(Source: Office of Planning, Environment and Realty – Federal Highway Administration)

Recent Events

U.S. DOE and U.S. EPA announce the 2010 Fuel Economy Guide for model year 2010 vehicles. Each vehicle listing gives an estimated annual fuel cost, based on the vehicle’s MPG rating and national estimates for annual mileage and fuel prices. The online version of the guide allows consumers to input their local gasoline prices and typical driving habits to receive a personalized fuel cost estimate. Fuel efficiency is important for reducing CO2 and other GHGs. The top ten fuel economy leaders for 2010 include nine hybrid vehicles, from compact cars to SUVs.

World Resources Institute issues provisional GHG emissions reporting standard for public sector. The standard was developed in consultation with agencies from all levels of government and is supported by the Federal Energy Management Program within U.S. DOE and U.S. EPA. The standard includes guidance on how to apply GHG accounting principles to government operations at the federal, state and local level. The standard is compatible with the Local Government Operations Protocol recently adopted by The Climate Registry, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). For questions or to submit comments on the standard, please email Stephen Russell or Mary Sotos at pspcomments@wri.org.

EESI publishes State Actions on Climate Change: A Focus on How Our Communities Grow, to encourage State, regional, and local governments to focus on land use reform as a key strategy for reducing GHG emissions. The publication is the result of collaboration with the American Planning Association to develop tools to assist planners. The study examined State and regional climate action plans for their inclusion of transportation, green building, and land use or “smart growth” practices and found that the plans cover a broad range of strategies, because each area has unique geographic and socioeconomic conditions. Of the three, transportation practices were the dominant feature, along with, to a lesser degree, green building policies. Some common transportation policies include adopting California’s vehicle emissions standard (the country’s most aggressive standard), creating more mass transit options, and providing incentives to lower VMT. Specific smart growth practices appeared to be the least likely component of the plans. A table at the end of the document shows some aspects of urban planning that are incorporated. Any GHG reduction targets adopted or regional climate action plans to which a state belongs are provided.

Simple Measures Can Yield Big GHG Cuts, Scientists Say in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Thomas Dietz, Michigan State University assistant vice president for environmental research, and his colleagues find that simple, voluntary activities such as routine vehicle maintenance, carpooling and trip chaining, eco-driving, and use of low-rolling-resistance tires can result in significant reductions in GHG emissions and, therefore, “deserve increased policy attention.” They examined 17 household action types in five behavioral categories. Adoption of these actions typically is the result of several policy tools and strong social marketing, the authors state. They estimate that if the behaviors became the norm across the nation it could save 123 million metric tons of carbon per year, equal to 7.4% of U.S. national emissions, within ten years with little or no reduction in household well-being. Their estimates are based on “how many families could reasonably be expected to take such measures if they were provided information, offered financial assistance and could interact with others doing so.”

Managing Our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate: The Time to Act is Now Issued by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Provides Insights Relevant to U.S. The fact that many Australian coastal communities have single-access roads is an issue of grave concern to the Commonwealth. The report noted that evacuation routes were a significant factor in the extent of a July 2009 bushfire tragedy (“Black Saturday”). Dr. John Church, from [the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s national science agency] pointed out that “sea-level-rise planning benchmarks need to be part of a risk management framework,” stating “We really have to move into a risk assessment framework…where we talk more about probabilities and the risks that we are prepared to take….One problem that we have is that planners tend to come to us and say, “How much do we need to allow for sea level rise?’ The retort I always give is, ‘What kind of risks do you want to take?’ I think this is a very important change in process that we need: to put the onus of the risk back onto the planners and the policymakers, not leave it to the scientists.’

State and Local News

Draft Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan released for comment. The plan contains 52 climate policy actions, which are estimated to reduce the Commonwealth’s GHG emissions by 95.6 million metric tons (a 36 percent reduction below year 2000 business-as-usual levels, 42% if recent state and federal actions are included) and to provide a net gain of $5.13 billion and 54,000 new jobs by 2020. The Plan does not address climate change adaptation. The GHG emissions inventory and projections, which cover 1990 to 2020, use “standardized methodology prescribed by the [EPA] and in accordance with international standards.” Transportation is the third largest source of GHG emissions in Pennsylvania (24% in 2000, of which gasoline-powered on-road vehicles accounted for about 64% and on-road diesel vehicles for 15%). Of all the sectors analyzed, GHG mitigation actions from transit and ground passenger transportation are projected to produce the second largest financial gain for the Commonwealth. The Land Use and Transportation work plan recommendations are listed in the following table.

¹NA in this column means “not applicable.” Work plan numbers 1,2, and 4 are recent state actions that are being implemented by the state; and the federal government will be implementing national vehicle GHG emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards starting in 2012.
²Because T-9 uses federal dollars exclusively, it should be noted that the cost figures for T-9 are calculations of how many federal dollars – not state dollars – would be required to implement the work plan.
³This cost per ton value excludes the emission reductions associated with the “Federal Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards” since costs (savings) were not quantified for this recent federal action.
GHG = greenhouse gas; MMtCO₂e = million metrice tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; $/tCO₂e = dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; NPV = net present value; NQ = not quantified; PA = Pennsylvania; PAYD = Pay-As-You-Drive; CAFE = Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

Climate Change and Transportation in Maine published by MaineDOT. This white paper prepares MaineDOT to respond to the Governor’s call to evaluate climate change adaptation options and positions the agency to work with transportation stakeholders to evaluate short-term and long-term approaches to preparing for and adapting to climate change. Judy Gates, Director of MaineDOT’s Environmental Office said “…uncertainty [about long-range impacts due to climate change] can create paralysis in an agency charged with making and justifying long-term, fiscally-responsible decisions around the safety and efficiency of public travel. But the long life-cycles of most transportation infrastructure demand early preparation to protect significant tax payer investments…” The white paper includes a table showing how Maine’s current and proposed adaptation strategies compare to seven other States whose Climate Action Plans address adaptation (see below). The paper references the part of TRB’s Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation that discusses the Caltrans process of evaluating bridges for seismic retrofitting, in which TRB suggests that a similar approach could be used to screen and identify critical infrastructure that is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. MaineDOT has already included climate change as a factor to be considered in future planning with an eye towards conducting technical, risk-based assessments such as California’s.

Announcements

Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference in DC, November 16-18, has webcast option. The webcast costs $150 for one day or $300 for all three days, versus $320 and $600, respectively, for on-site attendance. The webcast option is limited to 200 people who register by November 12.The conference is sponsored by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Stanford University’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, and the California Institute for Energy and Environment.

TRB announces webinar: A Transportation Research Program for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change and Conserving Energy. This web briefing on December 2, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. EST will explore the findings of TRB’s Special Report 299: A Transportation Research Program for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change and Conserving Energy.Participants must register at least 24 hours in advance, space is limited, and there is a fee for non-TRB-Sponsor employees. To learn more about current and planned FHWA research on climate change mitigation and adaptation, visithttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/index.htm.

FYI

What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention? The Convention is an international treaty adopted in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and ratified by almost all of the countries of the world, in which they agreed to undertake policies and measures to return their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. In 1997, all but two of the Convention signatories (the U.S. and Turkey) adopted an addition to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, which has specific binding GHG emission targets to be achieved in the 2008 – 2012 time period (which would have been 7% for the U.S.) The U.S. has not ratified the Protocol primarily because China and India are exempt from a numerical cap on their emissions. Below are data from the UNFCCC on trends in GHG emissions in industrialized countries (called Annex I Parties) that committed to voluntary GHG reductions under the Convention

Related news. Indian Environment and Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh and Chinese Minister for National Development and Reforms Xie Zhenhua signed a 5-year commitment for their countries to collaborate on GHG emission reduction programs, projects, technology development, and demonstration. The Ministers agreed to work together to protect and promote the interests of developing countries like China and India.

Next month:What is “cap and trade” GHG emissions trading, which is in the media so much lately?

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report:  The Hill, Guardian, UK & NY Times)

Refiners Warn of ‘Staggering’ Costs, Job Losses From Senate Climate Bill

A Senate climate change proposal could add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, according to Domestic oil refiners.  A group of refiners used the possible price hike on Wednesday to launch the latest in a series of attacks against the proposal. The CEO of refining giant Valero Energy Corp. also warned today that the Senate climate legislation would give a competitive advantage to foreign refiners and cost U.S. jobs.

But Democrats on a key Senate panel shot back, saying the industry’s estimate is based on an inflated projection of the price of permits companies will have to hold to cover their carbon emissions. A cost containment mechanism will keep the price from approaching the industry’s estimate, supporters said.

The lawmakers said the bill will spur industry innovation and that will create millions of new “green” jobs. The chief complaint from refiners is that they wouldn’t get enough free pollution allowances to cover emissions they are on the hook for under the legislation. The Senate bill would give refiners 2.25 percent of the allowances available to cover emissions at their plants. But the industry is also responsible for the emissions from vehicle tailpipes.

To make up the difference, refiners would have to buy emission permits on the market created under the legislation.

Addressing the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Valero’s Bill Klesse alleged that the Senate bill and its House counterpart would create large new costs that would drive domestic gasoline and diesel production offshore, cause job loss, and reduce U.S. energy security. He spoke on behalf of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the industry’s main trade group.

“You must remember we are a global business,” Klesse said. “You will simply be driving the carbon dioxide emissions overseas.”

Klesse said Texas-based Valero — a large independent refiner with 16 refineries in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean — would face “staggering” costs even at a carbon price of $20 per ton, he said.

For instance, he said the company’s Corpus Christi, Texas, plant would face costs of up to $92 million per year. The industry as a whole, if held responsible for its process emissions and consumer emissions of its products, would face more than $67 billion in annual costs, he said.

But EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill (S. 1733 (pdf)), attacked Klesse’s conclusion that the bill would harm U.S. security. “The opposite is true,” Boxer said. She cited multiple analyses that conclude global climate change creates national security risks.

The bill would set up a cap-and-trade system under which facilities that produce carbon dioxide emissions must obtain permits for their emissions. Boxer said the bill includes provisions to cushion the effects on refiners. The bill provides 2.25 percent of the free emissions allowances to the refining sector.

Overall, Reicher and other backers of the congressional energy and climate efforts say the effort will increase jobs. “The job creation potential in energy efficiency is extraordinary,” Reicher said.

A major provision is the authorization of so-called border adjustments, or carbon tariffs, on imports from countries that do not adhere to emissions-cutting measures.

The provisions, a priority for lawmakers from manufacturing states, are aimed at preventing “carbon leakage,” in which energy-intensive manufacturing and jobs migrate to countries that do not impose emissions-cutting mandates.

The Senate bill also joins the House bill in providing free allowances to these trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries, although the formulas differ slightly.

The Senate plan provides these sectors with 4 percent of the cap-and-trade program’s freely distributed allowances in 2012 and 2013, rising to 15 percent in 2014 and 2015 and then phasing down after that.

The epic confrontation about how America will power the economy of the future formally got underway on October 27 amid stark warnings from the Obama administration of the costs of inaction on energy reform.

The first of three blockbuster sessions in the Senate held on Oct 27th can be held as a last heave by administration officials and Democratic leaders to advance a bill to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions before an international climate change meeting at Copenhagen, now just six weeks away.

American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill – which does not have solid support even among their own party – before the meeting in Copenhagen.

Click here to read more on this topic.