EPA's Cooling Tower Rule: Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the proposal for the last of its Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rules for cooling water intake structures – this one for " existing" facilities and new units at existing facilities.  Comments on the proposed rule were due in July 2011 – 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA is required to finalize the rule by July 27, 2012.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for facilities with cooling water intake structures ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of the structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) to minimize harmful impacts on the environment.

According to EPA, the rule covers roughly 1,260 existing facilities that each withdraw at least 2 million gallons per day of cooling water. EPA estimates that approximately 590 of these facilities are manufacturers, and the other 670 are power plants, including electric cooperatives.

The proposed rule does not require existing power plants with once-through cooling to retrofit cooling towers where they do not make economic sense when other less-expensive alternatives exist. EPA is not presuming that cooling towers are BTA; however, the proposed rule appears to allow for site-specific analysis and for permitting agencies to consider costs when making BTA determinations. (National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 4/1/2011)

More information on EPA’s proposed Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rule

Electricity Storage

Edwin F. Feo spoke about energy storage with Jeff Postelwait {Postelwait responses are below}

Storage can assist with renewables by smoothing the effect of variable energy output—typical for wind and solar—providing capacity firming such that a renewable resource can be seen as an almost constant source of energy, and with frequency regulation support for the transmission grid. Without storage, the grid needs to be able to deal with the effects of intermittent energy, and that can be done with other generation sources providing firming services. The issue historically with storage has been the cost.

Traditional generation can benefit from storage to the extent that storage technologies can provide cheaper and or faster-reacting support services. Flywheels and lithium-ion batteries, for example, can respond quickly and are typically used for frequency regulation.

The main technologies are: pumped-hydro storage; compressed-air storage below or above ground; batteries—sodium sulfur, vanadium redox, lead acid, nickel cadmium and lithium ion; molten salt; thermal peak shaving, aka ice storage; and flywheels. Of global installed storage capacity of about 125,000 MW, over 123,000 is pumped hydro. Other technologies lag by comparison: molten salt, 142 MW; compressed air, 440 MW; batteries, 451 MW; and flywheels, 95 MW. The different technologies have different applications. Pumped hydro has been used for centralized, utility-scale projects—being able to handle load with quick response.

Compressed-air projects are also being aimed at large utility applications, but there are also small above-ground, compressed-air assets, which can be teamed with a specific generation asset. Certain batteries—sodium sulfur, vanadium—have long duration and are better oriented to back up applications. Other batteries—e.g., lithium-ion—have faster response and are best used for renewable integration and frequency regulation, typically at the generation project level. Flywheels are used for frequency regulation and are being developed as stand-alone projects.

The more that the electric service model migrates from the central station generation-dumb meter consumer model—where it is today—to more of a distributed generation-smart meter consumer model, the greater the role for storage to play in smoothing of energy delivery, integration and regulation.

Pumped Hydro

The primary issue is cost. Pumped-hydro projects have tended to be large—1,000 MW—and significant civil works projects. The newer technologies are more geared to smaller applications, so the capital cost per unit is less, but the issue is the cost on a kilowatt-hour basis. These costs are headed down as technology improves. A somewhat related issue is reliability. Given the relatively modest and recent deployment of some of the storage technologies, there is an issue as to evidence of long-term reliability. The more that units are deployed, of course, the more there should be evidence of reliability, and the lower the cost, as well.

First Wind is using Xtreme Power batteries in wind farms in Hawaii. Energy storage makes a lot of sense in an island application where the load may not be large and the day and night demand may differ widely. In the case of the wind projects in Hawaii, First Wind would be facing the potential of curtailment at night when the wind still blows, given the reduced demand for energy. So a battery can be charged with off-hours electricity and discharged during peak demand during the day.

AES Energy Storage is developing storage systems using A123 Systems’ lithium-ion batteries to provide ancillary services. Primus Power is proposing to build a 25-MW battery storage project for the Modesto Irrigation District (MID). This is known as the Wind Firming EnergyFarm and is intended to replace a fossil fuel plant as the means of firming energy provided to the MID from wind power sources. Southern California Edison is building an 8-MW lithium-ion battery storage project to improve grid performance and to aid in integration of wind energy resources located in the Tehachapi area. Another example is a 20-MW flywheel project built by Beacon Power in Massachusetts. That project is a stand-alone project that will deliver frequency regulation services to the grid.

The Department of Energy launched a program to support energy storage technology in 2009. DOE is providing about $185 million to support over $775 million of energy storage projects; these aggregate about 537 MW of new storage.

Storage presents an interesting regulatory challenge. Depending on its use and the point of view of a regulatory agency, it may be considered transmission or generation, and as either a wholesale or a retail service. Those characterizations affect by which agency it is regulated—federal or state—and how an investment in storage can be recovered. Choice of a regulatory regime affects planning. Who approves? Ownership: Who can own, and by whom are they regulated, among other issues.

Pumped Hydro

Certain storage projects can be delivering both transmission and generation support services and therefore technically regulated by both regulatory regimes. The regulatory complexities of storage are addressed but not completely resolved by FERC in a Request for Comments Regarding Rates, Accounting and Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies (Docket No AD 11-7-000) and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized Wholesale Power Markets (Docket No. RM 11-7-000).

As a broad concept, electric vehicles can be used as energy sinks in the sense that they can charge at night while other electric demand is low. Of course, that doesn’t mean the vehicles are available as storage to be applied during the peak of the next day. I think electric vehicles ultimately will be another variable in the electric supply-demand mix that can’t be controlled other than in the broadest terms and so may present as many problems as they do solutions for grid operations.

A number of utilities are pursuing demonstration projects. The most interest seems to be in areas where there is significant penetration by renewables. Ultimately, the deployment of more storage technologies at the distribution level means that demand management can be more flexible because storage can be used to meet peak demands as opposed to relying on reduction of demand to trim peaks.

The principal benefits will be reliability of the grid, backup power when applied locally and lower costs because high on-peak prices can be mitigated with stored energy.  (Electric Light & Power, Oct 2011)

Calif Makes It Easier To Use Out-of-State Renewable Energy

The California Renewable Energy Resources Act (SB X 1-2), obligates all California electricity providers to obtain at least 33% of their energy from renewable resources by the year 2020. This requirement constitutes the most aggressive renewable portfolio standard in the country. (More)

The law makes it easier to use out-of-state sources of renewable energy to satisfy California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS). More than 30 states have some form of RPS.
Before the new law, California had a statutory delivery requirement. The delivery requirement can be understood in the context of California’s energy debacle during 2000 and 2001. In response to that debacle, California policymakers wanted to assure that, to the extent out-of-state energy sources were going to be used to meet the state’s RPS, the physical electricity generated by those sources was delivered into the state to meet its burgeoning needs.

Most states allow their RPSs to be satisfied by the actual consumption of renewable electricity in the state or by the surrendering of so-called renewable energy credits. These credits represent the environmental benefits—chiefly the greenhouse gas emissions avoided—of renewable energy.

Most states allow these credits to be stripped from the underlying energy that created them, referred to as unbundling. This means an entity that must demonstrate compliance with the RPS can do so by surrendering credits to the regulators as opposed to demonstrating the actual consumption of renewable energy within the state. There are rules that each credit must be counted only once.

The reason for allowing credits to be used to demonstrate compliance goes back to the environmental problem that renewable energy addresses: emission of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases do not cause a problem locally; they cause a problem in the upper atmosphere. For that reason, it does not matter where geographically their production is stopped. The benefit remains regardless.

Until the recent changes in the law, California did not allow use of entirely unbundled renewable energy credits from out-of-state renewable energy resources. Under a strict reading of prior law, for California utilities to use wind resources in Oregon, for instance, the electricity from the Oregon wind farm had to be consumed in California to be counted for compliance with the California RPS.

Yet, the California Energy Commission recognized that to meet even the state’s previous 20 percent renewable energy goal, it would have to accommodate more flexibility from out-of-state supplies. So the commission relaxed the statutory delivery requirement. After an initial purchase with the associated energy, the commission allowed the use of renewable energy credits stripped (unbundled) from the associated renewable electricity to satisfy the RPS.

Because of the delivery requirement, those wanting to use the credits originating from out-of-state sources had to match those credits with other electricity (referred to as firming and shaping). Prior law allowed firming and shaping to account for the variability of certain renewable resources. The commission, however, took this limited authorization and turned it into a mechanism allowing unbundled renewable energy credits.

The new law eliminates the statutory delivery requirement and with it any need for an initially bundled purchase of credits with their associated electricity.  (Electric Light & Power, Sep/Oct/2011)

T. Boone Pickens versus the Koch Brothers

NATGAS Act Would Provide Subsidies For Cars on Natural Gas

The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011 (NATGAS Act) would subsidize cars running on natural gas.  Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the prime beneficiary of the legislation would be T. Boone Pickens, left. He owns 41 percen of Clean Energy Fuels, which as the largest natural gas truck fueling station in the world and plans to set up a series of similar fueling stations around the country--if it can get the subsidies.

Pickens gain  would be at the expense of everyone who uses natural gas, which will spike in price if demand increases.  Primary among natural gas users is the fertilizer industry.  One of the world's largest fertilizer sellers is Koch Fertilizer, a subsidiary of Koch Industries.  Charles and David Koch, above right, have led the resistance to  the NATGAS Act.

According to Clean Energy Fuels:

"Our business plan and the ability of our business to successfully grow depends in part on the extension of the federal fuel excise tax credit for natural gas vehicle fuel, the reinstatement and extension of the federal income tax credit for the purchase of natural gas vehicles and the passage of legislation providing for additional incentives for the sale and use of natural gas vehicles."

All of the above provisions are in the NAGAS Act.

Pickens owns options  to buy 15 million shares of Clean Energy Fuels at $10 per shared, according to SEC filings.  Those options expire Dec 28.  If Congress couls pass the NATGAS ACt this month, shares of Clean Energy would skyrocket.  If the bill does not pass this moth, those options might become worthless, or at least risky.  (Washington Examiner, 12/10/2011)

Kyoto Protocol Dies In Durban: Countries Punt to 2015

The final text of the United Nations COP17 Climate Change Conference will force all major emitters
to sign on to a legally binding agreement of some form by 2015.  This punts the global warming ball down the road for four years.  International economic woes will prevent nations from ever reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.  Economic develop trumps climate disaster.  Adaptation will have to be the mantra in the fight to maintain our existence in a global warming world.

International Convention Centre & Durban Exhibition Centre

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol did not require developing nations to reduce emissions. The Durban Platform starts a new process whose goal is to complete, by 2015, a global climate pact with legal force, applying to all nations. Developed nations countries do not want to cut the use of fossil fuels because they work in powering their economies. China, India and other emerging economies do not want to cut the use of fossil fuels because they want the same sort of economic development as developed countries and they want to bring millions of people out of poverty.  This is why America, China and India will never agree to real emissions cuts.  This is also why Bill Clinton {and Al Gore}, President Bush and President Obama never pushed for Senate passage of the treaty.  [See Developing Nations]

Durban

The United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Durban, South Africa from November 28 - December 9, 2011 [extended by 2 days]. It brought together 200 representatives of the world's governments, along with international organizations. The discussions sought to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 in 2007, and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP 16 last December. [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Guidelines on Bats & Wind Farms

In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is set to publish new guidelines telling wind-farm operators how to measure the danger to wildlife at new sites and how to monitor existing sites. The guidelines are voluntary, but those who don't follow them are more likely to face fines or penalties if their turbines kill an animal protected by federal law.

The FWS issued Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts From Wind Turbines in 2003.

The FWS also made recommendations on wind farms and bats in February 2011. The Recommendations and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Draft Guidelines for Land-based Wind Energy Development" are founded upon a “tiered approach” for assessing potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife and their habitats. The tiered approach is an iterative decision making process for collecting information in increasing detail; quantifying the possible risks of proposed wind energy projects to fish, wildlife, and habitats; and evaluating those risks to make siting, construction, and operation decisions. Subsequent tiers refine and build upon issues raised and efforts undertaken in previous tiers. At each tier, a set of questions is provided to help the developer evaluate the potential risk associated with developing a project at the given location. The tiered approach guides a developer‟s decision process as to whether or not the selected location is appropriate for wind development. This decision is related to site-specific conditions regarding potential species and habitat effects.

Briefly, the tiers address:

 Tier 1 – Preliminary evaluation or screening of potential sites (landscape-scale screening of possible project sites)

 Tier 2 – Site characterization (broad characterization of one or more potential project sites)

 Tier 3 – Pre-Construction monitoring and assessments (site-specific assessments at the proposed project site)

 Tier 4 – Post-construction monitoring of effects (to evaluate fatalities and other effects)

 Tier 5 – Research (to further evaluate direct and indirect effects, and assess how they may be addressed)

This framework allows the developer to determine whether sufficient information exists, whether and how to proceed with development of a project, or whether additional information gathered at a subsequent tier is necessary to make those decisions. (FWS, WSF, 12/10/2011)

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko Should Be Fired

Center Joins With Other NRC Commissioners In Opposing NRC Chairman Jaczko

The Center's main reason for calling for the firing of Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko is because of his tactics to sabotage Yucca Mountain as the national repository for nuclear waste.  We support the other commissioners in their additional criticisms of the chairman.  His sociopathic behavior is clearly radioactive and is underming the NRC.

Gregory Jaczko

Four of the five members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff William Daley on October 13 denouncing the commission's chairman, Gregory Jaczko, saying his "actions and behavior are causing serious damage to this institution" and are threatening the agency's safety mission.  Althought they did not explicitly ask for President Barack Obama to remove Jaczko, the four commissioners outlined a list of grievances including an allegation that Mr. Jaczko:

"intimidated and bullied senior career staff to the degree that he has created a high level of fear and anxiety resulting in a chilled work environment."

They also said Mr. Jaczko had ordered staff to withhold information from other commissioners and had tried to intimidate scientists who advised the agency in an effort to prevent them from reviewing certain aspects of the agency's response to the Japanese nuclear crisis earlier this year.

NRC commissioners Kristine L. Svinicki, George Apostolakis, William D. Magwood IV and William C. Ostendorff say in the letter they were concerned Mr. Jaczko's conduct would:

"adversely affect the NRC's essential mission to protect the health, safety and security of the American people."

NRC Commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms, but the president selects a chairman from among the five members and could choose another chairman before Mr. Jaczko's term expires in 2013. Mr. Obama tapped Mr. Jaczko as chief in 2009.

The NRC is the principal agency charged with overseeing the safety of commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. The five-member commission consists of the chairman and four other commissioners. The four other commissioners are William Ostendorff and Kristine Svinicki, both Republicans, and George Apostolakis and William Magwood, both Democrats. Jaczko is a Democrat. (WSJ, 12/9/2012)

FDA To Determine Safety of Bisphenol A in Plastics

According to a court settlement reached Wednesday between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the FDA must come up with a decision by March 31 on whether to ban bisphenol A, or BPA.  NRDC cited a growing body of research that suggests exposure to the chemical might pose serious health risks. BPA is a chemical that is widely used in plastics and the metal linings of food containers.

The NRDC filed a petition in 2008 asking the agency to ban the chemical. When the FDA failed to respond within the time frame required by law, the NRDC sued the agency. The settlement forces the FDA to take a position on a chemical that’s been used for more than four decades to make everything from the cans for liquid infant formula to the coating on grocery store receipts.

For years, the government has maintained that low doses of BPA are safe. In January, however, the FDA shifted positions and acknowledged that advances in science have raised “some concern” about the chemical’s health risks. The government is now investing $30 million to conduct research on the topic.

In its petition, NRDC cited research that links BPA to reproductive problems, certain cancers and behavioral issues in children. In October, a government-funded study published in the journal Pediatrics suggested that BPA exposure in the womb could lead to behavioral problems in girls, including anxiety and depression.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the chemical industry, dismissed Wednesday’s settlement as a “non-event.”The group maintains that BPA is safe and complains that various state actions to restrict BPA use have confused people over the health risks. For instance, consumer fears prompted manufacturers of baby bottles and sippy cups to stop using the chemical in these products several years ago.  According to ACC, the consensus of government regulatory bodies around the world, including theU.S. FDA and the European Food Safety Authority, is that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials.

Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) is introducing legislation that would rid BPA from all food and beverage containers. (Wash Post, 12/8/2011)

Alpha Natural Resources To Pay $209 Million For Coal Disaster

Alpha Natural Resources (ANR), which bought out Massey Energy in June, which owned the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia where 29 men died in an explosion last year, has agreed to pay $209 million in civil and criminal penalties because of the accident. ANR also promised to make major safety improvements to its mine.  It is the largest settlement in a criminal investigation of a mine disaster in U.S. history, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

Alpha has agreed to pay $46.5 million in restitution to the families of those who died — plus two co-workers who survived the accident — $1.5 million per family. The company will spend $80 million to boost safety in all of its underground mines and set up a $48 million fund for mining-safety and health research. Alpha Natural Resources also agreed to pay $34.8 million in fines and fees that Massey Energy owed to the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Before Tuesday, the largest penalty ever paid by a mining company had come in 2008, when Massey Energy agreed to pay $4.2 million in fines for a fire at the Aracoma Alma mine in West Virginia that trapped 12 miners and killed two. The company had admitted to knowingly violating mandatory safety standards in that accident.

As part of the safety measures, Alpha has pledged to install monitoring equipment at its underground mines to ensure that they are free of explosive methane gas and combustible coal dust. The company will also build a training facility and create a new safety curriculum for all of its miners.

Later on Tuesday, the Mine Safety and Health Administration is expected to announce the results of its investigation into the Upper Big Branch disaster.  (Wash Post, 12/6/2011)

Cleaner Coal Rules Will Create Green Jobs

Stricter federal emissions rules, intended to make exhaust from the nation's smokestacks cleaner will be a boon to providers of pollution-reduction technology for coal-fired power plants. Companies that make systems for filtering out pollutants such as mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide will see a surge in demand for their equipment as new standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year are being phased in as early as January 2012.  The new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule proposed in March is set to be finalized on December 16.

The proposed rules include a requirement that power plants using coal reduce emissions of mercury by as much as 90% over the next three years, with the goal of preventing tens of thousands of premature deaths from pollution. As utilities rush to comply with the stricter standards and keep their older plants online longer, the market for pollution control and monitoring technology could more than double, to $10 billion in 2014 from $4 billion now, according to the Institute of Clean Air Companies, a trade group.

Fuel Tech Inc. of Warrenville, Illinois, which sells technology for reducing nitrogen-oxide emissions, had $21 million in new orders in the third quarter, up from $8.8 million in the year-earlier quarter.  ADA Environmental Solutions, of Littleton, Colo., predicts the creation of a $700 million market for mercury-reduction technologies over the next three years as a result of the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule proposed in March and set to be finalized on Dec. 16.

The main driver: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which the EPA finalized in July. The rule requires 27 states in the eastern half of the U.S. to reduce power-plant emissions that contribute to ozone, including nitrogen oxide. The reductions must begin in January 2012 with targets achieved by 2014.

Analysts say emissions-control technologies like those sold by ADA and Fuel Tech could be vital for utilities by enabling them to keep older plants operating longer, as well as for the coal industry, which faces growing competition from cleaner-burning natural gas being unearthed from deep shale deposits.
(WSJ, 12/5/2011)

Is Bigger and Bigger and Bigger Government The Solution?

China is demonstrating that big government can partner with the private sector to foster dynamic economic growth.  But can government become too big and tip the balance?

In 1870, all government spending was 7.3 percent of national income in the United States, 9.4 percent in Britain, 10 percent in Germany and 12.6 percent in France. By 2007, the figures were 36.6 percent for the United States, 44.6 percent for Britain, 43.9 percent for Germany and 52.6 percent for France.

As deficits or taxes rise, the risk is that economic instability will increase, growth will decline, or both. Paying promised benefits becomes harder. Or austerity becomes unavoidable. The paradox is that the welfare state, designed to improve security and dampen social conflict, now looms as an engine for insecurity, conflict and disappointment. (Wash Post, 12/5/2011)

Obama Promotes Performanced-Based Energy Retrofits

President Obama and former President Bill Clinton a $4 billion effort to improve energy efficiency in buildings across the country.  President Obama also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing all Federal agencies to maximize existing authorities to utilize performance-based contracting for undertaking energy retrofits on Federal buildings.

Center President Norris McDonald cowrote the first federal shared energy savings law with the National Association of Energy Services Companies (NAESCO), which was signed by President Reagan in 1986.

President Obama directed all Federal agencies to make at least $2 billion worth of energy efficiency upgrades over the next two months. Additionally, 60 private companies, hospitals, cities, states, colleges, and universities, among others, have collectively committed another $2 billion in energy efficiency retrofits to 1.6 billion square feet of property—roughly the equivalent of 500 Empire State Buildings.

The investments announced today are part of President Obama’s Better Buildings Initiative, which set a goal of improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings by 20 percent by 2020. The initiative will reduce energy bills for businesses by $40 billion per year, and one report found it could create up to 114,000 jobs.

On February 3rd, 2011, President Obama announced the Better Buildings Initiative as part of his Administration’s vision for winning the future by catalyzing a homegrown, clean energy economy in the United States. The Better Buildings Initiative set a national target of improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings by 20 percent by 2020. Achieving the President’s goal will reduce energy bills for American businesses by approximately $40 billion per year.

Private Sector Commitments -- The Better Buildings Challenge

The Better Buildings Challenge is the public-private partnership component of President Obama’s Better Buildings Initiative. The Challenge seeks to catalyze private sector investment and has attracted business and community leaders who are committed to supporting innovative ideas with action, sharing their successes, and creating solutions for others to follow. In June, at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) America, former President Clinton, Secretary Chu and Laura Tyson from the President’s Jobs Council announced an initial set of commitments totaling 300+ million square feet and $500+ million in financing support. 

This includes:

Commitments from 60 Major CEOs, Universities, Mayors, Labor Leaders and Others. Today’s announcement includes commitments from nearly 60 property owners, corporations, hospitals, financial institutions, cities and states, colleges and universities.

Commitment to Upgrade Approximately 1.6 Billion Square Feet of Commercial and Industrial Property. Every type of commercial building can benefit from cost effective energy upgrades. The companies and other institutions committing to the Better Buildings Challenge are leaders in their respective industries and are pioneering new approaches to create jobs and save money through building upgrades.

Executive Action – Presidential Commitment to $2 billion in Federal Building Energy Upgrades

The Presidential Memorandum directs Federal agencies to enter into a minimum of $2 billion in performance-based contracts over the next 2 years. Performance-based contracting is an innovative approach to financing building upgrade projects that uses long-term energy savings to pay for up-front costs, resulting in no cost to taxpayers. The approach leverages Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) wherein Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) and utility companies conduct energy upgrades of federal buildings and guarantee savings from the improvements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has recognized that full implementation of this existing federal authority to utilize Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) as critical to job creation. The Chamber has specifically noted that tens of thousands of new jobs can be created through ESPC programs across the Federal government and that the President’s Better Buildings Initiative was the ideal platform for maximizing this opportunity. Data from the Department of Energy reveals a tremendous potential for efficiency investment opportunities in Federal buildings with less than 10-year paybacks.

Improvements to Existing Tax Incentives

The President continues to seek ways to reform and modernize our tax code in a manner that optimizes outcomes for both businesses and individuals. The Internal Revenue Code currently provides a deduction for the cost of qualifying energy efficient commercial building property, commonly referred to as the section 179D tax deduction. The Treasury Department, in consultation with the Department of Energy, previously issued guidance that provides the energy savings targets that must be met for this deduction to be available.

(The White House)

EPA Proposes Changes To Standards for Boilers and Incinerators

Reconsidered standards would set emission limits for less than one percent of boilers, achieve public health benefits while increasing flexibility and responding to public input

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes to Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators based on extensive analysis, review and consideration of data and input from states, environmental groups, industry, lawmakers and the public. The proposed reconsideration would achieve extensive public health protections through significant reductions in toxic air pollutants, including mercury and soot, while increasing the rule’s flexibility and addressing compliance concerns raised by industry and labor groups. The changes also cut the cost of implementation by nearly 50 percent from the original 2010 proposed rule while maintaining health benefits. These standards meet important requirements laid out in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

Soot and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to adverse health effects including cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death. In addition, toxic pollutants such as mercury and lead that will be reduced by this proposal are linked to developmental disabilities in children. These standards will avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths, prevent 5,100 heart attacks and avert 52,000 asthma attacks per year in 2015.

More than 99 percent of boilers in the country are either clean enough that they are not covered by these standards or will only need to conduct maintenance and tune-ups to comply. Today’s proposals focus on the less than one percent of boilers that emit the majority of pollution from this sector. For these high emitting boilers, typically operating at refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities, EPA is proposing more targeted emissions limits that protect Americans’ health and provide industry with practical, cost-effective options to meet the standards – informed by data from these stakeholders. These limits are based on currently available technologies that are in use by sources across the country.

As a result of further information gathered through the reconsideration process, including significant dialog and meetings with stakeholders, the proposal maintains the dramatic cuts in the cost of implementation that were achieved in the final rules issued in March while continuing to deliver significant public health benefits. As a result, EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see $12 to $30 in health benefits, including fewer premature deaths.

Using a wide variety of fuels, including coal, natural gas, oil and biomass, boilers are used to power heavy machinery, provide heat for industrial and manufacturing processes in addition to a number of other uses, or heat large buildings. EPA’s proposal recognizes the diverse and complex range of uses and fuels and tailors standards to reflect the real-world operating conditions of specific types of boilers.

Some of the key changes EPA is proposing include:

Boilers at large sources of air toxics emissions: The major source proposal covers approximately 14,000 boilers – less than one percent of all boilers in the United States – located at large sources of air pollutants, including refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. EPA is proposing to create additional subcategories and revise emissions limits. EPA is also proposing to provide more flexible compliance options for meeting the particle pollution and carbon monoxide limits, replace numeric emissions limits with work practice standards for certain pollutants, allow more flexibility for units burning clean gases to qualify for work practice standards and reduce some monitoring requirements. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing these standards remains about $1.5 billion less than the April 2010 proposed standards. Health benefits to children and the public associated with reduced exposure to fine particles and ozone from these large source boilers have increased by almost 25 percent and are estimated to be $27 billion to $67 billion in 2015.

Boilers located at small sources of air toxics emissions: The proposal also covers about 187,000 boilers located at small sources of air pollutants, including commercial buildings, universities, hospitals and hotels. However, due to how little these boilers emit, 98 percent of area source boilers would simply be required to perform maintenance and routine tune-ups to comply with these standards. Only 2 percent of area source boilers may need to take additional steps to comply with the rule. To increase flexibility for most of these sources, EPA is proposing to require initial compliance tune-ups after two years instead after the first year.

Solid waste incinerators and revisions to the list of non-hazardous secondary materials: There are 95 solid waste incinerators that burn waste at a commercial or an industrial facility, including cement manufacturing facilities. EPA is proposing to adjust emissions limits for waste-burning cement kilns and for energy recovery units.

EPA is also proposing revisions to its final rule which identified the types of non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned in boilers or solid waste incinerators. Following the release of that final rule, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the regulatory criteria for a non-hazardous secondary material to be considered a legitimate, non-waste fuel, and how to demonstrate compliance with those criteria. To address these concerns, EPA’s proposed revisions provide clarity on what types of secondary materials are considered non-waste fuels, and greater flexibility.

The proposed revisions also classify a number of secondary materials as non-wastes when used as a fuel and allow for a boiler or solid waste operator to request that EPA identify specific materials as a non-waste fuel.

Following the April 2010 proposals, the agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses, communities and other key stakeholders. As part of the reconsideration process, EPA also received additional feedback after the agency issued the final standards in March 2011. EPA will accept public comment on these standards for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. EPA intends to finalize the reconsideration by spring 2012.

More information

Senate Republicans Introduce Keystone XL Pipeline Legislation

Senator Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), backed by GOP leadership and dozens of other Republicans, introduced legislation Wednesday that requires a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Alberta-to-Texas pipeline within 60 days unless President Obama determines that it’s not in the national interest.  Republicans hope to speed up approval of the project.  The bill’s 36 other current sponsors are all Republicans.  Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, has 36 other current sponsors for the bill, all Republicans.

The legislation comes roughly two weeks after the Obama administration delayed a final decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 elections by requiring a new route analysis. The bill faces huge hurdles in the Democratically-controlled Senate, but regardless of the bill’s prospects, Republicans backing the pipeline hope to exact a political toll on Obama for punting the issue past the election.

The pipeline delay was a victory for environmentalists that had said approval would sap their energy to mobilize on Obama’s behalf in next year's election. But several unions, including the Laborers' International Union of North America and three other unions, another key part of Obama’s political base, back the project. Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute are lobbying in favor of the pipeline, arguing it’s a vital way to boost energy security by expanding supplies from a friendly neighbor while creating jobs.

Senator Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)

But environmentalists, who have held high-profile demonstrations outside the White House, oppose the project due to greenhouse gas emissions, potential spills and other issues.

The State Department currently plans to complete an analysis in 2013 of new routes that would steer the pipeline away from the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. But pipeline backers say an agreement this month between TransCanada and Nebraska politicians to avoid the area should allow a faster approval. Lugar’s panel has jurisdiction over the new bill because the State Department is leading the federal review of the proposed $7 billion project. (The Hill, 11/30/2011)

Chinese Pebble-Bed High Temperature Reactor

The Rongcheng Shidaowan Nuclear Power Plant is China's first high temperature gas-cooled pebble bed reactor power plant.  The expected project construction period from pouring the first tank of concrete to generating electricity for the grid is scheduled to be 50 months. The current plan aims for feeding electricity to the national power grid in 2013.

The HTR-PM plant will consist of two nuclear steam supply system (NSSS), so called modules, each one comprising of a single zone 250MWth pebble-bed modular reactor and a steam generator. The two NSSS modules feed one steam turbine and generate an electric power of 210MW. A pilot fuel production line will be built to fabricate 300,000 pebble fuel elements per year. This line is closely based on the technology of the HTR-10 fuel production line.  The reactor site has been evaluated and approved; the procurement of long-lead components has already been started.

The spherical fuel element with a diameter of 60mm contains a multitude of ceramic coated particles. The coated fuel particles are uniformly embedded in a graphite matrix of 50mm in diameter; while an outer fuel-free zone of pure graphite surrounds the spherical fuel zone for reasons of mechanical and chemical protection. Each spherical fuel element contains about 12,000 coated fuel particles.
Main technical goals of the HTR-PM project

The HTR-PM should achieve the following technical goals:

(1) Demonstration of inherent safety features: the inherent safety features of modular HTGR power plants guarantees and requires that under all conceivable accident scenarios the maximum fuel element temperatures will never surpass its design limit temperature without employing any dedicated and special emergency systems (e.g. core cooling systems or special shutdown systems, etc.).

(2) Demonstration of economic competitiveness: the first HTR-PM demonstration power plant will be supported by the Chinese government, so that the owner can always maintain the plant operation and obtain investment recovery. However, this government supported demonstration plant has to prove that a cost overrun during the construction period will be avoided and that the predicted smooth operation and performance will be kept. Hence, the demonstration plant must clearly demonstrate that follow-on HTR-PM plants will be competitive to LWR plants without any government support.

(3) Confirmation of proven technologies: in order to minimize the technical risks the successful experiences gained fromthe HTR-10 and from other international HTGR plants will be fully utilized in the HTR-PM project. The HTR-PM reactor design is very similar to the HTR-10. The turbine plant design will use the mature technology of super-heated steam turbines which is widely used in other thermal power plants. Besides, the manufacture of fuel elements will be based on the technology verified and proven during the HTR-10 project.

(4) Standardization and modularization: the HTR-PM demonstration plant, consisting of two pebble-bed module reactors of combined 2×250MWth power, adopts the operation mode of two modules connected to only one steam turbine/generator set. This design allows to demonstrate the advantages and key benefits of employing and implementing a design of standardization and modularization. If the construction and operation of the HTR-PM demonstration plant proves to be successful, larger scale HTR-PM plants – using multiple-modules feeding one steam turbine only – will become a reality.

Fourth Generation Reactor Next

The HTR-PM project will establish the technical foundations to be able to realize Generation-IV nuclear energy system goals in the next stage, such as:

(1) Largely enhanced safety features: a successful HTR-PM will have already proven this technical target of Generation-IV nuclear energy systems.

(2) Achieving outlet temperatures beyond 1000 ◦C [very high temperature gas-cooled reactor (VHTR)]: the reactor of current design and using current fuel element technologies has already the potential of realizing a gas outlet temperature of 950 ◦C. A further improvement of the fuel element performance is already foreseeable which will allow reaching this goal of attaining an outlet-temperature of 1000 ◦C.

(3) Hydrogen production, use of helium turbine or supercritical steam turbine: the current reactor design, verified by the HTR-PM, can readily be applied for the helium turbine or super-critical steam turbine or for the generation of large-scale production of hydrogen by nuclear energy.

HTGR plants can achieve a thermal efficiency of 42% by even employing subcritical superheated steam turbines or reaching ∼45% when supercritical steam turbines are installed. The efficiency could be improved even further when adopting direct helium gas turbines with recuperators or when choosing a combined cycle.

Conclusions

On the basis of the HTR-10, the ongoing Chinese HTR-PM project is considered to be a decisive new step for the development of Chinese HTGR technology. Its main target is to finish building a pebble-bed HTR-PM demonstration plant of 210MWe around 2014-205. Through the mutual efforts of all relevant scientific research organizations nd industrial enterprises, and having the strong support of the Chinese government, the HTR-PM project will certainly play an important role in the world-wide development of Generation-IV nuclear energy technologies.

(Next Big Future, March 23, 2011)

Healthy Kids Outdoors Act

Purpose: The proposed Healthy Kids Outdoors Act (S. 1802) will improve our children’s health, support economic growth and strengthen the future of conservation in America by reconnecting our children, youth and families with the natural world through innovative state strategies that connect communities with green spaces, provide opportunities for outdoor recreation, and engage the health community in educating parents and caregivers about the benefits of active time outdoors.

Legislative Content: The proposed Healthy Kids Outdoors Act of 2011 would:

• Provide state-level incentives to develop 5-year state strategies to connect children, youth and families with the natural world. State strategies are developed by agencies and partners in public health, parks and recreation, transportation, and other sectors to create innovative solutions and fund initiatives at the local level;

• Direct the President to develop a similar strategy at the federal level by bringing together federal agencies and national partners to create a national action plan; and

• Support research documenting the health, conservation, and other benefits of active time spent outdoors in the natural world.

Reconnecting with Nature to Strengthen America

• Our children’s lives are out of balance. Children today spend less time outdoors than any generation in human history, devoting just four to seven minutes a day on average in unstructured outdoor play while spending an average of seven and a half hours every day in front of electronic media.

• Our children’s health is declining. Obesity and attention deficit disorders are on the rise in America, especially among children. Obesity is the cause of many major health issues, decreasing the quality of life for Americans and straining our nation’s economy. Attention deficit disorders are impacting America’s competitiveness and readiness to learn in the classroom.

• Our economy is struggling. In addition to the negative economic impact of childhood obesity, the outdoor retail industry, many local tourist destinations or “gateway communities,” and state fish and wildlife agencies rely on revenue generated when Americans spend time outdoors.

• Our conservation legacy is at risk. Those who do not spend time in nature are less likely to protect it, leaving the future of conservation, our nation’s immense natural resources and America’s hunting and angling legacy at risk.

• Our military readiness is declining. Nearly one in four applicants to the military is rejected for being overweight or obese – it's the most common reason for medical disqualification

Seth Oster Leaving EPA

Seth Oster

Seth Oster, Associate Administrator for the Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education, will be departing EPA at the end of the year to pursue a new opportunity in the private sector.

And Other Changes at the Agency

Jose Lozano, our Director of Operations, has been appointed as the new Deputy Chief of Staff.

Steve Owens is leaving EPA on November 30.

Jim Jones, the current Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, will be designated to serve as our new Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention. Jim will start in his role on December 1. Jim has been with EPA for over two decades and his experience includes serving four years as Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for OCSPP and six months as acting Assistant Administrator for OCSPP.

Shalini Vajjhala, who has served as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of International
and Tribal Affairs (OITA), will transition out of OITA and serve as Special Representative. She has been working exclusively on the US-Brazil Joint Initiative on Urban Sustainability (JIUS), announced by President Obama in March 2011.  (EPA)

Mars Rover Curiosity Is Nuclear Powered

Some environmentalists protested the launch of the nuclear powered Cassini space probe destined for Saturn some years ago.  There isn't as much attention being given to the launch of the plutonium-powered Curiosity Mars rover.

Radioactive plutonium, which is used to power the new rover is in a layered, protective module that NASA and others have built to contain the plutonium fuel. The plutonium fuel includes four large pellets, which are clad in iridium, the second densest element known to man. Iridium is both strong and pliable. It bends but does not break. The iridium cladding, which has a melting point greater than 2,000 degrees Celsius (3,632 Fahrenheit), protects the radioactive fuel from impact and heat damage.

The iridium-clad pellets are divided into two pairs, and then the pairs are placed into enclosures called graphite impact shells, or GIS. The GIS are “about the size of a salt shaker” and provide impact resistance. Further heat protection is provided by wrapping the two GIS in insulating sleeves made of a thin fiber called carbon bonded carbon. The shells go together into a hardy, monolithic block called an aeroshell.

The plutonium dioxide fuel is very similar to ceramic. Despite the apparent low radiation risk from the mission launch, NASA, the State of Florida and other federal and local agencies around Kennedy Space Center are making preparations to respond to any launch accident. These precautionary measures will include alerts to direct people to shelters if necessary.

The public supports the concept of Star Trek's enterprise using nuclear powered matter/antimatter 'engines,' but such 'engines' would have ultimately involved lifting radioactive elements into Earth orbit for assembly.  NASA's pursuit of proving spontaneous generation of life will probably once again end in proving just the opposite. (Space .com, 11/23/2011)

Industry Groups Will Probably Sue Re California Cap-and-Trade

"Previewing Legal Challenges to Cap-and-Trade"

By Robert Lawrence, Dustin Till and Svend Brandt-Erichsen

California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade program is due to be finalized within a few weeks, over widespread opposition and concern about its effects on California’s economy. Looking forward, California business and citizens groups are considering how and when to challenge the regulations in court. Final regulations in California are subject to judicial review, and may be challenged as being unconstitutional or inconsistent with the statute that authorized their development, or for conflicting with other federal or state statutes. In the case of the Air Resource Board’s (ARB) cap-and-trade program, all of these objections are likely. A successful appeal can invalidate all or part of a new program, and sometimes requires an agency to start a new rulemaking process entirely.

Constitutionality

The most obvious challenge, and one that ARB prepared for, is that the cap-and-trade regulations violate the commerce clause of the federal Constitution. There are at least two ways to frame this argument. The first is that the program discriminates against out-of-state goods or services. The second is that the regulation impermissibly burdens or inhibits interstate commerce.

Consistency with AB32

There also are likely to be a large number of objections to ARB’s program arising from AB32 itself based on provisions limiting ARB’s authority. Among these requirements, the programs adopted by ARB must be “feasible,” “cost-effective” and “equitable.” These terms provide ample room for argument as to whether the costs imposed by the program are justified by the benefits, and whether the program could have been designed differently.

Consistency with other Federal and State Laws

There is a question of whether California’s regulations conflict with (or complement) federal actions to combat climate change. New and modified power plants and large industrial sources are subject to recently-implemented EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA has identified additional regulations that would address GHG emissions under the CAA. These federal regulations apply or would apply in California to some of the same entities that are subject to the cap-and-trade program, raising the potential for inconsistencies. [More at Marten Law, 11.22.2011]

Particulate Matter

The first standards for PM were established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1971 under the Clean Air Act.  The EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules, which were released Feb. 23, introduced additional, more stringent requirements to new and existing boiler PM and other emission limits and requirements. Utility MACT specifically limits Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). 

One might not think of PM being a driver initially for Utility MACT, but it is. That's because PM is not a type of HAP, but it is a surrogate pollutant for controlling HAPs. The surrogate comes into play for the 10 metallic HAPs the EPA has identified to control under Utility MACT. 

Another regulatory program aimed at controlling PM emissions stems from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS define the concentration of a pollutant in ambient air that EPA deems to be protective of human health and the environment.

EPA revised the PM NAAQS in 1987 to regulate particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10). In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS to also regulate particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In 2006, EPA reduced the PM2.5 NAAQS from the 1997 level of 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3. At this point, the PM NAAQS are so low that stationary sources may require installation of more efficient baghouses or control the PM that forms as gases condense after emission from a stack. 

Many parts of the United States have current ambient air quality that does not meet the new PM2.5 NAAQS. To address this situation, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) to reduce the level of PM2.5 pollution across large regions.

PM2.5 is a rather unique pollutant in the sense that it can be emitted directly from a source, but can also be formed miles away when pollutants like SO₂ and NO_x chemically interact in the atmosphere. EPA created the CATR to force utilities to limit their PM2.5 precursor emissions (that is, SO₂ and NO_x) to reduce the downwind secondary formation of PM2.5. This is designed to help many parts of the country, primarily in the eastern U.S., achieve air quality that meets the NAAQS. 

Two main drivers influence the amount of PM emitted from coal-fired boilers in power generation: the ash content in the coal and the type of boiler used. 

As far as control technologies go, the two main offerings targeting PM are electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters, or baghouses.

An ESP uses high-voltage fields to apply electrical charges to particles moving through the field. This causes the charged particles to move toward an oppositely charged collection surface where they accumulate. ESPs are available in both dry and wet options. Most ESPs are dry, but special circumstances can require wet ESP installations. More than 70 percent of existing coal-fired power plants have installed ESPs, according to a report by Environmental Health and Engineering. According to the EPA, an ESP can capture more than 99 percent of total PM and 80 to 95 percent of PM2.5.

Fabric filters can drive down PM levels more than dry ESP because the technology is not as affected by particulate characteristics.  A fabric filter typically has a lower capital cost than an ESP, but a higher maintenance cost. You trade initial capital investment cost for maintenance costs. A fabric filter collects PM on the surfaces of fabric bags. Most of the particles are captured on already collected particles that have formed a dust layer. According to EPA, a fabric filter on a coal-fired power plant can capture up to 99.9 percent of total particulate emissions and 99.0 to 99.8 percent of PM2.5. Thirty-five percent of coal-fired power plants in the U.S. have already installed fabric filters, according to Environmental Health and Engineering. (Power Engineering, August 2011)

The Intercounty Connector (Mostly) Opens Today

Center Was The Only Environmental Group in the United States to Support the ICC

Along With Support For National Harbor & Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement

Most of the $2.5 billion, 18.8-mile Intercounty Connector opened today. Financing for the six-lane toll road linking Interstate 270 in Montgomery County with Interstate 95 in Prince George’s County leveraged the Maryland Transportation Authority’s statewide toll collections. The toll is $4 each way, or up to $24 for tractor-trailers with an E­-ZPass, to travel the entire route.

The ICC provides a vital east-west link long missing from Maryland’s highway network. The ICC directly connects Montgomery’s job-rich I-270 corridor with more affordable places to live, such as Howard and northern Prince George’s counties, while opening up jobs around Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport, Fort Meade and Laurel to more Montgomery residents.

The Center believes the investment was well worth it in several key measures: how many vehicles the ICC absorbs from local roads, time saved by motorists who use it, job growth from companies that rely on it to attract workers, and the impact it has on local streams and air pollution.  We believe that local roads will get relief as will the Capital Beltway, families will reunite sooner in the evenings, jobs will be created, there will be very little impact on streams and air pollution will be reduced due to faster trips with less congestion.

The ICC will attract and keep companies in Montgomery that can use the road to reach BWI. State officials say the drive between Gaithersburg and the airport will drop from 71 minutes on local roads to 37 minutes on the ICC. (Wash Post, 12/22/2011, Graphic courtesy Wash Post)

Greenhouse Gas Rule For Refineries Delayed By EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency will not meet a mid-December deadline to propose first-time standards for greenhouse gas emissions from oil refineries. Draft rules had been slated to surface in the middle of next month under a settlement with environmentalists and other parties, but EPA says it needs more time.  According to EPA:

“EPA expects to need more time to complete work on greenhouse gas pollution standards for oil refineries, and is working with the litigants to develop a new schedule to replace the current date of mid-December for a rule proposal.” 

EPA has already missed deadlines earlier this year to propose greenhouse gas standards for power plants. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the program "energyNow!" in an interview broadcast over the weekend that the power plant rules should be proposed early next year. EPA agency is scheduled to finalize standards for power plant emissions of mercury and other air toxics in mid-December. EPA will still release the "Maximum Achievable Control Technology" standards for power plants on Dec. 16. (The Hill, 11/21/2011)

State Department's Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science

The State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, often referred to as “Oceans, Environment and Science” or “OES,” was created in 1974 by Congress and is responsible for negotiating international treaties that involve natural resources. More specifically, OES works to advance U.S. foreign policy goals in such critical areas as climate change, renewable energy, resource scarcity, polar issues, oceans policy, infectious diseases, science and technology, and space policy, to name a few.

OES is overseeing the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Final EIS Fact Sheet