State Representative Lon Burnam provided us with a sampling of documents showing the influence exerted by industry during the tail end of the process. These are just a smattering of the roughly five reams of paper his office received in response to a public information request.
In hopes that it might serve as a resource to others, we are also posting several other documents pertaining to the rulemaking:
Last week’s rolling blackouts have left a lot of people wondering what (or who) exactly is to blame. While it’s clear that incredibly cold weather played a significant role, details have only now begun to trickle out about the root causes of the rolling blackouts – and what helped save Texas from a system wide blackout that would have taken hours, if not days, from which to recover. That didn’t stop a lot of people from throwing out bizarre conspiracy theories, unfounded assertions, or claims about the need to build more fossil fuel plants in Texas, all before the facts were even known.
Just the Facts, Please
We’ll get to that soon enough, but first let’s hear from someone who really knows what happened – Trip Doggett, head of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the state’s electric grid and ordered utilities to begin rolling blackouts to avert a more serious crisis. In a Texas Tribune interview last week Doggett said: “Our problem was more around the 50 generating units who had issues with their lack of winterization or insufficient winterization efforts that caused the major problem.” 50 generating units. About 7,000 MW of fossil fuel plants, or more than 10% of the supply on the grid, went down last week because of ‘insufficient weatherization.’ Read More
A Superior Court in San Francisco issued a tentative ruling last week in a lawsuit filed in 2009 by environmental justice (EJ) groups. The groups are asserting that the state’s Air Resources Board (CARB) failed to comply with statutory requirements of AB 32 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it adopted the law’s Scoping Plan—the blueprint for cutting pollution to 1990 levels by 2020—in late 2008.
The tentative ruling affirms CARB’s authority, under AB 32, to pursue a market-based cap-and-trade program combined with an extensive list of other emissions reduction measures. The court’s finding aligns with arguments EDF made about AB 32’s broad grant of authority in an amicus brief filed for the case last July. The ruling also states that CARB should have more fully assessed alternatives to emissions trading in its companion CEQA document. In response to this finding, the court requests that state regulators halt implementation of AB 32 and complete further analysis. The court also raised a larger question about whether one of CARB’s long-standing procedures for regulatory adoption is potentially flawed at meeting the ‘spirit of the [CEQA] law,’ an issue that will likely warrant further attention.
What happens next will be determined once the state and plaintiffs file another round of paperwork in the coming days. Under California Rule of Court 3.1590, CARB has 15 days after the release of the tentative ruling to file an objection. While the court said that CARB should not implement the Scoping Plan (which includes roughly 70 measures) until the deficiencies are fixed, it is hard to imagine that putting in place other measures—ranging from using more renewable energy to improving building efficiency—would be barred by the order.
A likely outcome of the tentative ruling is that CARB will release more analysis of regulatory program alternatives to reduce greenhouse gases in the context of the Scoping Plan, something the agency did extensive work on while this case was moving forward. The judge will determine what procedure CARB must use to make the alternatives analysis public. As it releases this additional analysis, CARB can simultaneously appeal the court’s decision (once it becomes final).
It’s worth noting that both CARB and the California Department of Public Health evaluated the potential impacts of a cap-and-trade program and found that the regulation was not likely to cause any adverse impacts to public health and welfare—especially if money raised from the program is reinvested in California communities to help protect against the impacts of climate change.
Though the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and precise next steps are uncertain at this point, EDF believes the process will be completed in plenty of time to allow California’s ground breaking cap-and-trade program to start on schedule next January. Given the urgency of transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and unlocking the potential for economic and job growth, this would be good news for California.
Chutzpah. That’s how Washington lawyer Matt Armstrong, of Bracewell & Giuliani, characterized the possibility that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would now take enforcement action against natural gas drillers who injected millions of gallons of diesel fuel into the ground to facilitate hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, to extract natural gas trapped in shale formations thousands of feet below. His point was that the EPA – having taken little action to develop clear regulations banning or restricting this particular practice – can’t pretend that they always disapproved of diesel fuel injection now that a Congressional investigation spearheaded by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey has brought it to light.
While I think Armstrong may have a point about the EPA being asleep at the switch on this one, and I take him at his word that he, and the natural gas industry clients he represents, welcome clear and effective federal regulations restricting or – better yet – banning this practice, I can’t help but conclude that it is the natural gas industry, rather than the EPA, that wins the award for chutzpah.
Part of the reason that anti-shale gas campaigners are gaining such traction with the general public is that the natural gas industry makes it so easy for them. Does any CEO of any natural gas production company really think that the general public would ever believe that injecting diesel fuel into the ground is a good idea? This little episode only further underscores the perception that when the natural gas industry unflinchingly opposes public disclosure of the chemicals used in “frac fluids” – or, as my colleague Ramon Alvarez pointed out yesterday – when the oil and gas industry sue to block recently adopted EPA regulations requiring basic air pollution reporting that, indeed, the industry really does have something to hide.
Being tone deaf to public perception is not a crime, but when you turn around and blame the regulatory agency you regularly oppose for failing to stop you from engaging in what is obviously a potentially harmful practice that they should have been regulating, you certainly are guilty of chutzpah. If the natural gas industry ever expects to be embraced as a responsible partner in transitioning this nation to a safe, secure, low-carbon, clean energy future, natural gas production practices need to dramatically improve and the stonewalling and finger pointing at others need to stop.
It was disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising, that Chesapeake Energy and three natural gas industry trade associations filed legal challenges to EPA’s new rule that requires assessment and public disclosure of the industry’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
I find it ironic that the industry that touts itself as the “low-carbon” fossil fuel is fighting efforts to require disclosure of its global warming pollution.
Learn more about this in our news release sent out earlier today.
By: Elena Craft
A recent article published in the Press Democrat repeats some of the same allegations (as well as some misleading information) that we’ve heard before regarding concerns about Compact Florescent Lights (CFLs), such as:
The literature on the impact of CFLs in the marketplace is robust, and we at EDF have responded many times to the concerns raised. We list here some of the most frequently asked questions and provide additional resources for those who wish to investigate CFLs further.
Why are CFLs better for the environment?
CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, and therefore result in a reduced consumption of power (a 15-watt fluorescent bulb, for instance, generates the same amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent. This makes a fluorescent bulb about four times more efficient). Since approximately 45% of the energy generated in the US comes from coal, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs goes a long way with respect to energy conservation. In addition, since coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of mercury emissions in the US, reducing energy consumption through energy efficiency measures (like replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFLs) results in less mercury that ends up in our lakes and streams from power plants (even if all of the CFLs were to be disposed of in landfills, which we hope they don’t!) As a result, less mercury ends up accumulating in our environment, in wildlife, and in sport fish.
Are CFLs better for your pocketbook?
Because CFLs use less energy, your electricity bill will be lower. The savings vary of course, depending on how many bulbs you install and how long the lights are on. Assuming that the light is on for 6 hours per day and that the electric rate is 11.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, the Department of Energy has estimated that replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL will save $105 over the life of the light. One public utility in Washington State has estimated that if every American household were to replace the five most frequently used light fixtures or bulbs with CFLs, then each family would save about $60 a year in energy costs. [They consider the five most frequently used light fixtures to be: kitchen ceiling lights, table and floor lamps in the living and family rooms, and outdoor porch lights]. If the average home converts all of the average 40 bulbs in a home from incandescent to CFLs it would roughly triple those savings.
Do CFLs contribute to migraines?
In the past, CFLs might have contributed to headaches. The contribution of CFLs to headaches was a result of the flickering of light produced by the magnetic ballasts that powered fluorescent lamps at about 60 cycles per second. Fluorescent lighting used today uses electronic ballasts that operate at 40,000 cycles per second, resulting in imperceptible flickering to the eye. For more information, see here.
Do CFLs cause electromagnetic interference?
The answer is that it is possible for CFLs to cause electromagnetic interference, but these electric and magnetic fields have not been found to pose a health hazard to the general population.
From EPA’s Energy Star website:
Similar to linear fluorescent lighting and other electronics, it is possible for CFLs to cause electromagnetic interference (EMI). Electromagnetic interference is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and ENERGY STAR includes these requirements by reference for CFLs. In addition, ENERGY STAR requires CFLs to use ballasts that operate at greater than 40 kHz, which limits the potential for interference. Finally, ENERGY STAR requires that the product package clearly state any devices that the CFL has potential to interfere with. This information is usually found along with other statements of known incompatibility with controls and application exceptions.
How much mercury is in the CFL bulbs?
The amount of mercury in CFLs varies, depending on the type and wattage of the bulb. If the bulb is rated as an Energy Star bulb (as most are), then it should contain no more than 5 mg of mercury (5 mg is barely enough to see with the naked eye; for comparison, the amount of mercury in a non-electronic thermometer or thermostat is about 500 mg). In response to concerns from the public about mercury in the bulbs, some members of the Association of Electrical and Medical Equipment Manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to minimize the mercury content in the bulbs. Under the terms of the commitment, participating companies have agreed to cap the average mercury content of CFL models of less than 25 watts at 4.0 mg per lamp. CFL models that use 25 to 40 watts of electricity have capped average mercury content at 5.0 mg per lamp. Environmental Working Group published a list of bulbs that have even lower levels (in the 1-2.7 mg/bulb range) of mercury. You can print out their mercury guide here.
Are there special considerations with regard to cleaning up broken bulbs?
Yes. Because the bulbs contain mercury, there are special considerations with regard to clean-up of a broken bulb. The recommended protocol for cleaning up a broken CFL is the following:
You can find more details regarding the step-by-step clean-up instructions on EPA’s webpage.
Why should you recycle CFLs?
Because the bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, it is advised that you recycle the bulbs at any number of collection points, including places like The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Ikea. Because the bulbs last longer than incandescent, the average home should generate very few bulbs per year. You can find a list of recycling resources here.
So what’s the final conclusion?
Are CFLs the perfect energy solution? No, but they are a big step in the right direction. To help determine what kinds of CFLs are right for you, check out this guide.
