Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report it commissioned on the fly ash and bottom ash ponds at American Electric Power's (AEP's) Philip Sporn Generating Plant in New Haven, West Virginia. The full report can be read here.
The report is part of EPA's investigation into the state of coal ash impoundment facilities around the country, in the wake of the massive coal ash spill at a TVA facility in Kingston, Tennessee last Christmas. Coal ash is currently classified by the EPA under RCRA (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq) as non-hazardous, despite massive heavy metal content, and is governed only by (generally lenient) state regulations as a result. (You can read an earlier post on coal ash, how the current regulatory regime came to be, and the Kingston spill here.),
The report concluded that the ash ponds at the AEP facility had a poor prognosis "for continued safe and reliable operation," and that "[r]emedial action is necessary." It is curious in light of this report that, once it received the report, EPA only asked AEP to conduct safety inspections of the facility. (And perhaps explains why EPA announced that it was asking for inspections on October 29th, but embargoed the report until yesterday.)
EPA is (possibly) limited in its ability to act to prevent imminent release of the coal ash under RCRA (because of its decision to classify coal ash as non-hazardous), but should have plenty of authority under CERCLA and leverage under the Clean Water Act (given the proximity of the Ohio River to the site). Obviously, EPA is proceeding gingerly, since AEP isn't used to being regulated for this sort of thing at all. (A more in-depth discussion of the disconnect between the report's conclusions, and EPA's actions, can be read here on the Charleston Gazette's Coal Tattoo blog.)
[Ed's note: "I've been coal miner all of my life. Layin' down track in the hole. . . . I've got no house and I got no job, just got a worried soul. And a blue tattoo on the side of my head left by the number nine coal. Left by the number nine coal." Coal Tattoo, Billy Ed Wheeler.]
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
More Feedback on Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Plan
Since the federal government issued a draft of its comprehensive plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay last week, local environmentalists have begun to react. According to this article in the Maryland Daily Record, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is concerned that the plan lacks details. In blog post on its web site, CBF calls the plan "disappointing because it lacks specific goals, deadlines, programs and strategies."
Meanwhile, Environment Maryland is distressed that it leaves too much up to the states, as you can read in their press release, here. The Capital, out of Annapolis, reports on the "wiggle room" left in the plan for the states to try it their way first, here.
On the other side of the issue, the Maryland government is concerned that the plan will unfairly crack down on Maryland poultry farmers for runoff from chicken waste, as the Baltimore Sun reported here. (They may be justified in their concerns that poultry farmers in their state will face tougher regulations. But ultimately, compliance shouldn't impose a huge financial burden, as I mentioned here. And if one Illinois farmer and attorney is to be believed, the EPA is out to get concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs, aka factory farms) anyway, as you can read in his article about how "EPA is targeting CAFOs!" across the country, complete with exclamation points, here!).
The Baltimore Sun, meanwhile, thinks that the concern from both sides is a sign that the plan just may work, as you can read here.
Meanwhile, Environment Maryland is distressed that it leaves too much up to the states, as you can read in their press release, here. The Capital, out of Annapolis, reports on the "wiggle room" left in the plan for the states to try it their way first, here.
On the other side of the issue, the Maryland government is concerned that the plan will unfairly crack down on Maryland poultry farmers for runoff from chicken waste, as the Baltimore Sun reported here. (They may be justified in their concerns that poultry farmers in their state will face tougher regulations. But ultimately, compliance shouldn't impose a huge financial burden, as I mentioned here. And if one Illinois farmer and attorney is to be believed, the EPA is out to get concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs, aka factory farms) anyway, as you can read in his article about how "EPA is targeting CAFOs!" across the country, complete with exclamation points, here!).
The Baltimore Sun, meanwhile, thinks that the concern from both sides is a sign that the plan just may work, as you can read here.
Just in Case You Were Still Hoping
The Senate Climate bill won't go anywhere in the next six weeks, WSJ confirms.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Speaking of Appropriations Riders. . .
Grist mulls over the possibility that Congress might use an appropriations rider to kill EPA authority to regulate GHGs under the mobile source and BACT provisions of the Clean Air Act, in response to Monday's revelation that EPA's endangerment finding had been sent to the White House. You can read the piece here.
[Proviso: I disagree with many of the Grist piece's characterizations of the Mass v. EPA decision; it is not quite as slam-dunk in "requiring" GHG regulation under the CAA as the piece makes it out to be.]
It is certainly true that even Democrats have been making a lot of noise about taking away EPA's Clean Air Act Authority over GHGs as a condition of creating a new climate bill. (You can see this in questioning of Lisa Jackson by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee a few weeks ago, detailed in this post.) But unilaterally getting rid of EPA CAA authority over GHGs without passing a climate bill would be pretty shocking. And I for one believe (hope?) that the White House knows what its doing, and that Congress won't be able to kill EPA authority through an appropriations rider. This can be seen in the way that the White House and EPA have broken the endangerment finding process into digestible bits--making the finding, for instance, but not creating the concomitant regulations of vehicle GHG emissions--and has been feeding those bits slowly to Congress at strategic moments--just before Kerry-Boxer was introduced, just before Ban Ki-moon's visit--to keep it moving along. (For a good overview of how this has been trucking along since last spring, see the "Climate Change" section of Ohio Environmental Law Blog, here.)
[Proviso: I disagree with many of the Grist piece's characterizations of the Mass v. EPA decision; it is not quite as slam-dunk in "requiring" GHG regulation under the CAA as the piece makes it out to be.]
It is certainly true that even Democrats have been making a lot of noise about taking away EPA's Clean Air Act Authority over GHGs as a condition of creating a new climate bill. (You can see this in questioning of Lisa Jackson by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee a few weeks ago, detailed in this post.) But unilaterally getting rid of EPA CAA authority over GHGs without passing a climate bill would be pretty shocking. And I for one believe (hope?) that the White House knows what its doing, and that Congress won't be able to kill EPA authority through an appropriations rider. This can be seen in the way that the White House and EPA have broken the endangerment finding process into digestible bits--making the finding, for instance, but not creating the concomitant regulations of vehicle GHG emissions--and has been feeding those bits slowly to Congress at strategic moments--just before Kerry-Boxer was introduced, just before Ban Ki-moon's visit--to keep it moving along. (For a good overview of how this has been trucking along since last spring, see the "Climate Change" section of Ohio Environmental Law Blog, here.)
Monday, November 9, 2009
GHG Endangerment Finding Sent to White House
Apparently, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters today that she had sent the final version of EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases to the White House on Friday. The Reuters article can be read here. (The proposed version of the finding, released last April, can be read here.)
Other news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, are reporting the story. But the current version of the finding and the accompanying letter are not yet available on the EPA or White House web sites.
The endangerment finding was made under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, part of its mobile source (vehicle) provisions, and is the ultimate result of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. This pertains only to mobile sources, and, by its terms (as proposed in April) will not immediately be followed by regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs.
That said, a final endangerment finding will give environmentalists a strong legal case that the EPA must now issue regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs. EPA has also signaled that it would have to make a similar endangerment finding and issue regulations for emissions of GHGs from stationary sources, including power plants. Some (though not all) in the environmental community are eager to see EPA action via the PSD provisions of the Act, though industry supporters have warned that such a finding for stationary sources would virtually shut down the economy.
If EPA issues regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs, environmental litigators will be able to make a slam-dunk argument that GHG's are regulated by the Clean Air Act, and thus subject to the Act's "best available control technology" (BACT) provisions. (This is an argument they have been advancing for some time in their battle against coal-fired power plants, but is weakened by the fact that no actual regulations of GHGs have been issued under the Act. Three weeks ago, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued an order, In the Matter of BP Products North America (EAB, October 16, 2009) in which it explained that "at this time EPA continues to construe" BACT to cover only those pollutants "subject to either a provision in the Clean Air Act or a regulation adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.")
The White House has 90 days to act, but Administrator Jackson told Reuters that she expects an expedited review. This move will put additional pressure on the Senate to continue to move forward with climate change legislation, and may also help show the world, in advance of next month's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, that the U.S. is moving forward to regulate greenhouse gases.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.
Update: The Washington Post is reporting the story now, and confirms that the finding has not been released publicly. They obtained a statement from the National Association of Manufacturers that they are concerned that EPA is moving forward before Congress has a chance to pass its own bill (confirming that this may well be designed to place pressure on Congress, since you can be assured that NAM is calling on its connections in the Senate right now.) And they obtained a statement from environmentalists that they think that the Administration is doing this to avoid going to Copenhagen "empty handed." The full article, which reflects some great last-minute reporting by Juliet Eilperin, can be read here.
The Denver Science News Examiner is reporting the story here (and its being reprinted in the Washington D.C. Examiner, so being read for free by D.C. Metro commuters on their way to work this morning.) And BNET is reporting the story, describing the move as "Climate Bill Stimulus."
Other news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, are reporting the story. But the current version of the finding and the accompanying letter are not yet available on the EPA or White House web sites.
The endangerment finding was made under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, part of its mobile source (vehicle) provisions, and is the ultimate result of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. This pertains only to mobile sources, and, by its terms (as proposed in April) will not immediately be followed by regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs.
That said, a final endangerment finding will give environmentalists a strong legal case that the EPA must now issue regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs. EPA has also signaled that it would have to make a similar endangerment finding and issue regulations for emissions of GHGs from stationary sources, including power plants. Some (though not all) in the environmental community are eager to see EPA action via the PSD provisions of the Act, though industry supporters have warned that such a finding for stationary sources would virtually shut down the economy.
If EPA issues regulations governing vehicle emissions of GHGs, environmental litigators will be able to make a slam-dunk argument that GHG's are regulated by the Clean Air Act, and thus subject to the Act's "best available control technology" (BACT) provisions. (This is an argument they have been advancing for some time in their battle against coal-fired power plants, but is weakened by the fact that no actual regulations of GHGs have been issued under the Act. Three weeks ago, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued an order, In the Matter of BP Products North America (EAB, October 16, 2009) in which it explained that "at this time EPA continues to construe" BACT to cover only those pollutants "subject to either a provision in the Clean Air Act or a regulation adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.")
The White House has 90 days to act, but Administrator Jackson told Reuters that she expects an expedited review. This move will put additional pressure on the Senate to continue to move forward with climate change legislation, and may also help show the world, in advance of next month's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, that the U.S. is moving forward to regulate greenhouse gases.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.
Update: The Washington Post is reporting the story now, and confirms that the finding has not been released publicly. They obtained a statement from the National Association of Manufacturers that they are concerned that EPA is moving forward before Congress has a chance to pass its own bill (confirming that this may well be designed to place pressure on Congress, since you can be assured that NAM is calling on its connections in the Senate right now.) And they obtained a statement from environmentalists that they think that the Administration is doing this to avoid going to Copenhagen "empty handed." The full article, which reflects some great last-minute reporting by Juliet Eilperin, can be read here.
The Denver Science News Examiner is reporting the story here (and its being reprinted in the Washington D.C. Examiner, so being read for free by D.C. Metro commuters on their way to work this morning.) And BNET is reporting the story, describing the move as "Climate Bill Stimulus."
Press and NGO Roundup on Bay Cleanup Plans
Initial newspaper articles are coming out now on today's announcement of a draft federal plan for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay (which I described in this post immediately below.)
The Washington Post reports that "EPA plans to get tough on states in bay cleanup effort," highlighting the mandatory nature of the WIPs, and the measures EPA intends to use against states that fail to meet goals. The Baltimore Sun reports that "Bay cleanup calls for expanded federal regulation," noting that EPA will be drawing up new rules about runoff from CAFOs and urban and suburban stormwater management, but has promised to "shelve bay-specific regulations if the states strengthen their own pollution controls enough to restore water quality." The AP has a very brief story here.
NRDC, meanwhile, lauds the plan, calling it "sensible and overdue - finally providing the federal leadership we need, with funding to back it up, to clean up this national treasure."
The Washington Post reports that "EPA plans to get tough on states in bay cleanup effort," highlighting the mandatory nature of the WIPs, and the measures EPA intends to use against states that fail to meet goals. The Baltimore Sun reports that "Bay cleanup calls for expanded federal regulation," noting that EPA will be drawing up new rules about runoff from CAFOs and urban and suburban stormwater management, but has promised to "shelve bay-specific regulations if the states strengthen their own pollution controls enough to restore water quality." The AP has a very brief story here.
NRDC, meanwhile, lauds the plan, calling it "sensible and overdue - finally providing the federal leadership we need, with funding to back it up, to clean up this national treasure."
Federal Plan for Cleaning up Chesapeake Announced
Pursuant to Executive Order 13508 (May, 12 2009), (the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order), a committee of federal officials has released a draft plan for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Commerce (DOC, including NOAA) and Department of Defense (DOD) share responsibility for various parts of the effort. The Executive Order directs them to:
Notable components of the plan include: new EPA efforts to control runoff from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) (a major source of nitrogen from chicken and other animal waste), as well as urban and suburban runoff; a revitalization of efforts to recover native oyster reefs and establish self-sustaining native oyster reef sanctuaries by 2020; and the establishment of a Chesapeake Conservation Corps made up of ordinary citizens. The EPA efforts will be helped along by $19 million in increased funding from Congress to "support additional regulatory and accountability programs to control urban, suburban and agricultural runoff in the watershed." (You can read a Chesapeake Bay Foundation press release about the funding here.)
Already, Maryland officials have voiced concerns about the potential impact of tightened regulations on the state's poultry industry, as you can read in this Baltimore Sun article. Indeed, any EPA effort to control runoff from major chicken operations will involve new costs, since operators of huge chicken operations, in which chickens are confined by the hundreds or thousands in large barns, simply let the waste drain into ground and surface water, and ultimately into the Bay. (This Frontline segment shows some fairly stark footage of the phenomenon.) In the event, this probably won't be a terribly difficult transition for these farmers to manage, monetarily--though it will take a little work. Chickens raised in more traditional circumstances don't pose the same problem, as their (more disperse) waste is absorbed back into the soil easily and is, indeed, beneficial. And if the chicken CAFO operators sold their guano to fertilizer manufacturers, most of the runoff problem would dissipate.
The Draft Strategy--which will be open to comment for 90 days--can be read here. The USDA press release can be read here. And an earlier post on EPA efforts to work with surrounding states to develop mandatory Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) to control runoff into the Bay can be read here.
- define tools and actions to restore water quality and describe changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions (EPA);
- target resources to better protect the Bay and its tributaries, including resources under the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, the Clean Water Act, and other laws (USDA);
- strengthen storm water management practices at Federal facilities and on Federal lands within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and develop storm water best practices guidance (DOD, EPA);
- assess climate change impacts on the water quality and living resources of the Bay and develop strategy for adapting natural resource programs and public infrastructure to those impacts (DOI, DOC);
- expand public access to waters and open spaces of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from Federal lands and conserve the landscapes and ecosystems of the Chesapeake Bay watershed (DOI);
- strengthen scientific support for decisionmaking to restore the Bay and its watershed, including expanded environmental research and monitoring and observing systems (DOI, DOC); and
- develop coordinated habitat and research activities to protect and restore the Bay's living resources and water quality. (DOI, DOC).
Notable components of the plan include: new EPA efforts to control runoff from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) (a major source of nitrogen from chicken and other animal waste), as well as urban and suburban runoff; a revitalization of efforts to recover native oyster reefs and establish self-sustaining native oyster reef sanctuaries by 2020; and the establishment of a Chesapeake Conservation Corps made up of ordinary citizens. The EPA efforts will be helped along by $19 million in increased funding from Congress to "support additional regulatory and accountability programs to control urban, suburban and agricultural runoff in the watershed." (You can read a Chesapeake Bay Foundation press release about the funding here.)
Already, Maryland officials have voiced concerns about the potential impact of tightened regulations on the state's poultry industry, as you can read in this Baltimore Sun article. Indeed, any EPA effort to control runoff from major chicken operations will involve new costs, since operators of huge chicken operations, in which chickens are confined by the hundreds or thousands in large barns, simply let the waste drain into ground and surface water, and ultimately into the Bay. (This Frontline segment shows some fairly stark footage of the phenomenon.) In the event, this probably won't be a terribly difficult transition for these farmers to manage, monetarily--though it will take a little work. Chickens raised in more traditional circumstances don't pose the same problem, as their (more disperse) waste is absorbed back into the soil easily and is, indeed, beneficial. And if the chicken CAFO operators sold their guano to fertilizer manufacturers, most of the runoff problem would dissipate.
The Draft Strategy--which will be open to comment for 90 days--can be read here. The USDA press release can be read here. And an earlier post on EPA efforts to work with surrounding states to develop mandatory Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) to control runoff into the Bay can be read here.
EPA Moves Quickly on Pesticide Drift
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced last Wednesday that it had issued new proposed guidance on pesticide labeling to reduce off-target spray and dust drift. The guidance, issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA), 7 USC §136 et seq, will direct manufacturers how to provide clear guidance to users to cut down on over-spray and drift on labels included on their pesticides. (You can read a brief overview of EPA's authority over the content of pesticide labels here.) The guidance is, however, non-binding. See, e.g., General Electric v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (explaining when guidance is merely hortatory, and when it has the force of law).
At the same time, it announced that it would be seeking comments on a petition to protect children in areas adjacent to farms and other pesticide application sites from pesticide drift.
Earthjustice, which filed a petition on the issue in October (2009!) was quite excited to see EPA move so quickly. In this press release last week, they stated: "This new administration has . . . committed itself to quickly bring this issue before the public -- a welcome move in the right direction. We hope this momentum continues and that on-the-ground safety standards for children advance before another growing season begins." (The original petition can be viewed here.)
At the same time, it announced that it would be seeking comments on a petition to protect children in areas adjacent to farms and other pesticide application sites from pesticide drift.
Earthjustice, which filed a petition on the issue in October (2009!) was quite excited to see EPA move so quickly. In this press release last week, they stated: "This new administration has . . . committed itself to quickly bring this issue before the public -- a welcome move in the right direction. We hope this momentum continues and that on-the-ground safety standards for children advance before another growing season begins." (The original petition can be viewed here.)
Friday, November 6, 2009
EPA Orders Surrounding States to Draw Up Watershed Implementation Plans for Chesapeake
In a series of letters sent out on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, the Acting Administrator of EPA Region III informed states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that they will be expected to draft state initial "watershed implementation plans" (WIPs) by next June on how they will meet targets for how much nutrient (i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment run-off will be allowed to drain into the Bay from each state. EPA will use these WIPs to establish a final rule on the total maximum daily load (TMDL) of run-off that will be allowed into the Bay, under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and various consent decrees between EPA and the states involved . EPA expects to complete this final rule by December 2010--it is asking states for these initial WIPs so it can issue a draft next August. Further, more specific state WIPs will be required in two stages by 2017.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
EPA Agrees to Finally Regulate Emissions from PVC Plants under Settlement with Sierra Club
Environmentalists get timeframe for second set of MACT regulations in two weeks
Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and a coalition of gulf coast community groups announced a settlement today with the EPA in which the agency promised that it will issue regulations governing emissions from PVC manufacturing facilities by 2011. The groups' press release can be read here, and Houston Chronicle coverage of the settlement here. This is the second commitment by EPA in two weeks to issue long-delayed regulations for a source category under the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and a coalition of gulf coast community groups announced a settlement today with the EPA in which the agency promised that it will issue regulations governing emissions from PVC manufacturing facilities by 2011. The groups' press release can be read here, and Houston Chronicle coverage of the settlement here. This is the second commitment by EPA in two weeks to issue long-delayed regulations for a source category under the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
GAO Reports on What Happens to All the Coal We Burn
And its not a pretty picture
In the flurry of Senate news, I overlooked the fact that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report last Friday on coal ash storage and disposal in the U.S. as requested by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the wake of last Christmas's devastating spill at a TVA facility in Kingston, Tennessee.
This earlier post on some testing EPA has ordered at an AEP coal ash storage facility on the West Virginia-Ohio border lays out part of the story. But the GAO's own summary does an admirable job of succinctly stating the bare facts:
In the flurry of Senate news, I overlooked the fact that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report last Friday on coal ash storage and disposal in the U.S. as requested by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the wake of last Christmas's devastating spill at a TVA facility in Kingston, Tennessee.
This earlier post on some testing EPA has ordered at an AEP coal ash storage facility on the West Virginia-Ohio border lays out part of the story. But the GAO's own summary does an admirable job of succinctly stating the bare facts:
(1) The exact number of surface impoundments at utility coal fired power plants is not known. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently undertaking an effort to identify the number and location of all surface impoundments in the United States and, as of September 14, 2009, had identified over 580 surface impoundments nationwide.The full report, issued last Friday October 30th, can be read here. And an excellent overview of the findings from Facing South, here.
(2) Problems that have been identified with the storage of coal ash include potential structural defects and other risks of collapse of the surface impoundment, such as at TVA Kingston Facility; health and environmental risks from [coal combustion residue] CCR storage due to potential leaching of contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined or failed liners at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and gravel pits; and potential risks from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR into surface waters from surface impoundments. EPA is currently analyzing the structural hazards and environmental risks associated with surface impoundments.
(3) EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface impoundments or landfills to prevent releases or a catastrophic spill, and states have a variety of regulatory controls on surface impoundments. EPA is developing proposed regulations but, as part of this effort, needs to address issues of federal and state roles for control and enforcement.
Another One Bites the Dust!
Environmentalists chalked up another victory on Monday when investors scrapped plans for the Big Stone II coal plant in South Dakota. MDU Resources group announced that they were not going ahead with their plan for a 500-600 MW coal-fired power plant because they were unable to find an investor to replace the lead developer, which pulled out in September, citing the economy and uncertainty about the cost of climate legislation.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Interior Continues Slow Process of Revoking Midnight Regulation on MTR
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking won't result in rule until early 2011
In more regulatory activity, the Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) announced its intention to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking by the middle of this month for the rule meant to overturn the Bush Administration's December 2008 change in the Stream Buffer Zone Rule under the Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement Act (SMREA), 30 U.S.C. § 1292. That rule, they promise, will be out as soon as early 2011.
In more regulatory activity, the Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) announced its intention to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking by the middle of this month for the rule meant to overturn the Bush Administration's December 2008 change in the Stream Buffer Zone Rule under the Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement Act (SMREA), 30 U.S.C. § 1292. That rule, they promise, will be out as soon as early 2011.
EPA Pushes Carbofuran off the Market
Pesticide that kills wild song birds one step closer to ban in U.S.
EPA announced Friday that it will not be granting an administrative hearing to FMC Corporation, the manufacturer of the pesticide carbofuran, over EPA's May 2009 final rule revoking food "tolerances" for carbofuran. See 74 FR 23046 (May 15, 2009). In an order signed on Friday, the Agency concluded that the regulatory standard for holding an evidentiary hearing was not met, and denied all objections to the revocation. (Objections had been submitted last June by the National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, National Potato Council, and FMC Corporation.) The decision means a ban on carbofuran on food crops will go into effect on December 31, 2009.
This decision has been years in the making. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA" to close friends), folks in the Office of Pesticide Programs of the EPA cyclically review pesticides that are already "registered," or on the market for certain approved uses. It is almost impossible, given the political realities in the Pesticide Division and the elasticity of standards, to de-register a pesticide. But it is easier for to revoke a pesticide's food tolerance, i.e. an accepted residue level in which that pesticide may linger on our food, set under the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). According to Friday's order, EPA--which administers the part of the FDCA relevant to pesticides--reached the conclusion that "[e]xposure to the pesticide carbofuran resulting from existing legal uses is unsafe . . . in 2006 after an exhaustive multi-year review of the data on carbofuran as part of [the FIFRA re-registration process.]"
I'm not that up-to-date on the science surrounding how much carbofuran remains on food. But what is clear is that carbofuran is super dangerous for wild birds in agricultural regions. Because its a neurotoxin, and would therefore attack farmworkers' nervous systems if administered in liquid form (i.e. sprayed on), carbofuran is made into little pellets that are planted alongside corn and other seeds. When birds come along to scratch around for the tasty corn seeds, they often eat the carbofuran pellets, too, resulting in major die offs. (This is why Defenders of Wildlife is applauding the decision in its press release, "EPA Sticks to its Guns on Plan to Bar Use of Deadly Pesticide.")
After its 2006 decision, EPA allowed FMC to submit more data. But it finally issued a proposal to revoke the carbofuran tolerances in July 2008. See 73 FR 44864 (July 31, 2008). Seeing the writing on the wall, FMC then said, well what if we agree to let our registration of carbofuran be partially cancelled, so that there won't be that much of it in the average American's diet anymore? (Or, technically, according to Friday's order, FMC "requested the cancellation of the registration of carbofuran on several crops and the restriction of where, and the manner in which, carbofuran could be used in the United States on its remaining registered crop sites."). EPA was unswayed by this last-minute generosity, calling the new parameters "irrelevant," and finalized its rule on May 15, 2009.
Friday's decision takes us one step further to getting carbofuran off the market. FMC immediately announced its intention to appeal the decision in federal court, complaining that "EPA's unprecedented attempt to deny any review of its science deprives the registrant and the growers who use carbofuran the right to prove that the product is safe, and represents a bold abuse of power in contradiction of the agency's earlier commitments to transparency and good science."
Update: The National Corn Grower's Association has opposed the move, as detailed in an article that can be read here.
EPA announced Friday that it will not be granting an administrative hearing to FMC Corporation, the manufacturer of the pesticide carbofuran, over EPA's May 2009 final rule revoking food "tolerances" for carbofuran. See 74 FR 23046 (May 15, 2009). In an order signed on Friday, the Agency concluded that the regulatory standard for holding an evidentiary hearing was not met, and denied all objections to the revocation. (Objections had been submitted last June by the National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, National Potato Council, and FMC Corporation.) The decision means a ban on carbofuran on food crops will go into effect on December 31, 2009.
This decision has been years in the making. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA" to close friends), folks in the Office of Pesticide Programs of the EPA cyclically review pesticides that are already "registered," or on the market for certain approved uses. It is almost impossible, given the political realities in the Pesticide Division and the elasticity of standards, to de-register a pesticide. But it is easier for to revoke a pesticide's food tolerance, i.e. an accepted residue level in which that pesticide may linger on our food, set under the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). According to Friday's order, EPA--which administers the part of the FDCA relevant to pesticides--reached the conclusion that "[e]xposure to the pesticide carbofuran resulting from existing legal uses is unsafe . . . in 2006 after an exhaustive multi-year review of the data on carbofuran as part of [the FIFRA re-registration process.]"
I'm not that up-to-date on the science surrounding how much carbofuran remains on food. But what is clear is that carbofuran is super dangerous for wild birds in agricultural regions. Because its a neurotoxin, and would therefore attack farmworkers' nervous systems if administered in liquid form (i.e. sprayed on), carbofuran is made into little pellets that are planted alongside corn and other seeds. When birds come along to scratch around for the tasty corn seeds, they often eat the carbofuran pellets, too, resulting in major die offs. (This is why Defenders of Wildlife is applauding the decision in its press release, "EPA Sticks to its Guns on Plan to Bar Use of Deadly Pesticide.")
After its 2006 decision, EPA allowed FMC to submit more data. But it finally issued a proposal to revoke the carbofuran tolerances in July 2008. See 73 FR 44864 (July 31, 2008). Seeing the writing on the wall, FMC then said, well what if we agree to let our registration of carbofuran be partially cancelled, so that there won't be that much of it in the average American's diet anymore? (Or, technically, according to Friday's order, FMC "requested the cancellation of the registration of carbofuran on several crops and the restriction of where, and the manner in which, carbofuran could be used in the United States on its remaining registered crop sites."). EPA was unswayed by this last-minute generosity, calling the new parameters "irrelevant," and finalized its rule on May 15, 2009.
Friday's decision takes us one step further to getting carbofuran off the market. FMC immediately announced its intention to appeal the decision in federal court, complaining that "EPA's unprecedented attempt to deny any review of its science deprives the registrant and the growers who use carbofuran the right to prove that the product is safe, and represents a bold abuse of power in contradiction of the agency's earlier commitments to transparency and good science."
Update: The National Corn Grower's Association has opposed the move, as detailed in an article that can be read here.
Friday, October 30, 2009
EPA Orders AEP to Test Stability of Ash Piles
The EPA announced yesterday that it is requiring American Electric Power (AEP) to come up with a plan for safety testing of dams holding back coal ash slurry ponds at a disposal site on the Ohio River in West Virginia. The order is part of a nationwide review of the integrity of such dams, which hold back piles of coal ash collected from coal being burned for power at sites throughout the country. According to EPA's press release, EPA officials will oversee the entire safety testing process.
The AEP dam is similar to the one that collapsed at a TVA site in Kingston TN last Christmas, causing massive devastation to the adjacent river and surrounding farmland, and prompting hearings on the issue before Senator Boxer's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
As the New York Times reported earlier this month (and activists and those unfortunate enough to live in the shadows of coal plants have known for years), all the pollutants that are prevented from going out the top of smoke stacks get collected in the coal ash. As time goes on, and the technology-forcing provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) operate to require stricter controls on new coal-fired power plants, the coal ash gets more and more toxic. (This is why there's no such thing as "clean coal.") Yet, due to lacunae in the CAA and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq, along with EPA's 2000 decision not to treat coal and other fly ash as hazardous waste--all of which can be traced to industry pressure--we treat it the same way as we do ordinary municipal waste. As a result, it is regulated at the federal level only under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. EPA never issued regulations it promised in 2000 governing the disposal of coal ash under RCRA, so, functionally, we rely on state regulations (and regulators) to control how the ash is disposed. In most states--especially those where coal and power-company interests predominate state politics--there are few controls if any, allowing power companies to dispose of the ash in clay-lined slurry ponds without as much as a plastic liner. (You can read about an attempt to tighten regulations in one such state, North Carolina, here.) As the folks in Kingston experienced last year, that clay can give way all too easily, causing devastation as the toxic sludge spills into the landscape.
After Senator Boxer pushed, the EPA released a list of 44 highly hazardous coal ash disposal sites last June. (The press release from Senator Boxer's office can be seen here, and a McClatchy news article including a map of the sites here.) The order to AEP is the next step in EPA's plan, announced at that time, to review the coal-ash sites and order cleanup and repairs as needed. EPA has also promised to finally issue those regulations governing coal-ash disposal under RCRA by the end of the year.
While this is a welcome development, much more remains to be done from a legal standpoint. In an ideal world, TSCA would be amended so that there will be no question that we must treat coal ash as the toxic waste that it is. But industry lobbyists continue to push hard to prevent that, terrified of the costs of proper disposal. (You can read a recent release, in which they call for "federal non-hazardous waste regulation of coal-combustion byproducts implemented by the states," here.) Meanwhile, water leaking from the ponds is getting into ground- and drinking water, and power companies are getting away with creative (and terrifying) disposal methods like using coal ash to create golf courses and fill wallboard used in construction. As one expert quoted in this excellent overview of the issue by the New York Time's Shaila Dawan, “[y]our household garbage is managed much more consistently” than coal ash, because we have this major "loophole in the country’s waste management strategy.”
The AEP dam is similar to the one that collapsed at a TVA site in Kingston TN last Christmas, causing massive devastation to the adjacent river and surrounding farmland, and prompting hearings on the issue before Senator Boxer's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
As the New York Times reported earlier this month (and activists and those unfortunate enough to live in the shadows of coal plants have known for years), all the pollutants that are prevented from going out the top of smoke stacks get collected in the coal ash. As time goes on, and the technology-forcing provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) operate to require stricter controls on new coal-fired power plants, the coal ash gets more and more toxic. (This is why there's no such thing as "clean coal.") Yet, due to lacunae in the CAA and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq, along with EPA's 2000 decision not to treat coal and other fly ash as hazardous waste--all of which can be traced to industry pressure--we treat it the same way as we do ordinary municipal waste. As a result, it is regulated at the federal level only under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. EPA never issued regulations it promised in 2000 governing the disposal of coal ash under RCRA, so, functionally, we rely on state regulations (and regulators) to control how the ash is disposed. In most states--especially those where coal and power-company interests predominate state politics--there are few controls if any, allowing power companies to dispose of the ash in clay-lined slurry ponds without as much as a plastic liner. (You can read about an attempt to tighten regulations in one such state, North Carolina, here.) As the folks in Kingston experienced last year, that clay can give way all too easily, causing devastation as the toxic sludge spills into the landscape.
After Senator Boxer pushed, the EPA released a list of 44 highly hazardous coal ash disposal sites last June. (The press release from Senator Boxer's office can be seen here, and a McClatchy news article including a map of the sites here.) The order to AEP is the next step in EPA's plan, announced at that time, to review the coal-ash sites and order cleanup and repairs as needed. EPA has also promised to finally issue those regulations governing coal-ash disposal under RCRA by the end of the year.
While this is a welcome development, much more remains to be done from a legal standpoint. In an ideal world, TSCA would be amended so that there will be no question that we must treat coal ash as the toxic waste that it is. But industry lobbyists continue to push hard to prevent that, terrified of the costs of proper disposal. (You can read a recent release, in which they call for "federal non-hazardous waste regulation of coal-combustion byproducts implemented by the states," here.) Meanwhile, water leaking from the ponds is getting into ground- and drinking water, and power companies are getting away with creative (and terrifying) disposal methods like using coal ash to create golf courses and fill wallboard used in construction. As one expert quoted in this excellent overview of the issue by the New York Time's Shaila Dawan, “[y]our household garbage is managed much more consistently” than coal ash, because we have this major "loophole in the country’s waste management strategy.”
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Evening News Roundup: Day Three of Senate EPW Climate Bill Hearings
The big news out of today's hearings seems to be Boxer's determination to press ahead with her plan to get the bill out of committee on November 3--this coming Tuesday. The objections, presaged in Republican questioning of Tuesday's cabinet-level panelists, as described here, are that the Congressional Budget Office has not done a full analysis, and neither has the EPA. Boxer apparently replied that neither of these pass the "smell test," since CBO analyses usually don't occur until after a bill is out of committee, and since Kerry-Boxer borrows so heavily from Waxman-Markey, the EPA analysis of the differences between the two bills was sufficient. Politico reports on this here, the Washington Post here, and Dow Jones here. In response, Reuters reports in this article, committee Republicans are dangling the possibility of boycotting next week's committee work sessions to prevent a vote from happening at all (since they don't have the votes to keep it in committee if they do meet.)
Meanwhile, this Greenwire article reports that Senator Specter (D, PA) is now officially pushing to get a Clean Air Act preemption clause in the bill, and that Senator Baucus (D, WY) has told reporters that he has not made up his mind on the bill. Senator Boxer can do without their votes in committee, but will need them later on in the process, as explained in this earlier post.
Meanwhile, this Greenwire article reports that Senator Specter (D, PA) is now officially pushing to get a Clean Air Act preemption clause in the bill, and that Senator Baucus (D, WY) has told reporters that he has not made up his mind on the bill. Senator Boxer can do without their votes in committee, but will need them later on in the process, as explained in this earlier post.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Senate EPW Committee Questions Chu, Salazar, LaHood, Jackson, and Wellinghoff on Climate Bill
As it happened:
Senator Boxer (D, CA) opens the Q & A session with a request to Secretary Salazar to discuss the urgency of the bill. Secretary Salazar responds with anecdotes on the effect on public lands and national parks, including the almost certain prospect that there will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2020. Turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Boxer asks about whether cap and trade is new. Catching the softball, Administrator Jackson describes the salutary effects of the cap and trade method of decreasing SO2 in prior programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Boxer then asks Secretary Chu about how important the certainty of incentives is to ensuring investments in renewable energy. Secretary Chu responds that, given the long-term investments required in the energy industry in any technology, the decision makers need to know that their investments will reap rewards for five or six decades into the future.
Senator Inhofe (R, OK), the very grumpy former chairman of the committee, starts by referring to the outrage of the teabaggers. (!) That they are worried about health care, and this "energy tax." He uses his questioning time to, instead of asking questions, refute points in Senator Kerry's presentation made at the beginning of the hearings--including refuting the science behind climate change. "The science is not settled," he says. "Everyone knows its not settled."
Finally turning to Administrator Jackson, he asks unspecified questions about acid rain, the endangerment finding for polar bears, and presumably its consequences. He then asks that each of the presenters address his assertion that the United States gas, oil and coal reserves are now the largest in the world, and what they plan to do to exploit that. He asks that the questions be answered in writing, however, and Senator Boxer asks the presenters that they make those available by COB tomorrow.
Senator Klobuchar (D, MN) takes the mic, asking Secretary Chu to talk about the signal that the bill will send to the private sector for energy investment--which is clearly the overwhelming point Secretary Chu is here to make. He talks about opportunities lost--that Germany has had more success than we have with wind turbines, because they provided sustained funding for the industry. And he talks about "brilliant ideas" popping up in various pilot programs, and Senator Klobuchar finishes his thought for him, that if we don't provided sustained signals for these entrepreneurs, then we will lose their poitential.
Senator Klobuchar also presses Secretary Chu for details on nuclear incentives. Secretary Chu describes this as "the beginning of the start of a new nuclear industry." As for the timeframe for getting a new nuclear power plant up and running, Secretary Chu can only answer "that depends," averting to the role of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). "Ideally," he says, "it could be between five and ten years."
Senator Voinovich (R, OH) is up, and this should be good, because he earlier decried EPA's lack of thoroughness in its analysis. Brushing past the fact that the Senate and House bills are extremely similar, and EPA analyzed the differences, Senator Voinovich intones that, nonetheless, "[t]he fact is that you have not done a full analysis, is that correct?" Administrator Jackson admits that it is true, and that it would take four to five weeks to run full models on the Senate bill. The Senator also talks about preemption, noting that, on his read, this legislation would not preempt the use of the CAA to regulate GHGs. Administrator Jackson says that she still believes that there would be no preemption--that the CAA can still be used to mitigate the harm of some GHG emissions, but that what is really needed is economy-wide action through a bill like this.
Turning to Secretary Chu, Senator Voinovich states his concern that we will not have the technology in place to meet the cap and trade goals. Seemingly wanting to meet them through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of emissions from coal plants, he notes that it is urgent that we have CCS in place by 2020, especially if we are going to continue to compete with China (which he notes, as many did in the Senators' preliminary statements, is building one or two coal-fired power plants per week.) Senator Chu responds that energy conservation--if "we really think hard about it"--is the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon, that solar and wind power is very promising, and that we need to press hard and act aggressively, but that we can meet the goals.
Next, Senator Specter (D, PA) addresses Administrator Jackson. He notes that a big selling point for people who don't like climate legislation is the idea that the EPA would no longer be able to come in and use the CAA to regulate CO2 or other GHG emissions. Apparently believing that Administrator Jackson is not familiar with basic strategic concepts, he asks whether she would be able to make concessions in this area. Administrator Jackson responds that, despite the benefits of a cap and trade bill, the EPA will still need the authority to, e.g., address localized pollution sinks that may remain (which is a bit confounding, since we are talking about GHGs, which have a global effect.). Senator Specter says, nonetheless, that he would like to see this bill given preemptive force over the CAA in the area of GHG regulation, and that "if there are other things that you want [to see in the bill], let us know about them," because there is a lot of value in certainty. He explains that "we don't want to buy a pig in a poke." Finally, turning to FERC Chairman Wellinghoff, Senator Specter notes that his constituents are very concerned about transmission lines and pipelines, and asks that he come out and hold hearings before making siting decisions.
Senator Sanders (D, VT), averting to Vermont's strides in energy efficiency, asks Secretary Chu about the benefits of a Smart Grid--specifically the cost savings that we can achieve through peak shifting. Secretary Chu responds that *just* peak shifting would achieve $100 billion in savings a year. Senator Sanders then presents a chart to Secretary Chu showing that the most cost-effective way to go forward is through wind and solar--and that nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy. Secretary Chu, seeking good marks but not wanting to just parrot Sanders, responds that energy efficiency is the cheapest way of going about this. Senator Sanders, not satisfied, makes his own point for himself--that wind, solar, and geothermal are the cheapest form of new energy, but complains that everyone on the committee seems only to be talking about nuclear and coal.
Senator Sanders asks Secretary of Transportation LaHood why we don't have the same type of rail systems seen in Europe and Asia. The Secretary responds, promptly and boisterously, that its "lack of investment." That had Truman made the investment in railroads that he did in highways, we would have those rail systems. But "instead we have a state of the art interstate highway system." Then, Senator Sanders rounds out his questioning by playing to his constituency, extracting statements from the Secretary of his intent to invest in transportation links for rural America.
Senator Udall (D, CO) takes the mic, and ask FERC Chairman Wellinghoff about renewable energy. The Chairman replies that it is important that we have a national standard, and that this bill does that. Turning to Secretary Chu, the Senator asks about the importance of natural gas in future energy plans. Secretary Chu notes that they are funding pilot programs for fueling cars with natural gas, and talks about recovering natural gas from shale as a lower carbon option than some of our current fuel sources. (An answer that should dismay environmentalists aware of the devastating effects of oil shale extraction.) Finally, Senator Udall asks about the costs of wind and solar. Secretary Chu says he is optimistic that solar and wind costs are continuing to drop. Finally, he asks Secretary LaHood about the benefits of investing in passenger rail. Secretary LaHood replies, boisterous again, that it would "[t]ake a lot of cars off the road, take a lot of CO2 [out] of the air. .... When someone gets on a train, they're out of their automobile, and the benefits will be enormous." Underscoring his point, he reprises that "I want to be clear on this, we haven't made the investments in America in passenger rail."
Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ) seeks another assurance from Secretary Chu on the achievability of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions, asking if it can't be achieved through energy efficiency alone. Secretary Chu replies that it can be achieved, but that it will involve looking in every corner, and counting carbon offsets such as reforestation. Turning to Secretary LaHood, Senator Lautenberg asks for more specifics about the effects of increased train service on CO2 emissions, and Secretary LaHood promises a more detailed answer on the exact effects in writing. Senator Lautenberg averts, in the end, to the "cost of doing nothing."
Senator Merkley (D, OR) takes his turn, again talking about the extraordinary benefits of energy efficiency, referring to a McKinsey report issued last year. He notes that it is the cheapest way of providing for new energy needs by far, and will actually reduce household bills. So he asks, "Are we underinvesting in energy efficiency in this bill? Do we need to be going further, and actually have a separate standard?" (I can hear the cheering from ACEEE from where I sit.) Secretary Chu answers, point blank, "Yes." But "there are some barriers at work here. ... What we call market failures. Many people don't know what to do, its inconvenient, there's inertia, and there are also finance barriers. Energy efficiency, you can't just say make it happen. You have to be very proactive, because of these market barriers." Senator Merkley says that he would like to work further with the Department of Energy to help break down the barriers, saying that he would really like to see us achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 through energy efficiency alone, a technology "that pays us back." Secretary Chu replies that the Department will be trying to pilot programs over the next year to see if it can bring down costs--presumably, including barriers.
Finally Senator Merkley asks if we should really be pushing electric cars as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Secretary LaHood cheers for the GM Volt, but none address whether electric cars would really result in net emissions reductions.
Senator Whitehouse (D, RI) takes over, and notes "the fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. Turning to a specific issue, he urges that "as you look at the nuclear component of our energy portfolio, that you look aggressively at the nuclear waste" and see about converting it into fuel. "One day, we should be burning this nuclear waste as fuel." Secretary Chu says that the Department has started a detailed look at this. He notes that only 1% of the energy content of the uranium dug out of the ground is actually used.
Senator Whitehouse asks Chairman Wellinghoff about dispatch orders for when power plants are turned on and off. "It is my understanding that these dispatch rules do not take the environmental effects into account whatsoever," and says he would like to work with FERC to make sure that those environmental effects are taken into account in the dispatch rule. Finally, turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Whitehouse states that "the perspective that I have on this is that for many years, corporate polluters have been ducking and dodging on their responsibilities under the CAA" by building smokestacks. "Right now, in Rhode Island, on a bright summer day, the radio today could easily announce that today is a bad air day ... because of what is being rained down on us by these [out-of-state] power plants. . . . As we look at the CAA ... I very strongly believe that it is time that these power plants are held to account ... So I hope that you will stand firm on the CAA."
Senator Cardin (D, MD), bringing up the rear, thanks the panelists for their public service. He seeks to "underscore two points," about energy policy and investment. Transportation represents 30% of our GHGs, and 60-70% of our oil use. He notes that he would like to get public transportation going far beyond passenger rail, and thanks the Chairwoman for doing that with the bill. He then turns to how the panelists use their existing authority--and thanks Administrator Jackson for putting the environment back on the EPA's priority list. Again playing the good cheerleader, he says "We need to get this done. .... [But] be aggressive with the tools that are already available."
A great note on which to end today's hearings.
Senator Boxer (D, CA) opens the Q & A session with a request to Secretary Salazar to discuss the urgency of the bill. Secretary Salazar responds with anecdotes on the effect on public lands and national parks, including the almost certain prospect that there will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2020. Turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Boxer asks about whether cap and trade is new. Catching the softball, Administrator Jackson describes the salutary effects of the cap and trade method of decreasing SO2 in prior programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Boxer then asks Secretary Chu about how important the certainty of incentives is to ensuring investments in renewable energy. Secretary Chu responds that, given the long-term investments required in the energy industry in any technology, the decision makers need to know that their investments will reap rewards for five or six decades into the future.
Senator Inhofe (R, OK), the very grumpy former chairman of the committee, starts by referring to the outrage of the teabaggers. (!) That they are worried about health care, and this "energy tax." He uses his questioning time to, instead of asking questions, refute points in Senator Kerry's presentation made at the beginning of the hearings--including refuting the science behind climate change. "The science is not settled," he says. "Everyone knows its not settled."
Finally turning to Administrator Jackson, he asks unspecified questions about acid rain, the endangerment finding for polar bears, and presumably its consequences. He then asks that each of the presenters address his assertion that the United States gas, oil and coal reserves are now the largest in the world, and what they plan to do to exploit that. He asks that the questions be answered in writing, however, and Senator Boxer asks the presenters that they make those available by COB tomorrow.
Senator Klobuchar (D, MN) takes the mic, asking Secretary Chu to talk about the signal that the bill will send to the private sector for energy investment--which is clearly the overwhelming point Secretary Chu is here to make. He talks about opportunities lost--that Germany has had more success than we have with wind turbines, because they provided sustained funding for the industry. And he talks about "brilliant ideas" popping up in various pilot programs, and Senator Klobuchar finishes his thought for him, that if we don't provided sustained signals for these entrepreneurs, then we will lose their poitential.
Senator Klobuchar also presses Secretary Chu for details on nuclear incentives. Secretary Chu describes this as "the beginning of the start of a new nuclear industry." As for the timeframe for getting a new nuclear power plant up and running, Secretary Chu can only answer "that depends," averting to the role of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). "Ideally," he says, "it could be between five and ten years."
Senator Voinovich (R, OH) is up, and this should be good, because he earlier decried EPA's lack of thoroughness in its analysis. Brushing past the fact that the Senate and House bills are extremely similar, and EPA analyzed the differences, Senator Voinovich intones that, nonetheless, "[t]he fact is that you have not done a full analysis, is that correct?" Administrator Jackson admits that it is true, and that it would take four to five weeks to run full models on the Senate bill. The Senator also talks about preemption, noting that, on his read, this legislation would not preempt the use of the CAA to regulate GHGs. Administrator Jackson says that she still believes that there would be no preemption--that the CAA can still be used to mitigate the harm of some GHG emissions, but that what is really needed is economy-wide action through a bill like this.
Turning to Secretary Chu, Senator Voinovich states his concern that we will not have the technology in place to meet the cap and trade goals. Seemingly wanting to meet them through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of emissions from coal plants, he notes that it is urgent that we have CCS in place by 2020, especially if we are going to continue to compete with China (which he notes, as many did in the Senators' preliminary statements, is building one or two coal-fired power plants per week.) Senator Chu responds that energy conservation--if "we really think hard about it"--is the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon, that solar and wind power is very promising, and that we need to press hard and act aggressively, but that we can meet the goals.
Next, Senator Specter (D, PA) addresses Administrator Jackson. He notes that a big selling point for people who don't like climate legislation is the idea that the EPA would no longer be able to come in and use the CAA to regulate CO2 or other GHG emissions. Apparently believing that Administrator Jackson is not familiar with basic strategic concepts, he asks whether she would be able to make concessions in this area. Administrator Jackson responds that, despite the benefits of a cap and trade bill, the EPA will still need the authority to, e.g., address localized pollution sinks that may remain (which is a bit confounding, since we are talking about GHGs, which have a global effect.). Senator Specter says, nonetheless, that he would like to see this bill given preemptive force over the CAA in the area of GHG regulation, and that "if there are other things that you want [to see in the bill], let us know about them," because there is a lot of value in certainty. He explains that "we don't want to buy a pig in a poke." Finally, turning to FERC Chairman Wellinghoff, Senator Specter notes that his constituents are very concerned about transmission lines and pipelines, and asks that he come out and hold hearings before making siting decisions.
Senator Sanders (D, VT), averting to Vermont's strides in energy efficiency, asks Secretary Chu about the benefits of a Smart Grid--specifically the cost savings that we can achieve through peak shifting. Secretary Chu responds that *just* peak shifting would achieve $100 billion in savings a year. Senator Sanders then presents a chart to Secretary Chu showing that the most cost-effective way to go forward is through wind and solar--and that nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy. Secretary Chu, seeking good marks but not wanting to just parrot Sanders, responds that energy efficiency is the cheapest way of going about this. Senator Sanders, not satisfied, makes his own point for himself--that wind, solar, and geothermal are the cheapest form of new energy, but complains that everyone on the committee seems only to be talking about nuclear and coal.
Senator Sanders asks Secretary of Transportation LaHood why we don't have the same type of rail systems seen in Europe and Asia. The Secretary responds, promptly and boisterously, that its "lack of investment." That had Truman made the investment in railroads that he did in highways, we would have those rail systems. But "instead we have a state of the art interstate highway system." Then, Senator Sanders rounds out his questioning by playing to his constituency, extracting statements from the Secretary of his intent to invest in transportation links for rural America.
Senator Udall (D, CO) takes the mic, and ask FERC Chairman Wellinghoff about renewable energy. The Chairman replies that it is important that we have a national standard, and that this bill does that. Turning to Secretary Chu, the Senator asks about the importance of natural gas in future energy plans. Secretary Chu notes that they are funding pilot programs for fueling cars with natural gas, and talks about recovering natural gas from shale as a lower carbon option than some of our current fuel sources. (An answer that should dismay environmentalists aware of the devastating effects of oil shale extraction.) Finally, Senator Udall asks about the costs of wind and solar. Secretary Chu says he is optimistic that solar and wind costs are continuing to drop. Finally, he asks Secretary LaHood about the benefits of investing in passenger rail. Secretary LaHood replies, boisterous again, that it would "[t]ake a lot of cars off the road, take a lot of CO2 [out] of the air. .... When someone gets on a train, they're out of their automobile, and the benefits will be enormous." Underscoring his point, he reprises that "I want to be clear on this, we haven't made the investments in America in passenger rail."
Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ) seeks another assurance from Secretary Chu on the achievability of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions, asking if it can't be achieved through energy efficiency alone. Secretary Chu replies that it can be achieved, but that it will involve looking in every corner, and counting carbon offsets such as reforestation. Turning to Secretary LaHood, Senator Lautenberg asks for more specifics about the effects of increased train service on CO2 emissions, and Secretary LaHood promises a more detailed answer on the exact effects in writing. Senator Lautenberg averts, in the end, to the "cost of doing nothing."
Senator Merkley (D, OR) takes his turn, again talking about the extraordinary benefits of energy efficiency, referring to a McKinsey report issued last year. He notes that it is the cheapest way of providing for new energy needs by far, and will actually reduce household bills. So he asks, "Are we underinvesting in energy efficiency in this bill? Do we need to be going further, and actually have a separate standard?" (I can hear the cheering from ACEEE from where I sit.) Secretary Chu answers, point blank, "Yes." But "there are some barriers at work here. ... What we call market failures. Many people don't know what to do, its inconvenient, there's inertia, and there are also finance barriers. Energy efficiency, you can't just say make it happen. You have to be very proactive, because of these market barriers." Senator Merkley says that he would like to work further with the Department of Energy to help break down the barriers, saying that he would really like to see us achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 through energy efficiency alone, a technology "that pays us back." Secretary Chu replies that the Department will be trying to pilot programs over the next year to see if it can bring down costs--presumably, including barriers.
Finally Senator Merkley asks if we should really be pushing electric cars as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Secretary LaHood cheers for the GM Volt, but none address whether electric cars would really result in net emissions reductions.
Senator Whitehouse (D, RI) takes over, and notes "the fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. Turning to a specific issue, he urges that "as you look at the nuclear component of our energy portfolio, that you look aggressively at the nuclear waste" and see about converting it into fuel. "One day, we should be burning this nuclear waste as fuel." Secretary Chu says that the Department has started a detailed look at this. He notes that only 1% of the energy content of the uranium dug out of the ground is actually used.
Senator Whitehouse asks Chairman Wellinghoff about dispatch orders for when power plants are turned on and off. "It is my understanding that these dispatch rules do not take the environmental effects into account whatsoever," and says he would like to work with FERC to make sure that those environmental effects are taken into account in the dispatch rule. Finally, turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Whitehouse states that "the perspective that I have on this is that for many years, corporate polluters have been ducking and dodging on their responsibilities under the CAA" by building smokestacks. "Right now, in Rhode Island, on a bright summer day, the radio today could easily announce that today is a bad air day ... because of what is being rained down on us by these [out-of-state] power plants. . . . As we look at the CAA ... I very strongly believe that it is time that these power plants are held to account ... So I hope that you will stand firm on the CAA."
Senator Cardin (D, MD), bringing up the rear, thanks the panelists for their public service. He seeks to "underscore two points," about energy policy and investment. Transportation represents 30% of our GHGs, and 60-70% of our oil use. He notes that he would like to get public transportation going far beyond passenger rail, and thanks the Chairwoman for doing that with the bill. He then turns to how the panelists use their existing authority--and thanks Administrator Jackson for putting the environment back on the EPA's priority list. Again playing the good cheerleader, he says "We need to get this done. .... [But] be aggressive with the tools that are already available."
A great note on which to end today's hearings.
Hearings on Kerry-Boxer Bill Today
Sunday, October 25, 2009
EPA Analysis of Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill
The EPA waited until 11 p.m. Friday night to release their economic analysis of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill (which had been expected that day), on which hearings will begin in the Senate next week. It found very little change in cost as compared to the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House at the beginning of the summer, estimating that it would cost the average household about $80 to $110 a year.
The full EPA analysis can be found here. Senator Boxer's press release on the EPA report can be found here.
At the same time, Senator Boxer's office issued the Chairman's Mark of the bill, which can be found here. Senator Boxer's office has also provided a summary of the key changes between the original bill and the Chairman's mark, here. The New York Times analysis of the Mark can be found here, and Grist's analysis here.
The full EPA analysis can be found here. Senator Boxer's press release on the EPA report can be found here.
At the same time, Senator Boxer's office issued the Chairman's Mark of the bill, which can be found here. Senator Boxer's office has also provided a summary of the key changes between the original bill and the Chairman's mark, here. The New York Times analysis of the Mark can be found here, and Grist's analysis here.
Friday, October 23, 2009
No Analysis from EPA of Kerry Climate Change Bill Yet
As of 5:10 eastern time, the EPA has not yet released its expected analysis of Senator Kerry's Clean Energy, Jobs & American Power Act. Either it has been delayed until next week, or someone at EPA is staying past five on a Friday. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
