ELPC in the News

Energy News Network: Michigan PURPA Rulings a ‘Mixed Bag’ for Independent Power Producers

Michigan PURPA Rulings a ‘Mixed Bag’ for Independent Power Producers

By Andy Balaskovitz

Independent power producers say recent rulings by Michigan regulators provide short-term development opportunities but also more uncertainty in the coming years as they negotiate contracts with a major utility.

On October 5, the Michigan Public Service Commission issued multiple orders related to the prices Consumers Energy pays to independent producers under federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) contracts.

One ruling allows for up to 150 megawatts worth of projects to qualify for PURPA contracts at rates that advocates say are more favorable for developers. The rates had been on hold for months as regulators settled questions around avoided costs and contract terms. Avoided costs are the rates paid by law to independent producers based on the price of the utility building the generation itself.

However, it’s unclear how long those terms will stay in place or how much opportunity there will be in the future. In the coming months, the MPSC may allow Consumers to restructure those rates and contract terms in ways that developers say would stifle PURPA contracts. While the most recent rulings apply to Consumers, DTE Energy’s avoided costs are also under consideration.

Clean energy advocates and independent power producers have been closely following the cases for more than two years as PURPA rules could determine the level of third-party solar development in the state. The debate over PURPA and solar development has played out in multiple states in recent years.

Margrethe Kearney, staff attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, which intervened in Consumers’ rate cases, said the rulings effectively delay certainty over PURPA contracts by pushing them into Consumers’ IRP, which won’t be finalized for another six months.

“That undercurrent is a troubling,” Kearney said. “Do we really want a commission that isn’t making timely decisions and bouncing issues from one contested case to another?”
If the MPSC doesn’t agree with Consumers’ proposed avoided costs and contract terms, the company still has the ability to withdraw its IRP, while granting the utility’s request could harm developers, Kearney said.

“They’ve suggested that if any part of their plan is not approved, they could pull the whole thing,” Kearney said. “The change in the contract terms would strike a huge blow to independent power producers.”

READ FULL STORY

MinnPost: Why a Clean Water Rule May – Or May Not – Be a Big Issue in Minnesota’s First Congressional District

Why a Clean Water Rule May – Or May Not – Be a Big Issue in Minnesota’s First Congressional District

By Walker Orenstein

As farmers in southern Minnesota grapple with President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war — testing the alliance between the agriculture industry and the GOP that substantially benefited Trump in 2016 —  First Congressional District Republican candidate Jim Hagedorn is making sure to showcase the administration’s industry-friendly policies as part of his effort to persuade voters to send him to Congress.

That means highlighting support for mining in northern Minnesota, including the recent decision to end a study of potential impact from copper-nickel mining on the Superior National Forest and the neighboring Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

But it also includes touting a Trump administration effort that hits much closer to home in southern Minnesota: the rollback of a 2015 update to the Clean Water Act that expanded protections to small bodies of water feeding larger rivers and lakes — a policy that happened to be one of President Barack Obama’s signature environmental initiatives.

“It’s one of the biggest regulatory issues in agriculture,” Hagedorn said. “I bring it up all the time.”

A fight over water protections

The Obama EPA’s 2015 rule change has a long backstory. It starts more than 40 years ago, when Congress first approved the Clean Water Act. That original bill gave the federal government jurisdiction over the “waters of the United States.”

Ever since, people have not stopped arguing what that actually means, and how broad the government’s authority is under the law. Does it apply only to  lakes and rivers and water that feeds directly into them? Or does the law cover even small wetlands, bogs, streams and other isolated or seasonal bits of water?

Supreme Court rulings on the matter have never quite cleared things up, so under Obama, the EPA stepped in to make firm — and far-reaching — guidelines on what could be considered a Water of the United States. John Kolb, a St. Cloud-based attorney who focuses on water and natural resources regulations, says a long study conducted by the EPA used to justify its rule boiled down to: “All water is connected.”

Many farmers took issue with the decision, however. Beyond their general opposition to government expansion, industry groups said the rule change meant they were going to be targeted and penalized for standard agricultural practices. Kirby Hettver, president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, said farmers out West were found in violation of Obama-era Clean Water Act “just for tilling their soil.”

He was referring to a case that began in 2012 in which the government ordered a farmer in Northern California, John Duarte, to pay millions in fines and penalties after it said he broke the law by “deep ripping” his field to plant wheat without a permit, and disturbing seasonal wetlands called vernal pools that are notably home to fairy shrimp. (While there are plenty of agricultural exemptions to the Clean Water Act, the government said the field wasn’t subject to them since it hadn’t been plowed in decades. The case was eventually settled.)

While Duarte’s legal saga started before Obama’s update to the Clean Water Act, it became a rallying cry for conservatives worried about government overreach, a charge that found a sympathetic reception within the Trump administration. Earlier this year, the EPA withdrew the rule and is now in the process of writing a more narrow definition of which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act.

Effect in Minnesota

And yet, whether any of this means much for Minnesota remains a topic of debate. One reason is that despite the Trump EPA’s withdrawal of Obama’s Waters of the United States rule, litigation has reinstituted the Obama rule in more than 20 states, including Minnesota.

For another, Minnesota administers much of the Clean Water Act for itself, and it adopted its own stringent definition of protected waters decades ago, said Jean Coleman, an attorney for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In fact, Minnesota’s rule is far broader than the Obama-era water rule, and includes everything from irrigation and drainage systems to all “accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private,” within the state, she said.

“The definition of ‘Waters of the State’ is extremely expansive and it captures all waters that would be under the Obama definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ or under any other definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ because it is so expansive,” Coleman said.

She added: “I don’t think you can think of anything that’s liquid water that falls from the sky that’s not a water of the state.”

The state also has its own tough laws protecting wetlands and more, said Scott Strand, senior attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. Those laws blunt any given update or reversal of the federal Waters of the United States rule. “It will have a more dramatic impact in states that don’t have vigorous state clean water protections,” Strand said of the changes to the Waters of the United States rule.

 

READ FULL ARTICLE

Crain’s Chicago Business: Michigan Offers to Pay Millions for Illinois Asian Carp Project, but Rauner Balks

 

Michigan Offers to Pay Millions for Illinois Project, but Rauner Balks

Greg Hinz On Politics

It’s an unusual plan: A neighbor state would pick up most of the tab for efforts to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. What’s keeping Rauner from signing up?

States nowadays have trouble paying for the stuff within their borders that’s important, much less offering to pick up the tab for a project in another state. And when they do, you’d think the recipient would say yes.

But not Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner. Though the state of Michigan is offering to pony up millions of dollars a year to pay the costs of operating new Asian carp-blocking locks along the Illinois River at Brandon Road near Joliet—with seven other states and the Canadian province of Ontario chipping in, too—Rauner is not saying yes, at least so far.

The usual offer to pay costs for a project located in Illinois comes from outgoing Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder—like Rauner, a Republican.

In a phone interview yesterday, Snyder strongly pushed a “fair share” plan in which Illinois would pay just $132,700 a year of the estimated $8 million needed to operate the Brandon facility. Michigan itself would pay $3.3 million a year, based on its share of the total Great Lakes coastline, and legislative leaders in that state are committed to pay that amount for at least five years, more than $16 million total.

“We’re interested in (protecting) the Great Lakes,” which scientists say could suffer enormous losses to native fish if the voracious carp make it that far, Snyder said. “Why wouldn’t Illinois be excited about sharing project costs?”

Snyder said that regular discussions have been occurring for months among officials from the various states and provinces, including Wisconsin, New York, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Indiana. Now, it’s time to act, he said.

“We’d just as soon quit dating and get married,” Snyder quipped. “We’d like to get an agreement with Illinois.”

Michigan is so interested that it will pick up any other state’s portion of the bill if they can’t pay it themselves, he said.

Rauner, in an interview after he appeared before the Crain’s editorial board yesterday, indicated some interest. But he didn’t offer to sign up, either.

“The idea certainly has merit. We’ve been talking to (Snyder) about it,” Rauner said. But “we’re not committed to it.”

Rauner declined to elaborate, but there has been considerable back and forth lately about who will pay for construction costs that could hit $200 million or more.

Since I last wrote about this in May, the Rauner administration has dropped its request to double the width of locks to 1,200 feet to help the barge industry. Officials say barge needs can be accommodated in other locations.

In addition, Congress is in the final stages of passing legislation that directs the Army Corps of Engineers to finalize its Brandon Road study and put a specific proposal on the table by early next year. The legislation also would require the feds to pay at least 80 percent of construction costs.

That still would leave Illinois with a capital bill, but according to local environmental leader Howard Learner of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, other states are willing to pick up part of the construction costs, too.

“Rauner needs to find a way to say yes,” Learner said.

Snyder’s comments came as Michigan released results of a public opinion poll that indicate 80 percent of Great Lakes residents want action soon on the Brandon Road proposal.

READ COLUMN HERE

###

Lakeshore Public Radio: State Policies Making Indiana Clean Energy Businesses Less Competitive

September 25, 2018
Reports: State Policies Making Indiana Clean Energy Businesses Less Competitive
by Rebecca Thiele

 

Nearly 90 companies in Indiana play some role in renewable energy projects, which bring jobs to the state. But these businesses can’t be as successful without the policies to support them, according to a new report by the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

The ELPC says lately Indiana hasn’t been creating a good business environment for renewable energy. The state opted to phase out net metering last year and eliminated statewide energy efficiency standards in 2014. Chris Rohaly is the president of Green Alternatives Inc., a small solar installation company in Kokomo.

“I’m bidding against companies out of Ohio or Illinois and they — because of the strength of their home markets — are pretty well funded,” he says.

ELPC Clean Energy Business Specialist Tamara Dzubay co-authored the report. She says the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects two renewable energy jobs will grow substantially in the next eight years — but without the right policies, Indiana could miss out on the opportunity.

“Solar energy installation and wind turbine technician jobs cannot be outsourced, so many jobs are there to stay,” Dzubay says.

Among other things, the ELPC suggested developing a statewide energy plan and making it mandatory for utilities to get half of their energy from renewables by 2030.

LISTEN TO RADIO CLIP

News-Press Now: Energy Efficiency, Spending Headed for Big Drop

September, 23 2018
Energy Efficiency, Spending Headed for Big Drop
by Erin Murphy

DES MOINES — Proposed energy efficiency plans offered by Iowa utility companies would be a shell of what they had been in recent years.

The new and scaled-back energy efficiency plans are a result of legislation passed this spring and signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds. The new law caps the percentage of a customer’s utility bill that can be put toward energy efficiency programs.

Iowa’s utility companies this summer detailed to the state’s regulatory board new 5-year energy efficiency plans starting with 2019. Some of the proposals show a dramatic reduction in energy efficiency program spending and energy savings.

The utility companies say the new plans will result in lower bills for customers, which they can use to invest in energy efficiency if and in any way they choose, and that advancements in technology have rendered some programs unnecessary.

Critics say it is just as they warned during debate over the legislation: that it would gut the state’s energy efficiency programs, and that customers will pay more in the long run.

The state board must act on the proposals by March 31.

“It’s a huge cut and we’re really disappointed,” said Kerri Johannsen, energy program director with the Iowa Environmental Council, a nonpartisan coalition of organizations dedicated to preserving Iowa’s environment.

“The Iowa Environmental Council has a vision of 100 percent renewable energy for the state of Iowa, and we think that that goal is entirely achievable. But we need a wide variety of resources to get there,” Johannsen said. “We just think (the new law and new energy efficiency plans are) a deviation from the path that Iowa has been on toward a really clean energy grid.”

MidAmerican Energy, the Des Moines-based utility company that serves more than 750,000 customers in Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and South Dakota, in 2018 spent nearly $80 million on electric energy efficiency programs and nearly $31 million on gas energy efficiency programs.

Under their new proposal, MidAmerican in 2019 would spend less than $43 million on electric energy efficiency programs, a cut nearly in half, and just more than $6 million on gas energy efficiency programs, a drop by more than 85 percent.

MidAmerican’s energy savings would drop as well: their gas efficiency plan would save 80 percent less than 2017 and their electricity plan will save nearly 50 percent less, according to calculations made by the Iowa Environmental Council. Spokespeople for the utilities did not dispute the figures.

“Utilities have had really robust energy efficiency programs for many years in Iowa. Since 2009 alone the programs have saved the equivalent of building two-and-a-half baseload power plants,” Johannsen said. “The customers pay for the energy efficiency programs, but they’re paying less (overall). They haven’t had to pay for that generation.”

Johannsen said on the new trajectory under the utilities’ reduced energy efficiency plans, Iowans could have to pay more in the long run because less energy efficiency will lead to a need for more energy production to meet customers’ needs.

“Load growth in Iowa has been pretty flat for a number of years. Electric demand just hasn’t grown because of our efficiency programs,” Johannsen said. “So what we’re going to see is, without doing efficiency we’re going to see load growth and utilities will be forced to invest in new (power) generation.”

Josh Mandelbaum, an attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said the reduced programs also could threaten the jobs of more than 20,000 Iowans working in energy efficiency-related jobs across the state.

“In the past, Iowa has been a clean energy leader with strong energy efficiency plans, but this is a major step backward,” Mandelbaum said in a statement.

READ MORE

Energywire: BLM’s Final Methane Rule Reveal Draws Swift Legal Action

BLM’s Final Methane Rule Reveal Draws Swift Legal Action

by Pamela King

The states of California and New Mexico yesterday opened a new courtroom battle over Obama-era methane standards, hours after the Interior Department closed the book on its long effort to scale back the rule.

Bureau of Land Management officials yesterday revealed the language of its revisions to the 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule.

“Sadly, the flawed 2016 rule was a radical assertion of legal authority that stood in stark contrast to the long-standing understanding of Interior’s own lawyers,” said Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt. “The Trump administration is committed to innovative regulatory improvement and environmental stewardship, while appropriately respecting the clear and distinct authorities of the states, tribes, as well as the direction we receive from Congress.”

The New Mexico and California attorneys general promptly sued Interior.

“With this attempt to axe the Waste Prevention Rule, the Trump administration risks the air our children breathe and at taxpayers’ expense,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “We’ve sued the administration before over the illegal delay and suspension of this rule and will continue doing everything in our power to hold them accountable to our people and planet.”

In their lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the states contend that BLM under President Trump has violated multiple statutes in its unrelenting efforts to wipe the rule from the books.

The revised rule is a “shocking abdication” of the department’s responsibilities, said David Hayes, former Interior deputy secretary in the Clinton and Obama administrations.

“The final rule fails to forthrightly address the environmental and fiscal significance of the issue to federal and state authorities, the relatively minor costs of compliance, and the major climate- and health-related environmental benefits associated with commonsense restrictions on venting and flaring activities,” said Hayes, who now serves as executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law.

BLM yesterday found that its revision would result in maximum total net benefits of roughly $1.08 billion over a decade. That benefit is rooted in reduced compliance costs for oil and gas operators.

“As environmental stewards and businessmen and women who live in the communities where they work, IPAA member companies strive to explore for and produce as much American oil and natural gas as possible, while always being mindful of the need to protect public lands and the environment,” said Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “The Trump administration’s rule recognizes this fact and acknowledges the cost burden placed on companies that work and explore on federal lands.”

The cost-benefit analysis for the revision rule applies a sharp discount on the social cost of emitting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

“The administration is turning its back on commonsense methane reduction standards that reduce wasteful energy flaring and protect the public from harmful smog-forming pollution,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “The current standards call for the use of known technologies and good industry practices to reduce wasteful methane leaks. The new rule would allow more flaring of methane gas — a valuable natural resource.”

Allowing companies to release more natural gas into the atmosphere instead of capturing it for sale will result in at least $28.3 million in forgone royalty payments to taxpayers, BLM estimated.

“Today’s final methane rule makes it painfully obvious that this administration is placing industry interests ahead of federal taxpayers,” Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in a statement yesterday. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke “has chosen to dismiss the problem of leaked, vented or flared gas from drilling operations on federal lands, costing taxpayers millions in lost revenue.”

Industry groups applauded the changes.

“We are relieved that BLM’s final rule has been released and that it actually addresses waste prevention,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance. “The late 2016 Obama administration rule was all about regulating air quality, which is the job of EPA and the states under the Clean Air Act, not BLM, which has no air quality expertise or authority. The new regulation restores the rule of law while reducing waste of natural gas, which was supposed to be the intent of the original rule in the first place.”

BLM’s rule follows EPA’s efforts last week to relax its New Source Performance Standards for new and modified oil and gas sources (see related story).

Royal Dutch Shell PLC followed EPA’s announcement with a move to reduce methane leaks from its oil and gas operations (Energywire, Sept. 18).

Instead of viewing industry’s efforts as a reason to cut back regulations, government officials should see those actions as indicators of industry’s appetite to address their climate contributions, environmental groups said. Consistent federal regulations would require smaller operators to follow larger firms’ lead, they said.

“When even the world’s largest oil companies recognize the need for methane safeguards, reasonable people cannot pretend that the Trump administration is rolling them back in the public’s interest they purport to serve,” said Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel.

Capitol Hill

BLM’s announcement yesterday drew mixed reaction from Capitol Hill lawmakers.

Republicans in Congress last year pushed to unwind the Obama regulation under the Congressional Review Act, which requires a simple majority in the House and the Senate to support a resolution to disapprove a rule.

Although the House and Senate were under GOP control, the proposal fell short of the support it needed in the upper chamber (Greenwire, May 10, 2017).

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) called on Interior to follow Congress’ lead.

“Even though Congress has already rejected an attack on the Obama-era methane rule, Secretary Zinke has ignored congressional intent and moved forward with this ill-advised scheme anyway,” she said. “If this new rule is implemented, companies will be able to waste millions of dollars in taxpayer resources by releasing 180,000 tons of methane pollution per year into our air.”

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he was glad to see Interior find its own way to scrap the rule.

“Today’s announcement fulfills the promise made by the Trump administration to remove regulatory hurdles on domestic energy production,” he said in a statement yesterday. “The previous rule was founded on questionable legal theory and resulted in unnecessary costs.”

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said the revision rule ignores the years of public input that went into the creation of the original rule.

“The methane rule was established with wide support after years of open dialogue and stakeholder involvement. And the evidence is clear: This rule has had no negative effect on job creation or on the booming U.S. oil and gas production on federal lands,” he said. “That’s why the methane rule was upheld by a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate — despite heavy lobbying from some in the oil and gas industry.”

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) this year led a request that Interior officials hold public meetings on the BLM rule changes, as they did in the lead-up to the Obama regulation (Energywire, April 18, 2017).

“I’m disappointed to learn that BLM did not listen to the people of our state and went ahead with this rollback even after the Senate rejected it,” Bennet said yesterday. “Today’s decision only has downsides for the people of Colorado. It will lead to more pollution, waste more natural gas and decrease revenue for taxpayers.

“Worst of all, it will put the health of our communities at risk.”

READ MORE

Indianapolis Business Journal OpEd: Rolling Back Clean-Car Standards is Misguided

 

September 14, 2018

Janet McCabe: Rolling Back Clean-Car Standards is Misguided

OpEd

By Janet McCabe

The Trump administration has issued its much-anticipated proposal to roll back America’s clean-car standards. If it is finalized, impacts for Indiana will include more money spent at the gas pump; fewer choices of efficient, clean vehicles; fewer jobs in auto manufacturing; more air pollution; and a less-competitive American auto industry.

The current standards were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2012, with unanimous support from the American car industry, and nearly unanimous support from international companies.
The standards provide regulatory certainty through 2025, with plenty of lead time to design and build increasingly efficient cars. California, which is authorized to set stronger emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, also signed on to the 2012 rules, so there would be a single national clean-car program.

Six years later, Americans have many more choices for fuel-efficient vehicles of all models and sizes. Fewer trips to the gas station means more money for other things. Less gas burned means less air pollution in our neighborhoods, which is good for our health and good for the planet. The agencies last affirmed the continuing need for and appropriateness of the standards in 2016, after a thorough review with input from all stakeholders.

The administration’s proposal, which would freeze the standards as of 2020, is based on conclusions about costs, driving behavior and safety that are already being vigorously challenged as not supported by facts.

First, it assumes people will not buy fuel-efficient cars and thus drive their older, less-safe vehicles longer. That conclusion is contradicted by sales data.

Second, it exaggerates what consumers will do with the money they save on gas, finding they will drive more, negating the benefits of the rule and increasing traffic fatalities.

Third, it assumes that one of the approaches available to increase fuel economy—using high-strength, lighter-weight materials—will also increase fatalities. Wrong again. The auto industry does not trade safety for fuel-efficiency; lighter SUVs and pickups are actually safer, and lighter-weight aluminum does not sacrifice strength.

What about jobs and air quality? The agencies’ own analyses of the proposal acknowledge a loss of 60,000 auto industry jobs, and the UAW and United Steelworkers have both expressed concern about rolling back the standards. And while the proposed rule downplays air-quality impacts, rolling back the standards will increase the amount of gas we use by 500,000 barrels per day. This means increases in a broad range of air pollutants that contribute to smog and soot and toxic emissions such as benzene.

American automakers have said they do not want a rollback. They have said they do not want to pick a fight with California. They want certainty, one national program, and standards that will keep them competitive in the global auto market. Industry advocacy group Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said recently that “automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, jobs, safety and the environment.”

The Alliance urged the federal government and California to work toward a “common sense solution” to resolve their differences on mileage and emission standards. Well said. This ill-considered proposal is now available for comment. Let’s hope a sound policy meeting everyone’s needs prevails in the end.

READ OpEd HERE

Greenwire: EPA’s New Oil & Gas Proposal: Increased Emissions, ‘Adverse’ Health Effects

EPA Plan: Increased Emissions, ‘Adverse’ Health Effects
By Niina Heikkinen

The agency this morning released its proposed revisions to the Obama administration’s New Source Performance Standards for new and modified oil and gas sources (Greenwire, Sept. 11).

Under the proposal, the industry would have to monitor wells on an annual basis, and low-production ones every other year. The Obama-era rule required methane monitoring twice a year.

EPA is also suggesting semiannual and annual monitoring for compressor stations and annual monitoring for compressor stations on the Alaska North Slope. The Obama-era rule required methane monitoring twice a year.

The agency is taking a look at various technical requirements in the Obama rule. EPA is re-evaluating certification requirements for closed vent systems.

It is also studying provisions on alternate emissions limitations, well completions, onshore natural gas processing plants and storage vessels, and is planning some technical corrections.

The proposed amendments are the third in a series of regulatory rollbacks aimed at greenhouse gases, following moves to change the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions standards.

The Interior Department is also expected to release its own revisions to methane rules covering the oil and gas industry on public lands.
EPA said changes in monitoring frequency would provide cost savings. At the same time, it estimated the changes would lead to higher emissions, degraded air quality, and “adverse health and welfare effects.”

EPA estimated the foregone climate-related benefits of the rule at between $13.5 million and $54 million between 2019 and 2025.

This calculation is based on a domestic social cost of carbon, which considers a dollar value for the harm caused by climate change.

The metric is different from the one adopted by the Obama administration, which relied on a global social cost of carbon value.

The agency’s analysis of the proposal found that monitoring emissions on an annual basis from compressor stations between 2019 and 2025 would increase fugitive methane emissions by 100,000 short tons, volatile organic compounds by 24,000 tons and hazardous air pollutants by 890 tons, compared with monitoring on a semiannual basis.

Reactions
Janet McCabe, who was acting head of EPA’s air office as the Obama rule was finalized, noted that the oil and gas industry is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, after mobile sources and power plants.

“There is nothing ground-breaking about the technologies or activities called for in the 2016 rule. In this Administration’s drive to de-regulate, they are heedless of the cost to the public health and the cost to the future of the planet,” McCabe said in an email.

Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, slammed EPA for moving to undo “common sense” methane reduction standards.

“The Administration’s ideology is trumping common sense methane reduction standards that avoid energy waste and protect the public and our environment from dangerous smog-forming pollution,” Learner said.

READ MORE

Midwest Energy News: Coal Closings May Undermine FirstEnergy’s Attempt to Shift Plant to Bankrupt Subsidiary


Coal Closings May Undermine FirstEnergy’s Attempt to Shift Plant to Bankrupt Subsidiary

By Kathiann M. Kowalski

FirstEnergy wants to transfer a West Virginia coal plant into its bankrupt subsidiary’s portfolio, but the justification for the move is in doubt as the company seeks other coal plant closures.

On August 26, FirstEnergy Solutions’ Chief Restructuring Officer Charles Moore told the bankruptcy court in Ohio that “another coal-fired power station … would add purchasing power to enhance the value to the Debtors’ enterprise.”

Yet FirstEnergy had already scheduled the Pleasants Power Station in West Virginia to close next year.

And just three days after Moore’s declaration, FirstEnergy Solutions announced it would close the Eastlake coal plant and remaining coal and diesel units at the Sammis plant in Ohio, along with 2,490 megawatts of capacity at the Bruce Mansfield coal plant in Pennsylvania.

Environmental advocates welcomed the shutdown news. “This will mark the end of FirstEnergy’s coal portfolio in the state of Ohio,” said Dan Sawmiller, Ohio energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

First Energy Solutions President Don Moul said in an August 29 press release announcing the latest planned closures: “As with nuclear, our fossil-fueled plants face the insurmountable challenge of a market that does not sufficiently value their contribution to the security and flexibility of our power system.”

At the same time, the company could reverse its decision if the federal government mandates support for fossil and nuclear generating plants.

Either way, the timing raises questions about who benefits from the proposed transfer, and how it might affect consumers or taxpayers.

“What’s good for FirstEnergy here is not necessarily good for the public,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

READ MORE

Public News Service: Clean Power Plan Replacement Would Weaken Air Protections

BISMARCK, N.D. – The public can now comment on the Trump administration’s proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era rule aimed at drastically cutting carbon emissions from coal power plants.

Under what’s being called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, states would come up with their own reduction goals and submit their plans within three years to the Environmental Protection Agency.

…..
Janet McCabe, a senior law fellow at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, is a former EPA assistant administrator who worked on the Clean Power Plan.

She’s concerned the new proposal would delay implementing meaningful air quality improvements in a number of ways, including changing the way an older coal plant’s remaining life is factored into how it should be handled.

“The proposal gives the states, really, ultimate discretion to require nothing at all,” she points out. “What this rule would allow is for a state to say, ‘Well, given the remaining useful life of this plant, it doesn’t make sense to require it to do anything.'”

McCabe notes the Affordable Clean Energy plan would cut emissions, at most, to 1.5 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Clean Power Plan was projected to cut emissions by 19 percent.

McCabe notes public comments, which will be accepted through Oct. 30, are important to the rulemaking process.

“When I was at EPA, every single rule I worked on got better between proposal and final because of comments that we got,” she points out. “And those are important expressions from taxpayers in this country about what they feel their government should do, to protect them or to stay out of the way.”

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

ELPC’s Founding Vision is Becoming Today’s Sustainability Reality

Support ELPC’s Next 25 Years of Successful Advocacy

Donate Now