Switchboard, from NRDC

Republican Bills Would Obstruct Enforcement of Environmental Laws

2013-05-23T20:00:00Z

John Walke, Clean Air Director/ Senior Attorney, Washington, D.C.

The following was originally published on RegBlog on May 20, 2013.

Congressional Republicans have attacked the Obama administration by accusing federal agencies of engaging in collusive litigation practices with public interest groups (pejoratively dubbed “sue-and-settle”). Republicans in both the 112th and 113th Congress have introduced legislation that purports to address this practice. Senate Republicans have most recently leveled similar accusations at Ms. Gina McCarthy during the confirmation proceedings for her nomination to be the next Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator.

Yet when railing against this alleged practice, these members of Congress have failed to substantiate their charges with actual proof. And they never acknowledge the harmful consequences that the extreme bills would produce.

The so-called “Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act” (introduced in slightly different forms as H.R. 3862 in the 112th Congress and S. 714 in the 113th Congress) creates the legal opportunity for third party “intervenors” to obstruct settlement talks and prolong illegal, harmful actions when federal agencies are sued for violating federal laws.

Specifically, the bills create a presumption requiring courts to allow non-party industry intervenors to participate in federal agency settlement discussions. The bill also establishes devious means by which these intervenors may disrupt and obstruct the settlement of lawsuits that the government believes should not be defended in court.

Let's be clear. Sponsors of these extreme bills want industry intervenors to be given the right to participate in settlement discussions to argue that agencies like the EPA have not broken the law—even when agencies admit that they have. These industry intervenors would like to oppose rulemakings and schedules to remedy the legal violations, over the objections of injured plaintiffs, even when the agency is willing to follow the law and correct its illegal behavior.

Under current law, third party intervenors have no legal right to participate in settlement discussions involving any party, whether government, private entity, or individual. For example, in a lawsuit by female employees against a national supermarket chain over claims that they are paid less than their male co-workers, Congress does not (and should not) give male employees the right to participate in and block settlements between the supermarket and the female workers because the men want the pay discrimination to continue.

However, this is precisely what the described legislation would foster by allowing unlawful federal agency action or inaction to persist and the promise of health and safety protections to remain unfulfilled.

Statutory deadlines are written into many federal statutes, and these congressional deadlines ensure that statutes are carried out to advance important safeguards for public health, the environment, workers, consumers, and investors. David Schoenbrod, a witness at the hearing for H.R. 3862, testified that EPA has met only “14 percent of the hundreds of deadlines set for it by Congress.”

When such a deadline passes, Congress has empowered citizens, states, and corporations to enforce the law against wayward federal agencies for their failure to meet statutory deadlines and other legal responsibilities. The judiciary oversees enforcement of these statutory requirements in court and by approving settlements agreements and consent decrees.

What’s more, current law is replete with legal mechanisms that ensure adequate public participation, transparency, and fulsome rulemaking procedures before agencies commit to binding, substantive decisions with the force of law.

Take, for example, EPA’s recently finalized mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. EPA missed a mandatory statutory deadline by nearly 10 years to promulgate national standards that would for the first time limit mercury, arsenic, and acid gases emitted by fossil fuel-fired power plants.

When sued, EPA agreed in a consent decree to propose standards by a certain date and to finalize standards by a later date. The agency did not (and could not) commit to a particular outcome or policy position. Consistent with the Clean Air Act, EPA solicited public comment on the consent decree. Power industry intervenors not only opposed the rulemaking schedule but also argued (unsuccessfully) that EPA was forbidden from adopting the long overdue standards. (The judge declined to credit these arguments and approved the decree.) Later, when EPA proposed standards, it provided nearly 140 days of formal public comment opportunity, and then finalized toxic air pollution standards for power plants. At that point, industry parties brought lawsuits challenging substantive and procedural aspects of the new standards.

Today’s legislative proposals would upend this process. These radical bills are actually designed to enhance the ability of industry intervenors to thwart the obligation of agencies like EPA to follow the law and reduce hazards to the public that occur when industry fails to comply. (Indeed, industry challengers to the mercury and air toxic standards testified that their experience was a prime reason they believed the House bill was necessary.) No longer would a federal agency be able to resolve litigation early in the process by settling lawsuits that it would clearly lose.

Instead, industry intervenors would oppose rulemaking schedules that agencies agree to meet to remedy missed statutory deadlines. This would further harm already injured plaintiffs and the public, increase transaction costs for the parties, and unnecessarily waste the resources of an already strained judicial system. This directly conflicts with the widely accepted policy of the federal judiciary that favors the “compromise and settlement of disputes,” and ignores the very reason that deadline suits are brought in the first place.

A group of Senate Republicans recently demanded that EPA promise to allow industry intervention in agency settlement talks, implying they would filibuster Ms. McCarthy's nomination otherwise. EPA responded to the demand thusly:

[T]he EPA and the Department of Justice must have latitude to respond to [litigation against the government], on a case-by-case basis, in a manner that serves the public interest and is fully consistent with the government’s legal obligations. The EPA is unaware of any precedent for the U.S. Government, or any federal agency, to take such a sweeping position [guaranteeing intervenor participation], constraining the conduct of its defense in lawsuits brought against the government.

This is what is really going on. Lacking the votes to amend and weaken the substantive laws that federal agencies enforce, some Congressional Republicans are resorting to indirect attacks designed to obstruct enforcement of federal laws administered by agencies. Their extreme anti-enforcement bills are intended to constrain the government's conduct defending itself against lawsuits, and to undermine the executive branch's legal obligations to follow the law. Without so much as debating the merits of substantive statutes whose enforcement they seek to undermine, the proponents of these bills seek to thwart and effectively alter federal laws too popular to be weakened by direct amendment.

In purporting to solve a problem that has not been shown to exist, and seizing on a "solution" that mandates industry intervention in agency settlement negotiations, these political efforts represent irresponsible attempts to weaken federal laws and their enforcement. The efforts are just as extreme as the direct conservative attacks on regulatory safeguards that failed during the 112th Congress, and the anti-enforcement bills should fail for the same reasons.

Real Voices: Stakeholders, in their own words, urge EPA to stop Pebble Mine

2013-05-23T17:02:16Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

This week NRDC is running a series of ads in Washington D.C. asking the Obama administration to stop the proposed Pebble Mine. The ads feature Alaskans from Bristol Bay — including former State Senate President Rick Halford — explaining, in their own words, why it is essential that EPA protect Bristol Bay from the Pebble Mine. Pebble Mine is a giant gold and copper mine proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay – home to the world’s greatest wild salmon fishery, which has recently been valued at $1.5 billion annually. Here are some highlights from these poignent vignettes:

"As the former president of the Alaska State Senate, I served as a Republican leader in Alaska for 26 years. I believe in mining. I believe that mines are an important part of Alaska’s economy….but I don’t support Pebble Mine.” Rick Halford, former president of Alaska’s State Senate (above left).
“The populations of salmon I once fished along the Pacific Coast are mostly gone now, the victims of shortsighted development and habitat loss. In Bristol Bay we have a chance to get it right. Our jobs and sustainable fishing economy cannot be gambled away for the short-term profits of foreign mining investors.” Patricia Treydte, Bristol Bay fisherman (above right).

"I am the Executive Director of Nunamta Aulukestai…a coalition of 10 tribal governments and 10 native village corporations. The legendary salmon runs of Bristol Bay have supported our people for thousands of years. Salmon are our source of life. Salmon represent our past and our future.” Kimberly Williams, Executive Director of Nunamta Aulukestai (above left).
“Allowing giant mining corporations to take what amounts to the world's biggest pickaxe to the [Bristol Bay] region will destroy our way of life and place the future of our people and communities in doubt.” Bobby Andrew, Yup’ik elder (above center).

“The Obama administration called Bristol Bay a ‘national treasure’ that is too special to drill…I call on EPA to protect this rewewable resource that has been feeding my ancestors for thousands of years against foreign interests that only want short-term profits.” Verner Wilson III, commercial fishermen and Curyung Tribal Member (above right).

EPA released a revised scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed last month that found that mining at the headwaters of Bristol Bay would destroy salmon spawning and rearing habitat, including up to 90 miles of streams; devastate 4,800 acres of wetlands; and significantly impact fish populations in streams surrounding the mine site. The agency is currently accepting public comments on its Bristol Bay assessment.

The ads show EPA that it has overwhelming support from the region to protect Bristol Bay. According to recent polls:

85% of commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay oppose Pebble Mine, including 80% who strongly oppose it.
81% of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation's native shareholders oppose Pebble Mine.
80% of Bristol Bay residents oppose Pebble Mine.
68% of Alaskans oppose Pebble Mine, including 55% who strongly oppose it.

We also want to show policymakers inside the Beltway the faces of people whose lives, culture, and livelihoods will be forever changed if foreign mining companies are allowed to develop Pebble Mine and consequently produce 10 billion tons of waste.

The public has until May 31 to submit comments to EPA. Please speak out now in support of the people of Bristol Bay.

A New Mission for Wildlife Services? Feral Swine Is a Better Target Than Native Wildlife

2013-05-23T12:00:00Z

Andrew Wetzler, Director, Land & Wildlife Program, Chicago

Sequester. Budget deficit. National debt. With words like these swirling around Washington, DC -- and the political pressure they have generated to find ways to cut federal spending (we’ll leave aside whether that’s wise fiscal policy for now) -- I was a bit taken aback when I learned that President Obama had recommended that the federal government increase the budget of a once-obscure, but now controversial, federal program called “Wildlife Services.”

The Orwellian-named program (formerly known as Animal Damage Control) spends nearly 100 million taxpayer dollars a year to kill millions of wild animals across the United States. Most disturbingly, the agency spends much of this money on a relentless mission to kill native carnivores, ranging from coyotes and bears to mountain lions and wolves.

But all is not as it appears. As it turns out, the increase in funding that the USDA is pushing for, and the Obama Administration has signed off on, is actually meant for feral swine (wild pig) control, which is an entirely different beast (literally and figuratively). The need to invest in feral swine control was highlighted last week in a Senate appropriations hearing, and today Wildlife Services is hosting a scoping meeting for a national feral swine “damage management program.”

Feral swine are an invasive and highly destructive species. They have steadily spread -- sometimes with human help -- across much of the Southeastern and Western United States and, increasingly, into the Midwest, as highlighted recently by the New York Times. Feral swine have few natural predators, are omnivorous (and often predatory) eaters, and their rooting and wallowing behavior can cause severe damage to native ecosystems, particularly forests and wetlands. In fact, feral swine are often cited as a threat to native endangered wildlife.

So refocusing the agency’s attention on feral hogs -- instead of wolves, mountain lions and bears -- isn’t a bad idea. But there are a few things to be careful of:

First, Wildlife Services’ own assessment of the benefits of its control programs is often flawed. As NRDC laid out in our report Fuzzy Math, Wildlife Services’ cost-benefit analyses of its programs often fails to follow either federal or basic academic standards.

Second, Wildlife Services’ budget is notoriously murky. In fact, the agency often can’t even tell Congress exactly how it spends its money. In a 2011 letter to members of Congress, for example, the agency noted that because “we do not use a management accounting cost system” it could neither tell them how much money it spends on various management techniques nor break out the cost-categories (e.g., local governments, private business) to whom it was providing these services.

So, before anybody decides to give Wildlife Services more money to play with, we need to make sure it will actually be spent for its intended purpose – that is, dealing with feral swine – and that it will be used in a cost-effective manner that benefits the public and America’s natural landscape.

Right now, all of that is a big “if.”

China Environmental News Alert

2013-05-23T08:12:05Z

Greenlaw from NRDC China, NRDC China Program, Beijing

May 17, 2013- May 23, 2013

NRDC has been working in China for over fifteen years on such issues as energy efficiency, green buildings, clean energy technologies, environmental law, and green supply chain issues. This China Environmental News Alert is a compilation of news from around the world on China and the environment.

PM2.5 emerges as major pollutant in Shanghai

Shanghai Daily (May 23, 2013)

The PM2.5 particles are becoming a major pollutant in the city, surpassing former culprits like sulfur and nitrogen dioxides, Shanghai officials said yesterday. Between January and May, the city recorded 42 heavily polluted days with the PM2.5 density reaching the highest 200 micrograms per cubic meter on May 11. The city's Air Pollution Index rates it as "serious pollution."

China's nature reserves exceed global average

China Daily (May 23, 2013)

The size of nature reserves in China reached almost 15 percent of the country's total land area by the end of 2012, exceeding the global average of 12 percent. Li Ganjie, vice-minister of environmental protection, announced the figure at a celebration of the 2013 International Day for Biological Diversity on Wednesday. The figure has grown from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 14.9 percent today. The number of national-level nature reserves has increased from 77 to 363, marking the achievements the Chinese government has made to promote biodiversity since the country signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 20 years ago.

China Unveils Details of Pilot Carbon Trading Programme

The Guardian (May 22, 2013)

China has unveiled details of its first pilot carbon-trading programme, which will begin next month in the southern city of Shenzhen. The trading scheme will cover 638 companies responsible for 38% of the city’s total emissions, the Shenzhen branch of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced on Wednesday. The scheme will eventually expand to include transportation, manufacturing and construction companies. Shenzhen is one of seven designated areas in which the central government plans to roll out experimental carbon trading programmes before 2014.

China's green drive to boost oil demand

Wall Street Journal (May 22, 2013)

In China's government-driven economy, the law of unintended consequences is strong. So a new rule meant to help the environment could boost Big Oil instead. Beijing unveiled new fuel-consumption standards in March to help combat record smog in Chinese cities. The regulations are supposed to make cars more fuel-efficient. But a quirk of the rules relaxes standards for heavier cars like SUVs and gives auto makers an incentive to build more gas-guzzlers. That exacerbates growing demand from consumers who anyway see SUVs as both a powerful status symbol and a safer option on China's often dangerous roads.

China agrees to impose carbon targets by 2016

The Independent (May 21, 2013)

The battle against global warming has received a transformational boost after China, the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, proposed to set a cap on its greenhouse gas emissions for the first time. Under the proposal China, which is responsible for a quarter of the world's carbon emissions, would put a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions from 2016, in a bid to curb what most scientists agree is the main cause of climate change.

Hunan Rice Sales Plunge as China Probes Cadmium Contamination

Bloomberg (May 21, 2013)

Sales of rice from China’s top producing province have slumped amid reports that supplies from Hunan contain traces of cadmium that exceed government limits, a state-owned agriculture researcher said. Rice traders in Hunan reported sales dropping by more than half from a year ago since media reports of the pollutant in began appearing, Cngrain.com said on its website. The researcher, which is owned by China Grain Reserves Corp., a custodian of government food reserves, didn’t provide figures for the drop in sales.The Nanfang Daily first reported in February that rice from Hunan sold in southern Guangdong province contained excessive levels of toxic metal and the Guangzhou Food and Drug Administration reignited concerns with reports on its website last week.

U.S., EU Said to Be in Talks With China to End Solar Spat

Businessweek (May 20, 2013)

The Obama administration is engaged in preliminary talks with the European Union and China to settle a dispute over trade in solar-energy equipment and avoid a conflict among the world’s largest economies, according to people familiar with the discussions. The effort is focused on setting a quota on Chinese exports and a minimum price for solar-energy equipment, in exchange for suspending U.S. duties on the goods, according to two people familiar with the U.S. position who asked not to be identified to discuss private deliberations.

Governments toughen stance on environmental protesters amid Kunming, Chengdu actions

South China Morning Post (May 20, 2013)

Growth-obsessed local governments have become more sophisticated at handling rising environmental protests on the mainland, as recent cases against controversial chemical projects in southwestern cities Kunming and Chengdu show. After two street protests in Kunming this month against a controversial petroleum refinery and a related chemical plant producing paraxylene - a suspected carcinogen - residents in the Yunnan provincial capital have yet to call it a victory, as a double-faced Kunming government promises to heed public opinion while simultaneously scrambles to muzzle protesters.

Environmentalists fear dams on Nu could befoul one of China's great waterways

Irish Times (May 18th, 2013)

When news came that a ban on construction of hydroelectric dams on the Nu river, one of the last great unpolluted rivers in China, was being lifted, it sent shockwaves down the 2,800km length of the waterway. In Liuku, a town in Yunnan province in the southwest China, you can see where work has already started, before official permission has come from the central government. Thousands of households have been relocated, and China's weary band of environmental activists, who have fought for yours to slow the process of damming on the Yangtze and China's other great rivers, ask: why China can't have just one single river that is not polluted?

(CENA prepared by Jack Marzulli)
The links and article summaries in this post are provided for informational purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Chamber of Commerce Attacks Health Safeguards, Law Enforcement

2013-05-22T18:31:00Z

John Walke, Clean Air Director/ Senior Attorney, Washington, D.C.

The Chamber of Commerce has joined leagues with Congressional extremists to urge obstructing the enforcement of federal health, environmental and financial safeguards that have proven too popular to weaken by direct amendment. The Chamber is carrying the water of Congressional Republicans who have introduced legislation that they pretend is about collusion but in reality is designed to obstruct enforcement of federal health, safety, environmental, financial and consumer protection laws.

In support of this highly partisan enterprise, the Chamber recently issued a report [pdf] that takes aim at the Obama administration and accuses federal agencies of engaging in collusive litigation practices with public interest groups (a practice they disparage as “sue-and-settle” litigation). The Chamber report is like a Ponzi scheme of falsehoods, causing the report to collapse on itself and its conclusions to fall apart.

The very “methodology” of the Chamber report reveals its duplicity. As the Republican talking points go, so-called “sue-and-settle” practices “appear to be the result of collusion, where an agency shares the goals of those suing it and takes advantage of litigation to achieve those shared goals” See also, e.g. introduction to House bill. [pdf] This is a serious charge to level at the executive branch—but Congressional Republicans have proven utterly incapable of backing up the allegation with actual proof of collusion.

Faced with this dilemma, the Chamber of Commerce chose a “sue-and-settle” methodology that consists of Internet searches identifying cases in which EPA and an environmental group entered into a consent decree or settlement agreement. The report’s methodology (pages 46-49) quietly dispenses with any need for proof of collusion or impropriety. And it is unsurprising that the Chamber’s methodology found instances of settlements with EPA.

But the Chamber report then proceeds to jam these unremarkable square facts into the round hole created by the collusion-imagining politicians. Voila! A shoddy report that redefines and significantly expands the already politically loaded sue-and-settle allegation precisely because there is no evidence of collusion.

Early on, the report authors slip and reveal one of the dirty little secrets behind the Chamber's political enterprise. In poker, the following statement is called a "tell," because it inadvertently reveals how a player is playing his hand. The Chamber confesses that “[a] major concern is that the sue and settle tactic, which has been so effective in removing control over the rulemaking process from Congress—and placing it instead with private parties under the supervision of federal courts—will spread to other complex statutes that have statutorily imposed dates for issuing regulations.” (emphasis added) (Report p. 7.)

This tells us that the Chamber knows what's really going on and why it is resorting to misrepresentation throughout its report. Namely, the Chamber understands that the agencies it excoriates are entering into settlements and consent decrees to carry out statutorily required obligations for which the agencies lack discretion.

But following this slip, the Chamber must return to the trope that runs throughout its report, that agencies have legally preserved discretion that they are giving away through decrees. That too is false and unproven, of course, but without the loud insistence to the contrary, the Chamber would have even less cause to issue this weightless report.

Let’s look at some of the core falsehoods in the Chamber report.

Chamber Fiction: “Perhaps the most significant impact of these sue and settle agreements is that by freely giving away its discretion in order to satisfy private parties, an agency uses congressionally appropriated funds to achieve the demands of private parties.” (Report p. 7.)

Facts: The legal obligations in these agreements involve mandatory duties written into laws passed by Congress. Agencies lack discretion as a matter of law to ignore or contravene these mandatory statutory duties. Most of these obligations concern statutory deadlines. For example, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review national air quality standards every five years. The Chamber report does not begin to explain where EPA enjoys discretion to miss this deadline, even though the report lists this as a prime example where EPA has discretion to do something other than what the law says. (Report p. 43.)

Indeed, the Clean Air Act spells out in unmistakable language the basis for citizen suit lawsuits against the government: lawsuits in federal district court are permitted only when the act or duty to be performed by the EPA Administrator is "not discretionary." (Clean Air Act s. 304(a).)

It is revealing that even the Chamber identifies its demonstrably false discretion trope as the “most significant impact” of the report’s “sue and settle” allegation. The report’s misrepresentation of mandatory statutory duties for agencies ends up confirming the Chamber’s agenda to prolong government violations of statutory health and safety obligations.

Take this recent EPA consent decree [pdf] from the Chamber’s hit list. (Report, p. 43.) EPA agreed to a date to finalize its review of air quality standards for soot pollution, after the agency missed the mandatory 5-year deadline. The decree contains the following language—typically included in similar decrees—that suggests that the Chamber might not even be reading the settlements it condemns for allegedly stripping agencies of legally preserved discretion:

Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit, expand, or otherwise modify the discretion accorded to EPA by the Clean Air Act or by general principles of administrative law, including the discretion to alter, amend or revise any final action EPA takes [relating to soot standards], except the deadline specified therein. EPA’s obligation to [revise soot standards] by the times specified therein does not constitute a limitation, expansion or other modification of EPA’s discretion within the meaning of this paragraph.

Amazingly, the Chamber report highlights this consent decree as one in which EPA is denied discretion and rule outcomes are dictated. (Report, p. 19.) This is not just nonsense, it’s nonsense on stilts.

Chamber Fiction: “The practice of agencies entering into voluntary agreements with private parties to issue specific rulemaking requirements also severely undercuts agency compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. . . . .” (Report p. 6.)

Facts: The Chamber does not begin to show that the entry of a settlement agreement or consent decree violated administrative laws in the report's catalogue of examined cases. (Report, pp. 30-42.) Nor does the report back its charge that the agreements in these cases committed agencies to adopt specific rulemaking requirements that violated administrative laws. With all the high-priced corporate attorneys available to challenge settlement agreements for violating administrative law, wouldn’t you think the Chamber would have loads of examples to back this claim? The Chamber is blowing political smoke because it knows (or should know) that its claims are legally unsupported.

So how does the Chamber propose to fix the “problems” it identifies? Extreme legislation that would institute a role for industry attorneys to obstruct enforcement of health, safety and environmental laws opposed by the Chamber. The Chamber actually has the nerve to call this extreme legislation “noncontroversial.”

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act is as far from non-controversial as the Chamber report is from the facts. In addition to obstructung enforcement of safeguards, flouting traditional concepts of separation of powers and usurping the role of the judiciary, the proposed legislation blithely overturns controlling Supreme Court precedent. In Local Number 93 v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986), the Court stated that:

It has never been supposed that one party-whether an original party, a party that was joined later, or an intervenor-could preclude other parties from settling their own disputes and thereby withdrawing from litigation. Thus, while an intervenor is entitled to present evidence and have its objections heard at the hearings on whether to approve a consent decree, it does not have power to block the decree merely by withholding its consent.

The Chamber hates this established legal understanding because it prevents industry lawyers from obstructing agency decisions to follow statutory obligations that some of the Chamber’s member corporations might wish to remain unenforced.

So let’s review the Chamber’s list of villains:

Congress is to blame for its nerve giving citizens the right to hold government accountable when federal agencies break laws: “In the final analysis, Congress is also to blame . . . Most of the sue and settle lawsuits were filed as citizen suits authorized under the various environmental statutes.”
The courts are to blame for “rubber stamping” agency agreements that remedy government agencies’ law-breaking. The Chamber even charges that “generally it does not matter to courts if the decree or agreement is not required or authorized by statute.” (Report p. 4.) This is a very serious charge, made all the more outrageous by the Chamber’s absolute failure to substantiate it. The report identifies no instances of courts approving consent decrees or agreements requiring agencies to undertake actions contrary to statutes.
And finally, of course, citizens and public health groups are to blame for having the nerve to hold government accountable, enforcing laws passed by Congress using means long authorized by Congress.

You will have anticipated this by now, but who remains blameless? Why, the Chamber and its member corporations, of course. They are only demanding the right to obstruct enforcement of laws on the books. They are only seeking to allow harmful levels of pollution and financial abuses to continue because they don’t like the laws that curtail these harms. (The Chamber report also rails against the Dodd-Frank financial law and the administration’s health care law with their “statutorily imposed” deadlines.)

In the final analysis, the Chamber of Commerce report is like word-confetti for a political parade: it’s insubstantial, full of shredded legal and factual errors, and intended to celebrate a partisan march on legal safeguards. As with the extreme legislation it pushes, the report ends up being a thinly veiled attempt to promote a political agenda to obstruct enforcement of legal safeguards that protect Americans against harmful corporate activities.

California Issues Precedent Setting Rules to Collect Tons of Additional Mercury from Old Thermostats

2013-05-22T18:07:15Z

David Lennett, Senior Attorney, Washington, D.C. and Beijing

Today, California is charting a path other states should follow to protect public health by adopting new rules promoting the recycling of old mercury thermostats that hang on the walls of millions of American homes and businesses. These relics of the past, often round dials installed decades ago, each contain about four grams of mercury. That’s about 1,000 times more mercury than in the typical compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).


Mercury Thermostat Source: NEWMOA	Mercury Switch Inside Source: Wikipedia	Mercury Thermostat Source: NEWMOA

In California alone, a 2009 industry study estimated between 5.1 million and 10.5 million mercury thermostats were still in use in California at the time. At four grams of mercury per thermostat, this equals between 22.5 and 46.2 tons of mercury still on the walls in California.

The industry study also estimates that, each year in California, more than 200,000 old mercury thermostats will be removed from buildings through 2016, and from 2017 to 2032, at least another 100,000 mercury thermostats will be removed annually from California buildings.

The Problem with Mercury Thermostats

Many people aren’t aware these old thermostats contain mercury so the thermostats are often just tossed in the trash, where they can be crushed in garbage trucks or landfills, or burned in incinerators — releasing potentially harmful mercury pollution. These releases contribute to levels of mercury in fish high enough to trigger consumption warnings to pregnant women and children in California and elsewhere, aimed at avoiding the harmful effects of mercury on childhood development. More than 180 water bodies in California are already identified as contaminated by unsafe levels of mercury; this number will rise as more sampling data are evaluated.

In 2001, leading thermostat manufacturers established a nationwide program to collect the old mercury thermostats, but as I blogged before, the program is not successful. In California, even using the low end estimates from the industry’s study, the thermostat manufacturers collected only 8.5 percent of the mercury thermostats removed from buildings in 2011; and 8.6 percent of the thermostats in 2012, a very disappointing result for a program created over a decade ago.

Thankfully, that will soon change in California. In 2008, California enacted a law to require substantial improvements to the collection program, and today the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued the implementing regulations, setting the improvements in motion that go into effect July 1, 2013.

Under the new regulations, over the next five years, the industry will be required to collect hundreds of thousands of additional thermostats, containing almost two tons of mercury.

The table below indicates the number of mercury thermostats collected in California by the manufacturers during 2011 and 2012, and the number they will be required to collect over the next five years under the new California rules. The 2013 performance standard is pro-rated, reflecting the rules going to effect in July 1 and thus in effect for only half of 2013.

Changes are Coming

The new rules will require the thermostat manufacturers to make major improvements in the California program. Significantly, DTSC is authorized by the 2008 law to compel program changes if these standards are not met, thereby making California the first state where the industry program is truly accountable.

Two aspects of the industry program in California are ripe for improvement:

First, in 2012, the manufacturers spent $169,840 on marketing and outreach for the collection program nationwide (no California specific estimate is available), with virtually no sustained physical presence in California. The need for more and sustained outreach will no doubt be closely examined.
Second, the California law and regulations compel introduction of a financial incentive to HVAC contractors and homeowners if the standards are not met. The most effective programs in the country thus far mandate a financial incentive by statute; California is the first state in the country where the incentive would be imposed administratively. Thus, DTSC is empowered to test various incentive models and amounts to achieve the desired collection rates, which will prove instructive for the entire nation.

Laws in Illinois and Rhode Island require similar rulemakings during 2014. Legislatures in New York and Massachusetts are considering bills aimed at improving mercury thermostat collection rates. These states and others should follow California’s lead, and hold the industry collection program to a higher and accountable standard than the manufacturers are apparently willing to meet on their own. And then, by working together, the thermostat manufacturers, HVAC contractors and wholesalers, consumers and governments can improve public health by responsibly collecting these old mercury thermostats.

NEPA Under Attack

2013-05-22T17:23:40Z

Amanda Jahshan, Legal Fellow, Washington, D.C.

I have a confession to make. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is kind of a misnomer. And I have to believe that’s the reason citizens and their representatives in Congress aren’t doing more to fight for this law.

So let’s clear things up. NEPA isn’t some crunchy, tree hugging, kumbaya law. Now don’t get me wrong, I love crunchy, tree hugging, and kumbaya… but categorizing NEPA as such, wouldn’t be accurate. Pull out your American flag, folks, because we are about to get downright patriotic. NEPA is about democracy, accountability, and government transparency. Shouldn’t we be able to ask our government why they’ve made certain decisions? Shouldn’t we have a justification for how our money is being spent? Shouldn’t we be given a forum to disagree when it’s a cause worth fighting for?

That’s what NEPA guarantees us! That sounds like a whole lot of common sense, and quite frankly, this town could use some of that these days. NEPA requires that major federal decisions are given proper deliberation. It’s about considering options, disclosing facts, and making sure that citizens have a voice in decisions that affect their homes, their families, their land, and their health.

In Clark, Wyoming, public input required by NEPA helped the local community protect their land, property value, big game species, and historical sites from destructive, explosive-charge seismic surveying. Instead, passive seismic was used to achieve project goals, while protecting community interests. And in North Carolina, NEPA disclosure and consideration of alternatives helped save over $685 million dollars, as a proposed bypass was found to be unnecessary after consideration of improving already existing roads to satisfy project needs.

Unfortunately, NEPA doesn’t get the recognition it deserves, and it gets a lot of blame that it doesn’t. Operating in a behind-the-scenes capacity, it’s benefited countless projects, resulting in better, more community-supported uses of federal funds. But Congress is pointing fingers at NEPA as a cause of project delay. Just last week the Senate passed the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which imposes arbitrary deadlines on NEPA reviews, discouraging agency collaboration while rushing projects through the pipeline without adequate public comment periods. If that doesn’t sound silly enough, NEWSFLASH: the major “benefactor” of this $12 BILLION law, the Army Corps of Engineers (the agency in charge of water-related projects), doesn’t even like the bill! They testified that the WRDA bill would create MORE delay.

I don’t know about you, but when it comes to MY health, MY family, and MY environment, I don’t believe in shortcuts. “Streamlining” proper disclosure and review will lead to unnecessary harm and wasteful spending, and unless that’s what you want, I hope you’ll join NRDC in standing up for NEPA so that it can continue to stand up for you.

Visit our website, and see how NEPA is hard at work in your neck of the woods.

USAID Releases Water Strategy

2013-05-22T17:11:09Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Yesterday, USAID officially released its long-awaited Water and Development Strategy in front of a group of hundreds of Members of Congress, Congressional staff, Administration officials and water and development professionals. The stated goal of the Strategy is “To save lives and advance development through improvements in water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs, and through sound management and use of water for food security.” In order to achieve this goal, and those set out by the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, the strategy will need a robust implementation plan that gives strong guidance to USAID missions on the ground who are implementing the strategy. It will also need to focus aid on the those who need it the most – the poorest countries and communities – as opposed to on a handful of “strategic priority” countries.

The Strategy has strengths and flaws, but after yesterday’s release event, I have more hope that between Congress, the Obama Administration, and the NGOs and corporations who will work to both support the strategy and push the envelope, it is well within our means to not just accomplish but exceed the goals of the strategy. In listening to the speeches at yesterday's release from USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, USAID Water Coordinator Chris Holmes, Senators Richard Durbin and Chris Coons, Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Ted Poe, Under Secretary of State Robert Hormats, along with representatives from several NGOs, I was struck by the personal connections, passion, and wide range of reasons that people see water and WASH as such critical issues to address.

Representative Judge Ted Poe spoke of women traveling long distances to collect water and meeting with men who do terrible things to them, but nevertheless having to return and face the same men day after day. “In 2013,” he said, “that should not occur anywhere in the world.” And to address this issue, he stated, “it’s worth the price, whatever it is. We have it in our power to stop that.”

Representative Blumenauer said that every day, 200 million hours are lost because women are out gathering water in dangerous circumstances. He also noted that addressing water issues is not just a moral obligation but in our self-interest: in part due to climate change, two thirds of the world’s population will be water stressed by 2025; global stability is dependent on solving water supply and demand issues. Under Secretary Hormats and Administrator Shah also addressed the pressures that climate change are putting on water, with Administrator Shah stating that one of the two main parts of the Strategy is “climate-smart water utilization in agriculture.” The strategy does not aim to just provide people and communities with access to water now, but for the long-term. As Administrator Shah put it, the support for water resources management that USAID will give is for “protecting resources so they are available now and for the future.”

Senator Durbin told a story about visiting Haiti and talking to people in a community where a well had been built. He inquired how much the well had cost: $25,000. That might sound like a lot, but not when you find out that it serves 100,000 people, meaning that the well really only cost 25 cents per person. Senator Durbin said that helping to deal with this issue in a meaningful way – being identified around the world as the leader for bringing safe drinking water to people – that it could be the “biggest breakthrough to American image.”

Whether it’s about violence against women, the stupidity of wasting time, child and infant mortality, the fact that there is a $9 return on investment for every $1 invested in sanitation, or a concern about American image or global stability, there’s a reason that just about anybody can get behind this issue, young or old, Republican or Democrat, people who support foreign aid and even people who generally believe in small government. And in fact, this issue has shattered political divides.

But there is still a long way to go. Representative Blumenauer got it right in his remarks, noting that the Strategy is not a solution but a significant step in the right direction. He thinks USAID should be more ambitious in its goals for the number of people it aims to provide with sustainable access to water and sanitation over the 5 year course of the strategy “Shouldn’t we be lifting our sights above 10 and 6 million?” he asked. And especially with such limited funding, we “can’t have money lavished on ‘strategic priority’ countries, on questionable projects in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Indeed, ensuring sufficient funds and sensible, pro-poor targeting for the limited funds available will be one of the biggest challenges going forward in implementing this important Strategy.

Women carrying unsafe water home - Tigray, Ethiopia - credit: water.org

EPA Improved Process for Contractor-Managed Peer Reviews

2013-05-22T16:39:58Z

Jennifer Sass, Senior Scientist, Washington, D.C.

Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made it a bit harder for the chemical industry to put its consultants and representatives on “independent” scientific panels that review draft IRIS chemical assessments, by issuing a new process for reviewing conflicts of interest for its contractor-managed peer reviews. The new process is less than what I had asked for, which was to do away with the contractor altogether and have the whole process within EPA’s authority, creating a clear chain of accountability, and public access to panelists’ conflict documentation through the Freedom of Information Action (FOIA). However, overall, I am pleased with the new process, which I hope will address the worst problems.

The process of contractor-managed peer review until now had placed all authority (and trust) with the contractor to identify, screen, and finalize peer reviewers. The public (and EPA staff!) only saw the final list of names. Even more importantly, EPA staff didn’t have the conflict disclosure forms of the committee members, any waivers that may have been issued, or how the contractor addressed potential conflicts – and if EPA doesn’t have it than the public can’t get it. This mess came to a head when the committee to review the EPA draft hazard assessment for hexavalent chromium in drinking water had two members with direct financial conflicts – something that even EPA staff didn’t seem to know! (See my blog for details) When I submitted a request under FOIA for the members’ conflict disclosures and learned that EPA didn’t have them – the contractor withheld all documentation from EPA, and thus from me. (see PBS Newshour story here)

The new process will alleviate much of my frustration with contractor-managed committees.

First, the public will now be able to nominate experts in advance, giving an opportunity for the public to get names of non-conflicted environmental health experts into the hat.

Second, EPA will announce the list of candidates being considered, so if people know of any conflicts – especially ones that the contractor can’t learn through public information – we can get that information to EPA before the names are finalized.

Third, after selecting the near-final panelists, the contractor will consult with EPA staff regarding fitness for the duties, including potential conflicts. This really goes to the heart of the matter, because it establishes EPA as an accountable party, and makes the critical documentation available to EPA staff and ultimately therefore to the public (with appropriate protections for personal privacy, etc.).

Fourth, the contractor will ask for updated conflict information from final panelists.

And, finally, EPA will provide training for its contractors on implementing its conflict guidelines.

My kudos to EPA and Science Advisor Dr.Glenn Paulson for addressing these issues. And, now, we all need to do our part to submit comments on committee candidates that we know may be consulting for the chemical industry, serving as chemical industry litigation experts, or otherwise doing the bidding of the chemical industry to weaken health protections.

Fracking roundtable: Congress must close loopholes for industry in protective laws

2013-05-22T15:17:33Z

Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Tomorrow, I’m headed to the U.S. Senate for a forum on the environmental impacts of shale gas development before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I’ll be joined by members of the oil and gas industry, as well as representatives from other environmental groups and state government.

The event itself will look something like a congressional hearing. But the Senators have invited us to have more of a roundtable discussion. The hope is that what we discuss will help inform their actions on fracking moving forward.

For my part, I plan to focus on the need to address a number of shortcomings in federal protections from the risks of fracking. At the top of that list is ending oil and gas industry exemptions in some of our nation’s most basic, protective environmental and public health laws – the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and federal hazardous waste law.

Additionally, I’ll be highlighting the need for the Obama Administration to significantly strengthen the draft rules for fracking on public lands that it released last week. These rules fall far short of what’s necessary to protect millions of acres of wild lands, as well as drinking water sources for millions of Americans (including private wells when homeowners don’t own their mineral rights, as well as large municipal watersheds like that of Washington, D.C.).

Here’s a brief overview of what I’ll be saying:

Natural gas development is a major industrial activity that uses toxic chemicals, produces massive amounts of hazardous waste, releases methane (a potent climate change pollutant) and other dangerous air pollution, and has contaminated water and air in communities across the country.
States have failed to protect their citizens to date from these threats. In fact, there is not a single state where fracking is taking place that has put forth comprehensive rules that sufficiently safeguard Americans. The public expects the federal government to limit the environmental harm from industry, and citizens in every state deserve that protection.
Fracking should not be exempt from critical provisions of federal laws that have applied for decades to virtually every other industrial activity – laws that have proven to be effective and affordable. Congress should close the gaping loopholes in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, federal hazardous waste laws and other statutes that give this industry a free pass for no good reason.
Furthermore, the administration should be a model for other states. Unfortunately, the proposed rules released by the Bureau of Land Management last week are fundamentally flawed in a number of ways, putting Americans at risk.
And to better understand how to protect Americans from the risks of fracking, Congress should support additional independent research on the broad impacts, including those to drinking water, public health and communities. The better we understand the risks, the better we can protect against them.

Americans in communities around the country are being bulldozed by an industry run amok, and they need action from our leaders in Washington to protect their clean water, clean air, health, and quality of life. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss what the federal government can do to change the course of this industry.

Report: Appliance Standards Save Consumers Money while Continuing to Provide Choices

2013-05-21T20:25:19Z

Meg Waltner, Energy Efficiency Advocate, San Francisco, CA

A new report out today shows that when it comes to appliance efficiency standards, we really can have our cake and eat it too. Not only do energy-savings standards save homeowners and businesses money and reduce pollution, the products continue to provide the same, if not better, services to consumers.

I’ve blogged before about the tremendous benefits of the appliance efficiency standards set by the Department of Energy: existing standards reduced US electricity use by 7 percent in 2010, will save consumers over a trillion dollars cumulatively through 2035, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 470 million metric tons annually in 2035, equivalent to the emissions of 118 coal-fired power plants. Today’s report, entitled “Better Appliances: An Analysis of Performance, Features and Price as Efficiency has Improved,” reaffirms the advantages of standards and shows they provide these advantages while continuing to provide high-performing options to consumers.

Published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) , the analysis looks at the effects of standards over time on the options available to consumers for 10 residential, consumer, and lighting products, including refrigerators, washing machines, toilets, air conditioners and heat pumps, and light bulbs. The report finds that, in general, product performance has stayed the same or improved as standards have gone into effect for the 10 products and that manufacturers are offering a greater range of product features to consumers than before.

In fact, the report says that standards can actually encourage innovation, leading to a wider range of product options and at lower costs. This is because standards are generally performance-based and do not require specific design or technology options, encouraging manufacturers to meet the given energy or water use level at the lowest cost. An example of this is the light bulb efficiency standards, which are driving innovation in lighting technologies, including high efficiency incandescent bulbs that use 28 percent less energy than a traditional incandescent, while continuing to offer the same product features (brightness, color temperature, dimmability, and lifespan).

The report also finds that for about half the products, retail prices stayed the same or declined after the standards took effect. For the other half, incremental cost increases were more than paid back in energy savings (and these cost increases weren’t necessarily wholly attributable to the standards). The chart below illustrates this for washing machines: over time average capacity has gone up, while price and energy use have decreased with the implementation of standards.

Clothes washer energy use, volume, and retail price from 1987-2010

Source: ASAP and ACEEE, Better Appliance: An Analysis of Performance, Features, and Price as Efficiency Has Improved

The results of the report are not surprising: product performance and features are taken into account when standards are set and many of the standards have been the result of negotiated agreements between manufacturers, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates, who all want to maintain product performance and feature availability. But today’s report is the first to look at the effect of appliance standards on choice in a comprehensive, empirical way. For each of the 10 products, the authors looked at market share, product availability, price, and performance data before and after the standards took effect:

For seven of 10 products (residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps, toilets, general service light bulbs, incandescent reflector lamps, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and refrigerated vending machines), they looked at the effects of the current standard (which for three of the products was the first ever national standard).
For the other three products (refrigerators, washing machines, and dishwashers), there was enough historical data to look at the effects of multiple standards over a 20-25 year period.

For almost all products, ACEEE and ASAP report product performance stayed the same or improved after the standards took effect. Their assessment of performance depended on the specific product and included features such as size, noise-level, cycle-time, washing performance, cooling performance, availability of features, dimmability, color quality and others. For two standards, the 2007 washing machine standard and the 1994 toilet standard, the report says that immediately after the implementation of standards there was a temporary increase in the number of poorly performing products (i.e., a year or two) while manufacturers adjusted to the standards. However, they quickly adjusted and there are many toilets today that provide excellent flush performance. Clothes-washing also improved quickly and there are now many models, including at low-price points that receive high rankings for washing performance. This is alongside the introduction of many other new features, such as larger tub capacities, steam cycles, electronic controls, gentler wash cycles, and more.

The report emphasizes the tremendous benefits of standards and shows that they’ve achieved these benefits while continuing to provide a wide array of choices to consumers.

With today’s report, recently confirmed Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has one more reason to act quickly to finalize overdue appliance standards pending at the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and work to meet deadlines for other standards throughout his term. Each day of delay on the eight overdue standards costs consumers and businesses about $10 million in lost savings, and produces over 100,000 metric tons of global warming pollution, alone, according to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. Acting on appliance standards will save consumers money, reduce pollution because less energy is needed to operate them, create jobs, and continue to provide high-performing options to customers.

Fracking Day of Action: May 22 in Albany

2013-05-21T20:21:44Z

Kate Sinding, Senior Attorney, New York City

Back in March, the New York State Assembly passed a two-year moratorium on all new fracking and required a comprehensive health impact assessment to be carried out. Now it’s time for Senate to act.

Join NRDC and more that a dozen other groups tomorrow at the State Capitol in Albany to urge your senators to follow the Assembly’s lead and pass a two-year moratorium.

As I have recently blogged, there are two moratorium bills currently pending in Senate (one sponsored by Senator Avella (S4236A) and the other by Senator Carlucci (S4046)), the former of which (A5424A, sponsored by Assemblymember Sweeney) has already passed the Assembly. Both measures would have the key effect of delaying any new fracking until the health impacts – about which there is a startling lack of information – have been further evaluated.

The time is now for our senators to act, and for Governor Cuomo to reaffirm his commitment to ensuring that all risks are carefully, completely, and scientifically evaluated before making any decisions on new fracking in New York State.

Tomorrow’s your chance to show up in Albany and demand they hear your concerns. For more information on the rally, click here.

Calls for Action at U.S. - India Energy Partnership Summit in DC; Extreme Heat in hits Ahmedabad

2013-05-21T19:06:19Z

Grace Gill, Program Assistant, CMI/India/Climate Center, New York

India Green News is a selection of news highlights about environmental and energy issues in India

May 14 – 20th, 2013

Climate & Energy

India needs clean, affordable sources of energy: PM

Access to clean, reliable and affordable sources of energy is a major policy priority for India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today said.

"The scale of energy challenges in India requires not just investments, but also innovation in how we produce and consume energy," Singh said in a message to the Fourth US-India Energy Partnership Summit.

"Access to clean, reliable and affordable sources of energy is a major policy priority for India, which seeks to pursue economic growth of eight to 9% per year in a sustainable manner. This is imperative to give all our people a life of equity, opportunity and prosperity," Singh said.

His message was read out by the Indian Ambassador to the US Nirupama Rao during the two-day conference organised by TERI in association with Yale University.

"In recent years, through the India-US Energy Dialogue, our bilateral co-operation has made remarkable progress in seeking solutions to the energy challenges of our times," Singh said in his message to the conference.

The conference is being attended by two of his Cabinet Ministers -- M Pallam Raju and Farooq Abdullah - and was addressed by Al Gore the former US Vice President and Daniel Poneman, the Acting Energy Secretary.

Abdullah said it is time for action and not signing memorandums.

Noting that India is at the new threshold of growth, Abdullah said India is an energy deficient nation and called for more collaboration with the United States in the renewable energy sector.

India needs massive investment in the renewable energy sector which is estimated to be between USD 60-70 billion in the next five years.

In her remarks Rao urged the US Government to approve the export of US shale gas to India.

This is a win-win proposition for both sides - ensuring energy security for India and revenue supply to the US.

The Department of Energy is expected to soon take a decision on this.

Rao said the India-US energy dialogue focuses on critical areas of social development, adding that the potential is immense.

"I know for the fact that so much progress is being made in this relationship," she said.

The two countries are also developing a joint strategy of clean energy development.

Richard Levin of the Yale University said the need for collaboration between India and the US in clean energy is ever more important today.

"Urgency is greater than ever," he said adding that there is need to move away from fossil fuels in order to save the planet.

(The Business Standard, 05/14/13)

Power Minister feels the heat of the Sun

Claiming zero performance by Delhi on its renewable energy targets, Greenpeace activists on Wednesday picketed outside the residence of Delhi Power Minister Haroon Yusuf.

Highlighting Greenpeace report, “Powering Ahead with Renewables: Leaders and Laggards”, the activists blocked the Minister’s residence by placing solar panels at the entrance and chained themselves to it. They later met Mr. Yusuf and sought a commitment from him on the policy on renewables energising Delhi.

They claimed that though the Minister “accepted the solar panels (presented by them), he was non committal on a timeline for a strong policy on renewables. He, however, agreed to forward the Greenpeace report and recommendations to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission for future action”.

The solar panels, with which the activists protested, displayed a message asking the Minister to “Switch on the Sun”. “The 2.3-kW panels can light up Mr. Yusuf’s house meeting most of its energy demands. The activists handed over the panels to Mr. Yusuf to emphasise that he should look at using solar energy to supply power to Delhi homes and commercial establishments using their rooftops,” a statement by Greenpeace later said.

However, the rights group was critical of the Delhi Government’s handling of the renewable energy issue. “Power Minister Haroon Yusuf has no plans to deal with the electricity crisis. He has hardly enunciated as to how he intends to deal with the gap in demand and supply of electricity in the Capital… Meeting renewable target could have staved off the power cuts that residents in various colonies in Delhi are facing,” said Greenpeace India energy campaigner Anand Prabhu Pathanjali.

The Greenpeace report had earlier underlined the performance of all the States on their renewable energy target under the RPO mechanism. The mechanism, introduced by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, guides State electricity regulatory bodies to set targets on renewable supply in energy mix. However, the compliance under it is not mandatory and only seven out of 29 States have met their targets.

“Delhi achieved 0.01 per cent of the target showing lack of political will,” a Greenpeace statement said, adding that “Delhi’s peak deficit during 2011-12 was around 77 million units along with substantial load shedding throughout the city and its suburbs, these could have been avoided if Delhi had even taken up its insignificant RPO target of 3.4 per cent seriously”. Mr. Pathanjali added: “Greenpeace believes that renewable energy is the key to energy independence and access to quality electricity supply in all the areas of Delhi. The Government should earnestly take steps to improve its performance on use of renewables in the Capital to deal with the increasing demand and uncertain supply from conventional sources.”

(The Hindu, 05/16/13)

Acting DOE chief: US not backing down on Indian solar practices

Acting Energy Department (DOE) Secretary Daniel Poneman said the Obama administration is not backing down from requests that India eschew solar policies that it says might violate international trade rules.

At issue are Indian requirements that solar energy firms buy all inputs from domestic producers. The subcontinent says that will help grow its solar industry, but the U.S. contends local-content requirements are outlawed by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

“At this point our view is, we are in a discussion with India. Our views on … local content are clear, and we’re hoping we can work through this,” Poneman told The Hill on Tuesday after speaking at the U.S.-India Energy Partnership Summit in Washington, D.C.

Poneman was fresh off a one-on-one meeting with India New and Renewable Energy Minister Farooq Abdullah, in which Poneman said his counterparts discussed a range of renewable energy issues.

The solar topic is of particular importance to India as it strives to provide power to millions that lack it and stabilize an electric grid prone to blackouts. The government also sees it as a way to promote job creation through developing a domestic industry.

But the U.S. in February asked the WTO to start a dispute settlement process regarding India’s program, which aims to bring 20,000 megawatts of solar power online by 2020.

The U.S. says the program's local-content requirements flout free trade rules. It contends India’s policies restrict U.S. exports of solar thin film technologies, which “currently comprise the majority of U.S. solar exports to India,” according to the U.S. Trade Representative.

Some insiders expect the U.S. Trade Representative to call for a formal WTO panel to investigate India’s local-content rules in the coming months.

In a speech at Tuesday’s conference, Poneman said the U.S. and India must work together to enhance solar energy “in a way that is not impinging on trade.”

But green groups — including the Sierra Club, 350.org and Greenpeace — have pushed back against the Obama administration’s criticism of India’s local-content requirements.

The environmental organizations say the local-content policies would foster an Indian solar industry with greater buy-in amongst it citizens.

That, they say, would promote more widespread solar adoption to help displace coal-fired generation — which is growing rapidly in India — and, in turn, limit greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change.

Ilana Solomon, trade representative with the Sierra Club, told The Hill last week that WTO blocking buy-local rules have thwarted developing clean-energy industries in other nations.

“I think that’s really a problem in the climate crisis,” Solomon said.

(The Hill, 05/14/13)

US paves way for shale gas export to India, despite missing FTA

Opening up the prospects of export of shale gas to energy starved India, the US granted conditional authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to nations that do not have Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with it.

In a decision, which has major implications for India, the Department of Energy announced that that it has conditionally authorized Freeport LNG Expansion, LP and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC (Freeport) to export domestically produced LNG to non-FTA countries from Freeport Terminal on Quintana Island in Texas.

Given that the companies from countries like China, Japan and Britain have already have an overwhelming stake in this Texas company, India is unlikely to benefit immediately from this grant of license.

But the decision paves the way for India, which does not has a FTA with the US, to get its companies seek similar licenses for import of much needed gas from the United States in large quantities from other terminals.

The existing federal law generally requires approval of natural gas exports to countries that have an FTA with the United States.

For countries that do not have an FTA with the United States, the Natural Gas Act directs the Department of Energy to grant export authorizations unless the Department finds that the proposed exports "will not be consistent with the public interest."

In its 132 page order, the Department of Energy said that the proposed exports are likely to yield net economic benefits to the United States.

"We further find that granting the requested authorization is unlikely to affect adversely the availability of natural gas supplies to domestic consumers or result in natural gas price increases or increased price volatility such as would negate the net economic benefits to the United States," it said.

Freeport facility in Texas, the Department of Energy said, is conditionally authorized to export at a rate of up to 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day (Bcf/d) for a period of 20 years. The Department granted the first authorization to export LNG to non-FTA countries in May 2011 for the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana at a rate of up to 2.2 Bcf/d.

(The Indian Express, 05/18/13)

Poor Bear Brunt of Climate Change, Claims Social Activist

Sustainable development that mitigates the impact of climate change for India’s poor can only be achieved by the devolution of the Indian government, stated prominent social activist Sunita Narain at a March 27 lecture at Arizona State University.

“Getting the model of development right so that everyone has access to health care, water and energy supplies is only achievable when the government is de-centralized,” Narain told India-West in an interview after the lecture, which was organized by ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability.

The director general of the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, Narain has received numerous accolades for her work, including the Padma Shri – India’s highest honor – in 2005. In 2007, Narain was named by Time magazine as one of India’s 15 most influential people. Foreign Policy magazine has thrice named Narain one of the world’s best intellectuals.

“Climate change is already hurting the world’s most poor and vulnerable,” stated Narain, explaining that rainwater – a major resource for India’s largely agrarian population – has been inconsistent, with more rainfall, but for a fewer number of days.

“Farmers are very desperate today. This is their livelihood; it is the only thing they know. And we can send them to cities to get jobs, but the urban sector doesn’t have the ability to absorb all those people,” stated Narain.

India has about 600 million people involved in farming-related activity, and more than three-quarters of its population live in rural areas, relying on rain-fed agriculture and fuel from forests, according to World Bank data. The Oakland, Calif.-based Pacific Institute last year released research conducted in India by Meena Palaniappan which concluded that a two-degree Celsius temperature fluctuation could lead either to drought or flooding due to varying rainfall amounts. Scarcity of water supplies was equally acute for the urban and rural poor in India, stated Palaniappan, in an interview with India-West, when the study was released.

“We cannot afford a two-degree fluctuation in temperature,” Narain told India-West, noting that India’s poor have no forecast or insurance systems in place.

Government must be reorganized to let local people have control of their resources, including ponds and aquifers, she stated. An early warning or forecasting system for weather must be made available, along with systems for storing rainwater as it falls.

Narain stated emphatically that India’s resources are often diverted from the poor in rural India to the middle-class and wealthy in urban India.

“Unrest will grow as the poor see their needed resources being taken away,” said Narain, citing the Naxalite rebellion, which has grown out of disputes over control of forested areas.

Since 1982, Narain has worked with CSE under the direction of renowned environmentalist Anil Agarwal, who founded the organization. Besides the organization’s focus on climate change and water access issues, CSE is active in air pollution and food safety issues.

In a CSE blog post, Narain noted: “For the poor, the environment is not a matter of luxury; it is not about fixing the problems of growth, but of survival. It is fixing growth itself.”

“They know that when the land is mined and trees are cut, their water source dries up or they lose grazing and agricultural land. They know they are poor. And they are saying, loudly and as clearly as they can, that what others call development will only make them poorer. It is an open challenge to the development paradigm that we know today,” stated Narain.

(IndiaWest, 05/13/13)

Environmental Health & Governance

City Bakes at 44.2 degrees

AHMEDABAD: The city was the hottest place in the state as it scorched at 44.2 degrees on Saturday and there is a little hope for any respite as the sun is likely to bake on Sunday as well.

The climb of the mercury remained continuous as the temperature slowly and steadily rose from 43 degrees a few days back to 44.2 degrees on Saturday which was a good two degrees above normal.

State capital Gandhinagar too was hot at 43.4 degrees, while Amreli in Saurashtra recorded 43.1 degrees.

Doctors said that people need to be extremely careful with their hydration as exposure to such extreme heat can catch them unawares and cause heat stroke.

"Prevention is always better than cure. People should take electrolyte drinks, lemon juice and buttermilk regularly to remain hydrated. People with diabetes, hypertension and heart disease should take protective measures as they are more prone to infections and kidney malfunction because of dehydration," said critical care specialist Manoj Vitthlani.

He said that high grade fever, muscle pain, vomiting and lose motions are all symptoms of a heat stroke and a physician should be consulted. "Pregnant women can easily be targeted by heat and should shun exposure to extreme heat".

Ophthalmologist Dr Manish Raval said that people are also prone to eye disorders and should take preventive measures. "Ocular allergies particularly in young get aggravated which cause redness, itching and watering. Patients may attribute this to high temperature. Anti allergic drops help in treating this," said Dr Raval.

With swimming becoming a favourite sport to beat the heat, people must wear swimming goggles because chlorine in water aggravates the dryness and infected water can cause worst kind of eye infections.

(The Times of India, 05/19/13)

India Calls for Water Security at Global Meet

Underlining the importance of water conservation, India today said achieving food and energy security for economic development would not be possible without ensuring water security.

"Sensitising all the stakeholders, for the imperative need for water conservation and its efficient use, and building consensus on the path to be followed, to achieve water security is an important challenge," Union Minister for Water Resources Harish Rawat told the Second Asia Pacific Water Summit being held in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai.

Talking about water security, Rawat said it was inextricably linked to other goals like food and energy security.

"Water security, food security and energy security are necessary for economic growth and social stability. These are highly inter-related: food production requires water and energy; water extraction and distribution requires energy; and energy production requires water," Rawat said.

"Food prices are also highly sensitive to the cost of energy inputs...Water security is not merely a water sector issue, but also a multi-sectoral need," he added.

The minister reiterated India's commitment to provide clean and safe water for drinking and sanitation. "India is celebrating 2013 as 'Water Conservation Year', which put greater emphasis on creating public awareness, for efficient use of water and its conservation," Rawat added.

He also said greater emphasis was needed on rehabilitation of natural drainage system and implementation of water security plans.

"Developing water efficient systems in various sectors, particularly in agriculture, is a priority area of water governance, and an important goal in India's National Water Mission," the minister said.

The two-day summit, being attended by Heads of Governments, policy makers, researchers, scientists, NGOs and entrepreneurs among others has the theme "Water security and Water-related Disasters Challenges: Leadership and Commitment".

(The Business Standard, 05/20/13)

Ministry of environment and forests' bans dolphinariums in country

BANGALORE: India's Ministry of Environment and Forests has banned Dolphinariums in the country. The Humane Society International/India has applauded the ministry's action of protecting marine animals and termed it 'progressive'.

In the strongest stance yet opposing the development of dolphinariums in India, the federal Ministry of Environment and Forests has issued a ban, which says 'state governments are advised to reject any such proposal' that comes forward. Humane Society International/India has encouraged different states to adhere to the policy.

C Samyukta, wildlife campaign manager for HSI/India said: "We are overjoyed that the ministry has enacted a ban on keeping dolphins in captivity for entertainment. The science shows captivity is not in the best interests of marine animals. Now, all states in India must follow the ministry's policy and forbid the development of dolphinariums."

For the past several years, HSI/India has worked with FIAPO, CPR Environmental Education Centre, Blue Cross of India, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Earth Island Institute and others to bring about this important change in India's policies.

There is widespread opposition to dolphinariums in India from animal-protection groups, and also the Animal Welfare Board of India and other federal government groups, such as The Central Zoo Authority. In January, the AWBI issued a directive deeming dolphinariums unlawful under the country's 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Most recently, the fisheries department in Punjab ordered all offices in the state to comply with the AWBI directive.

(The Times of India, 05/20/13)

For more news on the issues we care about, visit our India News archive or read our other International blogs.

University of Michigan Study: 58% of Pennsylvanians and 52% of Michiganders Support Fracking Moratorium in Their State

2013-05-21T17:51:33Z

Daniel Raichel, Legal Fellow, New York

Last Tuesday, the University of Michigan released a report highlighting growing local concerns about the risks of fracking in two states with two very different fracking-histories— Michigan, where there has been relatively little fracking, and Pennsylvania, where fracking growth has been explosive in the last five years.

The report —which summarizes a survey of resident views on a number of issues related to fracking—demonstrates that while support for fracking in both states hovers around 50% (51% in Michigan and 49% in Pennsylvania), concerns about the risks of fracking are as high or higher. For example, 51% of Michiganders and 59% of Pennsylvanians agreed that fracking poses a "major risk" to water resources. And this is perhaps why overwhelming numbers of residents in both states (90% in Michigan and 91% in Pennsylvania) supported disclosure of all the fracking chemicals that gas companies pump into the ground.

Perhaps the most telling indicator of growing public concern is that a majority in both states supported a statewide moratorium in order to allow the risks of fracking to be further studied. In Michigan, 52% supported a moratorium, and in Pennsylvania—where residents are more likely to live next to an active frack well—the idea of a statewide moratorium received 58% support.

The comparatively higher percentage of Pennsylvanians skeptical of fracking may come as a surprise given the state’s perceived strong support for drilling, but the numbers could be explained by personal experience. This past Sunday, Times Tribune writer Laura Legere revealed that roughly one in six investigations of gas well complaints by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection over the past five years have found that “oil and gas activity disrupted water supplies either temporarily or seriously enough to require companies to replace the spoiled source.” (To see the article, click here).

Even in New York, where residents presently enjoy a de facto moratorium on drilling, a vertical Marcellus test well in Owego, NY has already contaminated a water supply with methane. With stories like these, it’s no wonder that popular support for NY’s fracking moratorium continues to grow.

Ultimately, the new polling results and reports from Pennsylvania and other shale bearing states underscore the public’s increasing realization that the ultimate risks of fracking (including the public health risks) are not yet truly known. And the popular solution to this problem is simple: wait until we know more.

Leading wolf researchers oppose plan to remove Endangered Species Act protections nationally

2013-05-21T17:05:19Z

Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist, Washington, DC

Yesterday a group of leading wolf researchers and prominent conservation biologists sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewel, urging her to reconsider plans to remove Endangered Species Act protections from wolves across the remainder of the lower 48 states, except for the small and struggling population of Mexican wolves "where found" in the Southwest.

Wolves used to be found across most of the lower 48 states, but now with two populations removed from the endangered species list – one in the Midwest and one in the Rocky Mountains – the US Fish and Wildlife Service is ready to declare victory on wolf recovery in America, despite the fact that plenty of suitable habitat still exists for wolves in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rockies and the Northeast - and, today, most of that habitat remains unoccupied by wolves.

A draft of the Service’s proposal was leaked a couple of weeks ago to the LA Times. Since then many groups, including NRDC, have urged the Obama administration to reverse course and not issue the proposed rule. Today, a core group of experts in wolf biology, genetics and conservation laid out a series of specific concerns they have with the draft proposed rule and joined the call to oppose the plan.

First, the scientists point out that the plan ignores current research that has identified a significant amount of suitable habitat where wolf populations could be restored.

The scientists then call on the Service to proceed with plans to recognize the Mexican wolf as a subspecies. However, they call on the Service to designate an area for the recovery of the species rather than merely listing them “where found.”

Third, the scientists point out that there is "not sufficient information to support recognition of a new species of wolf, C. lycaon". In fact, many of the scientists on the letter previously made this same argument to the Service and yet the draft proposed rule completely ignores their arguments.

Finally, the scientists disagree with the Service’s finding that wolves in the Pacific Northwest do not qualify as a "distinct population segment". Among other things, the letter points out that many wolves in the Pacific Northwest are genetically distinct from those in the Northern Rockies.

Taken together, the scientists’ letter shines a light on glaring flaws in the Service’s draft proposed rule that need to be addressed before any protections from wolves can be removed nationally. An AP story from late yesterday said that the Service is not issuing the rule right now due to “a recent unexpected delay.”

We hope they are considering not issuing the plan at all.

Photo credit: National Park Service