Monthly Archives: July 2020

Courts, White House Move To Weaken Clean Air Act To Re-Open The Economy

A federal district court decision (Clean Air Council vs. US Steel Corporation, May 14, 2020) held that emissions from a Clean Air Act Title V-permitted facility that exceeded its permit were nonetheless “federally permitted releases” exempt from reporting under CERCLA. This decision ran contrary to longstanding EPA guidance and administrative law decisions, which held that only compliant emissions could take advantage of the “federally permitted release” exemption. For decades, EPA interpreted federally permitted releases to include only those that comply with the Clean Air Act, including its permit. 1992 and 1994 court decisions confirmed this policy. For example, accidental, toxic air releases could not be exempted and must be reported.
In this case, US Steel was sued for not reporting accidental releases of benzene from a process combusting coke which was not treated properly to reduce benzene emissions. The court concluded that federally permitted releases included even non-compliant air emissions, relying on the definitions found in the Clean Air Act.

Might this decision lead to many non-compliant situations being unreported? Many interpreters think not as a decision in one district court may not influence other courts. Therefore, companies should not rely on this as an “open door” to pollute illegally and not have to report it. There may still be risk for a company omitting to report non-compliant emissions under CERCLA despite the decision.

In early June, the federal government moved to both temporarily speed up the progress of construction projects and to weaken federal authority to issue stringent air and climate change rules. President Trump signed an executive order using “emergency authority” to allow agencies to waive required environmental reviews of infrastructure projects to be built during the current economic crisis. The EPA also proposed a new rule that changes the way the agency interprets cost-benefit analyses to enact Clean Air Act regulations, weakening the arguments for air pollution controls. This computational change would allow the EPA to justify weakening clean air and climate change regulations with economic arguments.

Typically, when performing an analysis of a potential new Air rule, the EPA evaluates cost of compliance for the industry against economic savings based on favorable health outcomes (reduced cancers, asthma attacks, etc. causing fewer premature deaths and hospitalizations). The EPA looks not only at the reduction of the pollutant in question, but also effects of reductions of other pollutants lowered at same time. The proposed change will eliminate the inclusion of additional economic benefits from reductions of other pollutants. This philosophy may spread to Clean Water and chemical rules.

Including co-benefits from reductions of other pollutants has been a driver of the exact standards in Clean Air Act regulations for decades. This rule has the potential to alter the math in such a way to potentially downplay the economic benefit to public health. Excluding them will show proposed stringent rules are more costly than they may actually be. Proponents say this will speed up the approval of more modest rules.

The White House says these actions are needed to help the nation climb out of the economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic by speeding up critical infrastructure projects. The longer-term future of these actions depend on the outcome of this November’s election. If Joe Biden becomes President, he can undo the Executive Order with the stroke of a pen. If the proposed rule is not passed before the election or transition, it can be simply discarded. If it does become law before Mr. Biden takes office, Congress can undo it, although it may take time.
Please note that this is not a legal interpretation of the court decision, the Executive Order, or the proposed EPA rule. For a more detailed explanation, please engage a qualified legal professional.

CCES has the technical experts to provide technical assistance for you on compliance with Clean Air Act and State air quality rules. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Reports Say COVID-19 Will Dampen Long-Term Energy Demand

The economic and behavioral impacts of COVID-19 will significantly reduce global long-term energy demand, according to several recent reports. The pandemic has already caused a decline in greenhouse gas emissions; 2019 may go down as the year of peak emissions. However, its impact on reaching climate change goals will likely be small.

One report estimated that the current pandemic will reduce the amount of energy required to be used by humanity to be 8% lower by 2050. In addition to this, long-term behavioral changes in people’s travel, commuting, and work habits will likely cause a net decrease in energy usage. In general, these changes may lead to reduced gasoline and jet fuel demand in the transportation sector and reduced fossil fuel demand in the iron/steel industries (excess of commercial building space resulting in less construction).

Together with improvements in energy efficiency and the recent significant decline in coal use, several forecasts predict that global GHG emissions probably peaked in 2019, but may be flat or decline insignificantly 2050. Perhaps more important, we may not be able to prevent the rise in the average global temperature to be maintained below the 2°C rise goal from now. The pandemic may slow the time it takes to raise temperatures another 2°C, but predictions are that we will meet and exceed it around 2050.

CCES has the experts to help you to determine your entity’s energy use and GHG emissions. We can recommend and project manage the technologies and strategies to help you reduce your energy usage and GHG emissions to save significant costs and meet company sustainability goals. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Load Shifting Is a Critical Summertime Strategy

The reality is that the energy infrastructure in the US is falling apart. Utilities do not have the billions of dollars to upgrade systems to deliver electricity where needed. Aging equipment and systems has contributed to the problem. In addition, gentrification has raised power demands in neighborhoods that had a low demand, making it difficult to shift delivery. Even technology has contributed to the problem. It used to be that people would come home from work to a hot unit, put on the AC and wait some time to cool off. Now smart phones can turn on a unit’s AC while the person is still in the office so the home is nice and cool when he/she arrives. The AC is on simultaneously in many offices and homes.

Thus, more and more parts of the US are suffering brownouts and blackouts, particularly in the summer when cooling demand raises electricity usage greatly, and particularly during workdays in the afternoon when maximum power is needed. A problem with serving such a high peak is the diversification of sources of power. More utilities are producing or purchasing electricity from renewable sources, such as solar and wind. The problem is that these sources are not reliable. Renewable power will not help on a hot and humid high-demand day which also happens to be cloudy and/or windless. Renewable power cannot churn out the added power to make up for the peak. Many renewable plants are also many miles away from the cities that need the power.

Because the expense of maintaining the system and addressing interruptions is significant, many utilities now charge customers substantial charges for a high short-term demand for electricity during these hours. But this does not seem to deter many.

If changing behavior is not happening, operating more energy equipment (lights, AC, etc.) should help this problem. Another solution is load shifting, moving electricity consumption from a peak time period to another time to “flatten the curve” of electric demand. This can be helpful for by utilities even if the load shifting results in greater electricity usage because their concern is delivering power reliably during peak usage. For now, when activities occur is more important than how much power they use.

An example of load shifting is moving an industrial process to a different shift, such as overnight, rather than during the day. While this may cost the firm more in overtime or duplicate use of equipment at night and day, it can be made up in savings in peak demand cost by eliminating the high peak demand during the day.

Another example of load shifting revolves around energy storage for space cooling, so important in peak periods. Systems exist to make large quantities of ice during the overnight (far from peak) period and allow air to flow around the ice to cool it during the peak period. Power needed for such blowers is much less than for large AC systems, reducing power needed during the peak period. A related approach is charging batteries with grid electricity during the night and use it (and not grid power) during the peak period. These often result in a net increase in total electricity used; but this can reduce costs as usage during the peak, expensive period of summer workday afternoons is reduced. These are examples of storing cooling energy either as ice or in batteries.

Load shifting is something businesses should consider, not only to reduce total electric costs, but also to help the grid supply electricity reliably to the entire community and to promote intermittent renewable energy and thus reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants.

CCES has the experts to evaluate your company or building’s electricity usage. We can recommend cost-effective strategies for your specific situation, such greater efficiency, renewable power, or load shifting, to streamline your energy management system and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.