Time to move way beyond "business as usual"

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released another important set of policy recommendations in Berlin this week. In light of the fact that heat-trapping emissions grew more quickly in the first decade of this century than in any of the three previous decades, we are reminded again that "business as usual" in the energy world isn't leading to a more stable climate.

Scientists have been telling us for years that to avoid dramatic disruptions in climate, the world needs to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius (about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

But we have collectively waited so long to start making serious cuts to emissions that the pressure is very much on: To stay within the "safe" levels of warming, we must lower greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent by mid-century (with 2010 levels as the base point), and to near zero by the end of the century. Whoa!

The IPCC remains confident we can achieve these cuts, although the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be for all of us.

The report calls for policies that we at PennFuture have been recommending for years, recognizing that using less energy is as important as using clean energy. PennFuture played a keep role in enacting Pennsylvania's energy efficiency standard (Act 129) in 2008, and has been recommending to Harrisburg policymakers since then that we increase efficiency standards.

Although Pennsylvania's population isn't expected to change significantly in the decades ahead, global population seems likely to increase greatly, with billions of people simultaneously wanting to increase their standard of living -- both factors leading to potentially huge increases in energy demand. So, energy efficiency at the global level becomes ever more important.

As Youba Sokona (co-chair of the IPCC Working Group that released the report this week) points out, "The core task of climate change mitigation is decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from the growth of economies and population."

Take a look at PennFuture's new Clean Energy Wins report that offers a roadmap for how state government can grow Pennsylvania's economy while shrinking its carbon footprint.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia.

A quick overview of EPA's plans for power plants

The EPA is finishing up a series of listening sessions (informal hearings) in 11 cities around the country to gather the public's thoughts on what the rule on existing power plants might look like. PennFuture took the lead in the Philadelphia listening session on November 8, helping to generate 76 testifiers in support of the rule, with 16 opposed and 2 neutral comments.

An overview of EPA's process for limiting CO2 from power plants

PennFuture is delighted to see the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moving ahead with plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants (the source of 40 percent of the country's global warming pollution). By the way, this forward motion by the EPA is required by law.

EPA is acting in parallel on two different aspects of power plant emissions: setting emissions standards on new (not-yet-built) power plants, and setting standards for existing power plants.

Quite different approaches are needed for regulating new versus existing plants, even though both are driven by the Clean Air Act. Here's a bit of background on each.

Regulating new power plants

You may recall that in April 2012, EPA first proposed a rule to limit CO2 from not-yet-built plants.  EPA later announced a delay to the finalizing of that rule.

In September 2013, EPA released a modified version of its original proposal, and the public comment period has been reopened. (Send a comment to the EPA). The EPA will consider all comments and issue a final rule by June 1, 2015, with states required to act (i.e., limit CO2 emissions from any new coal plants) by June 2016.

The regulation of new plants derives from Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS. Note that NSPS rules are applied at the plant level. For example, technology is incorporated into the power plant to capture or reduce CO2, and CO2 levels can be measured to ensure compliance (this is a somewhat simplified depiction). The emissions standards that were proposed include limiting CO2 emissions from 1,000-to-1,100 pounds of CO2/megawatt-hour. These emission rates are equivalent to a high efficiency, combined cycle natural gas plant.

This is quite different from the likely model for regulating existing power plants.

Regulating existing power plants

The EPA announced in October 2013 that it will formally propose a rule in June 2014 to regulate CO2 from existing power plants, driven by Section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act.

Unlike new plants, where technology to limit CO2 can theoretically be incorporated when plants are designed and built, it's not always economically or technically feasible to retrofit existing power plants to limit CO2.

Hence, the approach will be entirely different from the NSPS rule on new plants. The rule on existing plants will likely be a regional approach, with a number of strategies deployed to lower the overall levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions within a given area. EPA will likely establish procedures and guidelines for the states to use in determining tailored strategies to meet emissions performance requirements. The states will develop these plans and seek review and approval from EPA to implement the emissions reduction strategies.

PennFuture hopes to provide input to the shaping of Pennsylvania's state plan. And we're quite optimistic that the state can meet the likely targets proposed by the EPA. The World Resources Institute has put together a terrific overview of how this might be accomplished in Pennsylvania.

Stay tuned for more information on this important and complex process as the rule takes shape in the months and years to come. You can trust us to keep you up to date.

Leaves of three -- will they let us be?

If you've been out in the woods or fields lately, you might have noticed that invasive poison ivy and its rash-inducing comrades seem to be on steroids, even in places like our urban/suburban backyards. You're not alone. USDA researchers are among those who warn that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have a growth-inducing effect on the three-leaved menace. And yes, that atmospheric stew that's brewing is one of the leading causes of climate change.

Poison ivy is actually not an ivy, and for anyone who's made its acquaintance, it's not a friend. But it's not a reason to miss out on hikes and paddles, or special places like the Loyalsock State Forest (BTW, while we're on it -- you can help us protect that place from a different threat). Poison ivy does, however, lead the world every year in causes of ER and doctor visits, as David Roberts at Grist recently found out. Ouch.

With the rash of climate science denials to deal with, who needs another rash?

High time for the Obama Administration to act

Unfortunately, it's all too clear that this Congress is going to kick the climate can down the road, increasing the risks for future generations. That said, the President can choose to use his executive authority to act on climate.

As a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, the President is legally required to act on climate, and he's actually breaking the law by not having acted in April.

In a nutshell: The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. By law, that ruling compelled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a scientific assessment on whether CO2 is a danger to human health. This led to the 2009 EPA "endangerment finding" that CO2 is indeed a threat to public health.

These results mean that the EPA must regulate CO2, according to the Clean Air Act, an act of Congress, whether the current Congress likes it or not.

The EPA issued a strong standard last summer to address auto emissions, but it is well behind on regulating stationary sources such as power plants. By law, the EPA should have issued a standard to limit CO2 from any to-be-built power plants by April 13. This hasn't happened and, consequently, the EPA is in violation of a court order. Some national environmental groups are already on record as saying they'll sue the President if a new standard isn't issued by mid-June.

We say go for it -- it's high time the laws of the land controlled CO2 emissions. And then some.

Say it ain't so: 400

Other news
The atmosphere's CO2 levels briefly topped 400 parts per million (ppm) --another ominous milestone in the climate crisis -- at an observatory in Hawaii this week. But, alas, that doesn't stop a vocal minority of deniers who've come up with a long list of talking points.

Copernicus also had skeptics -- who persisted for decades after his death --who didn't believe his argument that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. (In 2013, Copernicus' birthday was celebrated with a Google doodle).

But the climate crisis is even more urgent than the 16th century debate over the sun. It's one of the reasons PennFuture has been working on climate change since we were founded -- and recently concluded 100 Days of Action for Climate in Pennsylvania. We're also continuing the fight to confirm Gina McCarthy as EPA administrator: Learn more at www.standwithgina.com.

"It's a natural cycle," "there's no scientific consensus," and "it's a conspiracy" are a few common arguments heavily used by organizations with a stake in dirty fossil fuels.  So we know you'll find good use for these 99 climate-denier rebuttals -- whether you submit a comment to your morning newspaper or drop a line at your next neighborhood cookout.  From Think Progress

Some good news
How many ways can you say it? Environment + economy are not mutually exclusive (it's right in our PennFuture mission). A new report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes clear: over the last decade, EPA regulations imposed about $45 billion in costs, but created $640 billion in benefits. From Triple Pundit

Fun stuff
What would Jules Verne think? A plane has begun a historic around-the-world trip one section at a time. Why is this news? The plane -- Solar Impulse -- is a prototype that flies on solar cells and lithium batteries. From Treehugger

To do
Join PennFuture in Pittsburgh for NWF's Google hangout with renowned climate guru and scientist Dr. Michael Mann. We'll have pizza and snacks as we discuss climate science followed by a Q&A session with Dr. Mann. What's a Google hangout, you ask? It's a virtual meeting -- You can participate right in our Pittsburgh office on Monday, May 13, 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. Not in Pittsburgh? You can still participate online from your computer or smartphone.