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%20andhttp://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:
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 andhttp://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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment