Day 4: Report from Reed Smith Delegates in Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference
This post Is written by Jennifer Smokelin.
It’s Day 4 of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and there is still some confusion among non-governmental groups (NGOs) – and let’s hope not among the Parties – as to the differing responsibilities of the two working groups at the COP: the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Climate Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) [see Day 2 post for details].
At today’s AWG-KP civil society briefing, a question from the floor asked how the AWG-KP working group was progressing with regard to the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and certain financing issues. After consultation with the KP committee chairs on the dais, Chair John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) carefully explained that the question from the floor got it wrong: this was the briefing for the “good guys” - you know, the ones who have already made commitments - and that questions regarding NAMAs and financing were being discussed by the AWG-LCA (by implication, the not so good guys). Care to take a guess where the United States falls?
Also, the leaders of the AWG-KP were asked to name their biggest frustration so far in the negotiations, and all unanimously agreed that “lack of time” haunted them. If it is to meet its mandate under the Bali plan (again, see Day 2 post), the AWG-KP only has two days to finalize negotiations and report to the COP. AWG-KP leaders admitted there was still no consensus on major issues: what gases would be covered under the Kyoto Protocol in the new compliance period, what the length of time was for the new compliance period, the base year applicable to the new compliance period, and most important, the reduction commitments by Annex B countries (remember, not the United States) for the new commitment period.
The most interesting question came from the floor regarding Canada’s lack of compliance and what, if anything, the AWG-KP was doing about it in this or the next compliance period. The Chair answered quickly and correctly that the commitment period under Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, followed by a true-up period that ends 2015. So it’s not until 2015 that any determinations regarding non-compliance can be made. If there is a party in non-compliance, the Chair said there was a “complex committee” who would deal with that. He joked, “Thanks for the heads up” regarding Canada and they would be on the lookout for Canada’s compliance.
USEPA and its Endangerment Finding: Still in the News
Also today, David McIntosh, USEPA’s Associate Administrator in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, addressed BINGOs. Perhaps to allay industry’s fears of little transparency if USEPA is solely responsible for regulating GHGs and in contrast to many expert opinions that the Endangerment Finding is “the most significant” action of USEPA in recent years, Mr. McIntosh stressed that the Endangerment Finding triggers three (and only three) USEPA actions under the Clean Air Act. First, he said it triggered the GHG reporting rule. This might be a bit disingenuous as my understanding was the GHG reporting rule was triggered by a congressional mandate buried in a budget bill. Nonetheless, in an attempt to preempt challenges to the reporting threshold of 25,000 pounds, Mr. Mcintosh explained that the mandate required reporting at “reasonable” level and USEPA set that at 25,000 carbon dioxide equivalent, or roughly 2300 times the carbon footprint of the average US household.
Second, Mr. McIntosh explained that the Endangerment Finding required USEPA to take steps under the Clean Air Act to regulate mobile sources. To meet this mandate, USEPA proposed (in September 2009) and will finalize in March 2010 the rules for light duty vehicles for model years 2012-2016. Mr. McIntosh clearly inferred that these were the only rules USEPA would publish - that this covered all mobile sources. This is clearly disingenuous as Title II of the Clean Air Act covers all mobile sources (that is, anything with wheels, aviation included) not just light duty vehicles. Finally, McIntosh explained that the only other automatic implication of the Endangerment Finding is that once the light-duty rule is finalized (that is, as of March 2010), any new (or major modification to an existing) large stationary source must include GHGs in the best available control technology (BACT) demonstration for permitting.
Most experts agree it will be harder for Congress to act to preempt USEPA with regard to regulating GHG from stationary sources once USEPA actually starts to regulate GHGs from stationary sources, so one could view the March 2010 date stated by Mr. McIntosh as a deadline given by USEPA to Congress and industry, that is, if you want cap and trade, pass it by March 2010 – otherwise you’ll get BACT and command and control permitting. To ease industry’s fears with regard to BACT permitting, USEPA is preparing guidance. Such guidance will focus on “available” technology, and Mr. McIntosh specifically said, for example, that the Agency would not consider carbon capture and storage as “available”. In fact, the guidance will likely rely on merely requiring state of the art efficiency for existing stationary sources rather than require (at least immediately) any new control equipment for GHGs. Mr. McIntosh also stated that USEPA will be coming out with carbon capture and storage regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but such regulations will not address any CERCLA and RCRA concerns that may arise under carbon capture and storage.
Instead of Marvin Gaye, the Secretary of Interior Sings from the US Pavilion
Today at the US pavilion, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar (accompanied by Deputy Secretary of Interior, David Hays) addressed a SRO crowd, stating the US understands the danger that climate change presents and that the United States is committed to confronting that danger “together with our partners in the international community”. As for its part to combat climate change, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) has three roles: (1) promote renewable energy (particularly mentioned at least in the near term was solar and wind, although nothing was ruled out), (2) identify the right places on public lands for carbon capture and storage, and (3) promote certain adaption measures (address shifting water supplies, wildlife corridors, and raising sea levels). Specifically, Secretary Salazar stated that by the end of 2010, DOI expects to have more than 5300 MW worth of new solar and wind projects ready for construction - enough to meet the needs of 1.6 million houses and create 56,000 new jobs. He elaborated on DOI’s recent announcement to open up a new office for renewable energy permitting in the Atlantic states, to promote, among other things permitting for wind energy on the outer continental shelf in Delaware and New Jersey. In conclusion, Secretary Salazar stated his belief that those who believe climate change is not real are “wrong”, and that as a nation we will pass comprehensive energy and climate change legislation, we will build a clean energy future, and we will establish a comprehensive international framework to address GHGs.
So with that, it’s time to head for the best tasting “kaffe” I can find.
