Why You Should Care about Low Carbon Fuels and Vehicle Initiatives

By Tammy Klein, The Energy Collective.

When I talk about “low carbon fuels and vehicles” (LCFV) initiatives what am I really talking about and why should it matter to you? If you’re a first-gen biofuels, advanced biofuels or advanced alternative fuels producer, why should you care about fuel economy or electric vehicles? If you’re an electric vehicle producer or infrastructure company, why should you care about biofuels? If you’re a refiner or in upstream E&P, why should you care about air pollution, car bans or connected, autonomous driving? If you’re an automaker, why should you care about any of the above? Let me back up and explain, drawing from my November report to my clients, because it’s critical for all these stakeholders

Despite a prolonged period of low crude oil prices, citizens and policymakers in many countries have never been more serious or committed to combating climate change in all sectors, including transport. We know this. The Paris Agreement entered into force in what seemed like a record time – less than a year after it was negotiated. Transport currently contributes 23% of energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 20% of energy use and is expected to double by 2030, according to IEA. Passenger transport accounts for nearly 60% of total transport energy demand, and 60% of this is in OECD member countries right now.

Decarbonizing transport is a major challenge with some strong and powerful advocates calling for a single one-shot solution (electrification). That’s something that needs to be watched closely by all the stakeholders. The reality is that multiple strategies will be required to achieve decarbonization with the understanding that fossil fuel demand will remain in place for some time, especially in emerging economies, and that it could get “cleaner.”

Read more... 

California Releases Initial Plan to Achieve Ambitious 2030 Climate Goals

By California State Air Resources Board.

SACRAMENTO - Moving to limit the state’s dangerous dependence on oil and exposure to toxic air pollution, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) today released its initial draft plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – the most ambitious target in North America. The plan builds on the state’s successful efforts to reach its more immediate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and outlines the most effective ways to reach the new 2030 goal, including continuing California’s Cap-and-Trade program.

California is reducing emissions through a series of actions, innovative solutions and advances in technology, including cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars and zero emission vehicles, low-carbon fuels, renewable energy, Cap-and-Trade regulations, waste diversion from landfills, water conservation and improvements to energy efficiency in homes and businesses. The result is improved public health, a growing economy with more green jobs and better clean energy choices for Californians.

“Now more than ever, the nation – and the world – are looking to California for leadership on climate change and air quality. Denial is not an option. We must plan, invest and transform,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “This draft plan builds on California’s decade-long success in transforming the state’s economy. It sets in place a public process to develop the policies that will create continued opportunities for innovation and investment, benefit disadvantaged communities and ensure California continues to lead the fight against the global threat of climate change.”  

Assembly Bill 32, signed in 2006, set California’s initial goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and directed CARB to develop a climate change scoping plan – to be updated every five years – detailing the specific measures needed to reach the target. Today’s draft plan, required by the Governor’s April 2015 Executive Order, updates the previous scoping plan to account for the new 2030 target codified in Senate Bill 32 and reflects input from 18 public workshops and community meetings, numerous state government agencies and CARB’s Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. 

The draft plan analyzes continuing the Cap-and-Trade program, which is currently being used to reach the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. The analysis shows how Cap-and-Trade provides more certainty that the state will meet the 2030 goals even if other measures fall short. The Cap-and-Trade program funds the California Climate Change Investments program, which provides funds for community, local, regional and statewide projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions – with at least 35 percent of proceeds to be invested in disadvantaged communities.  To date, approximately $3.4 billion has been invested.

Read more...

More than 60 businesses testify against extending Ohio's freeze on renewable energy

By John Funk, The Plain Dealer.

COLUMBUS -- The two-year battle over green energy standards has slammed the development of wind and solar, cost businesses a lot of money initially invested here and driven some companies out of the state, a crowd of green business proponents told Ohio lawmakers Tuesday.

More than 60 witnesses showed up to testify before the Ohio Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. All were opposed to Senate Bill 320, sponsored by Sen. William Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican.

Committee chair Troy Balderson, a Zanesville Republican, limited witnesses to speaking for just two minutes. Written versions of the testimony can be found on the committee's website.

Opponents say the bill and its companion legislation, House Bill 554, would, in effect, extend for three more years the two-year freeze on green standards that lawmakers imposed in 2014 after the state's utilities complained.

The legislation would require that green energy would account for 12.5 percent of the electricity power companies sell in Ohio by 2027. The renewable energy could come from Ohio or contiguous states.

The standard in Ohio today is 2.5 percent, the same as it was in 2014, when the legislature intervened to freeze the annually increasing mandate.

Because Gov. John Kasich has threatened to veto an extension of the freeze, the GOP leadership has written the legislation so that it makes compliance with the standards a voluntary goal for the next three years, continuing to stall wind and solar development.

Read more...

EPA: Cellulosic RIN generation reaches 17.79 million in October

By Erin Voegele, Ethanol Producer Magazine.

The U.S. EPA has released renewable identification number (RIN) generation data for October, reporting that nearly 1.66 billion RINs were generated during the month, including nearly 17.79 million cellulosic RINs.

Nearly 17.56 million D3 cellulosic biofuel RINs were generated during the month, bringing the net total for the first 10 months of the year 142.82 million. Nearly 3.05 million D3 RINs have been generated for ethanol, with 85.47 million generated for renewable compressed natural gas and 56.14 million for renewable liquefied natural gas. Nearly 129.16 million D3 RINs have been generated domestically, with 15.5 million generated by importers.

Read more...

Connecticut's first food waste biogas plant nears completion

By Anna Simet, Biomass Magazine.

A Connecticut biogas plant is nearing the finish line and will start up by the end of the year, according to Brian Paganini, vice president of Quantum Energy.

After about three years of development, Quantum will begin startup by the end of the year, Paganini said, potentially reaching fully operations in March. “The plant meets some of the state’s goals with its program to divert food out of the waste stream, and it meets a critical infrastructure gap in Connecticut, which has a goal to reduce, reuse and recycle 60 percent of its food waste by 2024.”

Read more...

Canada announces plans for national low-carbon fuel standard

By Erin Voegele, Biomass Magazine.

On Nov. 25, the government of Canada announced plans to develop a low-carbon fuel standard that would require reductions in the carbon footprint of fuels supplied in the nation based on lifecycle analysis.

A statement issued by the government notes a clean fuel standard would be flexible and would promote the use of clean technology and lower carbon fuels. It would also promote alternatives, such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen and renewable fuels. The primary objective of the program is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30 megatons per year by 2030. The statement indicated this level of reduction would provide a significant contribution towards achieving Canada’s commitment to reduce emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and is equivalent to removing more than 7 million vehicles from the road for a year.

According to the Canadian government, the proposed clean fuel standard would feature a performance-based approach by setting requirements to reduce the lifecycle carbon intensities of fuels supplied in a given year, based on lifecycle analysis. Unlike renewable fuel mandates, the approach would not prescribe particular low-carbon fuels or technology that must be use. Rather, it focuses on emissions reduction.

A statement published by the Canadian government also states the standard is expected to encourage the use of cleaner fuels in a variety of sectors of the economy, including fuels used in transportation, homes and buildings and those that power industry. It is expected to address a broad suite of fuels, including liquid fuels, gaseous fuels and solid fuels.

The government also noted the standard will be designed to provide flexibility to fuel suppliers, and said it could include provisions to take into account regional differences, similar to those under existing renewable fuel regulations.

Read more...

EPA chief: Trump can’t halt U.S. shift to clean energy

By Brady Dennis, The Washington Post.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday gave an impassioned defense of the Obama administration’s energy and environmental policies and insisted the nation’s shift from fossil fuels will continue no matter who occupies the White House.

“The inevitability of our clean energy future is bigger than any one person or one nation,” Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a speech at the National Press Club that was twice interrupted by protesters. “It must be guided by a simple but profound truth: We don’t have to choose between economy or environment. We can and we must choose both.”

McCarthy mostly deflected specific questions about worries over President-elect Donald Trump, who has been a blistering critic of the EPA. Trump has vowed to scrap what he sees as onerous regulations the agency has put in place in recent years, from tighter methane controls on domestic drillers to the administration’s signature effort to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. He also has vowed to end the “war on coal,” expand oil and gas leasing across federal lands and waters, and “cancel” U.S. participation in an international climate agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

But McCarthy, a Boston native who became the EPA head in 2013 after a lengthy confirmation fight, repeatedly suggested that trying to slow the country’s move away from coal and other fossil fuels and toward cleaner energy sources ultimately would be foolish and futile.

“Science tells us that there is no bigger threat to American progress and prosperity than the threat of global climate change,” she said. “And if you take nothing else from my speech today, take this: The train to a global, clean-energy future has already left the station. We have a choice. We can choose to get on board, to lead. Or we can choose to be left behind.”

McCarthy ticked off statistics detailing what she called the rapid progress of recent years: Vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient. Power plants have reduced mercury pollution. Many companies are on their way to meeting the requirements of the Clean Power Plan — even as its fate remains in federal court — and dozens of states are hitting lower emissions targets years ahead of schedule. U.S. leadership on climate action has compelled other nations around the world to follow suit.

Read more...

Nova Scotia reaches agreement on cap-and-trade program, aiming to reduce emissions by 30%

By Peter Maloney, Utility Dive.

Dive Brief:

• Canada has reached an agreement with the province of Nova Scotia that calls for the establishment of a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

• Nova Scotia is also working with the central government to draw up an equivalency agreement for the accelerated phase-out of coal-fired generation in the province.

• The agreement also calls for the adoption of a provincial target that meets or exceeds Canada’s target of reducing emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.

Dive Insight:

Nova Scotia’s plans to curb power plants emissions align its energy strategy with the just announced plan by the central government to phase out traditional coal plants by 2030.

Under that plan, traditional coal-fired plants are required to meet a performance standard of 420 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2)/GWh within the next 14 years.

That standard allows for coal plants to continue operation if they are equipped with carbon capture and sequestrations (CCS) technology.

Read more...

Buckle Up for a Wild Ride: Trump and the Environment

By Bernadette M. Rappold, The Legal Intelligencer.

Millions of Americans are coming to grips with the broad social and political ramifications of Donald Trump's stunning upset victory in last Tuesday's presidential election. And while the president-elect's policy pronouncements to date have been short on detail, one thing is clear: those concerned with environmental protection and climate change had better buckle up for a wild ride.

As a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and former agency enforcement official, I served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and played key roles in briefing incoming political leadership during transitions. As I know up close, for better or worse, federal agencies are not nimble and do not steer on a dime, a fact that often frustrates new political leadership.

While the rhetoric of campaigns does not always translate into the actions of governance, Trump's environmental policy appears to rest on the twin pillars of deregulation and fossil fuel promotion. While Trump's economic focus during the campaign was on trade deals and lower taxes, he also believes that over- regulation, particularly by the EPA and Department of Interior, is responsible for the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs in the United States. He has pledged to place a temporary moratorium on new rulemaking early in his administration and has stated two regulations will be withdrawn for every new regulation promulgated during his term.

Trump has stated his intention to counter the "war on coal," which, he claims, has shuttered mines, cost jobs and left valuable natural resources in the ground. He plans to lift the Department of Interior's moratorium on coal leasing and has pledged to open additional federal lands and waters to energy extraction.

The president-elect once called for the EPA's eradication, but has more recently suggested that while vast portions of the agency should be cut and its ranks reduced, some small pockets should remain. (He plans to impose a federal governmentwide hiring freeze to reduce employee ranks through attrition, "exempting military, public safety and public health.") Trump does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, often calling it a Chinese hoax.

Trump has pledged to "cancel" the 2015 Paris climate accord. Since the climate accord is not a treaty ratified by the Senate, the president-elect can withdraw from it via executive action. But Trump's pledges on regulation, however, are not so readily fulfilled.

He has repeatedly promised to withdraw President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, which would impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Further, he has promised to pull another key rule, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS), which was designed to eliminate uncertainty in the wake of several confusing and contradictory U.S. Supreme Court decisions and which, like the Clean Power Plan, is currently being challenged in federal court.

Both the Clean Power Plan and WOTUS are final agency regulations, and the president-elect cannot simply undo them with the stroke of a pen. He can, however, elect not to defend the regulations in the pending litigation or ask the courts to vacate the rules pending further agency action. Or he can undertake a new notice- and-comment rulemaking to withdraw the rules—rules which would themselves be subject to litigation. The Trump administration is likely not to enter "friendly settlements" with the plaintiffs who bring this almost certain litigation.

The net effect? Federal regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants will likely be significantly delayed, and the United States looks destined to default on its international promise to submit "nationally determined contributions" by 2018 under the Paris accord. With the United States as the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, developing economies may balk at their commitments and the Paris accord itself could unravel.

Trump has said little about the rest of the EPA's programs and functions. But since 2010 the agency has lost about 28 percent of its budget and 13 percent of its staff, and there is reason to expect that downward trend to continue. And while certain senior political leaders at the agency have advocated strenuously for improvements to the EPA IT infrastructure and other technology investments that would enable agency staff to do more with less, those improvements look likely to remain on hold indefinitely.

Still, while President-elect Trump will enjoy Republican majorities in the House and Senate, he appears unlikely to rally the votes necessary for wholesale repeal of the fundamental environmental statutes that the EPA administers. This should trouble industry, even industries that believe the agency has been overzealous, because most statutes contain provisions allowing citizens to sue the EPA for failing to take nondiscretionary actions and industry for violating the law.

While citizen suits play a role in holding the EPA accountable, they are poor and protracted substitutes for regulation. Just ask the scores of companies who have been on the receiving end of citizen suits; whenever possible, most prefer a consensual arrangement with the EPA or a state regulator over a court-imposed injunction.

As Trump assembles his transition team and begins to fill the EPA's political ranks, one might expect industry to impress on him the necessity to refrain from gutting the agency. After all, huge sections of our economy depend on the agency's decision-making, and some, like the renewable fuels industry, would not exist outside California without the EPA.

Perhaps ironically, enforcement and compliance monitoring at the EPA may be the area that undergoes the fewest changes in a Trump administration. The president-elect has repeatedly emphasized "law and order" as a grounding principle, and enforcement of existing laws and regulations (except for the Clean Power Plan and WOTUS) would seem in keeping with that principle.

There is historical precedent for this view. President George W. Bush sought repeatedly to change fundamental environmental laws and regulations; prime examples included "Range Readiness Preservation Initiative" to exempt military facilities from virtually all environmental and habitat preservation laws and his "Clear Skies Initiative" to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce NOx, SOx and mercury, but left carbon pollution untouched.

While Range Readiness and Clear Skies never gained traction in a divided Congress, President Bush generally did not meddle with EPA enforcement (except for power plant litigation, which remained squarely in the administration's sights), driving many decisions down to the career, rather than, political level. While few EPA enforcement staffers would publicly admit it, many privately concede that while they disagreed with the Bush administration's legislative and regulatory agenda, they liked that administration's generally hands-off approach to enforcement.

Much will depend, of course, on whom Trump selects to become the EPA administrator. In addition to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell who is heading up the Trump environmental transition team, rumored potential administrators include Robert E. Grady, an investment banker who helped to draft the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a lawyer at Bracewell LLP and the former deputy administrator under the last Bush administration. Of the three, Holmstead appears the most moderate and seems to embody what one pundit called "the practical environmentalism" the president-elect espouses.

The transition at the EPA has already begun, with staff across the agency fanning out to prepare non-confidential briefing books for the newcomers; confidential briefings will await the new team's official on-boarding. Morale, already at low ebb after years of budget cuts, seems to have sunk to a new low, with many staff worried whether they will keep their jobs.

While Trump's environmental changes at the federal level will likely be significant, states retain their environmental prerogatives and authorities. So regardless of what happens to WOTUS, for example, Pennsylvania will continue to define all water, including groundwater, as a "water of the commonwealth," so there is no issue that wetlands are regulated under Chapters 102 and 105 of Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code.

Still, at the federal level, change is coming. Exactly how much and how fast remain to be seen. 

REW 2016 Conference: Adapting to a new reality

By Kristin Smith, Renewable Energy from Waste Magazine.

Johannes Escudero, Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas Inc., provides an update on the renewable natural gas market during the 2016 REW Conference. Seated are Harvey Gershman, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, left, and Ted Michaels, Energy Recovery Council.

With the election having concluded a week prior, the 2016 Renewable Energy from Waste (REW) Conference held in mid-November in Long Beach, California, had attendees discussing the implications of the results.

During the opening session titled “Waste Conversion Market Updates,” several speakers shared their views on the market for waste conversion, including biogas, at the local, and national levels. 

Moderator and speaker Harvey Gershman, president, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton (GBB), Fairfax Virginia, emphasized the importance of keeping waste local to create a circular economy. 

“You build a green gate so you don’t have to jump over a green fence,” he told attendees. 

He noted that 9,000 curbside recycling programs are operating in the U.S. and 347 million tons of municipal solid waste are managed in the U.S. 

Collecting waste is 40 percent of the cost of managing it and it is important for communities to try to “squeeze that inefficiency out.”

A lot of organics are left in the waste stream after recycling. To process these organics, several anaerobic digestion facilities are in the planning and construction phases.

He also mentioned that a Hartford, Maryland waste-to-energy facility closed down while a new facility in West Palm Beach, Florida began operating. “Did you hear about the problems?” he joked. “No there were none. It works,” he said of the new facility. 

Ted Michaels, president of the Energy Recovery Council (ERC) and partner, AJW Inc., Arlington, Virginia, gave some insights and predictions on how the election results will impact the waste to energy sector. 

“This was going to be a historic election either way,” he said. “We were either going to get the first female president or the first president with no government or military experience, and we got the latter.” 

He said it was a result that the experts didn’t see coming. “What can’t happen happened,” he said. “We don’t know what is possible.” 

The unpredictable results of Donald Trump winning the presidential election, he says shows that the country is deeply divided and very polarized. 

He noted that the first thing the President Elect is beginning to do is put his administration in place. 

The first big choice was picking RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, as White House chief of staff. 

A potential pick for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) director which has since the presentation been confirmed was Myron Ebell. Michaels noted that he was a climate change skeptic and with him at the helm, the agency would scale back. The EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) and other efforts to combat greenhouse gas emmisions “are going to be threatened,” said Michaels.

A top candidate for the Department of Energy was Harold G. Hamm, whom Michaels said is chief executive of continental resources, an oil and gas company, and a top candidate for the Department of the Interior is Forrest Lucas, president of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives and greases.

In states with gubernatorial elections, 5 Democrats and 6 Republicans were elected, making a total of 33 states with Republican governors and 15 with Democratic governors. State houses were significantly Republican and while he said in the senate, people thought senate would flip, but it stayed republican. 

For the first time ever, Michaels said, “Every state who elected a senator went for the same party in Presidential election.” The House of Representatives stayed roughly the same, he added with 194 Democrats to 241 Republicans. 

Key committee leadership affecting waste conversion policies, include the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

He noted that one of the Democrat ranking members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Thomas Carper signed the signed moratorium on new waste-to-energy facilities in Delaware.

Read more...