Citing Threat Of Global Warming, Georgia Judge Blocks Coal Plant 1
From the Wonk Room.
In a landmark victory in the battle to regulate global warming pollution, a Georgia judge ruled that a proposed coal-fired plant could not be built unless its carbon dioxide emissions are limited, effectively killing the project. The ruling is the first to apply the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts vs. EPA decision to the question of greenhouse gas pollution from power plants. According to GreenLaw, the Georgia environmental organization who filed suit with the Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club in June 2007, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Moore’s decision “goes a long way toward protecting the right of Georgians to breathe clean air.”
The decision overturns an administrative court’s ruling that affirmed the state Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy’s Longleaf plant. In practical terms, Dynegy cannot begin construction of the plant unless it can obtain a valid permit from EPD that complies with the Court’s ruling. The Judge held that EPD must limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the plant, a decision that will have far-reaching implications nationwide; this is the first time since the April 2, 2007, Supreme Court decision requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 that a court has applied that standard to CO2 from an industrial source rather than from motor vehicles.
The $2 billion, 1200 megawatt plant – the first proposed in Georgia in over 20 years – was to be built by Dynegy Inc., the Houston-based energy company with several other proposed coal-fired power plants across the country. Dynegy and other fossil fuel polluters have been scrambling to get new plants started in anticipation of future limits on greenhouse gases, before investors and ratepayers recognize the risk.
Last October, the Kansas Department of Health denied air quality permits to a proposed coal plant expansion because of the danger greenhouse gas emissions pose to the climate. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) vetoed repeated attempts by the legislature to override the decision.
In contrast, officials recently appointed by Gov. Timothy Kaine (D-VA) to the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board unanimously granted air quality permits to Dominion Resources for a $1.8 billion coal-fired plant last week.
The court decision unequivocally rules that carbon dioxide must be regulated:Faced with the ruling in Massachusetts that CO2 is an “air pollutant” under the Act, Respondents are forced to argue that CO2 is still not a “pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.” Respondents’ position is untenable. Putting aside the argument that any substance that falls within the statutory definition of “air pollutant” may be “subject to” regulation under the Act, there is no question that CO2 is “subject to regulation under the Act.”
Appeals Court Rejects Petition to Order EPA to Make Global Warming Endangerment Finding
The U.S. District Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected a petition requesting it require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its long-delayed finding as to whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. The petition had been filed by officials of 18 states exactly a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ordered the EPA to issue an endangerment finding.
Since that time, Congressional and journalistic investigations have discovered that Administrator Stephen Johnson, with assistant deputy administrator Jason K. Burnett, worked to obey the Supreme Court decision and completed its work for submission to the White House on December 5, 2007. But the White House refused to accept the work, literally keeping Burnett’s email unopened and ordering him to retract the message. He refused to do so, and has since resigned.
The White House overrode the EPA decision to make the endangerment finding, to grant California a waiver to issue its own greenhouse tailpipe emissions regulations, and to recommend federal standards. Instead, Johnson denied California’s waiver and is expected to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sometime soon with draft emissions standards (he has missed his self-imposed deadline of the end of spring).
Sir Nicholas Stern Warns Congress To Act; Dingell: "How Many People Will Lose Homes And Farms To Flooding?"
In yesterday’s House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on the costs of climate change inaction, economist Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the famous Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned the United States Congress that the challenge of reining in greenhouse emissions is critical and doable. Stern advised that there is “a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100.”
Energy Committee chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) noted that global warming will bring more floods like those that have devastated Iowa and other Midwestern states:I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury. Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.
In contrast, Republican lawmakers emphasized energy costs and the problem of China and India, arguing against federal mandates to limit emissions.
Stern also met with a group of senators, and later spoke at the Center for Global Development, saying:I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States. At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.
From E&E News:
An appearance by a prominent British economist yesterday once again split the House Energy and Commerce Committee along partisan lines, as lawmakers battled over the potential economic and political consequences of taking action to address global climate change.The Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee heard from Lord Nicholas Stern—a former World Bank chief economist whose recent projections about the costs of addressing climate change has sparked a wave of headlines and debate.
Stern yesterday also met with senators involved with the cap-and-trade legislation from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States,” Stern said at a speech at the Center for Global Development yesterday. “At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.”
At the House hearing, Stern repeated his call for world economies to spend 1 percent to 2 percent of their gross domestic product to stop greenhouse gases from rising to dangerous levels. Though Stern openly admitted that addressing climate change could have a significant economic impact, he repeatedly emphasized that taking no action would eventually lead to much higher costs.
In particular, Stern said that scientific analysis showed that without some kind of action there was a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100 – a change that would lead to massive changes in human living conditions and major economic costs.
“It radically redraws where species, including humans, are able to live,” Stern said of the potential temperature change. “Changes of this kind can mean very big movements in population.”
Stern projected that the associated costs of inaction could lead to somewhere between 5 percent and 20 percent loss in GDP but said the possibility of such a significant temperature change could be cut substantially by stabilizing C02 emissions.
That message was seemingly embraced yesterday by prominent Democrats, who saw such warnings as a signal that the federal government and private sector must act fairly quickly on efforts to stem the effects of climate change.
“I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury,” said Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.). “Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.”
Dingell also argued that no projection can estimate the price costs of addressing – or not addressing – climate change, but argued that Congress can still take action to substantially reduce the potential associated risks.
“Scientists cannot tell us precisely what will happen at different greenhouse gas levels, such as how many more people will lose homes and farms to flooding,” Dingell said. “Instead, we need to understand that the best they can do is tell us what the risks are – the probabilities that certain physical changes will occur and the costs we will incur to address those changes.”
Several top Republicans, meanwhile, acknowledged that there could be potential economic impacts stemming from global warming but also argued that poorly designed efforts to deal with the issue could have even more severe economic consequences.
“Energy costs have already reached alarming levels – we’re all paying the costs,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. “We can pursue options that won’t make matters worse.”
Upton again urged lawmakers to act on climate change legislation that would avoid federal mandates but instead invest in a slew of incentives for clean coal, nuclear and renewable energy.
Additionally, Republicans questioned some of the conclusions of the Stern analysis, saying that the analysis underestimated the potential cost of mitigation strategies.
China and India question
One issue that surfaced several times is the oft-debated question of whether U.S. action on climate change would prompt other world powers – particularly China and India – toward taking action.
Stern admitted that there continues to be some hostility in those nations toward the idea they should take actions that could potentially slow economic development, though he added that they are somewhat more open to international cooperation in part because they are starting to recognize the potential consequences to their own nations.
“That resentment is still there – it’s a political reality that we all have to recognize,” Stern said. But he added, “They realize that you can’t take action for a world of 9 billion just through the action of the 1 billion in the rich world.
“They recognize very quickly just how vulnerable they are,” he said.
Lauren Morello contributed to this story.
NOAA: Global Warming Has Damaged Our Weather
Originally posted at the Wonk Room.
The traditional media rarely discusses extreme weather events in the context of global warming. However, as the Wonk Room Global Boiling series has documented, scientists have been warning us for years that climate change will increase catastrophic weather events like the California wildfires, the East Coast heatwave, and the Midwest floods that have been taking lives and causing billions in damage in recent days.
Today, the federal government has released a report that assembles this knowledge in stark and unequivocal terms. “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate,” by the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change Science Program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the lead, warns that changes in extreme weather are “among the most serious challenges to society” in dealing with global warming. After reporting that heat waves, severe rainfall, and intense hurricanes have been on the rise – all linked to manmade global warming – the authors deliver this warning about the future:
In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.Unfortunately, some of the cautions in this long-delayed report have come too late for the victims of the Midwest Flood:
Some short-term actions taken to lessen the risk from extreme events can lead to increases in vulnerability to even larger extremes. For example, moderate flood control measures on a river can stimulate development in a now “safe” floodplain, only to see those new structures damaged when a very large flood occurs.
Renewable Energy Payments in the US: Prospects and Perspectives
The Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute cordially invite you to a discussion featuring
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
and
- Wilson Rickerson, Rickerson Energy Strategies
- Janet Sawin, Worldwatch Institute
- Dr. Anthony White, Climate Change Capital
A light lunch will be served.
Please join us for a lunch briefing that explores the potential for renewable energy payment legislation within the US electricity sector. Renewable energy payments (also known as feed-in tariffs in Europe and elsewhere) guarantee smaller renewable energy technologies a connection to the electricity grid, and provide a premium rate to these investors designed to generate a reasonable profit over a long term. Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) will begin the event by introducing his forthcoming bill (The Renewable Energy Jobs and Security Act), which incorporates the renewable energy payment for these industries that enter the US electricity market. The event will give an overview about first experiences with such legislation on the US state level. Also, the briefing will review the experiences of Europe, particularly in Germany, where renewable energy payment legislation has created rapid growth in the renewable energy industries since 1990, causing the nation to become the world’s largest market for photovoltaic systems and wind energy. By the end of 2007, 46 countries and federal states, including 18 of the 27 EU member-states, had introduced renewable energy payment legislation as a major incentive to deploy renewable energy.
Seating is limited. Please RSVP to Amy Sauer at [email protected]
HBF and EESI are 501©(3) public policy institutes that neither employ nor retain any registered lobbyists.
Renewable Energy and Transmission: Opportunities and Barriers
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to a briefing on the opportunities and barriers facing renewable energy development in the United States with regard to the electric transmission infrastructure. Like any infrastructure, the transmission grid is aging and needs upgrading to meet future load requirements. While the country has very large low and no-carbon energy resources, including a broad variety of renewable energy resources (solar, geothermal, wind, biomass and water power), the existing transmission grid was not designed to tap into all of these resources. The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) recently said, “A critical barrier to continued expansion of renewable energy in the region has been the lack of transmission lines to areas with the greatest potential.”
There is a significant backlog of renewable energy projects waiting to sign the interconnection agreements necessary to bring power to market. According to the Independent, thousands of wind turbines in the United States are sitting idle or failing to meet their full generating capacity because of a shortage of power lines able to transmit their electricity to the rest of the grid. A proposal for $6.4 billion of new power lines linking new wind farms with Texas’ public electricity grid, whose cost will be borne mainly by consumers, is proving politically controversial. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) recently said, “There are large backlogs of interconnection requests around the country. . . .The result is that many good projects are unreasonably delayed, harming wind development nationally and harming many states’ ability to meet renewable energy goals.” Additional transmission concerns include cost allocation for new transmission, integration of intermittent resources and energy storage technologies, high upfront capital costs, integrated regional planning, the role of energy efficiency, conservation, demand response programs and distributed generation, and whether DOE transmission studies conducted under EPACT 05 are being done in a manner that takes into account the opportunities for renewable energy. Our speakers include:
- Jon Wellinghoff, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- Robert Gramlich, Policy Director, American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
- Raymond Wuslich, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to complete a study of the nation’s electric transmission congestion every three years. On May 28, DOE announced that it will work with the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) to identify areas in the West with substantial renewable energy resources and to expedite the development and delivery of that energy to meet regional energy needs. On September 20, 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Act (S. 2076) which would provide additional financing options for building new transmission lines and interconnections to areas rich with renewable energy resources. By designating renewable energy zones, where natural clean resources could generate at least 1,000 megawatts of power, the bill would establish a framework for developing new renewable energy-dedicated transmission. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is expected to hold a hearing on renewable energy and transmission in the near future.
This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. Please forward this notice. For more information, contact Fred Beck at [email protected] or 202-662-1892.
Retail Gas Prices, Part 2: Competition in the Oil Industry
- Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
Tensions are expected to be high Thursday, with Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary general of OPEC, invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.The secretary general’s appearance will likely come after the House approves “NOPEC” legislation, a largely symbolic effort to sue OPEC nations for price fixing.
Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and other members will likely question El-Badri over OPEC’s considerable role in the global oil market as well as President Bush’s recent meeting with Saudi leaders to urge them to release additional oil onto the global market.
Several energy analysts, however, say U.S. lawmakers hold little sway with OPEC officials and that calls for OPEC members to increase production is hypocritical given the opposition to increases in domestic drilling.
“We’re not willing to produce more so we are a bad example in terms of resource nationalism,” Lucian Pugliaresi, president of Energy Policy Research Information, told a House panel this month.
Beutel made a similar observation Friday. “We don’t really have the moral high ground when it comes to calling for increased production,” he said.
Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security?
- David Sandalow, Esq., Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
- Anne Korin, Co-director, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
- Mr. Paul J. Saunders, Executive Director, The Nixon Center
Oversight of the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy
As oil and gas hit new records above $128 a barrel and $3.78 this week, many analysts are predicting even further increases in the price of gasoline as we edge towards the travel months of summer. To explore the Bush administration’s contributions to this energy crisis and the administration’s refusal to respond, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming announced today that Secretary of Energy Stephen Bodman will testify before the Committee on Thursday, May 22, as Americans prepare for the Memorial Day weekend, the beginning of the summer driving season.
Chairman Markey will also seek answers from Secretary Bodman on why the Bush administration continues to defend $18 billion in tax breaks to the top five most profitable oil companies that House Democrats want to redirect to fund renewable energy that could help consumers.
Witness- Samuel Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
The Skyrocketing Price of Oil
- Robert A. Malone, Chairman and President, BP America Inc.
- John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company
- Peter J. Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation
- John E. Lowe, Executive Vice President, ConocoPhillips Company
- J. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation