Algirdas Leskys, P.E., J.D.

Comments/Testimony on Senate Bill 254 Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure May 20, 2019

Dear Committee Members:1

As a former employee of the Clark County Department of Air Quality I worked on various tasks that included greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory development and evaluating the potential impacts of federal GHG regulation on Clark County. Given that experience, I thought it would be useful to provide some insights on the following topics concerning Senate Bill 254 (SB254): (i) U.S. Climate Alliance membership requirements, (ii) Question of global warming causation, and (iii) Whether President Trump was justified in rejecting the Paris Agreement.

I. Membership Requirements for the U.S. Climate Alliance

The same day that SB254 was first heard before the Committees on Growth and Infrastructure, Sisolak announced plans to join the U.S. Climate Alliance. In retrospect, it appears likely that the timing of the events was coordinated since passage of SB254 would effectively put into statute the membership requirements found on the U.S. Climate Alliance website. 2

Back in 2017, Democrat Governors Jerry Brown (California), of New York, and of Washington formed the U.S. Climate Alliance.3 It was a response to President Trump’s announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. Currently, the U.S. Climate Alliance consists of 19 states governed by Democrats, and three states governed by Republicans (i.e., Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland).4 The requirements for membership are threefold:

1 These comments/testimony are an addendum to those previously submitted on March 12, 2019, at the joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Growth and Infrastructure. 2 U.S. Climate Alliance, https://www.usclimatealliance.org (accessed March 16, 2019). 3 Benjamin Wallace-Wells, The New Yorker, Jay Inslee wants to be a presidential candidate for the climate-change era (February 28, 2019). 4 The 19 states with Democrat Governors are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, , New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and . Note that for the three states governed by Republicans: Massachusetts Democrats control 9 out of 9 seats in the House of Representatives; 1 out of 1 seats in Vermont; and 7 out of 8 seats in Maryland. In the U.S. Senate, there is no Republican representation in any of these three states.

1

First membership requirement: “Implement policies that advance the goals of the Paris Agreement, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 26- 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.” 5

Section 2.2(b)(1) of SB254, generally duplicates the first membership requirement. However, Sections 2.2(b)(2) and (c) of SB254, go above and beyond the baseline membership requirement. The latter bill provisions would additionally assess policies that lead to 45 percent GHG emissions reductions by 2030, and 100 percent (or near 100 percent) GHG emissions reductions by 2050.

Currently, statewide GHG emissions inventory reports focus solely on emissions generated within Nevada. A more detailed life-cycle emission inventory—that additionally focuses on responsibility—would demonstrate the complex nature of the emission inventory assessment process. The State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) addressed the complexity in this manner:

“For the purpose of this inventory, emissions that were caused by activities that occurred within the geographical boundaries of the State of Nevada were reported. However, it is important to recognize that GHG emissions are not always spatially associated with the related activities. For instance, production (the source of emissions) and consumption of electrical power (the related activity) can take place at very different locations, sometimes in different states. This distinction is particularly critical in evaluating the impact of potential demand mitigation strategies. For example, reuse, recycling, and source reduction can lead to emission reduction from lower energy requirements in material production (e.g., paper, cardboard, and aluminum) even though the emissions associated with material production may not occur within that particular state.” (emphasis added)6

An example of when “GHG emissions are not always spatially associated with the related activities” is when NV Energy purchases electricity from the grid. Such purchases include a mix of sources located throughout the Western United States (see Table 1).7 For the 12- month period ending September 30, 2018, NV Energy purchased approximately 43 percent from the grid to supply its Northern Nevada customers and 20 percent to supply its Southern Nevada customers.8

Table 1: Electricity from Generating Facilities in the Western United States— Consumed by NV Energy Customers Northern Nevada Southern Nevada

5 U.S. Climate Alliance, https://www.usclimatealliance.org (accessed March 16, 2019). 6 State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projections, 1990-2030, p. 3 (2016). 7 NV Energy, January 2019 Power Content Label, https://www.nvenergy.com/help/bill- inserts (accessed April 2, 2019). 8 Id.

2 E-2 Energy Source (Percent of Total) (Percent of Total) Biofuel 0.23% 0.24% Biomass 0.37% 0.04% Coal 16.29% 6.12% Geothermal 7.69% 6.56% Hydroelectric 7.57% 2.37% Natural Gas 57.61% 77.35% Nuclear 2.28% 0.23% Oil 0.01% 0.00% Other 0.14% 0.01% Solar 5.69% 5.52% Wind 2.12% 1.56% Total 100.00% 100.00%

When a state generates electricity from a coal power plant and sells it to another state, which state is responsible for the GHG emissions? Local and state GHG emission inventories are far more likely to confront this question than inventories that encompass larger geographic boundaries. Therefore national or regional GHG emission inventories provide more useful information to policymakers that desire to mitigate GHG emissions.

Second membership requirement: “Tracking and reporting progress to the global community in appropriate settings, including when the world convenes to take stock of the Paris Agreement.” 9

This membership requirement sets forth two elements: (i) tracking, and (ii) reporting.

Tracking: The U.S. Climate Alliance does not specify how frequently GHG emissions need to be inventoried. An existing statute (NRS 445B.380) currently requires the DCNR to issue a statewide inventory at least every 4 years. The most recent report (2016) included projected year emissions for years 2014-2030. Therefore the tracking portion of the second membership requirement can be met without any additional legislation.

Reporting: The requirement to report progress to the global community is not addressed in SB254. Yet there is a possibility of significant costs associated with this membership requirement. Since there is a fiscal component to this requirement, Nevada legislators should be transparent about the: (i) frequency of reporting, (ii) name(s) of the organizations that constitute the “global community,” (iii) staffing, and (iv) air travel. 10

Third membership requirement: “Accelerate new and existing policies to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy deployment at the state and federal level.” 11

9 U.S. Climate Alliance, https://www.usclimatealliance.org (accessed March 16, 2019). 10 Note that there are considerable GHG emissions associated with air travel. 11 U.S. Climate Alliance, https://www.usclimatealliance.org (accessed March 16, 2019).

3 E-3 The third membership requirement is an invitation to introduce fiscally coercive regulations and/or policies that would artificially incentivize changes in the composition of energy sources producing electricity in Nevada. A harbinger of the expense can be found in the per capita electricity costs among the 21 other member states of the U.S. Climate Alliance (see Table 2). They are 35 percent higher than non-alliance states costs.12

Table 2: Average per capita electricity costs Average per capita electricity cost No. of States (cents/kW-hr) U.S. Climate Alliance States * 21 16.27 Non-Alliance States 28 12.04 Nevada 1 11.67 * excluding Nevada

Interestingly, the U.S. Climate Alliance website does not expressly state that a condition of membership is to place into state statute the membership requirements of the alliance. Instead, the organization’s website simply requires that “states commit” to the membership requirements. In other words, a Governor’s stated policy commitments would suffice. This is clearly the case since the U.S. Climate Alliance website has already announced Nevada as its newest member.13

Currently there is both public and privately funded research on low-carbon baseline power.14 Technological breakthroughs will make it economically sensible to substantially reduce GHG emission sources from the electricity production and transportation sectors. 15 When that happens, GHG emission reductions will occur with or without SB254.

Attempts to force changes through state government policies will likely be very expensive and create undue hardship on the citizens of Nevada.16 Implementing regulations and/or

12 Estimates are based on 2018 population data and current electricity rates provided by “Electric Choice” (Electricity Rates by State - updated March 2019, www.electricchoice.com (accessed March 17, 2019). 13 (U.S. Climate Alliance, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak Joins U.S. Climate Alliance, contact: Helen Kalla (March 12, 2019)). 14 See for example, Breakthrough Energy Ventures (www.b-t.energy.com) where a coalition of investors including Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg, are funding research to develop reliable and affordable energy technologies. 15 Note that at the same time that sponsors/cosponsors of SB254 are expressing dire concerns about rising carbon dioxide emissions, their persistent efforts to block a permanent nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain are impeding the ability of relatively carbon-free baseline nuclear power plants to minimize costs and operate efficiently. Testimony during Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing concerning Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 (May 1, 2019). 16 Interestingly, recent climate-related legislation in Nevada has been apparently funded, in large part, by an organization called NextGen America (NextGen). NextGen is a climate-

4 E-4 policies at a state level—which rightfully belong at a federal level—will harm Nevada, and States that steer clear of the U.S. Climate Alliance will simply have an economic advantage.

II. The Question of Global Warming Causation is not a Settled Matter

Polling data suggests that most people with an opinion on global climate believe that the climate is warming.17 However, many still question whether scientists know enough to conclude that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.

Some of the most ardent supporters of the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal argue that the question of causation is settled—that the debate is over. Some have even formally disputed the ability of public officials to voice a contrary opinion.

On March 9, 2017, former EPA Administrator Pruitt was asked the following question by a CNBC interviewer: “Do you believe that it’s been proven that carbon dioxide is the primary control knob for climate?”

Administrator Pruitt’s response: “No, I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet . . . We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

This seemingly benign response was challenged. The Sierra Club requested that the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) inquire as to whether Administrator Pruitt’s public statement violated the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy.18

The IG concluded: “[e]xpressing an opinion about science is not a violation of the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy. Indeed, the Scientific Integrity Policy – in the spirit of promoting vigorous debate and inquiry – specifically encourages employees to

advocacy group financed by Tom Steyer. In 2017, “ . . . NextGen officials decided to choose a few states where success might make a difference and send a political signal. Jamison Foser, a senior adviser at NextGen, stated that ‘[w]e wanted to try to get some wins that weren’t in very liberal, very Democratic places.’ NextGen ultimately settled on three states, none reliably blue: Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada” (David Leonhardt, New York Times Magazine, The Problem With Putting a Price on the End of the World (April 9, 2019)). Steyer’s group played a major role in advocating for clean energy and found that framing of ballot questions is crucial. Id. “When voters think about clean energy rather than climate change, some of the usual partisan patterns break down.” Id. 17 Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change (January 23, 2019). 18 Request sent in letter dated March 14, 2017.

5 E-5 express their opinion should the employee disagree with scientific data, scientific interpretations, or scientific conclusions.” 19 (emphasis added).

It’s worth pointing out that the IG’s conclusion is not inconsistent with the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).20 The AR5 states that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, “ . . . together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (emphasis added).21 Two points can be made about this statement.

First, the IPCC’s use of the phrase dominant cause indicates that the IPCC recognized at least some contribution from natural causes. The second point is that the IPCC expressly equates the phrase extremely likely to mean 95-100 percent likelihood.22 In other words, the IPCC suggests that there is 0–5 percent likelihood that anthropogenic GHG emissions are not the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Thus the AR5 expressly leaves open the possibility, albeit small, that anthropogenic emissions are not the dominant cause of global warming.

So, although it seems sensible to assume that anthropogenic pollution emitted in large amounts, over an extended period of time, would have some type of impact on our climate—the question of causation is not yet a settled matter. Quoting the EPA Inspector General, “vigorous debate and inquiry” should be promoted.

III. President Trump was justified in rejecting the Paris Agreement

The mitigation portion of the Paris Agreement relies upon non-binding nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The allowance for each individual country to establish their own NDC resulted in many vague, inconsequential, and/or zero commitments.

China is by far the leading source of GHG emissions in the world. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 report, China emitted 27.6% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions in 2017, as compared to 15.2% for the United States. Similarly, the EDGAR database shows that China emitted 29.3% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions

19 (EPA correspondence, from Thomas Sinks, Director Office of the Science Advisor for the US EPA Scientific Integrity Review Panel, to Elena Saxonhouse, Senior Attorney, and Joanne Spalding, Chief Climate Counsel, Sierra Club). 20 The AR5 is the fifth, and most recent, IPCC report. It was was completed in 2014. The Sixth Assessment Report is currently being prepared and its estimated completion is 2022. 21 IPCC AR5, Summary for Policymakers (SPM), p.4, SPM 1.2. 22 IPCC AR5, SPM, p.1, footnote 1. See also, IPCC, Michael D. Mastrandrea, et al, Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (2010).

6 E-6 in 2017, as compared to 13.8% for the United States.23 China’s emissions may even be greater since they have a record of not only falsifying air quality monitoring data, but in 2015, China burned up to 17 percent more coal per year than the government had previously disclosed. 24, 25

The Paris Agreement is not the type of rigorous emissions reduction strategy that, for example, EPA would employ. China’s NDC included a commitment to peak their GHG emissions by the year 2030. Their lack of commitment to reduce annual GHG emissions rendered the Paris Agreement largely ineffective. President Trump was justified in rejecting the Paris Agreement.

Side note: China is also a significant source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, which can in the right environment chemically break-down to produce ozone pollution. Several studies have demonstrated that Asian ozone can drift across the Pacific Ocean and significantly influence ozone concentrations in the Western United States, including Clark County. 26 Therefore China’s lack of a meaningful commitment in the Paris Agreement ought to be that much more frustrating for Nevadans.

23 The EDGAR database was created by the European Commission and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 24 See Radio Free Asia, China Holds Five Officials Over ‘Falsification’ of Air Monitoring Data, October 27, 2016, (accessed March 16, 2019). 25 New York Times, Chris Buckley, China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks, Nov. 3, 2015 (accessed March 16, 2019). 26 See February 23, 2018, letter from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to the Environmental Protection Agency, Re: Clark County Response to 120-Day 2015 Ozone NAAQS Designations Letter, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548, see footnotes to Table 1, (February 23, 2018), citing, Lin, M., et al. (2012), Transport of Asian ozone pollution into surface air over the western United States in spring, J. Geophys. Res., 117; and Langford, A.O., et al. (2016), Entrainment of stratospheric air and Asian pollution by the convective boundary layer in the southwestern U.S., J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 122.

7 E-7