Author Archives: Megan Ceronsky

Victory for Healthy Air: Court Rejects Nebraska Attorney General's Attempt to “Short-Circuit” the Law in Challenge to Carbon Pollution Standards

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning’s attempt to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to limit carbon pollution from power plants failed yesterday.

The federal district court in Nebraska dismissed the Attorney General’s lawsuit challenging EPA’s proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for new fossil fuel power plants.

The court held that:

[the Attorney General’s] attempt to short-circuit the administrative rulemaking process runs contrary to basic, well-understood administrative law. (Decision, Page 1)

The Attorney General’s challenge was flawed because it was filed only one week after EPA published proposed carbon emission standards for new power plants, in January 2014.

But the law is this case is clear and anchored in common sense.

As the court explained, legal challenges may only be brought against final standards:

Simply stated, the State cannot sue in federal court to challenge a rule that EPA has not yet actually made. (Decision, Page 1)

EPA’s proposed action is still in draft form and has been the subject of extensive public comment.

In December 2012, the D.C. Circuit rejected a similar challenge to EPA’s original proposal for the very same reason — that the standards had yet to be finalized.

This latest attempt at an end run around the Clean Air Act would have deprived the public of a chance to comment on a proposed rule and present its diverse viewpoints to the agency.  Moreover, for a court to review standards that are still being developed would be a waste of judicial resources and Americans’ tax dollars.

The court also noted a defect in the Nebraska Attorney General’s central legal claim.

The Attorney General argued that EPA’s reliance, in part, on data from facilities receiving federal assistance was unlawful.

The court explained:

The merits of this claim are not before the Court. But the Court notes that [Energy Policy Act section] 402(i) only forbids the EPA from considering a given technology or level of emission reduction to be adequately demonstrated solely on the basis of federally-funded facilities. 42 U.S.C. [section] 15962(i). In other words, such technology might be adequately demonstrated if that determination is based at least in part on non-federally-funded facilities. (Decision, Footnote 1, Page 5)

EDF previously examined the flaws with the Nebraska Attorney General’s legal claim in a detailed white paper. (You can read my blog about the white paper here)

Unfortunately for the citizens of Nebraska, Attorney General Bruning is devoting precious taxpayer resources to misguided legal attacks.

It’s not the only way in which Nebraska’s taxpayer dollars are being deployed to block vital clean air progress for our nation.

The Guardian reported that Bruning, on a conference call organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), told other state attorneys general that Nebraska has challenged EPA authority more than 30 times and will keep on doing so.

Yet the Carbon Pollution Standards for new power plants have won broad public support from millions of Americans — including public health associations, Moms Clean Air Force, faith-based organizations, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and leading power companies.

Nebraska’s failed lawsuit is just one more misguided attempt to prevent vital limitations on the carbon pollution emitted by power plants from moving forward.

According to the Guardian, Bruning claims that:

EPA continues to try and ‘fix things’ that are not broken.

Tell that to the millions of Americans who are experiencing the harmful impacts of climate change.

While EPA takes steps to address carbon pollution from the single largest source in the country, Attorney General Bruning is devoting Nebraska’s tax dollars to flawed lawsuits.

Fortunately, millions of Americans in red and blue states alike are working together to forge solutions for our families, our communities and our nation.

Posted in Clean Power Plan, EPA litgation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy| 2 Responses, comments now closed

EPA’s Authority to Limit Carbon Pollution from Power Plants Is Well Established and Widely Recognized

Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium(This post was written by EDF attorney Megan Ceronsky and legal fellow Peter Heisler)

The bedrock legal authority underlying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan is broadly recognized — by our nation’s highest court, states, power companies, academic experts and the EPA General Counsel serving during the President George H.W. Bush administration.

Our recent Climate 411 post chronicles the Supreme Court’s decisions affirming EPA’s authority to address carbon pollution from power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Court held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  Then, in AEP v. Connecticut (2011), the Court explicitly recognized EPA’s authority to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants pursuant to section 111, and acknowledged the agency’s ongoing efforts to do so.

Even before AEP was decided, however, legal researchers and academics had identified section 111 as a promising avenue for regulating carbon pollution from power plants and industrial facilities:

  • A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service found that “Section 111 appears to provide a strong basis for EPA to establish a traditional regulatory approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources.”
  • A 2010 paper by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions observed that “[S]ection 111 appears to provide the EPA with the best means to create a system that … implements a cost-effective program that delivers meaningful emissions reductions, is consistent with both the statutory language of the Act and legal precedent, and is politically viable.”
  • A 2011 survey of the academic community found “widespread agreement” that “[section] 111 authorizes the use of many types of flexible approaches” to regulating carbon pollution.

Indeed, states, power companies, and other stakeholders have all recently analyzed and supported EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants:

  • Kentucky recognized EPA’s role in setting the benchmark that states will have to meet under section 111.
  • Pennsylvania said that section 111 was the “most appropriate” provision for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
  • The nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative “recommend[ed] that EPA use its authority under section 111 of the Clean Air Act to ensure significant overall reductions in carbon emissions."
  • Fifteen states from across the country agreed that “EPA needs to seize [the] opportunity [for pollution reduction] because Section 111(d) standards are to be based on the ‘best system of emission reduction,’” including energy efficiency and renewable energy.
  • The Clean Energy Group, whose members include some of the largest generators of electricity in the country, noted that “EPA has significant discretion under section 111(d) in determining both the appropriate level of the standards for existing power plants, as well as the form of the regulations.”

Environmental law experts have also analyzed and endorsed EPA’s authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants:

  • UCLA Law Professor Ann Carlson said “[I]t is important to be clear here: the President is required to issue the rules, required by law and by the interpretation of the law by the highest Court in the land.”
  • Harvard Professor Jody Freeman called critics’ claims to the contrary “weak,” explaining that “[t]he record clearly shows that Congress intended to ensure that harmful pollutants from existing power plants could not entirely escape regulation. These emissions qualify for regulation under 111(d) because they are not covered elsewhere in the law and account for nearly 40 percent of the nation’s total emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal driver of global warming.”
  • E. Donald Elliott, EPA General Counsel under President George H.W. Bush, noted that “the Supreme Court and other courts have upheld EPA’s authority to address this issue,” and “[a] system-wide approach provides needed flexibility and reduces costs, as well as encouraging investment in lower-emitting generation. EPA has wisely left the states a lot of discretion rather than mandating specific measures as some had wanted…”
  • Carol Browner, EPA Administrator during the Clinton administration, wrote that “EPA has authority under the 1990 Clean Air Act, an authority affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, to set these public health protections against carbon pollution.”

Finally, Leon G. Billings, who was the principal staff author of the Clean Air Act of 1970, shared his personal knowledge of the statute:

Critics of the move say that President Obama is making an end run around Congress, stretching the law to achieve by executive action what he could not accomplish through the legislative branch … This is flat wrong. More than four decades ago, Congress expressed its clear desire to regulate pollution from power plants, in the form of the Clean Air Act. I know, because I worked on the legislation, including the key part of the act — Section 111 — that the Obama administration is using to justify its move.

The legal community broadly recognizes EPA’s authority and obligation to address carbon pollution emitted by power plants. This is perhaps unsurprising, as all these statements simply echo what the Supreme Court has already held — that EPA’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution from power plants are firmly grounded in the law.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, EPA litgation| 3 Responses, comments now closed

A First Look at the Clean Power Plan: Protecting Public Health and Cutting Carbon Pollution

Source: Flickr/ Rupert Ganzer

Source: Flickr/Rupert Ganzer

Earlier this week, our nation took a ground-breaking step by proposing to finally establish carbon pollution limits on existing power plants — the single largest source of climate-destabilizing pollution in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world.

We have national limits on the other air pollutants emitted by these plants, including mercury and arsenic and smog-forming pollutants — and we urgently need to secure strong limits on carbon pollution.

Here’s a first look at the proposed Clean Power Plan and its “building blocks” — the opportunity for state leadership, the profound public health benefits for our communities and families, and the good news about cost savings for customers.

The Proposed Pollution Reductions

The Clean Power Plan would reduce carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by approximately 30 percent by 2030, and could curb emissions by as much as 27 percent by 2020.

EPA looked at the existing power plants in each state, and evaluated four time-tested, cost-effective emission reduction pathways:

  1. The potential to improve power plant efficiency
  2. The potential to rely more on lower-emitting power plants such as combined cycle natural gas and less on higher-emitting power plants
  3. The potential to deploy zero emitting generation resources like wind and solar
  4. The potential to capture end-use energy efficiency opportunities.

EPA then added up these four “building blocks” to calculate the reduction that a State could achieve on average in its overall emission rate over 2020-2029 (the “interim” target), and what rate could be achieved in 2030:

 

State

2012 Emission Rate
(Fossil, Renewable, and 6% Nuclear) (lbs/MWh)

2020-2029 Interim Goal (lbs/MWh)

2030 State Goal (lbs/MWh)

Percent change from 2012 rate

Alabama

1,444

1,147

1,059

-27%

Alaska

1,351

1,097

1,003

-26%

Arizona

1,453

735

702

-52%

Arkansas

1,640

968

910

-45%

California

698

556

537

-23%

Colorado

1,714

1,159

1,108

-35%

Connecticut

765

597

540

-29%

Delaware

1,234

913

841

-32%

Florida

1,200

794

740

-38%

Georgia

1,500

891

834

-44%

Hawaii

1,540

1,378

1,306

-15%

Idaho

339

244

228

-33%

Illinois

1,895

1,366

1,271

-33%

Indiana

1,923

1,607

1,531

-20%

Iowa

1,552

1,341

1,301

-16%

Kansas

1,940

1,578

1,499

-23%

Kentucky

2,158

1,844

1,763

-18%

Louisiana

1,466

948

883

-40%

Maine

437

393

378

-14%

Maryland

1,870

1,347

1,187

-37%

Massachusetts

925

655

576

-38%

Michigan

1,696

1,227

1,161

-32%

Minnesota

1,470

911

873

-41%

Mississippi

1,130

732

692

-39%

Missouri

1,963

1,621

1,544

-21%

Montana

2,245

1,882

1,771

-21%

Nebraska

2,009

1,596

1,479

-26%

Nevada

988

697

647

-34%

New Hampshire

905

546

486

-46%

New Jersey

932

647

531

-43%

New Mexico

1,586

1,107

1,048

-34%

New York

983

635

549

-44%

North Carolina

1,646

1,077

992

-40%

North Dakota

1,994

1,817

1,783

-11%

Ohio

1,850

1,452

1,338

-28%

Oklahoma

1,387

931

895

-35%

Oregon

717

407

372

-48%

Pennsylvania

1,540

1,179

1,052

-32%

Rhode Island

907

822

782

-14%

South Carolina

1,587

840

772

-51%

South Dakota

1,135

800

741

-35%

Tennessee

1,903

1,254

1,163

-39%

Texas

1,298

853

791

-39%

Utah

1,813

1,378

1,322

-27%

Virginia

1,297

884

810

-38%

Washington

763

264

215

-72%

West Virginia

2,019

1,748

1,620

-20%

Wisconsin

1,827

1,281

1,203

-34%

Wyoming

2,115

1,808

1,714

-19%

State Flexibility & Innovation

Under the Clean Power Plan, states will control their own future.

States have the flexibility to deploy the emission reduction policies and pathways that make the most sense for them, maximizing cost-effectiveness and co-benefits for their citizens, so long as they achieved the required emission reductions.

Some states might choose to build their compliance plans around existing Renewable Energy Standards and energy efficiency programs. Others might choose to put in place an emission reduction trading program between power plants. Still others might choose to collaborate with other states to submit joint plans and capture the cost-effective emission reduction opportunities available across state boundaries.

Public Health Benefits

The public health benefits of the Clean Power Plan are extensive and will help ensure healthier and longer for our loved ones who suffer from heart and lung ailments, and for our children.

EPA’s analysis shows that the reductions in carbon pollution and the associated reductions in sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter that will happen as a result will generate health benefits of $55 to $93 billion per year in 2030.

The pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog that make people sick will be reduced by more than 25 percent in 2030 — avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks per year.

From the soot and smog reductions alone — ignoring the important reductions in carbon pollution achieved — Americans will see 7 dollars in health benefits for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan.

Cleaner power will ensure healthier and longer lives for millions of Americans.

Electricity Rates & Reliability

EPA’s analysis also shows that there will be sufficient power generation capacity across the United States under this framework to meet demand.

The flexibility provided to States will allow them to design plans to secure reductions in carbon pollution without any risk to power reliability.  As has been true for the past 40 years, we will reduce air pollution and maintain reliable power.

Because the Clean Power Plan will spur investments in demand-side energy efficiency, in 2030 electricity bills are expected to be 8 percent lower than they would have been without the plan.

Under the Clean Power Plan we will have cleaner, safer power, lower electricity bills, cleaner air, and healthier lives.

Cleaner power for a stronger America.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions| 2 Responses, comments now closed

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act — Cooperative Federalism and Performance-Based Standards

dv067014One year ago this June, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants — a key component of his Climate Action Plan.

The President charged EPA with launching the effort "through direct engagement with States, as they will play a central role in establishing and implementing standards for existing power plants."

Congress laid the groundwork for this dynamic federal-state collaboration in 1970 when it provided for national environmental performance standards for sectors that are major sources of dangerous air pollution.

Under this program  (Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act) EPA identifies the "best system of emission reduction" available to address dangerous air pollution from existing pollution sources through performance standards, adopted after public notice and comment, called "emission guidelines." 1

EPA quantifies the emission reductions that can be achieved using this "best system" — and that becomes the performance benchmark for state plans which implement and enforce standards of performance for the existing sources of pollution in each state. 2

Congress provided for state plans to be submitted to EPA to evaluate whether the plan provides for emission reductions that are equivalent to or greater than those under the "best system." 3 Congress made clear that states are not required to use the particular system identified by EPA — they have the flexibility to use other systems, tailored to their state, so long as they achieve an equivalent or greater level of pollution reduction.

Under the timeline set out by President Obama, EPA will propose guidelines for emissions from existing power plants at the beginning of June, and finalize them by June 2015.

Consistent with the long-standing implementation timetable under this Clean Air Act program, states will submit their plans to implement and enforce standards by the end of June 2016.

Section 111(d) standards have long been effective in addressing dangerous air pollution from a variety of source categories and can be designed to provide a flexible and cost-effective framework for reducing carbon pollution from power plants.

For decades, section 111(d) has provided the foundation for pollution cuts from major sources of air pollution. Toward the end of the 1970s, EPA and the states put section 111(d) to work, publishing and implementing emission guidelines for fluorides from phosphate fertilizer plants (1977),4 sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid plants (1977),5 sulfur from kraft pulp mills (1979),6 and fluoride from primary aluminum plants (1980).7

These emissions guidelines and the state-devised standards implementing them would achieve dramatic reductions of harmful air pollutants, eliminating 75 percent of overall nationwide fluoride emissions from phosphate fertilizer plants,8 almost 80 percent of sulfuric acid emissions from an uncontrolled sulfuric acid plant,9 82 percent of overall nationwide total reduced sulfur from kraft pulp mills,10 and up to 78 percent of fluoride emissions from the primary aluminum industry.11

The pollution from fossil fueled power plants, one of the single largest sources of dangerous air pollution in our nation, has been subject of clean air standards under section 111 since the advent of the modern Clean Air Act in 1970.12 National standards of performance under section 111 have applied to newly constructed power plants and existing plants that are revamped and reconstructed.

The flexibility that the Clean Air Act provides in establishing and implementing standards of performance for existing sources under section 111(d) is well suited for the regulation of carbon pollution from fossil fuel power plants.

Congress created a framework under section 111(d) to address pollution from existing power plants that can be flexible and expansive in scope where such a framework could be more effective in addressing emissions.

The statutory language — "best system of emission reduction" — is broad, and not defined in the statute. The ordinary meaning of the word is expansive — "a complex unity formed of many often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose."13 Throughout the Clean Air Act, Congress has used the word "system" to describe innovative, flexible regulatory approaches such as the acid rain emissions cap and allowance trading program, and marketable permits.14

Indeed, the legislative history of the section over the years is consonant with this broad reading of the term "system," especially for section 111(d).

When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977, it altered the definition of "standard of performance" as applied to new sources in order to require new sources to deploy the "best technological system" of emission reduction. But, pointedly, it left the corresponding definition for existing sources intact15 and even explicitly confirmed that "systems" of emission reduction for existing sources were "not necessarily technological."16

In 1990, Congress abandoned this special limitation for new sources and reverted to the broad, unified definition of section 111 "standards of performance" for both new and existing sources.17

Thus, EPA can deploy a systemic approach to reducing carbon pollution from power plants, looking beyond each individual source in isolation to find the "best," most cost-effective system for reducing pollution.

It has done so several times before. In the 1995 emission guidelines for municipal waste combustors, EPA authorized states to create averaging and trading programs in reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides.18

In the context of greenhouse gas emissions, which do not have local effects, an averaging approach allows cost-effective emission reduction opportunities to be captured while rigorous overall emission reduction targets are achieved.

Not only may EPA allow averaging of emissions among existing sources as part of the "best system of emission reduction," but it can also consider pollution-reduction measures that are implemented beyond the source and secure reductions in emissions at the source.

For example, in the 1997 emission guidelines for hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators, EPA required state plans to include waste management plans, where feasible, to eliminate part of the waste stream going to the incinerator that would produce harmful emissions.19 In that context, part of the "best system of emission reduction" involved measures taken well outside of the source’s boundaries that could reduce harmful emissions from the sources.

EPA could take a similar approach to address carbon pollution from existing power plants — as deploying demand side energy efficiency and renewable energy can be some of the most effective means of reducing harmful emissions from existing plants while capturing the greatest co-benefits in cutting utility bills, creating jobs, making state economies less dependent on price fluctuations in fossil fuels, and stimulating local economies.

States have extensive experience in implementing emission guidelines and other system-wide approaches under the Clean Air Act, and are well positioned for developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution from existing power plants under Section 111(d).

The next two parts of this series will look at the impressive achievements of states and power companies across the country in in cutting carbon pollution through flexible, cost-effective, demonstrated policies that are reducing utilization of high-emitting plants, expanding renewable energy capacity, and improving the efficiency with which we use energy.

Through the dynamic state-federal collaboration provided by section 111(d), the Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants will build on this foundation and help us make further progress along the path toward a cleaner, safer energy future.

  1. 40 C.F.R. § 60.22(b)
  2. Id. § 60.24.
  3. Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a); id. § 7411(d)(2).
  4. Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, Final Guideline Document Availability, 42 Fed. Reg. 12,022 (Mar. 1, 1977).
  5. Emission Guideline for Sulfuric Acid Mist, 42 Fed. Reg. 55,796 (Oct. 18, 1977).
  6. Kraft Pulp Mills; Final Guideline Document; Availability, 44 Fed. Reg. 29,828 (May 22, 1979).
  7. Primary Aluminum Plants; Availability of Final Guideline Document, 45 Fed. Reg. 26,294 (Apr. 17, 1980).
  8. Final Guideline Document: Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, Doc. No. EPA-450/2-77-005, at 1-7 (Mar. 1977).
  9. Final Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units, Doc. No. EPA-450/2-77-019, at 8-2 (Sept. 1977).
  10. Kraft Pulping, "Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills," Doc. No. EPA-450/2-78-003b, at 1-6 (Mar. 1979).
  11. Primary Aluminum: Guidelines for Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing Primary Aluminum Plants, Doc. No. EPA-450/2-78-049b, at 125 tbl. 1-7 (Dec. 1979).
  12. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 36 Fed. Reg. 24,876 (Dec. 23, 1971).
  13. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2322 (1967).
  14. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(g)(4)(A); id. § 7651b; id. § 7651c.
  15. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, § 109(c)(1)(A), 91 Stat. 685, 699-700.
  16. H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, at 129 (1977) (Conf. Rep.).
  17. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 403(a), 104 Stat. 2399, 2631.
  18. 40 C.F.R § 60.33b(d)(2).
  19. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, 62 Fed. Reg. 48,348, 48,359 (Sept. 15, 1997) (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.35e, 60.55c).

Posted in Clean Power Plan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy| 1 Response, comments now closed

The Many Benefits of Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants

(This post was written by EDF attorney Megan Ceronsky and legal fellow Peter Heisler)

The newly-released Third National Climate Assessment has some eye-opening news about climate change.

The report confirms that if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced it is likely that American communities will experience:

  • increased severity of dangerous smog and particulate pollution in many regions[1]
  • intensified precipitation events, hurricanes, and storm surges[2]
  • reduced precipitation and runoff in the arid West[3]
  • reduced crop yields and livestock productivity[4]
  • increases in fires, insect pests, and the prevalence of diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects[5]
  • increased risk of illness and death due to extreme heat[6]

Source: Flickr/Eric Schmuttenmaer

Extreme weather imposes a high cost on our communities, our livelihoods, and our lives.  The National Climatic Data Center reports that the United States experienced seven climate disasters that each caused more than a billion dollars of damage in 2013, including the devastating floods in Colorado and extreme droughts in western states.[7]

These are precisely the type of impacts projected to affect American communities with increasing frequency and severity as climate-destabilizing emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel-fired power plants are far and away the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, emitting more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2012 — equivalent to 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution and nearly one-third of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.[8]

Yet there are currently no legal limits on the amount of carbon dioxide power plants can release into the atmosphere.

This June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will, at long last, propose Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants.

The solutions we need to achieve significant reductions of carbon pollution from our nation’s largest source are at hand — including changes at existing power plants to reduce emissions, shifting utilization towards lower-polluting generation and away from higher-polluting generation, and deploying renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The health-improving, cost-saving, job-creating benefits of these proven techniques should be shouted from the rooftops.

States and power companies are already capitalizing on opportunities to reduce carbon pollution and other health-harming air pollutants by switching to lower-emitting generation.

Look, for example, at Colorado.

The Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed by Governor Bill Ritter in 2010,[9] will significantly improve air quality while ensuring a reliable supply of electricity.

Under the Act, Xcel Energy plans to replace aging, high-emitting coal-fired units in the Denver metro area with lower-emitting resources, including state-of-the-art efficient combined-cycle natural gas plants that can quickly cycle to complement plentiful wind power and energy efficiency.[10] These changes will help Xcel reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its Colorado fleet by 28 percent by 2020 as well as[11] nitrogen oxide emissions by 86 percent, sulfur dioxide emissions by 83 percent, and mercury emissions by 82 percent.

Reducing emissions of these dangerous pollutants will save lives, reduce the number of nonfatal heart attacks, reduce cases of chronic bronchitis and asthma attacks, and avoid hospital admissions and emergency room visits.[12]

Xcel Energy expects that the projects will inject $590 million into the state’s economy and support 1,500 jobs.[13]

Colorado is also leading the way in renewable energy and energy efficiency.  The state’s renewable energy standard (RES) — which was put in place by a ballot initiative in 2004 — now requires investor-owned utilities to supply 30 percent, and municipal utilities and cooperatives to supply 10 percent, of their retail sales with renewable energy by 2020.[14]  Colorado’s energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) sets a goal for investor-owned utilities of 5 percent savings of 2006 peak demand by 2018 through demand-side management programs for their customers.[15]

The RES is expected to avoid 30 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, create more than 30,000 jobs, and generate $4.3 billion in economic output.[16]

As for energy efficiency, in 2013 Xcel's demand-side management plan saved 384.2 gigawatt hours of electricity (exceeding the goal approved by the Public Utilities Commission)[17] and avoided more than 280,000 tons of carbon dioxide and close to 230,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide from electricity generation.[18]

Renewable energy has taken off in recent months and years, replacing higher-emitting sources of energy and creating jobs.  Between 2011 and 2013, wind generation in the United States increased by 40 percent,[19] and in January 2014, the United States had a record month for wind power with generation of nearly 18,000 gigawatt hours.[20]

Xcel Energy recently announced 700 megawatts of new wind energy in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, which it estimates will save customers up to $590 million in fuel costs.[21]  Xcel says it is adding wind capacity “purely on economics and the savings we can deliver to our customers,” as the price of energy from the new facilities will be less than that from the company’s natural gas-fired plants.[22]

Solar power is on the rise as well.  In 2012, rooftop solar panels cost approximately one percent of what they did 35 years ago,[23] and the cost of solar panels fell by 60 percent from 2011 to 2013.[24]  Since 2008, as the cost of a solar module dropped from $3.40 per watt to 80 cents per watt, solar deployment has jumped by about 10 times.[25]  In 2013 alone, solar photovoltaic installations increased by 41 percent, to a record 4.75 gigawatts, outpacing the industry’s own projections.[26]

Utilities and their customers are also seeing the advantages of solar energy. In March 2014, Austin Energy bought 150 megawatts of solar power at a price just below five cents per kilowatt hour — one of the lowest prices for solar yet which will likely lower rates.[27]  And solar produces high-quality jobs, too, with the industry employing about 143,000 Americans at the end of 2013 and surpassing growth expectations for that year.[28]

Along with renewables, energy efficiency will play a key role in reducing carbon pollution while at the same time saving businesses and families money on their energy bills and creating high-paying jobs.

A recent report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy lays out several policies that states could use to meet their carbon-reduction goals, including energy-efficiency targets, building codes, appliance standards, and new combined heat and power systems.[29]  If adopted, in the year 2030 these policies could:

  • reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by about 600 million tons, of sulfure dioxide by about 980,000 tons, and of nitrogen oxides by about 527,000 tons[30]
  • save 925 million megawatt hours of electricity in 2030,[31] avoiding about $48 billion in energy costs[32]
  • and support 611,000 jobs, creating 6.2 million job-years from 2016 to 2030.[33]

Energy efficiency not only offers a cost-effective way to reduce pollution and positively impact the economy, but also improves comfort and health, increases productivity, and cuts utility bills for homes and businesses, savings that can be spent on other goods and services.[34]

Several organizations have outlined approaches to reducing carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, and their analysis shows that the Carbon Pollution Standards can protect the climate while at the same time reducing emissions of other dangerous air pollutants.  For example, NRDC estimates that its proposal would reduce harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, saving thousands of lives, preventing 17,000 asthma attacks per year, and avoiding more than 1,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions per year.[35]

Similar health benefits would be provided by Clean Air Task Force’s proposed framework, which would avoid 446,000 tons (31 percent) of sulfur dioxide and 402,000 tons of nitrogen oxide (24 percent) emissions relative to the base case by 2020.[36]

And Resources for the Future projects co-benefits from sulfur dioxide reductions ranging from $17 billion to $22 billion in 2010 dollars by 2020.[37]

Moving forward under the President’s Climate Action Plan to address carbon pollution from power plants couldn’t be more urgent.  In addition to the reductions in harmful air pollution discussed above, the National Climate Assessment explains that without abating climate change:

“Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.

“Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. . . . Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. . . .”

An upcoming blog will take a closer look at climate change and its impacts on public health in the U.S.  First, though, we will highlight some of the many successes states and power companies have had in deploying clean energy and energy efficiency, and explain the legal foundations for Carbon Pollution Standards that build on this experience and support the expansion of clean energy and energy efficiency programs.

These investments will not only cut emissions of carbon and other pollutants, but also provide homegrown energy, create jobs, and cut utility bills for American homes and businesses.  This is the right path forward for our communities, our kids, and our economy.


[1]  U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States, at 222 (2014), available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads.

[2]  Id. at 37, 42, 45.

[3]  Id. at 465.

[4]  Id. at 152, 157.

[5]  Id. at 223, 225-26.

[6]  Id. at 224.

[7]  National Climatic Data Center, Billion-Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters 1980-2013 (2014), available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf.

[8] EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012, at 2-4 tbl. 2-1 (Apr. 2014), available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.

[9] Press Release, Bill Ritter: Colorado’s Governor, Gov. Ritter Signs Historic Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act (Apr. 19, 2010), http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite%3Fc%3DPage&cid%3D1251573927379&p%3D1251573927379&pagename%3DGovRitter%252FGOVRLayout).

[10] Colorado Clean Air – Clean Jobs Plan, Xcel Energy, http://www.xcelenergy.com/Environment/Doing_Our_Part/Clean_Air_Projects/Colorado_Clean_Air_-_Clean_Jobs_Plan (last visited Apr. 11, 2014).

[11] Id.

[12] Answer Testimony of Leland B. Deck, Before the Pub. Utilities Comm’n of Colo., Docket No. 10M-245E (Sept. 17, 2010), available at https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/EFI_Search_UI.search.

[13] Id.

[14] Renewable Energy Standard, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO24R&re=0&ee=0 (last visited May 3, 2014).

[15] Energy Efficiency Resource Standard,  Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO46R&re=0&ee=0 (last visited May 3, 2014).

[16] Jeff Lyng & Tom Plant, Governor’s Energy Office, Colorado’s 30% Renewable Energy Standard:

Policy Design and New Markets, at 10 (Aug. 2010), available at http://cnee.colostate.edu/graphics/uploads/HB10-1001-Colorados-30-percent-Renewable-Energy-Standard.pdf.

[17] Xcel Energy, Demand-Side Management Annual Status Report:

Electric and Natural Gas:

Public Service Company of Colorado, at 2 (Apr. 2014), available at  https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Regulatory/Regulatory%20PDFs/CO-DSM/2013-CO-DSM-Annual-Status-Report.pdf.

[18] Id. at 15, tbl. 6.

[19] Energy Info. Admin., Electric Power Monthly, Table 1.1.A (Feb. 2014), available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01_a.

[20] Id.

[21] Xcel Energy, New Mexico and Texas Wind Power: We Are Leveraging the Wind, http://www.xcelenergy.com/Environment/Renewable_Energy/Wind/New_Mexico_and_Texas_Wind_Power (last visited May 1, 2014).

[22] Tom Gray, Citing Low Costs, Xcel Energy Plans ‘Significant Increase’ in Wind Purchases, Into the Wind: The AWEA Blog (July 11, 2013), http://aweablog.org/blog/post/citing-low-costs-xcel-energy-plans-significant-increase-in-wind-purchases.

[23] Dep’t of Energy, Revolution Now: The Future Arrives for Four Clean Energy Technologies, at 4 (Sept. 2013), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/Revolution%20Now%20–%20The%20Future%20Arrives%20for%20Four%20Clean%20Energy%20Technologies.pdf.

[24] Ian Clover, US Solar Power Costs Fall 60% in Just 18 Months, pv magazine (Sept. 20, 2013), http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-solar-power-costs-fall-60-in-just-18-months_100012797/#axzz2qg0NDEBG.

[25] Dep’t of Energy, Revolution Now: The Future Arrives for Four Clean Energy Technologies, at 4-5 (Sept. 2013), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/Revolution%20Now%20–%20The%20Future%20Arrives%20for%20Four%20Clean%20Energy%20Technologies.pdf.

[26] Lucy Woods, GTM and SEIA: 41% Growth in US Solar Market for 2013, PVTECH (Mar. 5, 2014), http://www.pv-tech.org/news/gtm_and_seia_41_growth_in_us_solar_market_for_2013.

[27] Eric Wesoff, Cheapest Solar Ever? Austin Energy Buys PV From SunEdison at 5 Cents per Kilowatt-Hour (Mar. 10, 2014), https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Cheapest-Solar-Ever-Austin-Energy-Buys-PV-From-SunEdison-at-5-Cents-Per-Ki.

[28] The Solar Foundation, National Solar Jobs Census 2013, http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/research/national-solar-jobs-census-2013 (last visited May 1, 2014).

[29] American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Change Is in the Air: How States Can Harness Energy Efficiency to Strengthen the Economy and Reduce Pollution, at iv (Apr. 2014), available at http://aceee.org/research-report/e1401.

[30] Id. at 21 tbl. 7.

[31] Id. at 18 tbl. 3.

[32] Id. at 22.

[33] Id.

[34] McKinsey & Company, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, at 13-14 (2009), available at http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/electric_power_and_natural_gas/latest_thinking/unlocking_energy_efficiency_in_the_us_economy.

[35] NRDC, Issue Brief Update: Cleaner and Cheaper: Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants, Delivering Health, Environmental, and Economic Benefits, at 10 (Mar. 2014), available at http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/files/pollution-standards-IB-update.pdf.

[36] Bruce Phillips, The NorthBridge Group, Alternative Approaches for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants under the Clean Air Act: Practical Pathways to Meaningful Reductions, at 22 (Feb. 2014), available at http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/NorthBridge_111d_Options.pdf.

[37] Dallas Burtraw et al., The Costs and Consequences of Clean Air Act Regulation of CO2 from Power Plants, at 10 tbl. 1 (Jan. 2014), available at http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-14-01.pdf.

Posted in Clean Power Plan, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Jobs, Policy| 2 Responses, comments now closed

EPA Getting It Right: Supreme Court Affirms EPA’s Common-Sense Approach to Controlling Air Pollution from Power Plants

(This post was co-authored by EDF Attorneys Megan Ceronsky and Graham McCahan)

In a tremendous victory for clean air, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision this week upholding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

The high court found the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule to be a:

permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of [the Clean Air Act]. (page 32 of the decision)

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is a common-sense and cost-effective framework to protect American communities from the dangerous air pollution that is emitted by coal-fired power plants and then carried by the wind from one state to another.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule implements the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which Congress put in place to address this problem.

The “good neighbor” provision requires each state to curb emissions from in-state power plants that interfere with the ability of downwind states to secure clean and safe air for their citizens.

By cutting the emissions that create smog and soot, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule — when implemented – will avoid up to 34,000 premature deaths, prevent 400,000 asthma attacks, and provide up to $280 billion in health and environmental benefits each year.

Downwind communities will finally have cleaner, safer air to breathe.

This victory is only the latest in a series of court decisions upholding EPA’s actions to address harmful pollution from power plants as firmly grounded in law and science.

Just two weeks ago, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the agency’s landmark standards to cut mercury and other toxic pollutants emitted by power plants.

The Mercury standards will eliminate 90 percent of the mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants. They will avoid 11,000 premature deaths each year while preventing thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases, and asthma attacks. They will also save up to $90 billion a year by reducing sick days and trips to emergency rooms.

As we look forward to the proposal of the Carbon Pollution Standards for power plants, we expect more of the same — common-sense, cost-effective standards, built on a solid legal foundation, which will finally curb climate-destabilizing emissions from the largest source of this pollution in our country.

The Supreme Court’s ruling made Tuesday a wonderful day for clean air.

We believe more good air days are yet to come.

Posted in Clean Air Act, EPA litgation, Health, News, Policy| Comments closed

New Power Plant Rule: Strong, Smart, and Legally Sound

Yesterday EPA published its revised proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for new power plants. When finalized, these standards will be the first national limits on the amount of carbon pollution emitted by new power plants in the United States. The standards will finally require new coal-fired power plants — the largest source of carbon pollution in our country — to install carbon capture technology and sequester the climate-destabilizing carbon pollution they produce underground.

Back in 2011, after testing this technology at a power plant in West Virginia, American Electric Power’s former CEO and president Mike Morris told investors:

We’re encouraged by what we saw. We’re clearly impressed with what we learned and we feel that we have demonstrated to a certainty that carbon capture and storage is in fact viable technology for the United States and quite honestly for the rest of the world going forward.

It is now 2014. The technology is being deployed across the world, and here at plants in Canada, Mississippi, California, and at two plants in Texas. EPA’s standards will ensure that the United States is leading the energy revolution — in carbon capture technologies as well as in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Of course these realities did not stop the attacks from industry lawyers.

Jeff Holmstead, Counsel to the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council — a coalition of coal-dependent energy companies — released a statement arguing that we just can’t do it … can’t produce clean, safe, affordable power. He is wrong. These standards are common sense and legally sound. Not only are carbon capture technologies — long in use in other industries — being deployed in the power sector across the world, but renewables are taking off.

Between 2011 and October of 2013, wind generation in the United States increased by over 40%.  In April of 2013, the United States had a record month for wind power with generation of over 17,000 gigawatt hours. In 2012, rooftop solar panels cost approximately 1 percent of what they did 35 years ago. Since 2008, as the cost of a solar module dropped from $3.80/watt to $.80/watt, solar deployment has jumped by about 10 times.

We can, and we will build the low-carbon power sector of the 21st century—and we will not let those companies still investing in the dangerous, harmful energy technologies of the past dictate our future.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy, Setting the Facts Straight| Comments closed

EPA's Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards are Legally and Technically Sound

America is building cleaner cars, more efficient freight trucks, and smarter power systems.

Wind power was the top source of capacity additions for new electricity generation in 2012, with states like Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Colorado leading the way.

Yet even as American companies build cars that are leading the world in fuel economy and saving families money at the pump, and as innovative new wind turbines provide zero-emitting electricity for all of us and a stable income source for farmers and ranchers, the supporters of high-emitting coal power claim that it is not capable of deploying advanced technologies to cut carbon pollution.

On September 20th, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed Carbon Pollution Standards that will provide the first nationwide limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. The Carbon Pollution Standards could be met through clean renewable energy resources or fossil fuels such as an efficient combined cycle natural gas plant or coal plants using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to control their carbon emissions.

But coal’s boosters have attacked the long overdue EPA standards, asserting that coal is unable to use modern technologies. Last month, Majority members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to EPA asking the agency to withdraw the proposed standards.  The letter argues that because three of the coal plants currently being built to use CCS receive funding under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), EPA cannot rely on those plants to support its determination that CCS is an adequately demonstrated technology and the best system of emission reduction for coal-fired power plants.

As this legal analysis shows, EPA’s proposal is technically and legally sound.

Although EPAct provides that an innovative technology supported under that Act cannot by itself prove that the technology is adequately demonstrated, EPA relied on a broad body of evidence beyond the three EPAct-funded plants in identifying CCS as the best system of emission reduction for coal-fired power plants.

EPA’s finding that CCS is adequately demonstrated is in line with what the power industry itself has said.  American Electric Power’s former CEO and president Mike Morris had this to say about the company’s Mountaineer CCS project in 2011:

We’re encouraged by what we saw. We’re clearly impressed with what we learned and we feel that we have demonstrated to a certainty that carbon capture and storage is in fact viable technology for the United States and quite honestly for the rest of the world going forward.

There is no time to delay our transition to a clean energy economy. The United States experienced twelve separate climate disasters in 2012 each costing over a billion dollars, and climate change continues to impact the health and wellbeing of our families and communities every day. As the success of clean energy and energy efficiency programs across our country demonstrates, the solutions are at hand. We have but to deploy them.

While coal refuses to innovate, the world is turning toward cleaner energy. Earlier this year the U.S. and World Bank announced that they would no longer finance dirty coal projects abroad. Meanwhile, the wind farms continue to crop up across America’s heartland.

As a Midwesterner, I am thankful that there is a bolder vision for America – of engineers, welders, fabricators, and inventors, working together, who know that we can and we must make clean energy our future.  For our sake, and for our children and grandchildren.

Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy| Comments closed

Setting the Record Straight — What this Week's Supreme Court Order Really Means

This week the Supreme Court denied numerous legal attacks seeking further judicial review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) determination that greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to human health and welfare, and of other key aspects of EPA’s first generation of climate policies.

The Court agreed to hear arguments on one narrow issue, relevant to one specific Clean Air Act permitting program.

This marked the end of the road for years of sustained industry attacks on the scientific and legal foundation for addressing climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. This was a tremendous victory for science and the rule of law.

But some media reporting suggested just the opposite.

This was the lead of USA Today’s story:

Dealing a potential blow to the Obama administration and environmentalists, the Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider limiting the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases.

(We don’t mean to single out USA Today, which has a well-deserved reputation for excellent environmental reporting. Other media coverage was also confusing. We have more examples at the end of this post.)

Given all that, it seems like it might be helpful to look at the facts of what the Court did and did not do:

Fact One

Industry lawyers threw every attack they could think of at EPA’s science-based finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations due to intensifying smog levels, floods, drought, wildfires, and other dangerous climate impacts. The Supreme Court rejected every single industry challenge to the Endangerment Finding.

What this means

This is the end of the road for more than four years of industry regulatory, procedural, and legal attacks on the Endangerment Finding. The End.

But it means more than that. The reason why fossil fuel interests have been so desperate to discredit the Endangerment Finding is because it is the cornerstone for controlling climate pollution under the Clean Air Act — not just for the Clean Car Standards, but also for the forthcoming Carbon Pollution Standards for new and existing power plants and other major sources.

EPA’s Endangerment Finding reflects a vast body of peer-reviewed scientific research by thousands of scientists. Attempts to attack it through litigation have failed. This is a tremendous moment, and an unmistakable sign of the strength of the legal foundation for controlling climate pollution from cars and trucks, power plants, and other major sources under the Clean Air Act.

Fact Two  

The Supreme Court denied every legal challenge seeking review of the Clean Car Standards.

What this means

The landmark Clean Car Standards were strongly supported by U.S. automakers and the United Auto Workers. The Association of Global Automakers and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers helped to defend them in court.

These standards, combined with the second generation Clean Car Standards, mean the U.S. will achieve a fleet-wide average of 54.5 mpg by 2025, cut greenhouse gas pollution by six billion tons, avoid 12 billion barrels of oil imports, and save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump — an average of $8,000 per vehicle by 2025.

Fact Three

The Supreme Court did grant review of a narrow question relevant to one specific (and important) Clean Air Act permitting program — did the regulation of greenhouse gases under the clean car program also make greenhouse gases regulated under the program requiring pre-construction review permits for major stationary pollution sources.

What this means

We believe that the Clean Air Act is clear — on its face — that this permitting program applies to all pollutants, as EPA has implemented it.  We will vigorously defend this interpretation in front of the Supreme Court, and we believe that we will succeed.

Moreover, even some petitioners have recognized — as did U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Kavanaugh in his dissent below — that even if the permit program were limited in the way they assert, the requirement to adopt the best pollution controls for greenhouse gases would still apply to sources that are required to obtain permits due to their emissions of other airborne contaminants regulated under national ambient air quality standards.

What this does NOT mean

The question being reviewed by the Supreme Court is important. But it does not have any effect on the programs going forward to address carbon pollution from the two largest sources in our nation — power plants, under the forthcoming Carbon Pollution Standards, and transportation, under the Clean Car Standards.

Bottom Line

The Obama Administration’s vital plan to protect our communities and families from climate change has NOT been called into question by the Supreme Court’s review of one question related to the permitting program for major stationary sources of emissions.

By rejecting every petition challenging the Endangerment Finding and the Clean Car Standards, the Court has yet again indicated that EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty in addressing greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Building on this firm foundation, EPA has a responsibility to protect Americans’ health and well-being from the threat of climate change. That includes establishing limits on carbon pollution from power plants — the single largest source of climate destabilizing emissions in our nation.

 

(As mentioned above, here are other examples of confusing media coverage from Tuesday morning)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would consider challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s permitting requirements for power plants and other facilities that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, throwing the Obama administration’s regulations into a state of uncertainty. (emphasis is ours)

  • Wall Street Journal (available by subscription only)

The hearings, set for next year, could allow the Court to scale back the Obama Administration’s climate regulations at a time when the chance of passing legislation to limit carbon emissions—long the preferred route of the White House and most environmental groups—seems virtually nil. (emphasis is ours)

At issue is whether the federal Environmental Protection Agency can tighten emission standards for stationary greenhouse gas sources, such as power plants, in what the government says is an effort to stem the effects of global warming. (emphasis is ours)

Posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, What Others are Saying| Comments closed

New paper outlines the legal foundations for strong Carbon Pollution Standards for power plants

On June 25th, at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama issued a stirring call to action on climate change, saying:

As a president, as a father and as an American, I am here to say we need to act.  I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.

In that speech, President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan — a suite of actions that his Administration will take to curb dangerous emissions of heat-trapping pollutants.

In that Climate Action Plan, the President directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop Carbon Pollution Standards for new and existing power plants.

Power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gases in America, and there are currently no federal limits on the amount of climate-destabilizing pollutants that these plants can put into the air.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the attacks on the Carbon Pollution Standards had begun months earlier.

Those attacks included the usual sensational, defeatist, and wholly-unsupported claims designed to delay, deny, and obstruct progress.

Quieter but no less sensational are the attacks launched by the lawyers of obstructionist fossil fuel interests. Hunton & Williams, on behalf of the opaque Utility Air Regulatory Group, is leading the pack.

The legal attacks on the standards for existing power plants effectively boil down to this:

  1. EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to establish any actual limits on carbon pollution.
  2. If EPA does have that authority, there are no demonstrated measures to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, so any required emission reductions must at most be "minimal."

We disagree. 

In this white paper, we lay out the legal foundation for EPA’s authority to work with the states to ensure implementation of strong and cost-effective Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants.

These standards can support our nation’s transition to a cleaner, safer, smarter power infrastructure and deliver the reductions in carbon pollution we so urgently need.

In the President’s words:

Our progress here will be measured differently, in crises averted, in a planet preserved. But can we imagine a more worthy goal? For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.

America is united by these hopes and dreams for a better world. Thanks to the ingenuity of our engineers and inventors, and the skill of our workers, the solutions are at hand to build a cleaner power sector and to use energy more efficiently.

The Clean Air Act provides a framework under which EPA and the states can work together to deploy these solutions. We need only work together — in red states, blue states and purple states alike — to meet this challenge.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy, What Others are Saying| Comments closed
  • About this blog

    Expert to expert commentary on the science, law and economics of climate change.

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Meet The Bloggers

    Megan CeronskyMegan Ceronsky
    Attorney

    Nat KeohaneNat Keohane
    Vice President for International Climate

    Ilissa Ocko
    High Meadows Fellow, Office of Chief Scientist

    Peter Zalzal
    Staff Attorney

    Gernot Wagner
    Senior Economist

    Graham McCahan
    Attorney

    Mandy Warner
    Climate & Air Policy Specialist

    Pamela Campos
    Attorney

    Kritee
    High Meadows Scientist

  • Posts by topic

  • Archives