Private Party Environmental Assessments Need to be Encouraged

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Joe Koncelik
A recent article in the Columbus Dispatch, authored by Spencer Hunt, paints a sensationalistic depiction of environmental contamination on a former manufacturing site.  The article suggests toxic contaminants were hidden from the State EPA.  While it may be interesting to write a story about contamination on the new casino site in Columbus, the portrayal misses some key aspects of brownfield redevelopment.  Here are some excerpts from the story:
Hush-Hush Hazards
 
State kept unaware of environmental dangers at casino site
 
Delphi spent about a year identifying toxins at the West Side manufacturing plant it closed in 2007 but never told the state about what it found. It wasn’t required to. New owner Penn National Gaming has shared Delphi’s 3,000-page report with the EPA and plans to clean up the site before opening a casino in 2012... Prospective buyers have a right to know about any potential problems, said Tiffani Kavalec, the agency's (Ohio EPA) cleanup and reuse-section manager.

"If they had any expectations of selling the property, they would have had to do this," Kavalec said.

But what might be surprising is that companies don't have to share their findings with the government.

The story misses several key issues regarding brownfields.

  1. Surprise..old manufacturing plants have contamination- It is expected that a plant that operated for 70 years is going to leave behind some residual environmental issues.  The plant pre-dated most of the modern environmental regulations.
  2. Companies routinely perform assessments of their properties-  The privatized system works in the sense companies are encouraged to evaluate and assess their properties. Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments have become routine in any private party real estate transactions.  Any sophisticated purchaser will demand a due diligence period to understand the issues associated with the property they are considering purchasing.
  3. Regulations contain reporting obligations-  Many environmental regulations, including hazardous waste regulations, contain mandatory reporting requirements.  Companies that violate these provisions would still be open to enforcement.  Its the historical contamination issues that generally fall outside these mandatory reporting requirements.
  4. Mandatory reporting would discourage evaluation-  If companies were required to submit every environmental assessment they performed to Ohio EPA, it would act as a strong deterrent to performance of assessments.  These are voluntary assessments after all.  Companies perform them to get a better understanding of potential liabilities as well as facilitate transfer of the property. 
  5. A brownfield redevelopment success story-  Penn Central is purchasing and redeveloping a contaminated brownfield that is currently owned by a bankrupt company.  Without the redevelopment, this brownfield, like many in the State would remain contaminated.  Without the environmental assessments, Penn Central may have been unwilling to take the risk of buying unknown liabilities. 
  6. State and local grant programs pay for assessments-  In recognition that the lack of information regarding contamination on property can act as a deterrent to redevelopment, there are State and local brownfield grant programs that will pay for these assessments.  The biggest and best program is Clean Ohio, which will pay for up to $300,000 in assessment costs.  Clean Ohio has been a huge success by overcoming impediments to private party transactions involving brownfields, including assessment and clean up costs.

 

We should be encouraging private parties to perform environmental assessments of their properties.  Only by understanding the levels of contamination can a clean up cost be calculated.  Potential buyers must know that number to be comfortable with moving forward with the transaction.

If private parties are discouraged from performing assessments there will be a greater need for federal, state and local grant funding to pay for these costs. Most prospective purchasers are unwilling to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to perform sampling unless there are very strong business reasons for doing so.
 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Last Ditch Effort for a Climate Bill Before the Midterm Election

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Joe Koncelik

President Obama is convening a meeting tomorrow to explore all possible alternatives that would lead to passage of a climate bill before the midterm elections.  The most likely alternative that will receive consideration is a much narrower cap that would only be applied to utilities.  Under this approach, the provisions covering large industrial emitters and the transportation sector set forth in Senator Kerry's American Power Act would be cut out.  This from Climatewire:

"I think the chances of a comprehensive bill are abysmal," Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said in an interview last week, referring to legislation offered by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

"Do I think there is a chance of something that is narrower for carbon, like the pricing of utilities? I think that's possible," she added. "If all we can get is utilities, it's not bad."

A handful of crucial senators are planning to attend, including Richard Lugar (Ind.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), all Republicans whose support Obama will seek to eventually secure. Democrat Sherrod Brown (Ohio), another undecided senator, will also be there, according to a survey of offices by E&E.

A deal on just utilities looks unlikely.  However, it has the best chance of any current proposal.  The key will be whether utilities will view this as an opportunity to secure "certainty" with regarding to the greenhouse gas requirements.  The ability to establish the regulatory landscape does have major benefits in making big capital investments associated with large scale facilities.

An interesting bargaining chip will be EPA's authority to regulate all sources of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.  The Senators attending, especially Murkowski, are highly motivated to block EPA regulatory program.  Would the President be willing to foreclose or delay EPA regulations in exchange for a bill?

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Benefits of Biomass Power Questioned- Implications for Ohio

Posted on June 18, 2010 by Joe Koncelik

Ohio's best hope for reducing its overwhelming dependence on coal for electricity generation is  biomass.  While wind and solar have significant benefits, it is unquestioned that current technology does not allow these renewable sources to be forms of base-load power generation. 

Biomass does have that potential in Ohio, as is evidenced by the recent announcements of the conversion of 312-megawatt First Energy's Burger coal-fired power plant to biomass generation.  Now that proposal is meeting opposition by environmental groups. As reported in Biomass Magazine:

The Ohio Environmental Council and Consumers’ Counsel have asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to reject FirstEnergy’s request for classification of its project as a renewable energy facility on the grounds that it has not provided enough information to warrant the qualification...The two agencies are now requesting dismissal of the application altogether.  “The whole state could be deforested to produce energy for this one project.” (attorney OEC)

Opposition to the First Energy proposal will undoubtedly make movement toward biomass as a replacement for Ohio's coal dependence much more difficult. 

Studies have confirmed that biomass presents the best hope for Ohio re-aligning its generation portfolio. A 2004 study by The Ohio State University analyzed the potential of biomass as an source of electricity generation in Ohio:

Recent studies illustrate that Ohio as a relatively large biomass resource potential.  Among the 50 states, Ohio ranks 11th in terms of herbaceous and wood biomass and 4th in terms of food waste biomass.  As a result, using renewable biomass fuels in Ohio could lead to an estimated 27.6 billion in kWh of electricity, which is enough to fully support the annual needs of 2,758,000 average homes, or 64% of the residential electricity use in Ohio.

Now a new study calls into question a long held belief regarding the benefits of biomass power. It has always been assumed that biomass is better than fossil fuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The assumption is based upon the "carbon cycle:"

Through photosynthesis, biomass removes carbon from the atmosphere, thus reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a major contributors to global warming.  When biomass is burned to produce energy, the stored carbon is released, but the next grown cycle absorbs carbon from the atmosphere once again.  (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Webpage on Biomass Energy)

A new study now questions the "carbon cycle" benefits of biomass power.  It comes from a State that has historically been a very strong supporter of biomass energy- Massachusetts.   The Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, released in June 2010, addresses the following issues:

  • Sustainable forest management and ecological implications of biomass harvesting
  • Carbon sequestration of forests with and without forest management
  • Net effect of biomass energy on atmospheric carbon balance
  • U.S. and international policies in regard to biomass and carbon neutrality

The study concludes that use of forest biomass actually has greater emissions of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) than commonly utilized fossil fuels.  The chart below from the study shows forest biomass (wood) generates 31% more CO2 than coal.

Does the conclusions of this study mean Ohio should no longer consider biomass as having the best renewable energy potential?

I don't think that is the case.  As discussed numerous times on this blog, the cost of coal is going to increase as a result of ever tightening environmental requirements (ozone & fine particle standards, MACT (mercury), revamped CAIR).  This doesn't even include eventual climate change regulations that target reductions from existing sources. Therefore, there is a very strong incentive for Ohio to continue to quickly re-balance its power generation portfolio. 

 Certainly the other benefits of biomass remain unquestioned.  These include:

  • Renewable resource- sustainability of the resource
  • Non-CO2 pollutant reductions
  • Only alternative energy source with immediate base-load power potential

While development of biomass continues to make sense, it is important to continue to question assumptions regarding any alternative resource.  The recent Massachusetts study is worthy of consideration when making strategic decisions regarding re-balancing Ohio's generation portfolio.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Murkowski Attempt to Block EPA Climate Change Regulations Narrowly Defeated

Posted on June 11, 2010 by Joe Koncelik

In a very close vote 53-47, the U.S. Senate defeated a resolution designed to block U.S. EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases utilizing its existing authority under the Clean Air Act.  Six Democrats supported the Republican effort to block EPA.  Republicans needed 51 votes to effectively block or delay EPA's efforts. Now everyone is offering their opinions as to what the vote truly means.

Background on Resolution

Last year, EPA issued its scientific based finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health.  The EPA determined that man made greenhouse gases (GHGs) significantly contribute to rising global temperatures and climate change ("endangerment finding").

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, the so called "endangerment finding" was a required precursor to regulation of GHGs from motor vehicles.  EPA finalized emission standards for trucks and cars earlier this year. 

By establishing mandatory GHG emission limits for motor vehicles, regulations of GHG emissions from factories and power plants was automatically triggered.  Regulations of both vehicles and stationary sources is set to commence next year.  Businesses have warned that higher costs and job losses will result from EPA's regulations.

Test Run for Climate Change Resolution

There had been speculation in the weeks preceding yesterday's vote, that it would serve as a test of the Senate's determination to pass comprehensive climate change legislation.  Some argue a close vote signified a lack of support for taking action this year. 

Senator Kerry took the opportunity to immediately challenge Republicans who during the debate on the resolution stated they supported addressing climate change, but feared EPA regulation was the wrong method. Sen. John Kerry, a co-author of the American Power Act (APA), the cap-and-trade bill introduced in the Senate in May, challenged his Republican colleagues: 

"This is going to be the 'Great Hypocrisy Test' resolution," Kerry said. "We're going to see how many of these folks who are here on the floor saying we need to leave it to Congress ... are actually going to show up and vote ... to restrain greenhouse gases."  (from Solve Climate)

Despite Senator Kerry's comments, the close vote means that Senators are reluctant to adopt comprehensive climate change legislation.

Senator Rockefeller Alternative- Temporary Delay of EPA

Some argue that the close vote signifies support for a water downed version of the resolution.  Senator Rockefeller has proposed a resolution that would simply delay the effectiveness of EPA's regulations for two years. 

In reading the tea leaves of the Senate votes and speeches, some are suggesting that there are enough votes to support the Rockefeller proposal.  There Democrat Senators (Sens. Dorgan, Webb and Conrad) have already indicated support for the Rockefeller proposal.  This from the Wall Street Journal on prospects of the Rockefeller resolution:

Mr. Webb signaled the intensity of his position on the Senate floor, announcing that he would "regretfully" oppose the Murkowski resolution.

It wasn't clear whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has agreed to bring such an alternative up for a vote. "I don't know if Harry has made any promises along those lines," Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, told a reporter Thursday.
 

"Uncertainty" Will Persist Going Forward

What the close vote really means is that nobody really knows what this means for the prospects of comprehensive climate change legislation.   Some argue the close vote means no bill.  Some argue that defeat of the resolution puts a ticking clock on impending EPA regulation set to commence in 2011.  EPA regulation could put pressure on Congress to act.

Here is my take-  Congress doesn't have the will to push forward Legislation before the mid-term elections.  In addition, EPA regulations will be phased in gradually over time which removes the pressure to act prior to 2011.  By default, we will operate under EPA regulations for the foreseeable future.   

Tags: , , , , , ,