Trinity Green Services
Thursday 3 December 2009
Environmental Law Changing
Environmental law has expanded rapidly over the past four decades and now encompasses concerns ranging from air and water quality to the decontamination of hazardous waste sites and the protection of biodiversity. One of the most recent specialties to be studied in law schools is climate change, a complex field that many schools are now starting to explore.
There are two principal difficulties, says Professor Michael B. Gerrard, Director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School: “First, an extraordinarily large number of different areas of law are involved.
“Second, developments are occurring so quickly at the administrative, legislative and judicial branches that it is challenging to keep up with them all and to integrate them in a unified picture of what is happening.”
The scope and complexity of the climate change debate makes it very challenging to design a curriculum around it, said Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.
“It is multi-disciplinary, demanding a solid grasp of science, economics, technology, land use, ethics, domestic law, international law and many other subjects. There is a huge volume of literature to digest,” Professor Parenteau said. “There are still huge uncertainties in the science regarding the speed with which changes are happening and the consequences of climate change at various spatial scales.
“The law is still emerging so there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the shape that it will ultimately take.”
Climate change will require massive transformations of every economic sector, led by energy and transportation. “That in turn requires an understanding of how laws in these sectors currently work and how they must be changed. On top of all this are the domestic political considerations and the trade and equity issues between developed and developing worlds,” Mr. Parenteau added.
Students of climate change law are facing a steep learning curve as they familiarize themselves with climate science. To understand the laws and policy they must first achieve some carbon literacy — an understanding of the sources and effects of the main greenhouse gases. This takes both time and critical thinking, said Professor Michael P. Vandenbergh, director of an interdisciplinary climate change research network at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tennessee.
“For example, stating that a company or country aims to achieve 20 percent emissions’ reductions by 2020 tells us very little about their actual commitment,” Professor Vandenbergh said in a written commentary. “We need to know whether the emissions are for just CO2 or CO2 equivalent (all six leading greenhouse gases); what the baseline year is (1990, 2000, 2005), since emissions have been going up each year and a later baseline year implies less stringent cuts; and what the business-as-usual emissions would have been in the absence of cuts.”
European universities have been leading the charge to teach this new specialty. “E.U. universities are ahead of U.S. institutions simply because the E.U. has been dealing with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, while we have been on the sidelines looking on,” said Mr. Parenteau.
Still, some U.S. law schools are now engaging with climate change: Pace Law School in New York started this year to offer a climate change track in its environmental law masters program, the first U.S. university to do so.
The Pace program features six specially developed courses: Climate adaptive management; climate and insurance; climate and corporate practice; climate change practice; disaster law and emergency preparedness; and state and regional climate initiatives.
It also offers students a chance to participate in one of the school’s signature programs — the Environmental Diplomacy Externship at the United Nations, in which students work two days a week at the United Nations with delegations and environmental agencies providing legal and policy support on climate change and sustainability issues.
The Rest @ The New York Times
There are two principal difficulties, says Professor Michael B. Gerrard, Director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School: “First, an extraordinarily large number of different areas of law are involved.
“Second, developments are occurring so quickly at the administrative, legislative and judicial branches that it is challenging to keep up with them all and to integrate them in a unified picture of what is happening.”
The scope and complexity of the climate change debate makes it very challenging to design a curriculum around it, said Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.
“It is multi-disciplinary, demanding a solid grasp of science, economics, technology, land use, ethics, domestic law, international law and many other subjects. There is a huge volume of literature to digest,” Professor Parenteau said. “There are still huge uncertainties in the science regarding the speed with which changes are happening and the consequences of climate change at various spatial scales.
“The law is still emerging so there is a huge amount of uncertainty about the shape that it will ultimately take.”
Climate change will require massive transformations of every economic sector, led by energy and transportation. “That in turn requires an understanding of how laws in these sectors currently work and how they must be changed. On top of all this are the domestic political considerations and the trade and equity issues between developed and developing worlds,” Mr. Parenteau added.
Students of climate change law are facing a steep learning curve as they familiarize themselves with climate science. To understand the laws and policy they must first achieve some carbon literacy — an understanding of the sources and effects of the main greenhouse gases. This takes both time and critical thinking, said Professor Michael P. Vandenbergh, director of an interdisciplinary climate change research network at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tennessee.
“For example, stating that a company or country aims to achieve 20 percent emissions’ reductions by 2020 tells us very little about their actual commitment,” Professor Vandenbergh said in a written commentary. “We need to know whether the emissions are for just CO2 or CO2 equivalent (all six leading greenhouse gases); what the baseline year is (1990, 2000, 2005), since emissions have been going up each year and a later baseline year implies less stringent cuts; and what the business-as-usual emissions would have been in the absence of cuts.”
European universities have been leading the charge to teach this new specialty. “E.U. universities are ahead of U.S. institutions simply because the E.U. has been dealing with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, while we have been on the sidelines looking on,” said Mr. Parenteau.
Still, some U.S. law schools are now engaging with climate change: Pace Law School in New York started this year to offer a climate change track in its environmental law masters program, the first U.S. university to do so.
The Pace program features six specially developed courses: Climate adaptive management; climate and insurance; climate and corporate practice; climate change practice; disaster law and emergency preparedness; and state and regional climate initiatives.
It also offers students a chance to participate in one of the school’s signature programs — the Environmental Diplomacy Externship at the United Nations, in which students work two days a week at the United Nations with delegations and environmental agencies providing legal and policy support on climate change and sustainability issues.
The Rest @ The New York Times
Friday 30 October 2009
Mandatory Green House Gas Reporting Rule Effective December 29, 2009.
The Mandatory Reporting of Green House Gas Rule by theEPA is published on 30 OCtober, 2009. Here it is.
Categoires are the same as drafts:
Facilities operating boilers, process heaters, incinerators, turbines, and internal
combustion engines:
211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.
321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.
322 Pulp and paper mills.
325 Chemical manufacturers.
324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products.
316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.
331 Steel works, blast furnaces.
332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.
221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
622 Health services.
611 Educational services.
Electricity Generation ................................ 221112 Fossil-fuel fired electric generating units, including units owned by Federal and municipal
governments and units located in Indian Country.
Adipic Acid Production .............................. 325199 Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.
Aluminum Production ................................ 331312 Primary Aluminum production facilities.
Ammonia Manufacturing ........................... 325311 Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities.
Cement Production ................................... 327310 Portland Cement manufacturing plants.
Ferroalloy Production ................................ 331112 Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.
Glass Production ...................................... 327211 Flat glass manufacturing facilities.
327213 Glass container manufacturing facilities.
327212 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities.
HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction.
325120 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities.
Hydrogen Production ................................ 325120 Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.
Iron and Steel Production ......................... 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic
oxygen process furnace shops.
Lead Production ........................................ 331419 Primary lead smelting and refining facilities.
331492 Secondary lead smelting and refining facilities.
Lime Production ........................................ 327410 Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities.
Nitric Acid Production ............................... 325311 Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.
Petrochemical Production ......................... 32511 Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities.
325199 Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities.
325110 Ethylene manufacturing facilities
325182 Carbon black manufacturing facilities.
Petroleum Refineries ................................ 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Phosphoric Acid Production ..................... 325312 Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing ................. 322110 Pulp mills.
322121 Paper mills.
322130 Paperboard mills.
Silicon Carbide Production ....................... 327910 Silicon carbide abrasives manufacturing facilities.
Soda Ash Manufacturing .......................... 325181 Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.
212391 Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation.
Titanium Dioxide Production ..................... 325188 Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.
Zinc Production ......................................... 331419 Primary zinc refining facilities.
331492 Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ................ 562212 Solid waste landfills.
221320 Sewage treatment facilities.
Manure Management ................................ 112111 Beef cattle feedlots.
112120 Dairy cattle and milk production facilities.
112210 Hog and pig farms.
112310 Chicken egg production facilities.
112330 Turkey Production.
112320 Broilers and Other Meat type Chicken Production.
Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels .... 211111 Coal liquefaction at mine sites.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products .............. 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs ......... 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities.
211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
Suppliers of Industrial GHGs .................... 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) .......... 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Mobile Sources ......................................... 333618 Heavy-duty, non-road, aircraft, locomotive, and marine diesel engine manufacturing.
336120 Heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing facilities.
336312 Small non-road, and marine spark-ignition engine manufacturing facilities.
336999 Personal watercraft manufacturing facilities.
336991 Motorcycle manufacturing facilities.
-Editor, GHG Management
More @ the EPA
Categoires are the same as drafts:
Facilities operating boilers, process heaters, incinerators, turbines, and internal
combustion engines:
211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.
321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.
322 Pulp and paper mills.
325 Chemical manufacturers.
324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products.
316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.
331 Steel works, blast furnaces.
332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.
221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
622 Health services.
611 Educational services.
Electricity Generation ................................ 221112 Fossil-fuel fired electric generating units, including units owned by Federal and municipal
governments and units located in Indian Country.
Adipic Acid Production .............................. 325199 Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.
Aluminum Production ................................ 331312 Primary Aluminum production facilities.
Ammonia Manufacturing ........................... 325311 Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities.
Cement Production ................................... 327310 Portland Cement manufacturing plants.
Ferroalloy Production ................................ 331112 Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.
Glass Production ...................................... 327211 Flat glass manufacturing facilities.
327213 Glass container manufacturing facilities.
327212 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities.
HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction.
325120 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities.
Hydrogen Production ................................ 325120 Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.
Iron and Steel Production ......................... 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic
oxygen process furnace shops.
Lead Production ........................................ 331419 Primary lead smelting and refining facilities.
331492 Secondary lead smelting and refining facilities.
Lime Production ........................................ 327410 Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities.
Nitric Acid Production ............................... 325311 Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.
Petrochemical Production ......................... 32511 Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities.
325199 Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities.
325110 Ethylene manufacturing facilities
325182 Carbon black manufacturing facilities.
Petroleum Refineries ................................ 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Phosphoric Acid Production ..................... 325312 Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing ................. 322110 Pulp mills.
322121 Paper mills.
322130 Paperboard mills.
Silicon Carbide Production ....................... 327910 Silicon carbide abrasives manufacturing facilities.
Soda Ash Manufacturing .......................... 325181 Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.
212391 Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation.
Titanium Dioxide Production ..................... 325188 Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.
Zinc Production ......................................... 331419 Primary zinc refining facilities.
331492 Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ................ 562212 Solid waste landfills.
221320 Sewage treatment facilities.
Manure Management ................................ 112111 Beef cattle feedlots.
112120 Dairy cattle and milk production facilities.
112210 Hog and pig farms.
112310 Chicken egg production facilities.
112330 Turkey Production.
112320 Broilers and Other Meat type Chicken Production.
Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels .... 211111 Coal liquefaction at mine sites.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products .............. 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs ......... 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities.
211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
Suppliers of Industrial GHGs .................... 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) .......... 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Mobile Sources ......................................... 333618 Heavy-duty, non-road, aircraft, locomotive, and marine diesel engine manufacturing.
336120 Heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing facilities.
336312 Small non-road, and marine spark-ignition engine manufacturing facilities.
336999 Personal watercraft manufacturing facilities.
336991 Motorcycle manufacturing facilities.
-Editor, GHG Management
More @ the EPA
Friday 23 October 2009
Close but No Cigar - Enterprise Software Makers Try to Embrace Climate Change Compliance
Carbon Planning Advocates need to understand how medium to large businesses mange their Business Process in order to see if business behavior and compliance is adpating.
Over twenty years ago most large businesses embraced automation of their businesses processes. This was generally done by IT people, and they used a method called Business Process Engineering. When complete, a busines had bent their busines processes to a new kind of Software called Enterprise Management Software (EMS), or bent the software to their existing process, depending on how much money they were willing to spend.
In the end, almost every step in their business, Operations, Business Intelligence, Accounting, Human Resources, was now managed by an integrated software application. By this time they had invested so much money, time, internal IT Hardware to this process that it was a core function. As the enterpise grows, new "modules" are incorporated into the EMS application. Leaders routinely analyze data generated by the application to support almost all their decisions.
Why is that important to Climate Change Management policy makers, regulators, academics and professional?
Because when enterpise management software companies begin to write new software modules which integrate green house gas, energy management tracking, reporting and planning processes into to overall enterpise management software systems, and when when these modules start to sell, corporate behavior is begining to change for the long haul....
Using this yardstick as a measure of organizational behavior change, the change is just begining.
Enterprise Software makers are getting into the green business in reposne to the EPAs 40 CFR rule part 98 Mandatory reporting of green house gas which goes into effect in January on 1/1/2010, and even in anticipation of possible Cap and Trade legislation. Though the Clean air Act CAA has been in- place for sometime,and even regional emissions caps such as the Acid Rain reporting Program, software companies are launching into the market.
There are software companies creating separate apps for the "Green" compliance, like Intelex but when all the needs are incorporated, the applications will become massive,costly additional applications comepting with Entprprise Mangement Software dollars in the IT budget.
The Specialists and Enterprise Generalists are gearing up for battle, but the market is so large that they will both carve a nice niche from their current client lists. The Specailists have much better applications right now, but eventually, over the next three or so years, the Enterpise software people will cathup with features that better integrate sustainability processes into the companies' operations.
Here is is an example of th behavior change: SAP is hiring
-Sustain ability Software - that is what SAP is calling their new new sales grouping of modules.
As you can see in the Job advertisemenet below it includes energy management, saftey and maintenanace, Green House Gas Reporting, etc. I am sure they will eventually include Climate Change Management, Carbon Planning, perhaps even energy efficiceny modeling.
SAP is Hiring a sustainability Software Sales Director
Location(s): California - Palo Alto
Industries:
Computer – Software Application
Functions:
Sales – Business Development
Job Type: Fulltime
Compensation:
Description
As the world's leading provider of business software, SAP delivers products and services that help accelerate business innovation for our customers. We believe that doing so will unleash growth and create significant new value – for our customers, SAP, and ultimately, entire industries and the economy at large. Today, more than 46,100 customers in more than 120 countries run SAP applications – from distinct solutions addressing the needs of small businesses and midsize companies to suite offerings for global organizations.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The Sustainability Specialists will work independently with the Americas Field Sales organization to execute on SAP's sustainability sales strategy. While also working in conjunction with the Sustainability team, this person will drive field-level sales engagements.
(NOTE: Sustainability is defined as applications and processes related to 5 topic areas:
The position is expected to be a high performer who is flexible and can use initiative and innovation to address this rapidly developing topic area. The individual will work as a field support sales person in support of all sustainability sales activities. Topics can include but are not limited to:
-- Sustainability Sales and Revenue targets
-- Regional targets for Customer Sat and Profitability
-- New product launch support
The Rest @ 6figurejobs.com
-Lee Royal
Over twenty years ago most large businesses embraced automation of their businesses processes. This was generally done by IT people, and they used a method called Business Process Engineering. When complete, a busines had bent their busines processes to a new kind of Software called Enterprise Management Software (EMS), or bent the software to their existing process, depending on how much money they were willing to spend.
In the end, almost every step in their business, Operations, Business Intelligence, Accounting, Human Resources, was now managed by an integrated software application. By this time they had invested so much money, time, internal IT Hardware to this process that it was a core function. As the enterpise grows, new "modules" are incorporated into the EMS application. Leaders routinely analyze data generated by the application to support almost all their decisions.
Why is that important to Climate Change Management policy makers, regulators, academics and professional?
Because when enterpise management software companies begin to write new software modules which integrate green house gas, energy management tracking, reporting and planning processes into to overall enterpise management software systems, and when when these modules start to sell, corporate behavior is begining to change for the long haul....
Using this yardstick as a measure of organizational behavior change, the change is just begining.
Enterprise Software makers are getting into the green business in reposne to the EPAs 40 CFR rule part 98 Mandatory reporting of green house gas which goes into effect in January on 1/1/2010, and even in anticipation of possible Cap and Trade legislation. Though the Clean air Act CAA has been in- place for sometime,and even regional emissions caps such as the Acid Rain reporting Program, software companies are launching into the market.
There are software companies creating separate apps for the "Green" compliance, like Intelex but when all the needs are incorporated, the applications will become massive,costly additional applications comepting with Entprprise Mangement Software dollars in the IT budget.
The Specialists and Enterprise Generalists are gearing up for battle, but the market is so large that they will both carve a nice niche from their current client lists. The Specailists have much better applications right now, but eventually, over the next three or so years, the Enterpise software people will cathup with features that better integrate sustainability processes into the companies' operations.
Here is is an example of th behavior change: SAP is hiring
-Sustain ability Software - that is what SAP is calling their new new sales grouping of modules.
As you can see in the Job advertisemenet below it includes energy management, saftey and maintenanace, Green House Gas Reporting, etc. I am sure they will eventually include Climate Change Management, Carbon Planning, perhaps even energy efficiceny modeling.
SAP is Hiring a sustainability Software Sales Director
Location(s): California - Palo Alto
Industries:
Computer – Software Application
Functions:
Sales – Business Development
Job Type: Fulltime
Compensation:
Description
As the world's leading provider of business software, SAP delivers products and services that help accelerate business innovation for our customers. We believe that doing so will unleash growth and create significant new value – for our customers, SAP, and ultimately, entire industries and the economy at large. Today, more than 46,100 customers in more than 120 countries run SAP applications – from distinct solutions addressing the needs of small businesses and midsize companies to suite offerings for global organizations.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The Sustainability Specialists will work independently with the Americas Field Sales organization to execute on SAP's sustainability sales strategy. While also working in conjunction with the Sustainability team, this person will drive field-level sales engagements.
(NOTE: Sustainability is defined as applications and processes related to 5 topic areas:
- worker health & safety (EH &;S),
- greenhouse gas/emissions management,
- energy management,
- product safety & Stewardship,
- and sustainability performance management
The position is expected to be a high performer who is flexible and can use initiative and innovation to address this rapidly developing topic area. The individual will work as a field support sales person in support of all sustainability sales activities. Topics can include but are not limited to:
-- Sustainability Sales and Revenue targets
-- Regional targets for Customer Sat and Profitability
-- New product launch support
The Rest @ 6figurejobs.com
-Lee Royal
Carbon Accounting Software - a 7 - $Billion Market
Published, 2 OCtober, 2009. (WSJ)
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A recent move by U.S. regulators means more paperwork for companies emitting greenhouse gases. That's a boon for the emerging environmental-software industry.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that will require annual reporting from 10,000 facilities that account for 85% of the emissions that contribute to potentially catastrophic climate change. The first such reports detailing types of emissions and volumes are due to the EPA on March 31, 2011.
Ripple effects from the U.S.'s shift toward addressing global warming under the administration of President Barack Obama are now being felt beyond industries such as power generation and crude-oil refining that are directly affected. Software start-ups as well as software giants SAP AG (SAP) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) have taken note and rolled out products.
The EPA rule was a "tectonic shift" for the niche industry, said Lawrence Goldenhersh, founder and chief executive of Enviance, a provider of Web-based greenhouse-gas emissions solutions.
The global market for carbon accounting, collecting data and consulting services is expected to balloon from $510 million in 2009 to $7 billion-$9 billion in two to three years, said Paul Baier, vice president of consulting firm Groom Energy Solutions. SAP, which acquired Clear Standards earlier this year for an undisclosed sum to enter the market, estimates that the untapped potential is $15 billion worldwide.
Even if Congress fails to pass wide-ranging climate change legislation, demand for such services will continue to grow due to shareholder and consumer demands for information, Baier said.
Enviance's software-as-a-service model is one of the most efficient ways to manage carbon data, according to Verdantix, an independent research firm. The Carlsbad, Calif.-based company boasts 12,000 customers - half of which are Fortune 1000 firms - that subscribe to software that helps them manage compliance with thousands of local and federal environmental, health and safety codes. That client base represents a huge opportunity for Enviance if they sign on for services to help them adhere to the new EPA rule, Goldenhersh said.
Major customers include American Electric Power Co. Inc. (AEP), Chevron Corp. (CVX), E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DD), PG&E Corp. (PCG) and the U.S. Army.
Enviance's core software, customized for every facility, sends alerts when there is a chemical leak or ahead of compliance deadlines. Designed by emissions experts, the software accurately measures carbon output based on the type of greenhouse gas emitted, whether its carbon dioxide, methane or another compound.
An Internet-based dashboard lets managers view emissions for specific plant processes or on a company-wide level.
This year, the company turned profitable for the first time and is expected to generate $20 million in sales. Enviance has raised $31 million in venture capital money since it was founded a decade ago. Enviance's revenues could grow 30% annually over the next three to five years as more companies look to comply with the EPA rule, said Dan Miklovic, research vice president for Gartner, a technology research firm.
There's also a profit motive. Tweaking consumption patterns can reduce energy costs by at least 5%-8%. The environmental-compliance software typically saves customers $500,000 annually per facility and frees up employees who were inputting data on spreadsheets for other tasks, Goldenhersh said.
So, it's no surprise that software giants are starting to latch onto the trend. SAP is one of Enviance's biggest threats, but Gartner's Milcovic said that their system "is based more on breadth than depth." SAP, though, is making a big push in this industry and is using its entire salesforce to get its base of 90,000 customers to adopt its own web-based carbon-management software.
The pipeline of Clear Standards' new projects has quadrupled since the acquisition was announced in May, said Anirban Chakrabarti, vice president of SAP Carbon Impact and former CEO of Clear Standards. Last week, SAP announced it is teaming up with Microsoft and Accenture Plc (ACN) to develop analytical carbon-reporting tools.
While acknowledging that Enviance may have an edge for their environmental-compliance solutions at local plants, Chakrabarti said, "we believe in the next 12 months we are going to be so far ahead."
The key difference, he noted, is that Enviance is building its base through various corporate departments while SAP's has cemented its relationships "on the board level."
Still, SAP's pursuit of snagging carbon-management business with large corporations leaves plenty of room for niche firms to thrive. Enviance's combination of environmental-compliance software and carbon-management solutions could make it a prime takeover target. CEO Goldenhersh said the company has been receiving offers but has no imminent plans to merge or go public.
The Rest @ The Wall Street Journal
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A recent move by U.S. regulators means more paperwork for companies emitting greenhouse gases. That's a boon for the emerging environmental-software industry.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that will require annual reporting from 10,000 facilities that account for 85% of the emissions that contribute to potentially catastrophic climate change. The first such reports detailing types of emissions and volumes are due to the EPA on March 31, 2011.
Ripple effects from the U.S.'s shift toward addressing global warming under the administration of President Barack Obama are now being felt beyond industries such as power generation and crude-oil refining that are directly affected. Software start-ups as well as software giants SAP AG (SAP) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) have taken note and rolled out products.
The EPA rule was a "tectonic shift" for the niche industry, said Lawrence Goldenhersh, founder and chief executive of Enviance, a provider of Web-based greenhouse-gas emissions solutions.
The global market for carbon accounting, collecting data and consulting services is expected to balloon from $510 million in 2009 to $7 billion-$9 billion in two to three years, said Paul Baier, vice president of consulting firm Groom Energy Solutions. SAP, which acquired Clear Standards earlier this year for an undisclosed sum to enter the market, estimates that the untapped potential is $15 billion worldwide.
Even if Congress fails to pass wide-ranging climate change legislation, demand for such services will continue to grow due to shareholder and consumer demands for information, Baier said.
Enviance's software-as-a-service model is one of the most efficient ways to manage carbon data, according to Verdantix, an independent research firm. The Carlsbad, Calif.-based company boasts 12,000 customers - half of which are Fortune 1000 firms - that subscribe to software that helps them manage compliance with thousands of local and federal environmental, health and safety codes. That client base represents a huge opportunity for Enviance if they sign on for services to help them adhere to the new EPA rule, Goldenhersh said.
Major customers include American Electric Power Co. Inc. (AEP), Chevron Corp. (CVX), E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DD), PG&E Corp. (PCG) and the U.S. Army.
Enviance's core software, customized for every facility, sends alerts when there is a chemical leak or ahead of compliance deadlines. Designed by emissions experts, the software accurately measures carbon output based on the type of greenhouse gas emitted, whether its carbon dioxide, methane or another compound.
An Internet-based dashboard lets managers view emissions for specific plant processes or on a company-wide level.
This year, the company turned profitable for the first time and is expected to generate $20 million in sales. Enviance has raised $31 million in venture capital money since it was founded a decade ago. Enviance's revenues could grow 30% annually over the next three to five years as more companies look to comply with the EPA rule, said Dan Miklovic, research vice president for Gartner, a technology research firm.
There's also a profit motive. Tweaking consumption patterns can reduce energy costs by at least 5%-8%. The environmental-compliance software typically saves customers $500,000 annually per facility and frees up employees who were inputting data on spreadsheets for other tasks, Goldenhersh said.
So, it's no surprise that software giants are starting to latch onto the trend. SAP is one of Enviance's biggest threats, but Gartner's Milcovic said that their system "is based more on breadth than depth." SAP, though, is making a big push in this industry and is using its entire salesforce to get its base of 90,000 customers to adopt its own web-based carbon-management software.
The pipeline of Clear Standards' new projects has quadrupled since the acquisition was announced in May, said Anirban Chakrabarti, vice president of SAP Carbon Impact and former CEO of Clear Standards. Last week, SAP announced it is teaming up with Microsoft and Accenture Plc (ACN) to develop analytical carbon-reporting tools.
While acknowledging that Enviance may have an edge for their environmental-compliance solutions at local plants, Chakrabarti said, "we believe in the next 12 months we are going to be so far ahead."
The key difference, he noted, is that Enviance is building its base through various corporate departments while SAP's has cemented its relationships "on the board level."
Still, SAP's pursuit of snagging carbon-management business with large corporations leaves plenty of room for niche firms to thrive. Enviance's combination of environmental-compliance software and carbon-management solutions could make it a prime takeover target. CEO Goldenhersh said the company has been receiving offers but has no imminent plans to merge or go public.
The Rest @ The Wall Street Journal
Monday 19 October 2009
FCI Has GHG Emmissions Meters and Systems
FCI announces new initiative to meet emissions reporting mandate
Flow meter supplier initiates "Customer GHG Reporting Fast Track Initiative" in response to the EPA's new 40 CFR part 98 mandate that requires greenhouse gas emissions reporting effective January 1, 2010.
David Greenfield -- Control Engineering, 10/14/2009
Fluid Components International (FCI), a supplier of thermal mass gas flow meters, has launched its Customer GHG Reporting Fast Track Initiative in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new mandate per 40 CFR part 98 that requires greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting effective January 1, 2010.
The EPA's new mandate is being enacted to provide a better understanding of GHG sources and will be used to guide development of policies and programs to reduce emissions. The collected data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions.
FCI's new Customer GHG Reporting Fast Track Initiative is a three-part program that includes:
Fast track order expediting is also available to ensure instrument deliveries prior to January 1, 2010.
The EPA's new reporting mandate requires more than 10,000 facilities to report the annual mass flow of greenhouse gases from their operations.
FCI's thermal dispersion technology gas flow meters are direct mass flow measuring instruments, with most said to require only a single insertion point into a pipe or stack to install. Instruments are available for installation in line sizes from 0.25 inches to more than 100 inches. In addition, FCI's meters are said to provide flow measurement accuracies of ±1% reading, ±0.5% of full scale, and exceed the stated acceptable accuracy within the EPA mandate.
Measurements available from FCI flow meters include
Predictive Emissions Monitoring for Regulatory Compliance
Sony uses renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide
ABB adds greenhouse gas monitoring to process analyzer capabilities
The Rest @ Control Engineering Sustainable Newsdesk
Flow meter supplier initiates "Customer GHG Reporting Fast Track Initiative" in response to the EPA's new 40 CFR part 98 mandate that requires greenhouse gas emissions reporting effective January 1, 2010.
David Greenfield -- Control Engineering, 10/14/2009
Fluid Components International (FCI), a supplier of thermal mass gas flow meters, has launched its Customer GHG Reporting Fast Track Initiative in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new mandate per 40 CFR part 98 that requires greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting effective January 1, 2010.
The EPA's new mandate is being enacted to provide a better understanding of GHG sources and will be used to guide development of policies and programs to reduce emissions. The collected data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions.
FCI's new Customer GHG Reporting Fast Track Initiative is a three-part program that includes:
- A toll free GHG Hotline at 1-800-863-8704, ext. 218 to answer flow meter questions.
- AGHG Reporting Web Page featuring FCI's AVAL gas flow meter sizing tool.
- AVAL is an online tool that assists process and plant engineers with proper flow meter selection.
Fast track order expediting is also available to ensure instrument deliveries prior to January 1, 2010.
The EPA's new reporting mandate requires more than 10,000 facilities to report the annual mass flow of greenhouse gases from their operations.
FCI's thermal dispersion technology gas flow meters are direct mass flow measuring instruments, with most said to require only a single insertion point into a pipe or stack to install. Instruments are available for installation in line sizes from 0.25 inches to more than 100 inches. In addition, FCI's meters are said to provide flow measurement accuracies of ±1% reading, ±0.5% of full scale, and exceed the stated acceptable accuracy within the EPA mandate.
Measurements available from FCI flow meters include
- mass flow rate
- totalized flow and temperature with electronic output options for a built-in digital readout
- standard 4-20mA analog outputs and/or digital bus communications such as HART and Profibus.
- Precision calibrations matched to the application, installation conditions and gas composition are a hallmark of FCI flow meters.
- FCI flow meters can be used to measure methane (CH4), N20, SF6, HFCs, PFCs and CO2 as required by the EPA mandate.
Predictive Emissions Monitoring for Regulatory Compliance
Sony uses renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide
ABB adds greenhouse gas monitoring to process analyzer capabilities
The Rest @ Control Engineering Sustainable Newsdesk
Saturday 17 October 2009
Obama's Executive Order
WASHINGTON, DC – Demonstrating a commitment to lead by example, President Obama signed an Executive Order (attached) today that sets sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance.
The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to
- set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency;
- reduce fleet petroleum consumption;
- conserve water;
- reduce waste;
- support sustainable communities;
- leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.
"This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government’s commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."
It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ.
The Executive Order also requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including:
- 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
- 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
- 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
- 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
- Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
- Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438;
- Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Each agency will develop and carry out an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan that prioritizes the agency’s actions toward the goals of the Executive Order based on lifecycle return on investments.
Implementation will be managed through the previously-established Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, working in close partnership with OMB, CEQ and the agencies.
- The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Energy Business Center has recently awarded a design-build contract for a wind turbine electric generation system to serve their Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The 600-kW turbine installation, to be completed in spring 2011, is projected to supply up to 15 percent of the facility’s annual electricity usage.
- The U.S. General Services Administration’s Denver Federal Center (DFC) in Lakewood, Colorado will be installing a 7 megawatt photovoltaic system as part of a large modernization effort.
- The primary goal of the project is to provide a reliable utility infrastructure to service tenant agencies for the next 50 years. This facility will feed renewable energy back into the grid on weekends and cover 30 acres.
Friday 9 October 2009
Administration Says They will cut Carbon with EPA if Legislation Fails
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has warned it could use the Environmental Protection Agency to help cut carbon emissions if Congress drags its heels, but legal and logistical problems could thwart that strategy.
A Senate climate bill unveiled last week faces slim odds of being passed and signed into law soon, with the U.S. economy shedding jobs and coal-dependent states fearing it would raise prices for electricity and steel and hurt manufacturing.
The delay in the United States, which has emitted more greenhouse gas pollution than any other country, is being closely watched by rich and developing countries seeking a lead on how to tackle global warming.
Some 190 nations due to meet in Copenhagen in December to thrash out a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol want to see that the United States is serious about fighting climate change before committing to share the burden of slowing global warming.
The administration has always said it prefers legislation over action by the EPA. But to prod business to support efforts in Congress, and to show the world Washington is taking action on climate change, the administration has also pressed the EPA to take early steps on regulating greenhouse gases.
The same day the senators unveiled the bill, the EPA proposed a rule, that would narrow the scope of the Clean Air Act, to force new factories and power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, Carol Browner, the administration's climate and energy coordinator, and a former administrator of the EPA, said last week that if Congress does not pass the bill the agency could work with U.S. states that have already formed cap-and-trade markets to expand them.
Environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, and legal experts, such as those at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, have said the EPA could get around Congress and create a national cap-and-trade market on the emissions.
EPA VULNERABLE TO LITIGATION
"I would question the ability of the EPA to follow through with that," said Divya Reddy, a Washington-based analyst at the Eurasia Group. Nearly any action the EPA takes would be "extremely vulnerable" to litigation and congressional intervention, she said.
Many of the troubles with EPA acting by itself on climate have to do with the sheer size of the potential U.S. carbon market.
If the EPA were to impose a national cap on carbon pollution, it would create credits worth hundreds of billions of dollars for the right to emit greenhouse gases, said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator.
That's about 10 times the size of previous emissions programs on acid rain that the agency has helped run.
Another likely problem is that the EPA would have trouble dictating how the states should distribute the permits and spend profits from their sale.
"LOTS OF WORK FOR LAWYERS"
Analysts say legislation by Congress would be more acceptable politically because it would represent a compromise between various political interests rather than a ruling imposed from above by one agency.
And if an EPA program works poorly, opponents would point the finger at the administration, not the entire Congress.
"Bottom line is EPA may have a lot of authority but you can bet the opponents of action are going to sue on every single thing EPA does," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of activist group Clean Air Watch.
Holmstead said any attempt to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, the law that empowers the EPA to protect air quality, would "create lots of work for lawyers."
One congressional aide, who asked not to be identified, was more blunt about any attempt to change the Act: "EPA would be attempting to rewrite legislation. They don't do that. Congress does."
Lawmakers too could continue to try to chip away at EPA rules. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, already has sought a one-year delay on the proposed EPA smokestack rule. She says it would hurt the economy.
The Senate squashed the attempt last month, but Murkowski may try again. "She is continuing to look for opportunities," Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the senator, said on Wednesday.
(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Xavier
The Rest @ Reuters
A Senate climate bill unveiled last week faces slim odds of being passed and signed into law soon, with the U.S. economy shedding jobs and coal-dependent states fearing it would raise prices for electricity and steel and hurt manufacturing.
The delay in the United States, which has emitted more greenhouse gas pollution than any other country, is being closely watched by rich and developing countries seeking a lead on how to tackle global warming.
Some 190 nations due to meet in Copenhagen in December to thrash out a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol want to see that the United States is serious about fighting climate change before committing to share the burden of slowing global warming.
The administration has always said it prefers legislation over action by the EPA. But to prod business to support efforts in Congress, and to show the world Washington is taking action on climate change, the administration has also pressed the EPA to take early steps on regulating greenhouse gases.
The same day the senators unveiled the bill, the EPA proposed a rule, that would narrow the scope of the Clean Air Act, to force new factories and power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, Carol Browner, the administration's climate and energy coordinator, and a former administrator of the EPA, said last week that if Congress does not pass the bill the agency could work with U.S. states that have already formed cap-and-trade markets to expand them.
Environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, and legal experts, such as those at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, have said the EPA could get around Congress and create a national cap-and-trade market on the emissions.
EPA VULNERABLE TO LITIGATION
"I would question the ability of the EPA to follow through with that," said Divya Reddy, a Washington-based analyst at the Eurasia Group. Nearly any action the EPA takes would be "extremely vulnerable" to litigation and congressional intervention, she said.
Many of the troubles with EPA acting by itself on climate have to do with the sheer size of the potential U.S. carbon market.
If the EPA were to impose a national cap on carbon pollution, it would create credits worth hundreds of billions of dollars for the right to emit greenhouse gases, said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administrator.
That's about 10 times the size of previous emissions programs on acid rain that the agency has helped run.
Another likely problem is that the EPA would have trouble dictating how the states should distribute the permits and spend profits from their sale.
"LOTS OF WORK FOR LAWYERS"
Analysts say legislation by Congress would be more acceptable politically because it would represent a compromise between various political interests rather than a ruling imposed from above by one agency.
And if an EPA program works poorly, opponents would point the finger at the administration, not the entire Congress.
"Bottom line is EPA may have a lot of authority but you can bet the opponents of action are going to sue on every single thing EPA does," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of activist group Clean Air Watch.
Holmstead said any attempt to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, the law that empowers the EPA to protect air quality, would "create lots of work for lawyers."
One congressional aide, who asked not to be identified, was more blunt about any attempt to change the Act: "EPA would be attempting to rewrite legislation. They don't do that. Congress does."
Lawmakers too could continue to try to chip away at EPA rules. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, already has sought a one-year delay on the proposed EPA smokestack rule. She says it would hurt the economy.
The Senate squashed the attempt last month, but Murkowski may try again. "She is continuing to look for opportunities," Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the senator, said on Wednesday.
(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Xavier
The Rest @ Reuters
Tuesday 6 October 2009
On September 22, 2009, EPA released final regulations that require approximately 10,000 facilities to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually.[1] Covered facilities must begin monitoring January 1, 2010, and file their first annual reports by March 31, 2011. The reporting rule generally applies to facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of GHG a year, although some sources with lower emissions also will be subject to the rule. EPA estimates that the reporting rule will cover about 85 percent of GHG emissions in the United States.
EPA’s final rule identifies 29 specific categories of covered sources, such as oil refineries, pulp and paper manufacturing, landfills, manure management, and producers of aluminum, cement, iron and steel, glass, and various chemicals, as well as a residual category for facilities with large stationary fuel burning sources.[2] Sources in 15 of these categories will have to report their GHG emissions even if they do not exceed the generally applicable 25,000 ton threshold.[3]
In addition to requiring reporting from facilities with direct GHG emissions, the rule also applies to “upstream” GHG sources, including producers, importers, and exporters of petroleum products, natural gas, and industrial GHGs.
They will be required to report based upon the GHG content of the fuels or gases they supply into the market.[4] The rule excludes coal suppliers and underground coal mines, apparently because emissions from burning coal will be reflected in reports from sources that generate electricity. The rule also applies to the makers of certain mobile sources: heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, airplanes, and nonroad engines. The makers of cars and light-duty trucks are excluded, but EPA intends to cover them in a rule under development that would set standards for GHG emissions from those vehicles.
Background
EPA’s reporting rule originated from a provision included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for federal fiscal year 2008. That Act directed EPA to develop final rules for mandatory GHG reporting “above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States” by June 26, 2009.[5] EPA released its draft regulations on March 10, 2009, and announced a 60-day public comment period. The proposed rule understandably drew a raft of public comment. See Hundreds Send Comments to EPA On Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, Set To Begin In 2010, Marten Law Group Environmental News (June 23, 2009).
In issuing this final GHG reporting rule, EPA has relied upon its existing authority under provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, sections 114 and 208,[6] that allow the agency to gather information from regulated stationary sources, and from the manufacturers of mobile sources. The new reporting rule creates a new chapter in EPA’s regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 98) and amend 13 other existing regulations.
Covered Sources
EPA has identified three groups of GHG sources subject to the rule: “downstream,” “upstream,” and mobile sources.
Some source categories that would have been included under the proposed rule have been removed from the final rule and “deferred” for further consideration, including electronics manufacturing, food processing, underground coal mines, and the suppliers of coal.
Downstream sources are commercial and industrial plants and other types of facilities that have the potential to directly emit significant amounts of GHGs. Sources in 15 categories – including
Most other covered sources must report if their emissions exceed 25,000 tons of GHG per year.
Landfills must report based on their methane emissions, and “manure management systems” based on their methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Upstream sources are fuel suppliers – the makers and importers or exporters of petroleum products, natural gas, and coal-based liquid fuels – as well as suppliers of industrial GHGs.
Reporting the GHG content of the fuels and gases supplied by these companies serves as a surrogate for the GHG emissions that occur from use of their products.
It does not account for the role of these products in processes or products that sequester the potential GHG emissions for indefinite periods. However, it avoids the likely futile and certainly burdensome alternative of attempting to determine actual GHG emissions from end uses of these products.
For mobile sources, reporting is required by the manufacturers and importers of vehicles and engines that are outside the “light duty” category (cars and light trucks).
Makers of heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, and off-road engines will have to report carbon dioxide (CO2) beginning with model year 2011, and other GHGs starting in later model years. Cars and light-duty trucks are excluded from the rule.
The proposed rule had a “once in-always in” requirement; once a facility is subject to the rule, it would have to continue reporting emissions even if it later dropped below the reporting threshold.
But the final rule contains several off ramps that allow a facility to stop monitoring and reporting GHG emissions. For example, if a facility’s emissions are below 25,000 tons for five consecutive years, then it can stop monitoring and reporting, but must notify EPA, including an explanation of why emissions declined.
The same is true if reported emissions are below 15,000 tons for three consecutive years. A facility also may stop reporting if it ceases operating the GHG-emitting equipment or processes, but again must notify EPA.
Monitoring Methods
EPA has adopted a hybrid approach to GHG monitoring, with specific monitoring and emission estimating methods for individual source categories and general criteria for fuel combustion sources that do not fall within specific source categories.
As a concession to concerns raised in comments on the proposed rule, the final rule allows covered sources to use “best available monitoring methods” for the first quarter of 2010. This is intended to give facilities additional time to install equipment or develop more detailed methods, as required by the monitoring provisions of the rule. The rule also allows facilities to request waivers to extend the period during which “best available” methods may be used.
Reporting and Records Retention
EPA’s regulations set out the elements that must be included in annual emission reports, beginning March 31, 2011.These include
This is a change from the proposed rule, which would have required retention for 5 years (EPA’s other Clean Air Act recordkeeping provisions also generally require retention for 5 years).
Emissions Verification
In response to the proposed reporting rule, which also called for self-certification of emission reports, EPA received comments from states, environmental organizations, and some covered industries encouraging the agency to adopt a third-party verification system for GHG emission reporting.
Europe’s existing GHG cap-and-trade program relies on third-party verification, as do voluntary and mandatory GHG reporting programs developed by a number of states and other organizations. The expectation is that a U.S. cap-and-trade program also is likely to rely on third-party verification, at least for some aspects of the program.
Some companies that have been voluntarily reporting GHG emissions noted that third-party verifiers also have helped correct errors in their emission estimates, producing higher quality data in the end.
The third-party verification model would be more similar to the approach used in oversight of financial reporting by publicly traded companies, where regulated companies are privately audited and audit results are reported and subject to verification by federal regulators.
But rather than shift to that model, EPA’s GHG reporting rule sticks with a direct regulatory oversight model, as it has used in other environmental programs.
Relationship to State Programs
EPA’s reporting rule does not preempt states from requiring their own GHG emission reporting.
The Climate Registry’s reporting protocols vary from EPA’s new rule in several respects.
EPA has stated that it wants to be able to share data with the states and the Climate Registry, and harmonize data systems to the extent possible. EPA also indicated it will work with the states and the Climate Registry on a data exchange standard. This may prove difficult, however, given the divergence in reporting thresholds and other varying elements of the reporting programs.
Other Pending EPA Regulatory Actions
EPA also has pending a number of other regulatory actions affecting GHG emissions, including:
Conclusion
Congress directed EPA to use its existing authority under the federal Clean Air Act to develop rules requiring the reporting of GHG emissions. EPA has now done so. These new rules do not limit or control GHG emissions, although they certainly point in that direction.
For the most part, EPA’s GHG reporting rule follows the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting structure as existing Clean Air Act regulations, and so they should be familiar to the regulated sources. Still, many regulated facilities may face duplicative or conflicting state reporting requirements.
The Rest @ Martin Law Group by By Svend Brandt-Erichsen
EPA’s final rule identifies 29 specific categories of covered sources, such as oil refineries, pulp and paper manufacturing, landfills, manure management, and producers of aluminum, cement, iron and steel, glass, and various chemicals, as well as a residual category for facilities with large stationary fuel burning sources.[2] Sources in 15 of these categories will have to report their GHG emissions even if they do not exceed the generally applicable 25,000 ton threshold.[3]
In addition to requiring reporting from facilities with direct GHG emissions, the rule also applies to “upstream” GHG sources, including producers, importers, and exporters of petroleum products, natural gas, and industrial GHGs.
They will be required to report based upon the GHG content of the fuels or gases they supply into the market.[4] The rule excludes coal suppliers and underground coal mines, apparently because emissions from burning coal will be reflected in reports from sources that generate electricity. The rule also applies to the makers of certain mobile sources: heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, airplanes, and nonroad engines. The makers of cars and light-duty trucks are excluded, but EPA intends to cover them in a rule under development that would set standards for GHG emissions from those vehicles.
Background
EPA’s reporting rule originated from a provision included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for federal fiscal year 2008. That Act directed EPA to develop final rules for mandatory GHG reporting “above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States” by June 26, 2009.[5] EPA released its draft regulations on March 10, 2009, and announced a 60-day public comment period. The proposed rule understandably drew a raft of public comment. See Hundreds Send Comments to EPA On Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, Set To Begin In 2010, Marten Law Group Environmental News (June 23, 2009).
In issuing this final GHG reporting rule, EPA has relied upon its existing authority under provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, sections 114 and 208,[6] that allow the agency to gather information from regulated stationary sources, and from the manufacturers of mobile sources. The new reporting rule creates a new chapter in EPA’s regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 98) and amend 13 other existing regulations.
Covered Sources
EPA has identified three groups of GHG sources subject to the rule: “downstream,” “upstream,” and mobile sources.
Some source categories that would have been included under the proposed rule have been removed from the final rule and “deferred” for further consideration, including electronics manufacturing, food processing, underground coal mines, and the suppliers of coal.
Downstream sources are commercial and industrial plants and other types of facilities that have the potential to directly emit significant amounts of GHGs. Sources in 15 categories – including
- aluminum
- cement
- petrochemical producers
- petroleum refineries
- ectricity generators subject to the acid rain program
Most other covered sources must report if their emissions exceed 25,000 tons of GHG per year.
Landfills must report based on their methane emissions, and “manure management systems” based on their methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Upstream sources are fuel suppliers – the makers and importers or exporters of petroleum products, natural gas, and coal-based liquid fuels – as well as suppliers of industrial GHGs.
Reporting the GHG content of the fuels and gases supplied by these companies serves as a surrogate for the GHG emissions that occur from use of their products.
It does not account for the role of these products in processes or products that sequester the potential GHG emissions for indefinite periods. However, it avoids the likely futile and certainly burdensome alternative of attempting to determine actual GHG emissions from end uses of these products.
For mobile sources, reporting is required by the manufacturers and importers of vehicles and engines that are outside the “light duty” category (cars and light trucks).
Makers of heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, and off-road engines will have to report carbon dioxide (CO2) beginning with model year 2011, and other GHGs starting in later model years. Cars and light-duty trucks are excluded from the rule.
The proposed rule had a “once in-always in” requirement; once a facility is subject to the rule, it would have to continue reporting emissions even if it later dropped below the reporting threshold.
But the final rule contains several off ramps that allow a facility to stop monitoring and reporting GHG emissions. For example, if a facility’s emissions are below 25,000 tons for five consecutive years, then it can stop monitoring and reporting, but must notify EPA, including an explanation of why emissions declined.
The same is true if reported emissions are below 15,000 tons for three consecutive years. A facility also may stop reporting if it ceases operating the GHG-emitting equipment or processes, but again must notify EPA.
Monitoring Methods
EPA has adopted a hybrid approach to GHG monitoring, with specific monitoring and emission estimating methods for individual source categories and general criteria for fuel combustion sources that do not fall within specific source categories.
- Facilities that already collect and report their emissions data, like power plants that are subject to the federal acid rain program, must directly measure and record their GHG emissions.
- Other source categories can use facility-specific calculations to estimate their emissions. Vehicle and engine manufacturers generally are required to use existing certification and test protocols. Oil, natural gas, and industrial gas suppliers will report the amount and type of products they produced, imported, and exported.
As a concession to concerns raised in comments on the proposed rule, the final rule allows covered sources to use “best available monitoring methods” for the first quarter of 2010. This is intended to give facilities additional time to install equipment or develop more detailed methods, as required by the monitoring provisions of the rule. The rule also allows facilities to request waivers to extend the period during which “best available” methods may be used.
Reporting and Records Retention
EPA’s regulations set out the elements that must be included in annual emission reports, beginning March 31, 2011.These include
- Specifying the volume of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated GHGs emitted by each regulated source category present at a facility
- The aggregate GHG emissions for the facility.
- Facilities will be able to report aggregated emissions for smaller sources.
This is a change from the proposed rule, which would have required retention for 5 years (EPA’s other Clean Air Act recordkeeping provisions also generally require retention for 5 years).
Emissions Verification
- Reporting companies will be required to self-certify their emissions reports.
- Facilities are required to identify a “designated representative” who will certify all emission reports, and must formally designate that individual in a submittal to EPA at least 60 days before submitting any emission report certified by that individual.
In response to the proposed reporting rule, which also called for self-certification of emission reports, EPA received comments from states, environmental organizations, and some covered industries encouraging the agency to adopt a third-party verification system for GHG emission reporting.
Europe’s existing GHG cap-and-trade program relies on third-party verification, as do voluntary and mandatory GHG reporting programs developed by a number of states and other organizations. The expectation is that a U.S. cap-and-trade program also is likely to rely on third-party verification, at least for some aspects of the program.
Some companies that have been voluntarily reporting GHG emissions noted that third-party verifiers also have helped correct errors in their emission estimates, producing higher quality data in the end.
The third-party verification model would be more similar to the approach used in oversight of financial reporting by publicly traded companies, where regulated companies are privately audited and audit results are reported and subject to verification by federal regulators.
But rather than shift to that model, EPA’s GHG reporting rule sticks with a direct regulatory oversight model, as it has used in other environmental programs.
Relationship to State Programs
EPA’s reporting rule does not preempt states from requiring their own GHG emission reporting.
- At least 17 states have developed or are developing mandatory GHG reporting programs.
- Currently, 12 of those programs are in effect, and the other 5 are slated to begin between 2010 and 2012.
- For example, the State of Washington has recently announced that it will release its final rules next month (October 2009), requiring reporting of 2009 emissions in early 2010.
- The State programs vary in reporting thresholds, the criteria for covered facilities, what emissions must be reported (only CO2, or some or all of the 6 primary GHGs), and monitoring and data verification requirements.
The Climate Registry’s reporting protocols vary from EPA’s new rule in several respects.
- For example, the Climate Registry calls for collective reporting of emissions from all sources controlled by a reporting entity, rather than facility-specific reporting,
- Third party verification of GHG emissions data,
- Reporting of “indirect” emissions that are emitted in generating electricity used by the entity’s facilities.
EPA has stated that it wants to be able to share data with the states and the Climate Registry, and harmonize data systems to the extent possible. EPA also indicated it will work with the states and the Climate Registry on a data exchange standard. This may prove difficult, however, given the divergence in reporting thresholds and other varying elements of the reporting programs.
Other Pending EPA Regulatory Actions
EPA also has pending a number of other regulatory actions affecting GHG emissions, including:
- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Fuel Economy Standards (signed September 15, 2009);
- Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 FR 18886 (April 24, 2009);
- Reconsideration of “EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered By Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program” 73 FR 80300 (December 31, 2008);
- Granted California’s request for a waiver for its GHG vehicle standard, 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009)
Conclusion
Congress directed EPA to use its existing authority under the federal Clean Air Act to develop rules requiring the reporting of GHG emissions. EPA has now done so. These new rules do not limit or control GHG emissions, although they certainly point in that direction.
For the most part, EPA’s GHG reporting rule follows the same monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting structure as existing Clean Air Act regulations, and so they should be familiar to the regulated sources. Still, many regulated facilities may face duplicative or conflicting state reporting requirements.
The Rest @ Martin Law Group by By Svend Brandt-Erichsen
Tuesday 29 September 2009
Analysis of EPA's new Mandatory Green House Gas Rule
This is not brand new news to our readers, but we have been watching reaction to the EPAs 40CFR Part 98 Final Rule that was released last week.
This is an article by Mondaq.com.
-Editor
29 September 2009
Article by Julie S. Solmer-Stine, Mark A. Thimke and Richard G. Stoll, Esq.
Less than an hour after President Obama's September 22, 2009 United Nations speech stressing his commitment to strong climate protection, EPA released its long-awaited final rule mandating greenhouse-gas (GHG) monitoring and reporting.
Approximately 10,000 facilities in all sectors of the economy will be required to monitor and report their GHG emissions beginning in 2010. The new rule requires reporting of GHG emissions over defined "threshold levels" on an annual basis.
The requirements are estimated to cover 85 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, at a cost to the private sector of $115 million in the first year and $72 million in subsequent years.
The rule requires data collection beginning January 1, 2010, with the first annual reports due March 31, 2011. The reporting requirements generally apply to facilities within one of 31 source categories that emit at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. (As explained further below, final action on 11 additional source categories has been deferred.)
The 25,000-ton threshold applies to cumulative emissions for the calendar year; thus, if there is a possibility that a facility may meet or exceed the threshold by the end of the year, it will need to collect data beginning January 1, 2010.
Most commercial buildings and small businesses are expected to be below the threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e is equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from the energy use of approximately 2,300 homes or 4,600 passenger vehicles).
EPA stressed in its Fact Sheet accompanying the final rule that the only type of agricultural facilities covered would be livestock operations with manure management systems.
Additionally, EPA is not requiring mobile sources, including fleet operators and vehicle owners, to report at this time because such emissions will be covered by reports from fuel suppliers and engine manufacturers.
Although most facilities will be required to report annually, facilities already reporting under other mandatory programs such as the CAA Acid Rain Program will be required to report quarterly.
Facilities are no longer required to report if they shut down or report less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e for five consecutive years, or less than 15,000 metric tons CO2e for three consecutive years.
The rule also includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, recordkeeping, and verification.
EPA will consider the following to be violations:
The final rule follows an April 2009 proposed rule and departs from the proposed rule in several significant respects in that it:
EPA had been pressured by certain interest groups to require independent third-party verification of annual reports, but has decided not to take this step in its final rule.
Finally, EPA deferred final action on 11 industrial source categories in its September 22, 2009 final rule.
EPA stated that it will "further consider comments and options" before deciding whether to subject facilities in these sectors to the mandatory reporting requirements: electronics manufacturing, ethanol production, fluorinated greenhouse gas production, food processing, magnesium production, oil and natural gas systems, sulfur hexafluoride (sf6) from electrical equipment, underground coal mines, industrial landfills, wastewater treatment, and suppliers of coal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
The Rest @ Mondaqhttp://www.mondaq.com/.com
This is an article by Mondaq.com.
-Editor
29 September 2009
Article by Julie S. Solmer-Stine, Mark A. Thimke and Richard G. Stoll, Esq.
Less than an hour after President Obama's September 22, 2009 United Nations speech stressing his commitment to strong climate protection, EPA released its long-awaited final rule mandating greenhouse-gas (GHG) monitoring and reporting.
Approximately 10,000 facilities in all sectors of the economy will be required to monitor and report their GHG emissions beginning in 2010. The new rule requires reporting of GHG emissions over defined "threshold levels" on an annual basis.
The requirements are estimated to cover 85 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, at a cost to the private sector of $115 million in the first year and $72 million in subsequent years.
- EPA's new rule responds to a congressional mandate buried in the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which directed EPA to issue regulations for "mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy." Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008).
- The rule relies on EPA's existing Clean Air Act (CAA) authority.
- It does not require controls or limits on GHG emissions, but EPA has several programs for GHG controls in its CAA regulatory "pipeline," and Congress may enact new global climate legislation.
The rule requires data collection beginning January 1, 2010, with the first annual reports due March 31, 2011. The reporting requirements generally apply to facilities within one of 31 source categories that emit at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. (As explained further below, final action on 11 additional source categories has been deferred.)
The 25,000-ton threshold applies to cumulative emissions for the calendar year; thus, if there is a possibility that a facility may meet or exceed the threshold by the end of the year, it will need to collect data beginning January 1, 2010.
Most commercial buildings and small businesses are expected to be below the threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e is equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from the energy use of approximately 2,300 homes or 4,600 passenger vehicles).
EPA stressed in its Fact Sheet accompanying the final rule that the only type of agricultural facilities covered would be livestock operations with manure management systems.
Additionally, EPA is not requiring mobile sources, including fleet operators and vehicle owners, to report at this time because such emissions will be covered by reports from fuel suppliers and engine manufacturers.
Although most facilities will be required to report annually, facilities already reporting under other mandatory programs such as the CAA Acid Rain Program will be required to report quarterly.
Facilities are no longer required to report if they shut down or report less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e for five consecutive years, or less than 15,000 metric tons CO2e for three consecutive years.
- Reports must be submitted directly to EPA through an electronic system still under development.
- The rule does not, however, preempt states from requiring their own GHG reporting.
- Reports must be made at the facility level, with the exception of certain source categories required to report at the corporate level.
- These include certain suppliers of fossil fuels, and vehicle and engine manufacturers outside the light-duty sector.
- The GHGs that must be reported include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride as well as other fluorinated gases.
The rule also includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, recordkeeping, and verification.
- "Best available" monitoring methods may be used through March 31, 2010.
- After that time, facilities must comply with the monitoring methods specified in the regulations.
- Records generally must be maintained for three years.
- Third-party verification is not required; reporters are required to self-certify using a designated representative.
- The rule includes requirements for establishing the designated representative including submittal of a certificate of representation to EPA at least 60 days prior to the deadline for submission of the emission report.
EPA will consider the following to be violations:
- failure to report,
- failure to collect data needed to calculate emissions,
- failure to continuously monitor and test as required,
- failure to retain records,
- failure to calculate emissions following the methodologies specified in the regulations.
The final rule follows an April 2009 proposed rule and departs from the proposed rule in several significant respects in that it:
- Adds a mechanism for exiting the program
- Allows the use of "best available" monitoring methods through March 31, 2010
- Excludes research and development activities from reporting
- Adds a provision to require submittal of revised reports to correct errors
- Changes the records retention period from five to three years
EPA had been pressured by certain interest groups to require independent third-party verification of annual reports, but has decided not to take this step in its final rule.
Finally, EPA deferred final action on 11 industrial source categories in its September 22, 2009 final rule.
EPA stated that it will "further consider comments and options" before deciding whether to subject facilities in these sectors to the mandatory reporting requirements: electronics manufacturing, ethanol production, fluorinated greenhouse gas production, food processing, magnesium production, oil and natural gas systems, sulfur hexafluoride (sf6) from electrical equipment, underground coal mines, industrial landfills, wastewater treatment, and suppliers of coal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
The Rest @ Mondaqhttp://www.mondaq.com/.com
Wednesday 23 September 2009
Mandatory Reporting of Green House Gas Emissions to the EPA - Where do I Get info?
The final rule was signed by the Administrator on September 22, 2009. Here it is
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions.
This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Source: The EPA Climate Change Website
Post sponsored by Trinity Green Services : Request more information
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions.
This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
- Press Release
- Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Preamble (full version) (PDF) (591 pp, 4.67 MB, About PDF)
- Preamble Sec. I - II, p. 1-150 (Introduction, Background, General Requirements of the Rule) (PDF) (150 pp, 567 KB, About PDF)
- Preamble Sec. III.A – III.S, p. 151-300 (Overview and Electricity Purchases through Lime Manufacturing) (PDF) (150 pp, 558 KB, About PDF)
- Preamble Sec. III.T – III.PP, p. 301-489 (Magnesium Production through Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide) (PDF) (189 pp, 629 KB, About PDF)
- Preamble Sec. IV – VIII, p. 489-591 (Mobile Sources through Statutory and Executive Order Reviews) (PDF) (103 pp, 537 KB, About PDF)
- Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule Text (full version) (PDF) (711 pp, 2.11 MB, About PDF)
- Rule Parts 86-94, p. 592-600 (Mobile Sources) (PDF) (9 pp, 548 KB, About PDF)
- Rule Part 98, subparts A-C, p. 600-791 (General Provisions through General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) (PDF) (192 pp, 953 KB, About PDF)
- Rule Part 98, subparts D-Z, p. 791-1048 (Electricity Generation through Phosphoric Acid Production) (PDF) (258 pp, 1.13 MB, About PDF)
- Rule Part 98, subparts AA-PP, p. 1049-1249 (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing through Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide) (PDF) (201 pp, 1.01 MB, About PDF)
- Rule Parts 1033-1065, p. 1249-1302 (Mobile Sources) (PDF) (54 pp, 662 KB, About PDF)
- Response to Comments (Coming Soon)
Source: The EPA Climate Change Website
Post sponsored by Trinity Green Services : Request more information
Tuesday 22 September 2009
EPAs Collection for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas begins in 15 Weeks
9/22/09 EPA Website beings
WASHINGTON – On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.
“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.
The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.
More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
The Rest @ EPA website
WASHINGTON – On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.
“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.
The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.
More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
The Rest @ EPA website
Monday 21 September 2009
EPAs Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule passes OMB
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting final rule today cleared the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule is expected to require that emissions from both upstream production and downstream sources be reported, as the EPA administrator deems appropriate. This rulemaking establishes monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements on facilities that produce, import, or emit greenhouse gases above 25,000 CO2 equivalents annually.
The final rule is expected to require the first annual report to be submitted to EPA in 2011, for the calendar year 2010, except for vehicle and engine manufacturers, which will begin reporting for model year 2011.
The Rest @ the Cattle Network.
Here's more from Greenwire:
The White House has signed off on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to establish a national greenhouse gas registry.
Greenwire reports in a story published in Thursday's New York Times that the Office of Management and Budget says it has completed its review of the proposal to require 13,000 facilities nationwide to report their carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA says those sources account for 85 to 90 percent of U.S. emissions.
REPORTING IN 2011
There's no word on when the agency will release the final rule. The initial draft released in March said the rule would affect facilities with direct emissions of at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, sparing what the EPA calls the "vast majority" of small businesses.
Industries would be required to file their first reports with EPA in 2011, based on data collected next year.
Vehicle and engine manufacturers would begin reporting their data in 2012 for the 2010 model year.
The Rest @ Cleanskies
The final rule is expected to require the first annual report to be submitted to EPA in 2011, for the calendar year 2010, except for vehicle and engine manufacturers, which will begin reporting for model year 2011.
The Rest @ the Cattle Network.
Here's more from Greenwire:
The White House has signed off on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to establish a national greenhouse gas registry.
Greenwire reports in a story published in Thursday's New York Times that the Office of Management and Budget says it has completed its review of the proposal to require 13,000 facilities nationwide to report their carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA says those sources account for 85 to 90 percent of U.S. emissions.
REPORTING IN 2011
There's no word on when the agency will release the final rule. The initial draft released in March said the rule would affect facilities with direct emissions of at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, sparing what the EPA calls the "vast majority" of small businesses.
Industries would be required to file their first reports with EPA in 2011, based on data collected next year.
Vehicle and engine manufacturers would begin reporting their data in 2012 for the 2010 model year.
The Rest @ Cleanskies
Friday 18 September 2009
Six Ways to Rate Cap & Trade
Foreign Affaris, the September October 2009 Edition, has several great climat related articles,
but one by Joel Kurtzman that makes the Journal purchase worthwhile: "The Low-Carbon Diet, How the Market Can Curb Climate Change". Here is an August Excerpt of the article published by the Milkin Institute.
He provides an excellent review of the history of Cap and Trade Programs, and believes that a Green House Gas Cap & Trade Program is on the way here in the US.
He concludes with six design features that must be part of a successfull Cap and Trade System:
Whether the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passes or not, The EPA is gettirg ready to publish in final form the reule they first published in draft in 40 CFR Part 98, The Mandatory Reporting of Green House Gas, which will require the reporting GHG emissions in a variety of new business sectors.
After more and more emission data is gathered, wwe can count o n the EPA using the data to update the National Green House Gas Inventory, which will add weight to another push for Cap & Trade
In conclusion, lets get our GHG inventories ready, we will have to know what they are as a starting point, whether we have thought about emissions before or not.
-Editor
but one by Joel Kurtzman that makes the Journal purchase worthwhile: "The Low-Carbon Diet, How the Market Can Curb Climate Change". Here is an August Excerpt of the article published by the Milkin Institute.
He provides an excellent review of the history of Cap and Trade Programs, and believes that a Green House Gas Cap & Trade Program is on the way here in the US.
He concludes with six design features that must be part of a successfull Cap and Trade System:
- Firmly set long term emission caps that place an unambiguous limit on the amount of carbon dixoide to be released over the long haul.
- Permits must be allocated to emitters, ideally free to start.
- Offset provisions that allow alternative ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere
- Emitters should be allowed to "bank" their permits so they can use them in the future
- All Emission activities must be professionally audited to insure that a ton of carbon is really a ton of carbon.
- Regulators must refrain from setting a minimum or maxiumum price for emissions and must allow the market to set its own
Whether the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passes or not, The EPA is gettirg ready to publish in final form the reule they first published in draft in 40 CFR Part 98, The Mandatory Reporting of Green House Gas, which will require the reporting GHG emissions in a variety of new business sectors.
After more and more emission data is gathered, wwe can count o n the EPA using the data to update the National Green House Gas Inventory, which will add weight to another push for Cap & Trade
In conclusion, lets get our GHG inventories ready, we will have to know what they are as a starting point, whether we have thought about emissions before or not.
-Editor
Wednesday 16 September 2009
EPA - Tougher Standards for Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators Emmisions
EPA Tightens Air Emissions for Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators
Release date: 09/16/2009
Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn milbourn.cathy@epa.gov 202-564-7849 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON – EPA is setting new limits that will affect most existing hospital, medical, and infectious waste incinerators. This final action will reduce about 390,000 pounds of several pollutants each year including acid gases, nitrogen oxides, and metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury. EPA is also finalizing additional testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements.
This final action revises the September 1997 new source performance standards and emission guidelines for these incinerators and responds to the Court remand of the regulations. It also satisfies the Clean Air Act requirement to conduct a review of the standards every five years.
The Rest @ the EPA
Release date: 09/16/2009
Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn milbourn.cathy@epa.gov 202-564-7849 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON – EPA is setting new limits that will affect most existing hospital, medical, and infectious waste incinerators. This final action will reduce about 390,000 pounds of several pollutants each year including acid gases, nitrogen oxides, and metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury. EPA is also finalizing additional testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements.
This final action revises the September 1997 new source performance standards and emission guidelines for these incinerators and responds to the Court remand of the regulations. It also satisfies the Clean Air Act requirement to conduct a review of the standards every five years.
The Rest @ the EPA
Tuesday 15 September 2009
What is a A greenhouse gas inventory? The EPA Says....
A greenhouse gas inventory is an accounting of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to or removed from the atmosphere over a specific period of time (e.g., one year).
A greenhouse gas inventory also provides information on the activities that cause emissions and removals, as well as background on the methods used to make the calculations.
Policy makers use greenhouse gas inventories to track emission trends, develop strategies and policies and assess progress.
Scientists use greenhouse gas inventories as inputs to atmospheric and economic models.
To track the national trend in emissions and removals since 1990, EPA develops the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory each year.
The national greenhouse gas inventory is submitted to the United Nations in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Rest @ The US Envireonmental Protection Agency
A greenhouse gas inventory also provides information on the activities that cause emissions and removals, as well as background on the methods used to make the calculations.
Policy makers use greenhouse gas inventories to track emission trends, develop strategies and policies and assess progress.
Scientists use greenhouse gas inventories as inputs to atmospheric and economic models.
To track the national trend in emissions and removals since 1990, EPA develops the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory each year.
The national greenhouse gas inventory is submitted to the United Nations in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Rest @ The US Envireonmental Protection Agency
Seven Steps to Success in a Low Carbon Business Environment
The Carbon Disclosure Project is about to complete it's massive benchmarking project, I understand they will release their report on 21 September. What I find most interesting is the criterea they use to judge whether a company is likely to suceed in a " low carbon business environment".
They will use 7 criterea in ther upcoming report:
1. Offer transparency about their climate change activities and performance: Companies must report their emissions data and climate change strategies. Without transparency, they cannot be classed as high performers.
2. Demonstrate low-carbon intensity: Companies that are running the most carbon efficient operations demonstrate good carbon management and will be best positioned as we move to a low-carbon economy.
3. Establish and achieve emissions reductions plans: High-performing companies must implement emissions reductions plans and should detail any carbon cuts they have achieved so far and how they intend to continue to achieve their reductions. They should also publish forecasts for emissions and energy use.
4. Monitor and manage the evolving climate change agenda by engaging positively with policy makers: Leading companies are looking to policy makers for long-term regulatory incentives to enable them to make the necessary changes to their business to achieve a low-carbon economy.
5. Implement innovative ideas to capitalize on climate change opportunities and demonstrate good management of risks: The potential opportunities for some companies are enormous -- the provision of low-carbon technologies, products and services will generate large revenue streams for the companies who spot the opportunities early.
6. Demonstrate board-level involvement in climate change strategies: Companies that have appointed a board member to oversee climate change impacts demonstrate a clear understanding of the importance of the issue.
7. Drive the business towards climate change mitigation by offering incentives, often financial, to employees for individual management of climate initiatives: More and more companies are now using incentives to encourage behavior change amongst employees, and as engagement regarding climate change increases, senior management is finding that such schemes also enhance staff recruitment and retention.
The Rest @ Climate Biz
They will use 7 criterea in ther upcoming report:
1. Offer transparency about their climate change activities and performance: Companies must report their emissions data and climate change strategies. Without transparency, they cannot be classed as high performers.
2. Demonstrate low-carbon intensity: Companies that are running the most carbon efficient operations demonstrate good carbon management and will be best positioned as we move to a low-carbon economy.
3. Establish and achieve emissions reductions plans: High-performing companies must implement emissions reductions plans and should detail any carbon cuts they have achieved so far and how they intend to continue to achieve their reductions. They should also publish forecasts for emissions and energy use.
4. Monitor and manage the evolving climate change agenda by engaging positively with policy makers: Leading companies are looking to policy makers for long-term regulatory incentives to enable them to make the necessary changes to their business to achieve a low-carbon economy.
5. Implement innovative ideas to capitalize on climate change opportunities and demonstrate good management of risks: The potential opportunities for some companies are enormous -- the provision of low-carbon technologies, products and services will generate large revenue streams for the companies who spot the opportunities early.
6. Demonstrate board-level involvement in climate change strategies: Companies that have appointed a board member to oversee climate change impacts demonstrate a clear understanding of the importance of the issue.
7. Drive the business towards climate change mitigation by offering incentives, often financial, to employees for individual management of climate initiatives: More and more companies are now using incentives to encourage behavior change amongst employees, and as engagement regarding climate change increases, senior management is finding that such schemes also enhance staff recruitment and retention.
The Rest @ Climate Biz
What is a Nonattainment Area in Air Quality Standards?
In United States environmental law, a non-attainment area is an area considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as defined in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (P.L. 91-604, Sec. 109).
Non attainment areas must have and implement a plan to meet the standard, or risk losing some forms of federal financial assistance.
An area may be a nonattainment area for one pollutant and an attainment area for others.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
While this may have nothing to do with Green House Gases yet, I suspect that in Nonattainment areas, thresholds for reporting ghg emissions may be modified in the future
-Editor
Non attainment areas must have and implement a plan to meet the standard, or risk losing some forms of federal financial assistance.
An area may be a nonattainment area for one pollutant and an attainment area for others.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
While this may have nothing to do with Green House Gases yet, I suspect that in Nonattainment areas, thresholds for reporting ghg emissions may be modified in the future
-Editor
EPA's 40 CFR PART 98 New Rule May be Published this week
40 CFR Part 98 is the EPA's proposed rule making mandatory the reporting of Green House Gases. The Draft rule was published in April, has been making is appropriate rounds and public forums. Roumer has it that the new rule will be signed this week.
This will extend the regulatory reach of the Clean Air Act to include the reporting of some green house gases. A wide range of new industries will be required to begin gathering emissions data for reporting effective 1 January, 2010, in less than 4 months...
-Editor
This will extend the regulatory reach of the Clean Air Act to include the reporting of some green house gases. A wide range of new industries will be required to begin gathering emissions data for reporting effective 1 January, 2010, in less than 4 months...
-Editor
Thursday 10 September 2009
Carbon Foot Print Calculator
[url=http://carbon-footprint-calculator.enviroduck-green.downloadsoftware4free.com]Carbon Footprint Calculator[/url] from [url=http://www.downloadsoftware4free.com]www.downloadsoftware4free.com[/url]
Tuesday 8 September 2009
What is a Continuous Emissions Measurement System (CEMS)?
CEM systems were historically used as a tool to monitor flue gas for oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide to provide information for combustion control in industrial settings[1]. They are currently used as a means to comply with air emission standards such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Acid Rain Program[2], , other federal emission programs, or state permitted emission standards. Facilities employ the use of CEMS to continuously collect, record, and report the required emissions data.
A small sample of flue gas is extracted, by means of a pump, into the CEM system via a sample probe. Facilities that combust fossil fuels often use a dilution-extractive probe to dilute the sample with clean, dry air to a ratio typically between 50:1 to 200:1, but usually 100:1. Dilution is used because pure flue gas can be hot, wet, and with some pollutants, sticky. Once diluted to the appropriate ratio, the sample is transported through a sample line (typically referred to as an umbilical) to a system of gas conditioners. The sample is then filtered to remove particulate matter and dried, usually with a chiller, to remove moisture. Once conditioned, the sample enters a manifold from which individual analyzers may extract a sample. Gas analyzers employ various techniques to accurately measure concentrations. Some commonly used techniques include: infrared and ultraviolet adsorption, chemiluminescence, fluorescence, and beta ray absorption. After analysis, the gas exits the analyzer to a common manifold to all analyzers where it is vented out of doors. A Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) receives the signal output from each analyzer in order to collect and record emissions data.
Accuracy of the system is demonstrated by several ways. An internal quality assurance check is achieved by daily introduction of a certified concentration of gas to the sample probe. The analyzer reading must be accurate to a certain percentage. The percent accuracy can vary, but most fall between 2.5% and 5%. In power stations affected by the Acid Rain Program, annual (or bi-annual) certification of the system must be performed by an independent firm. The firm would have an independent CEM system temporarily in place to collect emissions data in parallel with the plant CEMS. This testing is referred to as a Relative Accuracy Test Audit.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
A small sample of flue gas is extracted, by means of a pump, into the CEM system via a sample probe. Facilities that combust fossil fuels often use a dilution-extractive probe to dilute the sample with clean, dry air to a ratio typically between 50:1 to 200:1, but usually 100:1. Dilution is used because pure flue gas can be hot, wet, and with some pollutants, sticky. Once diluted to the appropriate ratio, the sample is transported through a sample line (typically referred to as an umbilical) to a system of gas conditioners. The sample is then filtered to remove particulate matter and dried, usually with a chiller, to remove moisture. Once conditioned, the sample enters a manifold from which individual analyzers may extract a sample. Gas analyzers employ various techniques to accurately measure concentrations. Some commonly used techniques include: infrared and ultraviolet adsorption, chemiluminescence, fluorescence, and beta ray absorption. After analysis, the gas exits the analyzer to a common manifold to all analyzers where it is vented out of doors. A Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) receives the signal output from each analyzer in order to collect and record emissions data.
Accuracy of the system is demonstrated by several ways. An internal quality assurance check is achieved by daily introduction of a certified concentration of gas to the sample probe. The analyzer reading must be accurate to a certain percentage. The percent accuracy can vary, but most fall between 2.5% and 5%. In power stations affected by the Acid Rain Program, annual (or bi-annual) certification of the system must be performed by an independent firm. The firm would have an independent CEM system temporarily in place to collect emissions data in parallel with the plant CEMS. This testing is referred to as a Relative Accuracy Test Audit.
The Rest @ Wikipedia
Monday 7 September 2009
California Air Board Releases New Verifying Body List
:On December 6, 2007, pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulation. The regulation requires the mandatory reporting and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Facilities subject to mandatory reporting will be required to have their greenhouse gas emissions verified beginning in 2010, for their 2009 reported emissions. Verification is optional in 2009 for 2008 reported emissions. Facilities will be subject to either annual or triennial verification. Only ARB accredited verification bodies may provide verification services for the purposes of mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting.
Verifier Accreditation:
ARB staff is implementing a GHG verification program with verifier training and accreditation elements. The individual verifier accreditation application form is available here:
Verifier Accreditation Application Form
Verification Body Accreditation Application Form
Please continue to submit your applications - No Current Deadline
Staff will screen applicants against criteria in the mandatory reporting regulation before approving applicants to take ARB-approved verifier training.
Due to the substantial interest by various stakeholders to participate in ARB-approved verifier training, ARB will prioritize verifier applicants admitted into the initial verification training.
This initial prioritization is to ensure that there are enough lead verifiers to allow verification bodies to start the verification body accreditation process.
In addition, ARB requires a number of sector specific verifiers to ensure that each sector has an adequate number of sector specific verifiers (Electricity Transactions, Refinery Specialist, and Cement Plant Specialist). ARB will be considering these priorities when selecting candidates for the initial ARB-approved verifier training for the following dates:
Training Dates
Session 1: Sacramento June 1st through 5th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)
Session 2: Sacramento June 8th through 12th, 2009 (Refineries and Cement Sectors)
Session 3: Los Angeles July 13th through 17th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)
Session 4: Los Angeles July 20th through 24th, 2009 (Refineries, and Electricity Transaction or Cement Sectors)
Session 5: Sacramento September 14th through 18th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration now open for approved applicants
Session 6: Sacramento September 21st through 25th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)- registration now open for approved applicants
Session 7: Sacramento October 19th through 23rd, 2009) (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration opens by 9-10-09
Session 8: Sacramento October 26th through 30th, 2009) (Cement and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration opens by 9-10-09
The 5-day training classes listed above are the only ARB-accreditation classes, and will be given by professional trainers from Future Perfect. If you want to be a verifier in California, you may only register for the above sessions. We currently have more applicants than available spots in the training classes. Please consider signing up for either of the September classes, so you guarantee your spot in an accreditation training session. The subsidized cost of the training class is approximately $1,700. When the subsidy runs out, the cost increases to $2,700. This class is for experienced consultants that intend to conduct verification services in California. This training is not for facility owners or operators. ARB will be providing information about verification for reporters/operators during the webinar on September 10, 2009. Pre-approved local air district staff will receive accreditation training beginning on October 5, 2009 in Diamond Bar.
For delegate that want to either retake the general exam or take/retake a sector exam, please register as soon as possible with Future Perfect. If you are retaking an exam, please send us an email (ghgverify@arb.ca.gov) for information about your score and exam. For delegates that register for the October training sessions, we will provide you with an opportunity to retake any exams in November. All other delegates must register to retake their exam(s) either in September or October, 2009.
For more information about the verifier accreditation process, you may click on the 'Accreditation Fact Sheet' link under local links. If you wish to receive email updates on verifier accreditation or the verification process, you may use the 'Join Email List' link under Local Links to sign up for the GHG verification list serve.
If you require a special accommodation or need this information in an alternate format or language, please contact ghgverify@arb.ca.gov or call 916-322-6349 as soon as possible. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service.
For questions regarding ARB's verifier accreditation or greenhouse gas verification process, please contact:
Rajinder Sahota, Manager, Climate Change Verification and Protocol Section, Phone: 916.323.8503.
Accredited Verifying Body List
Accredited Verifier List
The Rest @ the California Air Board
Verifier Accreditation:
ARB staff is implementing a GHG verification program with verifier training and accreditation elements. The individual verifier accreditation application form is available here:
Verifier Accreditation Application Form
Verification Body Accreditation Application Form
Please continue to submit your applications - No Current Deadline
Staff will screen applicants against criteria in the mandatory reporting regulation before approving applicants to take ARB-approved verifier training.
Due to the substantial interest by various stakeholders to participate in ARB-approved verifier training, ARB will prioritize verifier applicants admitted into the initial verification training.
This initial prioritization is to ensure that there are enough lead verifiers to allow verification bodies to start the verification body accreditation process.
In addition, ARB requires a number of sector specific verifiers to ensure that each sector has an adequate number of sector specific verifiers (Electricity Transactions, Refinery Specialist, and Cement Plant Specialist). ARB will be considering these priorities when selecting candidates for the initial ARB-approved verifier training for the following dates:
Training Dates
Session 1: Sacramento June 1st through 5th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)
Session 2: Sacramento June 8th through 12th, 2009 (Refineries and Cement Sectors)
Session 3: Los Angeles July 13th through 17th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)
Session 4: Los Angeles July 20th through 24th, 2009 (Refineries, and Electricity Transaction or Cement Sectors)
Session 5: Sacramento September 14th through 18th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration now open for approved applicants
Session 6: Sacramento September 21st through 25th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)- registration now open for approved applicants
Session 7: Sacramento October 19th through 23rd, 2009) (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration opens by 9-10-09
Session 8: Sacramento October 26th through 30th, 2009) (Cement and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration opens by 9-10-09
The 5-day training classes listed above are the only ARB-accreditation classes, and will be given by professional trainers from Future Perfect. If you want to be a verifier in California, you may only register for the above sessions. We currently have more applicants than available spots in the training classes. Please consider signing up for either of the September classes, so you guarantee your spot in an accreditation training session. The subsidized cost of the training class is approximately $1,700. When the subsidy runs out, the cost increases to $2,700. This class is for experienced consultants that intend to conduct verification services in California. This training is not for facility owners or operators. ARB will be providing information about verification for reporters/operators during the webinar on September 10, 2009. Pre-approved local air district staff will receive accreditation training beginning on October 5, 2009 in Diamond Bar.
For delegate that want to either retake the general exam or take/retake a sector exam, please register as soon as possible with Future Perfect. If you are retaking an exam, please send us an email (ghgverify@arb.ca.gov) for information about your score and exam. For delegates that register for the October training sessions, we will provide you with an opportunity to retake any exams in November. All other delegates must register to retake their exam(s) either in September or October, 2009.
For more information about the verifier accreditation process, you may click on the 'Accreditation Fact Sheet' link under local links. If you wish to receive email updates on verifier accreditation or the verification process, you may use the 'Join Email List' link under Local Links to sign up for the GHG verification list serve.
If you require a special accommodation or need this information in an alternate format or language, please contact ghgverify@arb.ca.gov or call 916-322-6349 as soon as possible. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service.
For questions regarding ARB's verifier accreditation or greenhouse gas verification process, please contact:
Rajinder Sahota, Manager, Climate Change Verification and Protocol Section, Phone: 916.323.8503.
Accredited Verifying Body List
Accredited Verifier List
The Rest @ the California Air Board
Friday 4 September 2009
4 Steps to Personal Carbon Neutrality
Whether directly or indirectly, most modern activities release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You add carbon emissions to the environment every time you drive a car, turn on a computer, or cook the family's dinner.
But can polluting emissions from one person really harm the planet? Multiply those emissions by the world's six-billion-strong population, and the result is a planet that is being ravaged by the effects of climate change. You can slow the melting of the polar ice caps and the rising of the oceans by going carbon neutral.
The idea behind carbon neutrality is simple - for every ton of carbon you release into the atmosphere, you purchase a ton's worth of carbon offsets.
A carbon offset is a credit purchased from a company that actively reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
Wind and solar farms, geothermal plants, and carbon sequestration projects all offer carbon offsets. These initiatives keep carbon dioxide out of the air, which in turn offsets the carbon you release into the air. So how can you offset your carbon emissions?
Step #1: Reduce your carbon emissions
You might be doing a good deed by going carbon neutral, but that good deed will cost you - carbon offsets can be pricey. By reducing your overall emissions now, you'll end up paying less for your carbon offsets. Focus on simple and cost-effective measures to reduce your emissions - use public transit, take the train instead of a plane, and buy energy efficient appliances.
Step #2: Decide just how neutral you want to be
Going completely carbon neutral can be expensive, so many people choose to offset only some of their activities. A business executive might choose to offset her plane travel. A family might decide to offset their home electricity use. And many brides are looking to offset the carbon emissions from their weddings. You might want to start your carbon neutral life by offsetting one of the leading causes of carbon emissions - car travel.
Step #3: Use a carbon calculator to determine your total carbon emissions
If you're looking to offset your carbon emissions, you'll need to know exactly how much pollution you produce. On the Internet, you'll find dozens of free-to-use carbon calculators. Some calculators are specific to one emission source - airplane or car travel, for instance. Other calculators help you figure out your daily carbon dioxide output. Each calculator gives you a different number; some calculators factor all polluting emissions into the equation, while others only consider carbon dioxide emissions.
Don't let the confusing selection of calculators put you off living a carbon neutral life. Just answer each question honestly and accurately, and use the final tally to purchase your carbon offsets.
Step #4: Purchase carbon offsets
You can find dozens of vendors selling carbon offsets online. But don't just sign on with the first vendor you come across - do your research first. The carbon offset market is largely unregulated, and price and quality can vary greatly from vendor to vendor. If you're not sure how to tell the environmental warriors from the scam artists, look for a seal of approval from an official organization or accredited group. All offset vendors should be part of the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA); this organization requires all members to follow rules and regulations under its “Code of Best Practice.” Also look for projects that meet the Gold Standard, the highest standard for carbon offsets recognized by World Wildlife Federation International and Greenpeace International.
Once you've purchased your carbon offsets, you can rest easy knowing that your daily activities are not harming the earth. But your work is not yet done. Once a year, review your emissions using a carbon calculator. With a new awareness of the state of the planet, you may find that you produced less CO2 than the year before. If so, you can purchase fewer carbon offsets next year - or you can choose to offset even more of your emissions. Either way, you're giving the planet a healthy future - and ensuring that you don't have to swim to work.
The Rest @ Earth Times
But can polluting emissions from one person really harm the planet? Multiply those emissions by the world's six-billion-strong population, and the result is a planet that is being ravaged by the effects of climate change. You can slow the melting of the polar ice caps and the rising of the oceans by going carbon neutral.
The idea behind carbon neutrality is simple - for every ton of carbon you release into the atmosphere, you purchase a ton's worth of carbon offsets.
A carbon offset is a credit purchased from a company that actively reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
Wind and solar farms, geothermal plants, and carbon sequestration projects all offer carbon offsets. These initiatives keep carbon dioxide out of the air, which in turn offsets the carbon you release into the air. So how can you offset your carbon emissions?
Step #1: Reduce your carbon emissions
You might be doing a good deed by going carbon neutral, but that good deed will cost you - carbon offsets can be pricey. By reducing your overall emissions now, you'll end up paying less for your carbon offsets. Focus on simple and cost-effective measures to reduce your emissions - use public transit, take the train instead of a plane, and buy energy efficient appliances.
Step #2: Decide just how neutral you want to be
Going completely carbon neutral can be expensive, so many people choose to offset only some of their activities. A business executive might choose to offset her plane travel. A family might decide to offset their home electricity use. And many brides are looking to offset the carbon emissions from their weddings. You might want to start your carbon neutral life by offsetting one of the leading causes of carbon emissions - car travel.
Step #3: Use a carbon calculator to determine your total carbon emissions
If you're looking to offset your carbon emissions, you'll need to know exactly how much pollution you produce. On the Internet, you'll find dozens of free-to-use carbon calculators. Some calculators are specific to one emission source - airplane or car travel, for instance. Other calculators help you figure out your daily carbon dioxide output. Each calculator gives you a different number; some calculators factor all polluting emissions into the equation, while others only consider carbon dioxide emissions.
Don't let the confusing selection of calculators put you off living a carbon neutral life. Just answer each question honestly and accurately, and use the final tally to purchase your carbon offsets.
Step #4: Purchase carbon offsets
You can find dozens of vendors selling carbon offsets online. But don't just sign on with the first vendor you come across - do your research first. The carbon offset market is largely unregulated, and price and quality can vary greatly from vendor to vendor. If you're not sure how to tell the environmental warriors from the scam artists, look for a seal of approval from an official organization or accredited group. All offset vendors should be part of the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA); this organization requires all members to follow rules and regulations under its “Code of Best Practice.” Also look for projects that meet the Gold Standard, the highest standard for carbon offsets recognized by World Wildlife Federation International and Greenpeace International.
Once you've purchased your carbon offsets, you can rest easy knowing that your daily activities are not harming the earth. But your work is not yet done. Once a year, review your emissions using a carbon calculator. With a new awareness of the state of the planet, you may find that you produced less CO2 than the year before. If so, you can purchase fewer carbon offsets next year - or you can choose to offset even more of your emissions. Either way, you're giving the planet a healthy future - and ensuring that you don't have to swim to work.
The Rest @ Earth Times
Wednesday 2 September 2009
EPA Sends Draft CO2 Exemption Rule Change to OMB
I Neither agree nor disagree with the commentary below; Iam still reveiewing Marlo Lewis's calims, but the controversy illustrates the issues that will emerge soon, no matter what happens. In short, the EPA is about to declare four green house gases as air polutants. This will bring everyone who emmits 250 tons or CO2 a year under the regulation of under the Clean Air Act of 1978, which so far has been left to industrial air poluters in the past.
Marlo claims that the EPA sent a draft rule over to the Office of Management and Budget which will select 250,000 tons as the threshold for C02.
The reason for this, imho, is that this will cost the American economoy less, and might be more palatable.
....in any case, here is Marlo Lewi's post:
- Editor
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a draft proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would exempt small emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Clean Air Act (CAA) pre-construction permitting requirement, Greenwire reports.
The proposed rule, as described in Greenwire, is blatantly illegal. It is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA set the stage for an economic disaster. It is additional evidence that Mass v. EPA was wrongly decided. It confirms CEI’s warning that the Court’s ruling imperils a core constitutional principle — the separation of powers.
In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, decided that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are “air pollutants” within the meaning of CAA, and gave EPA three options: (1) issue a finding that GHG-related “air pollution” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (2) issue a finding of no endangerment, or (3) provide a “reasonable explanation” why the agency cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make such a determination.
The Court further held that if EPA makes a finding of endangerment, then it has a duty, under CAA Sec. 202, to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
EPA picked option (1), and last month, it sent OMB a draft proposed rule to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
Although the Court majority asserted that an endangerment finding could not lead to “extreme measures” and would only require a cost-constrained adjustment of existing federal fuel-economy standards (see. p. 28 of the decision), in fact the endangerment finding will trigger a chain reaction throughout the CAA — a regulatory cascade potentially exceeding in cost, scope, and intrusiveness the Kyoto Protocol and many other GHG-control schemes Congress has never seen fit to pass.
For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles will by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major” stationary source, or modify an existing major source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.
A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of an air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY.
And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities – office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens – have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A September 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1.2 million buildings and facilities – most of them currently unregulated under the CAA – actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.
To obtain a PSD permit, firms must document their compliance with ”best available control technology” (BACT) standards. Even apart from any technology investments needed to comply with BACT, the PSD permitting process is costly and time-consuming. In a recent year, each permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for a source to obtain, EPA estimates. No small business could operate subject to the PSD administrative burden.
The costs, uncertainties, and delays from applying PSD and BACT to CO2 would have a chilling effect on economic development and construction activity. It would turn the CAA into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package in a period of financial crisis and high unemployment. Definitely not something the Obama administration wants on its record in the 2010 election season.
EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) outlined several administrative remedies to shield small entities from PSD requirements, all of doubtful legality. But if the Greenwire article is accurate, EPA is opting for the most brazenly illegal option of all. It proposes to revise, on its own authority, the PSD threshold from 250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.
Now friends, under the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron v. NRDC, EPA has considerable discretionary authority in interpreting the CAA where the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.” But there is nothing ambiguous about the number 250. No matter how you squint at the page, 250 is 100 times smaller than the threshold EPA proposes to put in its place.
According to Greenwire, Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder, a counsel for petitioners in Mass. v. EPA, “said the rule would also deflect claims from Republican lawmakers and industry groups that the Obama administration is seeking to regulate small emission sources such as doughnut shops, schools, and nursing homes.” But the Obama administration’s intent is not the issue. The issue is whether EPA, as a matter of law, must apply PSD requirements to doughnut shops, etc. once it starts regulating CO2 under Sec. 202.
Greenwire then quotes Bookbinder: “Putting this rule in place deflates a lot of political rhetoric about regulating CO2.” Well, I hope industry and the GOP are not so naive as to put their trust in an illegal rule. A rule that flouts clear statutory language of the CAA can provide no durable protection from the regulatory cascade that an endangerment finding and EPA adoption of motor vehicle GHG emission standards would unleash.
EPA’s proposed draft rule is a tacit admission of what CEI has said all along: EPA cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA without endangering the U.S. economy unless EPA plays lawmaker, amends the Act, and violates the separation of powers. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mass. v. EPA decision, it set the stage for a constitutional crisis.
Of course, the bigger constitutional crisis stemming from Mass. v. EPA is that we could end up with an energy suppression regime far more costly than Kyoto or Waxman-Markey, yet without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it.
For the gory details, see my blog post on MasterResource.Org and my comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.
by Marlo Lewis
September 02, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
The Rest @ OPen Market
Marlo claims that the EPA sent a draft rule over to the Office of Management and Budget which will select 250,000 tons as the threshold for C02.
The reason for this, imho, is that this will cost the American economoy less, and might be more palatable.
....in any case, here is Marlo Lewi's post:
- Editor
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a draft proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would exempt small emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Clean Air Act (CAA) pre-construction permitting requirement, Greenwire reports.
The proposed rule, as described in Greenwire, is blatantly illegal. It is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA set the stage for an economic disaster. It is additional evidence that Mass v. EPA was wrongly decided. It confirms CEI’s warning that the Court’s ruling imperils a core constitutional principle — the separation of powers.
In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, decided that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are “air pollutants” within the meaning of CAA, and gave EPA three options: (1) issue a finding that GHG-related “air pollution” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (2) issue a finding of no endangerment, or (3) provide a “reasonable explanation” why the agency cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make such a determination.
The Court further held that if EPA makes a finding of endangerment, then it has a duty, under CAA Sec. 202, to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
EPA picked option (1), and last month, it sent OMB a draft proposed rule to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.
Although the Court majority asserted that an endangerment finding could not lead to “extreme measures” and would only require a cost-constrained adjustment of existing federal fuel-economy standards (see. p. 28 of the decision), in fact the endangerment finding will trigger a chain reaction throughout the CAA — a regulatory cascade potentially exceeding in cost, scope, and intrusiveness the Kyoto Protocol and many other GHG-control schemes Congress has never seen fit to pass.
For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles will by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major” stationary source, or modify an existing major source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.
A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of an air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY.
And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities – office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens – have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A September 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1.2 million buildings and facilities – most of them currently unregulated under the CAA – actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.
To obtain a PSD permit, firms must document their compliance with ”best available control technology” (BACT) standards. Even apart from any technology investments needed to comply with BACT, the PSD permitting process is costly and time-consuming. In a recent year, each permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for a source to obtain, EPA estimates. No small business could operate subject to the PSD administrative burden.
The costs, uncertainties, and delays from applying PSD and BACT to CO2 would have a chilling effect on economic development and construction activity. It would turn the CAA into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package in a period of financial crisis and high unemployment. Definitely not something the Obama administration wants on its record in the 2010 election season.
EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) outlined several administrative remedies to shield small entities from PSD requirements, all of doubtful legality. But if the Greenwire article is accurate, EPA is opting for the most brazenly illegal option of all. It proposes to revise, on its own authority, the PSD threshold from 250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.
Now friends, under the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron v. NRDC, EPA has considerable discretionary authority in interpreting the CAA where the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.” But there is nothing ambiguous about the number 250. No matter how you squint at the page, 250 is 100 times smaller than the threshold EPA proposes to put in its place.
According to Greenwire, Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder, a counsel for petitioners in Mass. v. EPA, “said the rule would also deflect claims from Republican lawmakers and industry groups that the Obama administration is seeking to regulate small emission sources such as doughnut shops, schools, and nursing homes.” But the Obama administration’s intent is not the issue. The issue is whether EPA, as a matter of law, must apply PSD requirements to doughnut shops, etc. once it starts regulating CO2 under Sec. 202.
Greenwire then quotes Bookbinder: “Putting this rule in place deflates a lot of political rhetoric about regulating CO2.” Well, I hope industry and the GOP are not so naive as to put their trust in an illegal rule. A rule that flouts clear statutory language of the CAA can provide no durable protection from the regulatory cascade that an endangerment finding and EPA adoption of motor vehicle GHG emission standards would unleash.
EPA’s proposed draft rule is a tacit admission of what CEI has said all along: EPA cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA without endangering the U.S. economy unless EPA plays lawmaker, amends the Act, and violates the separation of powers. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mass. v. EPA decision, it set the stage for a constitutional crisis.
Of course, the bigger constitutional crisis stemming from Mass. v. EPA is that we could end up with an energy suppression regime far more costly than Kyoto or Waxman-Markey, yet without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it.
For the gory details, see my blog post on MasterResource.Org and my comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.
by Marlo Lewis
September 02, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
The Rest @ OPen Market
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments