President Obama believes that American families should never be asked to choose between the health of their children and the health of the economy. That is a false choice. Four decades of success under the Clean Air Act have shown clearly that strong environmental protections and a strong economy can go hand in hand. 

To build on the tremendous success of the Clean Air Act, the Obama Administration has taken the most significant steps in a generation to reduce harmful pollution and promote public health. The new standards that we have issued or proposed – to curb interstate pollution, reduce mercury exposure, and make our cars more fuel efficient, just to name a few – will result in significant economic and health benefits each year. 

Just over forty years ago, the Senate did something that would be almost unthinkable today: It passed major legislation by a unanimous vote. That legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon. Two decades later, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed, again with large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed by President George H. W. Bush. 

But today, Republicans in Congress are trying to use our current economic climate as an excuse to roll back clean air protections that Americans have counted on for decades. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is currently leading an effort to block the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that would save tens of thousands of lives each year. In doing so, Senator Paul is using the Congressional Review Act to repeal this important rule and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting American families from cross-state pollution in the future. 

Let’s be clear – this brazen effort doesn’t just undermine the public health, it also undermines the judgment of the courts. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit found critical flaws in the Bush Administration’s efforts on interstate air pollution and directed the EPA to issue a replacement rule as quickly as possible. After seeking and incorporating extensive input from the public, the states, environmental and public health groups, as well as industry, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution rule in July of this year. 

What does the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Do?

This rule is designed protect the health of millions of Americans by helping states reduce harmful air pollution through the deployment of readily available technologies that are already in use at many facilities across the country. By reducing dangerous pollution emitted by power plants, the rule protects residents in dozens of states who are unknowingly subjected to toxic emissions from plants often hundreds of miles away.

What benefits will the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule provide for American Families?

The emission reductions from this final rule will have significant and immediate public health benefits, each year preventing:

* 13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths,
* 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis,
* 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks,
* 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits,
* 1.8 million days when people miss work or school,
* 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and
* 420,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms.

In addition, the benefits of this rule are expected to far outweigh its costs, producing over $100 billion in net benefits each year.

We will continue to take smart sensible steps that ensure we protect the health of our families, while also opposing efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act.

Article by Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

Related posts:

• Why Are Investors Bearish on Clean Energy?
• New Orleans Tells Resident Not to Install Solar Panels
• Nations Meet on Climate Cash, U.N. Sees Long Haul
• Developing vs. Developed Nations — A Climate Negotiations Dilemma
• Building Partnerships, Conserving Lands

Adopted into law more than forty years ago, the Clean Air Act represents our fundamental commitment to the health and wellbeing of America’s communities and children.  Throughout its history, the Act has been supported and strengthened by leaders in both political parties.  Today, however, some voices in Congress want to use the economic crisis as an excuse to weaken clean air protections for the first time in history.  But as we have known for decades, we do not need to sacrifice the health of the American people to build a stronger economy.  In fact, the health of our economy depends on the health of our communities.

By any measure, the Clean Air Act has been a successful investment.  Last year alone, Clean Air Act regulations prevented approximately 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and 1.7 million asthma attacks, delivering roughly $30 in benefits for every dollar spent.  These health gains have directly boosted our productivity.  In 2010, Americans avoided an estimated 13 million lost work days and 3 million lost school days thanks to Clean Air Act standards.  Finally, the Act has been a catalyst for innovation, making the U.S. a world leader in advanced pollution controls and clean technologies.  U.S. exports from the environmental technology industry in 2008 were over $43 billion.

Today, even as Americans use more electricity and drive more miles, local air pollution has fallen thanks to the Clean Air Act.  But many large sources of pollution remain unaddressed and our families bear the costs of this pollution every day.  The Administration is taking a number of important steps to meet our national commitment to clean air and reduce the dangers associated with air pollution that continues to impact the health of our communities, particularly our most vulnerable populations, including children and seniors.

For example, these communities would benefit from new rules for power plants that will set first-ever national limits for mercury, arsenic and other toxic chemicals and slash emissions of soot and smog that pollute the air we breathe.  While most of the country’s power plants have already installed readily available pollution controls, others, including many plants older than the Clean Air Act itself, continue to operate without modern controls.  These long-awaited public health standards will also finally provide a more level playing field for companies, enable investments that are currently on hold, and create jobs building, installing and operating pollution control equipment and new clean sources of electricity.

However, these vital public health standards, overdue by more than a decade and required by court orders, would be blocked and delayed indefinitely by a bill that recently passed the House of Representatives, the TRAIN Act.  The costs of this bill would be massive.  Each year of delay imposed by this bill would lead to tens of thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of heart attacks, thousands of hospital visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and hundreds of thousands of childhood asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses that would otherwise be avoided by commonsense public health standards.

This is just the first in a line of bills attacking core public health protections of the Clean Air Act, as some politicians try to use the economic crisis to push an extreme agenda.  It’s time for leaders in Congress to stand-up for the health of our families and communities by rejecting measures that would dismantle the fundamental protections that are needed to keep our country healthy, strong, and prosperous for decades to come.

Nancy Sutley is Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality

photo: foxtongue

Related posts:

• How Health Care is Trumping Energy
• Protecting Historic Progress on Clean Air
• Coal Costs U.S. $500 Billion In ‘Hidden’ Costs Annually, Study Says
• Clean Tech is all wet
• Copenhagen and Health Care Dim Chances for Passage of U.S. Climate Bill

Over the last two and half years the Obama Administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution.

On Friday, President Obama asked Administrator Jackson to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time, as work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.

Several state and local officials spoke out about the President’s announcement and commitment to working with state and local governments.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder:

“The President made the right decision to stop this move by the EPA.  The present ozone standard was last reviewed a mere three years ago.  Michigan companies have worked hard to meet the standard, because we all support a healthy environment. It is important to balance environmental goals with the need for economic development, particularly as Michigan and the rest of the nation work to recover from the recession”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:

“In our current economic climate, we must do everything we can to stimulate the economy short of taking a step back in the unprecedented environmental gains this administration has already made. This is the sort of balanced approach we need to create jobs and also improve the quality of air, health and life for countless Americans.”

East Moline, Illinois Mayor John Thodos:

“We in the Quad Cities are very happy with the President’s announcement.  We take clean air very seriously, but it’s difficult enough to create jobs without these new standards.  I fully support the President’s decision.”

Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman:

“I want to thank President Obama and his administration for listening and working with state and local governments. Withdrawing the new standard allows an update of the science and the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013 while granting our state and local governments and businesses more regulatory certainty and flexibility. President Obama and his administration are strong partners with those of us on the state and local level of government in the fight for clean air and public health.” 

Bettendorf, Iowa Mayor Mike Freemire:

“The standards are quite rigorous as they are, and the threat of new standards from a manufacturing standpoint aren’t helpful for the economy or growing jobs.  It’s a prudent move.  Everything is a balancing act.  I applaud the President for his decision.”

Scott County, Iowa Board of Supervisors Chair Tom Sunderbruch:

“I certainly support the President's move to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time…I think delaying the standard change is the right thing to do.  I also believe making sure you have the right science to know what to do next is important.  I believe those responsible for setting the regulations should continue to research the issue.”

Article by Cecilia Muñoz, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Related posts:

• The Case for National Security: Clean Energy
• Winning the Clean Energy Future in Communities Across America
• PV Production Follows Policy In Illinois
• Victory for the Jersey Shore: Governor Vetoes Offshore LNG Port
• White House Backs $5 Billion Clean Energy Tax Credit

Most of the country and many around the world are focused on the debate on the debt ceiling and various budget cuts that will be enacted. However, lying just beneath the surface, are a labyrinth of Congressional bills that attack the environment and America’s push for renewable energy.

There is a tremendous need for comprehensive energy and environmental policy in the U.S. We need to have an open and honest debate, but in the current political environment, such debate is impossible. It is clear that Republicans, especially those on the far right, turn a blind eye when it comes to energy and the environment. Ideology and politics have supplanted doing what is right for the American public of this generation and future generations to come.

Take for example, HR 2584, sponsored by Representative Michael Simpson (R – Idaho). This is an appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and the EPA for fiscal year 2012. According to Congressman Dicks (D – Washington), between the cuts enacted for FY 2011 and the proposed cuts for FY 2012, the EPA’s budget would be cut by approximately 34%. That amount of cuts is enough to turn some heads. Republicans argue that it is to “rein in unparalleled, out-of-control spending and job-killing overregulation by the EPA.”

HR 2584 severely limits the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases for a one year period; blocks Clean Air Act regulations of the cement industry; prohibits funding for the EPA to develop or finalize a new greenhouse gas standard for automobiles after the 2016 model year; prohibits funding for the EPA to regulate certain levels of particulate matter in the air under the Clean Air Act; directs an additional $55 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies; opens up uranium mining in lands next to the Grand Canyon; and prohibits the EPA from changing or supplementing guidance or rules related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

The above is just a sample of the ridiculous nature of this bill and how senseless Republicans have become. I am not sure about you, but I like clean water, clean air, and the beautiful Grand Canyon. Regardless of party affiliation, I think we can all agree on that. Reducing government interference is great in concept, but sometimes, the free market will not act in the best interest of the people. Preserving and enhancing our environment so that we and future generations can enjoy is, I think, something we can all believe in and strive for.

While not as egregious as HR 2584, HR 2354, sponsored by Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R – New Jersey) makes cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy. More importantly, is the stark difference between the budget for fossil energy research and development (476,993,000) and the budget for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) (100,000,000). Although ARPA-E’s budget was increased, efforts to shift funds from fossil energy research to ARPA-E were blocked. It seems clear that Republicans have no concept of where our energy priorities should be.

Republicans have become, thanks to the far right, too ideological, too far out of the mainstream, and unwilling to enter into a common sense debate on energy and the environment. The party has made it clear that cooperation or compromise is not in their blood.

Related posts:

• Jon Stewart and Steven Chu tell the woeful tale of Cap’n Trade
• Two Worthwhile Pieces on Sustainability to Make You Think
• Solar Panels Get a Touch of Color
• Video: Too Dirty For College
• House Republicans And The Never-Ending Stream Of Climate Nonsense

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether a global warming lawsuit against five big power companies can proceed, with several justices saying the Environmental Protection Agency, not federal judges, should deal with the issue.

The high court justices sounded a skeptical note during arguments when they asked whether complicated environmental issues, such as how much greenhouse gas pollution is allowable and how it should be curbed, should be left to federal judges.

The big environmental case stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit claiming that five coal-burning utilities have created a public nuisance by contributing to climate change. Its consequences, such as rising seas, reduced crop yields and destruction of some hardwood trees, would harm the states’ citizens.

The lawsuit, now involving six states, seeks to have a federal judge in New York order the utilities to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Both liberal and conservative justices questioned whether the lawsuit can go forward.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court’s liberals, took aim at the states’ case, saying what they want is what the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to do with its proposed regulations of carbon emissions.

“How does a district judge decide what’s reasonable and effective?” conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked rhetorically.

Another conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, also asked whether a district court judge could conduct the cost-benefit analysis to determine what was reasonable to reduce global warming: “I think that’s a pretty big burden to impose on a district court judge.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the facts at issue in the lawsuit usually were determined by an agency such as the EPA, rather than the courts. “There is an administrative agency. There is a Clean Air Act,” she said.

EPA’S ROLE

Lawyers for the power companies, including an Obama administration attorney representing the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, said the scope of the lawsuit was unprecedented in U.S. history, involving national and international issues outside the power of the courts.

“In the 222 years that the court has been sitting, there has never been a case with so many potential perpetrators and so many potential victims,” said Neal Katyal, the administration’s top courtroom lawyer.

The power companies — American Electric Power Co Inc, Southern Co, Xcel Energy Inc and Cinergy Corp, which Duke Energy Corp acquired in 2006, along with TVA — want the lawsuit dismissed.

The states — California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont — said their citizens have been harmed by global warming and urged the top court to allow their lawsuit to go forward.

It is the most sweeping climate change case to come before the high court since its landmark 2007 ruling that authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions if they endanger human health.

In their comments on Tuesday, the justices said Congress has given the federal environmental agency the authority to do just that.

But even though the EPA has found officially that greenhouse pollution poses a health hazard, it has not yet gone forward to impose regulations on emissions, and Republicans in Congress have sought to limit the agency’s ability to do so.

Coal-fired power plants emit about twice as much carbon dioxide — which warms the Earth by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere — as natural gas-fired plants. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases.

The five power utilities account for 10 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, said Barbara Underwood, who argued the case for the states.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

Article by Deborah Zabarenko and James Vicini; Edited by Bill Trott; appearing courtesy Reuters

Related posts:

• Global Warming Lawsuit
• US Chamber of Commerce Wants A Global Warming Trial
• Chilean Hydroelectric Dam Project to be Appealed to Supreme Court
• Green Law: Supreme Court Decision on Wastewater Dumping
• California Tosses Out Solar Power Plant Lawsuit

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will shut down 18 of its dirtiest coal-burning units over the next six years as part of a legal settlement with four U.S. states and three environmental groups that claimed the utility’s air emissions violated the Clean Air Act.

The agreement, announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), represents one of the most significant reductions in coal-fired generation by any utility.

By 2017, the TVA’s nitrogen oxide emissions will be cut 69 percent from 2008 levels, and sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by 67 percent.

The federally-owned utility will also have to spend $3 billion to $5 billion on new and updated pollution controls and invest $350 million in clean energy projects.

According to the EPA, the measures will prevent 1,200 to 3,000 premature deaths and 21,000 cases of asthma annually. The closures, which will occur at power plants located in Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama, represent about 16 percent of the authority’s coal-fired capacity.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Good News on Climate Change: More Coal Power Leaving the Grid
• Duke Energy Resolves Clean Air Act Violations
• Nitrogen Pollution Soaring In Waters Off of China, Study Shows
• The Next Step for Fighting Climate Change in the Northwest
• Pickens Plan & Energy Policy Act Challenged By Earthjustice Suit

Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a petition by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to limit sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant. Emissions from the coal-fired power plant, Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, have adversely impacted air quality in four northwest NJ counties: Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon. The EPA has ordered the plant to reduce its SO2 emissions by 81 percent over a three year period.

It’s known as the “Transport Rule”. Under the Clean Air Act, states can file petition against polluters in neighboring states in which the neighbors’ air emissions negatively affect the state’s air quality. Due to the prevailing winds in the United States, the eastern states are the ones most affected. EPA estimates that the transport rule will reduce SO2 emissions 71 percent from 2005 levels by 2014, and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions by 52 percent.

The NJDEP has found the transport of emissions from the PA plant to be unlawful and filed a petition in 2010 for the EPA to take action. The NJDEP determined that these emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 and particulate matter (PM), particularly in Knowlton Township in Warren County. Excessive exposure to SO2 can cause respiratory difficulties, especially children, the elderly, and people with asthma.

As part of the petition, NJDEP include several exhibits such as several air quality monitoring and analysis, and existing wind fields in the region. The evidence points directly to the PA plant as the cause of nonattainment in the northwest NJ region. EPA conducted their own modeling which concurred. Usually, a mix of sources from multiple locations is responsible. But in this case, the PA plant alone is found to be the culprit.

Coal-fired power is one of the dirtier sources of electricity which the US uses, and it uses a lot of it. Coal plants emit large quantities of SO2 and NOx which contribute to respiratory difficulties as well as acid rain. They also emit large amounts of particulate matter. There are control devices available for capturing these pollutants in the flue gas before release into the atmosphere. However, current technology cannot capture all of it, and many plants are not equipped with the newest state-of-the-art equipment.

Now, the EPA has ruled in favor of the NJDEP petition and will be making new requirements of the Portland Generating Station. They will be accepting comments on this proposal until May 27, 2011 and will be holding a hearing on April 27, 2011 in Oxford, NJ to get public comments. The hearing will provide stakeholders to voice their opinions verbally and in writing.

Click here for more information on EPA’s actions.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Solar Success on the Line in Pennsylvania
• Students Push Higher Education to Lead the Charge Against Climate Change
• California ‘Clean Car’ Rules Mandate Boost in Electric Vehicle Sales
• Support for Nuclear Power Drops Sharply in the U.S., Poll Says
• California’s Air Quality Plan to be Rejected by the EPA

Earlier this week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In her testimony the Administrator highlighted the agency's ongoing efforts to develop sensible standards that update the Clean Air Act, while ensuring that the landmark law continues to provide Americans the protections from dangerous pollution that they deserve. These reasonable steps will ensure that the air our children breathe and the water they drink is safe, while also providing certainty to American businesses.

Despite these pragmatic steps to implement long overdue updates, big polluters are trying to gut the Clean Air Act by asking Congress to carve out special loopholes from air pollution standards.  

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the necessary tools to protect our families from mercury, arsenic, smog, particulates and carbon dioxide that can cause asthma and lung disease – especially in children.  Weakening these standards would allow more pollution in the air we breathe and threaten our children’s health. We thought it might be helpful to refresh everyone on how this landmark law affects our country and protects our health.

160,000 Lives Saved Last Year
In the year 2010 alone, clean air regulations are estimated to have saved over 160,000 lives.

More than 100,000 Hospital Visits Avoided Last Year
In 2010, clean air standards prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems, including bronchitis and asthma. It enhanced productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays, and kept kids healthy and in school, avoiding millions of lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution.

60% Less Pollution in Our Air, Strong Economic Growth and Lower Electricity Prices
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants that cause smog and particulate pollution by more than 60%. At the same time the economy more than tripled. And Since the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, electricity production is up and prices are down. In 2009, electric utilities delivered 33 percent more electricity to U.S. households and businesses than in 1990, while nationwide electricity prices were 10 percent lower.

Benefits Far Out Weigh Costs
Over its forty-year span, the benefits of the Clean Air Act – in the form of longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections – outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1.

---

Related posts:

• Clean Technology Photos & Videos
• White House To Host Clean Energy Manufacturing Forum
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• J-REC Conference: Jewish Clean Tech & Green Energy Leaders To Meet
• Deadline Looming For Clean Energy Challenge

---

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by The White House Blog. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)


Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

]]> http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/02/11/so-what-does-the-clean-air-act-do/feed/ 1 http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/01/23/everything%e2%80%99s-bigger-in-texas/ http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/01/23/everything%e2%80%99s-bigger-in-texas/#comments Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:15:00 +0000 ecopolitology http://blog.cleantechies.com/?p=25409

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

]]>

Texans are proud of a lot of things, but the state’s air quality isn’t one of them. That makes it doubly bizarre that Governor Rick Perry is so determined to stop the EPA from requiring big polluters to conform to the Clean Air Act.

Texas industries produce more toxic mercury pollution, more smog, and more greenhouse gases than any other state. And although Texas is a very big state, it’s not so big that its air pollution doesn’t affect its neighbors. Just ask the folks across the Red River in Oklahoma how they feel about Texas coal plants.

Last week, Rick Perry’s administration lost in court for a third time as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected its request to stop the EPA from issuing Clean Air Act permits for CO2 emissions.

The Supreme Court had already ruled that carbon pollution is covered under Clean Air Act. And, as of this month, big greenhouse gas-emitting sites like coal plants and cement kilns must start accounting for CO2 when they apply for a Clean Air Act permit for new facilities or major renovations.

Contrary to what Governor Perry and others are saying, that doesn’t mean the federal government wants to run roughshod over state governments. The EPA would actually prefer that the individual states handle the permitting programs. But in those few cases where the states aren’t ready to do that, the EPA is obliged to step in. Of all the states, only Texas has both refused to take responsibility and also demanded that no one else take responsibility either.

You’d think Lisa Jackson was demanding to install solar panels on the Alamo. You know, almost eight percent of the energy generated in Texas comes from wind power — a figure that’s expected to almost double by 2015. If all this hot air about the “overreaching” EPA keeps blowing, that figure could triple!

Fortunately, now that the way is clear for the EPA to assume responsibility for protecting the air in Texas, businesses can start planning how they will comply with the Clean Air Act rather than being stuck in a legal limbo. And, with luck, millions of Texans (and their neighbors) will be able to breathe a little easier as the worst polluters in the state either clean up or shut down.

Article by Michael Brune, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

---

Related posts:

• Duke Energy Announces Wind Farm for Willacy County in Texas
• Wind Power in Texas Begins to Reduce Electricity Costs
• Here’s A Reason to Care About Climate Change: It Could Ruin Texas Football
• Record Wind Generation Tests Texas’s Transmission System
• Start Saving Money by Leasing Solar Energy

---

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by ecopolitology. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)


Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

]]> http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/01/23/everything%e2%80%99s-bigger-in-texas/feed/ 0 http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/01/03/two-policy-measures-that-may-change-face-of-us-sustainability/ http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/01/03/two-policy-measures-that-may-change-face-of-us-sustainability/#comments Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:30:02 +0000 Shari Shapiro http://www.greenbuildinglawblog.com/2011/01/articles/regulations/new-years-greentwo-policy-measures-that-may-change-the-face-of-us-sustainability/

Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

]]>



When the clocked struck 12:01 on New Year’s, two important green regulations went into effect that may have a long term influence on green building and renewable energy.  If successful, either of these regulations would do more to change the green industry than any legal challenge to LEED’s legitimacy (see the continued coverage of the Gifford v. USGBC case here and here): 

1. CALGREEN

As I have said before, green building practices are becoming code, and California has (as usual) taken the lead.  California is the only state to have a state-wide green building code, CALGREEN, which went into effect on January 1, 2011.  If California successfully implements this mandatory green building code without siginificant impact on building rates or building costs, look to other states and municipalities to follow.  Implementing green via building code is being made significantly easier throught the creation of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) which integrates with the ICC construction codes already in place in most jurisdictions. 

An interesting question that has been bandied about is what a green construction code will do to LEED.  California will be an interesting laboratory.  Will developers still seek LEED certification for their buildings when all new construction must be green?  How sensitive is the customer base to "green" vs. "more green?"

EPA Regulation Of GHG Under the Clean Air Act

EPA limits on greenhouse gases for power plants which also went into effect January 1 (a quick fact sheet from the EPA is available here).   When cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax died in Congress last year, the EPA continued its plan to regulate GHG via the Clean Air Act. There is significant controversy over these limitations, and legal challenges have been filed.  On Wednesday, December 29, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court refused to stay the regulations, and on Thursday December 30, 2010, Texas filed a petition to the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit to stay the regulations.  If the EPA regulations on power plants remain in place, more GHG regulation of other categories will follow, creating the same massive shift in the priority of green tactics to manage GHG emissions that cap-and-trade would have had.

The reason I started this post by saying that these regulatory efforts may (not will) shift the green building and renewable energy industries is because of the massive efforts being undertaken to derail the regulatory efforts. 

According to the Center for American Progress: 

The 20 biggest-spending oil, mining, and electric utility companies shelled out $242 million on lobbying from January 2009 to June 2010. Trade associations that generally oppose clean energy policies spent another $290 million during this time. This is over $1,800 in lobby expenditures a day for every single senator and representative.

Opponents of GHG regulations were successful in killing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress.  In California, a referendum seeking to overturn California’s cap-and-trade regulations was on the ballot in the November election, although it was defeated handily.

In the tug of war over between proponents and opponents of environmental regulations, watch these two hotspots in 2011. 



---

Related posts:

• Race to the Bottom: Sustainability Lessons from Financial Regulation
• Easy Steps for Businesses to Go Green and Promote Employee Engagement
• Exploring Positive Engagement as a Primary Sustainability Driver
• EU Faces Court Case Over Biofuels
• UN Report Says Economic Growth and Sustainability Critically Linked

---

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by Shari Shapiro. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)


Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

]]> http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/01/03/two-policy-measures-that-may-change-face-of-us-sustainability/feed/ 0