Jun 27: In a statement to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on the mark up of energy policy legislation, Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) said, "We should set ambitious goals and targets for that legislation. It should stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that will avoid or avert large-scale climate change consequences. That will require a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions of between 60, and perhaps as much as 80, percent by 2050." While the Senate was debating its comprehensive energy bill on the Senate Floor last week [See WIMS 6/22/07], one of Dingell's Subcommittees was debating a set of Committee prints addressing energy efficiency standards, a smart electricity grid, loan guarantees for innovative energy technologies, renewable fuels infrastructure incentives, and advanced battery and plug-in hybrid vehicle promotion [See WIMS 6/19/07]. The prints are now being considered by the full Committee this week, beginning June 27, and subsequent days if necessary. The Committee will consider six Committee prints related to energy legislation that were approved by the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Dingell also indicated that issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal-to-liquids, and a renewable portfolio standard have been left out of the base text and although members may wish to offer amendments on those subjects, he recommended that those issues be addressed in the fall in the context of comprehensive climate change legislation. He said, "We will have to examine the future of coal and the role of nuclear power. We will need to get beyond the stale debate over miles per gallon. We should be talking about the lifetime carbon footprint of vehicles, about the carbon content of fuels, about the promotion of renewable fuels and advanced batteries and other technologies. We will need to discuss the role of carbon sinks and sequestration, as well as land use policies. "
He concluded saying, "We should leave as few of these issues to bureaucratic discretion as possible. It is the job of the Congress, and of this Committee, to make tough calls – as we did in writing the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. This will allow us to distribute the burdens fairly – and there will be burdens. But let’s accept that, and also accept our own responsibility: to create a secure future for our country and our world, one that preserves economic opportunity and our natural environment."
Access the complete statement from Representative Dingell (click here). Access links to the Committee prints and section-by-section explanations (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Home Builders & EPA Prevail In Supreme Ct. CWA/ESA Ruling
Jun 25: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a split 5-4 decision, has decided two consolidated cases -- National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (No. 06-340) and Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife et al. (No. 06–549). The majority decision is in favor of the arguments of U.S. EPA and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). The cases were on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and involve competing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Judge Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, joined. Justice Stevens, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion.
As explained by the majority, these cases concern the interplay between two Federal environmental statutes. Section 402(b) of the CWA requires that U.S. EPA transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 provides that a Federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." The question presented is whether §7(a)(2) effectively operates as a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned. The majority opinion said, "We conclude that it does not. The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities -- who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes -- was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
Under Federal law, a state may take over the CWA pollution permitting program in its state from the Federal EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards. The case concerned Arizona’s application to run the CWA program in Arizona. In its August 22, 2005, 2-1 split opinion [See WIMS 8/29/05] the Ninth Circuit had said the case, "...largely boils down to consideration of one fundamental issue: Does the Endangered Species Act authorize -- indeed, require -- the EPA to consider the impact on endangered and threatened species and their habitat when it decides whether to transfer water pollution permitting authority to state governments?" The Ninth Circuit ruled that, EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise," and said EPA’s decision was "arbitrary and capricious."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens indicates, "These cases present a problem of conflicting 'shalls...' When faced with competing statutory mandates, it is our duty to give full effect to both if at all possible... The Court [majority opinion] fails at this task. Its opinion unsuccessfully tries to reconcile the CWA and ESA by relying on a federal regulation... which it reads as limiting the reach of §7(a)(2) to only discretionary federal actions... Not only is this reading inconsistent with the text and history of §402.03, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the ESA itself."
In a release, NAHB President Brian Catalde said, “This decision recognizes that we must always maintain a balance when we look at environmental regulations. We can’t say that the Endangered Species Act is an ‘uber-statute’ that should slow down regulatory decisions under the Clean Water Act even as we recognize that both laws concern issues that are vital to preserving this earth for the next generation. This decision also tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping to preserve housing affordability by striking down efforts at unnecessary, duplicative regulation. Congress created the Clean Water Act to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution. But it’s the Clean Water Act, not the Arid Desert Act. There is no logic to twisting a program designed to protect the waters of the United States to give special considerations to species that have no relation to that water.”
In a statement from Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife he said the decision limits, "...the obligation of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize imperiled species. The majority held that the Endangered Species Act’s duty to consult applies only to discretionary actions. Today’s decision, while unfortunate, should apply only to a very narrow category of actions by federal agencies -- actions compelled by the terms of another federal law -- and should not be read as a broad abrogation of the authority of the Endangered Species Act. We are very disappointed with the majority’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, which we think ignores the clear intention of Congress when they enacted the Endangered Species Act. The Act was intended by Congress as a clear, independent mandate for all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or destroy their critical habitat."
Access the Supreme Court decision, the Syllabus and the dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the complete Ninth Circuit opinion (click here). Access a release from NAHB (click here). Access a release from Defenders (click here). [*Water, *Wildlife]
As explained by the majority, these cases concern the interplay between two Federal environmental statutes. Section 402(b) of the CWA requires that U.S. EPA transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 provides that a Federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." The question presented is whether §7(a)(2) effectively operates as a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned. The majority opinion said, "We conclude that it does not. The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities -- who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes -- was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
Under Federal law, a state may take over the CWA pollution permitting program in its state from the Federal EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards. The case concerned Arizona’s application to run the CWA program in Arizona. In its August 22, 2005, 2-1 split opinion [See WIMS 8/29/05] the Ninth Circuit had said the case, "...largely boils down to consideration of one fundamental issue: Does the Endangered Species Act authorize -- indeed, require -- the EPA to consider the impact on endangered and threatened species and their habitat when it decides whether to transfer water pollution permitting authority to state governments?" The Ninth Circuit ruled that, EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise," and said EPA’s decision was "arbitrary and capricious."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens indicates, "These cases present a problem of conflicting 'shalls...' When faced with competing statutory mandates, it is our duty to give full effect to both if at all possible... The Court [majority opinion] fails at this task. Its opinion unsuccessfully tries to reconcile the CWA and ESA by relying on a federal regulation... which it reads as limiting the reach of §7(a)(2) to only discretionary federal actions... Not only is this reading inconsistent with the text and history of §402.03, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the ESA itself."
In a release, NAHB President Brian Catalde said, “This decision recognizes that we must always maintain a balance when we look at environmental regulations. We can’t say that the Endangered Species Act is an ‘uber-statute’ that should slow down regulatory decisions under the Clean Water Act even as we recognize that both laws concern issues that are vital to preserving this earth for the next generation. This decision also tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping to preserve housing affordability by striking down efforts at unnecessary, duplicative regulation. Congress created the Clean Water Act to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution. But it’s the Clean Water Act, not the Arid Desert Act. There is no logic to twisting a program designed to protect the waters of the United States to give special considerations to species that have no relation to that water.”
In a statement from Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife he said the decision limits, "...the obligation of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize imperiled species. The majority held that the Endangered Species Act’s duty to consult applies only to discretionary actions. Today’s decision, while unfortunate, should apply only to a very narrow category of actions by federal agencies -- actions compelled by the terms of another federal law -- and should not be read as a broad abrogation of the authority of the Endangered Species Act. We are very disappointed with the majority’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, which we think ignores the clear intention of Congress when they enacted the Endangered Species Act. The Act was intended by Congress as a clear, independent mandate for all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or destroy their critical habitat."
Access the Supreme Court decision, the Syllabus and the dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the complete Ninth Circuit opinion (click here). Access a release from NAHB (click here). Access a release from Defenders (click here). [*Water, *Wildlife]
Friday, June 22, 2007
Senate Passes Energy Bill: CAFE Yes; Taxes No; RPS No
By a vote of 65-27 (7 not voting) the U.S. Senate passed the Senate version of H.R. 6, the National Energy and Environmental Security Act of 2007. On its passage, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) issued a statement saying, “Tonight’s vote was a victory for the American people. This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation’s use of renewable fuels and, for the first time in decades, significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. We are saving consumers money, protecting them from gas price-gouging, creating new jobs and making our country safer -- all while taking steps to reduce global warming. It is unfortunate that in passing this bill the Administration and most Senate Republicans blocked an effort to require more of our nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources as well as incentives to spur the production of more renewable fuels right here in America."
The Democrats major accomplishment was the inclusion of a last minute compromise on CAFE standards that will require an increase from 25-35 mpg by 2020. While the bill contains many other items of importance including a requirement for 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, gasoline price-gouging provisions, various grant and loan programs, carbon dioxide sequestration testing; the hotly debated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was not included and the major $32 billion tax package for energy investment was defeated by three votes.
The big win for Democrats was the compromise on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) gas mileage standards. The Senate approved, by voice vote, the bipartisan compromise to increase fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. The compromise legislation, offered by Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Thomas Carper (D-DL), was endorsed by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Kerry (D-MA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Larry Craig (R-ID). According to a release from Senator Feinstein the measure will save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil saved per day by 2025 -- nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.
According to a summary from Feinstein, the compromise gives automakers the time and flexibility needed to meet these new fuel economy standards. It would requires the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine vehicle fuel economy based on their attributes, such as size or weight. Each class of vehicles – as determined by NHTSA – would be required to meet the new fuel economy standard for that particular class to achieve the fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This means that each automaker will no longer be required to average the fuel economy for the entire fleet of cars they produce. This creates a level playing field for all automakers. From 2011 to 2019, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up, making steady progress, to meet the 2020 target of 35 miles per gallon. In 2020, the total average must meet 35 miles per gallon, unless NHTSA determines -- based on clear and convincing evidence -- that the achievement of the 35 miles per gallon standard would not be cost-effective for the nation. From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up at a "reasonable rate."
The national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as advocated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) [See WIMS 6/14/07], that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2022, was defeated in a procedural slight of hand. As reported by insiders, because the Senate invoked cloture on the Energy Bill, lawmakers could not introduce an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard because it would not be germane to the base bill.
According to Marchant Wentworth, Washington representative for the Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Despite majority support in the Senate, a small group of senators mugged the latest effort to pass a national renewable electricity standard. They didn't take a vote, there's no record of who actually killed the initiative, so there is no accountability to the American people - who overwhelmingly support a strong standard.
On the defeat of the $32 billion tax investment package (Baucus Amdt. No. 1704), Senator Reid said, "...Republicans continue to pander to the big oil and energy companies. In voting against tax incentives that would spur investment in renewable fuels, clean-coal technology and energy-efficient vehicles, not to mention consumer incentives for buying green products and cars, the Grand Oil Party has sided yet again with the industry that fills Republican campaign coffers as those same oil companies drill deeper into Americas’ pockets." The amendment was defeated when it failed by three votes to gain the necessary 60 votes in a cloture vote.
U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled his tax incentive package for developing clean energy on June 15, which he indicated would provide various tax incentives for developing clean and green power, alternative vehicles and biofuels, and clean coal technologies. The $32.1 billion cost was to be "fully offset, in part by changes to tax laws concerning major oil and gas companies."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) sent a letter to all members of the U.S. Senate prior to the final vote, urging them to vote against the Reid substitute to H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, to oppose all procedural motions to end debate on the bill and specifically to oppose the Baucus amendment (#1704) that would hike taxes on the oil and gas industry. Jay Timmons, NAM Senior Vice President for Policy said, “Adequate, affordable and reliable energy supplies are essential to the growth of the U.S. economy and especially vital to U.S. manufacturers who use one-third of our energy. Unfortunately, we believe this legislation has progressively worsened and is now beyond repair.”
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), the trade association representing BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen; did not comment directly on the CAFE compromise, but had supported an alternative proposal advanced by Senators Pryon-Bond-Levin-Voinovich and others that would have required a 36 mpg requirement for "passenger cars". They said, "manufacturers understand the need for CAFE reform, and want to be part of the solution to meeting our energy needs. A 36 mpg passenger car standard is a tough standard. This is a floor with no loopholes. While tough on the industry, this bipartisan bill protects consumer choice by maintaining the distinction between passenger cars and light trucks, and acknowledging the key attributes that separate these two types of vehicles." They said the original H.R. 6 proposal was a "wildly extreme measure" and would have required all passenger cars and light trucks to ultimately average "an unattainable 52 mpg."
Access releases from Senator Reid on overall passage (click here); and the tax-cut package (click here). Access the vote details on final passage (click here). Access legislative voting details on all amendments (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access a detailed release from Senator Feinstein on the CAFE compromise (click here). Access a release from the UCS on the defeat of the RPS standard (click here). Access a summary of the Baucus tax package (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from AAM on the alternative CAFE proposal (click here). [*Energy]
The Democrats major accomplishment was the inclusion of a last minute compromise on CAFE standards that will require an increase from 25-35 mpg by 2020. While the bill contains many other items of importance including a requirement for 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, gasoline price-gouging provisions, various grant and loan programs, carbon dioxide sequestration testing; the hotly debated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was not included and the major $32 billion tax package for energy investment was defeated by three votes.
The big win for Democrats was the compromise on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) gas mileage standards. The Senate approved, by voice vote, the bipartisan compromise to increase fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. The compromise legislation, offered by Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Thomas Carper (D-DL), was endorsed by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Kerry (D-MA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Larry Craig (R-ID). According to a release from Senator Feinstein the measure will save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil saved per day by 2025 -- nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.
According to a summary from Feinstein, the compromise gives automakers the time and flexibility needed to meet these new fuel economy standards. It would requires the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine vehicle fuel economy based on their attributes, such as size or weight. Each class of vehicles – as determined by NHTSA – would be required to meet the new fuel economy standard for that particular class to achieve the fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This means that each automaker will no longer be required to average the fuel economy for the entire fleet of cars they produce. This creates a level playing field for all automakers. From 2011 to 2019, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up, making steady progress, to meet the 2020 target of 35 miles per gallon. In 2020, the total average must meet 35 miles per gallon, unless NHTSA determines -- based on clear and convincing evidence -- that the achievement of the 35 miles per gallon standard would not be cost-effective for the nation. From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up at a "reasonable rate."
The national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as advocated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) [See WIMS 6/14/07], that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2022, was defeated in a procedural slight of hand. As reported by insiders, because the Senate invoked cloture on the Energy Bill, lawmakers could not introduce an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard because it would not be germane to the base bill.
According to Marchant Wentworth, Washington representative for the Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Despite majority support in the Senate, a small group of senators mugged the latest effort to pass a national renewable electricity standard. They didn't take a vote, there's no record of who actually killed the initiative, so there is no accountability to the American people - who overwhelmingly support a strong standard.
On the defeat of the $32 billion tax investment package (Baucus Amdt. No. 1704), Senator Reid said, "...Republicans continue to pander to the big oil and energy companies. In voting against tax incentives that would spur investment in renewable fuels, clean-coal technology and energy-efficient vehicles, not to mention consumer incentives for buying green products and cars, the Grand Oil Party has sided yet again with the industry that fills Republican campaign coffers as those same oil companies drill deeper into Americas’ pockets." The amendment was defeated when it failed by three votes to gain the necessary 60 votes in a cloture vote.
U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled his tax incentive package for developing clean energy on June 15, which he indicated would provide various tax incentives for developing clean and green power, alternative vehicles and biofuels, and clean coal technologies. The $32.1 billion cost was to be "fully offset, in part by changes to tax laws concerning major oil and gas companies."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) sent a letter to all members of the U.S. Senate prior to the final vote, urging them to vote against the Reid substitute to H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, to oppose all procedural motions to end debate on the bill and specifically to oppose the Baucus amendment (#1704) that would hike taxes on the oil and gas industry. Jay Timmons, NAM Senior Vice President for Policy said, “Adequate, affordable and reliable energy supplies are essential to the growth of the U.S. economy and especially vital to U.S. manufacturers who use one-third of our energy. Unfortunately, we believe this legislation has progressively worsened and is now beyond repair.”
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), the trade association representing BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen; did not comment directly on the CAFE compromise, but had supported an alternative proposal advanced by Senators Pryon-Bond-Levin-Voinovich and others that would have required a 36 mpg requirement for "passenger cars". They said, "manufacturers understand the need for CAFE reform, and want to be part of the solution to meeting our energy needs. A 36 mpg passenger car standard is a tough standard. This is a floor with no loopholes. While tough on the industry, this bipartisan bill protects consumer choice by maintaining the distinction between passenger cars and light trucks, and acknowledging the key attributes that separate these two types of vehicles." They said the original H.R. 6 proposal was a "wildly extreme measure" and would have required all passenger cars and light trucks to ultimately average "an unattainable 52 mpg."
Access releases from Senator Reid on overall passage (click here); and the tax-cut package (click here). Access the vote details on final passage (click here). Access legislative voting details on all amendments (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access a detailed release from Senator Feinstein on the CAFE compromise (click here). Access a release from the UCS on the defeat of the RPS standard (click here). Access a summary of the Baucus tax package (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from AAM on the alternative CAFE proposal (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, June 21, 2007
EPA Proposes Tighter NAAQS Standards For Ozone
Jun 21: U.S. EPA is proposing to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997. The proposal is based on the most recent scientific evidence about the health effects of ozone -- the primary component of smog. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "Advances in science are leading to cleaner skies and healthier lives. America's science is progressing and our air quality is improving. By strengthening the ozone standard, EPA is keeping our clean air momentum moving into the future."
The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm. The Agency will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings. The hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on August 30, and in Chicago and Houston on September 5.
EPA says that since 1980, ozone levels have dropped 21 percent nationwide as the Agency, states and local governments have worked together to continue to improve the nation's air. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created through a reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of these ozone precursors.
EPA also is proposing to revise the "secondary" standard for ozone to improve protection for plants, trees and crops during the growing season. The secondary standard is based on scientific evidence indicating that exposure to even low levels of ozone can damage vegetation. EPA is proposing two alternatives for this standard: a standard that would be identical to the "primary" standard to protect public health; and a cumulative standard aimed at protecting vegetation during the growing season.
EPA is estimating the health benefits of meeting a range of alternative ozone standards based on published scientific studies and the opinion of outside experts. These findings will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks, which will include both the estimated costs and benefits. EPA projects that health benefits of the proposed standard could be in the billions of dollars. However, EPA does not consider costs in setting ozone standards.
The American Lung Association (ALA) said it was pleased that the EPA is calling for tighter standards and it was "a step toward cleaner air;" however, the organization said, "the agency’s plan falls short of the goal recommended by its own scientific experts [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel, See WIMS 10/25/07]. We are particularly concerned that the EPA has left the door open to choosing options that are simply not acceptable. We have reason to be concerned... Under today’s proposal, the EPA could tighten the smog standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb), a clear improvement, but far short of the 60 to 70 ppb unanimously recommended by the scientists after they conducted an extensive review of the evidence. Alarmingly, the new EPA plan leaves the door wide open to an option the American Lung Association considers unacceptable: Making no improvements in the standards at all by retaining the current standard."
The United States Chamber of Commerce said, “It would be ludicrous for EPA to revise any NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards], let alone the standards for ozone, without first considering the impact of these extraterritorial emissions.” The Chamber made the comment in a release that applauded the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP), which released a draft interim study finding that emissions from foreign nations constitute a significant share of the background ozone levels; which they said would make it "very difficult for localities to meet the new more restrictive standards being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." The Chamber's vice president for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Bill Kovacs said, “This confirms what the Chamber has been saying for years: emissions from China, India, Mexico, and Africa don’t just disappear—they come to the United States.” The Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Executive Body created the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollutants.
The Chamber said that lowering the current standard of 84 ppb to either 70 ppb or 60 ppb, as recommended by the Science Advisory Board, would double, or even triple, the number of U.S. counties in non-attainment. They said the economic consequences of non-attainment are serious -- "non-attainment counties can lose federal highway and transit funding; restrictive permit requirements deter companies from building new plants or modifying existing ones; and mandated federal pollution control measures inhibit business expansion as local plans for economic development are put on hold."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access EPA's 2007 Proposed Revisions to Ground-Level Ozone Standards website with links to background information, a fact sheet, the Proposed Rule and Tech Support Documents (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the HTAP recently revised executive summary (click here). Access the draft chapters of the 2007 interim report for review and discussion at a May HTAP Task Force Meeting (click here). Access the HTAP website (click here). Access additional information on the LRTAP (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel website for their review documents (click here). [*Air]
The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm. The Agency will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings. The hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on August 30, and in Chicago and Houston on September 5.
EPA says that since 1980, ozone levels have dropped 21 percent nationwide as the Agency, states and local governments have worked together to continue to improve the nation's air. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created through a reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of these ozone precursors.
EPA also is proposing to revise the "secondary" standard for ozone to improve protection for plants, trees and crops during the growing season. The secondary standard is based on scientific evidence indicating that exposure to even low levels of ozone can damage vegetation. EPA is proposing two alternatives for this standard: a standard that would be identical to the "primary" standard to protect public health; and a cumulative standard aimed at protecting vegetation during the growing season.
EPA is estimating the health benefits of meeting a range of alternative ozone standards based on published scientific studies and the opinion of outside experts. These findings will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks, which will include both the estimated costs and benefits. EPA projects that health benefits of the proposed standard could be in the billions of dollars. However, EPA does not consider costs in setting ozone standards.
The American Lung Association (ALA) said it was pleased that the EPA is calling for tighter standards and it was "a step toward cleaner air;" however, the organization said, "the agency’s plan falls short of the goal recommended by its own scientific experts [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel, See WIMS 10/25/07]. We are particularly concerned that the EPA has left the door open to choosing options that are simply not acceptable. We have reason to be concerned... Under today’s proposal, the EPA could tighten the smog standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb), a clear improvement, but far short of the 60 to 70 ppb unanimously recommended by the scientists after they conducted an extensive review of the evidence. Alarmingly, the new EPA plan leaves the door wide open to an option the American Lung Association considers unacceptable: Making no improvements in the standards at all by retaining the current standard."
The United States Chamber of Commerce said, “It would be ludicrous for EPA to revise any NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards], let alone the standards for ozone, without first considering the impact of these extraterritorial emissions.” The Chamber made the comment in a release that applauded the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP), which released a draft interim study finding that emissions from foreign nations constitute a significant share of the background ozone levels; which they said would make it "very difficult for localities to meet the new more restrictive standards being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." The Chamber's vice president for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Bill Kovacs said, “This confirms what the Chamber has been saying for years: emissions from China, India, Mexico, and Africa don’t just disappear—they come to the United States.” The Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Executive Body created the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollutants.
The Chamber said that lowering the current standard of 84 ppb to either 70 ppb or 60 ppb, as recommended by the Science Advisory Board, would double, or even triple, the number of U.S. counties in non-attainment. They said the economic consequences of non-attainment are serious -- "non-attainment counties can lose federal highway and transit funding; restrictive permit requirements deter companies from building new plants or modifying existing ones; and mandated federal pollution control measures inhibit business expansion as local plans for economic development are put on hold."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access EPA's 2007 Proposed Revisions to Ground-Level Ozone Standards website with links to background information, a fact sheet, the Proposed Rule and Tech Support Documents (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the HTAP recently revised executive summary (click here). Access the draft chapters of the 2007 interim report for review and discussion at a May HTAP Task Force Meeting (click here). Access the HTAP website (click here). Access additional information on the LRTAP (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel website for their review documents (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
New Farm Bill Blog To Track Congressional Debate
Jun 19: A leading Farm Bill reform expert, Environmental Defense Farm Policy Campaign Director Scott Faber, launched a blog called, “The Ruminant” to respond to rapidly changing developments in the debate over congressional renewal of the Farm Bill this summer. Faber has testified before Congress on the issue and been quoted in many news outlets.
Faber’s blog launch coincides with a vote by the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management about whether to increase depression-era farm subsidies that help few farmers and violate international trade agreements. Specifically, the Subcommittee is expected to approve a hike in target prices for wheat, soybeans, oats and barley. Faber says, “As a result, most farm spending would continue to flow to a handful of farmers in a handful of districts -- farmers in just 19 congressional districts would continue to collect more than half of all farm spending. In fact, eight of the top ten congressional districts collecting about one-third of all farm spending between 2003 and 2005 are represented by legislators who serve on the Committee."
Environmental Defense is a member of left-right alliance of groups that support Farm Bill reform proposals to provide more funding for voluntary conservation programs that reward farmers who offer to meet our environmental challenges, such as providing clean air, clean water, clean energy, and wildlife habitat. The group says, "Unlike subsidies, conservation payments flow to all farmers, ranchers and landowners regardless of what they grow, how much they grow or where they grow it. As a result of inadequate conservation funding of the current Farm Bill that took effect in 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now turns away two out of three farmers who are eligible for conservation payments."
A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (219 members) have cosponsored legislation endorsed by Environmental Defense that would dramatically increase funding for voluntary conservation programs in the Farm Bill. These bills include The Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuels Act (H.R. 1551/S.919), EAT Healthy America Act (H.R. 1600), Chesapeake's Healthy and Environmentally Sound Stewardship of Energy and Agriculture Act (H.R. 1766/S.1346), Farm, Nutrition, and Community Investment Act (H.R. 2144), NOURISH Act (H.R. 2401) and FARM 21 Act (H.R. 2720/S. 1422).
In a related matter Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns issued a release regarding Farm Bill legislation advanced by House Subcommittees and said, "I am disappointed in the Title I legislation put forth today by the House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. The bill fails to recognize the need for greater equity and predictability in farm policy, and does nothing to provide a more responsive safety net... The House draft also fails to bring greater equity to farm policy. Some farmers would continue to receive guaranteed money while others, including 60% of farmers, are left out. Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported... The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the Administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion. The House draft offers no mandatory funding in an area Congress itself has identified as a top priority - renewable energy, while the Administration proposes more than $1.6 billion in new renewable energy funding, targeted to cellulosic ethanol projects..."
Access a release on the new Blog (click here). Access The Ruminant Blog (click here). Access ED's Farm Bill reform website for additional information (click here). Access a release from Secretary Johanns (click here). Access the latest information on the House Farm bill development from the Agricultural Committee website (click here). [*Land, *Water, *Agriculture]
Faber’s blog launch coincides with a vote by the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management about whether to increase depression-era farm subsidies that help few farmers and violate international trade agreements. Specifically, the Subcommittee is expected to approve a hike in target prices for wheat, soybeans, oats and barley. Faber says, “As a result, most farm spending would continue to flow to a handful of farmers in a handful of districts -- farmers in just 19 congressional districts would continue to collect more than half of all farm spending. In fact, eight of the top ten congressional districts collecting about one-third of all farm spending between 2003 and 2005 are represented by legislators who serve on the Committee."
Environmental Defense is a member of left-right alliance of groups that support Farm Bill reform proposals to provide more funding for voluntary conservation programs that reward farmers who offer to meet our environmental challenges, such as providing clean air, clean water, clean energy, and wildlife habitat. The group says, "Unlike subsidies, conservation payments flow to all farmers, ranchers and landowners regardless of what they grow, how much they grow or where they grow it. As a result of inadequate conservation funding of the current Farm Bill that took effect in 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now turns away two out of three farmers who are eligible for conservation payments."
A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (219 members) have cosponsored legislation endorsed by Environmental Defense that would dramatically increase funding for voluntary conservation programs in the Farm Bill. These bills include The Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuels Act (H.R. 1551/S.919), EAT Healthy America Act (H.R. 1600), Chesapeake's Healthy and Environmentally Sound Stewardship of Energy and Agriculture Act (H.R. 1766/S.1346), Farm, Nutrition, and Community Investment Act (H.R. 2144), NOURISH Act (H.R. 2401) and FARM 21 Act (H.R. 2720/S. 1422).
In a related matter Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns issued a release regarding Farm Bill legislation advanced by House Subcommittees and said, "I am disappointed in the Title I legislation put forth today by the House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. The bill fails to recognize the need for greater equity and predictability in farm policy, and does nothing to provide a more responsive safety net... The House draft also fails to bring greater equity to farm policy. Some farmers would continue to receive guaranteed money while others, including 60% of farmers, are left out. Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported... The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the Administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion. The House draft offers no mandatory funding in an area Congress itself has identified as a top priority - renewable energy, while the Administration proposes more than $1.6 billion in new renewable energy funding, targeted to cellulosic ethanol projects..."
Access a release on the new Blog (click here). Access The Ruminant Blog (click here). Access ED's Farm Bill reform website for additional information (click here). Access a release from Secretary Johanns (click here). Access the latest information on the House Farm bill development from the Agricultural Committee website (click here). [*Land, *Water, *Agriculture]
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
House Energy Legislation In Development Next 2 Weeks
Jun 18: Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Rick Boucher (D-VA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality have issued a memo to members of the Committee regarding a set of Committee prints addressing energy efficiency standards, a smart electricity grid, loan guarantees for innovative energy technologies, renewable fuels infrastructure incentives, and advanced battery and plug-in hybrid vehicle promotion. The prints will form the basis for markup of energy legislation in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality this week and in the full Committee next week.
The memo notes that a number of the more controversial issues such as coal-to-liquids, fuel economy standards, a low carbon fuel standard, various mandates, and the role of Federal and State programs, are not included in the set of prints but will be taken up with comprehensive climate change legislation in the fall.
According to the memo, "This procedure for considering energy legislation at this time was discussed with the Speaker, and she understands the rationale for proceeding this way so that we can rapidly complete work on a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law. As we see in Senate consideration of energy legislation [See WIMS 6/14/07], many of these issues are complex and difficult, and it is our desire to avoid unnecessary delays in passing legislation that can accomplish much good. For example, the energy efficiency provisions of the Committee prints, when fully enacted, will remove from the atmosphere carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to those emitted from all cars currently on the road, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and the Alliance to Save Energy. This does not even count any savings from the smart grid or other provisions included in the prints."
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and a Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a statement in response to the announcement by Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher. Markey said, “I welcome Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher’s decision to back down from several controversial provisions in their draft energy legislation that would have taken our nation in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to energy independence and global warming.
“The original discussion draft would have overturned the Supreme Court’s decision on Massachusetts vs. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07] regarding regulation of CO2 emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes. It would have pre-empted California from adopting their own stronger standards, thereby blocking other states from adopting the California standard. It would have put in place weak fuel economy standards for cars and trucks [that] are insufficient in meeting the challenge our nation faces from its increasing dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. And finally, it would have increased emissions of carbon dioxide pollutants by promoting coal-to-liquids fuels. There was broad opposition to these provisions, from Governors, the Attorneys General, and the environmental and public interest community. Twelve Democratic members of the committee, including me, all opposed the draft, as did Speaker Pelosi [See WIMS 6/8/07, subscribers only]. A bill with these provisions in it was clearly not going to become law."
Access the memo (click here). Access the Committee prints and a section-by-section explanation of the prints (click here). Access the complete release from Representative Markey (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
The memo notes that a number of the more controversial issues such as coal-to-liquids, fuel economy standards, a low carbon fuel standard, various mandates, and the role of Federal and State programs, are not included in the set of prints but will be taken up with comprehensive climate change legislation in the fall.
According to the memo, "This procedure for considering energy legislation at this time was discussed with the Speaker, and she understands the rationale for proceeding this way so that we can rapidly complete work on a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law. As we see in Senate consideration of energy legislation [See WIMS 6/14/07], many of these issues are complex and difficult, and it is our desire to avoid unnecessary delays in passing legislation that can accomplish much good. For example, the energy efficiency provisions of the Committee prints, when fully enacted, will remove from the atmosphere carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to those emitted from all cars currently on the road, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and the Alliance to Save Energy. This does not even count any savings from the smart grid or other provisions included in the prints."
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and a Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released a statement in response to the announcement by Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher. Markey said, “I welcome Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher’s decision to back down from several controversial provisions in their draft energy legislation that would have taken our nation in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to energy independence and global warming.
“The original discussion draft would have overturned the Supreme Court’s decision on Massachusetts vs. EPA [See WIMS 4/2/07] regarding regulation of CO2 emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes. It would have pre-empted California from adopting their own stronger standards, thereby blocking other states from adopting the California standard. It would have put in place weak fuel economy standards for cars and trucks [that] are insufficient in meeting the challenge our nation faces from its increasing dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. And finally, it would have increased emissions of carbon dioxide pollutants by promoting coal-to-liquids fuels. There was broad opposition to these provisions, from Governors, the Attorneys General, and the environmental and public interest community. Twelve Democratic members of the committee, including me, all opposed the draft, as did Speaker Pelosi [See WIMS 6/8/07, subscribers only]. A bill with these provisions in it was clearly not going to become law."
Access the memo (click here). Access the Committee prints and a section-by-section explanation of the prints (click here). Access the complete release from Representative Markey (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, June 18, 2007
Report Finds Agreements On Nuclear Power Issues
Jun 14: The Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse – and perhaps surprising – group of stakeholders on the risks and benefits of nuclear power as they relate to climate change, safety and security, economics, waste, reprocessing and proliferation. The Joint Fact-Finding on Nuclear Power reports conclusions from 27 participants associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. The group met from September 2006 through May 2007 and agreed on several critical issues, including: Climate Change; Economics; Safety and Security; Waste; Reprocessing; Proliferation; and The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
Financial Support for the project came from American Electric Power, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy Corporation, Exelon, Florida Power & Light, General Electric, National Commission on Energy Policy, Nuclear Energy Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Southern Company.
Some of the groups involved included: Union of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Nuclear Energy Institute; National Wildlife Federation; Maine Department of Environmental Protection; Duke Power; GE Energy; Entergy Corp.; American Electric Power; George Mason University; and others.
For example, on the issue of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership the report concludes, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." On the highly controversial issue of nuclear waste management, the report says: "Spent nuclear fuel must ultimately be placed in long-term disposal facilities. The best disposal option is deep underground geologic repositories, and suitable environments exist in the U.S. and the world. There is little confidence that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain will meet its already delayed schedule. Given this experience, the search for a second or an alternative site would benefit from a different approach. Until an operating repository is available, older spent fuel can be stored safely and securely, on-site. Centralized interim storage is a reasonable alternative for managing waste from decommissioned plant sites."
On the subject of Climate Change, the report indicates: "We considered hypothetical scenarios for nuclear expansion in order to better understand what role nuclear power might play in mitigating global climate change. In order to achieve a 25 gigatonne carbon reduction from nuclear power over 50 years (a Pacala/Socolow “wedge”), the nuclear industry would need to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past and sustain this growth rate. This projection is more ambitious than indicated by current announcements of proposed plant construction, and the group reached no consensus about the likely rate of expansion. In a carbon-constrained world, the relative economics of nuclear power will improve."
Mike Hughes, vice president of The Keystone Center said, “We congratulate the group for what it accomplished over many months of constructive work on these extraordinarily complex issues. The debate about nuclear power has endured for decades, and is not likely to disappear soon. However, this group has found agreement on a number of critical issues, and has significantly narrowed differences on others, which should help Congress, the administration, and the public as they consider the future of nuclear power in this country.”
The Keystone Center is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1975 to help facilitate cross-sector dialogues on pressing environmental, energy, and public health issues. The Keystone Center does not take positions or advocate particular points of view. Instead, it convenes meetings on issues and facilitates practical, consensus-based solutions that break old logjams or that avert unnecessary future disputes over science and public policy.
Access a release listing all 27 stakeholder participants (click here). Access links to an executive summary, briefing announcement, audio clips, and related information (click here). Access the 108-page final report (click here). Access the Keystone Center website (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Financial Support for the project came from American Electric Power, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, Entergy Corporation, Exelon, Florida Power & Light, General Electric, National Commission on Energy Policy, Nuclear Energy Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Southern Company.
Some of the groups involved included: Union of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task Force; Nuclear Energy Institute; National Wildlife Federation; Maine Department of Environmental Protection; Duke Power; GE Energy; Entergy Corp.; American Electric Power; George Mason University; and others.
For example, on the issue of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership the report concludes, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." On the highly controversial issue of nuclear waste management, the report says: "Spent nuclear fuel must ultimately be placed in long-term disposal facilities. The best disposal option is deep underground geologic repositories, and suitable environments exist in the U.S. and the world. There is little confidence that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain will meet its already delayed schedule. Given this experience, the search for a second or an alternative site would benefit from a different approach. Until an operating repository is available, older spent fuel can be stored safely and securely, on-site. Centralized interim storage is a reasonable alternative for managing waste from decommissioned plant sites."
On the subject of Climate Change, the report indicates: "We considered hypothetical scenarios for nuclear expansion in order to better understand what role nuclear power might play in mitigating global climate change. In order to achieve a 25 gigatonne carbon reduction from nuclear power over 50 years (a Pacala/Socolow “wedge”), the nuclear industry would need to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past and sustain this growth rate. This projection is more ambitious than indicated by current announcements of proposed plant construction, and the group reached no consensus about the likely rate of expansion. In a carbon-constrained world, the relative economics of nuclear power will improve."
Mike Hughes, vice president of The Keystone Center said, “We congratulate the group for what it accomplished over many months of constructive work on these extraordinarily complex issues. The debate about nuclear power has endured for decades, and is not likely to disappear soon. However, this group has found agreement on a number of critical issues, and has significantly narrowed differences on others, which should help Congress, the administration, and the public as they consider the future of nuclear power in this country.”
The Keystone Center is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1975 to help facilitate cross-sector dialogues on pressing environmental, energy, and public health issues. The Keystone Center does not take positions or advocate particular points of view. Instead, it convenes meetings on issues and facilitates practical, consensus-based solutions that break old logjams or that avert unnecessary future disputes over science and public policy.
Access a release listing all 27 stakeholder participants (click here). Access links to an executive summary, briefing announcement, audio clips, and related information (click here). Access the 108-page final report (click here). Access the Keystone Center website (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Friday, June 15, 2007
NAS Report Calls For New Approach To Toxicity Testing
Jun 14: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) says that recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans. The report -- Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy -- outlines a new approach that would rely less heavily on animal studies and instead focus on in vitro methods that evaluate chemicals' effects on biological processes using cells, cell lines, or cellular components, preferably of human origin. The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinized, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing.
Today, researchers typically test the safety of commercial chemicals, pesticides, and other substances by administering large doses to groups of animals and observing them for symptoms of disease; these tests inform decisions about whether and how to regulate the chemicals' use. But how relevant the animal tests are for humans, usually exposed at much lower doses, has often been called into question. Moreover, the current approach is time-consuming and costly, resulting in an overburdened system that leaves many chemicals untested, despite potential human exposure to them, the report observes. Recognizing these limitations, the U.S. EPA -- which oversees the testing of many agricultural, commercial, and industrial chemicals -- asked the Research Council to develop a new approach and strategy for toxicity testing.
The report recommends an approach that would take advantage of rapidly evolving scientific understanding of how genes, proteins, and small molecules interact to maintain normal cell function and how some of these interactions can be perturbed in ways that could lead to health problems. Specifically, the new testing approach would focus on toxicity pathways -- cellular pathways that, when sufficiently perturbed, are expected to lead to adverse health effects. The committee recommends the use of "high-throughput assays" -- rapid, automated experiments that can test hundreds or thousands of chemicals over a wide range of concentrations -- to evaluate chemicals' effects on these toxicity pathways. On the basis of data from these and other experiments, researchers could develop models to describe responses in toxicity pathways, and other models to estimate the human exposure necessary to produce responses in these pathways.
According to the report, over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced, and possibly even eliminated someday. For the foreseeable future, however, targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal. Studies observing human populations will be needed to provide information on human susceptibility and "background" exposures to chemicals that people face every day, so that results of the in vitro tests can be properly interpreted. These population studies may also reveal health risks not previously identified through toxicity testing. In addition, human exposure data can be used to select doses for toxicity testing, so that the tests generate information on biological effects at environmentally relevant exposures. By comparing human exposure data with concentrations that cause biologically significant alterations in toxicity pathways, researchers can identify potentially harmful exposures.
The report acknowledges that current toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors. But it emphasizes that the proposed changes will generate better data on the potential risks humans face from environmental agents, building a stronger scientific foundation that can improve regulatory decisions to mitigate those risks, and reducing the time, money, and animals needed for testing. Implementing the strategy envisioned by the committee will require a substantial research effort to develop and validate all of the new approach's components. A critical factor for success is the creation of an institution that fosters multidisciplinary research. If the research is dispersed among different locations and organizations without a core organizing institute to enable communication and problem-solving across disciplines, there will be less chance of success within a reasonable time frame.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 25-page executive summary and related information (click here). [*Toxics]
Today, researchers typically test the safety of commercial chemicals, pesticides, and other substances by administering large doses to groups of animals and observing them for symptoms of disease; these tests inform decisions about whether and how to regulate the chemicals' use. But how relevant the animal tests are for humans, usually exposed at much lower doses, has often been called into question. Moreover, the current approach is time-consuming and costly, resulting in an overburdened system that leaves many chemicals untested, despite potential human exposure to them, the report observes. Recognizing these limitations, the U.S. EPA -- which oversees the testing of many agricultural, commercial, and industrial chemicals -- asked the Research Council to develop a new approach and strategy for toxicity testing.
The report recommends an approach that would take advantage of rapidly evolving scientific understanding of how genes, proteins, and small molecules interact to maintain normal cell function and how some of these interactions can be perturbed in ways that could lead to health problems. Specifically, the new testing approach would focus on toxicity pathways -- cellular pathways that, when sufficiently perturbed, are expected to lead to adverse health effects. The committee recommends the use of "high-throughput assays" -- rapid, automated experiments that can test hundreds or thousands of chemicals over a wide range of concentrations -- to evaluate chemicals' effects on these toxicity pathways. On the basis of data from these and other experiments, researchers could develop models to describe responses in toxicity pathways, and other models to estimate the human exposure necessary to produce responses in these pathways.
According to the report, over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced, and possibly even eliminated someday. For the foreseeable future, however, targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal. Studies observing human populations will be needed to provide information on human susceptibility and "background" exposures to chemicals that people face every day, so that results of the in vitro tests can be properly interpreted. These population studies may also reveal health risks not previously identified through toxicity testing. In addition, human exposure data can be used to select doses for toxicity testing, so that the tests generate information on biological effects at environmentally relevant exposures. By comparing human exposure data with concentrations that cause biologically significant alterations in toxicity pathways, researchers can identify potentially harmful exposures.
The report acknowledges that current toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained in some sectors. But it emphasizes that the proposed changes will generate better data on the potential risks humans face from environmental agents, building a stronger scientific foundation that can improve regulatory decisions to mitigate those risks, and reducing the time, money, and animals needed for testing. Implementing the strategy envisioned by the committee will require a substantial research effort to develop and validate all of the new approach's components. A critical factor for success is the creation of an institution that fosters multidisciplinary research. If the research is dispersed among different locations and organizations without a core organizing institute to enable communication and problem-solving across disciplines, there will be less chance of success within a reasonable time frame.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 25-page executive summary and related information (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard Debate
Jun 13: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, released a letter to all Senators who are now debating on the Senate Floor a comprehensive energy bill -- S. 1419, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 [Previously passed House version is H.R. 6]. The letter indicates the Chamber's strong opposition to and urges a no vote on "an amendment expected to be offered by Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to establish a Federally mandated renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to S. 1419." The Chamber reminds Senators in the letter that it "may consider votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard."
The letter indicates, "The Chamber understands such legislation will require utilities to generate at least 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, or else purchase credits from the federal government or other companies. A mandatory RPS could raise electricity prices for all consumers, result in a wealth transfer among states, and impose new burdens on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid."
The Chamber further indicates, "The amendment’s one-size-fits-all mandate fails to take into account two critical factors: (1) the U.S. is made up of fifty individual states, not all of which possess enough renewable power capability to meet a 15 percent RPS; and (2) the 20 states able to meet this standard have already implemented renewable power programs on their own. A federal RPS will force those states lacking adequate renewable resources to purchase credits from the federal government -- essentially a direct tax on electricity used by businesses and other consumers, driving up energy costs, and hurting economic growth. Moreover, the federal mandate will undercut and/or preempt existing programs in the states that have imposed their own RPS... renewable generation sufficient to meet an unrealistic 15-percent mandatory federal requirement is neither cost-effective nor achievable nationwide."
The Chambers opposition echoes announced opposition also by Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). On June 11, On June 11, Domenici announced that Florida had joined what he called a "growing chorus of states and utilities to speak out against a federal renewable portfolio standard." He said, "A one-size-fits-all RPS is the wrong approach. It unfairly punishes states in the southeast -- and the citizens that live in them..." He said he would offer a "Clean Portfolio Standard (CPS) amendment" that will include what he said would be "more clean energy resources like nuclear, hydropower and efficiency standards, in an effort to bring more states into the fold and reduce our emissions.”
On June 12, Senator Bingaman issued a release saying he had "found the cure for the RPS blues!" Bingaman said, "Utility commissioners in the Southeast (and some lobbyists in Washington) are running a temperature about the prospects for a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS). They seem to be feeling under the weather because they think such a law would mean higher costs for consumers. This suspicion is supported by 'evidence' in a study commissioned by - surprise, surprise - the utility industry’s biggest trade association, the Edison Electric Institute..."
Bingaman released what he called the "cure" which he said "puts in context any overheated allegations that a national renewable portfolio standard would harm consumers." He announced the a new 29-page study, prepared by "experts" at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) entitled, Impacts of a 15 Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard. Bingaman indicates that a key finding of the EIA study is that, "The increased use of renewable energy in a national RPS leads to only slightly higher electricity expenditures (0.5 percent) by 2030 and lower coal and natural gas prices." He said, "So, if fear of renewables is the fever, EIA’s new analysis surely is the cure."
According to EIA, the specific 15% Bingaman RPS proposal which it analyzed would exempt smaller electricity providers – those with fewer than 4 billion kilowatthours in annual sales – from meeting the requirement, and would not allow current generation from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities to meet the requirement. However, retail sellers who generate from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities are allowed to exclude this generation from their sales base when calculating their required renewable share. The RPS would allow affected electricity providers to generate their own renewable energy or trade renewable energy credits to assure compliance. Compliance could also be achieved by purchasing credits from the government at an inflation-adjusted rate of 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit. Generation from distributed generators, represented by end-use photovoltaic installations in this analysis, would earn three credits for every kilowatthour of generation.
Some of the results of the EIA analysis included in an executive summary include:
The letter indicates, "The Chamber understands such legislation will require utilities to generate at least 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, or else purchase credits from the federal government or other companies. A mandatory RPS could raise electricity prices for all consumers, result in a wealth transfer among states, and impose new burdens on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid."
The Chamber further indicates, "The amendment’s one-size-fits-all mandate fails to take into account two critical factors: (1) the U.S. is made up of fifty individual states, not all of which possess enough renewable power capability to meet a 15 percent RPS; and (2) the 20 states able to meet this standard have already implemented renewable power programs on their own. A federal RPS will force those states lacking adequate renewable resources to purchase credits from the federal government -- essentially a direct tax on electricity used by businesses and other consumers, driving up energy costs, and hurting economic growth. Moreover, the federal mandate will undercut and/or preempt existing programs in the states that have imposed their own RPS... renewable generation sufficient to meet an unrealistic 15-percent mandatory federal requirement is neither cost-effective nor achievable nationwide."
The Chambers opposition echoes announced opposition also by Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). On June 11, On June 11, Domenici announced that Florida had joined what he called a "growing chorus of states and utilities to speak out against a federal renewable portfolio standard." He said, "A one-size-fits-all RPS is the wrong approach. It unfairly punishes states in the southeast -- and the citizens that live in them..." He said he would offer a "Clean Portfolio Standard (CPS) amendment" that will include what he said would be "more clean energy resources like nuclear, hydropower and efficiency standards, in an effort to bring more states into the fold and reduce our emissions.”
On June 12, Senator Bingaman issued a release saying he had "found the cure for the RPS blues!" Bingaman said, "Utility commissioners in the Southeast (and some lobbyists in Washington) are running a temperature about the prospects for a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS). They seem to be feeling under the weather because they think such a law would mean higher costs for consumers. This suspicion is supported by 'evidence' in a study commissioned by - surprise, surprise - the utility industry’s biggest trade association, the Edison Electric Institute..."
Bingaman released what he called the "cure" which he said "puts in context any overheated allegations that a national renewable portfolio standard would harm consumers." He announced the a new 29-page study, prepared by "experts" at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) entitled, Impacts of a 15 Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard. Bingaman indicates that a key finding of the EIA study is that, "The increased use of renewable energy in a national RPS leads to only slightly higher electricity expenditures (0.5 percent) by 2030 and lower coal and natural gas prices." He said, "So, if fear of renewables is the fever, EIA’s new analysis surely is the cure."
According to EIA, the specific 15% Bingaman RPS proposal which it analyzed would exempt smaller electricity providers – those with fewer than 4 billion kilowatthours in annual sales – from meeting the requirement, and would not allow current generation from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities to meet the requirement. However, retail sellers who generate from existing hydroelectric and municipal solid waste facilities are allowed to exclude this generation from their sales base when calculating their required renewable share. The RPS would allow affected electricity providers to generate their own renewable energy or trade renewable energy credits to assure compliance. Compliance could also be achieved by purchasing credits from the government at an inflation-adjusted rate of 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit. Generation from distributed generators, represented by end-use photovoltaic installations in this analysis, would earn three credits for every kilowatthour of generation.
Some of the results of the EIA analysis included in an executive summary include:
- The RPS leads to a large increase in biomass generation, which grows to almost 320 billion kilowatthours in 2030, triple the level in the reference case. Wind and photovoltaics also show significant increases in generation.
- By 2030, solar installations produce about 8 percent of qualifying renewable generation, but account for approximately 20 percent of the total credits held because of the triple credits awarded to distributed photovoltaics.
- The increased use of renewable sources in the RPS case leads to lower coal generation. Nuclear and natural gas generation are also lowered to a lesser degree.
- Relative to the reference case, retail electricity prices rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS case. Reduced demand for coal and natural gas in the RPS case results in slightly lower prices for these fuels by 2030 when compared to reference case projections.
- Compared with the reference case, end-use sector expenditures for electricity rise while end-use sector expenditures for natural gas fall. From 2005 through 2030, cumulative expenditures for electricity and natural gas by all end-use sectors taken together by all end-use sectors are $18 billion (0.3 percent) higher.
- Compared with the reference case, cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $7.2 billion (0.4 percent) higher, while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $1.0 billion (0.1 percent) lower.
- Total electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 222 million metric tons (6.7 percent) in 2030 relative to the reference case. Over the 2005 to 2030 period, cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 2,925 million metric tons (1.7 percent).
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Lester Brown Warns Senate Of Biofuels Blunder
Jun 13: Lester Brown, founder and President of the Earth Policy Institute has released a document entitled, Biofuels Blunder, subtitled, "Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain to Fuel Cars is Raising World Food Prices, Risking Political Instability." The document is presented as a briefing before U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair. Brown has been described as “one of the world’s most influential thinkers” and as “the guru of the global environmental movement.”
According to the document, "The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability.
"The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy...
"Already corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense heat and severe drought this summer in the Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory.
"The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas...
"Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank...
"The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising food prices drop their consumption below the survival level."
Brown says there are alternatives to this "grim scenario," and they are to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and a new automotive fuel economy centered on plug-in hybrid cars and wind energy.He concludes, "Ethanol euphoria is not an acceptable substitute for a carefully thought through policy. Do we really want to subsidize a rise in food prices?"
Access the complete briefing statement (click here). Access the Earth Policy Institute website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
According to the document, "The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability.
"The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy...
"Already corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense heat and severe drought this summer in the Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory.
"The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas...
"Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank...
"The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising food prices drop their consumption below the survival level."
Brown says there are alternatives to this "grim scenario," and they are to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and a new automotive fuel economy centered on plug-in hybrid cars and wind energy.He concludes, "Ethanol euphoria is not an acceptable substitute for a carefully thought through policy. Do we really want to subsidize a rise in food prices?"
Access the complete briefing statement (click here). Access the Earth Policy Institute website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Unanimous Supreme Ct Settles CERCLA Liability Issues
Jun 11: In a relatively brief, 11-page unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has decisively settled an important liability issue left open in a previous decision and which has been dealt with by three separate circuits. The case, U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (Docket: 06-0562), appealed by the U.S. from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of August 11, 2006 [See WIMS 8/14/06]. Oral arguments were held on April 23, 2007 [See WIMS 4/23/07].
The High Court succinctly summarizes its opinion saying, "Two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -- §§107(a) and 113(f) -- allow private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites. 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a), 9613(f). In this case, we must decide a question left open in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004): whether §107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(1)–(4), with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs. We hold that it does."
The High Court explains that after SARA’s [Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986] enactment, some Courts of Appeals believed it necessary to “direc[t]traffic between” §107(a) and §113(f). As a result, many Courts of Appeals held that §113(f) was the exclusive remedy for PRPs. But as courts prevented PRPs from suing under§107(a), they expanded §113(f) to allow PRPs to seek “contribution” even in the absence of a suit under §106 or §107(a). Aviall Servs., Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 312 F. 3d 677, 681 (CA5 2002) (en banc). In Cooper Industries, we held that a private party could seek contribution from other liable parties only after having been sued under §106 or §107(a). 543 U. S., at 161. The High Court said, "This narrower interpretation of §113(f) caused several Courts of Appeals to reconsider whether PRPs have rights under §107(a)(4)(B), an issue we declined to address in Cooper Industries. Id., at 168."
The Eighth Circuit opinion in Atlantic Research Corp agreed with a similar ruling in the Second Circuit decision in Consolidated Edison Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir. 2005]; however, those decisions were in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit in E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 460 F. 3d 515 (CA3 2006).
In brief review of the instant case, the High Court summarizes that Atlantic Research cleaned the site at its own expense and then sought to recover some of its costs by suing the United States under both §107(a) and §113(f). After our decision in Cooper Industries foreclosed relief under §113(f), Atlantic Research amended its complaint to seek relief under §107(a) and federal common law. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that §107(a) does not allow PRPs (such as Atlantic Research) to recover costs.The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on a case decided prior to our decision in Cooper Industries, Dico, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 340 F. 3d 525 (CA8 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.
The Supreme Court says, "The parties’ dispute centers on what 'other person[s]' may sue under §107(a)(4)(B). The Government argues that 'any other person' refers to any person not identified as a PRP in §§107(a)(1)–(4).2 In other words, subparagraph (B) permits suit only by non-PRPs and thus bars Atlantic Research’s claim. Atlantic Research counters that subparagraph (B) takes its cue from subparagraph (A), not the earlier paragraph (1)–(4). In accord with the Court of Appeals, Atlantic Research believes that subparagraph (B) provides a cause of action to anyone except the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe -- the persons listed in subparagraph (A). We agree with Atlantic Research... The Government’s interpretation makes little textual sense."
The Supreme Court summarizes the Government's arguments as follows: the Government maintains that our interpretation, by offering PRPs a choice between §107(a) and §113(f), effectively allows PRPs to circumvent §113(f)’s shorter statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Government argues, PRPs will eschew equitable apportionment under §113(f) in favor of joint and several liability under §107(a). Finally, the Government contends that our interpretation eviscerates the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2).
The High Court counters the three Government arguments and explains in some detail why "in the case of reimbursement, the PRP cannot choose the 6-year statute of limitations for cost-recovery actions over the shorter limitations period for §113(f) contribution claims." Likewise, the High Court says, "a PRP could not avoid §113(f)’s equitable distribution of reimbursement costs among PRPs by instead choosing to impose joint and several liability on another PRP in an action under §107(a). The choice of remedies simply does not exist. In any event, a defendant PRP in such a §107(a) suit could blunt any inequitable distribution of costs by filing a §113(f) counter-claim." And, finally the High Court says, "...permitting PRPs to seek recovery under §107(a) will not eviscerate the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2). That provision prohibits §113(f) contribution claims against '[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement . ..'”
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna hailed the decision as a victory for his State and explained why the decision is important to other states as well. McKenna said, "The Court’s decision ensures that many contaminated sites which might have been unaddressed for a significant time will be cleaned up. In Washington, more than 1,200 sites are listed on the state’s contaminated sites list. Of these, approximately 250 are in the process of being cleaned up by liable parties under the state’s formal oversight. Because the state does not have resources to address every known site in the state, the remaining sites will likely be addressed as voluntary cleanups. This means that a party who has liability for cleaning up the property will undertake the cleanup without any action by the federal or state government. The ability to obtain contribution to the costs of cleanup from other parties who have liability for a contaminated site is one of the key incentives for parties to perform these voluntary cleanups.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the U.S. Supreme Court Docket listing all amici curiae parties for the case (click here). Access a release from the Washington State AG (click here). Access a discussion of the opinion on the SCOTUS Blog (click here). [*Remed]
The High Court succinctly summarizes its opinion saying, "Two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -- §§107(a) and 113(f) -- allow private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites. 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a), 9613(f). In this case, we must decide a question left open in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004): whether §107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(1)–(4), with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs. We hold that it does."
The High Court explains that after SARA’s [Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986] enactment, some Courts of Appeals believed it necessary to “direc[t]traffic between” §107(a) and §113(f). As a result, many Courts of Appeals held that §113(f) was the exclusive remedy for PRPs. But as courts prevented PRPs from suing under§107(a), they expanded §113(f) to allow PRPs to seek “contribution” even in the absence of a suit under §106 or §107(a). Aviall Servs., Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 312 F. 3d 677, 681 (CA5 2002) (en banc). In Cooper Industries, we held that a private party could seek contribution from other liable parties only after having been sued under §106 or §107(a). 543 U. S., at 161. The High Court said, "This narrower interpretation of §113(f) caused several Courts of Appeals to reconsider whether PRPs have rights under §107(a)(4)(B), an issue we declined to address in Cooper Industries. Id., at 168."
The Eighth Circuit opinion in Atlantic Research Corp agreed with a similar ruling in the Second Circuit decision in Consolidated Edison Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir. 2005]; however, those decisions were in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit in E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 460 F. 3d 515 (CA3 2006).
In brief review of the instant case, the High Court summarizes that Atlantic Research cleaned the site at its own expense and then sought to recover some of its costs by suing the United States under both §107(a) and §113(f). After our decision in Cooper Industries foreclosed relief under §113(f), Atlantic Research amended its complaint to seek relief under §107(a) and federal common law. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that §107(a) does not allow PRPs (such as Atlantic Research) to recover costs.The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on a case decided prior to our decision in Cooper Industries, Dico, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 340 F. 3d 525 (CA8 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.
The Supreme Court says, "The parties’ dispute centers on what 'other person[s]' may sue under §107(a)(4)(B). The Government argues that 'any other person' refers to any person not identified as a PRP in §§107(a)(1)–(4).2 In other words, subparagraph (B) permits suit only by non-PRPs and thus bars Atlantic Research’s claim. Atlantic Research counters that subparagraph (B) takes its cue from subparagraph (A), not the earlier paragraph (1)–(4). In accord with the Court of Appeals, Atlantic Research believes that subparagraph (B) provides a cause of action to anyone except the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe -- the persons listed in subparagraph (A). We agree with Atlantic Research... The Government’s interpretation makes little textual sense."
The Supreme Court summarizes the Government's arguments as follows: the Government maintains that our interpretation, by offering PRPs a choice between §107(a) and §113(f), effectively allows PRPs to circumvent §113(f)’s shorter statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Government argues, PRPs will eschew equitable apportionment under §113(f) in favor of joint and several liability under §107(a). Finally, the Government contends that our interpretation eviscerates the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2).
The High Court counters the three Government arguments and explains in some detail why "in the case of reimbursement, the PRP cannot choose the 6-year statute of limitations for cost-recovery actions over the shorter limitations period for §113(f) contribution claims." Likewise, the High Court says, "a PRP could not avoid §113(f)’s equitable distribution of reimbursement costs among PRPs by instead choosing to impose joint and several liability on another PRP in an action under §107(a). The choice of remedies simply does not exist. In any event, a defendant PRP in such a §107(a) suit could blunt any inequitable distribution of costs by filing a §113(f) counter-claim." And, finally the High Court says, "...permitting PRPs to seek recovery under §107(a) will not eviscerate the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2). That provision prohibits §113(f) contribution claims against '[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement . ..'”
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna hailed the decision as a victory for his State and explained why the decision is important to other states as well. McKenna said, "The Court’s decision ensures that many contaminated sites which might have been unaddressed for a significant time will be cleaned up. In Washington, more than 1,200 sites are listed on the state’s contaminated sites list. Of these, approximately 250 are in the process of being cleaned up by liable parties under the state’s formal oversight. Because the state does not have resources to address every known site in the state, the remaining sites will likely be addressed as voluntary cleanups. This means that a party who has liability for cleaning up the property will undertake the cleanup without any action by the federal or state government. The ability to obtain contribution to the costs of cleanup from other parties who have liability for a contaminated site is one of the key incentives for parties to perform these voluntary cleanups.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the U.S. Supreme Court Docket listing all amici curiae parties for the case (click here). Access a release from the Washington State AG (click here). Access a discussion of the opinion on the SCOTUS Blog (click here). [*Remed]
Monday, June 11, 2007
Appeals Court Denies Rehearing Of South Coast Ozone Case
Jun 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 04-1200, 04-1201. The case, South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, involves five petitions for rehearing with regard to the vacatur and remand of a final rule implementing the eight-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA) [See Final Phase 1 Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, 69 Fed. Reg. 23,951 (Apr. 30, 2004) (codified at 40 C.F.R. parts 40, 51, 81) (2004 Rule)]. The petitions were filed by a group of Environmental Petitioners, the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge et al. (Baton Rouge), National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), American Chemistry Council et al. (ACC), and EPA.
According to the Appeals Court, the petitions overlap in part, challenging principally the court’s interpretation of the statutory gap, described in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that arises from the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change from a one-hour to an eight-hour measurement system for ozone, and the court’s construction of the CAA’s anti-backsliding provision. See S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) [See WIMS 1/02/07].
The Appeals Court said, "None of these challenges has merit and we deny the petitions. However, we grant the joint request of EPA and the Environmental Petitioners to clarify the description of the required conformity determinations and to modify the scope of the vacatur of the 2004 Rule."
Earthjustice represented a group of public health and environmental organizations including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club; that challenged the EPA rule and then subsequently defended the court's December decision that overturned the rule. In explaining the decision, Earthjustice said, "Today's decision reaffirms that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing limits on ozone, or smog pollution, from large power plants, factories and other industrial sources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the EPA and industry petitions for rehearing, and actually clarified in even stronger terms that weakening air protections is illegal under federal law. The court characterized the industry's desired readings of the law as a 'glaring loophole' that nothing suggests Congress intended." The Appeals Court said, "EPA is urged to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eight-hour standard, which was deemed necessary to protect the public health a decade ago."
Access the complete 8-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]
According to the Appeals Court, the petitions overlap in part, challenging principally the court’s interpretation of the statutory gap, described in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that arises from the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change from a one-hour to an eight-hour measurement system for ozone, and the court’s construction of the CAA’s anti-backsliding provision. See S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) [See WIMS 1/02/07].
The Appeals Court said, "None of these challenges has merit and we deny the petitions. However, we grant the joint request of EPA and the Environmental Petitioners to clarify the description of the required conformity determinations and to modify the scope of the vacatur of the 2004 Rule."
Earthjustice represented a group of public health and environmental organizations including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club; that challenged the EPA rule and then subsequently defended the court's December decision that overturned the rule. In explaining the decision, Earthjustice said, "Today's decision reaffirms that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing limits on ozone, or smog pollution, from large power plants, factories and other industrial sources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the EPA and industry petitions for rehearing, and actually clarified in even stronger terms that weakening air protections is illegal under federal law. The court characterized the industry's desired readings of the law as a 'glaring loophole' that nothing suggests Congress intended." The Appeals Court said, "EPA is urged to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eight-hour standard, which was deemed necessary to protect the public health a decade ago."
Access the complete 8-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]
Friday, June 08, 2007
Environmental Impacts Of The"Thirst for Corn"
Jun 7: A 10-page World Resources Institute (WRI) Policy Note entitled, Thirst for Corn: What 2007 Plantings Could Mean for the Environment, says that now that the ethanol industry has been jump-started by legislation, priorities should be directed less at the expansion of the industry and more at an evolution that offers the most benefits for the environment and energy security. The brief indicates that as a result, in large part from the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) -- legislative mandate for increased renewable fuels use that passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- the corn ethanol industry is expanding at an unprecedented rate in the United States.
The 115 ethanol plants operating in April 2007 have the capacity to produce 5.75 billion gallons per year (BGY) of ethanol, and an estimated 86 plants under construction are expected to produce an additional 6.34 BGY of capacity within the next 18 months. The cumulative total capacity -- more than 12 BGY by 2009 -- far exceeds the RFS blending mandate of 7.5 BGY by 2012, and has been the driving force behind skyrocketing corn prices in the last 12 months.
The brief points out, "Although ethanol is widely promoted as a green alternative to gasoline, there are many different ways to produce ethanol, using many different feedstocks, and some ways are greener than others. Production of the feedstock represents a significant share of the environmental footprint of ethanol production; to ensure sustainability of production, we need to pay close attention to the environmental impacts of producing those feedstocks and have policies in place to avoid or mitigate those impacts."
The brief provides a sophisticated analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ethanol production from corn. WRI uses a national scale agro-environmental production model, which integrates the Regional Environmental and Agricultural Production model (REAP) -- a national agricultural production model developed and maintained by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and formerly known as USMP -- with the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), a plant growth and environmental impact model. The combined model allows projections indicating how increased corn demand will translate into regional changes in crops grown, tillage practices used, and crop rotations employed, and to then estimate the net environmental impacts of those changes. To measure environmental impacts WRI looked specifically at agricultural GHG emissions, which are often under-represented in the dialogue about greenhouse gas reductions, as well as at nitrogen and phosphorus loads into local waterways and rates of soil erosion, which have been the focus of most existing and pilot agricultural conservation programs.
The baseline agricultural production scenario for our analysis uses the USDA’s 2006 projected baseline for 2007 crop production patterns and a baseline ethanol production level of 6 BGY. Relative to that scenario, we explore how 2007 planting patterns are likely to respond to meet projected corn demands for 2008 ethanol production levels ranging from the baseline of 6 BGY up to 11 BGY.
The analysis results suggest that meeting projected demands for ethanol will require a substantial reallocation of land to corn production and that the shift to corn production will have significant negative environmental impacts if we assume that existing production practices continue under the current policy framework. The results of that analysis for each land-supply scenario are summarized and described in more detail in the briefing report.
Access the 10-page analysis and recommendations (click here). [*Energy]
The 115 ethanol plants operating in April 2007 have the capacity to produce 5.75 billion gallons per year (BGY) of ethanol, and an estimated 86 plants under construction are expected to produce an additional 6.34 BGY of capacity within the next 18 months. The cumulative total capacity -- more than 12 BGY by 2009 -- far exceeds the RFS blending mandate of 7.5 BGY by 2012, and has been the driving force behind skyrocketing corn prices in the last 12 months.
The brief points out, "Although ethanol is widely promoted as a green alternative to gasoline, there are many different ways to produce ethanol, using many different feedstocks, and some ways are greener than others. Production of the feedstock represents a significant share of the environmental footprint of ethanol production; to ensure sustainability of production, we need to pay close attention to the environmental impacts of producing those feedstocks and have policies in place to avoid or mitigate those impacts."
The brief provides a sophisticated analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ethanol production from corn. WRI uses a national scale agro-environmental production model, which integrates the Regional Environmental and Agricultural Production model (REAP) -- a national agricultural production model developed and maintained by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and formerly known as USMP -- with the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), a plant growth and environmental impact model. The combined model allows projections indicating how increased corn demand will translate into regional changes in crops grown, tillage practices used, and crop rotations employed, and to then estimate the net environmental impacts of those changes. To measure environmental impacts WRI looked specifically at agricultural GHG emissions, which are often under-represented in the dialogue about greenhouse gas reductions, as well as at nitrogen and phosphorus loads into local waterways and rates of soil erosion, which have been the focus of most existing and pilot agricultural conservation programs.
The baseline agricultural production scenario for our analysis uses the USDA’s 2006 projected baseline for 2007 crop production patterns and a baseline ethanol production level of 6 BGY. Relative to that scenario, we explore how 2007 planting patterns are likely to respond to meet projected corn demands for 2008 ethanol production levels ranging from the baseline of 6 BGY up to 11 BGY.
The analysis results suggest that meeting projected demands for ethanol will require a substantial reallocation of land to corn production and that the shift to corn production will have significant negative environmental impacts if we assume that existing production practices continue under the current policy framework. The results of that analysis for each land-supply scenario are summarized and described in more detail in the briefing report.
Access the 10-page analysis and recommendations (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, June 07, 2007
G-8 Says GHG Must Stop Rising; Followed By Reductions
Jun 7: At the G-8 meeting being held in Heiligendamm, Germany from June 6-8, the member countries adopted a Summit Declaration that includes major provisions on climate change and energy efficiency and energy security. The forum brings together heads of state from the G-8 countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan) plus 5 countries (China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa), which together produce 75 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.The European Commission and United Nations are also represented at the meetings.
As part of the 38-page Summit Declaration document entitled, Growth and Responsibility In The World Economy, the G-8 countries addressed the issue of climate change by saying, "Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while avoiding economic distortions...
"We recognize the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction... we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year...
"Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies... we herewith strongly reaffirm our commitment to Global Energy Security Principles... Improving energy efficiency worldwide is the fastest, the most sustainable and the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and enhance energy security.
Noting the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the G-8 nations said,"We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavor...
"We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognize however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development."
The countries also agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change, and said they are committed "to moving forward" by participating in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007, "with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters." The declaration further details the countries' positions on Technology, Market Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions by Curbing Deforestation, Adapting to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and a major section on Energy Efficiency; where they indicated energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply. Under Energy Efficiency they agreed to principles on Sustainable Buildings, Transportation, Power Generation, and Energy Diversification.
Access the 38-page Summit Declaration (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access a June 6 press briefing including Jim Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality, with comments on the G-8 meeting (click here). Access links to various media reports on the G-8 climate change action (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
As part of the 38-page Summit Declaration document entitled, Growth and Responsibility In The World Economy, the G-8 countries addressed the issue of climate change by saying, "Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while avoiding economic distortions...
"We recognize the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction... we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year...
"Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies... we herewith strongly reaffirm our commitment to Global Energy Security Principles... Improving energy efficiency worldwide is the fastest, the most sustainable and the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and enhance energy security.
Noting the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the G-8 nations said,"We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavor...
"We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognize however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development."
The countries also agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change, and said they are committed "to moving forward" by participating in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007, "with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters." The declaration further details the countries' positions on Technology, Market Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions by Curbing Deforestation, Adapting to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and a major section on Energy Efficiency; where they indicated energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply. Under Energy Efficiency they agreed to principles on Sustainable Buildings, Transportation, Power Generation, and Energy Diversification.
Access the 38-page Summit Declaration (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access a June 6 press briefing including Jim Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality, with comments on the G-8 meeting (click here). Access links to various media reports on the G-8 climate change action (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Sediment Dredging Has Fallen Short of Achieving Cleanup Goals
Jun 5: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) indicates that at many projects to dredge contaminated sediments from U.S. rivers and other bodies of water, it has not been demonstrated that dredging has reduced the long-term risks the sediments pose to people and wildlife. Many dredging projects have had difficulty meeting short-term goals for reducing pollution levels. Whether dredging alone can reduce long-term risks was difficult to determine at many sites because of inadequate monitoring data and other limitations. The report, Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites: Assessing the Effectiveness, calls on the U.S. EPA to improve and intensify its monitoring at dredging and other projects intended to remediate contaminated sediments at the nation's Superfund sites.
The report concludes that dredging's ability to achieve cleanup goals depends on a site's characteristics. If a particular site has one or more unfavorable conditions -- the presence of debris such as boulders or cables, for example, or bedrock lying beneath the contaminated sediment -- then dredging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The presence or absence of such conditions should be a major consideration in deciding whether to dredge at a site.
Contaminated sediments can be found at the bottoms of many U.S. rivers and other water bodies near former mining, agricultural, or industrial sites. Tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, or other toxic substances, the sediments can pose risks to people, fish, and aquatic animals. Many of these sites are slated for cleanup by EPA under Federal Superfund legislation, and a minimum of 14 of them are sediment "megasites" -- sites where the cost of remediating sediments is expected to reach at least $50 million, or has already done so. Decisions about whether to dredge at these sites have proved controversial, so Congress asked the Research Council to evaluate the method's effectiveness. To inform its conclusions, the committee examined 26 dredging projects, five of them at megasites, and evaluated whether they had attained their cleanup and risk-reduction goals.
The report indicates that dredging is effective at removing contaminated sediment mass permanently from the environment. But removing mass may not be enough to achieve desired cleanup levels or long-term goals for reducing risks, because dredging inevitably leaves residual contamination behind. Dredging alone achieved expected cleanup results at only a few of the sites the committee analyzed. At many others, capping -- placing a layer of uncontaminated material over the tainted sediments -- was also necessary to contain the remaining contamination at acceptable levels. Assessments of the sites also revealed that the dredging process releases contaminants into the water, which in the short term can have adverse effects on fish and other aquatic animals and could potentially raise health risks in people who consume them.
Dredging remains one of the few approaches available for cleaning up contaminated sediments, and EPA should continue to consider its use among other methods. In locations where buried contaminated sediments could be dislodged by storms, for example, dredging the sediments to prevent them from being transported may reduce risks. If dredging is used, planners need to recognize that residual contamination and releases of chemicals into the water will invariably occur; they should estimate the effects of these processes in advance, and employ best practices to minimize them. Using a combination of methods should also be considered, particularly if a site has any characteristics unfavorable to dredging.
The report also says that the typical Superfund approach, in which EPA conducts an investigation and a feasibility study that establishes a single path to remediation, is not the best way to choose remedies for these sites. Given the long time frames and many unknowns involved in cleaning up megasites, adaptive management -- which uses monitoring data to review progress and adjust plans when needed -- should be used to select and implement cleanup methods. In addition, dredging and other remediation projects should be designed to meet long-term goals for reducing risks to people and wildlife, instead of objectives not directly related to risk, such as removing a specified amount of sediment. The report emphasizes that without adequate monitoring before and after dredging, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which cleanup objectives have been reached. EPA should invest in better and more consistent measurement tools to monitor conditions in the field reliably and efficiently.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 27-page summary and a 4-page report in brief (click here). [*Remed, *Water]
The report concludes that dredging's ability to achieve cleanup goals depends on a site's characteristics. If a particular site has one or more unfavorable conditions -- the presence of debris such as boulders or cables, for example, or bedrock lying beneath the contaminated sediment -- then dredging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The presence or absence of such conditions should be a major consideration in deciding whether to dredge at a site.
Contaminated sediments can be found at the bottoms of many U.S. rivers and other water bodies near former mining, agricultural, or industrial sites. Tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, or other toxic substances, the sediments can pose risks to people, fish, and aquatic animals. Many of these sites are slated for cleanup by EPA under Federal Superfund legislation, and a minimum of 14 of them are sediment "megasites" -- sites where the cost of remediating sediments is expected to reach at least $50 million, or has already done so. Decisions about whether to dredge at these sites have proved controversial, so Congress asked the Research Council to evaluate the method's effectiveness. To inform its conclusions, the committee examined 26 dredging projects, five of them at megasites, and evaluated whether they had attained their cleanup and risk-reduction goals.
The report indicates that dredging is effective at removing contaminated sediment mass permanently from the environment. But removing mass may not be enough to achieve desired cleanup levels or long-term goals for reducing risks, because dredging inevitably leaves residual contamination behind. Dredging alone achieved expected cleanup results at only a few of the sites the committee analyzed. At many others, capping -- placing a layer of uncontaminated material over the tainted sediments -- was also necessary to contain the remaining contamination at acceptable levels. Assessments of the sites also revealed that the dredging process releases contaminants into the water, which in the short term can have adverse effects on fish and other aquatic animals and could potentially raise health risks in people who consume them.
Dredging remains one of the few approaches available for cleaning up contaminated sediments, and EPA should continue to consider its use among other methods. In locations where buried contaminated sediments could be dislodged by storms, for example, dredging the sediments to prevent them from being transported may reduce risks. If dredging is used, planners need to recognize that residual contamination and releases of chemicals into the water will invariably occur; they should estimate the effects of these processes in advance, and employ best practices to minimize them. Using a combination of methods should also be considered, particularly if a site has any characteristics unfavorable to dredging.
The report also says that the typical Superfund approach, in which EPA conducts an investigation and a feasibility study that establishes a single path to remediation, is not the best way to choose remedies for these sites. Given the long time frames and many unknowns involved in cleaning up megasites, adaptive management -- which uses monitoring data to review progress and adjust plans when needed -- should be used to select and implement cleanup methods. In addition, dredging and other remediation projects should be designed to meet long-term goals for reducing risks to people and wildlife, instead of objectives not directly related to risk, such as removing a specified amount of sediment. The report emphasizes that without adequate monitoring before and after dredging, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which cleanup objectives have been reached. EPA should invest in better and more consistent measurement tools to monitor conditions in the field reliably and efficiently.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 27-page summary and a 4-page report in brief (click here). [*Remed, *Water]
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
EPA & Corps Issue Wetland Guidance Documents
Jun 5: Just days after Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced legislation with over 150 cosponsors which he said is designed "to fix the Clean Water Act (CWA) after it was damaged by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings" [See WIMS 5/22/07]; U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued joint guidance for their field offices which they say will "ensure America's wetlands and other water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA)." The agencies said the action reinforces the Bush Administration's commitment to protect and enhance the quality of our nation's wetlands and water bodies.
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water said, "The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions. Today's action sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals." John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works) said, "We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision. This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent, and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."
EPA and Corps staff will also use the guidance when taking enforcement actions under the CWA. The guidance clarifies those circumstances where a person may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, and other waters. Individual tribal, state and local laws, regulations, or policies may further protect aquatic water resources. The guidance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States regarding the scope of the agencies' jurisdiction under the CWA [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities].
Specifically, the guidance discusses the agencies' protection of three classes of waters through the following actions: (1) Continuing to regulate "traditionally navigable waters," including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters; (2) Continuing to regulate "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries"; and (3) Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.
The guidance supports a strong regulatory program that ensures no net loss of wetlands, which is one of three key elements to the Bush Administration wetlands policy. The other two elements include an active management program that will result in the restoration, enhancement and protection of three million acres of wetlands by 2009 and a commitment to conserve isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
EPA said that during the first six months of implementing the guidance, the agencies are inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the guidance. The guidance notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register soon. The agencies said they will more broadly consider jurisdictional issues, including additional clarification and definition of key terminology, through rulemaking or other appropriate policy practice.
As part of the latest action, U.S. EPA has posted three new documents: (1) June 2007 Legal Memorandum (12 pp, discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.); (2) June 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (7 pp, regarding Coordination on Jurisdictional Determinations under Clean Water Act Section 404 in Light of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions.); (3) June 2007 Questions and Answers (7 pp).
Access a joint EPA/COE release (click here). Access the legal memorandum and Q&A document and background information on EPA's website (click here). Access the prepublication copy of FR notice (click here). Access additional documents and a powerpoint presentation on the COE website (click here). [*Water]
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water said, "The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions. Today's action sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals." John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works) said, "We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision. This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent, and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."
EPA and Corps staff will also use the guidance when taking enforcement actions under the CWA. The guidance clarifies those circumstances where a person may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, and other waters. Individual tribal, state and local laws, regulations, or policies may further protect aquatic water resources. The guidance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States regarding the scope of the agencies' jurisdiction under the CWA [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities].
Specifically, the guidance discusses the agencies' protection of three classes of waters through the following actions: (1) Continuing to regulate "traditionally navigable waters," including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters; (2) Continuing to regulate "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries"; and (3) Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.
The guidance supports a strong regulatory program that ensures no net loss of wetlands, which is one of three key elements to the Bush Administration wetlands policy. The other two elements include an active management program that will result in the restoration, enhancement and protection of three million acres of wetlands by 2009 and a commitment to conserve isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
EPA said that during the first six months of implementing the guidance, the agencies are inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the guidance. The guidance notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register soon. The agencies said they will more broadly consider jurisdictional issues, including additional clarification and definition of key terminology, through rulemaking or other appropriate policy practice.
As part of the latest action, U.S. EPA has posted three new documents: (1) June 2007 Legal Memorandum (12 pp, discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.); (2) June 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (7 pp, regarding Coordination on Jurisdictional Determinations under Clean Water Act Section 404 in Light of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions.); (3) June 2007 Questions and Answers (7 pp).
Access a joint EPA/COE release (click here). Access the legal memorandum and Q&A document and background information on EPA's website (click here). Access the prepublication copy of FR notice (click here). Access additional documents and a powerpoint presentation on the COE website (click here). [*Water]
Monday, June 04, 2007
Small, Poor Countries Hold Major Emitters Accountable For Climate Change
May 29: Oxfam America, an international non-profit organization that works to end global poverty has issued a new report saying that human-induced climate change is already causing harm to the world’s poorest people, and indicating that those people are the least responsible for emissions and least able to adapt to climatic shocks. The report, published ahead of the G-8 summit, called on G-8 countries to urgently take action to keep global warming below 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) and pledge to help poorest cope with the impacts. Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America said, “Poor countries should not have to pay for damage caused by the emissions of rich countries. As world leaders head to the G8 summit in Germany, they must be prepared to cut their emissions and to start helping poor countries to cope with the high costs of adaptation.”
The report, Adapting to Climate Change: What’s Needed in Poor Countries and Who Should Pay, estimates that poor countries will need around $50 billion a year to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, a conservative estimate that will rise sharply if emissions are not cut drastically. Offenheiser said, “Rich countries must find ways to help address the harm caused to those who are least responsible for the problem. It is important to not think of this as aid in a traditional sense, but as the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable -- an entirely separate and added responsibility.”
In a related matter, representatives of Arctic communities and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from the Caribbean, and Pacific have formed an alliance called Many Strong Voices to press for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions saying the cultures and economies of their countries and regions are the most affected by climate change. In an address, described as "passionate and forthright," supporting the establishment of the Many Strong Voices alliance, John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister of Belize said “we need action now, not tomorrow.” He urged participants to raise their voices and insist that those responsible for climate change be held accountable for their actions.
The participants, who came from 16 countries and regions, including Alaska, the Caribbean, Fiji, the Canadian Arctic and the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union, including Greenland and French Polynesia, met in Belize City to prepare a five-year action plan. The strategy includes plans to push for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also includes an assessment of the SIDS to adapt to climate change and a plan to inform and warn the world of the dramatic effects of climate change in their regions. Taito Nakalevu, Climate Change Officer with the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, based in Samoa said, “Together, we have identified common problems as a consequence of climate change, and our communities are suffering. We insist that those countries that are causing the problems have a responsibility to those whose lives are being affected.”
Access a release from Oxfam America (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the Oxfam America website for additional information (click here). Access the Many Strong Voices website for extensive information (click here). [*Climate]
The report, Adapting to Climate Change: What’s Needed in Poor Countries and Who Should Pay, estimates that poor countries will need around $50 billion a year to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, a conservative estimate that will rise sharply if emissions are not cut drastically. Offenheiser said, “Rich countries must find ways to help address the harm caused to those who are least responsible for the problem. It is important to not think of this as aid in a traditional sense, but as the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable -- an entirely separate and added responsibility.”
In a related matter, representatives of Arctic communities and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from the Caribbean, and Pacific have formed an alliance called Many Strong Voices to press for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions saying the cultures and economies of their countries and regions are the most affected by climate change. In an address, described as "passionate and forthright," supporting the establishment of the Many Strong Voices alliance, John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister of Belize said “we need action now, not tomorrow.” He urged participants to raise their voices and insist that those responsible for climate change be held accountable for their actions.
The participants, who came from 16 countries and regions, including Alaska, the Caribbean, Fiji, the Canadian Arctic and the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union, including Greenland and French Polynesia, met in Belize City to prepare a five-year action plan. The strategy includes plans to push for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also includes an assessment of the SIDS to adapt to climate change and a plan to inform and warn the world of the dramatic effects of climate change in their regions. Taito Nakalevu, Climate Change Officer with the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, based in Samoa said, “Together, we have identified common problems as a consequence of climate change, and our communities are suffering. We insist that those countries that are causing the problems have a responsibility to those whose lives are being affected.”
Access a release from Oxfam America (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the Oxfam America website for additional information (click here). Access the Many Strong Voices website for extensive information (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
