Category: Animal Rights & Environment

By Ben Levitan

This summer was anything but quiet for climate policy.

In June, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attempt to suspend protections from climate-destabilizing oil and gas pollution, calling the move “unauthorized” and “unreasonable.”

In August, two judges of the same court reminded EPA of its “affirmative statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases,” citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

Now, the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey and the record strength of Hurricane Irma are showing us what’s at stake, as sea level rises and extreme weather becomes more frequent.

Meanwhile, Administrator Pruitt has continued his pattern of deeply misleading statements about climate change and EPA’s responsibility to protect public health and the environment.

Pruitt uses these statements in an attempt to justify rolling back vital public health and environmental safeguards. In just his first four months in office, he took action against more than 30 health and environmental protections, including the Clean Power Plan — our first and only national limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

As America’s proven, life-saving environmental protections come under attack, here are four facts about climate law and science to help cut through Pruitt’s distortions.

1. EPA has an affirmative statutory obligation to regulate climate pollution

Administrator Pruitt frequently questions EPA’s ability and authority to regulate climate pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But contrary to Pruitt’s claims, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Clean Air Act covers climate pollution.

• In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court held that climate pollutants “without a doubt” and “unambiguous[ly]” meet the definition of “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.
• In its subsequent American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP) opinion, the Supreme Court found that section 111 of the Clean Air Act — the section under which EPA issued the Clean Power Plan — “speaks directly” to the regulation of climate pollution from existing power plants. (Even opponents of climate protections conceded that point during oral argument.)
• The Court again recognized EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution in a third decision, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG).

Former EPA administrators serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that “Congress has already made the policy decision to regulate” air pollutants that EPA determines — based on scientific factors — endanger the public health or welfare.

That’s why we now enjoy protections from air pollutants like cancer-causing benzene, brain-damaging lead, and lung-impairing particulates. We may not have had those protections if former EPA Administrators had shared Pruitt’s myopic view of the agency’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act.

As the Supreme Court stated in Massachusetts v. EPA, Congress:

underst[oo]d that without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and scientific developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete. The broad language … reflects an intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence.

In issuing the Clean Power Plan and other climate protections, EPA scrupulously fulfilled the mandate with which Congress entrusted it. The Clean Power Plan also reflected the Supreme Court’s finding in AEP that climate pollution from existing power plants was covered by section 111.

Administrator Pruitt has seriously misconstrued judicial rulings that conflict with his policy goals.

For example, he claimed that the Supreme Court’s UARG decision “said the authority the previous administration was trying to say that they had in regulating carbon dioxide wasn’t there.”

Pruitt overlooks the fact that the UARG opinion upheld the vast majority of what EPA had done, including the requirement that sources subject to certain permitting obligations under the Clean Air Act utilize “best available control technology” for climate pollution. The Supreme Court only took issue with EPA’s potential regulation of a subset of sources constituting a small percentage of total emissions, which did not implicate EPA’s fundamental obligation to regulate climate pollution.

2. EPA’s obligation to regulate climate pollution is based on scientific factors, not the Administrator’s policy preferences

Administrator Pruitt’s most dangerous Supreme Court misinterpretation might be his twist on Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark decision that set the foundation for many of the climate protections that followed.

In Pruitt’s reading, when it comes to climate pollution, the Supreme Court held only that EPA “must make a decision whether [to] regulate or not.”

But the Supreme Court actually held that EPA was required to determine — again, based on scientific factors — whether climate pollution endangers public health or welfare.

In 2009, EPA concluded that climate pollution indeed poses a clear danger to public health and welfare, based on an exhaustive review of an expansive array of published studies and surveys of peer-reviewed literature prepared by the U.S. government’s Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The D.C. Circuit upheld this Endangerment Finding against a barrage of legal attacks, finding that it was based on “substantial scientific evidence.”

After issuing the Endangerment Finding, EPA was statutorily obligated to follow the Clean Air Act’s process for regulating the dangerous pollution.

Administrator Pruitt’s position more closely resembles the losing argument in Massachusetts v. EPA. The George W. Bush Administration had justified its decision not to regulate climate pollution based on factors completely unrelated to public health or welfare. But the Supreme Court brushed aside EPA’s “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” and ruled that the agency was not free to — in Pruitt’s words — “make a decision” not to regulate. Rather, EPA must conduct a science-based evaluation of the risks that climate pollution poses to public health and welfare, and if the science supports an Endangerment Finding, regulation must follow.

3. The scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming

Climate change is happening now. As climate pollution continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, it will bring melting sea ice and glaciers, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather including heat waves, floods, and droughts.

Administrator Pruitt attempts to minimize this threat by focusing on uncertainty. In Pruitt’s parlance, we still have more to learn about “the precision of measurement” when it comes to the effects of climate pollution. But the fact that there are still productive areas for research doesn’t mean we should disregard the vast amount that we already know.

As the American Meteorological Society recently told a different Trump Administration official:

[S]kepticism and debate are always welcome,” but “[s]kepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that EPA cannot decline to regulate climate pollution due to:

some residual uncertainty … The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.

EPA answered that question in its 2009 Endangerment Finding, and since then, the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change has continued to grow.

In the final draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s latest Climate Science Special Report — which is currently under review by political officials in the Trump Administration — climate scientists determined that, in the last few years:

stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean.

The year 2016 marked the third consecutive year of record-high global surface temperatures, and 2017 marked the third consecutive year of record-low winter Arctic sea ice. Meanwhile, the rate of sea level rise is increasing.

In contrast to the extensive scientific research demonstrating the role of climate pollution in destabilizing our climate, Administrator Pruitt has proposed a (possibly televised) “red team/blue team” exercise in which opposing teams of government-selected experts debate climate science.

Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, characterized the red team/blue team exercise as “a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels.”

Pruitt has acknowledged that he is “not a scientist” but nonetheless suggested that his red team/blue team exercise would represent “what science is all about.” Anticipating that some scientists might be reluctant to participate, he taunted:

If you’re going to win and if you’re so certain about it, come and do your deal.

But for most scientists, their “deal” is a careful process of observation, experimentation, and peer review — even when it doesn’t fit between commercial breaks.

However Pruitt manages his red team/blue team exercise, it can’t alter the conclusions of the massive body of climate research developed by thousands of scientists over decades of conscientious inquiry.

4. The American public supports policies to address climate change

One argument that Administrator Pruitt advanced for his red team/blue team exercise is that “the American people would be very interested in consuming that.”

Actually, Americans in every state have already shown an appetite for addressing climate change.

A recent survey found that large majorities of Americans support regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant, setting strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants, and requiring utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.

In fact, each of those policies garnered majority support in every Congressional district in America.

A majority of Americans opposed the decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, as did the CEOs of many prominent businesses.

And the Clean Power Plan was supported in court by a broad and diverse coalition of 18 states, 60 cities, public health experts, leading business innovators (including Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft), leading legal and technical experts, major consumer protection and low-income ratepayer organizations (including Consumers Union and Public Citizen), faith groups, more than 200 current and former members of Congress, and many others. (You can read their legal briefs on EDF’s website.)

Administrator Pruitt’s legal and scientific distortions show no sign of abating, and neither does his destructive rollback of public health and environmental protections. But his efforts have been rife with legal deficiencies. As EDF President Fred Krupp recently wrote, Pruitt “may have finally met his match: the law.”

Shortly after the D.C. Circuit blocked Pruitt from suspending protections from oil and gas pollution, and in the face of legal challenges from EDF and many others, Pruitt withdrew his unlawful delay of another Clean Air Act protection – the implementation of a national health-based smog standard.

EDF will continue to demand that Pruitt fulfill his solemn responsibility to protect the health of our communities and families under our nation’s bipartisan and time-tested environmental laws.

Read more

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund has made no secret of our view that many elements of the final framework rules issued by the Trump EPA in July to implement recent reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are contrary to law and fail to reflect the best available science.  The rules EPA had proposed in January were heavily rewritten by a Trump political appointee, Dr. Nancy Beck, who until her arrival at the agency at the end of April was a senior official at the chemical industry’s main trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

In our view, the final rules largely destroyed the careful balance that characterized the efforts to reform TSCA and the final product of that effort, the Lautenberg Act.  In many respects, the final rules governing how EPA will identify and prioritize chemicals and evaluate their risks now mirror the demands of the chemical industry, reflected in comments they had submitted earlier – some of which Beck herself had co-authored.

These are among the reasons EDF as well as other NGOs and health and labor groups have had no choice but to file legal challenges to these rules.

Lest you have any doubt that the final rules are heavily skewed in industry’s direction, a development in these legal cases just yesterday should dispel it.  A broad coalition of industry groups – including Dr. Beck’s previous employer ACC – has filed motions to intervene in these cases in order to defend EPA’s rules (see here and here).  Parties to the motion constitute a remarkable list:

• American Chemistry Council
• American Coatings Association
• American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
• American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
• American Forest and Paper Association
• American Petroleum Institute
• Battery Council International
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
• EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) Industry Alliance
• IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries
• National Association of Chemical Distributors
• National Mining Association
• Polyurethane Manufacturers Association
• Silver Nanotechnology Working Group
• Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA)
• Styrene Information and Resource Center
• Utility Solid Waste Advocacy Group

Yesterday was the deadline for parties seeking to intervene in the cases to have done so.  Among those that had issued a “call to arms” to industry to intervene to defend EPA’s rules were leading Washington, DC industry law firms that represent these trade groups and their members.  For example, Wiley-Rein issued this client alert five days after our lawsuits were filed (emphasis added):

Also on August 11th the Natural Resources Defense Council, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental advocacy organizations filed lawsuits challenging the EPA’s final Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules. While the petitions are light on details, they generally allege that EPA abused its discretion when issuing the final rules. The specific issues the petitioners have with the final rules are not yet clear, but these groups have publicly expressed concern with EPA’s interpretation of how it will review the conditions under which a chemical is known or reasonably foreseen to be used. Therefore, companies that make, import, process or use a chemical that is being evaluated by EPA now or in the future need to consider getting involved and supporting the rule [sic] as it now stands.

Step back for a minute and consider the unusual nature of this development:  When was the last time such a heavy-hitters list of industry groups rushed in to support EPA regulations?

More evidence of the topsy-turvy world we’re living in under the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory administration in modern history.

Despite its professed support just over a year ago for balance and compromise in TSCA reform, the industry has shifted  in this new political climate to short-term, opportunistic thinking.  But that isn’t going to solve the problem that brought the industry to the TSCA negotiating table:  The lack of confidence in the safety of its enterprise, a problem that can only be expected to grow as regulations are rolled back and the public learns more about the millions of pounds of chemicals released into the environment from industrial facilities in the wake of hurricanes.

Read more

By Rama Zakaria

A new report by M.J. Bradley & Associates – based on an extensive review of data, literature, and case studies – shows that coal-fired power plants are retiring primarily due to low natural gas prices, and that the ongoing trend towards a cleaner energy resource mix is happening without compromising the reliability of our electric grid.

The report follows a highly-publicized order by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry for a review of the nation’s electricity markets and reliability. Perry wanted to determine whether clean air safeguards and policies encouraging clean energy are causing premature retirements of coal-fired power plants and threatening grid reliability.

The Department of Energy (DOE) just released that long-anticipated review — a baseload study that actually confirms that cheap natural gas has been the major driver behind coal retirements.

Now the M.J Bradley report affirms that finding, and offers even more evidence to support it and demonstrate that electric reliability remains strong.

The M.J Bradley report confirms conclusions by multiple studies which demonstrate that, of the three main factors responsible for the majority of the decline in coal generation, the increased competition from cheap natural gas has been by far the major contributor – accounting for 49 percent of the decline.

The two other factors are reduced demand for electricity – accounting for 26 percent – and increased growth in renewable energy – accounting for only 18 percent.

Several case studies featured in the M.J. Bradley report offer further proof that coal retirements are driven by economic factors – specifically low natural gas prices:

For example, PSEG President and COO Bill Levis – referring to the shutdown of Hudson Generating Station — said, “the sustained low prices of natural gas have put economic pressure on these plants for some time.” PSEG Senior Director of Operations Bill Thompson also pointed to economic reasons, not environmental regulations, as basis for the decision to retire the plant.

Florida Power & Light (FPL) cited economics and customer savings as the primary reasons for its plans to shut down three coal units. According to FPL, the retirements of Cedar Bay and Indiantown are expected to save its customers an estimated $199 million. FPL President and CEO Eric Silagy said the decision to retire the plants is part of a “forward-looking strategy of smart investments that improve the efficiency of our system, reduce our fuel consumption, prevent emissions and cut costs for our customers.” Retirement of FPL’s St. John River Power Park would add another $183 million in customer savings.

According to the M.J. Bradley report, the overall decline in U.S. coal generation is primarily due to reduced utilization of coal-fired power plants, rather than retirements of those facilities.

Most recently retired facilities were older, smaller units that were inefficient and relatively expensive to operate. On average, coal units that announced plans to retire between 2010 and 2015 were 57 years old – well past their original expected life span of 40 years.

Meanwhile, existing coal plant utilization has declined from 73 percent capacity factor in 2008 to 53 percent in 2016. At the same time, the utilization of cheaper natural gas combined-cycle plants has increased from 40 percent capacity factor to 56 percent.

As a result, M.J. Bradley estimates that less than twenty percent of the overall decline in coal generation over the past six years can be attributed to coal plant retirements, with reduced utilization of the remaining fleet accounting for the rest of the decline.

Implications of coal retirements for electric grid reliability

As coal plants retire and are replaced by newer, cleaner resources, there have been concerns about potential impacts on the reliability of our electric grid. (Those concerns were also the topic of DOE’s baseload study.)

M.J. Bradley examined the implications of coal retirements and the evolving resource mix, looking at extensive existing research including their own reliability report released earlier this year.

These studies conclude that electric reliability remains strong.

These studies also found that flexible approaches to grid management, and new technologies such as electric storage, are providing additional tools to support and ensure grid reliability.

In order to understand that conclusion, consider two factors that are used to assess reliability:

• Resource adequacy, which considers the availability of resources to meet future demand, and is assessed using metrics such as reserve margins
• Operational reliability, which considers the ability of grid operators to run the system in real-time in a secure way to balance supply and demand – and is defined in terms of Essential Reliability Services, such as frequency and voltage support and ramping capability.

As many studies have already indicated, “baseload” is an outdated term used historically to describe the way resources were being used on the grid – not to describe the above factors that are needed to maintain grid reliability.

Here is what M.J. Bradley’s report and other assessments tell us about the implications of the evolving resource mix for grid reliability:

There are no signs of deteriorating reliability on the grid today, and studies indicate continued growth in clean resources is fully compatible with continued reliability

In its 2017 State of Reliability report, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) found that over the past five years the trends in planning reserve margins were stable while other reliability metrics were either improving, stable, or inconclusive.

NERC’s report also found that bulk power system resiliency to severe weather continues to improve.

According to a report by grid operator PJM, which has recently experienced both significant coal retirements and new deployment of clean energy resources:

[T]he expected near-term resource portfolio is among the highest-performing portfolios and is well equipped to provide the generator reliability attributes.

DOE’s own baseload study acknowledges that electric reliability remains strong.  A wide range of literature further indicates that high renewable penetration futures are possible without compromising grid reliability.

Cleaner resources and new technologies being brought online help strengthen reliability

Studies show that technologies being added to the system have, in combination, most if not all the reliability attributes provided by retiring coal-fired generation and other resources exiting the system.

In fact, the evolving resource mix that includes retirement of aging capacity and addition of new gas-fired and renewable capacity can increase system reliability from a number of perspectives. For instance, available data indicates that forced and planned outage rates for renewable and natural gas technologies can be less than half of those for coal.

Studies also highlight the valuable reliability services that emerging new technologies, such as electric storage, can provide. Renewable resources and emerging technologies also help hedge against fuel supply and price volatility, contributing to resource diversity and increased resilience.

Clean energy resources have demonstrated their ability to support reliable electric service at times of severe stress on the grid.

In the 2014 polar vortex, for example, frozen coal stockpiles led to coal generation outages – so wind and demand response resources were increasingly relied upon to help maintain reliability.

And just last year, close to 100 megawatts of electric storage was successfully deployed in less than six months to address reliability concerns stemming from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage leak in California.

Regulators and grid operators can leverage the reliability attributes of clean resources and new technologies through improved market design

A 2016 report by DOE found that cleaner resources and emerging new technologies are creating options and opportunities, providing a new toolbox for maintaining reliability in the modern power system.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has long recognized the valuable grid services that emerging new technologies could provide – from its order on demand response to its order on frequency regulation compensation, FERC recognized the value of fast and accurate response resources in cost-effectively meeting grid reliability needs. More recently, FERC’s ancillary service reforms recognize that, with advances in technologies, variable energy resources such as wind are increasingly capable of providing reliability services such as reactive power.

Grid operators are also recognizing the valuable contributions of cleaner resources and emerging new technologies, as well as the importance of flexibility to a modern, nimble, dynamic and robust grid. For instance, both the California Independent System Operator and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) have created ramp products, and MISO also has a dispatchable intermittent resource program.

It will be increasingly important for regulators, system planners, and grid operators to continue assessing grid reliability needs, and leveraging the capabilities of new technologies and technological advancements, in the future. It is also important to continue market design and system operation and coordination efforts to support the emerging needs of a modern 21^st century electric grid.

The facts show clearly that we shouldn’t accept fearmongering that threatens our clean air safeguards. Instead, working together, America can have clean, healthy air and affordable, reliable electricity.

Read more