California's Cap-and-Trade Program is Alive and Well

This is the eighth installment in a series of posts on California's climate leadership. These posts address a wide range of related topics including economic benefits and renewable energy.

With unprecedented bipartisan support, California lawmakers have voted to extend the state's cap-and-trade program. This carbon pricing program is key to meeting California's ambitious carbon reduction targets. The plan puts a statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions and allows companies to buy and sell pollution credits.

The Golden State has been a cap-and-trade leader for years and it has a current market value of $8 billion. Negotiations are ongoing to include Mexico in the joint market. Two Canadian provinces are part of California's carbon pricing scheme. Quebec is already part of the deal and Ontario is linking with the market this year.  B.C. already has a successful carbon pricing plan and even the oil producing province of Alberta has signed on to a carbon pricing initiative.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, (RGGI) is composed of nine north east states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). The agreement caps and reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power plants that generate 25MW of power or more.

Using markets to combat pollution has proven effective. The argument for pricing carbon is compelling indeed some have argued that it may be the best way to reduce emissions. The president of the World Bank advocates putting a price on carbon and such pricing schemes are already widespread in countries around the world including Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and Canada

California has passed a raft of increasingly stringent emissions reduction legislation. Although detractors have tried to suggest the state's cap-and-trade program is in serious trouble, the evidence shows that California's carbon trading scheme is a success story. As reported by Greenbiz, the most recent data (July 2017) indicates that California is only 3 percent away from its 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as required by AB 32.  The article also makes the point that these reductions have been, "easier and cheaper than expected."

What is even more striking is that these emissions reductions have occurred alongside laudable economic growth.  This is further evidence of the decoupling emissions and growth.

At the 13 previous California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) auctions, allowances have sold out at or above the floor price. However, at the last two auctions, demand was not strong enough for CARB to sell allowances at the price floor ($12.73 per ton).

This is because companies are not buying permits. Companies are not buying permits because they do not have to. As explained in the Greenbiz article, "they already held enough to account for their current emissions, or they expect to be able to make emission reduction for less than the cost of an additional permit."

Contrary to the assertion of detractors this does not prove that the scheme is failing, it may however suggest that California's climate and energy policies (ie performance standards) are working. 

Despite some legal risks associated with court challenges the future of carbon trading looks bright in California. Gov. Brown has vowed to extend the program beyond 2020 and CARB has released a proposal extending the program to 2050. CARB’s new proposed regulation offers a stronger mechanism to correct for situations where supply exceeds demand. It does this by diverting unsold allowances to a reserve which provides downward pressure on allowances prices should cost pressures begin to emerge.

As reviewed in the Greenbiz article, "CARB’s cap-and-trade design has been fundamentally sound from the start, and only continues improving." For more information on California's cap-and-trade plan click here.

Related
US States Show Carbon Pricing Works
Low Oil Prices and Climate Action (carbon pricing and subsidies)
Why a Carbon Tax May be the Best Way to Reduce CO2 (Video)
Put a Price on Carbon
RGGI States' Third Consecutive Year of GHG Declines
Carbon Pricing and Emissions Trading a Global Review
US Cap-and-Trade: What and Why
US Cap-and-Trade: Positioning Your Business

Read More»

Obama Administration's Oil and Gas Initiatives

In their final year, the Obama administration has moved forward with some important actions to curtail extraction and reduce pollution from the oil and gas industry. Fossil fuels are responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gases and deadly air pollution.

To help address these concerns President Obama has previously a raft of fossil fuel related actions. This includes, the Clean Power Plan, stopping the KXL, cuting Shell's Arctic drilling in half and halting the building of the Dakota Access pipeline.  In 2016 President Obama went even further and banned offshore Arctic oil drilling, changed the methane rules for the fossil fuel industry and canceled gas leases on Native lands.

Obama's initiatives are designed to protect the health of Americans, combat climate change, and decrease risks to ecosystems. In the context of a hostile and obstructionist Republican controlled Congress Obama has done what he could to advance climate action. Unsurprisingly, these actions have been vociferously opposed by the fossil fuel industry and their GOP minions in the House and the Senate.

The fossil fuel industry has used its considerable clout to challenge Obama's efforts. A recent Senate report, explained, "state officials, trade associations, front groups, and industry-funded scientists participating in the challenge actually represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry."

Moratorium on Arctic drilling

In 2015 Obama pledged leadership in Alaska and Just ahead of leaving office Obama found a creative way to deliver. Obama's actions ensure that there will be no oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic until at least 2022. The move kills any hope of extracting fossil fuels from the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The move also stymies new drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (New England to the Chesapeake Bay). This means that the Gulf of Mexico is the only place in the US where new offshore extraction will be permitted for the foreseeable future. Obama's action was part of a joint announcement that included Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to prevent new drilling operations in the Canadian Arctic.

In a statement published by the Washington Post, President Obama said: "These actions, and Canada’s parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on earth. They reflect the scientific assessment that, even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region’s harsh conditions is limited...By contrast, it would take decades to fully develop the production infrastructure necessary for any large-scale oil and gas leasing production in the region – at a time when we need to continue to move decisively away from fossil fuels."

While the amount of water being protected is unprecedented, it should not be surprising as it makes both environmental and economic sense. The decision bodes well for animals that make up the Arctic's fragile ecosystem, this includes the bowhead whale, fin whale, Pacific walrus and polar bear. It will also protect what the White House has called biodiversity "hotspots" critical to fisheries.

Obama used Section 12-A of a 1953 law called "Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act" to prevent the sale of new offshore drilling and mining rights. The real genius of invoking this law is that it will take years for the next president to reverse the decision.

These moves bode well for the future of tourism, fishing and other less harmful forms of economic development in the Arctic. According to the White House, the president has protected 125 million acres in the region in the last two years.

Conservation groups hailed the decision. League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski called it "an incredible holiday gift," saying that "an oil spill in these pristine waters would be devastating to the wildlife and people who live in the region."

Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, called it "a historic victory in our fight to save our Arctic and Atlantic waters, marine life, coastal communities and all they support." Carter Roberts, president and chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund, applauded what he called "a bold decision” that “signals some places are just too important not to protect."

New methane rules

Also in November the Obama administration released the final version of a new oil and gas rule for public and Native lands. Federal lands generate 11 percent of US natural gas production and 5 percent of domestic oil production. The new regulations are intended to capture flared natural gas and so-called "fugitive" emissions of methane from drilling operations. Large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas are emitted during drilling and fracking operations.

The Interior Department and its Bureau of Land Management, which will implement the rule, says the move will reduce methane emissions by 175,000 to 180,000 tons annually. This translates to enough gas to serve the needs of 6.2 million American homes each year.

"We are proving that we can cut harmful methane emissions that contribute to climate change while putting in place standards that make good economic sense for the nation," said Interior department secretary Sally Jewell in a statement. "Not only will we save more natural gas to power our nation, but we will modernize decades-old standards to keep pace with industry and to ensure a fair return to the American taxpayers for use of a valuable resource that belongs to all of us."

The new rules are part of the president’s goal of reducing US methane emissions from the oil and gas sector 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025.

"Natural gas is a valuable American resource, but when wasted into the air it causes dangerous pollution," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "Reducing the amount of gas that oil and gas operators release will conserve an important domestic resource, improve air quality, lower asthma attacks, and slow climate change."

Leases canceled on Native lands

In November, Obama administration cancels oil and gas leases on Blackfeet tribe’s sacred grounds

"This is the right action to take on behalf of current and future generations,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on the department’s Web site. She said it would protect the region’s “rich cultural and natural resources and recognizes the irreparable impacts that oil and gas development would have on them."

Another Washington Post article quotes Harry Barnes, chairman of the Blackfeet Nation Tribal Business Council as follows:

"A lot of our creation stories emanate from this area. It’s a significant area, it always has been for thousands of years...While we’re not opposed to oil and gas exploration, we are opposed to oil and gas exploration in that area." Barnes called the settlement, a "victory for not only the Blackfeet people, but for all of America. It’s such a beautiful area. It’s Mother Earth, and it needs to be enjoyed by everybody."

Related
EPA's Carbon Limits for Power Plants
The US Environmental Protection Agency and Fracking
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Taking Stock of President Obama's Environmental Efforts in His First Term
President Obama Climate Action Plan (Full Document)
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the GOP

Read More»

Carbon Capture and Storage is Essential Post Paris

Interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) has intensified in the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement. CCS refers to a suite of technologies that pull CO2 from a smokestack before it escapes into the air. It is then sequestered in some fashion, most commonly by burying it deep underground. CCS is a much needed technology, if for no other reason than the fact that fossil fuels are likely to be with us for years to come.

There have been a number of notable achievements in the area of CCS in recent years. According to Victor Der, executive advisor and acting general manager – the Americas, Global CCS Institute:

"Up to 28 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions will be captured by existing operational carbon capture and storage projects this year."

There are now 22 CCS projects that are either operating or under construction in 2016 representing a 100 percent increase in the last ten years and 14 more projects are in the advanced planning stages.

Ion Engineering completed a pilot project using its proprietary technology in 2015. According to the company, Ion's CCS process was able to capture more than 99 percent of the CO2 from a coal fired facility.

Another older carbon capture project in Port Arthur, Texas succeeded in capturing more than one million tons of CO2. This process was able to capture more than 90 percent of the CO2 from two commercial-scale stream methane reformers.

One of the early CCS projects was one by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC). In 2011 they started a three year trial to pump more than one million tonnes of CO2 underground.

The Department of Energy has invested and continue to invest significant sums of money into CCS. According to Environmental Leader, so far, DOE projects have stored almost seven and a half metric tons of CO2.

Shell’s Quest carbon capture and storage project is already operating at commercial scale in Alberta, Canada. The Quest project is designed to capture one third of the emissions generated by the refinement of oil sands amounting to one million tons per year.

Recently, the world’s first steel plant with large-scale CCS launched in Abu Dhabi. The project is a joint venture between Masdar and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), and it will sequester 800,000 metric tons of CO2 annually.

In 2016 Aker Solutions announced a carbon capture project at a waste-to-energy plant in Norway which the company expects will capture 90 percent of the CO2 emitted.

CCS is an integral part of mitigation planning. Countries like the United States, Europe and Canada are counting on CCS to enable them to meet their INDC pledges. The European Commission's 2030 climate and energy policy framework depends on CCS and Canadian reports indicated that CCS is essential. .Although the US Environmental Protection Agency has also offered some guidance on the subject,  it has yet to be demonstrated cost effectively.

A CO2 Solutions project at Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Québec came in a cost of $28/metric ton, the lowest demonstrated cost in the industry. However, the real-world reality at present puts the cost of CCS on a coal plant at around $100/ton.

While no one denies that carbon capture is technologically possible, the major obstacle has always been cost. This view is eloquently rendered in a 2016 article by Mike Barnard titled, "Carbon Capture Is Expensive Because of Physics"

"Carbon capture and sequestration is expensive because it has three components, each with its own expensive challenges: capture, distribution, and sequestration."

In March 2015 the Global CCS Institute said:

"The next 18-24 months will see CCS deployed across a range of industries and storage types. A further two large-scale CCS power projects are in construction in the US - the Kemper County Energy Facility in Mississippi and the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project in Texas. Both projects are expected to be operational in 2016. Also in the US, the Illinois Industrial CCS project slated for launch later this year will capture CO2 from the Archer Daniels Midland corn-to-ethanol plant in Decatur, Illinois for storage in an onshore deep saline formation."

As explained in a December, 2015 report titled Closing the Gap on Climate: Why CCS is a Vital Part of the Solution, governments need to enact supportive policies.

This report indicates that CSS is essential to keep us within the 2 degrees Celsius upper threshold limit. Governments need to pass laws, support regulations and provide incentives to help advance CCS. Governments will likely provide incentives for sequestration in the form of tax credits on a per-ton basis.

We currently have 22 CCS facilities but we will need thousands around the world to make a difference.

Related
Ambient Air Carbon Capture (Video)
Innovations that Sequester Carbon and Combat the Climate Crisis (Videos)
The Failure of Clean Coal
The Farce of Canada's Carbon Capture
Canada is Banking on Carbon Capture to Offset Tar Sands

Read More»

Carbon Air Capture and Storage (Videos)

We need technologies that draw carbon dioxide from the air and either re-use or store it. While we must curtail our carbon emissions we must also find ways to reduce existing levels of atmospheric carbon. Climate change is caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon. Prior to the dawn of the industrial revolution atmospheric carbon levels were below 300 ppm, they are currently above 400 ppm and climbing.
In 2009 Columbia University Physicist Peter Eisenberger claimed to have invented a machine that could clean carbon from the air. As explained in MIT Technology Review, his company called Global Thermostat uses chemicals called amines rather than sodium hydroxide.

"Negative emissions are definitely needed to restore the atmosphere given that we’re going to far exceed any safe limit for CO2, if there is one," says Daniel Schrag, director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.

Reducing the emissions that we produce is essential but we need to think about a post-sustainability world. Our current INDC pledges are inadequate as they will not reduce emissions enough to keep up from breaching the 2 Celsius upper threshold limit. We must begin thinking about technologies that will enable us to actively remove carbon from the air.

Carbon Engineering is working on the industrial-scale capture of CO2 from ambient air. This video explains the technology and the rationale behind direct capture of CO2 from the atmosphere and what Carbon Engineering is doing to commercialize air capture.


Below you will find a Carbon Talk, by Dr. Richard Adamson, President of Carbon Management Canada Research Institutes. This video explores the need and the state of  industrial-scale air capture technology development.

Dr. Naoko Ellis, Professor of Chemical Engineering at UBC, introduced the audience to some of the innovative technologies currently under development, including different methods for carbon capture from the air such as amine scrubbers, sorbents, and metal-organic frameworks. She also discussed engineering new forms of hydrocarbon combustion that do not release CO2 and the need to commodify CO2. Following the presentation, discussion during the dialogue touched on the role of technology in creating climate solutions and how carbon pricing can drive economic innovation.

Panelists: -- Richard Adamson, President, CMC Research Institutes -- Naoko Ellis, Professor, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of British Columbia


Related
Innovations that Sequester Carbon and Combat the Climate Crisis (Videos)
The Failure of Clean Coal
The Farce of Canada's Carbon Capture
Canada is Banking on Carbon Capture to Offset Tar Sands

Read More»

Planting 8 Billion Trees: An Earth Day 2016 Initiative

Forests are important for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is their capacity to combat climate change. The theme behind Earth Day celebrations in 2016 is "Trees for the Earth." The organizers at the Earth Day Network are asking for help to achieve their ambitious goal of planting 7.8 billion trees. Over the next five years each successive Earth Day will focus on a different action theme counting down to the 50th anniversary of the iconic event. The purpose is to foster interest around actions that, "have a significant and measurable impact on the Earth."

We have known for some time that trees are important to life on the planet. Tees help combat climate change by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Two acres of mature trees can absorb the same amount of CO2 as the average car produces every year.

Trees not only provide clean air to breathe, they contribute to our psychological and societal well being. Trees provide jobs and contribute to the economy.  The relationship between forests and weather is also increasingly well understood and it has been shown that deforestation in the tropics causing diminished rainfall.

While trees combat climate change they are also the victims of both a warmer world and human activities. The importance of trees came into sharper focus last year with the dramatic destruction of massive swaths of forests in Indonesia.

Forests are being decimated all around the world but there are some novel approaches to large scale tree planting that suggest our forests can be reborn.

Related
What The Business Community Can Do To Protect Forests

Read More»

Agreement on a Pan-Canadian Carbon Pricing Scheme

It looks as though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals are moving forward with a national carbon pricing scheme albeit adapted to regional circumstances. On Thursday March 3, 2016, Trudeau announced that the federal government along with all ten provinces have agreed to a "comprehensive and ambitious plan" to put a price on carbon.

Carbon pricing (which includes both cap and trade and a carbon tax) leverages the market to disincentivize emissions intensive activities by making them more expensive while incentivizing low carbon technologies. In effect carbon pricing integrates the true cost of carbon which is currently not reflected in the market. Carbon pricing is the best way to help governments reduce emissions while minimizing economic impacts.

There are some compelling arguments that have been made in support of carbon pricing. In April 2015, 65 researchers in Canada published a report that indicated putting a price on carbon is key to reducing emissions in the country. With oil prices so low this may be the best time to put a price on carbon. Although carbon pricing was rejected by the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper, it was part of the Liberal's raft of campaign promises.

Canada's new Prime Minister has said that he will respect the unique circumstances of each province and this appears to be the caveat that secured the support of detractors like Saskatchewan's Brad Wall. "There will be different approaches but pricing carbon is part of the solution that this country and all of its premiers will put forward," Trudeau told a news conference.

There are predictable detractors like David McLaughlin former President and CEO of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and a Conservative Chief of Staff. In a Globe and Mail article McLauglin indicated that carbon pricing, particularly as it is being proposed in Canada, "is the least effective way to reduce emissions."

Canadians support climate action and carbon pricing. A poll published in January 2015, when Harper's Conservatives where still in power, found that the majority of Canadians said that Canada "should do more" to combat climate change. A total of 69 percent of those surveyed said that they favored a carbon reduction incentive and 59 percent said that they supported "increasing taxes on those activities and products that generate more emissions." While 78 percent supported, "lowering taxes on those activities and products that produce lower emissions," only 44 percent supported “introducing a national carbon tax that would be phased in over time.”

As reported by the CBC an Angus Reid Institute poll at the end of 2015, a solid majority of Canadians see climate change as a serious threat and want to see emissions reductions even if it increases their annual energy costs. The poll indicates that Canadians prefer a cap-and-trade system over a carbon tax.

Although the previous Conservative government claimed that carbon pricing would kill jobs in October last year Desmog reported on a Clean Energy Canada study that indicated action on carbon pricing could create a million jobs in the province of BC alone.

To further refute the claims of the Harper Conservatives, all around the world countries are adopting carbon pricing and the economic hit promised by detractors has not materialized. Carbon pricing has the support of the president of the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, it is already being implemented in Europe, China, South Korea and Mexico

In the US California and other states are showing the carbon pricing works, this includes the RGGI and there are already working carbon pricing schemes in Canada, BC has a carbon tax, Ontario and Quebec have a cap and trade system. Most recently the new provincial government in Alberta has come onside with a carbon levy.

Although the introduction of carbon pricing in Canada may appear to be a major step forward for climate action, there are concerns that the greening of Canada will be financed through the construction of new crude oil pipelines. This would be an oxymoron.

Trudeau and the provinces will meet again in six months to deal with the specifics of the plan.

Related
A Compelling Argument for Carbon Pricing
Video - How does carbon pricing work?
Why we Should Put a Price on Carbon
Why a Carbon Tax May be the Best Way to Reduce CO2 (Video)
Video - The Cost of Carbon
US Cap-and-Trade: What and Why
Green Capitalism

Read More»

Obama Proposes Oil Tax and Clean Energy Infrastructure Investments

President Obama has recently proposed an oil tax and a clean energy infrastructure investment plan that would create a “more integrated, sophisticated and sustainable transportation sector." The proposal is part of a budget request that calls for annual spending of $32 billion and it will be paid for with a $10 a barrel oil tax. The ten year 320 billion is designed to finance a 21st century clean energy infrastructure in the US. This includes annual spending of $20 billion for national transportation initiatives, $10 billion in for cities and states and $2.4 billion for green vehicle research.


The President's proposal is in addition to his successful push to raise fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, green energy subsidies and the clean power plan that will reign in carbon pollution from power plants. He has also succeeded in pushing through a global climate deal in Paris.

This proposal would reduce emissions from the transportation sector which is responsible for almost a third of US carbon emissions. Transportation sector investments include among other things, high speed rail. There are also investments in what is known as the Transportation Income Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) stimulus program. TIGER awards grants for transportation projects with "measurable economic and environmental benefits.” Another $10 billion a year would go to local, regional and state governments to invest in green infrastructure and more livable cities. The Climate Smart Fund would reward states that make greener choices with existing federal dollars, as well as competitive grant programs to promote region-wide planning, more livable cities, and infrastructure projects with greater resilience to climate impacts.

In addition to the tax on oil and clean infrastructure investments, the Obama administration is also creating private sector incentives for low carbon technologies. Together these cleantech investments will not only enable the US to transition away from fossil fuels they will create jobs and grow the economy.

Despite the fact that Obama's plan would supply jobs, drive the economy and advance climate action, Republicans can be counted on to kill the proposal. While environmental groups lauded the fact that Obama is standing up to big oil and putting a price on carbon pollution. Conservatives,well known for their opposition to climate action, say that they are concerned that gas prices could increase by as much as 25 cents a gallon.

"President Obama's proposed $10 per barrel tax on oil is dead on arrival in the House," Majority Whip Steve Scales (R-La.) said in a statement. "The House will kill this absurd proposal."

The oil industry, which has seen declining profits is also pushing back against the plan spinning the proposal as a jobs killing tax grab that will hurt consumers.

"The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader," American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a statement.

The White House does not deny that the President's clean transportation proposal would increase fossil-fuel prices, however they said that this would create "a clear incentive for private-sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and invest in clean-energy technologies that will power our future."

There is little chance that Republicans will turn on their petrochemical puppet master. However, a future administration and legislators with more common sense will eventually get behind the initiative.

Related Posts
Low Oil Prices and Climate Action (carbon pricing and subsidies)
Market Based Approaches to Combating Climate Change
China Carbon Pricing and US Climate Cooperation
 Market Based Green Growth
 US States Show Carbon Pricing Works
 Corporate Actions Buoy US Carbon Pricing
 A Compelling Argument for Carbon Pricing
 We Can Reduce Emissions and Tackle Climate Change
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
The Prospects for Putting a Price on Carbon
RGGI States' Third Consecutive Year of GHG Declines
The Merits of Carbon Pricing in B.C.
Video - Why a Carbon Tax May be the Best Way to Reduce CO2
All I Want is a Price on Carbon
Hansen on How the GOP Could Support a Carbon Tax
World Bank President Advocates Putting a Price on Carbon
California's Cap-and-Trade Leadership
South Korea Passes Cap-and-Trade Legislation
Mexico Passes Climate Change Law
US Cap-and-Trade: What and Why
US Cap-and-Trade: Obstacles and Solutions

Read More»

Republican Senate Passes Legislation to Kill the Clean Power Plan

The Republican's anti-environment witch hunt continues with yet another piece of legislation that seeks to dismantle the centerpiece of US climate action. On Tuesday November 17th the Republican controlled Senate passed legislation designed to kill the most important climate action ever taken in the US. As he had promised, Mitch McConnell is doing everything he can to stop the EPA from regulating power plants.

As explained by the President, the Clean Power Plan will reign in emissions in a way that is both effective and flexible. In addition to reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, the plan will provide both economic and health benefits.

A comparison of the impacts of unregulated coal power versus the regulatory regime contained in the plan show the benefits far outweigh the costs. Nonetheless, Republicans have pushed forward with yet another attempt to prevent the US from acting on climate change. A similar effort was launched by Republican lawmakers in 2014.

Republican lawmakers are undeterred by the fact that they are at odds with American public opinion. Support for clean energy is at an all time high in the US. A Yale study found that almost two-thirds of Americans want strict carbon limits on existing power plants. Republican Senators are equally unmoved by the nearly 9 million comments that Americans sent into the EPA supporting pollution limits.

Republicans have once again sided with old energy. Although these lawmakers are paid by the public, it would appear that they do not take this to mean that they have to listen.

Although the legislation is expected to be vetoed by the President, it is a tragic reflection of just how disconnected Republicans are from reality.

The White House said:

“ [B]y nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J.Res. 24 seeks to block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.”

Here are the two resolutions that were approved by the Senate:

One of the two resolutions was advanced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). The resolution of disapproval says that Clean Power Plan “shall have no force or effect.” Although the resolution is sponsored almost entirely by Republicans of the 48 co-sponsors there are a couple of democrats.

The second resolution was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). This one both disapproves of the Clean Power Plan and repeals it.

These are the same Republicans that the President has to deal with as we head into climate talks at COP21. Democrats voiced their disapproval of the vote and the timing in particular.

"I think they’re trying to create confusion and uncertainty before the international climate agreement is finalized, and it’s not going to work,” said Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii of the votes. “They have had success in the past in muddying the waters, but we are in a different place now in terms of the international participation, in terms of domestic political support for clean energy, and in terms of having a real clean energy program in America.”

Republicans can be expected to continue to do everything in their power to undermine climate action as we head towards a hoped for climate agreement in Paris. As the rest of the world is pledging to reduce their emissions, Republicans are making good on their threats to fight While the world is coming together to find solutions to the climate crisis the Republicans  it.

Related
Clean Power Plan Facing Lawsuits Despite Raft of Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
GOP Denial and President Obama's Climate Legacy
Republicans Declare War on the Environment and Surrender to Climate Change
Republican Ignorance and the Latest IPCC Report
Republican Law to Curtail (Environmental) Regulations
Republicans vs Democrats on Climate Change
Republican Climate Deniers are in Control
The Arsenal Republicans will use in their War on Climate
GOP Identifies Targets for their War Against Climate Protections
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
Republican Assault on the Environment
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012

Read More»

Keystone XL is Rejected Energy East to Follow

TransCanada's tar sands pipelines are being thwarted at every turn. US President Barack Obama has officially rejected the Keystone XL and the new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to cancel the Energy East.

President Obama rejected the Keystone citing the economics associated with low oil prices. He also said that building the KXL would be inconsistent with US leadership on climate change. The $7 billion dollar, 1,179 mile long KXL would have ferried 800,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil from the tar sand pits in Alberta Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

Last week TransCanada announced a new route for the Energy East pipeline that excluded an oil export terminal in Cacouna northeast of Quebec city. The terminal was abandoned 6 months ago due to a public outcry over the impact the project would have on the habitat of beluga whales.

The $12 billion, 4,600-kilometre Energy East pipeline would transport 1.1 million barrels of crude each day. from Alberta to Canada's east coast. It is scheduled to be completed in 2020 the year that a hoped for global climate agreement would come into effect.

The change comes a matter of days after TransCanada requested a pause in the US State Department's consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline. The request was subsequently denied and then on November 6th the KXL pipeline was cancelled outright after many years of wrangling.

In response to the news, TransCanada said that the fight for the Keystone XL is not over. They are also working on ways of keeping the Energy East afloat. They have submitted new plans for the Energy East to Canada's National Energy Board. The revised route for Energy East pipeline excludes a port in Quebec and goes directly to Irving Oil's massive refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick.

While the company is trying to put a brave face on the cancellation of the Keystone XL and the rerouting of the Energy East, they are having an increasingly difficult time moving forward with their pipedreams.

The situation is destined to get worse for TransCanada as the new Liberal government has promised to prevent oil shipping along Canada's west coast and cancel the Energy East outright. TransCanada explained the rerouting indicated that their decision was made after "conducting thorough studies and consulting with many local communities," Energy East president John Soini said.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard has questioned the economic, employment and environmental benefits of the Energy East and he said that his province will not just be a passageway for the pipeline. Citing climate and other concerns, environmental groups oppose the building of the pipeline altogether.

Related
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Belugas Slow Energy East Pipeline Project
The Energy East Pipedream
Environmental Action Opposing the Energy East Pipeline
Quebecers Protest Energy East Pipeline and Terminal
Environmental Leaders Comment on the Energy East Pipeline
Cities In Ontario and Quebec Opposing Energy East
Video - Stop the Energy East Pipeline
Ahead of Obama's Rejection TransCanada Fails to Suspend the KXL
Why the Keystone XL Pipedream Must Die
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill
The Politics of the Obama Administration's Keystone Delay

Read More»

Clean Power Plan Facing Lawsuits Despite Raft of Benefits

Last week the Clean Power Plan officially became law and rather than being hailed as one of the greatest climate, environmental, innovation and economic accomplishments in US history, it has been met with a raft of lawsuits from state governors.

The final version of the Clean Power Plan was released on August 3, 2015 and it sets even stricter emissions regulations than the proposal announced last year. The regulation, which aims to cut carbon pollution from power plants, cuts emissions 32 percent by 2030 from levels recorded in 2005. That is 2 percent more than the original draft rule that proposed a 30 percent reduction.

Although larger cuts are mandated by the final plan, this latest version give states even more flexibility to meet its requirements. States must now comply by 2022 instead of 2020 and reductions are to be phased in gradually over 8 years.

Many leading companies are behind the plan including 365 companies and investors that sent a letter of support in August. Those who signed the Ceres letter include General Mills, Mars, Nestle, Staples, Unilever and VF Corporation. 

However, there are dissenters including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and predictably, Republicans. 

Lawsuits

The EPA published its Clean Power Plan in the federal register on October 25, 2015 and this opened the door to legal challenges. Even though Americans, including Republicans support the plan, almost half of US states are challenging the new law. Of the 24 states that are using the courts to try to stop the law, the vast majority (19 of 24) have Republican governors.

It should come as no surprise that coal rich West Virginia is leading the charge. The states and governors involved in lawsuits to kill the Clean Power Plan are:

West Virginia, Earl Ray Tomblin, Democrat
Texas, Gregory Wayne Abbott, Republican
Alabama, Robert Julian Bentley, Republican
Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, Republican
Colorado, John Wright Hickenlooper, Democrat
Florida, Richard Lynn Scott, Republican
Georgia, John Nathan Deal, Republican
Indiana, Michael Richard "Mike" Pence, Republican
Kansas, Samuel Dale "Sam" Brownback, Republican
Kentucky, Steven Lynn "Steve" Beshear, Democrat
Louisiana, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, Republican
Michigan, Richard Dale "Rick" Snyder, Republican
Missouri, Jeremiah Wilson "Jay" Nixon, Democrat
Montana, Stephen Clark "Steve" Bullock, Democrat
Nebraska, John Peter "Pete" Ricketts, Republican
New Jersey, Christopher James "Chris" Christie, Republican
Ohio, John Richard Kasich, Republican
South Carolina, Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley, Republican
South Dakota, Dennis Martin Daugaard, Republican
Utah, Gary Richard Herbert, Republican
Wisconsin, Scott K Walker, Republican
Wyoming, Matthew Hansen "Matt" Mead, Republican
Arizona, Douglas Anthony "Doug" Ducey, Republican
North Carolina, Patrick Lloyd "Pat" McCrory, Republican

Economy

The irony is that the clean power plan is not only good for the planet and the health of Americans it is also good for the economy. According to many, and contrary to the spin emanating from its detractors, the plan will lower electric bills. The new law could result in $155 billion in electricity savings between 2020 and 2030. This will help American families save on average $85 a year on power bill.

As reported by EDF, the plan will drive more "investment, incentives and mechanisms that decarbonize our economy and usher in a new generation of industries." Investments in wind and solar are soaring and as these industries grow they are becoming increasingly price competitive with conventional fuel sources.

According to Morgan Stanley, the financing of utility-scale renewables will ramp up considerably once the Clean Power Plan is implemented. Investments in clean energy are also good investments with solid rates of return.

Jobs

The new law will also create jobs. One dollar invested today creates three times as many jobs as a dollar invested in fossil fuels.

The best evidence for this assertion comes from California where the passage of carbon pollution law AB 32 in 2012 has seen a flood of investment and caused clean tech jobs to grow ten time faster than any other sector in the last ten years.

Innovation

The law will also increase innovation. Historically markets respond well to engineering challenges from government. This is a point not lost on President Obama who accused the plan's detractors of historical ignorance.

“Whenever America has set clear rules and smarter standards for our air, our water, our children’s health, we get the same scary stories about killing jobs and businesses and freedom,” Obama said. “The kinds of criticisms that you're going to hear are simply excuses for inaction. They’re not even good business sense. They underestimate American business and American ingenuity.”

As sited in onEarth here are three areas where we have seen innovation arise from government engineering challenges: Catalytic converter, scrubbers and fuel efficient cars.

US power plants are now legally responsible to limit carbon pollution for the first time.As explained by the EPA, "The final Clean Power Plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy." Despite the lawsuits and criticisms, history will record this as a momentous occasion.

Related
President Obama Introduces and Explains the Clean Power Plan (Video)
The Health Benefits of Combating Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Family Health and the Clean Power Plan (Videos) 
The Clean Power Plan for the Health of Latinos: Congresswomen Sánchez Testimonmy to the EPA
Republicans at Odds with Americans on Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Clean Power Plan: Business Opportunities and Economic Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
Historic Clean Power Plan Includes Three New Additions
The EPA's Efforts to Reign in Climate Pollution from New Power Plants and the Supreme Court
Coal vs EPA: The Benefits of the Clean Power Plan Far Outweigh Costs
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
Video - The EPA's Clean Power Plan
Infographic - Obama's Clean Power Plan Explained
US GHGs and the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Infographic)
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez in Support of the Clean Power Plan
Support of the EPA's Clean Power Plan

Read More»

Family Health and the Clean Power Plan (Videos)

Not only will the Clean Power Plan help to protect future generations from climate change it will protect the health of families.

Air pollution increases respiratory illness in vulnerable populations. It is projected that the EPA's green power plan could prevent 3,500 deaths, 1,000 hospital admissions from heart and lung disease, 220 heart attacks.



In the video below two families talk about the ways that their health and their lives have been impacted by poor air quality. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy joins the families to discuss how climate change is predicted to negatively impact air quality, which in turn impacts people's health. She explains how the EPA's Clean Power Plan will help to reduce harmful carbon pollution, and why our country must act now on climate change.


The Obama administration and the EPA are combating the sources of pollution that are contributing to climate change and posing serious health risks to the general population. Thanks to the Clean Power Plan millions of kids will have fewer asthma attacks in the future.

Related
The Health Benefits of Combating Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
The Clean Power Plan for the Health of Latinos: Congresswomen Sánchez Testimonmy to the EPA

President Obama Introduces and Explains the Clean Power Plan
Republicans at Odds with Americans on Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Clean Power Plan: Business Opportunities and Economic Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
Historic Clean Power Plan Includes Three New Additions
The EPA's Efforts to Reign in Climate Pollution from New Power Plants and the Supreme Court
Coal vs EPA: The Benefits of the Clean Power Plan Far Outweigh Costs
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
Video - The EPA's Clean Power Plan
Infographic - Obama's Clean Power Plan Explained
US GHGs and the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Infographic)
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez in Support of the Clean Power Plan
Support of the EPA's Clean Power Plan

Read More»

President Obama Introduces and Explains the Clean Power Plan (Video)

Early in August US President Barack Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency made history in the fight against climate change. In recent years the US has made more progress decreasing its GHG emissions than any other nation on earth. The Clean Power Plan is the biggest step yet in the effort to curb climate change. It will significantly add to the President's legacy by reigning-in climate change causing carbon pollution from energy plants and coal powered plants in particular. Coal powered plants are among the worst culprits. Together power plants are responsible for almost one third (30%) of America's GHG emissions.

Reducing emissions from power plants will decrease air pollution and diminish the level of GHGs that are causing the seas to rise and increasing the likelihood of extreme weather like the drought we are seeing in California. Big Coal will not go down without a fight they can be expect to spend millions on lobbyists and lawyers in last-ditch desperation to delay or derail the Clean Power Plan.

In this video the President explains why the plan is necessary and what it will do:


Related
The Health Benefits of Combating Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan

The Clean Power Plan for the Health of Latinos: Congresswomen Sánchez Testimonmy to the EPA
Republicans at Odds with Americans on Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Clean Power Plan: Business Opportunities and Economic Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
Historic Clean Power Plan Includes Three New Additions
The EPA's Efforts to Reign in Climate Pollution from New Power Plants and the Supreme Court
Coal vs EPA: The Benefits of the Clean Power Plan Far Outweigh Costs
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
Video - The EPA's Clean Power Plan
Infographic - Obama's Clean Power Plan Explained
US GHGs and the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Infographic)
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez in Support of the Clean Power Plan
Support of the EPA's Clean Power Plan

Read More»

The Health Benefits of Combating Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan

The Clean Power Plan and other government mitigation efforts are not only about reducing the impacts of one of the worst threats ever faced by humanity, they are also about addressing one of the foremost health issues of our times.  The health impacts from climate change and air pollution have been widely documented. In response to these threats the Clean Power Plan is a government prescription that is in the national interest. It will protect human health by significantly reducing climate change causing greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Climate change and human health

There is a large and growing pool of research showing how climate change makes us both physically and emotionally unwell. Some recent research described those health impacts as "catastrophic." Climate change is already deadly and it will get far worse in the future. Although estimates vary, the 2012 Climate Variability Monitor report estimated that globally, climate change is already killing 400,000 people each year including 1000 children each day. This number could rise to 700,000 by 2030.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the connection between climate change and human health six years ago. They pointed to a wide range of health impacts attributable to a warmer world. This relationship is being borne out by the clinical experience of doctors. A study by the American Thoracic Society found that seven out of 10 doctors reported climate change is contributing to more health problems among their patients.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy described climate change as “one of the most significant public health challenges of our time. By taking commonsense action to limit carbon pollution from new power plants, we can slow the effects of climate change and fulfill our obligation to ensure a safe and healthy environment for our children.”

Air pollution

Climate change is a killer and the death toll gets far worse when air pollution is added to the equation. As reported by Reuters, the combination of climate change and air pollution will kill up to 100 million globally by 2030.

A 2014 World Health Organization (WHO) report concluded that air pollution causes both climate change and disease. Air pollution is a very real threat causing millions of people to get sick and die. The WHO estimated that in 2012 alone, indoor and outdoor pollutants killed more than 7 million people. This is more than one in eight deaths worldwide. This is a staggering number when you consider that under-nutrition is responsible for 3 million deaths each year.

Fine particulate matter that is spewed into the air by power plants stay in our lungs and bloodstreams and cause us harm. The Clean Power Plan directly addresses pollution by reducing particulate matter in the air. It also helps allergy and asthma sufferers by reducing carbon dioxide levels that boost pollen counts. Rising rates of CO2 have led some allergists to predict higher rates of allergies. One even suggested that allergy rates will double by 2040.

The Clean Power Plan will reduce the health impacts associated with airborne pollutants from the moment it is implemented. The EPA's plan will save between $55-93 billion in health and climate benefits. It will keep people from getting sick and save lives. Each year in the U.S., it is expected to prevent at least 3,500 deaths, 1,000 hospital admissions and 220 heart attacks.

“[T]he EPA and President Obama have taken the first major step towards fulfilling the president’s Climate Action Plan and protecting our children’s future,” said Micheal Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards will protect Americans from dangerous air pollution, protect our communities from harmful carbon pollution and strengthen our economy with clean energy jobs.”

Reaching deniers

It is startling to realize that almost half of Americans do not believe that global warming is real and attributable to human activities. That number has not changed much for the last couple of years despite a plethora of scientific research as of 2012 and several major research projects last year alone. Given the perniciousness of climate denial, we may need to consider another approach to get through.

While people may be able to distance themselves from the science of climate change, they are far more likely to consider health issues that touch them directly. The health impacts of power plant emissions resonates with those who somehow manage to resist the science connecting greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Consequently, focusing on the health impacts of power plant emissions may be the best way to reach those who appear impervious to the science of climate change.

Focusing on health

There is reason to believe that framing climate change as a health issue may be a fruitful approach. This new approach was part of a round-table discussion held recently at Howard University College of Medicine on the occasion of National Public Health Week. This discussion was joined by President Barack Obama, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy and EPA chief Gina McCarthy.

"There are a whole host of public health impacts that are going to hit home, so we've got to do better in protecting vulnerable Americans," Obama explained to CNN's Sanjay Gupta earlier this year. "Ultimately, though, all of our families are going to be vulnerable. You can't cordon yourself off from air or climate."

There are a number of health organizations that are champions of climate action. Medical organizations, nurses, doctors, public health officials and schools of medicine that clearly identify climate change and air pollution as health issues. They are demanding that politicians act to improve air quality. A 2013 Time magazine article even suggested that medical professionals may be the best people to deliver the message to the American public.

"It’s imperative: Millions stand to benefit for the millions of kids who will have fewer asthma attacks in the future." EDF President Fred Krupp said. "For all of those who will be protected from the most damaging impacts of climate change. And for our children and grandchildren, who will know that our generation cared enough to leave them a safer, healthier world.”

Climate change is an economic concern, it is also a national security issue, but framing the problem in terms of human health may generate the most traction with American voters. Despite what Republicans and the dirty energy industry are saying, the Clean Power Plan is not only economically sound, it will protect people's health and keep people alive. The health benefits associated with the Clean Power Plan is something that most Americans can get behind.

Related
President Obama Introduces and Explains the Clean Power Plan (Video)
The Clean Power Plan for the Health of Latinos: Congresswomen Sánchez Testimonmy to the EPA
Republicans at Odds with Americans on Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Clean Power Plan: Business Opportunities and Economic Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
Historic Clean Power Plan Includes Three New Additions
The EPA's Efforts to Reign in Climate Pollution from New Power Plants and the Supreme Court
Coal vs EPA: The Benefits of the Clean Power Plan Far Outweigh Costs
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
Video - The EPA's Clean Power Plan
Infographic - Obama's Clean Power Plan Explained
US GHGs and the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Infographic)
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez in Support of the Clean Power Plan
Support of the EPA's Clean Power Plan

Read More»

Republicans at Odds with Americans on Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan

Republicans including the candidates who are vying for the GOP's presidential nomination have failed to appreciate that voters are concerned about the health impacts of climate change and air pollution and they want governments to do something about it.  This concern extends to support for the Clean Power Plan. While Republicans and dirty energy disregard the evidence on climate change and oppose the Clean Power Plan a number of polls suggest that the GOP's resistance to the Clean Power Plan is at odds with the will of the American people.

A recent survey by Public Policy Polling suggests that this position is at at odds with the views of the American people. According to a public opinion poll in eight battleground states people are concerned about climate change and they support the Clean Power Plan. This same poll showed that Americans do not support Mitch McConnell's suggestion that Republican governors should drag their feet on the implementation of the plan.

The disconnect between the Republican party and the American people was evident in another recent poll conducted by the GOP polling firm American Viewpoint. This survey asked Republican primary voters in the critical early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina about their views on energy and the Clean Power Plan in particular. This poll found that there may be a disconnect between many presidential candidates and likely primary voters. Primary voters in both states want their candidates to have a clean energy plan, and favor more investment in wind and solar power than in coal or oil. Though the vast majority of these respondents were conservative, a majority do not want to weaken environmental safeguards. A solid majority of these Republican primary voters believe climate change is underway and want to limit carbon pollution. A majority of them favor the Clean Power Plan.

A poll earlier this year conducted by the New York Times, Standford University and Resources for the Future, showed that the overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action on climate change. The poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. The survey shows that Americans know that failure to address climate change is not an option, 83 percent, including 61 percent of Republicans said that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future. The survey said that 74 percent of Americans want the federal government to do "a substantial amount to combat climate change." Given their position on climate change the GOP should be concerned about the fact that 71 percent of Republicans said that climate change was caused at least in part by human activities and almost half (48%) of Republicans said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change.

A more recent Quinnipiac University poll indicates that 58 percent of Americans think that government should limit the release of greenhouse gases from power plants.

The support for climate action and the Clean Power Plan in particular can be attributed to health concerns, as well as the business benefits and economic advantages.

Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. The American public wants action on climate change, and supports the Clean Power Plan, however the GOP's ties to dirty energy and policy partisanship put them in an impossible situation of their own making.

Related
Clean Power Plan: Business Opportunities and Economic Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
President Obama Introduces and Explains the Clean Power Plan (Video)
The Health Benefits of Combating Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
The Clean Power Plan for the Health of Latinos: Congresswomen Sánchez Testimonmy to the EPA
Historic Clean Power Plan Includes Three New Additions
The EPA's Efforts to Reign in Climate Pollution from New Power Plants and the Supreme Court
Coal vs EPA: The Benefits of the Clean Power Plan Far Outweigh Costs
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
Video - The EPA's Clean Power Plan
Infographic - Obama's Clean Power Plan Explained
US GHGs and the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Infographic)
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez in Support of the Clean Power Plan
Support of the EPA's Clean Power Plan

Read More»