Report, Initiatives Aim to Take Action on Climate Change

July 31, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Editor’s Note: While Tim Profeta is on vacation, Jeremy Tarr, policy associate in the Climate and Energy Program at Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, will author The Climate Post. Tim will post again August 28.

The Climate Post will also take a break from circulation August 7 and will return August 14.

A new report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers finds that for each decade of delay, policy actions on climate change increase total mitigation costs by approximately 40 percent. The cost of inaction—letting the temperature rise 3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels instead of 2 degrees— could increase economic damages by about 0.9 percent of global output.

“To put this percentage in perspective, 0.9 percent of estimated 2014 U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is approximately $150 billion,” according to the report. “Moreover, these costs are not one-time, but are rather incurred year after year because of the permanent damage caused by increased climate change resulting from the delay.”

The report is the first of several announcements by the Obama administration on climate change. On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy announced initiatives to curb methane emissions, which accounted for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas pollution in 2012. The Energy Department recommended incentives for modernizing natural gas infrastructure, and it plans to establish efficiency standards for natural gas compressors as well as improve advanced natural gas system manufacturing.

The same day, several companies and nongovernment groups committed to support a new Food Resilience theme in the president’s Climate Data Initiative. The initiative leverages data and technology to help businesses and communities better withstand the effects of climate change. Companies like Microsoft are helping to organize data sets and tools in the cloud that will enable the assessment of vulnerable points in the food system, such as the effects of climate change on our food system and the reliability of food transportation and safety.

Hearings Fuel Debate on Clean Power Plan

During public hearings in Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) heard testimony from the public on its proposed Clean Power Plan, which would limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

In Washington, D.C., many utilities and industry groups were critical of the plan’s climate benefits and called on the EPA to conduct further economic analysis before issuing its final rule in June 2015. In Atlanta, others said the plan did not account for steps they’ve already taken to reduce emissions.

“This rule is flawed,” said Mississippi utility regulator Brandon Presley (subscription). “States like Mississippi, who have fought to pull themselves up and get a program to help customers reduce energy costs and reduce energy consumption, kind of get slapped away from the table.”

In their testimony, many environmental groups sought greater emissions reductions from the power sector as well as increases in renewable energy generation and programs that reduce electricity demand. Some members of the public, like retired coal miner Stan Sturgill of Kentucky, agreed with these groups’ request for tougher restrictions.

“Your targets to reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 2030 are way too low and do not do enough to reduce our risk of climate change,” said Sturgill, who suffers from black lung and other respiratory ailments. “The rule does not do near enough to protect the health of the front line communities from the consequences of this pollution. We’re dying, literally dying, for you to help us.”

The EPA is asking states to meet carbon emissions targets that would result in a 30 percent reduction in power sector carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. States are given flexibility in how they achieve the targets.

Representatives from 13 western states met last week to discuss the EPA’s proposal and to begin considering the advantages of working together in response to the rule.

“We’re in the process of determining what makes sense for us, including working with other states in a regional market,” said Camille St. Onge, spokeswomen for Washington’s Department of Ecology.

United States Imposes Energy-Related Trade Constraints

The U.S. Commerce Department placed proposed new import penalties on solar products from China and Taiwan. These penalties come on top of anti-subsidy tariffs imposed on some panels from China last month.

The new proposed penalties, still to be confirmed, aim to curb the sale of low-cost solar panels and cells, a practice known as dumping, from other countries in the U.S. market. If confirmed, they would impose duties as high as 165 percent on some solar companies in China and 44 percent on those in Taiwan. The Commerce Department has issued only preliminary findings, but final rulings are expected from the Commerce Department later this year.

The move has China’s Commerce Ministry saying Washington’s actions risk damaging the solar industry in both countries.

“The frequent adoption of trade remedies cannot resolve the United States’ solar industry development problems,” an unnamed Chinese official told Reuters.

In the United States, reactions to the news were mixed.

“Today’s actions should help the U.S. solar manufacturing industry to expand and innovate,” said SolarWorld Industries America President Mukesh Dulani. “We should not have to compete with dumped imports or the Chinese government.”

But Rhone Resch, CEO of the U.S.-based Solar Energy Industries Association, condemned the decision, saying the answer lies in a negotiated solution.

Chinese companies supplied 31 percent of the solar modules installed in the United States in 2013 and more than 50 percent in the distributed solar market.

On Tuesday, the United States and the European Union issued new economic sanctions on Russia, citing the country’s involvement in the Ukraine crisis. The sanctions ban the export of energy-related technology for use in Russian oil production from deepwater, Arctic offshore and shale oil production rock reserves. However, exports of technology for gas projects to the country, which holds the world’s largest combined oil and gas reserves, will continue.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


Rule for Regulating Existing Power Plants under Fire

July 24, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during a hearing on “EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants.” Debate about the proposed rule to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants has swirled since the rule’s release last month. Coal-heavy states and others have criticized both the substance of the rule and the EPA’s authority to issue it.

Throughout the hearing McCarthy faced questions about whether the agency had stretched the parameters of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule uses an infrequently exercised provision of the act to set state-specific emissions targets and provide states a wide range of flexibility when choosing how to meet those targets.

“EPA goes beyond the plain reading of the Clean Air Act Section 111 [by] directing states to achieve questionable emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable ‘options,’” said Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

Defending the Clean Power Plan on Wednesday, McCarthy insisted the EPA followed proper legal procedure in conducting its analysis. She also dismissed suggestions that the rule was designed “miraculously” months ago and that the EPA has had it in its back pocket since then. She further stressed the flexibility of the rule.

“The proposal is designed to be moderate in its ask,” she told senators. “We will get significantly more benefit than we are requiring.”

She noted “The science is clear. The risks are clear. And the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act.”

A new paper by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions aims to address one question not answered in this debate: What will EPA’s rules mean for policy choices aimed at securing future mitigation goals? The analysis explores the long-term consequences of several key regulatory design choices, including mass-based versus rate-based standards, tradable versus non-tradable standards and separate standards for coal and natural gas power plants (differentiated standards) versus a single standard for all fossil plants. It finds that consequences may be significant. Differentiated standards lead to relatively greater investment in coal retrofits and non-tradable standards lead to relatively greater retirement of coal capacity—all of which could create different costs for securing deeper greenhouse gas reductions in the future. How the EPA’s proposed rule for existing power plants is viewed—as a final or interim solution—could also affect tradeoffs associated with key policy choices.

NOAA: Global Temperatures Rising

Global average temperatures surpassed previous records by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit last month—making it the hottest June on record according to new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data. It’s the second straight month the world set a warm-temperature record. In May, Earth’s temperature was 1.33 degrees above the 20th century average.

Warmer oceans made the difference—they were 1.15 degrees Fahrenheit hotter. Every month of 2014 except February has ranked among the four warmest on record for that respective month.

The finding piggybacks on another report co-authored by NOAA and published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological SocietyState of the Climate in 2013—which provides a detailed update on notable weather events, global climate indicators and environmental monitoring station data.

“These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” said NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan. “This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change.”

The global average temperature, which is a broad baseline used to measure the climate, was about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit above average according to four of the most commonly used datasets. Among the report’s other findings: all major greenhouse gas emissions increased to new records, sea surface temperatures were among the 10 warmest on record and sea level continued to rise by about an eighth of an inch each year.

Department of Interior Plan, Warming Waters Expand Oil Exploration

The Obama administration approved a plan that next year allows energy companies to apply for permits for underwater oil exploration on the Atlantic Coast, from Delaware to Florida.

The final plan, compiled by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), requires oil and gas search methods—including seismic air gun testing—to pass several safeguards to mitigate risks to marine life.

“After thoroughly reviewing the analysis, coordinating with Federal agencies and considering extensive public input, the bureau has identified a path forward that addresses the need to update the nearly four-decade-old data in the region while protecting marine life and cultural sites,” said BOEM Acting Director Walter Cruickshank. “The bureau’s decision reflects a carefully analyzed and balanced approach that will allow us to increase our understanding of potential offshore resources while protecting the human, marine and coastal environments.”

The plan doesn’t permit actual oil drilling or guarantee that lease sales for drilling in Atlantic waters will be included in the Interior Department’s five-year plan for 2017–2022. Obama intended to open up the Atlantic Coast to drilling in 2010 but reversed course after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that April.

Meanwhile, melting ice in the Arctic is making the region’s icy waters more passable—allowing ships to deliver European oil to Asia and fueling South Korea’s hopes of becoming an oil hub.

“We’ve noticed a huge difference in trading routes,” said Erik Hanell, chief executive officer of Stena Bulk AB in Gothenburg, Sweden. “China is importing more and all the countries in the Far East are importing a lot more. South Korea has a very strong geographic position in today’s development of both Arctic oil and China’s growing demand.”

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


China and U.S. Sign Pacts on Climate Change

July 10, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The world’s two largest carbon emitters have signed pacts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The deals—actually eight projects demonstrating smart grids and carbon capture, utilization and storage—were made through the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group and will involve companies and research bodies.

“The significance of these two nations coming together can’t be understated,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at the sixth U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. “We are working hard to find a solution together that can have an impact on the rest of the world.”

The two countries also reached agreements to adopt stronger fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and to conduct a study on gas use in industrial boilers.

The U.S. and China have been at odds over how much each should contribute to reducing climate change and how the costs of cutting emissions should be distributed between rich and poor nations. Consensus on these issues will be crucial to any pact to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Only broad-stroke goals are being discussed at the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

“We are certainly not at a point where anybody is talking about concrete numbers,” said Todd Stern, the U.S. State Department’s special climate change envoy. “It is more, what is your process for developing a target, what sort of form you think your target is going to take. What are the policies that underpin the target you are going to develop?”

New EPA Rules under the Renewable Fuel Standard

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized two rules that will allow new fuels pathways and provide a voluntary quality assurance plan for the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program. Under the first rule, compressed or liquefied natural gas from landfills, water-treatment facilities or farms can be classified as a cellulosic biofuel, and electricity produced from these sources and used to power electric vehicles can be used to meet biofuel targets.

“These pathways have the potential to provide notable volumes of cellulosic biofuel for use in complying with the [Renewable Fuel Standard] program, since significant volumes of advanced biofuels are already being generated for fuel made from biogas,” the EPA said.

The new pathways could affect the EPA’s final 2014 biofuel targets. Production of cellulosic biofuels has lagged behind previous targets set by the agency under the RFS program.

The second rule finalizes the RFS Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program, first proposed in January 2013. The voluntary, third-party-auditing program would help to ensure the validity of RINs that petroleum refiners use to demonstrate their compliance with the RFS.

The EPA also approved for commercial usethe first “bug” that eats carbon dioxide and converts it into ethanol.

Keystone XL Pipeline Decision Delayed, Again

The Keystone XL Pipeline, which would carry roughly 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, will have its day in court this September. The Nebraska Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments on the pipeline’s proposed route early that month, likely pushing any decision by the White House until after mid-term elections in November.

At issue is the correctness of an earlier ruling that found that pipeline’s plans to be unconstitutional. That ruling reversed a decision by state Gov. Dave Heineman—under a 2012 Nebraska law—to approve the new 300-mile route through the state. The Obama administration has said it will await the court’s decision before making a final ruling on the pipeline.

Despite these developments, industry groups are pressing Secretary of State John Kerry to resume and complete final review of the Keystone project.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

July 3, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

In the latest decision on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate carbon pollution, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but voted 5-4 to limit permitting requirements. The ruling does not directly affect the EPA’s latest proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, and generally reaffirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The court narrowly defined the question to decide in the case, limiting its review to the EPA’s authority to require permits for greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified sources. EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act to require permits for all such sources of greenhouse gas emissions, but initially limited permitting requirements to large sources out of administrative necessity. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the Clean Air Act does not permit EPA’s interpretation—the EPA cannot opt only to regulate the large sources because it is easier. But Justice Scalia read the Clean Air Act differently from the EPA in a way that arrived at a similar end point. According to the court, greenhouse gas emissions do not trigger permitting requirements, but the EPA can require sources to minimize greenhouse gas pollution when they are required to obtain permits for other pollutants. Because almost all new and modified large sources could trigger permitting requirements via emissions of traditional pollutants, the court’s decision left the EPA largely with what it desired—the authority to forego enforcement against small sources but permit greenhouse gas emissions from large sources.

“It bears mention that EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” said Scalia. “It sought to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86 percent of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide. Under our holdings, EPA will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent of those emissions.”

The ruling follows another decision this spring that upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution that crosses state borders.

Satellite to Study Key Greenhouse Gas

On Wednesday the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellite designed to track atmospheric carbon successfully launched. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, twin to the original failed 2009 satellite, will study how oceans, soils and forests absorb carbon dioxide.

“Knowing what parts of Earth are helping to remove carbon from our atmosphere will help us understand whether they can keep doing so in the future,” said Michael Gunson of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Quantifying these sinks now will help us predict how fast CO2 will build up in the future.”

Carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere in trace amounts: 400 parts per million. Cars and factories are adding 40 billion tons of the gas per year. The satellite will spend at least two years examining carbon dioxide from 438 miles above the Earth’s surface. According to NASA, the satellite will produce the “most detailed picture to date of natural sources of carbon dioxide.” NASA will use this data to study how these sources and sinks are distributed and change over time.

Methane Leaks, Bans Related to Fracking

A New York Appeals Court voted 5-2 on Monday to uphold bans on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in two upstate New York towns. The ruling affirmed a lower-court decision that state oil and gas laws do not preempt town ordinances.

“The towns both studied the issue and acted within their home rule powers in determining that gas drilling would permanently alter and adversely affect the deliberately-cultivated, small-town character of their communities,”  the Appeals Court ruling concluded.

The state is still waiting on a health impact review before lifting its own 6-year-old moratorium on fracking.

In Pennsylvania, gas wells—especially newer and unconventional wells—are leaking methane, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Using data from more than 75,000 state inspections of wells conducted from 2000 to 2012, researchers found newer traditional wells drilled after 2009 had a leak rate of about 2 percent; rising to about 6 percent with unconventional wells. By comparison, older wells drilled before 2009 had a leak rate of about 1 percent.

For Rob Jackson, who has studied methane leakage at Duke University, the basic conclusions hold. “Hydraulically fractured shale wells appear to have more problems than conventional wells,” Jackson said. “If so, it’s probably because the wells are longer, must bend to go horizontal and take more water and pressure than in the past. The combination makes well integrity a challenge.”

Industry officials like Marcellus Shale Coalition Spokesman Travis Windle aren’t in agreement with the study’s findings, calling the conclusions a “clear pattern of playing fast and loose with the facts.”

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


Senate Clears Way for Keystone XL Pipeline

June 19, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Editor’s Note: The Climate Post will not circulate next week. It will return July 3.

The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 12 to 10 on a bill Wednesday approving the long-debated Keystone XL oil pipeline. The pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast, requires presidential approval as it crosses international boundaries. Without a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring it to a vote by the full Senate, the bill is likely to languish.

Even so, Forbes deemed the vote “more than symbolic,” saying “It serves to tell the truth about Keystone XL, the need for new pipelines in this country, and for making our future energy security our top priority.”

Others, like Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Anthony Swift, disagreed. “This latest vote on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is all about politics and bad policy,” he said. “Locking ourselves into a massive infrastructure to move the dirtiest oil on the planet for the next 50 years would greatly worsen carbon pollution—at a time when we’re facing growing and grievous costs wrought by climate change.”

Another Canadian pipeline did get the official green light—the Northern Gateway project. Just as controversial as Keystone XL, the Northern Gateway pipeline would carry 525,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to British Columbia, where it would be loaded on supertankers for shipment to Asia through sensitive waters in the Pacific’s shipping lanes. Before construction can begin on the Northern Gateway pipeline, Enbridge must meet about 100 conditions imposed by the regulator. Inside Climate News focuses on the “eerie” parallels between the debates on each pipeline project.

As the United States Grapples with EPA Rule, Japan Considers Carbon Trading

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants has made it into the pages of the Federal Register, an event marking the start of a 120-day comment period.

In the weeks since the rule’s release, there has been closer examination of how states can meet emissions standards cost effectively. Some say energy efficiency is the answer. Another potential solution: wind and solar. In an op-ed in The Hill, representatives of the American Wind Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association point to the technologies’ cost decreases and significant carbon reduction benefits. Others like Ed Throop, director for the Sikeston Board of Municipal Utilities, are not so convinced. “The wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun doesn’t shine all the time,” he said. It’s good, clean energy, but it’s not what you’d call baseload energy. You can’t call on it anytime you need it.”  

Japan has its own strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to unnamed government sources, the country may have plans to agree to a carbon deal with India. Japanese companies would install carbon-cutting technology in India and in return receive carbon credits that can be used to offset their country’s emissions under the joint crediting mechanism. So far, Japan has signed agreements with 11 countries to launch the joint crediting mechanism. Several news outlets reported the likelihood of a bilateral agreement in early July during annual talks by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Ocean Sanctuary Would Close Parts of Pacific to Energy Exploration

President Barack Obama on Tuesday announced his intent to expand a U.S. sanctuary in the central Pacific Ocean. Slated to go into effect later this year, the proposal extends protection around the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to 200 miles and limits fishing and energy development. The White House said it will consider input from lawmakers and fishermen before making any final decisions about the geographic scope of the sanctuary.

In video remarks, Obama said climate change, overfishing and pollution have threatened economic growth opportunities in the ocean.

“We cannot afford to let that happen,” Obama said. “That’s why the United States is leading the fight to protect our oceans. Let’s make sure that years from now we can look our children in the eye and tell them that, yes, we did our part, we took action, and we led the way toward a safer, more stable world.”

Marine reserves, Smithsonian Magazine reports, can mitigate some of these problems by increasing the size and number of marine creatures within its borders and helping species deal with climate change.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

 


States, Studies React to EPA Rule Release

June 12, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

On the coattails of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, the White House issued a report on the health effects of climate change. The seven-page report outlines six major risks linked to rising temperatures—asthma, lung and heart illnesses; infectious disease; allergies; flooding-related hazards and heat stroke.

But one week after release of the EPA rule, most conversation centered on how the states will undertake their role in executing it. States in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative were hopeful their participation in the carbon trading program would help meet the requirements of the new rule. Lawmakers in at least eight states approved anti-EPA resolutions. Kentucky has enacted a new law that could block the state from complying with the rule, and West Virginia sent a letter to the EPA requesting the agency to withdraw the rule.

The proposal, which assigns each state interim and final emissions goals and asks the states to develop plans to reach them, accounts for the regional differences that affect how hard it will be to reduce emissions. The differences are both practical—how expensive one energy source is compared to another—and political. The proposal does say it “anticipates—and supports—states’ commitments to a wide range of policy preferences,” including decisions “to feature significant reliance on coal-based generation.”

States using a more traditional regulatory approach to execute their plans may be choosing a more costly approach than putting a price on carbon. New research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds that a regulatory standards approach cut less carbon at a higher price than emissions reductions that could be achieved under a cap-and-trade system (subscription).

“With a broader policy, like cap-and-trade, the market can distribute the costs across sectors, technologies and time horizons, and find the cheapest solutions,” said a study author Valerie Karplus. “So the market encourages emissions reductions from sectors like electricity and agriculture, and requires reductions from vehicles and electricity at a level that makes economic sense given an emissions target. On the other hand, narrow regulations force cuts in ways that are potentially more costly and less effective in reducing emissions.”

According to a Bloomberg national poll, Americans—by nearly a two-to-one margin—are willing to pay more for energy if it helps combat climate change. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll had similar findings, showing that most voters approve of the EPA’s new regulations even if there is a rise in energy costs.  Here at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, we looked ahead to the possibility of a further expansion of Clean Air Act standards limiting carbon dioxide emissions from other sectors. In particular, a new policy brief identifies key differences between the electric power and refining industries, highlighting their potential significance for regulating the refining industry. A companion working paper more deeply examines policy design as well as options for maximizing cost effectiveness while accounting for differences among refineries.

Study: Agricultural Emissions Can Be Curbed

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of human-caused emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with 300 times as much heat-trapping power as carbon dioxide. Overuse of nitrogen fertilizer is increasing these emissions.

A study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that soil microbes were converting nitrogen fertilizer (subscription) into nitrous oxide faster than previously expected when fertilizer rates exceeded crop needs. In fact, the change was happening at a rate of about one kilogram of greenhouse gas for every 100 kilograms of fertilizer.

“Our specific motivation is to learn where to best target agricultural efforts to slow global warming,” said Phil Robertson, author of the study and director of Michigan State University’s Kellogg Biological Station. “Agriculture accounts for 8 to 14 percent of all greenhouse gas production globally. We’re showing how farmers can help to reduce this number by applying nitrogen fertilizer more precisely.”

The study offers proven ways to reduce nitrogen use—applying fertilizer in the spring instead of fall and placing it deeper in the soil for easier plant access. It also provides support for expanding the use of carbon credits to pay farmers for improved fertilizer management.

This week, the first agricultural greenhouse gas emissions offsets were issued to a Michigan farmer whose voluntary decrease of nitrogen fertilizer use on corn crops reduced nitrous oxide emissions.

Crude Oil Production to Increase

U.S. crude oil production will reach its highest level—9.3 million barrels per day—in 2015, according to the latest Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast, issued Tuesday. The EIA estimates 8.4 million barrels per day for 2014—the United States averaged 7.4 million in 2013.

The increase will not have a dramatic effect on gas prices. The EIA reports that the U.S. average price for gasoline is expected to fall to $3.54 a gallon in September and to $3.38 a gallon in 2015.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


EPA Releases Proposed Rule for Existing Power Plants

June 5, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week announced a proposed rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel–fired power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This first-of-its-kind proposal uses an infrequently exercised provision of the Clean Air Act to set state-specific reduction targets for carbon dioxide and to allow states to devise individual or joint plans to meet those targets. The EPA expects to finalize the rule by next June.

“Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life,” said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. “EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by proposing a Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source—power plants. By leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can leave a safe and healthy future for our kids.”

An analysis by our Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions researchers highlights key details of the 600-plus-page rule, which assigns each state interim and final emissions goals. These goals are based, in part, on the efficiency of each state’s fossil fleet in 2012. They also reflect estimates of the emissions-reduction potential of efficiency upgrades to coal plants and increased use of renewable energy, demand-side energy efficiency, and existing natural gas capacity.

The rule provides states considerable flexibility to decide how to meet their interim and final emissions reduction goals. States may consider methods such as expanding renewable energy generation, creating energy efficiency programs and working with other states on the creation of regional plans. Once the EPA’s proposed rule is finalized, states will be given one to three years to finalize their state plans.

The rule sparked predictable political commentary. Republican leadership pilloried the rule, the President’s allies expressed gratitude for his leadership, and political pundits mused over the rule’s impact on the midterm elections. A Washington Post-ABC News post–rule-announcement poll found a large majority of Americans—70 percent—support regulating carbon from power plants. Americans in coal states were supportive of limiting greenhouse gas emissions regardless of whether their state was forced to make bigger adjustments than other states. And at least one set of political commenters—former Sen. Joseph Lieberman and I—point out that, if executed effectively, the rule could begin the nation’s path back to more comprehensive climate change policy.

China Taking Action as Well?

The proposed rule appeared to spur another of the world’s largest emitters—China—to consider capping its carbon dioxide emissions, starting with its next five-year plan in 2016. The suggestion, offered by He Jiankun, chairman of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change at a Beijing conference, was reported in several media outlets but was not an official pronouncement of the government.

“What I said today was my personal view,” said Jiankun. “The opinions expressed at the workshop were only meant for academic studies. What I said does not represent the Chinese government or any organization.”

Still, some saw the statement—by a senior advisor—as a promising development ahead of international climate negotiations that began Wednesday in Bonn, Germany. “As with many things in China, these officials don’t speak unless there’s some emerging consensus in the government that this is a position that they’re trending toward,” said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the environmental group at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I think it’s a very positive sign that this kind of debate has taken hold.”

Not all commenters were sanguine about the EPA rule. According to a German study released this week, even with the 30 percent emissions cut outlined in the EPA’s proposed rule, climate pledges the United States set at United Nations climate talks may not be met. The study found the EPA rule would reduce 2030 U.S. national emissions only about 10 percent below 2005 levels. In 2010, the United States promised to reduce greenhouse gases 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

“While the proposal is welcome, it is insufficient to meet the U.S.’s pledges of 17 percent reduction of all greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and is inconsistent with its long-term target of 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050,” said Niklas Hoehne of Ecofys, a German group that helped analyze the plan’s impact. “The plan implies an economy-wide decarbonisation rate of about 0.9 percent per annum, significantly lower than the 1.4 percent per annum achieved in the last decade. This is not as fast as required for a 2 C decarbonisation pathway.”

New Imports for Solar

The United States has set new import tariffs on some solar panels from China, saying some manufacturers had unfairly benefitted from subsidies. The still-preliminary Commerce Department ruling was prompted by a petition of charges filed by a group led by SolarWorld in 2011. The petition claims some Chinese companies avoided tariffs by shipping solar cell parts to locations like Taiwan—flooding the U.S. market with cheap products.

Duties imposed in the preliminary decision could range from 18.5 to 35.21 percent.

“The import duties, which are in line with our expectations, will wipe out the price competitiveness of Chinese products in the U.S. market,” said Zhou Ziguang, an analyst at the Chinese investment bank Ping An Securities in Beijing.

For U.S. companies, the news was mixed—some could see great benefits; others, very little.

“SunPower will be the primary beneficiary of the decision, given its presence in the U.S. distributed generation market where most Chinese companies supply product,” according to Morgan Stanley. “Although First Solar theoretically benefits, we believe that the impact will be small given limited presence of Chinese companies in the U.S. utility scale market.”

Rhone Resch, chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said “These damaging tariffs will increase costs for U.S. solar consumers and, in turn, slow the adoption of solar.”

Last year the European Union overcame a similar trade dispute with Beijing when the trade partners agreed to set a minimum price for solar panels from China.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


Upcoming EPA Power Plant Rule Stirs Speculation

May 29, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is just days away from the release of its first-ever proposed rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. The rule will push states to cut pollution primarily from coal-fired generators. As many await details of the rule, The New York Times reports that sources familiar with proposal suggest that it will call for a 20 percent reduction.

One new study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was skeptical of the regulation, slated for release on June 2, finding that they would cost the economy $51 billion a year in lost investments. The Chamber further suggests that the rule could diminish coal-fired generation, which currently represents 40 percent of electricity generation in the country, by one third.

In a blog post, the EPA disputed the Chamber of Commerce findings.

“The chamber’s report is nothing more than irresponsible speculation based on guesses of what our draft proposal will be,” wrote Tom Reynolds, associate administrator for external affairs. “Just to be clear—it’s not out yet. I strongly suggest that folks read the proposal before they cry the sky is falling.”

second report from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions identifies opportunities for states to comply with section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act using policies that generate benefits beyond reductions in CO2 emissions. States may choose, for example, to reduce carbon emissions in a way that hedges risk of future air regulations, potentially lowers long-term compliance costs and limits emissions of other pollutants. In a separate report released this week, researchers at Harvard and Syracuse universities identified potential air quality impacts of section 111(d) policy designs that vary in stringency and flexibility.

Americans React to Climate Terms Differently

When the president discusses the proposed rule, a part of his Climate Action Plan, choosing whether to use “climate change” or “global warming” could elicit far different public responses, according to a new report.

The two terms are often used synonymously, but it turns out “global warming” invokes a stronger negative reaction than “climate change.” In national surveys, respondents were 13 percentage points more likely to say global warming is bad than they were to say climate change is bad—76 percent compared with 63 percent.

“The whole realm of connotative meaning is actually where most of us live our daily lives,” said lead Yale University researcher Anthony Leiserowitz. “When looking at a menu and deciding what to have for lunch, you see the word ‘sushi’— some people have the reaction, ‘Oh, delicious, I’ll order that,’ and other people have a reaction of: ‘Disgusting, raw fish.’ So these terms play out not only in our every day decision making but also in our politics.”

Between 2004 and 2014, “global warming” was the term searched more frequently on the Internet. Even though it’s more scientifically accurate to talk about the problem as “climate change,” the term “global warming” is more effective in conveying urgency. In The New York Times, Andrew Revkin argues that the latter term should dominate for other reasons: “As Roger A Pielke Jr. has pointed out for a decade, ‘climate change’ has proved problematic in a more technical sense—with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change defining the term differently, in ways that have significant ramifications in treaty negotiations.”

Politically, the researchers said, “use of the term climate change appears to actually reduce issue engagement by Democrats, Independents, liberals, and moderates, as well as a variety of subgroups within American society, including men, women, minorities, different generations, and across political and partisan lines.”

New Safety Conditions Set for Keystone

Safety regulators put two extra conditions on construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline after learning of potentially dangerous construction defects involving the project’s southern leg, including high rates of bad welds, dented pipe and damaged pipeline coating.

The defects have been fixed. However, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) wants to prevent similar problems from occurring in the pipeline’s controversial northern segment, which is on hold pending a decision by the Obama administration.

“TransCanada had identified and addressed these issues prior to any product being introduced into the pipeline and reported them voluntarily to the government,” said TransCanada spokesperson Davis Sheremata, noting that the southern leg’s problems were a completely separate matter than issues related to the construction of the northern leg.

One of the two new conditions requires TransCanada to hire a third-party contractor chosen by PHMSA to monitor the construction and report on its soundness to the U.S. government. The second requires TransCanada to adopt a quality management program to ensure that the pipeline is built to Keystone and its contractors’ highest standards.

Meanwhile, TransCanada is filing an amicus brief in Nebraska, siding with the governor and the state in a lawsuit filed by three Nebraska ranchers who want to block Keystone.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


EPA Power Plant Rule Deadline Approaching

May 22, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Next month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue a proposed rule that sets the first-ever carbon emissions standards for the country’s existing power plants. The rule, to be announced by President Barack Obama, is rumored to include a phased approach leading to steeper emissions limits over time.

Though little has formally come out about the rule, to be released on or around June 2, EPA officials have said it will be flexible.

“It is going to be flexible, and it will set goals,” said Curt Spaulding, EPA administrator for New England. “I can’t tell you what those goals are going to be—that’s being worked on in Washington at the highest levels.”

Bloomberg has reported that the administration is considering a two-stage reduction of emissions by 25 percent. The reduction would begin with small cuts; deeper cuts would start in 2024 and run through 2029.

Reports Point Finger at Climate Change for Increased Risks

On the heels of news that last month ranked as the world’s hottest April on record—1.39 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average for the month (56.7 degrees Fahrenheit)—new reports are pointing to rising global temperatures for increased threats to the food industry, landmarks and credit ratings.

  • A new Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services report finds rising temperatures could be bad for a nation’s credit rating. The report rates 128 sovereign governments on the basis of creditworthiness, suggesting that poorer countries and nations with already low ratings would be hit hardest by the effects of climate change. Global warming “will put downward pressure on sovereign ratings during the remainder of this century,” Standard & Poor analysts wrote. “The degree to which individual countries and societies are going to be affected by warming and changing weather patterns depends largely on actions undertaken by other, often far-away societies.”
  • Many of the nation’s historic and cultural landmarks may be irreparably damaged or lost forever due to the effects of climate change, according to a non-peer-reviewed report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Harriet Tubman National Monument in Maryland, the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, Jamestown, are among the 30 sitesat risk for rising seas, coastal erosion, increased flooding, heavy rains, wildfire and drought.
  • Growth of global food production could be reduced 2 percent each decade for the next century as a result of climate change, according to a report by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It further suggests that climate change threatens to undermine not only how much food can be grown but also the food’s nutritional quality.

Hydraulic Fracturing Bans, Impacts Assessed

Santa Cruz became the first county in California to ban hydraulic fracturing. Meanwhile, two state Senate committees in North Carolina unanimously passed legislation lifting the state’s moratorium on that oil and natural gas production technique.

The entire North Carolina Senate voted to lift the moratorium Thursday. It will now go to the House for consideration. The bill focuses on extending the deadline for development of rules for hydraulic fracturing by the Mining and Energy Commission and reduces fees for drillers.

It also requires companies to report any chemicals used in the drilling process—information the state would hold confidentially and disclose to emergency responders or health care professionals in case of emergency. But it would make unauthorized disclosure of those chemicals a misdemeanor.

A new study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology focuses on the implications of increasing use of this production technique for the climate. It finds that natural gas can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but that in the absence of targeted climate policy measures it will not substantially change the course of global GHG concentrations.

“Over the range of scenarios that we examine, abundant natural gas by itself is neither a climate hero nor a climate villain,” said co-author and Duke University Energy Initiative Director Richard Newell.

Design of these climate policies is as important as the abundance of natural gas. Increased supply of natural gas has the potential to decrease the cost of implementing comprehensive climate policies.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.


Court Upholds Soot Standards

May 15, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

A federal court of appeals on Friday unanimously found that the Clean Air Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) substantial discretion in setting air quality standards. The ruling upheld the EPA’s tightened limits on soot, or fine particulate matter from coal plants, refineries, factories and vehicles. In the challenge brought by industry groups, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) pointed to scientific studies and lack of public comment on revised rules.

“Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, we exercise great deference when we evaluate claims about competing bodies of scientific research,” the court wrote. “Petitioners simply have not identified any way in which the EPA jumped the rails of reasonableness in examining the science.”

The stricter air quality standards, set in 2012, limited the annual level of outdoor ambient exposure to soot by 20 percent. EPA had justified the change by pointing to a number of studies that linked exposure to soot particles to a variety of cardiovascular illnesses.

“We’re disappointed in today’s ruling that only further adds to thousands of regulations facing manufacturers,” said NAM’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Linda Kelly. “The court’s decision also underscores the difficulty manufacturers face in pushing back against a powerful and often overreaching EPA.”

Last month, a Supreme Court ruling reinstated the agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which regulates pollution from coal-fired power plants that drift across state lines. In June—the same month proposed rules for existing coal-fired power plants will be issued—a Supreme Court decision is expected on whether the EPA’s regulation of stationary source emissions through permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act was “a sensible accommodation or an impermissible exercise of executive authority.”

Studies Look at Climate Change Risk

A report authored by 16 generals and admirals on the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) Corporation’s Military Advisory Board finds that climate change poses a severe risk to U.S. national security and acts as a catalyst for global political conflict.

“Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation,” they wrote. “…Time and tide wait for no one.”

The report, which follows up a 2007 study, suggests an increase in catastrophic weather events around the world will raise demand for American troops. It also suggests that rising seas and extreme weather could threaten U.S. military bases and naval ports. These findings, The New York Times reports, would influence American foreign policy.

The CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board found that climate change impacts are already speeding instability in regions such as the Arctic.

“We think things are accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at seven years ago,” said Gen. Paul Kern, the board chairman. “As the Arctic becomes less of ice-contaminated area it represents a lot of opportunities for Russia.” He noted that the situation has the potential to “spark conflict there.”

Another study published in Nature indicates climate change caused by humans could be responsible for as little as half the melting of sea ice in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. The other half is traced to changes in temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean—that is, to natural climate variability, not greenhouse gases.

“We find that 20 to 50 percent of warming is due to anthropogenic [man-made] warming, and another 50 percent is natural,” said lead study author Qinghua Ding. “We know that global warming due to human impacts can’t explain why it got warm so fast.”

The area north of Greenland and the Canadian archipelago has seen temperature increases nearly twice as large as the Arctic average.

“We find that the most prominent annual mean surface and tropospheric warming in the Arctic since 1979 has occurred in northeastern Canada and Greenland,” the authors wrote. “In this region, much of the year-to-year temperature variability is associated with the leading mode of large-scale circulation variability in the North Atlantic, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation.”

In the Antarctica, a combination of warm ocean currents and geographic peculiarities has begun a glacial retreat that “appears unstoppable.” Two studies—one to be published in Geophysical Research Letters and the other out in Science—find there’s little to nothing that can be done physically to slow the thaw of these glaciers. In fact, melting is expected to push up sea levels in the region by four feet or more. This melt will occur over a longer period of time—centuries not decades.

“This retreat will have major consequences for sea level rise worldwide,” said University of California-Irvine Professor Eric Rignot and author of the Geophysical Research Letters study. It will raise sea levels by 1.2m, or 4ft, but its retreat will also influence adjacent sectors of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which could triple this contribution to sea level.”

Energy Efficiency Bill Fails, While Research Tax Credit Wins Vote

On Monday, a bill to promote U.S. energy conservation by tightening efficiency guidelines for new federal buildings and providing tax incentives to make homes and commercial buildings more efficient fell short.

The bill co-sponsored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) was just 5 votes shy of the 60 needed to move forward. Its demise also derailed a promised vote on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Friday prior, the House voted to make permanent a tax credit that rewards businesses for investing in research and development. Although the bill would give businesses a tax break of 20 percent for qualifying research, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate amid criticism that no new tax credit offsets its estimated 10-year, $156 billion cost to U.S. taxpayers.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.