President Obama last week followed through on his pledge to propose a climate change action plan that can be pursued without Congressional approval. This week in CIB:

Washington Watch: Obama Announces Climate Change Action Plan

President Obama last week rolled out his long-awaited second-term action plan on climate change, outlining a series of key efforts that are within his authority without Congressional approval. (Obama’s first effort to comprehensively address climate change, the “cap and trade” program to systematically limit carbon emissions, faltered early in his first term, when the U.S. Senate failed to act on legislation approved by the then-Democratic U.S. House.)

Despite the limits imposed by the necessity of moving forward without help from a deadlocked Congress, League of Conservation Voters (LCV) president Gene Karpinski called the plan “historic” and “common sense”. He said that it is “by far the most comprehensive and ambitious administrative plan proposed by any president”. LCV and other environmental groups called for support for the plan.

Obama’s plan relies on these key elements:

• Regulations on power plant carbon dioxide emissions (especially from coal-fired plants) that would extend to covering existing power plants, not just new ones. EPA is charged with undertaking this under existing Clean Air Act authority, with rules to be proposed by June 2014 and finalized by June 2015.
• Significant increases in renewable energy (wind, solar) generation from facilities located on public lands. The Department of the Interior is directed to head this effort.
• Extending further the ongoing tightening of fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks, and strengthening energy efficiency standards for new construction and building renovation.
• Development of a strategy to limit emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. EPA is charged with taking the lead in this as well.

The plan also discusses the need to plan adaptations to the effects of climate change that are already underway, and the use of international diplomacy to leverage stronger action by other nations which have been reluctant thus far to effectively participate in coordinated efforts.

The announcement drew immediate and largely predictable responses from sources across the political and economic spectrum. Congressional opponents and the coal industry dubbed the plan a “war on coal” and pledged to use it in political campaigns against supporters of the efforts. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), a co-chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, defended Obama’s decision to move forward now with administrative actions in lieu of returning to Congress for another push there: “What’s a president to do when you’re dealing with a bunch of Luddites who simply will not acknowledge the compelling evidence in front of us? I think Obama feels he has no other choice.” (Politico, 6/26/13.)

Environmental reactions were largely positive, although there was some criticism of continued reliance on nuclear power and the characterization of increased natural gas use as a “bridge” to a renewable energy future. For analysis from Natural Resources Defense Council president Frances Beinecke, see here.

The White House’s own more detailed presentation of the plan can be found here.

The full text of the presidential memorandum on the power plant regulations can be found here.

The White House also prepared state-by-state summaries discussing the plan’s relevance. The memo for North Carolina is found here.

Legislative Watch: Minor Bill Mutates Into Environmental Menace

It’s times like last week that give rise to the old Raleigh cliche that “No one’s life or property is safe when the legislature is in session.” HB 94, “Amend Environmental Laws 2013”, metamorphosed–metastasized?–in Senate committee from four pages to 43 pages thick with wide-ranging provisions that NCLCV calls “destructive to citizens’ private property, to their health, and to the environment.” (HotList, 6/26/13.)

The newly added problems cited in NCLCV’s HotList include these:

• Exempts rules pertaining to oil and gas development from the requirement to obtain a fiscal note, thereby further fast-tracking anything done for the petroleum industry–without the need for a look at how it would affect the state’s budget or broader economy.
• Allows polluters to contaminate groundwater to the boundaries of their property, meaning that the damage would have to have already spread to their neighbors’ groundwater (or even adjacent rivers and lakes) before state agencies can intervene. (Goodbye, prevention!)
• Blocks the state Mining and Energy Commission from requiring information on “trade secret” chemicals in fracking fluids until after a public health or environmental emergency is already underway. This would guarantee that emergency responders and environmental regulators are kept in the dark, without knowledge of what to watch for or the chance to prepare to deal with specific chemical threats.
• Exempts key bodies of water from riparian buffer protections, repeals the Mountain Resources Planning Act, decreases the time for at-risk third parties to learn of and challenge pollution permits that could injure them, and radically reorganizes clean water protection programs.

Originally scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor last Thursday, the revamped HB 94 was pulled from the calendar along with dozens of other House bills. For now, it continues to lurk just offstage, ready to spring back into runaway truck mode.

Administrative Watch: Mining and Energy Commission Says: Let Us Do Our Job

North Carolina’s new Mining and Energy Commission (MEC) was strongly criticized last year for leadership moves that lacked transparency in its rulemaking process. These were especially notable in the development of industry disclosure requirements for potentially toxic chemicals used in the fracking process, which can contaminate groundwater.

As the rulemaking process continued, however, it seems that the fracking industry was not necessarily getting everything it wanted from the MEC. So it went to its friends in the Senate for a provision (see discussion of HB 94 above) that would guarantee it a sweeping exemption from disclosure requirements.

This eye-catching case of irony left the MEC furious at the prospective pre-emption–so much so that on Friday it voted unanimously to write a letter of protest to House and Senate leaders. MEC Chair James Womack said, “The motion is to let us do our work, to complete our work.”

The process of honestly attempting to craft environmental rules that actually work can be educational.

Education & Resources: More Questions About Dissolving Water Quality

Last week, CIB discussed reports that the McCrory Administration is preparing to announce plans to dissolve the N.C. Division of Water Quality and transfer its functions to other offices within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Since then, former Deputy Secretary of DENR Robin Smith has discussed the topic further on her blog, here.

Smith (no relation to the NCLCV staffer of the same name) speaks from a deep background of long professional service within DENR. In her blog entry of June 25, Smith asks and discusses questions such as these:

• Will the reorganized programs retain enough staff to do their jobs?
• Will they maintain all the functions needed to meet federal Clean Water Act requirements?
• Will the changes that affect Clean Water Act programs require EPA approval?

CIB recommends reviewing Smith’s well-informed take on this serious concern.

That’s our report for this week.