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 to > >> [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 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. -- 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.
