The Obama administration’s nominee to head the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission faced congressional scrutiny on Tuesday for his role in the commission’s push to hold Wall Street firms and traders accountable for alleged manipulation of electricity prices. As FERC’s enforcement director, Norman Bay worked with former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff to put more muscle in the commission’s enforcement program, seeking substantial fines from financial firms such as J.P. Morgan Chase and Barclays
President Obama himself plans to roll out his administration’s proposal next month for curbing greenhouse gases from existing power plants, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said today. The EPA chief confirmed in a Google+ hangout on the president’s climate agenda that Obama “indicated his intent” to announce the proposal himself — something that she said showed his commitment to it. Greens say some direct involvement from the president would guarantee the proposal gets the attention it needs to win public support and counter opposition messaging by industry groups that the rules will drive up energy costs and damage grid reliability.
“Wind has been doing great and has been a huge success story for Texas, and solar is the new huge success story that’s underway in Texas,” said Karen Hadden of the Texas-based Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “We’re going to see more and more of it, and the two work together beautifully.”
A hedge fund that decided to publicly fume over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s investigation of its operations got louder yesterday ahead of the high-stakes Senate confirmation hearing for Norman Bay, whom President Obama tapped to lead the agency. Speaking at a Cato Institute event in Washington, D.C., yesterday, Kevin Gates, vice president of the Powhatan Energy Fund LLC, reiterated his company’s innocence despite an ongoing FERC investigation for allegedly gaming the energy markets.
Ohio is on the cusp of becoming the first state to significantly ease its renewable-energy standards, a milestone that would be noticed in statehouses across the country where similar debates are being waged. Proposals have gained traction in Kansas and several other states and have at least been introduced in a dozen or so others. But none has had as much success as Ohio’s Senate Bill 310, which haspassed the Senate and appears poised to pass the House as soon as this week.
Mr. Brown is at the forefront of governors across the country who are grappling with ways to deal with climate change through legislation and infrastructure changes, rather than waiting for coordinated efforts from the federal government. Governors from states including Maryland, New York and Washington are pushing for ways to combat what they say are dangerous threats to their state’s economic and environmental future, citing worries of rising sea levels, drought and snowmelt. Eight states so far have passed legislation calling for the reduction of carbon emissions in the coming decades, though none with plans as ambitious as California’s. Nine Northeastern states along with California have adopted cap-and-trade policies for the largest greenhouse-gas-emitting industries.
An oft-heard comment about America’s natural gas boom is that it has led to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Insofar as natural gas replaces coal in electricity generation, this claim is probably true. But step back and look globally and into the future, and widespread use of natural gas fails to significantly alter the world’s current global warming trajectory, a new study finds. “In the absence of [emissions reduction policies] there’s no guarantee that natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Richard Newell, a Duke University researcher and expert in environmental economics who led the study, which was published recently in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) will buck the wishes of senior members of his state’s congressional delegation and will veto legislation designed to delay — and possibly kill — a wind energy project on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, his top energy adviser told the Associated Press today. O’Malley is expected to release a letter explaining his decision later this afternoon, Abigail Hopper, director of the Maryland Energy Administration, told the AP.
California is raising its game against climate change as the stakes get higher, girding for a long-term battle with carbon dioxide that will stretch through at least 2050.
The state is planning to bring more of its regulatory muscle to bear on greenhouse gases, working to set a “midterm” 2030 emissions target, and is preparing to broaden its focus on electric-sector emissions, transportation and short-lived climate pollutants, among other areas. The proposals are among updates to its climate change policies contained in a “scoping plan” set for approval next week. The document is the state’s official blueprint for tackling greenhouse gases, as set out in the 2006 law, A.B. 32.
The Obama administration is considering cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants by reaching beyond the plants themselves — an unusual approach that could run afoul of anti-pollution laws. People familiar with the discussions say the administration is seeking steep reductions — as much as 25 percent — that could be met if power plant owners expand renewable energy, improve the efficiency of their grids or encourage customers to use less power. There’s disagreement even within the administration about what’s allowable under the Clean Air Act, the law that gives it the authority to curb emissions. Some administration attorneys are warning that the government could lose a legal challenge if it seeks to regulate beyond a plant’s smokestack, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the rule is still being written.