I had an intimate chat today with Sen. John Kerry in Chicago

Well, I guess I should mention there were about 25 other people from the environmental community at the meeting this morning. Kerry had come to talk about what we can do to help pass a good climate bill in Washington -- and prevent a bad one that would strip the EPA of power to regulate greenhouse gases.

The senator, who but for Ohio would have been president, and has become the leader on climate change, was in town to pitch Alexi Giannoulias, Democrat for Senate, as a friend to the environment and a much-needed vote to keep the Dems in charge of at least one chamber on Capitol Hill.

Kerry is clearly passionate about the need for a strong climate law and just as clearly distressed by the mood of the country and the lack of interest in doing something about "pollution," as he calls it. The Republicans branded "cap and trade" as "cap and tax" and destroyed all chances for the only effective way to bring in revenue to help companies and consumers cope with the change, and provide money for R&D to move the country forward.

It's so obvious, he said, that a strong climate bill would have multiple benefits -- creating jobs, preventing more and worse droughts and floods, improving health, preserving national security and reducing dependence on foreign oil. But a carbon tax won't do the job, he said. "It would have to be a big tax to influence behavior, and it has no target (to reduce CO2)." Utilities would likely just "write it into the cost of doing business."

On clean energy jobs, he said, we're falling behind many other countries. "We're on the margins. We're not doing nearly what we could be doing." While China is giving state subsidies to renewable energy "we're not even doing all we legally could," with incentives and grants.

And we're not going to catch up with "a bunch of Neanderthal flat-earthers" in the Congress.

"We're in a very strange place right now, and we've got to break out of it."

He expects an energy bill of some kind, but says it will be greatly watered down to perhaps a renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency provision. "They'll cherry-pick the easy things," he said, and avoid the hard ones.

He gave a bill by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) to delay for two years the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases a good chance of passing. "I'm more than worried," he said. "It's going to be a very, very tough fight," one he said he would lead.

With so much money on the other side -- made worse by the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling (which he called unbelievably dangerous) -- the only way to get decent climate legislation is for the people to "rekindle the grassroots bite" that in the '70s helped pass the Clean Air Act, the establishment of the EPA and so many other environmental steps forward. "In the '70s we did teach-ins, and organized around them." Individual letters and phone calls are needed to counter the pressure on senators from the other side, he said. "Pre-printed cards have far less impact."

In the next two weeks, Kerry urged, environmentalists must work hard to get out the vote for candidates who will be on their side. Giannoulias put in an appearance at the end and the two men embraced -- both very tall, one distinguished-looking with a mop of thick gray hair, the other a fresh-faced hopeful in his 30s. They both said they hoped to serve together in the Senate.

Obama and Dem leaders will push next week to firm up a climate strategy; but will a price on carbon be part of it?

Will there be a price on carbon? That seems to be the most important question, but it's certainly not the only one about upcoming climate legislation in the Senate.

As Obama invites a bi-partisan group of Senators to share ideas at the White House next week, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reconvenes the Democratic caucus to discuss proposals presented in a one-hour closed-door meeting last week, cap and trade (or some other price on carbon) seems the most controversial piece of the puzzle.

How to get to 60
Republicans voted in lockstep for the Murkowski resolution to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (and were joined by 6 Democrats).

So it seems likely they will hold together to vote “no” on cap and trade, or any legislation that’s tough on fossil fuels. With elections close at hand they may just say “no” to block Obama.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked for months with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has deserted his friends in the enemy camp and is now backing fellow Republican Richard Lugar’s (Ind.) bill. So that might have a chance to get to the 60 votes needed. But it’s very weak, focusing on energy efficiency, nuclear power and retiring a few of the oldest, dirtiest coal-powered plants.

Another possibility for Republican support is the Cantwell-Collins “cap and dividend bill.” GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Me.) is one of the sponsors and might bring along a couple of fellow New Englanders. It would return 75% of revenues from allowances to the people. But anything with “cap” seems to be politically toxic.

And we certainly can’t depend on oil-patch Democrats, who we’ve seen are still clamoring for increased offshore drilling. In fact, without immediate state revenue-sharing of offshore drilling, Mary Landieu (D-La.) says she’ll work to stop a bill. And then there are coal-state Dems like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). He's unlikely to vote for anything that hurts his state’s economy.

The benefits of Kerry-Lieberman
Although it’s not all we might wish, Kerry-Lieberman’s American Power Act, which is built on cap-and-trade (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), seems by far the best Senate bill out there. It would actually DO something and aims for an 83% cut in GHG by 2050. An EPA analysis puts the cost per family at less than a postage stamp a day. A Peterson Institute study says it will unleash 200,000 new jobs a year 2011-2020. And a ClimateWorks Foundation study ups the jobs to half a million a year until 2030.

Rationally, this is the best bill hands down. And it has the support of many big businesses, like GE, Honeywell and Dow Chemical. But who’s rational? Certainly not the Senate a few months before midterm elections.

So conventional wisdom is that Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) bill that passed the Energy Committee last year and would establish a renewable electricity standard, will be the platform to which other items would be attached. Kerry-Lieberman could be introduced as an amendment (though they are still fighting to take the lead) -- and will probably fail to get 60 votes.

Possible health reform redux
Meanwhile the idea is out there that the strategy might be to pass the best bill possible, then go to reconciliation with the House, which you may have forgotten passed a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill last year. And they could work cap-and-trade into the final result. The votes might be there for passage of such a final bill in the lame-duck session. Especially if majority rules.

That would be cool. But we’ll have to see how it plays out.

Getting anything through the Senate will be hard because this bill will also contain response to the oil spill, like greatly increasing the oil tax for the Spill Response Trust Fund, eliminating the liability cap of $75 million and tightening safety regulations. While most of the country will be all for that, some oil-state Senators will no doubt tout the industry line.

Senators everywhere need to hear from the public, which is way ahead of them on this one.

Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your Senators you want a comprehensive climate bill with a price on carbon passed this year.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM, ClimateWire, The Hill)

EPA issues report on indicators of global warming

For a brief summary and some great maps from the new EPA report on global warming indicators, see Treehugger blog.

If Sen. Inhofe is for it, I’m against it; plus what’s the latest with Graham and Reid on climate vs. immigration reform?

Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, global warming denier, and his Republican colleague George Voinovich (Ohio) are touting a bill to slash 3 pollutants from power plants – if the climate bill fails, which they hope it does. Inhofe and Voinovich are the two ranking Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the face of it, who could be against cutting soot-producing sulfur dioxide 80%, smog-forming nitrogen dioxide 50% and mercury 90%. This 3-pollutant legislation was introduced last week by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Tom Carper (D-Dela.)

The problem is this bill does nothing about carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and nothing for renewable energy. It allows coal to continue being the energy of choice for power plants. Fortunately, the measure is unlikely to get legs, because Chair Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) committee has a majority of Democrats.

Voinovich also has a proposal to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, not only under the Clean Air Act, but also under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act. He's covering all his bases.

On climate bill is Graham in or out?
So far he's out. After cancellation of a news conference to unveil their comprehensive climate bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) huddled Monday but made no statement when emerging and headed off in different directions, reporters on the scene noted, as if that indicated discord.

At issue – in case you’ve been in a bunker the past few days – is Graham’s refusal to play ball on the climate bill if immigration reform is on agenda this year too. (See Saturday's post below)

Over the weekend and Monday it looked like Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was going to push immigration reform first. Graham, who is also a player on immigration, said he didn’t want to be part of a political ploy to get Hispanic votes for Democrats in November (including beleaguered Sen. Reid.)

But Tuesday Reid seemed to be saying climate change would, in fact, come first. Graham, however, is still sitting this one out. He wants assurance immigration won’t come up at all this year. He's moving the goalposts, as Kate Sheppard said in Mother Jones .

As Kerry tries to keep up the good fight and Lieberman tries to make peace, the two are sending their bill to the EPA for the necessary analysis that could take 4-6 weeks, keeping the bill off the floor.

Meanwhile two of the more moderate Republicans, Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told E&E Daily Tuesday that they’d rather take up energy first, as did several other Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Immigration seems to be something the GOP has no taste for, at least not right now.

What if there’s no climate bill?
A couple of less comprehensive energy bills are waiting in the wings: the Collins-Cantwell CLEAR cap-and-dividend bill that would reduce emissions 20% by 2020. It has no support from labor, however, so its chances are not good.

There’s also the clean energy bill (S. 1462) that passed out of Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) Energy Committee many months ago, which includes a rather small renewable energy standard. At this point that has been merged with Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, but presumably it could stand on its own.
Not a very good bill, though.

And of course the fallback is to just go with EPA regulations for large-source power plants, as well as letting states continue passing their own bills and regional cap-and-trade plans. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill’s most recent draft does not restrict the EPA and allows California and other states to regulate tailpipe emissions, something the House-passed Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) bill does not.

(Sources: Solveclimate.com, E&E Daily, govtrack, cantwellsenate.org, Mother Jones, Sierra Club)

Aldermen, enviro groups fight uphill battle for Chicago ordinance to curb emissions at Fisk, Crawford coal plants

(Photo of Fisk Power Plant and proximity to Chicago Loop from Flickr and photographer Steven Vance)

Two old coal-fired power plants, spewing pollution in densely populated Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago, are the subject of a city ordinance introduced last week by five progressive aldermen.

You might expect the aldermen from those neighborhoods, Danny Soliz (25th Ward) and Ricardo Muñoz (22nd Ward), to be co-sponsors since the health of constituents is at stake, but they aren’t. Muñoz says he’s worried about jobs and development in the neighborhood if the plants shut down. The owner, Midwest Generation, has contributed to his election campaigns and to community groups, but he told WBEZ in December that didn’t affect his judgment about the city regulating the plants.

The two power plants, Fisk and Crawford, belch thousands of tons of soot and millions of tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Pollution from these two plants contributed to an estimated 2,800 asthma attacks, 550 emergency-room visits and 41 deaths, according to a 2001 Harvard School of Public Health study.

It’s not just the immediate neighborhoods that are affected. Fisk is within 2 miles of Soldier Field, Cellular Field and the University of Illinois. Chicago is the only large city with 2 coal-fired power plants inside city limits. They affect air quality for everyone.

What's in the ordinance?
The Clean Power Ordinance, introduced by Ald. Joe Moore (49th Ward), would requires the plants to cut particulates by 90% and CO2 to 120.36 lbs./million BTU of heat input, within 2-4 years. For particulates they could add scrubbers, for CO2 they could convert to natural gas.

The fine would be $5,000-$10,000 per violation, with violations measured by the hour for particulate matter and by the day for CO2.

Midwest Gen says in its defense that it has cleaned up mercury emissions 60% since buying the plants in 1999 and plans to take additional steps to reduce pollution.

The plants produce local jobs but not local electricity. The power from these plants is sold on the wholesale market. Little of it goes to Illinois, and none to Chicago.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of a Clean Power Ordinance. Back in 2003 it was on the ballot as a non-binding referendum. People in the immediate neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for its passage. But nothing happened.

Mayor Daley – despite his commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 – has maintained it’s not the city’s role to regulate the plants.

Federal and state action
Last year the Justice Department filed suit against Midwest Generation on behalf of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the EPA for illegal emission of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. It did so following the threat of a suit by five environmental and public health organization. And the state worked out an agreement for Midwest Generation to install scrubbers at Fisk by 2015 and Crawford 2018, respectively, or shut down the plants.

But that’s too long to wait, Moore and several other alderman, believe. Their ordinance would speed up compliance by several years and adds greenhouse gases to the mix.

Groups supporting the ordinance include the Respiratory Health Assn., Environmental Law and Policy Center, Eco-Justice Collaborative, Environment Illinois, Loyola University, Natural Resources Defense Council and Pilsen Environmental Rights & Reform Org. (Complete list at chicagocleanpower.org)

With the mayor and two most affected aldermen in likely opposition, the ordinance has a steep uphill climb. It needs a groundswell of supporters talking up their aldermen to have a chance.

A lobby-training session is planned for 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 20, at the Sierra Club’s offices, 70 E. Lake St. Contact arfarf13@sbcglobal.net for details.

(Sources: Chicago Clean Power Coalition, NBC Chicago Ward Room blog, Progress Illinois, Chicago Reader, WBEZ)

U.S. greenhouse gases likely to grow 4% by 2020 if steps aren't taken, new Climate Action Report to UN warns

(Photo of coal-fired power plant in Utah from Flickr and photographer arbyreed)

The U.S. is on a trajectory to increase greenhouse gas emissions 4% (over 2005) by 2020, in a business-as-usual scenario that includes government measures in place as of March 31, 2009.

President Obama assured the world at Copenhagen that we would reduce our emissions 17% (over 2005) by 2020.

Clearly additional steps need to be taken to close the gap.

The projection, in the 2010 U.S. Climate Action Report to the UN, does not include the recent automobile standards set by the EPA.

By 2020, the report forecasts the GDP will have grown 40%.

While CO2 is forecast to grow just 1.5%, other greenhouse gases will grow more rapidly. Hydrofluorocarbons will more than double, the report says. Ironically, they are now being used as a replacement for ozone-depleting substances.

The relatively slow growth of CO2 will come because of more renewable energy and efficiency, the report says.

Where we were in 2009
The U.S. is the third most populous country in the world, having grown by 59 million since 1990, to 308 million. It also has the highest GDP in the world, up 70% since 1990, the report said.

We are the world’s largest producer and consumer of energy. Fossil fuels accounted for about 80% of all energy consumption 2005-2008. Petroleum was the single largest energy source, at 37.7% in 2008, though it was down from 41% in 2005.

Natural gas was second at 24.4%, with coal third at 22.4%. Nuclear accounted for 8.1%, conventional hydropower 2% and all other renewables 3%, according to the report.

In transportation, the highway share of passenger miles (in 2006, the latest figures available), was 89% of the total. Airlines carried about 10% and mass transit and rail only 1%.

Government policies and actions that were figured into the projection included $90 billion in stimulus money from ARRA, federal agency actions to reduce their GHG, and actions taken by states and cities.

Enviro groups praise Kerry-Lieberman-Graham; but energy standard may include non-renewables

(Photo of nuclear plant from Flickr and photographers iluvcocacola/Bill and Vicki Tracey)


Twenty environmental groups praised the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Senate climate bill Friday, despite the fact that it is business-friendly.

Meanwhile issues like a renewable energy standard, offshore-drilling revenue sharing, free permits for power plants, and pre-emption of EPA and states’ programs are still being discussed and resolved by the bill’s three authors.

Saying they are “encouraged by the progress” of the bill, which curbs emissions by 17% in 2020 and 80% in 2050, were the Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Blue Green Alliance, Center for American Progress Action fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Tribal Environmental Council, Environment Northeast, National Audubon Society, Interfaith Power and Light, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, Wilderness Society, Climate Solutions and Environmental Law and Policy Center.

In an effort to avoid industry’s heavy lobbying against the bill and draw bi-partisan support, the authors made major concessions on domestic oil and gas drilling, help for nuclear power, and support for “clean coal.” It has been positioned as a jobs and anti-pollution bill that reduces dependence on foreign oil.

Unresolved issues
With plans to show the bill to other Senators as early as tomorrow, the trio has been working to finalize several matters.

One involves state revenue sharing of offshore oil royalties. To give an incentive for state approval, which is needed to drill off their coastlines – even in federal waters – there is a proposal to give states 25% of what the federal government stands to gain. Another 10% would go in a Land and Water Conservation Fund. It remains to be seen if the west coast of Florida, the only area off-limits to offshore drilling, will have a change of status.

Another issue still unresolved is whether a renewable energy standard will be morphed into a “clean energy” standard, to include one or more of the following: nuclear power, which is greenhouse-gas-free but not renewable (big problem); natural gas (which has about half the emissions of coal); and coal plants that use carbon capture and storage. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) has floated a plan with a higher standard than last year’s Energy Committee bill (20% in 2020, rather than 15%), but it is a clean – not renewable – energy standard. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) clearly favors adding nuclear.

It also appears that power plants, the first to be affected by the bill, would get free pollution permits to start, in what now may be back to a cap-and-trade, or at least cap-and-dividend, system. And they would be able to use offsets, to protect forests and land here and abroad, to meet their quota. Power plants emit about 40% of all GHG.

Finally, the bill has a controversial section that takes aim at the EPA and states, pre-empting EPA regulation of GHG emissions and of hydraulic fracturing used to get natural gas out of shale. It will also override states’ and regions’ cap-and-trade plans. Some from states that are out front on climate change object, saying every level of government needs to be involved in the fight against climate change.

For those wanting to read more on the work-in-progress, a post on Grist and Wonk Room compares the current draft with Obama’s proposal and the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last summer.

Also, scroll down to see Earthling Angst posts over the past couple of weeks as this bill was fine-tuned after meetings with all sides.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM, grist.org)

Is your state for or against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act?

States have split pretty evenly on one side or the other of a suit to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Seventeen states are suing to stop the EPA. Another 18 plus New York City are intervening on behalf of the agency. Friday, March 19, was the last day states could become part of the suit, consolidated by the court into Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v EPA.

Alabama, Texas and Virginia filed suits against EPA last month. Now Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have joined in, along with 22 industry associations.

On the other side, backing EPA, are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They are joined by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Southern Environmental Law Center .

The petitioners are asking for a review of the EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases harm people’s health and welfare. The finding will result in regulations now being finalized.

The U.S. Supreme Court found in 2007 that the EPA has authority to make such a finding and regulate GHG. This suit is before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

(Sources: Greenwire)

EPA backs down on rules for large power-plant GHG emissions -- under pressure from Congress

(Photo of Utah coal-fired power plant from Flickr and photographer Arbyreed )


Reactinging to pressure from some members of Congress, the EPA has backpedaled on its plan to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from large power plants and factories under the Clean Air Act this year.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that in order to allow time for Congress to pass a climate bill she would:
• Not require permitting in 2010 for large sources of greenhouse gases.
• Raise the limit for permitting next year to those emitting more than 75,000 tons, not the 25,000 planned. That amount might be lowered to 50,000 tons in 2012.
• Give small sources of emissions a reprieve until 2016.

The EPA and Department of Transportation would, however, proceed with plans to issue rules next month for autos and light trucks, to reach the Obama Administration’s goal of 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Why the change?
Easing the plans for restricting emissions from large coal-powered plants and other industrial sources came in response to a series of threats to the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG.

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has prepared a resolution to veto the “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, a finding that followed a Supreme Court decision. Murkowski has 41 co-sponsors, including Dems Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) Murkowski needs 51 votes to pass the resolution and apparently doesn’t have them or would have introduced it by now. A companion resolution in the House, would be spearheaded by two Democrats, Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Collin Peterson (Minn.)

• Coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced a bill to delay EPA regulation of large power plants for two years. There is no indication, however, that Senate leadership will bring it up for hearing. W. Va. Reps. Nick Rahall and Alan Molihan, both Dems, as well as Rick Boucher (D-Va.), have a similar bill in the House but there’s no sign that is going anywhere either. But Rockefeller’s bill may have done its job to get concessions from the EPA and head off Murkowski’s more dangerous resolution.

Rockefeller’s bill would not challenge the EPA’s right to consider climate change under the Clean Air Act, as Murkowski’s resolution would. It would just postpone it for stationary sources (not vehicles).

Who’s lining up with whom
Murkowski’s supporters include the National Automobile Dealers Assn. and the American Public Power Assn.

She, by the way, has collected $800,000 in gas, oil and utility contributions, according to climateprogress.org.

Among those opposing her resolution are the American Lung Assn. and 12 public health organizations, including the American Pediatrics Assn., as well as 569 scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The head of construction trades for the AFL-CIO has written the White House and asked it to reconsider taking such strong action quickly against stationary sources because it would hurt jobs.

Lawsuit
Alabama and Texas have filed suit to stop the EPA. But 16 other states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, have asked to intervene on behalf of the EPA. Among them are some you might not expect – Arizona and Iowa.

EPA’s Jackson told Congress she, like the president, would like to see Congress pass climate legislation as a better way to curb greenhouse gases. The House climate bill passed in June blocked EPA regulation, while the Senate bill that came out of the Environment Committee did not.

Now 13 Senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as well and the bi-partisan trio crafting a new Senate bill (Kerry, Lieberman and Graham), asking them not to take away the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG from coal plants under the Clean Air Act.


(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, ClimateWire, E&ENewsPM, climateprogress.org)

Obama needs credit for environmental successes

(Photo of Obama from Flickr and jmtimages)

Despite the failure so far to pass a climate bill in the Senate, or to help forge a final international agreement in Copenhagen, the Obama Administration has, without much fanfare, quietly reversed destructive Bush environmental policy and ramped up green jobs development as it sets a course for a cleaner energy future.

Carl Pope, outgoing executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Mercury News, “This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history.” In just one year, he said, the president reversed most of Bush’s anti-environment actions over eight years.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a B+ for is first year.

Among the accomplishments::

Reversing Bush policies
Fuel efficiency: Instead of fighting California’s request to the EPA to let the state restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (something many other states wanted too), Obama’s EPA granted permission and then the president announced new federal rules increasing fuel efficiency 40%, from the current average of 25 mph to 35 mph in 2016.

Regulating GHG: Bush avoided taking action on the Supreme Court decision giving the EPA power to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. This EPA is now finalizing a Big Polluter Rule, under which is would be able to restrict emissions from sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year.

Oil and gas drilling: This Administration blocked Bush’s rule to open the California coast and 77 sites near Arches and Canyonlands national parks to drilling. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar also announced major reforms for oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Bisphenol: The Food & Drug Administration said bisphenol-A in plastics poses a significant danger to babies and young children.

Ozone: The EPA announced new health-based ozone standards.

Yellowstone: The Administration negated a Bush rule allowing more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding clean tech through ARRA
Green technologies will get a strong shot in the arm from stimulus funds, with an estimated $80 billion targeted for everything from weatherization and other efficiency measures to public transit and high speed trains to hybrid and electric cars to electrical grid improvements and renewable sources like wind and solar. Only $5B of that money has been released to date, with another $26B committed. The DOE says the delay was needed to establish rules about how the funds could be spent.

Obama is emphasizing the importance of creating jobs for the energies of the future, but the results will also to cut GHG emissions.

Additional actions
In the first year, the Administration also:
• Said it would catalog GHG emissions from large sources.
• Ordered that 500,000 federal buildings and 600,000 federal vehicles cut GHG emissions.
• Began developing standards for more efficient appliances.
• Required federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews.
• Broadened guidelines for mass transit projects to receive federal funds.
• Signed into law a bill to create 2 million acres of new wilderness that bans logging, mining and new roads in federal forests and deserts in 9 states, including Joshua Tree and Sequoia national parks.

The president doesn’t get a lot of credit for all this – and more – because things were so bad in the Bush years, and the news focus has been on the economy and health care. But we are slowly moving forward despite Congress and the big lobbies. That’s why it is so important to defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Tell your senators to vote no.

(Sources: Sierra Club, mercurynews.com, Center for American Progress, White House blog)

No new coal plants in 2009; reason to celebrate!

(Photo of defunct Seaholm power plant in Austin, Texas, being turned into civic center, from Flickr and photographer Craig Allen.)

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk, Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

New bipartisan Senate 'framework' for climate bill favors oil, coal, nuke industries

(Sen. Lindsey Graham gives John McCain's mother a punch in the cheek (not really) on Election Night 2008. Photo from Flickr and photographer Dr. Akomodi

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) released a framework last week for a Senate climate bill that supposedly could get bipartisan support. Kerry was chief sponsor (with Barbara Boxer) on the original, stronger Senate bill, which presumably can’t get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.

Lieberman has been working several years, first with John McCain (R-Ariz.) and then with now retired John Warner (R-Va.) to pass some kind of climate bill in the Senate, so it’s not too surprising he offered to help massage Kerry’s bill.

Graham? He’s great buddies with Lieberman and McCain (the three amigos were a frequent photo op during McCain’s presidential campaign), so I have to wonder if he’s a stand-in here for McCain, who’s publicly gone more conservative with a Senate election coming up.

Anyway, the framework was released last week in an effort to show that, yes, there’s a chance to cut greenhouse gases in the U.S. 17% by 2020, despite the foot-dragging in the Senate. That is what the House passed and Obama has more or less promised to the rest of the world. Do you know how piddling 17% based on 2005 levels is? Most industrialized countries that made pledges based them on 1990 figures and are up in the 20-30% range.

The four-page framework doesn’t have a lot of other details but it does outline priorities: jobs and lowering dependence on foreign oil.

There are whole sections, though, on nuclear, domestic oil and coal. A little of that would be expected, if they’re trying to get bipartisan support. But let’s not let those industries write the bill!

A comment Graham made to E&E News last week is particularly alarming:

"I need the nuclear power industry to say that this bill gets us to where we want to go," Graham said. "I need the coal companies to say that clean coal provisions will not only not put us out of business, but actually increase the value of coal in America. And I'm going to need the oil and gas industry to say that the oil and gas drilling provisions are meaningful, will add to our inventory and make us more energy independent, and it's good business."

He actually said that.

Wait a minute here. Wait just a minute. Are we doing this to ensure the continuation of fossil fuels and the resurrection of a defunct nuclear industry? Or are we doing it to clean up the environment and make the planet safe for humans?

We need to watch very carefully as this bill is developed. There are some nice thoughts in it: Like long-term 80% reduction in GHG (they don’t commit to any year though, and it may be hard to get from here to there by 2050, which is when we should be at 80%).

They do note that putting a price on carbon will push development of low-carbon energy, but incentives for nuclear and “clean” coal get more attention.

There are actually sections entitled “Ensuring a Future for Coal” and “Encouraging Nuclear.” Um, excuse me, what about wind and solar? And geothermal and biomass? And efficiency….

Clearly this is written to appeal to the coal states (of which there are many) and the oil states, but will they lose the environmentalists -- and any sane person who realizes what fossil fuels are doing to this planet? A big part of the motivation is they want Congressional action instead of EPA regulation or a patchwork of restrictions in individual states. They actually say all that.

There is too much mention of “outside stakeholders.” Guess who that is? Not us.

The rest of the world is not happy with our puny 17% pledge at Copenhagen and I can’t see that they’re going to like the rest of what’s in the Senate “framework.” Let’s hope they put huge pressure on the U.S. to get real on climate and not just shill for existing industries as this framework seems to do.

It’s embarrassing the U.S. is so far behind Europe and being chided by China and other developing countries for not doing enough. Are we really going to let the “outside stakeholders” in the U.S. determine the future of the planet?
(Source: E&E News PM)

Senate climate bill going nowhere soon, if ever; will Obama, EPA and states be the back-up

(Photo of Capitol engulfed in emissions from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action.)

Don’t hold your breath for the Senate to act on climate change. It won’t happen until next spring –- at least.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), lead sponsor of the strongest bill in the Senate, told reporters Monday that Dem leadership won’t start climate debate until after both health reform and financial regulatory reform are disposed of – likely around March.

Meanwhile Kerry is working with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in an effort to craft a bipartisan bill that can garner 60 votes. (Why am I not thrilled about that?) They plan to have an outline ready within three weeks, before the international conference in Copenhagen.

A lot of moderate Democrats and most Republicans in the Senate are finding reasons to oppose climate legislation.

Two of them, Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) have offered an alternative that would emphasize new technology. It would provide $750 million each of the next 10 years for R&D on carbon capture, advanced biofuels, solar power, advanced batteries and recycling of used nuclear fuel. It would also give $1 billion to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review advanced and small nuclear designs. The two said they did not support the Kerry-Boxer bill because it relies on cap-and-trade. (What they didn’t say is it will hurt coal.)

If climate action doesn’t happen by spring, conventional wisdom is that it will be stalled until after the 2010 elections. That doesn’t bode well. If Democrats lose one Senate seat, power will switch to the GOP, and climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe (D-Okla.) will replace Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as Environment Committee chair. We’ll be back to “drill, baby, drill.”

Many Dems in the House, who voted for the climate bill that passed their chamber in June, are now under fire from more conservative Republicans in their districts. It’s unsure how that will play out in the voting booth.

If we can’t get something passed by early spring, it may be left to the president, the EPA and the states to provide the impetus for change. Obama made a pact with China this week for cooperation on renewable energy, the EPA is working on rules to regulate large CO2 emitters, and states in the East, West Coast and Midwest are likely to merge the cap-and-trade markets they have been working on regionally.

(Souces: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Senators try to stop EPA plan to regulate GHG

(Photo of power plant from Flickr and photographer bass_nroll)

Some senators are trying to block the EPA's newfound power to regulate greenhouse gases. They intend to tack an amendment on the EPA funding bill coming up this week. (To object, go to http://tinyurl.com/ntmom).

This effort comes at a time when EPA regulation may be our best hope for curbing greenhouse gases, as the Senate – embroiled in health care – seems more and more likely to punt climate legislation into next year. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said as much this week.

And if climate change doesn’t get resolved early in 2010, it will likely be delayed past mid-term elections to 2011 and a new Congress.

In the meantime, EPA regulation would get the country moving and give the president some achievement to take to the international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen in December. (That treaty is likely to face delay too – it’s very unlikely to be finalized this year. Meanwhile, the planet isn’t waiting for us humans to get our act together.)

Rules for autos ... and more
The EPA, along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, announced this week new fuel economy and greenhouse gas rules to bring the fleet average of new cars and light trucks in 2016 up to 35.5 mpg, as well as GHG emissions down to 250 grams/mile.

Not only does this put fuel economy 5 years ahead of where the Congress mandated it in 2007, but more important: It’s the first time the EPA will regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The agency is entitled, even required, to do so under the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA, but the Bush Administration let it slide.

This has ramifications for all sources of GHG, including large industrial facilities and power plants. In addition to the automobile rules, the agency is finishing up work on its endangerment findings – showing GHG as pollution that endangers people’s health. The EPA is also finalizing regulations to make greenhouse gases part of the permitting process for facilities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of GHG a year. EPA head Lisa Jackson may sign the endangerment finding as soon as late this month.

Plan B
Some suggest the Senate may leave controversial and complex cap-and-trade on the shelf and just take action on energy – efficiency and renewable sources. They may “defer to the regulatory agency and duck tough political choices,” James Connaughton, former Bush environmental advisor, told ClimateWire.

But “energy-only is worse than no bill at all,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Problems with EPA rules
EPA restrictions alone may not do the job, though, with time running out to stop the growth of greenhouse gases. With EPA regulation only, “you can’t get enough of the job done fast enough,” warned the Natural Resources Defense Council’s David Hawkins.

Furthermore, lawsuits could delay progress for years. Already the National Automobile Dealers Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed suit to prevent regulation of motor vehicles at the federal or state level.

The best answer is to have both – EPA regulations and climate change legislation, which is what most environmental groups want.

We need to protect the right of the EPA to regulate and they need to get started because once they do so it will be more difficult for opponents to have legislation pre-empt them. At the same time a cap-and-trade system will help put a cap on emissions and move the country toward its desired goal. And a new administration wouldn't be able to stop progress in its tracks by changing the rules.

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairs of the Environment and Foreign Relations committees, have been crafting a Senate climate bill they will release later this month. They seem committed to moving ahead with it. Urge your Senators to keep climate and energy on their urgent agenda for this fall at the EDF website.

(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, dailygreen.com)

EPA regulation of GHG would harm Bush legacy, Cheney, oil interests thought: report

Washington Report 1: President Bush dumped an EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refiners and autos at the urging of White House insiders, who feared it would hurt the president's legacy, a former EPA official told a congressional committee this week. The administration's efforts to respond to the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision, calling on EPA to regulate heat-trapping emissions, were outlined by Jason Burnett, a former adviser to Administrator Stephen Johnson, who spoke to the House Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming. Committee Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) concluded, in a report that combines Burnett's closed-door testimony with documents obtained by subpoena, that the president backed down after hearing arguments from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, the Office of Management and Budget, the Transportation Department, Exxon Mobil Corp. and others in the oil industry. (Source: E&E Daily)

Emanuel, Markey ask for speed-up in fuel efficiency

Washington Report 2: In a letter to the Bush Administration this week, Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked the president to pick up the pace in fuel-economy standards, as a draft EPA memo showed is possible. The memo, leaked to the Wall Street Journal, revealed that EPA staff thought that with hybrids and new technology autos could average better than 35 mpg between 2020 and 2025. The letter from Emanuel and Markey asked for a maximum effort to reach 35 mpg by 2015. (The CAFE standards passed by Congress last year mandated 35 by 2020, with some allowance for flex-fuel cars that would lower the real amount to about 34 mpg). Some Congressmen fear the EPA administrator will ignore the staff recommendations, as he has done in other matters in the past. (Source: E&E News PM)

Union of Concerned Scientists survey finds political interference with EPA scientists

(Photo of EPA building from Flickr and photographer Rocky A)

Washington Report 2: Are we surprised? No, but it's still outrageous. Nearly 900 EPA scientists (2/3 of those surveyed) said political appointees interfered with their work, in a Union of Concerned Scientists survey released Wednesday. 225 said they were directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter" technical information from an EPA scientific document. The EPA “is an agency in crisis,” said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS scientific integrity program. House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said the report “suggests a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science” and plans to raise questions about it with the agency at a hearing about possible White House interference in ground-level ozone regulations. (Source: E&E News PM)

Fate of renewables lies with Senate

Congressional Round-up: Under pressure from more than 100 businesses, trade groups and environmentalists, the Senate continues to look for a way to extend tax credits for renewable energy and efficiency. The House has twice passed a bill extending the credits, due to expire at the end of the year, but both time the Senate fell 1 vote short of the 60 needed to avert a filibuster. Some GOP senators and the White House don’t so much object to extending the credits as they dislike the means of paying for them – rolling back tax incentives for oil companies. Senators were looking at the budget reconciliation bill as a way to extend the credits with the money coming from somewhere else, but that fell through this week. Options left include getting that extra vote (how about you, Sen. McCain?) or finding some other way to pay for it. GE and BP both added their voices to the call for extension. Both have investments in wind energy. Advocates say the extensions would create new jobs and help lower the cost of energy. Without them alternative energy projects are at risk, and investment is already slowing down. (Source: E&E Daily)

Two reps unveil bill to force EPA to grant tailpipe waiver
Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) were to introduce a bill Thursday to force the EPA to grant a waiver that would give California and 12 others states authority to implement their tailpipe emissions bills. The EPA’s denial of the waiver “defied science, defied the states, and defied common sense,” Welch said. Called the Right to Clean Vehicles Act, the bill had 42 co-sponsors Wednesday, most of them Democrats. Call and ask your Congressman to add his/her name (202-224-3121). Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced an identical bill (S. 2555) in the Senate more than a month ago and has said she will subpoena communications between the EPA and White House on the matter, to see if there was undue influence. The EPA director clearly ignored his staff’s opinion in refusing the waiver. Meanwhile 15 states have filed suit to have the EPA decision overturned. (Source: E&E News PM)

Dingell issues white paper on pre-emption of state auto rules
Two leaders of the House Energy Committee have raised a concern about state and local global warming laws, acknowledging they have led the way, but saying a federal law may have to pre-empt them. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Energy Committee chair, and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), say that a patchwork of global warming laws could cause job loss in states that don’t have them, especially in the auto industry, which Dingell champions. The “patchwork” includes a tailpipe emissions law passed by California and 12 other states (currently blocked by the EPA), global warming emissions laws by California, Hawaii, Maine, Minn., N.J. and Ohio, emissions trading by regional groups involving 39 states, and several governors who have set emissions targets. In addition, more than 800 cities and villages have committed to meeting the Kyoto requirements of cutting GHG 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The states, the two say, will probably need to do the monitoring, pass building codes and plan for land-use. The white paper, one of several related to global warming, is meant to stir debate of the issue and doesn’t offer specific answers, the authors said. (Source: Greenwire)