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
Friday 30 October 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe
Posts
All Comments