Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

February 22, 2010

By: Steven L. Hoch
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

California

California Bill Aims To Streamline Approvals For Industrial GHG Controls

A California lawmaker has introduced an industry-backed bill to expedite the approval of certain industrial projects that attempt to comply with GHG regulations, primarily a proposed cap-and-trade program. The bill would allow these projects to qualify for a “focused” EIR under CEQA, a process that could assist in avoiding some of the law’s assessment and mitigation review layers and can help block litigation against projects. The bill is drawing early opposition from some environmentalists, who argue it is overly broad and prematurely assumes many GHG-reduction projects will have limited environmental impacts. The bill is sponsored by the California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance (CCEEB), which represents a variety of large stationary source facilities. Practically speaking, the bill aims to require CARB to fully assess cumulative and other environmental impacts of the cap-and-trade program and separate GHG regulations, as well as alternatives to the GHG rules, before adopting the regulations later this year. This would allow subsequent industrial projects that appear to comply with the CARB GHG regulations to use the “focused EIR” process, which would streamline local permitting approvals.

See: The bill - http://carboncontrolnews.com/ccndocs/feb10/ccn02182010_bill.pdf
See: CCEEB Analysis of the bill - http://carboncontrolnews.com/ccndocs/feb10/ccn02182010_background.pdf

Because of the opposition by environmental groups, it is doubtful this bill will pass. If it does pass, it will be because of the need for jobs and that projects which can employ Californians. It is clear that one of the impediments to getting such projects on line is that there is a built in delay (sometimes of far too many years) to deal with the litigation process that arises out of the CEQA. While this bill does not eliminate many of those impediments, it certainly seems to go far enough to eliminate a major part of the GHG issues that under CEQA must be dealt with. We will keep track of this and report if it looks like it will actually pass.

Solar Provides Energy for Calif. Utility

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) last month became California's first utility to offer a feed-in tariff designed to boost the generation of renewable energy and was flooded with applications. SMUD's tariff, called a "FIT" in industry shorthand, has been in the works since August 2009. It offers energy sellers fixed prices for up to 100 megawatts of power that SMUD would buy from small renewable energy projects. The tariff is divided into two categories: projects 3 MW and below, and those between 3 and 5 MW. But some FIT proponents say SMUD's rates aren't high enough to entice smaller developers. SMUD based its rates on the avoided cost to ratepayers, including the futures prices of natural gas, the assumed cost of new natural gas-fired capacity and the estimated value of greenhouse gas offsets. A lingering question is how such programs might fit into state and national tariffs. SMUD officials structured their program to mesh with a 2009 law, S.B. 32, which set a statewide cap of 750 MW for all investor-owned and large public utilities. If California changes its law, it could change the way individual utilities' FITs are structured, however.

See: http://climateupdate.shareurworld.com/

A feed in tariff essentially mandates that the utility take the power and pay for it. This permits the possibility of smaller facilities that offer power for the user and provides for the sales of the excess. It is essentially a way to self finance a project from the sale of the power. Given that such facilities may be built where power is already being supplied, the obstacles for transmitting the excess power back to the grid are significantly lower, because there is likely less of a need for entirely new transmission facilities. Already existing power transmission and distribution systems may need upgrade, but that is far easier and less controversial then putting in huge transmission towers across the landscape. However, if the critics are correct and the rates for purchase aren’t sufficient for the smaller developer (i.e. the person who may want to run their factory from green power and sell the excess) may be less inclined to jump in. Time will tell.

NEPA

Draft CEQ Guidance On GHGs In NEPA Reviews Includes Key Exemption

The White House Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) issued draft guidance on incorporating GHG consideration in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews of federal actions which exempts federal land and resource management actions from being subject to GHG analyses. In the guidance on incorporating GHG considerations in NEPA reviews, CEQ proposes that agencies may want to consider whether if it is meaningful to assess a project’s GHG impacts if the project would emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Justifying the threshold, CEQ says the 25,000 ton level is the same established in a number of existing federal documents, including a tool EPA created to determine the threshold for facilities to be subject to its recently issued GHG reporting rule. The draft provides guidance on considering climate change impacts on a proposed action, including the relationship of climate change to the project’s design and environmental impacts, as well as mitigation and adaptation measures. The memo says impacts on water resources, ecosystems, agriculture and forestry, health, coastlines, and arctic regions in the United States are particularly important, citing tribal and Alaska native communities as examples of vulnerable populations. In the draft mitigation and monitoring guidance, CEQ proposes three measures for lead agencies to improve NEPA reviews: consider mitigation throughout the review process and identify adopted measures as “binding commitments to the extent consistent with agency authority”; create or strengthen a monitoring program to ensure mitigation is both implemented and effective; and support public participation and accountability through “proactive disclosure of, and access to, agency mitigation monitoring reports and documents.”

See: http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/?hpid=news-col-blog
See Document: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100218-nepa-consideration-effects-ghg-draft-guidance.pdf

At this time the guidance is open for public comments. It’s a foregone conclusion that both the environmental community and industry will weigh in. It should be no surprise that one side will be saying the rules are too liberal and the other side saying they don’t go far enough. The point is clear, as we have noted before, for GHG emission projects to come on line in the short term, and not decades from now, some of the general environmental review process has to be circumvented or rewritten so that the projects can come on line. As we have said before, if there is an imperative to bring on line the projects that reduce or eliminate GHG emissions, they need to be brought on line quickly. That means the processes involved have to be truncated or eliminated. The question, of course, is always where the line for change should be and whether both the environmental community and industry can give up some of their sacred cows to move forward.

Cap-and-Trade

White House Economic Report Touts Cap-And-Trade

A new report released this week by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) highlights the central role that a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions could play in the Obama administration’s efforts to rebuild the economy. One chapter of the 462-page report is devoted to “Transforming the Energy Sector and Addressing Climate Change.” It highlights the adverse impacts on economic growth of rising temperatures and outlines the administration’s climate and energy agenda, including ongoing regulatory efforts, engagement in international negotiations, proposals to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and work with Congress to implement cap-and-trade legislation. The report attempts to counter criticisms that cap-and-trade would slow economic growth by imposing high costs on businesses and consumers. It points out that the acid rain cap-and-trade program implemented in the early 1990s ended up being far less expensive than industries had predicted and cites several studies showing the House climate bill would impose relatively low costs on consumers while spurring additional benefits, such as creating new jobs in clean-energy industries. The report also notes several strategies that have been employed to control costs under a cap-and-trade program, such as allowing firms to bank and borrow allowances, providing offset credits from uncapped sectors and imposing price ceilings and floors on emission allowances.

See: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-12-obama-celebrates-clean-energy-investments-reaffirms-support-cap/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/economic-report-of-the-President

This report runs contrary to some of the statements coming out of the White House that to get an energy/GHG bill out of this Congress cap-and-trade would likely be dropped. Perhaps this report will be used to rally support for cap-and-trade. In comments from the President, it is clear that he would prefer to have cap-and-trade as part of an overall bill but the political reality of the situation is what it is. The key will be the ability of the White House to lead the charge on cap-and-trade as an important mechanism to invigorate a new industry that will bring jobs to the American worker. We will follow up on the comments made by the various groups bound to weigh in.

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power aids White House climate push

President Obama announced an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern Company build two reactors, a move that the administration hopes will invigorate the nuclear power industry after nearly three decades in which no new plants have been built. Supporters of nuclear power argue more reactors will be needed for the United States to tackle global warming effectively because nuclear is a much cleaner energy source than coal-fired power plants, which spew greenhouse gases. Of course, nuclear power is controversial, however, because of its radioactive waste, which is now stored on site at reactor locations around the country. The two reactors, which some experts estimate will cost $8.8 billion to build, could be in service in 2016 and 2017.

See: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16216891.htm

Nuclear power is an answer that has been ignored over the last three decades. It produces no GHGs. Had we been able to continue building nuclear power plants, as the French have, we would be in a strategically better position and would have added far fewer GHGs into the atmosphere. Now is the time to try to rectify this mistake. However, it is likely that there will be significant environmental opposition to the construction of such plants and thus while the loan guarantee is a significant gesture by the current administration, they will need to actively weigh in to support such construction in the permitting process and possible litigation. The will to do that is far different then merely guaranteeing a loan which may never be called on due to the need to obtain approvals before construction commences.

Fights

Chamber, GOP Suits Latest Challenges To EPA Climate Risk Finding

The list of groups filing formal challenges to EPA’s climate change endangerment finding—or pledging to soon do so—has grown, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Feb. 12 formally seeking federal court review of the finding and the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) expected to file a similar petition. The chamber on Feb. 12 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA endangerment finding, calling it a “nationally applicable final action” by the agency ripe for the court’s consideration. In a separate, Feb. 9 petition to the same court, 12 House Republicans and several business groups seek the same court review. Neither move is much of a surprise, with the chamber having been a harsh critic of the finding and the Southeastern Legal Foundation—one of the plaintiffs on the petition—last year having petitioned EPA seeking reconsideration of the endangerment finding on behalf of a smaller group of GOP lawmakers. On February 16th, the State of Texas also filed a suit and seeks to intervene in the action filed by the Chamber.

See: http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2257919/chamber-commerce-launches-legal%20&
http://cei.org/news-release/2010/02/16/new-lawsuit-petition-challenge-epa-global-warming-regulations%20&%20http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1661844120100216

These suits will likely be an interesting sidelight to the climate change picture. Ultimately, it is very doubtful that the Court will agree with any of the arguments made and there are many technical legal issues that could derail a final ruling on the key issue of whether or not the endangerment finding was proper or appropriate. However, along the way the Court may actually issue some preliminary rulings that will no doubt catch the public’s eye and become part of the fabric of the ongoing discussions regarding climate change. In Congress, there is still opposition to the findings by the EPA and bills have been introduced to alter that finding through legislation. Such bills will likely not pass, and certainly would be vetoed by the President.

Transmission of Green Power

Utilities Split Over Transmission Expansion, Renewable Energy Integration

A diverse group of investor-owned and municipally owned utilities sent a letter Feb. 9 to top Senate leaders expressing concerns with a pending Senate energy bill (S. 1462) and signaling a major industry split over how best to expand the nation's transmission system and integrate more renewable energy resources. The utilities focused on two aspects of the bill's provisions—the regional transmission planning process and the allocation of costs for new projects, especially for wind and solar generation. The group said the committee-passed bill would give the FERC too much control over regional transmission projects, transforming the agency into a “national transmission planner.” Bill language that would allow FERC to approve or modify a transmission plan submitted by local and regional entities should be deleted, the group said, because local and state planners are capable of making the best decisions for the customers they serve. With respect to who should pay the costs of new transmission lines to support renewable and other clean energy sources, the group wants the Senate to retain language in the committee bill (Corker amendment) that requires FERC to conduct cost-benefit analysis before allocating costs for new projects among ratepayers. The utilities expressed concern that their customers will be assessed charges for major transmission projects that will not directly benefit them, or that would be more expensive than other local or regional alternatives, such as distributed generation, wind farms built directly on the East Coast rather than importing wind power from the Midwest, and expanded nuclear power and hydropower.

See: http://climate.bna.com/subscriber/World.Climate.Change.Report.html?d=A0C2C0Q8T3&dt=News

The current transmission systems were set up regionally and when you look at the various backbones of the systems they demonstrate this: The question is, is this the most sensible thing to do at this time when we are trying to bring in new energy sources on line which may be sited quite differently then the current systems. Also, there is a need for a fundamental upgrade in transmission capacity no matter what the source. Will it be easier to have this accomplished through one agency or continue to rely on regional planning and funding which would then not permit the dilution of cost nationally? Will the processes to get transmission lines approved be better handled on a national basis of regionally? All good questions with no definitive answers. But, the cost of the new transmission projects will be huge and given the way energy is shared across the nation, all persons do share in the production and distribution of energy and thus the cost is likely also rationally split up the same way.

Tofu

Tofu Could Cause More Environmental Harm than Meat

Britain's Cranfield University examined the impacts of meat substitutes, many of which are produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that are often imported. The researchers found that a switch from locally raised beef and lamb in Britain to meat substitutes, which are highly processed and created through energy-intensive production methods, could cause more foreign lands and forests to be converted into farmland. World Wildlife Fund commissioned the study. The benefits of vegetarianism depend heavily on the foods consumed in place of meat, the study concludes. "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK," it says.  A spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society said the study relied on "a number of questionable assumptions."

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7023809.ece and (Vegetarian Society) http://www.vegsoc.org/

Carnivores should be happy with the outcome of this report. Aside from the obvious humor, the issue of measuring the actual GHG impact needs to become more of a standard procedure so that issues such as this can be more effectively analyzed, if necessary. As for this particular issue, the choice of eating tofu or beef is really nothing that should need to be analyzed!!!

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

February 16, 2010

By: Steven L. Hoch
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

California

California Activists Pursue Novel GHG Challenge to Power Plant Project

NGOs are pursuing an action under state law to force California regulators to analyze and mitigate GHG emissions expected from a power plant project in Southern California. If unsuccessful environmentalists may also eye a potential challenge to EPA aimed at ensuring that the project’s GHGs are addressed through a modified prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit under the CAA which EPA is now reviewing. (See discussion further below re San Francisco.) At issue is a proposal to build a 558-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in the city of Carlsbad which would support SDG&E’s local load and provide overall system reliability. In November, the CEC approved the project concluding that “significant adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would not occur, and/or can be brought to a level of less than significant.” These findings are being challenged under the CEQA wherein the NGOs are contending there is no proof the new Carlsbad facility will have a net “insignificant” GHG emissions impact, nor that it will result in lower GHG emissions from other power plants tied to the grid. Further, they contend that the approval of the project is premature, given that CEC and other officials have not yet completed studies about whether and where new natural gas-fired power plants are needed in the state, in part to facilitate new renewable power facilities. See:

http://carboncontrolnews.com/index.php/ccn/show/activists_pursue_novel_ghg_challenge_to_california_power_plant_project/

One cannot help but suspect that the action is meant more to block a cleaner burning fuel to force use of GHG neutral facilities (wind, solar) in lieu of natural gas. Natural gas represents an interim solution (or perhaps even an ultimate solution depending on who you talk to) to produce power in places that are already grid accessible. There is discussion about re-engineering coal plants to use natural gas. This country has a lot of natural gas and an extensive infrastructure in tact to move it. Such plants make sense to reduce GHG emissions quickly, and to free the country from foreign oil or use of coal plants. (But see discussion below re Caterpillar, Inc.) The fact that this is not enough for some NGOs, even as an interim solution, is disappointing.

Industry Charges California Focus On Public Health Will Undermine Cap and Trade

Several major industry organizations are charging that California regulators are advancing policies that will undermine the effectiveness of a regional GHG cap-and-trade program, claiming attempts to design the scheme to protect and even improve public health go above and beyond the state’s climate change law and are at odds with efforts to minimize compliance costs. Some of these design elements include requiring facilities in “vulnerable” communities to reduce emissions of traditional air pollutants, as well as restricting the use of GHG offsets by some facilities to comply with their trading program obligations. Simultaneously, environmental organizations are pressing regulators to more aggressively advance cap-and-trade program policies linking climate change and public health, in part by identifying the communities most vulnerable to climate change, laying out restrictions on facility emissions and GHG offsets in these areas and establishing mechanisms to distribute resources and cash to protect public health. See:

http://carboncontrolnews.com/index.php/ccn/show/industry_charges_california_focus_on_public_health_will_undermine_cap_and_t/

The industry groups have taken a tough position to maintain. That is, they can easily be seen as wanting something for nothing with cap and trade whether or not the program hurts certain communities. A reading of AB32 in some way supports their position, but because the entire issue can be viewed as one dealing with public health, there is ample arguments that can be made against their position. But the more important issue is creating a major change in the way energy is produced and used and in that regard, the greater goal needs to be kept in focus. That is, lowering out reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and supposedly lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We’ve said it before and will continue to make the comment that if the issue of climate change is so important that if we don’t take prompt action we will destroy the planet, then the greater good issue should prevail. Further, the greater good helps the very communities of concern anyway.

California Argues Activist Suit Against GHG Plan ‘Unripe’ For Most Claims

California state attorneys representing air regulators filed a detailed response this week to a lawsuit brought last year by environmentalists against the state’s climate change program, with California attorneys dismissing the suit as premature because many of the regulations being challenged are still being developed. But attorneys representing the activist groups are maintaining that key claims in the lawsuit are ripe for adjudication because if the state’s plan is unaltered it will result in more pollution and disproportionately impact low-income, minority communities. The lawsuit claims that the majority of the key measures included in CARB’s AB 32 “scoping plan”—which lays out dozens of GHG regulations recommended to be implemented by 2012—violate several laws, including AB 32 itself and the CEQA. The state attorney general’s office claims in the lawsuit are unripe for legal challenge because the rules contained in the scoping plan at issue have not yet been adopted or implemented by CARB, including the cap-and-trade program. See:

http://carboncontrolnews.com/index.php/ccn/show/california_argues_activist_suit_against_ghg_plan_unripe_for_most_claims/

Fathoming the reasoning for this lawsuit is difficult. Best guess, it’s to force the creation of regulations that are inclined to not be balanced, but more heavily lean toward command and control in the strictest sense. The scoping plan looked at most sides of the issues it confronted, and while it didn’t succeed in all aspects of coming up with some balance approaches, it was clear that practicality was a key pivotal issue. A win by environmental groups here may alter that dynamic.

San Francisco Area Regulators Include Greenhouse Gas Caps in Plant Permit

San Francisco Bay Area air quality regulators approved a Clean Air Act permit for a power plant that includes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Issued under the federal law's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program, the permit clears the way for construction of the 600-megawatt Russell City Energy Center in Hayward, California. PSD rules require new and modified “major” sources of air pollution that increase emissions to use the best available control technology. Greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources are not currently regulated under PSD and other Clean Air Act programs. However, if EPA finalizes proposed greenhouse gas emissions limits for cars and light trucks, as it is expected to do in March, stationary source emissions of greenhouse gases will be subject to PSD. The company building the facility states it will produce half the greenhouse gas emissions of even the most advanced coal-fired plants and 25 percent below the California Public Utilities Commission’s standard. The owner estimated the project will create 650 union construction jobs and inject “millions into the local economy.” It also will generate $30 million in onetime tax revenue and over $5 million a year in property tax revenue, the company said. As part of the project, the company also agreed to donate $10 million to help build a new public library for Hayward residents and fund San Francisco Bay shoreline programs.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/04/04greenwire-planned-calif-power-plant-would-be-nations-fir-73676.html
Permit: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Engineering/Public-Notices-on-Permits/2010/020410-15487/Russell-City-Energy-Center.aspx

There was no indication yet about any attacks on this plant by any environmental or other group. We will follow up. But note that the EPA was proactive here to remove the PSD issues (which of course may be challenged itself) and the major impact getting the headlines is jobs, jobs, jobs.

Wind Power

A Growing Source of Clean Energy, Wind Farms Are Blowing Ill Will Among Some Neighbors

Complaints are growing from some residents living near wind facilities. “They told us that the noise at 900 feet would be no louder than the hum of a refrigerator,” says Hal Graham who lives near such a facility. But he says the reality has been far different. “We can’t sleep. We can’t watch TV. This has been a disaster for us and our neighbors.” Others complain that the turbines emit stomach-jarring whooshes and rumbles, and an impossible-to-ignore rhythmic hum that disrupts sleep and causes headaches, nausea and fatigue in some people. The growing contentiousness over the health effects of wind turbines already has resulted in some sharp legal fights —with more sure to come—over where turbines should be located and how they should be regulated. And because wind power can be harnessed most efficiently in wide-open spaces—the largest wind farms contain hundreds of turbines—the task of sorting out these issues has fallen primarily on local government bodies representing communities. Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, land use generally is regulated at the local level through the police power of towns, cities and counties to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their residents. Generally, a local government can’t just ban an industry outright but there’s a zoning doctrine that basically prohibits ‘exclusionary zoning’ in which a local government simply discriminates against a certain type of land use. There must be a rational reason for restricting an industry that is related to the health, safety or general welfare of the populace. But there are no national standards defining just how much noise is too much. The U.S. Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972 promised to “promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” However, the Office of Noise Abatement and Control created to enforce the law has been defunded since the Reagan administration. See:

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_war_of_winds/

This is an interesting aspect of renewable energy that has surfaced only recently in the press. There is of course an underlying threat of personal injury suits being filed by our friends in the plaintiffs bar. Such suits, whether successful or not, will have a chilling effect on the use of wind poser in all but very remote areas where there is no residential component to be concerned about. Of course, whether or not there is a causal connection is another story, but when it comes to personal injury lawsuits, we can guarantee that there will be sufficient testimony provided to get to a jury. But beyond that issue, the placement of such facilities will take on additional local fights and is another issue to be dealt with in moving from one energy source to another, i.e. not in my back yard.

You can track what renewable energy projects in your state are stalled for any reason by checking http://pnp.uschamber.com/

Reversing the Trend?

Utah Says “No” To Climate Rules

Utah legislators say they are concerned about potential impacts to their state’s economy from climate change—or rather, from future EPA regulations seeking to address it. Citing concerns about the effects EPA greenhouse gas rules could have on the state’s agriculture industry and other businesses, a Utah legislative committee approved a resolution Feb. 4 that urges the agency to halt its work on climate regulations. In addition to potential impacts on the economy, legislators backing the resolution cited uncertainty about the state of climate science, alluding to recent scandals surrounding the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change much-cited reports linking human activity to global warming. See:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700007114/Utah-legislative-panel-OKs-resolution-on-climate-change.html

State Drops Out Of Regional Carbon Trading Scheme

Arizona governor Janice Brewer issued an executive order on February 11, announcing the state would not implement the GHG cap-and-trade proposal advanced by the WCI, which is set to begin on January 1, 2012. The executive order states: “Imposing costs on Arizona’s economy associated with a GHG cap-and-trade system that are not borne by national and international rivals would cost investment and jobs in Arizona and put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage without effectively addressing what is a national and global issue.” See: http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/news/1591647/state-drops-regional-carbon-trading-scheme

Given the economy and some of the recent behind the scene disclosures that have caused some in the scientific community embarrassment, this is not completely unexpected. In Utah, the reported activity is still in committee and it remains to be seen what the full legislature will do. Arizona’s reaction is of interest because it does indicate that many believe that the switch to renewable energy with cap and trade will definitely cause increased energy prices. However, there are very good arguments on the other side of the discussion that without cap and trade the increase have a greater impact on ratepayers then without it. As we have reported, the WCI will be moving forward, even it involves just California and four Canadian premises. If it looks like its working, others will jump in. If not, others will be shouting, “We told you so!”

Water

Suit Aims To Compel EPA To Weigh Climate When Setting Water Pollution Limits

Environmentalists are moving forward with long-stalled litigation aimed at requiring regulators to consider the role of climate change when setting pollution limits for impaired waters, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), after settlement negotiations stalled. The litigation, Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA, is challenging the agency’s approval of a Vermont phosphorus limit on Lake Champlain in a novel effort to force regulators to consider climate change and its impacts on wet weather flows when setting the TMDL for the lake. A TMDL is a measure of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can withstand without violating water quality limits. If successful, the suit could establish a new bar for how regulators set TMDLs, which limit discharges from both point and non-point sources into impaired waters. In some cases, consideration of climate change impacts could result in significantly stricter discharge limits, such as when increased precipitation could result in increased levels of polluted runoff. But in cases where climate change creates drier conditions, it could result in less runoff and fewer pollutants contributing to impairment or increased concentrations of pollutants. At issue in the case is whether EPA had the available data to consider the impacts of climate change in the TMDL, first issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in 2002. Conservation Law Foundation says it has evidence that the agency was at the time fully aware of the future effects of climate change on water flows and activities in the lake, and should have taken that into account in the TMDL, even if the issue was not raised by commenters at the time. See:

http://carboncontrolnews.com/index.php/ccn/search_results/8123a60e4b535f57035f59af0924bca2/

This is an interesting issue. Making what would amount to a matrix to determine what TMDLs should be applied given the possible and variable climate change circumstances may exist in any given location is likely impossible. The alternative is to look only at the worst case scenario and plan accordingly. That worst case scenario is lower flow and/or levels. This of course, would mandate lower levels of TMDLs because there is less dilution or physical area of the water way or water body itself. This will also require an inordinate expense to meet TMDLs to meet limits that may not be necessary. That is perhaps the reasoning behind the suit, i.e. get more restrictive limits using climate change as an excuse.

Modeling

Experts Try New Approach to Climate Modeling

An international team of scientists is working to improve scenarios of future emissions growth that underlie major climate reports. The idea is to create a more realistic range of "what if?" futures that could help policymakers better understand how to achieve different climate targets. The effort, under the auspices of a global effort called the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium, is to improve scenarios developed in 2000, which the group used in its 2001 and 2007 reports. Scientists involved with the project published an essay yesterday in the journal Nature outlining their approach, which was also the subject of a recent workshop convened by the National Academy of Sciences. See:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/02/ipcc_in_need_of_a_rethink_1.html

Climate modeling is the basis for all predictions which substantiate the various impacts of climate change. Like all such models, they are based on numerous assumptions and guestimates to substitute for precise data that is not known. Compounding this is the fact that modeling climate is, in and of itself, a very difficult undertaking due to the sometime chaotic nature of the climate and weather patterns themselves. What the real basis of this move really is relates more to a political issue then a scientific one. Many of the models produced today portray a doomsday scenario unfolding fairly quickly. This not only appears to be untrue, but in the face of current winter weather patterns not only in the Untied States, but in many other countries as well, the models used cast a pall over the publics willingness to agree there is a problem let alone what should be done with it. It really doesn’t look like doomsday!

Clean Coal

Caterpillar Inc. Joins Industry and Government Partnership to Deliver State-of-the-Art Clean-Coal Technology

Caterpillar Inc. today announced its intent to join the FutureGen Alliance, a public-private partnership established to build a first-of-its-kind coal-fired, near-zero emissions power plant in Mattoon, Illinois. The FutureGen facility is designed to be the cleanest coal burning plant in the world and will integrate advanced technologies for coal gasification, electricity production, emissions control, CO2 capture and permanent storage and hydrogen production on a commercial scale. The FutureGen plant is a 275-megawatt integrated gasification combined-cycle power plant. It will be capable of powering about 150,000 homes. The DoE will provide more than $1 billion in funding to the project. Researchers and industry experts have made great progress advancing technologies for coal gasification, electricity generation, emissions control, and CCS and hydrogen production. But these technologies have yet to be put together and tested at a single plant - an essential step for technical and commercial viability. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20100208-904074.html?mod=wsjcrmain and
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/

Getting $1 billion form DoE doesn’t hurt! But importantly, if there is a clean coal system that can work economically and efficiently, it would be great. This country has a huge supply of coal, which still is the major source of fuel for power plants. If there is a successful technology it would help out in both transition but also immediately reducing GHG emissions. It does not appear at this time that this specific project has gotten to far in terms of meeting its 2012 goal. So what challenges legal and otherwise may occur remain to be seen.

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

February 8, 2010

By: Steven L. Hoch
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

California

California Sets Up Statewide Network to Monitor Global-Warming Gases

California is preparing to introduce the first statewide system of monitoring devices to detect global-warming emissions, installing them on towers throughout the state. The monitoring network, which is expected to grow, will initially focus on pinpointing the sources and concentrations of methane, a potent contributor to climate change but will ultimately assist to verify the state’s overall compliance with AB32. By this summer, the analyzers will be deployed on towers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys, home to large agricultural operations and oil fields, and on Mount Wilson, outside Los Angeles. Each device costs approximately $50,000. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/energy-environment/03emit.html

Most methane is created by dairy and cattle farming activities and oil field operation where it is a gas that often exists in the same geological formations in an oil rich area. So there is some question as to why put them where you know methane is bound to be found. Those areas will be controlled under many of the AB32 regulations already in draft and even under the CAA ambient air standards that exist, independent of climate change. Cynically, one could opine that this positioning is meant to be able to pinpoint which actor is worst so some action can be taken against them. Less cynically, in developing the system and proving the concept works, putting it where you know methane will be found has merit. It would be much easier to how the device works or what may need to change before you grow the system. For now, lets be less cynical as there is more benefit to the data that could come from such a system then there is possible detriment. California is first again; expect to see these devices employed elsewhere in the near future.

Refiners and Truckers Sue Over Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

Oil refiners and truckers filed suit against California to overturn its low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS). The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California was filed by the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association: the American Trucking Associations, the Center for North American Energy Security and the Consumer Energy Alliance. According to CARB, starting in 2011, fuel suppliers will have to meet annual carbon intensity targets with their chosen blend of fuels. The overall goal is to reduce fuel emissions 10 percent by 2020, or about 15 million metric tons. The suit cites the commerce clause as well as the supremacy clause, which establishes the dominance of federal laws over state laws. The federal renewable fuels standard, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 all prevent California from embarking on its own fuel standard, the groups said. Since California signed the standards into law, 11 states have indicated plans to follow suit. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work toward adopting a regional Low Carbon Fuel Standard modeled after California’s standard. See:

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/02/truckers-oil-refiners-sue-calif-to-overturn-states-low-carbon-fuel-standard.html and http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/02/03/truckers-oil-refiners-file-suit-against-ca-low-carbon-fuel-standard/

The regulation means that providers, refiners, importers and blenders must prove that their California fuels meet an average declining standard of “carbon intensity,” a figure related to the sum of GHG emissions associated with the production, transportation and consumption of a fuel. Some that oppose the regulation indicate the regulation considers the indirect effects of biofuels production — the fuel needed to grow and harvest vegetation for biofuels. For instance, California’s corn ethanol producers have said the regulations unfairly targets their industry to account for “indirect land use change,” including the notion that crop-based biofuels inflate grain prices, leading farmers elsewhere to convert carbon-sinks like forests into crop fields, which produce carbon. What seems to be missed by everyone is that if there is enough biofuel, and the equipment that now produces the carbon to take care of the land and crops will be using the biofuel and thus will be reestablish a balance. There must be equilibrium somewhere in this equation both mathematically and strategically. That is, we free ourselves from ties to Middle East oil, which has been a foreign policy and economic problem for decades.

Firm Pursuing Idea on Cutting Diesel Emissions

Extengine Transport Systems of Long Beach a five-employee business, is hoping to cash in by making older off-road and on-road diesel engines run a lot cleaner. Extengine manufactures and sells state-of-the-art diesel engine exhaust-after-treatment and diesel engine upgrade kits. They claim that they are the first and only company that has a CARB verified SCR-based (Selected Catalytic Reduction) diesel retrofit system that reduces NOx 80-90% and can reduce particulate matter by 95%. See:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/01/business/la-fi-engine-dirt1-2010feb01 and

http://www.extengine.com/home.php?osCsid=38df25a81f43c4815dd4467adbe084e4

Assuming that the company’s claims are valid, this is a matter of considerable significance. Heavy duty diesel equipment is both expensive and long lasting. It is not unusual to have on road engines last beyond 400,000 miles and off road equipment last many thousands of hours. Replacing this fleet to a cleaner burning fleet, particularly in hard economic times such as we now face, is likely not to occur in less than several decades. An add-on equipment package that can perform as the Extengine equipment allows a much lower cost option to permit continued operation of already paid for equipment in a manner that will reduce the negative impact such equipment may have on the environment.

Western Cap & Trade Program May Launch in 2012 with Just One State – California

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) regional GHG cap-and-trade program may launch in 2012 with only California and three Canadian provinces participating. Some WCI and CARB officials maintain that a powerful regional cap-and-trade program can still be carried out with California and the three Canadian provinc, based on the fact that they make up almost 1 billion of the total 1.5 billion tons of GHG emissions that WCI would ultimately cover—a “pretty sizeable market,” as one WCI official put it last year. See:
http://carboncontrolnews.com/index.php/ccn/show/western_cap_trade_program_may_launch_in_2012_with_just_one_state/

This is the first public admission by state officials involved in WCI that more than half the members will not be ready to participate in the trading program. It underscores the political difficulty other states are experiencing in convincing lawmakers to approve GHG regulations, especially considering the troubled economy. It is likely the others involved will take a wait and see posture until the WCI is actually operational and develops and track record. Also of course is the pending federal legislation that may postpone such regional initiatives for up to five years. California will proceed with its cap-and-trade program which will be designed to fit into the WCI system, so WCI is very likely to be a reality, albeit smaller. In turn, it creates an interesting foreign policy issue for the federal government to consider if it will seek to alter the operation or even existence of such multi-nation cooperative efforts.

Will AB 32 be Postponed?

Republican politicians and conservative activists are launching a ballot campaign to suspend California’s landmark global-warming law, in what they hope will serve as a showcase for a national backlash against climate regulations. Supporters say they have “solid commitments” of nearly $600,000 to pay signature gatherers for a November initiative aimed at delaying curbs on the GHG emissions of power plants and factories until the state's unemployment rate drops. The measure would halt proposed regulations until the state’s jobless rate dips to 5.5% or below for a year. That’s a level that California has not seen since 2007. California has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates: 12.4%. In somewhat of a twist of fate, common in California politics, the official wording of the initiative, however, lies in the hands of Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, an outspoken advocate of AB32 and a presumptive Democratic candidate for governor. On Wednesday, his office discarded the “jobs initiative” title in favor of the unwieldy: “Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.” See:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ballot-warming6-2010feb06,0,5959308.story

Given the heavy democratic leaning in this state and the presumptive approach of support for AB32 by AG Brown, the chance of this initiative’s passage seem problematic. However, the pivitol issue will be whether or not by next November there is improvement of the state’s unemployment statistics and to a lesser extent what occurs in Congress. The unknown is whether or not the average person is going to view AB32 as a savior or a series of meddlesome interference by government to their way of life.

Jobs

Wind Power Incentives Haven't Yet Translated into New “Green Jobs”

Federal stimulus money created 2,000 wind energy installation and maintenance jobs in 2009, roughly the same number of manufacturing jobs that were lost, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Federal officials said last month that 52,000 clean-energy jobs have been created or saved by the stimulus to date. Though existing tax breaks have boosted the wind industry, they also create uncertainty, industry leaders say. Elizabeth Salerno, director of data and analysis at the wind industry group, said manufacturers won’t be willing to step up production unless the government takes steps such as mandating renewable power usage, upgrading the electric grid and putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. The DOE says it intends to put wind power on an even footing with other technologies, unlike China, which has a booming wind energy industry due in large part to government incentives. See:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-fi-green-jobs2-2010feb02,0,3585090.story

The DOE actually claims that they are not in a position to back a specific renewable energy system and that they want to create competition among various approaches in the marketplace. But they miss the point. There has to be a strong policy that supports renewable energy and clears the path to simplified delivery of the energy. The market place will take it from there. But the key driver, policy and law that will trigger and make possible the change, is needed. Any current market analysis (see below) of green power technology shows that the level of uncertainty is high and that effects capital investment.

Survey Finds U.S. Renewable Energy Standard (RES) Would Create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs

A new study sponsored by renewable power companies and advocacy groups found significant job growth in the southeastern United States: All the states, except South Carolina and Mississippi, would gain at least 5,000 jobs versus the no-RES case. The larger states, Florida and Texas, would net at least 15,000. The report also said half of these jobs would come from manufacturing—not just direct fabrication of solar panels, heat pumps and the like, but also the materials needed to build the equipment. Without a national RES, the study found, the renewable energy industry would plateau or even shrink in most states. This is because the lack of a long-term goal would discourage suppliers from beefing up the supply chain for renewables, it said. See: http://www.res-alliance.org/res-jobs-study

Whether the numbers are correct or not can not be commented on. But as noted above in regard to wind energy, the study supports the need for a strong policy (or standards) the market can not respond and whatever jobs could be created will go wanting and of course, the net benefit to the environment will be negative.

Business

Big Companies Push More Suppliers to Track Emissions

The number of corporations pushing greenhouse gas emissions reporting and reduction strategies onto their suppliers is quickly growing and will likely triple in the next five years, according to a new survey by a U.K.-based nonprofit Carbon Disclosure Project. Of the 1,402 suppliers asked to provide information, just 710 companies, or 51 percent, passed on data and answered questions for the project’s second annual report on emissions reductions plans and attitudes in the manufacturing supply chain. Only 27 percent of suppliers responded to last year’s survey. Eighty-nine percent of project members say they have plans to follow the likes of Wal-Mart, Dell and others in requiring suppliers to calculate their carbon footprints and spell out strategies for reducing them. But despite their stated intentions to get tougher on suppliers, today only 20 percent of the 2,200 companies disclosing their emissions levels say that they have the ability to accurately measure or estimate their suppliers’ output of greenhouse gas pollution. Fifty-six percent of members tell the project that they are even prepared to go so far as dropping companies from their list of suppliers in the future, though just 6 percent said they would take those harsh steps today. Among the suppliers that did provide information for the study, just 38 percent say they have plans to calculate and reduce the emissions from their operations, versus 82 percent of project member companies that do. See:
https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/CDPNewsArticlePages/carbon-management-key-part-of-corporate-supply-chain-strategy.aspx

This is demonstrable evidence that the market is adapting to the climate change issue. How successful such market driven adaptations will be in the long run will depend not only in response to government policies, but also consumer expectations. A good example of this adaptation is the auto industry and the issue of safety. There was some demand for safer vehicles in the 70’s leading to government standards, which in turn focused the population on the safety issue. That focus caused the industry to respond with safer vehicles and also allowed government to respond to the public demand with additional safety requirements. Without the populations support, the more costly safety construction and devices increased costs may not have been tolerated. Where there missteps – a lot, such as higher power air bags that suffocated children, automatic lap belts that were so annoying people chose not to use them at all, and others. But know safety sells. The question is will “green” really sell. In many public opinion polls the clarity of the publics focus on green is not really all that clear. In concept people want the environment to be clean, but the politics of climate change, the lack of policy and the fear of increase cost of goods and services creates much ambiguity and ambivalence.

FTC Moves May Signal Start of “Greenwashing” Crackdown

The Federal Trade Commission is expected to crack down on “greenwashing" when it updates its environmental marketing guidelines for the first time since 1998. The agency’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, or Green Guides, define terms such as “recyclable” and “biodegradable” and explain how businesses should back up environmental assertions. Though FTC cannot force businesses to adopt greener practices, Section 5 of the FTC Act authorizes the agency to intervene when businesses are misrepresenting their practices to clients—in other words, turning greenwashing into fraud. David Vladeck, director of FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection last summer that tougher enforcement and environmental guidelines are a major part of the commission’s agenda. Environmental groups are excited that FTC is examining the issue of greenwashing, though they are not sure what to expect. See: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/03/03greenwire-ftc-moves-may-signal-start-of-greenwashing-cra-90834.html

The term greenwashing stems from the term whitewashing, i.e. anything, as deceptive words or actions, used to cover up or gloss over faults, errors, or wrongdoings, or absolve a wrongdoer from blame. In the green context it could mean anything from the products carbon footprint, to claims made about a buildings energy savings. As long as there appears to be a sales edge to such products, claims will be made, some of which obviously will be untrue. This is just the start of a new form of enforcement and litigation.

Nuclear Power

The Administration Puts Its Own Stamp on a Possible Nuclear Revival

The Obama administration’s 2011 budget proposal indicates it will triple the size of the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program to $54 billion, which could support the construction of seven to ten new reactors if their designs are approved and the developers raise their share of the capital. Apparently, the first two conditional loan guarantee awards should be made soon and are meant to judge if the new reactors can be built on time and on budget. The 2011 budget also denies funding for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, and the administration will withdraw the facility’s license application at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the next month. The Yucca Mountain decision formalizes the position that President Obama took in the 2008 presidential campaign for Nevada’s primary. It means that a growing volume of used reactor fuel assemblies will have to be stored for decades at some 60 reactor sites, as they are now, until new nuclear fuel cycle technologies and policies are developed that can win Congress’ support. Nuclear power currently provides 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, constituting by far the largest source of power without GHG emissions. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/02/02climatewire-the-administration-puts-its-own-stamp-on-a-p-76078.html

There are of course a host of issues relating to nuclear power, including the substantively thorny problem of storage and reprocessing. But it is clear that nuclear power is a very solid non-pouting source of electric power. France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy and it has brought them significant energy security. They are also the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to very low cost of generation. They have succeeded, so one must ask, why can’t we?

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary

February 1, 2010

By: Steven L. Hoch
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

California

California Air Board's 2010 Agenda Emphasizes Cap-and-Trade Program, Tighter Emissions Curbs

Developing an economy-wide GHG cap-and-trade program and curbing diesel emissions are among the CARB’s top priorities in 2010. At a meeting in Sacramento, the agency outlined a yearlong agenda designed to fulfill its legal obligations under state climate change legislation and federal and state clean air laws. CARB plans to release a revised proposal for a multi-sector cap-and-trade program sometime this spring. The goal is to launch the program in 2012 and link it with cap-and-trade programs planned in other western states and Canadian provinces through the WCI. CARB staff said the long-awaited updated economic analysis of the state's climate change programs is due out this February. CARB staff also said it would begin developing a new round of emissions standards for new passenger vehicles that would cut emissions beyond the levels required under its existing greenhouse gas standards for 2009-2016 vehicles. See:

http://climate.bna.com/subscriber/World.Climate.Change.Report.html?d=A0C1Z4P5X4&dt=News

CARB’s cap-and-trade program will have virtually no free allocations as the federal program discussed to date have, thus, denying utilities the benefit of gaining an asset that will offset the cost of creating clean energy. (See below). Of course, this action could be for naught if the federal plan for cap-and-trade pre-empts California’s. Word from Washington on a climate bill is mixed, with some saying there will be a detailed bill and others saying there will be a modified version of a bill that may not include cap-and-trade but sets goals and requirements. As to the economic analysis, two versions were done at UC Berkeley stating that green will produce a positive flow of green within and into the state. Without being sarcastic, it is safe to say that CARB’s analysis will show that there will be a positive economic impact. There is sure to be contrary economic studies and claims to follow. The issue is a key as it would appear nothing that has a job negative effect will be tolerated by the legislature and the governor who would be very concerned if their climate plan proves to be job negative. There will be fights and feuds over this report.

Facing Deadlines, California Developers See Roadblocks in Permitting Processes

Fast-tracked solar thermal projects in California risk missing deadlines for stimulus funding because they must navigate a maze of state and federal permitting processes, developers told policymakers last week. The most-cited obstacles: permitting bottlenecks, unclear or constantly changing requirements under state and federal environmental laws, and water use. There are about 240 solar projects currently seeking permits in California, totaling about 69,000 megawatts. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is hearing 3-4 times the number of projects a year but that appears to be not enough. Developers are also concerned that they are not getting the credit necessary for early voluntary actions that are environmentally friendly. As an example, NextEra Energy Resources’ 250-megawatt Beacon project in Kern County decided last month to use recycled water instead of drinking water to condense the steam that powers the turbines but now the CEC is pushing them to use recycled water for all their uses which will set them back further on planning and construction. Solar Millennium is facing obstacles, too: A court case over air pollution is potentially blocking the company’s 500-megawatt Palen project in Riverside County. Environmental groups are suing the South Coast Air Quality Management District over its emissions trading program; if the air district loses, it may not be able to issue Solar Millennium credits for its permit. See:

http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2010/01/25/8/

The part of the entire process that was wrong from the “get go” with AB 32 was that it mandated short term changes but did not mandate the power or funding to make it happen. It was overlaid on existing agency structure and bureaucracy which clearly can’t handle the load fast enough to get green energy to where it could be. This is but one example of the gridlock that is occurring at many levels in the State. We’ve discussed the gridlock over transmission lines before. We have pointed out that green building standards will require more time and a higher degree of regulatory processing. It would be a fundamentally sound action to take to deal with these roadblocks and move forward as rapidly as possible. And as we stated before, that will require many NGO’s to take a longer view of the issues and will take a cash strapped state to find the funds or eliminate other programs that are not performing so that the manpower can be shifted to moving these projects forward.

Algae v. Algae

Algae as Biofuel Still Rough Around the Edges

Algae, like other biofuels will have its environmental footprint scrutinized. While the aquatic microorganisms show promise — algae are extremely efficient at converting carbon dioxide into biomass and don’t require a lot of land — they also come with trade-offs according to a report in the January 19th addition of Environmental Science & Technology. One finding was that the algal life-cycle analysis, which used numbers from an online database and published research, finds that algae farms need to minimize use of fertilizer and freshwater to compete with other biofuel plants. Growing algae in wastewater and feeding it recycled nutrients and recycled CO2 greened up the process considerably, the researchers report. Researchers in the public and private sectors are already investigating these strategies, putting algae ponds next to facilities with CO2 emissions that can be captured. Bypassing synthetic fertilizers is also crucial. Composting the remaining algae biomass after the energy-rich lipids have been extracted could supply a partial food source for the next crop of algae. See:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55665/title/Algae_as_biofuel_still_rough_around_the_edges%20and
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uov-uef012110.php

Algae Rebuttal

The algae-based biofuels industry, represented by the Algal Biomass Organization (ABO), is fighting back against a recent study that found algae production consumes more energy and emits more GHGs than other biofuel feedstocks, asserting that the study’s reliance on “obsolete data and faulty assumptions” seriously undermines the credibility of its conclusions. The ABO said that the study looks at first-generation algae ponds rather than newer cultivation methods and makes at least six major erroneous assumptions about energy, water, nutrient use and other factors in algae-fuel production, resulting from its use of “decades-old” data about the industry. While the algae study suggests several improvements in algae production to cut the biofuel’s GHG lifecycle emissions, “The truth is that the algae industry is already well beyond the obvious improvements these authors suggest,” said Dr. Stephen Mayfield, director of the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology. See:

http://carboncontrolnews.com/ccndocs/jan10/ccn01262010_abo.pdf

It’s not clear who is really right here. But there is no disagreement that algae can be a vital source of biofuel at prices that may be far more competitive then the corn based products and would seem to have an edge in term of carbon footprint as there does is no land use, growing, harvesting and transporting impact that corn does have. DOD is investing $72M in algae biomass projects which may yield some positive results. In any case, it would seem that over time, like anything else, the cost of production will come down and if looked at from a perspective of reducing carbon footprint, it’s hard to believe it would be worse then using gasoline/oil for fuel. So perhaps we shouldn’t look to make it perfect now, and try to ratchet its footprint down over time.

Support for the EPA

Sixteen States File Motion to Intervene in Industry Challenge to Endangerment Rule

Sixteen states filed a motion in federal court Jan. 22 to intervene in an industry coalition’s challenge to the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and the environment. The states seeking to intervene are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, along with New York City. They said that, in the absence of federal action on climate change, global warming would affect their economies by, for example, harming hardwood forests with a resulting decline in the maple syrup industry in New England. They also cited impacts on the health of their citizens due to expected increases in ground-level ozone. See:

http://climate.bna.com/subscriber/World.Climate.Change.Report.html?d=A0C1W9G8D1&dt=News

Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA which said that EPA had the power to make an endangerment finding and should do so, it is hard to believe that when this case finds its way back to them, and it will, they will likely not turn around and say their decision was incorrect. It would take a monumental error on EPA’s part to give them any reason to turn over their decision, and from all accounts of EPA’s work, that just won’t happen.

The Feds

Federal Agencies Prepare to Shrink Greenhouse Gas Footprints

Under a recent executive order issued by President Obama in October, 35 federal agencies reported their targets for the year 2020 to the White House in early January. The White House will finish reviewing and aggregating the numbers and expects to announce the results soon. In fiscal year 2008, the government’s building and facility energy bill topped $24 billion—about 0.8 percent of total federal expenditures—and its carbon dioxide footprint was 42 million metric tons. The federal government is the largest single energy user in the nation. It owns nearly 500,000 buildings and more than 600,000 vehicles, and purchases more than $500 billion a year in goods and services. When the agency targets are released, DOD will be the one to watch. It is the government’s single largest energy user and the consumer of 60 percent of the government's energy use at facilities, however it is reported that DOD is developing an aggressive target for the rest of its emissions. See:

 http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2010/01/28/7/

Frankly, this is a good thing. Living by one’s own rules that apply to others makes not only good political sense, but is just the right thing to do. What the studies show and how long it takes to meet the goals set and at what cost, of course, remains to be seen.

Climate Change Raising Maritime Security Concerns

Climate change is increasing the chances for conflict over Arctic shipping lanes and untapped energy resources as polar ice melts, military experts said in a recent report. With scientists predicting that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2030, the report suggests that future conflict and competition for ownership over these areas is likely. In 2007, the Canadian Northwest Passage—a shortcut between Europe and Asia—opened for the first time due to a shrinking ice pack. Then, last summer, the first commercial ships traveled from East Asia to Western Europe via that passage between Russia and the Arctic, trimming some 4,000 nautical miles off what was an 11,000-mile route through the Suez Canal. The analysis written in consultation with Pentagon officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force, the Navy and the defense industry—warns that the Navy has no ships prepared to work in the Arctic, and the Coast Guard owns just three conventionally powered icebreakers—only two of which are operational—raising questions about how U.S. maritime defenses can prepare for Arctic security concerns. See:

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Contested%20Commons_0.pdf and
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/QDR&ClimateChange_Parthemore_Rogers_Jan2010_code406_workingpaper_1.pdf

This is one of many aspects of military concern. How they will be dealt with in terms of other current and more immediate military commitments is the question. It is likely that much will be written about it and that little will be done until it becomes a crisis or at least a near crisis. That’s just the way things like this work.

The Selling of Climate Change

Using Religious Language to Fight Global Warming

Some campaigners think it is time to stop relying on apocalyptic messages to convert people to the climate change cause.  “Selling people a vision of climate hell simply doesn’t work,” says Solitaire Townsend, co-founder of the firm Futerra, a firm that specializes in green public relations. “A lot of environmentalists think they need to convince people that the way they live their lives is wrong,” she adds. “They want us to stop sinning so they try to scare us into conversion with predictions of high-carbon hell. But it’s not an effective message. “We need to start selling people a vision of low-carbon heaven,” Ms Townsend argues. “If we did everything necessary to prevent climate change, what would the world look like? When you start talking about that, most people decide it would be a nicer place to live. So we need to concentrate on getting people excited about creating that low-carbon heaven.” See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468233.stm

This is a very interesting self-examination of the issue of selling climate change. It is similar to the old take of the boy that cried wolf. Particularly, now that there have been some pretty bitter winters in a row, which seems oxymoronic if global warming is taking place. Now there are many scientific arguments that indicate this does not mean there is no global warming and indeed arguments that say it is because of global warming, and therefore changing weather patterns. But beyond the science, and who wants to be bogged down in that, this becomes a very interesting marketing, philosophic and perhaps even religious argument. Thus, it should be avoided at cocktail parties.

Individual Energy Production

Roof-Mounted Wind Turbines - No Help in Reducing Carbon

Roof-mounted wind turbines and solar panels are “eco-bling” that allow their owners to flaunt their green credentials but contribute very little towards meeting Britain’s carbon reduction targets, according to the Royal Academy of Engineering. Doug King, Professor of Building Engineering at the University of Bath and the author of a report on low carbon buildings, said that far greater savings could be made by installing better insulation and methods of trapping the Sun’s rays. He said they weren’t done as much because they don’t have as much “sex appeal.” Field trials carried out last year by the government-funded Energy Saving Trust found that the most productive building-mounted wind turbines in urban or suburban areas generated only £26 of electricity a year. Many of these turbines, which cost about £1,500, were net consumers of electricity because their controls drew power from the grid when the wind was low. Professor King said that for wind turbines on urban homes to be effective, they would have to be so big that their vibration would damage the building. See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994439.ece

Intuitively this makes no sense and why the controls need grid power is not clear. Further, what is not clear is the efficiency of the turbines in use. For home use they must be of high efficiency and there are some, for example those manufactured by Honeywell and others, that operate at a very low wind speed. So, this needs to be looked at closer. But a good point is made that there are many other things in design and construction that permit very large savings of energy, without the need for “eco-bling.”