From: Hoagland, Joseph J To: Johnson, William Dean; Maierhofer, Justin C; Pardee, Charles Graham Subject: FW: Jun. 25 -- BNA, Inc. Daily Environment Report - Breaking News Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:15:13 PM
FYI The president’s speech.
Joe Hoagland
NOTICE: This electronic message transmission contains information that may be TVA SENSITIVE, TVA RESTRICTED, or TVA CONFIDENTIAL. Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.
From: Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:59 PM To: Hoagland, Joseph J Subject: FW: Jun. 25 -- BNA, Inc. Daily Environment Report - Breaking News
Fyi
Breaking News
Obama Unveils Plan to Address Warming, Power Plant Regulation, Renewable Energy
Posted June 25, 2013, 2:36 P.M. ET
By Anthony Adragna
President Obama formally unveiled his plan June 25 for addressing climate change that intends to regulate carbon emissions from power plants for the first time through the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically,” Obama said. “That's science, accumulated and reviewed over decades. As a president, as a father, and as an American I'm here to say, we need to act.”
Obama said the lack of carbon emissions limits on power plants is “not right, it's not safe, and it needs to stop.”
The President, in an afternoon address at Georgetown University, also called for the State Department to deny approval of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline unless it does not “significantly exacerbate” the nation's carbon pollution.
“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires that doing so would be in our nation's interest,” Obama said. “Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the impacts of carbon pollution.”
Obama's plan also emphasizes large investments in renewable energy, calling for a reduction in carbon emissions of 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through greater efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings, and international engagement on the issue of climate change.
Obama also called for the installation of more renewable energy projects on public land, the development of new post-2018 heavy-duty vehicle fuel economy standards, and efforts to reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Federal Assistance, Creation of Task Force.
The president also directed federal agencies to assist local communities in preparing for extreme weather events, making reference to Hurricane Sandy, which devastated areas of New York and New Jersey. Obama further created a task force of state, local, and tribal officials to advise the federal government on what actions could be taken to address climate change.
Senior administration officials told reporters Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum directing EPA to finalize carbon emissions standards for new power plants later this year, and asking the agency to propose and finalize standards for existing power plants by June 2015.
Obama did not provide a time frame for signing the memorandum and did not estimate how much his proposal would cost. The president expressed a willingness to work with industry and other parties in implementing various aspects of his plan.
The plan does not require any action from Congress and will rely on existing executive authority.
Utilities Respond to Speech.
Responding to the climate change plan, Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn said U.S. shareholder-owned electric companies will want to ensure that any new policies or regulations to curb carbon emissions from existing power plants “contain achievable compliance limits and deadlines, minimize costs to customers, and are consistent with the industry's ongoing investments to transition to a cleaner generating fleet and enhanced electric grid.”
In a statement, Kuhn said it is also “critical that fuel diversity and support for clean energy technologies be maintained, not hindered.”
Kuhn said the electric power industry “is faced with a range of critical environmental policy and regulatory issues that are impacting company strategic planning and decision making” and is in the midst of a major transformation to a significantly cleaner fleet of plants due to a number of factors. Those factors include the closing of older coal plants; the combination of EPA's mercury and air toxics standards and other environmental regulations; abundant supplies of low-cost natural gas; greater efficiency in electricity use; slower economic growth; the building of new nuclear power plants and increasing the capacity of existing ones; and increased deployment of renewable generation, he said.
“We look forward to working with the Administration as it further develops its climate plan and with other key stakeholders, including Congress and the states, which will play a critical role in helping to forge workable regulations,” Kuhn said
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was sharply critical of the speech.
“The president's plan runs a serious risk of punishing Americans with higher energy bills, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy, while delivering negligible benefits to the environment,” President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said.
The President's Climate Action Plan is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=fwhe- 98zn3u. The fact sheet of the President's Climate Action Plan is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=fwhe-98zmz4.
This email is published as a supplement to Daily Environment Report (ISSN 1521-9402) by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202. Full reports on the contents of this email will appear in the next regular edition of Daily Environment Report.
To change your email preferences, visit http://webutil.bna.com/emailsignup.
Request a FREE Web trial. For subscription information, customer assistance, and other inquiries, contact your local Bloomberg BNA Representative or call the Customer Contact Center at 800-372-1033, Mon. - Fri. 8:00 am - 8:00 pm (ET), excluding most federal holidays.
Copyright (c) 2013 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202. Use of this service is subject to the terms and conditions of the license agreement with Bloomberg BNA. Unauthorized access or distribution is prohibited.
From: Pardee, Charles Graham To: Hoagland, Joseph J Subject: RE: Jun. 25 -- BNA, Inc. Daily Environment Report - Breaking News Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:24:03 PM
Thanks for sending Joe.
C
-----Original Message----- From: Hoagland, Joseph J Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 03:15 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Johnson, William Dean; Maierhofer, Justin C; Pardee, Charles Graham Subject: FW: Jun. 25 -- BNA, Inc. Daily Environment Report - Breaking News
FYI The president’s speech.
Joe Hoagland
NOTICE: This electronic message transmission contains information that may be TVA SENSITIVE, TVA RESTRICTED, or TVA CONFIDENTIAL. Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.
From: Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:59 PM To: Hoagland, Joseph J Subject: FW: Jun. 25 -- BNA, Inc. Daily Environment Report - Breaking News
Fyi
Breaking News
Obama Unveils Plan to Address Warming, Power Plant Regulation, Renewable Energy
Posted June 25, 2013, 2:36 P.M. ET
By Anthony Adragna
President Obama formally unveiled his plan June 25 for addressing climate change that intends to regulate carbon emissions from power plants for the first time through the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically,” Obama said. “That's science, accumulated and reviewed over decades. As a president, as a father, and as an American I'm here to say, we need to act.”
Obama said the lack of carbon emissions limits on power plants is “not right, it's not safe, and it needs to stop.”
The President, in an afternoon address at Georgetown University, also called for the State Department to deny approval of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline unless it does not “significantly exacerbate” the nation's carbon pollution.
“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires that doing so would be in our nation's interest,” Obama said. “Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the impacts of carbon pollution.”
Obama's plan also emphasizes large investments in renewable energy, calling for a reduction in carbon emissions of 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through greater efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings, and international engagement on the issue of climate change.
Obama also called for the installation of more renewable energy projects on public land, the development of new post-2018 heavy-duty vehicle fuel economy standards, and efforts to reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Federal Assistance, Creation of Task Force.
The president also directed federal agencies to assist local communities in preparing for extreme weather events, making reference to Hurricane Sandy, which devastated areas of New York and New Jersey. Obama further created a task force of state, local, and tribal officials to advise the federal government on what actions could be taken to address climate change.
Senior administration officials told reporters Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum directing EPA to finalize carbon emissions standards for new power plants later this year, and asking the agency to propose and finalize standards for existing power plants by June 2015.
Obama did not provide a time frame for signing the memorandum and did not estimate how much his proposal would cost. The president expressed a willingness to work with industry and other parties in implementing various aspects of his plan.
The plan does not require any action from Congress and will rely on existing executive authority.
Utilities Respond to Speech.
Responding to the climate change plan, Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn said U.S. shareholder-owned electric companies will want to ensure that any new policies or regulations to curb carbon emissions from existing power plants “contain achievable compliance limits and deadlines, minimize costs to customers, and are consistent with the industry's ongoing investments to transition to a cleaner generating fleet and enhanced electric grid.”
In a statement, Kuhn said it is also “critical that fuel diversity and support for clean energy technologies be maintained, not hindered.”
Kuhn said the electric power industry “is faced with a range of critical environmental policy and regulatory issues that are impacting company strategic planning and decision making” and is in the midst of a major transformation to a significantly cleaner fleet of plants due to a number of factors. Those factors include the closing of older coal plants; the combination of EPA's mercury and air toxics standards and other environmental regulations; abundant supplies of low-cost natural gas; greater efficiency in electricity use; slower economic growth; the building of new nuclear power plants and increasing the capacity of existing ones; and increased deployment of renewable generation, he said.
“We look forward to working with the Administration as it further develops its climate plan and with other key stakeholders, including Congress and the states, which will play a critical role in helping to forge workable regulations,” Kuhn said
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was sharply critical of the speech.
“The president's plan runs a serious risk of punishing Americans with higher energy bills, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy, while delivering negligible benefits to the environment,” President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said.
The President's Climate Action Plan is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=fwhe- 98zn3u. The fact sheet of the President's Climate Action Plan is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=fwhe-98zmz4.
This email is published as a supplement to Daily Environment Report (ISSN 1521-9402) by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202. Full reports on the contents of this email will appear in the next regular edition of Daily Environment Report.
To change your email preferences, visit http://webutil.bna.com/emailsignup.
Request a FREE Web trial. For subscription information, customer assistance, and other inquiries, contact your local Bloomberg BNA Representative or call the Customer Contact Center at 800-372-1033, Mon. - Fri. 8:00 am - 8:00 pm (ET), excluding most federal holidays.
Copyright (c) 2013 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202. Use of this service is subject to the terms and conditions of the license agreement with Bloomberg BNA. Unauthorized access or distribution is prohibited.
From: Communications Subject: TVA Today Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:30:23 AM
Clearing Air in Smokies Tracks Cleaner TVA Emissions
The spectacular views of the Great Smoky Mountains stretching for miles from the 2,700-foot summit at Look Rock are only getting better.
“It used to be, this time of year, the mountains would be gone in the haze. Now that is the exception,” said Jim Renfro, Smokies air resource specialist, during a recent media day at Look Rock.
Instruments at Look Rock’s air monitoring station, operated by TVA, the National Park Service and others since 1980, confirm dramatic gains in air quality in recent years, paralleling TVA’s own significant efforts to reduce coal-fired emissions.
Read online.
TVA's Actions to Reduce Emissions, Prepare for Climate Changeg Consistent with President's New Climate Action Plan
President Barack Obama announced Tuesday his plan for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and other climate change issues. His speech, delivered at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., outlined the first-ever federal regulations on carbon dioxide emitted by existing coal-firedcoal- power plants.
The president's Climate Action Plan does not contain the details necessary to determine specific impacts to TVA, says John Myers, TVA director of Environmental Policy and Regulatory Affairs.
"Cleaner air and reductions in both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with TVA's vision, Integrated Resource Plan and Environment Policy," Myers says. "TVA supports making reductions in a way that balances emission reductions and affordable power."
TVA has already made significant reductions in all air emissions from historical levels.
Read online and see two graphs showing TVA emissions through the years.
Resources for Living: Healthy Living – Taking Care of You
Do you have a healthy mind, body and spirit?
Check out the June bulletin from Resources for Living, the administrator of TVA’s Employee Assistance Program, for a series of articles focused on creating and maintaining a healthier you. This issue includes the following topics:
Giving yourself the gift of "yes" There are countless books and articles about how to say "no." And no is a very important word. But there are some times when saying yes can really be a game changer.
Lose the clutter... find your inner organizer! A cluttered workspace or home can make you feel unmotivated and depressed, and even hinder clear
thinking.
Superfoods: Eating your way to better health Superfoods are considered to be among the best foods for your health. Many experts say that Superfoods can help prevent illnesses and slow down the aging process. e-Thoughts: Who are you becoming in 2013? Believe it or not, 2013 is already half over. It seems like a perfect time to stop and consider: Are you living the life and making the changes you planned six months ago?
Read online.
80th Anniversary Orders: We Have the Answers
Employees can still visit TVA’s company store to order 80th anniversary merchandise. TVA’s Branding and Digital Communications group wants to share some answers to the most commonly asked questions about the ordering process.
Learn more about who can order items and shipping costs.
A History of TVA Service
TVA helped public health agencies fight malaria in the region by employing aerial dusting for mosquito control and managing water levels to control the insects’ breeding.
Visit the TVA website to explore 80 years of progress.
Daily Wholesale Market Prices
Estimated TVA Market* — $43 per MWh
Henry Hub natural-gas price** — $3.77 per million BTU
Read online.
Power Status Report
Net System Load (MW)
June 25: 26,568 June 26: 27,324 June 27: 26,137 June 28: 26,234
View the chart.
Note: If prompted with a security warning, click "No" to view the chart.
How to Submit a Story to TVA Today
As always, we welcome story ideas and submissions, especially when you can include a picture. (A .jpg format is preferred. Please ID those pictured and send them to this link to fill out a release for the use of their names and images.)
Read online.
Spilling Report
TVA – Fort Loudoun, Nickajack, Guntersville, Tim’s Ford
Corps of Engineers – None
Read online.
Calendar of Events
June 26 Auditions for the Smart Trips Commuter Challenge video will be held from 10 a.m-noon EDT in the Knoxville Office Complex (WTK01 402). Read more.
Through the end of July Facilities Projects will be performing work to reinforce the roof davits on all Chattanooga Office Complex buildings. This work will be performed daily after 5 p.m. Read more.
July 8 Deadline for nominations for the annual TVA Retirement System election. The term will run from Nov. 1,
2013, through Oct. 31, 2016. Any active TVARS member is eligible to run for election. Read more.
Deadline to sign up for this year’s Golf and Disc Golf Event for Chattanooga Area Friendship Games.
Read more.
July 16 Managing the Difficult Interaction, a Resources for Living seminar hosted by the Knoxville FEW employee resource group, from 10-11:30 a.m. EDT. Read more.
July 21-Sept. 15 The Monteagle Place freight elevator will undergo renovation and will be out of service for employees. It will only be available for material transportation coordinated with Information Technology and Facilities
Management. Read more.
Through the end of August All supervising managers must attend a new diversity training class titled “Diversity & Inclusion:
Unleashing the Power." Read more.
Aug. 9-11
Read more about the Land Between the Lakes family reunion for former staff and longtime volunteers at Brandon Spring Group Center.
TVA Today | TVA’s Actions to Reduce Emissions, Prepare for Climate Change Consistent with President’s New Climate Action Plan
SEARCH GO
INSIDENET NEWS POWER SERVICE GRAPH SPILLING REPORT ARCHIVE
Home » News »
TVA’s Actions to Reduce Emissions, Prepare for Climate Change Consistent with President’s New Climate Action Plan TVA Today Archive Posted on June 26, 2013 May 2014 Print This Post SMTWT F S 123 President Barack Obama announced Tuesday his plan for 45678910 addressing greenhouse gas 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 emissions and other climate 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 change issues. His speech, 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 delivered at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., « Apr outlined the first-ever federal Font Size: + | - regulations on carbon dioxide emitted by existing coal-fired power plants.
The president’s Climate Action Plan does not contain the details necessary to determine specific impacts to TVA, says John Myers, TVA director of Environmental Policy and Regulatory Affairs. TVA’s CO2 Reduction Story. Click on the graph to enlarge it.
“Cleaner air and reductions in both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with TVA’s vision, Integrated Resource Plan and Environment Policy,” Myers says. “TVA supports making reductions in a way that balances emission reductions and affordable power.”
TVA has already made significant reductions in all air emissions from historical levels. Through calendar year 2012, TVA has reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions by 94 percent from peak levels in 1977 and has reduced its nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent from peak levels in 1995. Since 2005, TVA stack emissions of carbon dioxide have been reduced by 23 percent, exceeding the president’s target of a 17 percent reduction by 2020.
“TVA has achieved these reductions through the installation of controls; adding low- and zero-emitting sources of generation, including TVA’s Emissions Story. Click on the graph to enlarge it. renewables and gas generation; the retirement of coal-fired units; and energy efficiency and demand side management,” Myers adds.
TVA will make further emission reductions through the continuation of these measures, including the addition of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 in 2015.
TVA has completed its Climate Change Action Plan to identify and manage the effects of climate change on its operations and mission.
“TVA’s actions to date and future plans to reduce emissions and provide reliable power appear consistent with the intent of the president’s plan, but until more specific requirements are known, http://www.tva-today.com/news/tvas-actions-to-reduce-emissions-prepare-for-climate-change-consistent-with-presidents-new-climate-action-plan/[5/14/2014 11:56:52 AM] TVA Today | TVA’s Actions to Reduce Emissions, Prepare for Climate Change Consistent with President’s New Climate Action Plan
impacts to TVA cannot be quantified,” Myers says.
< Clearing Air in Smokies Tracks Resources for Living: Healthy Cleaner TVA Emissions Living – Taking Care of You >
Tennessee Valley Authority LEGAL NOTICES INSPECTOR GENERAL SUPPLIER CONNECTION 400 West Summit Hill Drive PRIVACY POLICY TVA POLICE ONLINE CONNECTION Knoxville, TN 37902 LINKING POLICY EMPLOYMENT TVAKIDS (865) 632-2101 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMUNITY RELATIONS INVESTOR RELATIONS NO FEAR ACT DATA [email protected] INFORMATION QUALITY General Contact Information
http://www.tva-today.com/news/tvas-actions-to-reduce-emissions-prepare-for-climate-change-consistent-with-presidents-new-climate-action-plan/[5/14/2014 11:56:52 AM] From: Myers, John W To: Hoagland, Joseph J; Arnold-Martin, Amy Georgianna Cc: Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher; Houston, Donald P Subject: FW: TN Chamber: Energy Forum (Invite): September 25th: Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:08:23 PM
Joe,
Be glad to assist in getting TVA positions worked out in this. TVA is going to meet Martineau on Oct 7 and included in that discussion will be some perspectives on these matters.
John From: Bradley Jackson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:51 PM To: Houston, Donald P Subject: TN Chamber: Energy Forum (Invite): September 25th:
September 25th Energy Forum : Tennessee Chamber and Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA): Save the Date : September 25th
The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry is partnering with the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) to host the Southeast Powering our Future Forum on September 25 from 11am-3pm at the Bridgestone Arena (Patron Club) in Nashville.
Thepp purpose of the Event is to hear from energy experts about the recently announced ClimateClimate Ac Actiontion Plan, and the major regulatory changes that are being proposed and the resulting impacts on electricity for both consumers and producers in the Southeast. Joining CEA as Hosts are the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Nucor and Piedmont Natural Gas, Co-Hosts include Georgia Power, TVA, Alpha Natural Resources and the Tennessee Farm Bureau.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Vice Chair, House Energy & Commerce Committee) will provide the keynote address.
Discussion topics will include the future off coal- coal-fired generation, the opportunities for expanded natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy, potential consumer impacts, and the role of the states in the coming regulatory process.
This event is free to attend and lunch will be provided.
RSVP HERE: http://consumerenergyalliance.org/act/powering-our-future-forum/
If you have any questions, please contact:
Adam Waldeck džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ CEA Southeast [email protected] 203-535-2668
Bradley Jackson Vice President, Government Affairs Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry Tennessee Manufacturers Association 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3030 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone (615)256-5141, Fax (615)256-6726 www.tnchamber.org
From: Hoagland, Joseph J To: Johnson, William Dean; Myers, John W; Maierhofer, Justin C Cc: Stanzione, Keri A Subject: Issues for Sierra club meeting Date: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:40:00 PM
All I will not be able to be at the Sierra club meeting today. Here are some thoughts based on my interactions with them this week in Nashville.
• If asked about the RERC and IRP working groups. o SELC and SACE on RERC. They are to represent all NGO’s as agreed upon. o Sierra club will be on IRP working group -- Notifications going out next week.
• Likely to discuss GAF versusItem other 1 plants. They may be willing to hold off GAF if they can take credit elsewhere. • Also asking questions about how TVA does pricing. • SELC and SACE have asked for a transmission primer, but have not included Sierra Club. They also do not want Sierra club included....not sure why. • They have engaged with Marilyn Brown. I believe she is going to push strongly for more coal retirements including GAF. • They may ask about our feeling on the impact of the Climate action plan and recent regulations on green house gases. John Myers will have all the statistics, but as currently stands it is minimal impact to TVA.
Let me know if there is anything you all need.
Thanks!
Joe Hoagland
NOTICE: This electronic message transmission contains information that may be TVA SENSITIVE, TVA RESTRICTED, or TVA CONFIDENTIAL. Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.
From: Johnson, William Dean To: Hoagland, Joseph J Subject: RE: Issues for Sierra club meeting Date: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:36:23 PM
Thanks--helpful. Will give you a full report.
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
-----Original Message----- From: Hoagland, Joseph J Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:40 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Johnson, William Dean; Myers, John W; Maierhofer, Justin C Cc: Stanzione, Keri A Subject: Issues for Sierra club meeting
All I will not be able to be at the Sierra club meeting today. Here are some thoughts based on my interactions with them this week in Nashville.
• If asked about the RERC and IRP working groups. o SELC and SACE on RERC. They are to represent all NGO’s as agreed upon. o Sierra club will be on IRP working group -- Notifications going out next week.
• Likely to discuss GAF versusItem other 1A plants. They may be willing to hold off GAF if they can take credit elsewhere. • Also asking questions about how TVA does pricing. • SELC and SACE have asked for a transmission primer, but have not included Sierra Club. They also do not want Sierra club included....not sure why. • They have engaged with Marilyn Brown. I believe she is going to push strongly for more coal retirements including GAF. • They may ask about our feeling on the impact of the Climate action plan and recent regulations on green house gases. John Myers will have all the statistics, but as currently stands it is minimal impact to TVA.
Let me know if there is anything you all need.
Thanks!
Joe Hoagland
NOTICE: This electronic message transmission contains information that may be TVA SENSITIVE, TVA RESTRICTED, or TVA CONFIDENTIAL. Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.
From: Baier, Nolan D To: Watts, Janet K Subject: RE: Environmental Policy and it"s Impact on Pheasant Habitat Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:13:17 AM
That is good news. Glad you had success. Always nice to hear a success story.
Nolan Baier
Sr. Specialist
Resource Planning & System Forecasting
MR-3K
423.751.6663 [email protected]
______From: Watts, Janet K Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:58 AM To: Baier, Nolan D Subject: RE: Environmental Policy and it's Impact on Pheasant Habitat
By the way – great hunt this year. 54 birds on Friday, 40 plus or minus on Saturday and Sunday. Smart birds but a lot of fun.
______From: Baier, Nolan D Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 7:51 AM To: Rogers, Bryson C; Watts, Janet K Subject: Environmental Policy and it's Impact on Pheasant Habitat
A little background into the reduction of CRP land, which is good pheasant habitat.
Enjoy,
The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Email this Story
Nov 12, 7:17 AM (ET)
By DINA CAPPIELLO and MATT APUZZO
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
(AP) In this July 20, 2013, photo, a plant that produces ethanol is next to a cornfield near Coon... Full Image
CORYDON, Iowa (AP) - The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.
Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
It wasn't supposed to be this way.
With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
(AP) In this July 26, 2013, photo, erosion is seen in a cornfield that was recently converted from... Full Image
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.
Five million acres of land set aside for conservation - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined - have vanished on Obama's watch.
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
(AP) Graphic shows conservation land lost and corn acreage increase between 2006 and 2012; 6c x 17... Full Image
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.
Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.
The hilly, once-grassy landscape is made up of fragile soil that, unlike the earth in the rest of the state, is poorly suited for corn. Nevertheless, it has yielded to America's
demand for it.
"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.
All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
(AP) In this July 26, 2013, photo, the Sturgeon Cemetery near Sewal, Iowa stands as an island among corn... Full Image
In some cases, such as its decision to allow wind farms to kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc it believes global warming could ultimately cause.
Ethanol is different.
The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases. That makes the hidden costs even more significant.
"This is an ecological disaster," said Craig Cox with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, now finds itself at odds with the White House.
But it's a cost the administration is willing to accept. It believes supporting corn ethanol is the best way to encourage the development of biofuels that will someday be cleaner and greener than today's. Pulling the plug on corn ethanol, officials fear, might mean killing any hope of these next-generation fuels.
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
(AP) In this July 26, 2013, photo, erosion is seen in a cornfield that was recently converted from... Full Image
"That is what you give up if you don't recognize that renewable fuels have some place here," EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said in a recent interview with AP. "All renewable fuels are not corn ethanol."
Still, corn supplies the overwhelming majority of ethanol in the United States, and the administration is loath to discuss the environmental consequences.
"It just caught us completely off guard," said Doug Davenport, a Department of Agriculture official who encourages southern Iowa farmers to use conservation practices on their land. Despite those efforts, Davenport said he was surprised at how much fragile, erodible land was turned into corn fields.
Shortly after Davenport spoke to The Associated Press, he got an email ordering him to stop talking.
"We just want to have a consistent message on the topic," an Agriculture Department spokesman in Iowa said.
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
(AP) In this July 26, 2013, photo Wayne County board of supervisors member Bill Alley looks over an... Full Image
That consistent message was laid out by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who spoke to ethanol lobbyists on Capitol Hill recently and said ethanol was good for business.
"We are committed to this industry because we understand its benefits," he said. "We understand it's about farm income. It's about stabilizing and maintaining farm income which is at record levels."
The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program.
The ethanol industry is fighting hard against that effort. Industry spokesman Brooke Coleman dismissed this story as "propaganda on a page." An industry blog in Minnesota said the AP had succumbed "to Big Oil's deep pockets and powerful influence."
To understand how America got to an environmental policy with such harmful environmental consequences, it's helpful to start in a field in Iowa.
---
Leroy Perkins, a white-haired, 66-year-old farmer in denim overalls, stands surrounded by waist-high grass and clover. He owns 91 acres like this, all hilly and erodible, that he set aside for conservation years ago.
Soon, he will have a decision to make: keep the land as it is or, like many of his neighbors, plow it down and plant corn or soybeans, the major sources of biofuel in the United States.
"I'd like to keep it in," he said. "This is what southern Iowa's for: raising grass."
For decades, the government's Conservation Reserve Program has paid farmers to stop farming environmentally sensitive land. Grassy fields naturally convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, which helps combat global warming. Plus, their deep root systems prevent topsoil from washing away.
For Perkins and his farmer neighbors in Wayne County, keeping farmland in conservation wasn't just good stewardship. It made financial sense.
A decade ago, Washington paid them about $70 an acre each year to leave their farmland idle. With corn selling for about $2 per bushel (56 pounds) back then, farming the hilly, inferior soil was bad business.
Many opted into the conservation program. Others kept their grasslands for cow pastures.
Lately, though, the math has changed.
"I'm coming to the point where financially, it's not feasible," Perkins said.
The change began in 2007, when Congress passed a law requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into gasoline.
Oil prices were high. Oil imports were rising quickly. The legislation had the strong backing of the presidential candidate who was the junior senator from neighboring Illinois, the nation's second-largest corn producer.
"If we're going to get serious about investing in our energy future, we must give our family farmers and local ethanol producers a fair shot at success," Obama said then.
The Democratic primary field was crowded, and if he didn't win the Iowa caucuses the road to the nomination would be difficult. His strong support for ethanol set him apart.
"Any time we could talk about support for ethanol, we did," said Mitch Stewart, the battleground states director for Obama's 2008 campaign. "It's how we would lead a lot of discussions."
President Bush signed the bill that December.
It would fall on the next president to figure out how to make it work.
---
President Obama's team at the EPA was sour on the ethanol mandate from the start.
As a way to reduce global warming, they knew corn ethanol was a dubious proposition. Corn demands fertilizer, which is made using natural gas. What's worse, ethanol factories typically burn coal or gas, both of which release carbon dioxide.
Then there was the land conversion, the most controversial and difficult-to-predict outcome.
Digging up grassland releases greenhouse gases, so environmentalists are skeptical of any program that encourages planting more corn.
"I don't remember anybody having great passion for this," said Bob Sussman, who served on Obama's transition team and recently retired as EPA's senior policy counsel. "I don't have a lot of personal enthusiasm for the program."
At the White House and the Department of Agriculture, though, there was plenty of enthusiasm.
One of Obama's senior advisers, Pete Rouse, had worked on ethanol issues as chief of staff to Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a major ethanol booster and now chair of the DuPont Advisory Committee on Agriculture Innovation and Productivity.
Another Obama adviser at the time, HeatherZ Zichal,ichal, grew up in northeast Iowa - as a child, she was crowned "sweet corn princess" - and was one of the Obama campaign's leading voices on ethanol in her home state.
The administration had no greater corn ethanol advocate than Vilsack, the former Iowa governor.
"Tom understands that the solution to our energy crisis will be found not in oil fields abroad but in our farm fields here at home," Obama said in 2008. "That is the kind of
leader I want in my Cabinet."
---
Writing the regulations to implement the ethanol mandate was among the administration's first major environmental undertakings. Industry and environmental groups watched closely.
The EPA's experts determined that the mandate would increase demand for corn and encourage farmers to plow more land. Considering those factors, they said, corn ethanol was only slightly better than gasoline when it came to carbon dioxide emissions.
Sixteen percent better, to be exact. And not in the short term. Only by 2022.
By law, though, biofuels were supposed to be at least 20 percent greener than gasoline.
From a legal standpoint, the results didn't matter. Congress exempted existing coal- and gas-burning ethanol plants from meeting this standard.
But as a policy and public relations issue, it was a real problem. The biofuel-friendly Obama administration was undermining the industry's major selling point: that it was much greener than gasoline.
So the ethanol industry was livid. Lobbyists flooded the EPA with criticism, challenging the government's methods and conclusions.
The EPA's conclusion was based on a model. Plug in some assumed figures - the price of corn, the number of acres planted, how much corn would grow per acre - and the model would spit out a number.
To get past 20 percent, the EPA needed to change its assumptions.
The most important of those assumptions was called the yield, a measure of how much corn could be produced on an acre of land. The higher the yield, the easier it would be for farmers to meet the growing demand without plowing new farmland, which counted against ethanol in the greenhouse gas equation.
Corn yields have inched steadily upward over the years as farms have become more efficient. The government's first ethanol model assumed that trend would continue, rising from 150 bushels per acre to about 180 by the year 2022.
Agriculture companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Pioneer, which stood to make millions off an ethanol boom, told the government those numbers were too low.
They predicted that genetically modified seeds - which they produce - would send yields skyrocketing. With higher yields, farmers could produce more corn on less land, reducing the environmental effects.
Documents show the White House budget office also suggested the EPA raise its yield assumptions.
When the final rule came out, the EPA and Agriculture officials added a new "high yield case scenario" that assumed 230 bushels per acre.
The flaw in those assumptions, independent scientists knew, was that a big increase in corn prices would encourage people to farm in less hospitable areas like Wayne County, which could never produce such large yields.
But the EPA's model assumed only a tiny increase in corn prices.
"You adjust a few numbers to get it where you want it, and then you call it good," said Adam Liska, assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska. He supports ethanol, even with its environmental trade-offs.
When the Obama administration finalized its first major green-energy policy, corn ethanol barely crossed the key threshold. The final score: 21 percent.
"If you corrected any of a number of things, it would be on the other side of 20 percent," said Richard Plevin of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley. "Is it a coincidence this is what happened? It certainly makes me wonder."
It didn't take long for reality to prove the Obama administration's predictions wrong.
The regulations took effect in July 2010. The following month, corn prices already had surpassed the EPA's long-term estimate of $3.22 a bushel. That September, corn passed $4, on its way to about $7, where it has been most of this year.
Yields, meanwhile, have held fairly steady.
But the ethanol boom was underway.
---
It's impossible to precisely calculate how much ethanol is responsible for the spike in corn prices and how much those prices led to the land changes in the Midwest.
Supporters of corn ethanol say extreme weather - dry one year, very wet the next - hurt farmers and raised prices.
But diminishing supply wasn't the only factor. More corn than ever was being distilled into ethanol.
Historically, the overwhelmingly majority of corn in the United States has been turned into livestock feed. But in 2010, for the first time, fuel was the No. 1 use for corn in America. That was true in 2011 and 2012. Newly released Department of Agriculture data show that, this year, 43 percent of corn went to fuel and 45 percent went to livestock feed.
The more corn that goes to ethanol, the more that needs to be planted to meet other demands.
Scientists predicted that a major ethanol push would raise prices and, in turn, encourage farmers like Leroy Perkins to plow into conservation land. But the government insisted otherwise.
In 2008, the journal Science published a study with a dire conclusion: Plowing over conservation land releases so much greenhouse gas that it takes 48 years before new plants can break even and start reducing carbon dioxide.
For an ethanol policy to work, the study said, farmers could not plow into conservation land.
The EPA, in a report to Congress on the environmental effects of ethanol, said it was "uncertain" whether farmers would plant on farmland that had been set aside for
conservation.
The Department of Energy was more certain. Most conservation land, the government said in its response to the study, "is unsuitable for use for annual row crop production."
America could meet its ethanol demand without losing a single acre of conservation land, Energy officials said.
They would soon be proven wrong.
Before the government ethanol mandate, the Conservation Reserve Program grew every year for nearly a decade. Almost overnight, farmers began leaving the program, which simultaneously fell victim to budget cuts that reduced the amount of farmland that could be set aside for conservation.
In the first year after the ethanol mandate, more than 2 million acres disappeared.
Since Obama took office, 5 million more acres have vanished.
Agriculture officials acknowledge that conservation land has been lost, but they say the trend is reversing. When the 2013 data comes out, they say it will show that as corn prices stabilized, farmers once again began setting aside land for conservation.
---
Losing conservation land was bad. But something even worse was happening.
Farmers broke ground on virgin land, the untouched terrain that represents, from an environmental standpoint, the country's most important asset.
The farm industry assured the government that wouldn't happen. And it would have been an easy thing for Washington to check.
But rather than insisting that farmers report whenever they plow into virgin land, the government decided on a much murkier oversight method: Washington instead monitors the total number of acres of cropland nationwide. Local trends wash away when viewed at such a distance.
"They could not have designed a better approach to not detect land conversion," said Ben Larson, an agricultural expert for the National Wildlife Federation.
Look closely at the corn boom in the northern Great Plains, however, and it's clear. Farmers are converting untouched prairie into farmland.
The Department of Agriculture began keeping figures on virgin land only in 2012 and determined that about 38,000 acres vanished that year.
But using government satellite data - the best tool available - the AP identified a conservative estimate of 1.2 million acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone that have been converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006, the last year before the ethanol mandate was passed.
"The last five years, we've become financially solvent," said Robert Malsam, a farmer in Edmunds County, S.D., who like others in the central and eastern Dakotas has plowed into wild grassland to expand his corn crop.
The price of corn is reshaping the land across the Midwest. In Wayne County, Iowa, for
example, only the dead can stop the corn.
A gravel road once cut through a grassy field leading to a hilltop cemetery. But about two years ago, the landowners plowed over the road. Now, visiting gravesites means walking a narrow path through the corn.
People have complained. It's too narrow for a hearse, too rutted for a wheelchair, too steep for the elderly. But it's legal, said Bill Alley from the board of supervisors.
"This is what the price of corn does," he said. "This is what happens, right here."
---
When Congress passed the ethanol mandate, it required the EPA to thoroughly study the effects on water and air pollution. In his recent speech to ethanol lobbyists, Vilsack was unequivocal about those effects:
"There is no question air quality, water quality is benefiting from this industry," he said.
But the administration never actually conducted the required air and water studies to determine whether that's true.
In an interview with the AP after his speech, Vilsack said he didn't mean that ethanol production was good for the air and water. He simply meant that gasoline mixed with ethanol is cleaner than gasoline alone.
In the Midwest, meanwhile, scientists and conservationists are sounding alarms.
Nitrogen fertilizer, when it seeps into the water, is toxic. Children are especially susceptible to nitrate poisoning, which causes "blue baby" syndrome and can be deadly.
Between 2005 and 2010, corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than one billion pounds. More recent data isn't available from the Agriculture Department, but because of the huge increase in corn planting, even conservative projections by the AP suggest another billion-pound fertilizer increase on corn farms since then.
Department of Agriculture officials note that the amount of fertilizer used for all crops has remained steady for a decade, suggesting the ethanol mandate hasn't caused a fertilizer boom across the board.
But in the Midwest, corn is the dominant crop, and officials say the increase in fertilizer use - driven by the increase in corn planting - is having an effect.
The Des Moines Water Works, for instance, has faced high nitrate levels for many years in the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, which supply drinking water to 500,000 people. Typically, when pollution is too high in one river, workers draw from the other.
"This year, unfortunately the nitrate levels in both rivers were so high that it created an impossibility for us," said Bill Stowe, the water service's general manager.
For three months this summer, workers kept huge machines running around the clock to clean the water. Officials asked customers to use less water so the utility had a chance to keep up.
Part of the problem was that last year's dry weather meant fertilizer sat atop the soil. This spring's rains flushed that nitrogen into the water along with the remnants of the fertilizer from the most recent crop.
At the same time the ethanol mandate has encouraged farmers to plant more corn, Stowe said, the government hasn't done enough to limit fertilizer use or regulate the industrial drainage systems that flush nitrates and water into rivers and streams.
With the Water Works on the brink of capacity, Stowe said he's considering suing the government to demand a solution.
In neighboring Minnesota, a government report this year found that significantly reducing the high levels of nitrates from the state's water would require huge changes in farming practices at a cost of roughly $1 billion a year.
"We're doing more to address water quality, but we are being overwhelmed by the increase in production pressure to plant more crops," said Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
The nitrates travel down rivers and into the Gulf of Mexico, where they boost the growth of enormous algae fields. When the algae die, the decomposition consumes oxygen, leaving behind a zone where aquatic life cannot survive.
This year, the dead zone covered 5,800 square miles of sea floor, about the size of Connecticut.
Larry McKinney, the executive director of the Harte Institute at Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi, says the ethanol mandate worsened the dead zone.
"On the one hand, the government is mandating ethanol use," he said, "and it is unfortunately coming at the expense of the Gulf of Mexico."
The dead zone is one example among many of a peculiar ethanol side effect: As one government program encourages farmers to plant more corn, other programs pay millions to clean up the mess.
---
Obama administration officials know the ethanol mandate hasn't lived up to its billing.
The next-generation biofuels that were supposed to wean the country off corn haven't yet materialized. Every year, the EPA predicts millions of gallons of clean fuel will be made from agricultural waste. Every year, the government is wrong.
Every day without those cleaner-burning fuels, the ethanol industry stays reliant on corn and the environmental effects mount.
The EPA could revisit its model and see whether ethanol is actually as good for the environment as officials predicted. But the agency says it doesn't have the money or the manpower.
Even under the government's optimistic projections, the ethanol mandate wasn't going to reduce greenhouse gas right away. And with the model so far off from reality, independent scientists say it's hard to make an argument for ethanol as a global warming policy.
"I'd have to think really hard to come up with a scenario where it's a net positive," said Silvia Secchi, a Southern Illinois University agriculture economist.
She paused a few moments, then added, "I'm stumped."
In June, when Obama gave a major policy speech on reducing greenhouse gas, he didn't mention ethanol. Biofuels in general received a brief, passing reference.
What was once billed as an environmental boon has morphed into a government program to help rural America survive.
"I don't know whether I can make the environmental argument, or the economic argument," Vilsack said in an interview with the AP. "To me, it's an opportunity argument."
Congress and the administration could change the ethanol mandate, tweak its goals or demand more safeguards. Going to Congress and rewriting the law would mean picking a fight with agricultural lobbyists, a fight that would put the administration on the side of big oil companies, which despise the ethanol requirement.
So the ethanol policy cruises on autopilot.
Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol lobbying group, said there's no reason to change the standards. Ethanol still looks good compared to the oil industry, which increasingly relies on environmentally risky tactics like hydraulic fracturing or pulls from carbon-heavy tar sands.
Leroy Perkins, the farmer agonizing about what to do with his 91 acres, says he likes ethanol as a product and an industry. But he knows it fuels the corn prices that are transforming his county.
"If they do change the fuel standard, you'll see the price of corn come down overnight," he said. "I like to see a good price for corn. But when it's too high, it hurts everybody."
Investors from as far away as Maryland and Pennsylvania have bought thousands of acres in Wayne County, sending prices skyrocketing from $350 per acre a decade ago to $5,000 today.
One in every four acres of in the county is now owned by an out-of-towner.
Those who still own land often rent it to farming companies offering $300 or more per acre. Perkins could make perhaps $27,000 a year if he let somebody plant corn on his land. That's nothing to dismiss in a county where typical household income is $36,000.
But he knows what that means. He sees the black streaks in his neighbor's cornfields, knowing the topsoil washes away with every rain. He doesn't want that for his family's land.
"You have to decide, do you want to be the one to..."
He doesn't finish his sentence.
"We all have to look at our pocketbooks."
---
Associated Press writers Jack Gillum in Washington and Chet Brokaw in Roscoe, S.D., contributed to this report.
Nolan Baier
Sr. Specialist
Resource Planning & System Forecasting
MR-3K
423.751.6663 [email protected]
From: Balzar, Robert Michael To: Myers, John W; Hoagland, Joseph J; Brinkworth, Gary Scott; West, Patricia B; Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher; O"Grady, Jack W Subject: RE: PACE News - Closer Look at "Social Cost of Carbon" Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:01:12 AM
Thank you ---this is helpful---In looking at some stuff in Minn---they are using $29/Mwhr for Avoided Environmental. Item 2 Not sure Carbon Tax and Avoided Environmental are exactly the same---I suspect some folks could use the later for a surrogate for the former. Bob
From: Myers, John W Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:58 AM To: Balzar, Robert Michael; Hoagland, Joseph J; Brinkworth, Gary Scott; West, Patricia B; Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher; O'Grady, Jack W Subject: RE: PACE News - Closer Look at 'Social Cost of Carbon'
In a nutshell at $35/ton would put a $35 dollar/MWH production cost on coal fired generation and a $17/MWH to NGCC. That could tilt the dispatchItem stack. 3 TVA has made a 28% reduction in CO2 emissions but emits 80 million tons/year. At 80mtons/year, social cost of our carbon is $2.8 billion/year. Not likely to sign up for that number.
From: Balzar, Robert Michael Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:35 AM To: Hoagland, Joseph J; Myers, John W; Brinkworth, Gary Scott; West, Patricia B; Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher Subject: RE: PACE News - Closer Look at 'Social Cost of Carbon'
Can someone help me with the calculations for TVA---- What does $35 per metric ton yield in our embedded average production unit per kwhr or Mwhr? Item 4 It might be a really interesting exercise to apply this to our dispatch stack and see how it changes decisions. Certainly should be a scenario explored in the IRP.
Bob
From: Hoagland, Joseph J Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:24 AM To: Myers, John W; Brinkworth, Gary Scott; Balzar, Robert Michael; West, Patricia B; Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher Subject: Fwd: PACE News - Closer Look at 'Social Cost of Carbon'
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE)
The White House will release key data that underpins its 'social cost of Is this email not displaying correctly? carbon' estimates View it in your browser.
News + Updates
Join the Conversation A Closer Look at 'Social Cost Like Us on Facebook of Carbon' Follow Us on Twitter According to a new report from The Hill, the Obama Administration is now publishing key data that helps Donate to PACE assess the ‘social cost of carbon.’ The figures are key Today! to the White House’s assertions about the costs and benefits of action to combat climate change. Join the grassroots fight for reliable + affordable clean Read the Technical Support Document Released by the energy. White House
“Rigorous evaluation of costs and benefits is a core tenet of the rulemaking process,” states the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “It is Forward to a Friend particularly important in the area of climate change." Know someone who might be The Obama Administration made waves this past May interested in receiving this email when it increased its social cost or carbon from roughly newsletter? $21 per metric ton to $35. By doing so, the administration’s proposed actions on climate change appear more attractive from a cost-benefit standpoint. But are the books being cooked?
“With the administration’s mercury rule (Utility MACT), Recent Tweets we eventually learned that only a tiny percentage of the • RT @E2Wire: Green group benefits calculated actually came from mercury spent $15M on 'pro- reductions,” explains PACE Executive Director Lance environment' candidates Brown. “Now, with the social cost of carbon, we are http://t.co/gg9geR0cr81:26PM seeing the administration continue to massage the • RT @lawrencehurley: Supreme numbers to improve the optics of its costly climate Court arguments in change proposals.” greenhouse gases regulation case will be on February 24, The White House’s social cost of carbon document will court just said.11:30AM be published officially today, November 26th, allowing • RT @CEAorg: CEA joins
sixty days for public comment. PACE,(.@EnergyFairness), to educate the public & policy “This data is being used to calculate the costs and makers about sensible #energy #policy. benefits of one of the most important sets of policies http://t.co/EFZGxvmzkh1:20PM this nation has ever contemplated. Billions of dollars in costs, tens of thousands of jobs, and the very price of energy depends on those figures,” says Brown. “For the federal government to hold a public comment during the holiday season speaks volumes about how much they really value public feedback as part of this process.”
follow on twitter | like on facebook | forward to a friend PACE Copyright © 2013 Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE), All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have registered for it via our website or at a PACE function.
unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences
This email was sent to [email protected] why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) · 407 South McDonough Street · Suite 3 · Montgomery, Alabama 36104 · USA
From: Myers, John W To: Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge; Hoagland, Joseph J; Brinkworth, Gary Scott; Signer, Gregory R Cc: Houston, Donald P Subject: FW: DAQ Question to UIEK Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:52:43 PM Attachments: Lyons Dec 6 Workshop.pdf
Here is a presentation that on face value is interesting in several perspectives (albeit that I frankly don’t see the slides supporting the conclusions from the slide deck): • Lyons and the Cabinet continue to get out in front of the Utilities in the state on 111(d) policy matters – they are speaking in public on utility future performance without discussing it in advance with utilities • They also continue to intertwine the goals of the Presidents’ Climate Action (17% below ‘05 by ’20) with what is at hand with establishing a 111(b) and providing guidelines for existing unitesI temvia 111(d). 5 Member utilities are warily of having the cabinet tacitly endorse the NRDC like approach to 111(d) via of the these emission rate impositions. • Some are concerned that meeting stringent emission rates is doable without showing the pain. I do not think this will come back to TVA’s IRP but I did want to show this is out on the street. Also the UIEK members are amped up to reinforce the messages they had in their paper to KY EEC. Don Houston is leading the UIEK interaction on this issue
FYI John From: Houston, Donald P Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:20 AM To: Strunk, Steven C; Davenport, Kevin Thomas; Waddell, J Thomas; Myers, John W; Hill, Mark K; Portis, Benjamin C; Mehta, Khurshid K Subject: FW: DAQ Question to UIEK
See attached presentation on future Kentucky Electricity Portfolio Model John Lyons made last Friday in Washington to environmental groups, utilities, and states. Projects huge reductions in coal generation in Kentucky to meet the president’sItems climate 6 action plan. Kentucky did not give the utilities in Kentucky the opportunity to review this before it was released. UIEK will be requesting a meeting with Lyons as soon as possible for him to explain the modeling results to us.
Donald P. Houston P.E. Air Programs Manager Environmental Policy and Regulatory Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority 423-751-4418 Office 423-309-4523 Cell
From: Brewer, Dick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:06 AM To: Brown, Carolyn; 'James E. Keeton III ([email protected])'; '[email protected]'; 'Jerry Purvis ([email protected])'; 'Revlett, Gary'; '[email protected]'; Houston, Donald P Cc: Bender, Jack; Needham, Van Subject: RE: DAQ Question to UIEK
All,
Duke Energy will be filing comments and would support limited UIEK comments and working with Sean.
I’d also like to share John Lyons presentation from Friday in Washington at a policy workshop. The audience was environmental groups, utilities, and states. I think we need to have him explain this to us.
Richard Brewer Duke Energy 513-287-3604
From: Brown, Carolyn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 4:40 PM To: 'James E. Keeton III ([email protected])'; '[email protected]'; Brewer, Dick; 'Jerry Purvis ([email protected])'; 'Revlett, Gary'; '[email protected]'; 'Donald P. Houston, P.E. ([email protected])' Cc: Bender, Jack Subject: DAQ Question to UIEK
*** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ***
Sean Alteri has asked if UIEK and / or utilities separately were going to submit comments on EPA’s proposed GHG NSPS under Section 111(b). (EPA issued the proposal on September 20, 2013 but it has not yet been published in the Federal Register so there is no comment deadline identified yet.) DAQ plans to submit comments and would entertain any thoughts the UIEK members have.
Carolyn Carolyn M. Brown Partner Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1100 Lexington, KY 40507 Direct: 859-288-4614 | Fax: 859-367-3813 Email: [email protected] | http://www.bgdlegal.com Follow us on Twitter | Visit our Blog: http://blog.bgdlegal.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains information that is privileged, confidential and subject to legal restrictions and penalties regarding its unauthorized disclosure or other use. You are prohibited from copying, distributing or otherwise using this information if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete this email and all
attachments from your system. Thank you.
DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY CIRCULAR 230. This Disclosure may be required by Circular 230 issued by the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. If this e-mail, including any attachments, contains any federal tax advice, such advice is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and it may not be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Furthermore, any federal tax advice herein (including any attachment hereto) may not be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a transaction or arrangement to another party. Further information concerning this disclosure, and the reasons for such disclosure, may be obtained upon request from the author of this e-mail. Thank you.
Item 6A
1
KENTUCKY ELECTRICITY PORTFOLIO MODEL
Presented by John S. Lyons Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet
2 Purpose
Facilitate Long-term Energy Planning
Identify Least Cost Path to Achieve CO2 Emission Reductions Simulate Macroeconomic Implications to Kentucky’s Energy Profile
3 Design
Dispatch Model Utilizes User-Specific Input Variables to Forecast out to 2100 Hierarchical Constraints Environmental regulation inputs cannot be ignored or violated Portfolio standards (e.g. fuel type and amount) will be adhered to Technology limitations define what is possible Electricity demand will be met with available resources Developed in Concert with: ¾University of Kentucky Department of Statistics ¾University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research ¾Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
4
5 Inputs & Outputs Major Inputs Major Outputs Environmental Regulations Consumption by Sector Portfolio Standards Generation by Unit & Fuel Cooling Degrees Coal Consumption Heating Degrees Natural Gas Consumption Population Electricity Prices by Sector Per Capita Personal Income Electricity Expenditures Educational Attainment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fuel Prices Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Physical Resources Nitrous Oxide Emissions Existing Generating Units Employment by Sector Potential Generating Units Gross Domestic Product
Example: Mass Emissions Limit Scenario 14
Presidential CO2 Mass Emissions Limit Imposed 17% below 2005 Levels by 2020 80% below 2005 Levels by 2050
Planning
CO2 Emissions Always Below Limit Least-Cost Dispatch Within Limit
energy.ky.gov CO2 Emission Rate Limit Imposed 1,472 lbs per MWh in 2020 1,189 lbs per MWh in 2025
Planning
CO2 Emissions Always Below Limit Least-Cost Dispatch Within Limit
energy.ky.gov 8
Example: Minimum Portfolio Standard Scenarios 22-27: 40% Coal Portfolio Standard
40% Least-Cost Coal Technology
Everything Else Least-Cost
energy.ky.gov Example: Hierarchical Constraints Scenario 28: 40% Coal Portfolio Standard with Carbon Emission Limits
Portfolio Standard Resumed When Possible
Portfolio Standard Ignored to Meet Emissions Target
energy.ky.gov Example: Unit Retirements Scenario 10: $40 Carbon Price
Trimble 2 Age-Out in 2070 at 60 Years Old
30-Year NGCC System Life
energy.ky.gov Example: Comparison Across Worlds Scenarios 8-14: Nuclear Allowed
energy.ky.gov 13 Conclusions Electricity costs and reliability are important factors for manufacturing-intensive economies. In manufacturing-intensive economies, considerations for base-load generation dominate. Current and pending policies, along with societal concerns, are limiting base-load generation options. The U.S. is moving toward a single base-load generation option. Price elasticity of employment should be taken into consideration, when trying to understand such impacts.
From: Myers, John W To: Hoagland, Joseph J Cc: Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge; Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher Subject: RE: draft RERC invite for John and Jacinda Date: Friday, December 20, 2013 5:56:47 PM Attachments: Carbon trajectories.pptx
Joe I know I am overdue in responding to a bunch of stuff. I have been pinned down on several things.
I think we can get a good package for the RERC. See the attached. (We may not want to include names on the last slide).
TVA has a great story to tell – maybe we can provide information relative to the Presidents’ climate action plan that shows we are well positioned to respond to proposed rules, like 111(d). If we have RERC members worried about cost…..then TVA will have limited rate pressure from the President’s Plan. If we have members concerned about ICO2tem emissions, 7 TVA will be providing electricity to the Valley near 700lbs/MWH by 2020…………clearly a clean energy elixir for Valley prosperity.
Why do you need solar panels on your roof if this kind of electricity is coming thru your meter!!
For consideration before the holidays ------the RERC meetings will be on us before we know it.
Merry Christmas to all!
John
From: Hoagland, Joseph J Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:44 AM To: Brickhouse, Brenda Etheridge; Myers, John W Cc: Upchurch, Elizabeth Fancher Subject: FW: draft RERC invite for John and Jacinda
Brenda, John
Attached is the draft agenda for the next RERC meeting on January 22 and 23rd in Knoxville. We are going to be talking with them about the relationship of the IRP and how actual decisions are made on specific issues. For example; the coal retirements that were just recently announced.
I would like to ask one of you to talk about theItem environmental 8 considerations we make when those type of decisions are made. They are also very interested in all the proposed rules and their impact. Giving them a sense of what we do to consider those issues would be helpful as well.
Please let me know if this would work or if you want to discuss.
Thanks! Happy Holidays! Joe
President’s Climate Action Plan
Pillar 1 Goals: ŀ Reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% by 2050
ŀ Double generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020, relative to 2012 levels
ŀ Double the economic output per unit of energy consumed (energy productivity) by 2030, relative to 2010 levels
ŀ The Federal Government will consume 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020
1
Total US CO2 Emissions (Economy-Wide)
US Total CO2 Emissions 6800 Currently on 6600 trajectory for a 10% reduction from 2005 6400
6200
6000
5800 The US needs to be on 5600 this trajectory for a 17% reduction from Million Tons of CO2 of Million Tons 5400 2005
5200
5000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
US Total CO2 Emissions historical data is sourced from Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Review 2011 US Total CO2 Emissions projected data is sourced from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 2
US Electric Utility CO2 Emissions
USElectricUtilityCO2Emissions 2400
2300
2200
2100 CO2 of
2000 Tons
1900
of Currently on 1800 trajectory for a 11% reduction from 2005 1700 Millions
1600
1500 Trajectory for a 17% reduction from 2005 1400 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
US Total CO2 Emissions historical data is sourced from Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Review 2011 US Total CO2 Emissions projected data is sourced from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013
3 TVA CO2 Emissions
120
PEAK Emission (1995) CAP Baseline Year (2005) 110 Trajectory for a 17% 100 reduction from 2005
90 • Through 2012, TVA has achieved a Tons Target
of 28% reduction in CO levels from a
2 80 peak in 1995 • CAP Goal: Reduce CO emissions 17% 70 2 Millions below 2005 levels by 2020 • Through 2012, TVA has reduced CO 60 2 TVA is projected to emissions 23% below 2005 levels reduce CO2 50 emissions 40% below Forecast 2005 levels by 2020 40 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CalendarYear
Projections based on PaR outputs FY15 sPSP 4 TVA Carbon Emission Rate Performance from Our Customer’s Perspective
2,000 Most Efficient Conventional Coal 1,800 1,600 1,400 lbs/MWh 1,200 Rate,
1,000 NSPS for New Gas Turbines 800 600 Emission 400 CO2 200 Ͳ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CalendarYear
• TVA’s carbon emission rate shows substantial improvement.
• WB2 will generate over 10,000,000 MWh per year with no CO2 emissions. • No other utility in the country will be posting numbers like this in the short run.
Projections based on PaR outputs FY15 sPSP 5 2012 Carbon Performance vs. Retail Rate of Electricity
1900 2012DataShowsTVA AM 1700 BenchmarkedUtilities: Ͳ HaveLowerCostOR AEP Ͳ HaveLowerCarbon 1500 Ͳ ButNotBoth(Entergyisan outlierduetoitsnaturalgasͲ dominantgeneratingfleet) (lbs/MWh)
1300 PPL Rate TVA DUK 1100 SO Emission
CO2 900
700 NXT ENT DOM 500 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 RetailRateofElectricity(cents/kWh) 6 Data Sources: U.S. EIA, U.S. EPA CEMS Regional Energy Resource Council January 22 & 23, 2014 Draft -- WORKING VERSION
Tennessee Valley Authority, West Tower Auditorium, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902 ______
Meeting purpose: Greater understanding around the role of the IRP in context of other considerations for decision making. 1. Update on the Integrated Resource Plan 2. TVA Board Recap: Coal Closures 3. In Depth: TVA Imperatives: Rates, Reliability, Resiliency, Environmental Responsibility 4. Advice: relative importance of imperatives
Day 1 Wednesday, January 22nd
12:00 Arrive at TVA Building / Knoxville / Lunch Provided 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902
12:45 Welcome (invite CEO / other Execs as appropriate) 12:55 Safety Moment Building Emergency Plan
1:00 Meeting Purpose and Recap from October 2013
1:15 TVA Board Recap (Coal Closure decision) (Hoagland)
1:45 IRP Update – Scenarios (Brinkworth)
2:30 Break
2:45 Balancing Business Decisions with the IRP (Hoagland)
3:00 The Cost of Electricity (proposed – John Thomas)
3:20 Reliability (proposed – Jacinda Woodward)
3:40 Break
4:00 Resiliency (tbd)
Dec 11, 2013 4:20 Environmental Responsibility (proposed Brickhouse or Myers)
4:40 Wrap Up
4:45 Adjourn and Check in Hotel Hilton 6:00 Group Dinner Chesapeakes
Day 2 Thursday, January 23rd
8:00 Continental Breakfast 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902
8:30 Re-cap from Day 1
9:00 Council Advice on the Balancing of Issues for Making Decisions What imperatives should have the highest priority as trade-offs are made?
9:45 Break
10:00 Public Comment Period
11:00 Break
11:15 Continued Advice and Consensus approval
11:45 Closing Comments Next Meeting tentatively: XXXX 12:00 Lunch * 1:00 Adjourn
(* or- boxed lunch and adjourn earlier)
Dec 11, 2013