Climate Change Summary Newsletter and Commentary
January 25, 2010
By: Steven L. Hoch
California –FIRSTS
GHG rules by CARB may ban non-hybrids for certain larger vehicles
CARB has launched a GHG emission-reduction rulemaking that may eventually limit vehicle manufacturers to sell in the state only hybrid versions of certain medium-and heavy-duty vehicles, such as those used by utilities or for delivery purposes in urban areas, according to the plan for the rules. Officials are discussing provisions for certification and testing standards for medium- and heavy-duty hybrid vehicles that are expected to form the foundation of a future sales restriction. The rulemaking could eventually draw backlash from key stakeholders, including public and private fleet operators who might face increased costs if they are required to purchase hybrid trucks rather than conventional vehicles. See:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hybridtruck/hybridtruck.htm Without regard to various legal issues that such a ban may trigger, this proposal is probably a highly problematic step for CARB to take for a number of reasons. First, various manufacturers will provide information that the technology won’t be available in a reliable package to deal with the required loads for a considerable length of time. Second, not only will fleet operators and others decry the cost, but some may have to maintain duel fleets, one for strictly urban usage and others for other environs including medium and long hauls. It is doubtful that one power system would efficiently and economically work for both, at least in the short to medium term. Time will tell. Stay tuned and watch to see if this proposal creeps into some federal requirement as climate change legislation morphs with the newly oriented Congress.
Unintended Consequences
California cool car rule may impede communication
A rule currently being prepared by the California Air Resources Board to limit the solar heat that streams into cars could have the side effect of reducing the quality of cell phone signals. California's "cool cars" regulation, which could lower air conditioning use and therefore reduce CO2 emissions, "significantly and negatively affects wireless devices and network performance in a number of situations, including the completion capability and location accuracy of [emergency] calls, particularly in rural areas," CTIA-the Wireless Association said in a letter last week. CTIA's testing found that cell signal strength was reduced by 8 to 11 decibels in vehicles with full glazing, and by 3 to 6 decibels in partially glazed vehicles. "This loss reduces the chances of call completion up to 50 percent in areas with no overlapping cell site coverage," the group said. "Signal loss also leads to up to a 30 percent lower chance of successful E-911 call location in rural locations." California has found in its testing no problems with cell phone calls. The board is reviewing CTIA's later and should issue a final regulation by month's end. See:
http://detnews.com/article/20100120/AUTO01/1200329/1013/Calif.-cool-car-rule-may-hurt-cell-phone-reception While reduction of cell phone conversations in cars may have a positive safety effect, given our current way of life, any such problem that might occur because of mandatory changes in vehicles will likely not be appreciated by the citizens of this state. It’s the theory we have espoused before, that our legislators have not considered the reaction they will get from the average person who has not yet been, but will be, personally impacted by such proposals Of course, it is not clear whether the report is correct, but in the court of public opinion, the possibility of an impact may be all that is needed to get people upset. On this issue, there probably won’t be a public uprising for sure, but it’s the issues like this that should be watched carefully to determine public acceptance. Ultimately, if there is no acceptance, there will be no change unless by absolute fiat which is unlikely.
Push for natural gas to limit GHGs poses unintended pollution impacts
In a push to replace coal with natural gas, increased use and production of the fuel is already resulting in unintended pollution consequences that could be difficult to address. EPA is already working on air quality regulations and requiring first-time GHG reporting for natural gas operations. More difficult to address is the question of whether hydraulic fracturing—a controversial technology for extracting natural gas that pumps chemical-laden water and sand into rock seams—results in contamination of groundwater. But questions about fracking’s impacts are politically fraught as industry officials warn that new regulations from EPA could shut down some operations. Environmentalists are also split on the issue, with some Sierra Club offices actively supporting policies to encourage increased gas use while some of the club’s local chapters—especially those close to drilling operations—opposing it.. See:
http://carboncontrolnews.com/index.php/ccn/show/push_for_natural_gas_to_limit_ghgs_poses_unintended_pollution_impacts/ Tradeoffs are always the rule, not the exception, so the fact that there are some regulations needed for the actual production should not be a surprise. Those regulations must be reasonable and permit production instead of restricting it. But what is important to note here is that the fracking issue could impact another important resource, water. That requires some careful consideration. That the environmental groups are split on this issue is interesting. It pits a big picture view (we need to stop using coal) versus what may be very localized concerns (if used here it may cause a problem here). Fracking is a method that improves supply and/or lowers price and is already in use. Read more at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6764645.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b75e2662-3ae1-499d-8d4e-10eaf633c46cBat fatalities at wind energy turbines
New data suggest that bats, like birds, may follow specifically defined routes when migrating rather than simply migrating in a dispersed way across a broad area. Wind energy turbines located in these routes may cause fatalities of migrating bats. The migratory behavior of bats, a topic that has received little attention in the past, is the subject of a new study in the December 2009 issue of The Journal of Mammalogy. Researchers found that greater tower height increased the probability of bat fatality, but that differences among sites in migratory bat activity also were related to the number of bat fatalities. By identifying migratory routes and the specific landscape features that bats follow, the report suggests that bat fatalities could be minimized by building wind facilities in areas with low migratory activity. See: http://www2.allenpress.com/pdf/mamm-90-06-1341-1349.pdf
While it is prudent to consider such things as bat migration (or bird migration) a more basic consideration is whether or not such a migratory pattern also interferes with placing turbines in the most efficient places to produce and distribute green energy. These issues are often in conflict. If we are not going to be able to increase the use of alternative power because of such issues, we may be imperiling the very existence of the bats anyway….or so the argument can go.
Electricity
Study suggests we could have 20 percent wind power by 2024 possible but it will be 'challenging'
Wind power could supply more than 20 percent of electricity demand for the nation's eastern grid in 2024 if a large overlay of new transmission lines is built and grid operations are reorganized to share wind energy widely across the region, according to the most detailed study of the issue to date, led by the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Meeting that target would require the construction of some 100,000 new turbines, study authors said. Because wind generation is intermittent, the capacity of the new wind units would have to be above the target, rising to about 35 percent of total generation capacity. The study assumes that between 17,050 and 22,697 miles of new transmission line would have to be built, depending on the scenario. The new transmission connections would cost between $101 billion and $145 billion, using the assumed purchasing power of the dollar in 2024. See:
As we have noted before, some of the requirements for green energy are not based on reality, and we are seeing more and more issues arising that negatively effect bringing green energy production to a significant level of our electric load. Indeed, the costs reflected in this study are truly staggering. In particular, the issue of transmission lines is a major impediment. (See below). Relating to transmission, the study points out: “Planning for this transmission, then, is imperative because it takes longer to build new transmission capacity than it does to build new wind plants.” That about sums it up.
Supreme Court dashes hopes of backers of federal transmission siting
The expansion of electric transmission needed to meet U.S. goals for renewable energy and reliability will be up to Congress after the Supreme Court refused yesterday to review a lower court's decision that narrowed federal authority over transmission siting. The Supreme Court rejected a request from Edison Electric Institute (EEI) for review of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the 2005 energy law failed to authorize Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "backstop" authority for transmission siting if a state had denied a project. Many lawmakers, utilities and independent transmission companies say states are holding up a greater expansion of transmission. See:
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=25148&docId=l:1111606135&isRss=true It’s hard to take a position on this issue from a legal standpoint without considerable analysis of the underlying law referenced and we make no comment on this from that point of view. However, as noted above, the issue of transmission is much more critical than the issue of installing wind turbines themselves. A federal resolution to transmission permitting would likely be highly favorable over the patchwork set of factors that impede transmission now. But, even that will not be sufficient without significant concessions by the variety of groups who will be involved in framing the discussions. At the moment, bringing the various groups together in to reach any meaningful conclusion is not likely to occur in the immediate future. However, as noted below, public sentiment is weighted toward job creation and economic stimulation. Certainly, rebuilding our power generation capacity and transmission capability will create a LOT of jobs for many decades to come.
Public Sentiment
Poll shows legislation attracts more support when focus is on energy independence, jobs
Americans would be more likely to support climate change legislation if it were seen as a means of strengthening energy independence and as a measure to create jobs, rather than as a way to improve health and the environment, a poll released Jan. 21 found. In the poll, respondents were asked to choose the top two ideas that would make them most likely to support cap-and-trade legislation. Lessening energy dependence on the Middle East was the most popular, selected by 46 percent of respondents, followed by using cap and trade to create “hundreds of thousands of new, permanent, good American jobs” to “lift America out of the recession,” which was selected by 37 percent. By comparison, at the bottom of the list of reasons for supporting climate legislation was protecting health and reducing carbon dioxide pollution. Only 26 percent of respondents selected that choice. The second-lowest scoring reason—“America can and should be the most advanced nation in terms of science and technology”— was selected by 27 percent. Asked to select the top two environmental and economic goals for the United States, 48 percent selected “ending dependence on foreign fuels” and 33 percent selected “halting pollution of our air and water.” The choices “preventing climate chaos” and “ending climate change” were selected by 7 percent and 5 percent of respondents, respectively. “Ending global warming” was selected by 14 percent of respondents, and “reducing greenhouse gases” and “reducing carbon emissions” were selected by 8 percent and 7 percent of respondents, respectively. See:
http://www.edf.org/documents/10738_Language-of-a-Clean-Energy-Economy.pdf?redirect=language This poll should be studied carefully by many who seek to both motivate public opinion and bring about real results. It would seem that less of the ”sky is falling” rhetoric and more “let’s free ourselves from Middle East oil” entanglements plus we can “help the economy” by creating jobs is a clear and simple measure that almost everyone can get behind.
Securities and Exchange Commission
The SEC is considering an interpretation of disclosure rules that would require businesses to reveal climate-related risks to the public. In November 2009, investors representing about $1 trillion in assets filed a supplement to a 2007 petition, updating information about the risks of climate change and asking the SEC to require disclosure of climate-related risks. See: http://www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings/2010/ssamtg012710.htm
In 2010, the SEC may provide companies with guidance clarifying climate change disclosure obligations. But at this time, the entire matter is wide open and “up for grabs”. The outcome of the SEC process could substantially impact the value of a corporation, some very negatively. Once the guidance is provided, there will also be years of battles, in court, in various other agencies and within various professional groups, such as the law, accounting and engineering. We are just at the beginning and any public corporation should take note and be involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment