The California Energy Commission is considering mandating that TVs sold in California use 50% less power beginning in 2013. According to the Commission, TVs use 10% of electric power in California, so 50% improvement in efficiency could mean significant savings.
I like the approach of letting states set some of their own standards. If it works, great, if it doesn't, we're not all tied to it, as we are when a federal rule is adopted. Admittedly, adopting a standard like this is likely to increase the cost of TVs in California, at least in the short run. And since California is such a huge market, it could result in higher costs for everyone, if TV manufacturers decide to make only one type of set that can be sold in California and elsewhere. Add to that the fact that the turnover in TVs will probably be slower than expected, delaying the date when the full energy savings will be available. But overall, this limited type of technology-forcing experiment is better done in the states than nationally.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Whence Clean Water Act Jurisdiction?
What sorts of water can the federal government regulate? Many people would be surprised to learn that there are limits to what water bodies the government can regulate. At one time it was limited to so-called navigable waters, meaning those that were navigable in fact. The Clean Water expanded that to "waters of the United States" (33 USC 1262(7)) which has been difficult for courts to define. At one time it included almost every body of water, on the theory that almost all surface water could somehow be involved in interstate commerce. There were some incredible stretches - for example, prairie potholes, which are not hydrologically connected to any interstate body of water, were nonetheless regulated under the CWA because they might be used as stopovers by ducks, which migrate between states, and might be shot by hunters, making it all interstate commerce.
In the last several years, the Supreme Court has started to introduce a little rational thought into what constitutes waters of the United States. Its most recent decision, the Rapanos case, involved a split decision that unfortunately only muddied the waters. Nevertheless, it is the latest statement by the Supreme Court, and must be considered by anyone interested in this area of the law. This issue - the extent of the reach of the federal government under the Clean Water Act, is one of the hottest issues in environmental law today. It's been the subject of cases, administrative interpretations by the Corps of Engineers and EPA, Congressional debate, and probably hundreds of law review articles and seminar presentations.
Resolution of CWA jurisdiction it is going to be crucial in WV, in mining and oil and gas contexts, among other things. I can't begin to do the issue justice here, but if you're interested in an understandable discussion of the Rapanos decision, try going to http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/how-do-we-decide-what-is-a-water-of-the-united-states-rapanos-revisited/ It doesn't have everything on the topic, but it's a readable exegesis of the Rapanos mess.
In the last several years, the Supreme Court has started to introduce a little rational thought into what constitutes waters of the United States. Its most recent decision, the Rapanos case, involved a split decision that unfortunately only muddied the waters. Nevertheless, it is the latest statement by the Supreme Court, and must be considered by anyone interested in this area of the law. This issue - the extent of the reach of the federal government under the Clean Water Act, is one of the hottest issues in environmental law today. It's been the subject of cases, administrative interpretations by the Corps of Engineers and EPA, Congressional debate, and probably hundreds of law review articles and seminar presentations.
Resolution of CWA jurisdiction it is going to be crucial in WV, in mining and oil and gas contexts, among other things. I can't begin to do the issue justice here, but if you're interested in an understandable discussion of the Rapanos decision, try going to http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/how-do-we-decide-what-is-a-water-of-the-united-states-rapanos-revisited/ It doesn't have everything on the topic, but it's a readable exegesis of the Rapanos mess.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Division of Air Quality to Hold Air Emissions Inventory Workshop
Anne Blankenship informs me that Bob Betterton at the Division of Air Quality announced the DAQ will hold the AEI workshop on May 11 from 10am to 3pm at the DEP headquarters in Charleston. The DAQ staff will explain how to complete the greenhouse gas reporting forms. They will be sending out registration information and an agenda soon. Thanks to all that provided your comments on the preliminary agenda - - those have been communicated to Mr. Betterton.
Tom Boggs of the Chamber of Commerce is working on arranging for a teleconference feed for those outside the Charleston area
Tom Boggs of the Chamber of Commerce is working on arranging for a teleconference feed for those outside the Charleston area
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sometimes Trash Is Economic Development
About 20 years ago there was a battle in West Virginia over out-of-state trash. A large landfill was proposed for McDowell County, one of the poorest and least populated counties in WV. A large number of well-meaning people lobbied in favor of limits on landfill size, to prevent WV from becoming "the dumping ground of the East." I remember sending a letter to my bishop, the head of the WV Council of Churches, one of the anti-landfill interests, pointing out that the liners and other environmental protections that are mandated for today's landfills are expensive and require enough garbage disposal fees, called "tipping fees," to make them economically viable. I also pointed out that other states were taking our hazardous waste, since we didn't have a hazardous waste disposal site, a fact that didn't seem hypocritical to anyone. I never got a satisfactory response.
Garbage disposal is a potentially significant money maker for localities that are willing to offer disposal sites. A large percentage of the tipping fee consists of taxes that finance state and local programs. As this article from the Oregonian points out, waste disposal can be a source of revenue for counties that have land, and perhaps little else, to offer. Taxes and fees, as well as income for workers and suppliers, can be significant. A plant that is built to treat leachate from a landfill can be used to treat sewage from local communities. Methane generated by the garbage can be sold. And I have often suspected that the resources in large landfills will someday be valuable enough to go back and mine for things such as cellulosic material and metals.
Until everything can be recycled, there is a need for places to put our refuse. Providing a place for that disposal is not something we should reject out of hand.
Garbage disposal is a potentially significant money maker for localities that are willing to offer disposal sites. A large percentage of the tipping fee consists of taxes that finance state and local programs. As this article from the Oregonian points out, waste disposal can be a source of revenue for counties that have land, and perhaps little else, to offer. Taxes and fees, as well as income for workers and suppliers, can be significant. A plant that is built to treat leachate from a landfill can be used to treat sewage from local communities. Methane generated by the garbage can be sold. And I have often suspected that the resources in large landfills will someday be valuable enough to go back and mine for things such as cellulosic material and metals.
Until everything can be recycled, there is a need for places to put our refuse. Providing a place for that disposal is not something we should reject out of hand.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Second Hand Smoke and Global Warming
Obligatory disclosure - I'm not a smoker, nor do I work for Big Tobacco. Smoking makes no sense to me, and I'm glad that people had the moxie in the 60's and 70's to start demanding no smoking areas, and eventually outlawed smoking on planes. But I'm enough of a libertarian to resent the prohibition, in WV at least, of all indoor smoking, even in bars and restaurants that want to allow smoking. We all have vices, and tobacco is still a legal vice. Why not let people go and smoke with other smokers, and those who want to join them?
The answer is that many of us want to improve other people's lives by eliminating their perceived character defects, rather than working on our own, so we join crusades against other's vices. But that sounds vaguely, well . . . judgmental . . . and it's really none of our business . . . so we come up with other reasons to accomplish the same end. And that "other reason" is a concern about second hand smoke. After all, what about the waitresses and others that have to put up with second hand smoke? (Never mind that no one has a right to any certain job, and everyone is free to leave to find more congenial employment.) We need to rescue people from the unintended effects of smoking by callous, uncaring others, so we prohibit smoking in public places to eliminate the scourge of second hand smoke.
I've always been a bit skeptical of the second hand smoke research, in the same way I've been skeptical of the global warming computer models. It's the absolute certainty of those who announce the study results, in a way that brooks no dissent, that makes me suspicious. I'm not enough of a scientist to pick apart anyone's research, but the explanation of natural climate cycles by global warming deniers always has made more sense for me than the IPCC reports, or the explanations by anyone else on the climate change bandwagon. So I suspect that second hand smoke research, which everyone "knows" to be true, might also be an example of the Emperor's new clothes. It set me to wondering, which led me to Googling, which led me to Dan Hitt's website. It's worth a look from anyone who wants a scientific analysis of major second hand smoke research, and what it really shows. At least it looks scientific to me.
The answer is that many of us want to improve other people's lives by eliminating their perceived character defects, rather than working on our own, so we join crusades against other's vices. But that sounds vaguely, well . . . judgmental . . . and it's really none of our business . . . so we come up with other reasons to accomplish the same end. And that "other reason" is a concern about second hand smoke. After all, what about the waitresses and others that have to put up with second hand smoke? (Never mind that no one has a right to any certain job, and everyone is free to leave to find more congenial employment.) We need to rescue people from the unintended effects of smoking by callous, uncaring others, so we prohibit smoking in public places to eliminate the scourge of second hand smoke.
I've always been a bit skeptical of the second hand smoke research, in the same way I've been skeptical of the global warming computer models. It's the absolute certainty of those who announce the study results, in a way that brooks no dissent, that makes me suspicious. I'm not enough of a scientist to pick apart anyone's research, but the explanation of natural climate cycles by global warming deniers always has made more sense for me than the IPCC reports, or the explanations by anyone else on the climate change bandwagon. So I suspect that second hand smoke research, which everyone "knows" to be true, might also be an example of the Emperor's new clothes. It set me to wondering, which led me to Googling, which led me to Dan Hitt's website. It's worth a look from anyone who wants a scientific analysis of major second hand smoke research, and what it really shows. At least it looks scientific to me.
Toxic Emissions Drop in West Virginia
OK, I admit it, I'm cleaning out my email inbox. But one piece of news I was remiss in reporting a month ago is the drop in the amount of toxic chemicals released to the environment in WV in 2007. Each year industry is required under to report to EPA the amount of certain substances that it emits to the air or water. For 2007, the total tonnage dropped. The following is a report by the Charleston Gazette's Ken Ward.
CHARLESTON , W.Va. -- Toxic pollution of West Virginia 's air and water decreased in 2007, according to the latest emissions data made public Thursday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Air emissions in West Virginia dropped by nearly 23 percent, to 53 million pounds, according to the new data from the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory. Water discharges dropped by more than 12 percent, to 3 million pounds, according to the EPA data. The West Virginia pollution reductions were better than those reported nationwide in the EPA's annual publication of emissions information filed by thousands of chemical makers, steel mills, power plants and other industrial facilities.
Air pollution nationwide dropped by about 7 percent and water discharges about 4 percent, according to the EPA. Total toxic pollution nationwide dropped by 5 percent. The EPA published the annual toxic scorecard little more than a week after President Obama signed legislation that reversed a Bush administration rule that reduced the amount of information companies file under the TRI program.
"This information underscores the need for fundamental transparency and provides a powerful tool for protecting public health and the environment," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. "Serving the public's right to know is the crucial first step in reducing toxic chemicals in the places where we live, work and raise children. "I am also pleased," Jackson added, "that Congress ... took action to restore the rigorous reporting standards of this vital program."
The Bush changes were in effect for the 2007 emissions reports, but EPA officials said few companies took advantage of the ability to file less-detailed pollution disclosures. "The upshot is we don't see that this made that big a difference in the numbers," said Mike Flynn, acting deputy administrator for the EPA's Office of Environmental Information. Although the overall numbers showed pollution reductions, the EPA said industry reports showed increases in the release of persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic chemicals like lead, dioxin, mercury and PCBs.
In West Virginia , electrical power plants - mostly coal-fired facilities - accounted for more than two-thirds of total toxic pollution, by far the largest polluting industry, according to EPA data, but, the sector cut toxic pollution by nearly 20 percent over 2006 figures, EPA said. Primary-metals production accounted for more than 13 percent, and chemical manufacturing about 9 percent, according to the EPA. Also, this year's EPA report continued the trend toward providing less easy-to-access information from the TRI data. For example, EPA state-level fact sheets - used by most media outlets to prepare stories - used to include a list of each state's top polluting facilities. Now, that information must be pulled out of an online database or calculated from complicated computer files.
The EPA started the pollution inventory and public reporting of toxic chemical emissions in 1987. The figures released publicly always lag two years behind because companies report annual releases the following July, and the EPA then compiles the data into various reports. The EPA kicked off the program in response to a congressional mandate following the 1984 chemical disaster at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal , India , and a smaller leak the following year at Carbide's plant in Institute.
The EPA TRI information is available online at www.epa.gov/tri.
CHARLESTON , W.Va. -- Toxic pollution of West Virginia 's air and water decreased in 2007, according to the latest emissions data made public Thursday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Air emissions in West Virginia dropped by nearly 23 percent, to 53 million pounds, according to the new data from the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory. Water discharges dropped by more than 12 percent, to 3 million pounds, according to the EPA data. The West Virginia pollution reductions were better than those reported nationwide in the EPA's annual publication of emissions information filed by thousands of chemical makers, steel mills, power plants and other industrial facilities.
Air pollution nationwide dropped by about 7 percent and water discharges about 4 percent, according to the EPA. Total toxic pollution nationwide dropped by 5 percent. The EPA published the annual toxic scorecard little more than a week after President Obama signed legislation that reversed a Bush administration rule that reduced the amount of information companies file under the TRI program.
"This information underscores the need for fundamental transparency and provides a powerful tool for protecting public health and the environment," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. "Serving the public's right to know is the crucial first step in reducing toxic chemicals in the places where we live, work and raise children. "I am also pleased," Jackson added, "that Congress ... took action to restore the rigorous reporting standards of this vital program."
The Bush changes were in effect for the 2007 emissions reports, but EPA officials said few companies took advantage of the ability to file less-detailed pollution disclosures. "The upshot is we don't see that this made that big a difference in the numbers," said Mike Flynn, acting deputy administrator for the EPA's Office of Environmental Information. Although the overall numbers showed pollution reductions, the EPA said industry reports showed increases in the release of persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic chemicals like lead, dioxin, mercury and PCBs.
In West Virginia , electrical power plants - mostly coal-fired facilities - accounted for more than two-thirds of total toxic pollution, by far the largest polluting industry, according to EPA data, but, the sector cut toxic pollution by nearly 20 percent over 2006 figures, EPA said. Primary-metals production accounted for more than 13 percent, and chemical manufacturing about 9 percent, according to the EPA. Also, this year's EPA report continued the trend toward providing less easy-to-access information from the TRI data. For example, EPA state-level fact sheets - used by most media outlets to prepare stories - used to include a list of each state's top polluting facilities. Now, that information must be pulled out of an online database or calculated from complicated computer files.
The EPA started the pollution inventory and public reporting of toxic chemical emissions in 1987. The figures released publicly always lag two years behind because companies report annual releases the following July, and the EPA then compiles the data into various reports. The EPA kicked off the program in response to a congressional mandate following the 1984 chemical disaster at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal , India , and a smaller leak the following year at Carbide's plant in Institute.
The EPA TRI information is available online at www.epa.gov/tri.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Incremental Improvements Save the World
We all love to talk about breakthrough technologies that are going to revolutionize energy use and save the economy at the same time. Well, techno wannabes like me do, anyway. Here, though, is a short blog on direct injection technology that Ford is using in some of its engines, and will be expanding in the future. It results in impressive, but not game-changing, mileage and performance improvements. It's the cumulative effect of these types of changes, not very sexy or jaw-dropping, that will likely get us closer to the goal of greater energy efficiency over the next 10 years than all the miracle processes put together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
