Oct 21: With the Presidential election just two weeks away, WIMS is focusing on the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates position on energy, environment and climate change. Yesterday, we outlined Senator John McCain's positions [See WIMS 10/20/08]. Today we will outline Senator Barack Obama's plans.
The centerpiece of Senator Obama's energy and environmental proposals is his "New Energy for America Plan." According to his website, "Senator Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence. By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal." Overall his plan calls for 5 Million "Green Collar Jobs" and "a bold new national goal on energy efficiency and American energy."
Senator Obama says his New Energy for America Plan will: "Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump; Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future; Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined; Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America; Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; and Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050."
In further detail, to implement the above goals, Senator Obama proposes to (1) Provide Short-term Relief by proposing to: Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families; Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation; and Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices. (2) Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela by proposing to: Increase Fuel Economy Standards; Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015; Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles; Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard; Establish a “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases; and Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
(3) Create Millions of New Green Jobs by proposing to: Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source -- Energy Efficiency; Weatherize One Million Homes Annually; Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology; and Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. (4) Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions by proposing to: Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050; and Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.
Under eliminating Mideast and Venezuelan imports, the Plan says: "An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska." In addition to other items, the Plan also says, "Obama and Biden will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles."
Under his plan to create millions of new "green jobs", the Plan says, "Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology." In addition, Obama says he will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. He says, "Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs."
On the climate change issue, the Plan says, "The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned (generating $15 billion per year), and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families." Also, "Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues."
On the subject of nuclear power, the Obama Plan says, "Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. . . As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, [Obama & Biden] do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available."
In a separate, but somewhat overlapping "Environmental Plan," Obama promises to: restore the force of the Clean Air Act; listen to his scientific advisers on air quality standards; support full funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund; improve the quality of our nation’s lakes, rivers, and drinking water; strictly monitor and regulate pollution from large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); develop the best strategies for protecting and expanding wetlands; push for the passage of the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act; support federal water conservation policies, particularly for Western states; support brownfield redevelopment, and tools for communities to eat healthy foods and expand livable, walkable neighborhoods.
In addition Obama says he will restore the strength of the Superfund program by requiring polluters to pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites they created; make environmental justice policies a priority within U.S. EPA; expand research on toxins and provide the resources to clean up blighted communities; provide funding and emphasize the protection and restoration of our National Forests; provide increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; increase funding for the Conservation Security Program and the Conservation Reserve Program.
Additional programs and proposals are included in the Environmental Plan. Also, Obama-Biden have a separate plan to crack down on excessive energy speculation; and a Wildfire Prevention Plan.
Access the overview of the New Energy for America Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Energy Plan (click here). Access the details of the Obama Environmental Plan (click here). Access the Energy Speculation plan (click here). Access the Wildfire Prevention Plan (click here).
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
John McCain On Energy, Environment, & Climate
Oct 20: As the election draws near, WIMS is focusing on the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates position on energy, environment and climate change. Today we outline Senator John McCain's positions. Tomorrow we will outline Senator Obama's plan.
Senator McCain terms his energy plan -- "The Lexington Project; an all of the above energy solution." According to the plan detailed on the McCain website, "John McCain has made the necessary choices - producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air and addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources. John McCain will lead the effort to develop advanced transportation technologies and alternative fuels to promote energy independence and cut off the flow of oil wealth to repressive dictatorships like Iran."
A highlight of the plan is to Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. McCain says, "There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. . . John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources."
McCain's plan also focuses on the following: Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas; Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector; A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology; Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs); Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline; Eliminate Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies; Enforce Existing CAFE Standards; Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy; Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies; Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030; A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D; Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power; Greening The Federal Government Through Energy Efficiency; Upgrade The Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy; Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices; and Oppose A Windfall Profits Tax.
In further details, Senator McCain says, "We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs." He also says that he has long supported Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards; however he indicates, "Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars." He believes the penalties for not following these standards "must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles."
On the 10% R&D wages tax credit, McCain says, "This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions."
On tax credits for to provide incentives for alternative clean energy development, McCain says, "To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. . . an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars."
On the nuclear power issue, McCain indicates that, "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans."
Senator McCain generally integrates his environmental and climate change positions into his overall energy strategy. Senator McCain calls for A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. His Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables are defined as follows: 2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels); 2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels); 2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels); and 2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels).
Under the McCain plan, the cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets." The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.
On basic environmental issues Senator McCain indicates, "we face immense environmental challenges that will impact the quality of life we leave our children and future generations. A McCain White House will reflect the guiding principles of Theodore Roosevelt, America's foremost conservation president." He faults Congress for failing "to devote the proper resources towards operations and maintenance has caused many park units to fall into disrepair," He says, "These irreplaceable landscapes deserve our renewed attention." He calls for promoting "collaborative public-private partnership initiatives such as the North America Waterfowl Management Plan" and reversing "the declining access to quality hunting and angling opportunities vital to the sportsmen tradition."
He calls for protecting "delicate wetlands" and "employing long-term science-based strategies that properly manage strained freshwater resources, like the Great Lakes watershed, and promote polices that will preserve sensitive areas like the Everglades and the Louisiana coastal marshes." He calls for , promoting "responsible growth and encourage state and local officials to implement open space initiatives and establish green corridors within our communities." and "strengthening federal tools like Land and Water Conservation Fund."
Access the McCain Energy plan with links to related information (click here). Access further details on the McCain Climate Change plan (click here). Access further details on environmental positions (click here).
Senator McCain terms his energy plan -- "The Lexington Project; an all of the above energy solution." According to the plan detailed on the McCain website, "John McCain has made the necessary choices - producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air and addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources. John McCain will lead the effort to develop advanced transportation technologies and alternative fuels to promote energy independence and cut off the flow of oil wealth to repressive dictatorships like Iran."
A highlight of the plan is to Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. McCain says, "There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. . . John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources."
McCain's plan also focuses on the following: Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas; Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector; A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology; Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs); Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline; Eliminate Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies; Enforce Existing CAFE Standards; Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy; Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies; Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030; A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D; Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power; Greening The Federal Government Through Energy Efficiency; Upgrade The Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy; Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices; and Oppose A Windfall Profits Tax.
In further details, Senator McCain says, "We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs." He also says that he has long supported Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards; however he indicates, "Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars." He believes the penalties for not following these standards "must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles."
On the 10% R&D wages tax credit, McCain says, "This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions."
On tax credits for to provide incentives for alternative clean energy development, McCain says, "To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. . . an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars."
On the nuclear power issue, McCain indicates that, "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans."
Senator McCain generally integrates his environmental and climate change positions into his overall energy strategy. Senator McCain calls for A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. His Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables are defined as follows: 2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels); 2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels); 2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels); and 2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels).
Under the McCain plan, the cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets." The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.
On basic environmental issues Senator McCain indicates, "we face immense environmental challenges that will impact the quality of life we leave our children and future generations. A McCain White House will reflect the guiding principles of Theodore Roosevelt, America's foremost conservation president." He faults Congress for failing "to devote the proper resources towards operations and maintenance has caused many park units to fall into disrepair," He says, "These irreplaceable landscapes deserve our renewed attention." He calls for promoting "collaborative public-private partnership initiatives such as the North America Waterfowl Management Plan" and reversing "the declining access to quality hunting and angling opportunities vital to the sportsmen tradition."
He calls for protecting "delicate wetlands" and "employing long-term science-based strategies that properly manage strained freshwater resources, like the Great Lakes watershed, and promote polices that will preserve sensitive areas like the Everglades and the Louisiana coastal marshes." He calls for , promoting "responsible growth and encourage state and local officials to implement open space initiatives and establish green corridors within our communities." and "strengthening federal tools like Land and Water Conservation Fund."
Access the McCain Energy plan with links to related information (click here). Access further details on the McCain Climate Change plan (click here). Access further details on environmental positions (click here).
Friday, October 17, 2008
EU Chemical Agency Identifies 15 REACH Chemicals
Oct 9: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has agreed on the first group of 15 "very high concern" chemicals to the chemical regulation -- Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). At its meeting in Helsinki, Finland on October 7-8, 2008, the ECHA Member State Committee unanimously agreed on the identification of 14 "Substances of Very High Concern" (SVHC) that may become subject to authorization. One additional substance was already identified as SVHC without Member State Committee involvement as no comments were provided during the public consultation.
The 15 substances will be included in the ‘Candidate List’ which will be published on the ECHA website later in October. Executive Director of ECHA Geert Dancet stressed that, “these 15 are only the first substances of very high concern identified through the formal process. The EU Member States and ECHA are preparing new proposals and the Candidate List will thus be updated.”
Proposals for 16 substances to be included in the ‘Candidate’ list were submitted in the form of Annex XV dossiers by seven Member States in June 2008. The proposals were published for public consultation (July-August 2008). The Member State Committee (MSC) debated on 15 substances and found unanimous agreement on the identification of 14 substances as SVHCs that may become subject to authorization, taking into account the comments received from various stakeholders and Member States. On one proposal, Cyclododecane, the MSC unanimously agreed that there was no sufficient scientific data to justify identification under Art. 57. The 16th substance, triethyl arsenate, was already identified as a SVHC without MSC involvement, as no comments had been received during the consultation process.
Once the candidate list is officially published, companies will be obliged to inform consumers within 45 days whether such chemicals are present in the products on sale in the EU common market. A release from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) indicates that, "Faced with this requirement and impending regulation, it is in companies’ own interests that they start replacing them with safer alternatives. Importantly, a brominated flame retardant commonly found in house dust, in wildlife and the wider environment, as well as being detectable in human blood (HBCDD), and three plastic softeners (the phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP) are among the chemicals listed."
The 15 chemicals include: Diarsenic pentaoxide; Diarsenic trioxide; Sodium dichromate; 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene (musk xylene); Bis (2-ethyl(hexyl)phthalate) (DEHP); Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and all major diastereoisomers identified (α – HBCDD, β-HBCDD, γ-HBCDD);Alkanes, C10-13, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins); Bis(tributyltin)oxide; Lead hydrogen arsenate; Benzyl butyl phthalate; and Triethyl arsenate.
Access a release from ECHA with links to additional information (click here). Access the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) website (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace/WWF (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH Program links (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog posts on REACH issues (click here). [*Toxics]
The 15 substances will be included in the ‘Candidate List’ which will be published on the ECHA website later in October. Executive Director of ECHA Geert Dancet stressed that, “these 15 are only the first substances of very high concern identified through the formal process. The EU Member States and ECHA are preparing new proposals and the Candidate List will thus be updated.”
Proposals for 16 substances to be included in the ‘Candidate’ list were submitted in the form of Annex XV dossiers by seven Member States in June 2008. The proposals were published for public consultation (July-August 2008). The Member State Committee (MSC) debated on 15 substances and found unanimous agreement on the identification of 14 substances as SVHCs that may become subject to authorization, taking into account the comments received from various stakeholders and Member States. On one proposal, Cyclododecane, the MSC unanimously agreed that there was no sufficient scientific data to justify identification under Art. 57. The 16th substance, triethyl arsenate, was already identified as a SVHC without MSC involvement, as no comments had been received during the consultation process.
Once the candidate list is officially published, companies will be obliged to inform consumers within 45 days whether such chemicals are present in the products on sale in the EU common market. A release from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) indicates that, "Faced with this requirement and impending regulation, it is in companies’ own interests that they start replacing them with safer alternatives. Importantly, a brominated flame retardant commonly found in house dust, in wildlife and the wider environment, as well as being detectable in human blood (HBCDD), and three plastic softeners (the phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP) are among the chemicals listed."
The 15 chemicals include: Diarsenic pentaoxide; Diarsenic trioxide; Sodium dichromate; 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene (musk xylene); Bis (2-ethyl(hexyl)phthalate) (DEHP); Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and all major diastereoisomers identified (α – HBCDD, β-HBCDD, γ-HBCDD);Alkanes, C10-13, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins); Bis(tributyltin)oxide; Lead hydrogen arsenate; Benzyl butyl phthalate; and Triethyl arsenate.
Access a release from ECHA with links to additional information (click here). Access the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) website (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace/WWF (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH Program links (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog posts on REACH issues (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, October 16, 2008
EPA Finalizes New NAAQS For Lead At 0.15 ug/m3 (10 Times Lower)
Oct 15: U.S. EPA announced it would "dramatically strengthened the nation's air quality standards for lead," which it said would improve public health protection, especially for children [See WIMS 5/1/08]. The new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) will tighten the allowable lead level 10 times to 0.15 micrograms of lead (Pb) per cubic meter of air (ug/m3). EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "America's air is cleaner than a generation ago. With these stronger standards a new generation of Americans are being protected from harmful lead emissions."
The decision marks the first time the lead standards have changed in 30 years. EPA said it strengthened the standards after a thorough review of the science on lead, advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and consideration of public comments. The previous standards, set in 1978, were 1.5 ug/m3. EPA's action sets two standards: a primary standard at 0.15 ug/m3 to protect health; and a secondary standard at the same level to protect the public welfare, including the environment.
EPA noted that the existing monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to determine whether many areas of the country would meet the revised standards. As a result, EPA is redesigning the nation's lead monitoring network, which is necessary for the Agency to assess compliance with the new standard. No later than October 2011, EPA will designate areas that must take additional steps to reduce lead air emissions. States will have five years to meet the new standards after designations take effect.
EPA also said it is retaining the current indicator of Pb in total suspended particles (Pb-TSP). EPA is revising the averaging time to a rolling 3-month period with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a 3-year period. EPA is also revising data handling procedures, including allowance for the use of Pb-PM10 data in certain circumstances, and the treatment of exceptional events, and ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for Pb, including those related to sampling and analysis methods, network design, sampling schedule, and data reporting. Finally, EPA is revising emissions inventory reporting requirements and providing guidance on its approach for implementing the revised primary and secondary standards for Pb.
EPA said that more than 6,000 studies since 1990 have examined the effects of lead on health and the environment. Some studies have linked exposure to low levels of lead with damage to children's development, including IQ loss. Lead can be inhaled or can be ingested after settling out of the air. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Once in the body, lead is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream and can affect many organ systems including children's developing nervous systems.
Lead emissions have dropped nearly 97 percent nationwide since 1980, largely the result of the Agency's phase-out of lead in gasoline. Average levels of lead in the air today are far below the 1978 standards. Lead in the air comes from a variety of sources, including smelters, iron and steel foundries, and general aviation gasoline. More than 1,300 tons of lead are emitted to the air each year, according to EPA's most recent estimates.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a release saying, "While EPA’s own analysis justifies an even lower lead standard, this tenfold reduction will go a long way to protecting children most at risk from airborne lead. It’s refreshing to see the agency follow the science and the advice of its experts in making this decision.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "We commend EPA for taking a giant step in the right direction, but they need to greatly expand the lead monitoring network if they hope to enforce this new standard. The EPA has followed the advice of its own advisers and public health advocates to set a more stringent standard for airborne lead." However, NRDC said EPA's "plan for only 236 new or relocated monitors is not adequate to detect problems" and it was "disappointed that EPA will allow averaging of lead exposures over a three-month period."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the prepublication copy of the 413-page final rule (click here). Access EPA Lead In Air website for links to extensive information (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking for complete information (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]
The decision marks the first time the lead standards have changed in 30 years. EPA said it strengthened the standards after a thorough review of the science on lead, advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and consideration of public comments. The previous standards, set in 1978, were 1.5 ug/m3. EPA's action sets two standards: a primary standard at 0.15 ug/m3 to protect health; and a secondary standard at the same level to protect the public welfare, including the environment.
EPA noted that the existing monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to determine whether many areas of the country would meet the revised standards. As a result, EPA is redesigning the nation's lead monitoring network, which is necessary for the Agency to assess compliance with the new standard. No later than October 2011, EPA will designate areas that must take additional steps to reduce lead air emissions. States will have five years to meet the new standards after designations take effect.
EPA also said it is retaining the current indicator of Pb in total suspended particles (Pb-TSP). EPA is revising the averaging time to a rolling 3-month period with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a 3-year period. EPA is also revising data handling procedures, including allowance for the use of Pb-PM10 data in certain circumstances, and the treatment of exceptional events, and ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for Pb, including those related to sampling and analysis methods, network design, sampling schedule, and data reporting. Finally, EPA is revising emissions inventory reporting requirements and providing guidance on its approach for implementing the revised primary and secondary standards for Pb.
EPA said that more than 6,000 studies since 1990 have examined the effects of lead on health and the environment. Some studies have linked exposure to low levels of lead with damage to children's development, including IQ loss. Lead can be inhaled or can be ingested after settling out of the air. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Once in the body, lead is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream and can affect many organ systems including children's developing nervous systems.
Lead emissions have dropped nearly 97 percent nationwide since 1980, largely the result of the Agency's phase-out of lead in gasoline. Average levels of lead in the air today are far below the 1978 standards. Lead in the air comes from a variety of sources, including smelters, iron and steel foundries, and general aviation gasoline. More than 1,300 tons of lead are emitted to the air each year, according to EPA's most recent estimates.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a release saying, "While EPA’s own analysis justifies an even lower lead standard, this tenfold reduction will go a long way to protecting children most at risk from airborne lead. It’s refreshing to see the agency follow the science and the advice of its experts in making this decision.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "We commend EPA for taking a giant step in the right direction, but they need to greatly expand the lead monitoring network if they hope to enforce this new standard. The EPA has followed the advice of its own advisers and public health advocates to set a more stringent standard for airborne lead." However, NRDC said EPA's "plan for only 236 new or relocated monitors is not adequate to detect problems" and it was "disappointed that EPA will allow averaging of lead exposures over a three-month period."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the prepublication copy of the 413-page final rule (click here). Access EPA Lead In Air website for links to extensive information (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking for complete information (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
EWG Releases Major Research On Bottled Water Quality
Oct 14: The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released a comprehensive testing report on bottled water that they say indicates "a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed, including toxic byproducts of chlorination in Walmart’s Sam’s Choice and Giant Supermarket's Acadia brands, at levels no different than routinely found in tap water." EWG said that several Sam's Choice samples purchased in California exceeded legal limits for bottled water contaminants in that state. They also said that cancer-causing contaminants in bottled water purchased in 5 states (North Carolina, California, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland) and the District of Columbia "substantially exceeded the voluntary standards established by the bottled water industry."
EWG argues that unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry does not disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, they said, "the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose."
EWG says, "To the contrary, our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."
Laboratory tests conducted for EWG at one of the country’s leading water quality laboratories found that 10 popular brands of bottled water, purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained 38 chemical pollutants altogether, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand. More than one-third of the chemicals found are not regulated in bottled water. In the Sam's Choice and Acadia brands levels of some chemicals exceeded legal limits in California as well as industry-sponsored voluntary safety standards. Four brands were also contaminated with bacteria.
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) said the report "contains false claims and exaggerations about bottled water products." IBWA President Joe Doss said, “The testing results show that only two bottled water brands didn’t meet a California state standard for one regulated substance. There are many hundreds of brands sold in the United States that are not involved in this study. IBWA indicated that the report provides results from of a "market basket testing program" that the EWG conducted on ten brands of bottled water in nine states and the District of Columbia.
Doss said, “This is certainly not a representative sample of bottled water products, which the report acknowledges. . . In general, the report is based on the faulty premise that if any substance is present in a bottled water product, even if it does not exceed the established regulatory limit or no standard has been set, then it’s a health concern.”
Heidi Paul, Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Nestle Waters North America (NWNA) issued a statement in reaction to claims made in the EWG report. She said, "As the country's largest producer of bottled water, Nestle Waters North America adheres to the most rigorous quality standards for all of our 15 brands of bottled water which range from Poland Spring to S. Pellegrino. Similar to the International Bottled Water Association, and other reputable water experts, we express our strong disagreement with the many erroneous claims made in today's Environmental Working Group's (EWG) report. Their allegations are false and misleading and seek to undermine the integrity of bottled water. As industry leader, it is our obligation to accurately describe the facts on the ground and in the marketplace.
"Protecting and ensuring water quality is at the very heart of our business. It stems from our commitment to the tens of millions of people who regularly consume bottled water. At last count, 70% of all Americans drink bottled water at least once a week. We sell over 20 billion bottles of water a year to health conscious consumers who value the quality, safety and convenience that our products provide and we conduct over 25,000 quality control tests every day. While tap water is generally adequate andsafe, from a quality and other perspectives, bottled water is better on every score.
"Water quality depends on three things: the quality of the source, the specialization of the treatment and the distribution system. Bottled water has the advantage in all 3 aspects. . . Although no product is always perfect, the rigorous process above is crucial in helping to ensure that quality standards are upheld. We are a proud supplier to Sam's Club and Wal-Mart, and we quickly determined that none of the water in question has been supplied by Nestle Waters North America or any of our brands."
Access the complete EWG report (click here). Access the statement from IBWA (click here). Access the statement from Nestle (click here). [*Water]
EWG argues that unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry does not disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, they said, "the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose."
EWG says, "To the contrary, our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."
Laboratory tests conducted for EWG at one of the country’s leading water quality laboratories found that 10 popular brands of bottled water, purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained 38 chemical pollutants altogether, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand. More than one-third of the chemicals found are not regulated in bottled water. In the Sam's Choice and Acadia brands levels of some chemicals exceeded legal limits in California as well as industry-sponsored voluntary safety standards. Four brands were also contaminated with bacteria.
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) said the report "contains false claims and exaggerations about bottled water products." IBWA President Joe Doss said, “The testing results show that only two bottled water brands didn’t meet a California state standard for one regulated substance. There are many hundreds of brands sold in the United States that are not involved in this study. IBWA indicated that the report provides results from of a "market basket testing program" that the EWG conducted on ten brands of bottled water in nine states and the District of Columbia.
Doss said, “This is certainly not a representative sample of bottled water products, which the report acknowledges. . . In general, the report is based on the faulty premise that if any substance is present in a bottled water product, even if it does not exceed the established regulatory limit or no standard has been set, then it’s a health concern.”
Heidi Paul, Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Nestle Waters North America (NWNA) issued a statement in reaction to claims made in the EWG report. She said, "As the country's largest producer of bottled water, Nestle Waters North America adheres to the most rigorous quality standards for all of our 15 brands of bottled water which range from Poland Spring to S. Pellegrino. Similar to the International Bottled Water Association, and other reputable water experts, we express our strong disagreement with the many erroneous claims made in today's Environmental Working Group's (EWG) report. Their allegations are false and misleading and seek to undermine the integrity of bottled water. As industry leader, it is our obligation to accurately describe the facts on the ground and in the marketplace.
"Protecting and ensuring water quality is at the very heart of our business. It stems from our commitment to the tens of millions of people who regularly consume bottled water. At last count, 70% of all Americans drink bottled water at least once a week. We sell over 20 billion bottles of water a year to health conscious consumers who value the quality, safety and convenience that our products provide and we conduct over 25,000 quality control tests every day. While tap water is generally adequate andsafe, from a quality and other perspectives, bottled water is better on every score.
"Water quality depends on three things: the quality of the source, the specialization of the treatment and the distribution system. Bottled water has the advantage in all 3 aspects. . . Although no product is always perfect, the rigorous process above is crucial in helping to ensure that quality standards are upheld. We are a proud supplier to Sam's Club and Wal-Mart, and we quickly determined that none of the water in question has been supplied by Nestle Waters North America or any of our brands."
Access the complete EWG report (click here). Access the statement from IBWA (click here). Access the statement from Nestle (click here). [*Water]
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
USDA's Proposed Genetically Engineered (GE) Organisms Rule
On October 9, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and its Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS), which is responsible for regulating the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered (GE) organisms, published its proposed rule revisions to its existing biotechnology regulations. APHIS indicated that the changes are being proposed in light of advances in science and technology, and are based on prior public input and BRS’ extensive experience in implementing the current regulations. Cindy Smith, administrator of APHIS said, "This is the most comprehensive review and revision of our biotechnology regulations since they were first developed in 1987. Revising these regulations now will allow us to ensure effective oversight for years to come.”
According to the FR announcement APHIS proposes to revise the regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms in order to bring the regulations into alignment with provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000. The revisions would also update the regulations in response to advances in genetic science and technology and our accumulated experience in implementing the current regulations. APHIS indicates that this is the first comprehensive review and revision of the regulations since they were established in 1987. The rule would affect persons involved in the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of genetically engineered plants and certain other genetically engineered organisms. APHIS will consider all comments received on or before November 24, 2008, and is holding three public forums to be held in Davis, CA; Kansas City, MO; and Riverdale, MD.
APHIS is also proposing to expand its regulatory oversight to include the regulation of GE biological control macroorganisms, such as insects genetically engineered to control plant pests or noxious weeds. APHIS is not proposing, however, to regulate biological control microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, which are already regulated by U.S. EPA. In addition, APHIS is proposing to include nonviable GE plant material originating from field tests to the Agency’s oversight. Currently, nonviable materials, like plant stems and leaves that cannot propagate, are not regulated by APHIS.
The Center for Food Safety responded to the proposal with a lengthy release indicating that while it believes that stricter regulation of growing and field testing GE crops is needed, the USDA's proposal "fails to fully protect the public's safety or the environment." The Center contends that the proposed regulations "may set in motion a process that would put many GE crops completely beyond the bounds of regulation, and outside the safety net designed to protect the American public." Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety said, "The USDA has missed a golden opportunity to improve its oversight of genetically engineered crops. This USDA proposal has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well."
According to the Center, the biggest concern is that the proposed rules "remove established criteria vital in determining the very scope of regulation. Previously, regulation of GE crops was based on the presence of genetic elements from a list of 'plant pests' codified under Section 340.2. This fairly comprehensive list covered almost all of the genetic elements companies used to engineer crops. However, under the new policy, the USDA proposes 'deleting the list of organisms which are or contain plant pests,' effectively removing triggers to regulation and leaving the decision to the discretion of the USDA or even biotech companies themselves.
Freese said, "Whether a GE crop falls within the scope of regulation or not will now be much more open to interpretation. We can expect the range of GE organisms subject to oversight to decrease over time, allowing for future food safety regulatory failures." The Center also indicates that USDA also "failed to address the epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds associated with ubiquitous herbicide-tolerant GE crops. Resistant weeds have led to increased use of chemical weed killers, rising production costs for growers, and in some cases accelerated soil erosion caused by the additional mechanical tillage required to remove resistant weeds."
Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president, food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), issued a statement in response to the USDA proposal saying, “Rigorous science-based regulations provide the best environment for the development of valuable agricultural biotechnology products. Revision of these rules in a timely and transparent manner will enable ag biotech companies to continue to provide solutions to a number of challenges facing both farmers and consumers.
“Biotech plant products are safe, and the existing regulatory process for regulating, permitting and approving these products is effective. But it's essential to ensure that the regulatory system reflects the latest technological advances within the biotechnology industry as well as the wealth of scientific knowledge gained over the years about the safe development and use of agricultural biotech products. We look forward to reviewing the proposed rule with this in mind and providing our input.
"The original regulations for plant biotechnology were promulgated by USDA-APHIS in 1987, and the rules underwent minor revisions in 1993 and 1997. In late 2003, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy directed USDA-APHIS to undertake a major revision of its rules governing biotechnology, and the department announced its intent to revise the regulations after completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the final EIS will be published together with a final rule.
“Since the release of the EIS in July of last year, plant biotechnology has continued to advance, biotech industries have grown to become a major force in the U.S. economy, and hundreds of scientific studies have been published, documenting both the safety of the current technologies and the promise of technologies under development. BIO and its member companies are reviewing the agency’s proposed revisions and will submit comments. Science-based regulations, implemented in a timely and transparent manner with adequate input from stakeholders, will help farmers use agriculture biotechnology to produce high quality crops to provide solutions for the world’s growing population.”
Access the USDA-APHIS release (click here). Access an APHIS Q&A document on the proposed rules (click here). Access USDA's Biotechnology website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the Center (click here). Access the Center's GE Food website (click here). Access a release from BIO (click here). Access the BIO website for additional information (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking to submit comments and link to background information, the proposed rule and submitted comments (click here). [*Toxics, *Agriculture]
According to the FR announcement APHIS proposes to revise the regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms in order to bring the regulations into alignment with provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000. The revisions would also update the regulations in response to advances in genetic science and technology and our accumulated experience in implementing the current regulations. APHIS indicates that this is the first comprehensive review and revision of the regulations since they were established in 1987. The rule would affect persons involved in the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of genetically engineered plants and certain other genetically engineered organisms. APHIS will consider all comments received on or before November 24, 2008, and is holding three public forums to be held in Davis, CA; Kansas City, MO; and Riverdale, MD.
APHIS is also proposing to expand its regulatory oversight to include the regulation of GE biological control macroorganisms, such as insects genetically engineered to control plant pests or noxious weeds. APHIS is not proposing, however, to regulate biological control microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, which are already regulated by U.S. EPA. In addition, APHIS is proposing to include nonviable GE plant material originating from field tests to the Agency’s oversight. Currently, nonviable materials, like plant stems and leaves that cannot propagate, are not regulated by APHIS.
The Center for Food Safety responded to the proposal with a lengthy release indicating that while it believes that stricter regulation of growing and field testing GE crops is needed, the USDA's proposal "fails to fully protect the public's safety or the environment." The Center contends that the proposed regulations "may set in motion a process that would put many GE crops completely beyond the bounds of regulation, and outside the safety net designed to protect the American public." Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety said, "The USDA has missed a golden opportunity to improve its oversight of genetically engineered crops. This USDA proposal has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well."
According to the Center, the biggest concern is that the proposed rules "remove established criteria vital in determining the very scope of regulation. Previously, regulation of GE crops was based on the presence of genetic elements from a list of 'plant pests' codified under Section 340.2. This fairly comprehensive list covered almost all of the genetic elements companies used to engineer crops. However, under the new policy, the USDA proposes 'deleting the list of organisms which are or contain plant pests,' effectively removing triggers to regulation and leaving the decision to the discretion of the USDA or even biotech companies themselves.
Freese said, "Whether a GE crop falls within the scope of regulation or not will now be much more open to interpretation. We can expect the range of GE organisms subject to oversight to decrease over time, allowing for future food safety regulatory failures." The Center also indicates that USDA also "failed to address the epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds associated with ubiquitous herbicide-tolerant GE crops. Resistant weeds have led to increased use of chemical weed killers, rising production costs for growers, and in some cases accelerated soil erosion caused by the additional mechanical tillage required to remove resistant weeds."
Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president, food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), issued a statement in response to the USDA proposal saying, “Rigorous science-based regulations provide the best environment for the development of valuable agricultural biotechnology products. Revision of these rules in a timely and transparent manner will enable ag biotech companies to continue to provide solutions to a number of challenges facing both farmers and consumers.
“Biotech plant products are safe, and the existing regulatory process for regulating, permitting and approving these products is effective. But it's essential to ensure that the regulatory system reflects the latest technological advances within the biotechnology industry as well as the wealth of scientific knowledge gained over the years about the safe development and use of agricultural biotech products. We look forward to reviewing the proposed rule with this in mind and providing our input.
"The original regulations for plant biotechnology were promulgated by USDA-APHIS in 1987, and the rules underwent minor revisions in 1993 and 1997. In late 2003, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy directed USDA-APHIS to undertake a major revision of its rules governing biotechnology, and the department announced its intent to revise the regulations after completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the final EIS will be published together with a final rule.
“Since the release of the EIS in July of last year, plant biotechnology has continued to advance, biotech industries have grown to become a major force in the U.S. economy, and hundreds of scientific studies have been published, documenting both the safety of the current technologies and the promise of technologies under development. BIO and its member companies are reviewing the agency’s proposed revisions and will submit comments. Science-based regulations, implemented in a timely and transparent manner with adequate input from stakeholders, will help farmers use agriculture biotechnology to produce high quality crops to provide solutions for the world’s growing population.”
Access the USDA-APHIS release (click here). Access an APHIS Q&A document on the proposed rules (click here). Access USDA's Biotechnology website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the Center (click here). Access the Center's GE Food website (click here). Access a release from BIO (click here). Access the BIO website for additional information (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking to submit comments and link to background information, the proposed rule and submitted comments (click here). [*Toxics, *Agriculture]
Friday, October 10, 2008
U.S. Ratifies & New International Ship Pollution Regs Adopted
Oct 10: According to a release from the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United States of America has become the 53rd state to ratify Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), with the deposition of an instrument of ratification with IMO. Annex VI, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in May 2005, regulates the discharge of atmospheric pollutants from ships. Among other things, it set, for the first time, limits on sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ships' exhausts; prohibited deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances and put a global cap on the sulphur content of fuel oil. The U.S. ratification, brings to 81.88 the percentage of gross world merchant shipping tonnage covered by the aforementioned regulations and comes as a detailed review of the provisions of Annex VI is reaching a conclusion.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, is known universally as MARPOL. MARPOL has six separate annexes, which set out regulations dealing with pollution from ships by oil; by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk; by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form; by sewage, by garbage; and with the prevention of air pollution from ships.
The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMP is meeting at its Headquarters in London in its 58th session from October 6-10, and has adopted the proposed amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce harmful emissions from ships. The Committee is also continue its work on developing a mandatory regime to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping. The Committee's agenda also includes the consideration of the draft ship recycling convention and issues relating to the implementation of the 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention.
The main changes to Annex VI would see progressive substantial reductions in sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ships. The revised Annex VI will allow for the designation of Emission Control Areas, for SOx and particulate matter, or NOx, or all three types of emissions from ships, in which more stringent controls would apply. According to IMO, the main changes to MARPOL Annex VI will see a progressive reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships, with the global sulphur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current 4.50%), effective from 1 January 2012; then progressively to 0.50 %, effective from 1 January 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.
The limits applicable in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) will be reduced to 1.00%, beginning on 1 July 2010 (from the current 1.50 %); being further reduced to 0.10 %, effective from 1 January 2015. Progressive reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from marine engines were also agreed, with the most stringent controls on so-called "Tier III" engines, i.e. those installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2016, operating in Emission Control Areas.
U.S. EPA said it can now move forward with a domestic rulemaking action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and "when fully implemented, this will help reduce harmful emissions by 80 percent or more from large diesel ships, including those that are foreign-flagged operating in U.S. waters." Margo Oge, director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality said, "Massive reductions in air pollution from these large ships will help 87 million Americans living in areas around ports that don't meet air quality standards breathe cleaner air. Pollution emitted by ships along the U.S. coastlines and waterways can move inland where it worsens air quality."
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) praised the member nations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for adopting what they called "strong new emissions standards to limit the lethal particulate and smog-forming pollution from ocean-going vessels." These new standards will apply to ocean-going ships such as container ships and tankers that operate around the world. Janea Scott, a senior attorney in the Los Angeles office of EDF said, “Nearly 90% of ships that call on U.S. ports are foreign-flagged ships, so the progress we made at the international level today is especially important to people living in communities near U.S. ports and along our nation’s coastlines. This newly adopted international regulation will ensure that all ships, both domestic and foreign, are held to the same rigorous emissions standards.”
Access a release from IMO on the U.S. ratification (click here). Access a release on the new regulations adopted (click here). Access a release on the MEPC meeting (click here). Access detailed information on MARPOL (click here). Access the IMO website for extensive information (click here). Access a release from EPA with links to related information (click here). Access a lengthy release from EDF with links to additional information (click here). [*Air, *Water, *Transport]
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, is known universally as MARPOL. MARPOL has six separate annexes, which set out regulations dealing with pollution from ships by oil; by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk; by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form; by sewage, by garbage; and with the prevention of air pollution from ships.
The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMP is meeting at its Headquarters in London in its 58th session from October 6-10, and has adopted the proposed amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce harmful emissions from ships. The Committee is also continue its work on developing a mandatory regime to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping. The Committee's agenda also includes the consideration of the draft ship recycling convention and issues relating to the implementation of the 2004 Ballast Water Management Convention.
The main changes to Annex VI would see progressive substantial reductions in sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ships. The revised Annex VI will allow for the designation of Emission Control Areas, for SOx and particulate matter, or NOx, or all three types of emissions from ships, in which more stringent controls would apply. According to IMO, the main changes to MARPOL Annex VI will see a progressive reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships, with the global sulphur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current 4.50%), effective from 1 January 2012; then progressively to 0.50 %, effective from 1 January 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.
The limits applicable in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) will be reduced to 1.00%, beginning on 1 July 2010 (from the current 1.50 %); being further reduced to 0.10 %, effective from 1 January 2015. Progressive reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from marine engines were also agreed, with the most stringent controls on so-called "Tier III" engines, i.e. those installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2016, operating in Emission Control Areas.
U.S. EPA said it can now move forward with a domestic rulemaking action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and "when fully implemented, this will help reduce harmful emissions by 80 percent or more from large diesel ships, including those that are foreign-flagged operating in U.S. waters." Margo Oge, director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality said, "Massive reductions in air pollution from these large ships will help 87 million Americans living in areas around ports that don't meet air quality standards breathe cleaner air. Pollution emitted by ships along the U.S. coastlines and waterways can move inland where it worsens air quality."
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) praised the member nations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for adopting what they called "strong new emissions standards to limit the lethal particulate and smog-forming pollution from ocean-going vessels." These new standards will apply to ocean-going ships such as container ships and tankers that operate around the world. Janea Scott, a senior attorney in the Los Angeles office of EDF said, “Nearly 90% of ships that call on U.S. ports are foreign-flagged ships, so the progress we made at the international level today is especially important to people living in communities near U.S. ports and along our nation’s coastlines. This newly adopted international regulation will ensure that all ships, both domestic and foreign, are held to the same rigorous emissions standards.”
Access a release from IMO on the U.S. ratification (click here). Access a release on the new regulations adopted (click here). Access a release on the MEPC meeting (click here). Access detailed information on MARPOL (click here). Access the IMO website for extensive information (click here). Access a release from EPA with links to related information (click here). Access a lengthy release from EDF with links to additional information (click here). [*Air, *Water, *Transport]
Thursday, October 09, 2008
DOE Details New Clean Energy Tax Incentives
Oct 8: The Department of Energy (DOE) has posted information on the clean energy tax incentives contained in the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R. 1424, now Public Law No: 110-343), signed by the President on October 3, 2008 [See WIMS 10/3/08]. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, which was attached to H.R. 1424, provides a one-year extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy, keeping the credit in effect through 2009. The bill also provides a two-year PTC extension, through 2010, for electricity produced from geothermal, biomass, and solar energy facilities, as well as trash-to-energy facilities, small hydropower facilities using irrigation water, capacity additions to existing hydropower plants, and hydropower facilities added to existing dams. In addition, the bill creates a new PTC for electricity produced by marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy systems (also called advanced water power systems) with a rated capacity of at least 150 kilowatts and placed in service by 2011. To help on the financing end, the bill authorizes $800 million in new Clean Renewable Energy Bonds for all of the above technologies.
According to the DOE release, Solar energy gained an 8-year extension (through 2016) of the 30% tax credit for residential and commercial solar installations, as well as the elimination of the $2,000 tax credit cap for residential solar electric installations. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) expects the creation of more than 440,000 jobs and the generation of at least $325 billion in private investment due to those changes, which should yield more than 28 gigawatts of solar power. The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) also sees huge potential growth in a measure that allows electric utilities to take advantage of these tax credits.
In addition, small wind power gained a 30% tax credit, up to $4,000 for wind turbines with capacities of 100 kilowatts or less, which is also good through 2016. The tax credits for fuel cells and microturbines are also extended by 8 years, and the fuel cell tax credit limit is tripled, to $1,500 for each 0.5 kilowatts of capacity. The act also creates a new 10% tax credit for certain combined heat and power systems and for geothermal heat pumps (up to $2,000). In addition, the bill also provides accelerated depreciation for utilities installing smart meters and smart grid systems.
In terms of energy efficiency and alternative fuels, the act extends and revives a number of energy efficiency tax incentives for buildings, creates new tax credits for efficient vehicles, and extends and modifies tax credits for biofuels. The release details numerous provisions in this section including a new tax credit of up to $7,500 for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which are expected to go on sale in 2010; a new $300 tax credit for energy-efficient biomass fuel stoves; an extension of energy efficiency tax deductions for commercial buildings through 2013; and more. The release also includes links to related press release from the Solar Electric Power Association, Solar Energy Industries Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and National Biodiesel Board.
Access the DOE release and links to related information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1424 with links to the roll call votes (click here). Access a 7-page Senate Finance Committee staff detailed summary of the Energy-related provisions of the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 (click here). [*Energy]
According to the DOE release, Solar energy gained an 8-year extension (through 2016) of the 30% tax credit for residential and commercial solar installations, as well as the elimination of the $2,000 tax credit cap for residential solar electric installations. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) expects the creation of more than 440,000 jobs and the generation of at least $325 billion in private investment due to those changes, which should yield more than 28 gigawatts of solar power. The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) also sees huge potential growth in a measure that allows electric utilities to take advantage of these tax credits.
In addition, small wind power gained a 30% tax credit, up to $4,000 for wind turbines with capacities of 100 kilowatts or less, which is also good through 2016. The tax credits for fuel cells and microturbines are also extended by 8 years, and the fuel cell tax credit limit is tripled, to $1,500 for each 0.5 kilowatts of capacity. The act also creates a new 10% tax credit for certain combined heat and power systems and for geothermal heat pumps (up to $2,000). In addition, the bill also provides accelerated depreciation for utilities installing smart meters and smart grid systems.
In terms of energy efficiency and alternative fuels, the act extends and revives a number of energy efficiency tax incentives for buildings, creates new tax credits for efficient vehicles, and extends and modifies tax credits for biofuels. The release details numerous provisions in this section including a new tax credit of up to $7,500 for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which are expected to go on sale in 2010; a new $300 tax credit for energy-efficient biomass fuel stoves; an extension of energy efficiency tax deductions for commercial buildings through 2013; and more. The release also includes links to related press release from the Solar Electric Power Association, Solar Energy Industries Association, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and National Biodiesel Board.
Access the DOE release and links to related information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1424 with links to the roll call votes (click here). Access a 7-page Senate Finance Committee staff detailed summary of the Energy-related provisions of the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Reactions To Dingell-Boucher Draft Climate Change Bill
Oct 8: Yesterday, 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 their long-awaited "discussion draft" of climate change legislation. The draft is the culmination of nearly two years of intensive work on climate change by the Committee and according to the Chairmen, "marks an important step in our ongoing efforts to address this increasingly serious problem." WIMS reported on the release of the draft yesterday [See WIMS 10/7/08] and included an early reaction from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The following are excerpts from additional reactions and links to the complete statements are included.
Statement by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: "I am pleased that Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher have decided to write a comprehensive global warming bill. I am not going to comment on the details of the draft plan today, except to say that it is a very good sign of the commitment in the House to tackle global warming legislation in the next Congress."
Statement of Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: "This draft recognizes that, to combat global warming and unleash a clean energy revolution, America needs to set long-term targets, protect consumers, and invest in energy efficiency and clean technologies. The draft legislation lays out a range of options for structuring a cap and trade system that are likely to trigger a vigorous and healthy debate about how best to reduce global warming pollution. In the next year, I look forward to working with Chairmen Dingell and Boucher, our Energy and Commerce colleagues, and a new, climate-friendly administration as we put the American economy on a green road to recovery and finally solve the greatest challenge the planet has ever faced.”
Statement by David Hawkins, Director of Climate Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): "There are many positive features to the discussion draft, such as the inclusion of a strong reduction target for 2050 and thoughtful approaches to the details of the structure of a comprehensive program. However, there are also many important respects in which the draft legislation must be improved. Most notably, the near- and mid-term emission reduction targets must be substantially strengthened in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming. We are also very concerned about provisions that would eliminate existing authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act and alter the rights and ability of states to combat global warming on their own. We believe the final legislation must preserve existing Clean Air Act authority and the ability of states to operate as innovation laboratories. . ."
Statement of Duke Energy Chairman, President and CEO Jim Rogers: "Duke Energy strongly supports the proposal that grants allocations to local electric distribution companies (LDCs) based on the historic emissions of their electric supply in order to protect consumers from significant price increases at the start of the program. Allocating allowances, whose value went back to the customer, worked very well in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment and subsequent federal air quality regulations to address acid rain and smog, and it can work again to address climate change. . . We appreciate the inclusive process the committee has used in preparation of this discussion draft and their sincere desire to receive input from all those who will be impacted by this legislation. . . "
Statement of Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett: ". . . we would be remiss not to point out that it still falls far short of what is needed to avoid catastrophic global warming. . . The draft legislation contains numerous shortcomings that would prevent the United States from doing its part to stop global warming: First, the emission targets set by the plan fall short of what is needed to confront the problem. It calls for 6 percent emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 when science says we must reduce domestic emissions at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. . ."
Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the complete NRDC statement (click here). Access the complete Duke Energy statement (click here). Access the complete Statement from Greenpeace (click here). [*Climate]
Statement by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: "I am pleased that Chairman Dingell and Chairman Boucher have decided to write a comprehensive global warming bill. I am not going to comment on the details of the draft plan today, except to say that it is a very good sign of the commitment in the House to tackle global warming legislation in the next Congress."
Statement of Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: "This draft recognizes that, to combat global warming and unleash a clean energy revolution, America needs to set long-term targets, protect consumers, and invest in energy efficiency and clean technologies. The draft legislation lays out a range of options for structuring a cap and trade system that are likely to trigger a vigorous and healthy debate about how best to reduce global warming pollution. In the next year, I look forward to working with Chairmen Dingell and Boucher, our Energy and Commerce colleagues, and a new, climate-friendly administration as we put the American economy on a green road to recovery and finally solve the greatest challenge the planet has ever faced.”
Statement by David Hawkins, Director of Climate Programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): "There are many positive features to the discussion draft, such as the inclusion of a strong reduction target for 2050 and thoughtful approaches to the details of the structure of a comprehensive program. However, there are also many important respects in which the draft legislation must be improved. Most notably, the near- and mid-term emission reduction targets must be substantially strengthened in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming. We are also very concerned about provisions that would eliminate existing authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act and alter the rights and ability of states to combat global warming on their own. We believe the final legislation must preserve existing Clean Air Act authority and the ability of states to operate as innovation laboratories. . ."
Statement of Duke Energy Chairman, President and CEO Jim Rogers: "Duke Energy strongly supports the proposal that grants allocations to local electric distribution companies (LDCs) based on the historic emissions of their electric supply in order to protect consumers from significant price increases at the start of the program. Allocating allowances, whose value went back to the customer, worked very well in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment and subsequent federal air quality regulations to address acid rain and smog, and it can work again to address climate change. . . We appreciate the inclusive process the committee has used in preparation of this discussion draft and their sincere desire to receive input from all those who will be impacted by this legislation. . . "
Statement of Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett: ". . . we would be remiss not to point out that it still falls far short of what is needed to avoid catastrophic global warming. . . The draft legislation contains numerous shortcomings that would prevent the United States from doing its part to stop global warming: First, the emission targets set by the plan fall short of what is needed to confront the problem. It calls for 6 percent emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 when science says we must reduce domestic emissions at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. . ."
Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the complete NRDC statement (click here). Access the complete Duke Energy statement (click here). Access the complete Statement from Greenpeace (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Dingell & Boucher Release Draft Climate Change Bill
Oct 7: 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 their long-awaited "discussion draft" of climate change legislation. The draft is the culmination of nearly two years of intensive work on climate change by the Committee and according to the Chairmen, "marks an important step in our ongoing efforts to address this increasingly serious problem."
According to a memo to Committee member, "Politically, scientifically, legally, and morally, the questions has been settled: regulation of greenhouse gases in the United States is coming. We believe that elected and accountable representatives in the Congress, not the Executive Branch, should properly design that regulatory program. The only remaining question is what form that regulation will take. . . The discussion draft would establish an economy-wide cap on emissions of greenhouse gases. In the early years of the program, caps would be set at a level that is realistically achievable to ensure that firms are able to adjust gradually. By 2050, emissions from covered sources would be reduced to 80 percent below 2005 levels . . . The discussion draft presents four options concerning how emission allowances might be allocated to firms, States, consumers, and other areas. . . The demise of the climate change bill in the Senate earlier this year underscores the need to reach a broad bipartisan consensus.
The memo calls for "unprecedented investments" in existing and innovative technologies, rapid deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and increased production of electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and other sources. The memo requests persons review and comment on the draft "so that we may begin the next session of Congress more informed and better able to move legislation quickly."
An early response from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) President Fred Krupp indicates, “The release today of new draft climate legislation . . . is further confirmation that passing cap and trade legislation remains high on the agenda of congressional lawmakers and a boost for prospects of a bill next year. We appreciate that Chairmen Dingell and Boucher are moving forward with their bill in this critical economic time for America. . . The near-term targets and timetables in the current draft of the proposal fall far short . . . EDF will continue to push for strong emissions reduction targets in the early years of the program as discussions move forward. Importantly, their proposal appears to manage costs without provisions that would bust the emissions cap. We look forward to working with the chairmen, along with leadership and the new president, to pass a bill that protects the climate and delivers the economic stimulus America needs now more than ever.”
Access the Text of the Draft Legislation; Executive Summary of the Discussion Draft; Memo to Members of the Committee; an Allocation Chart; and all background papers and committee meetings on the development of the legislation (click here). Access the EDF statement on the draft (click here). [*Climate]
According to a memo to Committee member, "Politically, scientifically, legally, and morally, the questions has been settled: regulation of greenhouse gases in the United States is coming. We believe that elected and accountable representatives in the Congress, not the Executive Branch, should properly design that regulatory program. The only remaining question is what form that regulation will take. . . The discussion draft would establish an economy-wide cap on emissions of greenhouse gases. In the early years of the program, caps would be set at a level that is realistically achievable to ensure that firms are able to adjust gradually. By 2050, emissions from covered sources would be reduced to 80 percent below 2005 levels . . . The discussion draft presents four options concerning how emission allowances might be allocated to firms, States, consumers, and other areas. . . The demise of the climate change bill in the Senate earlier this year underscores the need to reach a broad bipartisan consensus.
The memo calls for "unprecedented investments" in existing and innovative technologies, rapid deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and increased production of electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and other sources. The memo requests persons review and comment on the draft "so that we may begin the next session of Congress more informed and better able to move legislation quickly."
An early response from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) President Fred Krupp indicates, “The release today of new draft climate legislation . . . is further confirmation that passing cap and trade legislation remains high on the agenda of congressional lawmakers and a boost for prospects of a bill next year. We appreciate that Chairmen Dingell and Boucher are moving forward with their bill in this critical economic time for America. . . The near-term targets and timetables in the current draft of the proposal fall far short . . . EDF will continue to push for strong emissions reduction targets in the early years of the program as discussions move forward. Importantly, their proposal appears to manage costs without provisions that would bust the emissions cap. We look forward to working with the chairmen, along with leadership and the new president, to pass a bill that protects the climate and delivers the economic stimulus America needs now more than ever.”
Access the Text of the Draft Legislation; Executive Summary of the Discussion Draft; Memo to Members of the Committee; an Allocation Chart; and all background papers and committee meetings on the development of the legislation (click here). Access the EDF statement on the draft (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, October 06, 2008
Enviros Will Sue To Regulate Perchlorate If Necessary
Oct 3: Immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern.
Therefore, based on the Safe Water Drinking Act criteria, the Agency made its decision and is now seeking comment on its preliminary determination and will make a final determination for perchlorate after considering information provided in the 30-day public comment period. Despite the "preliminary" nature of EPA's decision, the environmental groups said the "decision represents a victory for the Department of Defense and military contractors, which for years have pressured EPA not to regulate perchlorate and other chemicals associated with weapons manufacturing."
Responding to the announcement, the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice said it plans to challenge any final EPA decision in court, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other organizations concerned about the health effects of perchlorate in drinking water. Earthjustice attorney George Torgun said, "EPA's decision has industry's fingerprints all over it. Weapons makers will benefit at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water spiked with rocket fuel. Clean, safe drinking water is essential. That's why we will fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act."
For years, perchlorate was disposed in the ground by the military and missile-makers. The highly soluble toxin has spread from bases and factories to wells and rivers across the country. The groups indicated that if limits for perchlorate in drinking water were set, the Defense Department and defense contractors could be found responsible for cleanups triggered by violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Hilda Solis (both D-CA) have pushed for legislation that would force EPA to set a federal perchlorate standard [See WIMS 5/6/08]. According to a release from Earthjustice, "Perchlorate concentrations of less than 5 parts per billion have been shown to inhibit iodine uptake by the thyroid gland, resulting in a decreased formation of two hormones necessary for proper oxygen consumption and metabolism. The harm is greatest in populations that are developing and growing rapidly, such as fetuses, infants, and young children."
Ben Dunham, Earthjustice environmental health policy analyst said, "According to EPA, at least 10 million people have rocket fuel in their drinking water. Yet today, the agency says there is not a 'meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.' I'm sure the 10 million people drinking contaminated water think cleaning up their water supply would be 'meaningful.' Because perchlorate contamination is often concentrated around military facilities, EPA's failure to protect the public from polluted drinking water will hit military families especially hard. These families have already sacrificed so much for this country. This decision adds insult to injury, by allowing contamination to continue."
Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, Senior Scientist at EWG said, “The health and well-being of millions of breast-fed babies are being ignored by EPA so the defense industry and their agents in the Pentagon can avoid cleaning up the mess they’ve made." The groups cited a 2005 GAO report listing state-by-state drinking water supplies contaminated by perchlorate.
According to an announcement from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Massachusetts and California have already set perchlorate standards at levels of 2 µg/L and 6 µg/L, respectively. AWWA, which recently completed two studies reviewing both occurrence and exposure of perchlorate, reported it “will work quickly to assess the details of the proposed regulatory determination and submit comments as appropriate based on the findings of these reports.” AWWA has posted information to help utilities communicate to customers about perchlorate.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement saying, "Once again on a Friday, when nobody is paying attention, the Bush administration announces a policy that will harm the American people. The Bush EPA's failure to set a standard for perchlorate, a dangerous contaminant found in drinking water, is outrageous and I will do everything in my power to reverse it. Perchlorate contamination endangers the health of our families, especially pregnant women and children, and to simply allow it to remain in our drinking water is immoral." Boxer indicated that EPA says perchlorate is found in the drinking water supplies of up to 16.6 million Americans; however, other independent researchers have estimated that 20 million or more Americans are exposed to the toxin.
Access a release from Earthjustice and link to the GAO report (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access EWG's research and related information on perchlorate (click here). Access the announcement from AWWA and link to further information (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). [*Water]
Therefore, based on the Safe Water Drinking Act criteria, the Agency made its decision and is now seeking comment on its preliminary determination and will make a final determination for perchlorate after considering information provided in the 30-day public comment period. Despite the "preliminary" nature of EPA's decision, the environmental groups said the "decision represents a victory for the Department of Defense and military contractors, which for years have pressured EPA not to regulate perchlorate and other chemicals associated with weapons manufacturing."
Responding to the announcement, the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice said it plans to challenge any final EPA decision in court, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other organizations concerned about the health effects of perchlorate in drinking water. Earthjustice attorney George Torgun said, "EPA's decision has industry's fingerprints all over it. Weapons makers will benefit at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water spiked with rocket fuel. Clean, safe drinking water is essential. That's why we will fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act."
For years, perchlorate was disposed in the ground by the military and missile-makers. The highly soluble toxin has spread from bases and factories to wells and rivers across the country. The groups indicated that if limits for perchlorate in drinking water were set, the Defense Department and defense contractors could be found responsible for cleanups triggered by violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Hilda Solis (both D-CA) have pushed for legislation that would force EPA to set a federal perchlorate standard [See WIMS 5/6/08]. According to a release from Earthjustice, "Perchlorate concentrations of less than 5 parts per billion have been shown to inhibit iodine uptake by the thyroid gland, resulting in a decreased formation of two hormones necessary for proper oxygen consumption and metabolism. The harm is greatest in populations that are developing and growing rapidly, such as fetuses, infants, and young children."
Ben Dunham, Earthjustice environmental health policy analyst said, "According to EPA, at least 10 million people have rocket fuel in their drinking water. Yet today, the agency says there is not a 'meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.' I'm sure the 10 million people drinking contaminated water think cleaning up their water supply would be 'meaningful.' Because perchlorate contamination is often concentrated around military facilities, EPA's failure to protect the public from polluted drinking water will hit military families especially hard. These families have already sacrificed so much for this country. This decision adds insult to injury, by allowing contamination to continue."
Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, Senior Scientist at EWG said, “The health and well-being of millions of breast-fed babies are being ignored by EPA so the defense industry and their agents in the Pentagon can avoid cleaning up the mess they’ve made." The groups cited a 2005 GAO report listing state-by-state drinking water supplies contaminated by perchlorate.
According to an announcement from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Massachusetts and California have already set perchlorate standards at levels of 2 µg/L and 6 µg/L, respectively. AWWA, which recently completed two studies reviewing both occurrence and exposure of perchlorate, reported it “will work quickly to assess the details of the proposed regulatory determination and submit comments as appropriate based on the findings of these reports.” AWWA has posted information to help utilities communicate to customers about perchlorate.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement saying, "Once again on a Friday, when nobody is paying attention, the Bush administration announces a policy that will harm the American people. The Bush EPA's failure to set a standard for perchlorate, a dangerous contaminant found in drinking water, is outrageous and I will do everything in my power to reverse it. Perchlorate contamination endangers the health of our families, especially pregnant women and children, and to simply allow it to remain in our drinking water is immoral." Boxer indicated that EPA says perchlorate is found in the drinking water supplies of up to 16.6 million Americans; however, other independent researchers have estimated that 20 million or more Americans are exposed to the toxin.
Access a release from Earthjustice and link to the GAO report (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access EWG's research and related information on perchlorate (click here). Access the announcement from AWWA and link to further information (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). [*Water]
Friday, October 03, 2008
Renewable Energy Tax Extenders Pass As Part Of "Rescue" Bill
Oct 3: The Renewable Energy Tax Extenders as contained in the recently approved Senate Bill (H.R. 6049) [See WIMS 9/24/08] have finally been approved as part of the Revised Federal Intervention In Financial Markets Bill (H.R. 1424). The measure was approved on October 1, in the Senate by a vote of 74-25 (with Senator Kennedy not voting). Senators McCain, Obama, and Biden all voted in favor of the bill. In the House, the measure was approved by a vote of 263-171 this afternoon (October 3, 2008), and was signed immediately by the President.
The tax extenders portion of the bill, (H.R. 6049, Senate Substitute, Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008, [See WIMS 9/22/08]) extends the placed-in service date for the credit through December 31, 2009 in the case of wind and refined coal, and through December 31, 2010 in the case of other sources. The measure extends the 30 percent investment tax credit for solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, as well as the 10 percent investment tax credit for micro-turbines, through 2016. The bill extends the credit for residential solar property through 2016, and removes the credit cap (currently $2,000) for solar electric investments. The bill increases the $500 per half kilowatt of capacity cap for qualified fuel cells to $1,500 per half kilowatt of capacity, and adds small commercial wind as a category of qualified investment. The bill adds residential small wind investment, capped at $4,000, and geothermal heat pumps, capped at $2,000, as qualifying property. With respect to vehicles, the bill establishes a new credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles and the credit for passenger vehicles and light trucks ranges from $2,500 to $7,500.
The so-called "tax extenders" bill was worked out between Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who reached an agreement with the Senate’s Democratic and Republican leadership. The measure passed the Senate 93-2 on September 23. A much more controversial Democratic counter measure -- the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 7060) -- was approved in the House on September 26, by a vote of 257-166, mostly along party lines. The controversial provisions would have closed what Democrats called "loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investment overseas and curtailing unnecessary tax subsidies for big, multinational oil and gas companies."
Karen Wayland, Legislative Director for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), issued a statement regarding the inclusion what she said are "tax incentives for dirty fuels" in the economic recovery package. She said, "Dirty fuels -- like oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal -- have no business in a clean energy package, and they certainly don't belong in the economic bailout bill. Taxpayers are already paying a high price for the current economic crisis, and they shouldn't have to pay more to Big Oil and its allies. Despite important incentives for clean, renewable energy, Congress is taking a step backward by assisting the producers of dirty, expensive and inefficient fuels."
Access legislative details for H.R. 1424 with links to the roll call votes (click here). Access a 7-page Senate Finance Committee staff detailed summary of the Energy-related provisions of the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). [*Energy, Et. Al.]
The tax extenders portion of the bill, (H.R. 6049, Senate Substitute, Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008, [See WIMS 9/22/08]) extends the placed-in service date for the credit through December 31, 2009 in the case of wind and refined coal, and through December 31, 2010 in the case of other sources. The measure extends the 30 percent investment tax credit for solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, as well as the 10 percent investment tax credit for micro-turbines, through 2016. The bill extends the credit for residential solar property through 2016, and removes the credit cap (currently $2,000) for solar electric investments. The bill increases the $500 per half kilowatt of capacity cap for qualified fuel cells to $1,500 per half kilowatt of capacity, and adds small commercial wind as a category of qualified investment. The bill adds residential small wind investment, capped at $4,000, and geothermal heat pumps, capped at $2,000, as qualifying property. With respect to vehicles, the bill establishes a new credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles and the credit for passenger vehicles and light trucks ranges from $2,500 to $7,500.
The so-called "tax extenders" bill was worked out between Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who reached an agreement with the Senate’s Democratic and Republican leadership. The measure passed the Senate 93-2 on September 23. A much more controversial Democratic counter measure -- the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 7060) -- was approved in the House on September 26, by a vote of 257-166, mostly along party lines. The controversial provisions would have closed what Democrats called "loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investment overseas and curtailing unnecessary tax subsidies for big, multinational oil and gas companies."
Karen Wayland, Legislative Director for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), issued a statement regarding the inclusion what she said are "tax incentives for dirty fuels" in the economic recovery package. She said, "Dirty fuels -- like oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal -- have no business in a clean energy package, and they certainly don't belong in the economic bailout bill. Taxpayers are already paying a high price for the current economic crisis, and they shouldn't have to pay more to Big Oil and its allies. Despite important incentives for clean, renewable energy, Congress is taking a step backward by assisting the producers of dirty, expensive and inefficient fuels."
Access legislative details for H.R. 1424 with links to the roll call votes (click here). Access a 7-page Senate Finance Committee staff detailed summary of the Energy-related provisions of the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). [*Energy, Et. Al.]
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Law To Curb GHG From Sprawl
Sep 30: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he has signed SB 375 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), which builds on the State law AB 32, California's first-in-the-nation law to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by adding the nation's first law to control greenhouse gas emissions by curbing sprawl. Governor Schwarzenegger said, "This landmark bill takes California's fight against global warming to a whole new level, and it creates a model that the rest of the country and world will use. When it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, California is first in tackling car emissions, first to tackle low-carbon fuels, and now with this landmark legislation, we are the first in the nation to tackle land-use planning. What this will mean is more environmentally-friendly communities, more sustainable developments, less time people spend in their cars, more alternative transportation options and neighborhoods we can safely and proudly pass on to future generations."
According to a release from the Governor, in order to reach the greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, "Californians need to rethink how we design our communities." SB 375 does this by providing emissions-reduction goals around which regions can plan-integrating disjointed planning activities and providing incentives for local governments and developers to follow new conscientiously-planned growth patterns.
SB 375 enhances the Air Resources Board's (ARB) ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. ARB will also work with California's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing and land-use plans and prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Governor indicates, "Spending less time on the road is the single-most powerful way for California to reduce its carbon footprint."
Additionally, SB 375 provides incentives for creating attractive, walkable and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The bill also allows home builders to get relief from certain environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. It will also encourage the development of more alternative transportation options, which will promote healthy lifestyles and reduce traffic congestion.
Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “Putting cleaner cars on the road and filling their tanks with cleaner fuel isn’t enough to achieve our pollution reduction goals as long as the number of miles we drive continues to grow out of control. That’s why this law is so great. It is the missing piece in California’s plan to reduce global warming pollution. By giving people a choice to get out of their cars once in a while we can take a big bite out of our global warming pollution, and save drivers money too. We know that better planning works. On average, Americans living in compact neighborhoods where cars are not the only transportation option drive one-third fewer miles. Besides reducing global warming pollution, this also saves people money at the gas pump."
Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to related information (click here). Access a Fact Sheet on the new law (click here). Access legislative details for SB 375 (click here). Access the California Climate Change portal for extensive information (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Climate, *Land]
According to a release from the Governor, in order to reach the greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, "Californians need to rethink how we design our communities." SB 375 does this by providing emissions-reduction goals around which regions can plan-integrating disjointed planning activities and providing incentives for local governments and developers to follow new conscientiously-planned growth patterns.
SB 375 enhances the Air Resources Board's (ARB) ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. ARB will also work with California's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing and land-use plans and prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Governor indicates, "Spending less time on the road is the single-most powerful way for California to reduce its carbon footprint."
Additionally, SB 375 provides incentives for creating attractive, walkable and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The bill also allows home builders to get relief from certain environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. It will also encourage the development of more alternative transportation options, which will promote healthy lifestyles and reduce traffic congestion.
Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “Putting cleaner cars on the road and filling their tanks with cleaner fuel isn’t enough to achieve our pollution reduction goals as long as the number of miles we drive continues to grow out of control. That’s why this law is so great. It is the missing piece in California’s plan to reduce global warming pollution. By giving people a choice to get out of their cars once in a while we can take a big bite out of our global warming pollution, and save drivers money too. We know that better planning works. On average, Americans living in compact neighborhoods where cars are not the only transportation option drive one-third fewer miles. Besides reducing global warming pollution, this also saves people money at the gas pump."
Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to related information (click here). Access a Fact Sheet on the new law (click here). Access legislative details for SB 375 (click here). Access the California Climate Change portal for extensive information (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Climate, *Land]
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Report On EU REACH Regs Impact On U.S. Companies
Sep 30: A new report from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), indicates that hundreds of companies located in 37 of the 50 United States produce or import hundreds of chemicals designated as dangerous by the European Union (EU). As a result, these companies will be directly affected by controls imposed under the EU's new chemicals regulation -- REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restrictions of Chemicals).
The report -- Across the Pond: Assessing REACH's First Big Impact on U.S. Companies and Chemicals -- finds that many of the hundreds of chemicals already identified as dangerous by the EU are being produced or imported in the United States in large amounts and at many different sites. The findings provide compelling evidence for the U.S. Congress to protect public health by reforming the nation's primary chemical safety law, the 32-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act.
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., EDF Senior Scientist and author of the report said, "The fact that so many chemicals already designated as dangerous by EU officials are actively being produced and used in the United States should dispel any notion that the problem is limited to only a few 'bad actors.' Toxic chemicals grabbing recent headlines -- such as bisphenol A used in baby bottles and food cans, phthalates used in kids' toys, and flame retardants used in furniture -- are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of chemicals that demand scrutiny. This report serves as an early warning to companies making and using these dangerous chemicals that they will be at a competitive disadvantage unless they proactively seek to eliminate exposures and develop safer alternatives. Scrutiny of these chemicals is only going to grow, so chemical companies should support efforts to modernize the decades-old U.S. chemicals policy that has shielded chemicals from needed testing and appropriate control."
Last year, the EU adopted its sweeping new chemicals regulation -- Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) -- under which companies must register all chemicals they place on the EU market in amounts above one metric ton. A hallmark of REACH is its identification of so-called "substances of very high concern" (SVHCs). REACH's intent is ultimately to allow use of such SVHCs only when each use has been specifically authorized. Denison said, "REACH's requirements will fully apply to U.S. companies that make chemicals for the EU market. This report is the first to determine which companies report making SVHCs in the United States. Once these chemicals become subject to REACH's authorization requirements, these companies will need permission from EU officials to sell them in the EU."
EDF based its analysis on a list of nearly 300 SVHCs issued last week by the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec), a Swedish nongovernmental organization. ChemSec dubbed its list the "SIN List," for "Substitute It Now," which reflects the group's interest in promoting safer alternatives to SVHCs wherever possible. The list represents the first effort to identify the range of chemicals expected to be subject to authorization under REACH. EDF compared the SIN List to the most recent publicly available data from the U.S. EPA that identifies which companies reported making or importing these chemicals in the United States. EDF found that many, and likely most, of the SIN List chemicals are manufactured or imported in the United States.
The EDF report also finds that: Eight states have at least a dozen SIN List chemicals: New Jersey, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky and Michigan; In the United States, at least 85 SIN List chemicals are produced annually in amounts of one million or more pounds, and at least 14 exceed one billion pounds annually; At least 173 companies are producing or importing SIN List chemicals in the United States; Some companies are associated with many SIN List chemicals -- as many as 21 per company; and The five companies reporting making the most SIN List chemicals are Dow, DuPont, Chemtura, Equistar and BASF.
EDF found that only about a third of the SVHCs on the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory have been tested under TSCA. Only two -- asbestos and hexavalent chromium -- have been regulated under TSCA, and EDF says "even these only under narrow conditions."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release indicating that the EDF and ChemSec reports are creating "unnecessary confusion and public concern." ACC indicates in their release, "Barely 3 months after Europe’s comprehensive new chemical law (REACH) has gone into effect, already non-governmental public interest groups have created wish-lists and reports which distract attention from efforts to effectively implement the law, and that could undermine the law’s effectiveness."
ACC said, "The list published by ChemSec is simply one interest group’s recommendation on what chemicals should be subject to use-specific authorization under REACH. The list is not a formal element of the European Union’s REACH program, and could create serious confusion for chemical manufacturers, distributors and their customers throughout the value chain. Under REACH, it is the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) responsibility to propose chemicals for authorization and, to date, ECHA has proposed an initial list of 16 substances using the procedures set out under the law.
"The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has issued a new report on impacts from REACH in the U.S., based on the ChemSec 'wish list.' In ACC’s view, the EDF report compounds the potential for confusion in chemical value chains. Further, it implies that there are unregulated exposures to the listed chemicals, and creates the potential for unwarranted public concern. . . "
Access a release from EDF (click here). Access links to the complete 24-page report, summary and data tables (click here). Access the Chemical Secretariat "SIN List" (click here). Access a release from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH Program links (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog posts on REACH issues (click here). [*Toxics]
The report -- Across the Pond: Assessing REACH's First Big Impact on U.S. Companies and Chemicals -- finds that many of the hundreds of chemicals already identified as dangerous by the EU are being produced or imported in the United States in large amounts and at many different sites. The findings provide compelling evidence for the U.S. Congress to protect public health by reforming the nation's primary chemical safety law, the 32-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act.
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., EDF Senior Scientist and author of the report said, "The fact that so many chemicals already designated as dangerous by EU officials are actively being produced and used in the United States should dispel any notion that the problem is limited to only a few 'bad actors.' Toxic chemicals grabbing recent headlines -- such as bisphenol A used in baby bottles and food cans, phthalates used in kids' toys, and flame retardants used in furniture -- are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of chemicals that demand scrutiny. This report serves as an early warning to companies making and using these dangerous chemicals that they will be at a competitive disadvantage unless they proactively seek to eliminate exposures and develop safer alternatives. Scrutiny of these chemicals is only going to grow, so chemical companies should support efforts to modernize the decades-old U.S. chemicals policy that has shielded chemicals from needed testing and appropriate control."
Last year, the EU adopted its sweeping new chemicals regulation -- Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) -- under which companies must register all chemicals they place on the EU market in amounts above one metric ton. A hallmark of REACH is its identification of so-called "substances of very high concern" (SVHCs). REACH's intent is ultimately to allow use of such SVHCs only when each use has been specifically authorized. Denison said, "REACH's requirements will fully apply to U.S. companies that make chemicals for the EU market. This report is the first to determine which companies report making SVHCs in the United States. Once these chemicals become subject to REACH's authorization requirements, these companies will need permission from EU officials to sell them in the EU."
EDF based its analysis on a list of nearly 300 SVHCs issued last week by the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec), a Swedish nongovernmental organization. ChemSec dubbed its list the "SIN List," for "Substitute It Now," which reflects the group's interest in promoting safer alternatives to SVHCs wherever possible. The list represents the first effort to identify the range of chemicals expected to be subject to authorization under REACH. EDF compared the SIN List to the most recent publicly available data from the U.S. EPA that identifies which companies reported making or importing these chemicals in the United States. EDF found that many, and likely most, of the SIN List chemicals are manufactured or imported in the United States.
The EDF report also finds that: Eight states have at least a dozen SIN List chemicals: New Jersey, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky and Michigan; In the United States, at least 85 SIN List chemicals are produced annually in amounts of one million or more pounds, and at least 14 exceed one billion pounds annually; At least 173 companies are producing or importing SIN List chemicals in the United States; Some companies are associated with many SIN List chemicals -- as many as 21 per company; and The five companies reporting making the most SIN List chemicals are Dow, DuPont, Chemtura, Equistar and BASF.
EDF found that only about a third of the SVHCs on the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory have been tested under TSCA. Only two -- asbestos and hexavalent chromium -- have been regulated under TSCA, and EDF says "even these only under narrow conditions."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release indicating that the EDF and ChemSec reports are creating "unnecessary confusion and public concern." ACC indicates in their release, "Barely 3 months after Europe’s comprehensive new chemical law (REACH) has gone into effect, already non-governmental public interest groups have created wish-lists and reports which distract attention from efforts to effectively implement the law, and that could undermine the law’s effectiveness."
ACC said, "The list published by ChemSec is simply one interest group’s recommendation on what chemicals should be subject to use-specific authorization under REACH. The list is not a formal element of the European Union’s REACH program, and could create serious confusion for chemical manufacturers, distributors and their customers throughout the value chain. Under REACH, it is the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) responsibility to propose chemicals for authorization and, to date, ECHA has proposed an initial list of 16 substances using the procedures set out under the law.
"The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has issued a new report on impacts from REACH in the U.S., based on the ChemSec 'wish list.' In ACC’s view, the EDF report compounds the potential for confusion in chemical value chains. Further, it implies that there are unregulated exposures to the listed chemicals, and creates the potential for unwarranted public concern. . . "
Access a release from EDF (click here). Access links to the complete 24-page report, summary and data tables (click here). Access the Chemical Secretariat "SIN List" (click here). Access a release from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH Program links (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog posts on REACH issues (click here). [*Toxics]
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
GAO Report On Federal Actions On Carbon Capture & Storage
Sep 30: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Climate Change: Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option (GAO-08-1080, September 30, 2008).
As requested by the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, GAO examined (1) key economic, legal, regulatory, and technological barriers impeding commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and (2) actions the Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. EPA, and other agencies are taking to overcome barriers to commercial-scale deployment of CCS technology. Among other things, GAO examined key studies and contacted officials from pertinent agencies, companies, and environmental groups, as well as research and other organizations.
GAO said that nationally-recognized studies and its contacts with a diverse group of industry representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and academic researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include: (1) underdeveloped and costly CO2 capture technology and (2) regulatory and legal uncertainties over CO2 capture, injection, and storage. Key technological barriers include a lack of experience in capturing significant amounts of CO2 from commercial-scale power plants and the significant cost of retrofitting existing plants that are the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States.
Regulatory and legal uncertainties include questions about liability concerning CO2 leakage and ownership of CO2 once injected. According to the National Academy of Sciences and other knowledgeable authorities, another barrier is the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions trading plan, CO2 emissions tax, or other mandatory control of CO2 emissions), without which the electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store its CO2 emissions. Moreover, according to key agency officials, the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions has also deterred their agencies from resolving other important practical issues, such as how sequestered CO2 will be transported from power plants to appropriate storage locations and how stored CO2 would be treated in a future CO2 emissions trading plan.
Among GAO’s recommendations are that (1) DOE continue to place greater emphasis on CO2 capture at existing power plants and (2) EPA examine how its statutory authorities can be used to address potential CCS barriers. DOE neither explicitly agreed nor disagreed with the first recommendation. EPA expressed general agreement with the second recommendation.
Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, who requested the study said, “If carbon sequestration technologies are going to get off -- and into -- the ground, we must have national limits on global warming pollution and an administration dedicated to promoting climate-friendly technologies. Solving coal’s climate conundrum is as vital as any challenge we face in battling global warming, and half-measures just won’t cut it.”
In a release Markey indicated that the GAO report says ". . .climate-fighting carbon sequestration technologies won’t significantly advance until a national strategy to regulate carbon emissions and interagency cooperation measures are established. The report shines a light on the lack of leadership from the Bush administration on global warming and climate-friendly technologies."
Access the complete 72-page GAO report (click here). Access a release from Chairman Markey (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
As requested by the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, GAO examined (1) key economic, legal, regulatory, and technological barriers impeding commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and (2) actions the Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. EPA, and other agencies are taking to overcome barriers to commercial-scale deployment of CCS technology. Among other things, GAO examined key studies and contacted officials from pertinent agencies, companies, and environmental groups, as well as research and other organizations.
GAO said that nationally-recognized studies and its contacts with a diverse group of industry representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and academic researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include: (1) underdeveloped and costly CO2 capture technology and (2) regulatory and legal uncertainties over CO2 capture, injection, and storage. Key technological barriers include a lack of experience in capturing significant amounts of CO2 from commercial-scale power plants and the significant cost of retrofitting existing plants that are the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States.
Regulatory and legal uncertainties include questions about liability concerning CO2 leakage and ownership of CO2 once injected. According to the National Academy of Sciences and other knowledgeable authorities, another barrier is the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions trading plan, CO2 emissions tax, or other mandatory control of CO2 emissions), without which the electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store its CO2 emissions. Moreover, according to key agency officials, the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions has also deterred their agencies from resolving other important practical issues, such as how sequestered CO2 will be transported from power plants to appropriate storage locations and how stored CO2 would be treated in a future CO2 emissions trading plan.
Among GAO’s recommendations are that (1) DOE continue to place greater emphasis on CO2 capture at existing power plants and (2) EPA examine how its statutory authorities can be used to address potential CCS barriers. DOE neither explicitly agreed nor disagreed with the first recommendation. EPA expressed general agreement with the second recommendation.
Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, who requested the study said, “If carbon sequestration technologies are going to get off -- and into -- the ground, we must have national limits on global warming pollution and an administration dedicated to promoting climate-friendly technologies. Solving coal’s climate conundrum is as vital as any challenge we face in battling global warming, and half-measures just won’t cut it.”
In a release Markey indicated that the GAO report says ". . .climate-fighting carbon sequestration technologies won’t significantly advance until a national strategy to regulate carbon emissions and interagency cooperation measures are established. The report shines a light on the lack of leadership from the Bush administration on global warming and climate-friendly technologies."
Access the complete 72-page GAO report (click here). Access a release from Chairman Markey (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, September 29, 2008
Back & Forth On Renewable Tax Incentives Continues
Sep 28: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a brief statement following the September 26 House vote of 257-166, mostly along party lines, approving its different version of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 7060), which would extend and expand tax incentives for renewable energy. Speaker Pelosi said, “With the American people pinched at the pump, and seriously concerned about the state of the economy, the House has taken action again today to cut taxes for millions of middle-class families, invest in renewable energy technologies to create high-paying green jobs, make America more energy independent, and remove incentives in the tax code that encourage shipping jobs and investment overseas.
“When I became Speaker, I made energy independence the top priority for the New Direction Congress. This legislation holds true to that commitment, investing in the future and the ingenuity of the American people to create and deploy cutting-edge renewable technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation also holds true to our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By closing loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investment overseas and curtailing unnecessary tax subsidies for big, multinational oil and gas companies, we are ensuring that future generations don’t foot the bill for the progress we can make today.
“I urge my colleagues in the Senate to seize the opportunity to enact this bill law, thus creating and saving jobs in a difficult economy, providing essential tax relief to families and businesses, and speeding our transition to a clean, renewable energy and energy efficient future.”
On the Senate side, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who successfully guided the Senate bipartisan "tax extenders" package including extensions of incentives for key renewable energy technologies to a 93-2 approval vote in the Senate [See WIMS 9/24/08], commented on the House passage of its alternate legislation which has now created a new impasse with little legislative time left.
Senator Baucus said, “This move in the House endangers tax relief that American businesses and families need right now. While I commend the House’s effort to fully offset the cost of this needed tax legislation, it is clear to me from discussions in the Senate that even this new package of bills will not pass in this body. Therefore, the tax relief agreed to in the Senate is the only legislation with any hope of providing energy tax incentives, protection from the alternative minimum tax, and business and family tax cuts this year. The tax relief passed by the Senate does what all of us want: it supports jobs, energy, and families at a time when our country is in financial crisis. The House needs to take a vote on the Senate package and pass these tax breaks for jobs, energy, and families, period, even at some cost. Americans need the sound energy future, the good-paying jobs, and the tax relief the Senate bill ensures. The House can provide it with one vote. I hope that vote will be scheduled soon.”
Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a more detailed release from House Democrats (click here). Access the brief statement from Senator Baucus (click here). Access legislative details for Senate Substitute for H.R. 6049 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 7060 including links to the roll call vote (click here). [*Energy]
“When I became Speaker, I made energy independence the top priority for the New Direction Congress. This legislation holds true to that commitment, investing in the future and the ingenuity of the American people to create and deploy cutting-edge renewable technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation also holds true to our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By closing loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investment overseas and curtailing unnecessary tax subsidies for big, multinational oil and gas companies, we are ensuring that future generations don’t foot the bill for the progress we can make today.
“I urge my colleagues in the Senate to seize the opportunity to enact this bill law, thus creating and saving jobs in a difficult economy, providing essential tax relief to families and businesses, and speeding our transition to a clean, renewable energy and energy efficient future.”
On the Senate side, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who successfully guided the Senate bipartisan "tax extenders" package including extensions of incentives for key renewable energy technologies to a 93-2 approval vote in the Senate [See WIMS 9/24/08], commented on the House passage of its alternate legislation which has now created a new impasse with little legislative time left.
Senator Baucus said, “This move in the House endangers tax relief that American businesses and families need right now. While I commend the House’s effort to fully offset the cost of this needed tax legislation, it is clear to me from discussions in the Senate that even this new package of bills will not pass in this body. Therefore, the tax relief agreed to in the Senate is the only legislation with any hope of providing energy tax incentives, protection from the alternative minimum tax, and business and family tax cuts this year. The tax relief passed by the Senate does what all of us want: it supports jobs, energy, and families at a time when our country is in financial crisis. The House needs to take a vote on the Senate package and pass these tax breaks for jobs, energy, and families, period, even at some cost. Americans need the sound energy future, the good-paying jobs, and the tax relief the Senate bill ensures. The House can provide it with one vote. I hope that vote will be scheduled soon.”
Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a more detailed release from House Democrats (click here). Access the brief statement from Senator Baucus (click here). Access legislative details for Senate Substitute for H.R. 6049 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 7060 including links to the roll call vote (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, September 26, 2008
RGGI Launches First-In-The-Nation Auction For CO2 Allowances
Sep 25: At a bell-ringing ceremony held at the New York Mercantile Exchange in lower Manhattan, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) marked the opening of the first-in-the-nation auction for carbon dioxide emission allowances [See WIMS 3/21/08]. The ceremony, which was attended by Governor David Paterson of New York and Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, served to mark what RGGI says is the "most serious effort yet in the United States to address climate change."
RGGI will reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through a mandatory, market-based cap-and-trade program. Under RGGI, the ten participating states will stabilize power sector carbon emissions at their capped level, and then reduce the cap by 10 percent at a rate of 2.5 percent each year between 2015 and 2018. As promised in the 2005 RGGI Memorandum of Understanding, all participating states plan to have implementing regulations in place by January 1, 2009.
Jonathan Schrag, Executive Director of RGGI, Inc. said, “Today marks the culmination of more than five years of research, design and development of the nation’s first carbon market. It is fitting that our event took place on the shores of the river that Henry Hudson explored nearly 400 years ago. As with Hudson’s exploration then, these pioneering states are leading the way forward on the new, clean-energy economy that others will surely follow.”
CO2 allowances under RGGI will be distributed primarily via auctions rather than the free allocation methodology used in other emissions markets. By using an auction, participating states are able to provide benefits to consumers. Revenues from the carbon allowance auctions will be invested by the participating states in energy efficiency programs, renewable energy stimulus efforts and other programs to benefit consumers. As a result, RGGI will deliver economic and environmental benefits and improve energy security through reduced use of fossil fuels.
The RGGI auction offered 12,565,387 allowances, including CO2 allowances issued by Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont. Other RGGI participating states (Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York)will offer allowances for sale in future auctions as they complete their necessary rulemaking proceedings. A second auction is scheduled for December 2008, with all RGGI participating states expected to offer allowances for sale in the first 2009 auction. The CO2 allowances purchased at this auction can be used by a regulated facility for compliance in any of the RGGI states, even if that state did not offer allowances in this auction.
Future sales of CO2 allowances are planned through a steady offering of allowances in quarterly auctions. States have committed to offer for sale before the end of 2011 all of the allowances they are putting into the auctions for the first three-year compliance period. Regulated power companies must hold enough allowances to match their CO2 emissions for the first compliance period by March 1, 2012. RGGI is serving as a model for other regional greenhouse gas initiatives including the Western Climate Initiative, the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, a system being studied in Florida.
Dale Bryk, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “Today is a bold step forward for our clean energy future and the fight against global warming. The new system is good for consumers, good for the economy and good for our climate. This new energy plan is straight-forward, highly cost-effective and creates a clean energy pathway for the rest of the country to follow. It is the shape of things to come.” Leading companies operating in the region that have backed the new system include Bank of America, Staples, National Grid, Pfizer, PSEG and the association of large energy users called The Energy Consortium.
World Resources Institute (WRI) President Jonathan Lash said, "Today, ten states are taking a major step forward in the fight against global warming as they begin operations of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the country’s first mandatory GHG emissions market. These Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states have been pioneers at a time when federal action has been egregiously lacking. Their accomplishments have proven that emissions markets are effective and politically possible. . . WRI is proud to have participated in the design of all three agreements, and congratulates the governors, state legislators, and stakeholders in the RGGI states on their outstanding accomplishment.”
Access a release from RGGI (click here). Access the RGGI website for extensive information (click here). Access the Western Climate Initiative (click here). Access the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (click here). Access the Florida Climate Change website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from WRI (click here). [*Climate]
RGGI will reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through a mandatory, market-based cap-and-trade program. Under RGGI, the ten participating states will stabilize power sector carbon emissions at their capped level, and then reduce the cap by 10 percent at a rate of 2.5 percent each year between 2015 and 2018. As promised in the 2005 RGGI Memorandum of Understanding, all participating states plan to have implementing regulations in place by January 1, 2009.
Jonathan Schrag, Executive Director of RGGI, Inc. said, “Today marks the culmination of more than five years of research, design and development of the nation’s first carbon market. It is fitting that our event took place on the shores of the river that Henry Hudson explored nearly 400 years ago. As with Hudson’s exploration then, these pioneering states are leading the way forward on the new, clean-energy economy that others will surely follow.”
CO2 allowances under RGGI will be distributed primarily via auctions rather than the free allocation methodology used in other emissions markets. By using an auction, participating states are able to provide benefits to consumers. Revenues from the carbon allowance auctions will be invested by the participating states in energy efficiency programs, renewable energy stimulus efforts and other programs to benefit consumers. As a result, RGGI will deliver economic and environmental benefits and improve energy security through reduced use of fossil fuels.
The RGGI auction offered 12,565,387 allowances, including CO2 allowances issued by Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont. Other RGGI participating states (Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York)will offer allowances for sale in future auctions as they complete their necessary rulemaking proceedings. A second auction is scheduled for December 2008, with all RGGI participating states expected to offer allowances for sale in the first 2009 auction. The CO2 allowances purchased at this auction can be used by a regulated facility for compliance in any of the RGGI states, even if that state did not offer allowances in this auction.
Future sales of CO2 allowances are planned through a steady offering of allowances in quarterly auctions. States have committed to offer for sale before the end of 2011 all of the allowances they are putting into the auctions for the first three-year compliance period. Regulated power companies must hold enough allowances to match their CO2 emissions for the first compliance period by March 1, 2012. RGGI is serving as a model for other regional greenhouse gas initiatives including the Western Climate Initiative, the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, a system being studied in Florida.
Dale Bryk, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, “Today is a bold step forward for our clean energy future and the fight against global warming. The new system is good for consumers, good for the economy and good for our climate. This new energy plan is straight-forward, highly cost-effective and creates a clean energy pathway for the rest of the country to follow. It is the shape of things to come.” Leading companies operating in the region that have backed the new system include Bank of America, Staples, National Grid, Pfizer, PSEG and the association of large energy users called The Energy Consortium.
World Resources Institute (WRI) President Jonathan Lash said, "Today, ten states are taking a major step forward in the fight against global warming as they begin operations of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the country’s first mandatory GHG emissions market. These Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states have been pioneers at a time when federal action has been egregiously lacking. Their accomplishments have proven that emissions markets are effective and politically possible. . . WRI is proud to have participated in the design of all three agreements, and congratulates the governors, state legislators, and stakeholders in the RGGI states on their outstanding accomplishment.”
Access a release from RGGI (click here). Access the RGGI website for extensive information (click here). Access the Western Climate Initiative (click here). Access the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (click here). Access the Florida Climate Change website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from WRI (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
