Switchboard, from NRDC › David Doniger's Blog

Carbon Dioxide Hits New Highs: Living In a League Where Batting 400 Is Not Good

2013-05-10T23:08:02Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Carbon dioxide concentrations have hit 400 parts per million for the first time in at least three million years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today. That’s 40 percent more than the CO2 level in the air at the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s – 280 ppm – which hadn’t been topped in the entire 8,000 years of human history, or in the 800,000 years before that.

This has happened in a blink of an eye. Worldwide emissions of CO2 and the other heat-trapping air pollutants are still increasing, and CO2 concentrations are hurtling towards 450 ppm, the brink most climate scientists agree we must not go over. “Unless things slow down,” Dr. Ralph Keeling told the New York Times, “we’ll probably get there in well under 25 years.”

Keeling’s father, Charles David Keeling, first started tracking the steadily-increasing CO2 concentrations from an observatory on the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii in the 1950s.

“It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,” Columbia University scientist Maureen Raymo told the Times.

Unless we finally act to turn the ship – to slow, stop, and reverse the trend.

We have one last chance. But our leaders have to act.

President Obama sounded a clarion call at the outset of his second term. “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he said in his Inaugural Address. And in his State of the Union: “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science -- and act before it’s too late.”

The President promised that he will act, taking executive actions under the laws Congress has already enacted “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” And he reaffirmed his target of cutting U.S. heat-trapping emissions by 17 percent from their 2005 peak by the end of this decade.

To his credit, President Obama took some big steps in his first term – most importantly, the clean car and fuel efficiency standards that will cut new cars’ carbon pollution in half and double their gas mileage over the next dozen years, while saving consumers billions of dollars at the pump.

But that’s not enough to meet the 17 percent target, or to do our part to stop CO2’s relentless rise above the 400 ppm threshold just crossed.

The biggest single step that he can take is to direct EPA to use the Clean Air Act to curb the carbon pollution from America’s aging fleet of power plants, which spew 2.2 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year, 40 percent of the U.S. total.

He can give the green light to curbing the enormous leakage of methane from oil and gas wells and the pipes that bring natural gas to our doors. He can hasten the switchover from “super greenhouse gases” called HFCs to much safer refrigerants and other chemicals. And he can direct the Energy Department to upgrade the efficiency of tens of millions of power-hogging appliances and buildings, and to cut wasteful losses by modernizing our power grid.

Do these things, and we can meet – even beat – the President’s 17 percent target.

To be sure, the President and his Cabinet continue to sound the climate alarm and make the case for urgent action. Today Secretary of State Kerry spoke on a Google Hangout: “If we don’t respond to adequately to the challenge of global climate change over the course of these next years, there will be people fighting. Wars over water and over land, agricultural land and other kinds of things.”

And this week Vice President Biden told Rolling Stone: “[T]he president is going to use his executive authority to, essentially, clean up the bad stuff, encourage the good stuff and promote private industry moving in that direction.”

But we are now six months from the President’s re-election, and four months into his second term. Using his existing authority to set clean air and clean energy standards will take time.

One example: The President jumped on setting clean car standards in the first week of his first term. Yet it took until August of 2012, half-way through year four, to seal the deal and finish those standards.

There’s no time to waste to tackle power plants and the rest.

We are still waiting for clear plans and schedules for what President Obama will do. And time is passing through the hourglass.

And we are already batting 400 in a league where that’s nothing but bad news.

Ken Cuccinelli's March Madness

2013-03-26T22:11:15Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific finding that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping air pollutants are driving dangerous climate change.

This is the “endangerment determination” that EPA made in 2009, in direct response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the high court held that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that EPA must set standards to curb their release if it determines they “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

By overturning the endangerment determination, the Virginia attorney general hopes to undo the Obama administration’s carbon pollution standards for new cars and to block future carbon standards for power plants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington dismissed Cuccinelli’s claims of conspiracy and scientific fraud last June in a unanimous opinion by a three-judge panel that spanned the court’s ideological spectrum. The full court rejected those claims again, by a 6-2 vote, in December. (I wrote about these decisions here and here.)

Cuccinelli’s petition to the Supreme Court recycles the same threadbare material. Citing such unimpeachable sources as Fox News and the hacked “Climategate” emails, the petition peddles the climate-deniers’ insular world view of corruption and fraud:

[T]hat climategate emails suggested that the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] data and conclusion upon which the EPA relied were manipulated; that critical IPCC records were lost or destroyed; that the peer review process was corrupted and dissent suppressed; that IPCC personnel had conflicts of interest; and that the EPA’s reliance on IPCC data ensured that the process underlying the Endangerment Finding lacked transparency.

Cuccinelli also claims that the EPA “impermissibly delegated its statutory duty” to make the endangerment determination “to outside entities” such as the IPCC. Finally, Cuccinelli claims EPA gave short shrift to his Climategate-based “petition for reconsideration.”

The appeals court was unimpressed. The court’s careful rebuttal is worth a read:

State and Industry Petitioners assert that EPA improperly “delegated” its judgment to the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC by relying on these assessments of climate-change science. … This argument is little more than a semantic trick. EPA did not delegate, explicitly or otherwise, any decision-making to any of those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decisionmakers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of “syntheses” of individual studies and research. Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.

Moreover, it appears from the record that EPA used the assessment reports not as substitutes for its own judgment but as evidence upon which it relied to make that judgment. EPA evaluated the processes used to develop the various assessment reports, reviewed their contents, and considered the depth of the scientific consensus the reports represented. Based on these evaluations, EPA determined the assessments represented the best source material to use in deciding whether greenhouse gas emissions may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. … It then reviewed those reports along with comments relevant to the scientific considerations involved to determine whether the evidence warranted an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases as it was required to do under the Supreme Court’s mandate in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Looking at the scientific evidence EPA amassed, the court said:

To recap, EPA had before it substantial record evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases “very likely” caused warming of the climate over the last several decades. EPA further had evidence of current and future effects of this warming on public health and welfare. Relying again upon substantial scientific evidence, EPA determined that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both public health and public welfare. It found that extreme weather events, changes in air quality, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and increases in temperatures are likely to have adverse health effects. … The record also supports EPA’s conclusion that climate change endangers human welfare by creating risk to food production and agriculture, forestry, energy, infrastructure, ecosystems, and wildlife. Substantial evidence further supported EPA’s conclusion that the warming resulting from the greenhouse gas emissions could be expected to create risks to water resources and in general to coastal areas as a result of expected increase in sea level. … Finally, EPA determined from substantial evidence that motor-vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and thus to the endangerment of public health and welfare.

The appeals court also dismissed Cuccinelli’s complaints about EPA’s response to his “petition for reconsideration,” noting that from the 18,000 peer-reviewed studies considered by the IPCC:

State Petitioners have not, as they assert, uncovered a “pattern” of flawed science. Only two of the errors they point out seem to be errors at all, and EPA relied on neither in making the Endangerment Finding.

As for the claim that EPA denied the attorney general his right to another round of public comments and agency responses, the court said that EPA’s 360-page response to comments:

appears to be exactly what EPA called it—a response to the petitions for reconsideration, not a revision of the Endangerment Finding itself. EPA certainly may deny petitions for reconsideration of a rule and provide an explanation for that denial, including by providing support for that decision, without triggering a new round of notice and comment for the rule.

Pretty straightforward stuff. It isn’t very likely the Supreme Court will see this differently.

Auto Engineering Panel Backs Climate-Friendly Coolant, Faults Daimler's "Unrealistic" and "Highly Improbable" Tests

2013-02-14T14:21:21Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

A panel of automotive engineers has forcefully reaffirmed the safety and acceptability of the new car air conditioning refrigerant called HFO-1234yf, also known as R1234yf. The panel’s strongly-worded findings this week rejected safety claims raised last fall by German car maker Daimler. The new findings will keep most car makers on track to use the new chemical to replace the current coolant (HFC-134a), a powerful greenhouse gas with more than 350 times greater climate-warming impact. (See prior posts here, here, and here.)

The panel, convened by SAE International (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers) and composed of engineers from a dozen automobile manufacturers worldwide, stated that “the high level of confidence that R1234yf can be used safely in automotive applications continues to grow.” The new refrigerant, the panel found, “poses no greater risk than other engine compartment fluids” such as gasoline or brake fluid.

Directly rebutting Daimler’s claims that the new coolant poses a dangerous fire risk, the SAE panel concluded:

[T]he refrigerant release testing completed by Daimler was unrealistic by creating the extremely idealized conditions for ignition while ignoring actual real world collision scenarios. These conditions include specific combinations of temperature, amount and distribution of refrigerant, along with velocity, turbulence, and atomization, which are highly improbable to simultaneously occur in real-world collisions.

In contrast, the panel’s safety conclusions were based on

carefully reviewing the use of R1234yf by using universally accepted engineering methods, including analysis of recent [original equipment manufacturers] testing from actual vehicle crash data, on-vehicle simulations, laboratory simulations, bench tests, and over 100 engine compartment refrigerant releases. Based on this testing the [panel] has found that the refrigerant is highly unlikely to ignite and that ignition requires extremely idealized conditions.

Note the reference to “actual vehicle crash data.” Some companies – General Motors, for example – have tested R1234yf’s safety in real-life crash tests. Daimler didn’t – in an earlier post I described Daimler’s contrived, extreme simulations.

The panel explained that its “fault tree analysis” of accident scenarios and probabilities is

the most appropriate approach for evaluating risks of new alternative refrigerants. This approach has been recommended and employed by numerous public and private organizations including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the International Electrotechnical Commission, the European Union Joint Research Centre and the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive.

Not finding things going its way, Daimler – joined by two other German companies (Audi and BMW) –promptly withdrew from the panel. In comments to Reuters, a BMW spokesman equivocated masterfully: “We do not want to say the test results [that SAE relied on] are wrong, but we are not convinced the methods applied are sufficient to achieve a definitive conclusion that guarantees our high safety standards.”

Daimler’s motives in this whole affair are a big puzzle. Just one week before issuing its surprise safety claims in September, the company had joined all other German auto makers (including BMW, Audi, and VW) in publicly pronouncing R1234yf safe and environmentally acceptable. Daimler apparently gave no hint of its impending flip-flop to its peers.

Later in the fall, Daimler resisted formation of the SAE panel – a standard auto industry procedure – to evaluate its claims. After joining the panel only reluctantly, Daimler has now walked away.

Some speculate that Daimler management is under the gun to make deep cost cuts, and that its true motive is to save a little money by sticking with a less expensive coolant.

American, Japanese, and other European car makers believe they have safely engineered their systems to render any R1234yf flammability risks insignificant. They have already introduced the first models equipped with the new coolant, and they are moving forward with plans to apply it across their fleets. Privately, other auto companies, as well as refrigerant manufacturers, are baffled by Daimler’s failure to solve any perceived problem by re-routing refrigerant lines or insulating hot surfaces.

Instead of pursuing an engineering solution, Daimler spent the fall lobbying the European Commission to delay the prohibition on using HFC-134a in significantly redesigned new models (new “type” vehicles) after January 1, 2013. To its credit, the Commission which refused a delay last December, has held firm again. But responsibility for enforcement against Daimler – making the company comply or assessing penalties – lies first with the German government. Regrettably, rather than enforce the law, German authorities are still lobbying the Commission to look the other way.

NRDC and the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development have praised the European Commission for holding its ground. We’re calling on the German government to stop protecting Daimler and to stop throwing its weight around in Brussels.

It’s time for Germany to demonstrate its commitment to climate protection by enforcing the rules.

And it’s time for Daimler to show what German engineering can do.

Carbon Pollution Data Put Power Plants Front and Center

2013-02-05T22:12:40Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released plant-by-plant data on 2011 emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping air pollutants. The data show once again that power plants are the number one source of the carbon pollution that drives climate change, churning out more than 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2011.

The new data confirm that cleaning up the nation’s fleet of power plants should be the centerpiece of President Obama’s actions to reduce the threat of climate change.

In his inaugural address two weeks ago, the president vowed: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Power plants are far and away the number one source of carbon pollution, responsible for two-thirds of the 3.3 billion metric tons reported by all large industrial facilities, and for 40 percent of the nation’s overall CO2 emissions. (Overall U.S. emissions of CO2 and other heat-trapping pollutants total about 6.8 billion metric tons, including those from transportation, other industries, and smaller sources.)

Total power plant CO2 emissions in 2011 were down about 4.5 percent from 2010, reflecting the shift towards burning more natural gas and less coal (a trend that continued in 2012 -- see here, p.87 -- and will show up in the plant-by-plant pollution reports EPA publishes next year). Renewables and efficiency are growing fast – renewable investments increased by 23 percent from 2010 to 2011 according to the Energy Information Administration, and electric efficiency program budgets, for example, rose from $2.7 billion to $6.8 billion between 2007 and 2011.

NRDC issued an innovative plan in December showing how the president can use the Clean Air Act to cut the dangerous carbon pollution from the nation’s existing power plants, slowing climate change, saving lives, creating jobs, and growing the economy.

Our plan achieves huge health and climate benefits at surprisingly low cost, is fair and flexible for each state and power company, holds power bills down, and triggers huge job-creating clean energy investments that can’t be outsourced.

The NRDC plan cuts overall power sector carbon emissions 26 percent in 2020 and 35 percent in 2025, from 2005 levels. Because of its fair and flexible design features, our plan achieves enormous climate protection and public health benefits worth $26-60 billion in 2020, at a reasonable cost of $4 billion.

You can check out which of the nation’s 1,594 power plants is in your backyard, and how much carbon pollution it puts out, using EPA’s handy map-based emission data website, which includes data from about 8,000 large facilities in nine industrial sectors.

You can search for power plants in your state or county, or look up any specific power station. You can see which states, which plants, and which companies are the biggest polluters, and you can compare 2011 emissions with those from 2010, which EPA published last year. You can also look up the emissions of the other big polluters: oil and gas production facilities, refineries, chemical plants, and other industries.

Just as examples, I’ve listed the top 20 states and the power plants that emit more than 10 million tons per year in two tables at the end of this post.

We have this invaluable “right to know” information because Congress, in 2008 legislation, directed EPA to collect carbon pollution data from every large industrial facility, and to make it publicly available in an easy-to-use form.

So, thanks to EPA’s greenhouse gas emission database, we know exactly where the carbon pollution is coming from. And following NRDC’s power plant plan, we know how we can cut it down to size.

President Obama said eloquently in his inaugural address that “our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity,” and he spoke of our duty to “preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”

Now, as he prepares his State of the Union address, we look to the president to launch specific plans to curb the carbon pollution from the power plant fleet, and from other big industries, using the laws Congress has already entrusted him to enforce.

Top 20 Carbon Pollution-Emitting States, 2010 and 2011 (Million Metric Tons CO2-equivalent)
2011 State Ranking	2011 Total Reported Emissions	2010 State Ranking	2010 Total Reported Emissions
Texas	250	Texas	236
Florida	114	Florida	125
Pennsylvania	114	Pennsylvania	122
Indiana	109	Ohio	116
Ohio	109	Indiana	115
Illinois	96	Illinois	98
Kentucky	93	Kentucky	93
Missouri	80	Georgia	80
Alabama	77	Alabama	78
West Virginia	72	Missouri	78
Georgia	71	Michigan	74
Michigan	68	West Virginia	73
North Carolina	60	North Carolina	71
Arizona	54	Arizona	56
Louisiana	53	Louisiana	50
Oklahoma	51	Oklahoma	50
Wisconsin	45	Wisconsin	46
Wyoming	44	Wyoming	46
Colorado	41	California	45
Tennessee	41	Colorado	43

Power Plants Emitting More Than 10 Million Metric Tons Per Year
Power Plant	City	State	Metric Tons CO2e
Scherer	Juliette	GA	22,067,841
James H Miller Jr	Quinton	AL	22,061,458
Martin Lake	Tatum	TX	18,448,082
Labadie	Labadie	MO	18,229,430
W A Parish	Thompsons	TX	17,726,505
Gen J M Gavin	Cheshire	OH	17,650,544
Navajo Generating Station	Page	AZ	16,928,813
Bruce Mansfield	Shippingport	PA	16,278,605
Monroe	Monroe	MI	15,936,102
Gibson	Owensville	IN	15,823,015
Rockport	Rockport	IN	15,533,777
Bowen	Cartersville	GA	15,047,911
WESTAR ENERGY, INC.	St. Marys	KS	14,789,161
John E Amos	St Albans	WV	14,548,578
Colstrip	Colstrip	MT	14,092,896
Cross	Pineville	SC	14,004,683
Laramie River	Wheatland	WY	13,608,004
Belews Creek	Belews Creek	NC	13,596,704
Limestone	Jewett	TX	13,443,575
J M Stuart	Manchester	OH	13,286,419
Four Corners Steam Elec Station	Fruitland	NM	13,246,273
Sherburne County	Becker	MN	13,190,382
Monticello	Mount Pleasant	TX	13,005,890
Baldwin Energy Complex	Baldwin	IL	12,815,215
Jim Bridger	Point Of Rocks	WY	12,777,809
Big Cajun 2	New Roads	LA	12,458,754
Paradise	Drakesboro	KY	12,436,546
Cumberland	Cumberland City	TN	12,294,761
Oak Grove	Franklin	TX	12,071,515
Intermountain	Delta	UT	11,843,842
San Juan	Waterflow	NM	11,822,117
Ghent	Ghent	KY	11,671,644
Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center	Council Bluffs	IA	11,523,892
Sam Seymour	La Grange	TX	11,459,125
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant	Semora	NC	11,200,738
Crystal River Power Plant	Crystal River	FL	11,119,611
Welsh Power Plant	Pittsburg	TX	11,035,103
E C Gaston	Wilsonville	AL	10,913,364
Independence	Newark	AR	10,875,345
Powerton	Pekin	IL	10,871,825
White Bluff	Redfield	AR	10,644,060
Marshall	Terrell	NC	10,543,157
Springerville Generating Station	Springerville	AZ	10,476,904
Hatfield's Ferry Power Station	Masontown	PA	10,401,485
Keystone	Shelocta	PA	10,391,728
Harrison Power Station	Haywood	WV	10,250,300
Big Bend	Apollo Beach	FL	10,198,116

Note: EPA reports data in metric tons of CO2-equivalent. A metric ton is equal to about 2200 pounds, or about 1.1 “short” tons, the more familiar unit of measurement in the U.S. “CO2-equivalent” is a way of comparing the heat-trapping power of different greenhouse gases.

Thanks to Deborah Cooper and Starla Yeh for help on this post.

Las Brisas Power Plant Is Gone With the Wind

2013-01-28T05:01:15Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

The Texas company seeking to build a power plant to burn a coal-like fuel in Corpus Christi gave up ghost last week, done in by more competitive natural gas and wind alternatives. The developer of the proposed Las Brisas Energy Center announced it was going out of business after failing to find enough investors to keep its uneconomic project on life support.

Las Brisas, intended to burn a petroleum coke waste product from nearby refineries, was opposed by local medical societies and a coalition of public health and environmental organizations, including the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund. A state court last year found that Texas authorities had issued Las Brisas a defective clean air permit that did not meet control technology requirements for mercury and other dangerous air pollutants. The project also had yet to obtain a permit for emissions of climate-changing carbon dioxide.

Las Brisas’s developer promoted the plant as offering “reliable base load power,” “competitive pricing and overall consumer savings,” and “to insulate Texans from volatile natural gas prices.” It didn’t work out that way. Since the plant was proposed in 2008, Texas has seen a surge in both wind and natural gas-fired power generation as costs have come down for both alternatives. The “pet coke” plant just can’t compete.

These are stand up guys, though, aren’t they? They acknowledged that they’d bet on the wrong fuel in a changing marketplace, and noted that in our dynamic entrepreneurial system, some business ventures just don’t work out, right?

Wrong. They blamed the Environmental Protection Agency. Here’s the statement by Chase Power Development CEO Dave Freysinger:

While market conditions played a role, the direct regulatory obstacles purposefully erected by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) resulted in the decision to suspend development of the plant.

(Last year Las Brisas led a whacky lawsuit brought by a handful of would-be coal-plant developers attacking EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington correctly threw out the lawsuit, holding that you cannot sue to block a proposal because a proposal does not do anything. You have to wait for the final standards.)

Sure enough, the right-wing echo chamber, including Fox News, was quick to claim “Obama EPA Kills Power Plant, 3,900 Jobs in Texas.”

It’s pretty interesting to contrast this tired old meme with the reality seen back in Corpus Christi.

Here are excerpts from a January 25th editorial in the Corpus Christi Caller Times, entitled: “To blame EPA for Las Brisas' failure ignores the market.” The editors write that “once South Texas discovered it had more cheap, retrievable, relatively clean-burning natural gas in the ground than it will need for the foreseeable future, the economic justification for squeezing electricity from inherently dirty, underwhelmingly energetic petroleum coke became unconvincing.”

The editors note that “it could be argued, no less convincingly than its scapegoating of the EPA, that the Eagle Ford Shale drilling boom did more to undermine Las Brisas.”

Cheap, abundant, relatively clean natural gas directly challenges the concept of building a petroleum coke-fueled power plant that would have pushed the Corpus Christi area near its allowable limit for harmful emissions. In addition to the health risks it posed, Las Brisas likely would have limited other industrial expansion.

As for the claim of 3900 jobs, the Caller-Times editors note: “The generously best-case permanent employment outlook for Las Brisas was maybe 100 jobs.” (The company website projected 1300 temporary construction jobs, and only 80-100 permanent jobs. You get to 3900, even temporarily, only by assuming 2 equally temporary "indirect" jobs for every direct construction job.) Other companies, the paper argues, are offering more attractive industrial development projects and employment potential.

The editors also tipped their hat to Las Brisas’s opponents:

The local medical community, business-friendly and not as bleeding-heart as would be suspected of those whose purpose is saving health and lives, openly opposed Las Brisas out of health concerns. After reviewing the scientific projections, the medical folks provided tie-wearing, wing-tipped, credentialed backup to the environmental and consumer advocates who opposed Las Brisas.

Finally, the editors flatly rejected the Las Brisas backers’ blame-game:

Las Brisas might have made economic sense when gas prices were higher, and assuming cheap, plentiful water for the long term. Its backers claim Las Brisas to be “a victim of EPA's concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities.” But Las Brisas had bigger problems than not being a wind farm. They were market-based problems. It’s not the EPA's doing that the cheaper alternatives also are cleaner.

‘Nuff said.

European Commission Holds Firm, Rejects Daimler's Push to Block New Climate-Friendly Refrigerant

2012-12-21T18:10:18Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Good news today from Brussels, as the European Community holds firm and rejects last-minute pressure from by Daimler, maker of Mercedes-Benz, to block the introduction of a climate-friendly refrigerant in car air conditioners. As I’ve written here and here, the world auto industry is on the verge of a transition from HFC-134a, a powerful heat-trapping gas with 1,430 times the climate-changing power of carbon dioxide, to HFO-1234yf, a chemical with just 1/360th the punch.

On January 1, 2013, European law makes it illegal to market a “new type” car (essentially a major model redesign) with the any refrigerant whose climate-changing punch exceeds 150 times that of CO2. That rules out 134a. After rigorous safety testing, auto makers from Europe, the U.S., and Japan – including Daimler – picked 1234yf, with a global warming potential only 4 times CO2, as the replacement of choice.

But Daimler issued a surprise announcement in September that it would not use 1234yf based on simulations -- not actual crash tests -- of a very unusual and unlikely accident scenario.

The reaction of nearly all other auto makers, safety experts at SAE International (the Society of Automotive Engineers), and other observers was that the Daimler simulations added no significant new information. Everyone already knew that 1234yf is mildly flammable – less so, in fact, than many other fluids under the hood, starting with gasoline – and that the real-life risk can be minimized with good engineering design. If Daimler found a flaw in its own design – for example, the proximity of its refrigerant lines to hot surfaces – the answer would be to fix the design, e.g., by relocating lines or adding insulation – not to stick with a coolant that’s dangerous for the climate.

Today the European Commission reaffirmed its conclusion that 1234yf is safe to use and rejected Daimler’s bid for another delay in the refrigerant transition schedule. The Commission also signaled its plans to enforce compliance with the refrigerant transition by each of its member countries. Here are highlights from today’s announcement:

The automotive manufacturers have decided, in 2009, on the use of refrigerant HFO 1234yf as the technical solution to comply with the Directive's targets. It is currently the only technical solution available for manufacturers to respect the ban on R134a on newly type-approved vehicles. The refrigerant chosen by the industry has a GWP of 4 (99,7% lower than R134a).

Directive 2006/40/EC is a key European law in the general efforts to reducing the environmental footprint of our automotive industry (in practice: a ban on MAC systems using gas R134a in newly type-approved vehicles, that is, M1 and N1 vehicles type-approved after 1 January 2011). Until the end of 2012 it has not been applied to its full effects due exclusively to a problem of supply of the refrigerant, which has now been solved. …

[T]there is no evidence, until today, that there are no technical solutions to mitigate the flammability risks associated to the use of the new gas 1234yf in MAC systems. Detailed risk assessments and standardisation processes were conducted with this objective, involving all manufacturers, which concluded that the risk of the use of this gas was equivalent or inferior of other flammable fluids used in vehicles, including gasoline. …

Given that MAC Directive will be fully enforced as of 1 January 2013, the Commission is analysing, with the Member States' authorities, the way forward to ensure compliance of the automotive manufacturers that have type-approved their vehicles for the use of the new gas in the respective territories.

As a general rule, each Member State is responsible for the implementation of EU law within its own legal system. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that EU law is correctly applied. Consequently, where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, the Commission has powers of its own (action for non-compliance) to try to bring the infringement to an end. Under the non compliance procedure started by the Commission, the first phase is the pre-litigation administrative phase, also called “infringement proceedings”, that enables the Member State to conform voluntarily with the requirements of the law.

The Commission will endeavour all efforts to ensure the consistency of the internal market aswell as transparency and equal treatment in the whole European Union.

So, if Daimler proceeds to market its “new type” Mercedes-Benz models with HFC-134a in the air conditioner, it will be in violation of European law.

Kudos to the European Commission for standing its ground on protecting our climate.

Appeals Court Rejects Orcs' and Goblins' Latest Attack on EPA Carbon Pollution Standards

2012-12-21T00:35:35Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today rejected petitions from industry and state challengers to revisit a three-judge panel’s unanimous ruling last June, in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark endangerment finding and its first carbon pollution limits for new motor vehicles and big new industrial sources.

I described the June ruling here. It was a huge victory, and it cleared the way for EPA to keep moving forward on its obligations under the Clean Air Act to protect the American people from the dangerous carbon pollution that drives global warming.

The vote of the whole court was 6-2, with dissents by Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh (both appointed by President George W. Bush), and a strong rebuttal by the three judges who wrote the original opinion – David Sentelle (appointed by President Reagan) and Judith Rogers and David Tatel (both appointed by President Clinton).

The dissenters plainly sought to buttress the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court by the assorted orcs and goblins that brought these cases. One industry attorney remarked, according to E&E’s Greenwire (subscription required), that an appeal would follow “as surely as the climate has been changing since the Earth had an atmosphere.” (Given the petitioners’ penchant for attacking science, maybe that means “within the last 6,000 years.”)

Judge Brown’s dissent is a full frontal attack on the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, where the high court held that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” within the reach of the Clean Air Act, and that EPA has a duty to curb those emissions if it determines these pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. This EPA duly found, on the basis of a mountain of scientific evidence, in 2009. While acknowledging that she’s bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling and that EPA may set standards for motor vehicles, Judge Brown said “I do not choose to go quietly.” Trying to show that EPA had improperly converted the Clean Air Act into “the Warm Air Act,” she repeated all the Bush administration and industry arguments that the high court had painstakingly rejected in Massachusetts.

Judge Brown and Judge Kavanaugh also argued that the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed applying the Clean Air Act to industrial sources of carbon pollution. This is not exactly true: in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court turned aside lawsuits grounded in federal common law precisely because the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to set limits on carbon pollution from power plants -- citing, among other provisions, the very permitting requirements at issue here.

Judge Kavanaugh asserted that the statute allows two “plausible” interpretations of the terms “any air pollutant” in those permitting provisions: one covering all air pollutants, including greenhouse gases, and the other covering only the six air pollutants for which there are national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). He then argued that EPA was required to choose the latter, narrow interpretation because it would avoid the “absurd results” of subjecting thousands of tiny new and modified sources to the Act’s permitting requirements.

Judges Sentelle, Rogers, and Tatel responded forcefully to the two dissents. As for Judge Brown, they noted that “her quarrel is with the Supreme Court.” Responding to Judge Kavanaugh, they summarized the convincing analysis in their original opinion that the statutory text allows only one interpretation of “any air pollutant” – the broader one that EPA followed. As they found in June, that interpretation was “unambiguously correct.”

Judges Brown and Kavanaugh both repeat, as if proven, the industries’ “sky-is-falling” claims about the economic doom bound to come if the EPA is allowed to set carbon pollution limits – claims that show no sign of coming true since carbon pollution permitting began under EPA's Tailoring Rule in January 2011. I am sure we will hear this Chicken Little argument in the coming cert. petitions. In fact, though, there is no empirical evidence of projects stopped or deterred by the carbon permitting requirements.

Life seems to be going on.

Unfortunately, so does this case. As Bilbo Baggins sings, “The Road Goes Ever On.” But the orcs lose in the end.

Update: World Auto Makers Back New Refrigerant, Rebuffing Daimler

2012-12-14T17:34:44Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

I wrote earlier this week about Daimler's push to block European requirements to replace the "super greenhouse gas" HFC-134a now used in car air conditioners, by raising dubious last-minute safety issues with the alternative, HFO-1234yf, which has a 360-fold lower impact on the climate.

Today SAE International (formerly the Society of Automobile Engineers) put a crimp in Daimler's plans by releasing the results of a special panel convened to assess the Daimler data. Here is the SAE statement, in full (the emphasis added is mine):

The SAE International Cooperative Research Project (CRP1234-4) team was recently established to perform an updated engineering review of R-1234yf refrigerant usage in vehicles. The group has been regularly meeting to review and share test information completed since the close of the original CRP1234-3 in 2009. The previous study concluded that R-1234yf is a safe and acceptable alternative refrigerant for mobile air conditioning systems that can be used to meet new environmental and consumer needs.
The new CRP team began by conducting a detailed review of the original Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and chose to expand the trees to ensure that newly-identified information and testing from each of the OEMs is incorporated. This study has highlighted concerns with relying on one test to be reflective of real world collisions across vehicle applications.

To date, the majority of the OEMs involved in the new CRP do not believe that any of the new information reviewed will lead to a change in the overall risk assessment. Several OEMs have shared test results regarding their vehicles. With the exception of Daimler, no OEM in the CRP has provided information that would suggest a concern for the safe use of R-1234yf in their vehicles.

R-1234yf is approved as an alternative refrigerant by the U.S. EPA and is REACH registered in Europe. Many new vehicles in Europe have received “type approval” to use this refrigerant. It is already in use in vehicles in North America and Europe.

The CRP team continues to hold regular conference calls and face-to-face meetings and expects to be able to provide updated progress reports as new information becomes available. The next report is expected by the middle of February. To insure thoroughness, the OEM team is working quickly but diligently to complete the expanded fault trees and several of the OEM members continue to do testing toward that goal. The new risk assessment and publication of the findings is planned for completion in the second quarter of 2013.

The team includes 13 members: Audi, BMW, Chrysler/Fiat, Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, PSA, Renault and Toyota.

With this report from SAE, the European Commission is on the strongest possible ground to reject Daimler's last-minute lobbying for further delays in requirements to end the use of HFC-134a in "new type" vehicles, and to use only low-climate impact refrigerants, after the beginning of 2013. The EC must stay the course.

Court Kills Zombie Power Plant Case

2012-12-13T20:16:06Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

How do you kill a zombie power plant lawsuit? It’s easier than shooting it in the head. You just grant the motions to dismiss.

That’s what the Court of Appeals in Washington did today, issuing a one-paragraph order dismissing the whacky lawsuit brought by a handful of would-be coal-plant developers attacking EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants, in a case called Las Brisas Energy Center v. EPA. EPA issued the proposal last April, is currently working through the public comments, and is expected to make a final decision soon. But it hasn’t done anything final yet. And so the Court succinctly ruled: “The challenged proposed rule is not final agency action subject to judicial review.”

No doubt these guys will sue EPA over the final standards when they come out. But this decision at least rejects their attempt to jump the gun.

For more background on the zombie lawsuit and zombie power plants, see my earlier post here.

Daimler's Last-Minute Push To Block A Climate-Friendly Refrigerant: Is That Really the Way the Mercedes Bends?

2012-12-13T04:27:59Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Almost every new car has air conditioning. Almost every car air conditioner uses a refrigerant called HFC-134a, a “super greenhouse gas” with 1430 times the global warming punch, pound for pound, as carbon dioxide. In a welcome move, the auto industry is on the verge of a world-wide transition from this potent climate-changing gas to an alternative with the clunky name HFO-1234yf and roughly 1/360th the global warming impact -- it has a “global warming potential” (GWP) of only 4.

Here in the U.S., the transition is being driven by the Obama administration’s landmark clean car and fuel economy standards. The EPA component of those standards, issued under the Clean Air Act, covers all four climate-changing pollutants (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons), and sets a combined standard for all of them weighted on a carbon dioxide equivalent basis. This creates a strong incentive to shift from 134a to 1234yf as the standards tighten year-by-year, and some car makers have started to use the new refrigerant in some models.

In Europe, after several delays, the European Commission’s F-Gas Directive for mobile air conditioning is finally slated to take effect January 1, 2013, after which it will be illegal to sell a “new type” model with a refrigerant that has a GWP greater than 150. A “new type” car is basically a major redesign, which occurs to all vehicles every few years. So the refrigerant change-over should start in Europe next month and cover more and more models over succeeding years.

That’s unless Daimler, maker of Mercedes Benz, gets its way.

Until September of this year, Daimler, together with all other major auto makers, was on board the transition to 1234yf.

The auto industry has rigorously tested 1234yf’s performance and safety. It has been known from the start that the chemical is mildly flammable – like many other fluids under the hood, starting with gasoline and diesel fuel. Consequently, both individually and through organizations such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the automakers carefully assessed the risks and engineered counter-measures, such as insulating hot surfaces and isolating refrigerant lines from them. The SAE produced guidelines for safe design.

As summarized by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society, the trade association for the aftermarket air conditioning service industry:

HFO-1234yf has been extensively tested, using proven scientific methods, by prestigious industry organizations, independent laboratories, and a group of 15 global vehicle manufacturers organized by SAE International in an industry Cooperative Research Program. At the conclusion of this testing, all of the participants expressed their satisfaction that HFO-1234yf could be used in MAC systems.

The Environmental Protection Agency, European regulators, and other national authorities reviewed and cleared the new refrigerant for safe use.

As recently as September 17th, Daimler was on board with the entire German auto industry in endorsing 1234yf as “a new, safe and environmentally friendly refrigerant” for mobile air conditioning. Their presentation said:

* Ignition of R1234yf is nearly impossible in the engine compartment
considering operating conditions of the vehicle.

* Ignition of R1234yf is impossible inside the vehicle cabin in reality.

* TÜV SÜD confirms: “… in der Praxis ein schwer entzündbares Gas.”

“... very difficult to ignite in reality.”

But one week later, Daimler issued a surprise announcement that it was abandoning 1234yf and reverting to 134a, because the company had performed simulations – not actual crash tests – of a very unusual accident scenario: a car with its engine super-overheated by miles of towing a heavy trailer uphill, or by miles of extreme acceleration and deceleration, was assumed to have immediately suffered a high-speed front-end crash causing the air conditioning refrigerant hose to rupture and spray the refrigerant on the hottest parts of the engine. (No actual crash, but the refrigerant purposely released from a valve.)

And lo! There was a fire!

There’s much speculation on Daimler’s motives. The company apparently sat on its simulations for months before releasing them. After the announcement, Daimler was slow to share its data. Questions have been raised about the representativeness and rigor of the simulations, and about the purity of the compound tested (it was mixed with lubricating oils). Some suggest the company is under serious financial pressures and wants to stick with the current refrigerant, 134a, indefinitely as a cost-cutting measure.

Daimler has since been pleading with the European Commission in Brussels for yet another postponement of the F-Gas Directive deadline. To its credit, to date the Commission has held firm.

Most other car makers also have been holding firm. Signs are that the General Motors, Chrysler, Volvo, and others are confident in their risk analyses and engineering and are sticking with plans to use the new refrigerant.

The Society of Automotive Engineers convened a special panel of car-maker engineers to quickly review Daimler’s tests and to determine whether they call for any change in the group’s prior risk assessment and engineering guidelines. No results are public yet, although rumors are that participants other than Daimler have found no reason to change course, and that Daimler is holding up the report.

Update Dec. 14: The SAE released a statement today that said:

The new CRP [Cooperative Research Program] team began by conducting a detailed review of the original Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and chose to expand the trees to ensure that newly-identified information and testing from each of the OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] is incorporated. This study has highlighted concerns with relying on one test to be reflective of real world collisions across vehicle applications.

To date, the majority of the OEMs involved in the new CRP do not believe that any of the new information reviewed will lead to a change in the overall risk assessment. Several OEMs have shared test results regarding their vehicles. With the exception of Daimler, no OEM in the CRP has provided information that would suggest a concern for the safe use of R-1234yf in their vehicles.

But Daimler is lobbying relentlessly in Brussels and Berlin for another postponement as the end-of-year deadline approaches. With European officials home from the Doha climate change conference, most observers expect matters to come to a climax, one way or the other, within the next week or so.

European environmentalists have weighed in with the European Commission on the urgency of rapidly phasing out 134a to protect the climate, and they are urging strict enforcement of the F-Gas Directive without further delays. Even groups with a preference for other refrigerants – such as CO2-based systems – agree that Daimler has had all the lead-time it needs and should not be rewarded now with another delay. The German group DUH, for example, urges the imposition of fines of 665 Euros for each non-conforming vehicle sold.

American and multinational industries and trade associations are also voicing their concerns about the world-wide ramifications of a European delay. The two companies that manufacture and market 1234yf, Honeywell and DuPont, are staunchly defending its safety and questioning the realism and credibility of Daimler’s latest tests. The Mobile Air Conditioning Society told the EC:

[I]t is important that the [current] mandate be observed without any further delay. If a firm mandate suddenly becomes indefinitely flexible, then our members will lose confidence in the process, and it will be more difficult for them to commit resources to support future initiatives.

We ask that the EU hold to their strong record of environmental leadership and take any and all actions necessary to see that the EU Directive … is enforced post haste now that compliant refrigerants, meeting internationally recognized standards, are freely available in the marketplace.

American environmental organizations also have raised their voices. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development told the EC in a letter earlier this week:

The fact that R-1234yf is mildly flammable has been known for years. Following SAE standards, auto manufacturers can design vehicles to use this refrigerant safely just as they manage the many other flammable fluids found under the hoods of their vehicles. A failure of Daimler to design safe mobile air conditioning systems should lead to a recall and correction of the faulty design, not to abandonment of a technology proven to protect climate. Of course, Daimler had the option under the F-gas Directive to adopt other alternatives, such as CO2 systems, and the company had ample time to make its choices. Daimler should not now be rewarded with additional time to use HFC-134a while it further considers CO2 systems.

We suggested that Daimler either be fined or “required to provide offsetting carbon pollution reductions, for example, by further accelerating fuel economy improvements” until it adopts an air conditioning system that complies with the F-Gas Directive by using 1234yf or another refrigerant with GWP less than 150.

So will Daimler’s last-minute gambit pay off with another postponement? Or will the European Commission enforce its laws, stand by its commitment to protecting the climate, and hold Daimler to its responsibilities?

The Three Elements of Power Plant Standards: Carbon, Mercury, and Irony

2012-12-09T21:53:23Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Last week, NRDC proposed an innovative plan showing how the President can slow climate change, save lives, create jobs, and grow the economy by using the Clean Air Act to cut the dangerous carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants.

State-specific standards. First, our plan recognizes that states start with different mixes of coal and gas in their current electricity generation. So we recommend that EPA set state-specific standards, in pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (lbs/MWh), for that are differentiated based on each state’s starting fossil generation mix in 2008-2010. We reduce overall carbon emissions 26 percent in 2020 and 35 percent in 2025 by each state making progress from its own starting point.
Flexible compliance options. Second, our plan recognizes that carbon pollution can be cut at much lower cost if one looks at power plants as a system. Each fossil plant is responsible for meeting the state-specific emission-rate. The plant owner can move towards compliance, of course, by improving the plant’s heat rate or with other steps that directly reduce its emissions. But under our plan the owner has additional compliance options. For example, a company owning both coal and gas plants can shift dispatch towards the cleaner plants and average across its total generation. If it has wind or solar plants, or hydro or nuclear plants, it can earn compliance credits for increased generation from these non-emitting assets. And it can earn compliance credits by investing in customer energy efficiency, which cuts emissions by reducing how much electricity is needed to light, heat, and cool our homes and businesses. The same strategies are also available between companies, which can buy or sell compliance credits from the same actions.

Because of these key features, the NRDC plan achieves enormous climate protection and public health benefits worth $26-60 billion in 2020, at a reasonable cost of $4 billion.

Our report demonstrates that state-specific standards and flexible compliance options are consistent with the definition of “standard of performance” and the other requirements in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. (See here, pp. 7-12.)

But defenders of the oldest, dirtiest coal-fired power plants are arguing that the flexible compliance structure of our carbon pollution proposal exceeds EPA’s and the states’ authority under the Clean Air Act.

And here’s the irony: the same voices attacking compliance flexibility today for carbon pollution were the champions of compliance flexibility a few years ago when EPA, under the Bush administration, attempted to regulate power plant mercury emissions under Section 111.

Consider Jeff Holmstead, an attorney who represents companies with lots of coal-fired plants. He told Politico (“NRDC puts emission plan on a platter,” subscription required) that our proposal “just doesn’t pass muster under the Clean Air Act.” Holmstead argued that EPA cannot write a standard with these compliance flexibility options but must stick only to the relatively small reductions that a coal-fired power plant can achieve on its own. He then said: “But there are no control devices for carbon. There’s nothing anyone can install at a power plant to reduce its carbon emissions.”

(He’s actually wrong about that – there are measures from improving combustion efficiency to capturing and sequestering carbon that can reduce an individual plant’s emissions, at a range of costs. As our study demonstrates, you can get much more pollution reduction at less cost by including additional compliance options. This link between flexibility and ambition is exactly why Holmstead was for flexibility before he was against it.)

Nevertheless, Holmstead concluded: “So NRDC now wants to use the Clean Air Act to force consumers and businesses to use less electricity and to force power companies to shut down their existing plants and build new ones. This goes well beyond what EPA is allowed to do under the act.”

Elementary, my dear Watson? Not so fast. Here’s where the element of irony enters in.

Holmstead served a few years ago as the head of EPA’s air program during the Bush years, and in those days he had a different view. He led the unsuccessful effort then to let mercury-emitting power companies avoid the Clean Air Act’s most health-protective requirements. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin listed as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Act. EPA had previously determined it was necessary and appropriate to curb power plants’ mercury emissions under these stringent requirements. But Holmstead tried to shift regulation of power plant mercury from Section 112 to the less demanding provisions under Section 111. (And as a bonus, he tried to relieve the industry of the need to meet standards for some 80 other hazardous air pollutants that power plants emit.)

Specifically, Holmstead issued mercury standards that interpreted Section 111 to allow states to participate in a “cap-and-trade” program for power plants. This program would have given each power plant a range of flexible compliance options. A power plant that could not meet its mercury limit on its own would be allowed to comply using mercury credits ("allowances") acquired from another plant.

Holmstead’s mercury standard earned support and high praise from the very segments of the power industry that he now represents. Here are excerpts from the utility industry’s 2004 comments:

The Utility Air Regulatory Group “agrees with EPA’s proposed determination that an interstate cap-and-trade program provides the ‘best system’ of mercury reduction for electric utility steam generating units. EPA is administering cap-and-trade systems successfully in the Acid Rain program and the NOx SIP Call rulemaking. These programs have demonstrated that a cap-and-trade system provides industry with the flexibility to comply with national emission levels in a cost-effective manner.”
The Edison Electric Institute said: “A multi-emission cap-and-trade program is the most cost-effective means to achieve substantial additional emission reductions from the power generation industry.… This approach also provides the system-wide flexibility necessary to mitigate risk associated with trying innovative control technologies…. If EPA decides to pursue cap-and-trade under §111, EEI believes that EPA’s explanation of its legal authority to propose a cap-and-trade program under §111 of the CAA is reasonable.”

In the subsequent court challenge, the joint brief of state and industry intervenors said this:

EPA has offered compelling legal justifications for a mercury cap-and-trade program. … [It] maximizes reductions in U.S. mercury deposition while providing EGUs flexibility to achieve those reductions in a cost effective manner. … A cap-and-trade program also benefits State citizens by allowing market forces to govern the choice and timing of emission controls.

Our carbon proposal does not include a cap; it sets only an emission-rate limit. But our proposal and Holmstead’s mercury regulations both involve compliance flexibility: they both harness market forces by allowing a power plant to comply through measures that effectively reduce total power sector emissions, but take place beyond the borders of the plant.

And even though we’re not proposing a cap-and-trade program, if you examine the legal analysis of Section 111 supporting NRDC’s recommended carbon standard, you’ll find that it’s quite similar to the legal analysis that Holmstead put forward to support his mercury standard.

Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Holmstead’s mercury standard in New Jersey v. EPA. The court did not address the availability of flexible compliance techniques under Section 111. Rather, the court held that EPA had violated the law by removing power plant mercury emissions from the more stringent protections of Section 112.

Holmstead will doubtless point out that NRDC was a petitioner in the New Jersey case and opposed his mercury cap-and-trade program under Section 111. True enough, but our primary concern was that cap-and-trade or other compliance flexibility provisions that shift the location of emissions are utterly inappropriate for a potent brain poison with localized consequences, like mercury. Mercury and other toxic air pollutants from power plants belong under the stringent technology- and public health-driven provisions of Section 112. That is why our primary argument was against the attempt to shift the mercury regulations from Section 112 to Section 111.

Unlike carbon pollution, mercury is a highly toxic nervous system poison with disproportionate local impacts. People who live in the shadow of mercury-emitting plants, especially pregnant women and young children, are exposed to higher levels of this toxin than people who live elsewhere. This is true even though some part of the mercury pollution burden circulates globally. With toxic pollutants that have localized impacts, cap-and-trade and other flexible compliance methods that shift the location of emissions and reductions from one community to another are ethically and legally unacceptable.

That’s why NRDC joined the successful suit to block Holmstead’s mercury plan, and we’re pleased that the Obama EPA has replaced it, as the law requires, with the strong Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) issued last year under Section 112.

The dangers from carbon dioxide and other climate-changing pollutants are severe, but they are not localized threats to the people living near the pollution-emitting plants in the same way as with mercury and other toxic pollutants. And now that we have the MATS standard and updated limits for power plants’ soot- and smog-forming pollutants, health protections for nearby residents have been greatly strengthened. Given the different characteristics of carbon pollution, it is appropriate to set carbon standards for existing power plants under Section 111. Flexible compliance options will allow for a greater total carbon pollution reduction at lower cost, and that’s why we have included them in our plan.

The power sector favored compliance flexibility options when the subject was mercury. So why oppose similar options when the subject is carbon? That’s the element of irony.

Fox News, Why Don't You Call Me Maybe?

2012-12-06T18:44:52Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Fox News did a hatchet job Tuesday on NRDC’s innovative proposal showing how the President can create jobs, grow the economy, slow climate change, and save lives by using the Clean Air Act to cut the dangerous carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants.

We’ve got a plan that achieves huge health and climate benefits at surprisingly low cost, that’s fair and flexible for each state and power company, that holds power bills down, and that triggers huge job-creating clean energy investments that can’t be outsourced. It’s a plan that even some power companies are praising.

Here, in brief, is our plan:

EPA would set state-specific carbon emission rates for the fossil fuel power plants in each state, through a formula that reflects the diversity of the nation’s electricity sector and fuel supplies.

Power plant owners and states would have broad flexibility to reduce emissions through a range of cost-effective options including:

Improving a plant’s combustion efficiency or by burning cleaner fuels.
Shifting generation from high-emitting to lower- or zero-emitting plants. Cleaner sources such as gas, wind and solar would earn credits that high-emitting plants could use, reducing average emissions rates overall.
Ramping up energy efficiency. More efficient buildings, appliances, and industries mean less electricity has to be generated to get our work done. Those electricity savings bring pollution reductions that would also count as compliance credits for by high-emitting plants.

States would have additional flexibility to adopt alternative approaches—such as those already in place in California, the Northeast states, and Colorado—as long as they are equally effective in cutting emissions.

Our plan would cut carbon pollution from America’s existing power plants 26 percent by 2020 and 34 percent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. The cost—about $4 billion in 2020—would be far outweighed by the benefits—between $25 and $60 billion in lives saved, avoided illnesses, and reduced climate change in 2020 alone.

Our plan would also prompt investments of more than $90 billion in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy in the next eight years. This would create jobs that can’t be shipped overseas, boost local and state economies, and move America toward a clean energy, clean air future.

But do we get a fair shake on Fox? Do we even get invited on to explain our own plan?

Nope. As Fox watchdog Media Matters noted, anchor Megyn Kelly and “Digital Politics Editor” (whatever that is) Chris Stirewalt jointly trashed our proposal without any evidence of having read it.

You wouldn’t know from Fox’s “reporting” that Congress had ever passed, and Richard Nixon had signed, the Clean Air Act – the landmark law that has protected Americans’ health and welfare for four decades. You wouldn’t know that it’s EPA’s job under that law to tackle all dangerous air pollutants, including the carbon pollution that’s driving climate change.

No, it’s all some usurpation by EPA, Obama, and, oh yes, the Supreme Court to “bypass” Congress.

You wouldn’t know that America has endured another record year of extreme weather – droughts, heatwaves, floods, and Superstorm Sandy – that scientists are connecting to carbon pollution. You wouldn’t know that power plants are America’s number one source of that carbon pollution.

You wouldn’t know that our plan is remarkably flexible, one that treats states fairly by taking into account how much they rely on coal or gas to make electricity, and that it gives power companies unprecedented flexibility in how to clean up. Kelly and her Digital Politics guru just trashed the plan as “cap and trade” – even though there’s no cap in our plan at all!

You wouldn’t know that our plan will push electricity prices down, not up. And Ms. Kelly barely mentioned that the benefits – in lives saved, asthma cases prevented, and climate change averted – hugely beat the costs … by six to 15 times!

We’ve gone out of our way to be fair and flexible.

Silly me, I thought that sounded pretty close to fair and balanced.

C’mon Fox, your Digital Politics “war on coal” is so yesterday. Next time, how about an open mind?

Cooling India with Less Warming: Examining the Business Case for Phasing Down HFCs in Room and Vehicle Air Conditioning

2012-11-20T04:02:37Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

As living standards rise for tens of millions of people, India is on the verge of an enormous expansion in room and vehicle air conditioning that could strain the country’s electric grid and magnify the impacts of global warming. Choices made in the next few years about refrigerants and energy efficiency will shape whether Indian consumers, companies and government authorities can turn the challenges of the room and vehicle air conditioning expansion into business advantage and national opportunity while reducing climate change, improving air quality, and making air conditioning more efficient and less costly to operate.

Four partners – the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) – in consultation with the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), the Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Manufacturers Association (RAMA) and the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), are conducting a study of the business case for Indian companies to leapfrog or phase down unsustainable technologies based on the potent heat-trapping chemicals called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

The project team is in the midst of interviewing and consulting with Indian companies, international firms doing business in India, government officials, and other experts to better understand the business case for an HFC phase down. The study includes exploring the market opportunities and barriers to adopting more climate-friendly alternatives while also raising air conditioners’ energy efficiency. Based on our extensive consultations, the project team has issued a preliminary paper, “Cooling India With Less Warming,” that examines potential options for moving to a future based on climate-friendly refrigerants and energy-efficient equipment designs that will cool Indian buildings and vehicles while reducing dangerous climate change.

The paper’s preliminary findings are that: (1) Indian manufacturers are adopting or exploring a growing number of available and emerging technical options for room and vehicle air conditioning; (2) market and regulatory forces in other regions of the world are moving away from HFCs; and (3) the Indian government and international institutions have opportunities to assist Indian industries to profitably manage the transition by resolving policy uncertainties and providing financial and technical assistance.

Here is a bit more on the paper’s findings. If present trends continue, a perfect storm of regulatory and economic forces will drive up HFC use dramatically in India and other rapidly developing countries. On the one hand, India and other developing countries are about to begin phasing out current refrigerants called hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) under the Montreal Protocol because those chemicals deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. On the other, air conditioning demand is booming as living standards rise for tens of millions of Indian citizens. Room air conditioner sales in India are growing at 30 percent per year and the total number of units in use in India may reach 200 million – nearly 10 times the current number – by 2030.

HFCs are not ozone depleters. But many of them are potent greenhouse gases with high “global warming potential” (GWP). If India and other countries choose high-GWP HFCs to replace the HCFCs, the air conditioning boom will contribute to a large increase in global production and emission of these climate-changing gases. While they are only one or two percent of today’s greenhouse gas inventory (on a carbon dioxide equivalent basis), scientists project that they could account for 20 percent or more of the world’s heat-trapping burden by 2050, erasing the climate change bonus delivered by the Montreal Protocol.

As I’ve written here, domestic policies are being introduced in Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and other nations to limit and reduce HFCs while increasing energy efficiency standards. Internationally, proposals have been made under the Montreal Protocol to gradually phase HFCs down over several decades, on a differentiated schedule for developed and developing countries. While India has opposed those proposals in recent Montreal meetings, world leaders endorsed a gradual HFC production and consumption phase-down at the Rio+20 Summit last June, and the issue is likely to remain on the international agenda.

Based on consultations so far, the paper reviews a number of alternative refrigerants – both fluorocarbon and non-fluorocarbon – that Indian and foreign firms are already commercializing or planning to introduce. For room air conditioners, the paper finds that alternatives include hydrocarbons (such as propane, used in air conditioners made by Godrej & Boyce), and medium potency HFCs (such as R-32, used by Daikin and Panasonic). Over the next few years, these solutions will become the norm in developed country markets, and they are also gaining market share in other big developing country markets such as China, a consideration for Indian companies wishing to participate in the export trade.

For car air conditioners, the paper reviews the coming transition from high-GWP HFC-134a to low-potency alternatives (with GWPs less than 150 and as low as 4) in Europe, North America, Japan, and other markets. While most cars manufactured in India are for the rapidly growing domestic market, some Indian and international firms build cars in India for export to markets where 134a will soon be obsolete. In interviews with Indian car and component makers, the project team explored the considerations that will go into their choice of refrigerants for the domestic and export markets.

The paper preliminarily examines policy issues before the Indian government on the choice of replacements for HCFCs, energy efficiency standards, and other matters. It explores some areas where the Indian government and international institutions, such as the Montreal Protocol and its multilateral fund, could supply further policy guidance and technical and financial assistance.

The project team will continue interviews and consultations in early 2013, especially to pursue analytical recommendations made by the Confederation of Indian Industries, and will report updated results.

The project participants hope that this paper and their further work will assist Indian companies and the Indian government in managing the HCFC phase-out under the Montreal Protocol, understanding the business case for market transformation, and taking domestic and international decisions on the future of HFCs.

Countries Take a Step or Two Out of the Starting Blocks on HFCs at Montreal Treaty Meeting

2012-11-16T17:33:22Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

The 25th anniversary meeting of the Montreal Protocol, the treaty that has saved the ozone layer and slowed the pace of climate change, winds up today in Geneva with small signs of progress on proposals to phase down the “super greenhouse gases” known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

As I’ve explained here, production of HFCs is growing rapidly as they replace the ozone-destroying chemicals – chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorcarbons (HCFCs). Getting rid of CFCs and HCFCs is delivering a huge side benefit for the climate, because they are also powerful heat-trapping pollutants. But rapid HFC growth, especially in rapidly developing countries with rising incomes and booming demand for air conditioning, is eroding that climate benefit. Scientists project that HFCs will add the equivalent of nearly 100 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over the next four decades, drastically worsening climate change, unless steps are taken to curb that growth.

To nip this problem in the bud, the North American countries – Canada, Mexico, and the United States – and Micronesia have proposed amendments to the Montreal treaty to gradually phase down HFC production and consumption over the next two decades.

Those proposals got a boost in June when world leaders agreed in the Rio+20 summit statement (para 222) “that the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances is resulting in a rapid increase in the use and release of high global-warming potential hydrofluorocarbons to the environment” and stated: “We support a gradual phase-down in the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons.” This certainly looks like a high-level mandate for taking action under the Montreal Protocol. But as I’ve reported here, there was little progress when the treaty parties convened in Bangkok a month later.

As they wrap up their meeting this week in Geneva, the parties are still far from agreement on HFCs, but they did agree to the first steps in the direction of actual negotiations. The list of countries that want to move forward has grown to more than 110 nations, both developed and developing. And while India, China, and Brazil continue to oppose HFC limitations, the ranks of their supporters are shrinking. New voices – notably South Africa – urged forward movement.

First, I’ll comment on the procedural progress, and then the substance. In complex international negotiations, signs of progress are often seen in arcane procedural steps. Previously, the proposed HFC amendments had been debated only in the full plenary meeting, and India and China, joined by Brazil, had refused to permit the formation of any subgroup to discuss possible treaty amendments. This is an important obstacle, because forming a subgroup (usually called a “contact group”) is a prerequisite to actually negotiating treaty amendments. This time, India and China allowed a “discussion group” – a small but significant step, because it is possible that those discussions may mature into active negotiations over the coming year.

Countries vigorously debated the merits in both the plenary and the discussion group. The majority expressed support for moving forward on the HFC amendments. They reiterated that HFC growth is a result of the phase-out of CFCs and HCFCs, that the Montreal treaty obligates the parties to ensure that replacement chemicals do not harm the climate, and that many alternatives to HFCs were available or under development. India, China, Brazil, and some others continued to argue that HFCs can be addressed only under the climate treaties, and to suggest that we lack adequate alternatives.

South Africa’s views were especially noteworthy. In the climate talks, South Africa is ordinarily aligned with China, India, and Brazil. Last summer, South Africa joined them in opposing the HFC proposals. But this week South Africa took a different tack. Echoing the Rio+20 conclusions, the South African delegate stressed that the Montreal Protocol is a proven vehicle with the institutions and financial mechanism to support phasing down production and consumption of intentionally-manufactured chemicals. He asked if it was necessary to reinvent the wheel under the climate treaties, which don’t address production and consumption. He also noted that new climate treaty commitments would likely not take effect until 2020, and that we could use the Montreal treaty to make earlier progress on HFCs. The issue was one of political will, he said, rather than a legal issue. Though he listed many questions that need to be resolved, he urged the parties to explore the options for progress on HFCs under this treaty.

Another small step forward was agreement to ask the treaty’s technical advisors, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, to prepare a report on currently available and developing alternatives, characterizing their availability, cost, environmental characteristics, and suitability for use in special circumstances, such as especially hot climates. This kind of technical assessment is invaluable in building confidence on the pace of phase-down measures that are achievable.

In a side event, the European Union presented its proposed program to phase down HFCs within Europe. The regulations were proposed last week in Brussels. The U.S. is considering petitions for additional domestic measures as well.

I won’t exaggerate the progress made in Geneva. India and China, joined by Brazil, continued to oppose the HFC proposals. They also blocked several helpful but small-scale steps, including a decision to gather useful data on ways to curb emissions of HFC-23, an extremely potent heat-trapping byproduct of producing HCFC-22, and another to collect information on policies countries are following to transition away from ozone-depleting chemicals.

The U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Micronesia deserve great credit for persevering with their important proposals to phase down HFCs in order to protect the climate and to preserve the gains already delivered by the ozone protection treaty. They are on the right side, they are gaining support, and they should stick with it.

Malpractice: Fresh from Election, House Republicans Set Vote to Put One Company's Bad Asthma Medicine Back on Shelves

2012-11-11T14:41:12Z

David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, D.C.

Back for their lame duck session, the House Republican leadership has scheduled a floor vote on the Asthma Inhalers Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 6190), sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), a bill designed to put back on the market a 1960’s-vintage over-the-counter product called “Primatene Mist,” which was banned at the end of last year.

Why was Primatene Mist banned? Because it contains chemicals that deplete the earth’s ozone layer and a drug that the nation’s top asthma doctors consider ineffective and even dangerous.

Why do House leaders want to bring it back? Chalk it up to special-interest lobbying by a drug company and a former Congressman turned lobbyist.

Over the last two years, the House has passed dozens of bills, amendments, and riders to weaken the Clean Air Act and our other environmental laws. The House majority prefers ideology over science and struggles with basic concepts of physics, medicine, and even arithmetic.

Now they’re insisting they know better than the nation’s lung doctors how to treat life-threatening asthma attacks.

H.R. 6190 is a piece of work. Note that it is the Inhalers, not the Patients, Relief Act. That’s because the sole purpose of this bill is to put one company’s banned product back on the shelves. Primatene Mist contains a drug called epinephrine and ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Both the Food and Drug Association and the Environmental Protection Agency have determined it should come off the market. Why? Because epinephrine is no longer considered a safe and effective or essential treatment for asthma, and because CFCs are dangerous to the ozone layer.

After many years of advance warning, the deadline to stop selling Primatene Mist passed on December 31, 2011. Primatene’s manufacturer – Amphastar Pharmaceuticals and its Armstrong subsidiary – apparently misjudged the declining market for its product and found itself with stocks of inhalers on its hands after the deadline. So now, nearly a year after the ban took hold, the company is lobbying Congress to pass a special bill to put those stocks back on the market.

Meanwhile, other drug companies stepped up to the plate by developing effective asthma inhalers that contain better medicines and no CFCs. They invested the money for research and testing, got FDA approval, and put their products on the market well before the deadline. Millions of asthma patients, after seeing their doctors, are relying on them today.

The nation’s leading lung health doctors oppose this bill because they think it actually would be dangerous for asthma patients to put Primatene Mist back on the shelves. Here’s what Dr. Monica Kraft, professor of Medicine at Duke University and current president of the American Thoracic Society, said in testimony to an Energy and Commerce subcommittee last summer:

It is my strongly held view and the view of the American Thoracic Society, that returning epinephrine inhalers to the U.S. market, even for a limited time, would be ill advised.

This view is shared by several other physician organizations including, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Asthma Allergy and Immunology, the American Association of Respiratory Care and the National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care.…

The take away message is that in the majority of cases, asthma can be successfully treated by working with health care professionals to find the right combination of safe and effective medications.

Epinephrine is NOT one of the medications that is considered safe for the treatment of asthma.…

For years the medical community has recognized the dangerous side effects of epinephrine for the treatment of asthma and has recommended against it use for asthma. In 1999 the American Medical Association 1) urged that warning labels on over the counter epinephrine inhalers be strengthened to warn patients about the dangers of epinephrine use, 2) encouraged FDA to consider removing inhaled epinephrine from the market and 3) requested studies to determine whether the availability of inhaled epinephrine is a risk factor in asthma morbidity and mortality. The American Medical Association again reaffirmed this position in 2009.…

The American Thoracic Society strongly encourages any patient who is using over the counter medications--like Primatene Mist CFC--to treat their asthma to see a healthcare provider who can help the patient develop an asthma management plan and recommend more effective and safer medications to manage the asthma. ...

If the intent of the legislation is to restore a safe and effective asthma drug to the market place, then this legislative effort is mis-informed. Inhaled epinephrine is not a safe drug for the treatment of asthma. The adverse side effects of epinephrine are serious and well documented. No current clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma recommends the use of epinephrine. In fact, asthma guidelines specifically recommend against inhaled epinephrine for treating asthma.

Amphastar/Armstrong professes concern for the poor, saying they need an over-the-counter medicine that doesn’t require a doctor’s prescription. In fact, there is another over-the-counter alternative containing no CFCs, though the asthma doctors discourage it. Here’s the response of Chris Ward, past chairman of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, is his testimony:

Another false assumption is that low income people need these medications because they are low cost. While the price of Primatene Mist may be lower than the total cost of or co-pay for more effective bronchodilators, the relief from these epinephrine devices does not last as long. Thus, the long term cost is actually higher....

[O]ver-the-counter bronchodilators can promote self-diagnoses, which is particularly unsafe for the symptoms of asthma. With proper diagnoses and treatment, people can control their asthma symptoms, avoiding high-cost interventions like emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Cutting out care by qualified medical practitioners could be dangerous for the patient and costly to the healthcare system.

The bill’s sponsor and Primatene’s staunchest promoter, Rep. Michael Burgess, often notes that he is a doctor. Yes – he’s an obstetrician and gynecologist. Do you think America’s asthma sufferers should take an OB/GYN’s advice over the nation’s top lung doctors?

The company hopes to get Democratic support too. For that they hired former Rep. Bart Stupak, who turned lobbyist after serving in Congress from Michigan. In reaching out to his former colleagues, Mr. Stupak doesn’t talk about the lung doctors’ warnings on epinephrine, about damage to the ozone layer, or about the business mistake his client made in getting stuck with too much stock when the well-advertised deadline finally came due.

House leaders have put this bill on the “suspension” calendar meant for non-controversial bills to name post offices and the like. That means it will take a two-thirds majority to pass the House. Let’s hope there are enough House members of both parties that respect science, medicine, and asthma sufferers to send this nasty little bill down to defeat right now.

Update Nov.13: Politico reports: "House Republicans have for now pulled a bill directing the EPA to allow Amphastar Pharmaceuticals to sell leftover stocks of the asthma inhaler Primatene Mist, which was banned at the end of last year because of an international pact on products containing chlorofluorocarbons. The bill, initially set for a House vote Monday, will be rescheduled after Thanksgiving, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor emailed. 'We have a scheduling issue,' the spokesman said."

Update Dec. 11: The Primatene Mist bill is baaaack!, scheduled for a House floor vote tonight. Check back here later to see what happens.

Update Dec. 12: The Primatine Mist bill failed in the House today. It fell far short of the 2/3rds majority needed for a bill on the "suspension" calendar, which is usually reserved for non-controversial bills. The vote was 229-182, with 29 Republicans voting against, and 31 Democrats voting for.