One way CDR/NET fuels can be injected into the debate is to point out that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/> mandates that a percentage of renewable fuels be used and that currently the EPA has not been able to achieve the mandated percentage. Further, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 <http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act>, which governs the RFS, commits the EPA to:
EPA is committed to developing, implementing, and revising both regulations and voluntary programs under the following subtitles in EISA, among others: - Increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards - Federal Vehicle Fleets - Renewable Fuel Standard - Biofuels Infrastructure - Carbon Capture and Sequestration Thus, Ron's goal of gaining substantial recognition of CDR/NET, within the current EPA rules development work, is not just justifiable on the STEM level but is actually mandated by Congress. For the EPA to view one issue (Clean Power Plan) as separate from the other (EISA) is contrary to the sprite and letter of the law (IMMHO). Best regards, Michael On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:35:10 AM UTC-7, David Hawkins wrote: > > I am just addressing the legal constraints the EPA operates under when > using its authority under the Clean Air Act. It is possible to construct a > broad range of scenarios that would rely on systems that cross industrial > categories to achieve GHG reductions but when EPA adopts rules under > particular provisions of the a Act, it has to respect the restrictions > placed on those provisions by Congress. > I don't see how EPA could incorporate the effects of biochar production > into a standard that limits pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity > production. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:58 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > Dave: cc list > > > > Suppose a biomass plant is planned to backup a wind or solar > generator (for some reason preferable to natural gas, batteries, or pumped > hydro, etc). I (and many others) feel that there is greater social > benefit (food, soil C leading to greater NPP, water, fertilizer, etc) if > that biomass plant consumes twice as much biomass to make biochar. Roughly > half (rather than all) the initial carbon would then be classified as CDR > (carbon negative). Would you argue that this “removal” half of biochar > should not be counted as complying with the proposed standards? > > > > Ron > > > > > >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> > >> Because this standard is a sector-specific (fossil electric power > generating units) emission reduction program, EPA is constrained by the > Clean Air Act to allow only this techniques that result in emission > reductions from the regulated fossil electric generating units to be > counted in complying with the standards. EPA's proposal does allow actions > that occur outside the generating plant boundaries to count -- including > shifting generation to zero-carbon and lower-carbon sources, as well as > demand-side measures that reduce total demand. These techniques are within > the scope of Clean Air Act allowable measures because they all result in > emission reductions at the regulated source category. > >> Techniques like CDR, while desirable as part of a broader mitigation > effort, are not within the scope of this sector-specific standard. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 1:29 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected] > <javascript:><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote: > >> > >> List: > >> > >> Yesterday, I gave testimony in this week’s EPA hearings on their Clean > Power Plan. I concentrated on just one proposed modification - that their > present four building blocks be expanded to include a fifth on CDR/NET - > half (?) of this list’s territory. I had planned to do this only in > writing, but I stopped by the Denver hearings late in the day and had no > trouble testifying quickly (and not as well as I would have liked - so I > have to also write now). It is possible to testify today (5 minute max) > also in Denver, Atlanta and Washington DC - but also in Pittsburgh on > Thursday and Friday. The fossil industry is in this full force. > >> > >> But mainly this note is to suggest this is a perfect time for > everyone on this list to make a written policy point about CDR/NET (I don’t > think SRM would qualify). No prohibition I know of to prevent citizens of > other countries to write. We have until Oct. 16 (120 days after the June > 18 first official release). > >> > >> The main point I will be making in writing is that a carbon negative > action could be disallowed unless the rules now specifically encourage this > fifth “negative emissions” block. That is - CO2 removal should be as much > encouraged as is CO2 reduction, and this should include CH4 and N2O. I > fear that half of the biomass carbon appearing as biochar could not receive > the same treatment as the half that is carbon neutral. I will not make > this a biochar issue - rather all of CDR/NET. I will be emphasizing the > need to consider getting to 350 ppm (Hansen and McKibben) and the need to > promote hope and reversibility. I have failed to find the “negativity" > concept in the written rules - which can be found at > http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule > . > >> > >> There are also a huge array of requested comments in the Federal > Register on June 18, especially around p 34839 on these “blocks". See: > http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/html/2014-13726.htm > >> > >> I wonder if anyone else on this list is following this path to make > CDR/NET better known at EPA? > >> > >> Ron > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "geoengineering" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:><mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>>. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>. > >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
