Law and the Environment : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law Firm : Boston, Washington D.C.

Yesterday, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a notice of availability for the Environmental Assessment it prepared in connection with the issuance of leases for wind energy development off the coast of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The EA includes a Finding of No Significant Impact, or FONSI. In other words, BOEM concluded that the issuance of leases does not require a full blown Environmental Impact Report. 

The EA also addresses the individual site assessment plans, or SAPs, that will have to be performed by each leaseholder. While BOEM retains the flexibility to determine whether the implementation of the SAPs is covered by the EA, there is certainly the suggestion that SAPs may be not require separate NEPA analysis.

The FONSI is of course not a full green light for wind development off the Mid-Atlantic coast. Once BOEM starts awarding leases, each lease-holder would ultimately have to prepare a Construction and Operations Plan, which would be subject to NEPA review and it would be quite surprising if individual wind projects were not obligated to prepare full EISs before proceeding to construction. 

Even so, establishing this process, and obviating the need for EISs prior to issuing leases and performing at least some SAPs, can only be helpful in getting siting of wind energy in this area off the ground.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When I last posted on the potential impact of the Utility MACT rule on electric system reliability, I swore I was done with the subject. I knew then it was probably a mistake. Yesterday, FERC announced that it has issued a White Paper on how it will respond to requests by generators to EPA for an extension of time to comply under the Utility MACT rule. Since FERC has invited comments on the White Paper, it seemed worthy of note.

As those who have followed the progress of the MACT rule know, EPA has allowed a basic compliance period of three years. EPA has also provided for a one-year extension in some cases. Beyond that, EPA has provided that facilities which cannot comply within 4 years and which are critical to electric system reliability may seek a further extension through an administrative order. EPA also provided that it will take comment from experts, including FERC, on applications for such further extensions.

The White Paper sets forth FERC staff’s views on how FERC should handle such requests for comment. The process would be as follows:

• AO requests would be filed with the Commission Secretary (It is important to note that all AO requests must include a “concurrence with the reliability risk analysis” by the relevant “Planning Authority”, such as an ISO, or an explanation as to why such concurrence cannot be provided.)

• Requests would be treated as informational filings.

• Intervention would not be allowed.

• FERC review “should be whether, based on the circumstances presented, there might be a violation of a Commission-approved Reliability Standard” in the absence of the extension.

• The White Paper reserves the question regarding whether FERC review will be de novo or grant some deference to the analysis provided by the Planning Authority.

The White paper notes that it is specifically seeking comment regarding both the scope of its review of AO requests and the level of deference, if any, to give to the Planning Authority analysis. Comments may be provided by February 29, 2012, at the eFiling link on the FERC web site.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The nine states still participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are getting ready for the first auction of RGGI's second compliance period, scheduled for March 14th.  In the auction notice released last week, they announced 4 changes to the program, and analysts are predicting there are far more significant changes to come -- namely adjustments to the total emissions cap. 

The first change: which we knew was coming; New Jersey is officially out.  The second:  the reserve price, the lowest price at which allowances may sell, has been increased by 4 cents to $1.93, in line with the Consumer Price Index.  The third:  although RGGI usually offers allowances from two different compliance periods for sale at each auction, March's auction will offer only 2012 allowances, raising some questions about RGGI's own view of its future past this compliance period's end in 2014.  The fourth change:  the participating states announced that they will retire 87 million of the allowances that went unsold during the 2009-2011 auctions, a move that may indicate the states' willingness to set the cap for 2012 below the earlier levels, to avoid such over-allocation of allowances in future years.

The original plan for the RGGI program, when it was introduced in 2008, was to set the emissions cap on large power plants in the Northeast at 188 million tons (estimated 2005 levels) through 2014, then lower the cap by 2.5% per year over the next four years, for a net change of 10%.  But in the intervening years, emissions in the Northeast have declined significantly due to decreasing generation from higher-carbon dioxide sources such as fuel oil and coal, increasing generation from natural gas and renewable, carbon-free sources, and expanded energy efficiency programs -- many of which were paid for by funds collected by the states through the RGGI auctions.  As a result, emissions are now far below the planned reductions already -- 2011 emissions were 34% below the cap, according to Environment Northeast's analysis released last week.  As these changes in emissions are expected to be permanent, the RGGI cap would have to be lowered by a significant amount before the cap-and-trade program became the driving factor in carbon reductions.  

The participating states are currently working on a planned comprehensive review of the RGGI program, with the most recent topics of discussion including evaluating the use of offsets and other cost-containment mechanisms in the future.  While the participating states' willingness to retire the unsold allowances from the first compliance period may be a signal of their intentions to re-set the cap for the 2012-2014 compliance period as well, it remains to be seen whether the states will merely adjust the cap to reflect observed emission trends or try to create even further cuts in emissions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As readers of this blog know, the impact of EPA air rules, including in particular the Utility MACT rule, on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid has been the subject of much speculation. Last week, the Congressional Research Service weighed in, with the exciting headline: EPA’s Utility MACT: Will the Lights Go Out?” Of course, notwithstanding the sexy title, the CRS conclusion can be summarized pretty simply: the MACT rule will not cause the lights to go out. Money quote:

although the rule may lead to the retirement or derating of some facilities, almost all of the capacity reductions will occur in areas that have substantial reserve margins. Two areas that may have difficulty meeting reserve margins, Texas and New England, will experience few plant retirements and deratings, according to industry data. Furthermore, to address the reliability concerns expressed by industry, the final rule includes provisions aimed at providing additional time for compliance if it is needed to install pollution controls or add new capacity to ensure reliability in specific areas. As a result, it is unlikely that electric reliability will be harmed by the rule.

Absent some surprises, I’m done with the subject. Let me know if the lights go out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last Friday, noting a story about the extent to which concerns about sea level rise from climate change might affect development in East Boston, I wondered whether battles over whether and how to adapt to climate change might be moving from the realm of the hypothetical to the realm of the real. Climate Wire has now begun a series of stories on how cities are planning for climate change. This week, there have been stories about Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Hallandale Beach, Florida. 

The long-term picture in these cities is no prettier than that of East Boston. The specifics don’t matter so much as the scope, though there are some similarities. In Portsmouth, one concern is that the causeway leading to New Castle will be submerged. In New Hallandale, a recent analysis indicated that 893 miles of roads from Miami to Palm Beach will be under water at high tide if sea level rises by three feet. In Portsmouth, there is concern about what will happen to sewers containing combined storm and sewage flows – now that’s a pretty picture – while in Hallandale Beach, the concern is that encroaching salt water will impact current fresh water supplies. 

The real question is when to start planning, and how. How much planning should be focused on changing standards for new development and how much on protecting existing infrastructure? Of course, as an alternative, there’s always the approach of one of my favorites, Graham Parker, in his song Stick to the Plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The decision yesterday in United States v. Minnkota Power Cooperative serves as a useful reminder regarding how important the burden of proof is in review of agency decisions. The case started in 2006, as part of DOJ’s NSR enforcement initiative, when the United States and North Dakota brought suit against Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station. The parties settled and a consent decree was entered. Apparently, the parties knew at the time of the settlement that there would be a dispute regarding what would constitute BACT for NO_x control and they thus agreed to defer the issue; the consent decree simply provided that the North Dakota Department of Health would determine BACT.

It took the DOH four years to do so, but, in November 2010, the DOH concluded that selective non-catalytic reduction, or SNCR, constitutes BACT for the MRY facility, which has unusual technology involving cyclone-fired boilers combusting North Dakota lignite, rather than bituminous or sub-bituminous coal. EPA wanted SCR identified as BACT and pursued dispute resolution under the consent decree to get it. 

Unfortunately for EPA, the decree provided that the determination by North Dakota would be binding unless EPA “demonstrates that it is not supported by the state administrative record and not reasonable in light of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.” As the court noted, the consent decree language was not unique; it “mirrors the standard of review” for challenges to state BACT determinations even outside the consent decree context.

The crux of the case was whether cyclone fired boilers combusting North Dakota lignite were sufficiently like other coal-fired boilers that determinations for such boilers that SCRs constitute BACT should essentially be binding here. The North Dakota DOH compiled an extensive record demonstrating that such other coal-fired facilities are not sufficiently like the MRY facility, and the court deferred to DOH’s judgment, based on the record.

Perhaps the most telling evidence was that DOJ engaged an expert consultant, which issued an request for proposals to install SCR at the MRY facility. DOJ in fact obtained two proposals with performance guarantees. The availability of such guarantees is extremely probative of whether a technology constitutes BACT. However, DOJ’s consultant failed to provide in its RFP sufficient detail regarding the specific characteristics of the MRY facility – and when the companies responding to the RFP learned the details, they withdrew the guarantees, almost certainly leaving EPA and DOJ in a worse position than if they had never gone through the RFP process. One might also infer that the court thought that DOJ was trying to pull a fast one, which certainly did not help.

Yesterday’s Cape Wind decision, together with this case, even though involving totally different statutory and regulatory regimes, provide a useful joint reminder of the importance of building the record in administrative cases.

As to this case, would the outcome have been different if EPA had made the BACT decision? Would a decision to impose SCR as BACT have been upheld if the burden were on the person challenging that decision? We’ll never know, but I could see it happening. Burdens do matter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today affirmed the decision by the Department of Public Utilities to approve the power purchase agreement, or PPA, between Cape Wind and National Grid. (Full disclosure: Foley Hoag represented the Department of Energy Resources in support of the contract before the DPU.) The decision doesn’t mean that Cape Wind will now get built. Given the (one hopes) temporary problems with the federal loan guarantee program and Cape Wind’s failure thus far to sell the rest of the power from the project, the SJC decision is more of a necessary than sufficient condition to construction.

On the merits, the decision is pretty much a standard nuts-and-bolts review concerning whether there was substantial evidence to support DPU’s decision. The SJC made frequent reference to the deference given both to DPU’s application of its expertise and to its interpretation of statutes it is charged with implementing. 

Going forward, the most significant aspect of the decision is probably the SJC’s finding that, in the absence of a statutory definition of the term “cost-effective,” the DPU was within its authority in in considering

All costs and benefits associated with [the PPA], including the non-price benefits that are difficult to quantify, and including costs and benefits of complying with existing and reasonably anticipated future federal and state environmental requirements.

Similarly, the SJC agreed with the DPU that analysis regarding whether the contract is in the public interest need not be limited to whether lower-priced alternatives exist. The SJC found that there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the DPU’s conclusion that Cape Wind would provide “significant and special advantages by virtue of its location near an area that uses high levels of electricity and the advanced state of the permitting process for the facility.” 

In short, the decision not only affirms the DPU’s decision here, but makes clear that, so long as an appropriate record is compiled, DPU is going to have significant discretion with respect to similar projects going forward.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday, EPA promulgated the final Utility MACT rule. I doubt that anyone reading this blog isn’t already aware of the big news.

As seems frequently to be the case with EPA rules, this one, weighing in at 2.4MB and 1,117 pages, cannot easily be summarized here. In fact, the rule is so complicated – and controversial – that EPA had to generate four separate fact sheets to summarize the rule and its impacts: (1) Costs and Benefits (or, as EPA carefully puts it, “Benefits and Costs”); (2) Summary of the Rule; (3) Clean Air and Reliable Electricity (I wonder why EPA thought this one necessary?); and (4) Adjustments from Proposal to Final.

We live in a complex world, so there is not much use in complaining about how overwhelming this rule is, and about the problems inherent in a system in which rules with costs of approximately $10B annually and benefits ranging from $37B to $90B annually are this complicated and are probably truly understood by a very small number of people. As I tell my Libertarian friends, even Jefferson wouldn’t be a Jeffersonian today. Nonetheless, it is troubling.

The issues worth noting in a blog post are probably the changes from the proposal. Significant changes include:

·         Use of filterable PM for the particulate emissions limit, rather than total PM (which would include condensables).

·         Use of work practice standards, rather than emission limits, during start-up and shut-down. This is an important change, which will make life much easier for regulated units.

·         Greater flexibility in facility-wide averaging.

Reliability has obviously been the big issue for EPA. Units will generally have three years to comply. Permitting authorities may grant a 4^th year, if necessary, and EPA has said that they expect the extra year to be “broadly available.” EPA has also provided a mechanism for “units that are shown to be critical for reliability to obtain” a 5^th year to comply – though EPA has said that it does not expect many units to require or qualify for the 5^th year.

My predictions on the rule’s fate and impact?

·         I’ll be stunned if the rule does not survive judicial review. Of course, in an 1,117 page rule, there may be some obscure provision that is struck down, but the basic provisions will be upheld.

·         The sky will not fall. Significant numbers of jobs will not be lost, and the increase in electricity prices will be smaller than predicted. Since I whack EPA often enough, I’ll defend it here – to a limited extent. I don’t think that there has been a single big rule ever promulgated by EPA where the implementation costs haven’t been less than expected. That’s been true for one simple reason. When industry has clear rules to follow (even if they are not the cost-effective rules I would prefer), industrial innovation works to bring down compliance costs in ways that were not imagined, either by EPA or industry, when the rule was promulgated.

·         Of course, if there is a Republican President and a Republican Congress, all bets are off. Of course, when Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he supported regulations by MassDEP that were essentially a state version of the Utility MACT rule, notwithstanding his criticism today of EPA for wanting to promulgate job-killing regulations. Of course, Mitt Romney has been known to change his mind. Of course,… oh, never mind. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Market-watchers thinking that having friends in Congress means that coal can flourish despite EPA regulation on many fronts may have a different view to ponder. Goldman Sachs predicted last week that generators will continue to switch from coal to natural gas and downgraded the prospects of the coal industry from “attractive” to “neutral.” Specifically, Goldman predicted that 51 GW of coal electric generating capacity are on their way out and that EPA Cross State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, and utility MACT rule would together eliminate 160 million tons of coal production through 2018. Political winds may shift direction periodically, but cold-blooded economic analysis says that the outlook for coal is not great in the long run.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday, EPA proposed certain revisions to its rule on air emissions from boilers and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI). As with other major rules under development in the past few years, EPA has taken fairly substantial steps to limit the reach of the rule to those boilers and CISWI that are of greatest concern. Without engaging in formal cost-effectiveness analysis, EPA has sought to make the rule as cost-effective as possible.

As with most of EPA’s big rules, it is too complex to be summarized in a blog post. EPA’s summary fact sheet is here. Very briefly, the rule exempts 86% of industrial boilers and subjects most other boilers to work practice standards rather than emission limits. For those boilers subject to the emission limits, the new rules relaxed limits for CO, PM, and most metals, but increased the stringency for mercury and acid gases.

EPA also made one important change sought by the biomass industry. The rule will allow biomass to be combusted in boilers and CISWI, by defining it as “non-hazardous secondary material,” which can now “be considered a legitimate, non-waste fuel.”

As I have noted with other EPA rules, I expect that this rule will survive judicial challenge. Although no cost-effectiveness analysis was provided, EPA estimates that the benefits of the rules exceed the costs by a factor of more than 10. More to the point, as with other rules, much of what EPA has done is dictated by the CAA.

The real question is whether anyone will appreciate EPA’s efforts to – if I may use the term – tailor the rule as finely as possible. As Greenwire noted, there remain efforts in Congress to pass legislation both delaying and softening the rules. My sense is that we should at least give EPA credit for drafting better rules, because the agency is certainly not getting any political credit. The environmentalists criticize EPA for not having enough gumption, while EPA’s critics still call EPA “the scariest agency in federal government.” 

On this score, I’ll just note one final perspective. In today’s New York Times, David Brooks described Obama – or least Cass Sunstein, director the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – as a “wonky liberal.” What was the context for this comment? A discussion of the administration’s handling of costly environmental regulations. Brooks conceded that “most people in government are trying to find a balance between difficult trade-offs.” The problem for the administration is that neither the right nor the left today wants balance.

I enjoy criticizing EPA, but I would want to be trying to juggle the issues that EPA is currently statutorily mandated to address.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, released its 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. The NERC report identified environmental regulations as one “of the greatest risks” to reliability. Much of the focus of the concern was on EPA’s MACT rule for hazardous air pollutants and its 316(b) rule for cooling water intake structures. While expressing uncertainty about these not-yet finalized rules, the NERC report took an extremely cautious approach, largely assuming the worst in terms of the stringency and inflexibility of these rules.

Appropriate caution? Not according to EPA.

In a letter to NERC, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Persciasepe accused NERC of simply ignoring what EPA has said regarding the provisions of those rules and how they will be implemented. For example, with respect to the 316(b) rule, NERC assumes that the rule will require closed cycle cooling, even though EPA has explicitly said it will not require closed cycle cooling on all units and the rule will allow the cost of controls and potential impacts on reliability to be considered in determining appropriate technology. 

As Persciasepe summarized:

NERC’s draft report describes an extreme outcome that arises from a scenario where the most stringent and costly rules imaginable took effect, and no one at the federal, state, or local level took any steps to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.

Fortunately, the EPA’s analysis and several external analyses show that, where the EPA’s actual rules are accurately characterized, there is no adverse impact on capacity reserves in any region of the country. If isolated, local reliability challenges were to emerge due to individual plant retirements, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act provide flexibility mechanisms to ensure that sources can be brought into compliance over time while maintaining reliability.

In my most recent post on this subject, I noted that a comprehensive look at the reliability issue by FERC would be helpful. While I understand NERC’s approach to err on the side of caution, I agree with EPA that NERC overdid it here. Most of the old plants at risk of retirement are not going to have to install closed cycle cooling. I wouldn’t quite describe the NERC report as Chicken Little, but I don’t think the sky is falling. I’m still waiting for a more balanced and comprehensive review – and still skeptical that such a report would attain universal credibility, even if were to deserve it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has already been significant attention devoted to whether EPA’s “train wreck” of rules affecting coal-fired power plants would affect electric system reliability. The Congressional Research Service analysis looked at the coming rules more broadly, but did touch on reliability, noting that most of the coal plants likely to be retired as a result of EPA regulations are small and inefficient, and already run infrequently. As we noted last June, the Bipartisan Research Center did focus on reliability, concluding “that scenarios in which electric system reliability is broadly affected are unlikely to occur.”

However, this work has not been enough to satisfy FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller, who recently issued a “Request for Evidence” concerning the impact of EPA’s coming rules. The request is both deep and wide-ranging. It includes 22 separate questions, not including sub-parts. The questions range from the broad -- “What evidence supports the assertion of a reliability problem?” -- to the very specific  -- "Will the loss of the system inertia that is supplied by coal plants impact the power grid in unforeseen ways? Does the topic of inertia require further study?”

In today’s polarized political climate, I’m not sure that there can be an answer to these questions that would satisfy everyone. At least inside the Beltway, decision-makers increasingly seem to know what they know, evidence be damned. Nonetheless, it can only help to have a more comprehensive analysis of the reliability issue by the government agency that has responsibility for ensuring electric system reliability.  A careful assessment by FERC seems even more necessary in light of Wednesday's story in the Daily Environment Report to the effect that EPA's draft MACT rule contained an acknowledgement of reliability concerns when it was sent to the White House for review in February, but that the reliability discussion was edited out before EPA signed and issued the proposed rule in March.

For my part, assuming that the reliability issue can be addressed, I’d rather have the train wreck than Chinese water torture. Precisely because small coal plants might shut as a result of the cumulative weight of the EPA regulations, isn’t it better for everyone that the owners of those plants know about all of the regulations at the same time, rather than have them promulgated seriatim over a number of years? Wouldn’t the owners feel foolish -- and justifiably annoyed -- having spent a bunch of money complying with the first rule to be promulgated, only to decide that the second, or third, or fourth is the straw that breaks the camel’s back? As a matter of both public and private sector planning, it has to be better for EPA to be promulgating these rules in at least the same general time frame.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the first compliance period in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) coming to a close in December, it seems an appropriate time to look back at what we can learn from the country’s first market-based program aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. A report released Tuesday by the Analysis Group analyzed the economic impacts of RGGI – how the program impacted electricity prices, power producers’ costs, and consumers’ electric bills, and what effect the millions in quarterly auction proceeds has had, and will have, on the region’s economy.

The report does not try to predict what will happen or should happen to RGGI to update it for 2012 and beyond. Instead, it takes the last three years as a snapshot, and models the impacts that the allowances sold and money spent by the states through the last 3 years will have over the next 10 years.

Overall, the 10 states took in $912 million from the auctions, which, when invested by the states in various programs and initiatives, added $1.6 billion in net present value to the region's economy, even when taking into account the nearly $1.6 billion loss in income that power producers face with more efficient energy usage reducing prices and consumption. The report also found that the first three years of RGGI have created over 16,000 new “job years” – from employing people to conduct energy efficiency audits or install efficiency measures,  to maintaining workers in state-funded programs that might have been cut had a state not used RGGI funds to close budget gaps.

The study found that, although the cost of the allowances was largely passed along to consumers, RGGI only increased consumers’ bills by an average of 0.7% over the last 3 years. The study predicts that, over time, RGGI will lower consumers’ bills, because the states invested a substantial amount of the allowance proceeds on energy efficiency programs.  By 2021, consumers of electricity in the 10-state region will enjoy a net savings of nearly $1.1 billion on their electricity bills, and, due to efficiency programs focused on insulation and heating efficiency, another $174 million in savings from avoided expense on natural gas and heating oil. 

The analysis I found the most interesting concerns how state decisions to spend RGGI proceeds affected local economies. The Memorandum of Understanding that set up RGGI required that the states invest at least 25% of the proceeds for “public benefit,” but left the rest up to each state. As a result, there was a divergent approach to spending that, according to today's report, resulted in significant differences in returns.

New England states spent 86% of their RGGI funds on energy efficiency, and only 3% on direct  assistance to low-income consumers. Because the investment in energy efficiency introduced funds into the economy twice – both when the state paid into the efficiency program, and when consumers paid less for electricity, leaving them free to spend elsewhere in the economy – the overall macroeconomic impact of RGGI in New England was almost $900 million, even though those states only took in $275 million in allowance funds.

In comparison, the states in the PJM regional transmission organization (New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland), spent 41% of their funds on direct bill assistance and only 13% on energy efficiency.  The direct bill assistance also freed consumers to spend money elsewhere in the economy, but the analysis found that, without the multiplier effect of energy efficiency, the returns for these states were not as great.   As a result, although these three states received more money from allowance sales than New England -- $310 million – the net positive impact of RGGI was only $341 million.

It’s not much of a surprise that the investment of auction proceeds in energy efficiency is one of the big success stories of the first three years of RGGI. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see whether the report’s conclusions regarding the relative impact of spending on energy efficiency as compared to low-income assistance will influence how states spend their auction proceeds going forward. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two seemingly unrelated stories from last week suggest that EPA may have its limits in how far it is going to go to make nice with those who are opposing its regulatory agenda. The first story, reported by Greenwire, is pretty much all in the headline: “EPA official accuses Kan. department of lying over proposed plant.” The second story, also from GreenWire, reported that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson referred to opponents of EPA’s greenhouse gas tailoring rule as “jack-booted thugs.”  She has also described Republican efforts to limit EPA regulatory authority as a “too dirty to fail” policy.

It’s difficult to interpret at least Administrator Jackson’s remarks as anything other than part of the 2012 Presidential campaign. I realize that I may be hopelessly optimistic in asking that even campaign rhetoric make sense, but these comments don’t make sense. How is it that opponents of the tailoring rule – and I actually support the rule, though I’m not sure about EPA’s authority to promulgate it – are “jack-booted thugs”? They may have misrepresented the scope of the rule, but that hardly makes them thugs, let alone jack-booted ones.

And too dirty to fail? I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s start and end with the simple point that it is not precisely because these plants are dirty that we refuse to regulate them – which is the only way the analogy to “too big to fail” could possibly make sense. This is nothing more than trying to make polluters look bad by comparing them to banks. I do feel compelled to observe that we are in a funny place when banks have a worse reputation than polluters and we have to stir up populist anger at the polluters by comparing them to the big, bad, banks.

In any case, calling your opponents liars and thugs, and describing their political strategy as supporting polluters because they are "too dirty to fail” is not going to engender a spirit of compromise. I understand EPA’s frustration with its congressional opponents. Again, I must emphasize that I support not just the tailoring rule, but may of EPA’s regulatory initiatives. I also note that EPA has taken steps – rarely noted or appreciated – to respond to the concerns of opponents. Nonetheless, aside from providing red meat to the base, this is hardly constructive. After all, it’s not as though anyone expects the Democrats to win such overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate that Lisa Jackson won’t have to deal with congressional Republicans after January 2013. Good luck with those jack-booted thugs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, EPA announced that it was granting the petition submitted by New Jersey under § 126 of the Clean Air Act, requiring the Portland Generating Station in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania, to reduce emissions of SO₂, in order to avoid causing exceedances of the NAAQS for SO₂ downwind in New Jersey. The requirements are fairly straightforward. Within three years, the plant must limit emissions as follows:

Unit 1 emissions may not exceed 1,105 lb/hr

Unit 2 emissions may not exceed 1,691 lb/hr.

The facility must attain a heat input limit of 0.67 lb/mmBtu, regardless of operating load

The facility will also be subject to a short-term limit, to be attained within 12 months, of 6,253 lb/hour. This limit is expressed as a total for both units to provide the owner with more flexibility. EPA states in its fact sheet that this interim limit can be attained by switching to low sulfur coal.

At a certain level, the rule granting the petition is not that big a deal. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA, the “good neighbor” provision, prohibits emissions in one state that interfere with attainment of NAAQS in another state. Petitions under § 126 to enforce this requirement are not new. Nonetheless, the rule is noteworthy.  As EPA stated, this is the first sole-source petition under § 126. EPA spokesman Lawrence Ragonese described the rule as “precedent-setting” and said that it opened the door for other such petitions. 

Second, I think that the rule has to be seen in the context of the current debate in Congress over EPA’s CAA authority. The fact sheet specifically notes that the rule requires the same type of controls as would the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, both of which are under attack at the moment. By essentially inviting other § 126 petitions, EPA seems to be signaling to Congress that attacking the CSAPR and MATS rules won’t make the problem go away. Presumably, too, the message is that the comprehensive approach in the CSAPR, which permits as much trading as the CAA allows, might be a better option than forcing EPA to respond to – and generators to comply with – individual petitions under § 126.

Finally, and on a related note, issuance of the rule seems consistent with Administrator Jackson’s remarks late last week, described by E&E Daily as a “vow” to “crack down on coal.” If EPA’s recent retreat on the revised NAAQS for NO_x and its delays in issuance of other rules might have led some observers to conclude that EPA was backing down, Jackson’s remarks seem explicitly designed to announce that EPA will not be backing down. In that context, the grant of the petition would seem to be a tangible demonstration that she really means it.

The battle is clearly not over, but the petition does illustrate one important factor – much of what EPA does is not really discretionary. Rather, it is mandated by some existing provision of the CAA. If Congress is not happy with EPA, it really has only itself to blame. If it wants less regulation; it is going to have to vote to amend the CAA in significant ways – and, presumably, survive a presidential veto.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA may have had problems in court in recent years defending its regulations, but it has generally fared much better in its enforcement cases. Earlier this week, however, EPA suffered what will be, if it is affirmed, a devastating defeat in its PSD/NSR enforcement initiative. In United States v. EME Homer City Generation, Judge Terrence McVerry concluded that the government could get no relief against either the former owners of the facility or the current owners or operator. No penalties. No injunctive relief. No relief under state law. Nothing. Nada.

The facts here were typical of NSR enforcement cases. The facility, in Homer City, Pennsylvania, had implemented a number of projects from 1991 through 1996 which, EPA alleged, required PSD permits. No permits were sought. The owners at the time of the changes sold the plant in 1999. It was sold again in 2001 and is currently operated by one entity and owned by a group of LLCs. 

The court’s analysis was thorough, yet straightforward. According to the court, PSD requirements are one-time, pre-construction requirements. With respect to civil penalties, the United States acknowledged that the five-year statute of limitations precluded claims against the former owners. The court gave the claim against the current owners and operator short shrift. The court concluded that

The alleged PSD violations constitute singular, separate failures by the Former Owners to obtain pre-construction permits, rather than ongoing failures to comply with whatever hyupothetical conditions might have been imposed during the PSD permittingprocess. Thus, the United States was required to file suit to recover civil penalties for an alleged PSD program violation within five years of the construction project.

The big news from the decision is the court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief. While Judge McVerry described the statute as complex and ambiguous, he did not find the decision before him difficult. With respect to the current owners/operator, injunctive relief could not be imposed on them, because no remedy can be imposed without a liability finding. Because the failure to obtain PSD permits was solely attributable to the former owners, the current owners/operator are not liable for the violation. No liability; no injunction. 

The court found the question somewhat more difficult with respect to former owners. They would be liable for the original violation, if proved, and the five-year statute of limitations does not apply to injunctive relief. The court punted on whether it had authority to issue an injunction against former owners, resting its decision instead on the court’s broad discretion to grant or deny equitable relief. Describing injunctive relief as “a rare and extraordinary remedy,” the court concluded that it would be inappropriate to grant relief against former owners where, since they no longer own the facility, injunctive relief against the former owners is not necessary to prevent future violations by the former owners. 

Finally, the court concluded that the current owners/operator did not violate their Title V permit, because the permit does not include any requirement to meet BACT. The court flat-out rejected the idea that the Title V permit could somehow be found to “incorporate” BACT requirements that should have been included in the Title V permit because they should have been included in PSD permits, because the former owners should have applied for them. 

In short, the government was too late to bring claims against the former owners, and could not establish liability against the current owners. Thus, it could get no relief against anyone.

It is difficult to square this opinion with the general rule interpreting police power statutes broadly to effectuate their purposes, because this decision means that there will be some circumstances in which there is a violation with no remedy, even where the impacts of that violation are still being felt, or seen, or inhaled, today. However, the decision is careful and thoughtful and I wouldn’t automatically assume that it will be reversed on appeal. Not a good day for EPA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The most popular suite of tools to measure and manage greenhouse gases just got a lot more complete -- allowing companies to track the impact of their products from natural resources and raw materials, through manufacturing, use and disposal, and providing a detailed framework to measure companies’ “everything else” Scope 3 emissions.   

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative (a collaboration between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development) finalized its two newest global greenhouse gas standards on October 4. The GHG Protocol are the most widely used suite of accounting tools for measuring, managing and reporting greenhouse gas emissions -- for instance, in 2010, more than 85% of the nearly 2,500 respondents to the Carbon Disclosure Project survey used these standards. With the addition of the two new standards -- the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard and the Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard -- companies have more guidance on a methodology and common language to report the impacts of their operations as they span the supply chain and the life cycle of their products. The GHG Protocol website even includes a cute video to explain what Scope 3 emissions are and why they claim these new protocol will save the world.

The new standards, which have taken three years to develop, involved the input of close to 2,500 partners, and were actively road-tested by 60 companies from 17 countries. The final standards have been influenced by the many comments received since they were published in draft form last November, and are intended to build upon the GHG Corporate Standard from 2004 which details how to report Scope 1 emissions (direct emissions from sources a company owns or controls, like factory smokestacks and company-owned cars) and Scope 2 emissions (indirect emissions attributable to the electricity, heat and cooling the company directly consumes).

Scope 3 emissions, which include everything else, are the great unknown variable in greenhouse gas reporting. They contain the vast majority of emissions, and accordingly, have the biggest opportunities for reductions. The authors of these new standards hope that they provide companies with a “treasure map” to identify and locate these opportunities to help both the environment and the business’s bottom line. At the very least, these protocol will simplify and reduce the costs for companies taking on a Scope 3 inventory, and improve the relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency and accuracy of the emissions reported each year. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In the Carbon Disclosure Project's 2011 analysis of the largest 500 companies, the Global 500, there is a very interesting statistical trend -- the companies who were the most strategically focused on accelerating low-carbon growth had returns from January 2005 to May 2011 that doubled the Global 500 as a whole, with returns totaling over 85%, compared to the 42.7% returns for the index.  Even more amazingly, the 13 companies that had been recognized by CDP for this strong focus for the last 3 years outperformed the Global 500 by over 60 percentage points over the same period.  Does monitoring and disclosing a company's carbon footprint and incorporating the risks and opportunities of climate change at executive levels actually lead to increased financial performance?  This report suggests there is a high correlation, at least. 

The report analyzes the responses the Global 500 companies submitted to a questionnaire that has CDP has sent on behalf of institutional investors every year since 2002.  Participation has increased each year -- up to 81% for 2011 -- as has the quality of the companies' answers and reporting, and the targets and goals that companies set for themselves.  This year's results show significant progress by all of the reporting companies in a few key areas, such as 74% of respondents setting greenhouse gas reduction targets, and 59% reporting a payback period of 3 years or less on their emission reduction activities. This year's survey also marked the first time that a majority (68%, up from 48% in 2010) of respondents have integrated carbon reduction efforts into the heart of their business strategies.

The set of 58 companies that doubled the returns of their peers were listed by CDP as part of the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) (those that scored the highest on carbon emission measurement techniques and subsequent public disclosure) and Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) (those that fell within the top 10% of respondents when scored on strategic commitment to the business issues related to GHG emissions, energy use, and climate change).  There were 23 companies who made both lists.  Companies in Canada, Japan and the US were under-represented on these lists, compared to their peers in Australia, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the U.K.  Surprisingly, given the regulatory focus it faces, the energy sector lags behind other sectors with the lowest proportion of companies setting targets (55%) and under-representation on both the CDLI and CPLI.

What did the CDLI and CPLI companies do differently?  As the report highlights, one notable difference between the companies named to the CDLI and those that were not is the practice of setting emissions reduction targets on which the company places significant emphasis -- 96% of the CDLI companies have emissions reduction targets, versus just 70% of the remaining companies.  Also significant seems to be whether the companies dedicated resources and time to identifying the new opportunities, investments and potential partnerships that a low-carbon economy could bring about -- the average score for the CDLI companies on this rubric is 88 (out of 100) compared to 54, across all respondents.  Similarly, all 29 of the CPLI companies have integrated their climate-related risks and opportunities into their business strategy, and used monetary incentives to encourage employees to meet carbon reduction goals.  The CPLI companies also universally submitted their emissions data for adequate verification -- something that only 37% of the remaining companies did, despite the importance of providing investors validated data.

Although the authors of the report argue that this data is a clear indicator that it makes good business sense to manage and reduce carbon emissions, correlation is not necessarily causation.  The companies who are better managing their carbon may just be better managed overall, leading to better performance.  Either way, the fast-rising number of Global 500 companies who are moving to capitalize on these opportunities highlights that more sustainable business models are, increasingly, simply the way business is done.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following EPA’s decision last week to scrap its reconsideration of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, the parties to the litigation challenging the 2008 standard are back in court. This week, EPA submitted a brief to the Court of Appeals, which was pretty much a six-page version of Roseanne Roseannadanna’s “Never mind.” After telling the Court for years that it should defer to EPA’s reconsideration process – a decision on which was always just around the corner, until EPA decided it wasn’t – EPA has now told the Court that it is time to brief the merits of the challenges to the 2008 standard of 0.075 ppm.

As I noted last week, EPA has already made the argument that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction in this case. If that argument fails, I cannot wait to see what argument EPA will make on the merits. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee said that 0.075 ppm was not sufficiently stringent, the Court of Appeals has said that EPA cannot willy-nilly ignore CASAC, and EPA itself pretty much said in 2010 that the standard cannot be any higher than 0.070 ppm. I don’t envy the DOJ lawyers who will be writing that brief.

The problem for the environmental group challengers is whether there is any practical remedy at this point. The Court cannot promulgate its own NAAQS. All it can really do is impose a schedule on EPA to correct the 2008 standard. It doesn’t take much analysis to conclude that there is likely no reasonable deadline the Court could impose that would result in a new ozone standard any earlier than the 2013 date towards which EPA is already pointing. I foresee some awkward moments for the DOJ lawyers and some very firm finger-wagging by the Court, to the effect of “We really, really expect you to issue a new standard in 2013.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) celebrated its third anniversary by holding its 13th quarterly auction of carbon dioxide allowances on Wednesday.   As today's Market Monitor report highlights, although the number of bidders was up, the percentage of allowances purchased was down.  Thirty-one bidders purchased just under 18% of the 42,189,685 current compliance period allowances offered for sale by the 10-state group (including New Jersey).  These allowances, with vintage dates from 2010 and 2011, can be used by electric generators in the current compliance period, which will end in December.  The previous low for demand for these allowances dates from the last auction in June, where 25 bidders bought only 30% of the available allowances, also at the floor price of $1.89.  

The states other than New Jersey then held an auction offering 1.8 million allowances from vintage year 2014, which can be used to comply in the next compliance period, from 2012-2014.  In perhaps the most direct sign of uncertainty for the future of RGGI, no one bid on these allowances. 

Per the Market Monitor report, there were not any market barriers to bidding in the auction of future compliance period allowances.  Bidders were just not interested.  The future of RGGI could seem  uncertain to would-be-bidders, between member states' reconsidering their involvement -- for instance, New Hampshire's Senate recently failed to overturn a veto by the Governor of a bill that would have removed the state from the program -- and RGGI, Inc.'s ongoing comprehensive review of the program for the new compliance period. 

In addition, the compliance entities, who are estimated to own 97% of the allowances in circulation, might feel that they have enough allowances already.  In the press release accompanying the monitor report, Maine's Public Utilities Commissioner chalked the low sales of the auction up to reduced emissions across the RGGI region, arguing that the states' investment in energy efficiency have worked.  With lower emissions, fewer allowances are needed.  Since RGGI allows banking, but not borrowing, extra allowances from the 2009-2011 compliance period can be used in the 2012-2014 period, but not the other way around.  As a consequence, the over-allocation of allowances to this early period could make sales of RGGI allowances in the second compliance period sluggish, even without the added political uncertainty.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, in commenting on the court battle over EPA’s reconsideration of the ozone NAAQS, I said that I would be surprised if EPA doesn’t issue the new standard within six months. Oops. My bad. Today, President Obama directed EPA to give up on the reconsideration effort. It’s difficult not to be cynical about the White House decision. As much as I admire Cass Sunstein, his letter to EPA providing the basis for the White House decision is not persuasive. Basically, it makes two points. 

First, EPA has to review the NAAQS every five years. Since this cycle began in 2008, EPA would have to review any new standard in 2013. Therefore, why bother? Why not just wait until 2013? The problem with that argument is that the review of the NAAQS is extremely complicated and cumbersome. It’s always going to take much of the five-year cycle. Sunstein’s argument, pushed to its logical conclusion, could result in the NAAQS never being updated, because, by the time EPA is ready to act, it will be so near the time for the next review that the decision would always be deferred to the next round.

The second argument is that the Administration has implemented a number of major initiatives to improve air quality, many of which will reduce ozone in the atmosphere. That’s certainly true, but the real answer to that is, so what? Setting the NAAQS is not a regulatory action; it is merely EPA’s statement as to how high ozone concentrations can get before ozone poses a risk. Regulatory actions may follow from that, but they’re distinguishable. If some of the other actions EPA has taken will reduce ozone levels, that’s not a reason to stop the reconsideration process. In fact, that only suggests that additional regulatory actions necessary to comply with the standard won’t be as expensive as they might otherwise have been, because prior regulatory efforts will have already achieved part of the necessary reductions.

I may have been wrong about EPA’s issuance of a new ozone standard, but I’ll nonetheless go out on a limb and make another prediction – it won’t be long before the environmental petitioners return to the Court of Appeals and request that the Court order EPA not only to continue with the reconsideration process, but to issue a new standard asap. Alternatively, they can go back and simply revive their challenge to the Bush administration standard of 0.075 ppm. If they can get the court to conclude that a standard above 0.070 ppm (or even lower) is arbitrary and capricious, we may still see a lower standard. 

If I were really cynical, I might conclude that that is in fact the Administration’s hoped-for outcome. That way, they get the lower standard, but without the political heat, because they can blame it on the court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, EPA filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that, notwithstanding its fourth delay in issuing a decision on its reconsideration of the NAAQS for ozone, the court cannot and should not order EPA to issue a decision. Industry shouldn’t get too excited, however. In the same brief, EPA telegraphed pretty clearly, consistent with its 2010 proposed rule, that it remains on track to significantly decrease the ozone standard from the 0.075 ppm standard promulgated by the Bush administration in 2008.

As most readers know, the Bush standard was higher than that suggested by EPA’s own Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC. In a parallel case, the D.C. Circuit found EPA’s fine particulate standard arbitrary and capricious, largely because it had ignored CASAC’s recommendations. Given the decision in the fine particulate case, and, presumably, the Obama administration’s own views on the appropriate standard, it is not surprising that EPA embarked on a reconsideration effort, rather than trying to defend the Bush standard.

In January 2010, EPA proposed that the standard should be in a range from 0.060 ppm to 0.070 ppm. However, notwithstanding CASAC’s views, the new standard remains hugely controversial and EPA has had difficulty in finalizing the rule. EPA missed an August 2010 deadline to publish a final rule, and then an October 2010 target, and then a December 31, 2010 target, and then a July 29, 2011 target. When EPA, after missing the most recent target, would not even give a date, but instead only informed the court and the parties that a final rule would be issued "shortly", the environmental petitioners, including the American Lung Association, asked the court to order EPA to issue the final rule.

EPA’s opposition is straightforward. First, it argues that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over citizen claims that EPA is late in issuing such rules. Second, EPA claims that it has been “diligent” in its reconsideration effort and that the final rule will indeed be issued “shortly.” 

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that EPA was, to put it mildly, overoptimistic in its reports to the court regarding how long the reconsideration process would take. They should have known better. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court continues to give EPA at least some more time to reach a decision. After all, the court cannot issue a standard itself. What would surprise me would be if EPA does not manage to issue the new standard sometime in the next six months or so. They’ve been boxed in by CASAC and any standard above 0.070 ppm would probably be found to be arbitrary and capricious. 

The ever-reliable internet attributes the “wheels of justice” quote to Sun Tzu. No matter how slowly it grinds, EPA is going to have to issue a rule at some point. It would be best to get it out as far in advance of the election as possible. Moving from Sun Tzu to Shakespeare, “if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the deadline passed last week for submitting comments on EPA’s Utility MACT rule, it’s worth taking a big picture look at how the commenters line up. Big utility groups, such as the Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power Association are looking for EPA to delay the rules. The basic argument is that it is going to take a long time to comply. EEI states that so many facilities will require extensions that the number of requests will create a backlog that will itself essentially create compliance problems.

However, it is not just environmental and public health groups that filed comments in support of the MACT rule. Exelon, which has a large nuclear fleet, submitted comments in support of the rule. In fact, Exelon referred to the “overblown critique” of the Utility MACT proposal, stating that the “lack of a national standard for toxic emissions continues to be a barrier to investment in new, cleaner generation capacity.” Industry supporters are not limited to Exelon. The Clean Energy Group, which includes PG&E, Calpine, and other generators with large gas fleets, also focused on the “business certainty the electric sector needs to move forward with capital investment decisions.” 

In looking at these comments, it is worth keeping in mind that the Utility MACT rule is only one of nine rules under development by EPA that would impose costs on coal-fired power plants. This confluence of rules is has been referred to as the “train wreck” for coal-fired power plants. While the Utility MACT rule may impose the greatest costs – and achieve the greatest benefits, according to EPA – many are concerned about the cumulative impact on coal-fired capacity. Earlier this week, the Congressional Research Service attempted to debunk the train wreck perspective:

The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel – natural gas – continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.

In any case, what’s the argument against promulgation of these rules on the same time frame? Isn’t that a good thing? There may be coal-fired plants which could sustain the capital investment required to comply with Utility MACT, but not the added cost of cooling water intake improvements to comply with new Clean Water Act requirements or the added cost of new disposal requirements if coal ash is regulated as a hazardous waste. Isn’t it better to know about all of these rules up front, so that facilities can plan for the total cost of all the rules? Wouldn’t a facility have legitimate cause to complain if the rules were instead issued seriatim, so that the facilities did not know about the full range of regulatory compliance costs when they make the decision whether to invest to comply with the first rule or instead to shut down?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule yesterday that would exempt carbon dioxide injected into underground carbon capture & storage (CCS) wells from regulation as hazardous waste, so long as the CO₂ is held in wells designated for that purpose under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  In its press release announcing the program, EPA noted that the purpose of the regulation -- as well as its prior rulemakings under the Clean Air Act to require emissions reporting by CCS facilities, and the Safe Drinking Water Act to require appropriate siting, construction and monitoring of CCS wells -- was to reduce barriers to the use of CCS and promote the technology, which has yet to be proven at a commercial scale.  If the EPA is behind it, what more could CCS need? 

The interagency task force charged with evaluating barriers to CCS concluded in a report released last year that the chief obstacle for CCS was regulatory uncertainty, since most of our environmental laws do not contemplate such a technology.  The task force recommended that EPA implement regulatory changes such as this hazardous waste clarification. 

But the biggest barrier remains -- without comprehensive climate legislation and a price on carbon, there is no stable framework to encourage investment.  And this barrier is taking its toll.  This uncertainty is why AEP recently shelved plans to build a $668 million CCS retrofit on its Mountaineer coal-fired electric plant in West Virginia.

Although the outlook for CCS projects within the U.S. is thus uncertain, the United Nations' support of the technology could prompt some CCS projects in developing nations.  E&E reports today that a decision to allow CCS projects to be eligible for credits under the Clean Development Mechanism may soon be forthcoming, if technical issues such as monitoring and verifying reductions, and environmental safety and insurance coverage can be resolved.  

Other international organizations are also jumping on the CCS bandwagon.  A recent report by the International Energy Agency's Greenhouse Gas R&D Program touts the potential benefits of combining CCS with biomass facilities, particularly in Asia and Latin America.  The IEA theorizes that because the plant life used to make biomass fuels absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere, subsequent storage of the CO₂ released from highly efficient biomass processes could actually reduce global atmospheric concentrations of carbon.  It's like how celery has negative calories.

The report asserts that we technically have the potential to annually remove from the atmosphere up to 10 gigatons of CO₂ -- or about 1/3 of annual global emissions -- through the use of biomass integrated gasification combined cycle plants and CCS.  A more economically-feasible implementation of these nascent technologies would still lead to reductions of 3.5 metric gigatons of CO₂ annually.  Notably, even this "feasible" scenario assumes that CO₂ will be priced at 50 euros ($71) per ton, worldwide.  Even in dreams of what could be, the development of CCS still has to face the obstacle of the price on carbon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to EPA, buildings account for 36 percent of total energy consumption and 65 percent of electricity consumption in the United States. In the absence of comprehensive legislation that would put a price on carbon, which would give building owners direct incentives to implement cost-effective efficiency measures, a number of jurisdictions have started looking into and in some cases implementing requirements that at least commercial buildings be subject to energy efficiency ratings.

Last week, the Institute for Market Transformation (now isn’t that a name to put fear into the hearts of Tea Party members) released a report on the state of building rating programs in the United States. It makes interesting reading. First, while California, Washington, and Massachusetts have either enacted rating legislation are considering some kind of program, most of the action on building ratings isn’t even at the state level, it’s at the local level. This differs from EPA mileage or Energy Star ratings.

Second, most of these programs are triggered by some kind of transaction involving the building, such as sales, leases, and financings. Using a transaction trigger is understandable in that it avoids the avalanche of complaints that would likely follow any program that applied broadly to all buildings over a certain size. However, at a time when the real estate industry just led us into the worst downturn since the great depression, and prices are still low in many markets, I can certainly imagine some in the real estate industry being concerned about imposition of additional requirements that might discourage real estate transactions.

A related point is that, in markets where much of the building stock is old, many in the real estate industry are concerned that such ratings will be like putting a scarlet letter – perhaps an I for “inefficient” – on older buildings.

The IMT report describes rating and disclosure as a:

market-based policy tool to help overcome informational barriers to energy efficiency. Systematically assessing or “rating” building energy performance puts important information in the hands of owners and operators, helping them identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency. Disclosing ratings empowers tenants, investors and banks to identify and compare the energy performance of buildings, unlocking the market’s ability to drive demand and competition for energy-efficient space. The premise mirrors transparency rules in other market sectors, such as nutritional labels on food and fuel economy ratings on vehicles, which are recognized around the world as consumer protections and keystones of free and fair enterprise.

Real mom and apple pie stuff. Who could be agin’ it. Sarcasm aside, I’m not even against it (or agin’ it). The question though, is which market failure building ratings are trying to address. If the purpose of the rating program is simply to address the information failure described above, then it should unambiguously be a good thing. Indeed, if that is the case, all other things being equal, such programs should actual lead to increases in prices, as previously unrealized but available cost-effective efficiencies are implemented.

However, if the purpose is to impose on building owners the cost of the externality created by building energy consumption, one would expect building prices to decrease compared to those in jurisdictions that do not force building owners to internalize that externality, and I would suggest that a local patchwork of such regulations would not be a good thing.

I don’t even know if would be feasible to do an econometric study examining the impact of such programs on building prices. They are a lot of variables for which an economist would have to control. It will be interesting to follow this issue over the next few years. I’m keeping an open mind at this point. I don’t doubt that there are market failures resulting from imperfect information. If the programs are truly focused on remedying those failures, they might be a long-term boon – and reduce GHG emissions a bit on the side.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After the death of Waxman-Markey, and given the current political climate, cap and trade is the Legislation Which Shall Not Be Named. Instead, there is discussion of either a renewable electricity standard (RES) or clean electricity standard (CES), and the talking points for supporters concern energy security and the growth of a clean energy economy, not climate change (also known as the Reality Which Shall Not Be Named). 

Either an RES or an CES would spur use of alternatives to fossil fuels in electricity generation and would lead to decreases in CO₂ emissions. However, as a report issued yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office highlighted, neither an RES nor a CES could reduce carbon emissions in as cost-effective a manner as could a cap and trade system. Moreover, a cap and trade program would ensure a certain level of GHG reductions, while the GHG impact of any particular RES or CES program would be uncertain.

I still don't understand how a market-based regulatory approach that originally had to be sold to skeptical environmentalists because it was seen as a "license to pollute" has become the poster child for government overreaching. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, AEP announced that it was putting on hold its plans to develop commercial scale carbon capture and storage technology at its Mountaineer plant in New Haven, West Virginia. As explanation, AEP cited the uncertain status of U.S. climate policy. More specifically, AEP CEO Michael Morris noted that it is difficult to get regulatory approval to recover CCS capital costs until GHG reductions are required. 

Well, duh. 

It’s understandable that, in a world where putting a price on carbon emissions has become The Policy Which Shall Not Be Named, those who are trying to move technology forward look to other policy instruments, such as federal grants or subsidies, or tax provisions. A robust clean energy standard would provide increased incentives for technologies covered by the standard, but it is hardly the most efficient approach economically.

To this simple country lawyer’s mind, it’s not really that complicated. I can’t expect those who doubt the reality of climate change to support climate policy. For those who do, at some point we’ve got to recognize that there is no way to reduce carbon emissions, protect industry, and hold consumers harmless. The whole point is that carbon emissions are a negative externality – a cost that no one has been paying. Until we make someone pay those costs, its unrealistic to think that we can really encourage the technologies we need to develop to reduce carbon emissions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, Judge Henry Kennedy reminded us that, in thinking about whether the existing Clean Air Act requires EPA to address climate change, the actual words of the statute matter. The scope of the climate problem does not obviate the need to parse individual provisions of the CAA and Massachusetts v. EPA did not resolve all issues. 

CBD petitioned EPA to regulate GHG emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles, under § 213 of the CAA, and from aircraft engines, under § 231 of the CAA. EPA did issue advanced notices of proposed rulemakings in response to the petitions, but CBD sued, arguing that EPA has not gone far enough. 

The court rejected CBD’s claims regarding nonroad engines, because § 213 provides only that

If the Administrator determines that any emissions not referred to in [a prior paragraph] from new nonroad engines or vehicles significantly contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, the Administrator may promulgate (and from time to time revise) such regulations as the Administrator deems appropriate . . . .

To the court, the “if” and “may” language, combined with the overall structure of § 213, mandates a conclusion that EPA does not have an obligation to make an endangerment finding with regard to nonroad engines. Even so, as the court noted, EPA does have an obligation to respond fully to CBD’s petition, and EPA’s ultimate action on the petition will itself be subject to judicial review.

With respect to the petition under § 231 regarding airplane engines, the different language of that section compelled a different conclusion.  

The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of aircraft engines which in his judgment causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Again looking at the specific language of the statute, including the use of the mandatory “shall,” the court concluded that EPA cannot refuse to make endangerment findings.

The simple lesson from the case? The specific language of the statute matters. The bigger lesson? Unless Congress acts, the courts are going to be requiring EPA to take action with respect to GHG emissions under existing CAA authority. 

We’re thus left in the same bind we’ve been in since Waxman-Markey collapsed. EPA does not have the authority that it and the environmental community want and it cannot regulate GHG efficiently. At the same time, EPA does have authority that conservatives wish it did not have. True climate skeptics may never be convinced, but it still seems that a deal should be possible among environmentalists and conservatives who acknowledge the reality of climate change.

Hope springs eternal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, which was the Transport Rule, which had been the Clean Air Interstate Rule. (EPA must have decided that CSAPR results in a more mellifluous acronym.)

The rule is almost too big to describe, except in its broadest terms. EPA has provided a summary of costs and benefits, but even EPA’s summary does not really explain how the rule will be implemented.

The rough numbers at least give some idea of the scope of the rule and the problem it is addressing. EPA estimates that the rule will reduce SO₂ emissions by 73% from 2005 levels starting in 2012 and will reduce NO_x emissions by 54%. These reductions will eliminate more than 10,000 premature deaths annually, according to EPA’s analysis. Total monetized economic benefits are up to $280 billion annually. EPA estimates annual compliance costs to be only $800 million, though that does not include $1.6 billion in annual costs already being incurred to comply with CAIR. Nonetheless, EPA is going to be able to show any court reviewing this rule an extremely favorable cost-benefit analysis.

I’d be shocked if this rule doesn’t survive judicial review, assuming it is challenged. The D.C. Circuit opinion striking down CAIR pretty much told EPA what to do – it has to implement a rule that ensures that each state meets its own emissions limit. EPA has done that, allowing basically free trading within states, and allowing interstate trading – so long as each state lives within its cap. Given the requirements of the Clean Air Act, it’s hard to see how EPA isn’t required – let alone permitted – to issue at least something very like this rule.

The irony is that the Republicans in Congress who oppose all of EPA’s rules – Representative Mike Simpson (R. ID.) called EPA the “scariest agency in the federal government” – had it in their power to allow EPA to regulate in a more cost-effective manner. Three pollutant legislation that would have allowed interstate trading was on the table in 2009 and 2010. It even had some Republican support. However, now the approach seems to be that it’s better to oppose all environmental legislation, even if that includes legislation that would be unambiguously better than what’s on the books today. 

Oh, well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you who left early for the holiday weekend (You know who you are – and more power to you!), I thought I would note that EPA issued a final rule on Friday, deferring application of the Tailoring rule to biomass facilities for three years. The deferral responds to a petition from the National Alliance of Forest Owners. NAFO asserted that

there is near-universal recognition that CO2 emitted from combustion of fuels derived from biomass should be excluded from GHG regulations because production and combustion of such fuels do not increase atmospheric CO2 levels. 

Of course, EPA received comment suggesting that this may not uniformly be the case and that “the use of certain types of biomass as fuel could increase atmospheric CO₂ levels.” EPA’s bottom line? 

The net atmospheric impact of biogenic CO₂ emissions is complex enough that further consideration of this important issue is warranted.

EPA did not specifically mention what is known as the Manomet Report, which served as the basis for the decision by Massachusetts not to grant renewable energy credits, or RECs, for many biomass projects. Nonetheless, it remains notable that EPA made the deferral decision in order to avoid putting a major roadblock in the industry’s way, while Massachusetts refuses to call most biomass renewable – thus putting a major roadblock in the industry’s way. 

I understand federalism (I think). I don’t see RGGI and other state or regional GHG regulatory efforts as inconsistent with federal policy and they can provide some useful lessons. However, I don’t see any federalism advantage here. These policies are simply working at cross-purposes in an area where uniformity should certainly be the goal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced its decision in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, holding that EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law nuisance claims. I have always thought that the displacement argument was correct, so the decision is not really a surprise (and the 8-0 decision and crisp opinion only confirm that view). The decision is nonetheless important and, notwithstanding a few limitations, rather sweeping.

The Court’s analysis was straightforward. The creation of federal common law by courts is “unusual” and

[W]hen Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision rested on federal common law,” the “need for such an unusual exercise of law-making by federal courts disappears.”

Next, displacement of federal common law is not the same as preemption of state law, because there are no federalism issues. Thus, the test for displacement is “simply whether the statute ‘speak[s] directly to [the] question’ at issue.” Therefore, what EPA does in response to the congressional mandate is irrelevant to displacement. It is the CAA that matters. As the court noted, if EPA does not set emission limits, the CAA allows the plaintiffs to petition EPA to do so and EPA’s response to that petition is subject to judicial review. In short,

the relevant question for purposes of displacement is “whether the field has been occupied, not whether it has been occupied in a particular manner.”

The Court also provided a forceful argument for judicial restraint in these kinds of cases:

            It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions. Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.

The decision did not address whether these or other plaintiffs could bring actions under state nuisance law, but I would not put a lot of money on those cases succeeding. The decision also does not address cases such as Kivilina v. ExxonMobil, in which the plaintiffs do not seek regulation, but only damages. However, I’m skeptical about the survival of those cases as well.

The real question following yesterday’s decision is whether Republicans in Congress will read it carefully. Will they continue to press to eliminate EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases? Doing so would revive public nuisance suits, unless the legislation also barred federal courts from hearing such cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a relatively quiet period, there were a number of items of interest on the air/climate front this week. First, AEP announced that upcoming pollution controls would result in shutting down 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity, or 25% of its coal fleet. AEP also announced that it would spend $6 billion to $8 billion in bringing the rest of its fleet into compliance.

On the flip side of this issue, the Bipartisan Policy Center issued a report concluding that compliance with the various EPA rules in the works (Clean Air Transport Rule, Utility MACT Rule, coal combustion ash rule, Clean Water Act intake structure rule, and NSPS for GHG) would not have a significant impact on electric system reliability. The quick summary is that most of the plants that will close are uncontrolled, older, smaller, plants that already don’t run much, particularly with natural gas prices low. The report acknowledges that some of these small plants are important in addressing peak loads in some areas, but concludes that concerns in those areas can be addressed with appropriate planning.

Next came news that EPA has reached agreement to delay its second round GHG NSPS proposal from July 26, 2011 to September 30, 2011 – though the final rule is still targeted for May 26, 2012. EPA has received extensive comment on this issue and my take is that there is no hidden agenda here; EPA is just trying to take those comments into account and be responsive, where possible.

Finally, former Representative Bob Inglis, whose support for action on climate change was sufficient to get him defeated by a Tea Party Candidate in the GOP primary in 2010, has announced formation of what is described as a “conservative coalition” to address climate change. Money quote:

Conservatives typically are people who try to be cognizant of risk and move to minimize risk. To be told of risk and to consciously decide to disregard it seems to be the opposite of conservative…. What I hope to do is be part of an effort that calls conservatives to return to conservatism and to turn away from the populist rejection of science.

All I can say is that I wish former Representative Inglis the best of luck in that endeavor.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Demand for allowances in the nation's only cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions fell sharply last week.  At the 12th Quarterly Auction of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), held on June 8th,  70% of the current compliance period allowances went unsold.  As the RGGI Market Monitor Report highlights, with only 25 bidders participating in the auction of the 2009-2011 compliance period allowances, only 30% of the 42 million allowances offered for sale by the 10-state group (including New Jersey) were actually purchased at the floor price of $1.89.  Demand for future allowances, good for the 2012-2014 compliance period, fared only slightly better, with the 5 participants in that auction buying just over 50% of the 1.86 million allowances offered by the still-participating states (minus New Jersey, which supplied allowances for the 2009-2011 auction, but not the 2012-2014 auction) also at the floor price of $1.89.  

This sharp drop in the sale of allowances at auction is surprising, particularly given that the last auction, held in March, sold out of allowances for the first time since Auction #8.  The number of participants who qualified to bid at the March and June auctions did not differ much -- 49 and 47, respectively -- but the number of participants who actually submitted bids fell sharply, from 36 to 25.  An even more significant difference is the number of allowances that each of these bidders bought.  For instance, while the top two bidders in March bought over 10 million allowances each, the top bidders in June bought just 2.6 million and 1.9 million respectively. 

As yesterday's ClimateWire highlighted, theories about the causes of this surprising drop abound.  My favorite is that companies regulated by RGGI already have most of the allowances they will need to cover their emissions in the compliance period ending in December, and these unsold allowances are primarily due to the excess supply under the RGGI cap.  Other theories cite to New Jersey's recent announcement that it would withdraw from the program by the end of the year as a sign to would-be-buyers that the program is threatened.  But New Jersey's break with RGGI will not be as quick as initially reported.  The official letter from New Jersey's Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection outlines that the state will continue to participate in the allowance auctions for calendar year 2011, as it did in the June auction last week, and that regulated power plants in New Jersey are not being relieved of their obligation to hold sufficient allowances to cover their emissions in the initial compliance period, which ends on December 31, 2011. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The uncertain and often lengthy time to get permitting decisions is always near the top of the list of industry complaints. Section 165 of the Clean Air Act provides some relief by requiring certain permit decisions to be made within one year. Last week, in Avenal Power Center v. EPA, District Judge Richard Leon, in what may comfortably be described as a strongly-worded opinion, held that EPA may not circumvent the one-year limit on permit decisions by carving out from the one-year period the time spent by the Environmental Appeals Board reviewing EPA’s permit decision. 

In March 2008, Avenal Power filed an application for a PSD permit necessary to construct a new gas-fired power plant in the San Joaquin Valley in California. When EPA had not issued a decision within two years, Avenal sued. In February 2011, Gina McCarthy, head of EPA’s air office, announced that EPA would issue a permit decision by May 27, 2011. However, Judge Leon found EPA’s commitment to be “disingenuous,” because EPA's permit decision would be subject to EAB review, and EPA acknowledged that EAB review could take 6-18 months.

Judge Leon’s analysis was, in keeping with the statutory language, quite simple. Section 165 requires permit decisions within one year. EPA’s decision to provide appeals of permits to the EAB is a creature of regulation, not statute. The notion that EPA’s regulatory process could trump the statutory requirements is, to Judge Leon, “absurd.”

It is axiomatic that an act of Congress that is patently clear and unambiguous - such as this requirement in the CAA - cannot be overridden by a regulatory process created for the convenience of an Administrator, no matter how much notice and comment preceded its creation. "The rulemaking power granted to an administrative agency charged with the administration of a federal statute is not the power to make law. Rather it is the power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute."

EPA apparently tried to persuade the court that section 165 is sufficiently ambiguous to give EPA discretion regarding whether it must squeeze the EAB process into the one-year time frame. Judge Leon’s response to what he called EPA’s “self-serving misinterpretation of Congress’s mandate”?

"Horsefeathers!"

One parochial note for my Massachusetts readers: Massachusetts DEP has recently announced that its permits – although labeled as “Final” – are not final until DEP's own internal adjudicatory hearing process has been completed. Massachusetts law has nothing comparable to Section 165 of the CAA, so MassDEP’s interpretation adds the insult of delay inherent in adjudicatory proceedings to the injury caused by the length of the normal permit process..

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) took a bit of a blow today when Governor Christie of New Jersey, the second-largest of the 10-state group, announced that the state was leaving the organization.  This comes only a few weeks after the narrow defeat of bills to repeal RGGI in New Hampshire, Delaware and Maine.  However, RGGI announced on its website that the participating states would proceed with their 12th quarterly auction as scheduled on June 8th. 

Despite Governor Christie’s announcement, official withdrawal from RGGI requires legislative action, namely repeal of the provisions of New Jersey’s Global Warming Solutions Fund Statute that established the cap-and-trade program within the state.  Currently pending before the New Jersey legislature is a bill that would repeal these sections and transfer any remaining money from allowances into the state's general fund.

So what happens now?  Will the nine remaining states reduce their own RGGI allowance budgets in order to recognize the NJ allowances already sold?  Or will they proceed as if New Jersey was never part of the program in the first place, and invalidate the allowances? 

In the press release responding to the announcement, the organization said only that “the participating states will evaluate how New Jersey’s proposed withdrawal might affect New Jersey allowances currently in circulation.”   It will be interesting to see if the New Jersey-based power plants which have been buying allowances along the way at quarterly auctions, in preparation for the end of the 3-year compliance period this December, will demand a refund from the state for their potentially worthless allowances. In addition to the loss of significant RGGI-allowance revenue going forward, this could create a problem for this already cash-strapped state.   

In the last two years, New Jersey took in over $113 million from the sale of allowances in the nine auctions in which it participated. This money was divided up in a number of ways – including the Governor’s recent withdrawal of $65.2 million to balance the current state budget.  New Jersey has also already awarded $29.6 million in allowance proceeds to 12 large scale energy efficiency and renewable energy projects through its Clean Energy Solutions Capital Investment Loan/Grant Program. According to New Jersey's statements through the RGGI website, these programs would create enough renewable energy to meet the demands of more than 19,600 New Jersey households each year, and would avoid 1.7 million tons of CO₂ over the lifetime of the projects.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last week, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) filed with the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy of the state legislature proposed final amendments to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) regulations governing the eligibility of woody biomass facilities and fuels to qualify to earn renewable energy credits (RECs).  DOER originally issued a draft of these regulations in September 2010, and made revisions after receiving written comments and holding 2 public hearings.  In addition to the revised regulations, DOER issued a regulatory package containing two sets of guidance in the forms of Excel spreadsheets, the Guideline for the Calculation of Overall Efficiency and Lifecycle GHG Analysis and the Guideline for the Determination of Forest Derived Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel. The Joint Committee has 30 days to review the rules and submit its comments to DOER for additional review. DOER hopes to promulgate the final rules early this summer.

At a time when the EPA appears to be favoring biomass a fuel (with actions like exempting it from the tailoring rule for 3 years), Massachusetts is making it very difficult to qualify “electricity only” biomass as renewable and eligible for RECs, as the rules strongly favor combined heat and power uses.   While the proposed changes to the regulation do not ban the development of biomass facilities in Massachusetts, they do set a very high bar to qualify for renewable energy credits under the RPS – so high that many believe that large scale biomass units may not be viable absent significant technological advances. Under the regulation, the term Eligible Biomass Fuel will include things like woody pellets, agricultural waste and by-products, food or vegetative material, algae and biogases, but officially excludes Construction and Demolition Waste.

Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel, the largest subset of eligible fuels, is now limited to forest-derived residues from timber operations, limited thinnings and invasive growth; forest salvage from storms or pest infestations; non-forest derived residues from lumber mills and woodworking shops, trees removed in converting forests to agricultural, residential or commercial uses (so long as all other permits have been obtained), yard wastes, and maintenance of parks and rights of way. The final category of Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel is “dedicated energy crops” which includes wood (but not cellulosic fuel) that has been purposefully grown to produce fuel, but contains a remarkably broad restriction that the trees may not have been grown in a place that “sequestered significant amounts of carbon” such as a forest, or on land that has the potential to support crops grown for human consumption as food. 

Biomass units are required to provide to DOER in their applications a lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and demonstrate emission reductions of at least 50% over 20 years compared to a new, combined-cycle natural gas generator using the most efficient commercially available technology. DOER will provide a standard analytical methodology in another set of guidance to accompany the Statement of Qualification Application. Under both the proposed regulations and Guidance #1 on GHG lifecycle analysis, facilities must account for direct emissions from production of the fuel stock and delivery to the biomass facility, as well as indirect emissions from land use changes, and temporal changes in forest carbon sequestration and emissions resulting from biomass harvests, regrowth, and avoided decomposition.

One new provision added since the September draft requires that the amount of forest-derived biomass material eligible to be removed be limited based on soil types and as set forth in Guidance #2 on Forest-Derived Fuel.  The regulation and guidance set a cap by percentage of weight of the total amount of material harvested from the site, ranging from zero (for very poor quality soils) to 40% (for highly productive soils) – the rest of the biomass harvested must be left in the forest for soil nutrient retention. To effectuate this requirement, foresters will have to develop a soil map for each harvest area and determine the maximum eligible biomass tonnage that can be removed. The September draft had set this cap at 15% across the board.

Both the September draft and this week’s proposed final rules require that biomass units meet a minimum overall efficiency rate of 40%, determined based on the biomass input heat content of the fuel, and accounting for GHG emissions associated with fuel refining and processing.  If operating at that level of efficiency, the unit will receive one-half REC for each MWh of generation. Units operating at an overall efficiency of 60% and above would receive a whole REC credit for each MWh they generate, and units between 40 and 60% would receive a proportional fraction of a REC.

Under the revised regulations, electricity generated by a unit that is used on-site (“behind-the-meter”) is included in the calculations of the unit’s overall efficiency. “Merchantable bio-products” (chemicals like additives and lubricants) created from the woody fuels at an on-site bio-refinery will also be netted out in calculating overall efficiency.  Finally, and perhaps most significantly, productive use of the large quantities of heat generated by the biomass facilities, so long as it falls within the defined term “useful thermal energy” under the regulation, will also be included in the overall efficiency calculation.  However, the revised regulation clarifies that any thermal energy used to dry or refine green woody biomass for use as a fuel will not count towards overall efficiency.  

Biomass generating units that have already secured their Statement of Qualifications will also have to demonstrate compliance with the new regulation. They must prove use of Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel by 2013, and comply with all provisions, including the requirement for overall efficiency, by 2015.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thursday afternoon, EPA and the Tennessee Valley Authority announced one of the largest pollution reduction consent decrees in US history – resulting in between $3 to $5 billion of investment in air pollution controls, and retirement of almost one-third of TVA’s coal-fired generating units within the next few years.  Over the next decade, it will reduce TVA's total emissions of nitrogen oxides by 69% and sulfur dioxide by 67%.  Although the agreement provides a timely victory for EPA amid the current backlash against it in Congress, the settlement actually relates to a New Source Review (NSR) suit commenced by EPA during the Clinton Administration in 1999.  The consent decree resolves all alleged past preconstruction violations, as well as alleged violations of the New Source Performance Standards and Title V regulations.

The TVA operates 59 coal-fired boilers at 11 plants in Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee, and supplies power to around 9 million people in its service area that spans most of the southeastern US. The settlement involves all 11 plants, and includes an obligation to address 92% of TVA’s coal-fired system between 2011 and 2018 by either installing state of the art pollution controls like SCRs and FGD or repowering with renewable biomass. Another 18 coal-fired units, about 16% of TVA’s coal-fired generating system, totaling 2,700 MW of capacity, will be permanently retired – the largest retirement commitment seen under EPA’s Coal-Fired Power Plan initiative, which has settled 22 such NSR cases so far.  However, Greenwire reports that, even before today's announcement, TVA was already planning to retire about 1,000 MW of coal-fired capacity.

I found the option to repower the units with renewable biomass to be particularly interesting, especially given EPA’s current proposal to continue studying biomass emissions for three years before requiring Clean Air Act permits for greenhouse gas emissions from biomass sources.  In the agreement, “Renewable Biomass” is defined very broadly, with no time-frames or extensive restrictions. Instead, it includes, in part, organic matter that comes from forests or grasslands, as well as residues and byproducts from agriculture, forestry and paper industry. Under the agreement, the repowered units would be deemed “new” emission units, themselves subject to New Source Review and other permitting requirements.

The settlement also includes $10 million in penalties -- $8 million paid to EPA, $1 million paid to Tennessee and $500,000 each paid to Alabama and Kentucky -- as well as $350 million in environmental mitigation projects, including $240 million to be spent on TVA-run energy efficiency projects and $60 million to be divided among Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee for the states to implement projects of their choosing, so long as they're within the categories specified in the consent decree.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The issue of guidance v. regulation has been in the news a lot recently. Recently, the anti-guidance side got what some might consider unwelcome assistance from John Graham, who reviewed regulations in the Bush White House. Graham was quoted as saying that:

The whole idea of guidance not being a rule -- there has to be an arrow shot right through the heart of that. [Congress should pass legislation] to make sure that things that look like a duck and quack like a duck are a duck.

Of course, I agree with John Graham about guidance. The only problem is that most observers think that Graham would like to put an arrow through the heart of the real ducks as well. It’s one thing to oppose guidance, because guidance is almost always an effort to impose further regulations without the protections inherent in the regulatory process. It’s another matterif you oppose the regulatory process as well.

Regulations masquerading as guidance? I’m opposed. Regulations imposed that aren’t as cost-effective as they could be? Let’s do better. Throw out the baby with the bathwater? Probably not a good idea.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If anyone had any doubts about the significance of the conventional pollutant regulations that EPA would be rolling out, even in the absence of a full cap-and-trade program for GHG, Wednesday’s release of EPA’s revised power plant MACT proposal should go a long way towards eliminating those doubts. As most readers know, the rule replaces the Bush-era MACT rule that would have created a trading program.

The rule poses a problem for critics of EPA. While arguments can be made about the feasibility of some of the standards and the cost to comply, they cannot credibly allege that it is a back-door effort to regulate coal out of existence. The rule is required by statute and the courts already rejected EPA’s attempt to implement a trading program for mercury.

Apparently, EPA acknowledges that this rule will result in the shut-down of approximately 10 GW of coal-fired capacity, though EPA is taking the position that most of that capacity would shut down for other reasons.

As to substance, the rule is too long – the currently available version weighs in at 946 pages – to describe here. EPA has a reasonably helpful summary, though it doesn’t describe the actual standards. Suffice it to say that, given the absence of a trading program, and the imposition of very low emission standards for mercury and PM (or non-mercury metals), control technology will be necessary to comply with the standards. I don’t think that there’s any such thing as low mercury or low PM coal. The days of uncontrolled coal units are coming to an end.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, in discussing the Administration’s brief in the American Electric Power case, I praised the nuanced and persuasive approach that the Administration took in seeking reversal of the 2^nd Circuit opinion allowing the states' public nuisance climate litigation to go forward. The states seeking to prosecute the law suit have now filed their brief and it turns out that they also do nuance. I still think that the Supreme Court will reverse, however.

I’m not going to get into the standing issue. I don't believe that the states should have standing, but it’s not obvious, given the result in Massachusetts v. EPA, that the Supreme Court will agree.

I find the displacement issue more interesting. The 2^nd Circuit held that the Clean Air Act had not displaced federal common law, because EPA wasn’t actually regulating GHG. Of course, EPA has reversed course and, at least until the GOP in the House has its way, it does now regulate GHG under the CAA. As a result, as the Administration put it in its brief:

Although EPA has not yet done precisely what plaintiffs demand here…, that is not the relevant test. … The question is whether the field has been occupied, not whether it has been occupied in a particular manner.

The plaintiff states disagree. In what is probably a shrewd concession, the states acknowledge that, were EPA to issue new source performance standards for GHG, such standards would displace federal common law, because, while they would not directly subject existing facilities to controls, they would lead to follow-on regulation by EPA requiring states to impose GHG standards on existing plants. Until existing plants are regulated, according to the states, common law has not been displaced. Thus, the states argue, the Supreme Court should either affirm the 2^nd Circuit or simply dismiss the appeal – the states further acknowledge that, on remand, the District Court could reasonably stay the nuisance case to see if EPA in fact issues NSPS for GHG.

Shrewd and nuanced, but I’m still not buying it. I think that once EPA’s GHG regulatory program came into effect, federal common law was displaced. Of course, I don’t get a vote, so we’ll have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While EPA remains under attack by the GOP-majority House, that doesn’t mean that coal is off the hook. To the contrary, coal remains under attack itself. A number of recent stories demonstrate the multi-pronged effort by those who want to reduce or eliminate use of coal. For example, the Environmental Integrity Project and two Texas-based NGOs just filed suit against the Lower Colorado River Authority's Fayette Power Project, alleging violations of NSR/PSD requirements and exceedances of particulate limits in the plant’s permit. There is no doubt that there is a concerted effort by NGOs to make life difficult for coal. Thus, even if Congress succeeds in muzzling EPA to some extent, citizen suits will only proliferate, unless Congress also amends the CAA and other environmental statutes to eliminate citizen suit provisions.

Next up? A report that TransAlta Corp. has reached an agreement with the State of Washington to shut down Washington’s last coal-fired power plant. The agreement gives TransAlta until 2020 and 2025, respectively, to shut the two boilers at the plant. The story serves as a reminder that, even aside from NGOs, some states are looking to phase out coal-fired generation.

Let’s not forget that coal mining is under attack as well. Here too, notwithstanding Congressional efforts to protect coal mining, NGOs remain active. Daily Environment just reported that a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against Highland Mining Co., ordering it to stop work on its 635-acre Reylas Surface Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. The suit alleges violations of NEPA and § 404 of the CWA.

Finally, we have the economic side of the issue. One factor coal has always had on its side – until recently – was its cost advantage over natural gas. With that cost difference eroded, simple economics may do what years of environmental enforcement couldn’t. Thus we have John Rowe of Excelon, which, of course, has almost no coal assets, asserting that EPA regulation will not kill coal, but only drive out old, inefficient plants. Heck, we even have the Wall Street Journal asking whether coal is “The Energy of the Past.”

Time will tell, but it is at least plain that the current GOP ascendancy has not solved all of coal’s problems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 A year has passed since the SEC issued an interpretive release describing the kinds of climate change related disclosures that the Commission believes should be reported by all publicly traded companies, but many questions still remain regarding how to comply.  With annual 10-K filings due at the end of this month, concrete examples of best practices in disclosures could be very helpful.  Potentially useful is a new report by Ceres that examines the state of disclosures in FY 2009 SEC filings to identify specific examples of how well companies are disclosing information that is important to investors. 

The report identifies five categories of climate risks and opportunities: regulatory risk and opportunity; indirect consequences or business trends; physical impacts; greenhouse gas emissions; and strategic analysis of climate risk and emissions management. Using a system to rank various disclosures within these categories as poor, fair, and good – no company’s practices qualified as “excellent” – the report provides specific examples of what works and what does not.  

The report also includes an 11-point checklist with recommendations for improving disclosures. The recommendations include integrating consideration of climate risk and opportunity throughout the firm, creating a board-level committee with specific responsibility for climate change risks, and using specific numbers and dollar figures in disclosures to quantify emissions, risks and opportunities whenever possible. 

Of course, the report is not legal advice on what any company should disclose to the SEC, and Ceres has no authority to require companies to follow its suggestions.  Ceres is a network of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups with a mission to integrate sustainability into capital markets.  Not surprisingly, the report promotes that agenda, ranking the more specific disclosures higher, and encouraging increased transparency in companies' reports.

Other reports and resources also provide guidance in this area: both general statements of investor expectations such as the Global Framework for Climate Risk Disclosure and the ASTM Standard on Financial Disclosures Attributed to Climate Change; as well as sector-specific rules and guidance like the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey, and the Global Climate Disclosure Frameworks for the oil and gas, automotive, and electric utility sectors.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vapor intrusion is the issue de jour at federal and state Superfund sites. On the federal side, EPA announced in January that it was considering adding vapor intrusion criteria to its calculation of hazard ranking scores. Frankly, as a concept, it’s hard to dispute. In fact, aside from when actual public water supplies are contaminated, indoor air is probably about the only risk associated with Superfund sites that we should care about. Every analysis EPA has ever done has shown that risks associated with Superfund sites are otherwise overestimated and it is not a cost-effective place to be putting environmental protection dollars. The question of course is how to go about regulating indoor air.

MassDEP is attempting to answer this question at the state level as we speak. In December, MassDEP released its draft vapor intrusion guidance document. The Guidance, including appendices, totals 142 pages and 2.2 MB of pdf files. You probably know where I’m headed with this. How can any set of documents that long be appropriate for guidance, you may ask. Like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, I’ll tell you. I don’t know.

Today, NAIOP provided MassDEP with 54 single-spaced pages of comments on the draft guidance. Kudos to NAIOP’s 21E Committee, and particularly Ned Abelson, for truly herculean efforts in putting together these comments. The problems I identify below are all described in detail in the NAIOP comments.

There are many substantive issues with the Guidance. Here are two high-level ones:

It would be another step away from the risk-based program that Massachusetts pioneered almost 20 years ago. Whatever MassDEP officials may say, there’s a lot of evidence that those actually running the program simply don’t trust the privatized risk-based system that has been such a success.

The Guidance will make it very difficult for sites with even potential VI issues to achieve regulatory closure. The difficulty in obtaining closure will, in turn, discourage brownfields redevelopers from pursuing VI sites. The disincentive will, in turn, mean that fewer sites will actually be cleaned up. How will that achieve MassDEP’s goals?

In any case, how can this possibly be implemented as guidance? Simply put, anyone who thinks that the Guidance will not be rigidly implemented by MassDEP is delusional. My favorite discussion of this issue is contained in the 2000 Appalachian Power decision. In dismissing EPA’s contention that the guidance document at issue in that case was not binding, the Court said this in response to EPA’s reference to its boilerplate statement that the guidance created no rights: 

“[R]ights” may not be created but “obligations” certainly are…. The entire Guidance, from beginning to end – except the last paragraph – reads like a ukase.

Here’s just one example, to wrap up an already overly-long post. In determining whether basements should be evaluated for VI purposes as living spaces, the Guidance provides that “any basement with at least seven feet of head room in an occupied residential dwelling should be considered a living space.” What’s the likelihood that any street-level bureaucrat at MassDEP will ever allow any basement with at least seven feet of headspace to be considered as anything other than a living space? 

Sounds like a rule to me. Sounds like regulation – not guidance. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As almost everyone knows by now, EPA finally issued its long-awaited final rule on Boilers, Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), and Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) yesterday. The rule is too complicated even to summarize here. EPA has a useful fact sheet for that purpose.

I’d like to focus on a few broader issues. The rule has widely been seen as the Obama administration’s first formal acknowledgment of the anti-regulation political climate currently sweeping Washington. Indeed, the Times began its story as follows:

Responding to a changed political climate and a court-ordered deadline, the Obama administration issued significantly revised new air pollution rules on Wednesday that will make it easier for operators of thousands of industrial boilers and incinerators to meet federal air quality standards.

It’s not obvious to me that the instant punditry analysis is correct. EPA had received an enormous number of comments on the rule prior to the November elections. The regulated community had made a fairly strong case that the proposed standards simply couldn’t be met. EPA faced a real possibility of losing in court if it went forward with the proposed rule. Only time will tell if EPA has truly developed a new-found concern for the economic impacts of its rules.

Regardless of the reason for EPA’s change of heart, I think it is fair to say that the rule represents a triumph of the rule-making process. EPA issued a proposed rule, took thousands of comments, and – whatever its motivation – changed the rule in response to the comments, making compliance significantly less costly, while still achieving most of the benefits of the original proposal. 

The boiler rule was never one that could have been issued as guidance – it was statutorily mandated, for one thing – but I think that the boiler rule still provides a stark contrast with agency development of guidance. Guidance is not subject to the formal notice and comment process. Moreover, even where agencies do take comment on guidance documents, the very flexibility guidance supposedly provides makes agencies less responsive to comments. They can always say that the guidance will be interpreted flexibly in light of adverse comments.

Finally, to the extent that the economic concerns were part of EPA’s motivation, I can only say, hurray! Not simply because EPA considered the cost of the rule, but because EPA considered the cost-effectiveness of the rule. EPA can almost always generate an analysis demonstrating that the benefits of a rule exceed its costs, but that’s not really the proper criterion. If EPA could obtain 90% of the benefits of a rule with an alternative rule that would impose only 10% of the costs, I would vote for the alternative rule. If the boiler rule represents one small step towards increased use of cost-effectiveness analysis by EPA, then it will be worth its costs, even aside from the substantial health benefits EPA projects to result from its implementation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Back in my public policy days, there was much discussion of “muddling through.” When I look at recent developments on the climate and air regulation front, I just see a muddle. First, we have Gina McCarthy, saying that EPA wants to walk before it runs, and assuring utility executives that New Source Performance Standards for GHG emissions will not have a “dramatic effect.” McCarthy further said that EPA will take a “common sense approach,” comparing it to EPA’s approach to the GHG BACT guidance, which she described as “not overly ambitious.”

At the same time, the first PSD permit for GHG has been issued, to Nucor Corporation's direct reduced iron manufacturing facility in Louisiana. While praising Nucor for utilizing DRI technology, which apparently generates lower GHG emissions than plants utilizing coke, and while acknowledging that this was one of the first GHG PSD applications, EPA raised two concerns that may be troubling to permittees. First, the permit would require a package of good combustion practices, but did not include a numerical limit for GHG emissions. EPA commented that the permit had not justified why a numerical limit would not be feasible. 

Second, EPA noted that the permit did not provide a basis for the conclusion that carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, would not be feasible for this project. EPA’s comments referred to EPA’s December 2010 GHG BACT guidance as noting that CCS is generally available for iron and steel manufacturing facilities.

To EPA, the BACT guidance may be common sense. However, to the regulated community, it creates uncertainty. Uncertainty means risk. Risk means costs. Will EPA insist on numerical standards? What are those standards going to be? Based on the EPA's comments regarding CCS, it appears that EPA may be intending to treat the GHG BACT guidance as having the force of regulation. If so, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds – the absence of the protection provided by notice and comment rulemaking and the absence of the flexibility in utilizing guidance, rather than regulation. 

Moreover, EPA does not appear to understand the scope of the uncertainty created by such actions. EPA may allow the Nucor facility to proceed without CCS, once the permit application is amended to include an explanation of the infeasibility of CCS. However, there is no point in requiring such an analysis unless there is some possibility that CCS may be required. The regulated community – and state regulators – are left wondering under what circumstances CCS would be considered feasible. The same is true with the analysis of coal and natural gas. It’s difficult to read the BACT guidance without concluding that, under some circumstances, BACT for coal might be gas. However, we don’t know yet what those circumstance would be. 

On the other side of the aisle, as it were, we have the muddle that is Congressional opposition to EPA GHG regulation. Fred Upton, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has described the NSPS standards as a “backdoor attempt to implement their failed job-killing cap-and-trade scheme.” Sadly, I only wish it were so. He seems to think that describing NSPS standards as a “cap-and-trade” scheme is the worst kind of insult. However, he’s got it backwards. First, unlike the cap-and-trade plan, the NSPS regulations are required under the existing Clean Air Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. Second, cap-and-trade was proposed precisely because it has been demonstrated to be an economically efficient way to attain pollution reductions. It’s really only fair to describe it as job-killing if you don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. (I’m too tired to go there today.) If Congress doesn’t want EPA to kill jobs, then give it the tools to regulate as efficiently as possible. 

Moreover, as noted in the Daily Environment Report, while Congress is up in arms about EPA climate rules, Congress is extremely unlikely to limit EPA’s authority to issue the Clean Air Mercury Rule and Clean Air Transport Rule, both of which are going to have more significant impact on power generators and electricity prices than GHG NSPS.

Occupying the middle ground – if not the muddle ground – is Senator Rockefeller, attempting the most delicate of balancing acts. While still complaining about EPA’s veto of the mountaintop removal permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine and backing legislation which would delay EPA’s GHG rules for two years, Rockefeller criticized “EPA-bashing.” Rockefeller’s view is apparently just that coal is important, coal cannot survive serious GHG regulation without CCS, and CCS requires more time. We’ll see how his dance plays back home and with the Chamber of Commerce. I thought that we are now against backing particular technological solutions and I certainly believe that sooner or later, we're just going to have to bite the bullet and put a price on carbon.

For now, though, I guess we’re just muddling through.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, the United States filed its brief in American Electric Power v. Connecticut. The brief is a nicely nuanced and persuasive argument for dismissal of plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims against five large power generators. The brief is nuanced in that it acknowledges that plaintiffs have Article III standing – allowing the Court to avoid reaching a constitutional standing issue – and provides a vehicle for the Court to avoid reaching the political question doctrine issue.

Instead, the brief makes two fairly simply points – and makes them convincingly. First, the brief argues that plaintiffs’ lack “prudential standing,” because their complaint raises “generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” As the brief notes:

Global climate change will potentially affect the property interests of most landowners. And the effects of climate change will not be limited to landowners; they will also be felt by individuals, corporations, and governmental entities throughout the Nation and around the world. … The problem is not simply that many plaintiffs could bring such claims and that many defendants could be sued. It is also that essentially any potential plaintiff could claim to have been injured by any (or all) of the potential defendants.

A court – when no statute or regulation is in place to provide guidance – is simply not well-suited to balance the various interests of, and the burdens reasonably and fairly to be borne by, the many entities, groups, and sectors of the economy that, although not parties to the litigation, are affected by a phenomenon that spans the globe.

The brief is even more convincing in demonstrating that the common law claims have been displaced by the regulatory actions that EPA has taken under the Clean Air Act since Massachusetts v. EPA.   Specifically, it doesn’t matter that EPA’s regulation doesn’t do what the plaintiffs are seeking in the litigation:

Although EPA has not yet done precisely what plaintiffs demand here…, that is not the relevant test. … The question is whether the field has been occupied, not whether it has been occupied in a particular manner.

Moreover, and this is the crux of the displacement argument, the brief notes that:

Plaintiffs’ attempt to secure court-ordered emissions reductions from emitters of their choosing on their own schedule would be plainly inconsistent with EPA’s systematic, phased approach.

Interestingly, the brief makes the point that:

Displacement also occurs when an agency, whose comprehensive statutory authority to regulate the subject matter has been triggered, decides to postpone or even forgo the imposition of regulatory standards, where the decision is made through the exercise of that authority on the basis of a weighing of relevant considerations under the statutory scheme. [My emphasis.]

This is one issue that could come back to haunt both the government and global warming skeptics in Congress. As you will probably infer from my description of the brief, I expect the United States to win this case. However, while the prudential standing issue is persuasive, I think that the displacement is much the stronger argument – but only because EPA has in fact done something about GHG. What’s notable about the language in the brief is that, even if EPA were to make a formal decision to postpone GHG regulation under the CAA, such an decision would justify continued displacement of public nuisance claims, under the theory of the government’s brief. On the other hand, if Congress were to amend the CAA to preclude EPA regulations – and unless the legislation specifically precluded nuisance claims as well – such action would then revive the potential for nuisance claims, which is probably the last outcome that power generators would want to see.

As I have said before on this issue, be careful what you wish for.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, I noted that, in the absence of comprehensive climate legislation, U.S. carbon policy would be a mish-mash of several elements – including more NSR enforcement. In fact, Phillip Brooks, director of EPA’s Air Enforcement Division, had just told an ALI/ABA forum that EPA’s NSR enforcement initiative is alive and well and he predicted more closures of old coal plants as a result of EPA’s NSR enforcement. Earlier this month, proving that Brooks meant what he said, the United States sued Ameren Corporation, alleging NSR violations at Ameren’s Rush Island facility in Festus, Missouri. 

Apparently, I am not the only person who has noticed the connection between NSR enforcement and efforts to make life generally more difficult for coal plants. (Perhaps Mr. Brooks should not have been so explicit in his ALI/ABA remarks.) This week, Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt wrote to Lisa Jackson, criticizing the Ameren enforcement action and describing it as “another backdoor method used by the EPA to broadly penalize the use of coal in the United States.”

Blunt also criticized the “tsunami” of regulations by EPA that will increase the cost of coal-fired electricity generation. We had previously noted the Credit Suisse report which predicted the closure of more than 50 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. Blunt referred to a study by the North Electric Reliability Corporation which made a similar prediction.

As my readers know, I dislike the NSR program and the enforcement initiative. I do think that many of these projects, often 15, 20, or 25  or more years ago, truly were thought routine, even if EPA may be able to persuade a court that they were not “Routine Maintenance” within the meaning of the regulations. The NSR program is certainly not a cost-effective way to regulate. However, NSR is part of the statute, EPA believes in it, and the case law is, from EPA’s perspective, at worst ambiguous and at best favorable. I expect that EPA would be pursuing many of these cases, even if climate change were not an issue and CO₂ not considered a problem. 

Is EPA sad that its NSR enforcement has the collateral impact of making coal less economic so that small coal-fired plants retire early, thus reducing GHG emissions? I doubt it. Does the climate change issue increase EPA’s enthusiasm? Perhaps so. The question is whether this added motivation is relevant. EPA’s intent may not be relevant to the courts, but it certainly looks as though it is relevant to Congress.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Justice Brandeis famously suggested that states may “serve as a laboratory” for the rest of the country. If this is so, I think it is fair to say that U.S. EPA has not accepted the results of the biomass experiment conducted in Massachusetts. Last year, following receipt of a study regarding the GHG emission implications of various types of biomass fuels, Massachusetts decided to severely restrict the circumstances in which biomass would be considered a renewable fuel.

Earlier this week, EPA decided not to go along with the restrictive approach taken by Massachusetts, and granted a petition to stay application of GHG permitting to biomass facilities, while EPA further studies the issue. Specifically, EPA promised to amend the tailoring rule to exempt biomass facilities for three years. In a letter EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent to Senator Stabenow as part of the announcement, Jackson stated that:

biomass can be part of a national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and efforts are underway to foster the expansion of renewable resources and promote biomass as ways of addressing climate change and enhancing forest management.

It’s one thing for a state to differ from the federal government or other states on matters of policy. However, my guess is that the federal EPA and the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts have pretty much the same policy goal – reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This is really a question of science. Does use of biomass help reduce GHG emissions? Shouldn’t the answer be the same everywhere?

I’m not a scientist and cannot comment on the reliability of the Massachusetts biomass study. (And I should disclose that our firm has represented the proponent of one of the biomass plants in Massachusetts.) However, it does seem to me that this is one area in which a uniform national policy is the right approach. Let’s give EPA the three years that it apparently needs to sort out the issue, and then have one policy applicable nationwide.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With everyone in agreement that cap-and-trade legislation is dead in Congress for the near term, attention is now turning to whether Congress might be able to pass some kind of renewable or clean energy standard. In fact, even Thomas Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sworn foe of cap-and-trade legislation, is saying that the Chamber could support some kind of climate change legislation – presumably a CES including nuclear power – as long as the legislation precludes EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority. 

For those who are taking the half a loaf approach to climate legislation, I recommend this post by Rob Stavins at Harvard and Dick Schmalensee at MIT, which compares cap-and-trade legislation with CES legislation. The piece is a remarkably cogent short analysis of the issue, so I hate to excerpt something which can be read in a few minutes. Nonetheless, for the lazy among my readers, the bottom line is that:

Carbon cap-and-trade has been killed in the Senate, presumably because of its costs. Renewable electricity standards or clean energy standards would accomplish considerably less and would impose much higher costs per ton of emissions reduction than cap-and-trade would. This does not sound like a step forward.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, the United States brought another NSR/PSD enforcement action, this time concerning the Homer City Plant, in Pennsylvania. The suit itself isn’t big news, though it’s helpful to have periodical reminders that the NSR enforcement initiative remains active at EPA and DOJ; it is a significant part of the government’s arsenal against traditional pollutants.

It’s also important to remember that, in the absence of comprehensive climate legislation, the NSR enforcement initiative has become part of the government’s climate strategy. The plant spokesman stated that the plant is “positioned quite well to succeed in whatever environment we might be looking at in the future." However, Randy Francisco, Pennsylvania representative for the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign (and doesn’t the name say it all), had a different view: 

I don't think it's worth it to put the money into it to clean it up. This is one of the dirtiest plants in the country, and it really just needs to be put to bed.

Why do I describe this as a fine mess and how did we get here? To mix my comedic metaphors, we have met the enemy and he is us. It’s a mess, because the PSD/NSR program is a clunky, awkward, and vague program and, whatever the merits of the specific legal questions in the various suits, EPA can’t really deny that its interpretation of the program has not been a model of consistency. It’s a mess because it’s difficult to achieve programmatic results through enforcement. It’s a mess because using PSD enforcement to make coal more expensive so that coal plants will shut down and stop emitting GHGs is hardly an efficient way to regulate GHGs. 

Why are we the enemy? Simple. Because the environment would be cleaner and the economy stronger with comprehensive climate legislation combined with significant changes to the NSR/PSD program and we haven’t figured out a way to get there.

The result? No one’s happy (except, perhaps, some busy environmental lawyers and some politicians who can find opportunities for grandstanding). EPA and environmentalists aren’t happy, because we don’t have comprehensive climate legislation. Large emitters aren’t happy, because they are left with the collateral damage of PSD/NSR, a program that should be allowed to die a quiet death.

For those of us who live in the trenches of these battles, at least one detail in the complaint is worth noting.  The United States brought suit, not only against the current owner and operator of the Homer City plant, but also against New York State Electric and Gas Corporation and Pennsylvania Electric Co., both of which owned the plant prior to 1998. Why the emphasis? Because it’s more than six years ago and therefore outside the statute of limitations for the government’s penalty claims. Indeed, the government seeks penalties only from the current owner/operators. Nonetheless, it seeks injunctive relief against NYSEG and PENELEC, even though they’ve had no connection to the plant in more than 12 years. The complaint states that:

They can be ordered to fund and implement contracts with third-party vendors who design, fabricate, and install the air pollution control equipment at issue. They can also take various actions to mitigate their past illegal pollution such as purchasing air pollution credits known as “allowances.”

A fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

And you thought that the explanation was just partisan gridlock in Washington? According to a study that has been accepted for publication in Environmental Research Letters, it will be somewhere between 120 years and 550 years before losses caused by Atlantic tropical storms can be statistically attributed to anthropogenic climate change. It’s important to note that this study is not by climate skeptics; nor are the authors opposed to Congressional action. They are simply pointing out that it’s damn hard to attribute causation to specific storms or on short time scales. As they note in their conclusions:

Based on the results from our emergence time scale analysis we urge extreme caution in attributing short term trends (i.e., over many decades and longer) in normalized US tropical cyclone losses to anthropogenic climate change. The same conclusion applies to global weather-related natural disaster losses at least in the near future. Not only is short term variability not ‘climate change’ (which the IPCC defines on time scales of 30 to 50 years or longer), but anthropogenic climate change signals are very unlikely to emerge in US tropical cyclone losses at time scales of less than a century under the projections examined here.

Our results argue very strongly against using abnormally large losses from individual Atlantic hurricanes or seasons as either evidence of anthropogenic climate change or to justify actions on greenhouse gas emissions. There are far better justifications for action on greenhouse gases. Policy making related to climate necessarily must occur under uncertainty and ignorance. Our analysis indicates that such conditions will persist on timescales longer than those of decision making.

Do I wish that Congress had bitten the bullet and passed comprehensive climate change legislation? Of course. However, no one can dispute that there will be some significant short term costs, even if there are also opportunities in moving towards the new energy economy. It is difficult enough for Congress to look past the next election. Asking Senators and Representatives to look past the next century? Perhaps, instead of asking why legislation did not pass, we should take comfort from the fact that it got as close as it did.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In what might not be an overstatement, Seth has described Massachusetts' Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), as "the future of everything".  If so, welcome to the future of the future of everything.  The GWSA requires the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to set a 2020 goal for state-wide reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, and, before January 1, 2011, to create a plan outlining how to get there.  Just in time, EEA yesterday released the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020, which sets the 2020 emissions goal at 25% below 1990 levels (the maximum reductions authorized by the GWSA) and outlines how the Commonwealth will comply with that limit. 

The 2020 Plan announces a portfolio of policies in five categories – buildings, electricity, transportation, non-energy emissions, and cross-cutting policies (essentially agency procedures that do not fit into the other categories) – representing the suite of policies that the Patrick-Murray administration is committed to pursuing over the next four years, to work toward the 2020 emissions limit.  Together, the policies could result in as much as a 33% reduction of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels, and set the groundwork for the 80% reductions required by 2050 under the GWSA.  EEA also predicts that these policies will reduce Massachusetts’ reliance on imports of energy and fuels, and create or maintain 42,000 to 48,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2020.

For a summary of specific points included in the 2020 Plan, keep reading after the jump.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, EPA announced settlements of litigation with states and environmental groups which will require EPA to promulgate New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating units and refineries. EPA will thus give those of us who practice in this area an opportunity to decide which program we find more cumbersome and ill-suited to regulate GHGs, the PSD/NSR program or the NSPS program.

As with the PSD/NSR regulations, I remain sympathetic to EPA in that, once you take Massachusetts v. EPA as a given, and if you accept the logic of the Endangerment Finding, then it is difficult to see how EPA can avoid these regulations. Moreover, EPA has described its expected set of performance standards as “modest” – though modesty, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder. 

Nonetheless, it’s not surprising that opponents of GHG regulation see this as another stick in the eye. Here is what Senator Murkowski’s spokesman, Robert Dillon, had to say:

The administration used the threat of EPA regulations as a cudgel to force Congress to pass cap and trade. It was a strategy that failed.  You've opened Pandora's box now. You've let the agency loose with these new regulations when they're interpreting the law.

Of course, it’s EPA’s job to interpret the law. That doesn’t make me happy about it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It says something about where our politics are today when Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has to ask that question. Of course, there’s reason to wonder what the answer is. It was certainly not intentional irony when, shortly after this story appeared about Senator Graham, Senator Rockefeller announced that he has given up on legislation that would delay implementation of EPA GHG rules because the bill has lost Republican support. The reason? It’s not that the Republicans are opposed to the delay; it’s just that it’s more important to the Republicans that they be able to make political hay out of the issue when they are in the majority next term. Then there’s Texas Representative Joe Barton, who has made it his mission to save the incandescent light bulb. I wonder what he would say if he had a horse shoe factory in his district?

Political prognostication is neither my strong point nor the purpose of this blog. I note only that, while the Democrats are in retreat now, it was only two years ago that many were predicting a lengthy time in the minority for the Republicans. Senator Graham seems to be one of the few taking the long view:

I'm concerned that if the Republican Party doesn't embrace the idea [that] it's OK to clean up the air, we're gonna lose young people forever, Graham told ClimateWire. Whether you like it or not, young people are environmentally sensitive. I happen to like it.

At a practical level, Senator Graham’s concerns seem focused in the short run on legislation that would enact some kind of clean energy standard, or CES – like an RES, but including nuclear energy and clean coal. In many ways, imposing a CES or RES seems like more of an interference in the market than simply putting a price on carbon, which is what free market economists would say is necessary to internalize an externality. However, with climate legislation dead for the near term, and with a focus on jobs, CES legislation might have some chance of moving forward. 

Will it pass? I’ll leave the prognostication to others.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a follow-up to last week’s post, if you want a handy-dandy rundown of what U.S. carbon policy looks like in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation, take a look at the presentation I gave last week to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, which summarizes federal, regional, and state regulatory efforts – many of which are not explicitly directed at CO₂ – that are likely to have significant impacts on U.S. CO₂ emissions. Thanks to Amy Boyd, who did the lion’s share of the work on this one.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bill Hogan at the Kennedy School (shameless plug for alma mater) kindly asked me to speak at a meeting this week of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. I’ve titled my talk “Carbon Policy When There Is No Carbon Policy.” Several items that came across the wires in the past few days buttress the theory behind my presentation, which is that our current carbon policy really is “A little bit of this, a little bit of that.” 

First, Phillip Brooks, director of EPA’s Air Enforcement Division, told an ALI/ABA forum that EPA’s NSR enforcement initiative is alive and well and that it expects to continue to send out information requests to potential enforcement targets concerning those targets operation and maintenance activities. Brooks predicted more closures of old coal plants as a result of EPA’s NSR enforcement.

Second, a report just released on the economic impact of air emissions supports EPA’s Transport Rule, asserting that each dollar spent on upwind emissions reductions results in $50 to $100 dollars in avoided environmental costs in downwind states. Greenwire subtly noted that the research was funded by Excelon, which owns the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the nation.

Third, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed a decision by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to require construction companies to assess the indirect air emissions resulting from construction projects and potentially to reduce such such emissions or pay a mitigation fee. The decision in National Association Of Home Builders v. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is likely to provide additional momentum to state and local efforts to regulate land use decisions as a way to reduce sprawl and, as a result, GHG emissions.

So, what’s our carbon policy today? A little bit of enforcement of existing regulations, a little bit of new federal regulations of traditional pollutants, and a potentially increasing dose of state and local land use regulation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 10th auction in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was held on December 1st.  In honor of this significant round number, I give you the top 10 interesting facts about the 10th RGGI Auction, all of which are based on today's market monitor report:

10)  In the Auction, 24,755,000 allowances from the 2009-2011 compliance period sold for $1.86 each (the floor price);

9)  That amount is only 57% of the 2009-2011 allowances offered for sale, the lowest yield from a current compliance period auction;

8)  38 entities bid on these current compliance period allowances, down from 45 in September and 51 in March;

7)  The generators subject to RGGI compliance and their affiliates (collectively "compliance entities") purchased 97% of the current compliance period allowances sold;

6)  1,172,000 allowances from the second compliance period (2012-2014) were also sold at $1.86 (the floor price);

5)  That amount is 57% of the 2012-2014 allowances offered for sale -- the lowest yield to date for this vintage of allowances -- and 100% of them were bought by just 4 compliance entities;

4)  In the 10 RGGI auctions, taken together, compliance entities have purchased 85% of all allowances sold;

3)  Due to trading on the secondary market, after the 10th auction purchases are settled, compliance entities will hold 95% of all RGGI allowances in circulation;

2)  All together, the 10 RGGI auctions have brought in more than $777.5 million for the 10 RGGI states;

and

1)  The RGGI states have collectively invested about 80% of the RGGI funds in strategic energy programs, most of which involve energy efficiency improvements in homes and businesses.   RGGI has created a website compiling the states' announcements on the success stories from these investments.

The next RGGI auction will be held March 9, 2011.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One thing supporters of coal will be thankful for tomorrow is this week's announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it has finalized two rules governing the underground sequestration of carbon dioxide.  Both rules are designed to support and facilitate the commercial development of safe, large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, perceived by many to be the best hope for the future use of coal.

The first rule creates a new "Class VI" injection well under EPA's Underground Injection Control Program through the the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Elements of the rule are based on the existing regulatory framework, but tailored to address the unique issues carbon dioxide can create, such as the fact that it floats and moves within subsurface formations, and corrodes its surroundings when combined with water.   Although CCS has been used on a smaller scale for years, such as to facilitate enhanced recovery of oil, the large volumes that are anticipated to be injected as part of a full-scale deployment of the technology present different issues entirely.

The rule provides guidance on some, but not all, of the areas highlighted as in need of further support in the August report of the Interagency Task Force on CCS.  For instance, the rule outlines characteristics for siting CCS wells, requirements for construction and operations, automatic shutoff systems.  It also provides a recommended 50-year monitoring program post-injection as well as clarifying financial responsibility requirements for emergencies, site closure and cleanup.  The rule also provides considerations for transitioning Class II permits for existing enhanced recovery wells to Class VI, based primarily on whether the primary purpose is assisting with the recovery of oil or long-term storage of the CO₂ itself.

The second rule finalizes the requirements for CCS ventures under the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule (Subparts RR and UU of 40 CFR Part 98).  The rule requires permit holders to create a plan to monitor, report and verify the amount of CO₂ sequestered, using a mass-balance approach, and could lay the groundwork for those captured tons to become valuable offsets under future policies.  The reporting requirement begins in 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The cap in the nation's first mandatory cap-and-trade system is probably set too high.  As reported by ClimateWire this morning, it seems increasingly likely that participants in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will easily meet and beat RGGI's ultimate goal, even without any changes or reductions actually caused by the program.

RGGI's initial aim was to cut CO₂ emissions from large power plants in the 10-state region to 10% below 2005 levels by 2018.  This plan involved two stages: one with the cap stabilized at 180 million tons CO_2e from 2009-2014, and the second, from 2015-2018, with a cap declining by 2.5% each year.   However, in the two years that the program has been in action, emissions have already declined to 33% below 2005-levels.   Although the decline has been commonly attributed to the economic downturn, NYSERDA found that fuel switching by power suppliers from coal and petroleum to natural gas (cheaper than it was in 2005) has in fact had the greatest impact, contributing 31.2% of the decline. 

At a meeting on November 12, RGGI, stakeholders gathered to hear briefings on projections for future emissions, why the carbon footprint was overestimated thus far, and what changes need to be made to RGGI going forward.  Consultant IGF International reported that although emissions in the region are predicted to grow steadily into the future, they will stay well below RGGI's initial reduction target through 2030, even without additional reductions caused by the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs funded by RGGI itself.  Their data suggests that the RGGI cap would have to be tightened from 10% reductions by 2018 to 22% or higher, for the cap-and-trade system to have any impact at all. 

The RGGI member states are currently involved in evaluating the program, and could make changes to the cap, as well as the rest of the program, before the second compliance phase begins in 2012. It will be interesting to see what decisions they make over the next year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA has finally released it long-awaited PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases, also known as the GHG BACT Guidance. E&E News quoted Gina McCarthy as saying that GHG permitting would be “business as usual” and that the transition to issuing PSD permits for GHGs would be relatively smooth. 

Not.

It’s certainly true that the GHG BACT Guidance says nothing particularly new about how permitting agencies should perform BACT reviews. Giving credit where credit is due, I’ll complement EPA for using plain English and describing the basic BACT process about as cogently and concisely as I’ve seen. The BACT Guidance also heavily emphasizes the use of energy efficiency measures in attaining BACT for GHGs, as has been expected. That should provide at least some comfort to the regulated community.

Having praised the BACT Guidance, I’ll now do my best to bury it. I just don’t think anyone can truly say that it actually provides any guidance to either state permitting agencies or the regulated community regarding what in fact will constitute BACT. In fairness to EPA, I think that’s because they don’t know, but that’s hardly a comforting thought. It’s got to be worrisome to regulated facilities that they are now subject to a requirement to demonstrate BACT for GHG when they make a major modification at their facility and they simply don’t know what it will take to comply with the GHG requirements.

Take, for example, EPA’s discussion of when an agency requirement to evaluate a particular control option might be considered to “redefine the source.” The BACT Guidance discusses this issue for six pages, but provides what seems to me to be no guidance at all. The Guidance repeats the bromide that

EPA has recognized that a Step 1 list of options need not necessarily include inherently lower polluting processes that would fundamentally redefine the nature of the source proposed by the permit applicant. BACT should generally not be applied to regulate the applicant’s purpose or objective for the proposed facility.

However, the Guidance then ominously states that permitting agencies must

take a ‘hard look’ at the applicant’s proposed design in order to discern which design elements are inherent for the applicant’s purpose and which design elements may be changed to achieve pollutant emissions reductions without disrupting the applicant’s basic business purpose.

If that doesn't send chills down the spines of engineers everywhere, I don’t know what will.  Similarly, the guidance says that "EPA continues to believe that permitting authorities can show in most cases (my emphasis) that the option of using natural gas as a primary fuel would fundamentally redefine a coal-fired electric generating unit."  Unfortunately, the guidance then notes that where a power plant already combusts another fuel, such as for start-up purposes, it would be appropriate to evaluate whether use of that fuel might be BACT.

The Guidance is too long to summarize fully in a blog post, but I do want to leave you with one image, courtesy of EPA. In discussing the requirement to identify energy efficiency options, the Guidance helpfully states that not “every conceivable improvement that could marginally improve the energy efficiency of the new facility” need be listed. In making this concession, EPA cited to Sierra Club v. EPA, which “recognized the undesirability of making the BACT analysis into a ‘Sisyphean labor where there was always one more option to consider.’”

We can only hope that EPA and state permitting agencies really take those words to heart as this process unfolds. I’m not optimistic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I’ve always thought that implementation of EPA’s GHG rules for stationary sources was inevitable in the absence of climate change legislation. The Supreme Court told EPA that GHGs are a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Given the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA’s subsequent regulatory moves have been pretty much unavoidable. 

Since the statute seems to mandate GHG regulation, only Congressional action could block the rules. While a House majority seemed plausible, even before the election, getting 60 votes in the Senate always seemed a much stiffer proposition. Moreover, one could always expect an Obama veto, if legislation precluding EPA’s rules somehow were to get through Congress. Now, I’m not so sure.

If it turns out that there are enough coal state Democrats to move the legislation through the Senate, and if the supporters keep attaching the legislation as a rider to bills that the Administration does want, it may become difficult at some point for Obama to continue to veto it. A more tantalizing possibility is that the GOP might use such legislation as a bargaining chip with Obama over energy legislation, agreeing to support energy legislation, but only if Obama agrees to a prohibition on EPA GHG rules for stationary sources. In that situation, would Obama throw the GHG rules under the bus? Now that’s an interesting scenario.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The world of greenhouse gas reporting just got a little more interesting. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative (a collaboration between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and involving the participation of hundreds of companies around the world), released their draft Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Protocol on November 5th for stakeholder review. The Scope 3 protocol takes the form of two documents – the Product Accounting & Reporting Standard and the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. The two sets of calculations from the two guidance documents are designed to work in tandem, as shown in this figure from the reports.

Under the GHG Protocol, emissions attributable to a company are divided into 3 scopes: Scope 1) direct emissions from sources it owns or controls (like factory smokestacks and company-owned cars); Scope 2) emissions attributable to the electricity, heat and cooling the company consumes; and Scope 3) everything else.  Scope 3 includes both upstream activities like services and products purchased by the company; downstream activities such as the emissions from the consumer’s use and disposal of the company’s product; and related activities such as the leased building, investments, and even emissions from employees’ commuting and business travel. Not unsurprisingly, given the breadth of sources that can be included, Scope 3 emissions are the largest source of emissions for most companies and thus represent the largest opportunity for greenhouse gas reductions.

The previous GHG protocols, issued in 2004 and 2005, focused on Scopes 1 and 2, but highlighted the need for an additional protocol for Scope 3, which was “optional” for reporters.  Although some took on the challenge, Scope 3 emissions are the hardest for companies to reliably measure.

The point of the protocol is to make such measurements more reliable.  As the Corporate Value Chain report highlights, a comprehensive approach to corporate GHG emissions measurement, management and reporting that incorporates all 3 scopes of emissions would enable companies to focus on the most cost-effective or largest opportunities to reduce emissions within the full value chain, and lead to more sustainable decisions. The authors caution, however, that even with a Scope 3 standard, the protocols are not designed to support comparisons between companies’ emissions. They will aid, however, in simplifying and reducing the costs of taking on a Scope 3 inventory, and increasing consistency and transparency in GHG accounting and reporting.

The Product Standard report provides a generalized framework to support the company in quantifying and reporting the GHGs generated during a product's life cycle (regardless of what the product might be). The goal of the standard is to assist companies in making informed choices about the products they manufacture, sell, purchase and use.  Although the authors caution that the standard is not intended to support GHG accounting for the purposes of offsets (from reductions) or carbon neutrality, the protocol will aid in making reliable emissions-related information about a product available in the public domain -- such as the New Zealand wine that reports its own carbon footprint on the bottle.  Although primarily a sales gimmick at this point, as more information becomes available, consumers can make more informed and sustainable choices as well.

Comments on the draft protocol may be submitted through the GHG Protocol website here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Is mercury a local problem or not? For years, power plant operators have claimed that mercury deposition is really a global problem. Environmentalists have pointed to studies arguing that hot spots affected by local emissions do exist. This week, according to the Cape Cod Times, John Colman, a USGS researcher – hardly likely to be a shill for the power industry – is going to report results of a study showing that mercury accumulation in both soil samples and fish tissue are comparable in Cape Cod and the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. Given prevailing wind directions, it’s hard to find a local source for mercury on the Olympic Peninsula.

According to the Cape Cod Times, Mr. Colman said that "the idea that burning coal is screwing up fish all over the Northern Hemisphere is kind of terrifying.” And I’ll bet that the United States power generation industry finds it terrifying that it may have to make very substantial – and costly – reductions in mercury emissions even though US emissions are about 5% of the world total and may not have a significant impact on the US environment.

I’m not discounting the need for regulation in the United States. Mercury is a real toxin. However, it would also be wrong to ignore the global aspect. To regulate the US power generation industry because doing so will solve a significant public health and environmental problem is one matter. To regulate the US power generation industry because we have to send a signal to the world that we are willing to regulate ourselves in order to persuade China to control mercury from its own coal-fired power plants is another. When the state of our nation is such that businesses are looking to put “China-Free” labels on their products, it will not be easy to persuade a significant segment of the population to support costly mercury controls when there is evidence that a substantial part of the problem stems from cheap coal-fired energy in China that delivers a twofer – allowing China to make goods more cheaply, while exporting its mercury pollution downwind to the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last March, I noted that Gina McCarthy’s belief that, in the near term, the biggest impact on GHG emissions would come from EPA’s traditional regulatory programs, rather than through GHG regulation. A report recently released by Credit Suisse indicates that she might be right. Looking at EPA’s upcoming promulgation of the Clean Air Transport Rule and the mercury MACT rule, Credit Suisse predicts that between 50 and 69 gigawatts of old coal plants will be retired between 2013 and 2017 as a result of implementation of the two rules. Credit Suisse also predicts that approximately 100 gigawatts of capacity will require significant additional investment to comply with the rules.

For those with money to invest, Credit Suisse recommends clean plants in dirty markets – a not surprising conclusion. 

For those more interested in the regulatory side of things, it is worth noting that the Credit Suisse analysis is admittedly fairly simplistic. They pretty much just looked at small plants lacking scrubbers as candidates for closure. As the report puts it:

environmental control costs are non-linear (they’re more expensive on a unit of capacity basis at a small coal plant) and because these plants are generally older and less efficient in energy conversion.

Without details about individual plants, the Credit Suisse approach is certainly reasonable. I note only that, where plants are not closed, installation of scrubbers for SO₂ or SCRs for NO_x actually increases GHG emissions, because scrubbers and SCR require additional station service, making the plants less efficient to operate than previously. Overall, I don’t doubt that the closure of coal plants will outweigh the decrease in efficiency in the coal plants that remain operational, but both effects should be included in any analysis of the impact of the Transport Rule and the MACT rule on GHG emissions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Could carbon-intensive industries and businesses overlooking sustainability soon see their credit ratings fall as a result?   Perhaps. According to an article in yesterday’s Daily Environment Report, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) is working on ways to integrate the risks of greenhouse gases into its corporate credit ratings system. The move seems to be driven by factors such as tightening of the EU emissions trading scheme in its third phase, beginning in 2012, but might apply to US companies as well.  The article reports that S&P could include carbon in their credit rating analysis on a global scale, as early as the first half of 2011. 

As the article highlights, developing a methodology to consider emissions directly generated by a company, those indirectly associated with its activities (such as use of electricity, supply chain and employee travel), and the potential for carbon costs to passed through to consumers would be “fiendishly complex,” and the methodology that S&P adopts will have to go through a rigorous review before being put in place. 

One possible option to build from is the Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) questionnaire, which is the only global greenhouse gas reporting system. In September, CDP released its 2010 report on the S&P 500 (as well as reports on many other groupings of the 4,700 companies they ask to complete their questionnaire). That report shows that in 2010, some 70% of the S&P 500 companies responded to the CDP questionnaire, detailing risks and rewards, such as how they plan to capitalize on commercial opportunities related to climate change, and 59% also disclosed their carbon emissions, at least in part.  The CDP reports also show, however, that these US companies are still behind their global peers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a crisply written opinion by Judge Posner, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed a district court judgment against Cinergy in the NSR case involving Cinergy’s power plant in Wabash, Indiana, and directed that judgment enter for Cinergy. It is not obvious that the case will have wide applicability, but it is certainly worth noting.

The first key issue in Cinergy was whether proposed new projects would be subject to NSR review if they were expected to result in an increase in annual emissions or only if they would result in an increase in the hourly emissions rate. In an earlier ruling, the 7^th Circuit decided that annual emissions, rather than the hourly rate, was the appropriate test provided for in the statute and regulations.

However, when the case came to trial, a twist occurred. The jury only found violations with respect to four projects. All of those projects occurred between 1989 and 1992 – and during that time, Indiana’s SIP stated that the applicable test was whether a project would result in an hourly emissions rate increase. Even more complicated, EPA had approved the SIP, even though it also told Indiana that the SIP had to be changed. Indiana had apparently changed its rules prior to 1989, but failed to submit a SIP modification until 1994. The Court ruled that EPA must be held to the SIP that it approved and that was in effect at the time of the projects.

The Clean Air Act does not authorize the imposition of sanctions for conduct that complies with a State Implementation Plan that EPA has approved. The EPA approved Indiana’s plan with exceptions that did not include [the improper test.]

Calling EPA’s approval of the SIP a “blunder,” the Court said that EPA must live with it.

It’s not obvious that this decision will have much relevance outside cases in Indiana involving projects implemented during the time Indiana’s SIP contained the wrong test. However, it is a lesson that the details do matter – in particular, the details of the relevant SIP.

The second aspect of the case is also a lesson in the nitty-gritty of litigation – and may have broader applicability. With respect to NOx emissions [it is not clear why the NOx allegations were not controlled by the prior part of the decision], EPA relied on two experts to testify that the projects would result in increases in annual emissions. However, both experts relied on a formula used for baseload power plants. Unfortunately for EPA, the Wabash facility is a cycling plant, not a baseload plant. The model used by EPA's experts assumes that an increase in capacity would result in a proportionate increase in output. However, that assumption is not valid for a cycling plant. The Court thus ruled that the experts’ opinions should not have been admitted; without them, EPA had no evidence of increased emissions and judgment had to enter for Cinergy.

This aspect of the case provides a cautionary lesson for the government (though I wouldn’t start dancing in the street if I were defending one of these cases). I think that there has been a sense that, if the government wins the legal battle on the issue of annual emissions v. hourly emissions rate and wins the routine maintenance argument, then the defendants are sunk. This case is a reminder that the facts still matter and that the government has to prove its case based on evidence regarding the specific projects being challenged.

What a notion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, I posted about the dire prospects for climate change legislation following the fall elections. The alternative to legislation has always been regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority, so it’s appropriate as a follow-up to briefly examine the pressures on EPA as it moves forward with its stationary source GHG regulations. Two headlines from the trade press today brought home just what a tightrope EPA is walking.

The first headline, from the Daily Environment Report, was to the effect that a “Ban on New Source Construction [Is] Possible In States Without Greenhouse Gas Permitting.” Specifically, Raj Rao, of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said states that have not taken steps to implement permitting requirements by Jan. 2 could face the construction ban.

The second headline might be described as a corollary of the first. Today’s GreenWire notes that “New rules spark bipartisan fury in midterm elections.” Well, duh. Is it any surprise that in the face of continuing unemployment near 10%, regulations that even EPA acknowledges might result in construction bans in some states would be a topic of debate in congressional elections? In fact, the GreenWire piece was not even primarily about the GHG regulations and made no mention of the potential construction ban. It was largely about other EPA rules, such as the boiler MACT rule.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for EPA on this one. As I’ve noted previously, to a certain extent, EPA is just doing its job. On GHGs, it really has no choice but to regulate. While I have doubts about the legality of the Tailoring Rule, the alternative is only more onerous. The boiler MACT rule is another matter – and is complicated enough to warrant several posts of its own. However, EPA’s options are limited given the stringent provisions Congress itself wrote – and a Republican President signed into law. On conventional pollutants, the science is driving EPA towards lower and lower NAAQS, and more stringent rules on emitters follow like night follows the day.

Just so my friends in the regulated community don’t think I’ve gone soft, I will point out that it is at the least disingenuous for Administrator Lisa Jackson to say, as she was quoted in GreenWire, that:

The Clean Air Act does not place our need to increase employment in conflict with our needs to protect public health.

Somehow, that message has never gotten to the EPA and DOJ lawyers briefing appeals of EPA regulations, where those opposing the regulations say that they are uneconomic, while EPA's invariable rejoinder is that the Clean Air Act doesn't allow for the consideration of the cost of regulations in deciding how stringently to regulate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s been obvious for some time that Republican victories in next month’s elections will only make it more difficult to pass climate legislation. However, perhaps the most telling reminder of the difficulty in passing climate legislation came last week from the Democrats, not the GOP. Governor Joe Manchin, running for Senator Byrd’s seat, was endorsed by the West Virginia Coal Association. Among the bullets noted in the press release, the WVCA noted that:

Governor Manchin opposes any form of Cap & Trade legislation that threatens the jobs that our coal mining families depend on for their livelihoods. 

The press release also notes that Manchin would work to pass legislation prohibiting EPA from regulating carbon using existing Clean Air Act authority. According to Greenwire, Bill Rainey, the President of the WVCA stated that “we've witnessed this governor put his finger in the chest of EPA officials."

In fact, given that he is from West Virginia, it appears that Manchin has been a good governor and would probably be a good senator – someone who could perhaps work across the aisle with senators like Lindsey Graham. However, while Tea Party types often talk about RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – environmentalists have to look at someone like Governor Manchin and think that, at least on climate change, he’s a DINO.

The environmentalists’ problem, even aside from potential losses in November, is that, on climate change, a newly-elected Senator Manchin would not be the only DINO.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent amendment to the EPA’s Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (40 CFR part 98) requires companies that report their emissions to also provide information on corporate ownership,  North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and whether any of the emissions come from a cogeneration unit. The goal behind collecting this information is to gain a better understanding of the aggregate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from corporations and specific industry sectors, and identify potential differences in emissions between otherwise similar facilities due to cogeneration. Such information can be used to guide future GHG regulations and mitigation strategies. The rule was signed by Administrator Jackson last week and is to be published the Federal Register shortly. 

The final rule requires facilities and suppliers reporting GHG emissions (large industrial facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year, plus suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial gases, and a few others) to include, in their first annual GHG emission report due on March 31, 2011,  the name and address of each US parent company and a breakdown of the percentage share that each parent owns. It also requires the facilities to report any NAICS codes that apply to the facility – both the primary code as well as any others that are appropriate.

The third requirement takes the form of a checkbox indicating whether the report includes emissions from a cogeneration unit, defined by EPA as “a unit that produces electrical energy and useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, or heating or cooling purposes, through the sequential or simultaneous use of the original fuel energy.”  In the final rule, EPA notes that there are no current programs that require facilities to identify whether they have cogeneration units – EPA’s Combined Heat and Power Partnership is only a voluntary program, and while the Energy Information Administration collects information on cogeneration from power generators greater than 1 megawatt, this program likely does not cover all of the facilities and suppliers subject to 40 CFR part 98.

The information collected on cogeneration through this rule is just a start, and useful primarily to merely identify the facilities using cogeneration. As EPA correctly notes, the information likely will not be sufficient to determine the quantity of GHG emissions occurring from particular NAICS sectors or cogeneration units within an individual reporting facility, or the degree to which cogeneration emissions at the applicable facilities displace onsite use of fossil fuel or other emissions from centralized electric generation. Nonetheless, information on the types and characteristics of facilities that use cogeneration could be important to the future development of GHG mitigation strategies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On a day when ClimateWire reported that thousands of walruses are stuck on land because their usual summer home – sea ice – has disappeared, I’m beginning to wonder whether EPA’s stationary source GHG rules are similarly at risk. It may not be difficult for EPA to brush off a fairly over the top letter from Texas which basically asked EPA “What part of ‘hell no” don’t you understand?”

However, today Greenwire reports that Governor Freudenthal of Wyoming – a Democrat – is asking EPA to defer enforcement of GHG stationary source regulation. So is Ben Grumbles, head of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Grumbles may be a Republican, but he was head of the water office under the Bush EPA, so he has to have some idea of the legal pressure for EPA to regulate GHGs following Massachusetts v. EPA. 

In addition to these latest requests from the states, ClimateWire had a separate story today which noted that Senate efforts to bar EPA from regulating GHG may still be alive and that Democrat Senators Nelson and Dorgan may support attaching the legislation to the EPA appropriations bill. Readers of this blog know that I am a fan of Senator Graham’s willingness to consider climate legislation, but EPA has to be worried if it is counting on Senator Graham’s prediction that the amendment will fail.

I have long said that EPA’s regulations are here to stay, because they are not only defensible, they are - in some form, at least - pretty much mandated by Massachusetts v. EPA. However, where the prevailing metaphor for the November elections is that of a GOP tsunami, one has to wonder whether there is a realistic possibility that, one way or another, EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority could be subject to significant delay.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) auction program celebrated its second birthday this week by holding the 9th regional auction of CO₂ allowances.  As today's report highlights, the auction brought a bittersweet first for the 10-state program: unsold allowances from both the current and future regulatory periods.  Bidders bought only 75% of the 45.6 million 2010-vintage allowances offered and just 61% of the 2013-vintage allowances, with both auctions closing at the mandatory floor price of $1.86.   Not surprisingly, given these results, participation in the auction was down -- the 2010 auction garnered bids from 45 entities, 92% of whom were regulated generators or their affiliates, down from March's relatively robust participation of 51 bidders.   According to today's report, regulated entities have purchased 84% of all allowances sold in Auctions 1-9, and through trading on the secondary market, will hold 95% of the allowances in circulation, once the allowances sold in Auction 9 are distributed.

Under the RGGI rules, the leftover allowances from this week's auctions may be sold at a future date, or a state may choose to retire them.  Since many people believe RGGI allowances to be over-subscribed, retiring some or all of these leftover allowances might be one way for the RGGI states to re-balance the market and encourage further reductions in emissions. 

Even at the floor price, the RGGI proceeds keep growing.  In the last 2 years, the auctions have brought in $729, 281,959 for the 10 states, who are collectively investing 80% of the funds in state-based energy programs: 60% in energy efficiency programs, 10% to accelerate deployment of renewable energy technologies, and 10% to direct consumer benefit programs, such as assistance to low-income ratepayers.  RGGI, Inc. noted in its press release accompanying the market monitor report the hopes that this "auction and invest" design will be a model for a national program as well as other regional programs like the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. Since regional programs are likely to be the model for the foreseeable future, this certainly seems like a possibility.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have previously expressed my distaste for public nuisance litigation to require reductions in GHG emissions. It cannot be more than a tactic in a war to the plaintiffs, because the chaos resulting from regulation of a global problem through a series of individual law suits has to be obvious to everyone. Now, apparently, that chaos is also obvious to the Obama administration, because it has filed a brief with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to accept a certiorari petition filed by the defendants in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the 2^nd Circuit case in which the Court of Appeals held that the nuisance claims could proceed. 

The United States cited two reasons why the government should take the case and vacate the appellate decision. First, the brief states that the petitioners failed to demonstrate “prudential standing.” In other words, while they may have Article III standing, federal courts should “refrain from adjudicating ‘generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.’” As the brief notes:

The problem is not simply that many plaintiffs could bring such claims and that many defendants could be sued. Rather, it is that essentially any potential plaintiff could claim to have been injured by any (or all) of the potential defendants. The medium that transmits injury to potential plaintiffs is literally the Earth’s entire atmosphere – making it impossible to consider the sort of focused and more geographically limited effects characteristic of traditional nuisance suits….

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the administration has argued that EPA’s recent regulatory efforts with respect to GHG, including the mobile source rule and the PSD / Title V rules for stationary sources – which occurred after the 2^nd Circuit decision – have “displaced” federal nuisance law. Since the Second Circuit specifically addressed the displacement argument and found for the plaintiffs in part precisely because EPA had not yet regulated GHG, EPA’s intervening regulatory actions certainly would seem to provide a basis for remanding the 2^nd Circuit decision. I think that’s an easy call for the Supreme Court to make.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the plaintiffs’ attorneys were dismayed by the filing of the brief.  According to GreenWire, Matt Pawa, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said that:

We feel stabbed in the back. This was really a dastardly move by an administration that said it was a friend of the environment. With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

My take is a little different. Why don’t the plaintiffs’ attorneys thank the administration for promulgating the various GHG regulations, admit that the nuisance cases were a tactic to move Congress and the administration, claim a partial victory, because they at least got EPA moving, fold up their tents, and go home.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 12, in Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Sierra Club’s suit related to the Big Stone Generating Station, a coal fired power plant in South Dakota. In doing so, it disagreed with EPA and sided with what appears to be the majority on a question that has produced differing responses amongst the courts - whether the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program prohibits only the construction or modification of a facility without a PSD permit, or whether it imposes ongoing operational requirements. Finding that PSD requirements are conditions of construction or modification, and not conditions of operation, the court held that violations related to the defendants’ failure to obtain PSD permits occurred at the time the modifications were made, and that the claims were thus barred by the statute of limitations.

The Sierra Club challenged three modifications undertaken at the Station: a 1995 change in fuel source from lignite coal to sub-bituminous coal; a 1998 boiler modification; and, 2001 changes which allowed the Station to supply steam to a nearby ethanol plant. In June 2008, the Sierra Club filed a citizen suit alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated and continued to violate the Clean Air Act in that they had failed to obtain PSD permits prior to the modifications and, as a result, were operating without appropriate permits and without abiding by best available control technology (“BACT”) limits that would have been imposed had PSD permits been obtained.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case, basing its decision largely on the language of the PSD statute, which prohibit a facility from being “constructed” without meeting PSD requirements, and the citizen suit provision, which authorizes suit “against any person who proposes to construct or constructs,” as well as the related regulations.  Finding the language unambiguous, the court refused to defer to the contrary interpretation of EPA, which participated as an amicus party. The court rejected the argument that the CAA and PSD regulations should be interpreted as establishing operational duties based on the program’s purpose and the fact that PSD permits impose requirements on the operation of facilities, finding that such requirements are not enforceable independent of the permitting process. In addition to finding the Sierra Club’s civil penalty claims barred, the court held that its claims for equitable relief seeking to bring the Station into compliance with the Act were also barred. 

Under the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, while a facility must obtain a PSD permit prior to construction or modification, and, having done so, must operate in accordance with the permit, if the operator fails to apply for such a permit, claims relating to its failure to obtain or operate pursuant to an appropriate PSD permit are barred unless brought within five years of the construction or modification. Given the potential difficulties involved in detecting PSD violations, the decision places a burden on plaintiffs seeking enforcement of PSD requirements to identify and file claims related to such violations as early as possible. Given that this issue has come up a number of times and there is some disagreement amongst the courts as to the right answer, it is possible that the Sierra Club will seek further review of this issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In February, President Obama tasked the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage with the ambitious goal of overcoming the barriers to widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) within the next 10 years.  As the first bold step, the 14-agency and executive department group released its findings in a report on August 12. 

The report concludes that widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will only occur if the technology is commercially available (i.e. scale-able and cost-effective) and a supportive national policy framework is in place to both fund and regulate it.  The task force believes that,  in the long run, there are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional or regulatory barriers that will prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  But that does not mean the early years will be easy.  

CCS is a three-step process that includes the capture and compression of CO2 from power plants and industrial sources (usually coal-fired, since their carbon emissions are the most plentiful); transport of the captured CO2 , usually in pipelines; and storage of that CO2 in geologic formations, such as oil and gas reservoirs and unmineable coal seams.   The report points out that technologies for all three components of CCS already exist, and there are four existing commercial CCS facilities in other parts of the world.

The US government has bought in to CCS in a big way, committing $3.4 billion in stimulus funds,  including $1 billion for FutureGen, and just this week, DOE announced 15 projects receiving $21.3 million over the next three years.  

So what is stopping the technology?  The key barrier identified by the task force is the lack of comprehensive climate change legislation.  Without a price on carbon (and a relatively high one, at that), there is no stable framework for investment in the technology.  Even with significant federal funds pouring in, projects of this scale still need private investment.  But legal and regulatory uncertainty, unsurprisingly, make funding the projects a shaky prospect. 

The report concludes that early CCS projects -- like the 5 to 10 DOE-supported CCS demonstration projects slated to begin operations by 2016 -- can proceed under existing laws, but that the experience gained from those initial projects must be incorporated into a new regulatory framework before we embark on more widespread deployment.  

The report lays out a plan for a federal agency roundtable, championed by DOE and EPA, to oversee and continually review the adequacy of technology, incentives, and safety during this initial period.  The plan includes a lot of work for EPA, such as formulating new regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that deal with the novel problems posed by storing commercial-scale amounts of pressurized carbon. 

Of course, one of those problems is that the stored gas might escape.  The Task Force also made recommendations on procedures for long-term liability and stewardship, including creation of an industry-financed trust fund to support long-term stewardship activities and compensate parties for damages after site closure.  The report cautions against having open-ended federal indemnification to address the long-term liabilities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA shows no signs of slowing down in its efforts to use the Clean Air Act’s PSD/NSR provisions as an enforcement club. The latest target in EPA’s crosshairs is the Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant. Late last month, DOJ filed a complaint alleging violations of PSD/NSR requirements in connection with a project to replace the high temperature reheater and the economizer at Monroe Unit 2. Aside from the broad sign that EPA remains committed to these cases, the most recent action is notable for at least two reasons:

The suit names both Detroit Edison, which owns the plant, and DTE Energy, Detroit Edison’s parent. The complaint alleges that DTE Energy “employees make decisions involving construction and environmental matters at the plant” and that it “must approve major capital expenditures at” Monroe. Naming the parent is consistent with actions EPA has taken with respect to some of this firm’s clients; Parent companies would be wise to pay attention to this trend.

The project that is the subject of the complaint took place this year; we’re not talking about EPA reaching back to projects completed in the 1980s or 1990s. The complaint alleges that DTE provided one day’s notice before commencing the project. I’m not involved in the case, so I don’t know the details, but it’s hard to imagine that there isn’t some relevant background here. Either Detroit Edison and DTE, relying on some of the more favorable PSD/NSR decisions, decided just to pay their money and take their chances, or someone at EPA or the State of Michigan led the plant astray. Time will tell.

There has been no doubt for some time that EPA is going to continue to seek reductions in conventional pollutant emissions through these types of enforcement actions. This action is also a good reminder, however, of the type of action we have to look forward to, assuming that the Tailoring Rule is upheld. If there is no Congressional action, the PSD/NSR program is going to be EPA’s only leverage to get GHG reductions.

I can’t wait.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The good news is that EPA is relying on good science. The bad news is that the science says things will keep getting worse.

After several months of review, on July 29, EPA denied 10 petitions to reconsider its 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The petitions, which were filed by, among others, the attorneys general of Texas and Virginia and the US Chamber of Commerce, pointed to errors in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia “Climategate” email scandal as examples of how the science underpinning EPA’s ruling may have been flawed or skewed.  A number of petitioners have vowed to appeal the ruling.

In rejecting the petitions, the EPA confirmed, in a 217-page denial and 360-page response to each charge, that there are no scientific or other bases to change its finding that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens public health and the environment. As the denial concluded, the evidence proving climate change is a human-caused problem remains “robust, voluminous and compelling.”   

The science supporting the Finding has also been reinforced by recent additional major science assessments. One of these is this week’s report by NOAA on the State of the Climate, which, though it is a rigorous and solid report, is one depressing read.  The report draws on the work of more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries, taking observations from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, all of which reach the same conclusion – our climate is unmistakably changing. The report looks at 10 measurable planet-wide indicators -- all of which are moving quickly in the direction they should not.  Among the notable conclusions and statistics are that the decade of the 2000s was the warmest yet and the average temperature on Earth has grown a full degree Fahrenheit over just the past 50 years.

People may be unhappy about the conclusions and may disagree about appropriate policies to address climate change, but the probability that a court will overturn the Endangerment Finding seems approximately zero.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Now that the Senate has put an end to speculation about a federal cap-and-trade program, the laboratory of the states and patchwork of regional regulation seem even more important.   The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) will likely involve a little of both.

Yesterday, the WCI Partner Jurisdictions (seven US states and four Canadian provinces) unveiled their comprehensive strategy for a cap-and-trade program with the goal of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions by 15% below 2005 levels before 2020. The program is planned to begin in 2012, although apparently only California, New Mexico, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia are on track to have trading systems operational by that date. Even so, these two states and three provinces account for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions the WCI partners produce.

The report recommends standards for regulations governing allowances, creation and use of offsets, credits for early action reductions since 2007, and other design features of a cap-and-trade program, but does not itself dictate specific regulations. Instead, the regional goal will be reached through individual states’ and provinces’ implementation of separate programs that supply allowances for quarterly regional auctions. While this individualized approach makes sense given the wide diversity of settings and the fact that WCI crosses not only state but national boundaries, it does leave a large number of factors up to the individual jurisdictions.  

Among the details that are undecided is how many allowances will be at play (a critical issue and lesson learned from the implementation of RGGI). Each state or province will adopt its own budget and determine how allowances within that budget will be distributed to emitters – through allocations, direct sales or auctions. In yesterday's report and a more detailed one from early July, WCI recommends that each jurisdiction’s 2012 allowance budget be the expected 2012 actual emissions, rather than starting with an initial cut, but then begin to decrease (at a rate to be set by each jurisdiction), with another increase in 2015 when the cap expands to cover transportation fuels and residential and commercial fuels as well.  

Offsets would be more tightly defined by the regional structure: an offset certificate issued by a WCI partner jurisdiction must meet all recommended offset criteria and result from a project located in Canada, the US or Mexico. It is recommended that each jurisdiction restrict the use of offset certificates to 49% of aggregate emissions reductions – such a limit will be expressed as a portion of each emitter’s emissions that may be covered by offset certificates or allowances from other programs.  

The WCI partner jurisdictions seem to have adopted a number of RGGI’s features, including a quarterly regional, single-round, sealed-bid auction structure, 3-year compliance periods, unlimited banking of allowances, and an auction floor price.  But as the report notes, the partner jurisdictions expect auctions to be only one component of allowance distribution – different from RGGI, where nearly 100% of allowances are auctioned.  The portion of allowances that each jurisdiction submits to the quarterly regional auctions may vary across jurisdictions and may also change over time.  Such flexibility could allow each jurisdiction to address competitiveness and leakage issues more directly than a regional plan. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My apologies if this post is a mash note to Judge Wilkinson. Sometimes a decision is written with such clarity and simplicity that you have to sit up and take notice. Such is the case with yesterday’s decision in North Carolina v. TVA, reversing the District Court decision imposing an injunction against four TVA plants that would have required installation of additional controls for NO_x and SO₂ , notwithstanding the absence of any allegation that the plants were violating their permits under the Clean Air Act. My apologies also to my friends in the environmental community and the Massachusetts AG’s office, who supported the District Court decision, but I have a hard time seeing this decision as anything other than the death knell for this kind of public nuisance litigation.

My only complaint with the opinion is that second paragraph of the decision is such a cogent summary that it’s not obvious to me that the decision needed to go on for another 30 pages. That paragraph states:

This ruling was flawed for several reasons. If allowed to stand, the injunction would encourage courts to use vague public nuisance standards to scuttle the nation’s carefully created system for accommodating the need for energy production and the need for clean air. The result would be a balkanization of clean air regulations and a confused patchwork of standards, to the detriment of industry and the environment alike. Moreover, the injunction improperly applied home state law extraterritorially, in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s decision in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987). Finally, even if it could be assumed that the North Carolina district court did apply Alabama and Tennessee law, it is difficult to understand how an activity expressly permitted and extensively regulated by both federal and state government could somehow constitute a public nuisance. For these reasons, the judgment must be reversed.

While I will thus leave the bulk of the opinion to readers particularly interested in the subject, one other paragraph stands out for me. After discussing the contours of public nuisance litigation, Judge Wilkinson noted that:

while public nuisance law doubtless encompasses environmental concerns, it does so at such a level of generality as to provide almost no standard of application. If we are to regulate smokestack emissions by the same principles we use to regulate prostitution, obstacles in highways, and bullfights, see Keeton, supra, at 643-45, we will be hard pressed to derive any manageable criteria. As Justice Blackmun commented, "one searches in vain . . . for anything resembling a principle in the common law of nuisance."

There’s no question in my mind that this decision is the end of public nuisance litigation as a viable cause of action for traditional pollutants, where those pollutants are comprehensively regulated under a federal statute. Moreover, it certainly provides a roadmap for dismissal of public nuisance claims concerning GHG emissions. As I noted last year in discussion Connecticut v. AEP, even though the 2^nd Circuit allowed GHG nuisance claims to proceed, part of its argument was that there is no comprehensive federal regulatory scheme with respect to GHG. Its argument clearly suggested that, once such regulations are in place, public nuisance defendants might have better luck. The promulgation of the Tailoring Rule now means that public nuisance defendants can point to North Carolina v. EPA and say that the federal rules have displaced the common law of nuisance. I think that they will probably win that argument. They certainly should.

Thank you Judge Wilkinson.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Climate change legislation is dead for now. I won’t pretend it’s not depressing, even though I avoid the political channels and ignore the rhetoric. For those of us who haven’t refudiated climate change science, it’s a victory for the pessimists and evidence that Congress has a hard time addressing long-range problems, even if consequential.

With respect to regulation of GHG, it’s the worst of both worlds and no one should be happy (which is why I held out hope until the end that cooler heads would prevail). We’re still going to have regulation of GHG, the mechanism being EPA’s recently promulgated Tailoring Rule for GHG. One word. Ugh. Does this really make climate skeptics happy? Do they really think that they will somehow succeed in rolling back the Tailoring Rule? I don’t think so. On the other hand, we don’t have an economy-wide cap-and-trade or carbon tax regime. Are environmentalists happy? I still don’t think so. 

I’m left feeling a little like Rodney King. Certainly, the issue isn’t going to go away before the next Congress is sworn in.

As I have noted before, however, problems with climate change legislation don’t mean that Congress can’t enact legislation further regulating traditional pollutants. The three-pollutant bill now before the Senate already has a Republic co-sponsor, Lamar Alexander. Now, according to a report in E&E Daily, even Senator Inhofe is stating that he’s interested in working with Democrats to move three-pollutant legislation. Given the failure to move GHG legislation, hell is likely to get hotter before freezing over, but if Inhofe can really be brought on board, there’s no reason why legislation couldn’t pass.

Three-pollutant legislation shares one significant feature with the GHG issue. Like GHG regulation, efficient regulation is hampered by limitations in existing law, as we saw with the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the trading regime in the CAIR regulations, and EPA’s much more limited trading program in the Transport Rule. Senator Voinovich, another Republican that three-pollutant legislation supporters would like to have with them, noted as much, saying that the transport rule would be a "stringent and inflexible regime." New legislation could provide for a more robust trading regime. We’ll see if that’s enough to bring Republicans on board.

I sure hope so. Right now, all we’ve got is a GHG regulatory program that won’t do much for climate change, but will cause my clients endless headaches, and a Transport Rule that’s probably the best EPA can do on traditional interstate pollution, but not nearly as cost-effective as it might be with new legislative authority. I remain an optimist, but sometimes it’s difficult.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 6, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released a proposed rule, dubbed the “Transport Rule”, which would replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”). As you likely recall, in 2008 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in North Carolina v. EPA, found that CAIR had a number of fatal flaws and remanded it to the Agency. (Due to its environmental benefits, the Court agreed to leave CAIR in effect while EPA worked on addressing its concerns).  

EPA has clearly attempted to address the problems identified in North Carolina v. EPA. Most significantly, while the Transport Rule still contains a trading component, trading is limited and the Rule ultimately requires that each state provide the reductions required to mitigate that state’s contribution to the interstate air transport problem. At 1,300 pages, the Rule is too long even to summarize here. For a quick summary, take a look at our Client Alert. You might also want to take a look at EPA’s helpful Fact Sheet and presentation summary for slightly more detail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Not surprisingly, the secondary market price for Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) allowances fell for the 4th quarter of 2009, as noted by RGGI Market Monitor Potomac Economics in their recent report.  Trading in RGGI allowances futures declined from 319 million allowances in the third quarter of 2009 to 127 million in the fourth quarter, despite the number of firms participating remaining the same.  Futures prices also declined 8% -- from $2.45 to $2.25.   Even so, futures prices remain notably higher than the clearing prices of the RGGI auctions, which were $2.19 and $2.05, respectively, in the September and December 2009 auctions.

One reason for the continuing decrease in RGGI allowance prices, both through auction and on the secondary market, is the steep decline in CO₂ emissions from the RGGI-subject power plants.   As highlighted in a recent report by Environment Northeast, due to the economic crisis, fuel switching energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy, emissions from those plants have fallen 34% since the start of the program, to just above 120 million tons of CO₂.  This is well below the current RGGI cap of 188 million tons, and even below RGGI's ultimate 2018 goal of 10% reductions from 2005 levels. As such, RGGI allowances will likely remain a surplus commodity well into the future. 

Even given these facts, though, RGGI allowances are far from worthless.  Particularly given that the House-passed ACES bill, as well as all of the front-runner energy and climate bills possibly considered by the Senate have contained provisions for the exchange of federal allowances for RGGI allowances, even the RGGI allowances that might not be needed by RGGI-covered entities could still be worth their weight in federal CO₂ credits sometime in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has long been understood that Massachusetts that the Commonwealth cannot meet its renewable energy goals with solar power alone. Solar is great, but really ratcheting up the percentage of energy supplied by renewable sources is going to take a big commitment to wind. In fact, Governor Patrick announced a goal of 2,000 MW of wind on- and off-shore in Massachusetts by 2020. There are currently 17 MW of wind power in Massachusetts.

Everyone knows the permitting travails – now, hopefully, over – that Cape Wind has faced. It is less known that on-shore wind has not been any easier to develop in Massachusetts. Yesterday, in Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind, the Supreme Judicial Court released a major on-shore wind project from permitting appeal purgatory. The New England Wind project (perhaps still better known as Hoosac Wind) in Florida and Monroe, Massachusetts, was proposed in 2003. Not uncommonly for projects of this sort, the appeal that delayed project implementation had nothing to do with the merits of on-shore wind. It was an appeal over wetlands approvals needed for a gravel access road. By the time MassDEP issued a Superseding Order of Conditions, the opponents requested an adjudicatory hearing, the hearing was held, the ALJ issued a 78-page recommended decision rejecting the permit, the Commissioner issued a 31-page final decision affirming the permit and rejecting the ALJ’s recommended decision, the Superior Court affirmed the Commissioner, and the SJC affirmed the Superior Court, it was July 6, 2010.

I don’t know about you, but I’m out of breath just typing this history. There has to be a better way. It’s certainly safe to say that if wind projects – wherever located – take 7 or 8 years to permit, it’s going to be 2120, not 2020, before we have 2,000 MW of wind in Massachusetts. As some readers will be aware, the Administration has been supporting legislation to facilitate siting of wind power facilities in Massachusetts, but it hasn’t been enacted yet and the forces that make it difficult to obtain final permits in Massachusetts go far beyond the issues that would be addressed by the wind siting legislation. 

For the lawyers among my readers, the decision breaks little ground. Yes, the Commissioner of DEP has considerable discretion in interpreting her own regulations. No, the ALJs who hear adjudicatory appeals and make recommended decisions are not entitled to any deference. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When we blogged about the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program regulations last fall, we noted that the EPA had excluded from the final regulations emission source categories such as wastewater treatment plants and underground coal mines that were initially included in the draft rules.  No longer. Yesterday, EPA finalized regulations requiring an estimated 680 facilities in the four sectors of underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment systems, industrial waste landfills and magnesium production facilities to begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2011, and submit their first annual report in March 2012. Despite being few in number, these facilities, which primarily emit methane, are responsible for about 1% of national greenhouse gas emissions.  As in the existing reporting rules, 40 CFR Part 98, these businesses are required to report their emissions to EPA if they emit 25,000 metric tons CO₂ equivalents or more per year.  

The final rule also clarifies EPA’s decisions on the remaining categories: EPA will exclude ethanol production and food processing from distinct subparts requiring reporting, as well as suppliers of coal (at least for now).  However, these types of facilities are still required to report emissions under other subparts of the rule, if they meet the reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO_2e per year. In addition, now that EPA has made final decisions on "all outstanding source categories and subparts" from last year's draft rule, additional sectors can only be added through new rulemaking.

EPA also released proposed rules reflecting what data submitted by facilities under the greenhouse gas reporting program will be released to the public and what will be withheld as confidential business information. EPA hopes to have these rules in place before the 10,000 facilities that produce about 85% of the nation’s emissions submit their first reports in March 2011. 

As you may recall, the greenhouse gas reporting rules require both direct emitters and suppliers of fuels and industrial gases to report.   For the “direct emitters,” EPA proposes to release information such as the facility name and physical address, emissions, methodology and data used to calculate the emissions, and test and calibration methods, but withhold as confidential business information data on production, throughput, or raw materials that are not inputs to the emissions equations. As the emissions reported by the suppliers of fuels and industrial gases are not emissions from their own facilities, but potential emissions from the eventual use of their products, the individual companies' reports are less important than the overall figures.  As such, EPA proposes a balancing approach – making sector-by-sector determinations and releasing data about emissions only when it would not cause substantial harm to the businesses’ competitive position. (Specifics on how data will be treated are available here.)   Comments are due 60 days after the proposed rules are published in the federal register.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two seemingly unrelated reports last week serve as a reminder that coal remains very much under siege. First, Earthjustice, on behalf of a number of environmental organizations, filed a petition with EPA under § 111 of the Clean Air Act requesting that EPA identify coal mines as an emissions source and, consequently, establish new source performance standards for coal mine emissions of methane and several other categories of pollutants. 

Second, as Daily Environment reported, the Army Corps of Engineers suspended use of Nationwide Permit 21 for the six states in the Appalachian region, covering Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The decision means that, at least for now, mountaintop removal mining operations in these states will have to apply for and obtain individual Clean Water Act permits, rather than relying on the Nationwide permit.

Other significant regulatory actions affecting the long-term economics of coal include EPA’s decision to tighten regulation of coal combustion residuals, whether through identification of CCR as a hazardous waste or through regulation under RCRA subtitle D – with the current betting being on listing of CCR as a hazardous waste, and EPA’s Tailoring Rule, which will focus initial regulation of GHG emissions on large stationary sources, the most obvious of which are large coal-fired power plants.

All of these actions are nominally independent, but if anyone thinks that at least the NGOs such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice don’t see these as related actions the cumulative goal of which is to end use of coal, they’re just not paying attention. Does Lisa Jackson feel the same way? I doubt she’ll ever tell us, but I think I know the answer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It may be time to learn a new acronym.  The 10 RGGI states, plus Pennsylvania and Washington DC have banded together to create the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) -- a group that has pledged to create a plan to address the estimated 30% of greenhouse gas emissions on the eastern seaboard caused by the transportation sector. 

In a Declaration of Intent released Wednesday, the leaders of the environmental, transportation and energy agencies of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington DC, pledged to develop and implement a three-year work plan that outlines how the region can cut greenhouse gases from vehicles and improve efficiency of regional transportation systems.   The TCI builds on RGGI (which does not itself regulate fuels or transportation, but began the states' collaborative efforts on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions) and the 11-states' low carbon fuel memorandum of understanding signed in December.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA held a public hearing this week on its proposed MACT standards for industrial boilers. The issue may not be as sexy as climate change, but it’s an important rule and not just for those operating industrial boilers. For example, the cement industry has burned 50 million tires – including steel belts – according to its own data. EPA wants to classify such tires as a solid waste, rather than a fuel, which would subject cement kilns to incinerators standards. This has the Rubber Manufacturers Association up in arms. (Query: Does the Michelin Man have arms?)

Industry representatives say that the standards simply can’t be met, arguing that EPA cherry-picked the best performance for different air contaminants across a range of facilities, but ignored data showing that no facilities can actually meet all of the standards. According to the Daily Environment Report, Matthew Todd of the American Petroleum Institute described the proposal as “Franken-MACT.”

I suspect that EPA is going to be very skeptical of these claims. Rightly or wrongly, EPA’s view is that industry tends to cry wolf regarding the feasibility of complying with new regulatory standards. In any case, EPA also tends to think of technology-forcing as part of its mission. Time will tell on this one, regarding both EPA’s willingness to meet industry at least part way and industry’s ability to comply with the standards.

The tire issue, which is merely one example, also calls to mind EPA’s current debate regarding regulation of coal combustion residuals. How does EPA balance what it regards as fidelity to statutory requirements with the need to encourage beneficial and economic reuse of what would otherwise be waste materials? At this point, EPA’s thumb appears to be on the regulatory side of the scale, rather than the reuse side. Not surprising, but not necessarily encouraging. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A week after the Senate’s rejection of the Murkowki resolution last week, where does climate change stand in Congress? The defeat of the resolution is not the end for those who don’t want EPA to regulate under existing authority. Senator Rockefeller hopes to get to the floor a bill that would delay EPA regulation of stationary sources for at least two years, but keep in place the mobile source compromise reached last year. Rockefeller has stated that he hopes to get the votes of some Senators who opposed Murkowski’s resolution.

What about cap-and-trade legislation? Notwithstanding the President’s stated commitment to getting it passed, it’s not obvious that the votes are there. Senator Lieberman, one of the sponsors, is now saying that the bill deserves a debate, notwithstanding the absence of 60 votes. Not exactly an encouraging prognosis for those who want legislation to be enacted.

I’ve got to say, it looks as though paralysis remains the word of the day. The Senate may be the world’s greatest deliberative body, but with respect to climate change, it’s difficult to see anything other than sound and fury, signifying nothing, for the near term. 

And that’s two Shakespeare quotes in one month.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative's (RGGI) eighth auction of CO₂ credits on June 9th, the clearing prices were the lowest yet – $1.88 for 2009-2011 credits and the auction floor of $1.86 for 2012-2014 allowances.  Despite these low prices, the auctions still brought in some $80 million.  In total, cumulative RGGI proceeds to be used by the 10 participating states for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance programs now total $662.8 million.

RGGI's announcement of the auction results highlights some of the specific programs in which the states have invested, and the returns we are already seeing from these investments.  For example, in Connecticut, electric and gas energy efficiency programs, funded in part by RGGI proceeds, are producing more than $4 for every $1 invested.  New York reports a return greater than 8 to 1 for its investments in renewable energy systems.  And the predictions are even larger:  Massachusetts reports that energy efficiency programs, funded in part by RGGI, will generate roughly $6 billion in consumer energy savings in Massachusetts over the next 3 years. 

On the whole, the RGGI states are investing around 60% of the proceeds from the auctions in energy efficiency.  Energy efficiency measures such as building retrofits, heating system replacements and appliance upgrades are predicted to shave 20 to 30% off consumers' utility bills over the next few years. States are also investing in large-scale renewable energy development as well as programs to deploy distributed generation, such as solar energy and hot water systems on  homes, schools, and businesses.

Although participation and prices were both down for this second auction of 2010, all 2010 vintage and 2013 vintage allowances available for purchase were sold – a change from the previous two auctions, in which supply for allowances to be used in the 2012-2014 compliance period outpaced demand.   Perhaps due to the drop in the number of entities participating, electric generators subject to RGGI purchased 92% of the 2010 vintage allowances – up from 85% in March's auction – and 100% of the 2013 vintage allowances.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last Friday, the Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit issued an order – boggling the minds of lawyers and non-lawyers alike – dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal in Comer v. Murphy Oil, one of the climate change nuisance cases. As the order and dissents make clear, it’s quite a set of circumstances. The District Court dismissed the case. A panel of the 5^th Circuit reversed. A request to rehear the case en banc was made. Seven out of 16 judges recused themselves. Of the nine remaining judges, six voted to rehear the case en banc. 

Three months later, one of the nine judges who voted on the en banc petition recused herself, leaving only eight – or half – of the judges. After requesting and receiving letter briefs from the parties, five of the remaining eight judges concluded that the last recusal deprived the Court of Appeals of a quorum, which means that the Court cannot hear or decide the appeal. Since the Court had already determined that, pursuant to its rules, the original panel decision was vacated when the decision to hear the case en banc was made, there is now no Court of Appeals decision; nor will there ever be one. The District Court decision dismissing the case, which had been reversed by the panel, is now in effect again, and the plaintiffs’ only remedy is a Supreme Court appeal.

As readers of this blog know, I’m not a believer in climate change nuisance litigation. As a formal matter, I think plaintiffs probably lack standing in these cases. As a practical matter, nuisance litigation is not the right way to regulate GHG emissions. However, I have to admit that I find the order breathtaking. The plaintiffs have a formal statutory right of appeal. As Judge Dennis pointed out in a scathing dissent,

federal courts lack the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred…. Just as courts have an “absolute duty … to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction, [] litigants have a corresponding due process right to have their cases decided when they are properly before the federal courts.”

I’ll spare you the details, but Judge Dennis provided several different practical solutions that the Court could have utilized to hear the case.

My initial reaction is that this will slow Supreme Court review of this issue. The 5^th Circuit was likely to affirm the District Court decision, which would have created a split with the Second Circuit. The order issued last week means that there is no circuit split at this point. While the plaintiffs can appeal the order to the Supreme Court. even if the Supreme Court were to reverse the order, it would only be to order the 5^th Circuit to hear the appeal on the merits. If the 5^th Circuit is to hear the case, it’s years away at this point. 

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, anyone?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 1972, Christopher Stone published his seminal book “Should Trees Have Standing?” That same year, Justice Douglas posed essentially the same question in his dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton, in which he argued that inanimate objects should have standing “to sue for their own preservation.”

I hadn’t thought of this for some time, but was reminded of the issue by an article in GreenWire this week, reporting on a study which has concluded that kudzu, an invasive species which is, one might say rhetorically, taking over the southeastern United States, increases NO_x levels and thus leads to the formation of ground-level ozone. Indeed, the study concluded that if kudzu does in fact take over – to the point where it covers all non-urban, non-agricultural soil – the number of areas exceeding the ozone NAAQS would increase by more than one-third.

Now, what’s the point of this other than the opportunity for a snappy headline? Perhaps nothing. I love a snappy headline. On the other hand, the report does serve as a useful reminder that environmental science and policy are really complicated. I do not use this complexity to suggest that the government should not act in the face of uncertainty, but I do believe that it can serve as a useful reminder of the limits of our knowledge and the appropriateness of a prudent caution before we assume we know all the answers. 

At a practical level, can EPA set up an offset program that would allow new sources of NO_x to move forward if they remove a certain number of acres of kudzu? After all, no one likes kudzu, anyway.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It now appears that Senator Murkowski’s resolution disapproving EPA’s endangerment finding will come to a vote in the Senate sometime in June. The complexity of the political dynamic is highlighted by the speculation regarding what such a vote will mean.  On the one hand, there are those who argue that a significant number of votes for the resolution will mean that climate change legislation is dead. On the other hand, Senator Graham has now predicted that the resolution will pass precisely because most Senators do want to pass a climate bill.

As a logical matter, Senator Graham is right. Being against EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority doesn’t necessarily mean that one is opposed to climate change legislation. Indeed, my guess at this point is that at least a plurality and probably a majority of the regulated community supports climate change legislation, but thinks that regulation of stationary sources under existing authority would be a bad idea. 

In terms of practical politics, however, it seems likely that there may be very little correlation between Senators’ views on climate change legislation and their vote on the Murkowski resolution. Some senators may vote for it because on the merits they think that GHG should be regulated pursuant to specific legislation enacted by Congress. However, many will just be taking a stand against any government regulation of climate change. On the other side, there may be many Senators who would prefer that climate change be addressed through legislation, but since legislation is not guaranteed, want to be certain that some kind of regulatory program is in place. 

Of course, it’s also important to remember that the Murkowski resolution would not just preclude regulation of stationary sources. Because it would disapprove the endangerment finding, it would also jeopardize the carefully negotiated agreement on mobile sources. They aren’t very many people who want to reopen that agreement, I assume.

The world’s greatest deliberative body? We’ll see about that.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

First Kerry-Lieberman, then the Tailoring Rule – a busy week for climate change. Senator Kerry certainly did not miss the coincidence. He called the release of the Tailoring Rule the “last call” for federal legislation. I’ve noted before the leverage that EPA regulation would provide, but this is the most explicit I’ve seen one of the sponsors on the issue.

As to the substance, there are not really any surprises at this point. EPA is certainly working to soften the blow of GHG regulation under the PSD program. Here are the basics (summarized here):

January 2, 2011 – Facilities obtaining PSD permits for pollutants other than GHGs after that date will need to meet BACT for GHG (whatever that may be) if their GHG emissions will increase by at least 75,000 tpy.

July 1, 2011 – New facilities with emissions of at least 100,000 tpy of GHG will need to obtain a PSD permit and meet BACT (whatever that may be) for GHG, even if they do not need a PSD permit for other pollutants. Modified facilities with increases of at least 75,000 tpy will have to obtain a PSD permit and meet BACT (whatever that may be) for GHG, even if they do not need a PSD permit for other pollutants.

July 1, 2012 – EPA will conclude a further rulemaking to address smaller sources. EPA has already committed to not regulate sources with GHG emissions below 50,000 tpy and further stated that permits would not be required for smaller sources before April 30, 2016.

As I’ve subtly hinted above, we still don’t know what EPA thinks BACT for GHG may be. EPA has at least suggested that, with respect to coal plants, BACT may be Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, and with respect to IGCC plants, BACT may be natural gas. If so, we’re not going to see many traditional coal plants permitted after this rule takes effect.

What about opposition to the rule? It’s near certain that someone will challenge it. While environmental groups support it and have suggested that opponents may not have standing, I’m skeptical. I think it likely that someone with standing will challenge it. I also think that there is a reasonable chance that the rule is overturned, because it’s not obvious to me that the courts will buy the “administrative necessity” argument. The more fundamental point is that I’m not sure it matters. If the Tailoring Rule is struck down, a court is still unlikely to vacate the rule. Instead, the court is likely to keep the Tailoring Rule in place, while giving EPA time to figure out how to comply with conflicting mandates in a way that doesn’t bring the world as we know it to an end.

At bottom, the problem isn’t the Tailoring Rule. The problem is that Massachusetts v. EPA makes regulation of GHG under the existing Clean Air Act inevitable absent congressional action. In other words, John Kerry is right; the Tailoring Rule is last call for the climate bill. I happen to agree with opponents that regulation of GHG under existing authority will be a nightmare. Even exempting small sources, PSD is just a terrible way to go – one of the last vestiges of command and control regulation and a nearly incomprehensible one, at that.

However, given Massachusetts v. EPA, Congress really only has two ways to fix the problem. The first would be to pass climate legislation. The second would be to pass legislation to preclude EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority. Right now, neither alternative seems likely, but once EPA rules are in effect, they’ll both be more tempting. We’ll see which we Congress moves.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

So, Kerry Lieberman (Graham?), also known as the American Power Act, is here. What does it mean?

My immediate reaction is that, in a big picture sense, they got it just about right. The fundamental issue, which was previously acknowledged by Senator Graham (can we start calling him “he who must not be named?”), is that we’re not going to solve the energy independence or climate change problems unless we put a price on carbon. This bill does that.

Frankly, the rest of the issues really only matter either to particularly constituencies or, as a related concern, to particular members of Congress. What are some of these other issues and how would they be handled in this bill? We’ll be getting a more detailed client alert out shortly, and if you can't wait, you can review the short summary or the section by section analysis, but here’s the very quick version.

Basic cap-and-trade provisions –

Goal is to reduce CO₂e by 4.75 percent of 2005 levels by 2013 and 83% by 2050, with interim targets in 2020 and 2030

EPA administrator will set allowance numbers to reach those targets

Only facilities emitting >25,000 tpy CO₂e will be subject to the program

Generating facilities are subject to the program in 2013; manufacturing facilities will not be subject until 2016.

Initial price floor of $12/ton and price ceiling of $25/ton

Limits on who can participate in the carbon market to avoid market manipulation

Allowances used primarily to cushion consumers from energy price increases, but also to support various industries

Includes a “WTO-consistent border adjustment mechanism.” In the absence of a global agreement, tariffs will be imposed on countries without similar GHG controls

Nuclear power – lots of help for the nuclear industry

Off-shore drilling – Provides substantial revenue sharing to certain coastal states, but allows states to prohibit leasing within 75 miles of their coastline

Coal – significant support for carbon capture and sequestration

Renewable energy – Does not include a national renewable energy standard, or RES, though does provide for federal assistance to encourage development of renewable energy technology

Preemption – preempts state cap-and-trade programs, but not other state regulation of GHG. Precludes EPA regulation:

No listing of GHG as criteria pollutants based on climate change impacts

No listing as hazardous air pollutants based on climate change impacts

Limitation – but not complete preemption – of GHG regulation under existing NSR authority

Don’t yell at me if this list does not include your favorite provision. This is a blog, not a treatise. As to the big political picture, I still think that, if Senator Graham can be brought back on board, there is a reasonable chance that this bill passes. If not, then I’m pretty skeptical. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs released its Revised MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol. For those who cannot get enough of this stuff, they also released a summary of revisions to the policy and a response to comments. On the whole, EEA took an appropriately moderate, incremental approach to revising the GHG policy. Indeed, it’s telling that the very first “change” identified by EEA in its summary is not a change at all – it’s EEA’s decision to retain the current case-by-case approach to determining appropriate performance standards and mitigation requirements. EEA decided not to establish numerical GHG emissions limits or emissions reductions targets.

Some of the other noteworthy aspects of the revised policy include:

Establishment of the state building code in effect at the time the ENF is filed to determine the project baseline

Elimination of the requirement to include a formal analysis of a separate “better” alternative. Although EEA said it was in some circumstances unrealistic to propose something “better” than the preferred alternative, to me it was simply that the MEPA process for the analysis of mitigation is the appropriate avenue for determining GHG improvements. That mitigation process was already in place, is always what MEPA has been about, and works well. Thus, the separate alternative was inappropriate.

No requirement to analyze life-cycle emissions. EEA was pushed to require full life-cycle analysis, including such components as emissions associated with construction, waste generation, water use, and wastewater generation. However, EEA concluded that such analyses would not be cost-effective: “the effort and cost associated with making these calculations may outweigh their usefulness….”

Retention of the self-certification process for verifying mitigation efforts. The policy does require that agencies include the self-certification requirement in Section 61 findings for permits.

An updated list of mitigation measures.

As EEA noted, the MEPA program has never been about standards; it is about project-specific analysis of impacts and potential mitigation measures to address those impacts. Particularly inthe GHG arena, where both technology and science are changing so rapidly, it makes even more sense to maintain the case-by-case approach, rather than adopt overly prescriptive standards. The devil is in the details regarding how MEPA implements the policy, but given the legislative mandate in the Global Warming Solutions Act, the policy continues to provide an appropriate framework for integrating GHG analysis into MEPA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a fair bit of evidence in recent weeks that getting a climate bill through Congress remains a difficult task. It is a sign of just how perfectly aligned the stars will need to be that the two recent problems for the bill were either completing unrelated to climate change or at best tangential.

First, as everyone knows, Senator Graham got annoyed that Senator Reid (locked in a tough reelection battle and needing Hispanic votes) suggested that he might move an immigration bill before the climate/energy bill. Senator Graham, as about the only Republican willing to work with Democrats, and knowing the leverage that he possesses, actually used that leverage. Senator Reid appears to have backed off at this point and my sense is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham were so close that it’s difficult to believe that they wouldn’t have been able to get a bill trhough in the next couple of months.

Then, of course, BP”s Deepwater Horizon drill rig sank. The resulting oil spill and potentially catastrophic damage to the Gulf Coast has quieted, for now, the Drill, Baby, Drill, crowd, and emboldened opponents of off-shore drilling. Notwithstanding the obvious reaction to the spill, expanded off-shore drilling was a likely part of the compromise necessary to get a climate bill over the finish line. Moderate and conservative senators are still going to require something that will allow them to vote for the bill as an economic development measure.

More coal? Oops. Forgot about the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion.

I still think that a bill will happen. Partly because I’m an optimist. Partly because it just seemed that Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham were to close to fail, as it were.

Which brings up the second part of this post. If I’m right, we’re going to get a bill. Will it be a good bill? Last week, the Rasmussen Reports announced the results of a poll showing that most Americans favor passage of a climate bill. However, at the same time, most American’s don’t want to pay anything for it. Now, that’s not really a surprise. Nonetheless, since most environmentalists, most economists, and even Senator Graham believe that we have to put a price on carbon, it does make it politically difficult for Congress to do what it has to do (and, yes, I do know that we can put a price on carbon and still provide rebates that will leave consumers both facing carbon prices and in the same net economic position).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Senator Lieberman (I -CT) confirmed that the climate bill that he, Senator Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Graham (R-SC) plan to announce next week will include preemption of state and federal initiatives, including EPA's Clean Air Act authority.  Leaving aside the potential in his statement for the bill to also preempt state renewable energy and efficiency programs, the goal of predictability and one nationwide cap-and-trade system is an approach that we endorsed a few weeks ago, and one that H.R. 2454 also contained, albeit with a 5 year moratorium, rather than a complete preemptive ban.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Western Climate Initiative is scheduled to begin its cap-and-trade program in 2012.  But as ClimateWire highlighted today, the number of states who will be ready and willing to participate in the program is quickly dwindling.  Utah is the latest member of the seven-state, four-Canadian-province agreement to announce that it will not have the state authority needed to actually implement a cap-and-trade program in 2012.  Montana, Washington and Oregon will also probably miss the 2012 start date, and Arizona's governor withdrew from the cap-and-trade program entirely in February.   Meanwhile, New Mexico's implementation of regulations may be derailed by a lawsuit from utility and oil and gas companies which contends that the state Environmental Improvement Board cannot regulate greenhouse gases without setting ambient air quality standards.

This leaves only California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec as the original members of the agreement who may be on track to take part as planned.   But even California's ability to participate in 2012 might face challenges -- as ClimateWire noted on Monday, a ballot initiative set for November would cancel the state's authorizing statute, A.B. 32, until the unemployment rate falls.

Although California and the Canadian provinces account for 70% of the region's emissions, and WCI is working on a plan to allow other states to join the cap-and-trade program in subsequent years, these defections may cause significant issues for the Initiative.  One important issue to iron out for California's participation is which jurisdiction controls the allowances that cover electricity imports.  Under the WCI framework, electricity imports from outside of the region are counted as part of the cap in the jurisdiction where they are used, but generation originating inside the region is assigned to the generating facility.  This could create a large problem for California, which imports nearly half of its electricity from neighboring states.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham get ready to release their version of a climate bill, negotiations with moderate Democrats are heating up. Ten Democrats, apparently let by Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow released a letter outlining what they call “key provisions for a manufacturing” package as part of an overall bill. Here are some highlights the Senators' wish list:

Investments in clean energy manufacturing and low carbon industrial technologies.

Ensuring law energy costs for manufacturers, including a “firm price collar”

A phase-in for regulation of GHG emissions from manufacturing

Allowance rebates for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries

Tariffs on imports from countries without comparable GHG regulatory regimes

Preemption of state GHG regulation

If Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham can actually bring these Senators along, they will have come a long way towards getting a bill passed. However, there are still a number of moderate to conservative Democrats who have not signed this letter and whose support is by no means a sure thing. 

Similarly, one wonders what kind of Republican support there will be, if any. One thing is clear, if a bill is enacted, President Obama and the Congressional leadership are going to owe a big debt to Senator Graham. If he stays on board, it’s hard to see how Senators such as Collins and Snowe don’t sign on as well. 

Environmentalists are the ones who may have to be dragged across the finish line, assuming that final legislation includes preemption, support for nuclear energy and clean coal, a phase-in for manufacturing compliance and, perhaps, off-shore drilling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday’s New York Times had a very interesting article regarding the use of advanced municipal waste combustor technology in Europe. As the article notes, such plants are relatively commonplace in Europe, whereas literally no new waste-to-energy plants are being built in the United States. Ian Bowles, our own Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs – and someone who has generally been a very successful promoter of renewable energy technology – acknowledged that “Europe has gotten out ahead with this newest technology.” 

This shouldn’t be surprising given that states such as Massachusetts have moratoria on new municipal waste combustors. It’s difficult to keep up with Europe when you order people not to try. In fairness to Secretary Bowles, the article pretty much makes clear why it is that Massachusetts has a moratorium in place and why we’ve fallen behind Europe. Laura Haight, at New York PIRG said that

Incinerators really are the devil.

Glad that there’s no rhetorical excess at NY PIRG. In any case, it’s difficult for regulators to move forward when one of their prime constituencies thinks that the technology is the devil.

Is it possible that the U.S. environmental community is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue? NY PIRG wants to get to a “zero waste” economy. I think we’ll get to a zero carbon economy before we get to a zero waste economy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, Judge Thomas Varlan handed the power plant sector a major win in the NSR enforcement arena, ruling that economizer and superheater replacement projects in 1988 at the TVA Bull Run plant were routine maintenance not subject to NSR/PSD regulations. Judge Varlan ruled for the TVA notwithstanding that: 

The projects cost millions of dollars (but less than $10M each)

They extended the life of the plant by 20 years

The costs were identified as capital, not maintenance, expenses

The projects were more extensive than other economizer/superheater projects that had previously been implemented at the Bull Run facility

Why did the Court rule for the TVA?

Although expensive, the projects’ costs were consistent with a wide range of maintenance projects conducted at Bull Run during the time frame

These projects were routine in the industry, even if not commonly performed more than once at individual facilities

Life extension, while a result of the projects, was not their primary purpose

If this decision is upheld on appeal, it will significantly weaken EPA and citizen NSR/PSD enforcement efforts in the power plant sector – at least in the Sixth Circuit, where there are a lot of coal-fired power plants.

Whether the decision is right or wrong – and neither reversal nor affirmance by the Sixth Circuit would surprise me – I’d like to take this opportunity to get on my soapbox about the NSR program as a whole. Why are we fighting about whether projects implemented 22 years ago were routine maintenance? Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on trading programs that are proven to work cost-effectively to reduce emissions than to try to figure out whether replacement of a superheater provides sufficient leverage to require a power plant to install a scrubber or SCR?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Now that the SEC has indicated that public companies should be considering climate change in evaluating financial risks, the pressing questions include what should be evaluated and how it should be reported.  ASTM's newly released standard on Financial Disclosures Attributed to Climate Change, E2718-10 may be just the thing.  The standard, which has been under development for the last 2 years, provides guidance on processes for identifying, quantifying and disclosing potential material impacts related to climate change, both the benefits and liabilities. 

As with much in financial disclosures, the trick is to find the right balance.  ASTM notes that it will not be possible to eliminate uncertainty regarding the financial impacts of climate change, and cautions that subsequent disclosures should not be used to criticize previous disclosures, which hindsight and new standards may paint with an unfairly harsh light.  ASTM has also acknowledged that the costs to obtain information about the financial impacts of climate change should not outweigh the benefits of the information, but that it is important to use all of the relevant and reasonably ascertainable information a company can access.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last year, EPA delayed implementation of the Bush EPA’s Aggregation Rule; at the time, I said that the rule was on life support. Earlier this week, EPA announced that it was formally proposing to revoke the aggregation rule. It looks as though the rule is now off life support and it’s time for the last rites.

The aggregation rule always seemed to me a piece of simple, common-sense regulatory reform; it was not a case of wild-eyed right wing radicals trying to gut environmental regulations. The basic issue is this. EPA wants to make certain that regulated facilities don’t avoid NSR review by carving big projects up into lots of little ones, each of which might escape review. That’s a perfectly reasonable goal, but I still don’t understand what’s wrong with having a simple test – whether the separate projects are “substantially related” – to determine whether to aggregate them. One way to put it is to ask why EPA would ever want to aggregate projects that are not “substantially related.” 

EPA has stated that the term “substantially related” is “vague.” It may not be perfect, but few things are in this world, particularly the world of NSR regulation. In any case, that very vagueness would give EPA a lot of discretion in determining whether aggregation would be required. EPA also noted that the rule fails “to consider a company’s intent.” Is it really better for EPA to be in the business of determining a company’s subjective intent than to answer the objective question of whether projects are in fact substantially related?

After criticizing the subjective element of EPA’s preferred approach, I should hesitate to speculate about EPA’s motives here, but this is what I think EPA’s proposal is about. EPA believes that the NSR program is its best tool for obtaining emissions reductions and it will craft every piece of the NSR program to provide maximum ability to coerce reductions – regardless of whether such coercion is consistent with the statutory provisions or whether the regulatory approach is cost-effective. Moreover, EPA’s position pretty much explicitly states that it does not trust business – a truer look into EPA’s views on the regulated community than any platitudes EPA may provide about wanting to work with the business community in crafting workable environmental regulations.

My depression is substantially related to the flaws in the NSR program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just over a year ago, we noted the surprising, unanimous decision by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to adopt rules requiring insurers to publicly disclose the impacts of climate change on their business decisions, to begin May 1, 2010.  Well, not so fast.   As Climate Wire reported, at Sunday's NAIC meeting, a the commissioners voted 27-22 to make the disclosure rules optional for states to adopt, submissions to be voluntary, and insurers' survey answers to be kept confidential.

The revised questionnaire adopted by NAIC includes the same 8 questions that were endorsed at last year's meeting, but notes that submission of the survey is at each state's discretion and that insurers' responses will be considered confidential.  Instead of publishing all responses, as originally envisioned, participating states will work with NAIC to develop a public report which will give information about insurers' responses in the aggregate. 

Now that the states may have different requirements, NAIC set out rules for what happens when an insurer serves multiple states with different disclosure rules -- the surveys are intended to be submitted to the regulator of the insurer group's lead state (i.e. the one with the largest direct written premium).  Such a rule could make disclosure particularly interesting if California goes ahead with its own set of proposed rules and mandatory disclosures, as California controls a large segment of the insurance industry.

NAIC's seemingly abrupt policy change comes on the heels of the SEC's interpretive release requiring companies to disclose climate change risks when appropriate, which might have created some overlap with mandatory insurer disclosures.  Per the NAIC Task Force's January minutes, it seems like the commissioners may have decided to let the SEC regulate instead.   

Another interesting update is the revised questionnaire's disclaimer denying that the survey expresses an opinion on the existence or absence of climate change.  Was the disclaimer motivated in part by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' comments to NAIC about the "questionable integrity" of contemporary climate science in the wake of the release of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA has finally issued its formal reconsideration of the Johnson Memo. As EPA had telegraphed, it confirms that a pollutant is only subject to PSD permitting requirements when that pollutant is subject to “a final nationwide rule [that] requires actual control of emissions of the pollutant.”

As EPA had also already indicated, the reconsideration states that PSD permitting requirements are triggered, not when a rule is signed or even on the effective date of the rule, but instead when the nationwide controls actually take effect under the rule. In other words, assuming that EPA finalizes the mobile source GHG rule as proposed, its effective date would be January 2, 2011, and stationary sources would be subject to PSD permitting requirements for GHG as of that date.

For those who want somewhat more detail, but aren’t up for reading the 114 pages of the reconsideration, EPA has issued a very helpful fact sheet – only 4 pages.

In short, no surprises, but further confirmation, for those who needed it, that EPA continues to march on in its regulation of GHG under existing Clean Air Authority. I believe that the next move belongs to Senator Murkowski. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I noted that Gina McCarthy, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, suggested that, in the short run, the most significant pressure on inefficient energy sources would come, not from climate change legislation or from EPA GHG regulations, but instead from all of the conventional pollutant regulations that EPA expects to promulgate that will make use of coal much more expensive. While Gina was referring to a variety of air regulations, such as CAIR, MACT rules, and SIP revisions following a more stringent PM standard, even Gina may have been too narrowly focused. Today, EPA announced that it was proposing to veto a mountaintop mining permit issued to the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, in West Virginia.

The proposed veto was based on a number of interrelated concerns, including impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife, an inadequate mitigation plan, and the cumulative impacts of Spruce No. 1 and other mining operations in the aptly named Coal River basin. The cumulative impact issue must, by itself, terrify mine owners.

I’m sure that EPA made this decision (rightly or wrongly) on the merits under the Clean Water Act. Nonetheless, does anyone think that Gina McCarthy - and Administrator Jackson - are not aware of the broader picture? Even if they were not, the environmental organizations that are looking to end use of coal certainly are. When one piles CAIR and mercury and increasingly stringent particular standards on top of limitations on mountaintop mining, the phrase that occurs to me is indeed “cumulative impact.” However, it’s the cumulative impact of all of these regulations and regulatory decisions on those using – or financing – coal plants that set me thinking. Perhaps that’s why a separate story in today’s GreenWire was headlined “Coal: Outlook grim for new power plants”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Now that health care legislation has passed, the question is whether passage of the health care bill will unleash a cascade of other legislation, including a climate change bill, or whether Congress will be so exhausted and so polarized that nothing else will happen. I lean to the former position, but only time will tell. One positive indication was Senator Graham’s statement that, notwithstanding his views on the health care bill, he will continue to work towards passage of a climate change bill. Another shout out seems in order for Senator Graham.

The second positive indicator is the chorus of concern recently voiced by environmental groups about the direction in which climate legislation seems to be heading. If the Center for Biological Diversity is expressing grave concern, I suspect that negotiations are probably about where they need to be for a bill to pass. The concern expressed most recently by environmental groups is that the Senate negotiations appear to be headed towards inclusion of language preempting both state regulation and EPA regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority – both of which seem to me to be no-brainers. 

I’m sure that the CBD truly is appalled at the idea of preemption; I hope that the more mainstream environmental groups are more practical and will simply use their opposition as a bargaining chip. While I’m not really in the prognostication business, I’d be about willing to guarantee that there won’t be a bill unless there is preemption language.

Another issue that’s jumped up on the radar screen is off-shore drilling, with a number of Senators indicating that it has to be part of a bill, while 10 Democrats have written to Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman indicating that they may not be able to support a climate change bill that provided for increased off-shore drilling.

Finally, E&E Daily reported that Obama staffers, including Carol Browner, met with Senate Democrats yesterday to discuss ways to move Senate legislation in April. The report indicates that Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman hope to draft a bill in the next few weeks. I don’t think we’re going to see the Senate pass a bill any time soon, but it does look as though things are starting to move.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, Judge John Darrah handed the government a defeat in a PSD/NSR enforcement action, when he ruled that the requirement to obtain permits under the PSD program prior to making major modifications was solely a pre-construction obligation and did not constitute a continuing violation. 

United States v. Midwest Generation was one of the recent wave of government PSD/NSR actions, filed last summer. The problem with the government’s case was that Midwest Generation had purchased the six facilities at issue in the case from Commonwealth Edison in 1999 and all of the alleged changes but one were made prior to the purchase.

Although the court thoroughly reviewed the case law – and found it generally supportive of its conclusion – its major focus was on a plain reading of the statutory language (and we know how much this Supreme Court likes plain readings). The relevant statute provision provides that:

No major emitting facility … may be constructed in any area to which this part applies unless … a Permit has been issued…. 

To Judge Darrah,

the plain meaning of the statute’s introductory language … thus prohibits the construction of a “major emitting facility’ unless [the statutory requirements] are met…. On its face, nothing in § 7475 prohibits the subsequent operation of such a facility without a permit. (Emphasis in original.)

There are other counts in the government’s complaint, including claims of operating permit violations. However, the decision on the NSR/PSD claims is quite significant. The case does not simply dismiss, as some other decisions have done, penalty claims. This is not a statute of limitations decision (though the Judge did also follow most other cases in dismissing, on statute of limitations grounds, the penalty claims with respect to the one alleged modification that occurred after Midwest Generation bought the facilities). As Judge Darrah made clear, the government is not entitled to “any relief on those claims – injunctive or otherwise.” (Emphasis in original.)

Score one of generators – particularly merchant generators who bought facilities after modifications had already been made.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite the relatively low clearing prices in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) seventh auction of CO₂ credits on March 10^th -- $2.07 for 2009-2011 allowances, and the auction floor price of $1.86 for 2012-2014 allowances – cumulative RGGI proceeds to be used by the 10 participating states for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance programs now total $582.3 million.

As reported in today’s announcement of the auction results, this half billion dollars is being funneled into state-run programs that make investments in energy efficiency, accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, and, at the bottom line, create thousands of jobs. In the report, RGGI highlights success stories from regional companies in sectors such as energy audits and weatherization, and the US Department of Energy’s statistic that every million dollars invested in building weatherization creates more than 50 jobs in installation and another 10 to 20 jobs in the production of energy efficient building materials.  Also notable for Massachusetts is DOER Commissioner Phil Guidice’s statement that energy efficiency programs funded in part by RGGI are expected to create or maintain nearly 4,000 jobs in Massachusetts in the coming three years.

This auction was RGGI’s first in 2010, and the first to offer new years’ allowances for sale. Participation increased in both auctions, perhaps as a result of the green shoots of the new economic recovery. 

Participation in the auction of 2010 vintage allowances, which may be used to cover CO₂ emissions from power plants in the first compliance period of 2009-2011, was robust, with 51 entities submitting bids to purchase 2.3 times the available supply of 40.6 million allowances. The clearing price of $2.07 is up from December’s low of $2.05, even though this auction offered 40.6 million allowances for sale, a significant increase from the prior two auctions offerings of roughly 28.5 million each. Eighty-five percent of the 2010 vintage allowances were purchased by entities regulated under RGGI or their affiliates.

Participation also increased in the auction of allowances to be used in RGGI’s second control period (2012-2014). Although Wednesday’s auction marked the second time that supply outpaced demand for these allowances, the quantity of allowances for which bids were submitted increased 31% from December’s Auction 6 of 2012 vintage allowances. Ninety-eight percent of the 2.1 million 2013 vintage allowances offered for sale sold to nine generators regulated under RGGI at the $1.86 mandated auction floor price. As with the unsold allowances from December, the additional allowances may be sold at future auctions, or a state may choose to retire them. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I posted about improvements in air quality since 1990. It’s a good thing air quality is improving, because, at the same time, the science keeps suggesting that ever lower pollutant levels pose risks to public health. The latest news was EPA’s draft review of the appropriate level at which to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter.

EPA most recently revised the PM standard in 2006, setting it at 15 ug/m³, notwithstanding the staff recommendation to set the standard at between 13 ug/m³ and 14 ug/m³. As I have discussed, EPA’s decision was struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, because EPA could not justify its departure from the scientific recommendations it has received.

Now, the draft Policy Assessment has concluded that the 15 ug/m³ is not sufficiently stringent. The draft suggested two ranges for potential revised standards:

Annual standard of between 12 and 13 ug/m³; 24-hour standard of 30 to 35 ug/m³

Annual standard of between 10 and 11 ug/m³; 24-hour standard of 25 to 30 ug/m³

A more stringent PM standard is going to have significant implications. These include:

1.         Strengthening the logic for three pollutant legislation. First, the health effects described in the Policy Assessment suggest the need for such legislation, because the targets of three pollutant legislation are among the big contributors to PM emissions. Second, in order to meet a more stringent standard, reductions of the sort contemplated in three pollutant legislation are going to be necessary.

2.         It may be simply a restatement of the first point, but the pressure on old fossil fuel plants, particularly old coal plants, is only going to increase as a result of the Policy Assessment. In this context, it is noteworthy that, at a seminar on Friday, Gina McCarthy, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, in discussing the number of rules EPA is obligated to issue in the next 12-18 months, indicated her sense that the biggest impact on GHG emissions might not result from EPA’s tailoring rule and direct regulation of GHGs, but would instead result from the secondary effect from the full panoply of traditional pollutant regulations on EPA’s docket. In other words, once EPA is done with new CAIR regulations, MACT rules, and SIP revisions following a more stringent PM standard, the economics of old coal plants will be such as to force switching to more climate-friendly energy sources, even aside from direct GHG regulation.

I think that Gina is probably right, and I’m particularly appreciative that she is able to take the long view. In the short run, coal remains cheap. Moreover, traditional control technologies for SO₂ and NO_x require energy, increase station service, and thus actually do not help with GHG reductions. Nonetheless, if one does take the long view, more stringent traditional regulation, including that resulting from more stringent PM standards, will increase the cost of fossil fuels and help drive the economy towards energy sources that are more climate friendly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I know that despair is always more fashionable than optimism, but it is sometimes useful to remember that not everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Yesterday, EPA issued a press release announcing publication of its latest report on trends in air quality. The report, titled “Our Nation’s Air: Status and Trends Through 2008”, makes clear that, overall, air quality has gotten significantly better, particularly since 1990.

What I find most notable is that reductions in NO_x largely occurred after 2002, whereas reductions in other pollutants, such as PM and SO₂, have occurred since 1990. Notice anything about these dates? After 1990, the acid rain trading program came into effect. With respect to NO_x, the report itself acknowledges that the improvements resulted from implementation of the NO_x SIP call and EPA’s NO_x Budget Trading Program. 

What do you know? Trading programs work. Anyone in Congress pondering climate legislation paying attention?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s difficult to keep up with the various moves in Congress, attempting either to advance climate change legislation or to preclude EPA climate change regulation. On the advance side, E&E Daily had a very helpful summary earlier this week on the various issues affecting those senators that will need to be brought on board to reach 60 yes votes in the Senate. The identified issues include, not surprisingly: (1) coal, (2) nuclear power, (3) trade-sensitive industries, (4) oil and gas drilling, and (5) sector-specific limits. In what is probably a sidelight to the whole debate, Vernon Ehlers, a Republican, but the first research physicist elected to Congress, has taken climate change skeptics to task, saying that the scientists relied on by the skeptics are not “the experts in the field.”

On the preclusion side, Congress is being deluged with requests, including from some of its own members, to stop EPA from regulating GHG under existing regulatory authority. In the past week:

20 governors (if you include Puerto Rico and Guam) wrote to Congress opposing any EPA regulation of GHG under existing authority. The letter specifically says that they seek not just a delay, but preclusion of any regulation absent specific Congressional authorization.

98 industry groups, including such left-leaning groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the API, wrote to all senators in support of Senator Murkowski’s resolution to disapprove of EPA’s endangerment finding. The letter specifically asserts that EPA’s tailoring rule “has little legal foundation” – while at the same time criticizing for not going far enough to protect smaller sources of GHG.

Senator Levin wrote a letter to Senator Kerry which, while indicating support for climate change legislation, stated that industrial sources should not be regulated for at least 10 years

I still find it difficult to believe that the resolution disapproving the endangerment finding will be enacted. While Senator Murkowski recently referred to EPA’s efforts as a “backdoor” attempt to regulate GHG, EPA’s is doing pretty much what the Supreme Court ordered it to do, and it seems to be making every effort to minimize the economic impact of those regulations. I still agree that EPA regulation will be a mess, and it’s not obvious to me that the tailoring rule will survive legal challenge, but it’s difficult to see how EPA could be doing anything less than what it is doing in light of Massachusetts v. EPA.

All of which gets back to those fence sitters and the difficulty of getting 60 Senators to agree on enough to move a bill. One aspect is looking more and more certain. If there is a bill, state authority is going to be preempted and EPA authority under prior CAA provisions is going to be superseded.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last week, Senate and House Democrats piled more pressure on EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority. Senator Rockefeller and Representatives Rahall, Boucher, and Mohollan introduced companion House and Senate bills to preclude EPA regulation of stationary source GHG emissions for two years. Unlike the resolution sponsored by Senator Murkowski, which would simply overturn the endangerment finding and thus preclude all GHG regulation, the new legislation would specifically allow mobile source regulation to proceed.

As long as the White House and important committee chairs oppose the legislation, it still seems unlikely to pass, though there have been enough political surprises in the past few months, and there are enough moderate Democrats supporting some kind of preclusion of EPA regulation, that I would no longer rule it out.

Even if the bills are not enacted, the filing of the legislation remains noteworthy. First, Representative Boucher was one of the early, and perhaps most surprising, supporters of cap-and-trade legislation. At a policy level, support for legislation and opposition to EPA regulation under existing authority is perfectly reasonable. I should hope so, because it’s a view that I share. Nonetheless, it still strikes me as a telling example of how much momentum seems to be building to slow down the more aggressive aspects of EPA’s approach to GHG regulation.

The flip side of this coin is EPA’s announcement that it will not require permits for GHG emissions until 2011 and that the program will initially cover only sources emitting at least 75,000 tpy of GHG. Time will tell whether administration opposition and EPA’s moves to limit the pain of stationary source GHG regulation will be enough to beat back the opponents of any GHG regulation under existing authority.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Seemingly just in time to lend support to the revived idea of a carbon tax that we noted on Monday, an Obama Administration inter-agency workgroup has released a report that attempts to do the critical math necessary to put a price tag on CO₂ emissions.

The report sets out four dollar figures that represent the “social cost of carbon,” or the potential damages associated with not stopping the emissions of each incremental ton of CO₂. The figures, which differ due to the use of different models and discount rates, designed to capture different views about the impact of climate on future decisions, include such damages as changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. 

Not surprisingly, the numbers vary widely – spanning, in 2007 dollars, from $5 to $65 per ton for 2010 emissions, up to as high as $136 per ton for 2050 emissions.   The report outlines the potential shortcomings of the figures in detail, for instance, the potential impact of the other 5 greenhouse gases included in the EPA’s endangerment finding which have not yet been quantified, and the possibility of  “tipping point” scenarios in climate systems that could drastically change the marginal impact of each ton of emissions.  

However, even given these limitations, this valuation could be a critically important step towards determining such figures for use in policies like a carbon tax.  After all, internalizing the externality and cost to society is one main purpose of a carbon tax.

The more immediate impact of the report may also be significant.  Federal agencies are required, by Executive Order 12866, to assess the costs and benefits of regulations before deciding to act.  These figures will be used to incorporate the social cost of carbon into this analysis for all agency decisions, even those which might only have a small impact on global emissions.  As most federal agency decisions will have some impact on global emissions, even if only marginal, adding in the cost of CO₂ could have wide-ranging implications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To date, the only circuit courts that have reviewed public nuisance claims related to climate change, the Second Circuit, in American Electric Power, and the Fifth Circuit, in Comer v. Murphy Oil, have ruled that such suits can proceed. However, last week the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided to hear Comer v. Murphy Oil en banc, which certainly has to give the plaintiffs pause. While I am not fully versed in this issue, a quick glance at the web indicates that statistical analysis confirms one’s naïve assumption, i.e., that a full appellate court often decides to hear a case en banc because a majority thinks that the panel got it wrong.

As I noted when the original decision was issued, even under liberal standing rules, which suggest that the plaintiffs’ harm can be “traced” to the defendant as long as the defendant’s conduct “contributed” to the harm, it’s going to be very difficult for plaintiffs, particularly under the Supreme Court’s new pleading rules, to argue that, for example, Murphy Oil “contributed” to the harm caused by Katrina. If the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc affirms the District Court dismissal in Murphy v. Comer, we could be headed back to the Supreme Court on climate change, since that would set up a conflict between the Second and Fifth Circuits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A few weeks ago, I queried whether three pollutant legislation might be back in play, particularly given the current rough sledding for broad climate change legislation. Now, it certainly appears that way. The bill has been formally introduced. In addition to Alexander, there are now three other GOP co-sponsors (Gregg, Graham, and Snowe), not including Senator Lieberman, who is also a sponsor. There will be a hearing on March 4.

The basic provisions are as follows:

Reduction in SO₂ emissions of 80% by 2018

Statutory authorization of the CAIR rule through 2011

Reduction in NO_x emissions of 53% by 2015

Reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants of 90% by 2015. 

I still don’t have a crystal ball on the likelihood that this bill will move, but there are certainly a number of reasons why it might. Uncertainty about the CAIR rule motivates a number of sources to prefer a legislative solution. The difficulties in moving the climate change legislation make a bipartisan agreement on three pollutant legislation attractive to both sides of the aisle. We’ll know more after the hearing, but the Ozone Transport Commission has already criticized the NO_x provisions as insufficiently stringent, which I take as a good sign for the bill’s prospects.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since I did a post earlier today indicating the cap-and-trade legislation is unlikely to become law in the near term, it’s only fair that I also do a post on efforts by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman to resuscitate the legislation. The bill's prospects are too uncertain to spend too much time on the details. In short, it would include a phased-in approach to regulation, starting with the biggest emitters, such as utilities, combined with a carbon tax on transportation fuels that has been supported by several major oil companies.

To me, the most notable statements come from Senator Graham, the only Republican in the gang of three. Senator Graham has turned out to be one of the more intriguing and less predictable members of Congress in recent years. This may have its pluses and minuses and I have no idea whether he can bring any GOP support along, but you have to sit up and take notice when a Republican says

Cap and trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die -- and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon.

Of course, he’s right. The sad thing is that the rest of his party has so demonized any and all taxes that no Democrat could possibly say something like this – and many of the distortions in the various bills we’ve seen to date have resulted from strenuous efforts to avoid having consumers see any price signals about the cost of carbon emissions.

Keep sayin’ it, Brother Graham.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The uncertainty surrounding EPA regulation of GHG emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority was driven home for me last week when the same conference resulted in two diametrically opposed headlines in the trade press. Regarding a forum held by the International Emissions Trading Association, the Daily Environmental Reporter headline was “Existing Law Too Inflexible to Accommodate Market-Based Emissions Cuts, Executives Say.” Over at ClimateWire, the headline was “Some Companies Want EPA to Establish a CO2 Cap-and-trade System.” 

Of course, in fairness to the two publications, both headlines are true – and that’s the problem with the current EPA efforts. Notwithstanding current efforts in Congress to preclude EPA regulations, the endangerment finding seems almost certain to withstand legal challenge. Thus, GHGs will be regulated. Almost everyone wants that regulation to be in the form of a cap-and-trade program, but the last time EPA tried that without explicit Congressional authority, it was shot down in the courts. This may be why the Daily Environment Report story indicated that Vickie Patton of EDF had “pleaded” with executives to support cap-and-trade legislation.

At this point, the most likely near-term outcome appears to be no federal cap-and-trade legislation, and a stripped-down EPA regulatory program that would only apply to really large emitters, so that the inefficiencies inherent in the facility-specific BACT approach won’t appear too unreasonable, because the only people complaining about it will be some very unpopular polluters and all of my economist friends.

Or, as the Stones might have said in their more cynical moments:  Not only can’t you get what you want, but you can’t even get what you need.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, EPA Administrator Jackson issued a letter to Senator Jay Rockefeller responding to certain questions regarding EPA regulation of GHGs under existing Clean Air Act authority, including promulgation of the so-called “Tailoring Rule”, describing how stationary source regulation under the existing PSD program would be phased-in once GHGs are subject to regulation. Here are the highlights:

EPA still expects to promulgate the Tailoring Rule by April 2010.

The GHG permitting threshold will be “substantially higher than the 25,000-ton limit that EPA originally proposed.”

No permits will be required until 2011. Initially, only facilities otherwise subject to CAA permitting will be required to obtain permits. The smallest facilities will not be subject to GHG permitting before 2016.

You can talk all you want about global warming, but it seems to me as though it’s EPA that’s feeling the heat. EPA has clearly heard the threats of a Congressional resolution barring EPA regulation of GHGs under existing authority. The reaction from Congress is all the evidence one needs. Both Senators Rockefeller and Murkowski praised the letter. While neither indicated that the letter would be sufficient to stop them from pursuing Congressional action, it might be enough to peel off some fence-sitters who might otherwise have felt compelled to support the legislation.

What does EPA’s statement of intent mean for various law suits swirling around this issue?

I don’t see any impact on litigation against the Endangerment Finding; it will still proceed and it will still lose.

The likelihood of law suits from environmental groups alleging that EPA is shirking its responsibilities under the CAA has certainly increased. Moreover, while EPA has a lot of discretion, I could imagine courts saying to EPA:  “Nice try, but the CAA doesn’t give you the kind of flexibility you have asserted in the Tailoring Rule. Only Congress can provide that flexibility by amending the CAA.” In this respect, the situation is similar to litigation over the CAIR regulations, which pretty much everyone liked, but which were struck down because the approach EPA took in the CAIR rule wasn’t consistent with the CAA.

Finally, any kind of regulation by EPA will provide an additional defense to private nuisance litigation. As I have previously noted, one question raised by the nuisance law suits is whether EPA has regulated GHG in a manner sufficient to “displace” the common law of nuisance. In this respect, the sort of program described yesterday by Administrator Jackson may be the best possible outcome for the regulated community, because it will narrow EPA regulations while providing a ground to preclude nuisance litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The grand total is 16 separate challenges to EPA’s endangerment finding, according to Greenwire. I’m not one of those lawyers who regularly bash the legal profession. I still recall my law school professor, Henry Hansmann, stating that the role of lawyers is in fact to be transaction-cost minimizers, and I think that that is largely true. That being said, I am certainly wondering what all of this litigation is about.

The endangerment finding is basically a scientific determination. As I have previously noted, EPA discretion in this area is substantial and the likelihood that a court would reverse EPA’s scientific determination seems about as close to zero as possible. Apparently, some of the law suits do not attack the underlying scientific underpinnings of the determination, but instead attack EPA’s procedures for carrying it out or the expected regulatory and thus economic implications of the finding. If possible, these seem even less likely to succeed.

Finally, before we get to the merits of either of these arguments, there are substantial standing questions, given that the endangerment finding itself imposes no regulatory requirements on any of the plaintiffs.

It is more likely that these law suits are tactical in nature, filed as part of the broader battle to stop EPA from using existing Clean Air Act authority to regulate GHGs. I support that battle in that I agree that regulation under existing authority will be a nightmare. However, I think it’s a losing battle and I don’t see the litigation challenging the endangerment finding as likely to help in any case.

Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last week, the CEQ issued its long-awaited draft Guidance on how to factor climate change into NEPA reviews. CEQ explicitly stated the draft is not effective at this time. CEQ will take comment for 90 days and “intends to expeditiously issue this Guidance in final form” after close of the comment period. Assuming CEQ does so, it will join several states, including California, New York, and Massachusetts, which already require that climate change be addressed in their state NEPA analogues.

The draft is very limited in scope at this point; CEQ may have decided that what is most important is simply the statement that climate change is real, it matters, and it therefore must be taken into account under NEPA. For example, CEQ proposes a threshold a 25,000 tpy of direct emissions CO₂e for NEPA applicability. The Guidance does not propose to apply this threshold to indirect emissions, “the analysis of which must be bounded by limits of feasibility.” Shocking recognition of what’s actually possible.

There are some tidbits that will nonetheless give pause to those who expect to be subject to this Guidance. First, the Guidance does discuss the need to consider the cumulative effects of GHG emissions. This is not surprising, given that NEPA already requires consideration of cumulative impacts outside the GHG context, but since all GHG impacts are cumulative, it is of particular importance here. Second, the Guidance also notes that project planners must consider the impact of climate change on projects, as well as the impact of projects on climate change. The example given in the Guidance is a plan for transportation infrastructure on a barrier island. The Guidance also suggests a longer-term time horizon than may have been used in the past. The example here is that of an industrial process drawing water from a source that relies on snow pack that is expected to decrease as a result of climate change.

As noted above, CEQ spends a lot of effort making the case that the Guidance is not a radical document. The phrase “rule of reason” is used no less than four times in the draft Guidance – and it feels like more. Nonetheless, I doubt opponents will be satisfied. I suspect that they – like the CEQ itself – believe that the fact of the document is more important than its immediate requirements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a petition for review of the EPA Endangerment Finding with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It’s not really surprising that someone filed suit, but the list of plaintiffs is interesting – though more for who is not on it than who is. There is not a single Fortune 500 company on the list of plaintiffs. Whether that speaks to the larger corporations doubting the merits of the challenge or simply making a strategic decision that it is not worth it to be associated with the litigation, I leave for them to say.

I will say that the likelihood that this challenge succeeds is vanishingly small. Ever since Ethyl Corporation v. EPA, courts have given EPA extraordinarily broad discretion when regulating on “the frontiers of scientific knowledge.” Whatever concerns dissenters may have about climate change science, I think it is pretty clear that EPA has a stronger record to support the Endangerment Finding than it had in Ethyl Corporation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While Congress may be fiddling on climate legislation, Senators Carper and Alexander are attempting to put three pollutant legislation back on the congressional agenda. Yesterday, they introduced an aggressive three pollutant bill. Here are the highlights. The bill would:

Codify the CAIR program through 2011

Gradually reduce the cap on SO₂ emission allowances to 1.5 million tons by 2018 – substantially more stringent than the CAIR would have imposed. 

Reduce NO_x caps to 1.6 million tons by 2015. 

Create two NO_x trading zones. Zone 1 includes 32 Eastern states and the District of Columbia. Zone 2 includes the remaining 16 contiguous states.

Coal- and oil-fired power plants would have to reduce mercury emissions by 90%. There would be no trading program for mercury.

I still find it remarkable that Senator Alexander, a coal-state Republican, is a co-sponsor of the bill. Nor does he seem to be half-hearted about it. Money quote:

We have a number of different things to work out on carbon.…  But there's no excuse for waiting a minute on SOx, NOx and mercury because we have the technology, we know what to do, and we shouldn't be operating coal plants without pollution control equipment. (My emphasis.)

I have, until recently, assumed that climate change legislation would happen this year. Now that that seems less likely, and with Senator Alexander as a sponsor, it will be interesting to see if the Senate is able to move this legislation, as an alternative. It is worth noting that climate change legislation necessarily would also have resulted in reductions in SO₂, NO_x, and mercury. Unfortunately, the converse is not also true. In the absence of GHG controls, three pollutant legislation would actually increase GHG emissions, because the traditional means of reducing emissions of SO₂, NO_x, and mercury are energy hogs. Oh, well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Until now, I haven’t posted about the climate change email brouhaha. I haven’t thought it mattered. I didn’t think it affected the underlying validity of climate change science and I still don’t. That science seems overwhelming to me. 

However, I have concluded that the email issue matters.  Yesterday’s ClimateWire reported that climate scientists had repeatedly ducked Freedom of Information Act requests, in ways that demonstrate an astounding degree of arrogance. Here’s the money quote from Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:

When the FoI requests began here, the FoI person said we had to abide by the requests,… It took a couple of half-hour sessions -- one at a screen -- to convince them otherwise, showing them what CA [Climate Audit, climate skeptic Steve McIntyre's Web site] was all about. Once they became aware of the type of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA ... became very supportive.

In other words, the Freedom of Information Act is meant only to provide information to those who agree with you? I don’t think so. 

Doesn’t it seem as though there’s a reason why environmentalists are often described as elitists? Isn’t this the essence of elitism? I know what the data means and you don’t and you can’t be trusted to have it, because you’ll do bad things with it. I may be naïve, but I don’t think that’s what democracy’s about.

Which is what brings me to a related criticism – self-righteousness. God is on my side. The future of the planet is at stake. I can therefore do anything to ensure what I personally know to be the right outcome. 

Sorry, folks. Doesn’t sell. Most people have very sensitive self-righteousness detectors and it’s a major turn-off. Precisely because climate change is so important, climate scientists need to knock it off. Right now, they are their own worst enemies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Given the stories this week of continuing efforts in Congress to preclude EPA from regulating GHGs under existing Clean Air Act authority, I couldn’t resist this headline. 

The first story is that three House members, including two Democrats (House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson and Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton) have followed the lead of the Senate – where there are also Democratic sponsors – and introduced legislation preventing EPA regulation. According to Representative Skelton, the bill would “get the EPA under control.”

In light of the efforts in Congress, it just seemed too perfect not to note that EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air, Gina McCarthy – never one to mince words – was quoted in GreenWire today as saying that

We are furiously ensuring that we get the light-duty vehicle out and ready in March…. There is no hesitation about that. It will be happening.

I don’t doubt that EPA is working furiously to get the rule done, particularly since President Obama has acknowledged that a cap-and-trade bill might not get passed this year. Whether EPA is actually furious, I don’t know. It does appear that some members of Congress may be furious in March if EPA goes ahead and issues the rule. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we noted a few weeks ago, EPA has proposed lowering the NAAQS to a range of from 0.060 ppm – 0.070 ppm. Earlier this week, EPA’s Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC, met and endorsed EPA’s proposed range. Some CASAC members did express concern about EPA’s proposed secondary seasonal standard, intended to protect crops and forests. However, overall, the CASAC seal of approval is pretty much the end of this argument.

It is important to recall how we got here. CASAC already endorsed the 0.060 ppm – 0.070 range several years ago, before EPA’s last ozone standard was issued. It was EPA’s refusal to follow the CASAC recommendations, and instead propose a 0.075 ppm standard, which led to litigation challenging the standard and the current controversy. 

It is difficult to overstate the weight given the CASAC’s views. Indeed, EPA’s fine particulate standard was vacated in significant part because EPA failed to follow CASAC’s recommendations.

Thus, a standard that does not comport with CASAC’s recommendations would likely be rejected by the courts as arbitrary and capricious. However, I suspect that CASAC’s influence also runs the other way. Assuming that EPA does indeed promulgate a revised NAAQS in the 0.060 ppm – 0.070 ppm range, and assuming that industrial interests challenge the new standard, it will be very difficult to establish that the new standard is arbitrary and capricious if it has been endorsed by CASAC. 

As I noted in connection with the fine particulate standard, it’s not obvious to me that this is a good thing. Depending on whose ox is being gored, anyone can get up on a soapbox and say that they want science to be free of politics. However, these are really policy decisions. It’s one thing to acknowledge that these are complicated issues and we thus have to allow Congress to delegate its authority to the EPA administrator. It’s another effectively to delegate the decision further to the CASAC, which is about as obscure an acronym body as we have. Do we really want standards which will result in compliance costs in at least the tens of billions of dollars being made by groups which truly are not accountable in any meaningful way?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, I noted with some trepidation that EPA Administrator Jackson had stated that "I don't believe this is an either-or proposition," referring to the possibility that there could be both climate legislation and EPA regulation of GHGs under existing EPA authority. Today, it’s looking more like a neither-nor proposition.

First, with respect to the prospects for climate change legislation, Senator Gregg was quoted in ClimateWire as saying that “the chance of a global warming law passing this year was ‘zero to negative 10 percent.’" Whether Senator Gregg has the odds pegged exactly right, legislation certainly seems less likely than was thought even a month ago, as health care legislation struggles and Scott Brown (R. Mass.) takes office.

At the same time, Senator Murkowski is moving forward with a resolution to disapprove EPA’s endangerment finding, in order to preclude EPA regulation under existing authority. While binding Congressional action to preclude EPA regulation is unlikely, because it would require approval by President Obama, Senate action does not appear out of the question at this point, given that Senator Murkowski has obtained three Democratic co-sponsors of the resolution, Senators Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.). A Senate vote in favor might not preclude EPA regulation without House and Presidential concurrence, but it’s hard to see how such a vote wouldn’t be a further black eye for the administration.

The situation certainly seems to warrant ClimateWire’s lede that “Climate chaos reigned on Capitol Hill yesterday.” Unfortunately, as I have noted previously, uncertainty is not really to anyone’s benefit. Does anyone doubt that, in the longer run, there will be some kind of climate regulation in the U.S.? How are regulated entities supposed to do cost-effective planning for such regulation in the face of this kind of uncertainty?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I reported on a decision by EPA Administrator Jackson, in an appeal from a permit issued by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality, to the effect that the developer of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, which converts coal to gas for combustion, had to consider use of natural gas as BACT, because the plant already had plans to use natural gas as a startup and backup fuel.

This week, Administrator Jackson went one step further – granting an objection to a permit for a traditional coal plant in Arkansas on the ground that it did not consider IGCC as BACT. As with the Kentucky decision, the issue in the Arkansas case was whether requiring IGCC would be to “redefine” the source. Also as with the Kentucky decision, the Administrator ruled that, while requiring consideration of IGCC as BACT might be to redefine the source, neither the permittee nor the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality had built a record sufficient to make that conclusion.

As David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club succinctly put it in Greenwire: "Control technology for conventional coal is IGCC and control technology for IGCC is natural gas." In short, the way to control emissions from a coal plant is to burn natural gas instead. 

I think that Bookbinder is exactly right concerning the import of the two decisions. I also think that the result is nuts. Can anyone say with a straight face that they really believe that this approach is consistent with the statutory intent? As I noted last week, EPA didn’t think so when they wrote in the New Source Review Workshop Manual that

applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

I also think that this is what happens when the agency ties itself into knots to reach a certain result based on statutory language written in another time for another purpose. Might there be a lesson in this for EPA’s efforts to regulate GHG utilizing existing CAA authority?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last April, I noted that the one certainty associated with EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority was that there would be unintended consequences. If anyone doubted that this would be so, they might want to read some of the comments submitted to EPA in connection with EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule, which would exempt facilities emitting less than 25,000 tons per year of CO_2e from the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act after CO_2e becomes a regulated pollutant under the CAA.

Greenwire has a helpful collection of some of the more notable comments. What I found most interesting is that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, or NACAA, has told EPA that the transition to the new rule will not be as simple as EPA had thought – tough to disagree with that one – and that states will need more time to adapt their own regulations to the new regime. NACAA is thus proposing that EPA determine that CO_2e is a “regulated pollutant,” not when the mobile source rule is promulgated (expected in March 2010), but rather when those regulations take effect in 2011 or as late as January 2012. However, David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club, which has been generally supportive of EPA’s approach to the Tailoring Rule, took the position to Greenwire that EPA does not have the discretion to allow states more time.

Meanwhile, the Center For Biological Diversity, which has pretty much staked out the extreme left in this debate, is still saying that EPA is proposing to take too much time to regulate smaller CO_2e emitters. If anyone thought that EPA could propose a Tailoring Rule that would not be subject to litigation, the likelihood seems to be growing smaller daily.

I still think that, if a climate bill doesn’t pass and EPA regulates GHG under existing CAA authority, it will not be long after the program goes into effect that there will be an audible sound as every stakeholder in the nation slaps its actual or metaphorical forehead and says “Did we really do that?!”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I noted on Friday, EPA has proposed to revise the NAAQS for ozone to a range of from 0.060-0.070 ppm, a reduction from the 0.075 ppm standard promulgated in 2008 by the Bush administration.  EPA’s analysis of the available date indicates that 650 counties – out of 675 counties which have ozone monitors – would be in violation of a 0.060 ppm standard. For those counting, that’s more than 96% of all counties in nonattainment. Even if the standard were set at 0.070 ppm, 515 counties would be in non-attainment.

In fact, EPA estimates that, even by 2020, 203 counties would remain in nonattainment at 0.060 ppm and 99 counties would be in nonattainment at 0.070 ppm. EPA’s estimate is that the cost to comply with a 0.060 standard would be $52B to $90B per year in 2020. I confess that I have not reviewed the rule closely enough to know exactly what that means, given EPA’s prediction that more than 30% of all counties would not be in compliance at that time. We’re going to spend $52B to $90B per year to comply with the standard – and still not meet the standard?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday, EPA released a proposal to reduce the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ground-level ozone from the 0.075 ppm standard set by the Bush administration in 2008 to a range of from 0.060-0.070 ppm. EPA also proposed to set a secondary standard intended to protect sensitive ecological areas, such as forests and parks.

As almost everyone knows, the 2008 standard was, to put it mildly, controversial from the start. The proposal today was based on recommendations made to EPA by its science advisors prior to the 2008 rulemaking. Following apparent intervention from the White House, then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson set the primary standard above the scientific recommendation and declined to promulgate a secondary standard. Not surprisingly, a number of environmental organizations and public heath groups sued EPA over the failure to promulgate a new NAAQS consistent with the scientific recommendations.

Given that the Supreme Court already ruled, in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, that EPA may not consider cost in setting NAAQS (and given the Bush EPA record before appellate courts), the 2008 standards always had “arbitrary and capricious” written all over them, so it’s no surprise that the Obama administration revisited the issue. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that, unlike most of EPA’s rules, the projected benefits of this rule may not even exceed the costs.  According to EPA, the benefits of the rule would range from $13B to $100B, while the costs are projected to range from $19B to $90B.  Not much of a net benefit, it seems to me.  (I'm still waiting for Cass Sunstein to ride to the rescue of cost-benefit analysis in this administration.)

EPA expects to finalize the rule by August 31. Then the rubber really hits the road – when states have to revise SIPs in order to meet the new standards.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Shortly before the holidays, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an Order in response to a challenge to a combined Title V / PSD permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant. The Order upheld the challenge, in part, on the ground that neither the permittee nor KDAQ had adequately justified why the BACT analysis for the facility did not include consideration of full-time use of natural gas notwithstanding that the plant is an IGCC facility. 

The Order may not be shocking in today’s environment – all meanings of that word intended – but the lengths to which the Order goes to avoid its own logical consequences shows just what a departure this decision is from established practice concerning BACT. BACT analyses have traditionally involved the proverbial “top-down” look at technologies that can be used to control emissions from a proposed facility. In other words, EPA takes the proposal as a given, and then asks what the best available control technology is for that facility. 

In EPA’s own words – from its New Source Review Workshop Manual (long the Bible for BACT analysis):

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT requirement as a means to redefine the design of the source when considering available control alternatives. For example, applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

Apt example, don’t you think? (In case you are wondering, EPA’s decision does not discuss or refer to this text from the NSR Manual.)

What was the basis for EPA’s decision here? Largely, it is that the IGCC facility will be designed to burn natural gas as well as syngas and the permittee specifically stated that it planned to combust natural gas during a 6-12 month startup period. On these facts, EPA concluded that the permittee and KDAQ had to do a better job explaining why full-time use of natural gas should be considered “to redefine the design of the source.”

As noted above, EPA went to great lengths to minimize the scope of the decision. It states that the Order:

should in no way be interpreted as EPA expressing a policy preference for construction of natural-gas fired facilities over IGCC facilities.

should not be interpreted to establish or imply an EPA position that PSD permitting authorities should conclude … that BACT for a proposed electricity generating unit is … natural gas.

does not conclude that it is not possible or permissible for the permit applicant … to develop a rationale which shows that firing exclusively with natural gas would “redefine the source.”

EPA does not intend to discourage applicants that propose to construct an IGCC facility from seeking to hedge the risk of investing in … IGCC technology by proposing … utilizing natural gas for some period….

Methinks EPA doth protest too much. If I may say so, this is a freakin’ IGCC facility. Isn’t it obvious that one doesn’t plan or build an IGCC facility if one plans to burn natural gas? Don’t you think that EPA could have taken administrative notice of what IGCC technology is?

All of EPA’s protestations about the Order’s limits may be designed to mollify IGCC supporters, but what does its rationale mean for all of the existing facilities – coal and oil – that are already capable of firing on natural gas? Next time they are subject to NSR/PSD review, must they evaluate the possibility of switching completely to natural gas? As I’ve said here before, yikes!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA announced yesterday that it had reached a settlement with Duke Energy to address allegations of New Source Review violations at Duke’s Gallagher coal-fired generating plant in New Albany, Indiana. A jury had already found Duke liable for certain NSR violations at the plant. The settlement obviates the need for a remedy trial, which had been scheduled for early 2010.

The settlement requires Duke Energy to repower Units 1 and 3 at Gallagher with natural gas or shut them down and to install emission controls at Units 2 and 4. Duke will also pay a $1.75 million penalty and spend $6.25 million on various mitigation projects. 

The settlement is not that surprising, particularly given the prior liability findings. It nonetheless serves as a useful reminder that EPA continues to focus on coal plants and that it is going to use all the tools at its disposal to reduce coal plant emissions. Although the press release does not mention global warming, these settlements are another way for EPA to attack the climate change problem under existing authority, even in advance of rules regulating GHGs under the PSD program.

BTW, if it seems as though I am inundating you with posts today, the blog will be on vacation until January 4, so I wanted to get some last posts done. Happy holidays to all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As most of my Massachusetts readers know, on Friday, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles and DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt announced that Massachusetts would retain its moratorium on new construction or expansion of municipal waste combustors. Although the overall outcome is not really a surprise from this administration, a few points are worth noting.

The announcement says nothing about new technologies, such as plasma arc gasification. Arguably, such a technology is not “incineration” or “combustion,” so we’ll have to see whether the administration remains open to such alternatives to traditional incineration.

The administration emphasized that it is committed to decreasing the volume of the waste stream and noted some specific initiatives that it intends to pursue:

Comprehensive producer responsibility legislation for discarded electronics – The announcement did not refer to any specific legislation (see here for a helpful table summarizing the current state of e-waste legislation nationwide, including in MA), but the administration is clearly going to be pushing for some kind of E-waste bill.

Expansion of the bottle bill to cover water and sports drinks. Since I have joined those who consider bottled water use a pet peeve, I can’t complain about this one.

Finally, the Secretary stated that he had directed DEP to cease permitting any use of construction and demolition, or C&D, waste as fuel in any energy facility until a comprehensive review can be completed.  The announcement specifically called out the Palmer Renewable Energy facility as being affected by the halt.

It is clear that the current economy is not discouraging the Patrick administration from its aggressive environmental agenda.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman sent to President Obama a “framework” for Senate climate change legislation. The framework is short on details and does not contain many surprises. For example, it proposes “near term” – near team is undefined – reductions of 17% from 2005 levels and “long-term” – also undefined – reductions of 80%. 

The framework is nonetheless noteworthy, particularly for its inclusion of strong support for both the coal and nuclear industries. Senator Kerry was must have loved writing “Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” And this: “We will commit significant resources to the rapid development and deployment of clean coal technology.”

It is clear from the public statements that the Senators have made what this language really means. The translation is fairly easy, but for those not in the know, here goes:

“Nuclear power is essential” means “We need some Republican votes.”

“We will commit substantial resources to … clean coal” means “We need some coal-state Democratic votes.

If this weren’t so important to the environment and our economy, I might enjoy watching this.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, District Judge Roger Titus issued an injunction against the construction of the Beech Ridge Energy wind project – 122 wind turbines along 23 miles of Appalachian ridgelines – unless the project can obtain an incidental take permit, or ITP, under the Endangered Species Act. Judge Titus concluded, after a four-day trial, that operation of the turbines would cause a “take” of the endangered Indiana Bat. 

I’m not going to get into the details of the decision, though it certainly does not seem crazy on its face. I am going to go on a rant that there has to be a better way.

Those of us who are old enough to have gotten interested in policy in the 1970s will recall TANSTAAFL – there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Appalachian ridgeline turbines kill Indiana Bats. Offshore wind turbines kill sea birds or spoil pristine views. Remember when everyone thought that hydroelectric power was the “clean” energy? Dams kill fish and alter ecosystems. Nuclear power creates long-lasting wastes. I probably don’t need to explain the costs of coal. TANSTAAFL.

Today, people look to solar, and geothermal, and tidal power. I don’t know about you, but while I’m open to persuasion, my default assumption is that geothermal and tidal power could bring changes to complex systems that we really don’t begin to understand. Maybe solar has no environmental costs, but I wouldn’t bet on it. TANSTAAFL.

In a world where everything has costs, we need to find a way to balance those costs to achieve societal objectives. Maybe the harm to the Indiana Bat would be so great that the Beech Ridge Energy project is not worth it. Maybe not. Either way, does anyone think that the ESA provides a mechanism to make that judgment? Of course not; it’s not designed to do so. It’s designed to protect the bats.

We really need an overarching statute that allows the government to assess the unavoidable trade-offs, because there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and decide which projects should move forward. Lest my environmentalist friends think that I want to be able to give developers a blank check, I can only say, no, no, no. I’m agnostic on the outcomes, but I’m quite certain that the approach I advocate would only make thorough (which is not to say slow) review under NEPA and related statutes more important. Decision-makers can’t balance the costs and benefits of different projects unless they have a thorough understanding of what those costs and benefits are.

TANSTAAFL.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As anyone not hiding under a rock has by now probably realized, EPA officially announced Monday that it has concluded that GHG from human activity threaten public health and the environment. Since the announcement was not exactly a surprise, the question remains what impact it will have.

In the short run, the timing certainly seems intended to coincide with the Copenhagen talks and help to demonstrate to other nations that the U.S. is taking concrete steps to address climate change. We’ll see shortly how successful the endangerment finding is in that respect.

Since I spend most of my time down in the trenches, I’m more concerned with the impact of the endangerment finding on the domestic front. There are really three fronts here:

Litigation – If there was any suspense regarding whether anyone would challenge the endangerment finding, such suspense was quickly relieved by an announcement from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that it would indeed sue. CEI’s press release stated that the global warming “models are about to sink under the growing weight of evidence that they are fabrications.” Uphill battle barely begins to describe the likelihood that CEI wins that case.

Prospects for Cap-and-Trade Legislation – Notwithstanding Administrator Jackson’s protestations to the contrary, it’s hard not to see the announcement as a further prod to Congress to get moving, particularly since the Administration keeps saying that it would prefer enactment of a cap-and-trade bill. Even so, however, some members of Congress indicated that the announcement would have little impact, because the endangerment finding was expected and thus adds little new.

EPA Development of Regulations – EPA is moving forward with regulatory development, though Administrator Jackson gave no time line for when stationary source regulations would be promulgated. There was an indication that EPA would issue BACT guidance in advance of issuing NSR regulations. Notwithstanding the promise of BACT guidance, it appears that states are not ready for the brave new world of using the NSR program to regulate GHGs. ClimateWire reported that Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, believes that states will have hard time getting ready to process stationary source permits by March.

I actually found the biggest take-away from the announcement to be the Administrator’s statement that she wanted EPA regulations that would be complementary to new legislation. "I don't believe this is an either-or proposition," ClimateWire reported her saying. 

Uh-oh. 

I thought that the deal had always been that legislation would substitute for regulation under the existing CAA. Otherwise, what do the administration’s statements that it would prefer legislation to regulation mean?   I’m having difficulty imagining a world with both a cap-and-trade program and NSR regulation of GHGs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) announced the results of their 6^th quarterly auction, held on December 2^nd, which brought in the lowest prices for carbon dioxide (CO₂) allowances yet. Wednesday’s auction also marks the first time that RGGI allowances offered for sale outnumbered demand. Only 1.6 million of the roughly 2.1 million allowances for the 2012 vintage sold at RGGI’s required price floor of $1.86. Depending on each state’s regulations, these unsold allowances may be sold in future auctions, or a state may choose to retire them.  Although retirement this early in the game is a somewhat remote possibility, it will be interesting to see whether this will have an impact in RGGI's second compliance period, 2012-2015. 

Prices for the nearly 28.6 million 2009 vintage allowances sold fell from the September auction’s clearing price of $2.19 to $2.05, down significantly from June’s clearing price of $3.23. Despite these low prices, the number of participants in the 2009 vintage auction actually increased significantly: 62 entities, compared to 46 who participated in September’s auction. 

In the 2012 vintage offering, however, the quantity of allowances for which bids were submitted decreased 32% from September, resulting in bids for only 74% of the supply of 2012 allowances offered for sale. As in September’s auction, no non-compliance entities (businesses or persons not regulated under RGGI) participated in the 2012 vintage auction.  In comparison, non-compliance entities submitted 38% of the bids for 2012 allowances in the 4^th RGGI auction, back in June. 

The range of bid prices in the 6^th auction, not surprisingly, was also the lowest that RGGI, Inc. has reported. Bid prices for the 2009 vintage allowances ranged from the minimum clearing price of $1.86 to just $5.00, down from a high of $12.00 in the June and September auctions,  while bid prices for the 2012 vintage allowances topped out at $2.41, down significantly from March’s high bid price of $4.40.

As we said after prices fell in September’s auctions, the national (and international) efforts toward developing carbon regulation that would preempt RGGI are likely having an impact on bidders’ perceptions of RGGI’s future. Combined with additional reports that the RGGI allowance pool is over-funded, these low prices are not too surprising, and will likely continue. 

Nonetheless, RGGI is still bringing in a lot of money. The report highlights that the RGGI program has brought in more than $494.4 million over the last 15 months of auctions for investment in a state-specific programs that are targeted to reducing emissions, building the clean energy economy, and saving consumers money. If you’re interested in where the funds are going in your state, check out RGGI’s convenient summary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a report released last week by Environment America, power plants were responsible for 42% of the CO₂ emitted in the United States in 2007, substantially more than any other sector, including transportation. What’s the explanation? Largely, it’s the age of the United States power plants. The report, based on EPA data, states that 73% of power plant CO₂ emissions came from plants operating since prior to 1980.

What’s the solution to this problem, in the absence of cap-and-trade legislation enacting? EPA’s already told us, and we shouldn’t be surprised – promulgation of EPA’s “Tailoring Rule,” subjecting existing facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons per year of CO_2e to EPA’s New Source Review program.

And what’s the problem with this solution? To a significant degree, it’s that it is the NSR program that got us in this mess in the first place. As my friend Rob Stavins has noted, regulatory programs – such as NSR – that impose different requirements based on the age of a facility, known in the lingo as “vintage-differentiated regulations” or “VDR”, not surprisingly lead to the perverse result that older, more-polluting, facilities stay in service longer than if regulations were imposed in an even-handed manner on different vintages of facilities.  In other words, we have the NSR program to thank for the situation described in the Environment America report.

Can anyone doubt, therefore, that application of NSR rules to GHGs will cause those who own such facilities to try to operate them as long as possible without implementing any “modifications” that would trigger application of NSR? Moreover, can anyone doubt that application of NSR rules to new facilities would give old facilities a further cost advantage? Sure, EPA can try to tighten the NSR rules and continue to pursue NSR enforcement cases in order to discourage existing facilities from disguising “life-extension” projects as routine maintenance. However, it’s still a jury-rigged system at best. After all, the program is called New Source Review for a reason.

I’m just a poor country lawyer, but I still think that a cap-and-trade program is a better solution for all sides. Add a traditional three-pollutant piece to it, trade that for elimination of the NSR program in its entirety, and you’d really have something. 

Still dreaming, I know.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I spoke a few weeks ago at a NAIOP event concerning implementation of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act. During that talk, I described the GWSA as “the future of everything.” Why? Because to achieve even medium-term greenhouse gas emission targets in 2020 or 2030, let alone the 2050 target of an 80% reduction, is going to require significant changes throughout the economy. Even substantial reductions in the power plant or transportation sectors alone are not going to be enough.

Need more evidence? How about this story from yesterday’s Greenwire. The E.U. has reached agreement on a directive that will require almost all large buildings, including large houses, to attain “nearly zero” energy use. Existing buildings will have to improve energy efficiency during any renovations, if feasible. Sounds like a BACT analysis for building renovations.

The directive still must be approved by the European Parliament and then be written into the laws of the individual E.U. countries. However, unless Massey CEO Don Blankenship can convince Al Gore that we are entering a period of global cooling, can there be much doubt that something like this is in our future here as well?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Boston Celtics’ fans know the phrase “fiddlin’ and diddlin.” Well, the Senate continues to fiddle and diddle over climate change legislation. Those who have worked with Gina McCarthy, current EPA air chief, know that she has probably never fiddled or diddled in her life, and I certainly don’t expect her to do so with respect to GHG regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority in the absence of comprehensive legislation. As a result, it now seems likely that EPA will be issuing climate change regulations before any legislation is enacted.

What’s the basis for this conclusion? First, the Senate side:

E&E Daily reported today that Senate leaders are not planning to bring the cap-and-trade bill to the floor until after work on health care and financial regulation bills has been completed.

Senator Webb today “blasted” cap-and-trade legislation as “enormously complex.” (Even with a tailoring rule, good luck eliminating the complexity from EPA regulation under current authority)

So, things aren’t exactly cooking with gas on the legislation front. What’s up at EPA?

Last week, EPA sent the endangerment rule to OMB for final review

EPA’s stakeholder group on the tailoring rule has been hard at work at work and expects to have a preliminary report out by the end of the year. The Daily Environment Report gives a good flavor of the complexities faced by this project, but there is no question that the group and EPA are moving forward.

The bottom line is that unless a health care bill passes soon, and unless passage relieves a bottleneck in the legislative pipeline, we will all be participating in the experiment to see if EPA can make climate change regulation work under existing CAA authority. 

May you live in interesting times.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My post on the Portland Climate Action Plan has gotten some reaction, which I take as a good thing. For as reasoned a defense of local climate action as is possible in the space of a blog post, take a look at Holly Doremus’s response in Legal Planet, the Law and Environmental Policy Blog. If the Portland plan really were just about filling in the interstices and addressing local issues, I would be more inclined to agree. However, that’s not how I see the plan. We won’t know the details of how the plan will be implemented for some time, but much of it is simply regulatory. Moreover, it’s very likely that those regulations will be of a traditional command and control sort and will indeed duplicate in some way what a federal program is or should be doing.

In any case, thanks for the reaction. Next time, post a comment. If someone hadn’t let me know about your response, I never would have seen it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the City of Portland, Oregon (together with Multnomah County) released an updated Climate Action Plan. The Plan presents a number of aggressive goals and targets, with ultimate goals of GHG reductions of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

The details of the Plan are obviously only relevant to those in the Portland area, but for those anticipating what regulation might look like in California, Massachusetts, and other states that have enacted or will soon enacted some version of a Global Warming Solutions Act, the Plan provides a helpful catalogue of the types of changes that might be sought. Therefore, a quick summary of some of the 2030 goals seems warranted

Reduce energy use from existing buildings by 20%-25%

All new buildings – and homes -- should have zero net GHG emissions. 

Reduce VMT by 30% from 2008 levels

Recover 90% of all waste generated

Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive foods

Expand “urban forest canopy” to cover one-third of Portland

Reduce emissions from City and County operations by 50% from 1990 levels

What’s my take? I have two immediate reactions. First, if any further evidence were needed that attaining significant GHG emission reductions is going to involve major social and economic changes, this is certainly it. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this Plan, and others like it, have to constitute a heavy thumb on the side of the scale arguing for comprehensive federal legislation. In the past, I’ve argued that federal legislation would be preferable to a patchwork made up of EPA regulation under existing Clean Air Act authority, public nuisance litigation, and state and regional initiatives. To that list, we can now add comprehensive local regulation. I don’t mean to be too sanguine about the ability of federal legislation to harmonize this entire process; the existing bills would not preempt most state, regional, and local regulations (other than cap-and-trade programs). Nonetheless, delays in federal enactment can only contribute to the proliferation of state, regional, and local programs, some of which may be beneficial, but many of which will be inefficient, contradictory, or both.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A few weeks ago, we noted EPA’s release of its long-awaited “Tailoring Rule,” specifying how EPA would apply its PSD program under existing Clean Air Act authority to greenhouse gases, once they definitively become a regulated pollutant under the CAA some time next spring. Today, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. Comments are due December 28.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Chairman's Mark of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), released late Friday night by Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer, fills in some of the details left out of the earlier-introduced Boxer-Kerry bill, notably identifying which sectors will get CO₂ allowances allocated to them for free. The bill largely follows the lead of the House-passed ACES, and in some areas uses identical language. For instance, as in ACES, the largest share of allowances (30%) is allocated to state-regulated local electric-distribution companies, who are instructed to use any revenue from the allowances to protect consumers from electricity price increases.

The precise allocation numbers are sure to be a source of debate as the negotiations move forward through the remaining 5 committees and individual Senators negotiate for their states’ interests to be met in the bill. But do the allocation numbers actually matter? A recent post by Harvard Professor Robert Stavins makes the case that once the decision has been made to allocate a set number of allowances for free, to whom they are assigned does not have a significant impact on the environment performance of the cap and trade regime or on the overall social costs imposed by the regulatory system.

That's why it is significant that one of the largest differences between the Chairman's Mark of the Senate Bill and ACES is how many allowances will not be allocated for free.  The size of the pot of allowances in the Senate bill to be set aside for the Treasury Department's use for deficit reduction rises from 10% in 2012 to a high of 25% between 2040 and 2050.  In comparison, the House bill earmarks for the Treasury Department only those allowances which are not already freely allocated or auctioned, a piece which falls to 1% by 2014.  The set of allowances marked for direct sale at auction is also larger in the Senate bill -- 15% of all allowances will be auctioned each year through 2029, rising to 18.5% in later years.  As in ACES, one of the key uses for the auction revenues are direct rebates to consumers to help them deal with higher energy bills.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is re-examining its rules regarding whether companies should or must disclose climate change related risks. According to an article in ClimateWire, revisions could be issued by the end of October. On Friday, SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter said that SEC staff are working on preparing recommendations, and two options are still on the table. One option is a rule-making that would set specific rules for disclosing climate risks. The other would be a re-interpretation of Form 10-K disclosure rules to require companies to disclose and comment on operations tied in with mitigating climate-change risks.

These changes likely result from frequent criticism by shareholder groups that companies are ducking requirements under the current SEC rules to disclose the climate-related liabilities they face from greenhouse gas emissions, including emerging regulations, rising commodity prices, potential for property damage and long-term costs associated with replacing equipment and infrastructure after climate-related risks take their toll. Spurred on by shareholder initiatives and corporate social responsibility programs, a number of businesses have already started to voluntarily report their climate risks and disclose information on potential financial impacts. But, as stated in the Investor Network on Climate Risk's most recent letter to the SEC on this issue, climate risk disclosures in SEC filings still remain relatively rare. A June 2009 survey by INCR and CERES found that only two of 100 companies in the oil and gas, electric power, coal, insurance and transportation sectors disclosed more than half of the climate-related information sought by investors in their Q1 2008 reports. Changes to the SEC rules could make such reporting a requirement.

Even with forthcoming changes to the rules, the SEC's Walter urged companies not to wait for the SEC to act. As ClimateWire reported, "People should be looking at their own particular facts and circumstances," Walter said. "For example, if you're operating a plant in an area where there's drought, and there are serious water needs, and you don't know if you can satisfy them, costs will triple. That would be one example."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two more decisions were released last week concerning whether nuisance claims could be brought with respect to harm alleged to have resulted from private conduct contributing to climate change. First, in Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation, the District Court dismissed nuisance claims. Second, in Comer v. Murphy Oil, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court dismissal of nuisance claims related to damage resulting from Hurricane Katrina.

Village of Kivalina first. In this case, an Inupiat Eskimo village claimed that global climate change traceable to the defendants has essentially made their village uninhabitable. Notably and, I think, shrewdly, they did not seek injunctive relief, but sought only damages related to the cost of relocating the village. The District Court concluded both that the law suit raised non-justiciable political questions and that the plaintiffs did not have standing, because their harm was not fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct.

The Fifth Circuit wasn’t buying either of these arguments in Comer v. Murphy Oil. To the Fifth Circuit, like the Second, in the American Electric Power case, the complexity of the underlying proof is not sufficient to render these types of cases non-justiciable. The cases involve tort claims; courts resolve tort claims – pretty much, end of story. I’ve got to say, from my lowly perch, that I think that the Second and Fifth Circuits got it right here. It’s easy to say that it would be better for Congress to deal with climate change than state legislatures or, as here, courts. However, that’s not that same as courts declining to exercise jurisdiction. I’d be surprised if the political question argument  has any real legs.

Standing is a different matter. I still think that both the traceability and redressability elements of standing are problematic. Plaintiffs in both Village of Kivalina and Comer v. Murphy Oil solved the redressability issue by seeking only damages, and not injunctive relief. Both the Second and Fifth Circuits noted that traceability, as a standing issue, necessitates only that the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ conduct “contributes to” the plaintiffs’ injuries. This is not a stringent test. However, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, I could imagine some courts looking askance at the types of allegations made in these complaints, even at a pleading stage.

On balance, what these cases tell me is that some of these cases are actually likely to be litigated all the way through to trial. Notwithstanding the potentially huge recoveries, it seems here that the cost to the defendants of paying out anything more than nominal damages would be high, and the prospects of successful defense of these claims are still reasonably good. That’s a recipe for trial, as far as I can tell.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New York Governor Patterson last week announced a plan to divert $90 million in funds raised from New York’s share of RGGI auctions to deficit reduction. The reaction was not positive from environmental NGOs, who are understandably concerned about the “precedent-setting nature of this move.”

It shouldn’t really be surprising in these times of fiscal challenge for state governments. It’s no different than what happened with the diversion of money from tobacco settlements away from smoking prevention programs to deficit reduction.

The interesting questions will be whether other states follow New York’s lead and whether this has any effect on the debate in Congress regarding preemption of state and regional trading programs in the context of a federal cap-and-trade program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, EPA issued its long-awaited proposed rule describing how thresholds would be set for regulation of GHG sources under the existing Clean Air Act PSD authority. Having waded through the 416-page proposal, I’m torn between the appropriate Shakespeare quotes to describe it: “Much ado about nothing” or “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

First, notwithstanding its length, the proposal is quite limited in scope. In essence, it has three parts:

Establishment of an applicability threshold for PSD and Title V purposes of 25,000 tons per year of CO₂e.

Establishment of a PSD significance level of from 10,000 tpy CO₂e and 25,000 CO₂e.

Development over the next five years of means to streamline GHG regulation of sources greater than the current statutory levels of 100-250 tpy.

Basically, EPA’s position is that, once it begins to regulate GHGs as a pollutant by promulgating its mobile source rule – expected next spring – stationary source regulation under the PSD and Title V programs follow automatically. Thus, the issue for EPA at this point is not whether to regulate stationary sources, but how to do so without the entire program grinding to a halt.

Here’s where the protestation comes in. Most of the proposal is devoted to explaining EPA’s reliance of the doctrines of “absurd results” and “administrative necessity” to justify exclusion of sources that would seem to be categorically included by the explicit language of the statute. Members of the regulated community will understand the irony in EPA’s extensive discussion regarding how the purpose of the PSD program is to achieve environmental protection and economic development – and that this latter purpose would be jeopardized by regulation of sources at the 100/250 tpy threshold. I don’t think we will ever again see EPA devote this many pages to a description of its concern about economic growth.

I’m not going to predict here whether EPA will win any challenge to the higher thresholds. Certainly, the absurd results doctrine argument is the stronger of the two. It is noteworthy that the four leading environmental cases EPA cites in support of its administrative necessity argument, while acknowledging the existence of the doctrine, all went against EPA.

More relevant still is the question of who would in fact challenge this regulation and what would be the result even if the challenge succeeded. Following the debacle that resulted from vacation of the CAIR rule, what is the likelihood that a successful challenge would result in vacation of the rule in its entirety? Isn’t it more likely that the rule would stay in effect as to the large sources, with the court remanding the case to EPA to promulgate rules governing smaller sources? In fact, that’s what EPA is already doing, which is probably EPA’s strongest practical argument in support of the rule.

Public comments will be due 60 days from Federal Register promulgation and there are some issues that the regulated community should consider. These include the significance threshold, and suggestions regarding how to streamline the program for smaller sources. EPA has proposed some interesting ideas, including presumptive BACT determinations and general permits. 

Bottom line? Large sources better get ready to comply. Smaller sources, take a deep breath and count your blessings – for now. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a number of stories indicating that the prospects for climate change legislation were dimming for 2009, the convergence of a number of factors suggests that legislation may still be possible.

Yesterday, Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry released a draft of climate change legislation. This doesn’t mean that Senate passage is imminent. The bill has not been formally introduced and, like the early drafts of the Waxman-Markey bill, leaves some sections blank. Senator Boxer apparently intends to issue a mark-up of the bill sometime in October. One note for the politically-minded readers of this blog – just don’t call the bill “cap-and-trade” legislation. Senator Kerry stated that he does not know what “cap-and-trade” means and denied that this is “cap-and-trade” legislation – notwithstanding that it would cap emissions of CO₂ and allow regulated entities the right to trade allowances to emit CO₂.

Meanwhile, EPA continues to work on climate change regulations. Last week, OMB apparently completed its review of EPA’s proposal to apply PSD rules to sources of CO₂ greater than 25,000 tons per year. EPA apparently intends to issue the rules some time this week. 

Opposition to climate change legislation among the regulated community appears to be splintering. In the past week, three members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce left the Chamber due to its intransigence on climate change. Perhaps even more tellingly, the Chamber yesterday issued a statement that it supports “strong federal” climate change legislation – though it still appears to oppose significant parts of the Waxman-Markey bill. The Chamber also stated that it prefers legislation to regulation by EPA. Finally, it is worth noting that the Chamber’s statement accused environmentalists of distorting its position, without addressing the withdrawal of three utility members.

The decision in Connecticut v. EPA allowing the public nuisance litigation against six generators to continue. If the threat of EPA regulation hasn’t been enough to tip the balance in favor of legislation, the threat of regulation by injunction may be enough to do so.

Whether these developments will be enough to push climate change legislation over the threshold remains to be seen. Certainly, they improve its prospects.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EPA released its final version of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule today.  The Rule (which we blogged about in its draft form here) will require large emitters of greenhouse gases to begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2010 and file their first self-certified reports in March 2011.  The EPA will then verify the data, as in other Clean Air Act programs. The new program will cover approximately 85% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities, down from the 13,000 that EPA had predicted in its draft rule in March. 

The rule has changed somewhat since it was proposed, through two public hearings and over 17,000 written public comments.   Some of the more significant changes include reducing the number of source categories that are automatically required to report (excluding, interestingly, food processing, waste water treatment, and suppliers of coal) and allowing facilities that reduce their emissions below the annual threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ( CO_2e) to cease reporting after 5 years.  The rule also adds a provision to allow the use of best available data in lieu of required monitoring methods for the first few months of the reporting period (through March 2010). 

As in the draft rule, the threshold for reporting is generally 25,000 metric tons or more of CO_2e per year, although some source categories are automatically included.  Reporting is conducted at the facility level, except for suppliers of fossil fuels and engine and vehicle manufacturers, who will report at the corporate level.  With this rule, the EPA will be counting emissions from cars, too.  Vehicle manufacturers begin their reporting with CO₂-only for model year 2011, and phase in other greenhouse gases in subsequent model years.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit finally issued a decision in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, reversing the District Court decision which had dismissed this public nuisance law suit against six large generating companies. The decision is notable in a number of different respects and may have far-reaching implications

·  Standing. Following Massachusetts v. EPA, it is not really surprising that the plaintiffs were able to establish that they have suffered injuries sufficient to provide standing. The more questionable point is redressability. The Court acknowledged that it must be “likely” that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Court’s response to this issue was that the plaintiffs need not demonstrate that a favorable decision will eliminate the injury, only that it will provide some measure of relief. Even so, could plaintiffs really prove that even elimination of all CO₂ emissions by the defendants would have any impact on climate change? I’m extremely skeptical. The Court did note that there is a “lowered bar for standing” at the pleading stage, so we may see more of this issue as the case proceeds.

·  Displacement. Connecticut v. American Electric Power, unlike the North Carolina v. TVA case decided in January, is basically premised on federal common law of public nuisance. However, federal common law only exists in the absence of legislation addressing the same issues and is subject to “displacement” by such legislation. Following Massachusetts v. EPA, there is no doubt that the CAA provides authority to regulate GHG. What, therefore, is the role of federal public nuisance claims at this point? The Court’s ruling here left defendants alive to argue this issue another day. The Court noted that EPA has not yet issued a final endangerment finding and certainly has not issued regulations limiting GHG emissions from stationary sources. Thus, the problem complained of by plaintiffs “has not been thoroughly addressed by the CAA.” In other words, if either Waxman-Markey passes or EPA moves forward with regulations on its own, defendants may have another crack at dismissing Connecticut v. American Electric Power. 

·  Nuisance Claims in Other Contexts. In tandem with North Carolina v. TVA, this case certainly puts new life into nuisance as a potentially important arrow in the quiver for environmental plaintiffs. As we noted in January, the TVA decision left room for nuisance claims even where National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been attained. This leaves substantial room for nuisance claims in a variety of contexts, as long as underlying legislation hasn’t specifically preempted such claims

·  Prospects for Federal Climate Change Legislation. We have already discussed the choice between regulation by EPA and comprehensive federal cap-and-trade legislation. Now it appears that this dilemma has three horns, not just two. Which would generators prefer? Waxman-Markey or judicial injunctions following nuisance litigation?

It’s a lot to consider.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, EPA announced its intention to issue new effluent guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating industry by sometime in 2012. The announcement follows an EPA study in 2008 which indicated that toxic metals, particularly those collected as part of flue gas desulfurization processes, can pose a problem in facility effluent. EPA’s announcement is not particularly surprising, given the ongoing study and given that EPA has not revised the guidelines since 1982. Indeed, notwithstanding EPA’s announcement, Environmental Integrity Project, Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club announced that they would still sue EPA over its failure to timely update the guidelines.

There are two reasons why this announcement is significant beyond just its implications for effluent discharges from these facilities. First, it’s hard to see EPA’s announcement – and the threat of NGO litigation – as anything other than another bullet aimed squarely at the coal industry. From climate change, to attacks on mountaintop removal, to the reaction to the TVA spill, to this effort to make the effluent guidelines more stringent, there is no doubt that coal is in the cross-hairs at the moment. If there are any doubters concerning this point, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers isn’t among them. He was quoted in this morning’s Energy & Environment Daily as saying that it is at least possible to envision a world in 2050 “where coal is not in the equation.”

The other reason why this announcement is significant is that it raises fairly squarely the question regarding the very structure of our current regulatory system.  It’s not really any more than happenstance and political convenience that we regulate different environmental media differently. In this context, it is noteworthy that EPA’s Science Advisory Board just recommended that EPA consider setting multi-pollutant standards under the Clean Air Act, rather than regulating each pollutant separately. Theoretically, that’s good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t really solve the problem of the balkanization of EPA’s different regulatory programs.  In the long run, EPA’s regulatory efforts would be much more cost-effective – and would probably garner much more public support – if they were rationally based on an overall assessment of risk, across pollutants and across media.

I’m not holding my breath.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As BNA reported this morning, at yesterday's Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in New Brunswick, the six New England governors adopted The New England Governors' Renewable Energy Blueprint.  Through this plan, the governors of Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont agreed to speed regional development of renewable energy by coordinating state reviews of proposed interstate transmission lines and synchronizing solicitation and decisions on power procurement and long-term energy contracts.  The blueprint calls for states to hold joint hearings and coordinate decisions when appropriate, but even using common applications and timelines could have a significant impact on how long the siting process takes.  

The blueprint is based on conclusions reached in a study conducted by ISO-New England, called the Renewable Scenario Development Analysis, which concluded that there is a large quantity of untapped renewable resources in the New England region, including more than 10,000 MW of on-shore and off-shore wind power potential, but that such resources could not easily be developed without coordination between the states on siting transmission.

The blueprint also discusses the option of New England states tapping into renewable energy sources located in Canada and calls for a state-federal partnership in which the federal government uses regional plans as guidance for interconnection-wide analysis and federally-funded renewable energy infrastructure development.  It will be interesting to see the impact that such regional developments have on the national level.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The silence from Congress recently concerning climate change legislation has been deafening. The continued health care debate does not bode well for early passage of the Waxman-Markey bill. Meanwhile, EPA is not sitting on its hands.

Daily Environment Report noted last week that EPA has sent to the OMB a proposal to reverse the Agency’s policy that CO₂ is not a pollutant subject to the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act. Also last week, Greenwire reported that: “As Hill debate flounders, EPA plows ahead on emissions rules.” [And for those of you who can’t get enough of the debate between “founder” and “flounder”, take a look here.] The Greenwire story reports that EPA is moving ahead on rules governing emissions of GHGs from automobiles and large stationary sources.

The biggest debate continues to be whether EPA has legal authority to exempt small sources of CO₂ (probably those emitting less than 25,000 tons per year) from PSD rules. Certainly, the D.C. Circuit’s treatment of EPA’s CAIR rule should give everyone pause that the Court will approve rules that don’t seem to have authority in the CAA, just because everyone thinks that the rules would be good public policy. The strongest argument in support of the exemption – or at least the one mentioned most often – is simply that no one would challenge such a rule, because it would obviously be such a good idea. I’m skeptical. Major sources who want to torpedo the entire rule might easily challenge such an exemption.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I keep coming back to a slightly different question: Who in their right mind would prefer EPA rules under current CAA authority to comprehensive legislation, however imperfect the legislation might be? Those assessing the merits of legislation can’t compare it to the status quo, because, as these recent moves by EPA demonstrate, the status quo cannot hold for long. The comparison must therefore be between the Waxman-Markey bill and the world as it will be once EPA regulates under existing authority.

It’s looking more and more likely that Congress may not have sufficient momentum to pass legislation until the reality of EPA regulation becomes manifest. I’m not looking forward to that.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has released the clearing prices from its 5th quarterly auction of CO₂ allowances, held on September 9, 2009.  Prices for the 28.4 million 2009 vintage allowances sold fell sharply from the June auction's clearing price of $3.23 to $2.19, and the 2.1 million 2012 vintage allowances sold for only $1.87, just one cent above the market floor of $1.86, and well below the $3.05 that they earned at the March 2009 auction, which was the first at which these later vintage allowances were offered for sale. 

Interestingly, while the number of participants in the 2009 vintage auction remained relatively steady, no non-compliance entities (persons not regulated under RGGI) participated in the 2012 vintage auction.  These participants had amounted to 38% of the bids for 2012 allowances in the June auction. 

RGGI, Inc. has also released the range of bid prices in the 5th auction, allowing some insight into how the players value these allowances.  Bid prices for the 2009 vintage allowances ranged from the minimum clearing price of $1.86 to $12.00, the same as in the 4th auction, while bid prices for the 2012 auction ranged from $1.86 to just $3.00, down from June's high bid price of $3.84 and March's high bid price of $4.40.

Wednesday's auction was the first since the passage of ACES by the House in late June.  ACES provides for an even exchange of RGGI allowances for national allowances, something that could increase the value of RGGI allowances going forward, as it removes some uncertainty.  Nonetheless, pundits had predicted lower prices from this auction for a number of reasons, including doubt about the likelihood that the Senate will pass a national cap-and-trade program

The decrease in prices and lack of participation in the 2012 auction is also interesting given a report released on Wednesday by Point Carbon which predicts that actual emissions from the RGGI-regulated northeastern power plants will already be much lower than the RGGI cap, set at 188 million allowances per year.  According to Climate Wire, the report notes that the economic downturn, combined with a cool summer and warm winter reduced the amount of fuel for electricity used in the 10-state region. Falling natural gas prices have also prompted generators to switch away from more carbon-intensive fuels like coal and oil to natural gas.  The report predicts that the CO₂ emissions from the 233 power plants regulated under RGGI will emit 155 million tons this year, well below the cap.

Although the RGGI cap will begin decreasing by 2.5% each year in 2015, the years until then may provide an opportunity for regulated generators and other interested bidders to stockpile  allowances.  Given that RGGI allowances may be banked for future use without restriction, such a large number of allowances being banked could keep prices depressed for some time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although we had earlier predicted that comprehensive climate legislation could reach a floor vote in the Senate as early as October, that deadline is likely to move to November or later.  As reported by BNA this morning, the lead democratic authors of the bill, Senators Boxer and Kerry, announced yesterday that they need more time to craft the Senate bill and will put off introduction until the end of September. 

The plan had been to introduce the bill on September 8th, when the Senate returns from its month-long August recess.  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which Senator Boxer is the chair, would begin mark ups as soon as a week afterward.

Introducing the bill in late September means that the six committees with jurisdiction over the Senate climate legislation -- Agriculture, Commerce, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment & Public Works, Finance, and Foreign Relations -- will not begin markups on the bill until late October. 

One driver of the timing of the bill is the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, which begins December 7.   As Greenwire reported, during the August recess, a number of Senators have been speaking out about the climate bill, what they hope to see in it, who is likely to support the bill or oppose it, and how likely meeting the UN climate summit deadline will be.  It will be interesting to see how this delay affects that strategy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In another sign that the NSR program is alive and well under the Obama administration, the United States (together with the State of Illinois, filed suit Thursday against Midwest Generation, alleging violations of NSR requirements at six coal-fired power plants. Although the action is not too surprising, given that the Bush EPA had issued a notice of violation to Midwest Generation in 2007, it remains noteworthy. Each new prosecution serves to remind generators that failure to comply with NSR rules can lead to significant costs.

Of course, that in terrorem effect on other generators is precisely what the administration and environmental groups want. Unfortunately, for those of us who believe that the NSR program is an incredibly wasteful way to reduce air pollution, such litigation only detracts from efforts to make air pollution control regulations more cost-effective.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to an article by BNA published this morning, EPA may soon act to apply the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act to facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.  Presumably, EPA's action is either an effort to exert leverage on Congress to pass pending climate change legislation or to ensure that GHG are regulated in the event that legislation doesn't pass -- or both.  

Under the Clean Air Act, PSD applies to major new sources, which are defined by their emissions level -- for pollutants in identified industrial sources categories, the threshold is 100 tons per year, while for others it is 250 tons per year.  Assuming that EPA moves forward with its its proposed endangerment finding, the default assumption (and the doomsday scenario presented by the Chamber of Commerce) would be that all GHG sources greater than 250 tons or 100 tons, depending on the source, would be subject to PSD regulations.

As an example, per the General Reporting Protocol's conversion factors, burning only 265.3 tons of coal or 1,173 barrels of fuel oil would produce 250 tons of CO₂.  However, the 25,000 ton threshold is the same used by the EPA in the endangerment finding and its proposed mandatory reporting regulations, so seems likely to be applied here as well.

As we previously noted, the EPA's official current position on this point is still the memorandum issued December 18th by former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, which said that since CO₂ is not a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act, PSD does not apply.  However, current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a letter on February 17 stating that the agency will reconsider this position. 

As noted in the BNA article, there is reason to question EPA's authority to exempt small GHG sources from PSD requirements once GHG are found to be pollutants which endanger public health and the environment.  Moreover, EPA's record in defending creative interpretations of the Clean Air Act -- even where they are generally supported, such as in the CAIR regulations -- has not been sterling.  

The entire debate is likely to get messier before it is resolved.