Climate 411

Just Two Actions May Stop the Planet’s Runaway Warming

By Ilissa Ocko / Published: June 16, 2015

I was 15 and I was trying to impress a boyfriend with my rollerblading skills — from the top of a steep hill. Before I knew it, I was flying uncontrollably toward traffic. I knew I needed to both slow down and change course . . . or things wouldn’t end well.

I did, and I survived, but I’ve recently thought about that day and those actions as I have considered the urgency needed for the planet to slow down and change course as the climate warms. With two major actions, we can slow the rate of global warming while also preventing “runaway” warming: nations must reduce emissions of both short-lived and long-lived pollutants.

All emissions are not equal

The way people talk and think about the long and short-term impacts of various greenhouse gasses is critical for making smart policy decisions that can effectively slow how fast the climate changes while limiting warming in the future.

While the maximum extent of warming relies on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because they last for centuries in the atmosphere, the rate of climate change is controlled by short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane.

Like carbon dioxide, methane is a gas that warms the Earth by trapping heat. Pound for pound, methane is more than 100 times more powerful than CO2 because methane is much more efficient at absorbing heat. But that number changes depending on how far out you look.

Comparing emissions of gases with vastly different radiative impacts and atmospheric lifetimes requires a metric that depends on what timeframe you care about, such as the next decade or next century. One way scientists deal with the temporal differences is by measuring the global warming potential of gases over two time periods: 20 years and 100 years.

Methane is 84 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 over the first 20 years after they are both emitted, and 28 times more effective over 100 years, because most of the methane breaks down in the first 50 years after it is released due to oxidizing chemical reactions. When discussing what actions to take to reduce methane we must think about methane’s potency in both timeframes.

Our best chance of combating climate change

Since the Industrial Revolution, methane in the atmosphere has increased by a whopping 150 percent. While in the same period, CO2 levels have gone up 40 percent. Around one quarter of today’s human-caused warming is attributable to emissions of methane, while human-caused CO2 emissions account for around half.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is currently undertaking efforts to reduce emissions of some of the most damaging greenhouse gas emissions  responsible for climate change: methane pollution from oil and gas operations and carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. This strategy has prompted questions about which climate pollutant should take priority. But the discussion of whether to cut methane emissions first and carbon dioxide later — or vice versa — is not helpful or necessary. We need a two-pronged strategy to stay safe.

Understanding the urgent need to reduce all types of climate pollution, the Obama administration is expected to move forward with rules to mitigate both methane and carbon dioxide in the next few months. This summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to propose the first ever direct regulation of methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, and finalize its Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.

Another agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, is also expected to soon propose important rules to reduce wasteful venting, flaring and leaking of methane associated with the production of oil and natural gas on public lands.

Nations cannot solve the climate crisis and prevent serious impacts without simultaneously reducing both short-lived and long-lived climate pollutants. Reducing CO2 will limit the overall warming the planet will experience generations from now, which will have profound impacts on limiting sea level rise and other dangerous consequences.

Reducing warming caused by methane during our lifetime will also reduce the likelihood of extreme weather events and species extinctions — and, a slower rate also provides more time for societies and ecosystems to adapt to changes.

This post originally appeared on LiveScience.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, Energy, Science / Comments are closed

Opportunities for Streamlined, Cost-Effective, and Legally Durable Implementation of the Clean Power Plan

By Tomas Carbonell / Published: June 9, 2015

Stroller Brigade 012This post was co-written by EDF’s Peter Zalzal

The U.S. is poised to take an historic step this summer.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will finalize the Clean Power Plan, which will create our nation’s first-ever standards for carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. These power plants account for almost 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution, so these new standards are critical to mitigating climate change and protecting public health.

The proposed Clean Power Plan builds on a tradition of partnering with states to reduce air pollution and to protect public health and the environment. For each state, EPA has proposed an individualized carbon pollution goal that reflects the composition of the state’s power sector and its opportunities for cost-effective reductions. Each state will then have the opportunity to design a plan for meeting its goal that is tailored to its unique circumstances and priorities.

In designing these plans, states will have a critical opportunity to ensure that carbon pollution reductions are achieved in a way that delivers important public health protections for all Americans, especially environmental justice communities that bear a disproportionate share of ambient air pollution burdens.

States will also be able to leverage a full suite of cost-effective measures for carbon pollution reduction, including a variety of approaches highlighted in a recent report by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, as well as energy efficiency measures that directly benefit consumers – including low-income households — by lowering their energy bills.

Our new EDF white paper examines how states can design plans that meet federal requirements using well-established regulatory emissions management tools and, at the same time, preserve the compliance flexibility needed to secure cost-effective pollution reduction.

A state would start by designing a plan that places responsibility for meeting the carbon pollution goals directly on entities that own or operate fossil-fuel fired power plants, as many states have already done in the context of other air pollutants. These source-specific standards could be designed to meet either rate-based state goals (requiring that facilities meet a particular level of carbon intensity per unit of generating output), or mass-based state goals (requiring that facilities obtain emission allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit).

These standards would be incorporated into facility-level operating permits. They could also be designed to allow for cost-effective compliance flexibilities — including averaging and trading of emissions among facilities, and recognition of emission reductions from energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, or other measures that reduce pollution from regulated facilities.

Such an approach would allow states and power companies to decide which compliance strategies are most appropriate for regulated entities, and would complement other state policies supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy without requiring that those policies be incorporated into the state plan.

To maximize flexibility, our white paper identifies some common elements that would make state plans compatible with each other, enabling interstate trading of compliance instruments (for states that prefer to do so) without the need for complex negotiations about program design.

Our white paper also examines existing legal frameworks in several states and identifies ample legal authorities that could be used to implement the approach we describe.

For states that don’t submit their own plans to achieve the required emissions reductions, EPA will provide a federal plan for achieving the state’s carbon pollution goal. Having already designed similar plans for other air pollutants, EPA has the experience and the legal authority to design federal plans that promote flexible and cost-effective compliance.

Among the options for a federal plan, our paper describes the advantages of one that provides for a mass-based state emissions goal that is achieved through an emissions trading program – a time-tested approach that has been used successfully by both states and EPA across a variety of administrations to reduce other pollutants from the power sector.

A federal plan could also incorporate the same common elements we describe for state plans, enabling entities covered by the federal plan to more easily trade compliance instruments with entities in other states.

For each federal plan, EPA could work with the affected state to customize it by incorporating the state’s preferences on issues such as the allocation of emission allowances. Like our approach to state plans, this suggested approach for the federal plan would complement any current and future state policies to encourage clean energy, while preserving the ability of the states to change those policies over time.

Our white paper shows that the proposed Clean Power Plan is, at its core, a traditional emissions management program that can be implemented through well-established regulatory approaches mirroring other successful Clean Air Act programs.

Check out our white paper for more information on how both state and federal plans could achieve carbon pollution goals while providing maximum flexibility for compliance, all within existing legal frameworks.

Photo source: Moms Clean Air Force

Also posted in Clean Power Plan / Comments are closed

More Efficient Trucks Will Improve the Bottom Line

By Jason Mathers / Published: June 3, 2015

Here in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation will unveil new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for big trucks soon, according to the New York Times. At first glance, many companies might conclude that these new polices do not impact them. They’d be mistaken.

In fact, they would be overlooking an enormous opportunity to cut costs while delivering real-world progress on sustainability.

The fact is that nearly every company in the United States is reliant on heavy trucks, which move 70% of U.S. freight. Brands and manufacturers use trucks to bring in supplies and ship out final products. Retailers and grocers count on trucks to keep the shelves stocked. Technology companies need trucks to deliver the hardware that powers their online services. Even Major League Baseball has turned its dependence on trucking into a quasi-holiday.

More efficient trucks matter to all business because they will cut supply chain costs.

Last year, American businesses spent $657 billion dollars on trucking services. A lot of that money went to pay for fuel – the top cost for trucking, accounting for nearly 40% of all costs.

EDF and Ceres teamed up with MJ Bradley and Associates to assess how strong heavy truck fuel efficiency standards would benefit businesses that rely on trucking. In an update of analysis originally produced last year, we found that companies could see freight rates fall nearly 7% as owners of tractor-trailer units see their costs fall by $0.21/mile. Given that class 8 trucks logged nearly 170 billion miles last year, that $0.21 per mile savings, for example, equates to $34 billion dollars less in annual freight costs.

The magnitude of the savings in this update was consistent with our findings from last year; however, there are important changes in the underlying cost structure. In this new analysis we modeled significantly lower future U.S. diesel prices, in light of new fuel cost projections by the Energy Information Administration. We also updated the cost of more efficient equipment based on recent analysisby the International Council on Clean Transportation.

These savings add up for large shippers. A big consumer goods company, for example, could save over $10 million a year in 2030 by using trucking companies with newer trucks. As an added kicker, these trucks also would help meet the supply chain sustainability targets that leading brands are increasingly setting.

So, while your company may not own or make big trucks, cleaner, more efficient trucks hold a big opportunity for its triple bottom line.

This post originally appeared on our EDF + Business Blog.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Energy / Comments are closed

Fewer emissions from trucks equals more money in your pocket. Here’s why.

By Jason Mathers / Published: May 18, 2015
Source: Flickr/raymondclarkeimages

Like most Americans, I’ve bought a few things over the past week: a few shrubs to plant in the backyard, brake cables for my bike and some odds and ends for the new baby we’re expecting in a few weeks.

Each of these items got most of the way to me by riding in the back of a diesel-guzzling tractor-trailer.

Trucks are the main way goods move to market in our country today; 69 percent of freight was carried this way in 2014.  Trucking dominates because it is fast, safe, reliable and affordable.

What it’s not – yet – is very fuel-efficient.

The average tractor trailer truck today will burn 20,000 gallons of diesel this year alone – the same volume of fuel used by 50 new passenger cars. Fuel is a top cost for trucking and we pay for it through our everyday purchases.

At the same time, heavy-duty trucks – while making up only 4 percent of registered vehicles – account for 25 percent of vehicle fuel use.

This is why the Obama administration, with important business support, is taking action to tighten fuel-efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles in standards expected to be proposed in the next month.

Trucks spend $135B per year on fuel

The average United States household pays more than $1,100 a year to fuel heavy trucks. That is a lot of money for my family, especially with a second college fund now needed, and it probably is a fair amount for your family, too.

Across our country, the total financial bill exceeds $135 billion annually – and that is in addition to a significant and growing environmental cost.

Every year, our nation’s fleet of big trucks emits the same amount of carbon dioxide as do 130 coal plants. Climate pollution from these trucks is growing fast.

A recent assessment from the U.S. Energy Information Agency projected that greenhouse gas emissions from heavy trucks will increase more than any other single end-use source by 2040.

This is because increased demand for trucking services is projected to greatly exceed improvements in fuel efficiency.  Without action, producing and burning fuel in these trucks will account for nearly 30 percent of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions in 2040.

$400 in annual household savings

President Obama’s call in early 2014 for a new round of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for our nation’s biggest trucks is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dramatically alter course.

We have the technology today to cost-effectively cut fuel consumption by 40 percent and a regulatory framework that is already producing impressive results. A recent assessmentby the International Council on Clean Transportation found that advanced efficiency technologies, now emerging in the marketplace, can double heavy truck fuel economy with payback periods of 18 months or less in the 2025 to 2030 time frame.

Households and businesses will immediately benefit from the new truck efficiency standards.

U.S. households, alone, stand to save more than $400 a yearas the fuel efficiency solutions are scaled up. This will produce an annual economic benefit of $50 billion dollars.

Businesses that rely on trucks to bring their products to market, meanwhile, could see freight costs drop by as much as 7 percent.

The standards will also avoid 270 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, cut emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics from fuel production and combustion, and reduce oil consumption by 1.4 million barrels a day – or more than we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

The protective standards make sense for consumers, families, businesses, trucking companies and the Earth. Sounds like a win to me.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution / Comments are closed

Déjà vu: Pushback to U.S. Clean Power Plan Reminiscent of 2011 Mercury Rule

By EDF Blogs / Published: May 15, 2015

By Susan Tierney,  Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc.

This post originally appeared on World Resources Institute’s Insights blog.

Did you notice the massive blackout on April 16th, 2015?Reversed-GoldBackground

Actually, I didn’t either. That’s because the electric system didn’t falter. The fact that April 16th came and went without a reliability glitch was both nothing unusual and also a really big deal. Because history has a habit of repeating itself, it’s worth understanding why April 16th was a remarkable (and remarkably dull) milestone in electric-industry history.

The Origins of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS)

Back in 2010, just under a third of all U.S. power-plant capacity burned coal to produce electricity. Many of those plants were emitting unhealthy levels of toxic air pollution, which forthcoming regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would limit. Critics of EPA’s rule doubted that manufacturers and installers could get enough pollution-control equipment into the market and on to power plants fast enough to meet the deadline under the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) – and that taking so much of the nation’s generating capacity off line all at once would inevitably lead to an unreliable electric system.

Before the EPA finalized its MATS rule at the end of 2011, countless groups published estimates of how many coal plants would retire due to the EPA regulations. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned that “with [the mercury rules] as the primary driver, the industry faces considerable operational challenges to complete, coordinate and schedule the necessary environmental retrofits.” Others, including opponents of the rule, argued that, in the name of reliability, the rule would need to be delayed.

In December 2011, EPA issued the final MATS rule, which gave owners of affected power plants until April 16, 2015, to either bring their plants into compliance with the new requirements or cease their operations.

That date passed two weeks ago without incident. The lights didn’t dim.

Why not? First, the EPA stood by its commitment (made in November 2011 by then-Assistant EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in testimony to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency with responsibility for electric system reliability) that “In the 40-year history of the Clean Air Act, EPA rules have never caused the lights to go out, and the lights will not go out in the future as a result of EPA rules.”

Part of the reason for that is that the EPA is nowhere near as rigid or anti-business as many observers like to portray it. The final EPA rule gave power-plant owners the ability to request an additional year of time to comply, and allowed yet another year in unusual cases where continued operation of a plant would be needed for reliability. According to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, as of March 2015, owners of 38 percent of the 460 coal-fired power plants affected by the MATS rule had requested additional time to comply and, of those, the EPA granted an extension to 95 percent.

Kentucky power plant. Photo by Cindy Cornett Seigle/Flickr

Second, the electric industry is already transitioning to rely less on coal, even without the MATS rule. Between 2011 and the end of 2014, 21.5 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power plants retired. The fact that these retirements occurred before the MATS deadline indicates that something other than EPA’s regulations is driving the least-efficient and oldest coal plants into retirement.

Coal’s ardent supporters may prefer to point the finger at EPA, but the truth is that market conditions are responsible: relatively flat electricity demand, increased supply from power plants using other domestic energy sources (natural gas, wind and solar), and price competition between natural gas and coal. Another 14.6 GW of power plants have retired or will retire in 2015. This total amount of coal-plant retirements (36.1 GW) falls at the mid-point of estimates made during the 2010-2011 period.

Third, the electric industry is dynamic. The market has responded to signals that additional electric resources are needed to replace old ones. Many projects have come forward: new power plants, upgraded transmission facilities, rooftop solar panels, energy-efficiency measures and energy-management systems. These varied responses are the norm, collectively maintaining reliability and modernizing the power system along the way.

That’s why there were no blackouts on April 16th, despite all the dire warnings.

History Repeats Itself

The reliability theme is re-emerging once again, as the states and the electric industry face the prospect of EPA finalizing its “Clean Power Plan” to control carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants. In anticipation of the final rules coming out this summer and of power plant owners having to comply with them by 2020, many observers are saying that the electric system’s reliability will be jeopardized if the EPA goes forward as planned. The latest warning came last month with a new assessment published by NERC, calling for more time to allow the industry and the states to respond to the forthcoming carbon-pollution rules.

Such warnings are common whenever there is major change in the industry, and they’re not without value: They play an important role in focusing the attention of the industry on taking the steps necessary to ensure reliable electric service.

But warnings lose their value when they are read as more than what they are. Notably, the reliability concerns currently being raised by some observers about EPA’s Clean Power Plan presume inflexible implementation, are based on worst-case scenarios, and assume that policy makers, regulators and market participants will stand on the sidelines until it is too late to act.

There is no historical basis for these assumptions. Reliability issues will be worked out by the dynamic interplay of actions by regulators, entities responsible for reliability, and market participants, all proceeding in parallel to find solutions.

EPA’s proposed carbon-pollution rule provides states and power plant owners with the means to prevent reliability problems by giving them a wide range of compliance options and plenty of operational discretion (including various market-based approaches, other means to allow emissions trading among power plants, and flexibility on deadlines to meet interim targets). And EPA Administrator McCarthy has stated repeatedly that her agency will write a final rule that reflects the importance of a reliable grid and provides the appropriate flexibility.

One of the best ways to assure electric reliability will be for states to actively avail themselves of the Clean Power Plan’s flexibility, rather than “just say no.” States that do not take advantage of this flexibility and then suggest that EPA’s regulations led to unreliable and uneconomic outcomes may be courting a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more states sit in the driver seat and figure out how to arrive at the emissions-reduction destination in a manner consistent with their goals and preferences, the more likely it is that they’ll accomplish them.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, Energy, Health / Comments are closed

Three Climate Leadership Openings Corporate America Can’t Afford to Miss

By EDF Blogs / Published: May 7, 2015

By Ben Ratner, Senior Manager, Corporate Partnerships Program

Too much ink has been spilled on the anti-climate furor of the Koch brothers. If we lose on climate, it won’t be because of the Koch brothers or those like them.

It will be because too many potential climate champions from the business community stood quietly on the sidelines at a time when America has attractive policy opportunities to drive down economy-endangering greenhouse gas emissions.

Corporate executives have the savvy to understand the climate change problem and opportunity. They have the incentive to tackle it through smart policy, and the clout to influence politicians and policy makers. Perhaps most importantly, they can inspire each other.

And today, they have a chance to do what they do best: lead. Corporate climate leadership has nothing to do with partisanship – it’s ultimately about business acumen.

For starters, here are three immediate opportunities smart companies won’t want to miss.

1. Clean Power Plan: Will spur new jobs and investments.

The Obama administration’s plan will cut emissions from coal plants by 30 percent by 2030. This is expected to trigger a wave of clean energy investment and job creation. It will also seize energy efficiency opportunities and take advantage of America’s abundant and economic supply of natural gas.

Every company with an energy-related greenhouse gas footprint has something to gain from a cleaner power mix. Each one of those companies therefore has a stake in theClean Power Plan.

Google and Starbucks – two large and profitable American companies by any standard – are among more than 200 businesses that have already stepped up to voice their support.

Who will follow them?

2. First-ever methane rules: Will make industry more efficient.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming methane emission rules are another opportunity for business leaders to weigh in.

The rules are part of a White House plan that seeks to reducemethane emissions – a major contributor to global warming and resource waste – by almost half in the oil and gas industry.

Globally, an estimated 3.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas leaks from the sector each year. This wasted resource would be worth about $30 billion in new revenue if sold on the energy market.

Some oil and gas companies that have already taken positive steps include Anadarko, Noble and Encana, which helped develop the nation’s first sensible methane rules in Colorado.

Engaging to support strong and sensible national standards isa good next step for companies in this space. And for others with a stake in cleaning up natural gas, such as chemical companies, and manufacturers and users of natural gas vehicles.

3. New truck standards: Can help companies cut expenses and emissions.

New clean truck standards are scheduled for release this summer. Consumer goods companies and other manufacturers stand to see significant dollar and emissionsavings as they move their goods to market.

Cummins, Wabash, Fed Ex, Con-Way, Eaton and Waste Management are among those that applauded the decision to move forward with new standards.

Putting capitalism to work

American business leadership is still the global standard and will remain so if it adds climate policy to its to-do list. While it will take time to build the bi-partisan momentum for comprehensive national climate legislation, there are immediate opportunities to move the needle.

Which companies will take the field?

Image source: Flickr/Don McCullough

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, Economics, Energy / Comments are closed