Dennis McLerran was appointed Administrator for EPA’s Region 10 in January. He spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Energy, Environment and Tech committee get Cap and Trade overview
Rich Walje, President of Rocky Mountain Power, spoke about the federal cap and trade issue before the interim joint legislative committee on Energy, Environment and technology.
- Rocky Mountain Power serves customers in southeast Idaho. It customer-base is about 50% industrial.
- Fifty percent of the power it produces comes from coal-based generation.
- It is also the 2nd largest owner and operator of wind power in America.
Walje said Rocky Mountain Power supports the need to reduce carbon emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions but does not support a cap and trade program like the Waxman-Markley legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. The issue is not renewable versus non-renewable energy. It’s about the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Walje suggests giving Rocky Mountain Power a target for reduction and letting the company figure out the best way to get there.
Walje noted the federal legislation being discussed does not take into account the growth rate in the need for electricity. There is no need for the trading associated with capping carbon emissions. Under Waxman-Markey, a company is given an allocation to emit one ton of carbon. It requires an emission allowance for every ton of carbon, not just the amount that is above the carbon cap. Waxman-Markey would only allow Rocky Mountain Power 55% of the allocations it would need. The company would have to buy the other 45% on the market. Those costs would be billed to its customers. An estimated $25 per ton for carbon equates to an average 16% price increase to the customer. This is before any costs to make changes that would actually reduce carbon. The average Rocky Mountain Power residential customer pays $3.00 a day for power. Those supporting Waxman-Markey point out that the cost is only as a much as postage stamp ($.44). They avoid mentioning that that is a cost per day which equals $13.38 additional cost per month. Under the House legislation, allocations go to companies that do not need them because they have lower carbon emissions. They sell them on the market to companies like Rocky Mountain Power that don’t get enough allocations--essentially transferring money from Rocky Mountain Power customers to the sellers of the allocations. None of this reduces carbon emissions, Walje says, it is, rather, a transfer of wealth. The trading regime is not limited to those who produce electricity. Wall Street will be involved and taking a cut.
Walje pointed out that 25% of the votes for Waxman-Markey in the U.S. House of Representatives came from New York and California. Is it a coincidence, he asks, that these are two states that will benefit the most from moving money? We can cap carbon emissions but with a cap and trade scheme, the customers pay twice: once for the trading costs and then again for the cost to actually reduce levels of carbon emissions. There is no economic development without electricity. Walje stressed the need to balance economic development, environmental impacts, and affordable electricity.
A member of the committee asked Walje why cap and trade won’t work for carbon reduction when it seemed to work well in reducing sulfur dioxide and acid rain. Walje responded that that program did not involve Wall Street traders. It did not give allocations to those who did not produce sulfur dioxide. In closing, Walje said that we don’t need the trading part of cap and trade to reduce carbon emissions. He would like to set up a plan to reach carbon reductions and work with the state to accomplish that reduction.
Neil Colwell of Avista Corporation made brief comments following Walje’s presentation. Avista, he says, is one of those companies that might be termed a “winner” in the cap and trade system because it doesn’t have coal generation. There would be less impact on its customers but there would still be a cost impact. If the price of allowances goes too high, the U.S. economy could suffer. Therefore, a reasonable ceiling on the price of emission allowances is needed. An allowance price floor may also be necessary to encourage investments in emission reduction technology. Avista supports allocation of allowances based on electricity output or sales and opposes allocation based on historic emissions. Allowances should be allocated to load serving utilities with the benefits passed on to customers. The Edison Electric Institute allocation compromise that splits the difference between emission-based and load-based allocation is reasonable. Colwell also commented that there were more solutions available in dealing with sulfur dioxide and acid rain.
- Rocky Mountain Power serves customers in southeast Idaho. It customer-base is about 50% industrial.
- Fifty percent of the power it produces comes from coal-based generation.
- It is also the 2nd largest owner and operator of wind power in America.
Walje said Rocky Mountain Power supports the need to reduce carbon emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions but does not support a cap and trade program like the Waxman-Markley legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. The issue is not renewable versus non-renewable energy. It’s about the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Walje suggests giving Rocky Mountain Power a target for reduction and letting the company figure out the best way to get there.
Walje noted the federal legislation being discussed does not take into account the growth rate in the need for electricity. There is no need for the trading associated with capping carbon emissions. Under Waxman-Markey, a company is given an allocation to emit one ton of carbon. It requires an emission allowance for every ton of carbon, not just the amount that is above the carbon cap. Waxman-Markey would only allow Rocky Mountain Power 55% of the allocations it would need. The company would have to buy the other 45% on the market. Those costs would be billed to its customers. An estimated $25 per ton for carbon equates to an average 16% price increase to the customer. This is before any costs to make changes that would actually reduce carbon. The average Rocky Mountain Power residential customer pays $3.00 a day for power. Those supporting Waxman-Markey point out that the cost is only as a much as postage stamp ($.44). They avoid mentioning that that is a cost per day which equals $13.38 additional cost per month. Under the House legislation, allocations go to companies that do not need them because they have lower carbon emissions. They sell them on the market to companies like Rocky Mountain Power that don’t get enough allocations--essentially transferring money from Rocky Mountain Power customers to the sellers of the allocations. None of this reduces carbon emissions, Walje says, it is, rather, a transfer of wealth. The trading regime is not limited to those who produce electricity. Wall Street will be involved and taking a cut.
Walje pointed out that 25% of the votes for Waxman-Markey in the U.S. House of Representatives came from New York and California. Is it a coincidence, he asks, that these are two states that will benefit the most from moving money? We can cap carbon emissions but with a cap and trade scheme, the customers pay twice: once for the trading costs and then again for the cost to actually reduce levels of carbon emissions. There is no economic development without electricity. Walje stressed the need to balance economic development, environmental impacts, and affordable electricity.
A member of the committee asked Walje why cap and trade won’t work for carbon reduction when it seemed to work well in reducing sulfur dioxide and acid rain. Walje responded that that program did not involve Wall Street traders. It did not give allocations to those who did not produce sulfur dioxide. In closing, Walje said that we don’t need the trading part of cap and trade to reduce carbon emissions. He would like to set up a plan to reach carbon reductions and work with the state to accomplish that reduction.
Neil Colwell of Avista Corporation made brief comments following Walje’s presentation. Avista, he says, is one of those companies that might be termed a “winner” in the cap and trade system because it doesn’t have coal generation. There would be less impact on its customers but there would still be a cost impact. If the price of allowances goes too high, the U.S. economy could suffer. Therefore, a reasonable ceiling on the price of emission allowances is needed. An allowance price floor may also be necessary to encourage investments in emission reduction technology. Avista supports allocation of allowances based on electricity output or sales and opposes allocation based on historic emissions. Allowances should be allocated to load serving utilities with the benefits passed on to customers. The Edison Electric Institute allocation compromise that splits the difference between emission-based and load-based allocation is reasonable. Colwell also commented that there were more solutions available in dealing with sulfur dioxide and acid rain.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Western states to lose control over transmission siting?
The Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) is holding its 19th annual summit in Boise this week. The theme of the conference is Global Challenges, Northwest Imperatives for the Future. Following is an article published by NewWest.net about transmission siting in the West.
For further information about PNWER activities in Boise this week, go to: http://www.pnwer.org/2009summit/Home
Western States To Lose Control Over Transmission Siting?
'We don't know why or where it came from."
By Sharon Fisher, 7-13-09:
Newly added provisions to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, next slated to be voted on by the U.S. Senate, give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission final say over the siting of electric transmission lines in Western states—but not in any other part of the country, attendees of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference in Boise learned today.
There is a “real threat” of the federal government taking over, said Paul Kjellander, administrator of Idaho’s office of energy resources, noting that seven transmission lines are currently slated to crisscross Idaho.
One of the biggest issues is Gateway West, the siting of which is being fought by Parma and Kuna, which found out at recent public meetings that towers up to 180 feet tall along a corridor up to 250 wide were slated to cross the cities’ impact areas.
“Everyone agrees it’s essential,” Kjellander said. “What they can’t agree on is where it goes,” especially since some alternative routes could add up to $1 billion more to the project.
Siting of transmission lines are a major issue in the West; a lawsuit was filed earlier this month regarding the designation of a number of “energy corridors” here.
The Fourth Circuit court overturned a legal decision earlier this year regarding FERC power over site selection. “FERC had argued that the 2005 Energy Policy Act permitted it to order “national interest” transmission projects to go forward, and that Congress’ mandate included implicit authority to overrule state decisions to the contrary,” according to the Marten Law Group. “The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that if states turn down transmission projects on reasonable grounds, they cannot be overruled by FERC.” The case may end up going to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law group said.
It was after that, in May, when amendments were added to the The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), H.R. 2454, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill, allowing FERC to pre-empt state decisions on siting, said Janice Adair, Washington liaison to the Western Climate Initiative, which is developing its own cap-and-trade plan.
“We don’t know why or where it came from,” Adair said, noting that the amendment came in a package about 3 am. “We’re going backwards to try to figure out how that happened. The Western states are very much opposed to that position,” she added.
“Under the newest draft, a “high-priority national transmission project"developer must first apply to a state to route transmission facilities,” the Marten Law Group said. “But if the state fails to approve the construction and routing within one year of application, rejects the application, or imposes “unreasonable” conditions on the project, FERC can step in and authorize the transmission line routing. The explicit authority to override a state’s rejection of a project is a direct response to the 4th Circuit decision.”
“The federal government isn’t likely to be as respectful of private lands” as the states are, Kjellander said. On the other hand, “Transmission is that key resource we need to be developing as quickly as we can,” he added. “Let’s not forget what happens if we don’t move forward.”
For further information about PNWER activities in Boise this week, go to: http://www.pnwer.org/2009summit/Home
Western States To Lose Control Over Transmission Siting?
'We don't know why or where it came from."
By Sharon Fisher, 7-13-09:
Newly added provisions to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, next slated to be voted on by the U.S. Senate, give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission final say over the siting of electric transmission lines in Western states—but not in any other part of the country, attendees of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference in Boise learned today.
There is a “real threat” of the federal government taking over, said Paul Kjellander, administrator of Idaho’s office of energy resources, noting that seven transmission lines are currently slated to crisscross Idaho.
One of the biggest issues is Gateway West, the siting of which is being fought by Parma and Kuna, which found out at recent public meetings that towers up to 180 feet tall along a corridor up to 250 wide were slated to cross the cities’ impact areas.
“Everyone agrees it’s essential,” Kjellander said. “What they can’t agree on is where it goes,” especially since some alternative routes could add up to $1 billion more to the project.
Siting of transmission lines are a major issue in the West; a lawsuit was filed earlier this month regarding the designation of a number of “energy corridors” here.
The Fourth Circuit court overturned a legal decision earlier this year regarding FERC power over site selection. “FERC had argued that the 2005 Energy Policy Act permitted it to order “national interest” transmission projects to go forward, and that Congress’ mandate included implicit authority to overrule state decisions to the contrary,” according to the Marten Law Group. “The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that if states turn down transmission projects on reasonable grounds, they cannot be overruled by FERC.” The case may end up going to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law group said.
It was after that, in May, when amendments were added to the The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), H.R. 2454, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill, allowing FERC to pre-empt state decisions on siting, said Janice Adair, Washington liaison to the Western Climate Initiative, which is developing its own cap-and-trade plan.
“We don’t know why or where it came from,” Adair said, noting that the amendment came in a package about 3 am. “We’re going backwards to try to figure out how that happened. The Western states are very much opposed to that position,” she added.
“Under the newest draft, a “high-priority national transmission project"developer must first apply to a state to route transmission facilities,” the Marten Law Group said. “But if the state fails to approve the construction and routing within one year of application, rejects the application, or imposes “unreasonable” conditions on the project, FERC can step in and authorize the transmission line routing. The explicit authority to override a state’s rejection of a project is a direct response to the 4th Circuit decision.”
“The federal government isn’t likely to be as respectful of private lands” as the states are, Kjellander said. On the other hand, “Transmission is that key resource we need to be developing as quickly as we can,” he added. “Let’s not forget what happens if we don’t move forward.”
Monday, June 15, 2009
Climate Change threat overblown?
Fortune magazine published an article that was posted to the CNNMoney.com website on May 14, 2009. It is an interview with John Christy, director of the Earth Science Center at the University of Alabama, written by Jon Birger, senior writer at Fortune. Christy is a veteran climatologist who was a lead author on the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and one of three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change.
This isn’t a story that got a lot of attention from the mainstream media; however, it is worth reading because of the credentials of John Cristy and his research on the issue of global warming.
In the interview, Christy says: “The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe (global warming). Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.”
Follow this link to read his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee on February 25, 2009, and read Birger's article at Fortune Magazine for more information.
This isn’t a story that got a lot of attention from the mainstream media; however, it is worth reading because of the credentials of John Cristy and his research on the issue of global warming.
In the interview, Christy says: “The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe (global warming). Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.”
Follow this link to read his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee on February 25, 2009, and read Birger's article at Fortune Magazine for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)