Government Affairs Update - 04/14/2007

You are reading an archived version of the ASHRAE Government Affairs Update. Please click here for the most recent update.

• Supreme Court: EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases
• DOE Report Encourages Greater Utility Energy Efficiency
• NREL Releases Tax Deduction Guidance
• NSF Funding for Engineering in K-12

Supreme Court: EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases

After a four-year court battle, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.

The Supreme Court’s decision, in Massachusetts v. EPA , repudiates the Bush administration’s policy on global warming. In 2003, EPA ruled that it had no power to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals. The High Court struck down that ruling stating in a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts filed the dissenting opinion, in which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito joined.

The Court ordered EPA to make a fresh decision on curbing heat-trapping pollution from new cars, SUVs, and trucks. The Supreme Court’s decision comes as Congress is moving into high gear on new legislation to cap and reduce global warming pollution from all major sources across the economy.

The court had three questions before it.

• Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
• Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
• Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," said Stevens.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit. The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, said Roberts. His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.

Plaintiffs in the suit included 12 states (CA, CT, IL, RI, MA, ME, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT and WA), Baltimore, New York City, Washington, D.C., and numerous environmental groups and non-profit organizations. Fourteen "friend of the court" briefs were also filed from an array of scientists, former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, electric power companies, state and local governments, and others.

DOE Report Encourages Greater Utility Energy Efficiency

In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted its report and recommendations, “State and Regional Policies That Promote Energy Efficiency Programs Carried Out by Electric and Gas Utilities” to Congress on state and regional utility policies that promote energy-efficiency programs. The report’s main finding is that “State and regional policies should capitalize on the opportunities to use low-cost energy efficiency, as delivered by electric and gas utilities with allied organizations, as a means to meet growing energy demands and enhance system reliability”.

The report also makes 10 recommendations for State and regional policies that could increase delivery of energy efficiency by electric and gas utilities and allied groups. Including:

• Regulators should consider making a strong, long-term commitment to cost-effective energy efficiency as a resource.
• Regulators should consider implementing electric and gas utility energy efficiency programs through a combination of: a. infrastructure planning b. establishing dedicated program funding sources and ensuring that utilities receive appropriate compensation for programs; c. energy efficiency performance requirements for utilities; and d. reporting resulting costs, savings, and other program performance indicators.
• State energy agencies should consider adopting complementary policies to utility energy efficiency programs, such as appliance energy efficiency standards, building codes, and tax incentives.
• Regulators should consider recognizing energy efficiency as a high-priority energy resource.
• Regulators should consider establishing a formal evaluation framework for utility energy efficiency programs. States involved in regional planning may also want to move toward common evaluation protocols for energy efficiency programs.
• Regulators should consider adopting an energy efficiency performance requirement or minimum energy savings targets for electric and natural gas utility end-use energy efficiency programs.
• Regulators should consider promoting sufficient, timely, and stable program funding to deliver energy efficiency where cost-effective.
• Regulators should consider modifying policies to align utility incentives with the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency.
• Regulators should consider modifying ratemaking practices to promote energy efficiency among consumers, while recognizing that this goal must be balanced with other ratemaking objectives.

NREL Releases Tax Deduction Guidance

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, at the request of the Treasury Department, has released guidance for modeling and inspecting energy-efficient property in commercial buildings necessary to claim federal tax deductions granted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The document provides guidance for modeling and inspecting energy-efficient property in commercial buildings for certification of the energy and power cost savings related to §179D of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) enacted in §1331 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct 2005) and noted in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 2006-52. Specifically, §179D provides federal tax deductions for energy-efficient property related to a commercial building’s envelope; interior lighting; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; and service hot water systems.

These detailed requirements outline many of the technical aspects on how to calculate energy savings, how to inspect commercial buildings, and what is required to qualify for total and partial credits. See http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40228.pdf for a copy of the report.

NSF Funding for Engineering in K-12

The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Directorate for Engineering (ENG), Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering program supports the active involvement of K-12 teachers and community college faculty in engineering research in order to bring knowledge of engineering and technological innovation into their classrooms. The goal is to help build long-term collaborative partnerships between K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, community college faculty, and the NSF university research community by involving the teachers in engineering research and helping them translate their research experiences and new knowledge of engineering into classroom activities. Partnerships with inner city schools or other h igh need schools are especially encouraged, as is participation by underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. The announcement features two mechanisms for support of in-service and pre-service K-12 teachers and/or community college faculty: RET supplements to ongoing ENG awards and new RET Site awards. RET supplements may be included in proposals for new or renewed NSF Directorate for Engineering (ENG) grants or as supplements to ongoing NSF ENG funded projects. RET Sites are based on independent proposals from engineering departments, schools or colleges to initiate and conduct research participation projects for a number of K-12 teachers and/or community college faculty. See http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5736.

The NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12) program provides funding to graduate students in NSF-supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines to acquire additional skills that will broadly prepare them for professional and scientific careers in the 21st century. Through interactions with teachers and students in K-12 schools and with other graduate fellows and faculty from STEM disciplines, graduate students can improve communication, teaching, collaboration, and team building skills while enriching STEM learning and instruction in K-12 schools. Through this experience, graduate students can gain a deeper understanding of their own STEM research. In addition, the GK-12 program provides institutions of higher education with an opportunity to make a permanent chan ge in their graduate programs by incorporating GK-12 like activities in the training of their STEM graduate students. Expected outcomes include improved communication, teaching, collaboration, and team building skills for the fellows; professional development opportunities for K-12 teachers; enriched learning for K-12 students; and strengthened and sustained partnerships in STEM between institutions of higher education and local school districts. See http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5472.