Ron et al., Assuming that EPA would be reluctant to take on the additional legal risk of doing what you suggest, and/or delay the regulations, I wonder whether the legal risk of a successful challenge to EPA action is less if EPA approves a state plan than if EPA attempts to put your suggested framework into the regulation. In land use, a regulatory agency can passively approve a proposal that it could never coerce—and even suggestions may be deemed coercive--but I have no idea whether that is the case here. Someone who has reviewed SIPs from 50 states might know.
A separate question is whether there is less legal risk to a state to try including a negative-emission biofuel in the plan since the worst that happens is EPA says “no” and they revise their plan, whereas if EPA tries to do what you ask, the whole regulation might be delayed. While your sense of urgency is well-grounded, it might be better to await EPA guidance on biofuel credits. Jim From: Ronal W. Larson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:07 PM To: Jim Titus Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] This week's EPA hearings Jim etal: My answer to your question below is that I’d rather see the EPA make an early ruling on carbon negativity options. Since either way, there are apt to be law suits, maybe getting the CDR idea (afforestation, BECCS, biochar) into the final EPA rules will bring a state into the picture (which is already in the rules, beyond the four main “building blocks". That isn’t likely to occur if the EPA is simply silent on the CDR (this list’s) topic. Afforestation is perhaps sufficiently better known and understood, that we should be focusing on that as a CDR policy lead topic. Carbon can be withdrawn pretty cheaply with the afforestation approach. (But it fails to provide many additional benefits that biochar can provide - maybe at a competitive cost). I have also been forgetting to say that there are out-year “knock-on” soil benefits of biochar (added above ground and root growth, microbes, fungus, N20 retention, etc) that could conceivably double the usual early-removal valuation of biochar. This is by no means a simple addition. But if we want 350 ppm, we need to start doing the computation correctly, not always conservatively. Ron On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Jim Titus <[email protected]> wrote: Would it be easier if a state's plan did so and EPA simply had to decide whether to approve it? On Jul 30, 2014, at 5:03 PM, "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> wrote: While there is considerable room for innovation and flexibility in implementing federal environmental statutes, Congress has not given EPA leeway to impose requirements on one set of actors based on programs in other provisions of law. So, for example, the RFS provision sets standards that transportation fuel providers must meet. As a legal matter, those requirements are independent of the requirements that EPA is authorized to impose on power generators under an entirely different section of the Clean Air Act. One could design a different legislative approach where EPA was authorized to set broad cross-sector targets for GHG reduction, allocate initial responsibilities to various emitters and/or fuel providers, and allow those obligations to be transferred through marketable permit programs to achieve reductions at lowest costs. In fact, such a program was designed and, as the Waxman-Markey bill, it passed the House of Representatives in 2009. But the Senate did not take it up and so it is not the law. In the current proposal EPA is focusing on the largest category of US GHGs, fossil-fuel power generators. The GHGs those sources emit are overwhelmingly CO2 and that is the pollutant for which EPA is proposing standards. The section of the law EPA is acting under does not authorize EPA to limit pollutants other than the ones emitted by the source being regulated. The idea of including the effects of biochar produced by an regulated electric generator to calculate a net emission rate is an interesting legal issue. It would be a novel concept and one that would present the agency with a lot of legal risk as well as challenges in distinguishing it from giving credit for other activities like avoided deforestation. I think those risks counsel against trying to incorporate such CDR effects into this rule and I suspect that would be EPA’s view as well. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Hayes Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:53 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] This week's EPA hearings One way CDR/NET fuels can be injected into the debate is to point out that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 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, 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]> 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]> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. >> 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 [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. -- 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 [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. -- 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. -- 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.
