19 Jun

Angry Mob Will Wait to Hear Obama Out on New Climate Change Legislation

Posted by Kyle Hargus in EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, White House.

 

Photo by Robert Couse-Baker. Some rights reserved.

Photo by Robert Couse-Baker. Some rights reserved.

Way back in April of this year, we heard rumblings from a coalition made up of three leading environmental groups as well as New York and nine other green-friendly states, which intended to sue the EPA for the agency’s failure to meet an April 13th deadline to issue final regulations which would enforce stricter greenhouse gas emission limits for power plants (the biggest source of harmful GHGs in the country). The Proposed Rule was first released in March 2012, and would limit CO2 emissions from new power plants to 1,000 lbs per megawatt-hour. The April 13th deadline was set as the final version was supposed to be released within a year of receiving public comments a month after the draft rule was published. Obviously, that hasn’t happened yet.

In response to initial threats in April, the EPA said they were still hard at work on the rule and that, as EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson put it, “no timetable has been set. We continue to review the more than 2.7 million comments we have received.” Well, at least it’s good to know they take those public comments seriously!

However, after two months of bated breath, the group that rallied in April around suing the EPA announced this week that they would wait to take any official legal action until after Obama supposedly unveils new climate change regulations next month as a part of a “larger climate strategy.” Well that seems only fair! We’ve talked a bit already this week about the challenges Obama faces when trying to enact such legislation, but hey – at least the gears are still turning.

16 Jun

The EPA, Greenhouse Gases, the D.C. Circuit, and Political Warfare

Posted by Peter Lohnes in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, CO2, Environmental Activism, EPA, Global Warming, Power Plants.

Photo via D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Photo via D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

The Obama administration, increasingly frustrated by Congressional hostility to any efforts to contain greenhouse gases, has turned to the EPA as a tool for reining in carbon emissions. The agency is developing regulatory standards under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution on a number of fronts. It is coordinating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to promote new technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles by 3,100 million metric tons by the year 2025.  It is implementing rules requiring minimum amount of renewables in transportation fuel, setting national limits on carbon emissions by power plants, and implementing rules which are expected to bring about a 95% reduction of  volatile organic compound emissions from fracking gas wells. Where Congress has refused to act, the Agency has embarked on an aggressive and far-reaching effort to fill the void.

But the agency’s efforts to curb America’s copious carbon discharge may encounter a fatal snag in an unexpected place: the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It is this court, arguably the second most important in the country, which reviews decisions and rule-making by many federal agencies,including the EPA, and has jurisdiction over regulations enacted under the Clean Air Act, the very act upon which the EPA is basing its regulations. The D.C. Circuit Court has a conservative reputation and environmentalists have been growing increasing concerned about the likelihood of it de-clawing the EPA’s efforts. As Steven Pearlstein has written in the Washington Post, the D.C. Circuit represents a “ new breed of activist judges …waging a determined and largely successful war on federal regulatory agencies.”

Without question, the court is well positioned to block the administration’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions via agency action. The administration, however, is determined to counter-balance the political composition of the court. The court currently has three empty spots on the bench.  The administration has put forth candidates to fill the vacant seats, a move which has some Republican politicians reaching for Orwellian political analogies. Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles E. Grassley accused Obama of “court-packing”, as though simply filling long-vacant seats on the court were the equivalent of President Roosevelt’s efforts to expand the size of the Supreme Court, a plan that would have resulted in a total of six new justices at the time. The senators know perfectly well that the D.C. court, like many others across the nation, is under staffed – it’s just in their interests to keep it that way. A dysfunctional, chronically short-staffed, and conservative court is exactly what is called for to keep the EPA’s hands off the climate control switch. The New York Times has called Republican intransigence on filling the court’s vacancies “something not far from a crisis in our constitutional system.”

Readers of this blog are well aware of the necessity of tackling global climate change. Faced with a stone wall of willful denialism and industry resistance, the administration had little choice but to turn to the EPA. The political battle over greenhouse gas emissions has now shifted inexorably to the courts: The Republican’s bone-deep hostility to regulation has assured it. Filling the D.C. court’s empty seats is likely to provoke more than a skirmish. It could turn into a major battle in the country’s – and the globe’s – efforts to keep from cooking itself to death.

14 Jun

This Week in Online Environmental Impact Statements: Feather River and Thunder Bay

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Environmental Impact Statements.

While Federal agencies are required to prepare Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1502, and to file the EISs with the EPA as specified in 40 CFR 1506.9, the EPA doesn’t yet provide a central repository for filing and viewing EISs electronically. Instead, each week they prepare a digest of the preceding week’s filed EISs, which is published every Friday in the Federal Register under the title, “Notice of Availability” (NOA). However, starting October 1, 2012 all EIS submissions must be made through e-NEPA. An EPA source says that as EISs begin to come in electronically, they will appear alongside EPA comments here.

In the meantime, we’ve done the dirty work for you. Below, we’ve located and linked to the EISs referenced in last week’s NOA. Please note that some of these documents can be very large, and may take a while to load.

You can read any available EPA comments on these EISs here.

* * *

EIS No. 20130160, Final EIS, USFS, OR, McKay Fuels and Vegetation Management Project, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Marcy Anderson 541-416-6463. Website.

EIS No. 20130161, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, East Reservoir Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Denise Beck 406-293-7773, ext. 7504. Website.

EIS No. 20130162, Final EIS, BLM, NM, SunZia Southwest Transmission Project, Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Adrian Garcia 505-954-2199. Website.

EIS No. 20130163, Draft EIS, FERC, AL, Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project, Relicensing, Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2013, Contact: Stephen Bowler 202-502-6861. Website.

EIS No. 20130164, Revised Draft EIS, USAF, FL, F-35 Beddown at Eglin Air Force Base, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Mike Spaits 850-882-2836. (Check back here for updates.)

EIS No. 20130165, Draft EIS, BLM, SD, South Dakota Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/11/2013, Contact: Mitch Iverson 605-892-7008. Website.

EIS No. 20130166, Final EIS, USFWS, NiSource Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Thomas J. Magnuson 612-713-5467. Website.

EIS No. 20130167, Draft EIS, NOAA, MI, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Boundary Expansion, Comment Period Ends: 08/14/2013, Contact: Jeff Gray 989-356-8805. Website.

EIS No. 20130168, Final EIS, USACE, CA, Feather River West Levee Project Final 408 Permission, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Jeffery Koschak 916-557-6994. Website.

EIS No. 20130169, Final Supplement, NRC, TN, Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Elaine Keegan 301-415-8517. Website.

EIS No. 20130170, Draft Supplement (Appendices), USACE, CA, Sutter Basin Pilot Draft Feasibility Study, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact:  Brad Johnson 916-557-7812. Website.

 

AMENDED NOTICES

EIS No. 20130159, Final Supplement, USACE, IN, Indianapolis North Flood Damage Reduction Project, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Keith Keeney 502-315-6885. Revision to FR Notice Published 06/07/2013; Change Agency Contact and Phone Number to Keith Keeney (502) 315-6885. Website.

12 Jun

Just One More Reason The Lorax Was Right

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Forestry, Uncategorized, US Forest service.

Between a healthy logging industry and the rise of extremely unhealthy tree-killing insects, it can be hard out there for an American tree. We know generally as a society that we have to keep around at least some of those majestic pillars because, you know, we need to breathe, but it often seems that we as American entrepreneurs don’t always have their best interests at heart.

The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, however, has just published a study that may convince some dendrophobes to reconsider their position: according to U.S. Forest Service researcher Geoffrey Donovan, fewer trees has a direct correlation (meaning non-oxygen related) with more human death.

The research time investigated 1,296 counties where a particularly nasty tree-killing beetle called the ash borer have been found. Comparing data from 1990 (before the ash borer invasion) to 2007, its clear than a higher number of tree fatalities leads to “cardiovacular and lower respiratory-tract illness” in humans, citing 6,113 deaths in those 27 years related to the latter illness and 15,080 related to the former.

The direct correlation here is difficult to parse, but the data is clear, and speaks loudly (if also in cliches): Save our trees!

Donovan did an hour long interview with PBS News Hour on the issue if you’d like to find out more.

Photo by Nickpdx. Some rights reserved.

Photo by Nickpdx. Some rights reserved.

 

9 Jun

Seventh Circuit Blows Good News to Renewable Energy Infrastructure

Posted by Peter Lohnes in Smart Grid.

 

via Wikimedia Commons

via Wikimedia Commons

While wind power is providing an increasing amount of electricity across the country, it continues to face a number of structural challenges. First, of course, is the difficulty of dealing with the unpredictable nature of wind generation: when the wind stops blowing the power stops flowing. But new storage mechanisms, like flywheel batteries, are being developed to cope with the vagaries of intermittent wind.

Another hurdle that wind power needs to clear is the sheer distance between where much of it can be produced and where it needs to be consumed. Chicago may be the windy city, but most cities have neither the steady winds nor the space for successful wind generation infrastructure. Enter the Federal Stimulus Bill with its funds for the expansion of high-capacity grid to bring power from remote and windy hinterlands to power-hungry municipalities. Electricity may flow freely over those lines, but nothing related to national energy policy flows smoothly in state houses, Congress, or the Courts. State regulators have been feuding with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the siting authority for new power lines.

Now the Seventh Circuit has stepped into the fray, affirming FERC’s approval of two regional transmission organizations‘ plan to impose tariffs for the construction of high-voltage power lines, mainly to facilitate transmission from remote wind farms in the Great Plains to urban areas where electric demand is greatest. The plan imposed the greatest costs on urban areas where energy demand is greatest. Michigan and Illinois appealed FERC’s approval, essentially arguing that the costs of the project were disproportionate and challenging the propriety of apportioning the cost of the multi-value projects among utilities on the basis of their total power consumption.

The Court affirmed the Commission’s approval, noting the dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not. Comparing the patchwork of state-regulated energy transmission regimes to the hundreds of independent states composing early 19th century Germany before it was unified into a cohesive nation, the Court emphasized the vital role FERC has played in eliminating local energy transmission monopolies and streamlining the long-distance transmission of electricity while enhancing its reliability.  Writing for the Court, Judge Posner noted that the use of wind power in lieu of power generated by burning fossil fuels reduces both the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and emissions of carbon dioxide, and that its cost keeps falling as technology improves. “No one can know how fast wind power will grow. But the best guess is that it will grow fast and confer substantial benefits on the region served by [the transmission organizations] by replacing more expensive local wind power, and power plants that burn oil or coal, with western wind power.”

The Court’s recognition of the importance of wind power (and the smart grid necessary to deliver it to market) puts a strong wind to the renewable market’s back.

7 Jun

This Week in Online Environmental Impact Statements: Mukilteo Multimodal

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Environmental Impact Statements.

While Federal agencies are required to prepare Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1502, and to file the EISs with the EPA as specified in 40 CFR 1506.9, the EPA doesn’t yet provide a central repository for filing and viewing EISs electronically. Instead, each week they prepare a digest of the preceding week’s filed EISs, which is published every Friday in the Federal Register under the title, “Notice of Availability” (NOA). However, starting October 1, 2012 all EIS submissions must be made through e-NEPA. An EPA source says that as EISs begin to come in electronically, they will appear alongside EPA comments here.

In the meantime, we’ve done the dirty work for you. Below, we’ve located and linked to the EISs referenced in last week’s NOA. Please note that some of these documents can be very large, and may take a while to load.

You can read any available EPA comments on these EISs here.

* * *

EIS No. 20130149, Final EIS, FRA, IA, Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Tier 1, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Andrea Martin 202–493–6201. Website.

EIS No. 20130150, Final Supplement, FTA, MN, Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, Construction-Related Potential Impacts on Business Revenues, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Maya Sarna (202) 366–5811. Website.

EIS No. 20130151, Final EIS, BR, CA, Klamath Facilities Removal, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Elizabeth Vasquez 916–978–5040. Website.

EIS No. 20130152, Final EIS (Not yet available online – check back here for updates.), USACE, CA, Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SPK–2006–01050), Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Kathy Norton 916–557–5260. Website.

EIS No. 20130153, Draft EIS, FTA, CA, Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/30/2013, Contact: Mary Nguyen 213–202–3960. Website.

EIS No. 20130154, Final EIS, FTA, WA, Mukilteo Multimodal Project, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Daniel G. Drais 206–220–7954. Website.

EIS No. 20130155, Draft EIS, USFS, ID, Beaver Creek Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/23/2013, Contact: Lauren Goschke 208–769–3046. Website.

EIS No. 20130156, Draft EIS, BR, NV, Newlands Project Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Bob Edwards 775–882–7592. Website.

EIS No. 20130157, Draft Supplement (Appendices), FTA, HI, Honolulu Rail Transit Project (formerly the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project), Comment Period Ends: 07/22/2013, Contact: Mary Nguyen 213–202–3960. Website.

EIS No. 20130158, Final EIS (Not yet available online – check back here for updates.), NPS, TX, Guadalupe Mountains National Park General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Dennis A. Vasquez 915–828–3151. Website.

EIS No. 20130159, Final Supplement, USACE, IN, Indianapolis North Flood Damage Reduction Project, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: Bonnie Jennings 502–315–6871. Website.

 

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130148, Draft Supplement, USACE, FL, Jacksonville Harbor Navigation, Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Paul Stodola 904–232–3271. Revision to FR Notice Published 5/31/13; Change Agency Contact Name and Phone Number to Paul Stodola 904–232–3271. Website.

5 Jun

Bristol Bay Mine Proposal: A Slurry of Mixed Reactions

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Alaska, EPA, Mining.

Photo by Aconcagua. Some rights reserved.

Photo by Aconcagua. Some rights reserved.

What’s in Alaska? Raymond Carver asked that question in his 1972 short story of the same name, and it sometimes feels like we still ask ourselves that very question down here in the lower 48 when pondering just what exactly is up there. Lots of bears, snow, Sarah Palin, fishing, logging, the Iditarod, rugged individualism, and more bears, right? Well okay, but add to that list a huge, hypothetical goldmine in southeastern Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

Yes, though it’s still only in the planning stage, a buried deposit of planned gold, copper and molybdenum near the headwaters of the Kvichak and Nushagak rivers is already turning heads in Washington. You see, the mine has the potential to (according to the Washington Post) “bring in 80 billion pounds of copper, 107 million ounces of gold, and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum,” but it would also cause the loss of “54 and 89 miles of streams and between four and seven square miles of wetlands” according to an EPA draft assessment from April of this year, and could in addition damage the habitats of the flourishing local salmon population, where nearly half of the world’s current sockeye salmon reside.

Advocates for building the mine (namely, the mining firms behind the project – Northern Dynasty and Anglo American) have been lobbying in Congress for the past decade trying to sway lawmakers over to their side, while many of the nearby Alaskan native tribes have teamed with local fishing companies and environmental groups to oppose the mine. With both sides investing significant amounts of money in lobbying (though between tribal leaders and mining moguls, you can probably guess who has more money to spend), the fight looks like it will end up being a close one (speculators are already eyeing Democratic Alaskan senator Mark Begich, who’s up for re-election in 2014, as a key voice in the matter), with volleys continuing from both sides – opponents have a poll that says 58% of Alaskans oppose the mine, advocates have an economic analysis that claims the mine would create 2,500 construction jobs.

The EPA hopes to finalize their assessment of the project this year, and it sounds like our President will eventually have some say in the matter (especially in the wake of his upcoming decision on Keystone XL, his opposition of the mine could be a strong move in winning over skeptical environmentalists who think he has perhaps gone soft on green issues).

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers

%d bloggers like this: