Myths and Facts about U.S. EPA Standards | WRI

While Australia is still busy discussing “details” of the carbon tax, in the United States there has been much debate around what the EPA can, cannot, should and should not regulate. The following is an excellent summary done by the World Resources Institute of what is really going on.

WRI experts take closer look at some of the myths, inaccuracies, and misinformation surrounding Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases.
- By James Bradbury and Stephanie Hanson.

In recent months, the debate over U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of greenhouse gas emissions took on a heated tone across the country. At the federal level, the Senate voted down several amendments (detailed summaries available here) that would have restricted EPA’s ability to regulate dangerous greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. During the same week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would severely restrict EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, while taking the highly unusual step of overturning a scientific finding.¹ Meanwhile, opponents of pollution controls continue to press for further debate and additional votes on bills that would restrict or eliminate EPA’s authority.

Throughout the debate, some of the loudest voices have argued that EPA’s actions would be harmful to industry and the economy. Looking closer, however, we find that these claims are largely inaccurate – many of them are exaggerations or, in some cases, outright misinformation. WRI analysts set the record straight.

Myth #1: EPA does not have the authority to act on greenhouse gases.

The Facts: EPA is legally required to act, and is acting consistent with the authority that Congress has granted it.

EPA is acting to fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act, as charged by Congress and reinforced by the Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that GHGs are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court instructed the EPA to decide whether GHG emissions endanger public health and/or welfare, or if current science is too uncertain to make a reasonable judgment. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the EPA issued a scientific finding that “[t]he accumulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, the poor, the elderly – that can increase ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.” This finding reflects similar statements made by the world’s leading scientific institutes.

Furthermore, laws require EPA to act reasonably. In the Clean Air Act and its amendments, Congress established limitations on EPA’s regulatory powers, requiring the agency to consider the cost of regulation and other impacts before regulating. In addition, federal courts review EPA regulatory actions to ensure the agency has not exceeded its authority. In practice, EPA has followed the rules and also been cognizant of the practical constraints of regulations. For instance, EPA decided in the tailoring rule, issued in 2010, that it would be unworkable to apply the Clean Air Act to all facilities that would be covered by the law; instead EPA has focused only on the largest emitters.

Read more at What Are Limits on EPA? Clean Air Act Holds Answers

 

Myth #2: EPA regulations of GHG emissions will cost up to 1.4 million jobs.

The Facts: The modeling study and accompanying testimony supporting these claims has been discredited by a number of well respected analysts and economists.

In her February 9th testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr. Margo Thorning relied on an industry-funded modeling exercise to conclude that EPA regulations of GHG emissions would lead to up to 1.4 million job losses in the United States. Since then, these alarming job-loss numbers have been cited repeatedly by anti-EPA interests – industry, policy-makers and others – despite the fact that they are based on faulty modeling assumptions that have been discredited repeatedly by leading economists and analysts. In a recent joint statement by James Bradbury (WRI) and John “Skip” Laitner (ACEEE), Dr. Thorning was called into question for filing with the Energy and Commerce Committee the same discredited arguments for which she had been criticized by Nathaniel Keohane² and Dallas Burtraw³ just months earlier at the U.S. Court of Appeals. Dr. Thorning and those who rely on her unsupported jobs numbers have still not explained the basis for their assumption that a business-as-usual policy scenario is always optimal and that any public policy – including energy efficiency policies – can only slow economic growth and yield net job losses (an assumption that the economic literature has repeatedly shown to be false)⁴. The vocal anti-EPA interests who rely on Dr. Thorning’s opinion have yet to provide any evidence that the EPA’s preconstruction permitting process – which has been in effect for the past four months – will lead to any net costs for U.S. manufacturers, nevermind job losses. Dr. Thorning has also failed to provide any supporting evidence for her claim that U.S. manufacturers have done all that they possibly can to increase their energy productivity and that public policy has no role to play in removing barriers or otherwise increasing private sector investments in industrial energy efficiency.

Read more at Statement to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on Economic Implications of EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations

 

Myth #3: EPA standards will hurt U.S. manufacturers.

The Facts: EPA regulations can help U.S. manufacturers make important upgrades.

EPA’s guidance can spur energy efficiency upgrades for manufacturing facilities in the United States. In addition to making them cleaner, these much needed efficiency improvements can result in significant cost savings for manufacturers. The manufacturers most exposed to risks from international competition and volatile fuel prices have the most to gain from efficiency. Studies have estimated that efficiency upgrades made with existing technologies could result in a 40 percent total energy savings for these companies.

Read more at EPA, The Clean Air Act, and U.S. Manufacturing

 

Myth #4: Current EPA regulations will affect small businesses and farms.

The Facts: Only the biggest emitters will be affected.

Contrary to industry complaints, the greenhouse gas regulations will only apply to the largest emitters in the United States, such as new and modified power plants and industrial facilities. “Mom-and-pop” stores, hospitals and other small businesses remain unaffected by the regulations. Furthermore, the EPA administrator has indicated that there are no plans to regulate these sources.

Read more at What Are Limits on EPA? Clean Air Act Holds Answers

 

Myth #5: EPA is imposing a “train wreck” of regulations that create deadlines that are difficult for industry to meet.

The Facts: The number of new regulations is small, and industry has known they were coming for years.

The electric power sector has had substantial notice–in some cases decades–that power plants would be subject to regulations to control dangerous pollutants. Half of the regulations under consideration by EPA have been in the regulatory pipeline for over a decade. Due to administrative delays and litigation resulting in court decisions remanding or vacating previous rules, many of these rules have not been finalized or the final rules were reversed. In many cases Congress has set statutory deadlines for EPA to act, EPA has missed the deadlines, and courts have ordered EPA to act.

A graphic circulating on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures claims a difficult regulatory timeline for industry. But upon closer examination, WRI found that many of the rules they claim refer to rules already in effect, remanded by courts, or don’t exist for other reasons.

Environmental Regulatory Requirements For the Utility Industry, Removing All But New Compliance Obligations

 

 

 

Read more at Response to EEI’s Timeline of Environmental Regularions for the Utility Industry

 

Myth #6: Reliability of the electric grid will be impacted by EPA standards.

The Facts: The electricity industry has the tools to ensure that the lights stay on.

While there may be power plant retirements as a result of EPA standards, industry, states and federal regulators have numerous tools to ensure that all regions of the grid have sufficient power plant and other capacity (such as demand-reduction capability, transmission reconfigurations) to ensure that reliability requirements are met. Undoubtedly, some work still needs to be done to make sure that appropriate parties – power plant owners, state and federal regulators, regional transmission organizations, demand-side service providers, investors, and others – take action expeditiously and make prudent decisions. Nevertheless, the actions necessitated by the proposed EPA regulations are manageable and will render the resulting fleet of power generators more efficient and with lower emissions.

Read more at Electric Reliability Under New EPA Power Plant Regulations: A Field Guide

 

Myth #7: EPA standards will be expensive.

The Facts: The benefits of EPA regulation have historically outweighed the costs.

The White House Office of Management and Budget recently reviewed federal clean air and water regulations from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2009 in its thirteenth annual Report to Congress. The report found that the estimated aggregate annual costs of these regulations range from $26 to $29 billion, while benefits range from $82 to $533 billion. Furthermore, researchers from University of Massachusetts Amherst found that compared to overall spending in the economy, on a per dollar basis, spending on environmental protection and clean-up employs more than twice as many workers in construction and 25 percent more in manufacturing.

Read more at For EPA Regulations, Cost Predictions Are Overstated

---

1. The Endangerment Finding is a scientific finding by the EPA Administrator that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. See: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for GHGs under Section 202(a), 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009). 
2. Keohane, Nathaniel. Declaration to United States Court Of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit, October 30, 2010. 
3. Burtraw, Dallas. Declaration to United States Court Of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit, October 25, 2010. 
4. See previous footnote (Burtraw). 

Now Available: Greenhouse Gas Measurement & Management Journal

Greenhouse Gas Measurement & Management brings together information on the application of methods and techniques to estimate, measure, account and audit greenhouse gases. It presents conceptual, methodological and empirical analyses of policy-relevant metrics related to the management of greenhouse gases, and their impacts for industry, government and international organisations, with an emphasis on applied research.

About the journal
The world is now beginning to recognize the fundamental role of Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) to the success of any action to address climate change and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause it. As the negotiations and legislative processes stutter, there is still an urgency to develop an infrastructure necessary to support real action. Further, despite an extensive literature on climate policy and technology, the literature on how best to manage GHG emissions is surprisingly limited.

In this present context, a new journal, published by Earthscan in cooperation with the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, has been launched to fill a gaping void. Greenhouse Gas Measurement & Management focuses on the infrastructure to support future GHG mitigation policies by providing a scholarly forum for both academic researchers and GHG professionals. It covers the application of the science, engineering, and economic principles of GHGs with the aim of improving the way society mitigates the anthropogenic causes of global climate change. This includes concentrating on developing and providing reliable performance metrics related to GHG emissions and removals and managing activities that reduce GHG emissions to and/or increase their removals from the atmosphere.

Contents for Greenhouse Gas Measurement & Management Issue 1.1

Letter
Welcome to Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management
Authors: Michael Gillenwater and Tinus Pulles

Editorial
Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management
Author: Tinus Pulles

Commentaries
Public Access to Comprehensive GHG Mitigation Information: The Example of Climate Relevant Investments
Author: Jochen Harnisch

Filling a gap in climate change education and scholarship
Author: Michael Gillenwater

Research Articles
The Global N2O Budget Revisited
Authors: Alfi Syakila and Carolien Kroeze

An Output-based Intensity Approach for Crediting Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture: Explanation and Policy Implications
Authors: Brian C. Murray and Justin S. Baker

NAMA crediting: How to assess offsets from and additionality of policy-based mitigation actions in developing countries
Authors: Yuri Okubo, Daisuke Hayashi and Axel Michaelowa

MRV under the UN Climate Regime – Paper Tiger or Catalyst for Continual Improvement?
Authors: Anne Arquit and Melinda Kimble

Urban GHG inventories, target setting and mitigation achievements: How German cities fail to outperform their country
Author: Maike Sippel

Stochastic income statement planning as a basis for risk assessment in the context of emissions trading
Authors: Henry Dannenberg and Wilfried Ehrenfeld

Book Review:
The Economics of the Yasuni` initiative. Climate Change as if thermodynamics mattered
Review by Marco Buttazzoni

U.N. talks up pressure on Australia’s climate target | Reuters Green Business

(Reuters) – Australia’s fragile government is under increasing pressure to deepen its target to cut carbon emissions after U.N. climate talks in Mexico ended with an agreement to step up the fight against global warming. - By James Grubel and David Fogarty

Failure to harden the target would anger the Greens, whose support is vital to Australia’s ruling Labor Party, but risks enraging the powerful mining sector and conservative opposition.

The Greens have piled on the pressure since the end of the talks in Cancun at the weekend, saying Labor’s target to cut emissions by 5 percent from 2000 levels by 2020 is far too weak.

“Mexico put the mojo back into the U.N. climate talks,” said John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute think tank. “What came out of Cancun made it quite clear that we’re talking about beyond 5 percent because we are talking about a world taking action.”

Australia is the world’s top coal exporter, generates more than 80 percent of its electricity from coal and its per-capita emissions are among the highest in the developed world.

The government has said putting a price on carbon is the only way to cut carbon emissions growth from the A$1.2 trillion economy. But it has struggled to win backing from powerful industry lobbies and the issue has proven politically poisonous.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pledged to speed up a decision on how to price carbon, either by a tax, emissions trading scheme or a combination, by next year and the Greens are demanding tougher action to match Europe’s 20 percent cut and Japan‘s pledged 25 percent reduction.

“The Cancun agreement keeps the global negotiations alive on the understanding that everybody needs to lift their sights to stronger action if we are to deliver a safe climate,” Greens deputy leader, Senator Christine Milne, said in a statement.

She called for Australia to deepen the cut to 25 to 40 percent by 2020. The government in the past pledged to cut by up 25 percent if other big emitters such as China and the United States signed up to a tough climate pact.

FIRST CUT NOT THE DEEPEST

The mining industry, however, said Australia’s reliance on resource exports exposed the country to higher costs than other developed countries when it comes to curbing emissions.

“Even a 5 percent cut for Australia costs us much more in lost gross domestic product than a bigger cut in Europe,” Minerals Council of Australia deputy chief executive Brendan Pearson told Reuters.

He said government modeling found a 5 percent cut would cut economic growth by more than 1 percent, and would be double the impact of a cut of up to 20 percent in Europe.

But analysts say the government faces pressure to act.

“We can no longer assume the government will simply be able to proceed on its own terms, especially if that is a minus-5 percent target,” said Martijn Wilder, global head of Baker & McKenzie’s climate change practice in Sydney.

“We should also not dismiss the fact that if the government wants to get its legislation through the parliament, it may be the case that the Greens and the independents insist on having a higher target of 10 or 15 percent,” he told Reuters.

From July 2011, the government will need support from the Greens to pass laws through the upper house Senate. The government also relies on support from three independents and a Green lawmaker in the lower house, who want action on climate change and are part of a multi-party panel on carbon pricing.

Tough action on pricing emissions and a tougher target would pit the government against big polluters, such as miners.

“The real test for the government is whether the presence of the Greens, independents and experts in the Multi Party Climate Committee will give them the strength to stand up to the rent-seekers and commit to good policy with the ambitious goal to transform Australia’s economy,” Milne said.

The Cancun talks put off a decision on the final shape of an agreement but put the troubled U.N. negotiations back on track with a package of modest agreements.

Under the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, Australia was among the few rich nations allowed to increase its emissions during a 2008-12 first phase.

Emissions are now about 8 percent above 1990 levels and the government, and industry groups, say even a 5 percent cut by 2020 will be tough.

“Australia’s 5 percent minimum target is a big ask for a growing, inherently emissions-intensive economy,” said Heather Ridout, chief executive of Australian Industry Group, which represents manufacturers.

“The 5 percent cut to 2000 levels equates to around 21 percent below the business-as-usual projection for 2020. That means our economy would have to reduce, avoid or offset more than one in every five emissions it would otherwise make.”

Reflections on the Cancun Agreements | World Resources Institute

An excellent summary of the outcome of the COP16/CMP6 in Cancun by the World Resources Institute: Reflections on the Cancun Agreements | World Resources Institute.

In the opinion of the WRI, the reasons for the successful outcome include:

• Pressure to deliver and proving the effectiveness of the UNFCCC process;
• Transparency by the Mexican presidency as basis for trust to underpin negotiations;
• A focus on operational details, the “how”, not just the “what”;
• Common ground, balanced package, requiring everyone to compromise;
• China and the United States being in a more cooperative mode;
• India tabling proposals which became central to the aggreement; and
• The Cartagena Dialogue as an example of improved North-South cooperation.

In this article you will also find an assessment of the Cancun Agreements.

A recommended reading!

Bulgaria Suspended From U.N. Kyoto Carbon Trade | Reuters

(Reuters) – Bulgaria has been suspended from United Nations carbon trading for violating greenhouse reporting rules set under the Kyoto Protocol, a key tool to fight climate change, the Bulgarian environment ministry said on Tuesday.

Read the full story here.

The informal information note by the Enforcement Branch of the Compliance Committee of the Kyoto Protocol can be found here, and its final decision here.

The consequences set out in paragraph 20 of the preliminary finding shall take effect forthwith, and the consequences set out in paragraph 20 (c) of the preliminary finding shall be applied taking into account the guidelines adopted under Articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Protocol.

Bulgaria now has to make up the difference between its emissions and its assigned amount, plus an additional deduction of 30%.  In addition, Bulgaria must submit a compliance action plan. Also, the eligibility of Bulgaria to make transfers under emissions trading has been suspended until the the Enforcement Branch reinstates the country.

Australia and Climate Change: The Future of Queensland’s Transport Sector

The transportation sector in Queensland is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, especially under a high emissions scenario with continual reliance on fossil-fuels (such as the IPCC A1FI scenario).

By Aziemah Haji Abdullah, Jose Tomas Videla Labayru, Matthew Herington, Siqi Huang

Three key issues need to be considered when planning for the future of Queensland’s transport sector – climate change and weather extremes, population movement and emerging legislation.

First, climate change and any increases in the number and/or severity of weather extremes such as cyclones and heat waves test the resilience of infrastructure systems. Weather extremes have the ability to significantly disrupt Queensland’s transport solutions, potentially closing off roads, rerouting transport activities, placing increased strain on other transport routes and affecting economic activities. A revision of the current transport system would be required to proactively adapt the system to climate change impacts and determine the steps and investments needed.

Second, trends are showing a movement of people so South East Queensland (SEQ) and Queensland’s coastal areas with projection of a 60% increase in the SEQ population by 2030. Assuming no adaptation, Queensland’s population increase is taking place in an area already highly vulnerable to climate change. An increase in population leads to more coastal development, exacerbating exposure of property and infrastructure to climate change impacts and the risk of extremes. A 60% increase in population compounds vulnerabilities. To mitigate impacts, Queensland will need to implement standards and codes which allow for increases in number and severity of weather extremes.

A third issue is the emergence of more stringent climate change legislation. It will have to be seen to what extent more stringent emission reduction policies will be introduced in the future, requiring Queensland’s transport sector to revise policy, implement more efficient operations, introduce innovative transport sector solutions, and create and implement pro-active planning measures and encourage community involvement. 

The key challenge for the sector will be to balance the need for rapid infrastructure development with long-term climate adaptation needs.

This research was undertaken as part of a future planning excercise in the postgraduate course TIMS7328 Strategies for Business Sustainability and Innovation at UQ Business School to examine the vulnerability of Queensland’s transportation sector to climate change.

Worst-Case Scenario

Comic by xkcd

BP’s Spillcam Shows Submersible Robots Working on Third Attempt to Stop Oil Spill

After BP’s attempt to plug its leak with a “top kill” operation failed on the weekend, engineers are now preparing for the deployment of the so-called lower marine riser package (LMRP) cap containment system.

The deployment of the LMRP cap containment system is already the third attempt to stop the oil leak since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion on April 20. The operation involves the removal of the broken riser pipe so engineers can then position a containment cap over the well’s opening.

The cap is designed to reduce the oil flow and is connected to a riser collecting the oil and gas and taking it to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship on the ocean surface.

BP’s so-called “Spillcam” has been streaming live footage of submersible robots working on the complex operation. Two previous attempts to stop the spill - a containment dome and the top kill operation – failed.

The difficulties of stopping the flow of oil and gas from the well have raised questions about the ability to control and manage accidents in unfamiliar locations and under unfamiliar circumstances. Similar to BP’s previous attempts to control the oil spill subsea, a deployment of a lower marine riser package (LMRP) cap containment system has never been tried before a mile beneath the ocean.

The underwater operations are made difficult by a number of conditions, including the high pressure and low temperature environment at the ocean floor, the force of the flow of the oil, and the challenge to rely on remotely operated vehicles. The likelihood of success of BP’s newest operations remains unclear at best.  The removal of parts of the broken structure will temporarily increase the flow of the leak. Furthermore, the operation will not close down the oil leak; it will only capture some of the oil and direct it to a ship waiting at the surface.

In the absence of better alternatives, BP’s is now drilling relief wells which most likely will not be completed before August.

Spillcam footage Viking 2 on June 3, 2010

BP’s Top Kill Operation Fails

BP announced on Saturday May 29 that its complicated “top kill” operation failed. According to BP’s website, the manoeuvre ”did not overcome the flow from the well“,  ending hopes for an end to the oil spill which is already in its 40th day.

BP will now move forward with the deployment of a so-called Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System. Similar to the “top kill” procudure, the operation has not been previously carried out at a depth of 5,000 feet. According to BP, the “successful deployment of the containment system cannot be assured“.

Success of BP’s Top Kill Effort Still Unclear; Active Hurricane Season Forecasted

With all eyes on the progress of BP’s top kill operation, it remains unclear whether BP’s top kill effort was successful in stopping the oil and gas leak from the deep-sea well. In the meantime,  concerns have emerged about the possibility of an above normal hurricane season and impacts on the Gulf of Mexico.

Although news releases by the LA Times and the Guardian suggested that progress had been made towards plugging the leak, there has been no official confirmation about the progress of the “top kill” operation until this point. BP’s website states that “‘[t]op kill’ operations continued over the night and are ongoing. There are no significant events to report at this time. BP will provide updates on progress as appropriate.”

However, there might be even more bad news for the region. After the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook on May 27, concerns emerged about the potential for even greater damage than that already caused by the spill. The Outlook calls for an 85% chance of an above normal season. While it is impossible to forecast where and when a hurricane will strike, the 2010 hurricane season could see a hurricane activity that is comparable to a number of extremely active seasons since 1995.

NOAA’s 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook states that

Historically, all above normal seasons have produced at least one named storm in the Gulf of Mexico, and 95% of those seasons have at least two named storms in the Gulf. Most of this activity (80%) occurs during August-October. However, 50% of above normal seasons have had at least one named storm in the region during June-July.

It remains unclear how an active hurricane season could affect the oil spill and clean-up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.