Although as yet unofficial, an exciting new development is expected when President Obama will soon – probably later today – announces new federal rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards.

When Obama cleared the road for a federal waiver, which would have allowed California (and 13 other states which would have followed suit) to develop more stringent fuel efficiency standards, there were concerns that this will lead to a patchwork of regulations around the country. The new regulations which are about to be announced should redress these fears and bring the whole of the US up to the standards set by the Californian regulations (see fact sheet for California’s regulations, though the two set of rules use difference measurements, so complex conversions are needed to actually compare them). They will also mark the first ever limits on GHG tailpipe emissions in the United States.

Although some of the details are not completely clear, and there seems to be some confusion as to exact numbers, these rules which will take effect in 2012, will create a car and light truck fleet which is about 40% cleaner and more efficient than what we have today, by 2016. This is four years earlier than is required under current federal law, which was passed in 2007 but never enforced, as no regulations were made by the Bush administration.

This development will have wide support as it follows months of discussions with the ailing American auto industry, as well as fit in with the Waxman-Markey ACES bill which calls for a nationwide standard. Car manufacturers welcome the pending announcement in part because this will allow them to better plan for the future market, after finding themselves lagging behind Japanese and European manufacturers.

The expected announcement is naturally also supported by environmental politicians and NGOs. And as Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign said – “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

UPDATE - and now it’s official. With executives from 10 automakers by his side, and environmental leaders applauding from the audience, President Obama announced a new national fuel efficiency policy. The policy will cover model years 2012-2016, and by 2016 will require an average fuel economy standard  of 35.5 mpg (or 15km/litre. Compare this to the 35 mpg by 2020, which is what the 2007 CAFE law requires. The current average is 25 mpg). Obama mentioned that 1.8 billion barrels of oil will be saved over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the next 5 years (this is the equivalent of shutting down 194 coal plants or taking 58 million cars off the roads for a year).

This policy is a result of an unprecedented collaboration between the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, Amrican auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, environmental leaders, the State of California, and other state governments.

UPDATE #2 – more details coming through mention that the EPA will indeed regulate tailpipe emissions, which has never been done before, and that Congress does not need to aprove these standards as they will be implemented through federal rules (which – together with the strong alliance backing it up – means that this is not just a pretty statement, but is a policy able to bring real changes).

Some thoughts - one of the things mentioned again and again by the different people involved, is how much collaboration went into this. It is a unique alliance between groups representing very different interests (auto industry, state governments, environmental NGOs, etc) all “marching forward in the same direction.” as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said at some point. Obama notes this as well, mentioning in his statement that “it represents not only a change in policy in Washington but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington… No longer will we accept anything less than a common effort, made in good faith, to solve our toughest problems.” As the problems facing the US are are indeed tough and deeply rooted, I only hope that this is really true, and not just wishful thinking from a man who sought to ‘reach out across the aisle’ since his first days in office (and was constantly rebuffed)

UPDATE #3 – questions have been raised about how this will affect the struggling ethanol industry which is currently trying to increase the national standard from a 10% ethanol blend (that is, ethanol constitute 10% of the blend sold at the pump) to a 15% blend. Some analysts say a tougher fuel efficiency standard might harm the industry as ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline. However when questioned, Carol Browner the president’s assistant on energy and climate change, said she did not know the answer to that.

While sorry for the workers in a struggling industry, I can’t say that I will be sorry to see the strong ethanol lobby run into some difficulties or the industry forced to change the way it produces biofuels. Heavily subsidized corn based ethanol is not the way to produce carbon neutral fuels, nor is it beneficial to the American economy as a whole.

UPDATE #4 – The new policy resolves the conflict between the federal government and the state of California regarding fuel standards. Which means that the lawsuits connected to said conflict will now be dropped and these resources can be directed elsewhere (maybe sending more environemental lobbyists to Washington??).

During the past week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on the draft legislation of ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009′. Over 60 witnesses testified, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Nobel laureate Al Gore, as well as representatives of environmental groups, electricity producers, auto manufacturers and renewable energy companies.

Prior to the hearings, Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee and co-sponsor of the bill, promised that he will stick to his proposed 20% reduction in GHGs emissions in the next decade and that it was Congress, rather than the EPA who should determine how to regulate these emissions (referring to the EPA’s endangerment finding released on the previous Friday).

Here is a brief description of the proceedings and some of the highlights.

Tuesday:

The first day consisted of opening statements only, but the action surrounding the hearings kick-started with a letter from the 23 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to the Committee’s Democratic leaders saying that the draft bill is not ready to be discussed, as a major element – how the permits will be distributed – is missing. They also called for a hearing dedicated to the EPA’s recent endangerment finding.

This was seen more as a delaying tactic, as Edward Markey, the other co-sponsor of the bill, said in the opening session – “The time for delay, denial and inaction has come to an end”.

Wednesday:

In the second day the committee heard from representatives of the administration (Secretary Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood), the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) and others, such as the CEO of American Wind Energy Association, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Senior Economist from the Stockholm Environment Institute.

The administration’s representatives responded to the concerns of Republicans as well as some Democrats and explained that the benefits of a cap-and-trade system will outweigh the costs, stressing that such a bill will create jobs and a stable investment environment, as well as ultimately reducing costs to consumers. Both Chu and Jackson though said they are still studying the details of the draft bill and that the administration had not given its blessings to it.

Secretary LaHood, in response to a question from Democrat John Dingell, assured the committee that the administration is committed to helping the automobile industry.

Companies belonging to USCAP generally stated their support of a cap-and-trade system. For example the representative from Alcoa, an aluminium producer, mentioned that increasing energy efficiency has already helped them reduce costs, and that aluminium is expected to be used in future energy efficient vehicles and buildings. However, both she and others (Duke Energy and NRG Energy, to name two) said they will drop their support for the bill if they did get free permits.

Thursday:

Day three saw testimonies from utility companies, think tanks and research institutions, consumer organisations, renewable energy companies and more. The panels dealt with issues of allocation policies, ensuring US competitiveness and the more technical issues of low-carbon electricity, CCS, renewables and grid-modernization. 

The utility companies stressed that they will need time to adapt and urged a gradual transition to a full auction system, also requesting allocation of free permits at first. It is encouraging to note though, that the American Public Power Association, which represents more than 2,000 community-owned electric utilities, supports auctioning no more than 5 percent of total allowances from the onset of the programme.

In response to that and to opposition from Republican members of the committee, as well as concerns raised by Democrats, Markey told reporters that “There are going to be some free allocations of allowances.”

Advocates of renewable energy called on Congress to set a renewable-energy standard requiring all states to get part of their energy from renewable sources.

Friday:

The main focus of the day was on the “star” witnesses – former vice-president Al Gore, former Republican Senator John Warner, and Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, which was apparently added by the Republicans as a last minute addition to balance out Gore and Warner’s favourable testimonies.

Former Sen. Warner was one of the few Republicans in the last Congress who supported strong action on climate change (and joined with Dem. Joe Leiberman in a bipartisan attempt to pass a climate change bill). He attacked the “clean coal” mantra, saying that “we know clean coal is not around the corner” and argued that climate change is a national security issue which must be addressed.

There were no surprises in Al Gore’s testimony, who equated the bill under discussion to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the Marshal Plan of the 1940s. He urged the House panel to make sure the bill includes provisions to protect people who would face hardships as a result of the expected changes. In response to Rep. Dingell’s concern that US jobs will suffer after all, as countries such as China won’t face the same burdens, Gore drew on his experience with the international negotiations when he said that “If the United States leads, China will follow”.

What Next?

The bill will have to go through other House panels, but Waxman planned a tight schedule and hopes to have it ready for discussion in front of the full House by Memorial Day (May 25).

In the meantime, there are apparently negotiations going on behind the scenes to find a compromise that will build a winning coalition in favour of the bill.

Barack Obama’s reshaping of America is continuing at full speed, this time with the transport system. Yesterday, in an inspiring speech, President Obama outlined his vision for a network of high-speed rail corridors across America.

Introduced by Vice President Biden, well known for being a train-enthusiast and a regular commuter, Obama delivered a stimulating speech already compared by some to Kennedy’s moon speech. He painted a picture of travel made simple (“No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes”), clean and fast. He noted that while this may seem futuristic to Americans, high-speed rail have been a reality in many countries from Japan to Spain, citing the prosperity it brought with it. Once more he challenged America to return to its former leading position, and reminded Americans that it was much-admired Lincoln who first expanded the nation’s infrastructure and invested heavily in connecting East and West (by rail and telegraph).

To me he seemed a little frustrated by the naysayers, whether it was when he was describing the wonders of the high-speed rails in foreign countries (over 300mph in Japan, bringing growth to isolated regions in France) while the US is lagging behind, or with those who believe that a time of crisis is not the time to make big changes. It was for their benefit mostly, that he invoked Lincoln’s investment in infrastructure, done during the civil war.

He also promised impatient supporters of change that this is just the beginning – the $8 billion from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (which have to be spent within two years) and the additional one billion a year for the next five years (as requested in the FY 2010 budget) are, as far as both Obama and Biden are concerned, only a down payment.

And for anyone who feels that actions are better than words, no matter how stimulating or revolutionary, the speed with which the Obama administration is moving will be encouraging – this strategic plan was issued before the Congressional deadline (only 58 days after the Recovery Act was passed) and the first round of grant awards are expected to be announced before the end of the summer, which is 3 years ahead of the schedule required by law.

The main points of the President’s vision are -

• Rebuilding existing rail infrastructure
• Launching high-speed rail services in 100-600 mile corridors that connect US communities
• These will be developed through partnership between the public sector and private industry, with a national vision, provided by a strong Federal leadership

A transcript of both Biden’s and Obama’s speeches can be found here; a video of Obama can be found here, and highlights of the strategic plan are in this pdf document.

EPA logo

In a landmark move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to declare an “endangerment finding” on GHGs, meaning they officially acknowledge them to be a threat to human health, and are therefore required to regulate them under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

This is the latest development in a process that started in 1999 when 12 states, 3 cities and several environmental organisations petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs emissions from motor vehicles under the CAA. The case – known as Massachusetts v. EPA – eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and in April 2007 the Court ruled that as greenhouse gases meet the Act’s definition of air pollutants, the EPA must take action to regulate tailpipe emissions.

Following this decision the EPA was required to find whether or not GHGs emissions from vehicles endanger public health (unless it found that the science is too uncertain to make a judgement).

Unsurprisingly EPA scientists found that GHGs do in fact endanger human health as they contribute to global warming, but under the Bush administration the EPA stalled, taking over a year to publish just an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR is an informal action used when an agency seeks more information and public input before deciding what to propose).

Now the EPA, under the new director Lisa P. Jackson, has finally sent the Obama administration a proposed “endangerment finding”, which – if cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget – will pave the way for EPA regulation of GHGs.

While many agree that the 1970 Clean Air Act is not ideal for dealing with rising GHGs emissions (and anyway, this first stage deals with emissions from vehicles only), this will still be a step forward as it will likely put pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would be better suited for the task. Such a move will be welcomed both by environmentalists and the industry.

So what now? Now we wait for Ms. Jackson to sign the endangerment finding, probably in mid April, and see if this will indeed prompt Congress to act more swiftly on regulating US emissions of greenhouse gases.

On Thursday President Obama released an overview of his FY 2010 budget request, with the full details expected to be published in April.

Unsurprisingly, it continues the trends set out in the recovery plan such as tackling climate change head on. Two examples are the extra money ($15 billion a year, to be exact) allocated to developing alternative energy sources and the EPA’s budget which was increased by $3 billion over the previous year, making it the largest budget since the agency was founded 39 years ago. This includes $19 million allocated to a “greenhouse gas emissions inventory and related activities”, which will provide data for implementing a comprehensive climate change bill.

Plenty has already been said about the fact that part of the budget for the next 10 years is built around a cap-and-trade programme (a system that is not even in place yet), noting that a substantial part of the revenues from such a programme will be used to help people cope with rising energy prices which are expected once that cap-and-trade is operating (mainly by way of tax credits).

But one thing that specifically pleases me about this budget (after all, by now we’re starting to get used to a government that takes climate change seriously and the fact that this is “the first budget in U.S. history that is environmentally sustainable” is taken for granted. Well, almost…), is the fact that one of the key priorities mentioned in the Department of Transportation budget is to promote public transport. One manifestation if this prioritisation is a 5 year, $5 billion high-speed rail State grant programme, which comes in addition to the $8 billion allocated to high-speed trains in the stimulus package. As I’ve noted elsewhere, a large investment in public transport is desperately needed to start turning the tide away from private – and energy inefficient – transport.

On the other hand, I was a little disappointed not to find any mentions of funds allocated specifically for adaptation efforts. This may come when the details are published, though it is also likely that this issue is still being overlooked. But more on that in a different post…

In another example of the new administration’s determination to change the course of American energy production, and to repeal the previous administration’s midnight rulings, Ken Salazar, the new Interior Secretary, declared yesterday (Tuesday) that he will extend the public comment period on a 5-year proposal to expand offshore oil and natural gas drilling by 180 days.

This 5-year plan – which was proposed on January 16, the last business day of the Bush administration – originally contained only a 60-days comment period, and made no reference to alternative offshore energy resources. While a 2005 act required the Department of Interior to issue, within nine months, guidance to the development of offshore energy, it took the Bush administration three years to prepare a proposed rule for development of offshore energy resources. “They left office without putting any final regulations in place because it was not their priority, notwithstanding the requirement of the law. For them, it was oil and gas or nothing” said Salazar.

Now Salazar has directed the Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Geological Survey to assemble a report with

in 45 days detailing both oil and gas resources offshore and the potential for renewable energy resources, including wind, wave and tidal energy, and said he issue a final rulemaking for offshore renewables within the next few months (at the moment there are no permits for any offshore renewable facilities in the US).

While environmental groups applauded this decision, the American petroleum industry was naturally less enthusiastic. Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute said the extension of the comment period was unnecessary and noted that the department had already received a record amount of comments. According to Gerard most of these comments were positive, proving in my opinion that this extension is in fact necessary for a better informed debate.

This, along with Congress support for a national renewable electricity standard, should help the US increase its reliance on sustainable energy resources.

Yesterday the House of Representatives approved President Obama’s $819 billion economic recovery plan (the vote was supported by all but 11 Democrats, with 177 Republicans voting against).

As anyone following the recent events in the US will know, this package places a strong emphasis on ‘green’ development – stimulating economic growth while increasing investment in environmental solutions. The large – and revolutionary – increase in the investment in renewable energy (the original proposal included $32 billion to “transform the nation’s energy transmission, distribution, and production systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid and focusing investment in renewable technology” ) was hailed by environmentalists across the board.

Somewhat less attention was paid to the big investment planned (about $20 billion) to increase energy efficiency in public housing and private homes. This of course reduces American dependence on foreign oil, a favorite mantra, even further; but it will also make improving home and businesses energy efficiency accessible to anyone, which will in turn demonstrate how reducing CO2 emissions is not just about climate change and future generations but also makes financial sense in the here and now. Finally, being efficient won’t be just for the environmentalists.

But what about public transport? While $30 billion was allocated for highway construction, with a further $36 billion added in separate spending programmes voted on yesterday by the House as well, a mere $10 billion were allocated for “transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption”.

The United States however is in need of a major overhaul in the way it approaches transportation infrastructure. According to a report by the Brookings Institute the US is “one of the few industrialized countries that fails to link aviation, freight rail, mass transit and passenger rail networks“, and reliance on private cars is so great, that only a substantial shift in attitudes, both by the public and the government, will bring the change needed for a more sustainable transportation infrastructure.

This deep rooted change will apparently have to wait for now, but hopefully only a little while longer.

On December 22nd 2008 an earthen retaining wall not too far from Knoxville, Tennessee, gave way and more than one billion US gallons (about 5 million cubic yards) of potentially toxic wet coal ash flooded over 300 acres of the Tennessee Valley covering it in a deep layer of dark sludge.

A starker image of the dirtiness of coal really is hard to imagine.

While the recent PR battle raging between environmentalists and the coal industry focussed mainly the impact coal burning has on the climate, this spill is a timely reminder that “there is no such thing as clean coal” for other reasons as well.

The coal industry has been trying – with some success – to convince the American public that coal can be clean – both Barack Obama and John McCain proclaimed their support of clean coal during their presidential campaigns. By ‘clean’ they refer to the carbon emissions associated with burning it, claiming that with CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology it is possible to burn coal while the resulting carbon dioxide is pumped back into the earth. It is an enticing idea – with so much coal still out there, and plenty of it on US soil, the pressure to continue burning it is strong. And if we can do it without adding green house gasses to the atmosphere, why not?

Well, for one thing, as Steven Chu, Obama’s choice for Energy Secretary has explained, CCS is still far from ready to be used on a large scale, and there are no guaranties it will ever be (in fact Dr. Chu has famously stated that “Coal is [his] worst nightmare”). This is a fact that the coal industry is ignoring, preferring to concentrate on PR stunts and empty claims that all is well and that America should continue burning its coal as it has always done.

But there are other reasons why coal is dirty. One of them is that burning coal releases many other toxins, most of which are regulated and are happily no longer polluting the atmosphere. Unfortunately they don’t just disappear, but rather are now collected in retention sites like the one that collapsed in Tennessee.

So this spill, while not pertaining directly to the climate change aspects of burning coal, might at least make it a little harder to use the term “clean coal” and still sound convincing.

Is this then the beginning of the end of the “clean coal” debate? Will the Tennessee Coal Spill be a watershed event encouraging the American public to change their views on coal? It is possible – “If the Exxon Valdez was a symbol of pollution 20 years ago, the Tennessee Coal Spill of 2008 is the symbol of it today,” said Kate Smolski, Senior Legislative Coordinator for Greenpeace.