EPA Defers GHG Permitting For Biogenic Sources

Jan 12: U.S. EPA announced its plan to defer, for three years, greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources. The Agency said intends to use the time to seek "further independent scientific analysis of this complex issue and then to develop a rulemaking on how these emissions should be treated in determining whether a Clean Air Act permit is required."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "We are working to find a way forward that is scientifically sound and manageable for both producers and consumers of biomass energy. In the coming years we will develop a commonsense approach that protects our environment and encourages the use of clean energy. Renewable, homegrown power sources are essential to our energy future, and an important step to cutting the pollution responsible for climate change."

    By July 2011, EPA plans to complete a rulemaking that will defer permitting requirements for CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources for three years. During the three-year period, the Agency will seek input on critical scientific issues from its partners within the Federal government and from outside scientists who have relevant expertise. EPA will also further consider the more than 7,000 comments it received from its July 2010 Call for Information, including comments noting that burning certain types of biomass may emit the same amount of CO2 emissions that would be emitted if they were not burned as fuel, while others may result in a net increase in CO2 emissions. Before the end of the three-year period, the agency intends to issue a second rulemaking that determines how these emissions should be treated or counted under GHG permitting requirements.

    The Agency will also issue guidance shortly that will provide a basis that state or local permitting authorities may use to conclude that the use of biomass as fuel is the best available control technology for GHG emissions until the agency can complete an action on the three-year deferral in July. In a separate but related letter, EPA is notifying the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) that it will grant its petition to reconsider the portion of the May 2010 tailoring rule that addresses the same issue.

    CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources are generated during the combustion or decomposition of biologically based material. Sources covered by this decision would include facilities that emit CO2 as a result of burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment and livestock management facilities, landfills and fermentation processes for ethanol production.

 

    On January 4, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson seeking immediate action on the treatment of biomass under the Tailoring Rule. The letter says that the agency's response to the matter is "critical to the future of the role that biomass will play in our nation's renewable energy future" because regulation of the fuel source has "created significant uncertainty in the biomass energy market."

    On January 2, 2011, air permitting requirements began for large GHG emitting industries that are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones [See WIMS 1/3/11]. These facilities must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHG emissions. This includes the nation's largest GHG emitters, such as power plants and refineries. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements.

    Access a release from EPA and link to more information (click here). Access a release from NAFO with a link to the Senators' letter (click here). Access the NAFO website for additional background (click here).

National Oil Spill Commission Releases Complete Final Report

Jan 11: As promised, the National Oil Spill Commission, established by President Obama on May 22, 2010, to investigate the root causes of the spill and provide recommendations on how to prevent and mitigate the impact of any future spills that result from offshore drilling, released its extensive, 398-page final report. Also available is a document entitled, Recommendation for Decision Makers and a Multimedia Presentation Summarizing the Commission's Report. On January 6, the Commission released in advance, the chapter from the full report that containing the key findings from its extensive investigation into the causes of the blowout of BP's Macondo well [See WIMS 1/6/11]. The Commission is now scheduled to host a New Orleans forum tomorrow for interested members of the public to learn about and discuss the Commission's final report and recommendations for avoiding another spill disaster.

 

    U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works commented on the final report saying, "The report and recommendations released today underscore the significant safety and environmental risks associated with offshore drilling, and spotlight the systemic lapses that led to the tragic Deepwater Horizon spill. Some steps have already been taken to improve safety, but this report makes clear that more needs to be done to prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move forward on legislation that addresses the Commission's recommendations, ensures that oil companies are held accountable, and protects jobs, coastal communities and the environment. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will also hold a hearing with the Oil Spill Commission members in the coming weeks."

 

   House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) released a statement saying, "Congress needs to ensure that offshore energy production meets the highest safety standards, but as gasoline prices continue to rise we cannot allow ourselves to become increasingly dependent on hostile foreign nations for our energy needs.  Our economic competitiveness, American jobs and our national security are all dependent on getting this right and finding responsible ways to move forward with offshore and onshore American energy production. . . Reforms should accomplish our shared goals of improving safety, allowing drilling to move forward in a timely manner, and putting people back to work. Proposals that prolong the de facto moratorium in the Gulf, cost American jobs, or delay future energy production will be viewed skeptically in both the House and Senate."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), who led a key Congressional investigation into the BP spill last year and co-authored the first legislation to establish an independent spill investigation, said he will introduce legislation reflecting the Commission's recommendations combined with additional legislation which passed the House in August. He said final enactment of that legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans. Rep. Markey said, "Because systemic safety and oversight issues regarding the offshore oil industry persist, if we do not enact reforms, there will likely be repeats of this disaster. The spill commission's independent assessment of America's worst oil spill must lead to reforms, and today's release of the commission's report needs to end the objections that Republican leaders in Washington have raised to legislative action. Some key Republican leaders previously have said that we should wait for the results of this investigation before passing legislation to respond. The results are now in and now it is time for action."

 

    The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) will hold its first hearing of the new Congress to examine the report and recommendations (including any recommendations for legislative action) issued by the National Commission January 26. The Commission's two co-chairs are expected to testify. In an announcement, Senator Bingaman noted that the Committee unanimously reported a bill in the last Congress (S.3516) that he said would "raise the bar on well safety, blowout prevention, oil spill response and worker training. Such legislation continues to be a top priority."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) and many environmental organizations reacted to the final report. API said the industry has already taken significant action to further improve safety in offshore operations consistent with the Commission's recommendations. API Upstream Director Erik Milito said the group is still in the process of reviewing the commission's report but is pleased the commission is recommending increased funding for the Federal agency responsible for inspecting and monitoring offshore activity. However, he said "API is deeply concerned that the commission's report casts doubt on an entire industry based on its study of a single incident. This does a great disservice to the thousands of men and women who work in the industry and have the highest personal and professional commitment to safety." 

 

    A groups of eight non-profit groups called on Congress to heed a key recommendation in the final report from the bipartisan National Commission. The recommendation is that "Congress should dedicate 80 percent of the Clean Water Act penalties to long-term restoration of the Gulf of Mexico" (see page 280 of report). Last year, U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and David Vitter (R-LA) and U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) introduced legislation that would require at least 80 percent of the civil and criminal penalties charged to BP under the Clean Water Act to be returned to the Gulf Coast for long-term economic and environmental recovery. However, those bills expired at the end of the lame duck session for the previous Congress last month.

 

    In a joint statement the groups said, "The oil spill commission recognizes that we cannot compound one tragedy with another. Absent congressional action, Clean Water Act fines automatically will be deposited into the federal treasury. Congress should invest Clean Water Act penalties in the aggressive and comprehensive restoration of the ecosystem, creating thousands of new jobs and providing significant benefits to the commercial fishing and tourism industries, among others, impacted by the spill damage to the ecosystem." The statement was from the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Environmental Defense Fund, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Ocean Conservancy, Oxfam America, and The Nature Conservancy. Many other organizations issued separate statements (See contacts below).

 

    Access the complete final report or individual chapters and appendices (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and further information (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the complete statement from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access Rep. Markey's complete statement (click here). Access a Committee announcement from Senator Bingaman and link to S.3516 (click here). Access the complete API release (click here). Access the joint statement from the 8 groups (click here). Access statements from: NRDC (click here); Defenders of Wildlife (click here); The Center for Public Integrity (click here); Earthjustice (click here); and Sierra Club (click here). 

Supreme Court Action Likely Ends Citizens Climate Nuisance Suit

Jan 10: The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an order denying a petition of mandamus in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil USA (Docket 10-294) [See WIMS 10/21/09]. The action effectively dismisses the case with no explanation. The case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (Case No. 07-60756) on October 16, 2009, represented a major decision regarding citizen enforcement, utilizing common-law actions and seeking damages resulting from corporate greenhouse gas emissions. The case followed another related decision in State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. Inc. issued on September 21, 2009, by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [See WIMS 9/22/09]. The Supreme Court will hear that case this year [See WIMS 12/7/10].

    The plaintiffs (i.e. Comer, et al), residents and owners of lands and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast, filed this putative class action in the district court against the named defendants, corporations that have principal offices in other states but are doing business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming, viz., the increase in global surface air and water temperatures, that in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them.

    In its conclusion the Appeals Court said, "The plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate standing for their public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims. We decline to find standing for the unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims and dismiss these claims. We find that the plaintiffs' remaining claims are justiciable and do not present a political question. We do not hazard, at this early procedural stage, an Erie guess into whether these claims actually state all the elements of a claim under Mississippi tort law, e.g., whether the alleged chain of causation satisfies the proximate cause requirement under Mississippi state common law; we leave this analysis to the district court in the first instance. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

    The National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) blog explains the convoluted case as follows: ". . .a District Court Judge in Mississippi held that Mississippi residents could NOT sue power companies and refineries for damages that resulted from global warming, but a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise on appeal. That decision was appealed to the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for en banc consideration, but after accepting the case, another judge recused herself because of a conflict of interest, eliminating the court's quorum to hear the appeal. However, the appellate court had already vacated the lower court's decision in anticipation of hearing it, so the lawsuit basically died. The petition for mandamus was an effort to keep the litigation going." The NAM blog comments, "This should be the end of the case because the plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari, but given how convoluted the lawsuit's path through the courts has been, perhaps there's a strange maneuver that could revive it." NAM called the case "one of the major -- and preposterous -- suits claiming damages against industry for causing global warming. . ."

    Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access the Supreme Court order (click here, page 26 of 40). Access the complete 36-page Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access the NAM blog post with more details (click here). Access a Pace Law School blog post explaining the convoluted appeals process in the case (click here).

26 Democrats Push For Senate Filibuster & Holds Rule Changes

Jan 7: As previously reported a number of Senate Democrats are proposing to revise the Senate Rules relating to filibuster so-called "Secret Holds"; & "Shadow Filibusters" [See WIMS 1/5/11]. Although even the procedure regarding when and how to change Senate Rules is debatable, it is generally recognized that rule changes are considered on the first day of a new Congressional session. Accordingly, U.S. Democratic Senators Tom Udall (NM), Tom Harkin (IA) and Jeff Merkley (OR) introduced a resolution (Senate Resolution 10) to reform the Senate rules that includes a package of provisions designed to "increase transparency, restore accountability and foster debate in an institution where obstruction and dysfunction have pushed aside progress for the American people."

 

    Currently, the resolution is co-sponsored by 26 senators. According to a release from Senator Udall the primary sponsor, the resolution comes after years of "unprecedented obstruction and a historic rise in the use of the filibuster." He points out that since 2006, there have been more filibusters than the total between 1920 and 1980. As a result of this "dysfunction," he says in the last Congress the Senate was unable to pass a single appropriations or budget bill, left more than 400 bills sent over by the House unconsidered, and left key executive appointments and judicial nominations to languish.

 

    Sen. Udall said, "Here in the Senate, open, honest debate has been replaced with secret backroom deals and partisan gridlock. Up-or-down votes, and sometimes even debate, on important issues have been unreasonably delayed or blocked entirely at the whim of a single senator. The American people are fed up with it. They are fed up with us. And I don't blame them. We need to bring the workings of the Senate out of the shadows and restore its accountability. Over the next two weeks the American people will have the opportunity to add their voices to the call for reform and I encourage them to speak loudly."

 

    Sen. Harkin said, "This reform effort is about one thing: ensuring the Senate can operate more fairly, effectively and democratically to meet the challenges of our time. When I first moved toward a reform effort in 1995, I saw an escalating arms race, where each side ratcheted up the use of the filibuster. The sad reality is that, today, because of the indiscriminate use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and to address problems is severely jeopardized. Sixteen years after I first introduced my proposal, it is even more apparent that for our government to properly function, we must reform and curb the use of the filibuster."

 

    Sen. Merkley said, "The clear and undeniable fact is that the Senate is broken. Thoughtful deliberation does not occur and far too much gets lost in a tangle of obstruction and delay. Our proposal will help restore the Senate to what the American people believe it ought to be - an institution that respects both minority and majority rights and allows fair consideration, debate and decisions on legislation and nominations."

 

    According to a summary, the rules reform package includes five provisions that would do the following:

• Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed: Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.
• Eliminate Secret Holds: Prohibits one senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.
• Guarantee Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority: Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.
• Talking Filibuster: Ensures real debate following a failed cloture vote. Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.
• Expedite Nominations: Provide for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees. Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments - something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.

    After meeting briefly on January 5, for swearing in ceremonies and some procedural considerations, the Senate is now scheduled to reconvene at 10:00 AM on January 25. It is expected that consideration of rules revisions will be an early matter for consideration when Senators reconvene. As WIMS previously reported support for the change is sharply divided along party lines, however, a rule change may be passed by a simple majority. The Senate votes are now divided with 51 Democrats, 2 Independents that caucus with Democrats and 47 Republicans.

 

    The Washington Post reported that following a Democratic caucus meeting yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that Democrats were ready to consider rules reform on their own. He said, "It's very clear that Democrats want to change the rules. They believe, as I believe, the rules have been abused, as I said in my opening statement yesterday. And we're going to work toward that. We hope that the Republicans see the light of day and are willing to work with us. If not, we'll have to do something on our own."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on January 5, . . one party shouldn't be allowed to force its will on everyone else. And thanks to the Senate, it rarely has. And that's why a recent proposal to change the Senate's rules by some on the other side is such a bad idea. . . a proposal to change the Senate rules so they can continue do exactly what they want with even fewer members than before. Instead of changing their behavior in response to the last election, they want to change the rules. Well, I would suggest that this is precisely the kind of approach a supermajority standard [i.e. 60-vote rule] is meant to prevent."

 

    In addition to Udall, Harkin and Merkley, the resolution is currently co-sponsored by the following senators: Dick Durbin (IL), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sherrod Brown (OH), Mark Begich (AK), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Michael Bennet (CO), Barbara Boxer (CA), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA), Christopher Coons (DE), Al Franken (MN), Kay Hagan (NC), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Joe Manchin (WV), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Warner (VA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access legislative details for S.RES.10 including a list of cosponsors (click here). Access a release from Senator Udall (click here). Access a video from Senator Merkley (click here). Access the complete statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access the FixTheSenateNow campaign website for extensive background information (click here). Access the Washington Post article (click here).

BP Oil Spill Commission Cites "A Failure Of Management"

Jan 6: The National Oil Spill Commission, established by President Obama on May 22, 2010, to investigate the root causes of the spill and provide recommendations on how to prevent and mitigate the impact of any future spills that result from offshore drilling. The Commission, following extensive hearings and investigation, but without subpoena power, has announced that it will release its final report on January 11, 2011. The Commission also announced that on January 12, it will host a New Orleans forum for interested members of the public to learn about and discuss the Commission's final report and recommendations for avoiding another spill disaster.

 

    The report will contain the Commission's complete examination of impacts and considerations regarding the BP's Macondo well blowout, including chapters on a history of events before and after the blowout, the need for both improved corporate and government safety rules and response practices, challenges for restoring and protecting the Gulf's environment, considerations regarding the Arctic and drilling "frontiers," and the Commission's official recommendations to President Obama, the Congress and industry for avoiding a similar episode. There will also be a separate Chief Counsel's report on the blowout. Today the Commission released in advance the chapter a chapter from the upcoming full report that contains the key findings from its extensive investigation into the causes of the blowout of BP's Macondo well.

    On April 20, 2010, the disaster killed 11 workers, seriously injured many others, and spewed uncontrolled over four million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months, creating the largest oil spill ever in American waters. Among the findings from the chapter the Commission indicates, "The well blew out because a number of separate risk factors, oversights, and outright mistakes combined to overwhelm the safeguards meant to prevent just such an event from happening. But most of the mistakes and oversights at Macondo can be traced back to a single overarching failure -- a failure of management. Better management by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean would almost certainly have prevented the blowout by improving the ability of individuals involved to identify the risks they faced, and to properly evaluate, communicate, and address them."

    Commission Co-Chair William K. Reilly commented on the Commission's findings saying, "My observation of the oil industry indicates that there are several companies with exemplary safety and environment records. So a key question posed from the outset by this tragedy is, do we have a single company, BP, that blundered with fatal consequences, or a more pervasive problem of a complacent industry? Given the documented failings of both Transocean and Halliburton, both of which serve the off shore industry in virtually every ocean, I reluctantly conclude we have a system-wide problem."

    Co-Chair Bob Graham said, "The Commission's findings only compound our sense of tragedy because we know now that the blowout of the Macondo well was avoidable. This disaster likely would not have happened had the companies involved been guided by an unrelenting commitment to safety first. And it likely would not have happened if the responsible governmental regulators had the capacity and will to demand world class safety standards. There is nothing that we can do to bring back the lives of the men we lost that day. But we can honor their memory by pledging to take steps necessary to avoid repeating the fatal practices of the past."

    Other key findings from the chapter include: ". . .the Macondo blowout was the product of several individual missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, which government regulators lacked the authority, the necessary resources, and the technical expertise to prevent." Also, "The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again. Rather, the root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur."

    The chapter reports that these failures were preventable. Errors and misjudgments by at least three companies -- BP, Halliburton and Transocean -- contributed to the disaster. Federal regulations did not address many of the key issues -- for example, no regulation specified basic procedures for the negative pressure test used to evaluate the cement seal or minimum criteria for test success. The chapter also notes, "Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blowout clearly saved those companies significant time (and money)."

    Access a release from the Commission (click here). Access the complete 48-page chapter (click here). Access the announcement on the New Orleans meeting (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and further information (click here).

The "People's House"; "Secret Holds"; & "Shadow Filibusters"

Jan 5: As the new 112th Congress gets rolling, on the surface there is talk of cooperation and bipartisanship; however, behind the scenes, both sides are digging in to advance their separate and quite different agenda.

 

    Newly elected Speaker of the House John Boehner's (R-OH) delivered remarks at opening session of the 112th Congress which  convene today at 12:00 PM ET. Speaker Boehner said, "We gather here today at a time of great challenges. Nearly one in ten of our neighbors are looking for work. Health care costs are still rising for families and small businesses. Our spending has caught up with us, and our debt will soon eclipse the size of our entire economy. Hard work and tough decisions will be required of the 112th Congress. No longer can we fall short.  No longer can we kick the can down the road.  The people voted to end business as usual, and today we begin carrying out their instructions."

 

    Speaker Boehner also indicated, "The American people have humbled us. They have refreshed our memories as to just how temporary the privilege to serve is. They have reminded us that everything here is on loan from them.  That includes this gavel, which I accept cheerfully and gratefully, knowing I am but its caretaker. After all, this is the people's House. This is their Congress.  It's about them, not us.  What they want is a government that is honest, accountable and responsive to their needs. A government that respects individual liberty, honors our heritage, and bows before the public it serves."

 

    "Our aim will be to give government back to the people. In seeking this goal, we will part with some of the rituals that have come to characterize this institution under majorities Republican and Democratic alike. We will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process 'less efficient' than our forefathers intended. These misconceptions have been the basis for the rituals of modern Washington.  The American people have not been well served by them."

 

    "We will not always get it right.  We will not always agree on what is right.  A great deal of scar tissue has built up on both sides of the aisle.  We cannot ignore that, nor should we. My belief has always been, we can disagree without being disagreeable to each other.  That's why it is critical this institution operate in a manner that permits a free exchange of ideas, and resolves our honest differences through a fair debate and a fair vote.  We may have different – sometimes, very different – ideas for how to go about achieving the common good, but it is our shared goal.  It is why we serve."

 

    In the opening session of the Senate, Senators are debating possible changes in the Senate rules relating to filibuster and the ability of individual Senators to place anonymous "holds" on bills and appointments. A petition by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tom Udall (D-NM) reportedly has 15,000 signatures. Senator Merkley says, "It's a simple idea:  Require Senators who filibuster to stay on the floor and explain to the American people why they think they are right and a majority of Senators are wrong. It also requires Senators who wish to obstruct the Senate to spend time and energy making their case. . . Have no doubt, the modern Senate is broken and we have to fix it. During 2010 the Senate didn't pass a budget, didn't get a single one of the 13 appropriation bills passed, and didn't vote on over a hundred nominations for judges and executive branch appointments." 

 

    In a January 5, release Senator Udall said, "The House of Representatives passed more than 400 bills that the Senate never debated. We didn't pass a budget, we only passed one authorization, government nominees were needlessly delayed, many before passing by near-unanimous votes, and judicial posts remain vacant. And when obstruction happened, it typically came in the form of "secret holds" or "shadow filibusters" that the American public never saw. The Senate is broken and today we have an opportunity to start fixing it. The Constitution says that 'each house may determine the rules of its proceedings,' and today I will submit a rules reform package that improves accountability and transparency, while preserving minority rights."

 

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an opening statement, "In the new Congress, Democrats will find pragmatic ways to solve the problems facing our country and to revive the economic growth and innovation that have made America the global leader it is today. We will continue to reach out to Republicans as partners in problem solving -- in the hope that they will make decisions based on common sense and not on the extremism that has recently gripped their party. We have many new challenges. Above all, Democrats will focus on creating jobs. There are too many Americans right now who have been doing everything they can to find a job -- but jobs just aren't there. As of November, there were still five unemployed Americans for every job opening."

 

    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (D-KY) delivered remarks on the Senate floor saying, "First, I'd like to take a moment to welcome back all of my colleagues, but particularly the 13 new Republican senators who make it official today. Americans are looking for creative, principled leaders. I'm confident this impressive class of new Republicans will not disappoint. I'd also like to welcome my good friend, the Majority Leader. At a time when some people think the two parties in Washington can't even agree on the weather, I'll note that Senator Reid and I get along just fine. I expect it'll stay that way, and I look forward to working together again. The big changes today are of course happening across the dome, and I'd like to welcome the many new Republican members of Congress who've come to Washington to change the way things are done around here. In this, they'll be led by a very talented and determined Ohioan whom I'll now have the great honor of referring to as Speaker Boehner."

 

    Despite the pledges of goodwill between Senators Reid and McConnell, the rhetoric was thick between Senate Democrats and Republicans on budget cuts, health care and regulatory reform. And, on the first issue debated regarding a change in the Senate rules, Minority Leader McConnell said, "recent proposal to change the Senate's rules by some on the other side is such a bad idea. For two years, Americans have been telling us that they're tired of being shut out of the legislative process. They want to be heard. And the response they're now getting from some on the other side, instead, is a proposal to change the Senate rules so they can continue do exactly what they want with even fewer members than before. Instead of changing their behavior in response to the last election, they want to change the rules. . .  I would suggest that this is precisely the kind of approach a supermajority standard (i.e. 60-vote rule) is meant to prevent."

 

    Access excerpts from Speaker Boehner's opening remarks (click here). Access a release from Senator Udall (click here). Access a video from Senator Merkley (click here). Access the complete statement from Sen. Reid (click here). Access the complete statement from Sen. McConnell (click here).

Groups Cite Flaws In EPA's Coal-Ash Recycling Cost-Benefit Analysis

Dec 29: Two years after the Kingston, TN coal ash spill, Federal action to regulate coal ash dumps is being held up by concerns that stricter standards would depress markets for coal-ash recycling. "Cost-benefit" analysis estimates prepared by the U.S. EPA claim that coal ash recycling is worth more than $23 billion a year, based on the annual life-cycle benefits of avoiding pollution and reducing energy costs. However, a review conducted by the independent and nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Earthjustice, and the Stockholm Environment Institute's U.S. Center (based at Tufts University) indicates that the EPA estimate is more than 20 times higher than the $1.15 billion that the U.S. government's own data shows is the correct bottom-line number.

    The groups say that the deep flaws in the EPA cost-benefit analysis appear to have escaped scrutiny at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which required EPA to include a weaker coal-ash proposal favored by utilities and some coal ash recyclers. The three groups said, "Common sense and past experience indicate that stricter standards for disposal will work to increase, rather than decrease, recycling. But either way, EPA ought not to be intimidated into adopting weak rules based on grossly inflated values for coal ash recycling."

    The groups said the analysis shows that the huge discrepancy is due to several factors, including double counting of pollution reductions that the EPA has already claimed would occur separately under Clean Air Act rules adopted in August 2010; overstated emission levels from cement kilns; and unrealistic assumptions about potential energy savings from reducing energy consumption at cement kilns and gypsum plants. They said EPA's cost-benefit analysis also neglects to account for many of the quantifiable benefits that would result from stricter standards, and puts an enormous dollar value on the so-called 'stigma' that would supposedly attach to coal ash recycling by virtue of regulating disposal sites. These economic assumptions are haphazard, unsupported by the record, and designed to slant the playing field against regulations that are based on protecting the public's health.

    Frank Ackerman, senior economist, Stockholm Environment Institute said, "We found numerous errors, large and small, in EPA's cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rules. Once we corrected those errors, the strict regulatory option is the clear winner. The only argument for the weaker option is industry's unsubstantiated claim that strict regulation of ash disposal would cause immense, long-lasting harm to the market for ash recycling. In reality, strict regulation of disposal would make recycling more attractive, not less."

    Back in October 2010, U.S. Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), the new Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, included the coal ash regulations among his list of what he called EPA's "regulatory train wreck" of "job-killing regulations" when he announced Republicans would be "Declaring War On The Regulatory State." [See WIMS 10/20/10]. Representative Upton said, "Under current regulations, coal byproducts are widely recycled, creating jobs and protecting the environment. New EPA regulations could cost more than $20 billion and tens of thousands of jobs."

     On May 4, U.S. EPA announced it was proposing the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants [See WIMS 5/4/10]. Coal ash, are byproducts of the combustion of coal at power plants and are disposed of in liquid form at large surface impoundments and in solid form at landfills. In August 2010, the Agency announced it would be hosting seven public hearings through September on the controversial proposal [See WIMS 8/19/10] and extended the comment period until November 19. 

    EPA's proposal called for public comment on two approaches for addressing the risks of coal ash management under the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). One option is drawn from authorities available under Subtitle C, which creates a comprehensive program of Federally enforceable requirements for waste management and disposal. The other option includes remedies under Subtitle D, which gives EPA authority to set performance standards for waste management facilities and would be enforced primarily through citizen suits. A chart comparing and contrasting the two approaches is available on the EPA website.

    Under both approaches EPA has proposed to leave in place the "Bevill exemption" for beneficial uses of coal ash in which coal combustion residuals are recycled as components of products instead of placed in impoundments or landfills. Large quantities of coal ash are used in concrete, cement, wallboard and other contained applications that EPA said should not involve any exposure by the public to unsafe contaminants. These uses would not be impacted by the proposal. EPA solicited public comment on how to frame the continued exemption of beneficial uses from regulation and is focusing in particular on whether that exemption should exclude certain non-contained applications where contaminants in coal ash could pose risks to human health.

    Access a release from the groups and link to the re-evaluation analysis, testimony of Frank Ackerman, and streaming audio file of news event (click here). Access EPA's docket on the coal ash regulations (click here). Access more information about the proposed regulation (click here). Access EPA's chart comparing the two approaches described above (click here).

EPA Launches GHG Rules & Sets Schedule For Actions

Jan 2: Beginning January 2, 2011, industries that are large emitters of GHGs, and are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones, must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHGs emissions. EPA indicated that the requirements include only the nation's largest GHG emitters, such as power plants, refineries and cement production facilities. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements [See WIMS 9/16/10 & WIMS 5/14/10].

 

    The State of Texas, the only state in the country, received a last minute stay of the rules from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. The appeals court ordered EPA to respond to the Texas motion by January 6. On December 23, EPA issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards under the Clean Air Act in 2011. The Agency said it looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries -- two of the largest industrial sources, which they say represents nearly 40 percent of the GHG pollution in the United States.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change. These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home."

    Several states, local governments and environmental organizations sued EPA over the Agency's failure to update the pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. Under the settlement agreement, EPA said it will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively. EPA said the schedule will allow the Agency "to host listening sessions with the business community, states and other stakeholders in early 2011, well before the rulemaking process begins, as well as to solicit additional feedback during the routine notice and comment period. Together this feedback will lead to smart, cost-effective and protective standards that reflect the latest and best information." (See link to settlement details below).

 

    Also on December 23, EPA announced the issuance of a final series of actions to ensure that the largest industrial facilities can obtain Clean Air Act permits that cover greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beginning in January 2011. The actions are part of the highly controversial regulations that EPA calls a "common sense approach to GHG permitting outlined in the spring 2010 tailoring rule."

    The first set of actions are designed to give EPA authority to permit GHGs in seven states (AZ, AR, FL, ID, KS, OR, and WY) until the state or local agencies can revise their permitting regulations to cover these emissions. Secondly, EPA took additional steps to disapprove part of Texas' Clean Air Act permitting program and the Agency will also issue GHG permits to facilities in the state. EPA said the actions would ensure that large industrial facilities will be able to receive permits for greenhouse gas emissions regardless of where they are located.

    In the second set of actions, EPA issued final rules to ensure that there are no Federal laws in place that require any state to issue a permit for GHG emissions below levels outlined in the tailoring rule. EPA indicated it has worked closely with the states to ensure that the transition to permitting for GHGs is smooth. EPA said, "States are best suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have experience working with industrial facilities. EPA will continue to work with states to help develop, submit, and obtain approval of the necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources. 
   

    On December 17, 2010, EPA issued three concurrent actions related to certain data elements reported under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). EPA needs to further examine the likely business impact from the disclosure of certain data elements before those data elements are collected and potentially subject to public availability. EPA is therefore taking these three actions to defer reporting of these data elements while EPA obtains and reviews additional information to resolve issues related to reporting and public availability of these data elements. On December 20, EPA issued a release on the proposed actions

indicating that the total emissions for each facility is still required to be reported to EPA and released to the public.

 

    The three actions included: (1) A proposal to defer reporting of data elements that are inputs to emission equations for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012 until March 31, 2014. The public has 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to submit comments on the proposed deferral, or 45 days if a hearing is requested. (2) An interim final rule amendment that defers reporting of data elements that are inputs to emission equations for calendar year 2010 until August 31, 2011. The interim final rule is in effect upon publication in the Federal Register. This interim final rule does not defer the reporting date for any other Part 98 data elements. (3) A notice requesting information and comment to assist in evaluating issues related to reporting and public availability of inputs to emission equations. The public has 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to submit comments and requested information.

 

    On December 23, the American Petroleum Institute (API) issued two releases about EPA's actions. In one release API said EPA should finalize the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that remain under development prior to setting new greenhouse gas standards. They said, "It is important that EPA conclude the current revisions to the New Source Performance Standards before moving forward with greenhouse gas standards." In a second release API said that EPA's plans to issue Federal Implementation Plans as part of its upcoming regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources was "unprecedented and coercive." API said, "In unprecedented fashion, EPA is now coercing some states to relinquish their authority and is directly usurping state regulatory authority in Texas. . . EPA is cramming too much in too short of a time. The administration's focus should be job creation and economic recovery, not unnecessary and burdensome regulations that will threaten jobs and create a drag on business efforts to invest, expand and put people back to work. . ."

 

    API said that, "Any New Source Performance Standard must be cost effective and achievable so refineries can continue to make the changes necessary to meet the nation's energy needs. The Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions. Elected members of Congress should chart U.S. climate change policy. API hopes that EPA will reconsider using NSPS to set greenhouse gas emissions standards and is concerned that such standards will hurt businesses' ability to create jobs and spur economic growth."

 

    The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), issued a statement saying, "EPA's proposals would carry tremendous costs but no benefits for the American people -- all pain and no gain. Regulations can't create technology that doesn't exist or change the laws of physics and economics, so the only way to comply with EPA's proposals would be to inflict massive increases in energy costs and massive increases in unemployment on families across our nation. This is exactly the opposite of what President Obama rightly called for when he said economic recovery and job creation should be our nation's top priorities. Exporting American industries, jobs, cash and prosperity to other nations -- and then importing greenhouse gases and manufactured goods from those countries -- makes no sense environmentally or economically. It's the wrong action at the wrong time, as our nation struggles to recover from high unemployment and a devastating recession."

 

    Numerous environmental organizations issued releases praising EPA's actions. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC said, "By setting timetables for issuing standards to cut dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries, EPA is doing precisely what is needed to protect our health and welfare and provide businesses certainty at a time when some would prefer to roll back the clock. The EPA's forthcoming standards will be based on available and affordable measures to clean up the two industries responsible for the most pollution that drives climate change. Clear pollution control standards also will help these industries plan future investments, fuel the economic recovery, and create jobs."

   

    The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Power plants are one of the largest sources of air pollution in America, but the solutions are at hand to create cleaner, healthier air while also building a stronger clean energy economy. EPA's commitment to address the dangerous, climate-disrupting pollution from power plants through common sense national standards will provide important environmental protections and will create economic certainty for vibrant new investments. This is a step that will allow us to protect our children's health and our prosperity." 

    Earthjustice which represented the EDF and Sierra Club in a 2006 lawsuit challenging EPA's most recent power plant standards and represents Sierra Club, NRDC, and the Environmental Integrity Project in a 2008 lawsuit that led to the latest agreement on the timetable for refinery standards said, "The EPA has a legal duty to respond to the very real dangers of global warming pollution by setting strong limits on carbon pollution from power plants and refineries. These are the nation's biggest industrial sources of global warming pollution and deserve top priority."  

 

    Access the December 23 EPA release on  the settlement agreement and link to the settlements (click here). Access the December 23 release from EPA (click here). Access the December 20 release from EPA (click here). Access specific information on the three December 17 actions (click here). Access links to complete information on EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule and related information (click here). Access more information on the GHG Reporting Program (click here). Access the two releases from API (click here) & (click here). Access two release from NPRA (click here); and (click here). Access statements from NRDC (click here); EDF (click here); and Earthjustice (click here).

Special Holiday Offers For eNewsUSA

It's the Holiday season and we're in the Holiday Spirit.

 

The eNewsUSA Blog is on Holiday break until January 3, 2011. But, now is a great time to review the full text of every issue of eNewsUSA during the first half of December 2010, and get ready to be on top of all the major environmental and energy issues in 2011. We've posted the first 13 issues of December 2010 for your review. You can access the issues on a special blog established just for this promotion (click here).

 

We have two Holiday specials that could be a valuable gift for you and/or a statewide business association which you are affiliated with. You can subscribe now to receive our eNewsUSA Daily Environmental Briefing Report at a special half-off rate for 2011 -- just $119.50 (until the end of February).

 

Or, if you are a member of a statewide business association (non-Michigan), we also have a special redistribution option for Associations that can offer even greater savings for you and your association members. See details (click here).

California Adopts Cap-And-Trade Regulation To Drive Green Jobs

Dec 16: The California Air Resources Board (CARB), following a 10-hour meeting voted 9-1 to approve a cap-and-trade regulation, marking a significant milestone toward reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions under its AB 32 law. CARB's cap-and-trade regulation, along with several complementary measures which they say will drive the development of green jobs and set the state on track to a clean energy future. The regulation is a key measure to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32, California's pioneering climate change law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006.

    CARB Chairman Mary Nichols said, "This program is the capstone of our climate policy, and will accelerate California's progress toward a clean energy economy. It rewards efficiency and provides companies with the greatest flexibility to find innovative solutions that drive green jobs, clean our environment, increase our energy security and ensure that California stands ready to compete in the booming global market for clean and renewable energy."

 

    The regulation sets a Statewide limit on the emissions from sources responsible for 80 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy.  The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest-cost options to reduce emissions. The cap-and-trade program also works in concert with other measures, such as standards for cleaner vehicles, low-carbon fuels, renewable electricity and energy efficiency, and complements and supports California's existing efforts to reduce smog-forming and toxic air pollutants.

    According to a release from CARB, "The cap-and-trade program and the other measures to reduce greenhouse gases provide a model for action that can be used at the Federal, state and regional levels. As climate policies are being addressed worldwide, California's early actions are positioning its economy to reap the benefits on the world stage and are catalyzing action throughout the country and the world." Nichols added, "The cap-and-trade program provides California with the opportunity to fill the growing global demand for the projects, patents and products needed to move away from fossil fuels and to cleaner energy sources."

    The regulation will cover 360 businesses representing 600 facilities and is divided into two broad phases: an initial phase beginning in 2012 that will include all major industrial sources along with utilities; and, a second phase that starts in 2015 and brings in distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas and other fuels.

    Companies are not given a specific limit on their greenhouse gas emissions but "must supply a sufficient number of allowances" (each covering the equivalent of one ton of carbon dioxide) to cover their annual emissions. Each year, the total number of allowances issued in the State drops, requiring companies to find the most cost-effective and efficient approaches to reducing their emissions. By the end of the program in 2020 there will be a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to today, reaching the same level of emissions as the state experienced in 1990, as required under AB 32.
 
    To ensure a gradual transition, CARB will provide significant free allowances to all industrial sources during the initial period (2012-2014). Companies that need additional allowances to cover their emissions can purchase them at regular quarterly auctions CARB will conduct, or buy them on the market. Electric utilities will also be given allowances and they will be required to sell those allowances and dedicate the revenue generated for the benefit of their ratepayers and to help achieve AB 32 goals. 

    Also, eight percent of a company's emissions can be covered using credits from "compliance-grade offset projects," promoting the development of beneficial environmental projects in the forestry and agriculture sectors. Included in the regulation are four protocols, or systems of rules, covering carbon accounting rules for offset credits in forestry management, urban forestry, dairy methane digesters, and the destruction of existing banks of ozone-depleting substances in the U.S. (mostly in the form of refrigerants in older refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment).

    There are also provisions to develop international offset programs that could include the preservation of international forests.  A Memorandum of Understanding has already been signed with Chiapas, Mexico, and Acre, Brazil, at the Governor's Global Climate Summit 3 to establish these offset programs. The regulation is designed so that California may link up with programs in other states or provinces within the Western Climate Initiative, including New Mexico, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Efforts are also underway to link the WCI with other regional climate programs, such as the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which covers the power generation emissions of 10 northeastern states. 

 

    Governor Schwarzenegger said in a presentation thanking the CARB Board, ". . .one thing we know for sure is that AB 32 was challenged, you know, by outside oil companies and by industries, coal mines and different companies that challenged it, put millions of dollars behind it in the last election. And Proposition 23, which was meant to take out AB 32, was defeated overwhelmingly -- not by 5 percent, not by 10 percent but by 22 percent. So that just shows to you -- a huge majority of Californians are big believers in AB 32. And they are big believers not just because of the global climate change because, let's be honest, not everyone believes in that. There are some people that believe in it and some people don't. . .  I know today, even though we are 10 years away from 2020 but I know today that we will have a reduction of 25 percent of greenhouse gases by the year 2020, only because I have such an excellent team here. . ."

 

    Kristin Eberhard, Legal Director of Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC's) Western Energy and Climate Projects issued a statement saying, "The adoption of this unprecedented carbon market to reduce pollution is a key milestone that will enable California to forge ahead with a clean energy economy. The Air Board today responded to the strong message delivered by California voters on November 2nd when they voted for a clean energy economy by resoundingly rejecting Proposition 23, the largest public referendum in history on climate and clean energy policy. The Air Board's action demonstrates that California continues to lead in pioneering smart, clean energy policies that make sense for the environment, public health and our economy. This is an economically sound program that will send a steady market signal driving innovation in clean energy, reducing pollution and mitigating oil price shocks while creating jobs and promoting economic growth."

 

    Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "California is turbo charging its already fast-growing clean energy economy by creating incentives and a market for pollution reducing technologies. The state is leading a new industrial revolution that will give U.S. companies an edge over foreign competitors in a global market opportunity valued at $2.3 trillion." Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative at EDF said, "The next great economy will be in energy technology, presenting huge opportunities for investments, manufacturing and jobs. California is leading America's charge to fight climate change by capping pollution and starting a domestic clean tech revolution that'll help us more effectively compete against China, India and Europe."

 

    In a statement on December 10, prior to the hearing the California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA) said, "There are still many unknowns with the proposal. CMTA has long-advocated for implementing AB 32 in a way that allows California to reach the GHG reduction emission goals while at the same time maintaining the competitiveness of the state. Unfortunately, because of missing information and unfinished regulation, it is nearly impossible for regulated industries to estimate the potential costs and other impacts of the cap-and-trade regulation on their operations. In the proposal, free allocation of allowances for all industrial sectors is allowed for the first compliance period but not for the second and third. CMTA has asked that the free allowances, up to the output-based benchmark for each sector, be applied to all periods up to 2020. We believe that AB 32 does not authorize CARB to raise revenue for purposes unrelated to administration of the program. In addition, imposing a broader auction in the second and third periods will only increase leakage (companies moving out of the state) by imposing higher costs on industry."

    Access a release from CARB (click here). Access extensive information and staff presentations from the CARB meeting (click here). Access the CARB Cap-and-Trade website (click here). Access a statement from Governor Schwarzenegger (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access a blog post from NRDC with more information (click here). Access a statement and link to more information from EDF (click here). Access a statement from CMTA and link to more information on CMTA's concerns (click here).

EPA Reports Toxic Releases Down 12% In 2009

Dec 16: U.S. EPA announced the earliest release ever of its annual national analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), providing the public with vital information about their communities. The TRI program publishes information on toxic chemical disposals and releases into the air, land and water, as well as information on waste management and pollution prevention activities in neighborhoods across the country. In 2009, 3.37 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment, a 12 percent decrease from 2008. The analysis, which includes data on approximately 650 chemicals from more than 20,000 facilities, found that total releases to air decreased 20 percent since 2008, while releases to surface water decreased 18 percent. Releases to land decreased 4 percent since 2008.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "The Toxics Release Inventory is an important way to inform American communities about their local environmental conditions. It plays a critical role in EPA's efforts to hold polluters accountable and to acknowledge good corporate neighbors who put pollution prevention efforts in place. We will continue to make every effort to put accessible, meaningful information in the hands of the American people. Widespread public access to environmental information is fundamental to the work EPA does every day." This year, EPA is offering additional information to make the TRI data more meaningful and accessible to all communities. The TRI analysis now highlights toxic disposals and releases to large aquatic ecosystems, selected urban communities, and tribal lands. In addition, portions of the analysis are available in Spanish for the first time.

    The analysis shows decreases in the releases of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals including lead, dioxin, and mercury. Total disposal or other releases of mercury decreased 3 percent since 2008, while total disposal or other releases of both dioxin and lead decreased by 18 percent. The analysis also shows a 7 percent decrease in the number of facilities reporting to TRI from the previous year, continuing a trend from the past few years. EPA noted that some of the decline may be attributed to the economic downturn; however, the Agency plans to investigate why some facilities reported in 2008 but not 2009.

    EPA added 16 chemicals to the TRI list of reportable chemicals in November. These chemicals are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, and represent the largest chemical expansion of the program in a decade. Data on the new TRI chemicals will be reported by facilities on July 1, 2012. Facilities must report their chemical disposals and releases by July 1 of each year. This year, EPA made the 2009 preliminary TRI dataset available in July, the same month as the data were collected. 

    TRI was established in 1986 by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and later modified by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Together, these laws require facilities in certain industries to report annually on releases, disposal and other waste management activities related to these chemicals. TRI data are submitted annually to EPA and states by multiple industry sectors including manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste facilities.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 2009 TRI release information with extensive data management tools to view information by chemical, industry, state, county, region and more (click here). Access the TRI website (click here).

State Department Briefing On Cancun Climate Change Conference

Dec 14: Todd Stern, the Department of State Special Envoy for Climate Change, who just returned from the major UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico, that ended on Saturday provided a press briefing in Washington, DC. Over the last two weeks, representatives from more than 190 nations met in Cancun for the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP16) with the goal of reaching new agreements to advance the collective efforts to meet this challenge [See WIMS 12/13/10]. In the early morning hours of Saturday in Cancun, Stern said, "the parties largely achieved that goal. This result was fundamentally consistent with U.S. objectives. Throughout the year, our strategic vision was to consolidate and elaborate on the progress made last year in Copenhagen by many of the world's leaders, including President Obama, and to have such outcome fully endorsed by the Conference of the Parties, all the nations to the Climate Treaty, as the Copenhagen Accord obviously was not."

 

    Stern continued, "The resulting Cancun agreement advances each of the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord. Specifically, it anchors the accord's mitigation pledges by both developed and developing countries in a parallel manner. It outlines a system of transparency with substantial detail and content, including international consultations and analysis; that was the negotiated phrase from the Copenhagen Accord. And this will provide confidence that a country's pledges are being carried out and help the world keep track of the track that we're on in terms of reducing emissions. The agreement in Cancun also launches a new Green Climate Fund with a process for setting it up, creates a framework to reduce deforestation in developing countries, establishes a so-called technology mechanism which includes -- will include a new technology executive committee and a climate technology center and network, and it will also set up a framework and committee to promote international cooperation and action on adaptation.

 

    In response to a question stating that the Cancun meeting basically punted the hardest issue, mandatory emissions caps until next year, Stern said, "The issue that was rolled over to next year is what happens in the Kyoto Protocol track. . . there are simultaneously two negotiating tracks going forward. One is the Kyoto Protocol track, which doesn't involve the United States, because we're not part of it. And the issue there is will there be a second so-called commitment period of Kyoto, the first being 2008-12. . . Kyoto is not the larger agreement that covers -- that includes emission commitments from the U.S., China, India, Brazil, et cetera. On that track, at the moment, while there may be something -- some kind of legal treaty down the road, that's not happening, I think, anytime soon for the reason that we're not prepared to enter into legally binding commitments to reduce our emissions unless China, India, and so forth, are also prepared to do that. And at the moment, they're not. . ."

    In response to a question regarding India's role at Cancun, how it went and all, Stern said, "I think India played, actually, a particularly constructive role in Cancun. I think that India was very much faithful to its own national interests and faithful to its role in the G-77, but at the same time creatively looking for solutions to difficult issues in the negotiation in a way that could bring in both developing countries -- and by the way, developing countries are not a monolithic group at this point, there's all sorts of different -- there's the large ones, there's Africans and least developed nations and island states and so forth. I think India really played a particularly constructive role in trying to find solutions that would bring everybody to the table. And one good example of that is on the issue of transparency, which was very important. . ."

 

    In response to a question that a U.K. scientists said "there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995," Stern said, "Well, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to comment on it and I'm not familiar with exactly what he said. I think that if you look at the warming that has been recorded on a steady basis for over the last 20 years or so, you will see a very significant rise in temperatures over time. We have -- and I think if you look at the last 20 years, you have something like the 15 or 18 warmest years in history having happened during that period. So. . . I think there is a very, very broad consensus of scientists who see a marked warming trend, and again, a very large percentage of scientists who study in this area who attribute that to human activity."

 

    In response to a question about what does the U.S. need to do in the next year to move the process forward in light of the fact that a number of senators have expressed concern about even "modest international financing commitments by the U.S.," Stern said, "With respect to financing, look, the financial promises that were made in the first instance in Copenhagen and continued in the Cancun agreements are extremely important. I mean, they're – they are a core part of the deal. Obviously, the fiscal situation is exceedingly tough in the U.S. It's tough in Europe and other places as well. And we are going to have to do the best we possibly can to carry out, to make good on the – in the first instance, the fast start pledge that was part of Copenhagen and reiterated here. In the second instance, to work with parties to set up a good structure of the good architecture for the new Green Fund that has been agreed on. And then in the slightly longer-term front, to continue thinking through how sources can be put together for the $100 billion – the commitment to the goal of mobilizing that money from all sources, public and private, that we made by 2020. . ."

   

    In response to a question about the U.S. position on China's involvement in the negotiations, Stern said, "Our position on China is that China needs to make significant reductions in its emissions. But for China or other developing countries, at this stage, those are going to be relative reductions. . . whether it's China or India or others, are growing at 6, 8, 10 percent, you can't slam the brakes on completely and say you've got to be making absolute reductions tomorrow. It just – it couldn't work. . . the critical direction that we need to move on is to separate growth from the path of emissions, so that growth goes up but emissions can still go down. . . We're not calling -- I mean, it's not so much that we're calling on China or India to make legally binding commitments right now. What we're saying is we will do legally binding commitments only if they are symmetrical, if the emerging market countries do that also. If they're not ready to do it, it's not so much that we're criticizing that, it's just that we say in that – if that's where we are globally, then we need to push forward in the kind of politically binding structure that we're doing now. . ." 

 

    Access the complete State Department briefing (click here).