The Cost of Fixing Climate Change

September 18, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions could boost the economy rather than slow it, according to a new study by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report finds that roughly $90 trillion will be spent in the next 15 years on new infrastructure around the world. Adopting rules that redirect that investment toward low-emissions options—more efficient use of resources and the building of connected and compact urban cities driven by public transportation—could make economic sense.

“A central insight of this report is that many of the policy and institutional reforms needed to revitalise growth and improve well-being over the next 15 years can also help reduce climate risk,” the report authors said. “In most economies, there are a range of market, government and policy failures that can be corrected, as well as new technologies, business models and other options that countries at various stages of development can use to improve economic performance and climate outcomes together.”

Taking action on climate change, the report authors said, is affordable.

“Of the $6 trillion we will spend a year on infrastructure, only a small amount—around $270 billion per year—is needed to accelerate the shift to a low-carbon economy, through clean energy, public transport systems and smarter land use,” said Felipe Calderon, chairman of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. “And this additional investment could be entirely offset by operating savings, particularly through reduced fuel expenditures”

Studies Assess Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

A new study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links water contamination from shale gas extraction in parts of Pennsylvania and Texas to well integrity rather than the hydraulic fracturing process. The research, which looked at 133 water wells with high levels of methane, found that the contamination was either naturally occurring or linked to faulty well construction by drillers.

“These results appear to rule out the possibility that methane has migrated up into drinking water aquifers because of horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing, as some people feared,” said Avner Vengosh, study co-author and professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University. Researchers pointed, instead, to the cement used to seal the outside of vertical wells and the steel tubing used to line them as culprits.

“In all cases, it [the study] basically showed well integrity was the problem,” said Thomas H. Darrah, co-author and Ohio State University researcher. “The good news is, improvements in well integrity can probably eliminate most of the environmental problems with gas leaks.”

Another study on hydraulic fracturing in the Bulletin of Seismological Society of Americafound a connection between deep injections of wastewater from a coal-bed methane field and an increase in earthquakes in Colorado and New Mexico since 2001. The report, which focuses on the Raton Basin, suggested that the area had been “seismically quiet”—experiencing only one earthquake of greater than 3.8 magnitude—until shortly after major fluid injections began in 1999. Since 2001, the area has recorded 16 such events.

EPA Extends Comment Period for Power Plants

On Tuesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extended the public comment period for its proposed rule for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 45 days—to Dec. 1.

Janet McCabe, the EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, said the extension is due to stakeholders’ great interest.

“While we’ve heard quite a bit so far, we know that there are many individuals and groups continuing to work to formulate their input,” she said. “We want the best rule possible, and we want to give people every opportunity to give their ideas and contributions.”

The delay, McCabe told reporters, would not affect the timeline for finalizing the rule by June 2015.

The same week, a government watchdog agency—the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—released a report suggesting coal plant retirements may be higher than previously thought. It predicted 13 percent of coal-fired generation would come offline by 2025—compared with its 2012 estimate of 2 percent to 12 percent.

The report suggested that existing regulations such as the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and recently proposed regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing generating units were contributors to the retirements. Low natural gas prices, increasing coal prices and low expected growth in demand for electricity were also cited as contributors.

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.


White House Announces New Climate Change Initiatives

July 17, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The White House on Wednesday announced executive actions to help states and communities build their resilience to more intense storms, high heat, sea level rise, and other effects of climate change. The actions, which involve several federal agencies, were among the recommendations by the president’s State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

“…Climate change poses a direct threat to the infrastructure of America that we need to stay competitive in this 21st century economy,” said President Obama. “We’re going to do more, including new 3D maps to help state, local officials in communities understand which areas and which infrastructure are at risk as a consequence of climate change. We’re going to help communities improve their electric grids, build stronger seawalls and natural barriers, and protect their water supplies. We’re also going to invest in stronger more resilient infrastructure.”

The National Journal runs down the individual efforts by agency, which include a more than $236 million award to fund eight states’ efforts to improve rural electric infrastructure and a new guide by the Centers for Disease Control that will help local public health departments assess their area’s vulnerabilities to health hazards associated with climate change.

States Focus of Work after EPA’s Proposed Power Plant Rule

More than a month after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposed rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, a new study says states are well positioned to handle the rule’s requirements.

The rule, which uses an infrequently exercised provision of the Clean Air Act to set state-specific reduction targets and devise individual or joint state plans to meet those targets, has garnered some negative reactions. But the study conducted by the Analysis Group sees real benefits. The research examined states that have already taken steps toward reducing power plant emissions and found that if states design programs effectively, electricity rate increases will be modest in the near term, and electric bills will fall in the long term.

“Several states have already put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, and their economies are doing fine,” said Susan Tierney, senior adviser of the Analysis Group. “The bottom line: the economy can handle—and actually benefit from—these rules.”

States that work together to form carbon markets and other collaborative initiatives could experience even greater rewards, according to the Analysis Group.

“Experience shows that states that work together on market-based compliance initiatives—like RGGI [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] in the Northeast—can provide net economic benefits in terms of jobs and economic output,” said study co-author Paul Hibbard. “And RGGI shows that each state can have control over its own program design, so that combined efforts don’t step on states’ rights.”

Earlier this week environmental attorneys and representatives from states, industry, and NGOs gathered to discuss the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan—specifically state choices under and the potential impacts of the proposal—at an event hosted by the Environmental Law Institute and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Keynote speaker and U.S. EPA Senior Counsel Joseph Goffman highlighted three aspects of the rule: the EPA developed state emission goals based emission reduction strategies already being used by states, the proposal allows each state maximum flexibility to optimize strategies given local considerations, and state flexibility with the timing of implementation allows the coordination of compliance strategies with other dynamics in the energy sector.

Mountaintop Removal Focus of Court Case, Study

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled in favor of the EPA’s permitting process for mountaintop mining, a controversial practice to extract coal by way of clear cutting trees and removing mountain tops with explosives. The ruling overturned a decision by a lower court that found the EPA did not have authority to require mountaintop removal coal permits to go through an enhanced review process to crack down on water contamination from mining operations.

In 2009 the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers adopted the Enhanced Coordination Process, allowing the EPA to screen and review individual mining permits submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. By 2011, the EPA recommended states impose more stringent conditions for issuing permits under the act—issuing a final guidance document relating to these permits.

“In our view, EPA and the Corps acted within their statutory authority when they adopted the Enhanced Coordination Process,” wrote Judge Brett Kavanaugh (subscription). “And under our precedents, the Final Guidance is not final agency action reviewable by the courts at this time.”

A new study by the U.S. Geological Survey finds that mountaintop removal mining negatively affects downstream fish populations.

Researchers compared samples collected from nearby bodies of water in 2010 and 2011 to samples collected by Penn State University researchers in 1999 and 2001. They found that mountaintop mining creates landscape changes, including changes in water flow that have significant impacts on fish.

“We’re seeing significant reductions in the number of fish species and total abundance of fish downstream from mining operations,” said Nathaniel Hitt, a study co-author.

Solar on the Rise in the U.S.

Solar power is becoming a vital part of the American economy, according to a report from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC).

“Solar markets are booming in the United States due to falling photovoltaic (PV) prices, strong consumer demand, available financing, renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), and financial incentives from the federal government, states and utilities,” said Larry Sherwood, vice president and COO of the IREC. “Thirty-four percent more PV capacity was installed in 2013 than the year before accounting for 31 percent of all U.S. electric power installations completed in 2013.”

The report, produced annually, highlights major factors affecting the solar market and ranks the top 10 states in several categories.

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.


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.


Cross State Air Pollution Rule Reinstated by Supreme Court

May 1, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 ruling, upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s rule to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants that drifts across state lines.

The Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CASPR), which applies to 28 states, aims to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which can lead to soot and smog. The rule was invalidated by a federal appellate court in August 2012 after it was challenged by a group of upwind states and industry because it enforced pollution controls primarily on coal plants. The higher court found the EPA acted reasonably.

“Most upwind states propel pollutants to more than one downwind state, many downwind states receive pollution from multiple upwind states, and some states qualify as both upwind and downwind,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The overlapping and interwoven linkages between upwind and downwind states with which EPA had to contend number in the thousands.”

The Clean Air Act, and specifically the good neighbor provision at issue, she said, does not tell the EPA what factors to consider. “Under Chevron [v. Natural Resources Defense Council] we read Congress’ silence as a delegation of authority to EPA to select among reasonable options,” she added (subscription).

The rule does not address greenhouse gas emissions, which are the subject of another proposed rule for existing coal-fired power plants that is expected to be released in June. Also due next month is another Supreme Court decision, this one 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.”

Electricity Sector Uncertainty and GHG Emissions

Data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) suggests that accelerated plant retirements in either the nuclear power or coal power generation industry would change projections of carbon dioxide emissions. Accelerated retirements of nuclear plants would boost emissions; accelerated retirements of coal-fired plants would reduce them.

EIA predicts U.S. emissions could be 4 percent higher than expected by 2040, but 20 percent lower if more coal plants retire. Lower natural gas prices and stagnant growth in electricity demand will lead to the loss of 10,800 megawatts of U.S. nuclear generation—roughly 10 percent of total capacity by the end of the decade.

Even with the uncertainty facing the electricity sector, there are multi-benefit approaches that state-level environmental regulators and utility commissioners can use to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while simultaneously addressing other electricity sector challenges. That’s according to a new study by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. The study examines Clean Air Act section 111(d) compliance strategies offering these multi-benefit approaches.

Studies Focus on Sea Level Rise, Land Subsidence

Oyster reefs are creating resilience in the face of sea level rise and extreme weather. A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change suggests that vertical oyster reef accretion could outpace climate change-induced sea level rise, helping rebuild a shrinking oyster population. The research is the first to suggest that the reefs would act differently than any normal sea wall.

The study of 11 oyster reefs in intertidal areas on the North Carolina coast from 1997 to 2011 found that intertidal reefs have the potential to grow 11 centimeters vertically a year. Researchers acknowledged that much remains to be studied, including subtidal reefs.

Sea level rise may not be the only problem for some regions. In coastal megacities, the extraction of groundwater for drinking water is causing land to sink 10 times faster than sea level rise, according to another new study.

“Land subsidence and sea level rise are both happening, and they are both contributing to the same problem—larger and longer floods, and bigger inundation depth of floods,” said Gilles Erkens, who led the study by the Netherland’s Deltares Research Institute. “The most rigorous solution and the best one is to stop pumping groundwater for drinking water, but then of course you need a new source of drinking water for these cities. But Tokyo did that and subsidence more or less stopped, and in Venice, too, they have done that.”

Financial loss due to sinking, the research said, would reach nearly a billion dollars yearly and cities such as Jakarta, Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City will sink below sea level if action isn’t taken.

Could Climate Change have Played Role in the Mount Everest Disaster?

Some scientists are linking the Mount Everest ice release—known as a serac—that killed 16 people last month to climate change.

“You could say [that] climate change closed Mount Everest this year,” said Western Kentucky University Professor John All (subscription).

Research conducted by the Kathmandu-based International Center for Integrated Mountain Development showed that the Himalayan glaciers shrunk 21 percent in roughly 30 years. Studies by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which point to data collected through on-site monitoring and remote sensing, show a 10 percent reduction in ice during the last four decades.

Still, others say it is impossible to link any one disaster to long-term changes. Much of the evidence that warming is occurring is anecdotal, and the number of scientific observations is not large enough to draw solid conclusions, NBC News reports.

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.


IPCC Report Shares Dire News, Some Adaptation Measures

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

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Climate change risks dramatically increase the more Earth warms, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions lowers the risk of the most unwelcome consequences, according to the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“We have assessed impacts as they are happening on the natural and human systems on all continents,” said IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri. “In view of these impacts, and those that we have projected for the future, nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change.”

Unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, the sweeping effects of climate change—touching every continent—will grow significantly worse. Among the IPCC report’s conclusions:

  • There will be changes in crop yields.
  • Economic growth will slow, further eroding food security as well as prolonging existing and creating new poverty traps.
  • Changes in the global water cycle will not be uniform. In many dry subtropical regions precipitation will likely decrease.
  • Global mean sea level rise will continue to rise during the 21st century and very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

The news isn’t all dire.

“Although it focuses on a cold, analytical and sometimes depressing view of the challenges we face, it also maps the opportunities that intrinsic in the solution space,” said Christopher Fields, IPCC report co-chair. “And it looks at ways we can combine adaptation, mitigation, transformation of a society in an effort that can help us build a world that’s not only better prepared to deal with climate change but is fundamentally a better world.”

Recommendations that include increasing energy efficiency, switching to cleaner energy sources, making cities greener and reducing water consumption, the report suggests, could help reduce mankind’s effect on climate change. Still, the effects of global warming vary considerably, reports the Economist. Damage, and the possibility of reducing it, depends as much on other factors such as health systems or rural development as it does on global warming alone.

Wind Installation Hurdles, Potential Records

Last year wind turbine installation in the United States fell 93 percent—1.1 GW compared with 13.1 GW in 2012— according to Navigant Research’s annual World Market Update. The report points to the foundering U.S. market and the expiration of a tax credit for U.S. wind projects as the main driver behind a 20 percent drop in global wind power development, the first decline in eight years.

“The U.S. market decline, triggered by lack of policy consistency and the delay in renewing the tax credits, which have traditionally stimulated investment, was also a major contributing factor for the wind market depression last year,” said Feng Zhao, research director with Navigant.

In Alaska, a start-up is preparing to launch the first commercial pilot test of an airborne wind turbine know as Buoyant Airborne Turbine (BAT).  Floating at 1,000 feet, the turbine would supply power to a remote community in the state for about $0.18 per kilowatt hour—half the price of off-grid electricity in Alaska.

“It’s known that wind speed increases with altitude above ground level, and power density increases with a cubic factor of wind speed,” said Adam Rein, Altaeros co-founder. “Roughly speaking, a doubling of wind speed equates to an eight-fold increase in wind power density. Conventional turbine manufacturers are also trying to reach higher heights because of this fact—though not as high as our turbine.”

“Ultimately, the goal is to deploy BAT at off-grid village sites that have high (energy) costs,” he added. When deployed, the device is expected to break the world’s record for the highest wind turbine.

Obama Issues Plan to Cut Methane Emissions

On Friday, the Obama administration announced one more piece of its Climate Action Plan—a strategy to reduce methane emissions—a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It targets methane emissions from coal mining, landfills, agriculture and oil and gas production through a combination of standards programs beginning this month. No hard deadline for a proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been set, but studies to explore significant sources of methane emissions will begin this spring.

“This is a rapidly evolving space,” said Dan Utech, President Barack Obama’s top climate advisor, noting that tamping down methane emissions would help meet Obama’s goal of cutting emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. By the fall, the administration plans to determine the best reduction path, according to The Guardian. If imposed, methane emissions regulations would be completed by the end of 2016, just before Obama leaves office.

The announcement follows on the heels of several scholarly papers that found federal estimates significantly undercount the amount of methane emitted in the country and that methane emissions during well preparation for natural gas drilling were much lower than projected. The natural gas boom—driven by hydraulic fracturing—could mean two things for climate change over the next decade.

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 Divided after Hearing on EPA Authority

February 27, 2014
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

In a hearing Monday, the Supreme Court questioned whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correct in its interpretation that regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles triggers the requirement to also implement permitting requirements for large stationary sources. At issue is the legality of EPA’s interpretation of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. Industry groups argue that the PSD permitting requirements apply to certain pollutants, whereas the EPA argues that they apply to all pollutants, including greenhouse gases. Ultimately, the more than 90-minute session ended with the justices divided over 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.”

“As is so often the case when the court is closely divided, the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy loomed as the critical one, and that vote seemed inclined toward the EPA, though with some doubt,” said SCOTUS blogger Lyle Denniston. “Although he seemed troubled that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. could call up no prior ruling to support the policy choice the EPA had made on greenhouse gases by industrial plants, Kennedy left the impression that it might not matter.”

A decision is expected by June. According to experts, the court’s ruling could have a range of effects on EPA’s permitting requirements.

If the Supreme Court rules against the EPA, the agency has several options, said Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions’ Climate and Energy Program Director Jonas Monast (subscription). It could, for instance, devise new source performance standards for each individual source or regulate sources under another Clean Air Act program.

Nuclear Reviving

As some residents near the site of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster get the “all clear” to return to their homes April 1, Japan announced a plan to revive its nuclear program.

Overturning a previous commitment to phase out all nuclear, the draft government plan, which awaits Cabinet approval, instead calls for more long-term reliance on the energy source. It specifies that nuclear dependency will remain low but that reactors meeting standards set after the 2011 Fukushima disaster should be restarted. The Wall Street Journal reports 17 such reactors are undergoing inspection now.

In the United States, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz provided final approval for a $6.5 billion dollar loan guarantee that will be used to construct two nuclear reactors in Georgia—the first built in the United States in more than 30 years. Days later, President Barack Obama approved a deal with Vietnam that would allow the nation to develop nuclear power.

Obama: Decision on Keystone Could Come Soon

A decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline—carrying crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast—will be made in the next “couple of months,” President Barack Obama told attendees at the annual National Governors Association winter meeting Monday. The White House declined to expand on Obama’s comment at the private meeting. Politico reports that it contradicts speculation by parties on both sides that the decision will come after November’s mid-term elections. That speculation began last week after a ruling by a Nebraska judge that struck down a state law approving the pipeline’s route through the state.

The president’s Keystone decision comment came a day after Canada’s National Energy Board audit found TransCanada Corp—the company leading the Keystone XL project—could make improvements in its pipeline safety practices. The audit was moved up after a then-employee of TransCanada came forward with allegations of safety lapses.

“The audit has confirmed that, in response to these allegations, TransCanada has developed and implemented a program of actions with the goal of correcting and preventing similar occurrences,” the National Energy Board said. The board found TransCanada to be non-compliant in four areas: hazard identification, risk assessment and control; operational control in upset or abnormal operating condition; inspection, measurement and monitoring; and management review.

Despite claims the State Department violated conflict of interest rules when it chose an outside contractor to conduct an environmental impact study of the proposed pipeline, a report issued Wednesday found otherwise.

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.