<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Climate Change and Carbon Management Blog</title><description /><copyright /><generator>BDS</generator><item><title>EPA Delays Greenhouse Gas Rule on New Power Plants</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4907</link><description>The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had a deadline of April 13 to impose the first-ever greenhouse gas limits on new power plants, but they did not finalize the proposal on time. EPA is in the process of altering the rule to make sure it can withstand any legal challenges that may come its way. The rule if implemented as it was written would require new power plants to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. EPA is debating the possibility of establishing separate standards for coal-fired power plants and gas-fired power plants. There is no timetable for when EPA will announce their next move.</description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:30:46 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lawsuit Challenges California’s “Cap-and-Trade” Auction As Unconstitutional</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4906</link><description>Pacific Legal Foundation filed a&lt;A href="http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=836" target=_blank&gt;lawsuit &lt;/A&gt;today in the Superior Court of California County of Sacramento challenging California’s cap-and-trade auction. The suit was filed on behalf of a broad group of California businesses, trade associations and individuals, who believe the auction process acts as an unconstitutional tax because it was not enacted by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the California Legislature, which is required by the California Constitution. The lawsuit states that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) instituted the auction as a plan to raise billions of dollars in revenue without direction from the Legislature. They argue, if citizens and corporations must obey the state Constitution, shouldn’t an agency of the California government? &lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:20:53 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Next EPA Administrator Nominated</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4878</link><description>Gina McCarthy, the current head of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, has been nominated by President Obama to become the next EPA Administrator. McCarthy’s main background is in air enforcement and climate change issues. President Obama said she would help promote renewable energy programs, which she has experience doing from her days as an environmental official in Massachusetts. She helped develop recent mercury and soot emission power plant rules. One of the more important aspects of her nomination is her relationship with industry, which will likely help her during the nomination process.</description><pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:05 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Two Hydraulic Fracturing Related Bills Introduced</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4877</link><description>Rep. Cartwright (D-PA) introduced the “Focused Reduction of Effluence and Stormwater runoff through Hydrofracking Environmental Regulation” (FRESHER) Act on March 14, which would remove a provision in the Clean Water Act (CWA), added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that exempts oil and gas sites from stormwater permitting requirements. The exemption applies to all uncontaminated runoff from oil and gas sites of any acreage. The FRESHER Act, if passed, would also require the Department of Interior (DOI) to study the impact of stormwater from oil and gas sites on surface water, groundwater and drinking water.</description><pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:49:07 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Murkowski Releases Energy Blueprint</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4818</link><description>&lt;P&gt;Earlier this week, Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) released an energy blueprint, entitled “&lt;A href="http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=099962a5-b523-4551-b979-c5bac6d45698" target=_blank&gt;Energy 2020&lt;/A&gt;.” The blueprint was developed with&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=415914a8-5260-42c3-b3bd-a6fcd5cb735a" target=_blank&gt;seven principles&lt;/A&gt; in mind: producing more, consuming less, clean energy technology, energy delivery infrastructure, effective government, environmental responsibility, and an energy policy that pays for itself. Murkowski believes this can be done with more oil and gas production, reducing carbon emissions, and the development of a “trust fund” for clean energy. Her hope is the blueprint could serve as a basis for starting a comprehensive energy discussion in Congress, which may result in a number of small, bipartisan energy bills this year.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Follow us on &lt;A href="https://twitter.com/AlstonEnviro" target=_blank&gt;Twitter&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:48:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Court of Appeals Not to Take up CSAPR Challenge</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4800</link><description>&lt;P&gt;Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declined to grant a rehearing of EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, a case that challenged EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The court, in a 2-1 ruling in August, vacated the CSAPR. The court stated that EPA was exceeding its statutory authority, as the agency should allow states to develop their own rules to address emissions and CSAPR could have required states to account for more emissions than necessary. EPA hoped to challenge the ruling of the court and asked for an en banc hearing, so that the case could be heard before all eight of the circuit’s judges. However, a majority of the judges voted against the request, so the court will not rehear the case. The question now is whether EPA will take its challenge to the Supreme Court.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="COLOR: #666666; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"&gt;Follow us on&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://twitter.com/AlstonEnviro" target=_blank&gt;&lt;SPAN style="COLOR: #355479"&gt;Twitter&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:34:37 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Obama Pushes Climate Change In Inaugural </title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4794</link><description>President Obama called for the United States to step up and be a leader as the world transitions towards new energy technologies to help combat climate change during his&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama" target=_blank&gt;inaugural address&lt;/A&gt; earlier this week. Obama hoped to have climate legislation passed during his first term, but was unsuccessful with his push. So he and his administration will make another effort to push for climate change legislation and regulations in his second term. He said, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went onto say that fighting climate change is not a choice, but rather an obligation and that the obligation can be met with the development of new, cleaner energy technologies.</description><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:50:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>AB32 Implementation Group Requests Delay of GHG Auction</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4724</link><description>The AB32 Implementation Group (AB32IG) sent a&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://www.ab32ig.com/documents/FINAL_IG_Ltr_to_Gov_10-16-12.pdf" target=_blank&gt;letter&lt;/A&gt; to California Governor Brown requesting that the cap-and-trade program and first allowance auction scheduled for November 14, 2012 be delayed. AB32IG had hoped CARB would address some of their concerns at the September board meeting, however CARB failed to do so. The letter requests that Gov. Brown step in to protect the state’s economy; and states that the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office confirmed that the auctioning of allowances is not necessary to reach the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth in AB32. Part of the letter reads, “CARB’s requirement to buy allowances will impose high and unnecessary costs on California businesses, threatening jobs and tax revenues in the state.” It continues to say that consumers will be impacted by higher costs of fuel, utilities, food and other essential services. So far the Governor has yet to respond to AB32IG’s letter.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:35:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>House Energy and Commerce to Hold Hearings on Blocking EPA Rule</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4678</link><description>The House Energy and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on September 20, 2012 to discuss &lt;A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6172ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr6172ih.pdf" target=_blank&gt;H.R. 6172&lt;/A&gt;. The bill would prohibit the EPA Administrator from finalizing any rule that would put a performance standard for CO2 emissions on an existing or new source that is a fossil fuel-fired electric generating unit until carbon capture and storage is deemed technologically and economically feasible. The hearing will begin at 9:45 a.m. at 2123 Rayburn.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:49:38 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>EPA Considering Safe Harbor for Renewable Biofuel Purchasers</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4670</link><description>In the wake of a recent spate of RIN fraud cases involving a reported 140 million invalid RIN (renewable identification number) credits, EPA is considering revisions to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) program that would provide greater clarity for obligated parties (oil companies that refine and import gasoline and diesel). Although EPA has taken aggressive enforcement action against fraudulent RIN producers, EPA's current "buyer beware" policy also penalizes oil companies that are victims of RIN fraud by imposing civil penalties and requiring replacement of fraudulent RINs, thus adding insult to injury.</description><pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:39:23 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Court of Appeals Throws Out Cross-State Air Pollution Rule</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4664</link><description>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/19346B280C78405C85257A61004DC0E5/$file/11-1302-1390314.pdf" target=_blank&gt;ruled&lt;/A&gt; today by a 2-1 margin that EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (&lt;A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-08/pdf/2011-17600.pdf" target=_blank&gt;CSAPR&lt;/A&gt;) exceeded EPA’s statutory authority. CSAPR was to put a limit on sulfur dioxide emissions in 28 states, but the court issued a last minute stay at the end of 2011 before the rule went into effect. &lt;BR&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:50:14 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Court of Appeals Upholds EPA GHG Emissions Rules</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4612</link><description>Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court issued its&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/52AC9DC9471D374685257A290052ACF6/$file/09-1322-1380690.pdf" target=_blank&gt;decision&lt;/A&gt; on industry petitions concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The main focus of the suit was on EPA’s&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-03/pdf/2010-11974.pdf#page=1" target=_blank&gt;“tailoring” rule&lt;/A&gt;, which requires only major polluters to obtain permits for their greenhouse gas emissions. The three judge panel denied this challenge from industry groups. The judges also dismissed all petition for EPA’s &lt;A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf" target=_blank&gt;“tailpipe” rule&lt;/A&gt;, which set standards for cars and light-duty trucks beginning in the 2012 model year; and the &lt;A href="http://epa.gov/nsr/documents/psd_memo_recon_032910.pdf" target=_blank&gt;“timing” rule&lt;/A&gt;, which focused on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. The decision by the court resulted in a victory for the EPA and the Obama administration and is a big blow to a number of industry groups.</description><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:10:15 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>First Large-Scale CCS Project Destined for North America</title><link>http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=4589</link><description>Carbon capture and sequestration has been seen as a key technology in the battle against climate change. The &lt;A href="http://www.iea.org/topics/ccs/" target=_blank&gt;International Energy Agency&lt;/A&gt; has estimated that in order to meet carbon emission goals, 100 CCS projects would need to be up and running by 2020 and over 3000 projects would be needed by 2050. As a result, countries have been seeking funding and the best available method to implement these commercial scale projects. At one time, Europe seemed like it had the ability to meet the demand first but according to a new report from &lt;A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/american-companies-beating-europe-to-first-commercial-ccs-plant.html" target=_blank&gt;Bloomberg&lt;/A&gt;, it appears that North America is now likely to get the first projects up and running.</description><pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 20:54:37 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>