Oct 4: The House Budget Committee, Chaired by Representative John Spratt, Jr. (D-SC) held a hearing entitled, Issues in Federal Government Financial Liabilities: Commercial Nuclear Waste. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy; and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The CBO testified that, by law, the Federal government is responsible for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel generated by civilian facilities, which pay fees for that waste disposal service. Regardless of how the government meets that responsibility, discharging those liabilities will require significant Federal spending over many decades. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) authorized a system to manage radioactive waste, including an underground repository to permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel from civilian facilities. Currently, the Federal government is 10 years behind schedule in its contractual obligations to remove and dispose of such waste; by the time the repository might be opened, it is likely to face at least a 20-year waste backlog.
In the absence of a federal underground repository to accept nuclear waste for storage, taxpayers are now starting to pay -- in the form of legal settlements with utilities -- for a decentralized waste storage system at sites around the country. (Those payments are being made from the Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund.) The Department of Energy (DOE) currently estimates that payments to utilities pursuant to such settlements will total at least $7 billion, and possibly much more if the program’s schedule continues to slip. Regardless of whether or when the government opens the planned repository, those payments are likely to continue for several decades.
Ultimately, the repository that is now authorized under NWPA will not provide sufficient capacity to store all of the waste for which the federal government is responsible. The statutory cap on the amount of waste that can be stored there is significantly lower than the volume of waste that DOE expects will be generated during the lifetimes of existing nuclear facilities, let alone the additional volume from any new facilities that may be built. Without a change in law to allow construction of disposal facilities with sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the waste that will be generated, taxpayers will need to pay utilities to dispose of a substantial amount of additional waste in the future. Contractual liabilities associated with nuclear waste from civilian power plants are one component of the government’s broader liabilities for remedying environmental contamination, much of which results from operating the nation’s nuclear weapons complex.
Access links to all witness testimony (click here, scroll down to 10/4/07). [*Nuclear]
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Law Firm Surveys Business Views On Climate Change & Sustainability
Oct 10: While U.S. businesses are concerned about compliance costs related to climate change legislation, those same companies still believe that the federal government should be doing more to combat global warming, according to a recent survey (released September 24, 2007) sponsored by the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and their Climate Change & Sustainability practice group. Though 60% of survey respondents said they worry about compliance costs related to climate change rules, 56% of private company respondents (and 66% of public ones) think the federal government should do more to help reduce or limit global warming, including the development and use of alternative and renewable energy.
San Francisco partner Michael Steel, co-head of Pillsbury’s Climate Change & Sustainability practice group said, “This reflects the dilemma that Congress and Americans as a whole face. Most people would like to see greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced to help curb the effects of climate change, but serious questions remain about how best to do it and pay for it.” Steel said that these questions may help explain why some companies may be struggling with what type of green practices to employ, therefore delaying adoption, even as they are increasingly aware of environmental issues, including global warming.
The survey was conducted by the Research and Analysis Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Nearly 600 American businesses participated in the survey, which is believed to be the first to assess the impact of climate change issues across all industries and U.S. company demographics today, gathering responses from small family-owned businesses, large public multinationals and every size company in between. Pillsbury said it plans to repeat the survey periodically to track the progress U.S. businesses are making.
Some of the findings indicate that 57% of those surveyed say that in the past 12-24 months they have switched to using or selling more recycled materials or products, and nearly 49% have reduced their use of electricity. Another 48% participate in programs to properly dispose of computers and other technologies that leak radiation and other contaminants. Just 23% of those surveyed have upgraded or converted to cleaner technologies or equipment, while 21% have reduced their use of fossil fuels.
Only 13.3 % of survey respondents have conducted such an energy audit. Of those companies that have adopted one or more green practices, 64% say the switch has not raised operating costs, and one quarter report that their costs of operations have actually been reduced. Regarding new opportunities that climate change issues may offer, 35% of those surveyed responded favorably.
Regarding proposals related to carbon trading, Pillsbury said both public and private companies surveyed expressed disinterest. Just 2% of those surveyed have invested in carbon credits, and 25% of the respondents, mostly smaller business owners, were not familiar with any carbon credit program, which Pillsbury said "suggests far more education about carbon trading may be warranted for it to succeed as a viable alternative for emissions-heavy companies."
One surprising result was that 28% of public companies responding to the survey said they would prefer one federal law governing climate change rules while 22% favor individual state laws. Among the private companies, 31% would prefer one federal law and 19% individual state ones. Pillsbury indicated that they expected that public companies would favor a Federal law over individual state rules "because it generally costs far more to comply with numerous differing rules than a set of consistent laws and regulations.”
Access a release from Pillsbury (click here). Access the complete 12-page results report on the survey (click here). Access the Pillsbury Climate Change & Sustainability practice group website for additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Sustainability]
San Francisco partner Michael Steel, co-head of Pillsbury’s Climate Change & Sustainability practice group said, “This reflects the dilemma that Congress and Americans as a whole face. Most people would like to see greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced to help curb the effects of climate change, but serious questions remain about how best to do it and pay for it.” Steel said that these questions may help explain why some companies may be struggling with what type of green practices to employ, therefore delaying adoption, even as they are increasingly aware of environmental issues, including global warming.
The survey was conducted by the Research and Analysis Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Nearly 600 American businesses participated in the survey, which is believed to be the first to assess the impact of climate change issues across all industries and U.S. company demographics today, gathering responses from small family-owned businesses, large public multinationals and every size company in between. Pillsbury said it plans to repeat the survey periodically to track the progress U.S. businesses are making.
Some of the findings indicate that 57% of those surveyed say that in the past 12-24 months they have switched to using or selling more recycled materials or products, and nearly 49% have reduced their use of electricity. Another 48% participate in programs to properly dispose of computers and other technologies that leak radiation and other contaminants. Just 23% of those surveyed have upgraded or converted to cleaner technologies or equipment, while 21% have reduced their use of fossil fuels.
Only 13.3 % of survey respondents have conducted such an energy audit. Of those companies that have adopted one or more green practices, 64% say the switch has not raised operating costs, and one quarter report that their costs of operations have actually been reduced. Regarding new opportunities that climate change issues may offer, 35% of those surveyed responded favorably.
Regarding proposals related to carbon trading, Pillsbury said both public and private companies surveyed expressed disinterest. Just 2% of those surveyed have invested in carbon credits, and 25% of the respondents, mostly smaller business owners, were not familiar with any carbon credit program, which Pillsbury said "suggests far more education about carbon trading may be warranted for it to succeed as a viable alternative for emissions-heavy companies."
One surprising result was that 28% of public companies responding to the survey said they would prefer one federal law governing climate change rules while 22% favor individual state laws. Among the private companies, 31% would prefer one federal law and 19% individual state ones. Pillsbury indicated that they expected that public companies would favor a Federal law over individual state rules "because it generally costs far more to comply with numerous differing rules than a set of consistent laws and regulations.”
Access a release from Pillsbury (click here). Access the complete 12-page results report on the survey (click here). Access the Pillsbury Climate Change & Sustainability practice group website for additional information (click here). [*Climate, *Sustainability]
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Critical Minerals: Data Lacking & Cache Is "Wholly Ineffective"
Oct 5: To make the products people use every day, from mobile phones and computers to toothpaste, TVs, and cars, the United States relies on a variety of nonfuel minerals that have limited global availability. However, a new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) finds that neither the Federal government nor industry leaders have enough accurate information to know how secure the supplies of these minerals are. This lack of information also extends to the area of national defense; a second Research Council report finds that the National Defense Stockpile (NDS), a cache of material in place to deal with national emergencies, is wholly ineffective for responding to modern needs or national security threats. The two new report are entitled: (1) Minerals, Critical Minerals, And The U.S. Economy; and (2) Managing Materials For A 21st Century Military.
NRC researchers that wrote the reports said, "Industries dependent on minerals can be significantly influenced by supply disruptions, which might be avoided with better information. Consumers and producers would both greatly benefit from a systematic framework for evaluating minerals that are critical to the economy... "In order to operate well, a stockpiling system needs to have detailed information about the specific material needs of the military and about any possible restrictions on the supply of those materials. The NDS neither collects nor has access to these types of data, which essentially removes the stockpile as an effective component of our nation's defense. We need a more comprehensive approach to managing the U.S. defense material needs."
To determine supply needs, the NDS currently relies on economic models that have changed minimally since they were first instituted decades ago. However, global material supply chains have changed drastically since then, as have the threats faced by the U.S. The stockpile committee called the economic models "gross estimates that do not capture specific information relevant to the 21st century military needs" and found little connection between NDS' stockpiling policy and the nation's security objectives.
The stockpile report (second report above) recommends that instead of improving NDS' systems, a new systematic approach should be adopted to manage the nation's defense material needs. Stockpiling could still be used within the new system, but other techniques such as planning ahead and building robust supply chains for essential materials, would better mitigate the impact of supply shortfalls or sudden surges in demand, vastly improving military's ability to respond to changing technologies and threats. The report offers a number of additional guiding principles for how the new system could operate, including the option of partnering with private industry.
Any mineral could at some point become critical to the economy or national security, depending on its uses and availability. Using a new tool that it developed specifically for its report, the critical minerals committee determined that platinum group metals, rare earth elements, indium, manganese, and niobium -- minerals used to make LCD TVs, catalytic converters, pacemakers, and other products Americans rely on daily -- are currently highly critical, meaning they are difficult or impossible to substitute, essential in their use, and have potentially "at-risk supplies." Although committee members only had time to examine a limited number of minerals, they said their tool could be adopted by Federal agencies to similarly classify minerals.
Decision makers in both public and private sectors need continuous, unbiased, and thorough information on the uses and possible supply restrictions of nonfuel minerals, but currently the federal government and the industries that use these minerals do not collect these data with enough detail or frequency, the report on critical minerals (first report above) notes. Market fluctuations, limited sources, and even political shifts in foreign countries could drastically, and quickly, alter the price or availability of many essential minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) Minerals Information Team is the most comprehensive source for this sort of information, but the quantity and quality of its data are not sufficient because the Agency lacks the resources, authority, and autonomy of a principal statistical agency. The critical minerals report recommends that the Federal government give the necessary authority and funding to USGS, or whichever agency will ultimately be responsible, to collect minerals information.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access a 4-page brief of the Critical Minerals report (click here). Access the Critical Minerals complete report and a 25-page summary (click here). Access a 2-page brief of the Managing Materials report (click here). Access the Managing Materials complete report and a 17-page summary (click here). Access more information about the USGS Mineral Resources Program (click here). [*Overall]
NRC researchers that wrote the reports said, "Industries dependent on minerals can be significantly influenced by supply disruptions, which might be avoided with better information. Consumers and producers would both greatly benefit from a systematic framework for evaluating minerals that are critical to the economy... "In order to operate well, a stockpiling system needs to have detailed information about the specific material needs of the military and about any possible restrictions on the supply of those materials. The NDS neither collects nor has access to these types of data, which essentially removes the stockpile as an effective component of our nation's defense. We need a more comprehensive approach to managing the U.S. defense material needs."
To determine supply needs, the NDS currently relies on economic models that have changed minimally since they were first instituted decades ago. However, global material supply chains have changed drastically since then, as have the threats faced by the U.S. The stockpile committee called the economic models "gross estimates that do not capture specific information relevant to the 21st century military needs" and found little connection between NDS' stockpiling policy and the nation's security objectives.
The stockpile report (second report above) recommends that instead of improving NDS' systems, a new systematic approach should be adopted to manage the nation's defense material needs. Stockpiling could still be used within the new system, but other techniques such as planning ahead and building robust supply chains for essential materials, would better mitigate the impact of supply shortfalls or sudden surges in demand, vastly improving military's ability to respond to changing technologies and threats. The report offers a number of additional guiding principles for how the new system could operate, including the option of partnering with private industry.
Any mineral could at some point become critical to the economy or national security, depending on its uses and availability. Using a new tool that it developed specifically for its report, the critical minerals committee determined that platinum group metals, rare earth elements, indium, manganese, and niobium -- minerals used to make LCD TVs, catalytic converters, pacemakers, and other products Americans rely on daily -- are currently highly critical, meaning they are difficult or impossible to substitute, essential in their use, and have potentially "at-risk supplies." Although committee members only had time to examine a limited number of minerals, they said their tool could be adopted by Federal agencies to similarly classify minerals.
Decision makers in both public and private sectors need continuous, unbiased, and thorough information on the uses and possible supply restrictions of nonfuel minerals, but currently the federal government and the industries that use these minerals do not collect these data with enough detail or frequency, the report on critical minerals (first report above) notes. Market fluctuations, limited sources, and even political shifts in foreign countries could drastically, and quickly, alter the price or availability of many essential minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) Minerals Information Team is the most comprehensive source for this sort of information, but the quantity and quality of its data are not sufficient because the Agency lacks the resources, authority, and autonomy of a principal statistical agency. The critical minerals report recommends that the Federal government give the necessary authority and funding to USGS, or whichever agency will ultimately be responsible, to collect minerals information.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access a 4-page brief of the Critical Minerals report (click here). Access the Critical Minerals complete report and a 25-page summary (click here). Access a 2-page brief of the Managing Materials report (click here). Access the Managing Materials complete report and a 17-page summary (click here). Access more information about the USGS Mineral Resources Program (click here). [*Overall]
Friday, October 05, 2007
Senate Passes Ban Asbestos In America Act
Oct 4: The United States Senate unanimously passed Senator Patty Murray's (D-WA) bill to ban asbestos, bringing the legislation closer to enactment than at any point since Murray launched her effort to protect families and workers six years ago. Murray worked closely with Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Environment and Public Works Chairman Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to reach this "historic milestone." The bill passed the Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by unanimous consent.
Murray said, "This is a historic day in the fight to protect Americans. Workers and their families deserve a future free of deadly asbestos exposure, and I'm not stopping until this bill is signed into law. I'm very pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle came together to unanimously support my bill. I especially want to thank Senator Johnny Isakson for his bipartisan leadership in moving this bill forward. I also want to commend Senator Barbara Boxer who championed this bill from the start and led its quick passage through her Environment and Public Works Committee."
Isakson said, “It was a pleasure to work with Senator Murray on crafting this legislation. This bill is the culmination of months of bipartisan work to find common ground on this important issue, and I extremely pleased the Senate acted so quickly to approve it. For the few areas where asbestos is still used in the United States, this bill provides a reasonable transition so that Americans can rid themselves of asbestos once and for all.” U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said, “Because of this bill, America is poised to join the more than 40 nations that have banned asbestos because it is deadly. This bill is long overdue... This bill will take asbestos off the shelves, and will also ensure we continue to study and treat the health effects asbestos has already caused.”
Murray's bill would ban asbestos, invest in research and treatment, and launch a public education campaign. Murray started working to ban asbestos six years ago. This March, she re-introduced her legislation as S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007. The bill prohibits the importation, manufacture, processing and distribution of products containing asbestos. The ban covers the 6 regulated forms of asbestos and 3 durable fibers. U.S. EPA will issue rules to ensure asbestos products are off the shelves within 2 years of the bill's enactment. The bill creates a $50 million "Asbestos-Related Disease Research and Treatment Network;" Creates a New National Asbestos-Related Disease Registry; Directs the Department of Defense to Conduct Additional Research; Identifies the Most Promising Areas for New Research; and Launches a Public Education Campaign to protect Americans.
The National Association of Manufactures (NAM), who opposed the ban and the bill, commented on the Senate passage on their blog saying, "Good grief. NIOSH and EPA and also OSHA and the CPSC have been all over the asbestos case for 35 years beginning with hearings at the Labor Department in 1972. Here are the facts. Asbestos is a useful mineral common throughout the world. Everyone has been exposed to it. There are different kinds of asbestos. The most common type, chrysotile, does not appear to be particularly hazardous to people. The majority of asbestos-related illnesses stems from excessive exposures that occurred during ship construction in World War II. After many years of intensive study, the EPA concluded that intact asbestos in buildings should be left alone.
"Asbestos has marvelous fire-retardant properties that save lives. The politically driven mania to ban asbestos creates serious hazards where none need exist. The crash of the shuttle Challenger, for example, was caused by the failure of critical O-rings which, because of a CPSC ban on asbestos products, were not sealed with the standard putty containing asbestos. Many useful products are safe for humans because they contain asbestos. This bill, if it becomes law, will create hazards where none exist."
Access a release and brief summary from Senator Murray (click here). Access Senator Murray's Asbestos website for extensive information and links (click here). Access the Senate Committee hearing on the bill and witness testimony (click here). Access the NAM blog comments (click here). Access legislative details for S. 742 (click here). [*Toxics]
Murray said, "This is a historic day in the fight to protect Americans. Workers and their families deserve a future free of deadly asbestos exposure, and I'm not stopping until this bill is signed into law. I'm very pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle came together to unanimously support my bill. I especially want to thank Senator Johnny Isakson for his bipartisan leadership in moving this bill forward. I also want to commend Senator Barbara Boxer who championed this bill from the start and led its quick passage through her Environment and Public Works Committee."
Isakson said, “It was a pleasure to work with Senator Murray on crafting this legislation. This bill is the culmination of months of bipartisan work to find common ground on this important issue, and I extremely pleased the Senate acted so quickly to approve it. For the few areas where asbestos is still used in the United States, this bill provides a reasonable transition so that Americans can rid themselves of asbestos once and for all.” U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said, “Because of this bill, America is poised to join the more than 40 nations that have banned asbestos because it is deadly. This bill is long overdue... This bill will take asbestos off the shelves, and will also ensure we continue to study and treat the health effects asbestos has already caused.”
Murray's bill would ban asbestos, invest in research and treatment, and launch a public education campaign. Murray started working to ban asbestos six years ago. This March, she re-introduced her legislation as S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007. The bill prohibits the importation, manufacture, processing and distribution of products containing asbestos. The ban covers the 6 regulated forms of asbestos and 3 durable fibers. U.S. EPA will issue rules to ensure asbestos products are off the shelves within 2 years of the bill's enactment. The bill creates a $50 million "Asbestos-Related Disease Research and Treatment Network;" Creates a New National Asbestos-Related Disease Registry; Directs the Department of Defense to Conduct Additional Research; Identifies the Most Promising Areas for New Research; and Launches a Public Education Campaign to protect Americans.
The National Association of Manufactures (NAM), who opposed the ban and the bill, commented on the Senate passage on their blog saying, "Good grief. NIOSH and EPA and also OSHA and the CPSC have been all over the asbestos case for 35 years beginning with hearings at the Labor Department in 1972. Here are the facts. Asbestos is a useful mineral common throughout the world. Everyone has been exposed to it. There are different kinds of asbestos. The most common type, chrysotile, does not appear to be particularly hazardous to people. The majority of asbestos-related illnesses stems from excessive exposures that occurred during ship construction in World War II. After many years of intensive study, the EPA concluded that intact asbestos in buildings should be left alone.
"Asbestos has marvelous fire-retardant properties that save lives. The politically driven mania to ban asbestos creates serious hazards where none need exist. The crash of the shuttle Challenger, for example, was caused by the failure of critical O-rings which, because of a CPSC ban on asbestos products, were not sealed with the standard putty containing asbestos. Many useful products are safe for humans because they contain asbestos. This bill, if it becomes law, will create hazards where none exist."
Access a release and brief summary from Senator Murray (click here). Access Senator Murray's Asbestos website for extensive information and links (click here). Access the Senate Committee hearing on the bill and witness testimony (click here). Access the NAM blog comments (click here). Access legislative details for S. 742 (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Dingell/Boucher Release 1st Climate Change White Paper
Oct 3: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Chaired by Representative John Dingell (D-MI), and the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Chaired by Rick Boucher (D-VA), released the first in a series of Climate Change White Papers. According to Dingell and Boucher, "The purpose of this effort is to focus the discussion in the Congress as we move towards the development and eventual passage of comprehensive climate change legislation." The two also released a Dear Colleague letter and a Memo to Members. The first of the Climate Change Legislation Design White Papers deals with "Scope of a Cap-and-Trade Program."
According to the Dear Colleague Letter, "Out goal is to reduce green house gas emissions between 60 and 80 percent by 2050. This is an ambitious target and one that we believe is best achieved with a cap and trade system as the cornerstone of national policy. The white paper being release today discusses the overall benefits of a cap-and-trade system and suggests the sectors of the economy that should be included. It also raises a number of important points for discussion regarding policy details. Subsequent white papers will address other topics, including but not limited to: cap levels and timetables; costs containment mechanisms; carbon sequestration; offsets and credits; the role and obligations of developing countries; and the distribution of emissions allowances." According to the Memo, hearings will be held on some of the topics to receive further details and suggestions.
Access the 22-page Cap-and-Trade Program white paper (click here). Access the Memo to Members (click here). Access the Dear Colleague Letter (click here). [*Climate]
According to the Dear Colleague Letter, "Out goal is to reduce green house gas emissions between 60 and 80 percent by 2050. This is an ambitious target and one that we believe is best achieved with a cap and trade system as the cornerstone of national policy. The white paper being release today discusses the overall benefits of a cap-and-trade system and suggests the sectors of the economy that should be included. It also raises a number of important points for discussion regarding policy details. Subsequent white papers will address other topics, including but not limited to: cap levels and timetables; costs containment mechanisms; carbon sequestration; offsets and credits; the role and obligations of developing countries; and the distribution of emissions allowances." According to the Memo, hearings will be held on some of the topics to receive further details and suggestions.
Access the 22-page Cap-and-Trade Program white paper (click here). Access the Memo to Members (click here). Access the Dear Colleague Letter (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Comments Wanted On Superfund Alternative Approach Report
Oct 3: The U.S. EPA announced the release of a report entitled, Results of the Superfund Alternative Approach Evaluation, for public review [72 FR 56346-56347]. The Superfund Alternative Approach is an alternative to listing a contaminated site on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) before starting cleanup. Comments on the report and SA approach must be received by December 3, 2007.
In June 2002, EPA issued a guidance document titled, "Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites" (the "SAS Guidance"). The guidance addressed technical and enforcement issues for sites using the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach -- sites that require long-term response (i.e., remedial action) and are eligible for, but are not listed on, the National Priorities List (NPL). Because Superfund monies cannot be used to fund remedial actions at sites not listed on the NPL, a viable potentially responsible party (PRP) must be willing to perform the remedial action.
When the SAS Guidance was revised and reissued in June 2004 (the "Revised SAS Guidance"), EPA announced it would pilot the SA approach for 18 months. The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) were tasked with conducting an evaluation of this pilot to better understand how EPA Regions are implementing the SA approach, whether it leads to successful site cleanups, and the concerns expressed by stakeholders.
The evaluation focused on sites identified in CERCLIS as SA sites as of February 2005, and on SA agreements signed between June 2002 and December 2005. The evaluation involved several rounds of data gathering and analysis, discussions with stakeholders, and document review. The SA Evaluation Team found that the SA approach yielded 19 agreements with SA provisions during the pilot period. Most of the SA activity took place in Region 4 (Southeast states) and Region 5 (Great Lake states). Generally, the SA agreements use language consistent with the SAS Guidance.
The Team recommends retaining the SA approach as an available option in appropriate circumstances and recommends several specific next steps. The report concludes, "While EPA uses the SA approach in only limited situations, it should be retained as a viable option for consideration in appropriate circumstances. The SA approach is one more tool for cleaning up seriously contaminated sites through agreements with PRPs. However, the Agency can do more to improve consistency in implementing the approach and helping stakeholders understand the process and benefits of the SA approach."
On June 6, 2007, U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a new report entitled, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups (Report No. 2007-P-00026, June 6, 2007) [See WIMS 6/7/07]. The report evaluated the Superfund Alternative sites approach. Among other items, OIG found that EPA had not implemented effective management tools or controls for the SA approach. OIG recommended that EPA track and report cleanup progress at SA sites, and improve its communications, information, and transparency about the SA approach.
Access the complete 7-page report (click here). Access the EPA docket, EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0635, for links to the FR announcement and to comment (click here). Access the complete 45-page OIG report (click here). [*Remed]
In June 2002, EPA issued a guidance document titled, "Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites" (the "SAS Guidance"). The guidance addressed technical and enforcement issues for sites using the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach -- sites that require long-term response (i.e., remedial action) and are eligible for, but are not listed on, the National Priorities List (NPL). Because Superfund monies cannot be used to fund remedial actions at sites not listed on the NPL, a viable potentially responsible party (PRP) must be willing to perform the remedial action.
When the SAS Guidance was revised and reissued in June 2004 (the "Revised SAS Guidance"), EPA announced it would pilot the SA approach for 18 months. The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) were tasked with conducting an evaluation of this pilot to better understand how EPA Regions are implementing the SA approach, whether it leads to successful site cleanups, and the concerns expressed by stakeholders.
The evaluation focused on sites identified in CERCLIS as SA sites as of February 2005, and on SA agreements signed between June 2002 and December 2005. The evaluation involved several rounds of data gathering and analysis, discussions with stakeholders, and document review. The SA Evaluation Team found that the SA approach yielded 19 agreements with SA provisions during the pilot period. Most of the SA activity took place in Region 4 (Southeast states) and Region 5 (Great Lake states). Generally, the SA agreements use language consistent with the SAS Guidance.
The Team recommends retaining the SA approach as an available option in appropriate circumstances and recommends several specific next steps. The report concludes, "While EPA uses the SA approach in only limited situations, it should be retained as a viable option for consideration in appropriate circumstances. The SA approach is one more tool for cleaning up seriously contaminated sites through agreements with PRPs. However, the Agency can do more to improve consistency in implementing the approach and helping stakeholders understand the process and benefits of the SA approach."
On June 6, 2007, U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a new report entitled, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups (Report No. 2007-P-00026, June 6, 2007) [See WIMS 6/7/07]. The report evaluated the Superfund Alternative sites approach. Among other items, OIG found that EPA had not implemented effective management tools or controls for the SA approach. OIG recommended that EPA track and report cleanup progress at SA sites, and improve its communications, information, and transparency about the SA approach.
Access the complete 7-page report (click here). Access the EPA docket, EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0635, for links to the FR announcement and to comment (click here). Access the complete 45-page OIG report (click here). [*Remed]
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
EPA Proposed Amendments To SPCC Rule
Oct 1: U.S. EPA announced it is proposing revisions to certain regulatory requirements for facilities subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule. EPA said the revisions would tailor and streamline requirements to particular industry sectors and facility owners or operators subject to the rule. Nothing in the proposed rule would remove any regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before August 16, 2002 to develop, implement and maintain an SPCC plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations then in effect. Those facilities are required to maintain their plans until the applicable date for revising and implementing plans under the new amendments. Public comments on the proposed changes will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register, which is expected within two weeks.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to: exempt hot-mix asphalt; exempt pesticide application equipment and related mix containers used at farms; exempt heating oil containers at single-family residences; amend the facility diagram requirement to provide additional flexibility for all facilities; amend the definition of "facility" to clarify the flexibility associated with describing a facility’s boundaries; define "loading/unloading rack" to clarify the equipment subject to the provisions for facility tank car and tank truck loading/unloading racks; provide streamlined requirements for a subset of qualified facilities; amend the general secondary containment requirement to provide more clarity; amend the security requirements for all facilities; amend the integrity testing requirements to allow a greater amount of flexibility in the use of industry standards at all facilities; amend the integrity testing requirements for containers that store animal fat or vegetable oil and meet certain criteria; streamline a number of requirements for oil production facilities; and exempt completely buried oil storage tanks at nuclear power generation facilities.
EPA says these changes tailor requirements to particular industries for easier and increased compliance, resulting in greater protection of human health and the environment. EPA is also providing clarification in the preamble to this proposed rule on additional issues raised by the regulated community. The issues include: the consideration of man-made structures in determining how to comply with SPCC rule requirements; and the applicability of the rule to wind turbines that are used to produce electricity.
EPA proposed amendments to the SPCC rule in December 2005 and finalized them in December 2006 [71 FR 77266, 12/26/06] to address a number of issues, including those pertaining to certain "qualified" facilities, qualified oil-filled operational equipment, motive power containers, mobile refuelers, provisions inapplicable to animal fats and vegetable oils, and the compliance date for farms [See WIMS 12/14/07]. In addition, EPA recently amended by final rule published May 16, 2007 (72 FR 27443), the dates for compliance with the July 2002 amendments to the SPCC rule by extending the dates for preparing or amending, and implementing revised SPCC Plans in 40 CFR 112.3(a), (b), and (c).
Access an EPA release (click here). Access further information on the proposed SPCC amendments including a prepublication copy and fact sheets for various sectors (click here). [*Haz, *Water]
Expert Panel Says EPA Lead Report Not Yet Complete
New Tool Measures Climate Change Impact Of Buildings
Dermal Exposure Assessment Methods Final Report
EPA Issues Water Efficiency Product Specifications
SEC Disclosure For Businesses Lobbying For Global Warming
Methane to Markets Projects May Double GHG Reduction Estimates
MN Health Risk Limits For Perfluorochemicals
$30 Million More For Bioenergy Research Centers
-- GREAT LAKES NEWS --
EPA Leadership & Little Funding Slow Great Lakes Restoration
-- MICHIGAN NEWS --
MI Supreme Court Denies MEPA Rehearing
Michigan Renewable Energy Program Reports
Dow Corning Plans "Environmentally Friendly" Investments
Michigan Legislative Tracking (10/1)
Specifically, EPA is proposing to: exempt hot-mix asphalt; exempt pesticide application equipment and related mix containers used at farms; exempt heating oil containers at single-family residences; amend the facility diagram requirement to provide additional flexibility for all facilities; amend the definition of "facility" to clarify the flexibility associated with describing a facility’s boundaries; define "loading/unloading rack" to clarify the equipment subject to the provisions for facility tank car and tank truck loading/unloading racks; provide streamlined requirements for a subset of qualified facilities; amend the general secondary containment requirement to provide more clarity; amend the security requirements for all facilities; amend the integrity testing requirements to allow a greater amount of flexibility in the use of industry standards at all facilities; amend the integrity testing requirements for containers that store animal fat or vegetable oil and meet certain criteria; streamline a number of requirements for oil production facilities; and exempt completely buried oil storage tanks at nuclear power generation facilities.
EPA says these changes tailor requirements to particular industries for easier and increased compliance, resulting in greater protection of human health and the environment. EPA is also providing clarification in the preamble to this proposed rule on additional issues raised by the regulated community. The issues include: the consideration of man-made structures in determining how to comply with SPCC rule requirements; and the applicability of the rule to wind turbines that are used to produce electricity.
EPA proposed amendments to the SPCC rule in December 2005 and finalized them in December 2006 [71 FR 77266, 12/26/06] to address a number of issues, including those pertaining to certain "qualified" facilities, qualified oil-filled operational equipment, motive power containers, mobile refuelers, provisions inapplicable to animal fats and vegetable oils, and the compliance date for farms [See WIMS 12/14/07]. In addition, EPA recently amended by final rule published May 16, 2007 (72 FR 27443), the dates for compliance with the July 2002 amendments to the SPCC rule by extending the dates for preparing or amending, and implementing revised SPCC Plans in 40 CFR 112.3(a), (b), and (c).
Access an EPA release (click here). Access further information on the proposed SPCC amendments including a prepublication copy and fact sheets for various sectors (click here). [*Haz, *Water]
Here's The Other Articles We Published Today...
Expert Panel Says EPA Lead Report Not Yet Complete
New Tool Measures Climate Change Impact Of Buildings
Dermal Exposure Assessment Methods Final Report
EPA Issues Water Efficiency Product Specifications
SEC Disclosure For Businesses Lobbying For Global Warming
Methane to Markets Projects May Double GHG Reduction Estimates
MN Health Risk Limits For Perfluorochemicals
$30 Million More For Bioenergy Research Centers
-- GREAT LAKES NEWS --
EPA Leadership & Little Funding Slow Great Lakes Restoration
-- MICHIGAN NEWS --
MI Supreme Court Denies MEPA Rehearing
Michigan Renewable Energy Program Reports
Dow Corning Plans "Environmentally Friendly" Investments
Michigan Legislative Tracking (10/1)
Monday, October 01, 2007
Analysis: Energy Bill Will Help; Emissions Cap Needed
Sep 27: Environmental Defense released a new analysis that it says shows that the energy bill currently before Congress could begin to curb the rapid rise in U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next several decades. They said passage of such a bill would be a down payment on efforts to combat global warming. The analysis reveals, however, that even under optimistic scenarios, the bill would allow emissions to grow above today’s levels, underscoring the critical need for Congress to cap emissions if it is to reduce them to levels that scientists say are necessary to avoid irreversible damage to the climate.
In evaluating the potential benefits of the energy bill, Environmental Defense assumed that Congress would ultimately approve a bill that contained all the provisions that would have the greatest impact on emissions passed in the House and Senate versions of the bill. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 by a vote of 65-27 on June 22 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and the House passed its version, H.R. 3221, on August 4, by a vote of 241 to 172 [See WIMS 8/6/07]. Environmental Defense said because many of the measures included within the bills grant a large degree of flexibility to the Administration in implementation, they evaluated two scenarios: a “more optimistic” scenario, in which the measures are fully implemented, and a “less optimistic” scenario, in which they are less so.
According to Environmental Defense, the results show that in the less optimistic scenario, emissions climb above today’s levels by 22 percent by 2030, while they would climb by only 4 percent under the more optimistic scenario. Without the energy bill, emissions would be expected to grow by 35 percent. Scientists say that to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change the world must dramatically reduce emissions below current levels. Earlier this year, a group of major companies representing a broad swath of American industry called on Congress to pass legislation reducing U.S. emissions by 60 to 80 percent below today’s levels by 2050.
Environmental Defense says that the next steps should involve Congress quickly passing the energy bill. They said if the bill contains the best provisions of the Senate and House versions and is vigorously implemented, it would slow the rapid escalation in GHG emissions. But, they say, Congress also should waste no time in producing legislation to cap emissions at levels that protect the climate, and should move ahead even while the energy bill is in Conference Committee. They conclude, "If the United States is to resume its appropriate role leading the world to reduce emissions and protect the environment, there is little time left to act."
On September 26, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee issued an update on the Conference Committee negotiations. According to Bingaman, Democratic and Republican committee staffs are continuing a bipartisan and bicameral exploration of the House (H.R.3221) and Senate (H.R.6) energy bills. The discussions are not to decide the destiny of any provisions, but rather to allow staffs to be educated as to the contents and back-stories of the various titles and sections in the two bills.
The meetings are alternating between House and Senate. The provisions being examined last week were: renewable fuels; carbon neutral government; green buildings; House provisions from the committees on Natural Resources, Education & Labor, Foreign Affairs, Small Business, Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure; CAFE; price gouging; climate R&D; loan guarantees; and miscellaneous. The talks were scheduled to wrap up by Friday, September 28. Bingaman said he believes that the bipartisan meetings are a necessary first step in producing a final comprehensive energy bill. He said continued bipartisanship will be essential to the process, and that addressing the nation’s energy challenges is a top priority for Congressional leaders and the American public.
Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the complete 7-page analysis (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 3221 (click here). Access the update from Senator Bingaman (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
In evaluating the potential benefits of the energy bill, Environmental Defense assumed that Congress would ultimately approve a bill that contained all the provisions that would have the greatest impact on emissions passed in the House and Senate versions of the bill. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 by a vote of 65-27 on June 22 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and the House passed its version, H.R. 3221, on August 4, by a vote of 241 to 172 [See WIMS 8/6/07]. Environmental Defense said because many of the measures included within the bills grant a large degree of flexibility to the Administration in implementation, they evaluated two scenarios: a “more optimistic” scenario, in which the measures are fully implemented, and a “less optimistic” scenario, in which they are less so.
According to Environmental Defense, the results show that in the less optimistic scenario, emissions climb above today’s levels by 22 percent by 2030, while they would climb by only 4 percent under the more optimistic scenario. Without the energy bill, emissions would be expected to grow by 35 percent. Scientists say that to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change the world must dramatically reduce emissions below current levels. Earlier this year, a group of major companies representing a broad swath of American industry called on Congress to pass legislation reducing U.S. emissions by 60 to 80 percent below today’s levels by 2050.
Environmental Defense says that the next steps should involve Congress quickly passing the energy bill. They said if the bill contains the best provisions of the Senate and House versions and is vigorously implemented, it would slow the rapid escalation in GHG emissions. But, they say, Congress also should waste no time in producing legislation to cap emissions at levels that protect the climate, and should move ahead even while the energy bill is in Conference Committee. They conclude, "If the United States is to resume its appropriate role leading the world to reduce emissions and protect the environment, there is little time left to act."
On September 26, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee issued an update on the Conference Committee negotiations. According to Bingaman, Democratic and Republican committee staffs are continuing a bipartisan and bicameral exploration of the House (H.R.3221) and Senate (H.R.6) energy bills. The discussions are not to decide the destiny of any provisions, but rather to allow staffs to be educated as to the contents and back-stories of the various titles and sections in the two bills.
The meetings are alternating between House and Senate. The provisions being examined last week were: renewable fuels; carbon neutral government; green buildings; House provisions from the committees on Natural Resources, Education & Labor, Foreign Affairs, Small Business, Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure; CAFE; price gouging; climate R&D; loan guarantees; and miscellaneous. The talks were scheduled to wrap up by Friday, September 28. Bingaman said he believes that the bipartisan meetings are a necessary first step in producing a final comprehensive energy bill. He said continued bipartisanship will be essential to the process, and that addressing the nation’s energy challenges is a top priority for Congressional leaders and the American public.
Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the complete 7-page analysis (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 3221 (click here). Access the update from Senator Bingaman (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Friday, September 28, 2007
President Bush Outlines New Approach On Climate Change
Sep 28: President George Bush addressed the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change [See WIMS 9/27/07] of 17 countries plus the United Nations which he called for last May in advance of the G-8 meeting on June 6-8, in Heiligendamm, Germany. The meeting is part of the new initiative President Bush announced at the G-8 meeting to further the shared objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy security and efficiency, and promoting strong economic growth.
President Bush said, "I'm honored to address this historic meeting on energy security and climate change. And I appreciate you all being here. Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world's response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations. The nations in this room have special responsibilities. We represent the world's major economies, we are major users of energy, and we have the resources and knowledge base to develop clean energy technologies.
"Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Several other nations have made similar strides.
"This progress points us in the right direction, but we've got to do more. So before this year's G8 summit, I announced that the United States will work with other nations to establish a new international approach to energy security and climate change. Today's meeting is an important step in this process. With the work we begin today, we can agree on a new approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen energy security, encourage economic growth and sustainable development, and advance negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change...
"For many years those who worried about climate change and those who worried about energy security were on opposite ends of the debate. It was said that we faced a choice between protecting the environment and producing enough energy. Today we know better. These challenges share a common solution: technology. By developing new low-emission technologies, we can meet the growing demand for energy and at the same time reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, our nations have an opportunity to leave the debates of the past behind, and reach a consensus on the way forward. And that's our purpose today.
"No one country has all the answers, including mine. The best way to tackle this problem is to think creatively and to learn from other's experiences and to come together on a way to achieve the objectives we share. Together, our nations will pave the way for a new international approach on greenhouse gas emissions.
"This new approach must involve all the world's largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including developed and developing nations. We will set a long-term goal for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem. And by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it.
"By next summer, we will convene a meeting of heads of state to finalize the goal and other elements of this approach, including a strong and transparent system for measuring our progress toward meeting the goal we set. This will require concerted effort by all our nations. Only by doing the necessary work this year will it be possible to reach a global consensus at the U.N. in 2009.
"Each nation will design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this long-term goal. These strategies will reflect each country's different energy resources, different stages of development, and different economic needs. "There are many policy tools that nations can use, including a variety of market mechanisms, to create incentives for companies and consumers to invest in new low-emission energy sources. We will also form working groups with leaders of different sectors of our economies, which will discuss ways of sharing technology and best practices.
"Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective. While our strategies may be differentiated, we share a common responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing...
"We also need to take advantage of clean safe nuclear power. Nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Without the world's 439 nuclear power plants, there would be nearly 2 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year. And by expanding the use of nuclear power, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more...
"As we work to transform the way we produce energy, we must also address another major factor in climate change, which is deforestation. The world's forests help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by storing carbon dioxide. But when our forests disappear, the concentration of greenhouse gas levels rise in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that nearly 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to deforestation...
"What I'm telling you is, is that we've got a strategy; we've got a comprehensive approach. And we look forward to working with our Congress to make sure that comprehensive approach is effective. And we look forward to working with you as a part of this global effort to do our duty..."
In addition to the President's address, other Administration officials also delivered addresses at the meeting including: the White House Office of Press Secretary; James Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality; Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Sep 28: Two top Democrats were quick to react to President Bush's address to his first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. No immediate reaction was available from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Both Pelosi and Reid had 30 House members had called on the President to use the meeting to announce a U.S. position in support of "mandatory national and international limits" on the pollution that causes global warming and to achieve "real reductions in emissions."
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said that President Bush and his administration have "a history of rhetoric, but no action, on global warming." The Select Committee released a report entitled, Bush Global Warming Rhetoric v. Reality Timeline.
Markey, after "personally listening to the President’s speech on global warming this morning at the State Department," "expressed disappointment that a week of administration attention to global warming had produced little more than recycled rhetoric." Markey said the President had gathered the top 17 global warming emitters -- including the United States -- this week to discuss global warming solutions, but "he chose to skip the climate summit at the United Nations on Monday. The UN is considered the major organizing body for international climate action."
In a harsh statement, Markey said, "For these countries meeting with the President, this must have felt like attending a prayer session led by an atheist. The President is opposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, opposing a mandatory 10 mpg increase in cars and trucks, opposing a national renewable electricity standard, opposing state efforts to cut emissions from cars, and pushing for new sources of dangerous pollution from liquid coal. His efforts to protect the oil industry from Democratic efforts to close unneeded tax loopholes is impeding the transition to a renewable future. Does he support the Energy bill pending in Congress? No. Has he declared CO2 a dangerous threat to the public and the planet? No."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, commented on the meeting saying, “I asked the President to call this summit with the hope that he would announce a new commitment to American leadership on the challenge of global warming. The rhetoric of the President’s speech today is an improvement, but unless it is followed up with mandatory cuts in global warming pollution, it will amount to little more than empty words. The President claims he is committed to action on global warming, but he has failed employ the two most effective tools we have -- mandatory cuts in carbon pollution and a cap-and-trade system. As Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to pass global warming legislation that will include both mandatory controls on carbon pollution and a cap-and-trade system. I call on President Bush to work with us as we take the steps necessary to protect the planet.”
Access the Department of State website for all major addresses, information and reference documents from the meeting (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on the New Approach (click here). Access a video of the President's address (click here). Access the statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access a floor statement by Markey on September 27 (click here). Access the 5-page report from Representative Markey (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
President Bush said, "I'm honored to address this historic meeting on energy security and climate change. And I appreciate you all being here. Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world's response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations. The nations in this room have special responsibilities. We represent the world's major economies, we are major users of energy, and we have the resources and knowledge base to develop clean energy technologies.
"Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Several other nations have made similar strides.
"This progress points us in the right direction, but we've got to do more. So before this year's G8 summit, I announced that the United States will work with other nations to establish a new international approach to energy security and climate change. Today's meeting is an important step in this process. With the work we begin today, we can agree on a new approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen energy security, encourage economic growth and sustainable development, and advance negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change...
"For many years those who worried about climate change and those who worried about energy security were on opposite ends of the debate. It was said that we faced a choice between protecting the environment and producing enough energy. Today we know better. These challenges share a common solution: technology. By developing new low-emission technologies, we can meet the growing demand for energy and at the same time reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, our nations have an opportunity to leave the debates of the past behind, and reach a consensus on the way forward. And that's our purpose today.
"No one country has all the answers, including mine. The best way to tackle this problem is to think creatively and to learn from other's experiences and to come together on a way to achieve the objectives we share. Together, our nations will pave the way for a new international approach on greenhouse gas emissions.
"This new approach must involve all the world's largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including developed and developing nations. We will set a long-term goal for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem. And by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it.
"By next summer, we will convene a meeting of heads of state to finalize the goal and other elements of this approach, including a strong and transparent system for measuring our progress toward meeting the goal we set. This will require concerted effort by all our nations. Only by doing the necessary work this year will it be possible to reach a global consensus at the U.N. in 2009.
"Each nation will design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this long-term goal. These strategies will reflect each country's different energy resources, different stages of development, and different economic needs. "There are many policy tools that nations can use, including a variety of market mechanisms, to create incentives for companies and consumers to invest in new low-emission energy sources. We will also form working groups with leaders of different sectors of our economies, which will discuss ways of sharing technology and best practices.
"Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective. While our strategies may be differentiated, we share a common responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing...
"We also need to take advantage of clean safe nuclear power. Nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Without the world's 439 nuclear power plants, there would be nearly 2 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year. And by expanding the use of nuclear power, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more...
"As we work to transform the way we produce energy, we must also address another major factor in climate change, which is deforestation. The world's forests help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by storing carbon dioxide. But when our forests disappear, the concentration of greenhouse gas levels rise in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that nearly 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to deforestation...
"What I'm telling you is, is that we've got a strategy; we've got a comprehensive approach. And we look forward to working with our Congress to make sure that comprehensive approach is effective. And we look forward to working with you as a part of this global effort to do our duty..."
In addition to the President's address, other Administration officials also delivered addresses at the meeting including: the White House Office of Press Secretary; James Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality; Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Democrats Respond To President's Climate Change Approach
Sep 28: Two top Democrats were quick to react to President Bush's address to his first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. No immediate reaction was available from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Both Pelosi and Reid had 30 House members had called on the President to use the meeting to announce a U.S. position in support of "mandatory national and international limits" on the pollution that causes global warming and to achieve "real reductions in emissions."
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said that President Bush and his administration have "a history of rhetoric, but no action, on global warming." The Select Committee released a report entitled, Bush Global Warming Rhetoric v. Reality Timeline.
Markey, after "personally listening to the President’s speech on global warming this morning at the State Department," "expressed disappointment that a week of administration attention to global warming had produced little more than recycled rhetoric." Markey said the President had gathered the top 17 global warming emitters -- including the United States -- this week to discuss global warming solutions, but "he chose to skip the climate summit at the United Nations on Monday. The UN is considered the major organizing body for international climate action."
In a harsh statement, Markey said, "For these countries meeting with the President, this must have felt like attending a prayer session led by an atheist. The President is opposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, opposing a mandatory 10 mpg increase in cars and trucks, opposing a national renewable electricity standard, opposing state efforts to cut emissions from cars, and pushing for new sources of dangerous pollution from liquid coal. His efforts to protect the oil industry from Democratic efforts to close unneeded tax loopholes is impeding the transition to a renewable future. Does he support the Energy bill pending in Congress? No. Has he declared CO2 a dangerous threat to the public and the planet? No."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, commented on the meeting saying, “I asked the President to call this summit with the hope that he would announce a new commitment to American leadership on the challenge of global warming. The rhetoric of the President’s speech today is an improvement, but unless it is followed up with mandatory cuts in global warming pollution, it will amount to little more than empty words. The President claims he is committed to action on global warming, but he has failed employ the two most effective tools we have -- mandatory cuts in carbon pollution and a cap-and-trade system. As Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to pass global warming legislation that will include both mandatory controls on carbon pollution and a cap-and-trade system. I call on President Bush to work with us as we take the steps necessary to protect the planet.”
Access the Department of State website for all major addresses, information and reference documents from the meeting (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on the New Approach (click here). Access a video of the President's address (click here). Access the statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access a floor statement by Markey on September 27 (click here). Access the 5-page report from Representative Markey (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Major Economies Meeting On Energy Security & Climate Change
Sep 27: According to a fact sheet from the White House the United States is hosting representatives of 17 countries plus the United Nations in the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change [See WIMS 9/24/07, 9/26/07]. The meeting is part of the new initiative President Bush announced at the G-8 Leaders Conference in May 2007 to further the shared objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy security and efficiency, and promoting strong economic growth [See WIMS 6/1/07].
The White House indicated that the meeting is the first of a series that will bring the world's major economies together to develop a detailed contribution to address energy security and climate change when the Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012. The meetings are intended to reinforce and accelerate discussions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and contribute to a global agreement under the Convention by 2009. The U.S. is hosting representatives from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union (Portugal as current EU President plus the European Commission), France, Germany, Indonesia, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, plus the United Nations.
The White House indicated further that the U.S. will work with participating major economies to agree on a path forward under the UNFCCC and a working agenda for the year, including the following steps. (1) establish a process for and considerations in reaching agreement, in 2008, on a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (2) Consider national goals and strategies over the mid-term, reflecting each nation's own mix of energy sources, future energy needs, and development priorities, to address the challenges of energy security and climate change, and discuss what more needs to be done. (3) Highlight the most urgent needs for research and development of clean energy technologies. (4) Identify areas for collaboration in key sectors and discuss challenges and opportunities for the development, financing, and commercialization of clean energy technologies. Participants will also discuss the approaches to reduce or eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers for clean energy technologies and services. (5) Develop a stronger, more transparent, and reliable system for measuring actions to reduce greenhouse gases and improve energy security, and track progress toward meeting these goals.
The fact sheet says, "The President's international energy security and climate change initiative recognizes that responsible action to address climate change and economic growth go hand in hand. It is only through strong economies that we can sustain the investment necessary to achieve lasting solutions. While all countries must do their part to reduce emissions, we should not seek to impose on any countries measures or frameworks that thwart their efforts to meet the legitimate aspirations of their people for better and more prosperous lives... We are on track to meet or exceed the President's goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent by 2012. From 2000 to 2005, we reduced our economy's greenhouse gas intensity by 8.5 percent, while our population grew by 5.3 percent, and our economy grew by 12 percent."
Groups Hold Parallel Climate Change Meeting
Sep 25: On September 27 and 28, 2007 the National Environmental Trust (NET), the United Nations Foundation and the Royal Institute of International Affairs are hosting a parallel summit to President Bush's Major Economies meeting [See article above]. The groups said their meeting was necessary "in order to provide balance and ensure a focus on the UN climate process." NET said that leading climate change NGO experts from Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and the United Kingdom will attend this summit. Many of the NGO leaders act as official advisors to their government on global warming and will be members of their respective nation's delegations at this December's Bali meeting.
The groups indicated that their parallel meeting is designed to produce balanced views based on the Major Economies Meeting (MEM) agenda and assess how this meeting could contribute to the UN climate process. It will provide a media counterpoint, with participants providing media background briefs on 26 September, prior to the opening of the intergovernmental conference, and reactions and commentary on the release of the MEC communiqué.
Access the White House fact sheet (click here). Access a list of attendees (click here). Access the Department of State website for information and reference documents about the meeting (click here). Access the White House Council on Environmental Quality Clean Energy and Climate Change website for additional information (click here). Access the NET website for more about the parallel conference; a full list of participants; a history of climate change negotiations and more (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
The White House indicated that the meeting is the first of a series that will bring the world's major economies together to develop a detailed contribution to address energy security and climate change when the Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012. The meetings are intended to reinforce and accelerate discussions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and contribute to a global agreement under the Convention by 2009. The U.S. is hosting representatives from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union (Portugal as current EU President plus the European Commission), France, Germany, Indonesia, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, plus the United Nations.
The White House indicated further that the U.S. will work with participating major economies to agree on a path forward under the UNFCCC and a working agenda for the year, including the following steps. (1) establish a process for and considerations in reaching agreement, in 2008, on a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (2) Consider national goals and strategies over the mid-term, reflecting each nation's own mix of energy sources, future energy needs, and development priorities, to address the challenges of energy security and climate change, and discuss what more needs to be done. (3) Highlight the most urgent needs for research and development of clean energy technologies. (4) Identify areas for collaboration in key sectors and discuss challenges and opportunities for the development, financing, and commercialization of clean energy technologies. Participants will also discuss the approaches to reduce or eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers for clean energy technologies and services. (5) Develop a stronger, more transparent, and reliable system for measuring actions to reduce greenhouse gases and improve energy security, and track progress toward meeting these goals.
The fact sheet says, "The President's international energy security and climate change initiative recognizes that responsible action to address climate change and economic growth go hand in hand. It is only through strong economies that we can sustain the investment necessary to achieve lasting solutions. While all countries must do their part to reduce emissions, we should not seek to impose on any countries measures or frameworks that thwart their efforts to meet the legitimate aspirations of their people for better and more prosperous lives... We are on track to meet or exceed the President's goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent by 2012. From 2000 to 2005, we reduced our economy's greenhouse gas intensity by 8.5 percent, while our population grew by 5.3 percent, and our economy grew by 12 percent."
Groups Hold Parallel Climate Change Meeting
Sep 25: On September 27 and 28, 2007 the National Environmental Trust (NET), the United Nations Foundation and the Royal Institute of International Affairs are hosting a parallel summit to President Bush's Major Economies meeting [See article above]. The groups said their meeting was necessary "in order to provide balance and ensure a focus on the UN climate process." NET said that leading climate change NGO experts from Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and the United Kingdom will attend this summit. Many of the NGO leaders act as official advisors to their government on global warming and will be members of their respective nation's delegations at this December's Bali meeting.
The groups indicated that their parallel meeting is designed to produce balanced views based on the Major Economies Meeting (MEM) agenda and assess how this meeting could contribute to the UN climate process. It will provide a media counterpoint, with participants providing media background briefs on 26 September, prior to the opening of the intergovernmental conference, and reactions and commentary on the release of the MEC communiqué.
Access the White House fact sheet (click here). Access a list of attendees (click here). Access the Department of State website for information and reference documents about the meeting (click here). Access the White House Council on Environmental Quality Clean Energy and Climate Change website for additional information (click here). Access the NET website for more about the parallel conference; a full list of participants; a history of climate change negotiations and more (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Pelosi & Reid Call On Bush To Support Mandatory GHG Controls
Sep 24: In advance of a global warming conference this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released a letter to President Bush today, calling on him to announce his support for mandatory national and international limits on the pollution that causes global warming. On September 27 and 28, President Bush has invited the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, Canada, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Nations to the Meeting of Economies on Energy Security. The meeting is part of the President's climate change initiatives announced last May in advance of the G-8 meeting on June 6-8, in Heiligendamm, Germany, [See WIMS 6/1/07].
Pelosi and Reid indicated in the letter, "Our legacy to the many generations that will follow us will depend upon how we handle the climate crisis and whether as a nation and as a world community we can take real action in time to avoid the worst effects of global warming. On Thursday and Friday, representatives of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitting nations will meet in Washington at your invitation to discuss their roles in combating global warming. We call upon you to use this occasion to announce your support for mandatory national and international limits on the pollution that causes global warming."
The letter continues, "The world is coming to a crossroads. Most of the countries represented at the Major Emitters Meeting – as well as most countries that will not be present – are working under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to reach agreement on legally-binding emission limits for industrialized countries and on measures to achieve greater emission reductions from emerging economies under a robust, expanded carbon market. Such a system can provide us with a fair chance of staving off catastrophic warming, while supporting sustainable development and adaptation for all countries.
"Your Administration has been pursuing an alternative approach based on purely aspirational targets and non-binding pledges of national action, as was evident at the recent summit of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries. This voluntary approach, Mr. President, cannot succeed in staving off catastrophic climate change impacts... Finally, we ask for your commitment that the Washington meeting will not start a separate process competing with negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the U.S. is a party, and which is the world’s recognized forum for hammering out the international response to global warming..."
On September 26, Chairman Edward Markey of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, along with 29 other House members also sent a letter to the President asking for more concrete global warming action on the eve of the major emitters meeting. The letter notes that the "overwhelming scientific evidence on the immediacy of global warming" means that the President's voluntary, "aspirational" goals for cutting emissions does not go far enough. The letter asks the President to join the U.S. Congress to "put in place mandatory domestic policies that will achieve real reductions in emissions" like a cap and trade system currently being discussed in Congress.
Access a joint release from Pelosi and Reid that includes the full-text of the letter (click here). Access the White House invitation letter to the President's climate change meeting (click here). Access a release and link to the Markey, et al letter (click here). [*Climate]
Pelosi and Reid indicated in the letter, "Our legacy to the many generations that will follow us will depend upon how we handle the climate crisis and whether as a nation and as a world community we can take real action in time to avoid the worst effects of global warming. On Thursday and Friday, representatives of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitting nations will meet in Washington at your invitation to discuss their roles in combating global warming. We call upon you to use this occasion to announce your support for mandatory national and international limits on the pollution that causes global warming."
The letter continues, "The world is coming to a crossroads. Most of the countries represented at the Major Emitters Meeting – as well as most countries that will not be present – are working under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to reach agreement on legally-binding emission limits for industrialized countries and on measures to achieve greater emission reductions from emerging economies under a robust, expanded carbon market. Such a system can provide us with a fair chance of staving off catastrophic warming, while supporting sustainable development and adaptation for all countries.
"Your Administration has been pursuing an alternative approach based on purely aspirational targets and non-binding pledges of national action, as was evident at the recent summit of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries. This voluntary approach, Mr. President, cannot succeed in staving off catastrophic climate change impacts... Finally, we ask for your commitment that the Washington meeting will not start a separate process competing with negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the U.S. is a party, and which is the world’s recognized forum for hammering out the international response to global warming..."
On September 26, Chairman Edward Markey of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, along with 29 other House members also sent a letter to the President asking for more concrete global warming action on the eve of the major emitters meeting. The letter notes that the "overwhelming scientific evidence on the immediacy of global warming" means that the President's voluntary, "aspirational" goals for cutting emissions does not go far enough. The letter asks the President to join the U.S. Congress to "put in place mandatory domestic policies that will achieve real reductions in emissions" like a cap and trade system currently being discussed in Congress.
Access a joint release from Pelosi and Reid that includes the full-text of the letter (click here). Access the White House invitation letter to the President's climate change meeting (click here). Access a release and link to the Markey, et al letter (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
GAO Compares U.S. TSCA & European REACH Approaches
Sep 25: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter report entitled, Chemical Regulation: Comparison of U.S. and Recently Enacted European Union Approaches to Protect against the Risks of Toxic Chemicals (GAO-07-825, August 17, 2007). The report was requested by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works AND Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
According to GAO, chemicals play an important role in everyday life. However, some chemicals are highly toxic and need to be regulated. In 1976, the Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to authorize U.S. EPA to control chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, but some have questioned whether TSCA provides EPA with enough tools to protect against chemical risks. Like the United States, the European Union (EU) has laws governing the production and use of chemicals. The EU has recently revised its chemical control policy through legislation known as Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) [See WIMS 12/13/06] in order to better identify and mitigate risks from chemicals.
GAO was asked to review the approaches used under TSCA and REACH for (1) requiring chemical companies to develop information on chemicals’ effects, (2) controlling risks from chemicals, and (3) making information on chemicals available to the public. To review these issues, GAO analyzed applicable U.S. and EU laws and regulations and interviewed U.S. and EU officials, industry representatives, and environmental advocacy organizations.
GAO indicates that REACH requires companies to develop information on chemicals’ effects on human health and the environment, while TSCA does not require companies to develop such information absent EPA rule-making requiring them to do so. While TSCA does not require companies to develop information on chemicals before they enter commerce (new chemicals), companies are required to provide EPA any information that may already exist on a chemical’s impact on human health or the environment. Companies do not have to develop information on the health or environmental impacts of chemicals already in commerce (existing chemicals) unless EPA formally promulgates a rule requiring them to do so. Partly because of the resources and difficulties the agency faces in order to require testing to develop information on existing chemicals, EPA has moved toward using voluntary programs as an alternative means of gathering information from chemical companies in order to assess and control the chemicals under TSCA. While these programs are noteworthy, data collection has been slow in some cases, and it is unclear if the programs will provide EPA enough information to identify and control chemical risks.
TSCA places the burden of proof on EPA to demonstrate that a chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment before EPA can regulate its production or use, while REACH generally places a burden on chemical companies to ensure that chemicals do not pose such risks or that measures are identified for handling chemicals safely. In addition, TSCA provides EPA with differing authorities for controlling risks, depending on whether the risks are posed by new or existing chemicals. For new chemicals, EPA can restrict a chemical’s production or use if the agency determines that insufficient information exists to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical and that, in the absence of such information, the chemical may present an unreasonable risk. For existing chemicals, EPA may regulate a chemical for which it finds a reasonable basis exists to conclude that it presents or will present an unreasonable risk. Further, TSCA requires EPA to choose the regulatory action that is least burdensome in mitigating the unreasonable risk. However, EPA has found it difficult to promulgate rules under this standard. Under REACH, chemical companies must obtain authorization to use chemicals that are listed as chemicals of very high concern. Generally, to obtain such authorization, chemical companies need to demonstrate that they can adequately control risks posed by the chemical or otherwise ensure that the chemical is used safely.
TSCA and REACH both have provisions to protect information claimed by chemical companies as confidential or sensitive business information but REACH requires greater public disclosure of certain information, such as basic chemical properties, including melting and boiling points. In addition, REACH places greater restrictions on the kinds of information chemical companies may claim as confidential.
Access the complete 56-page GAO report (click here). Access the European Commission REACH website for additional information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]
According to GAO, chemicals play an important role in everyday life. However, some chemicals are highly toxic and need to be regulated. In 1976, the Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to authorize U.S. EPA to control chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, but some have questioned whether TSCA provides EPA with enough tools to protect against chemical risks. Like the United States, the European Union (EU) has laws governing the production and use of chemicals. The EU has recently revised its chemical control policy through legislation known as Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) [See WIMS 12/13/06] in order to better identify and mitigate risks from chemicals.
GAO was asked to review the approaches used under TSCA and REACH for (1) requiring chemical companies to develop information on chemicals’ effects, (2) controlling risks from chemicals, and (3) making information on chemicals available to the public. To review these issues, GAO analyzed applicable U.S. and EU laws and regulations and interviewed U.S. and EU officials, industry representatives, and environmental advocacy organizations.
GAO indicates that REACH requires companies to develop information on chemicals’ effects on human health and the environment, while TSCA does not require companies to develop such information absent EPA rule-making requiring them to do so. While TSCA does not require companies to develop information on chemicals before they enter commerce (new chemicals), companies are required to provide EPA any information that may already exist on a chemical’s impact on human health or the environment. Companies do not have to develop information on the health or environmental impacts of chemicals already in commerce (existing chemicals) unless EPA formally promulgates a rule requiring them to do so. Partly because of the resources and difficulties the agency faces in order to require testing to develop information on existing chemicals, EPA has moved toward using voluntary programs as an alternative means of gathering information from chemical companies in order to assess and control the chemicals under TSCA. While these programs are noteworthy, data collection has been slow in some cases, and it is unclear if the programs will provide EPA enough information to identify and control chemical risks.
TSCA places the burden of proof on EPA to demonstrate that a chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment before EPA can regulate its production or use, while REACH generally places a burden on chemical companies to ensure that chemicals do not pose such risks or that measures are identified for handling chemicals safely. In addition, TSCA provides EPA with differing authorities for controlling risks, depending on whether the risks are posed by new or existing chemicals. For new chemicals, EPA can restrict a chemical’s production or use if the agency determines that insufficient information exists to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical and that, in the absence of such information, the chemical may present an unreasonable risk. For existing chemicals, EPA may regulate a chemical for which it finds a reasonable basis exists to conclude that it presents or will present an unreasonable risk. Further, TSCA requires EPA to choose the regulatory action that is least burdensome in mitigating the unreasonable risk. However, EPA has found it difficult to promulgate rules under this standard. Under REACH, chemical companies must obtain authorization to use chemicals that are listed as chemicals of very high concern. Generally, to obtain such authorization, chemical companies need to demonstrate that they can adequately control risks posed by the chemical or otherwise ensure that the chemical is used safely.
TSCA and REACH both have provisions to protect information claimed by chemical companies as confidential or sensitive business information but REACH requires greater public disclosure of certain information, such as basic chemical properties, including melting and boiling points. In addition, REACH places greater restrictions on the kinds of information chemical companies may claim as confidential.
Access the complete 56-page GAO report (click here). Access the European Commission REACH website for additional information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]
Monday, September 24, 2007
Historic Montreal Agreement Prelude To Warming Agreement?
Sep 22: Nations signed an agreement to accelerate freeze and phase out of substances known as hydrochlorflurocarbons (HCFCs) under the 20 year-old Montreal Protocol -- the UNEP treaty established in 1987 to protect the Earth's ozone layer from chemical attack. The historic agreement will address the twin challenges of protecting the ozone layer and combating climate change. The decision, including an agreement that sufficient funding will be made available to achieve the strategy, follows mounting evidence that HCFCs contribute to global warming.
HCFCs emerged as replacement chemicals in the 1990s for in air conditioning, some forms of refrigeration equipment and foams following an earlier decision to phase-out older and more ozone-damaging chemicals known as CFCs or chloroflurocarbons. Governments meeting in Montreal, agreed at the close to freeze production of HCFCs in 2013 and move up the final phase-out date of these chemicals by ten years. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, called the agreement an "important and quick win for combating climate change." He said, "Historic is an often over-used word but not in the case of this agreement made in Montreal. Governments had a golden opportunity to deal with the twin challenges of climate change and protecting the ozone layer -- and governments took it. The precise and final savings in terms of greenhouse gas emissions could amount to several billions of tonnes illustrating the complementarities of international environmental agreements."
UN officials were hopeful that the agreement and the spirit of Montreal would build confidence in the United Nations as a platform for negotiating effective agreements for addressing climate change as the spotlight now moves to New York where, on September 24, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is hosting a Heads of State meeting on climate change. The Secretary-General hopes that world leaders will send a powerful political signal to the negotiations in Bali [December 3-14] that "business as usual" will not do and that they are ready to work jointly with others towards a comprehensive multilateral framework for action on climate change for the period after 2012. The event is titled, The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change [See WIMS 9/14/07].
HCFCs, which also damage the ozone layer but less than CFCs, were always planned as interim substitutes and were due to be phased out in 2030 by developed countries and in 2040 by developing ones. In Montreal six proposals were put before governments from both developed and developing countries. They represented a variety of options including the freeze dates; reduction steps towards a final and accelerated phase out. The final agreement is a combination of the various options proposed by Argentina and Brazil; Norway and Switzerland; the United States; Mauritania, Mauritius and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Under the agreement, productions of HCFCs are to be frozen at the average production levels in 2009-2010 in 2013. Developed countries have agreed to reduce production and consumption by 2010 by 75 per cent and by 90 per cent by 2015 with final phase out in 2020. Developing countries have agreed to cut production and consumption by 10 per cent in 2015; by 35 per cent by 2020 and by 67.5 per cent by 2025 with a final phase-out in 2030. It was also agreed that a small percentage of the original base line amounting to 2.5 per cent will be allowed in developing countries during the period 2030-2040 for "servicing" purposes. Essentially this means that some equipment, coming towards the end of its life such as office block air conditioning units, could continue to run on HCFCs for a few more years if needed.
The 191 Parties to the Montreal Protocol -- 190 countries plus the European Commission -- also made an agreement on financing. The Protocol's financial arm -- the Multilateral Fund -- which to date has spent over $2 billion to assist developing country reductions comes up for renewal next year. The new agreement takes into account the need for "stable and sufficient" funds and the fact that there may be "incremental costs" for developing countries under the accelerated HCFC freeze and phase out. The Governments agreed to a short study by experts to fully assess the likely costs of the acceleration. They will report back early in 2008 and inform parties on the suggested sums required for the renewal funding.
In a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), David Doniger, policy director of the group's Climate Center said, “This week’s deal will sharply cut global emissions, especially by reducing large HCFC increases expected in the next decade from China and India. The Bush administration deserves credit for working with other countries to push for faster cuts in HCFCs. The quicker phase-out will help heal the ozone layer and reduce skin cancer. Reducing HCFCs also helps cut global warming pollution... The Montreal ozone treaty is a model for progress on global warming. It shows that a binding treaty -- with industrial countries taking the lead and with real pollution limits for both developed and developing nations -- can successfully cut global pollution and trigger a clean technology revolution.”
Later in the week, President Bush has invited 17 of the largest greenhouse gas emitting countries to participate in a Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change, on September 27-28, 2007, in Washington, DC [See WIMS 8/16/07]. The President's meeting is part of the Administration's announced plans on May 31, 2007, to support for "an effort to develop a new post-2012 framework on climate change by the end of 2008 [See WIMS 6/1/07].
The September 24, UN meeting is being called the largest-ever gathering of world leaders on climate change with a call to forge a coalition to accelerate a global response. Secretary-General Ban told the participants -- top officials from over 150 nations, including 80 heads of State or Government -- at UN Headquarters in New York, “I am convinced that climate change, and what we do about it, will define us, our era, and ultimately the global legacy we leave for future generations.”
Access a release on the Montreal Protocol meeting with extensive links to detailed information (click here). Access further information on the High-Level meeting including background, special envoys, FAQs and more (click here). Access the complete NRDC release (click here). Access further information on the President's meeting including the invitation letter and list of invitees (click here) and from the WIMS link above. Access a release from the UN on the September 24 meeting (click here). [*Air, *Climate]
HCFCs emerged as replacement chemicals in the 1990s for in air conditioning, some forms of refrigeration equipment and foams following an earlier decision to phase-out older and more ozone-damaging chemicals known as CFCs or chloroflurocarbons. Governments meeting in Montreal, agreed at the close to freeze production of HCFCs in 2013 and move up the final phase-out date of these chemicals by ten years. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, called the agreement an "important and quick win for combating climate change." He said, "Historic is an often over-used word but not in the case of this agreement made in Montreal. Governments had a golden opportunity to deal with the twin challenges of climate change and protecting the ozone layer -- and governments took it. The precise and final savings in terms of greenhouse gas emissions could amount to several billions of tonnes illustrating the complementarities of international environmental agreements."
UN officials were hopeful that the agreement and the spirit of Montreal would build confidence in the United Nations as a platform for negotiating effective agreements for addressing climate change as the spotlight now moves to New York where, on September 24, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is hosting a Heads of State meeting on climate change. The Secretary-General hopes that world leaders will send a powerful political signal to the negotiations in Bali [December 3-14] that "business as usual" will not do and that they are ready to work jointly with others towards a comprehensive multilateral framework for action on climate change for the period after 2012. The event is titled, The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change [See WIMS 9/14/07].
HCFCs, which also damage the ozone layer but less than CFCs, were always planned as interim substitutes and were due to be phased out in 2030 by developed countries and in 2040 by developing ones. In Montreal six proposals were put before governments from both developed and developing countries. They represented a variety of options including the freeze dates; reduction steps towards a final and accelerated phase out. The final agreement is a combination of the various options proposed by Argentina and Brazil; Norway and Switzerland; the United States; Mauritania, Mauritius and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Under the agreement, productions of HCFCs are to be frozen at the average production levels in 2009-2010 in 2013. Developed countries have agreed to reduce production and consumption by 2010 by 75 per cent and by 90 per cent by 2015 with final phase out in 2020. Developing countries have agreed to cut production and consumption by 10 per cent in 2015; by 35 per cent by 2020 and by 67.5 per cent by 2025 with a final phase-out in 2030. It was also agreed that a small percentage of the original base line amounting to 2.5 per cent will be allowed in developing countries during the period 2030-2040 for "servicing" purposes. Essentially this means that some equipment, coming towards the end of its life such as office block air conditioning units, could continue to run on HCFCs for a few more years if needed.
The 191 Parties to the Montreal Protocol -- 190 countries plus the European Commission -- also made an agreement on financing. The Protocol's financial arm -- the Multilateral Fund -- which to date has spent over $2 billion to assist developing country reductions comes up for renewal next year. The new agreement takes into account the need for "stable and sufficient" funds and the fact that there may be "incremental costs" for developing countries under the accelerated HCFC freeze and phase out. The Governments agreed to a short study by experts to fully assess the likely costs of the acceleration. They will report back early in 2008 and inform parties on the suggested sums required for the renewal funding.
In a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), David Doniger, policy director of the group's Climate Center said, “This week’s deal will sharply cut global emissions, especially by reducing large HCFC increases expected in the next decade from China and India. The Bush administration deserves credit for working with other countries to push for faster cuts in HCFCs. The quicker phase-out will help heal the ozone layer and reduce skin cancer. Reducing HCFCs also helps cut global warming pollution... The Montreal ozone treaty is a model for progress on global warming. It shows that a binding treaty -- with industrial countries taking the lead and with real pollution limits for both developed and developing nations -- can successfully cut global pollution and trigger a clean technology revolution.”
Later in the week, President Bush has invited 17 of the largest greenhouse gas emitting countries to participate in a Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change, on September 27-28, 2007, in Washington, DC [See WIMS 8/16/07]. The President's meeting is part of the Administration's announced plans on May 31, 2007, to support for "an effort to develop a new post-2012 framework on climate change by the end of 2008 [See WIMS 6/1/07].
The September 24, UN meeting is being called the largest-ever gathering of world leaders on climate change with a call to forge a coalition to accelerate a global response. Secretary-General Ban told the participants -- top officials from over 150 nations, including 80 heads of State or Government -- at UN Headquarters in New York, “I am convinced that climate change, and what we do about it, will define us, our era, and ultimately the global legacy we leave for future generations.”
Access a release on the Montreal Protocol meeting with extensive links to detailed information (click here). Access further information on the High-Level meeting including background, special envoys, FAQs and more (click here). Access the complete NRDC release (click here). Access further information on the President's meeting including the invitation letter and list of invitees (click here) and from the WIMS link above. Access a release from the UN on the September 24 meeting (click here). [*Air, *Climate]
Friday, September 21, 2007
Potential For Carbon Sequestration In The U.S.
Sep 20: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report entitled, The Potential for Carbon Sequestration in the United States. The 32-page report was prepared at the request of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works -- Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). The report examines the methods, technological potential, and possible costs of carbon sequestration in the United States. In accordance with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, the paper makes no recommendations.
According to the report, human activity emits roughly 32 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the primary greenhouse gas -- into the atmosphere each year. Worldwide, about 80 percent of those emissions come from the combustion of oil, coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels; the remaining 20 percent comes from deforestation. (Because plants take in CO2, removing them releases some or all of that carbon.) Currently, in any given year, the equivalent of about half of total CO2 emissions are absorbed by the world’s oceans, soil, and vegetation, which (together with the atmosphere and fossil carbon deposits) make up the
natural reservoirs through which carbon flows over time.
The other half of those emissions remain in the atmosphere, contributing to the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the gradual warming of the Earth’s climate. Various analyses suggest that avoiding future climate related damage by starting to reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would have greater benefits than costs. Options for doing that include not only curbing activities that generate emissions but also sequestering CO2 -- for example, by encouraging its absorption from the atmosphere into vegetation and soil (biological sequestration) and by trapping CO2 at power plants and industrial facilities before it is emitted and injecting it into underground storage sites (a process known as carbon dioxide capture and storage, or CCS).
The paper looks at the methods, potential scale, and possible costs of both types of carbon sequestration. It also examines the particular role that sequestration could play in the context of the full range of possible actions to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report indicates that biological sequestration faces implementation challenges, in part because it can be easily reversed by common natural disturbances, such as fires, or by changes in land use and management. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves capturing CO2 emissions for long-term storage in geologic formations such as oil or natural gas fields, coal seams that cannot be mined economically, or deep saline formations. Such sites offer the potential for much larger and more secure storage than biological sequestration does. (Another possibility is to inject CO2 deep into the ocean, but that option raises significant ecological concerns.)
Studies estimate that biological sequestration has the technological potential to sequester about 40 billion to 60 billion metric tons of CO2 in the United States over the course of 50 years and another few tens of billions of tons over the following half-century. The total capacity for storing captured CO2 emissions in geologic formations is estimated at roughly 1.2 trillion to 3.6 trillion metric tons. Thus, the United States has the technological potential to offset roughly a decade’s worth of its current CO2 emissions through biological sequestration and a few hundred years’ worth of emissions through carbon dioxide capture and storage.
If a policy was established to limit the atmospheric concentration of CO2, it would effectively put a price on CO2 emissions -- with a corresponding value for CCS and perhaps also for biological sequestration. The specific details of the policy would determine the price. The range of recently debated policies and literature on the economic costs of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions suggest a CO2 price of about $5 to $65 per metric ton by 2020.
CO2 capture and storage, which has a fairly large technological potential, has not yet been demonstrated on the scale envisioned for mitigating CO2 emissions. It is also more costly than biological sequestration. Analysts estimate that the CO2 price would need to be in the range of $15 to $90 per metric ton (depending on the type of electricity plant at which the CO2 was captured) to cover the anticipated costs of CCS and exploit the full potential for geologic storage. That potential corresponds to several hundred years’ worth of CO2 emissions at current U.S. levels.
To refine estimates of the extent to which the United States might use carbon sequestration practices, those practices need to be considered in the context of a broader range of strategies for mitigating climate change. Other strategies include increasing the nation’s reliance on renewable or alternative sources of energy (including biofuels), using energy more efficiently, and reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases (such as methane and nitrous oxide). The relative importance of those different strategies is apt to vary over time with changes in the price for CO2. Analysis suggests that limits on CO2 emissions would be likely to spur an increasing, and relatively large, reliance on carbon dioxide capture and storage for some time. By contrast, the economic potential for biological sequestration would start to decline after some point.
Access the complete CBO report (click here). [*Climate]
According to the report, human activity emits roughly 32 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the primary greenhouse gas -- into the atmosphere each year. Worldwide, about 80 percent of those emissions come from the combustion of oil, coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels; the remaining 20 percent comes from deforestation. (Because plants take in CO2, removing them releases some or all of that carbon.) Currently, in any given year, the equivalent of about half of total CO2 emissions are absorbed by the world’s oceans, soil, and vegetation, which (together with the atmosphere and fossil carbon deposits) make up the
natural reservoirs through which carbon flows over time.
The other half of those emissions remain in the atmosphere, contributing to the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the gradual warming of the Earth’s climate. Various analyses suggest that avoiding future climate related damage by starting to reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would have greater benefits than costs. Options for doing that include not only curbing activities that generate emissions but also sequestering CO2 -- for example, by encouraging its absorption from the atmosphere into vegetation and soil (biological sequestration) and by trapping CO2 at power plants and industrial facilities before it is emitted and injecting it into underground storage sites (a process known as carbon dioxide capture and storage, or CCS).
The paper looks at the methods, potential scale, and possible costs of both types of carbon sequestration. It also examines the particular role that sequestration could play in the context of the full range of possible actions to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report indicates that biological sequestration faces implementation challenges, in part because it can be easily reversed by common natural disturbances, such as fires, or by changes in land use and management. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves capturing CO2 emissions for long-term storage in geologic formations such as oil or natural gas fields, coal seams that cannot be mined economically, or deep saline formations. Such sites offer the potential for much larger and more secure storage than biological sequestration does. (Another possibility is to inject CO2 deep into the ocean, but that option raises significant ecological concerns.)
Studies estimate that biological sequestration has the technological potential to sequester about 40 billion to 60 billion metric tons of CO2 in the United States over the course of 50 years and another few tens of billions of tons over the following half-century. The total capacity for storing captured CO2 emissions in geologic formations is estimated at roughly 1.2 trillion to 3.6 trillion metric tons. Thus, the United States has the technological potential to offset roughly a decade’s worth of its current CO2 emissions through biological sequestration and a few hundred years’ worth of emissions through carbon dioxide capture and storage.
If a policy was established to limit the atmospheric concentration of CO2, it would effectively put a price on CO2 emissions -- with a corresponding value for CCS and perhaps also for biological sequestration. The specific details of the policy would determine the price. The range of recently debated policies and literature on the economic costs of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions suggest a CO2 price of about $5 to $65 per metric ton by 2020.
CO2 capture and storage, which has a fairly large technological potential, has not yet been demonstrated on the scale envisioned for mitigating CO2 emissions. It is also more costly than biological sequestration. Analysts estimate that the CO2 price would need to be in the range of $15 to $90 per metric ton (depending on the type of electricity plant at which the CO2 was captured) to cover the anticipated costs of CCS and exploit the full potential for geologic storage. That potential corresponds to several hundred years’ worth of CO2 emissions at current U.S. levels.
To refine estimates of the extent to which the United States might use carbon sequestration practices, those practices need to be considered in the context of a broader range of strategies for mitigating climate change. Other strategies include increasing the nation’s reliance on renewable or alternative sources of energy (including biofuels), using energy more efficiently, and reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases (such as methane and nitrous oxide). The relative importance of those different strategies is apt to vary over time with changes in the price for CO2. Analysis suggests that limits on CO2 emissions would be likely to spur an increasing, and relatively large, reliance on carbon dioxide capture and storage for some time. By contrast, the economic potential for biological sequestration would start to decline after some point.
Access the complete CBO report (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, September 20, 2007
East Kentucky Power Gets $11.4 Million Acid Rain Fine: Largest Ever
Sep 20: In what U.S. EPA called a "landmark settlement," East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), a coal-fired electric utility, has agreed to pay an $11.4 million penalty to resolve violations of the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program. In the settlement announced by EPA and the Department of Justice, the U.S. is seeking court-approval for the highest fine ever under the Clean Air Act's acid rain program. The Commonwealth of Kentucky joined in the consent decree. The settlement requires that the company take steps to reduce approximately 400 tons of harmful emissions each year and offset another approximately 20,000 tons of emissions released from its Clark County, KY facility without a permit.
The government estimated that the utility’s Dale Generating Station emitted over 15,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 4,000 tons of nitrogen oxide without a permit from approximately 2000-2005. In addition, the government alleged the utility exceeded the Federal annual emission rate for nitrogen oxides. The utility is also required to apply for an acid rain permit, continuously monitor sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and install and operate nitrogen oxide controls. These pollution controls will reduce annual nitrogen oxide emissions by approximately 400 tons per year.
Coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the form of “allowances,” which are granted under Federal or state acid rain permits based on a national annual emissions cap. If a utility emits less, it can sell unused allowances to other utilities, or save them for use later. If it emits more, it must purchase allowances from other utilities and surrender those allowances to EPA. In this case, EKPC is required to purchase and retire allowances representing 20,000 tons of emissions, which represents their emissions during the period of noncompliance.
The agreement allows the company to pay the $11.4 million penalty over six years. Last July, EKPC agreed to install pollution controls estimated to cost $650 million and to pay a $750,000 penalty to resolve violations of the new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Dale facility and two other plants.The latest proposed agreement, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.
Access a release from EPA and links more information on the settlement (click here). Access a copy of the Consent Decree (click here). [*Air]
The government estimated that the utility’s Dale Generating Station emitted over 15,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 4,000 tons of nitrogen oxide without a permit from approximately 2000-2005. In addition, the government alleged the utility exceeded the Federal annual emission rate for nitrogen oxides. The utility is also required to apply for an acid rain permit, continuously monitor sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and install and operate nitrogen oxide controls. These pollution controls will reduce annual nitrogen oxide emissions by approximately 400 tons per year.
Coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the form of “allowances,” which are granted under Federal or state acid rain permits based on a national annual emissions cap. If a utility emits less, it can sell unused allowances to other utilities, or save them for use later. If it emits more, it must purchase allowances from other utilities and surrender those allowances to EPA. In this case, EKPC is required to purchase and retire allowances representing 20,000 tons of emissions, which represents their emissions during the period of noncompliance.
The agreement allows the company to pay the $11.4 million penalty over six years. Last July, EKPC agreed to install pollution controls estimated to cost $650 million and to pay a $750,000 penalty to resolve violations of the new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Dale facility and two other plants.The latest proposed agreement, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.
Access a release from EPA and links more information on the settlement (click here). Access a copy of the Consent Decree (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Senate Hearing On America’s Wastewater Infrastructure Needs
Sep 19: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality, Chaired by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) held a hearing entitled, "Meeting America’s Wastewater Infrastructure Needs in the 21st Century." Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. EPA; the Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey and President, U.S. Conference of Mayors; the Mayor of Carencro, Louisiana and Board Member, Louisiana Rural Water Association; the Chief of the Financial Assistance Division of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and Vice President of the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities; the Assistant City Attorney, Public Works General Counsel for the City of Los Angeles and President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies; and the Director, Clean Water Program, Natural Resources Defense Council.
A press briefing on September 18, prior to the hearing included: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Environment Public Works Committee; and representatives from the National Association of Clean water Agencies (NACWA); Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC); American Rivers, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); and the Water Environment Federation (WEF).
At the briefing, Patrick Natale, executive director of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) said, "Unfortunately, 35 years after enactment of the Clean Water Act, commitment to maintaining this vital resource has dwindled. With an estimated funding gap of as much as $500 billion over the next 20 years, the nation is facing the very real possibility that we will wind up with a lesser water quality than existed prior to the Clean Water Act's passage in 1972. That is unacceptable... It is time that Congress hears our message--we must renew federal investment in our nation's vital water and wastewater infrastructure, or risk reversing the public health, environmental and economic gains of the past three decades..." ASCE's delivered its Report Card for America's Infrastructure and Action Plan for the 110th Congress.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) delivered opening remarks saying, the Clean Water SRF is the cornerstone of federal clean water assistance to the nation’s cities and towns. Since its creation in 1987, the Clean Water SRF has saved its borrowers over $3.7 billion in interest costs and also provided $8.2 billion in funding to improve the nation’s water quality. Importantly, the federal government has provided $24 billion in state capitalization grants. In 2006, there was more than $60 billion available for loans to communities.
Inhofe stated, "The effort that we are about to undertake will be the fourth time in four Congresses that we have attempted to move a water infrastructure bill. Only one of our previous three attempts at passing a water infrastructure bill was bipartisan. I hope that this year we can again have a bipartisan bill as we did last Congress under my leadership and that we can work together to move it to the Senate floor. To do so, we must avoid many of the mistakes of previous efforts. The bill must be clean of too many additional requirements on the applicants. We are not providing grants through the current SRF. These are loans to be repaid by municipalities. In order to truly provide them with federal assistance in meeting their regulatory obligations under the federal environmental statutes, we must provide loans with as few strings attached as possible. There are legislative proposals pending that include additional requirements for states and localities to meet. While I am sure someone can find value in almost all of these requirements, I am concerned their cumulative impact may be to create a program far too burdensome for anyone to use.
Additionally, in previous attempts, even last year, we failed to come to a unified committee resolution to the issue of Davis-Bacon. Failing to do so again will likely result in yet another stalemate..."
EPA's Grumbles testified that, "...of the 222.8 million people served by wastewater treatment facilities, more than 98.5 percent (219.5 million people) are served by “secondary treatment” (or better), a technical but important term of art that refers to a biological treatment process designed to remove dissolved organic matter from wastewater. Secondary treatment may remove up to 90 percent of remaining biological matter such as human waste, food waste, soaps and detergent. More than 281 million people receive drinking water on a daily basis from more than 52,000 community water systems throughout the nation...
"Over the past 20 years, communities have spent more than $1 trillion (in 2001 dollars) on infrastructure, operations and maintenance for wastewater treatment and disposal and drinking water treatment and supply. But, it may not be enough to keep pace with America's aging infrastructure systems... the potential gap between spending and needs between 2000 and 2019 would be approximately $122 billion (in 2001 dollars) for wastewater infrastructure and $102 billion (in 2001 dollars) for drinking water infrastructure. If revenue grows at 3% per year, a projection that is consistent with long-term growth estimates of the economy, the gap is approximately $21 billion (in 2001 dollars) for wastewater infrastructure and $45 billion (in 2001 dollars) for drinking water infrastructure..."
Grumbles said that in addition to the SRF programs EPA is proposing an important new tool -- Water Enterprise Bonds -- to accelerate and increase investment in the nation’s water infrastructure. Water Enterprise Bonds will enhance access and flexibility for utilities to issue private activity bonds for public-purpose drinking water and wastewater facilities. He said the Agency is also looking aggressively for innovative ways to reduce costs and increase incentives to foster sustainable water infrastructure investment and management. Overall he said, "The Agency has approached the challenge of keeping pace with infrastructure needs of the future by developing a comprehensive strategy built upon what we call the 'Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure' --better management, full cost pricing, water efficiency, and the watershed approach." He also acknowledged that, "Increasingly, we understand climate change may have impacts on water infrastructure and watersheds that will affect our actions under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and various ocean and coastal laws."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the ASCE statement and link to the report card and related information (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Water]
A press briefing on September 18, prior to the hearing included: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Environment Public Works Committee; and representatives from the National Association of Clean water Agencies (NACWA); Associated General Contractors of America (AGC); the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC); American Rivers, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); and the Water Environment Federation (WEF).
At the briefing, Patrick Natale, executive director of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) said, "Unfortunately, 35 years after enactment of the Clean Water Act, commitment to maintaining this vital resource has dwindled. With an estimated funding gap of as much as $500 billion over the next 20 years, the nation is facing the very real possibility that we will wind up with a lesser water quality than existed prior to the Clean Water Act's passage in 1972. That is unacceptable... It is time that Congress hears our message--we must renew federal investment in our nation's vital water and wastewater infrastructure, or risk reversing the public health, environmental and economic gains of the past three decades..." ASCE's delivered its Report Card for America's Infrastructure and Action Plan for the 110th Congress.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) delivered opening remarks saying, the Clean Water SRF is the cornerstone of federal clean water assistance to the nation’s cities and towns. Since its creation in 1987, the Clean Water SRF has saved its borrowers over $3.7 billion in interest costs and also provided $8.2 billion in funding to improve the nation’s water quality. Importantly, the federal government has provided $24 billion in state capitalization grants. In 2006, there was more than $60 billion available for loans to communities.
Inhofe stated, "The effort that we are about to undertake will be the fourth time in four Congresses that we have attempted to move a water infrastructure bill. Only one of our previous three attempts at passing a water infrastructure bill was bipartisan. I hope that this year we can again have a bipartisan bill as we did last Congress under my leadership and that we can work together to move it to the Senate floor. To do so, we must avoid many of the mistakes of previous efforts. The bill must be clean of too many additional requirements on the applicants. We are not providing grants through the current SRF. These are loans to be repaid by municipalities. In order to truly provide them with federal assistance in meeting their regulatory obligations under the federal environmental statutes, we must provide loans with as few strings attached as possible. There are legislative proposals pending that include additional requirements for states and localities to meet. While I am sure someone can find value in almost all of these requirements, I am concerned their cumulative impact may be to create a program far too burdensome for anyone to use.
Additionally, in previous attempts, even last year, we failed to come to a unified committee resolution to the issue of Davis-Bacon. Failing to do so again will likely result in yet another stalemate..."
EPA's Grumbles testified that, "...of the 222.8 million people served by wastewater treatment facilities, more than 98.5 percent (219.5 million people) are served by “secondary treatment” (or better), a technical but important term of art that refers to a biological treatment process designed to remove dissolved organic matter from wastewater. Secondary treatment may remove up to 90 percent of remaining biological matter such as human waste, food waste, soaps and detergent. More than 281 million people receive drinking water on a daily basis from more than 52,000 community water systems throughout the nation...
"Over the past 20 years, communities have spent more than $1 trillion (in 2001 dollars) on infrastructure, operations and maintenance for wastewater treatment and disposal and drinking water treatment and supply. But, it may not be enough to keep pace with America's aging infrastructure systems... the potential gap between spending and needs between 2000 and 2019 would be approximately $122 billion (in 2001 dollars) for wastewater infrastructure and $102 billion (in 2001 dollars) for drinking water infrastructure. If revenue grows at 3% per year, a projection that is consistent with long-term growth estimates of the economy, the gap is approximately $21 billion (in 2001 dollars) for wastewater infrastructure and $45 billion (in 2001 dollars) for drinking water infrastructure..."
Grumbles said that in addition to the SRF programs EPA is proposing an important new tool -- Water Enterprise Bonds -- to accelerate and increase investment in the nation’s water infrastructure. Water Enterprise Bonds will enhance access and flexibility for utilities to issue private activity bonds for public-purpose drinking water and wastewater facilities. He said the Agency is also looking aggressively for innovative ways to reduce costs and increase incentives to foster sustainable water infrastructure investment and management. Overall he said, "The Agency has approached the challenge of keeping pace with infrastructure needs of the future by developing a comprehensive strategy built upon what we call the 'Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure' --better management, full cost pricing, water efficiency, and the watershed approach." He also acknowledged that, "Increasingly, we understand climate change may have impacts on water infrastructure and watersheds that will affect our actions under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and various ocean and coastal laws."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the ASCE statement and link to the report card and related information (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Water]
Here's The Other Articles We Published Today...
Major Report Finds Contamination From Coal Waste Minefills
OMB Updated Principles For Risk Analysis
EPA Issues Final Rule Amending NEPA Procedures
Traffic Congestion Causes $78 Billion Drain On Economy
GAO Report On Farm Payments & Grassland Conversions
DOE Agreement Will Increase Data Centers' Energy Efficiency
U.S. PIRG Report On State Renewable Electricity Standards
Great Lakes Regional Data Exchange 2007
-MICHIGAN NEWS-
Budget Dealings Grind On; Time Running Short
Phragmites Control Demonstration Project
(click here for a free 30-day trial)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Groups Petition SEC To Require Disclosure Of Climate Change Risks
Sep 18: According to a release from Ceres, a broad coalition of investors, state officials with regulatory and fiscal management responsibilities, and environmental groups filed a landmark petition asking the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require publicly-traded companies to assess and fully disclose their financial risks from climate change. The coalition also formally asked the Commission's Division of Corporation Finance to immediately begin "scrutinizing the adequacy of registrants' climate disclosures" closely under existing law.
In addition to Environmental Defense and Ceres, the 22 petitioners include leading institutional investors in the U.S. and Europe managing more than $1.5 trillion in assets. Some of the signers include the California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, Maine State Treasurer David G. Lemoine, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, North Carolina State Treasurer Richard Moore and Oregon State Treasurer Randall Edwards, as well as New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.
The first-of-its-kind petition cites unequivocal scientific evidence, far-reaching regulatory developments and extensive business recognition that the risks and opportunities many corporations face in connection with climate change are material to shareholder investment decisions and must be disclosed under existing law. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said, "Smart companies know that profits and jobs come from solving problems, not ignoring them. Investors have a right to know who is paying attention."
Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, "The SEC needs to do more to protect investors from the risks companies face from climate change, whether from direct physical impacts or new regulations. Shareholders deserve to know if their portfolio companies are well positioned to manage climate risks or whether they face potential exposure."
According to the release, climate change can affect corporate performance in ways ranging from physical damage to facilities and increased costs of regulatory compliance, to opportunities in global markets for climate-friendly products or services that emit little or no global warming pollution. "Those risks fall squarely into the category of material information that companies must disclose under existing law to give shareholders a full and fair picture of corporate performance and operations," according to the petition. The petition asks SEC to clarify that, under existing law, companies must disclose material information related to climate change.
Ceres said that despite a groundswell of demand from investors for more information in climate risks, corporate disclosure has been scant and inconsistent. They cited Exxon Mobil Corporation, the world's largest petrochemical enterprise, which included only one cursory reference to climate change in its entire 2006 annual filing with the SEC. Allstate Corporation, which insures 1 in 8 homes in the U.S. and reported over $4 billion in losses from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, did not mention climate change at all in its latest annual filing. A January 2007 study published by Ceres and the Calvert Group, an asset management firm, found that more than half of the companies in the S&P 500 Index are doing a poor job disclosing climate change risks to their investors. Companies in sectors with low greenhouse gas emissions, including insurance companies and banks, had especially poor disclosure.
Access a release from Ceres listing the signers of the petition (click here). Access the complete 11-page petition (click here). Access the Ceres website for additional information (click here). [*Climate]
In addition to Environmental Defense and Ceres, the 22 petitioners include leading institutional investors in the U.S. and Europe managing more than $1.5 trillion in assets. Some of the signers include the California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, Maine State Treasurer David G. Lemoine, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, North Carolina State Treasurer Richard Moore and Oregon State Treasurer Randall Edwards, as well as New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.
The first-of-its-kind petition cites unequivocal scientific evidence, far-reaching regulatory developments and extensive business recognition that the risks and opportunities many corporations face in connection with climate change are material to shareholder investment decisions and must be disclosed under existing law. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said, "Smart companies know that profits and jobs come from solving problems, not ignoring them. Investors have a right to know who is paying attention."
Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk said, "The SEC needs to do more to protect investors from the risks companies face from climate change, whether from direct physical impacts or new regulations. Shareholders deserve to know if their portfolio companies are well positioned to manage climate risks or whether they face potential exposure."
According to the release, climate change can affect corporate performance in ways ranging from physical damage to facilities and increased costs of regulatory compliance, to opportunities in global markets for climate-friendly products or services that emit little or no global warming pollution. "Those risks fall squarely into the category of material information that companies must disclose under existing law to give shareholders a full and fair picture of corporate performance and operations," according to the petition. The petition asks SEC to clarify that, under existing law, companies must disclose material information related to climate change.
Ceres said that despite a groundswell of demand from investors for more information in climate risks, corporate disclosure has been scant and inconsistent. They cited Exxon Mobil Corporation, the world's largest petrochemical enterprise, which included only one cursory reference to climate change in its entire 2006 annual filing with the SEC. Allstate Corporation, which insures 1 in 8 homes in the U.S. and reported over $4 billion in losses from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, did not mention climate change at all in its latest annual filing. A January 2007 study published by Ceres and the Calvert Group, an asset management firm, found that more than half of the companies in the S&P 500 Index are doing a poor job disclosing climate change risks to their investors. Companies in sectors with low greenhouse gas emissions, including insurance companies and banks, had especially poor disclosure.
Access a release from Ceres listing the signers of the petition (click here). Access the complete 11-page petition (click here). Access the Ceres website for additional information (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
