Technology Review
By Prachi Patel-Predd
A large share of the geothermal resources suitable for power generation--those with temperatures higher than 300°F--are deep underground, beyond the reach of current technology. Lower-temperature resources, which are common across the United States, are generally used for heating, but could be a bountiful source of power as well, if researchers were able to find an economical way to convert them into electricity.
Engineers at the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), a unit of United Technologies based in East Hartford, CT, say they have developed a low-cost system that can utilize low-temperature geothermal resources. The technology could be particularly useful in generating electricity from waste hot water generated at oil and gas wells.
The modular, 200-kilowatt power plant from UTRC can convert temperatures as low as 165°F into electricity. The technology is similar to steam engines, except that steam or hot water vaporizes a hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant that drives the turbine. And the refrigerant has a lower boiling point than water. "It's hard to run a steam engine at 165 degrees [Fahrenheit]," says Bruce Biederman, who leads the project at UTRC. "The size of the equipment would be enormous and your turbine would be very poor in efficiency."
The UTRC power plant can be thought of as a reverse cooling system, and the new turbine is essentially a refrigerator compressor running backwards, Biederman says. Instead of using power to create a temperature difference, like a refrigerator does, it converts a temperature difference into electricity.
The company is now testing a unit at a remote hot springs resort 60 miles northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. Biederman expects a commercial power plant to be ready by early next year, after they've tested the reliability of the demonstration system.
According to him, the system could utilize the large amount of hot water pumped out of the ground at oil and gas wells. In Texas alone, more than 12 billon barrels of water are produced from wells. Oil companies usually discard the waste water by re-injecting it into the earth; but they could use it to generate electricity. Biederman is planning to set up demonstration projects at oil and gas wells in Texas and Nevada next year.
This reverse cooling concept isn't new; but until now no one has made an efficient turbine at a reasonable cost, he says. UTRC has kept down costs by modifying refrigeration units that its sister company, Carrier Corp., makes, and using its production line in Charlotte, NC.
The system's small size also keeps costs down, and makes it more usable, says Maria Richards, who coordinates the geothermal laboratory at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "The fact that it can fit on the back of a flatbed truck and be driven to a well site makes it much more convenient and less expensive," she says. "It's [like comparing] a mainframe computer and a laptop." And, as with other renewables, increasing fuel costs are spurring interest in geothermal power units, she adds.
Gwen Holdmann, vice president of new development at the Alaskan hot springs resort where the technology is being tested, says they spent $2.2 million on the UTRC geothermal power plant, and that it should pay for itself in five years. "It could even be a quicker payback if the cost of fuel keeps rising," she suggests. Before the power plant was installed, the resort was burning $1,000 worth of diesel fuel per day to generate electricity, she says. The plant eliminates those costs and the harmful emissions from diesel generators.
Right now, geothermal power plants are located mainly in the western United States, where high-temperature steam or hot water appears naturally at the surface. Drilling wells to reach high-temperature resources deep underground can cost millions of dollars, yet still be cost-effective because they're efficient for power generation, Richards says. So far, however, it hasn't been economical to use lower-temperature geothermal resources for power.
But existing oil and gas wells, where electricity generated from waste hot water could run the oil pumps, would be the ideal location for the UTRC power modules, Richards says. "They're already drilling wells, the wells are already being used, and they're producing something that is a secondary source of energy."
Monday, September 25, 2006
An Entrepreneur Sees Green
NY Times
By HEATHER TIMMONS
With his usual promotional flair and with former President Bill Clinton at his side, Sir Richard Branson announced last week that over the next decade he would put $3 billion in personal profits toward development of energy sources that do not contribute to global warming.
The pledge by Sir Richard, the serial entrepreneur and adventurer, came during the Clinton Global Initiative, a three-day meeting in New York where the world’s wealthy seemed to try to out-do each other in their philanthropic commitments.
But is Sir Richard giving his money away, or investing it?
He will be looking for a return on his money. His earnings from his Virgin Group’s airline and railroad companies will be used to invest in new and existing companies that make energy that could replace fossil fuels. It’s an open question whether any of these projects will succeed; the history of alternative energy development is littered with failures or, at best, niche successes. “Some will be profitable, some will not be profitable,” Sir Richard said, acknowledging the difficulty of forecasting investment success in the field.
He has already started chipping away at the $3 billion figure: Earlier this month, Mr. Branson announced the creation of Virgin Fuels, which will invest $400 million in development of nonpetroleum fuels. Some $70 million of that has already been invested in Cilion, a new company based in California that plans to build ethanol plants.
Other investors in Cilion include Yucaipa Companies, the private equity firm of the supermarket billionaire Ronald W. Burkle, and Advanced Equities Financial, a venture capital investment bank.
By HEATHER TIMMONS
With his usual promotional flair and with former President Bill Clinton at his side, Sir Richard Branson announced last week that over the next decade he would put $3 billion in personal profits toward development of energy sources that do not contribute to global warming.
The pledge by Sir Richard, the serial entrepreneur and adventurer, came during the Clinton Global Initiative, a three-day meeting in New York where the world’s wealthy seemed to try to out-do each other in their philanthropic commitments.
But is Sir Richard giving his money away, or investing it?
He will be looking for a return on his money. His earnings from his Virgin Group’s airline and railroad companies will be used to invest in new and existing companies that make energy that could replace fossil fuels. It’s an open question whether any of these projects will succeed; the history of alternative energy development is littered with failures or, at best, niche successes. “Some will be profitable, some will not be profitable,” Sir Richard said, acknowledging the difficulty of forecasting investment success in the field.
He has already started chipping away at the $3 billion figure: Earlier this month, Mr. Branson announced the creation of Virgin Fuels, which will invest $400 million in development of nonpetroleum fuels. Some $70 million of that has already been invested in Cilion, a new company based in California that plans to build ethanol plants.
Other investors in Cilion include Yucaipa Companies, the private equity firm of the supermarket billionaire Ronald W. Burkle, and Advanced Equities Financial, a venture capital investment bank.
State red tape trips up green energy efforts
- Mark Martin, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Sunday, September 24, 2006
As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares this week to sign into law the nation's most ambitious effort to address global warming, a key component of California's push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- increasing the use of renewable power to create electricity -- has faltered.
Despite overwhelming public and political support for renewable power, ratepayer contributions of $319 million, and a 2002 law mandating a dramatic increase in the use of sun and wind to create megawatts, California has boosted its use of renewable energy by less than 1 percent of the state's overall electricity use in the past four years.
In the meantime, Texas has surpassed California as the nation's leader in wind power. PG&E, which ran television commercials in the Bay Area earlier this year promoting its environmentally friendly practices, has actually reduced the amount of renewable power in its portfolio during the past two years. And the world's largest wind-power company -- which is investing $2 billion around the country on wind projects this year and next -- is not spending any of that money in California, complaining that overly complicated and time-consuming regulations are slowing development.
While the state's major utilities argue they are on the way to a renewable energy building boom, independent analysts predict California probably will not meet a regulatory deadline -- one frequently touted by Schwarzenegger -- that calls for 20 percent of the state's electricity use to be fueled by renewable power by 2010.
Missing the deadline may threaten the targets set in the new global warming law Schwarzenegger is expected to sign with much fanfare this week. Reducing carbon dioxide and other gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, as the new law mandates, probably will not happen without major changes to the way electricity is produced.
The struggle California has faced in tapping into clean electricity sources is partially rooted in the state's energy crisis, which still looms over the energy industry here and has slowed the development of all new power. But it also suggests the difficulty politicians, regulators and businesses may encounter as they make the dramatic move away from a carbon-based fuel economy.
For now, the promise of a future powered by the sun, wind and Earth remains a reality only on paper, much to the disappointment of many of the people involved in trying to green the state's electricity supply.
"After four years, the public rightfully should expect more," said John Geesman, a member of the California Energy Commission who is overseeing the commission's effort to implement parts of the 2002 law that calls for increased renewable power.
Harnessing the wind
Along the Sacramento River and near the Carquinez Strait in rural Solano County, 100 new wind turbines, standing 250 feet tall, tower over herds of sheep and rolling hills as they quietly spin wind into electricity.
Each turbine creates enough power to light more than 750 homes for less than what Californians are paying for electricity from a power plant that produces carbon dioxide and other gases scientists say cause global warming.
The new turbines are a rarity in California.
Since the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard went into effect four years ago, requiring utilities to contract for much more renewable power, only 241 megawatts of new projects have been built.
One megawatt is enough to light between 750 and 1,000 homes, and experts say the state needs as much as 8,000 new megawatts to meet the 2010 deadline.
A small charge that is assessed to every utility ratepayer in the state in their monthly electric bill to help subsidize renewable power has generated $319 million so far. None of it has been spent.
Power developers, regulators and independent observers all complain that the standard the 2002 legislation set up has required years to develop and calls for new projects to clear too many regulatory hurdles.
"We like to say this project was built in spite of the RPS, not because of it," said Jim Caldwell, director of regulatory affairs for PPM Energy, which owns the new Solano County wind project. The company bypassed the state's regulatory process and simply built the project without a guarantee that any utility would buy the power.
"If we would have gone through the process, we thought we'd never get the damn thing built," Caldwell said.
The gamble paid off: The company is selling half of the power generated in Solano County to PG&E, and the rest to other municipally owned utilities.
"It is an extraordinarily complicated process compared to any other state in the country," said Ryan Wiser, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who has studied efforts by 21 states to mandate increases in the use of renewable power. Wiser wrote a paper on California's process titled "Does it Have to be this Hard? Implementing the Nation's Most Complex Renewables Portfolio Standard."
Wiser said that here, unlike anywhere else, two state agencies -- the California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission -- have regulatory oversight of renewable projects, forcing developers and utilities to work with two distinct bureaucracies.
And each project faces multiple, and sometimes redundant, monthslong proceedings in front of regulators before getting approval, while most other states only require one.
There is a clear reason why California lawmakers set up a process with heavy-handed oversight. The law was signed a year after the state's calamitous energy crisis, and lawmakers -- many of whom had voted for power deregulation in 1998 -- wanted to ensure regulators had control over everything from how much renewable power would cost to how the state's transmission system would be affected by new projects. Both topics take months to work through during proceedings at the PUC.
Despite good intentions, the result is that renewable-power projects take several years to complete in California. Compare California's 241 new megawatts of renewable power to Texas' more than 2,200 megawatts of wind energy since it adapted renewable targets in 1999.
Texas' legislation enacting the renewable requirement was 10 paragraphs long. California's legislation was 13 pages.
The world's largest wind developer, FPL Energy in Florida, announced earlier this year that it would not propose new wind projects in California during the next two years, even as it invests $2 billion around the country. The company won a bid through the California RPS process in 2004 to add 30 megawatts of wind power to an existing project, but a company official pointed to the project's estimated completion date -- April 2008, four years later -- as an example of why investing in California is difficult.
"We are committed to California, but we look at where we can actually move forward and build projects," said Diane Fellman, director of regulatory affairs for FPL Energy.
Doubts persist
There are other factors that also have slowed California's progress and have many believing the state will not meet the 2010 deadline.
Transmission lines to renewable-rich areas need to be upgraded. Despite more than a decade of discussions on ways to hook up PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric to the windy Tehachapi region in Kern County and a key solar area, the Imperial Valley east of San Diego, the process to build new power lines is still ongoing.
And there are questions about whether some of the projects the utilities have selected to pursue are viable. Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric, for example, have signed deals for hundreds of megawatts with an Arizona company that uses a solar technology that has never produced power on a large scale.
"There are some real doubts about whether some of the projects will really happen," said Wiser.
Wiser and analysts at Cambridge Energy Research Associates have stated in recent reports that it seems unlikely California utilities will actually be generating 20 percent of their electricity by 2010. And Sean Gallagher, director of the energy division for the Public Utilities Commission, acknowledged that "it is not at all clear that we will make the deadline."
PG&E, however, insists it will meet its mark.
"We think we're on our way to hitting the target," said spokeswoman Darlene Chiu.
Recent trends don't bode well for PG&E, however. While the utility has increased its use of renewable power in the past six years, between 2003 and 2005 its use of renewables actually went down, from 12.4 percent of its portfolio in 2003 to 11.9 percent last year, according to the company.
Chiu said the utility has signed numerous contracts that will come to fruition in the next few years.
Others note that there may finally be progress in improving transmission lines this year, which is a key step in significantly increasing the use of renewable power.
Clean power is probably a key to Schwarzenegger's greenhouse-gas-reduction goals -- power plants are second only to motor vehicles in California as the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases that cause global warming. Administration officials have said this year that to cut carbon dioxide and other emissions by 25 percent by 2020, the state will need to generate one-third of its electricity from clean energy sources by then.
Most involved in the energy industry believe a significant increase in wind, solar and geothermal power is possible in California.
Renewable energy is incredibly popular -- a Public Policy Institute of California poll earlier this year showed that 83 percent of adults interviewed supported more government spending to boost renewable energy. The state has plenty of sun and wind -- experts suggest the Tehachapi region could generate enough wind power to light 3 million homes. And, with the price of natural gas having tripled in the last few years, wind power is cheaper to produce than electricity supplied by a natural-gas-fueled power plant.
"The frustrating thing is this: Of all the places in the country, California is blessed with all kinds of natural resources that we need to produce renewable energy," said Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of a trade group representing some renewable-power developers. "We're awash in riches. And there does not appear to be any significant political resistance to more renewables. But we're stumbling when it comes to turning all of this into real, steel-in-the-ground projects."
Sunday, September 24, 2006
As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares this week to sign into law the nation's most ambitious effort to address global warming, a key component of California's push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- increasing the use of renewable power to create electricity -- has faltered.
Despite overwhelming public and political support for renewable power, ratepayer contributions of $319 million, and a 2002 law mandating a dramatic increase in the use of sun and wind to create megawatts, California has boosted its use of renewable energy by less than 1 percent of the state's overall electricity use in the past four years.
In the meantime, Texas has surpassed California as the nation's leader in wind power. PG&E, which ran television commercials in the Bay Area earlier this year promoting its environmentally friendly practices, has actually reduced the amount of renewable power in its portfolio during the past two years. And the world's largest wind-power company -- which is investing $2 billion around the country on wind projects this year and next -- is not spending any of that money in California, complaining that overly complicated and time-consuming regulations are slowing development.
While the state's major utilities argue they are on the way to a renewable energy building boom, independent analysts predict California probably will not meet a regulatory deadline -- one frequently touted by Schwarzenegger -- that calls for 20 percent of the state's electricity use to be fueled by renewable power by 2010.
Missing the deadline may threaten the targets set in the new global warming law Schwarzenegger is expected to sign with much fanfare this week. Reducing carbon dioxide and other gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, as the new law mandates, probably will not happen without major changes to the way electricity is produced.
The struggle California has faced in tapping into clean electricity sources is partially rooted in the state's energy crisis, which still looms over the energy industry here and has slowed the development of all new power. But it also suggests the difficulty politicians, regulators and businesses may encounter as they make the dramatic move away from a carbon-based fuel economy.
For now, the promise of a future powered by the sun, wind and Earth remains a reality only on paper, much to the disappointment of many of the people involved in trying to green the state's electricity supply.
"After four years, the public rightfully should expect more," said John Geesman, a member of the California Energy Commission who is overseeing the commission's effort to implement parts of the 2002 law that calls for increased renewable power.
Harnessing the wind
Along the Sacramento River and near the Carquinez Strait in rural Solano County, 100 new wind turbines, standing 250 feet tall, tower over herds of sheep and rolling hills as they quietly spin wind into electricity.
Each turbine creates enough power to light more than 750 homes for less than what Californians are paying for electricity from a power plant that produces carbon dioxide and other gases scientists say cause global warming.
The new turbines are a rarity in California.
Since the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard went into effect four years ago, requiring utilities to contract for much more renewable power, only 241 megawatts of new projects have been built.
One megawatt is enough to light between 750 and 1,000 homes, and experts say the state needs as much as 8,000 new megawatts to meet the 2010 deadline.
A small charge that is assessed to every utility ratepayer in the state in their monthly electric bill to help subsidize renewable power has generated $319 million so far. None of it has been spent.
Power developers, regulators and independent observers all complain that the standard the 2002 legislation set up has required years to develop and calls for new projects to clear too many regulatory hurdles.
"We like to say this project was built in spite of the RPS, not because of it," said Jim Caldwell, director of regulatory affairs for PPM Energy, which owns the new Solano County wind project. The company bypassed the state's regulatory process and simply built the project without a guarantee that any utility would buy the power.
"If we would have gone through the process, we thought we'd never get the damn thing built," Caldwell said.
The gamble paid off: The company is selling half of the power generated in Solano County to PG&E, and the rest to other municipally owned utilities.
"It is an extraordinarily complicated process compared to any other state in the country," said Ryan Wiser, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who has studied efforts by 21 states to mandate increases in the use of renewable power. Wiser wrote a paper on California's process titled "Does it Have to be this Hard? Implementing the Nation's Most Complex Renewables Portfolio Standard."
Wiser said that here, unlike anywhere else, two state agencies -- the California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission -- have regulatory oversight of renewable projects, forcing developers and utilities to work with two distinct bureaucracies.
And each project faces multiple, and sometimes redundant, monthslong proceedings in front of regulators before getting approval, while most other states only require one.
There is a clear reason why California lawmakers set up a process with heavy-handed oversight. The law was signed a year after the state's calamitous energy crisis, and lawmakers -- many of whom had voted for power deregulation in 1998 -- wanted to ensure regulators had control over everything from how much renewable power would cost to how the state's transmission system would be affected by new projects. Both topics take months to work through during proceedings at the PUC.
Despite good intentions, the result is that renewable-power projects take several years to complete in California. Compare California's 241 new megawatts of renewable power to Texas' more than 2,200 megawatts of wind energy since it adapted renewable targets in 1999.
Texas' legislation enacting the renewable requirement was 10 paragraphs long. California's legislation was 13 pages.
The world's largest wind developer, FPL Energy in Florida, announced earlier this year that it would not propose new wind projects in California during the next two years, even as it invests $2 billion around the country. The company won a bid through the California RPS process in 2004 to add 30 megawatts of wind power to an existing project, but a company official pointed to the project's estimated completion date -- April 2008, four years later -- as an example of why investing in California is difficult.
"We are committed to California, but we look at where we can actually move forward and build projects," said Diane Fellman, director of regulatory affairs for FPL Energy.
Doubts persist
There are other factors that also have slowed California's progress and have many believing the state will not meet the 2010 deadline.
Transmission lines to renewable-rich areas need to be upgraded. Despite more than a decade of discussions on ways to hook up PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric to the windy Tehachapi region in Kern County and a key solar area, the Imperial Valley east of San Diego, the process to build new power lines is still ongoing.
And there are questions about whether some of the projects the utilities have selected to pursue are viable. Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric, for example, have signed deals for hundreds of megawatts with an Arizona company that uses a solar technology that has never produced power on a large scale.
"There are some real doubts about whether some of the projects will really happen," said Wiser.
Wiser and analysts at Cambridge Energy Research Associates have stated in recent reports that it seems unlikely California utilities will actually be generating 20 percent of their electricity by 2010. And Sean Gallagher, director of the energy division for the Public Utilities Commission, acknowledged that "it is not at all clear that we will make the deadline."
PG&E, however, insists it will meet its mark.
"We think we're on our way to hitting the target," said spokeswoman Darlene Chiu.
Recent trends don't bode well for PG&E, however. While the utility has increased its use of renewable power in the past six years, between 2003 and 2005 its use of renewables actually went down, from 12.4 percent of its portfolio in 2003 to 11.9 percent last year, according to the company.
Chiu said the utility has signed numerous contracts that will come to fruition in the next few years.
Others note that there may finally be progress in improving transmission lines this year, which is a key step in significantly increasing the use of renewable power.
Clean power is probably a key to Schwarzenegger's greenhouse-gas-reduction goals -- power plants are second only to motor vehicles in California as the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases that cause global warming. Administration officials have said this year that to cut carbon dioxide and other emissions by 25 percent by 2020, the state will need to generate one-third of its electricity from clean energy sources by then.
Most involved in the energy industry believe a significant increase in wind, solar and geothermal power is possible in California.
Renewable energy is incredibly popular -- a Public Policy Institute of California poll earlier this year showed that 83 percent of adults interviewed supported more government spending to boost renewable energy. The state has plenty of sun and wind -- experts suggest the Tehachapi region could generate enough wind power to light 3 million homes. And, with the price of natural gas having tripled in the last few years, wind power is cheaper to produce than electricity supplied by a natural-gas-fueled power plant.
"The frustrating thing is this: Of all the places in the country, California is blessed with all kinds of natural resources that we need to produce renewable energy," said Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of a trade group representing some renewable-power developers. "We're awash in riches. And there does not appear to be any significant political resistance to more renewables. But we're stumbling when it comes to turning all of this into real, steel-in-the-ground projects."
Ottawa gets tough on emissions
BILL CURRY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — The Conservative government will force the automotive sector to comply with tough mandatory vehicle-emission requirements, using California's stringent standards as its model.
The plan to reduce these emissions will take effect in 2010, when the current voluntary deal signed last year by the Liberals expires.
The cabinet approved the broad outlines last week of Green Plan Two, which will lay out plans to regulate limits on a host of pollutants where only voluntary targets currently exist, sources say.
The Harper government will focus its environmental policy on fighting smog and improving air quality, with less emphasis on reducing greenhouse gases -- largely carbon emissions -- that are at the heart of the Kyoto accord.
The Globe and Mail
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose hinted at the new measures on vehicle emissions in the House of Commons yesterday, saying she is looking at matching the mandatory emissions rules found in some U.S. states.
"We are . . . engaging the eight United States on their [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] climate-change system, and we are in talks with California about its new legislation," Ms. Ambrose said.
Sources later confirmed details of Green Plan Two.
California has the most stringent vehicle-emission rules in North America and eight northeastern states operating as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, including New York and New Jersey, have indicated they will follow California's lead. However, California and the auto sector are now in a bitter legal battle over the environmental rules.
The previous Liberal government opted for a five-year voluntary deal with Canada's auto sector last April after much internal debate and intense lobbying by the sector.
The original Green Plan was the environmental package of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government.
Mark Nantais, the president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, said he had heard the Harper government was heading in this direction but has not received official confirmation.
Mr. Nantais said current and previous voluntary deals have worked well and the targets have been met.
"We've got a proven track record on voluntary fuel efficiency," he said.
Mandatory rules will add red tape and ultimately increase costs for Canadian consumers at little or no benefit to the environment, Mr. Nantais said.
"You're imposing huge costs on consumers for virtually no return," he said.
If new cars become more expensive, Canadians will drive older, less fuel-efficient cars longer, thereby worsening environmental problems, he predicted.
Canada's voluntary deal calls on auto makers to cut 5.3 megatonnes in annual greenhouse-gas emissions by 2010.
Johanne Whitmore, a climate-change policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, said she is skeptical of the existing Canadian plan because of its voluntary nature and because it allows car companies to reduce greenhouse gases in ways other than fuel efficiency, such as using tire-pressure monitors.
"We can't take the Canadian [voluntary deal] seriously," she said. Ms. Whitmore said she would welcome mandatory rules but that the 2010 target was "too far away."
Using data from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Ms. Whitmore said the best-case scenario for Canada's voluntary deal would see fuel efficiency improve to seven litres per 100 kilometres, from nine when the deal was signed. California's mandatory rules call for fuel efficiency to improve from nine litres per 100 km in 2010 to seven litres per 100 km by 2012.
Even though the government is expected to announce its environmental plan soon, sources say the cabinet has yet to make a final decision on a central question: Namely, how it will address carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and oil and gas sectors.
The most likely scenario currently on the table is that a new Clean Air Act will signal an intent to regulate a host of pollutants, but the time needed to consult industry and the provinces, as well as to pass the act through the Commons and Senate, will likely mean most of the new pollution limits won't take effect for at least two years -- and 2010 for the regulations affecting the auto makers.
Some expressed concern yesterday that the government's tough talk will be diluted by far-off timelines that delay action on climate change. Liberal environment critic John Godfrey held a news conference yesterday urging the Tories to regulate immediately using the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, rather than delay the process with new legislation.
"It would mean, in practical terms, further delay," said Mr. Godfrey of the proposed Clean Air Act.
From Friday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — The Conservative government will force the automotive sector to comply with tough mandatory vehicle-emission requirements, using California's stringent standards as its model.
The plan to reduce these emissions will take effect in 2010, when the current voluntary deal signed last year by the Liberals expires.
The cabinet approved the broad outlines last week of Green Plan Two, which will lay out plans to regulate limits on a host of pollutants where only voluntary targets currently exist, sources say.
The Harper government will focus its environmental policy on fighting smog and improving air quality, with less emphasis on reducing greenhouse gases -- largely carbon emissions -- that are at the heart of the Kyoto accord.
The Globe and Mail
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose hinted at the new measures on vehicle emissions in the House of Commons yesterday, saying she is looking at matching the mandatory emissions rules found in some U.S. states.
"We are . . . engaging the eight United States on their [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] climate-change system, and we are in talks with California about its new legislation," Ms. Ambrose said.
Sources later confirmed details of Green Plan Two.
California has the most stringent vehicle-emission rules in North America and eight northeastern states operating as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, including New York and New Jersey, have indicated they will follow California's lead. However, California and the auto sector are now in a bitter legal battle over the environmental rules.
The previous Liberal government opted for a five-year voluntary deal with Canada's auto sector last April after much internal debate and intense lobbying by the sector.
The original Green Plan was the environmental package of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government.
Mark Nantais, the president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, said he had heard the Harper government was heading in this direction but has not received official confirmation.
Mr. Nantais said current and previous voluntary deals have worked well and the targets have been met.
"We've got a proven track record on voluntary fuel efficiency," he said.
Mandatory rules will add red tape and ultimately increase costs for Canadian consumers at little or no benefit to the environment, Mr. Nantais said.
"You're imposing huge costs on consumers for virtually no return," he said.
If new cars become more expensive, Canadians will drive older, less fuel-efficient cars longer, thereby worsening environmental problems, he predicted.
Canada's voluntary deal calls on auto makers to cut 5.3 megatonnes in annual greenhouse-gas emissions by 2010.
Johanne Whitmore, a climate-change policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, said she is skeptical of the existing Canadian plan because of its voluntary nature and because it allows car companies to reduce greenhouse gases in ways other than fuel efficiency, such as using tire-pressure monitors.
"We can't take the Canadian [voluntary deal] seriously," she said. Ms. Whitmore said she would welcome mandatory rules but that the 2010 target was "too far away."
Using data from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Ms. Whitmore said the best-case scenario for Canada's voluntary deal would see fuel efficiency improve to seven litres per 100 kilometres, from nine when the deal was signed. California's mandatory rules call for fuel efficiency to improve from nine litres per 100 km in 2010 to seven litres per 100 km by 2012.
Even though the government is expected to announce its environmental plan soon, sources say the cabinet has yet to make a final decision on a central question: Namely, how it will address carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and oil and gas sectors.
The most likely scenario currently on the table is that a new Clean Air Act will signal an intent to regulate a host of pollutants, but the time needed to consult industry and the provinces, as well as to pass the act through the Commons and Senate, will likely mean most of the new pollution limits won't take effect for at least two years -- and 2010 for the regulations affecting the auto makers.
Some expressed concern yesterday that the government's tough talk will be diluted by far-off timelines that delay action on climate change. Liberal environment critic John Godfrey held a news conference yesterday urging the Tories to regulate immediately using the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, rather than delay the process with new legislation.
"It would mean, in practical terms, further delay," said Mr. Godfrey of the proposed Clean Air Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
