Today's hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- the first of three days of hearings on the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill -- didn't contain any big surprises. As Keith Johnson notes, Senators generally played their appointed roles.

There are four stories out of today that seem notable.

1. Republicans are completely out of the game.

This has been true ever since Obama was elected, of course, but today's hearing threw it in sharp relief. They're just not involved in the conversation. On the far end you have Inhofe, still shouting at clouds about the science. But Barrasso, Bond, and the rest simply repeat, robotically, absurd claims about the economics of emission reduction that have been utterly debunked -- by the EPA, by the CBO, by the EIA, and by the witnesses at today's hearing. With a few exceptions, every time it was a Republican's turn to talk, it was as if the whole hearing ground to a halt, taking a break to watch a sideshow before the adults resumed their business.

Lacking anything of substance, Republicans are resorting to procedural ratf*cks, as usual. They want the EPA to take five weeks to do a full analysis of Kerry-Boxer, even though the agency, like everyone else, knows that the economics are roughly the same as for Waxman-Markey. They're threatening to boycott the markup to prevent quorum unless the EPA accepts their absurd demands. They all left today before the four cabinet secretaries were done testifying, just to be, you know, deliberately rude. Expect these adolescent tantrums to ramp up over coming months.

Conservative Democrats (and a few Rs like Voinovich) are at least grappling with the substance of the bill. But Republicans on the committee, for the most part, are engaged in increasingly irrelevant theater.

2. Baucus is a problem.

Here's what Baucus had to say at the hearing today:

I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill before us today, and whether it will lead us closer to or further away from passing climate change legislation. For example, I have serious reservations with the depth of the mid-term reduction target in the bill and the lack of preemption of the Clean Air Act's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 target of 20% reductions from 2005 levels is, as Sen. Merkley (D-Ore) pointed out later, easily achievable. It could be hit with efficiency alone, at a profit. It could be hit with natural gas switching alone. We'll get a quarter of the way there just via the recession! With the suite of tools available, it will be a cakewalk. The only way you could look at that target and find it impossible is if you think carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the only technology capable of producing reductions. That certainly won't be ready by 2020! But that's an absurd perspective, one shared mainly by Republicans like Voinovich and ... Max Baucus.

Baucus phrases his reservations in the language of concern trolling -- he's just worried about getting the votes, you know. But even if bending on those two items will ultimately be necessary, why on earth would you broadcast your willingness to do so before negotiations even begin? Can we look forward to another months-long, futile quest for bipartisan support from Baucus? Is he going to weaken and slow-walk this bill like he did with health care reform?

See Elana Schor and Greenwire for more on this.

As to the EPA thing:

3. EPA authority emerges as central battle.

Many progressive groups like MoveOn are drawing their red line here: EPA authority under the Clean Air Act must be preserved in the bill. (It is in Kerry-Boxer; it wasn't in Waxman-Markey.). But several Senators, including Baucus and Specter, openly discussed it as something that will have to be given up to gain enough votes for passage.

It also has its champions in the Senate, including Gillibrand and Whitehouse. Speaking of which, check out Whitehouse's righteous pro-CAA, anti-coal remarks (taken from this great post by Ben Wessel):

Expect this to become an increasingly heated fight. It was certainly good to see Lisa Jackson point out that even with legislation there are still "common sense" ways to use the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions.

4. The administration steps up

Alongside the hearing today, where four cabinet secretaries testified, the Obama administration is ramping up its general involvement on this issue. Today saw the announcement of $3.4 billion in funding for smart grid initiatives; Biden announced the reopening of a shuttered GM plant to make hybrids; Obama spoke at a new solar plant in Florida, hyping clean energy and federal legislation; and a New York Times headline blared: Administration Steps Up Efforts on Climate Bill.

Everyone has been saying for months that the fight will succeed or fail based on Obama's investment. It looks like the White House is responding.

Altogether, it is a good day for the forces of climate sanity. The jobs and economics messages were front and center, and wavering conservative Dems were grappling with the legislation in a way that showed they're taking the possibility of passage seriously.

The hearings tomorrow and the next day will last allll day and get into some serious weeds. Watch Grist's Kerry-Boxer page for updates.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Paul Krugman had a post the other day on the "aura of inevitability" and how it finally seems to be working for progressives instead of against them. I think he's on to something.

Summer was brutal for greens. "Cap and tax" attacks were bouncing around the Foxosphere. House Dems were getting killed back home for voting yes on Waxman-Markey. Conventional wisdom said that Pelosi had blundered by forcing them into an unpopular vote for a bill that could never pass the Senate, where health care reform was imperiled and clean energy legislation a forlorn dream.

Since then, however, greens have had one good break after another. And this isn't like 2006, when Al Gore's movie came out and for a while every magazine published a green issue. Those were pop culture events. These latest dramas have taken place inside the hothouse of the Beltway political world, where legislators and political operators take notice.

Good enemies

Start with the dirty energy Keystone Kops, shooting themselves in the foot.

First there was Big Coal's PR arm, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, formerly seen as a lobbying juggernaut that succeeded in putting all of DC in its thrall. Then came the astroturf fraud in August, as Bonner & Assoc. -- working for the coal industry -- got busted sending fake letters from civil rights and women's groups to legislators. ACCCE dropped Bonner like a hot potato, and Bonner blamed ... a temp. Rachel Maddow ripped them a new one. (This story isn't gone, either; a House hearing at which Bonner will testify was recently postponed and will happen later this month. Expect more embarrassing headlines). To boot, ACCCE saw high-profile defections from Duke Energy and Alcoa.

Then there was Faces of Coal, a new astroturf group whose faces turned out to be ... iStockphoto clip art. That one got ripped by Maddow and Stewart.

Then there's the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has bumbled its way into ignominy in record time. First companies began leaving it over its intransigence on clean energy legislation. Then it demanded a "21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial on the science of climate change." Then more companies left. Chamber chief Tom Donahue, oblivious to the changing political winds, bumbled around, at first defiant, then incoherent, then confused, then defensive. Then it emerged that the CoC's membership numbers were wildly inflated -- not 3 million business, but more like 200,000. Then the Yes Men came along and ganked them so successfully with a fake press release and press conference that Reuters got punked, making national headlines and completely eclipsing the launch of the Chamber's goofy PR campaign. Maddow ripped that one too. Then the White House joined in and started pummeling the Chamber, which has spent almost $35 million just in the third quarter of this year lobbying against Obama's initiatives. The Chamber is now in complete disarray, having become, almost overnight, a national symbol of yesterday's news: old, out of touch ideologues in hock to old, out of touch industries.

And finally there are the authors of Superfreakonomics, whose best-seller muddling the science of climate change and advocating for hail-mary policies like geoengineering seems mainly to have served to rouse the progressive intelligentsia to climate science's defense, and to a greater awareness and engagement on the climate issue. I haven't seen this many posts about climate change and climate policy in the progressive mediasphere in ... ever.

Good friends

Meanwhile, there are more and more Faces of Clean Energy, and they ain't clip art.

A huge group of businesses lobbied for legislation on the hill recently. A coalition of religious groups called Day Six is now lobbying for legislation. Operation Free, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is on a Vets for American Power bus tour -- "mission: secure American with clean energy" -- lobbying for legislation. (For supporting "cap and tax type policies," Penn. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe [R, needless to say] called these vets "traitors" and "Benedict Arnolds." Again: you really couldn't ask for enemies this clueless.) A group of 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations just sent a letter [PDF] to the Senate reaffirming, in blunt terms, the scientific consensus on the nature and urgency of climate change.

This Saturday will mark Climate Action Day, with hundreds of events across the nation and the world. A string of recent polls has shown that Americans of all political stripes, including those in conservative Dem districts and especially young Americans [PDF], want clean energy, support Obama on the issue, and want legislation from this Congress. They aren't falling for the "cap and tax" hysteria.

Remember the Senate clean energy bill that could never pass because it couldn't get bipartisan support? It has bipartisan support now, and Lindsey Graham coming aboard has pushed Murkowski, Byrd, and Voinovich into the maybe column. The road to 60 votes, while far from easy, is clearly visible now.

And that's before the administration has fully engaged. Obama will give a speech at MIT on Friday supporting the legislation. The same day, Lisa Jackson will release the EPA's analysis of the bill. Next week, the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin hearings, and among the first witnesses will be Jackson, DOE's Steven Chu, the Interior's Ken Salazar, Transportation's Ray LaHood, and FERC chair Jon Wellinghoff. This kicks off what's expected to be a full court press from the administration to get the bill done.

---

In short, at least for the moment, greens have the Big Mo. There's a self-reinforcing cycle of positive stories happening. Deniers and delayers are on the defensive.

It feels good! Yes, it's certain to change, and change again, over the course of the long fight in the Senate. But confidence is everything. Greens aren't used to being the ones with muscle and momentum, but now that they've got them the thing to do is get a little swagger. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing is more powerful in politics than the aura of inevitability.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Big News: In a historic move, Lisa Jackson's EPA threw down the gauntlet on mountaintop removal mining last Friday -- after they had just compromised on another massively destructive mountaintop removal operation. Is this the beginning of the end of the plunder of Appalachia -- or is the EPA moving sideways to regulate what its own science has called an irreversible violation of the Clean Water Act?

Within the backdrop of the EPA's extraordinary announcement to employ its veto authority at the largest mountaintop removal mine site in West Virginia, the coalfield uprising is moving on several fronts this week. Today, besieged coalfield residents in the Coal River Valley are delivering an urgent letter to West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin to stop an impending mountaintop removal operation near a dangerous coal slurry impoundment in their communities that will destroy jobs and their homeland and an internationally acclaimed wind farm. Updates of the action at the governor's mansion will be posted at Climate Ground Zero.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Appalachia and and other coalfield groups are also continuing to collect statements against the Army Corps' NWP 21 permit process and their chaotic hearings last week.

Charleston Gazette/Coal Tattoo journalist Ken Ward broke the news on the EPA on Friday: The EPA announced its historic intentions to "issue a public notice of a proposed determination to restrict or prohibit the discharge of dredged and/or fill material at the Spruce No. 1 Mine project site consistent with our authority under Section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act and regulations 40 C.F.R. Part 231." In a line: For the first time in decades, the EPA is moving to invoke its veto power to stop a St. Louis, Mo.-owned Arch Coal mountaintop removal mining operation from unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment and water quality.

The EPA has concluded that the Army Corps of Engineers' plan to adjust the permit would still result in the destruction of seven miles of streams. So, why did the EPA accept a compromise at the St. Louis, Mo.-owned Patriot Coal's massive Hobet mountaintop removal mine, which would reportedly still allow half of the affected streams to be destroyed? In truth, Lisa Jackson and the EPA have recognized that thousands of miles of streams have been sullied and jammed with mining waste from mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia over the past three decades -- and the impacts are "immense and irreversible, and there are no scientifically credible plans for mitigating these impacts," according to Margaret Palmer's U.S. Senate hearing testimony last June.

West Virginia state environmental biologist Doug Wood has noted:

We now have clear evidence that in some streams that drain mountaintop coal quarry valley fills, the entire order Ephemeroptera (mayflies) has been extirpated, not just certain genera of this order ... The loss of an order of insects from a stream is taxonomically equivalent to the loss of all primates (including humans) from a given area. The loss of two insect orders is taxonomically equivalent to killing all primates and all rodents through toxic chemicals.

Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, W. Va. is not only the largest mountaintop removal site in West Virginia -- it has been the quintessential battleground for science and law-based mining policies over 10 years. So, is this the beginning of the end of the plunder of Appalachia ... or just more of regulating an abomination? A searing new collection of photos and essays -- Plundering Appalachia -- asks this question in one of the most gripping and informed books in years. Examining the cradle to the grave impacts of mountaintop removal mining, and coal in general, Plundering Appalachia shows the indisputable destruction of reckless mining on the local communities, the mountains and valleys, the watersheds, and the nation at large. Here's a video clip from the book:

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

A few weeks ago, USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that 10,000 facilities would soon have to measure and register their carbon emissions. Last week, she told a packed house at the Governors’ Global Climate Summit2 in Los Angeles that her agency will introduce rules requiring significant new sources of carbon emissions, like a new or remodeled fossil-fueled power plant, to pay for the right to pollute.

Clearly, these are salvos in the Obama administration’s campaign to use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases, rather than wait for Congress to figure out how to do it (last year, when I outlined for presidential candidate Obama how to do this, I sensed it appealed to the law professor in him, even though he was a member of Congress at the time)!

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recoiled in horror at these announcements - - causing PG&E, Exelon, and PNM to cancel their memberships in protest over the Chamber’s “so last-century” position - - others saw opportunity. Among those who will create new jobs in a low-carbon economy are the oft-maligned “bean counters”, or in this case, the carbon counters.

While companies as different as Walmart, Dell, and Walt Disney embrace carbon footprint labels for products as diverse as sneakers, laptops, and movies, they hire in-house experts and outside contractors to decide how best to measure the carbon content and which standards to use. Leaders in the field include PE International, Natural Logic, and Clear Carbon. This is also a major new business development opportunity for engineering firms, currently struggling in the economic downturn, to create whole new areas of expertise and revenue streams. CH2M Hill and Ameresco are two early/major players in that space.

And in anticipation of more regulation and carbon-labeling, new standards and models are being developed around the world for how to measure things that don’t have a smokestack, driving even more business to this new class of carbon accountants. New Zealand’s Former Prime Minister Helen Clark told me how her country is trying to breed cows that “emit” less methane by engineering both the diet and the digestive system. An army of pocket-protectors is now chasing cows and sheep across the NZ landscape to measure the carbon in each belch and fart, demonstrating the broad scope this new profession will have. I guess that’s one way to stimulate a green economy!

Investors and companies should pay attention to the service industry that’s emerging to meet these massive new demands for information. A decade ago, health-conscious consumers forced manufacturers to list nutritional information on food packages. We’ll soon be able to make buying decisions based on carbon content too - - taming our waistlines and “waste lines” at the same time.

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Is “we’re going to burn the coal anyway” an argument for carbon sequestration?

In a bizarre pop-culture flip-flop, Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute has compared the mild-mannered EPA administrator to Dirty Harry:

You can just see Jackson standing there with a .44 magnum in her hand, and a steely glint in her eye, telling industry “You’ve got to ask yourself one question, ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

Seriously!

Let me get this straight, the right-wing is now saying it’s bad to be like Clint, the quintessential tough guy hero lionized by conservatives because he’ll do whatever is needed to save human life? That means Green is directly equating U.S. industry with the psychopathic serial killer and criminals that Clint fights in the iconic 1971 movie.

Well, logic was never a priority of Denier-Industrial-Complex Kooks (DICKs) like Green, who regularly spouts nonsense like, “We’re back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978....  No matter what you’ve been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly” -- from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).

In fact, Green’s analogy makes no sense whatsoever since Jackson is simply obeying the command of the highest court in the land to regulate carbon pollution (see here).  Green entirely omits the fact that in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were pollutants and that the EPA would have to regulate them if they were found to endanger public health and welfare.

So the only part of the analogy that makes sense is that deniers and delayers like Green oppose the rule of law -- while Jackson is trying to enforce it.

Ironically, in its zealous quest to kill climate action, AEI has done another flip-flop. Jackson proposes to start regulating only “large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year.”  Jackson explained, “This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources -- those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources.”  She told the Governors Climate Summit in Los Angeles, “we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy,” adding, “The corner coffee shop is not a meaningful place to look for carbon reductions.”

But Green doesn’t believe in common sense -- he urges big polluters to sue to make sure small businesses and farmers are regulated also:

For that matter, the large emitters would be wise to sue for this also, both to ensure that they’re not the only ones disadvantaged by the EPA’s actions, and to make manifest the insanity involved with EPA regulating greenhouse gases.

Note that for Green and the American Enterprise Institute, obeying the Supreme Court is “insanity.” You don’t have to be Dirty Harry to realize which side of the law he is on.

Fundamentally, Green wants to use the legal system to pervert the process.  And this scorched earth strategy is one the big polluters are threatening, too.  I’ll end this post with an analysis -- “It’s Hard To Hide An Oil Refinery Behind a Donut Shop” -- from David Doniger, Policy Director at NRDC’s Climate Center, and former “director of climate change policy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and, before that, counsel to the head of the EPA’s clean air program”:

Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that EPA has the authority and responsibility to use the existing Clean Air Act to cut dangerous global warming pollution.  And under President Obama, EPA is starting act.  Under the clean car peace treaty unveiled in the Rose Garden last March, Administrator Jackson has proposed nationwide global warming pollution standards for new cars and trucks, modeled on California’s path-breaking standards.  And EPA is working on carbon limits for big power plants, oil refineries, cement plants, and other big factories responsible for most of our heat-trapping pollution.In a fairly desperate reaction, some of America’s biggest polluters – led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA), and others – are trying to scare America’s small businesses owners into thinking it’s them that the EPA is after.

If they force me to curb my pollution, the big boys say, they’ll come after schools, homes, and hot dog stands.  No one is safe, they shout.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

But it’s hard to hide an oil refinery behind a donut shop.

So what is EPA really doing?

Well, when EPA issues its final clean car standards next March, certain other things happen automatically under the Clean Air Act.  The most important is that when companies build or expand big pollution sources -- power plants, oil refineries, or cement kilns, for example -- they will have to install the “best available control technology” (BACT) for carbon dioxide and the other global warming pollutants.  This is nothing fancy.  It’s what they’ve done for years for other dangerous pollutants like sulfur dioxide.

EPA is proposing to set “thresholds” -- carbon pollution levels that separate big sources that will have to meet these requirements from small ones that will not.

This is a common sense concept that NRDC and other environmental groups proposed a more than a year ago.

But along come lawyers and spokesmen for the big boys arguing that EPA can’t do that.  If you regulate any of us, you have to regulate all of us, down to the donut shop.

It’s hostage taking.  We’re gonna take everyone down with us.  Listen to Charles Drevna, of the National Petroleum Refiners Association:

“This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another’s,” Drevna said. “Greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature, and are not isolated to a few select industries. The Clean Air Act stipulates unequivocally that the threshold to permit major sources is 250 tons for criteria pollutants.  EPA lacks the legal authority to categorically exempt sources that exceed the Clean Air Act’s major source threshold from permitting requirements, and this creates a troubling precedent for any agency actions in the future.”

EPA argues that it can set a different threshold -- it has proposed 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide -- to recognize that each power plant or other big source emits roughly 100 times more carbon dioxide than conventional pollutants like sulfur dioxide.  Accordingly, EPA says the proposed 25,000 ton threshold respects Congress’s decisions about which big plants should have to install the best available control technology, and which small ones should not.  Congress, EPA contends, never wanted to treat mom and pop shops the same as the big boys.  In short, EPA argues that its new thresholds avoid absurd results and administrative nightmares.

The big boys’ lawyers are getting ready to argue that EPA can’t do this, that only Congress can change these threshold numbers.  They claim the courts will strike EPA’s rule down.  But who’ll bring that suit?  It won’t be NRDC or any of the other environmental groups active in this fight.  And it’s not clear that the big boys have “standing” – the kind of legal injury needed to take to take this complaint to court.  And the courts themselves have recognized the doctrines of avoiding absurd results and administrative nightmares.

So I’m betting on EPA.  And then, with small businesses safely shielded, the Chamber and NPRA will have no one to hide behind.

What’s more likely is that Congress will clear this up well before the courts weigh in, by writing the EPA’s thresholds into new comprehensive climate and energy legislation.  That’s an idea with support from both environmental organizations and responsible companies.

Maybe I’m a dreamer, but it’s never too late for the Chamber and its allies to stop the scare-mongering and join the effort to pass this new legislation.

Well, the Chamber’s call for a ‘Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century’ worked out so well for them (see “Nike runs fast and loud from the incredible, shrinking U.S. Chamber Board over its global warming denial"), that if they want to pursue this lawsuit, which I suspect will be equally popular with their members, I say, “Go ahead, make my day!”

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?

LOS ANGELES -- EPA administrator Lisa Jackson unveiled a modest proposal on Wednesday: If a company wants to build a new power plant or refinery, or fix up a smoky old belcher, it will have to use the best available technology to control greenhouse gases.

That's it. Oh, and the Dunkin Donuts of the country will be spared.

Depending on who you ask, the proposed regulation is either a bone-headed move that will land her agency back in court, or a shrewd maneuver to quash industry scare tactics and quell rising panic on Main Street about the potential costs of far-reaching climate legislation.

It's not clear how much the rule would accomplish. At a Wednesday press conference during her stop here at the Governors' Global Climate Summit, Jackson admitted she had no idea how many tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases would actually be reduced if the regulation goes into effect. Ditto on how much the regulation could end up costing affected businesses.

But one thing was absolutely clear, she said: The regulation would not affect your local doughnut shop.

"Very soon, we will hear about doomsday scenarios, with EPA regulating everything from cows to the local Dunkin Donuts. But let's be clear. That's not going to happen," said Jackson in her speech at the gathering organized by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). "We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions."

The regulation would only apply to facilities that emit 25,000 tons or more a year, she said. That's about 10,000 major businesses all told, of the millions dotting the American strip mall and manufacturing landscape.

Industry groups were quick to point out that the Clean Air Act says that any pollution source over 250 tons must be regulated, not 25,000 tons.

Former Bush-era EPA official Jeff Holmstead, now with the D.C. law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said the EPA action could face a legal challenge. "Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA's legal justification for today's proposal," he said. "Let's hope it stands up in court, or anyone who wants to build anything in the U.S. will be facing more litigation and delay."

Jackson said the agency's lawyers had studied the issue, and were confident they could proceed.

David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's climate change policy center, said he'll be curious to see who actually files a lawsuit saying small businesses should have to face the same regulations as the nation's biggest polluters.

He said courts had ruled that if regulators had limited resources, they could focus just on big polluters. He said Congress could also easily insert a clause in its climate legislation, saying it only applied to major polluters.

"It's a simple fix," he said, ignoring the still formidable task of getting a climate bill through Congress.

Doniger said once new vehicle fuel standards are put in place next March, as already announced by the Obama administration, that would automatically trigger a requirement that other polluters use the best available equipment as well. Jackson's proposal to increase the threshold for regulation to 25,000 tons would ensure only the biggest would be affected.

"It's a very smart move," said Doniger. "It's supposed to quiet the nerves of the mom and pop shops."

The Obama administration is facing "a very delicate balance" between taking steps to curb emissions, and "not scaring the hell out of people," said California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols. "They're trying to not create panic in the streets ... although people may still end up going into freak out mode."

Nichols pointed out that under California's Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, local air districts were already requiring major utilities and other large emitters to use the best equipment available to reduce emissions.

All sides agree that the EPA's announcement is one more sign that the Obama administration is moving forward with steps to regulate greenhouse gases, while hoping that Congress will pass legislation that achieves the same goal.

"Today's proposal is a valiant effort by EPA to fit a square peg into a round hole," said Holmstead. "The Clean Air Act was not designed or intended to regulate carbon dioxide, but the Obama administration has already announced that it plans to start using the Act to regulate carbon dioxide early next year unless Congress passes climate change legislation before then."

Jackson, in her speech, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had made it "crystal clear" that her agency must regulate carbon dioxide if the agency concludes it endangers public health. She said that finding would come very soon.

Two weeks ago, she and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the proposed fuel efficiency standards of 35.5 miles per gallon, calling them "the first ever national action to significantly control vehicle's greenhouse gases."

She also signaled that trains, ships and other transportation sources could face emissions cuts in coming monthst, and said her agency is exploring further mandates for power plants, refineries, cement plants and other major emitters.

"We are not going to continue business as usual while we wait for Congress to act," Jackson said.

--

See also: David Roberts looks at what the EPA regulation does (and does not) contain.

Related Links:

Can perfect markets induce capital investment?

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

When will we stop paying the hidden fossil fuel tax?

The EPA made an announcement today that lots of folks seem to be misinterpreting as "proposed regulations on power plants." That's not what they are.

What was announced today is the "tailoring" rule; it establishes that when the EPA regulates stationary sources, it will only regulate those that emit more than 25,000 tons. This is a modification of the threshold now in the Clean Air Act, which is 250 tons. If EPA regulated every source emitting more than 250 tons, it would be a nightmare (churches! schools! marathons!). There's some dispute about whether the EPA is legally allowed to do this; not surprisingly, I hear different things from different sides of the aisle. It is sure to be litigated.

This announcement has been expected for a while, by the way, so it's not quite so epochal as some are making out.

When the new EPA fuel economy regulations go into effect in 2010, that will automatically -- as in, by law -- trigger regulations of stationary sources. Such sources will have to get permits showing that they've used Best Available Control Technology to reduce CO2. BACT has not yet been defined for CO2. That's going to be a huge and incredibly contentious fight. Now, at least, we know when the fight will start.

If you're interested, I wrote a comprehensive rundown on EPA regulation of CO2. It explains what to expect in clear language. Also it has bunnies.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. At a stroke, the politics of climate change were changed. The choice was no longer between legislation or no legislation -- it was between legislation or regulation. One way or another, climate pollution would be controlled by a federal program.

Most experts agree that EPA regulations will be complex and somewhat unwieldy. Industry believes they will be onerous and expensive. Conventional wisdom, at least initially, was that fear of regulation would drive utilities and manufacturers to the bargaining table, changing the dynamic in Congress. EPA was supposed to play the role of the big, silent goon in the corner, tapping his baseball bat in his hand.

That theory isn't holding up too well. Opposition from coal and manufacturing states weakened the bill in the House and its passage through the Senate appears less and less likely. Fossil fuel and other industry groups are lobbying furiously against it. The conservative base equates it with socialism. Democratic Senators are openly expressing skepticism whether a bill can pass this year. Health care may drag on into winter and push it off the agenda; it could fracture into smaller bills; most likely, it simply won't find enough Blue Dog support to overcome a threatened conservative filibuster. At least at the moment, the smart money is on no climate/energy bill this year.

That means EPA regulations are suddenly germane again, though chances are high that 99.99% of Americans will continue to find the subject inscrutable and boring. What can the EPA do? When will it do it? Who will it do it to? How can we stay awake as we contemplate these matters?

Consider this post an effort to describe, in plain language, What the Deal Is with EPA Regulations. There will be acronyms ... but also pictures of bunnies!

What's everyone so scared of?

Why does industry fear, and the Obama administration prefer to avoid, EPA regulations of greenhouse gases? To understand the political dynamic it helps to understand that there's a three-part process ... and the third part is a massive headache.

1. Endangerment finding: A new air pollutant under the Clean Air Act first goes through an endangerment finding -- a determination by the EPA whether it's a threat to public health. For CO2, that's almost done. EPA submitted the finding for public comment and is now reviewing the (many, many) comments it received. It will likely issue the final finding this month or next.

2. Mobile sources: If the EPA chooses to go forward, it then crafts regulations for "mobile sources," i.e. vehicles, under Section 202 of the CAA. That won't be too difficult. In effect, EPA will partner with the Dept. of Transportation to raise CAFE standards; they've already submitted a proposal to do so to the White House Office of Management and Budget. (35.5 miles per gallon by the 2016 model year.) So far so good.

3. Stationary sources: The problem is, once mobile sources are regulated, the EPA must, by law, also regulate stationary sources, i.e., power plants and industrial facilities. That is a serious can of worms, which will involve creative interpretations, contentious decisions, and many, many lawsuits. Why so difficult? We'll get to that later, after a few more bunnies. First:

A little history

There's a fascinating backstory to be told about Mass. v EPA, the 2007 Supreme Court case that shook the political world. But we'll skip it. Instead let's jump in just after it passed.

The Bush EPA wanted to move quickly. Bush had identified America's addiction to oil in his State of the Union speech and proceeded to do very little about it, so there was some openness in the White House to conceding on a boost in CAFE standards. Since EPA regulation of mobile sources would effectively amount to just that, the Bushies were amenable to it.

To lead the large and capable team assembled to hash out the regulations (upwards of 100 people all told), EPA brought in Jason Burnett. Burnett is semi-famous to Grist readers for quitting the EPA in protest some months later, alleging interference from the Office of the Vice President. But initially, he says, "we were on a very fast clock. There was political desire to get everything done by the end of the administration's time [in office]."

(See: full transcript of my wonky interview with Burnett.)

What changed? In short, Congress passed the Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA), "which did much of what we were planning on doing through regulations," says Burnett. "After passage of the EISA, there was another way of accomplishing those same goals, and [the administration] didn't then need to deal with the stationary source ramifications."

At that point, things came to a crashing halt. Burnett sent the endangerment finding to the OMB, but the White House refused to open it. They told Burnett to take it back; he refused and left the agency. After that, the administration ran out the clock with endless public comment.

Obama came into office pledging to kick the process into gear, and he has. Lisa Jackson's EPA has been hashing through the issues quickly. The final endangerment finding is coming soon, the mobile-source proposal is already on paper, and the stationary-source regulations ... well, they're another matter.

What's so dang hard about stationary source regulations?

Grasping the challenges that greenhouse gases pose to the Clean Air Act means venturing into some fairly wonky territory; it is recommended that readers keep their bunnies with them at all times. Every effort will be made to minimize the ... hey, you there, wake up!

OK, the deal is, stationary sources of air pollution have to get a permit from the EPA. The permitting process is called New Source Review (NSR), implemented as part of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. All new sources have to go through this process.

What about existing sources, the ones already up and running in 1977? In particular, what about the large U.S. fleet of old, inefficient, filthy pulverized coal power plants built in the '40s, '50s, and '60s? Funny you should ask. Therein lies the problem(s).

Existing sources were not brought under NSR. They were "grandfathered," in the lingo. Enviros consider this a deal with the devil, the Original Sin of the CAA. See: Carl Pope.

Congress didn't completely ignore existing sources, though. NSR also specifies that any existing facility that makes "major modifications" that produce a "significant increase" in air pollution must get a permit.

How much is a significant increase? That's defined by a standard called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). What must facilities in attainment areas (long story, let's not bother) do to get a permit? They must install what's called Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

NSR! PSD! BACT! Can you feel the electricity in the room? Let's take a short bunny break ...

Anyway, this kludged-together NSR/PSD/BACT policy created all sorts of problems and has been the subject of endless lawsuits. And here's the thing: Many of the problems will be exacerbated by the extension of the Clean Air Act to cover greenhouse gases.

For instance: the PSD standard is now 100 tons for some facilities, 250 tons for others. Problem is, while 100 tons is a significant amount of most traditional air pollutants, it's a reasonably meager amount of CO2. A coal power plant producing 10 or 20 million tons of CO2 a year could trip the PSD trigger merely by running a few extra minutes a year. "The scare story," says Burnett, "is that that will cause facility managers for any large source of pollution to just freeze up and not make any modifications at all." The problem, he says, is that "these large emitters just emit so, so much CO2."

More troublesome: once you get down to 100 tons you're talking about churches, schools, and retirement homes. This is the conservative nightmare scenario, that EPA's regulatory reach will cover the entire economy and it will be red tape hell for every mom-and-pop operation.

Another problem is BACT itself. What is the best available technology for controlling CO2 emissions from, say, a coal power plant? Is it simply burning coal more efficiently? Cofiring with biomass or solar? Using carbon capture and storage, which is not yet commercially available? 'Tis vexing. EPA will be breaking new ground, setting new precedents. Lawsuits will follow.

PSD solution ... sort of

As we speak, EPA is trying to solve the PSD problem by raising the threshold from 250 tons to 25,000 tons (it has submitted such a rule to OMB). This is in line with the new mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule it proposed in March, which only applies to facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of CO2 a year.

Raising the threshold to 25,000 tons would exempt schools, churches, etc. -- overall it would cover about 13,000 large industrial facilities, which represent 85-90% of U.S. emissions. So it would solve one of the biggest problems. Recall, however, that conservatives and (some) industries want EPA rules to be a regulatory/legal nightmare, and will do everything they can to insure that outcome.

Since raising the threshold would reduce the friction, some conservatives, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Marlo Lewis, are arguing that it is illegal for EPA to unilaterally change the threshold. The rule, if it goes into effect, will undoubtedly be litigated to a fare-thee-well.

(Note: Congress could pass a one-line amendment to the Clean Air Act: "PSD for CO2 is 25,000 tons." Boom, problem solved. If the climate bill goes down in flames and the EPA's threshold rule is rejected, this is a easy face-saving move for Dems.)

The EPA might also try to express the greenhouse gas threshold with reference to a more potent gas like methane -- the standard could be "250 tons of methane or methane-equivalent," which would be lots of CO2. Even if the court rules against EPA, it might allow the agency to start at 25,000 and ratchet down to 250 on a schedule. There are also ways the EPA could make permitting for small sources relatively painless (think: a post card), but getting into more detail on this just feels anti-bunny.

BACT solution ... not really

BACT is determined on a case-by-case basis. Whatever rulings the EPA makes, the precedent-setters, will be litigated to high heaven. There will be blood.

Cap and trade?

Another way forward, which some say could reduce compliance costs, is for the EPA to set up its own cap-and-trade program for stationary sources.

There's a checkered history here. During Burnett's original spin through EPA, he was involved in trying to develop a cap-and-trade system for mercury. Industry supported it but environmentalists loathed it, mainly due to concern over mercury "hot spots" (there are no such concerns for CO2). The courts ultimately ruled against that program; the Bush administration appealed; Obama's EPA is going to drop the appeal.

But Burnett still thinks it can be done:

You dust off the legal argument EPA made for using [the CAA] for a cap-and-trade system, and you search and replace mercury with CO2. You'd put both environmental groups and industry in an awkward position. Environmental groups would want to support the rule, presumably. Industry would not want to, but they're already on record saying EPA has authority to issue a cap-and-trade system under [CAA Section] 111. They wanted to have that for mercury.

Interestingly, an EPA-run cap-and-trade system would not have the same federal mandates as a legislative system. Instead it would effectively set out overall targets and allow states to figure out how to meet those targets. For states already covered by regional cap-and-trade systems -- RGGI in the Northeast, MGGA in the Midwest, and WCI in the West -- that would probably mean relatively minor tweaks in their existing systems. For all other states, it would mean linking into one of those systems or developing a new one.

Some folks, like Terry Tamminen, are advocates of this bottom-up approach, saying that it's better to allow for regional variation and experimentation than get locked into a weak federal program. As yet, EPA hasn't shown any indication that it will pursue this route, but it could still happen.

Political implications

So how will all this play politically?

Conventional wisdom was that the threat of EPA regulations would make carbon-intensive industry amenable to a climate bill. But after seeing what passed the House, they've largely decided that they would rather have "the uncertainty of the Clean Air Act than the absolute certainty of a very expensive [legislative] program," says Jeffrey Holmstead of Bracewell-Giuliani, who served at EPA under the second President Bush. Among those in heavy industry and the non-nuclear power sector, "it is nearly a universally held view that they're better off just living with the CAA than they are having to deal with something like Waxman-Markey," say Holmstead.

That's not to say those industries will accept EPA regulations gracefully. Just as coal and oil have waged war against the climate bill, they'll wage war on EPA regulations. They will sue as often as possible, at each stage. Already the Chamber of Commerce has announced its intent to sue against the vehicle regulations -- and those, remember, had been hashed out with automakers beforehand. They were supposed to be the easy part.

The war against EPA regulations will also be waged with aggressive public relations campaigns. There will be great hue and cry about the economy-destroying burden that command-and-control regulations impose on American business. And unlike with a climate bill, responsibility (read: blame) cannot be dispersed. There is no hint of bipartisanship. Responsibility for EPA regulations will fall entirely on Barack Obama and his administration, not on Congress -- which is probably how Congress prefers it. If it's a total mess, or demagogued as one (as is all but certain), it's Obama that takes the hit. That is yet another reason he'd rather avoid it.

Greens are fighting to preserve EPA authority in the climate bill. Some have even said that it would be preferable for legislation to fail and the EPA to take over. It's not hard to understand why -- something needs to be done about existing coal plants, and there aren't many tools in the climate bill toolbox to address them. But no one should be under any illusions. The NSR/PSD/BACT approach is grossly suboptimal for the job that needs doing. It might have the intended effect -- killing coal plants -- but there's potential for unintended effects as well, including substantial political blowback.

Both sides, greens and industry, have reason to fear if the climate bill fails. It's terra incognita, a volatile and unpredictable situation. Obama doesn't need any more problems like that. That's among the reasons he is likely, this fall, to put some of the time and energy toward lobbying for a good climate bill. From his narrow political perspective, virtually any bill is preferable to catching the EPA tiger by the tail. That tiger eats bunnies.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

EPA chief Lisa Jackson will be in the Windy City on Friday to deliver the keynote address to the Chicago Summit on Sport and Sustainability. A review of the summit's agenda and list of speakers suggests the event will be narrowly tailored to efforts that city is undertaking in its bid for the 2016 Olympics. With that said, there also will be representatives from the National Football League (Philadelphia Eagles) who may speak to the efforts underway in professional sports on achieving sustainable practices.

As I mentioned in my first article, the professional sports industry is just beginning to embrace sustainable business practices. But they are late to the party, as the Olympic movement has been at the forefront of applying environmentally sustainable practices for some time. In fact, you can trace simple sustainability practices back to efforts applied during the 1984 summer games in Los Angeles.

Green and sustainability are already baked into plans for the next two games. The city of Vancouver's promise to host the first sustainable Olympic games ever almost certainly helped the Canadian city's bid for the 2010 winter games (PDF). Not to be out done, London, the site of the 2012 summer Olympics, unveiled its own sustainability plan back in 2007.

It's clear that if you want the Olympics in your city, you had better commit to environmentally sustainable operations. Wouldn't it be interesting if, here in the United States, the same requirements were placed on both college and professional sports programs by the cities they operate in or represent?

But I digress. In Chicago on Friday, Jackson has an opportunity to not only commend the work that is being done by the sports community but also provide some needed industry motivation. It is also a perfect stage for Jackson to point out how existing regulations touch the sport community, and how sports practices will not be unaffected by new regulatory programs (greenhouse gas emissions) that are likely to come into effect in the not too distant future.

So, as the industry itself moves ahead with sustainability programs, and as government regulators set their sights on sports practices, it should come as no surprise if Jackson's "motivation" eventually comes in the form of a Federal Advisory Committee to help guide the sporting industry as it begins the transformation to a sustainable industry.

I look forward to Jackson's speech and will be writing tomorrow on the highlights.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?

The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer

A moment of truth has arrived for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and President Barack Obama, who has promised “unprecedented steps” to rein in the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining that is wrecking havoc across wide swaths of Appalachian mountains, valleys and communities.

Anti-mountaintop removal activists are hoping President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson are about to make good on past promises to crack down on the destructive practice.Courtesy Jesse Jenkins / Energy CollectiveEPA is expected to announce decisions this week on over 100 pending permits for new or expanded coal mining projects utilizing mountaintop removal (MTR), which uses huge amounts of explosives to decapitate mountains and access the coal beneath, dumping the remains of these once-verdant Appalachian peaks directly on top of neighboring valleys and streams.

Mountaintop removal mining has already buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams and destroyed hundreds of square miles of woodlands in one of America's biodiversity hotspots, all while both the U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies have done little to curtail the practice. That's left it to activists to slow these projects down and prevent their irreversible damages.

But if recent news that the EPA is seeking to revoke the permit for the largest mountaintop removal mining project in West Virginia history is any indicator, the agency may finally be earning the "Protection" part of their name.

With a self-imposed, September 8th deadline now expired, the EPA is expected to issue an "initial list" this week identifying pending mountaintop removal projects that pose potential environmental concerns. The projects under EPA review have already been approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), which has primary responsibility for approving surface mining projects. Any projects that EPA decides will have no "significant" environmental impact will sail forward "without further coordination with EPA," according to agency procedures (kindly explained by Coal Tattoo's Ken Ward Jr. here).

Projects posing an environmental risk - and any sane person is hard pressed to explain how blowing up a mountain has no environmental impact - will instead show up on a list sent to the Corps, triggering a process of further review and ultimately - if EPA does it's job right - the rejection of some if not all of these proposed mountaintop removal projects under the Clean Water Act.

For better or worse, the forthcoming EPA list of environmentally risky projects will mark an important step closer to the establishment of clear, public standards for what level of environmental impact the agency will allow or prohibit at MTR sites proposed throughout Appalachia. The EPA has so far avoided establishing any such clear public standard.

With hundreds of mountaintop removal sites now in the balance, this is the moment of truth for the EPA, Administrator Lisa Jackson, and President Obama to make good on promises to reign in this clearly environmentally devastating practice. As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained on National Public Radio last week:

As we wait for the EPA's decision on the dozens of pending MTR permits, the Agency moved forward on a seperate front to block the largest proposed mountaintop removal site in West Virginia history in letter sent to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers late last week.

Read the full story at www.WattHead.org, the new home of WattHead - Energy News and Commentary

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released information showing there are 584 coal ash dump sites across the country -- almost twice as many as previously identified. The facilities are located in 35 states and concentrated in Appalachia, the Southeast, Midwest and Intermountain West.

The release [PDF] came late last Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The information released reveals ownership, location, hazard potential, year commissioned, type and quantity of coal combustion waste disposed, dates of the last regulatory or company assessment and in some instances whether an unregulated discharge of ash has occurred.

However, some critical data is missing because companies are claiming it's confidential business information. Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the Southern Co.'s Alabama Power and Georgia Power are among the corporations withholding information on 74 coal ash dump sites, including some of the country's largest ash dumps.

"Some utilities -- notably Duke and Southern Companies -- are hiding the ball, withholding data on their ash ponds that their competitors have already provided to EPA," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which submitted the FOIA request along with the environmental law firm Earthjustice and the Sierra Club. "Let's hope that EPA's enforcement program puts a stop to these bogus claims of 'confidentiality,' and compels the disclosure of data that companies are required to report."

States with coal ash sites included in the list are as follows: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming.

In March, the EPA sent letters [PDF] to hundreds of power generating facilities requesting information about coal ash surface impoundments. The agency was responding to the disaster that occurred last December at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston power plant in eastern Tennessee, where a dam failure released over 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into a nearby community and river.

Coal ash sites contain harmful levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxins, which can leach out and contaminate drinking water sources.

The EPA data shows that most of of the dump sites are over three decades old, raising questions about the structural integrity of the dams and the adequacy of the liners to prevent harmful chemicals from migrating into water sources. It also shows regulatory inspections of the dams by state and federal agencies are infrequent or nonexistent.
 
In addition, EPA's data reveal that many of the wet dumps are very large, with over 100 exceeding 50 acres and numerous sites covering several hundred acres. Furthermore the largest dumps tend to be the older sites with the least amount of protection.

In response to another information request by the same three environmental groups, EPA recently identified 49 "high hazard" coal ash dump sites, where a failure would be likely to cause loss of life. The Department of Homeland Security had initially determined that the sites presented such a threat to nearby communities that revealing their location would present a national security risk.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says her agency expects to release a proposed federal rule governing disposal and storage of coal ash by year's end. Regulation is currently left up to an uneven patchwork of state laws.

(A version of this story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Photo: Mark O'DonaldWake up, America!
Miley Cyrus, the JoBros, and other Disney mouseketeers tweensters want you to "send it on" -- your love for the earth, that is. However, when it comes to this sugar-pop single, we suggest you only send it on to your worst enemies.

Bagging climate change
It's Jack Handey meets eco-advert ... but we're pretty sure it's just a bunch of hot air.

Photo: Ricardo FariaSpooning
What happens to all those ice-cream taster spoons once you've slurped off the chunky monkey? They become the light of your life!

Onion rings true
PETA: "We have no intention of changing our tactics until every last animal on the planet is given more respect than women."

Heard it through the grapevine
EPA admin Lisa Jackson on Obama: "I haven't seen a brother take on so many issues at once since Marvin Gaye put 'What's Going On,' 'Mercy Mercy Me,' and 'Inner City Blues' all on the same album." How sweet it is, indeed.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

"President Obama has lit a fire under people. He’s actively engaged in taking on big issues: energy; two wars; health care; the economy. 

I haven’t seen a brother take on so many issues at once since Marvin Gaye put 'What’s Going On,' 'Mercy Mercy Me,' and 'Inner City Blues' all on the same album."

-- EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, speaking at the National Association of Black Journalists 
conference

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus, discusses the Green the Block partnership. In the background (L-R) are Dept. of Energy Undersecretary Kristina Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan. Kate Sheppard / GristEnsuring that low-income communities and minority youth benefit from green jobs programs is the goal of a new partnership between the White House and two grassroots organizations -- Hip Hop Caucus and Green For All.

Two Cabinet members and leaders of the grassroots groups unveiled the Green the Block initiative Tuesday at a White House press conference, describing the partnership as as both a campaign and a coalition that is designed to build political support for greening efforts in low-income and minority communities..

"The 20th century was defined by civil rights and The 21st century will be defined by clean energy," said Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus. "Future generations will measure us by our success in transitioning from a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy economy, and in the process building opportunity and prosperity for our most economically disenfranchised communities."

"We have to convince our generation that this truly is our lunch-counter moment of the 21st century," said Yearwood, referring to the sit-ins held at segregated diners during the Civil Rights era.

The initiative will officially kick-off with a day of service on September 11, 2009 -- part of the White House's already announced United We Serve program. The Green the Block website has more information on local initiatives taking place around the country.

"September 11 is about bringing people together to recognize that change happens not in the corridors of Washington, DC, but it happens in the streets of Detroit, Cleveland, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, and cities across the country," said Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of the Oakland-based group Green for All.

The cabinet members -- EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan -- touted some of the investments that the Obama administration has made to assist low-income Americans through greening efforts. In the economic stimulus package, $14 billion is designated for housing upgrades, including $5 billion to make low-income housing more energy efficient. Noting that the government currently spends $5 billion a year providing monetary assistance for energy bills to low-income households, Donovan said investments like those in the stimulus plan will help offset costs for families and the government in the long run.

Jackson noted the EPA's Tuesday announcement of $61 million for brownfields revitalization efforts. The funds will go toward job training programs.

Jackson also touted the climate and energy bill that passed the House in June as another potential means of growing the green economy and creating new jobs. Green for All's Ellis-Lamkins praised the House bill for including provisions that help ensure jobs will be created in low-income and minority communities, which include local hiring requirements and devotes a portion of pollution permit revenues to job training programs. She said it will be important to get these communities engaged in the debate as the bill moves in the Senate, in order to ensure that this type of provision is included in the final bill.

"If communities of color aren't engaged, you won't see provisions like that," said Ellis-Lamkins.

Video: Green jobs adviser Van Jones talks about green jobs efforts and how the Obama administration can work with underserved communities to ensure they have access to the benefits and opportunities of a clean energy economy.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Are we there yet?

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has decided she'll take another look at monitoring of car battery recyclers, concrete kilns and power plants that spew dangerous lead emissions. She did not say she'd toughen up the monitoring, but clean air advocates are hopeful.

"It's a step in the right direction for public health, and children's health in particular," said Avi Kar, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. His group and several others petitioned the agency in January to reconsider -- and tighten -- proposed monitoring requirements on lead emitting facilities. On Thursday, Jackson granted their petition, and said a new monitoring proposal would be ready later this summer.

"We do take it as a good sign that they're willing to reconsider," said Kar in an interview.

In an online blog post, he was more effusive.

The granting of NRDC's petition for reconsideration, as it's known in bureaucratic parlance, is one step in a still lengthy process. There will be a proposal, public comment, and, finally, a possible amendment to a huge update of the entire lead regulation. This is the federal government, after all.

"This is just reconsideration, this is just a first step," said EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn. "NRDC and others asked us to reconsider it, and our answer is yes, we will reconsider it. ... We can't 'just change the rule' without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. We can't change any final rule without giving the public opportunity to comment on potential changes."

Many in the environmental movement were astonished last fall when President Bush's EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, took his own scientists' advice over the complaints of industry, and lowered the legally allowable amounts of lead in the air by more than ten times. Lead battery smelters had charged over to the White House a few weeks earlier, as a court deadline neared to update the regulation. It was the first time lead limits had been touched since 1978.

The astonishment turned to familiar groans from environmentalists when it turned out White House budget officials had intervened at the eleventh hour to eliminate required monitoring for facilities emitting less than a ton of lead annually. Being exposed to the heavy metal in even small amounts can damage children's brain development, heart and kidney functions, among other maladies. Johnson's own staff had recommended that facilities spewing out half a ton be monitored in geographic areas where emissions exceed the new limits.

The night before Johnson's announcement, a senior EPA staffer e-mailed a White House Office of Management and Budget staff person saying a technical, rather than a policy explanation, was needed for why there had been a last minute, sharp reduction in monitoring. That explanation was never received, and Johnson followed the White House recommendations in his announcement the next day.

EPA staff reiterated in a conversation this week that proper monitoring is a critical part of protecting public health.

Any proposal by Jackson and her staff will have to be vetted by the White House budget office again, said Milbourn in an e-mail.

"Yes, whatever we propose will have to go back to OMB," she wrote.

A battery council representative did not return a call for comment Thursday. Industry representatives have argued in the past that they are among the world's best recyclers, and that the new regulations could drive their business overseas to places with far more lax health and environmental regulations.

Related Links:

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail

George VoinovichSen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) is holding up the confirmation of a deputy administrator at the U.S. EPA until the agency coughs up numbers on the House climate bill that are to his liking.

Voinovich sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson [PDF] on Monday saying that he has placed a procedural hold on the appointment of Robert Perciasepe, who has been nominated to serve as second-in-command at the EPA.

Voinovich made it clear in his letter that it's not about Perciasepe, who previously served as the assistant administrator in the EPA water and air offices during the Clinton administration and is now chief operating officer at the National Audubon Society. Rather, it's about Voinovich's desire for a new EPA analysis of the cap-and-trade bill that the House passed last month. Voinovich serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is responsible for the confirmation of EPA appointees.

From his letter:

The EPA has already produced two analyses of the bill, both of which indicated that its costs for American households would be low. But Voinovich believes the EPA's estimate "contains significant flaws that mask the economic consequences of the bill," and that these "flaws center around the agency's assumptions regarding the availability of certain low-carbon technologies and the widespread availability of international offsets." Voinovich is asking for a "refined analysis" from the agency ASAP.

But if he wants predictions that the bill would devastate the American economy, will the EPA ever be able to satisfy him?

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Kingston, Tenn., coal ash spillThe Environmental Protection Agency is still figuring out what to do with the millions of tons of coal ash that spilled through a broken levy levee in eastern Tennessee last December. But it looks like much of it may be shipped to Perry County in central Alabama, where residents are none too excited about the prospect of their county becoming “The New Ash Hole of Alabama.”

Alabama activist Betsy Ramaccia, dressed in a haz-mat suit, handed out fake newspapers with that slogan at a Tennessee Valley Authority meeting in Tennessee last month. And the Web site www.ashholes.org has a simple, direct, and powerful video of Perry County residents asking EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to protect them from the toxic elements in fly ash, a byproduct of coal-fired electricity plants.

The short clip is worth a view. Knoxville’s WVLT TV also has a solid report on Ramaccia’s work and the environmental questions surrounding moving the spilled ash.

"It's an environmental injustice and it's social injustice," Ramaccia told WVLT about shipping the waste to Alabama. "We're concerned about a new group of citizens about to be affected by this ash spill."

Perry County is 69% African-American, and more than 32% of its population lives in poverty, Sue Sturgis reports. She wrote that earlier plans to ship the ash to Pennsylvania were nixed because of worries it would contaminate groundwater.

(Hat tip to Ramaccia for pointing us toward the videos.)

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Prepared remarks submitted in advance to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Statement of Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, July 7, 2009

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on moving America toward a clean energy economy.

We face many serious and immediate challenges. American families and businesses are struggling in a recession and an increasingly competitive global economy. We have become deeply dependent on a single energy source to power our cars, trucks and airplanes, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to import nearly 60 percent of the oil we use.

We face an unprecedented threat to our very way of life from climate change.

To solve these challenges, the Administration and Congress need to work together to spur a revolution in clean energy technologies. The President and I applauded the historic action by the House to pass a clean energy bill, and we look forward to working with the Senate to pass comprehensive energy legislation.

I want to focus today on the threat of climate change. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that carbon dioxide from human activity has increased the atmospheric level of CO2 by roughly 40 percent, a level one- third higher than any time in the last 800,000 years. There is also a consensus that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have caused our planet to change. Already, we have seen the loss of about half of the summer arctic polar ice cap since the 1950s, a dramatically accelerating rise in sea level, and the loss of over two thousand cubic miles of glacial ice, not on geological time scales but over a mere hundred years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in 2007 that, if we continued on this course, there was a 50 percent chance of global average air temperature increasing by more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit in this century. A 2009 MIT study found a fifty percent chance of a 9 degree rise in this century and a 17 percent chance of a nearly 11 degree increase. 11 degrees may not sound like much, but, during the last ice age, when Canada and much of the United States were covered all year in a glacier, the world was only about 11 degrees colder. A world 11 degrees warmer will be very different as well. Is this the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren?

Denial of the climate change problem will not change our destiny; a comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will.

America has the opportunity to lead a new industrial revolution of creating sustainable, clean energy. We can sit on the sidelines and deny the scientific facts, or we can get in the game and play to win.

Statement of Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hearing on Energy and Climate Legislation, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, July 7, 2009

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Minority Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about new legislation to get America running on clean energy. Let me begin by commending you for starting Senate hearings on this, the second legislative day after the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Immediately after that historic vote on June 26, President Obama called upon the Senate to demonstrate the same commitment we saw in the House to building a clean-energy foundation for a strong American economy. I am grateful that this Committee has wasted no time in answering that call.

The House bill reflects the principles the President believes are essential for our nation’s energy future: decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, creating millions of new jobs in emerging clean-energy technologies, and reducing the pollution that is a danger to our children. I know there are a variety of proposals pending in the Senate that have the same goals, and I am looking forward to working with all the Committee members as you move forward on this effort.

Clean energy is to this decade and the next what the Space Race was to the 1950s and ‘60s, and America is behind. Governments in Asia and Europe are ahead of the United States in making aggressive investments in clean-energy technology. American businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for this nation to lead the 21st Century global economy. We are also coming late to the task of leading the world’s major greenhouse-gas emitters to reverse our collective emissions’ growth in time to avert catastrophic climactic changes that would severely harm America’s economy and national security within our children’s lifetimes. The necessary shared effort will not begin in earnest unless and until the United States leads the charge.

The advantage of the kind of legislation the President has called for is that it ramps up investment in developing new clean-energy technologies while giving companies an effective incentive to use those technologies to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution. It does so without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

I do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing. But according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the net cost to the average American household in 2020 would be less than 50 cents a day. For the wealthiest fifth of American households, the net cost would be less than 70 cents a day. The poorest fifth would actually see a net gain of more than ten cents a day. That is what your economists have reported to you.

People have pointed out that the per-household impact would not be uniform across the country – that the costs would be higher in a few states where people drive very long distances and rely almost exclusively on coal for electricity. Yet even if the cost borne by the average family in such a state were double the national average, it still would be just a dollar a day.

That figure does not account for the economic benefits of saving our children from living with increased drought, fire, pests, flooding, and disease. It does not account for the benefit of decreasing our dependency on foreign oil. Can anyone honestly say that the head of an American household would not spend a dollar a day to safeguard the wellbeing of his or her children, to reduce the amount of money that we send overseas for oil, to place American entrepreneurs back in the lead of the global marketplace, and to create new American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced?

Labor unions support this kind of legislation because they know it will indeed create millions of high-paying American jobs that cannot be exported. Manufacturing companies support it because they know it will provide needed investment in research and development while creating markets for the American clean-energy technologies born from that investment.

Electric utilities support it because they know it will expand our use of reliable, domestic sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal – and, yes, safer nuclear power – and, yes, cleaner coal.

Consumer advocates support it because they know it will strengthen the long-term economic foundation for all Americans without imposing short-term economic hardship on any Americans.

And environmental groups support it because they know it is our best chance of preventing catastrophic harm to public health and our natural environment.

Of course, there are still interest groups out there opposing this effort. But I think the tide is turning against the defenders of the status quo, who want more of the same policies that made us dependent on foreign oil and that caused America to forfeit the lead in the burgeoning global competition to sell clean-energy technology. I think Americans want reform that harnesses the country’s can-do spirit. I think they want to fuel long-term economic recovery with a wise investment that sparks a clean-energy transformation in our economy and that protects our children and grandchildren.

That is what the President wants. That is what I want. I believe many Senators want the same thing. Please consider the Environmental Protection Agency a partner in this effort to get America running on clean energy. And, please, keep up the momentum.

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, BEFORE THE SENATE ENVIORNMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, JULY 7, 2009

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of agriculture and forestry in addressing climate change and in building our Nation’s renewable energy capabilities. I am pleased to be joined today by Secretaries Chu and Salazar and Administrator Jackson. USDA, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency maintain a close partnership in our work on climate change and renewable energy.

Climate change is one of the great challenges facing the United States and the world. The science is clear that the planet is already warming. While climate change will affect us all, there are particular vulnerabilities and challenges for farmers, ranchers, and those who make a living off the land. I would like to commend the House for its extraordinary efforts in developing historic, comprehensive energy and climate legislation that creates the framework for U.S. leadership on climate change.

I, along with Secretary Chu, Administrator Jackson, and the Administration look forward to working with the Senate as you begin your deliberations. Our hope is that Congress enacts a bill that meets the President’s objectives of creating an efficient, cost-effective, and comprehensive approach that leverages the Nation’s capacity for innovation, creates jobs, reduces dependence on foreign oil, and protects our children from ills associated with pollution.

I believe it is crucial that we engage the participation of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. This issue is too important for agriculture and forestry to sit on the sidelines. A viable carbon offsets market – one that rewards farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners for stewardship activities – has the potential to play a very important role in helping America wean itself from foreign oil. It also represents a significant building block to revitalizing rural America. Landowners can also play an important role in providing low-carbon renewable energy.

The potential of our working lands to generate greenhouse gas reductions is significant. In fact today, our lands are a net sink of greenhouse gases. Based on the latest statistics from EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, forest and agricultural lands in the U.S. take up more greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide than is released from all of our agricultural operations1. The situation is different in developing countries, where agriculture and deforestation play a much greaterole in emissions. In aggregate, land uses are responsible for over one-third of ggreenhouse gas emissions. It is difficult to see how greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilized without policies that target emissions and carbon sequestration on agricultural and forestlands. As a result, it is vital that America demonstrate how the inclusion of agriculture and forests in our domestic approach to climate change can produce real and lasting benefits to both landowners and the climate.

Under climate change legislation the farm sector will experience both costs and benefits. Energy price increases can impact row crop production and other agricultural activities. For example, fertilizer and fuel costs account for 50 to 60 percent of variable costs of production for corn. Because of higher personal transportation expenditures, rural households are more likely than urban households to feel the pinch of increased gas prices.

But, I believe that there are significant opportunities for rural landowners in a cap and trade program that recognizes the contribution that farms, ranches, and forests can make in addressing climate change. Rural landowners can benefit from incentives in climate and energy legislation that reward production of renewable energy such as wind and bioenergy. A number of renewable energy technologies such as anaerobic digesters, geothermal, and wind power can reduce farmers’ reliance on fossil fuels. In cooperation with the Department of Energy, USDA will contribute to promoting these technologies and our outreach and extension networks will need to help make them available to farmers, ranchers, and land managers.

These technologies and promotion of a clean energy economy will also stimulate the creation of new jobs. As farmers, ranchers, and land managers look to install an anaerobic digester or build a wind farm – people will be needed to build the machines and install the systems. And, because many of these technologies will be utilized in rural areas – many of these jobs could be created in rural America. These farmers, ranchers, and forest owners can also benefit from legislation that creates markets for greenhouse gas offset credits.

To be effective in addressing climate change, the offsets market will need to accomplish two goals. First, the market will need to recognize the scale of the changes needed and the infrastructure that will be required to deliver information, manage data and resources, and maintain records and registries. Second, ensuring the environmental integrity of agricultural and forest offsets is critical to addressing climate change and maintaining public confidence in the carbon offset program.

To produce meaningful emissions reductions, an offsets program will likely require the participation of thousands of landowners. I believe USDA, working with EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, and other relevant agencies can play a very important role in getting offsets to scale while ensuring the integrity of the offsets program. We look forward to partnering with our fellow agencies to work with the Senate in designing a credible offsets program.

Let me give you a few examples of the scale of activities that USDA provides nation-wide. Under the Conservation Reserve Program, USDA manages over 750,000 contracts with landowners who have taken environmentally sensitive land out of production for at least 10 years. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) manages a network of over 1,300 registered technical service providers nationwide.

It is important that agriculture and forestry offsets have high standards of environmental integrity. Quantification and reporting systems need to be rigorous, verifiable, and transparent – and review and auditing systems will need to be in place. Uncertainties must be accounted for and reduced. Greenhouse gas benefits accrued through carbon sequestration will need to be monitored over time to ensure that the benefits are maintained and that reversals are accounted for if they occur. If these principles are followed, the resulting offsets should be real, additional, verifiable, and lasting.

USDA can support this effort through its scientific expertise, and technical capabilities, specific to greenhouse gases, carbon sequestration, and offsets. For example, in 2006, USDA released guidance to farm and forest landowners to allow them to estimate their greenhouse gas footprints. We are developing user-friendly tools that can help farmers and landowners make these calculations.

I would like to close by again thanking the Committee for taking up this important issue for agriculture, rural lands, and the environment. I believe that agriculture and forestry can play a vital role in addressing climate change and that, if done properly, there are significant opportunities for landowners to profit from doing right by the environment. USDA is ready to help make this happen.

Statement of Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Hearing on Energy and Climate Legislation, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, July 7, 2009

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Senator Inhofe and members of the Committee, thank you for your work on this important challenge facing our Nation.

I am here today to urge this committee to join with the Administration in seeking strong and effective legislation that will steer our nation toward a new energy economy that brings new jobs to our nation and improves our energy security . As the President has said, there is a choice before us: we can remain the world’s leading importer of oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy.

Interior is our nation’s largest landowner with jurisdiction over 20% of the land mass of the United States and 1.75 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). As America’s largest water provider and land and wildlife manager, Interior is already faced with the impacts of climate change on land, water and wildlife. Interior will thus play a key role in how the U.S. Government addresses and adapt to these climate change issues. Interior’s 6,000 scientists and 14,000 land managers are already documenting these impacts and developing systems to respond to them on and across public lands.

Interior’s land base includes some of the most productive renewable energy resources: solar in the Southwest; wind in the Atlantic, on the Great Plains and in the West; and geothermal in the West. We are working to develop these assets to help power President Obama’s vision for a new energy economy. Interior’s vast land ownership also gives it an important role in siting the new transmission lines needed to bring stranded renewable energy assets to load centers.

As the Secretary of the Interior, I can see the economic opportunity presented by the new energy economy. Since coming into office, we have prioritized the development of renewable energy on our public lands and our offshore waters. American business is responding. Companies are investing in wind farms off the Atlantic seacoast, solar facilities in the Southwest, and geothermal energy projects throughout the west. These new energy sources produce no greenhouse gases and, once installed, they harness abundant, renewable energy that nature itself provides.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee recently reported out legislation that will help to promote the development of this renewable energy opportunity. But we will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless this committee, and the Senate, put an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are damaging our environment. Doing so will level the playing field and demonstrate that our nation is serious about building a new, clean energy economy. It will trigger even more massive investment in new clean energy projects throughout our nation.

In addition to seeing the potential economic opportunity presented by addressing climate change, the Interior Department is in a unique position to see the negative impacts that climate change is having on our land, water and wildlife resources. Our land managers are confronting longer and hotter fire seasons, new incursions of invasive species, and the early impacts of sea rise; our wildlife managers are dealing with climate change-induced impacts on wildlife mating and migration habits and species interactions; and our water managers are factoring new precipitation patterns into their planning decisions, as snow packs diminish and more extreme wet and dry periods challenge long-standing water management practices.

The Interior Department is participating actively in the interagency process on adaptation policy being led by the White House, and I look forward to working with your committee as well as you consider adaptation strategies that address the impact that climate change is having on our resources. We have been developing a unified approach to adaptation challenges through the Department of the Interior, and we look forward to providing the committee with the benefit of the expertise that our land, wildlife and water managers can provide on this subject. Our Department’s developing experience with adaptive management strategies for resource management can provide a template for future efforts. For example, snowpack declines in the Northwest and Mountain-West have been accompanied by earlier annual peaks in river run-off as documented in stream gage monitoring and analyses across the lower 48 States and throughout Alaska. Land managers facing this reality are analyzing potentially substantial changes in management requirements for fish and wildlife and water resources. Interior managers are also learning to be strategic in rebuilding facilities that are lost to such natural disasters as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Fish and Wildlife Service has repaired or replaced dozens of facilities at refuges along the coast damaged by these storms. In the process of rebuilding facilities for people across the region to enjoy, the Service decided not to replace some facilities judged to be too vulnerable and has relocated others to more secure locations.

In all of these activities, the Department of the Interior is putting a premium on integrating our dual science and land management roles. Scientists in our United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, for example, are working hand-in-glove with our land, wildlife and water managers who are responsible for the more than 500 million acres of public lands that we oversee. We are focused on ensuring that our USGS and other agency scientists are collecting and analyzing data that are providing relevant scientific information about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems to decision-makers in the Department, at all levels of government, and the general public. This is, and needs to be, an interactive process, as our land, wildlife and water managers work with our scientists and help focus the nature of their research and analysis on the reality of on-the-ground changes. This information – baseline scientific information, trends detection, modeling and forecasting, together with the effective dissemination of information and decision support tools – is key to understanding and addressing climate change and its effects.

Finally, I look forward to working with the committee as you address the opportunities for carbon reduction provided by the “biological sequestration” of carbon in our Federal lands. As you know, pursuant to section 712 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), the USGS has the responsibility, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and others, to conduct national assessments of biologic carbon sequestration, ecosystem greenhouse gas fluxes, and potential effects of management practices and policies on ecosystem carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. The USGS is well underway with this work. Combined with the work of other agencies, it will help to enhance the scientific underpinning needed for a domestic offsets program that focuses on carbon reductions from land use practices.

I also would like to point out that the Interior Department has been engaged in a variety of projects that will teach us a great deal about biological sequestration, ranging from wetlands restoration projects in the mid-Atlantic and southeast, to afforestation projects in the lower Mississippi Valley, and habitat restoration projects in the west. The methodologies that USGS is developing at the direction of Congress, and the experience of our land managers in pursuing these projects as part of our broader ecosystem responsibilities, should be useful to the committee as you develop an offsets program that credits verifiable carbon reductions that are associated additional and with environmentally sound land management practices.

Madame Chairman, a problem as complex as climate change takes the coordinated efforts between all the branches of the government and all the governments of the world. The Department of the Interior stands ready with our shoulder to the wheel to contribute to this effort.

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

Opponents of this effort claim the nation cannot afford to act at this time. I disagree, and so do the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office. These organizations estimate that meeting the greenhouse gas targets in the House bill can be achieved at an annual cost between 22 to 48 cents per day per household in 2020. That’s about the price of a postage stamp per day.

History suggests that the actual costs could be even lower. The costs to save our ozone layer, to reduce smog with catalytic converters, and to scrub the sulfur dioxide from power plants were all far less than estimated. For example, according to the EPA, the SO2 reductions will be achieved for one-quarter of the estimated cost. The right clean energy incentives will start the great American research and innovation machine, and I am confident that American ingenuity will lead to better and cheaper climate solutions.

We can make significant near-term carbon reductions through energy efficiency. We use 40 percent of our energy in buildings. I firmly believe that, with today’s technologies, we can build new homes and buildings that use 40 percent less energy than today’s new buildings and therefore save money on energy bills. By developing a system integration approach, I believe we could eventually build buildings that use 80 percent less energy with investments that pay for themselves in less than 15 years through reduced energy bills. Similarly, we could retrofit existing buildings to achieve 50 percent energy savings with investments that will pay for themselves.

A comprehensive energy and climate bill will drive American innovation in fuel efficient automobiles and the development of advanced batteries for electric vehicles. It will offer incentives to re-start our nuclear power industry and encourage utilities to invest in carbon capture and sequestration. It will drive investments in wind and solar power and next generation biofuels from grasses and agricultural waste.

In addition to deploying the technologies we have today and can see on the horizon, we must pursue truly transformative solutions. Climate experts, such as the IPCC, tell us we must reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by mid-century to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that may avoid the worst consequences of climate change. To achieve our long-term goals in a more cost-effective way, we will need a sustained commitment to research and development. Only R&D can deliver a new generation of clean technologies.

Let me close with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King. His words seem so fitting for today’s climate crisis: “We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.”

Now is the time to take comprehensive and sustained action. With the leadership of the President, the actions of this Congress, and the support and participation of the American people, I am confident that we will succeed.

Thank you. I would be glad to answer your questions at this time.

Statement of Governor Haley Barbour, State of Mississippi, Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, July 7, 2009

Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe and committee members: Thank you for inviting me to testify before you on the critical issues of energy policy and America’s future.

America’s future is so tied to out energy policy that this hearing could be held before the Senate Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Finance, Energy or Budget Committee and be equally important and relevant to their work.

Energy policy significantly impacts every aspect of American foreign and domestic policy. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy; our national security depends on it. When we consider energy policy, it must be in the broadest context.

As we all know, our country is in the worst economic crisis in decades. It is being felt at the kitchen table of every family, as unemployment is at the highest rate since 1983. Our government is vastly increasing our national debt to get our economy “back on track.” Even though everyone knows the national debt is increasing at an unsustainable rate, we are taking the risk because robust economic growth is the only way to solve our economic problems.

Yet, as we strive to get our economy back growing and more Americans back on the job, our government is considering an energy policy, as set up in the Waxman-Markey bill and the President’s budget, that would make it much harder for the economy to grow; a policy that is, in fact, anti-growth because it will necessarily and purposefully raise the costs of energy for families and businesses, especially manufacturing…for our economy as a whole.

The cap and trade tax, the $81 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry contained in the President’s budget and the Waxman-Markey renewable energy standard would all drive up costs and drive down economic growth. Don’t take my word for it. President Obama, then a candidate, said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, “Under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

And before becoming Energy Secretary, Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal in September 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

President Obama’s OMB Director, Peter Orszag, in April 2008 said, “Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investment and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions.”

Just last month in an interview with Forbes magazine, the CEO of American Electric Power (AEP), Mike Morris, said the cap and trade tax would cause his electricity rates to go up 30% to 50%.

The gigantic effect of energy policy on American life means Congress should work particularly hard to ensure Americans know the facts about the policies Congress is considering: To the contrary, the House of Representatives added more than 300 pages of its 1200 page energy bill just a few hours before it was brought to the floor and passed. This is just the opposite of what is needed.

Last month the Southern Growth Policies Board, a forty-year old regional economic development group for thirteen states, held its annual conference. The more than four hundred attendees were most concerned about the costs associated with the cap and trade tax, the renewable energy mandate and the $81 billion in tax increases on the oil and gas industry. They were concerned about the costs to families as well as the costs to the economy.

At this conference there was a great deal of support for conservation and energy efficiency-both indispensable measures in our energy future-and a lot of hope and confidence was expressed for renewables like wind, biofuels, solar and even some more exotic sources in the future.

Nevertheless, it was agreed that for a long time there will be a need for traditional fuels like oil, gas, coal and nuclear, which generates no greenhouse gas emissions. Clean coal technologies and projects were presented and praised. But the biggest and most discussed issue at this conference was the cost of energy policy proposals like the cap and trade tax, the renewable electricity standard and the tax increases proposed for the oil and gas industry.

There was no question about who would bear these costs: the consumer. The one who turns on the light switch, starts the washing machine, fuels up the car with gas or drives the truck delivering goods across town for across the country; that is who will pay.

Moreover, these increased energy costs will hit small businesses hard and will particularly hurt energy-intensive industries like manufacturing or computer processing. Some manufacturers even predicted these energy policies would cause electricity rate increases that would make their U.S. manufacturing facilities uncompetitive compared to facilities in China, India, Brazil or Russia.

Dan DiMicco, the CEO of Nucor Steel, America’s largest steel manufacturer, said the cap and trade tax would mean his company would close U.S. plants, shifting production to China. Making a ton of steel in China results in five-times grater emissions of greenhouse gases than to produce that same ton of steel in the U.S.

It is hard to believe that at a time when growing our economy is our number one priority, Congress is considering a bill that would reduce economic growth. When families are suffering because of a serious recession, Congress is considering a bill to drive up the cost of electricity that cools those families’ homes and the gasoline that runs their cars. As U.S. manufacturing faces stiff foreign competition, Congress is considering a bill that would make our manufacturers less competitive.

The concerns I’ve cited are serious, even if the cap and trade tax works as planned. But many Americans worry it will be an Enron-style financial scheme where Wall Street manipulators make giant profits while ratepayers, motorists and Main Street businesses pay greatly increased costs.

Environmentalists rightly worry about the assumed large scale use of international offsets, saying they are not verifiable. Others say the foreign offsets are claimed by CBO to reduce the price of allowances by 70%, but that’s highly questionable.

A particularly scary feature of the cap and trade tax regime is that anyone can purchase emissions permits. There is nothing to stop a large government like China from investing heavily in CO2 emission permits instead of U.S. Treasuries. The effect, of course, would be that U.S.-located industries could not buy those permits or that they would have to pay much higher prices for the permits, thereby making our businesses even more uncompetitive with foreign (read: Chinese) manufacturers. Market manipulation by speculators is bad enough; driving up demand and prices by foreign competitors is anathema.

The right energy policy for our country is more American energy, using all sources of American energy…all of the above. We have abundant, affordable, reliable American energy. Let’s use it rather than having a policy that makes energy more expensive.

I’d be glad to discuss more American energy during questions or to try to answer any other questions.

Related Links:

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

Reflecting on the lameness of my profession

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday that it will grant a waiver for California and 13 other states to set automobile emission standards that are higher than national ones -- at least for the next two years.

"The waiver affirms California's authority to set the standards for the cleanest cars in the nation and recognizes the ability of forward-thinking states to continue to adopt them," said California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols in a statement celebrating the announcement.

The Bush administration denied California's waiver request last year, but Obama directed the EPA to reconsider almost immediately after he took office.

The waiver lets California (and the other states that have chosen to follow its lead) move forward with its emission standards for the model years 2009 to 2016. But in practical terms, that won't mean a lot, as the Obama administration recently announced a new national standard that mirrors California's proposed standard. As part of the deal worked out by the Obama team, California agreed to abide by the new federal rules for model years 2012 to 2016, and automakers agreed to drop their lawsuits against the state. The new federal rules call for an average annual fuel-economy increase of 5 percent per year, bringing cars up to 39 miles per gallon and light trucks to 30 mpg by 2016.

An EPA official told reporters on Tuesday that the waiver will allow California to have its own program until 2012, when the national program kicks in. But given the tight time frame between now and the release of 2012 model-year cars, it's unlikely the state will take action ahead of the national rules. Also, California probably won't want to upset the hard-won deal reached with the Obama admin and automakers.

While the granting of the waiver isn't expected to lead to emission reductions beyond those already queued up by the Obama team, it does restore the interpretation of the Clean Air Act that was in place until the Bush administration. The Clean Air Act allows California to petition the EPA for permission to set standards higher than federal ones. The state's requests were traditionally granted -- up until last year. Today's move reaffirms California's special consideration. It also opens the door for the state to set tougher standards for 2017 and beyond.

The Clean Air Act allows states to follow either national standards or California's standards. Thirteen states have chosen to follow California: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

"Congress recognized that California could serve as a pioneer and a laboratory for the nation in setting new motor vehicle emission standards," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote in the decision. "Congress intentionally structured this waiver provision [in the Clean Air Act] to restrict and limit EPA's ability to deny a waiver, and did this to ensure that California had broad discretion in selecting the means it determined best to protect the health and welfare of its citizens."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger applauded the EPA's decision. "After being asleep at the wheel for over two decades, the federal government has finally stepped up and granted California its nation-leading tailpipe emissions waiver," he said in a statement. "This decision is a huge step for our emerging green economy that will create thousands of new jobs and bring Californians the cars they want while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Feeling ambivalent?Will the Waxman-Markey bill spark a full-scale energy revolution?

No. Not on its own, not in the next 10-15 years. The short-term targets for reducing greenhouse gases are too low, the renewable electricity standard is too weak, too many offsets are allowed, and there's too little investment in clean energy. To boot, there's every indication the bill will get worse before it passes ... in the unlikely event it passes.

The green world is grappling with these unpleasant facts right now, fluctuating between rage (kill it!), dread (we're screwed), and resignation (it's better than nothing). Or maybe that's just me.

Anyway, on odd-numbered days, I think I've reached a fragile zen detente with the whole process. Mainly, I've been trying to focus on a different question: will there be an energy revolution? After all, the American Clean Energy and Security Act is not the only shot for Obama to make good on his campaign promises on energy. Nor is the legislation our last chance to tackle the climate crisis. No bill can carry that kind of weight, not at this moment, with this Congress. America is at the tail end of an era of cheap energy and heedless economic growth. Waxman-Markey is just the struggle to get an extremely hidebound, backward-looking set of political institutions to acknowledge that the old order is collapsing. Building a new order is something else entirely.

The question is, what's going to happen after the bill is passed? An energy revolution will require a combination of social, technological, business, legal, regulatory, and legislative changes. Federal legislation can't do all the lifting. Conversely, other changes can compensate somewhat for a weak (at least at the outset) federal framework. What will ultimately make the difference is not the specific mechanics of the bill but the, ahem, Sweep of History. (And who better to capture the Sweep of History than Some Blogger?)

I am reasonably optimistic, despite the flaws in Waxman-Markey, that history is on our side, and that the arguments happening today in Congress will soon be seen as peculiar and archaic. Here, briefly, is why:

Obama (Lo, is he not The Beginning of All Lists?)

There is no reason to think that this bill is going to be Obama's only legacy on energy. Already there's been the stimulus bill, which will probably do more for clean energy in the next five years than Waxman-Markey, the new mileage standards, and the big climate impacts report. And there is plenty more to come.

In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell has a fantastic piece on Energy Secretary Steven Chu. (For reasons only RS understands, it is not yet online. However, Charlie Petit at Knight has a bootleg PDF copy and some thoughts on the piece. Also read Brad Plumer. And while you're at it, read Brad's long and extremely excellent piece on the question of whether we need technological breakthroughs to beat climate change, which is centered on Chu.)

The RS piece contains this striking passage:

"The fact is, we're not going to level out at 450 ppm," [Chu] says. "We're going to go over 450 ppm. So what will we do? I'm not in favor of deploying geoengineering. But thinking about it is OK."

For a moment, the room goes quiet. In effect, the United States secretary of energy has just told an elite group of scientists and politicians that, no matter what happens with climate legislation this summer in Congress, no matter what China does or does not do, no matter what targets are set at climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year, our future as a species is likely a grim one. Chu has uttered the politically unthinkable: that his own administration's efforts to halt global warming might not be enough to avert a catastrophe.

In other words, Chu gets it. He knows that this isn't just political football. It isn't just another "issue." It's imminent misery, not just for future generations but for people alive today.

And he's not the only one. White House science adviser John Holdren gets it. So do climate czar Carol Browner, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, CEQ chief Nancy Sutley, and both Hillary Clinton and Todd Stern at State. So, if we're to believe those close to him, does Barack Obama (though many of his supporters are beginning to have their doubts, what with his ongoing low profile on the subject).

If Obama wins a second term, we will have eight years of an administration filled with people who believe that the fate of millions, possibly human civilization itself, rests on their ability to tackle this problem. They're not going to view the passage of a compromised cap-and-trade bill as the end of their responsibility. They'll use their eight years to make sure the long-term emission-reduction framework put in place by Waxman-Markey is part of our national DNA. They'll keep pushing China. They'll use executive branch tools (including, but not only, the EPA). They'll drive research and deployment.

In eight years, the quest for a clean energy revolution will not be a subject for partisan dispute but a simple fact, a shared national mission, and part of every business's long-term planning.

Some other reasons for hope:

• Oil prices threaten the economic recovery, as Ryan Avent keeps warning. Coal is getting more expensive, and several coal utilities are applying for rate increases. Gas prices are going to fluctuate (generally on the way up).

In short, fossil fuels are not going to become less of an economic pain in the ass. Their corrosive effects on the economy and public health seem likely to become steadily more apparent. Once consumers are familiar with alternative sources that offer stable, effectively free (after the initial capital investment) power, they're going to start demanding them.

• Cleantech is cool. This is from Joshua Green's excellent piece on clean energy in The Atlantic:

Shortly after the inauguration, a friend up for several jobs in the new administration confessed that he yearned to wind up at the Department of Energy. "It's like NASA in the '60s," he told me. "All the best and brightest want to be there." Obama's choice of Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate physicist, as secretary of energy only heightened the allure. In the early Obama era, romantic notions about making one's mark on history tend to take the form of helping recast America's economy, and by extension the world's, in a way that will head off global catastrophe.

And this:

"Think of the smartest guy you've ever met and then imagine 50,000 more just like him innovating all at once," Mike Danaher, a partner and cleantech specialist at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told me. "Just as they did with telecom in the '90s, they're attacking every component of every kind of alternative energy to improve it."

Cleantech's allure can partly be captured via numbers -- the amount of VC investment, the amount of stimulus money -- but it goes beyond that. It's about nerd chic. Figuring out energy is what all the hot-shit brainiacs coming out of Ivy League schools want to do these days. There's just an amazing amount of brainpower being devoted to these problems, more every day. I predict the pace of innovation is going to outstrip even the most optimistic projections. The clean-energy mammals will overwhelm the dirty-energy dinosaurs sooner than we think.

• The need for a real economy. One thing you frequently hear about the bubble-busts of the last 20 years is that there was too much capital chasing too few real investments. We need a new source of economic growth to absorb that capital. And there's a felt need today for Americans to start making stuff again -- inventing, manufacturing, and exporting things of real value.

What can we make? What's the new source of growth? Here's how economist James K. Galbraith put it:

Finally, there is the big problem: ... How to build the productive economy for the next generation? ...

Today the largest problems we face are energy security and climate change—massive issues because energy underpins everything we do, and because climate change threatens the survival of civilization. And here, obviously, we need a comprehensive national effort. Such a thing, if done right, combining planning and markets, could add 5 or even 10 percent of GDP to net investment. That’s not the scale of wartime mobilization. But it probably could return the country to full employment and keep it there, for years.

Moreover, the work does resemble wartime mobilization in important financial respects. Weatherization, conservation, mass transit, renewable power, and the smart grid are public investments. As with the armaments in World War II, work on them would generate incomes not matched by the new production of consumer goods. If handled carefully—say, with a new program of deferred claims to future purchasing power like war bonds—the incomes earned by dealing with oil security and climate change have the potential to become a foundation of restored financial wealth for the middle class.

This basic view, albeit toned down, is mirrored in Joe Biden's Middle Class Task Force, which is pushing hard on clean energy as a source of restored middle class prosperity.

All of which is to say: the structural position of the U.S. economy more or less requires a push toward clean energy. You can't build an economy on moving fake money around forever. If you want large and expanding markets, there aren't that many places to go.

• States and cities won't stop. Waxman-Markey may set national standards at relatively weak levels, but plenty of states have tougher renewable electricity standards. A few are experimenting with feed-in tariffs (see here and here) and producing extraordinary results. You can't throw a rock without hitting a mayor who wants to revitalize his or her city by establishing a reputation as green (see Grist's list of 15 green mayors).

The federal debate is warped by the outsized influence of carbon-intensive states and industries (magnified both by corporate contributions and by the frakked-up structure of U.S. constitutional government). But at the subnational level, there is a swarm of political leaders without the same constraints. Eventually, their success -- not only environmental success but subsequent economic and political success -- will alter the political calculus even in the most recalcitrant states. Whether or not the trend is accelerated by Waxman-Markey, wealth is already transferring from middle states to the coasts, because the East and West coasts are where the action and innovation are.

• We are on the cusp of an extended progressive era. This is the one I'm least confident about, so I'm putting it last. But in my optimistic moments, I agree with the politics editor at The Nation, Chris Hayes:

Look at how far we've come in the last four years. We have a black president who ran on the most ambitiously progressive domestic agenda in a generation. Look at the political perspectives of the youngest voters, the most progressive cohort since the dawn of polling on almost every issue. White, male, Christians are the demographic roadblock. And the country is getting less white and less Christian. The macro forces are moving in our direction. What makes you lose hope is the hand-to-hand combat happening on Capitol Hill. Progressives have a unique lack of self-confidence where we feel like we are just going to get this one little chance, but I think the force of history is on our side. I believe that with every last fiber of my being.

I can't say I believe that with my every fiber. Maybe 60 to 70 percent of my fibers. But sometimes, when I squint just right, I see a future blooming with cultural and technological ferment, a tidal change on the way that will be helped by a strong federal climate bill but will not be stopped by a weak one.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill