June 2011 Climate Change Summary Report

“The Long, Hot Forecast”

June 1, 2011: From a New York Times editorial: “Heat can be deadly. … With much of the rest of the nation stuck in climate-change denial or passive fretfulness, Chicago has been planning, moving, doing — adapting streets and buildings to the coming reality of snowier winters, wetter springs and hotter summers. … Other cities should pay attention.  City planners examined a century’s worth of weather records and found the long-term trends grim. Using thermal radar, they are pinpointing the hottest areas and finding ways to cool them: removing impermeable blacktop that traps water and heat, building rooftop gardens, planting southern varieties of trees and adding air-conditioning to classrooms. The city hopes that these investments will save money. They will surely save lives.  Much of these efforts were begun under former Mayor Richard Daley, who took to heart the conclusions of the Kyoto conference on global warming. But the city, like other high-risk areas, is also facing pressure from insurance companies, which don’t relish the prospect of huge future payouts for disaster damage that could have been prevented or alleviated.  It would be far better if there were a federal framework to plan and guide the nation’s adaptation to the challenging years ahead. Given the politics on Capitol Hill, we are not optimistic. But at least in Chicago the change is taking hold.”

“Secretary of Subsidy”

June 2, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “President Obama nominated John Bryson to head the Commerce Department on Tuesday, praising the Californian as ‘a business leader who understands what it takes to innovate, create jobs and to persevere through tough times.’ That’s one way of describing someone with a talent for scoring government subsidies. Mr. Bryson, who had a long tenure running California energy company Edison International, has more recently served as chairman of BrightSource Energy, a startup specializing in solar-thermal power. Founded in 2004, the company has attracted more than $500 million in private funding and has become a renewables darling, with agreements to supply electricity to California utilities PG&E and Southern California Edison. … But the company’s SEC filing in April for a $250 million IPO tells a more, er, interesting story. The company has posted a string of net losses, totaling $177 million. … There’s also trouble at its flagship venture, a 3,600-acre solar project in the Mojave desert called Ivanpah. … The company faces at least two lawsuits from environmental coalitions. Its technology has never been implemented on a ‘utility-scale’ project, it depends on ‘unproven’ equipment necessary to clean the Mojave dust off its solar mirrors, and the project faces potential cost overruns. … Fortunately for BrightSource, its efforts are sustained by an impressive array of federal, state and local subsidies, including a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, one of the largest solar guarantees on record. …

The risk is that the subsidy spigot could someday be turned off as voters get wise to the high costs, economic inefficiencies and unintended environmental side-effects of renewables. … Which brings us back to the President’s praise for Mr. Bryson as an innovator. All technologies—including those connected to renewables—involve risk, and entrepreneurship means taking chances on innovation. But a core conceit of this Administration’s economic policy is that it can achieve better results if government allocates capital to favored companies rather than letting private markets do the job. … Senators might want to ask the nominee whether he represents a vision of ‘commerce’ that bears any relation to what is supposed to happen in a free market.”

DOE Offers More Cash for Solar Energy

June 2, 2011: UPI reports: “New funding for electronics and hardware not directly associated with solar panels could help spur alternative energy in the United States, an official said. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said his department unveiled $27 million in new funding that targeted electronics, mounting hardware and other items not directly tied to the physical solar panel. The funding would help cut some of the fees associated with solar energy and encourage homeowners, business and communities to include solar power into their energy mix, he said. Chu’s initiative is part of the so-called SunShot program, which would help spur American innovations to reduce the costs of solar energy. … Funding for the solar energy projects would help drive down costs about 75 percent, which would make solar energy cost about 6 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. The Energy Department has spent more than $1 billion on solar energy research in the past decade.”

“World Bank, Cities Pledge Greenhouse Gas Reduction”

June 2, 2011: AP reports: “The World Bank and 40 cities from around the world joined forces Wednesday with a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bank reached the agreement with the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a coalition founded in 2005 with the aim of reducing carbon emissions. Its chairman is New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Bloomberg, World Bank President Robert Zoellick and former President Bill Clinton announced the new partnership during the opening session of the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit. All three say the partnership will help cities to finance projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions while also supporting growth. … According to the World Bank, C40 cities account for 8 percent of the global population, 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and 21 percent of the world’s global gross domestic product. In his speech, Zoellick said the agreement will help cities ‘integrate growth planning with climate-change adaptation and mitigation, with special attention to the vulnerabilities of the urban poor.’ Clinton added that the partnership ‘will provide essential tools to help cities become more sustainable, grow their economies, create jobs, promote energy independence, and ensure a stable future for generations to come.’”

“EPA Might Delay Divisive Climate-Change Rules”

June 3, 2011: National Journal Daily reports: “EPA could delay proposing its controversial climate-change rules, multiple sources tell National Journal Daily. EPA announced in December it would issue draft rules to control carbon emissions from power plants and oil refineries in July and December, respectively. Sources outside the agency and on both sides of the issue say EPA is likely to delay the proposal of both sets of rules by at least two months. An electric industry lobbyist who supports EPA’s efforts to control emissions said the agency was ‘looking to delay getting the [power plant] proposal out the door by two months, but retain the agreed-upon date to go final with the regulation.’ The source requested anonymity because EPA had not made any official announcement. EPA said in December it would issue the final rules, known as the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), for power plants in May 2012 and for oil refineries in November 2012. The agency chose not to comment late Thursday, and the White House deferred to EPA. … Any postponement should trigger a political firestorm and give political ammunition to Republicans inflamed by other recent delays EPA has announced on other controversial rules, such as its air-pollution standards for boilers. EPA has also not submitted its draft rules for power plants to the Office of Management and Budget, another indication it is looking to delay the NSPS proposal for power plants. EPA has almost two months before it has said it would issue the rules. So it has a shrinking window of time to submit its rules to OMB and make its deadline. … Other signs indicate EPA will also delay its draft rules for oil refineries it had originally said it would issue by December. An American Petroleum Institute lobbyist said EPA has asked the oil industry to submit an extensive amount of information regarding their equipment by the beginning of September, and that doesn’t seem to square with a December deadline.”

“Mitt Romney: Humans Contribute to Global Warming”

CBS News reports: “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney broke with many in his party on Friday when he said he believes humans have contributed to global warming. ‘I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,’ said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, according to Reuters. There is widespread consensus within the scientific community that the earth warming and that human beings are at least partially responsible. But many Republicans dispute that conclusion, including Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  … Romney reportedly said Friday that he believed the United States as well as foreign nations need to ‘reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases,’ saying they ‘may be significant contributors’ to climate change. As Reuters notes, one of 2012 GOP Romney’s rivals, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, said last week that the push to address climate change is ‘the newest excuse to take control of lives’ by ‘left-wing intellectuals.’ Gingrich had previously suggested that ‘our country must take action on climate change.’ Gingrich is not the only Republican presidential contender to shift on climate change issues. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said in 2007 that ‘it’s time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse gas pollution,’ but he now says it isn’t the time to address the issue. And former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has backed off his previous support for cap-and-trade energy legislation, saying he had been wrong in once calling for a cap on carbon emissions.”

“Mitt Romney: Humans Contribute to Global Warming”

June 6, 2011: CBS News reports: “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney broke with many in his party on Friday when he said he believes humans have contributed to global warming. ‘I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,’ said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, according to Reuters. There is widespread consensus within the scientific community that the earth warming and that human beings are at least partially responsible. But many Republicans dispute that conclusion, including Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  … Romney reportedly said Friday that he believed the United States as well as foreign nations need to ‘reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases,’ saying they ‘may be significant contributors’ to climate change. As Reuters notes, one of 2012 GOP Romney’s rivals, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, said last week that the push to address climate change is ‘the newest excuse to take control of lives’ by ‘left-wing intellectuals.’ Gingrich had previously suggested that ‘our country must take action on climate change.’ Gingrich is not the only Republican presidential contender to shift on climate change issues. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said in 2007 that ‘it’s time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse gas pollution,’ but he now says it isn’t the time to address the issue. And former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has backed off his previous support for cap-and-trade energy legislation, saying he had been wrong in once calling for a cap on carbon emissions.”

“Alaska’s Ebbing Oil”

June 7, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Perhaps you’ve heard politicians call for ‘independence’ from foreign oil, however unrealistic the goal. What you probably haven’t heard about is the determined environmental campaign, abetted by the Obama Administration, to shut down the 38-year-old Trans-Alaska Pipeline. … Yet as the rich fields of Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River have declined, oil flow has dropped to one-third of that volume. … Failing a technological fix, or more oil, the pipe’s near-term viability is at risk. Environmentalists know that if the pipeline is shut down, by law it must be dismantled. If they can starve the pipeline of supply, they can kill Alaskan drilling.  Even with the potential of shale natural gas and offshore deepwater drilling, Alaska remains a great American energy resource. … Yet little or no commercial oil has flowed from these federal lands. Environmentalists have lobbied Congress to block drilling in ANWR for decades, and their strategy elsewhere has been to flood commercial leases with litigation. … Greens have also gamed the regulatory system, which can require companies to obtain an average of 35 permits to drill an exploratory well. … In response to $4-a-gallon gasoline, the Obama Administration recently proposed lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. Yet the Administration has also used the Gulf of Mexico spill as an excuse to sit on most permits out of Alaska and the Gulf. … Americans who want to import less oil from abroad should understand how close Washington is to closing off Alaskan oil drilling.”

“Romney Draws Early Fire from Conservatives over Views on Climate Change”

June 9, 2011: The Washington Post reports: “It seemed like a straightforward question on a second-tier issue: Would Mitt Romney disavow the science behind global warming? The putative Republican presidential front-runner, eager to prove his conservative bona fides, could easily have said what he knew many in his party’s base wanted to hear. Instead, the former Massachusetts governor stuck to the position he has held for many years — that he believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern. Romney’s answer to the question about climate change last Friday during his first town hall meeting since announcing his second presidential campaign allowed him to demonstrate what he hopes voters will see as a new and improved candidate — an authentic leader with core convictions.  But the exchange in New Hampshire also served as a fresh indicator of Romney’s great quandary. … His views about climate change in particular put him at odds with many in his party’s base. … The episode suggests that Romney and his team, trying to market the candidate as authentic, see more of a benefit in sticking with his position and taking heat than in shifting to win over a crucial segment of the conservative base. … Romney, in his full answer to the question about climate change, maintained his position while offering enough nuance to extend an open hand to those who disagree.”

“OPEC Rift Gives Rise to Doubts, Price Fears”

June 10, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “OPEC faces mounting questions about its credibility and relevance after Wednesday’s group meeting broke up in disarray with no decision on raising production – despite widespread fears that higher crude prices were endangering the world economy. The meeting, the first since the start of the Middle East pro-democracy movements known as the Arab Spring, exposed deep divisions between members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that some say can’t now be healed. All eyes are on Saudi Arabia, which has said it would move unilaterally to increase output. That statement—from the only OPEC member able to add significant barrels of production—only underscored doubts about the cartel’s relevance. Perhaps the only thing that could force the 12 cartel members to overcome their differences and act would be a new big oil-price shock. … Many were hoping OPEC would seek to calm markets by replacing the lost Libyan output. But Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia, which had been pushing a 1.5 million barrels-a-day production increase, were blocked by Iran, Venezuela and others who feared that would lead to a collapse in oil prices.  

With the next meeting of the group scheduled for December, some analysts fear there is now nothing to prevent a run-up in prices similar to the surge that took crude to $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008—especially, they say, as oil demand is expected to rise sharply in the second half of this year. … Part of OPEC’s credibility problem is the fault-line that has opened up between Iran and Saudi Arabia. … That relationship has now been damaged by the Arab Spring. …  Yet some analysts underplayed the geopolitical splits within OPEC, saying the dispute between the two camps was less about how to handle the oil market than about the appropriate time to increase production.”

 “Germany Looks to Fossil Fuel Amid Nuclear Exit”

June 10, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “Germany needs to build twice the number of new fossil-fuel power plants than the government previously had earmarked in order to secure energy security while exiting nuclear power, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday, while sticking to ambitious emission-reduction goals.  ‘If we want to exit nuclear energy and enter renewable energy, for the transition time we need fossil power plants,’ Ms. Merkel said in a parliamentary declaration on her government’s decision to phase out nuclear power. ‘At least 10, more likely 20 gigawatts [of fossil capacity] need to be built in the coming 10 years.’  … The new power stations will be both gas- and coal-fired, Ms. Merkel said, adding that at the same time Germany wants to stick to its target of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels. Michael Mueller, from the German Federation for Nature, said the climate targets can’t be achieved if the additional fossil-fuel capacity were to be built, pointing to the energy industry’s emissions calculations. The switch-off of the first seven of Germany’s 17 nuclear power stations will add some 25 million metric tons a year to the country’s carbon-dioxide emissions, the International Energy Agency said in May.”

“Even the U.N. Hates Ethanol”

June 14, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn believes he’ll have 60 Senate votes Tuesday to end the 45-cent blender tax credit for ethanol, as well as the 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol. For Senators still on the fence, a new study suggests that the world’s poor would benefit even more than U.S. taxpayers if governments stopped subsidizing the transformation of food into fuel.  The new study, requested by G-20 leaders last November, fingers biofuel subsidies as among the leading causes of agricultural price shocks. … As farmers respond to artificially high prices for biofuels, farmland is diverted from crops like wheat that people consume to the feedstocks for inefficient energy production. … As food prices rise, both the quantity and the quality of food available to consumers in the developing world have decreased, says the study. The report’s recommendation is clear: G-20 governments should ‘remove provisions of current national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or consumption.’ … The report was prepared by 10 international organizations, including the World Bank and five different arms of the U.N., such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. These are people who not only don’t object to taxpayer subsidies of unproductive activity—their livelihoods depend on them. Yet they are unanimous in calling for an end to biofuel subsidies. … Not that this will stop the biofuels lobby from fighting Mr. Coburn’s modest amendment, which would save taxpayers about $6 billion a year. Growth Energy, the ethanol lobby run by retired General Wesley Clark, cites OPEC’s recent decision not to increase oil production as a reason to continue propping up the ethanol industry. … In anticipation of losing to Mr. Coburn on tariffs and tax credits, the lobby is already pushing to expand subsidies for blender pumps and pipelines that could use fuel with an ethanol content higher than 10%. … The energy independence line is a long-time ethanol lobby canard. We hope Mr. Coburn succeeds on the Senate floor, for the sake of American taxpayers, the U.S. economy, and the world’s poor.”

Pentagon Presents First Energy Plan

June 15, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “In a bid to save lives and money, the Department of Defense on Tuesday presented its first plan to change how it uses energy on the battlefield. The strategy, which will be fleshed out this summer with a more detailed implementation plan, constitutes the Pentagon’s promise to develop more energy-efficient weapons, embrace non-oil energy sources and demand more energy-conscious behavior from the troops. … The goals of the new strategy are to cut energy demand by forces in the field and to accelerate the development of alternative-energy supplies, such as renewable sources and biofuels. The military hopes the new plan will pay dividends both on the battlefield, by creating more lethal and more agile troops, and in budget-conscious Washington, by saving money over the long term with more-efficient gear. … The issue has gained greater urgency due to the high price of oil and the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. forces over the last decade have gotten bigger and heavier and gobbled up increasing amounts of energy that require a costly and vulnerable supply system. … The next priority is to diversify energy supplies, with a special focus on reducing the military’s dependence on oil by increasing investments in biofuels and renewable energy. … The Navy, for example, has experimented with biofuel-powered F-18 fighter jets and is developing the ‘Great Green Fleet,’ an aircraft-carrier strike group that will be powered exclusively by alternative fuels and aims to ship out by 2016. Vice Adm. William Burke, the deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics, recently described such acquisitions as the most important part of the Navy’s energy-saving push.”

“The Real Costs of U.S. Energy”

June 15, 2011: From a Politico op-ed by Michael Greenstone, director of The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution and Adam Looney, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution: “As American families take to the road this summer, the biggest bumps could be at the pump. But the dirty little secret behind America’s energy policy is that the real price we pay for gas or electricity is far larger than what we see at the pump or on our utility bills. The less obvious costs of our energy choices affect our health, the environment and national security. … We need a paradigm shift in our domestic energy strategy. The so-called ‘social costs’ of energy sources resulting from harmful emissions or foreign policy decisions, for example, must be priced so that businesses and consumers have clear information when making choices. … These additional costs do not show up in our monthly budgets. But we, the American people, still pay. The bill comes due in the form of shorter life spans, increased respiratory diseases, a changing climate that threatens our way of life and constrained foreign policy. Comparing the social costs of alternative forms of electricity produces some surprising findings. The full cost of electricity from a new natural gas plant is roughly 6.5 cents per KWh, according to a new Hamilton Project paper. This is more than 25 percent less than the full cost of electricity generated from existing coal plants. In addition, it is substantially cheaper than the full costs of nuclear, clean coal plants and the available renewable technologies. Given the availability of reliable, evidence-based facts about the true costs of energy, why does America still rely on dirty fuels? It’s simple: our energy policy does not adequately penalize energy sources that impose broader damages to society, nor does it reward sources, like renewable energy technologies, that do not generate these costs. A new energy strategy should create a level playing field — where the prices of all energy sources reflect the costs of production, as well as any resulting health, environmental or national security costs.”

“German Nuclear Exit Hurts Merkel’s Green-Energy Goal”

June 16, 2011: Wall Street Journal reports: “Germany’s move to accelerate its exit from atomic power in the wake of Japan’s nuclear disaster solves a political problem for Chancellor Angela Merkel, but it complicates another of Berlin’s environmental goals: to become Europe’s green-energy champion. Ms. Merkel’s announcement late last month that Germany, amid growing domestic concern about nuclear power, would phase out its plants by 2022 leaves it with a sizable energy gap to fill by then. The country’s 17 nuclear reactors supplied nearly 23% of its electricity last year and have been a key source of low-carbon energy as Germany seeks to meet some of Europe’s most ambitious emission-reduction targets. By 2020, Germany aims to have cut carbon emissions by 40% from 1990 levels, and by at least 80% by 2050. Analysts say reaching that goal will become even more difficult without nuclear energy. It also threatens Ms. Merkel’s vision to position Germany as a global green-energy leader, if Germany is forced to rely more on coal for its energy needs. … Even without phasing nuclear energy out of the mix, Germany faces a tough challenge meeting its 2020 emissions-reduction targets. To get there, it has already targeted a 10% cut in national electricity consumption by 2020 with improvements to energy efficiency—such as housing that requires less heating—and a doubling of the share of renewable energy to 35% of national power mix. But even with those targets, a German government report out this month says the country is on track to reduce its emissions by just 30% to 33%, and that doesn’t include the shutdown of seven of Germany’s oldest reactors already. Although most experts believe Germany can double its renewable energy share to 35% by 2020, the aggressive target isn’t quite enough to fill the gap left by nuclear power. That leaves it with importing electricity from its neighbors and building new gas and coal-fired plants.’”

“EPA Outlines Options for Shaping First-Time Power Plant Climate NSPS Rule”

June 17, 2011: Inside EPA reports: “EPA is outlining for the first time the options it is considering for its pending new source performance standards (NSPS) to cut greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the power sector, a rule that EPA says could affect plants that generate almost 50 percent of current electricity generation as well as at new plants, according to documents obtained by Inside EPA. In a presentation the agency plans to make June 17 as part of a panel review of the rule’s impacts on small business, the agency asks panelists a host of questions about the shape of the upcoming rule, including whether officials should consider establishing ‘an economy-wide emissions goal,’ and whether EPA should establish a trading system that agency officials have already indicated they oppose. … While the presentation seeks input on creating a credit-trading system, EPA air chief Gina McCarthy has already downplayed prospects that the agency would seek to create such a system. … In its presentation to the panel, EPA identifies possible control measures for cutting GHGs as energy efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), co-firing, fuel switching and combined heat and power, and that efficiency improvements at new EGUs include use of supercritical boilers, ultra-supercritical boilers, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), coal drying and boiler feedwater heating. … But it also asks whether the agency should adopt its best available control technology (BACT) guidance issued last year for determining GHG limits in individual permits as best demonstrated technology (BDT), which is a Clean Air Act requirement on which NSPS are to be based and require consideration of costs, non-air quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.

… The document also says that EPA plans to apply NSPS to processes such as IGCC plants as well as to projects that add on pollution control devices that boost GHGs. And it shows the agency continues to back CCS, noting there are ‘no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional or other barriers that prevent [CCS] from playing a role in reducing GHG emissions.’ EPA also says section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which governs NSPS, grants the agency significant leeway, including allowing it to ‘distinguish among classes, types and sizes within categories of sources for the purposes of establishing standards’ and to ‘waive compliance for sources employing innovative technologies with the potential for equivalent or greater reductions.’ The law also prohibits EPA from requiring use of any specific technology, EPA notes. The agency will be developing two NSPS standards — a more stringent emissions standard for new and modified sources, and a less onerous emissions guideline for existing sources. The presentation goes into great detail about what steps would or would not trigger a modification, suggesting legal fights could again be waged, similar to new source review battles that were launched in the 1990s and continue today. Exemptions from modification permit requirements include routine maintenance, an increase in production rate, an increase in hours of operation or use of an alternative fuel, EPA says. … The agency also seeks input on how it should determine state equivalency for programs such as the economy wide cap-and-trade plan in California and the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for power plants.”

“Bonn Talks Leave Potholes on the Road to Durban”

June 20, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “Mid-year climate change treaty negotiations have ended much the way they began — with nations divided over who will face legal obligations to curb greenhouse gas emissions as the Kyoto Protocol enters a new era. Developing countries uniformly want to maintain the structure of the 1997 pact, which requires emission cuts from 41 industrialized nations and the European Union while merely requesting voluntary curbs — with financial assistance — from the remaining 151. One small island nation negotiator said the two-week meeting ended Friday with ‘momentum’ toward establishing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol when the first one ends in 2012. … U.S. Deputy Envoy Jonathan Pershing threw cold water on that plan. The United States never became a party to Kyoto — precisely because it does not legally obligate developing countries to act — and the Obama administration has made clear that position has not changed. … The year’s final U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference is scheduled for Durban, South Africa, this November. One way or another, the Kyoto question must be resolved there, said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. … Diplomats are putting together a Green Climate Fund to help vulnerable countries prepare for weather-related impacts and reduce their own emissions. Most countries want to know where the money will be coming from — but the U.S. delegation blocked discussion about sources of funding to focus on the structure of the fund. Instead, the United States offered a ‘pledge and review’ system for financing in which countries would offer to raise as much as they wanted and that financial pledge would be monitored to ensure compliance but no country would face legal obligations to contribute.”

Supreme Court Sides with Utilities in GHG Lawsuit

June 21, 2011: Politico reports: ‘The Supreme Court on Monday said a coalition of states and environmentalists can’t sue power plants over their greenhouse gas emissions, because the EPA is already on the job. In the 8-0 decision siding with the Obama administration and major utilities, the court ruled that the EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act displaced the rights of states and conservation groups under federal ‘nuisance’ laws to push for limits of specific utilities’ emissions. The case pitted the Obama administration – on behalf of the government-owned utility Tennessee Valley Authority – and four other major utilities against six states, New York City and conservation groups who sought to use federal common law to force the nation’s biggest utilities to clamp down on their global warming emissions. But the court affirmed that climate change is the EPA’s turf – even if the agency hasn’t yet issued plant-specific pollution rules – and that plaintiffs can take the EPA to court if they think the agency isn’t following the law. … ‘The critical point is that Congress has vested decision-making authority in the EPA,’ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion, said from the bench. … Ginsburg’s written opinion also reaffirmed EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, as outlined in the court’s 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling. … The court also affirmed under a divided court that the federal courts have the authority to decide the case. Four members of the court held that at least some plaintiffs have standing under Massachusetts v. EPA, which permitted a state to challenge EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Four other members held that none of the plaintiffs had standing. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself from the case.

New Jersey Democrats Try to Block RGGI Pullout

June 21, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey moved legislation yesterday that would block Gov. Chris Christie (R) from pulling the Garden State out of the nation’s only operating cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. The state Senate Environment and Energy Committee approved a bill that would prohibit Christie directly from exiting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, which caps carbon dioxide emissions in 10 states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. The committee also backed a resolution that declares that the governor’s decision was inconsistent with the original ‘legislative intent’ of an old state law governing state participation in the regional carbon trading plan. … Both the bill and the resolution also passed a committee in the state Assembly, meaning that the measures are headed to votes as early as this week on both chamber floors in the Democratic-controlled Legislature. There, supporters predicted they would pass easily. ‘We are a country of laws. By disregarding the intent of the Legislature, which required New Jersey to be a member of RGGI, Governor Christie is ignoring the will of the people,’ said Assemblyman John McKeon (D), a co-sponsor of the measures. He and other supporters say the program is a critical component in keeping emissions down in the state, since the program’s proceeds have funded some $30 million in renewable and efficiency projects. But the bill faces a high bar, considering that lawmakers would have to override an expected Christie veto with a two-thirds majority. That is not likely to happen even with the current Democratic majorities in both chambers, said McKeon. The resolution, even though it is not legally binding, could have greater heft, analysts said. That is because it can pass with a simple majority in the state Legislature and does not require the governor’s signature. The resolution, if successful, could lead to an additional resolution that would block Christie from making new state rules against RGGI, said Jeff Tittel of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club. That won’t prevent the governor from removing the state from the program’s quarterly carbon auctions, but it could speed up the process of bringing the state back into the program in the future, he said. … The resolution also could be a factor in pro-RGGI lawsuits from outside groups, since they would put the Legislature on record questioning the governor’s authority, said McKeon.”

“US Raises Renewable Fuel Mandates for 2012”

June 22, 2011: Platts Oilgram News reports: “The US Environmental Protection Agency on June 21 proposed that a total of 15.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended into the nation’s transportation fuel supply next year. But the agency slashed the target for cellulosic biofuels to between 3.45-12.9 million gallons, reflecting difficulties the industry is having producing commercially viable amounts of those fuels. Last year, the EPA slashed its 2011 target for cellulosic biofuels to 6.6 million gallons from the originally proposed 100 million gallons. … The total mandate for renewable fuels next year, including corn ethanol, is 9.2% of the total gasoline and diesel supply, the EPA said. That compares with 13.95 billion gallons, or about 8%, the agency required in 2011. … The Advanced Ethanol Council said June 21 that the production of cellulosic fuels needs tax incentives to meet ambitious RFS goals. … The target for biodiesel in 2012 is being proposed at 1 billion gallons, equal to what the law requires. For 2013, the target is being set at 1.28 billion gallons. The US biodiesel industry can meet the growing mandates for its production, said Ben Evans, the National Biodiesel Board’s director of federal communications. … In a related development, Representative Colin Peterson, Democrat-Minnesota, introduced a bill on June 21 to extend the $1/gal biodiesel tax credit through 2014. The bill also would change the credit from one that is paid to blenders to one paid directly to producers.

Study: Ethanol Subsidy Caused Corn Price Surge

June 23, 2011: AFP reports: “US ethanol subsidies pushed up corn prices as much as 17 percent in 2011, according to a study released Wednesday at a time when Washington’s policies on biofuels are coming under heightened scrutiny. The study by Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University and released by the Geneva-based International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, suggests that high gasoline prices this year may have intensified demand for ethanol, creating a tighter market for maize than in previous years. ‘Under these tight conditions, the added demand incentive from the blender tax credit can have a significant impact on maize prices,’ said Babcock, a professor of economics at Iowa State University. ‘These results indicate the need for more flexible US biofuel policy,’ the study said. … The new study suggests however that despite the hefty impact on corn, US ethanol subsidies have not been the main driver of higher overall food costs. The effects of US ethanol subsidies on the prices of wheat, rice and soybeans were modest, with a 2.8 percent price impact on soybeans in 2008 being the largest impact on other crops, the research concluded. The impact of US ethanol policies through higher feed costs on consumer prices of eggs, beef, pork and chicken was even smaller.”

“White House Oil Epiphany”

June 24, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “It wasn’t long ago that the Obama Administration was trying to drive up the price of fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions, promote ‘green jobs’ and save the planet from global warming. Gasoline at $3.50 or $4 a gallon has ended that. And yesterday the White House went so far as to join a global effort to release 60 million barrels from oil stockpiles to further reduce prices.  The U.S. will release one million barrels a day for 30 days from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—the nation’s 727 million barrel oil stockpile located in salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. … The White House says it is taking this action because of ‘supply disruptions’ in Libya and other countries which pose a threat to global economic recovery. But the Libyan conflict is now four months old, so Mr. Obama’s falling approval ratings no doubt also provided motivation. The SPR was created in 1975 to cushion the impact of major supply disruptions. … As a pure business decision, selling oil from the SPR when the price is high, and then replenishing the oil when the price falls, isn’t a bad idea. But the effect on gas prices is temporary, as global supply and demand adjust. One irony is that a million barrels a day is about how much oil experts believe we could be producing from the vast oil fields in Alaska’s wildlife reserve. President Obama has said that tapping Alaska wouldn’t affect oil prices but now says a temporary spurt will do so. How about opening up Alaska, and dropping the de facto Gulf moratorium too?”