EPA Proposes New Emission Standards for Power Plants
John M. Broder and John Collins Rudolf, NY Times, March 16, 2011
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed the first national standard for emissions of mercury and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants.
The rule, which would likely lead to the early closing of a number of older plants, is certain to be challenged by the some utilities and Republicans in Congress.
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson pointedly included the head of the American Lung Association and two prominent doctors in her announcement of the rule to highlight that the regulations were designed to protect public health and not to penalize the utility industry.
The EPA estimates the total annual cost of compliance at about $10 billion, in line with some industry estimates (although some are much higher), and the health and environmental benefits at more than $100 billion a year. Ms. Jackson said that households could expect to see their electric bills rise by $3 to $4 a month when the regulation was fully in force after 2015.
The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of utilities, questioned Ms. Jackson's assertion that the technology needed to reduce emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium and other airborne pollutants was readily available and reasonably inexpensive. The need to retrofit scores of plants in the same short period of time will tax resources and lead to delays, it said.
One utility executive said compliance would not be unduly burdensome. "We know from experience that constructing this technology can be done in a reasonable time frame, especially with good advance planning," said Paul Allen, senior vice president and chief environmental officer of Constellation Energy. "And there is meaningful job creation associated with the projects."
The new rules bring to a close a bitter legal and regulatory battle dating back to the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, which first directed the EPA to identify and control major industrial sources of hazardous emissions. The long delay has meant that emissions of some major pollutants have grown in recent years. The EPA's most recent data shows that from 1999 to 2005, mercury emissions from power plants increased more than 8 percent, to 53 tons from 49 tons. Arsenic emissions grew even more, rising 31 percent, to 210 tons from 160 tons.
Read the complete NY Times article here.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Human Costs of Contaminated Drinking Water
Cost to clean contaminated water in San Joaquin Valley would be over $150M
Mark Grossi, Fresno Bee, March 16, 2011
A new study, The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley, a collaboration of the Pacific Institute, Community Water Center, Clean Water Fund, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, focuses on the household costs of avoiding nitrate-contaminated drinking water connected to community water systems and the costs to these systems of removing or avoiding nitrates.
The study reports that families in the San Joaquin Valley of California are paying more than $100 a month for both water service and bottled drinking water because local drinking water is often contaminated with nitrates and other harmful chemicals.
Tulare County, one of the most productive farming counties in the country, is the epicenter of the problem, the study says. The state tested 181 drinking water wells in 2006, finding more than 70 tainted with nitrates.
The study also suggests key policies and further research needed to better understand and resolve the situation.
Read the complete Fresno Bee article here.
Mark Grossi, Fresno Bee, March 16, 2011
A new study, The Human Costs of Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley, a collaboration of the Pacific Institute, Community Water Center, Clean Water Fund, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, focuses on the household costs of avoiding nitrate-contaminated drinking water connected to community water systems and the costs to these systems of removing or avoiding nitrates.
The study reports that families in the San Joaquin Valley of California are paying more than $100 a month for both water service and bottled drinking water because local drinking water is often contaminated with nitrates and other harmful chemicals.
Tulare County, one of the most productive farming counties in the country, is the epicenter of the problem, the study says. The state tested 181 drinking water wells in 2006, finding more than 70 tainted with nitrates.
The study also suggests key policies and further research needed to better understand and resolve the situation.
Read the complete Fresno Bee article here.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Oakland City Council Adopts Energy and Climate Action Plan
On March 1st, Oakland's City Council adopted a resolution that accepts the city's first Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP)--with some of the strongest greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals of any city in the country--and directs the staff to proceed with appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
The February 22, 2011 Draft ECAP is available for review here.
The purpose of the ECAP is to identify and prioritize actions the City can take to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with Oakland. The ECAP recommends GHG reduction actions and establishes a framework for coordinating implementation, as well as monitoring and reporting on progress.
In July 2009, the Oakland City Council approved a preliminary GHG reduction target for the year 2020 of 36% below 2005 levels. The primary sources of Oakland’s GHG emissions are:
Read more here. A video of the Council meeting is available here (skip to about 2:43:00 in the video for the ECAP agenda item).
The February 22, 2011 Draft ECAP is available for review here.
The purpose of the ECAP is to identify and prioritize actions the City can take to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with Oakland. The ECAP recommends GHG reduction actions and establishes a framework for coordinating implementation, as well as monitoring and reporting on progress.
In July 2009, the Oakland City Council approved a preliminary GHG reduction target for the year 2020 of 36% below 2005 levels. The primary sources of Oakland’s GHG emissions are:
- Transportation and Land Use
- Building Energy Use
- Material Consumption and Waste
Read more here. A video of the Council meeting is available here (skip to about 2:43:00 in the video for the ECAP agenda item).
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Illegal Dumping In Bayview
City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed suit against Hector Santamaria of New High Protection Roofing Company and Salvador Gonzalez of Salvador Trucking Service for repeatedly disposing tons of roofing material and other debris in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood of San Francisco. As part of the City Attorney's larger investigation, administrative subpoenas will be served on other suspected polluters.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera is seeking maximum civil penalties and damages for dumping more than 100 tons of construction and roofing material illegally on the streets and sidewalks of the Bayview since late September 2010.
In partnership with the City Attorney's Office, Supervisor Malia Cohen also introduced legislation that will amend San Francisco's municipal code to declare illegal dumping a public nuisance and empower the City with the ability to recover costs from those who commit illegal dumping.
San Francisco's Department of Public Works has spent more than $36,000 to remove the illegally-dumped waste and more than $25,000 to investigate and document the illegal dumping.
Click here for the press release.
Read more on KTVU.com (click here).
City Attorney Dennis Herrera is seeking maximum civil penalties and damages for dumping more than 100 tons of construction and roofing material illegally on the streets and sidewalks of the Bayview since late September 2010.
In partnership with the City Attorney's Office, Supervisor Malia Cohen also introduced legislation that will amend San Francisco's municipal code to declare illegal dumping a public nuisance and empower the City with the ability to recover costs from those who commit illegal dumping.
San Francisco's Department of Public Works has spent more than $36,000 to remove the illegally-dumped waste and more than $25,000 to investigate and document the illegal dumping.
Click here for the press release.
Read more on KTVU.com (click here).
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
California Call for Hexavalent Chromium Drinking Water Standard
Bill calls for limiting carcinogen in California tap water
Lien Hoang, Associated Press, February 22, 2011
Assemblywoman Nora Campos, D-San Jose, introduced legislation that would require the state Department of Public Health to place limits on hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium 6, by January 1, 2013.
If the agency does not act in time, California would adopt a limit of 0.02 parts per billion, compared with the federal standard of 100 parts per billion.
In December, the Environmental Working Group found that drinking water in 31 of 35 cities nationwide had more than 0.02 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium. Riverside and San Jose were among the cities with the highest levels.
Read the complete story here.
Lien Hoang, Associated Press, February 22, 2011
Assemblywoman Nora Campos, D-San Jose, introduced legislation that would require the state Department of Public Health to place limits on hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium 6, by January 1, 2013.
If the agency does not act in time, California would adopt a limit of 0.02 parts per billion, compared with the federal standard of 100 parts per billion.
In December, the Environmental Working Group found that drinking water in 31 of 35 cities nationwide had more than 0.02 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium. Riverside and San Jose were among the cities with the highest levels.
Read the complete story here.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Where's The Gas?
Teeny Janitors Attack Gulf Spill, Then Vanish
Robert Krulwich, National Public Radio
Last June, oceanography professor John Kessler of Texas A&M University visited BP's Gulf of Mexico accident site and found methane concentrations below the surface that were, "on average about 100,000 times greater than background (usual)." He told Living On Earth, "We even saw a few locations that were starting to push the limits of a million times above background."
That's a lot of methane. Which is not a good thing. Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, more potent than CO2. What's more, it's lurking everywhere, not just in the Gulf, but under the Arctic Ocean, the Black Sea. Should large quantities escape into the atmosphere, that would make our warming problems even worse.
Kessler's new paper, coauthored with David Valentine, points out that many methane eaters use oxygen to break down the gas, so says blogger Ed Yong:
Read the complete story on NPR.
Robert Krulwich, National Public Radio
Last June, oceanography professor John Kessler of Texas A&M University visited BP's Gulf of Mexico accident site and found methane concentrations below the surface that were, "on average about 100,000 times greater than background (usual)." He told Living On Earth, "We even saw a few locations that were starting to push the limits of a million times above background."
That's a lot of methane. Which is not a good thing. Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, more potent than CO2. What's more, it's lurking everywhere, not just in the Gulf, but under the Arctic Ocean, the Black Sea. Should large quantities escape into the atmosphere, that would make our warming problems even worse.
Kessler's new paper, coauthored with David Valentine, points out that many methane eaters use oxygen to break down the gas, so says blogger Ed Yong:
Kessler reasoned that the microbes had done away with the methane. He even found the bacteria in question. In September, Kessler recovered several species of methane-eating bacteria from seven different sites. In some areas, these [methanotroph] specialists made up a third of the local bacteria. Back in June, the methane-eaters were nowhere to be found….
Read the complete story on NPR.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
California Enters Carbon Trading Market
California Air Board OKs Cap-and-Trade Regulations
Wyatt Buchanan, SF Chronicle, December 16, 2010
The California Air Resources Board on Thursday approved the creation of the nation's first broad-based program to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and to begin charging large emitters for the excess carbon dioxide they discharge to the atmosphere.
Under the new rules, which take effect in 2012, the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions estimated for California will be capped at the currently-forecasted emissions levels for 2012. Over the next three years, the cap will shrink by 2 percent per year. From 2015 to 2020, the cap will drop by 3 percent per year.
The cap first applies to the some of California's biggest emitters, including utilities and large industrial plants. In 2015, it will expand to fuel distributors. In total, it will apply to 360 businesses at 600 locations across the state.
Read the complete article here.
Environmental Economist Joins White House Staff
Nathaniel Keohane, most recently the chief economist at the Environmental Defense Fund, has moved to the National Economic Council at the White House to help direct environmental and energy policy.
Mr. Keohane is a vigorous proponent of the market-based system of cap and trade to control greenhouse gas emissions.
The top job at the economic council is currently vacant; the former director, Lawrence H. Summers, resigned at the end of 2010. Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate policy, is rumored to be moving to a new post, possibly deputy chief of staff.
Via Green, a blog about energy and the environment, at NYTimes.com.
New Life for Old Stuff
Mike Ross’ Big Rig Jig, created using decommissioned tanker trucks, is a marvel in repurposing whose message is about man’s precarious relationship with nature.
The artist describes his monumental, interactive, visually compelling creation as: “Big Rig Jig is constructed from two discarded tanker trucks. The work serves both as a sculpture and an architectural space: Visitors may enter the lower truck, climb through the tankers and emerge through a portal at the top. The rear axles of the upper tanker serve as a viewing platform, 42 feet in the air.”
Read more here, at 1800recycling.com.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Proposition 23
Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, is on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated state statute.
AB32 is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The act, passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is California's landmark clean air legislation. AB32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state is slated under AB32 to begin in 2012.
Proposition 23, if enacted by voters, will freeze the provisions of AB32 until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. California's unemployment rate, which currently hovers around 12%, has been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters just three times since 1980.
Read a summary of the ballot measure, a list of its major supporters and those who oppose it, and listings of donors and donation amounts for and against at ballotpedia.org.
AB32 is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The act, passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is California's landmark clean air legislation. AB32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state is slated under AB32 to begin in 2012.
Proposition 23, if enacted by voters, will freeze the provisions of AB32 until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. California's unemployment rate, which currently hovers around 12%, has been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters just three times since 1980.
Read a summary of the ballot measure, a list of its major supporters and those who oppose it, and listings of donors and donation amounts for and against at ballotpedia.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)