Al Gore, speaking at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, called for young people to perform acts of civil disobedience to stop construction of new coal plants. He also has called for State Attorney Generals to review whether utilities are committing stock fraud by discounting the threat of global warming.
I put
As reported in the Texarkana Gazette, the Arkansas State Commission on Global Warming is likely to recommend a ban on new coal fired power plants. The Commission is also proposing construction of a new $1.5 billion dollar plant be delayed until carbon sequestration technology can be added to the plant.
What is the
On September 24, 2008 U.S EPA filed its petition to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing En Banc on the vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). While focus may be on EPA’s request for rehearing, a significant concession was made in EPA’s brief that has major implications regardless of whether rehearing is granted.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a critical strategy proposed for combating climate change. It involves the injection of CO2, a greenhouse gas, generated by coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities deep beneath the earth’s surface for long term storage.
There are potential significant issues with CCS, including:
A lawsuit filed this week raises an important question about the relationship between the federal government and states pertaining to environmental regulations. At issue is how much flexibility state’s have to modify their air pollution control plans used to comply with federal air quality standards. As reported in the Columbus Dispatch, the Sierra Club has challenged
The initial comment period is now closed on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s (PUCO) draft rules for implementation of the Alternative and Renewable Energy Requirements. The PUCO received hundreds of pages of comments from a wide variety of perspectives: Utilities, Renewable Energy Developers, Industrial Customers, Environmental Groups, Clean Coal Technology Providers, and Consumer Groups.
The rules were set in motion by passage of Ohio’s comprehensive Energy Legislation (SB 221) which includes provisions designed to promote alternative and renewable energy development. The legislation includes both an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) and a more traditional Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS).
While the Legislation was very complex, major policy issues were left to be sort out through rule promulgated by the PUCO. The comments received on the first draft of the rules for implementation of the AEPS and RPS reveal significant differences of opinion over critical issues.
Here is my critical issue list. The rules must address squarely these issues to determine the direction of Ohio’s energy policy.
(a summary of the major comments on the AEPS and RPS by clicking on "continue reading" below)
(photo: Kevin Dooley/everystockphoto.com)Continue Reading Major Issues Revealed With Ohio’s Alternative and Renewable Energy Rules
As reported on CNN, the Senate is debating how or whether to legislatively restore the CAIR program that was struck down in Court. EPA still has a week or so to decide whether to appeal, but all bets are that Congress needs to act in order to save the program.
The game of chicken centers around
With very little fanfare, the Department of Commerce put on their web page two documents that change the policy interpretations of the prevailing wage requirements. The "policy interpretation" is controversial. As reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Republican controlled House and Senate will likely be discussing ways to block the change.
What are Prevailing Wage laws? To offset the low bid public contract requirement, the ""prevailing wage" law requires wages commonly paid to construction workers in a particular region will determine the minimum wage paid to the same type of workers employed on publicly funded construction projects. (For additional background view the extended entry below)
The Strickland Administration is claiming that the release of the Commerce Department’s new guidance document on prevailing wage is a "simple clarification" of existing law. The spokesman for the Governor said the law was simply "misapplied" to two situations, one of which is brownfield redevelopment projects. However, many view it as a broad expansion of the applicability of prevailing wage that could drive up construction costs.
Strickland Administration Frames the Debate: "In recent years there has been no clear approach used by the Department when determining whether publicly-funded construction activity is so intertwined with private construction activity that the activity constitutes a single "project" (triggering prevailing wage) and when they are sufficiently "separate and unrelated" that they constitute separate projects, one publicly supported (which triggers prevailing wage) and one privately financed (which does not trigger prevailing wage).
THE ISSUE: When a Clean Ohio grant pays for remediation work and demolition but the rest of the project development is privately financed, then what portion is covered by prevailing wage?
FROM ADMINISTRATION’S NEW POLICY STATEMENT: Whenever a public entity contributes funding or other direct support (e.g.-public land) to a project, even an otherwise privately-financed project, prevailing wage must be paid to the workers on the project.
RAMIFICATION ON BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: Under the Administration’s new policy, prevailing wage will apply to all construction work at a site receiving Clean Ohio funds whenever an end-user is identified. Therefore, if the Clean Ohio grant application includes a commitment to use the site by a new tenant or developer, prevailing wage applies to all construction at the site work. If no end-user is identified in the application, prevailing wage only applies to remediation work at the site.
DISCUSSION: It simply is a false distinction to apply prevailing wage on the basis of whether an end user has been identified. Under Clean Ohio guidelines, grant funds can only pay for :
The Clean Ohio guidelines forbid expenditure on building improvements or infrastructure improvements. If it is illegal to use to program funds for this work, how can prevailing wage be deemed to apply?
Developers will have to run the numbers. By choosing the "development ready track" (no end-user), applicants can only seek $2 million in state funds versus $3 million for end-user projects. Developers will be calculating whether overall project costs exceed the extra $1 million available if prevailing wage applies. Some may say that’s acceptable, but if makes less brownfield projects viable that is not a good result for Ohio’s cities.
It seems questionable that the Administration can make such a broad change in application of the prevailing wage through a simple "policy interpretation." Legal challenges or legislative action seems inevitable.Continue Reading How the New Policy on Prevailing Wage Impacts Brownfield Projects
As reported in various newspapers, several states have moved forward with the next round of climate change litigation. The States have sued U.S. EPA arguing that the Agency illegally refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from refineries.
Thelen’s Climate Law Update, had a recent post discussing the lawsuit:
New York, California and 10 other states
Federal hazardous waste regulations (RCRA) have long been referred to as management from "cradle to grave." In order meet this management principle, the regulations require detailed paper work and reporting from both small and large businesses.
Failure to maintain the proper paper work can result in significant penalties or even change your regulatory status which will have even