be discharged into the navigable waters of the United States. Under the statute and its implementing regulations, a permit is required if the discharges are deemed to be "associated with industrial activity." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the responsibility to enforce the Act,has issued a regulation defining the term "associated with industrial activity" to cover only discharges "from any conveyance that is used for collecting and conveying stormwater and that is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant." 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) (2006). The EPA interprets its regulation to exclude the type of stormwater discharges from logging roads at issue here. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24–27. The majority concludes, ". . .the EPA's determination is a reasonable interpretation of its own regulation; and, inconsequence, deference is accorded to the interpretation under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997)."
 
    It should also be noted that on November 30, 2012, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a Final Rule revising its Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater discharges [See WIMS 12/4/12]. When the rule was signed, EPA said it was "taking this action in response to Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown (9th Circuit), in which the court held that stormwater runoff from certain logging roads is a point source discharge of industrial stormwater that requires an NPDES permit. EPA did not intend for logging roads to be regulated as industrial facilities and has revised its stormwater regulations to clarify the Agency's intent."
 
    Among other arguments, NEDC said elsewhere in the Industrial Stormwater Rule the EPA has required NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with other types of outdoor economic activity. See §122.26(b)(14)(iii) (mining); §122.26(b)(14)(v) (landfills receiving industrial waste); §122.26(b)(14)(x) (large construction sites). The Supreme Court majority indicated that, "The EPA reasonably could conclude, however, that these types of activities tend to be more fixed and permanent than timber-harvesting operations are and have a closer connection to traditional industrial sites. In light of the language of the regulation just discussed, moreover, the inclusion of these types of economic activity in the Industrial Stormwater Rule need not be read to mandate that all stormwater discharges related to these activities fall within the rule, just as the inclusion of logging need not be read to extend to all discharges from logging sites. The regulation's reach may be limited by the requirement that the discharges be 'directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.' §122.26(b)(14)."
 
    Finally, the majority ruled, "The preamendment version of the Industrial Stormwater Rule, as permissibly construed by the agency, exempts discharges of channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads from the NPDES permitting scheme. As a result, there is no need to reach petitioners' alternative argument that the conveyances in question are not 'pipe[s], ditch[es], channel[s], tunnel[s], conduit[s],' or any other type of point source within the Act's definition of the term. §1362(14).For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
    In an interesting concurring opinion, Justice Roberts pointed out, "The opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part raises serious questions about the principle set forth in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997). It may be appropriate to reconsider that principle in an appropriate case. But this is not that case." He said both Respondent and Petitioners mentioned the issue in footnotes with no arguments. Also, he said, "Out of 22 amicus briefs, only two -- filed by dueling groups of law professors -- addressed the issue on the merits."
 
    Justice Roberts concluded, "The issue is a basic one going to the heart of administrative law. Questions of Seminole Rock and Auer deference arise as a matter of course on a regular basis. The bar is now aware that there is some interest in reconsidering those cases, and has available to it a concise statement of the arguments on one side of the issue. I would await a case in which the issue is properly raised and argued. The present cases should be decided as they have been briefed and argued, under existing precedent."
 
    Justice Scalia expanded on the issue in a lengthy dissent saying, "I join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion; I agree that these cases are not moot and that the District Court had jurisdiction. I do not join Part III. The Court there gives effect to a reading of EPA's regulations that is not the most natural one, simply because EPA says that it believes the unnatural reading is right. It does this, more- over, even though the agency has vividly illustrated that it can write a rule saying precisely what it means—by doing just that while these cases were being briefed. Enough is enough."
 
    He continued, "For decades, and for no good reason, we have been giving agencies the authority to say what their rules mean, under the harmless-sounding banner of 'defer[ring] to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.' Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (SCALIA, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1). This is generally called Seminole Rock or Auer deference. See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997)." He concludes his dissent saying, "It is time for us to presume (to coin a phrase) that an agency says in a rule what it means, and means in a rule what it says there."
 
    Access the Supreme Court opinion, and concurring and dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access links to all of the Merit and Amicus briefs (click here). Access the complete Ninth Circuit opinion (click here). [#Water, #Land, #SupCt, #CA9]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals
Posted by JPMcJ at 3/21/2013 02:43:00 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

ASCE Releases 2013 Report Card For America's Infrastructure

Mar 19: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released its 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the nation's infrastructure an overall grade of D+, showing slight progress from the D in the last Report Card issued in 2009. It's the first time since ASCE started producing Report Cards in 1998 that the grades rose overall and in several sectors. The report provides our nation's political leaders, policymakers, business leaders, infrastructure stakeholders, the media, and the general public with expert advice from the civil engineering community about the condition of infrastructure across the nation. 

    ASCE President Gregory DiLoreto, P.E. said, "As civil engineers, ASCE believes that we are the stewards of infrastructure -- we designed it, we built it, and we actually oversee the operations and maintenance of it in many cases. So as stewards, we have a responsibility with the Report Card to call attention to the state of the nation's infrastructure. We as Americans need to be proactive in monitoring and taking care of our infrastructure so that it will be here not only for us, but for our children and our grandchildren."

    ASCE has produced four previous Report Cards in 1998, 2001, 2005, and 2009 -- as well as the Progress Report for America's Infrastructure, which was released in 2003. These assessments have highlighted the fact that America's critical infrastructure -- principally its roads, bridges, drinking water systems, mass transit systems, schools, and systems for delivering energy -- may soon fail to meet society's needs.

    ASCE's immediate past president, Andrew Herrmann, P.E., member of the present Advisory Council that produced the 2013 Report Card said, "Since 1998, ASCE felt an obligation to make a report on the state of infrastructure in the U.S. to show that we are not making the necessary investments to improve it and not even making some of the investments that we need to maintain what we have. We as civil engineering professionals feel that it is our obligation to point out to the White House, Congress, and state and local legislators what is happening to the infrastructure in the U.S." 

    DiLoreto added, "The reason why we want to make improvements to our infrastructure is not just simply to improve the grade. Investment in our infrastructure will help grow our economy; it will create jobs and improve our quality of life. It means being able to get to work easier without sitting in traffic all day long; and continuing to enjoy safe, clean and reliable drinking water anywhere in the country; and having an electrical transmission grid with fewer or no blackouts."

    Individual grades were given in the categories of aviation, bridges, dams, drinking water, energy, hazardous waste, inland waterways, levees, ports, public parks and recreation, rail, roads, schools, solid waste, transit, and wastewater. Final grades were assigned based on capacity to meet future demand, condition, funding, future needs, operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience, and innovation. ASCE indicated that the methodology with which this Report Card was produced was a very objective piece of work, not a bunch of people using a gut feeling, but real numbers.
 
    The Report Card concludes that to raise the grades and get our infrastructure at an acceptable level, a total investment of $3.6 trillion is needed by 2020 across the entire 16 sectors. Currently, only about $2 trillion in infrastructure spending is projected, leaving an estimated shortfall of approximately $1.6 trillion.
 
    According to the Report Card, the following grades were assigned in four major categories: Water & Environment: Dams D; Drinking Water D; Hazardous Waste D; Levees D-; Solid Waste B-; and Wastewater D. Transportation: Aviation D; Bridges C+; Inland Waterways D-; Ports C; Rail C+; Roads D; and Transit D. Public Facilities: Public Parks & Recreation C-; Schools D.
Energy: D+.
 
    This year's Report Card covers 16 infrastructure categories, and it's being released as a digital application (or app) that includes videos, interactive maps, and other multimedia tools. For the first time, the 2013 Report Card provides information for all 50 states, including examples of initiatives and innovations that are making a difference.
 
    U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV) commented saying his bill, S.387, the American Infrastructure Investment Fund Act, would help fill the investment $1.6 trillion funding gap identified by ASCE. He said, "The fact that our transportation infrastructure is still crumbling should surprise none of my colleagues. We have continued to push off the tough choices we need to make. The government can't meet these vast needs alone. We need to look for responsible ways to partner public funds with private investments. My infrastructure fund would encourage private investment by leveraging federal dollars and plug the funding shortfall that exists because our current funding levels are severely inadequate. I will continue working with my colleagues to develop an approach that maximizes the return on our public and private investments."
 
    Commenting on the report, U.S. Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), Ranking Member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, commented on the ASCE report and renewed calls for Congress to craft a robust surface transportation bill that provides the investments necessary to tackle the well documented backlog of highway, bridge, and transit infrastructure needs. He said, "While Republicans may hope that if they simply say we are going to 'do more with less' enough times it will magically make it so, today's report provides the cold hard truth that America's economic recovery and long-term competitiveness will suffer if we continue to under invest  in our future. The report paints a disturbing picture of how America's small businesses and middle class family incomes will be affected by our Nation's deteriorating surface transportation systems. Slashing investments by one third, as Republicans have proposed to do, will make the economic impact on America's middle class even worse than the grim predictions by the economists in this report." He indicated that the ASCE report found that America's crumbling surface transportation infrastructure will cost the economy more than 877,000 jobs.    
 
    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Senior Vice President of Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse said, "This report really makes clear that we're at a crossroads. From a manufacturing perspective we have a very clear choice a head of us. We have a choice as a country, which way do we want to go. Other countries are rapidly investing in new infrastructure projects and the U.S. will only continue to fall further behind and our global competitiveness will pay the price. Countries and governments are saying I want what America has. I'm going to make investments to take away their economic leadership."
 
    Former Pennsylvania Governor and Co-Chair of Building America's Future, Ed Rendell, who spoke at the press conference, indicated that the World Economic Forum's annual Global Competitiveness report which ranked the U.S. in first place in infrastructure in 2005, but by 2012 he said, "we had fallen to 14th in the world. It is a disgrace that in the richest country in the world we have allowed our infrastructure to virtually crumble from lack of investment."   
 
    Access a release from ASCE (click here). Access the 2013 ASCE Report Card including grades, state information, videos and interactive charts and links to the apps (click here). Access a release from Sen. Rockefeller with more information on S.387 (click here). Access a release from Rep. Rahall (click here). Access a blog post on the press conference from NAM (click here). Access legislative details for S.387 (click here). [#All, #MIAll]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals
Posted by JPMcJ at 3/20/2013 03:15:00 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Possible 80% Petro Reduction For Light-Duty Vehicles By 2050

Mar 18: The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) issued a report -- Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels -- that finds by the year 2050, the U.S. may be able to reduce petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent for light-duty vehicles -- cars and small trucks -- via a combination of more efficient vehicles; the use of alternative fuels like biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen; and strong government policies to overcome high costs and influence consumer choices. While achieving these goals will be difficult, improving technologies driven by strong and effective policies could make deep reductions possible.
 
The report comes immediately following President Obama's call for a $2 billion over 10 years Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies as the "only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices, the only way to break that cycle for good is to shift our cars entirely -- our cars and trucks -- off oil." He said the funding would "support research into a range of cost-effective technologies -- like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, fuel cells, and domestically produced natural gas. . ." [See WIMS 3/18/13].

 

    Douglas Chapin, principal of MPR Associates, and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "To reach the 2050 goals for reducing petroleum use and greenhouse gases, vehicles must become dramatically more efficient, regardless of how they are powered. In addition, alternative fuels to petroleum must be readily available, cost-effective and produced with low emissions of greenhouse gases. Such a transition will be costly and require several decades. The committee's model calculations, while exploratory and highly uncertain, indicate that the benefits of making the transition, i.e. energy cost savings, improved vehicle technologies, and reductions in petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions, exceed the additional costs of the transition over and above what the market is willing to do voluntarily."

 

    The report indicates that improving the efficiency of conventional vehicles is, up to a point, the most economical and easiest-to-implement approach to saving fuel and lowering emissions. This approach includes reducing work the engine must perform -- reducing vehicle weight, aerodynamic resistance, rolling resistance, and accessories -- plus improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine powertrain.

 

    Improved efficiency alone will not meet the 2050 goals, however. The average fuel economy of vehicles on the road would have to exceed 180 mpg, which, the report says, is extremely unlikely with current technologies. Therefore, the study committee also considered other alternatives for vehicles and fuels, including:

  • hybrid electric vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius;
  • plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt;
  • battery electric vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf;
  • hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, such as the Mercedes F-Cell, scheduled to be introduced about 2014; and
  • compressed natural gas vehicles, such as the Honda Civic Natural Gas.

    The report indicates that although driving costs per mile will be lower, especially for vehicles powered by natural gas or electricity, the high initial purchase cost is likely to be a significant barrier to widespread consumer acceptance. All the vehicles considered are and will continue to be several thousand dollars more expensive than today's conventional vehicles. Additionally, particularly in the early years, the report predicts that alternative vehicles will likely be limited to a few body styles and sizes; some will rely on fuels that are not readily available or have restricted travel range; and others may require bulky energy storage that will limit their cargo and passenger capacity. Wide consumer acceptance is essential, however, and large numbers of alternative vehicles must be purchased long before 2050 if the on-road fleet is to meet desired performance goals. Strong policies and technology advances are critical in overcoming this challenge.

 

    The report identified several scenarios that could meet the more demanding 2050 greenhouse gas goal. Each combines highly efficient vehicles with at least one of three alternative power sources -- biofuel, electricity, or hydrogen. Natural gas vehicles were considered, but their greenhouse gas emissions are too high for the 2050 goal. However, if the costs of these vehicles can be reduced and appropriate refueling infrastructure created, they have great potential for reducing petroleum consumption. 

     

    While corn-grain ethanol and biodiesel are the only biofuels to have been produced in commercial quantities in the U.S. to date, the study committee found much greater potential in biofuels made from lignocellulosic biomass -- which includes crop residues like wheat straw, switchgrass, whole trees, and wood waste. This "drop-in" fuel is designed to be a direct replacement for gasoline and could lead to large reductions in both petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions; it can also be introduced without major changes in fuel delivery infrastructure or vehicles. The report finds that sufficient lignocellulosic biomass could be produced by 2050 to meet the goal of an 80 percent reduction in petroleum use when combined with highly efficient vehicles. 

 

    Vehicles powered by electricity will not emit any greenhouse gases, but the production of electricity and the additional load on the electric power grid are factors that must be considered. To the extent that fossil resources are used to generate electricity, the report indicates that the successful implementation of carbon capture and storage will be essential. The vehicles also rely on batteries, which are projected to drop steeply in price.  However, the report indicates that limited range and long recharge times are likely to limit the use of all-electric vehicles mainly to local driving. Advanced battery technologies under development all face serious technical challenges.

 

    When hydrogen is used as a fuel cell in electric vehicles, the only vehicle emission is water. However, varying amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted during hydrogen production, and the low-greenhouse gas methods of making hydrogen are more expensive and will need further development to become competitive. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could become less costly than the advanced internal combustion engine vehicles of 2050. Fuel cell vehicles are not subject to the limitations of battery vehicles, but developing a hydrogen infrastructure in concert with a growing number of fuel cell vehicles will be difficult and expensive.

 

    The technology advances required to meet the 2050 goals are challenging and not assured. Nevertheless, the committee considers that dramatic cost reduction and overall performance enhancement is possible without unpredictable technology breakthroughs. Achieving these goals requires that the improved technology focus on reducing fuel use rather than adding greater power or weight. 

 

    The report indicates that it is impossible to know which technologies will ultimately succeed, because all involve uncertainty.  The best approach, therefore, is to promote a portfolio of vehicle and fuel research and development, supported by both government and industry, designed to solve the critical challenges in each major candidate technology. Such primary research efforts need continuing evaluation of progress against performance goals to determine which technologies, fuels, designs, and production methods are emerging as the most promising and cost-effective.

 

    Overcoming the barriers to advanced vehicles and fuels will require a rigorous policy framework that is more stringent than the proposed fuel economy standards for 2025. This policy intervention could include high and increasing fuel economy standards, R&D support, subsidies, and public information programs aimed at improving consumers' familiarity with the new fuels and powertrains. Because of the high level of uncertainty in the pace and scale of technology advances, this framework should be modified as technologies develop and as conditions change. The report says it is essential that policies promoting particular technologies to the public are not introduced before these new fuels and vehicle technologies are close to market readiness, and consumer behavior toward them is well understood. The report warns that forcing a technology into the market should be undertaken only when the benefits of the proposed support justify its costs.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the 186-page report, executive summary and related information (click here). Access a fact sheet on the President's proposal (click here). [#Energy/Fuels, #Climate, #Transport]

 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals
Posted by JPMcJ at 3/19/2013 05:13:00 PM 0 comments

Monday, March 18, 2013

President Calls For New Clean Energy Security Trust

Mar 15: On Friday afternoon, President Obama delivered a speech at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois, connecting the dots between the American economy, jobs and energy policy. He said, "I'm here today to talk about what should be our top priority as a nation, and that's reigniting the true engine of America's economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class and an economy built on innovation. . . So I chose Argonne National Lab because right now, few areas hold more promise for creating good jobs and growing our economy than how we use American energy. . ." He continued:
"After years of talking about it, we're finally poised to take control of our energy future. We produce more oil than we have in 15 years. We import less oil than we have in 20 years. We've doubled the amount of renewable energy that we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good jobs to show for it. We're producing more natural gas than we ever have before -- with hundreds of thousands of good jobs to show for it.  We supported the first new nuclear power plant in America since the 1970s. And we're sending less carbon pollution into the environment than we have in nearly 20 years. . .
 
"So think about this: Just a few years ago, the American auto industry was flat-lining.  Today, thanks in part to discoveries made right here at Argonne, some of the most high-tech, fuel-efficient, pretty spiffy cars in the world are once again designed, engineered and built here in the United States. And that's why we have to keep investing in scientific research. . .
 
"We can't afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races forward. We have to seize these opportunities.  I want the next great job-creating breakthroughs -- whether it's in energy or nanotechnology or bioengineering -- I want those breakthroughs to be right here in the United States of America, creating American jobs and maintaining our technological lead. . .
 
"So we're making progress, but the only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices, the only way to break that cycle for good is to shift our cars entirely -- our cars and trucks -- off oil. That's why, in my State of the Union address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal. Now, I'd like to take credit for this idea because it's a good idea, but I can't. Basically, my proposal builds off a proposal that was put forward by a non-partisan coalition that includes retired generals and admirals and leading CEOs.  And these leaders came together around a simple idea -- much of our energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So what they've proposed is let's take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public so we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit.
 
"So these leaders all say we need to fix this.  This is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. This is just a smart idea. And we should be taking their advice. Let's set up an Energy Security Trust that helps us free our families and our businesses from painful spikes in gas once and for all. Let's do that.  We can do it. We've done it before. . ."
        The White House released a fact sheet on what it called, "President Obama's Blueprint for a Clean and Secure Energy Future." The fact sheet indicates that the Obama Administration is calling on Congress to establish a new Energy Security Trust, which is designed to invest in breakthrough research that will make the technologies of the future cheaper and better -- technologies that will protect American families from spikes in gas prices and allow us to run our cars and trucks on electricity or homegrown fuels.
 
    The proposal would set aside $2 billion over 10 years and will support research into a range of cost-effective technologies -- like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, fuel cells, and domestically produced natural gas. The mandatory funds would be set aside from royalty revenues generated by oil and gas development in Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), already included in the administration's five year plan. These revenues are projected to increase over the next several years based on a combination of leasing, production, and price trends, with additional revenues potentially generated as a result of reforms being proposed in the FY 2014 Budget. The Administration says the Trust is paid for within the context of the overall budget.
 
    The fact sheet indicates that, "President Obama is committed to an 'all-of-the-above' approach that develops all American energy sources in a safe and responsible way and builds a clean and secure energy future." The President's Plan: Challenges Americans to double renewable electricity generation again by 2020; Directs the Interior Department to make energy project permitting more robust; Commits to safer production and cleaner electricity from natural gas; and supports a responsible nuclear waste strategy. The Plan also sets a goal to "cut net oil imports in half by the end of the decade" and commits to partnering with the private sector to "adopt natural gas and other alternative fuels in the Nation's trucking fleet."
 
    Additionally, the Plan establishes a new goal to double American energy productivity by 2030 including a "Energy Efficiency Race to the Top challenge"; Challenges States to Cut Energy Waste and Support Energy Efficiency and Modernize the Grid; Commits to build on the success of existing partnerships with the public and private sector to use energy wisely; and, Calls for sustained investments in technologies that promote maximum productivity of energy use and reduce waste.
 
    Finally, the Plan includes an international agenda that: Leads efforts through the Clean Energy Ministerial and other fora to promote energy efficiency and the development and deployment of clean energy; Works through the G20 and other fora toward the global phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies; Promotes safe and responsible oil and natural gas development; Updates our international capabilities to strengthen energy security; and Supports American nuclear exports.
 
    The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) both commented. Rep. Smith said, "The President wants more money to fund more pet projects, but it is clear that his administration has not been responsible with the taxpayer dollars that have already been spent.  As we have seen time and again, much of this spending is duplicative and wasteful. We need to better prioritize federal spending. Federal dollars should be focused on research and development, not picking winners and losers, which is a role better left to the private sector." 

    Rep. Lummis said, "As Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee and co-chair of the Congressional Western Caucus, I have long advocated for unleashing the energy potential of the American West.  A recent report by the Institute for Energy research found that opening new areas on and offshore to energy production could yield the Federal government an additional $24 billion annually and help supply Americans with abundant and affordable domestic energy.  It is extremely disappointing that the President's proposal—which clearly recognizes the revenue potential of these vast resources—does not intend to open up any new lands to expanded production." 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) Group Director for Upstream & Industry Operations Erik Milito issued a brief comment saying, "Eighty-three percent of federal lands and waters are still off limits to oil and natural gas development. By failing to unlock new areas for energy production, the president's plan misses a golden opportunity to create jobs and generate billions of dollars in government revenue."
 
    Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, issued a statement on the Plan saying, "Today, President Obama proposed a robust and compelling plan for furthering research into technologies that will help break our nation's dangerous dependence on oil. In addition to helping the U.S. lead the way on clean technology, these investments will also create new jobs, lower energy costs, and reduce the amount of dangerous carbon pollution that is wreaking havoc on our climate. "While we applaud the President for proposing new investments in clean transportation innovations such as advanced battery technology for electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells and alternative fuels, we urge him to focus on these clean technologies rather than fossil fuel options like natural gas vehicles. If the President is truly serious about moving beyond fossil fuels and fighting the climate crisis, natural gas is not the answer. The Sierra Club strongly opposes opening up new land to destructive drilling and fracking, as has been proposed in Illinois. The President should instead go all in on electric vehicles and clean energy sources like wind and solar, while boosting common sense climate solutions like energy efficiency."
 
    Environment America issued a release calling the President's Plan a "dirty plan for clean energy." They said, "President Obama's proposal promises to save the United States from its dependence on oil by deepening its dependence on oil. Today's plan fails to directly confront the key question on oil and transportation policy: Are we building a future in which we use more oil, or are we building a future in which we use less? Instead of promoting policies that trap us in a catch-22, President Obama should reject more drilling, reject the Keystone XL pipeline, and find sustainable sources of funding for clean energy research."   
 
    Access the full text of the President's Argonne speech (click here). Access the complete fact sheet with further details on all of the above items (click here). Access a release from the Republican leaders on the House Science Committee (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Environment America (click here). [#Energy]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals
Posted by JPMcJ at 3/18/2013 03:25:00 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)