Climate Interest Fading?; UNFCCC Last Session Before COP17/CMP7

Oct 11: A week of formal UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate negotiations in Panama City, Panama ended on Friday, October 7, with reportedly some progress on drafting the decision texts that will allow governments to move forward at the upcoming COP17/CMP7 meeting in Durban, South Africa November 28 to  - December 9, 2011. UNFCCC indicated in a release that the Panama meeting "made good progress on preparing the decisions that will help developing countries adapt to climate change and get access to the technologies they need to create their own clean energy futures." The COP is the "supreme body" of the Convention. The CMP is the "supreme body" of the Kyoto Protocol.

 

    Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary said, "This includes meeting deadlines for the launch of the new Adaptation Committee and Technology Mechanism which were agreed at last year's Cancun climate change conference. It also made clear progress on how efforts to limit emissions by developing countries will be matched with necessary support from developed countries in a transparent way. This includes work on a new Registry to record and account for this effort, which was also agreed

in Cancun.

 

    Figueres indicated that, "The progress made in Panama means governments can have more time and space in the coming weeks and during Durban to resolve those outstanding issues on the future of the global climate change regime which will require political guidance. Durban will have to resolve the open question over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and what that means for a future global climate agreement. Governments retain different positions but many technical issues related to this have already been brought to conclusion and there is a strong desire from all sides to see a final political decision made." She said that in Panama the South African Presidency led two inclusive and transparent consultations on those questions, one with governments and one with stakeholders and civil society.

 

    On the subject of financial support that developed countries have pledged to the developing world, Figueres said Panama had provided a better view of how the $30 billion (USD) in fast-track funds up to the end of 2012 have been committed and the plans to disburse them. Meanwhile, governments put forward their ideas for mobilizing the long-term finance that should reach USD100 billion a year by 2020. Figueres said, "It is critical that no financing gap occurs between the end of fast-start finance in 2012 and the ramp up of long-term finance to 2020."

 

    UNFCCC indicated that the Panama meeting also made some progress on the longer-term question of how governments will meet their agreed goal of limiting global average temperatures to no more than a 2 degree Centigrade (2C) rise. In Durban, governments will look to decide the shape of a formal Review between 2013 and 2015, which they agreed in Cancun as a reality check on progress towards their temperature goal. Governments discussed doing this via a possible expert body which would receive updates on the latest climate change science and its assessments. Figueres said, "Clarity on an effective, credible Review is most important, especially in light of the fact that the sum total of current national pledges to reduce global emissions falls 40% short of keeping below 2C and that gap will have to be filled in the future."

 

    While the UNFCCC painted an optimistic picture of the Panama meeting there was very little interest by U.S. interest groups, political leaders or news media. Others engaged in the process were not as encouraged and some even warned that the international negotiating process is on the verge of collapse. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF's) International Climate Program Director Jennifer Haverkamp observed, "Some positive signals came out of Panama – less rancor and obstructionism than we had come to expect this year, and some progress on teeing up negotiating texts -- but these glimmers of progress are eclipsed by the unresolved question of the Kyoto Protocol's future."

    Haverkamp said, "Our preferred Durban outcome is agreement on a timetable and pathway to a new mandatory agreement. Sad to say, that's looking like a heavy lift. But the prospect of a collapse of the existing legal framework will only strengthen the resolve of countries that actually want to tackle this problem to move forward in the avenues available to them. Much still needs to be done in the next six weeks if Durban is to successfully advance progress toward a climate regime that preserves the planet for our grandchildren in a form we would still recognize."

    Access a release from UNFCCC on the Panama meeting (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to more information and details from the Panama meeting (click here). Access a 16-page summary of the meeting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a NYT report on the meeting (click here) [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA Proposes Significant Changes To CSAPR Transport Rule

Oct 6: U.S. EPA signed a proposed rule, yet to be published in the Federal Register, indicating it is proposing or seeking comment on revisions to the final Transport Rule promulgated on August 8, 2011 (i.e. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR) [See WIMS 7/7/11]. These revisions address discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is also proposing to revise allowance allocations to specific units covered by certain consent decrees that restrict the use of those allowances. These important technical fixes maintain the Transport Rule's ability to achieve the elimination of significant contribution and interference with maintenance as quantified by the proper application of these methodologies.

    EPA is also proposing to amend the assurance penalty provisions of the rule to make them effective beginning January 1, 2014, rather than in 2012, in order to promote the development of allowance market liquidity as these revisions are finalized. EPA believes that deferring the effective date of the assurance provisions would provide additional confidence and would not compromise the air quality goals of the program. In addition, we are proposing to correct typographical errors in the rule.

    On amending the assurance penalty provisions to make them effective 2 years later, EPA indicates, "EPA is also proposing in this action to amend the effective date of the Transport Rule assurance provisions to make them effective beginning on January 1, 2014. During outreach discussions with various stakeholders, the application of assurance penalties at the outset of the program has been raised as a major concern for compliance and market development in the early years of the program. Several stakeholders have expressed concern that Transport Rule allowance market development may be delayed by uncertainty over how each state will transition from 2010 and 2011 emission levels to meet the projected Transport Rule assurance levels in 2012 and 2013. . . EPA proposes to determine that amending the assurance provisions to take effect starting in 2014 is appropriate. EPA believes that a limited postponement of the effectiveness of these provisions is justified in order to smooth the transition from the existing CAIR programs to the new Transport Rule programs. . ."

    EPA also issued a brief statement saying, "On October 6, 2011, following the submission of additional data from states and companies and further review of the rule, EPA is proposing a routine rulemaking that will maintain the extensive public health benefits of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule while also making certain technical adjustments to account for the updated information the Agency recently received. These adjustments, possible because of the inherent flexibility of the Clean Air Act, will increase CSAPR emission budgets in ten states and ease limits on market‐based compliance options. While individual state adjustments vary, overall, the budget increases are slight -- about one percent -- when compared to the millions of tons of pollution reductions secured by CSAPR. Today's proposal will maintain the significant health benefits of the rule -- saving up to 34,000 lives a year -- while continuing CSAPR'S flexibility and certainty for utilities as we work together to ensure that we protect the air we all breathe and the jobs of American workers. While the CSAPR trading programs begins in January 2012, companies have until the end of 2012 and early 2013 to demonstrate compliance. As with any proposal, this rulemaking will go through a public comment period to ensure important feedback from stakeholders will inform the final standard." The Agency also released additional Technical Support Information (see link below).

 

    House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) issued a statement on EPA proposed corrections saying, "EPA's announcement confirms several major shortcomings with the CSAPR that were highlighted in our Committee's September 15th hearing. These problems include unreasonable timelines, failure to consult stakeholders, and the use of non-transparent models that do not seem to match up with actual pollution measurements.

 

    "EPA's decision to increase emission budgets and allowances for some states and facilities demonstrates the finalized rule lacked sufficient scientific analysis and economic consideration.  EPA's process is broken.  As we have seen in Texas and throughout the United States, pursuing an 'EPA-knows-best' approach to compliance will unquestionably result in increased unemployment, power plant shut-downs, and more expensive, less reliable energy.  These proposed revisions still fail to avoid usurping the States' statutory prerogative under the Clean Air Act to develop their own implementation strategies.

 

    "The concept of preventing emissions from significantly affecting the air quality in another state seems reasonable, and states have been making great strides to reduce their cross-state pollution.  But they need sufficient time to comply with new restrictions.  EPA has options, including continuing to apply the current effective approach under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), while it takes a time out to finish the homework it should have completed before taking action.  Today's announcement is an ad hoc attempt to address certain deficiencies in an inherently flawed rule, but it does not do enough.  The CSAPR requires more than just a few 'technical adjustments.'  EPA needs to step back, reboot, and start over."

 

    Access a prepublication copy of EPA's proposal (click here). Access the statement from EPA (click here). Access additional Technical Support Information released by EPA (click here). Access the statement from Representative Hall with links to the Committee meeting and related information (click here). Access EPA's CSAPR website for complete background (click here). [#Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

 

President Presses For Vote On The American Jobs Act

Oct 6: President Obama held a press conference on his $447 billion American Jobs Act (AJA) which he proposed after Labor Day [See WIMS 9/9/11]. The proposed package includes $245 billion in tax cuts; $140 billion in investments in infrastructure ($60 billion + $30 billion for school rehab) and local aid; and $62 billion in continued unemployment benefits.

 

    There has been no action on the proposal to date. However, the President announced that, "Next week, the Senate will vote on the American Jobs Act. And I think by now I've made my views pretty well known. Some of you are even keeping a tally of how many times I've talked about the American Jobs Act. And the reason I keep going around the country talking about this jobs bill is because people really need help right now. Our economy really needs a jolt right now.

 

    "This is not a game; this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. The problems Europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy at a time when it's already fragile. But this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn if the situation in Europe gets any worse. It will boost economic growth; it will put people back to work. And by the way, this is not just my belief. This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth.

    So as we look towards next week, any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and for our businesses. . .

    "The proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create make-work jobs. They are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts, if we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs that restore a sense of security to middle-class families. And to do that, we've got to have the most educated workers. We have to have the best transportation and communications networks. We have to support innovative small businesses. We've got to support innovative manufacturers. . .

    ". . .this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share [i.e. 5% surcharge tax]. Some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job. . ."

    The President said, ". . .if Mr. McConnell chooses to vote against it, or if members of his caucus choose to vote against it, I promise you we're going to keep on going, and we will put forward maybe piece by piece each component of the bill. And each time they're going to have to explain why it is that they'd be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom, or rebuilding our schools, or giving tax cuts to middle-class folks, and giving tax cuts to small businesses. . . [If] everybody on Capitol Hill is cynical and saying there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep on going at it. I want everybody to be clear. My intention is to insist that each part of this, I want an explanation as to why we shouldn't be doing it, each component part: putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses and middle-class families, tax breaks for our veterans. We will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. . ."

    U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) responded to the President in a statement on the Senate floor to what he called "the President's partisan stimulus and tax hike plan." Senator McConnell said, "What this week has shown, beyond any doubt, is that Democrats would rather talk about partisan legislation that they know won't pass, than about actually passing legislation we know would create jobs. "Two and a half years after the President signed his first stimulus there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in this country. And now, he wants to do it again. Why? Because Democrats think it makes for good politics. . .

    "So the real goal here for the Democrats, as far as I can tell, is entirely political — by arguing for a permanent tax hike to pay for a temporary stimulus, they essentially admitting they're not interested in creating jobs–because proposing a partisan tax hike 13 months before an election won't create a single job. So I would suggest that our friends on the other side put away the playbook and work with us instead. . .

    "How can anyone be expected to make plans when the next 'gotcha' tax hike to pay for this President's spending binge is always lurking around the corner? The President has said it's wrong to raise taxes in this weak economic environment. If he meant what he said, surely he'll join me in opposing this unwise tax hike Senate Democrats have proposed. . . "Republicans, along with some Democrats, have pro-growth solutions to help solve this crisis, but we will not stand for a permanent tax hike for a temporary stimulus that is largely a rehash of the same failed stimulus ideas this administration has already tried. . . "It's time Democrats move beyond the political rhetoric and for the President to stop campaigning. It's time for Democrats to reach across the aisle on bipartisan legislation that can actually pass."

    Access the complete text from the President's news conference and question (click here). Access details on the AJA from the White House (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). [#All]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

NAS Report Casts Doubt On Effects Of Renewable Fuel Standard

Oct 4: A Congressionally-requested report -- Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy -- from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) casts serious doubt about the effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The report indicates it is unlikely the United States will meet some specific biofuel mandates under the current Renewable Fuel Standard by 2022 unless innovative technologies are developed or policies change. The report also adds that the standard may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also, achieving the standard would likely increase Federal budget outlays as well as have mixed economic and environmental effects.

 

    In 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as part of the Energy Policy Act and amended it in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. The amended standard mandated that by 2022 the consumption volume of the renewable fuels should consist of: 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels, mainly corn-grain ethanol; 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel fuel; 4 billion gallons of advanced renewable biofuels, other than ethanol derived from cornstarch, that achieve a life-cycle greenhouse gas threshold of at least 50 percent; and 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels produced from wood, grasses, or non-edible plant parts -- such as from corn stalks and wheat straw. Except for biodiesel, these volumes are measured in ethanol units.            

    The committee that wrote the report said that production of adequate volumes of biofuels are expected to meet consumption mandates for conventional biofuels and biomass-based diesel fuel. However, whether and how the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be met is uncertain. Currently, no commercially viable biorefineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel. The capacity to meet the renewable fuel mandate for cellulosic biofuels will not be available unless the production process is unexpectedly improved and technologies are scaled up and undergo several commercial-scale demonstrations in the next few years. Additionally, policy uncertainties and high costs of production may deter investors from aggressive deployment, even though the government guarantees a market for cellulosic biofuels up to the level of the consumption mandate, regardless of price.  
 
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions - According to the report, the extent to which using biofuels rather than petroleum will reduce greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain. How biofuels are produced and the changes in land use or land cover that occur in the process affect biofuels' impact on such emissions. Dedicated energy crops will have to be grown to meet the mandate, which will probably require conversion of uncultivated land or the displacement of commodity crops and pastures.  If the expanded production involves removing perennial vegetation on a piece of land and replacing it with an annual commodity crop, then the land-use change would incur a one-time greenhouse gas emission from biomass and soil that could be large enough to offset benefits gained by displacing petroleum-based fuels with biofuels over subsequent years. Such land conversion may disrupt any future potential for storing carbon in biomass and soil. In addition, the renewable fuel standard can neither prevent market-mediated effects nor control land-use or land-cover changes in other countries. 
 
    Economic Effects - The report indicates that only in an economic environment characterized by high oil prices, technological breakthroughs, and a high implicit or actual carbon price would biofuels be cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels. The best cost estimates of cellulosic biofuel are not economical compared with fossil fuels when crude oil's price is $111 per barrel.  Furthermore, absent major increases in agricultural yields and improved efficiency in converting biomass to fuels, additional cropland will be required for growing cellulosic feedstock.  This could create competition among different land uses and, in turn, raise cropland prices. In addition, the report says that achieving the renewable fuel standard would increase the Federal budget outlays, mostly as a result of increased spending on grants, loans, loan guarantees, and other payments to support the development of cellulosic biofuels and foregone revenue as a result of biofuel tax credits. 
 
    Environmental Effects - The report indicates that although biofuels hold potential for providing net environmental benefits compared with using petroleum-based fuels, specific environmental outcomes from increasing biofuels production to meet the renewable fuel consumption mandate cannot be guaranteed. The type of feedstocks produced, management practices used, land-use changes that feedstock production might incur, and such site-specific details as prior land use and regional water availability will determine the mandate's environmental effects. Biofuels production has been shown to have both positive and negative effects on water quality, soil, and biodiversity. However, air-quality modeling suggests that production and use of ethanol to displace gasoline is likely to increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides. In addition, published estimates of water use over the life cycle of corn-grain ethanol are higher than petroleum-based fuels. 
 
    Barriers and Opportunities - The report indicates that key barriers to achieving the renewable fuel mandate are the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels and uncertainties in future biofuel markets, the report finds.  Biofuel production is contingent on subsidies, the nature of the mandate, and similar policies. Although the mandate guarantees a market for the cellulosic biofuels produced, even at costs considerably higher than fossil fuels, uncertainties in enforcement and implementation of the mandated levels affect investors' confidence and discourage investment. To reduce costs of biofuels, the committee suggested carrying out research and development to improve feedstock yield and increasing the conversion yield from biomass to fuels.

 

    The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) reacted immediately saying the results NAS study "should be interpreted with extreme caution." RFA said the study "largely assesses ethanol and other biofuels in a vacuum and fails to appropriately compare the costs and benefits of renewable fuels to the impacts of the marginal petroleum sources they are displacing." RFA Vice President Geoff Cooper said, "Global demand for energy continues to escalate yet this report chooses to focus with laser-like precision on the perceived shortcomings of conventional and next-generation biofuels. Instead, we should be comparing the relative costs and benefits of all future energy options." RFA indicated that it agrees with reports view that "commercializing advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies will require more policy certainty and a recommitment to reducing oil import dependency."

 

    The RFA-affiliated Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC) also reacted quickly. AEC Executive Director Brooke Coleman issued a statement saying, "It is discouraging to see the National Research Council (NRC) miss an opportunity to cast the RFS in the proper light. The most glaring problem is the Council analyzed the ongoing development of the biofuels industry in a vacuum, as if these fuels are not displacing the marginal barrel of oil, which comes at great economic and environmental cost to the consumer. Congress was seeking a sober analysis of the RFS, and regrettably, this is not it."

 

    Among other concerns, Coleman challenged the report's conclusion that the RFS may not be an effective tool to manage greenhouse gases from transportation fuels.  She said, "The idea that the RFS may not be an effective strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is regrettable given the published science on the subject. Even with land use change considerations, advanced biofuels are the lowest carbon fuels being developed in the marketplace; far and away less carbon intensive than electricity, natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells."
 

    Access a release from NAS including a listing of the committee members (click here). Access a 4-page summary (click here). Access the complete 650-page report (click here). Access a lengthy release from RFA (click here). Access a lengthy release from AEC (click here). [#Energy/Biofuels]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Gulf Coast Task Force Releases Ecosystem Restoration Strategy
Enviros Sue To Stop Early Clearing On Keystone XL Pipeline Route
EPA Announces Three Combined Heat & Power Awards
Administration Accelerates Grid Modernization Pilot Projects
Efficient Water Heating Can Save Consumers Nearly $18 Billion
USDA Announces $115+ Million In Water & Sewer Loans & Grants
New Mexico Group Sues To Save State's Carbon Reduction Law

Mining Association Sues To Stop Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

Oct 3: National Mining Association (NMA) President and CEO Hal Quinn announced that the association was filing a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for reconsideration and stay and petition for review of U.S. EPA's "Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals." [76 FR 48208-48483, 8/8/11]. Quinn said, "NMA today requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reconsider and stay its Transport Rule because new information demonstrates EPA's assessments of grid reliability and resource adequacy as a result of the rule are incomplete, inaccurate and lack credibility. NMA further contends EPA, in violation of administrative law requirements, has either not consulted with other agencies responsible for ensuring electricity reliability or, if it has done so, has not subjected those consultations to public scrutiny."

    NMA said, "Five alarming facts have emerged from this new information that compel EPA to reconsider and stay the rule" [as follows]:

• EPA failed to consider the cumulative impact of its power sector regulations on grid reliability, as recommended by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff. Even after FERC staff estimated possible retirement of as much as 40 percent of the entire coal-based generation fleet, EPA did not pursue a rigorous analysis of reliability impacts;
• EPA incorrectly assumed power can be transmitted freely within broad geographic regions of the country—discounting cautions raised by FERC, Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO);
• FERC has only provided "preliminary" and "tentative" analysis to EPA that is "inadequate to use as a basis for decision making," according to FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff and contrary to EPA's assertions;
• FERC staff have questioned whether the compliance deadlines set forth in EPA's regulations were too expedited to allow utilities sufficient lead-time to replace retiring resources -- raising additional reliability concerns; and
• EPA disclosed none of the consultations that occurred with FERC or other agencies responsible for grid reliability, nor is there a public record of those consultations, contrary to EPA's assertion it would operate in a "fishbowl" and in violation of EPA's rulemaking responsibilities.

    Quinn said, "A safe, reliable and affordable supply of electricity -- underwritten by the energy attributes of coal -- is essential. In its rush to regulate, EPA has failed in its responsibilities to the American people by jeopardizing the foundation of our economy. Aside from the legal requirements unmet by EPA, the rule should be reconsidered and stayed on public policy grounds."

 

    When EPA announced the rule on July 7, 2011 [See WIMS 7/7/11], the Agency said the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, a.k.a. Transport Rule) "will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 -- achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits."

 

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "No community should have to bear the burden of another community's polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe. By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren't suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way."

 

    On September 12, in a lengthy company release, Luminant, the largest power generator in Texas that employees approximately 4,400 employees throughout the state (2,580 in coal plant and mining operations) announced the need to close facilities and layoff workers to comply with U.S. EPA's recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, a.k.a. Transport Rule) [See WIMS 7/7/11]. The company said the action will cause the loss of approximately 500 jobs.

 

    On September 23, despite strong opposition from House Democrats [See WIMS 9/21/11] and an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "Statement of Administration Policy" opposing and recommending a veto of H.R. 2401 -- the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 (i.e. the TRAIN Act), the U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 249 to 169. Among other provisions the bill includes language to delay implementation of CSAPR and requires consideration of the rule's economic and job impacts [See WIMS 9/23/11].

 

    Access a release from NMA and link to a 37-page letter to the EPA Administrator and the 5-page petition for review of the rule (click here). Access a 7/7/11 release from EPA (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for this action with comments and documents (click here). [#Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Senate Committee Hears From Shale Gas Advisors
Trade Agreements For Korea, Colombia & Panama
DOI Report On Impacts Of Climate Change On Freshwater Resources
DOE Receives 1st Entry In Commercial Air Conditioner Challenge
Senate Hearing On Nutrient Reduction Approaches
Maryland Man Sells $9 Million In Phony Renewable Fuel Credits
Raritan Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc.

DOE Approves $4.743 Billion In Solar Project Loan Guarantees

Sep 30: On the final day for release of the funding for loan guarantees under this section 1705, and in the midst of the intense political controversy over the Solyndra bankruptcy and its $535 million loan guarantee, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu announced four additional projects including: $1.46 billion to support the Desert Sunlight Project in eastern Riverside County, CA; $646 million for the Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 1 Project in Antelope Valley in North Los Angeles County, CA; $1.4 billion loan to support Project Amp for 750 existing rooftop solar projects in 28 states and Washington, D.C. on properties owned and managed by Prologis; and $1.237 billion for the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, in San Luis Obispo County, CA -- a grand total of $4.743 billion.

 

    The Desert Sunlight Project a 550 MW project is expected to be one of the world's largest solar photovoltaic plants and is expected to fund over 550 construction jobs. The project is expected to use approximately 8.8 million cadmium telluride thin film solar PV modules, which are commercially proven and have been deployed since 2001. The facility is expected to generate enough electricity to power over 110,000 homes and will avoid over 735,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Project construction will take place in two phases, both of which are supported by power purchase agreements.  Phase I will generate 300MW of power, which will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Company, while Phase II will generate 250 MW of power, which will be sold to Southern California Edison.

 

    The Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 1 Project will employ First Solar's FS Series 3 PV Module and will feature innovative inverters with voltage regulation and monitoring technologies that are new to the U.S. market. The inverters enable the project to provide more stable and continuous power, increasing the reliability of large-scale solar power plants. The facility is expected to generate over 622,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year, equivalent to powering over 54,000 homes, and will avoid over 350,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 1 Project is supported by a power purchase agreement to sell the power it will generate to Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

 

    Project Amp includes the installation of approximately 752 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, which is over 80% of the total amount of PV installed in the U.S. in 2010. The electricity generated from those panels will contribute directly to the electrical grid. The project sponsor estimates Project Amp will create more than a thousand construction jobs over a four year period. NRG Energy is the lead investor for Phase I of the installations. The project is expected to generate enough clean, renewable electricity to power over 88,000 homes and is expected to avoid approximately 580,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. 

 

    The California Valley Solar Ranch Project includes the construction of a 250 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic (PV) solar generating facility and associated infrastructure. The project is expected to fund 350 jobs during construction. The project is also expected to avoid over 425,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and produce enough to power over 64,000 homes. The project will be the largest utility-scale PV project in the U.S. to utilize tracking technology combined with an innovative monitoring system that will improve annual output by approximately 25 percent compared with traditional fixed PV installations. The project uses a wireless tracker monitoring and control (TMAC) system to orient the PV modules toward the sun and maximize solar collection. The TMAC monitoring system receives real time weather updates so the solar array can be stowed in harsh weather conditions to preserve the life of the solar modules.

 

    In its releases, DOE indicated, "Loan applications reviewed by the Department have undergone many months of due diligence and often receive bipartisan support. DOE evaluates the technical aspects of an application to make sure the technology is feasible, works to ensure that projects can be built to scale, does extensive market analysis to ensure there is a place in the market for the product, and evaluates the finances of the project to ensure it is commercially viable. We are confident that supporting these projects will help American companies compete in the global clean energy market."

   

    Access a release on the Desert Sunlight Project (click here). Access a release on the Antelope Valley project (click here). Access a release on Project Amp (click here). Access a release on the California Valley project (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

SCOTUS Denies Challenge To CA Indirect Air Source Rule
DOE Finalizes Rule For NEPA Categorical Exclusion 
NASA Says Arctic Ozone Hole Is "Unprecedented"
DOI Completes Reforms Of Old Minerals Management Service
GAO Finds Problems With NOAA Historical Climatology Network
EPA Adds State Enforcement Actions Map To ECHO
Agencies Partners On Health & Safety Of Commercial Imports

Major Enviros Sue Administration On Shell Oil Arctic Drilling Plan

Sep 29: A coalition of Alaska Native and conservation groups headed to court to challenge the Obama administration's decision to allow offshore oil drilling by Shell Oil in the Beaufort Sea in America's Arctic Ocean. In a release, the groups said that after the devastating Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama administration wisely delayed plans by Shell Oil to drill in the Arctic Ocean. But this August, the administration reversed course and approved the first part of what they called "the most aggressive Arctic drilling proposal in the history of the country" by approving Shell's plans to start drilling in the Beaufort Sea as early as the summer of 2012.

    Earthjustice, on behalf of the Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Oceana, Pacific Environment, REDOIL, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society initiated litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the decision by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) to allow oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

    Earthjustice attorney Holly Harris said, "Allowing Shell to drill when it has no credible plan to cleanup an oil spill in the Arctic's icy waters, and instead simply assumes it can clean up 95 percent of oil spilled, isn't just unrealistic, it's insulting and irresponsible." The groups said, "A spill in the Arctic Ocean would devastate polar bears, bowhead whales and other marine mammals and would severely affect Native subsistence communities, which have thrived in this region for generations."

    Caroline Cannon, president of the Native Village of Point Hope said, "Approving Shell drilling in the Beaufort Sea is irresponsible and risks disaster. We have a right to life, to physical integrity, to security, and the right to enjoy the benefits of our culture. For this, we will fight, and this is why we have gone to court today. Our culture can never be bought or repaired with money. It is priceless."

    The groups indicated that the most recent oil-spill drill in the Beaufort Sea (which took place more than 10 years ago) described mechanical cleanup in icy conditions as a "failure." They provided a link to a video and report on the failure and said, "Nothing has changed since that drill. A recent report to the Canadian government concluded cleanup would be impossible 44 to 84 percent of the time during the short summer drilling season, and completely impossible the other seven to eight months of the year." They indicated that U.S. Coast Guard officials have repeatedly explained that the resources to clean up an oil spill in the waters of the Arctic Ocean simply don't exist. This summer, Commandant Admiral Robert Papp told Congress that the federal government has "zero" spill response capability in the Arctic.

    Additionally they cite a recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) which they say makes clear, basic scientific information about nearly every aspect of the Arctic Ocean ecosystem is missing. They said, "This lack of data makes it impossible to adequately assess the risks and impacts of drilling to wildlife and people in the Arctic and, as a result, makes it impossible to make informed, science-based decisions."

    Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League said, "Any oil company that wants to drill in the Arctic Ocean must demonstrate an ability to clean up oil spilled in these icy waters with proven technology. Shell's current oil spill plan is full of inadequacies and falsehoods. Shame on the Obama administration for allowing politics to trump science by approving such an unrealistic plan to drill in the Beaufort Sea." Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for Center for Biological Diversity said, "Given the risk of a catastrophic oil spill, the Obama administration should not allow Shell to play Russian roulette with the future of polar bears, Pacific walruses and the entire Arctic ecosystem. If polar bears, walruses and other imperiled species are going to survive in a rapidly melting Arctic, we need to protect their critical habitat, not sacrifice it to oil companies."

    Sierra Weaver, attorney for Defenders of Wildlife said, "Both Shell and the federal government are proceeding as if the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster -- the worst environmental catastrophe this country has ever seen -- simply didn't happen. Pretending there's no risk associated with drilling, especially in the fragile waters of the Arctic, is not only irresponsible, it's unacceptable." Chuck Clusen, NRDC's director of national parks and Alaska projects said, "Water and oil may not mix, but ice and oil is even worse. Any drilling in Camden Bay -- right off the shore of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- is unacceptable. A proper process or technology does not exist that could appropriately protect or clean up this sea. A spill could spoil the barrier islands of the Refuge threatening many species of wildlife, poison the migratory route of the endangered bowhead whale and kill other marine mammals such as polar bears, walrus and ice seals and substantially damage the very sensitive ecology of the Beaufort Sea for what could be many years."

    On September 19, U.S. EPA Region 10 issued final air quality permits to Shell for oil and gas exploration drilling in the Alaska Arctic. The permits will allow Shell to operate the Discoverer drillship and a support fleet of icebreakers, oil spill response vessels, and supply ships for up to 120 days each year in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf starting in 2012. EPA also noted that it has proposed another draft air permit for Shell to operate its drilling rig Kulluk, in the Beaufort Sea starting in 2012. Many of the same organization opposed those permits and said, "The EPA decision to issue these inadequate permits is one more step down the path toward drilling operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas that pose a grave danger to the Arctic environment. . ." [See WIMS 9/21/11].

    Access a release from the organizations with more quotes from the organizations and links to the lawsuit and attachments (click here). Access the video of the failed cleanup and link to the report (click here). Access more information on BOEMRE's approval of Shell's Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan (click here) [#Energy/OCS]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
$132.4 Million Loan Guarantee For Kansas Cellulosic Ethanol Plant
Six Winners Of The i6 Green Innovation Challenge
EPA Seeks 125 Smart Growth Communities For $1.5 Million Funding
SAB Okays Assessment Of Hg Exposures To Subsistence Fishers
DOE Releases First Quadrennial Technology Review Report
Global Change Strategic Plan Outline & Public Comment Period

Battle Lines Drawn Over OIG Report On Endangerment Finding

Sep 28: U.S. EPA released a statement on the Agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on the process and procedure it used in developing its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 9/28/11]. EPA emphasized that, "Some news accounts have mischaracterized the report's findings." The Agency included a number of highlighted excerpts from the report in addition to its statement. 

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) Inhofe, and avid critic of climate change science and EPA actions to control GHG emissions, who requested the report from OIG reacted immediately and said the report indicated EPA endangerment finding "was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA's decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding." He said, "I am calling for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee of jurisdiction over the EPA, to hold immediate hearings to address EPA's failure to provide the required documentation and have the science impartially reviewed. . ."

 

    EPA said in its official response, "We appreciate the important role played by the Inspector General's Office and will give the recommendations in this report the utmost consideration. Most importantly, the report does not question or even address the science used or the conclusions reached -- by EPA under this and the previous administration -- that greenhouse gas pollution poses a threat to the health and welfare of the American people. Instead, the report is focused on questions of process and procedure. While EPA will consider the specific recommendations, we disagree strongly with the Inspector General's findings and followed all the appropriate guidance in preparing this finding.

    "EPA undertook a thorough and deliberate process in the development of this finding, including a careful review of the wide range of peer-reviewed science. Since EPA finalized the endangerment finding in December of 2009, the vast body of peer reviewed science that EPA relied on to make its determination has undergone further examination by a wide range of independent scientific bodies. All of those reviews have upheld the validity of the science."

    EPA highlighted the following excerpts from the OIG report:

• EPA met statutory requirements for rulemakings.
• We did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information used by EPA to support its endangerment finding.
• We did not make conclusions regarding the impact that EPA's information quality control systems may have had on the scientific information used to support the endangerment finding.
• EPA fulfilled the statutory requirements for notice and comment rulemakings mandated in the Administrative Procedure Act and in Section 307 of the CAA, and employed several of its processes designed to ensure data quality.
• OMB in response to our draft report stated that OMB believes that EPA reasonably interpreted the OMB bulletin in concluding that the TSD did not meet the bulletin's definition of a highly influential scientific assessment.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The EPA Inspector General in no way questions the science underlying the endangerment finding. It is time to move on to protect the American people from the impacts of climate change, which we are already beginning to see."

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) expressed concerns over the report and said the OIG found "that EPA failed to follow the government's own scientific review requirements" on the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases which he said is "at the core of Obama's climate change regulatory agenda." He said, "The Inspector General's findings call into question the credibility of the endangerment finding and the justification for multiple regulatory efforts that stemmed from that finding. EPA failed to conduct its proper due diligence and now the American people will be forced to pay the price. 

    "Sound process is critical to sound outcomes, and the credibility of federal policy and regulations is compromised when agencies cut corners. EPA's controversial greenhouse gas regulations are projected to cost tens of billions of dollars and could eliminate up to 1.4 million jobs by 2014. Clearly the stakes are high, and the notion that the Obama administration took regulatory shortcuts in pursuit of their preferred policy outcome is deeply troubling."   

    Steve Seidel, Vice President for Policy Analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change analyzed the OIG report and said in a blog post, "So exactly what process fouls did EPA commit and how did they affect the outcome of the report? The IG criticizes EPA for not deeming the technical support document a "highly influential scientific assessment" and for not undertaking the procedural requirements set out in OMB guidance for such a document. Instead of undertaking its own assessment of the climate change literature, EPA determined that it would rely on the existing (and extensively peer reviewed) assessments performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Because its document was essentially a summary of existing assessments, EPA argued that it was not conducting a scientific assessment and therefore was not subject to the process requirements for a "highly influential scientific assessment" in OMB guidance. And OMB agrees.

    "Putting aside the fact that OMB agrees with EPA's call, it is still reasonable to ask what peer review process was used for the document. In preparing the technical support document, EPA organized a panel of 12 federal agency climate experts (including one from EPA) to review the document. The document also underwent extensive interagency and OMB review before being published in the Federal Register for public review in July 2008 as part of the agency's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It was revised in response to public comments and reissued for a second round of public comments as part of the proposed endangerment finding in April 2009. The agency held public hearings on its proposed action and prepared 11 volumes of responses to public comments before issuing the final document and endangerment finding in December 2009.

    "The endangerment finding has been challenged in the courts, and they ultimately will decide its fate. Given the extensive body of peer reviewed scientific assessments that formed the basis for the finding and EPA's thorough review process for the finding itself, it is highly unlikely that any such challenges will prevail."

    Access the statement from EPA (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the complete posting from the Pew Center (click here). Access the complete OIG report (click here).  [#Climate, #Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Final Health Assessment For Trichloroethylene (TCE)
DOE Finalizes Another Loan Guarantee For An Arizona Solar Project
Dems Request Offset Vote On Boiler & Cement MACT Bills
DOE Announces 60 ARPA-E Research Grants In 25 States 
Boston Edison Co. v. US

OIG Critical Of Procedures Used In EPA's GHG Endangerment Finding

Sep 28: U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued a 99-page report entitled, Procedural Review of EPA's Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes (No. 11-P-0702, September 26, 2011). Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), requested that OIG determine whether EPA followed key Federal and Agency regulations and policies in developing and reviewing the technical data used to make and support its greenhouse gases (GHG) endangerment finding.

 

    On December 15, 2009, EPA published its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. As the primary scientific basis for EPA's finding, the Agency relied upon assessments conducted by other organizations. EPA summarized the results of these and other scientific assessments in a technical support document (TSD).

 

    In its investigation, OIG found that EPA met statutory requirements for rulemaking and generally followed requirements and guidance related to ensuring the quality of the supporting technical information. Whether EPA's review of its endangerment finding TSD met Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements for peer review depends on whether the TSD is considered a "highly influential scientific assessment." OIG indicates, "In our opinion, the TSD was a highly influential scientific assessment because EPA weighed the strength of the available science by its choices of information, data, studies, and conclusions included in and excluded from the TSD." OIG reports that EPA officials did not consider the TSD a highly influential scientific assessment. EPA noted that the TSD consisted only of science that was previously peer reviewed, and that these reviews were deemed adequate under the Agency's policy. EPA had the TSD reviewed by a panel of 12 Federal climate change scientists. OIG indicates, "This review did not meet all OMB requirements for peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA's response were not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an EPA employee."

    OIG reports that EPA's guidance for assessing data generated by other organizations does not include procedures for conducting such assessments or require EPA to document its assessment. EPA provided statements in its final findings notice and supporting TSD that generally addressed the Agency's assessment factors for evaluating scientific and technical information, and explained its rationale for accepting other organizations' data. However, no supporting documentation was available to show what analyses the Agency conducted prior to disseminating the information. OIG indicates, "Our evaluation examined the data quality procedures EPA used in developing the endangerment finding. We did not assess whether the scientific information and data supported the endangerment finding."

    OIG concludes, "We recommend that EPA (1) revise its Peer Review Handbook to accurately reflect OMB requirements for peer review of highly influential scientific assessments, (2) instruct program offices to state in proposed and final rules whether the action is supported by influential scientific information or a highly influential scientific assessment, and (3) revise its assessment factors guidance to establish minimum review and documentation requirements for assessing and accepting data from other organizations." OIG indicates that EPA stated that its response to the final report will address the recommendations.

    In addition to the report, EPA's Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. issued a press statement dated September 28, on the report. In the statement, Elkins said, ""The OIG evaluated EPA's compliance with established policy and procedures in the development of the endangerment finding, including processes for ensuring information quality. We concluded that the technical support document that accompanied EPA's endangerment finding is a highly influential scientific assessment and thus required a more rigorous EPA peer review than occurred. EPA did not certify whether it complied with OMB's or its own peer review policies in either the proposed or final endangerment findings as required. While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA's finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all required steps for a highly influential scientific assessment. We also noted that documentation of events and analyses could be improved.

    "We made no determination regarding the impact that EPA's information quality control systems may have had on the scientific information used to support the finding. We did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information used to support the endangerment finding, nor did we evaluate the merit of EPA's conclusions or analyses. We make recommendations that we think will strengthen EPA's control over data quality processes. EPA disagreed with our conclusions and did not agree to take any corrective actions in response to this report. All the report's recommendations are unresolved."

    Senator Inhofe, who requested the report responded immediately with a release indicating, "I appreciate the Inspector General conducting a thorough investigation into the Obama-EPA's handling of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama's job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA's decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.

    "The Inspector General's investigation uncovered that EPA failed to engage in the required record-keeping process leading up to the endangerment finding decision, and it also did not follow its own peer review procedures to ensure that the science behind the decision was sound. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson readily admitted in 2009 that EPA had outsourced its scientific review to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is an institution whose credibility has already been called into question. Even so, EPA still refused to conduct its own independent review of the science.  As the EPA Inspector General found, whatever one thinks of the UN science, the EPA is still required -- by its own procedures -- to conduct an independent review.

    "The endangerment finding is no small matter: global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the 'absurd result' that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas regime. And all of this economic pain is for nothing: as EPA Administrator Jackson also admitted before the EPW committee, these regulations will have no affect on the climate.  

    "One asks, what happened to Administrator Jackson's vow in 2009 that the Agency would commit to high standards of transparency because ' The success of our environmental efforts depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve ' or Obama Advisor John Holdren's promise that the Administration would make decisions based on the best possible science because, as the President said, ' The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions '?  Given what has come to light in this report, it appears that the Obama EPA cannot be trusted on the most consequential decision the agency has ever made.  

    "I am calling for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee of jurisdiction over the EPA, to hold immediate hearings to address EPA's failure to provide the required documentation and have the science impartially reviewed.  EPA needs to explain to the American people why it blatantly circumvented its own procedures to make what appears to be a predetermined endangerment finding."

    Access the complete report (click here). Access IG's statement (click here). Access a release from Sen. Inhofe (click here). [#Climate, #Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
DOE Approves $737 Million Loan Guarantee For Nevada Solar Project
EPA & DOT Delay New CAFE Proposed Rules
NAS Releases 3rd Edition Of Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence
$8.4 Million To Improve Engine & Powertrain Efficiency
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Receives 10,000th Shipment Of TRU Waste
Hayden v. Elf Atochem North America

Industry & Enviros At Odds Over Advancement Of Oil & Gas Regs

Sep 27: U.S. EPA is conducting three public hearings on its proposed national air emission standards for oil and natural gas operations to strengthen protections for public health and the environment. The hearings are being held in Pittsburgh, PA beginning today, tomorrow in Denver, CO, and on Thursday in Arlington, TX. The EPA is accepting public comments on the regulations through October 24 and is required to issue final rules by February 28, 2012. The proposal includes four air regulations for the oil and natural gas industry: a new source performance standard for VOCs; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide; an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) asked the Agency for additional time to make comments on the proposed rules. API also asked EPA to delay its proposed rule for refinery emissions to allow adequate time for EPA to review emissions data submitted by industrial facilities this month. Howard Feldman, API director of regulatory and scientific affairs said, "We do not oppose rules to help manage upstream emissions, but we are concerned that, unless properly crafted, they could hamper our ability to meet the nation's energy needs. As EPA's proposal stands today, we have questions about whether we're going to get workable, practical rules that do not obstruct development."

    Feldman said that preparing thorough and meaningful comments on all five of EPAs proposals within 60 days is not reasonable or practicable and asked the agency to allow an additional 60 days for public comment. Khary Cauthen, API director of Federal relations said, "The administration was also right to delay the utility emissions rule . . . it would also be a good idea for EPA to delay the proposed refinery emissions rule. The refinery rule is currently scheduled to be proposed just over one month after EPA finishes collecting emissions data from oil and natural gas companies, but more time is needed to review this information." Feldman and Cauthen held a conference call with reporters ahead of EPA's public hearing.

    The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said EPA's proposed rule for new national clean air standards for oil and natural gas will reduce harmful air pollution, protect public health and the environment, and prevent the waste of a valuable domestic energy source. EDF said the updated standards are "a critical first step but key areas can be improved" and provided a review and areas for improvement in a preliminary analysis of the regulations. EDF senior scientist Ramon Alvarez, "Updated standards will reduce harmful air pollution through highly cost-effective controls and avoid the needless waste of a valuable domestic energy source: natural gas. They will also standardize many common sense practices and technologies that natural gas companies already use successfully benefit from financially."

    In a release, EDF said, "Oil and natural gas exploration and production are rapidly increasing in urban and rural areas of the country due to technological developments such as 'fracking' that have made extraction of previously untapped unconventional resources feasible. Yet, the clean air standards covering these activities have not been updated since 1985 in one case and 1999 in another. Having inadequate, outdated national standards threatens families and communities who must breathe hazardous air pollutants and airborne contaminants known to seriously impact human health.

    Alvarez said, "The good news is that there are existing, cost-effective solutions at hand. EPA's proposal builds from regulations in place in states such as Colorado and Wyoming. EPA actually worked with oil and gas companies to identify more than 100 technologies and best management practices to recover more product and reduce emissions from upstream activities." Many of these solutions form the basis for EPA's proposed rules.

    EDF indicated that, "Smart standards would ensure that our domestic resources are being used wisely, avoiding the waste of a valuable energy source. Companies that recover more gas get more product they can sell that's worth millions of dollars. The EPA has estimated that the natural gas industry lost more than $1 billion in profits in 2009, due to venting, flaring and so-called 'fugitive emissions' of pollutants released into air from leaks in pressurized equipment, such as well heads, tanks, pipe lines, compressor engine seals, and valves. The return on the initial investment for many of these practices can be a few months to almost always less than two years."

    EDF indicated, "The rules go a long way toward maximizing the multiple benefits that come from using readily available technologies and practices. Yet there is still room for improvement as EDF's analysis points out. The proposal fails to reduce emissions from many existing sources, which means that they will continue to contribute to unhealthy levels of air pollution for years to come. EPA's proposal also declines to reduce methane emissions directly. While reductions in this potent greenhouse gas will occur as a co-benefit of compliance with many of the proposed requirements, additional opportunities to prevent waste of natural gas, primarily comprised of methane, were not included."

    Access complete information on the proposed rules (click here). Access the EPA docket for additional background and to review and submit comments (click here). Access a release from API with links to the testimony and statements from the conference call (click here). Access a release from EDF and link to their preliminary analysis of the regulations (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
UN Documents Global Urban Air Pollution
Shutdown Avoided; Budget Offsets For Disaster Relief Delayed
FWS 90-Day Finding On 374 Rare Southeastern Species Under ESA
First Two Green Power Communities Announced
Ceres Revamps Corporate Sustainability Awards Program
17 Attorneys General Press For Asian Carp Control
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. The City of Los Angeles

$624 Million In New Loan Guarantees In Wake Of Solyndra Scandal

Sep 23: Amidst the highly charged political controversy over the Solyndra bankruptcy and its $535 million loan guarantee [See WIMS 9/14/11], U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu announced three new loan guarantees to support alternative energy projects. The projects in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire total nearly $624 million.

 

    DOE finalized a $105 million loan guarantee to support the development of one of the nation's first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. Project LIBERTY, sponsored by POET, will be built in Emmetsburg, Iowa and is expected to produce up to 25 million gallons of ethanol per year. POET estimates the project will fund approximately 200 construction jobs and 40 permanent jobs. It is expected to generate around $14 million in new revenue to area farmers who will provide the corn crop residue. Chu said, "This project represents a pioneering effort to make broad scale deployment of cellulose ethanol a reality. Producing the next generation of biofuels can not only reduce America's oil dependency, it can also create vast new economic opportunities for rural Americans."

 

     DOE also finalized a partial guarantee for up to a $350 million loan to support a geothermal power generation project sponsored by Ormat Nevada, Inc., which is expected to produce up to 113 megawatts (MW) of clean, baseload power from three geothermal power facilities and will increase geothermal power production in Nevada by nearly 25 percent. The facilities are Jersey Valley in Pershing County, McGinness Hills in Lander County and Tuscarora in Elko County. The company estimates the project will fund 332 jobs during construction and 64 during operations. Chu said, "We are investing in geothermal projects that will further develop the nation's clean energy resources, create skilled jobs for American workers and ensure the U.S. remains a global leader in geothermal energy development. The project announced today will produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions and will create hundreds of new jobs in Nevada."

 

    DOE also finalized a partial guarantee for $168.9 million loan to Granite Reliable Power, LLC. The loan guarantee will support a 99 megawatt (MW) wind generation project that will be New Hampshire's largest wind farm. The project will be located in Coos County in northern New Hampshire, approximately 110 miles north of Concord and will consist of 33 Vestas V90 3.0-MW wind turbines. Project sponsors, BAIF Granite Holdings, LLC and Freshet Wind Energy, LLC, expect the project will fund nearly 200 construction jobs. Chu said, "Today's investment brings new jobs to New Hampshire and supports the commercial-scale deployment of clean energy technologies in the U.S. America's wind energy resources are abundant, clean and mostly untapped. Continued investments in this source of emissions-free energy will strengthen the economy, create good American jobs and help the nation compete with other countries that are quickly scaling up wind power generation." 

 

    The day before as the Department approved the three new loans, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee sent a letter to Chu urging him to correct any shortcomings in DOE's loan guarantee program under the 2009 stimulus bill before taxpayers are asked to shoulder additional risk. She indicated that DOE may issue up to $9.2 billion in new loan guarantees under the temporary Section 1705 loan guarantee program in the next week (i.e. before the end of the 2011 Fiscal Year, before October 1). Murkowski wrote, "In these critical days, as the cabinet officer responsible for approving obligations entered into with respect to these transactions, I ask you to do your utmost to avoid the mistakes that appear to have been committed with respect to Solyndra LLC, the first-ever recipient of a DOE loan guarantee. Although I believe there is value in DOE's loan program, the circumstances surrounding Solyndra's bankruptcy filing have raised questions about the program as a whole."

 

    On the same day as the Department approved the loans, the two top executives for now-bankrupt Solyndra solar project in California, invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to answer any questions from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Despite earlier pledges that they would voluntarily testify, Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W.G. Stover both pleaded the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer any of the Subcommittee's questions. Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) addressed Harrison and Stover at the hearing and said, "It is a very sad commentary that we met resistance every step of the way of seeking answers to basic questions overseeing the 'approval process' of this project. We had to finally resort to a subpoena and now the outright resistance of getting answers that both of you assured us, only last week, that you'd provide. Let me just warn you and the other folks involved in this taxpayer rip-off. We're not done. No we're not."

 

    Meanwhile, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, called on Chairmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns (R-FL) "to hold hearings on the implementation of the nuclear power plant loan guarantee program, the issuance of the conditional nuclear loan guarantee that has been awarded, and the role the nuclear industry has had in altering the terms associated with subordination." He pointed out that DOE has awarded an $8.3 billion conditional loan guarantee to Georgia Power Company to build 2 new nuclear reactors. Rep. Markey said, "There are many legitimate public policy considerations that Congress should explore regarding the full suite of the Department's loan guarantee programs. We should subject the nuclear loan guarantee program to the same level of rigorous scrutiny as we are now insisting the solar loan guarantee program undergo."  

 

    Access a DOE release on Project LIBERTY (click here). Access the POET website for more information (click here). Access a DOE release on Ormat Nevada projects (click here). Access the Ormat website for more information (click here). Access a DOE release on Granite wind project (click here). Access the Granite Reliable Power, LLC website for more information (click here). Access the release and letter from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access the release from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the release and letter from Rep. Markey (click here). [#Energy/Green, #Energy/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

House Leaves Town With Government Funding Unsettled
Fed Up With DC Politics? A New Way To Vent & Get Action
OIG Says EPA Should Update Fees For Vehicle & Engine Compliance
Groups To Sue EPA Over Delayed Kraft Pulp Mill Air Regs
Chamber Rallies Support For Keystone XL & North American Energy