U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during a hearing on “EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants.” Debate about the proposed rule to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants has swirled since the rule’s release last month. Coal-heavy states and others have criticized both the substance of the rule and the EPA’s authority to issue it.
Throughout the hearing McCarthy faced questions about whether the agency had stretched the parameters of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule uses an infrequently exercised provision of the act to set state-specific emissions targets and provide states a wide range of flexibility when choosing how to meet those targets.
“EPA goes beyond the plain reading of the Clean Air Act Section 111 [by] directing states to achieve questionable emission reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable ‘options,’” said Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.
Defending the Clean Power Plan on Wednesday, McCarthy insisted the EPA followed proper legal procedure in conducting its analysis. She also dismissed suggestions that the rule was designed “miraculously” months ago and that the EPA has had it in its back pocket since then. She further stressed the flexibility of the rule.
“The proposal is designed to be moderate in its ask,” she told senators. “We will get significantly more benefit than we are requiring.”
She noted “The science is clear. The risks are clear. And the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act.”
A new paper by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions aims to address one question not answered in this debate: What will EPA’s rules mean for policy choices aimed at securing future mitigation goals? The analysis explores the long-term consequences of several key regulatory design choices, including mass-based versus rate-based standards, tradable versus non-tradable standards and separate standards for coal and natural gas power plants (differentiated standards) versus a single standard for all fossil plants. It finds that consequences may be significant. Differentiated standards lead to relatively greater investment in coal retrofits and non-tradable standards lead to relatively greater retirement of coal capacity—all of which could create different costs for securing deeper greenhouse gas reductions in the future. How the EPA’s proposed rule for existing power plants is viewed—as a final or interim solution—could also affect tradeoffs associated with key policy choices.
NOAA: Global Temperatures Rising
Global average temperatures surpassed previous records by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit last month—making it the hottest June on record according to new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data. It’s the second straight month the world set a warm-temperature record. In May, Earth’s temperature was 1.33 degrees above the 20th century average.
The finding piggybacks on another report co-authored by NOAA and published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society—State of the Climate in 2013—which provides a detailed update on notable weather events, global climate indicators and environmental monitoring station data.
“These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” said NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan. “This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change.”
The global average temperature, which is a broad baseline used to measure the climate, was about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit above average according to four of the most commonly used datasets. Among the report’s other findings: all major greenhouse gas emissions increased to new records, sea surface temperatures were among the 10 warmest on record and sea level continued to rise by about an eighth of an inch each year.
Department of Interior Plan, Warming Waters Expand Oil Exploration
The Obama administration approved a plan that next year allows energy companies to apply for permits for underwater oil exploration on the Atlantic Coast, from Delaware to Florida.
The final plan, compiled by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), requires oil and gas search methods—including seismic air gun testing—to pass several safeguards to mitigate risks to marine life.
“After thoroughly reviewing the analysis, coordinating with Federal agencies and considering extensive public input, the bureau has identified a path forward that addresses the need to update the nearly four-decade-old data in the region while protecting marine life and cultural sites,” said BOEM Acting Director Walter Cruickshank. “The bureau’s decision reflects a carefully analyzed and balanced approach that will allow us to increase our understanding of potential offshore resources while protecting the human, marine and coastal environments.”
The plan doesn’t permit actual oil drilling or guarantee that lease sales for drilling in Atlantic waters will be included in the Interior Department’s five-year plan for 2017–2022. Obama intended to open up the Atlantic Coast to drilling in 2010 but reversed course after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that April.
Meanwhile, melting ice in the Arctic is making the region’s icy waters more passable—allowing ships to deliver European oil to Asia and fueling South Korea’s hopes of becoming an oil hub.
“We’ve noticed a huge difference in trading routes,” said Erik Hanell, chief executive officer of Stena Bulk AB in Gothenburg, Sweden. “China is importing more and all the countries in the Far East are importing a lot more. South Korea has a very strong geographic position in today’s development of both Arctic oil and China’s growing demand.”
The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.