The 1990s was a lost decade on the climate change issue in the U.S., mostly thanks to the hidebound U.S. Senate. In 1993 it defeated President Clinton’s BTU tax proposal, in 1997 it repudiated the Kyoto Protocol (which at that time still technically was only a draft, not a final accord) with its 95-0 vote in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, and in 1998 it defeated “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007,” also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill.
EPA Administrator Carol Browner, in choosing to be MIA, also served as an obstacle, albeit a quiet and passive one. So President Clinton and Vice President Gore essentially limited the administration’s remaining climate change efforts to signing up corporate partners to its voluntary Climate Change Action Plan, supporting research, and launching an earnest but low-level public awareness effort that made a point to avoid the media, in which this writer participated. Of course, the U.S. and the world community then lost another precious eight years under Dubyah and his administration, no need to elaborate.
Today, 16 years after the U.S. Government should have started mobilizing the country to address global warming, we finally have a White House, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a Department of Energy (DOE) moving forward with meaningful measures to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
In the face of the biggest crisis facing humankind, the current proposals are belated and relatively modest but nonetheless signify firm, positive steps. The greenhouse gas regulatory genie finally is out of the bottle thanks mostly to two developments that have changed the legal and political landscape. First, on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant," and the Court ruled that the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases in automobile emissions. And regarding air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, the court further ruled that the EPA must regulate in this area unless it provides a scientific reason for not doing so. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act filed by a coalition of nonprofit organizations.
The second game-changing development, of course, is the fact that the U.S. has a President Obama who not only gets it, he’s willing to take action. The powerful obstructionists in the oil and coal industries and the right-wing deniers in Congress lost their backstop that had collectively stifled the climate change issue on their behalf – no more Dick Cheney, no more Steve Johnson at the EPA, no more oil industry shill Philip Cooney at the Council on Environmental Quality.
In a tellingly swift response to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the EPA officially proposed a finding that GHGs do contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. Specifically, the EPA Administrator signed “The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act” on April 17, and on April 24 the EPA published its proposed rule in the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period followed, ending on June 23.
Here are the key regulatory and policy initiatives that have ensued:
EPA Rule Mandating Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: With EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signing the “Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule” on September 22, the EPA will, for the first time, require large U.S. emitters of greenhouse gases to begin collecting and reporting their GHG emissions data. This new program will apply to approximately 10,000 facilities across 31 different source categories that collectively account for approximately 85 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
This unprecedented requirement in and of itself does not reduce one ounce of carbon or methane. But you can’t manage what you don’t measure. Facility operators forced to report voluminous emissions will notice that their newfound limelight ultimately will have an invigorating effect on their wherewithal to “manage” those emissions.
Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, or C02e) are required to submit annual reports to EPA. The gases covered by the rule include the six greenhouse gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Although mobile sources are exempted from this rule, businesses such as vehicle and engine manufacturers and fuel suppliers do fall under the requirement. An additional 11 source categories, including for industrial landfills and underground coal mines, were not included in this final rule but are being considered for future inclusion pending resolution of technical issues.
The rule takes effect beginning January 1, 2010, with the first annual reports due on March 31, 2011. The rule is a result of a congressional mandate contained in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161).
Two words best describe this development: “modest” and “necessary.” Regrettably, it’s even more modest given that facilities are allowed to self-certify their emissions data, when instead they should be required to use accredited third-party certifiers, but EPA has decided that that is a battle for another day.
EPA Proposed Rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule”: This proposal, announced by the EPA on September 30, would impose new regulations on large stationary sources emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year (measured in C02e). The GHGs covered by this proposed rule are the six Kyoto gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
According to the EPA, it’s expected to affect approximately14,000 power plants, refineries, manufacturing, and cement production facilities, including some 400 coal-burning power plants that collectively are responsible for roughly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most businesses, including farms, office buildings, hospitals, bakeries, dry cleaners, and other retail outlets, will be unaffected.
The affected facilities would have to obtain construction and operating permits demonstrating that they are using best available practices and technology and energy efficiency measures to minimize their emissions. Most of these facilities already are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA) because of other pollutants they emit. This new EPA proposal is designed to fall under the auspices of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portion of New Source Review (NSR) and Title V operating permits programs of the CAA, which pertain to new sources and existing sources making major modifications. The proposed rule should be published shortly in the Federal Register and followed thereafter by a 60-day comment period that promises to be quite colorful.
This proposed rule immediately became highly controversial, an indication that it actually would make a real difference. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and other climate change obstructionists have voiced their opposition, questioning the legality of using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, and undoubtedly will seek to bury the proposal in time-consuming litigation.
EPA and Department of Transportation Proposed Regulations to Increase Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards: According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) www.eia.doe.gov, of the roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day that the U.S. engorges, some 71 percent is from our transportation sector. Accordingly, any serious attempt to reduce U.S. GHGs needs to reduce consumption from our beloved automobiles, something the State of California attempted to do but got rope-a-doped by Dubyah in the last years of his administration.
President Obama quickly followed the EPA’s April “Endangerment” finding with a May 19 announcement that the administration would establish standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles by 30 percent and achieve an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. The Administration crafted the announcement as an agreement with automakers, environmentalists, the United Auto Workers Union, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In September, the EPA and the Department of Transportation proposed the first-ever uniform standards to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases from new passenger vehicles. The proposed standards would apply to new model year 2012 to 2016 vehicles. The final rule and regulations are expected to be issued in March 2010.
An October 20 press release from the Environmental Defense Fund states, “The vehicles subject to these proposed standards are responsible for about 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption …,” and “…account for 60 percent of heat-trapping emissions from the transportation sector and about 20 percent of all U.S. heat-trapping gases…” The proposal will achieve “… a 5 percent annual improvement in fuel efficiency for the nation’s passenger vehicle fleet,” and, “… would cut carbon dioxide pollution from passenger vehicles approximately 21 percent by 2030, reducing emissions by 950 million tons.”
DOE Boosting Energy Efficiency with Stimulus Money, Standards and Regulations: If you weren’t already aware, you may need to lie down after reading this, but Dubyah actually helped in this regard. In December 2007 he signed the “Energy Independence and Security Act,” which is just beginning to demonstrate its enormous potential impact on U.S. energy use. The bill includes funding to strengthen building codes, support “zero energy buildings” and solar photovoltaics, and also begins phasing out traditional incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescents and LEDs (light emitting diodes).
In March of this year, the Obama administration announced that it was appropriating $3.2 billion from federal stimulus funds (Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) for the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program for states and municipalities. Grants are for projects that reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Examples include energy retrofits for residential and commercial buildings, energy audits, tougher building codes, methane capture from landfills, renewable energy for government buildings, and financial incentives to promote energy efficiency. Then, in October, DOE Secretary Steven Chu announced plans to add another $750 million in stimulus funds to support loan guarantees for clean energy companies.
As Chu understands, most of these initiatives are new and long overdue, meaning there remains plenty of low-hanging fruit to pursue. Results ultimately should show a decrease in overall U.S. energy consumption, as well as a decrease in the percentage of consumption coming from fossil fuels.
See future issues of Climate Change Update for more information on energy efficiency initiatives nationwide, including the resurgence of white roofs and the green technology revolution in lighting.
No comments:
Post a Comment