Climate 411

A Big Week in Court for the Clean Power Plan: Defenders of the Historic Measure File Briefs

By Tomas Carbonell / Published: March 28, 2016
source: Flickr

source: Flickr

This is a big week for those of us fighting to protect the Clean Power Plan in court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is preparing to hear arguments on the merits of the historic measure to reduce climate pollution and protect public health. Opponents are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan, and they won an emergency stay from the Supreme Court – but no court has yet heard the case on its merits. The merits are being briefed now before the D.C. Circuit Court, which will hold oral argument on June 2nd.

Supporters of the Clean Power Plan file briefs with the D.C. Circuit Court this week.

EPA filed its response to challengers today, writing:

The [Clean Power Plan] will secure critically important reductions in carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions from what are by far the largest emitters in the United States—fossil-fuel-fired power plants. CO2 and other heat-trapping greenhouse-gas emissions pose a monumental threat to Americans’ health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time. These effects include rising sea levels that could flood coastal population centers; increasingly frequent and intense weather events such as storms, heat waves, and droughts; impaired air and water quality; shrinking water supplies; the spread of infectious disease; species extinction; and national security threats …

The Clean Air Act … provides the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) well-established authority to abate threats to public health and welfare by limiting the amount of air pollution that power plants pump into the atmosphere. For decades, a host of CAA regulatory programs have limited various pollutants emitted by these plants …

This critically important Rule marks a significant step forward in addressing the Nation’s most urgent environmental threat. Fossil-fuel-fired power plants are, far and away, the largest stationary sources of CO2 pollution, and no meaningful effort to abate climate change can fail to address them. EPA’s authority and responsibility under Section 111(d) to control this pollution is well-established and was central to the Supreme Court’s holding in AEP that ‘the [CAA] and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common-law right to seek abatement of [CO2] emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.’ 564 U.S. at 424. EPA has properly performed its Congressionally assigned task to limit this pollution …

The [Clean Power Plan] reflects the eminently reasonable exercise of EPA’s recognized statutory authority. It will achieve cost-effective CO2 reductions from an industry that has already demonstrated its ability to comply with robust pollution-control standards through the same measures and flexible approaches. The Rule fulfills both the letter and spirit of Congress’s direction in the Act, and the petitions should be denied. (Pages 1, 3 and 25; Read the full brief here)

Environmental Defense Fund is a party to the case and will file a brief in support of the Clean Power Plan tomorrow, along with a broad and diverse coalition that includes numerous states, cities, power companies, clean energy companies, public health and medical associations, and environmental organizations.

A wide range of supporters will file amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs on Friday, April 1st.

The Clean Power Plan

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effort is the single biggest step America has ever taken to address the threat of climate change. It established the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from fossil-fuel fired power plants.

Fossil fuel-fired power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for almost 40 percent of the country’s carbon pollution. There is enormous potential for the power sector to reduce pollution by shifting to clean sources of energy – with immense attendant benefits for the health of our families and communities, for creating jobs and strengthening the American economy, and for safeguarding our planet for our children.

EPA estimates that by 2030, the Clean Power Plan will:

  • Reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels
  • Save 3,600 lives annually
  • Prevent 90,000 childhood asthma attacks annually
  • Save American families almost $85 on their annual energy bill

The standards not only have huge benefits, they are eminently achievable. On a national basis, the power sector has already reduced carbon pollution emissions by 15 percent since 2005, a faster rate of reduction than the Clean Power Plan requires.

The Clean Power Plan gives states extensive flexibility to forge pollution-reduction strategies tailored to their individual needs and economic opportunities. In fact, many states around the country – including some that are suing to stop it — are already well on their way towards meeting the emission limits set forth in the Clean Power Plan.

History of the Case

Opponents of the Clean Power Plan, including major emitters of harmful carbon pollution, started suing to stop it before EPA even finished writing it. (Various courts threw out those lawsuits).

Opponents unsuccessfully petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court for an emergency stay. After two months of briefing and weeks of careful review, a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit Court denied motions to stay the Clean Power Plan on January 21st of this year. The court also set an expedited schedule to hear lawsuits on its merits.

In a highly unusual decision, the Supreme Court then overruled the unanimous D.C. Circuit Court panel by a 5-to-4 vote, and granted an emergency stay of the Clean Power Plan. However, the Supreme Court’s order was not a decision on the merits of the case. It put the Clean Power Plan on pause, but it did not rule against it.

Leading legal experts have explained that the stay does not require EPA to stop all work related to the Clean Power Plan, nor does it require postponement of compliance deadlines – see this well-reasoned piece by New York University Law School dean emeritus Richard Revesz.

The Clean Power Plan Rests on a Solid Legal and Technical Foundation

EPA’s authority – and responsibility – to regulate carbon pollution from the power sector under the Clean Air Act is well-established.

The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007. In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court specifically held that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the provision that underlies the Clean Power Plan – “speaks directly” to the regulation of carbon pollution from existing power plants.

This conclusion was, in fact, stated before the Supreme Court by attorneys for some of the nation’s largest power companies – who declared unequivocally at oral argument that EPA has authority to regulate carbon pollution from the power sector under section 111(d):

We believe that the EPA can consider, as it’s undertaking to do, regulating existing nonmodified sources under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, and that’s the process that’s engaged in now… Obviously, at the close of that process there could be APA challenges on a variety of grounds, but we do believe that they have the authority to consider standards under section 111. – (Counsel for petitioners in AEP v. Connecticut)

As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA also exhaustively analyzed the Clean Power Plan to ensure that it is based on the best available technical information and will not compromise the affordable, reliable supply of electricity. EPA’s review of the millions of comments it received on every aspect of the proposed version of the Clean Power Plan has only strengthened the technical foundations of the final rule.

The Clean Power Plan Has Extraordinarily Broad Support

A broad and diverse group of entities has been standing up for the Clean Power Plan in court, and are expected to be among an even larger group filing this week. Some of these groups, including EDF, are parties to the case. Others will be filing as friends of the court.

The list of supporters includes:

  • The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the cities of Baltimore (MD), Coral Gables (FL), Grand Rapids (MI), Houston (TX), Jersey City (NJ), Los Angeles (CA), Minneapolis (MN), Portland (OR), Pinecrest (FL), Providence (RI), Salt Lake City (UT), San Francisco (CA), West Palm Beach (FL) and Boulder County (CO).
  • 18 states and seven other cities – including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
  • Power Companies – including Calpine, National Grid Generation, Southern California Edison and the cities of Austin (TX) and Seattle (WA) which are engaging through their municipal power departments.
  • Leading medical and public health associations like the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, and the American Medical Association.
  • The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School.
  • Two former EPA Administrators who served under Republican Presidents Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
  • A number of former state energy and environmental regulators, including a former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and former officials from several of the states whose attorney generals are challenging the rule.
  • A host of clean energy companies represented by Advanced Energy Economy and the national wind and solar associations, on behalf of America’s $200 billion clean energy industry.

States and Power Companies are Moving Ahead to Cut Dangerous Carbon Pollution

After the Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, many states and power companies are continuing to expeditiously move forward with compliance planning and stakeholder engagement.

More than twenty states across the country – both states that oppose the Clean Power Plan and states that are strongly supportive — have indicated they are going to continue forward with the specifics of compliance planning, or have indicated they will stay on course to meet emissions reductions obligations. For example:

Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment said:

[I]it is prudent… to move forward during the litigation to ensure that the state is not left at a disadvantage… because the Supreme Court did not say whether the stay would change the rule’s compliance deadlines, Colorado could lose valuable time if it delays its work on the state plan and the rule is ultimately upheld.

New Mexico’s Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn said in a statement:

[D]espite capricious political winds, the New Mexico Environment Department remains committed to taking meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gases by a projected 5.7 million tons by the end of 2017.

South Carolina has also indicated it expects to continue work to decarbonize the state’s power industry, an effort which began two years ago.

Power companies across the country echo these sentiments, with many clearly recognizing that it is high-risk strategy for states to put down their pencils. In addition to creating unnecessary regulatory risk for companies making investment decisions, many companies are committed to moving forward with emissions reduction strategies.

American Electric Power, an electricity provider and one of the country’s top coal users, says the court case:

[D]oesn’t change our focus on the diversification of our generation fleet, [and]  those diversification plans include more natural gas and renewables.

The many and diverse supporters of the Clean Power Plan recognize that climate change is a threat to all of us, and that we must take action to address that threat. Allowing power plants to discharge unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air is a clear and present danger to public health, the environment and our economy, and we cannot allow it to continue. EDF is proud to be part of this vibrant group of supporters.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, EPA litgation, Policy / Comments are closed

Let’s Stop Pitting In-Store vs. Online Shopping: Both Need to Up Their Sustainability

By Jason Mathers / Published: March 18, 2016

We all like clear-cut, simple, black and white answers. But the world, as you well know, is a really complex place. Yet despite this general acknowledgment of complexity, we still get caught-up in simplified debates: paper vs plastic; cloth vs disposable diapers; and now shopping online vs shopping at the store.

This is not a cage match. The fact of the matter is that both shopping online and shopping at stores are here to stay. And this is a good thing. We now have more choices. Citizens and companies can leverage these choices to minimize their environmental foot print.

Into the debate mindset, Simon Property Group released an assessment, Think Before You Click: Does Shopping Behavior Impact Sustainability? Simon is a leading real estate company that owns a number of malls. It also has been a host company for EDF Climate Corps.

The paper is a valuable because it sheds light on one way people shop: buying multiple items at once and combining the shopping trip with other activities. It concludes that — in the specific scenario Simon created — shopping at the store has a lower environmental impact.

To me, the conclusion is the least insightful aspect of the study. It is not surprising that a large owner of malls would choose a scenario that highlights the attributes of shopping at malls compared to shopping online. What is most insightful to me is the attributes that determine the environmental impact.

Global shopping cartDistance from a retail location, distance and method of online delivery, likelihood of returns, building energy use and packaging were all attributes that were examined in the Simon paper. These attributes were also the factors used in the most authoritative research I have yet read on the topic, which came from the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. The Simon paper went one attribute further, though.

Key to the findings of the Simon paper was the fact that its scenario includes the purchase of four items. It also made the assumption that buying these online would result in four distinct deliveries. Given the diversity of items purchased, this certainly could be the case. It however does not need to be.

The fact is there are many opportunities to reduce the environmental impact associated with goods purchased online. There are also many opportunities to reduce the environmental impact associated with goods purchased at stores. It also must be noted that transportation and packaging are but two of the numerous aspects of product lifecycle impact.

What are these opportunities?

For companies that sell online, they can:

  1. Provide incentives for customers to choose less impactful delivery options. “Free” shipping is here to stay, of course. Companies could provide reward points or other inducements for customers to choose the four to five day option instead of the two-day or overnight.
  2. Provide incentives for customers to return more sparingly. As much as a third of online purchases are returned. The environmental impact associated with the returns was a significant factor in the Simon scenario and those examined by MIT. Again, there is an opportunity here for reward points or other inducements.
  3. Get serious about tackling excessive packaging. As the New York Times recently reported, “4 million tons of containerboard were produced in 2014 in the United States, with e-commerce companies among the fastest-growing users.” Let’s deal with this.

For companies that set-up physical stores:

  1. Invest in increasing public transportation options for your locations.
  2. Increase the energy efficiency of your operations. Upgrading lighting and HVAC systems are a good place to start. Join the many other retailers hosting EDF Climate Corps fellows to undertake this type of work.
  3. Explore on-sight generation of renewable energy. An apt example here is how Simon worked with EDF Climate Corps in 2015.

Both online and bricks and mortar retailers have ample opportunities to reduce the impact of the goods moving into their warehouses and stores. Retailers and their suppliers should:

  1. Get the most out of every move. Combine and adapt packaging to maximize cube utilization.  A fuller move is a greener, as demonstrated by Walmart, Kraft and others.
  2. Choose the most carbon-efficient transport mode. Ocean Spray Cranberries and many others are cutting carbon and costs with this approach.
  3. Collaborate with other freight shippers. Colgate, Kimberly Clark and CVS are showing the way here.

The EDF Green Freight Handbook is a solid resource for companies needed to get a start on these types of actions.

The world is complex, which is good news because this complexity gives us choices. I’m choosing to focus on how to manage these complexities to improve our environment and economy. I’d love to have you join me; the only requirement is to leave the online vs. in-store mind-set at the door.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

3 reasons the Zika outbreak may be linked to climate change

By Ilissa Ocko / Published: February 17, 2016

The regions that the Zika virus outbreak has struck hardest, such as Brazil and Colombia, also happen to be areas that are currently plagued by hotter-than-usual temperatures.

So is there a connection?

The ways that virus-carrying mosquitoes change their behavior with warmer temperatures may, in fact, point to a link between the Zika outbreak and climate change like the one that exists with malaria, Lyme Disease and other ills.

While it’s important to remember that it’s probably a combination of reasons for the current Zika virus outbreak – including movement of people and available breeding grounds – there are three ways in particular that warmer weather may be contributing to the crisis:

graphic_v3 (2)

1. Hotter temperatures make mosquitoes hungrier

Female mosquitoes require blood meals for reproduction. Along with many cold-blooded animals, mosquitoes feed more frequently with higher temperatures. The more they eat, the likelier they are to get infected and spread the disease.

2. Warm air incubates the virus faster

A virus must incubate inside a mosquito before the mosquito becomes infectious. That takes about 10 days, roughly a mosquito’s lifespan, so the mosquito will often die before it can spread the disease.

But hotter temperatures speed up the incubation process in the cold-blooded mosquito, because the virus can replicate faster. This means that the mosquito will be alive longer while infectious, thus having more time to transmit the disease.

3. Mosquito territory expands as the climate warms

Mosquitoes flourish in warm climates, restricting their range based on temperature. But with climate change, plants and animals are moving northward and upward, and we know mosquitoes do the same as new areas become warmer and a suitable habitat.

As mosquitoes expand their range, they can introduce diseases to populations that otherwise would have been safely out of reach. The distribution of the Zika-carrying mosquito, in particular, has wildly increased over the past few decades, which have also been the hottest decade on Earth in more than 1,000 years.

In fact, the current epidemic took off in 2015, the hottest year in South America and globally since record-keeping began 136 years ago.

The links between mosquitoes and temperature are scientifically clear, and it’s possible that climate change may now be playing a role in the spread of the Zika virus, a disease suspected of causing serious birth defects.

To know for sure, and to help nations deal with the outbreak, more research is needed to tease out the specific causes of this global catastrophe.

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Voices blog.

Also posted in Health, Plants & Animals, Science / Comments are closed

After the Supreme Court’s Unexplained, Unexpected and Unprecedented Order — America’s Safer, Cleaner Power Supply is Moving Full Steam Ahead

By Martha Roberts / Published: February 10, 2016
Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Last night’s Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan was unexpected, and the ruling is, as counsel for one of the lead challengers acknowledged, “unprecedented.” Indeed, the Supreme Court itself found in a landmark 2011 case that the Clean Air Act “speaks directly” to carbon pollution from existing power plants.

The D.C. Circuit is now carefully reviewing the merits of the case on an expedited basis and has not concluded its review – but across America, states and leading companies know that we must reduce climate-destabilizing pollution from the power sector, and the Court’s actions will not slow down America’s race to protect our communities, our children and our economic well-being.

That race is driven by developments far broader and deeper than a temporary setback in litigation. There is every reason for our nation to work together to prepare for, and meet, pollution reduction requirements under America’s Clean Power Plan.

Across the country, low-carbon, low-cost energy resources are already coming online at historic rates. We’re cleaning up the soot and smog emissions from our power system, and providing healthier longer lives and cleaner power for millions of Americans. Numerous states and leading power companies have been pursuing a flexible system-wide approach to cutting carbon emissions for years, harnessing opportunities to save money, reduce air pollution, and build our clean energy economy. America’s race to cleaner power is moving full steam ahead.

As for the Clean Power Plan – safeguards that are supported by millions of Americans – the Supreme Court’s February 9th stay order is far from the final word. As a number of state attorneys general, leading power companies, state air pollution control officials, and legal experts have recognized, the Clean Power Plan rests on a solid legal foundation and is anchored in a rigorous technical record.

We believe that when the court examines the merits in light of the extensive, compelling technical record supporting the Clean Power Plan, with full briefing and oral argument –- a review it did not conduct before issuing the February 9th order – it will uphold these critical protections for climate and public health, and they will go into effect as scheduled in 2022.

In the meantime, America will make sure it is ready by continuing to make progress in cutting dangerous carbon pollution — bringing more than 100 GW of new wind, solar, and other renewable generation online in the next six years, and offsetting generation from more than 80 coal-fired power plants — all while forging economic prosperity.

Clean Energy Is Powering America Today

The transition to secure cleaner, low-carbon power is already well underway. In total, natural gas and clean power such as wind and solar have accounted for 94 percent of all new generation since 2000.  In recent years, these trends have been tipping more and more in favor of zero-carbon clean power, offsetting more and more carbon pollution. Indeed, market experts project that zero-carbon generation will account for more than 75 percent of new generation in 2016.

Behind these trends has been a steady decline in the cost of low- and zero-carbon electricity generating resources. Perhaps the most staggering changes are to be found in the solar industry, where prices have been falling for decades as the industry has matured, in part due to sustained investments here in the United States and abroad.

Since 2007 alone, the price of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules has fallen by more than 80 percent, and many industry analysts are projecting that these declines will continue. Meanwhile, sustained improvements in wind technology continue to reduce costs and increase capacity factors, while expanding opportunities across the nation

The very recent extension of the federal tax credits for renewables will be a further catalyst for zero carbon generation.

This new development will contribute to an expected wave of more than 100 GW of new renewables added to the grid between 2016 and 2021, which would offset generation from more than 80 coal-fired power plants. Power companies and state policymakers are recognizing and seizing the tremendous economic opportunity to secure these clean least-cost investments that will position their grid and their customers well to achieve vital reductions of carbon pollution.

America Has A Strong Time Tested History of Making Continuous Progress to Cut Dangerous Pollution from Power Plants While Growing Our Economy

America has long made continuous progress in reducing emissions from the power sector, while maintaining a low-cost and reliable electricity supply. Mercury levels in fish — the source of serious health risks, particularly for children — have been cut substantially in recent years as toxic emissions from power plants have declined. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent program to address cross-state air pollution will reduce soot- and smog-forming sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 percent from power plants in the eastern half of the U.S.

A separate standard will dramatically reduce mercury and other hazardous emissions from power plants, while also reducing soot-forming emissions by nearly twenty percent.  At the same time, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to remove market barriers to certain energy efficiency programs unleashes a powerful opportunity to build a power system that avoids emissions in the first place.

These pollution reductions have tremendous benefits for our communities — they are saving lives, protecting children from asthma attacks, improving public health and fostering the transition to fundamentally cleaner, safer power. At the same time, this progress is driving widespread interest in pollution-free electricity generation solutions that avoid pollution and also protect our climate.  America is already moving to cleaner, safer power to safeguard our communities from climate change and the array of harmful pollution discharged from aging, high emitting fossil fuel power plants

The Clean Power Plan Is Firmly Grounded in Law and Science

The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation’s clean air laws and a strong scientific record.

The Supreme Court has affirmed three times that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to address climate-destabilizing carbon pollution.  In 2011, the Court affirmed that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act –- the provision that underlies the Clean Power Plan — “speaks directly” to emissions of carbon pollution from existing power plants.

Indeed, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states harmed by climate change must look to EPA for protection rather than to common law remedies developed by federal courts. The Clean Power Plan is wholly consistent with the language of the Clean Air Act, and builds upon approaches that have been employed in other judicially-upheld Clean Air Act rules addressing the power sector.

Moreover, the Clean Power Plan rests on a rigorous, extensive technical record informed by nearly two years of public consultation, more than four million public comments, and multiple public hearings touching on nearly every aspect of the standards. Numerous key features were adopted specifically in response to comments by industry and the states on grid reliability, cost, and other issues.

The Clean Power Plan takes a flexible, cost-effective approach to addressing carbon pollution from the electricity sector — well in accord with the Supreme Court’s recognition, just last week in another major case, that the modern power system functions as “an interconnected grid of near-nationwide scope.”

A diverse coalition has joined with EPA to vigorously defend these historic safeguards in court. Eighteen states, the District of Columbia, numerous leading power companies, clean technology companies, and public health and environmental organizations have all partnered to vigorously defend the Clean Power Plan’s solid legal foundation. Twenty major municipalities across the country, from Houston to Grand Rapids and South Miami, are supporting the Clean Power Plan in court.

Moreover, a number of legal experts, law enforcement officials, and former regulators — including two former Republican Administrators of the EPA who are supporting the Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit — have recognized that the Clean Power Plan is fully consistent with the Clean Air Act and represents a common-sense, cost-effective approach to pollution reduction.

Several of our nation’s most important clean air and clean energy safeguards have undergone legal wrangling before taking effect, such as the life-saving limits on smokestack pollution discharged cross-state to downwind communities, and the decision less than two weeks ago in which the Supreme Court fundamentally affirmed important clean energy provisions after damaging legal setbacks.

We are confident that the Clean Power Plan will prevail when considered based on a careful review of the merits, in light of the compelling technical record it is founded on — a review the Supreme Court did not undertake in issuing its February 9th stay order.

In the meantime, the race is on to secure a clean energy future, as many states and power companies have already been doing over the last several years. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision alters the imperative to reduce emissions of climate-altering pollution, and capture the economic benefits of near-term investments in clean power and energy efficiency.

And there is every reason for our nation to work together to prepare for and meet pollution reduction requirements under America’s Clean Power Plan — emissions reductions that take effect by 2022, long after any legal wrangling will be complete.

States Are Investing in Cleaner Power

All of these trends are already driving major reductions in carbon pollution. Carbon dioxide emissions from the US power sector hit a 27-year low last April, the lowest amount for any month since April 1988. Overall, the power sector has already reduced emissions of carbon pollution to 15 percent below 2005 levels, and a number of states have achieved even deeper cuts in recent years. From 2005 to 2012 alone, 16 states reduced carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by at least 25 percent, and nine states actually reduced emissions by more than 40 percent.

These trends are intersecting with a period of dramatic transformation in the electricity grid. Power companies are expected to invest an estimated $2 trillion in new generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure between 2010 and 2030 in order to modernize aging generating facilities and grid systems.

Smart states and power companies will continue to take this opportunity to make forward-looking investments that harness our dynamic clean energy economy, cut carbon pollution, and avoid the risk that comes from doubling-down on outdated, dirty technologies that will become stranded in the near future.

America is securing healthier air, a safer climate, and a more resilient and affordable electricity grid — all while growing our economy. All evidence points to this race only accelerating and states and companies achieving and exceeding our nation’s targets for reducing destabilizing carbon pollution. And that’s great news for our public health, our climate security and our economy.

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, EPA litgation, Policy / Comments are closed

The Supreme Court Decides in Favor of a Critical Clean Energy Resource: Demand Response

By Michael Panfil / Published: January 25, 2016
rp_640px-Oblique_facade_2_US_Supreme_Court.jpg

Supreme Court of the United States of America

Today, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in support of a vital clean energy resource: demand response. The case, FERC v. EPSA, revolves around demand response, a resource that helps keep prices low and the lights on, all while being environmentally friendly.

It’s a significant victory for anyone in favor of a cleaner, cheaper, accessible, and more reliable grid. That describes a diverse group — consumer advocates, environmentalists, economists, states, grid operators, and leading legal scholars all filed in support of a critically important and well-designed policy creating access for demand response in wholesale energy markets.

How Demand Response Works

The incredible support for demand response exists because of how the resource works. Demand response reduces energy demand when power is needed most, rather than increasing supply from costly, carbon–emitting fuels. It relies on people and technology, not power plants, to affordably meet our country’s rising electricity needs. Think of it like crowd-sourced energy reductions, helping to reduce costs for everyone by taking the place of very expensive generation.

The Supreme Court Case

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the federal agency responsible for keeping our electricity rates “just and reasonable” (that is, fairly priced). FERC created Order 745 to further that goal, with the Order giving demand response access and equal footing in wholesale energy markets, where electricity is bought and sold. It levels the playing field between demand response and traditional sources of electricity, letting the resource compete alongside others.

And demand response has done more than compete – it’s reduced our use of unneeded, costly electricity – the exact type of electricity that should be limited if one wants “just and reasonable” rates.

In a strong, 6-2 decision written by Justice Kagan and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FERC, stating that “[w]e will not read [FERC’s authority], against its clear terms, to halt a practice that so evidently enables the Commission to fulfill its statutory duties of holding down prices and enhancing reliability in the wholesale energy market.”

Continuing Demand Response Benefits

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that demand response will keep providing important benefits — and these benefits are numerous. For example, demand response saved customers $11.8 billion in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States in 2013 alone. It likewise helped avoid blackouts during the polar vortex in 2014. And it gives customers the choice and opportunity to save money – for the grid and themselves – by taking part in demand response programs. All this, while being environmentally friendly and carbon reducing.

Also posted in Energy / Comments are closed

Climate Change and Millennials – An Entire Lifetime of Warmer Than Average Temperatures

By Ilissa Ocko / Published: January 21, 2016

While reading the announcement that 2015 had broken – indeed, shattered – the hottest year on record set by 2014, there was one fact that really made things personal: we have now had 31 straight years since a single month was cooler than the twentieth century global average temperature. That means that I have never lived through a month that wasn’t warmer than average – never once in my lifetime.

My entire career as a climate scientist is focused on reducing the threat of global warming, and yet I have never even been alive at a time when the climate was stable. I technically don’t even know what normal is.

Warmest Years on Record graphic

So on one hand, you could say that I don’t even know what I am fighting for. On the other hand, I’ve been afforded two unique opportunities because I’ve lived in the shadow of global warming my entire life.

First, because I’ve grown up at a time when heat records are broken over and over again, I was aware of this worldwide crisis during those impressionable and important “pick a major” years of college. I was thus able to set myself on a career path shaped by climate change from the get-go, rather than later on in life once I was already an established professional in something else.

Second, because my elder colleagues have already identified – with extreme confidence – that humans are the main cause of climate change, I’ve been able to focus on solutions from the get-go, and not just causes and impacts. I have thus benefitted from previous scientific research because I could explore avenues to address climate change, because if humans are the cause, then we are also the solution.

And it’s not just me; there is now an entire generation of young people motivated and empowered to do something about climate change. We – almost the entire millennial generation – have never lived in a world without global warming.

Perhaps for similar reasons to mine (and/or because we think we’re special), my generation has shown a propensity for not just caring about climate change, but doing something about it. Whether on their campuses of their schools or the communities where they live, my generation is showing that they want solutions. In fact, eighty-percent of millennials support cleaner energy in the U.S., regardless of party affiliation.

For this reason among others, I am more hopeful about our future than ever before. Climate change has been impacting my generation our whole lives, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. We didn’t ask for this challenge, but I truly believe we’ll be able to rise up to meet it.

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Science / Read 1 Response