Green Counsel

A Humpty Dumpty World

At a time when the White House and Congress all seem to be captured by corporate interests, it can be hard to believe that the United States government -- a democracy in name -- represents the will of the people.

Although after years of conservative appointments it's becoming less frequent, occasionally the Courts -- the least democratic of the federal branches, relatively insulated from the political process with lifetime appointments -- can be most protective of the environment and the citizenry.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the EPA and Bush Administration's New Source Review policy that would have loosened emission rules and allowed older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls.

Judge Rogers accused the EPA of trying to redefine language in the Clean Air Act to selectively exclude many facilities from the requirement that they install new air-pollution controls when making significant upgrades. The Court believed that when Congress required upgrades for a "modification" it meant any modification. The Court stated that "[o]nly in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words [to define "modification"] while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a worldview."

As Grist pointed out, "Americans who breathe scored a big victory . . ."

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127.html

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/03/20/

Sicking the IRS on Greenpeace

Anyone who's taken on corporate interests in an environmental battle knows that the corporate arsenal includes litigation, advertising, public relations, "non-profit" front groups, disinformation and lobbying, among other strategies.  ExxonMobil combined tactics, with a front-group/lobbying one-two punch, in an effort to challenge Greenpeace's tax exempt status.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a non-profit "watchdog" group known as Public Interest Watch (PIW) successfully lobbied for an IRS tax audit of Greenpeace.  PIW's tax filing from August 2003 to July 2004 states that $120k of $124k of income came from ExxonMobil and, according to Greenpeace, the IRS acknowledged that their investigation arose from PIW's complaint.  Greenpeace was notified in March that it retained its tax exempt status, but the three month audit procedure surely cut into Greenpeace's other work.

Source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/4619

If Winter Comes...

What could be better to celebrate the beginning of Spring than the Province of Ontario's March 21 announcement that it would be implementing feed-in tariffs -- otherwise known as standard offer contracts -- that guarantee connection to the grid and payments to electricity producers, including homeowners with small PV systems, for twenty years.  Projects are capped at 10 MW (approximately sufficient to supply 10,000 homes), and contracts are available to anyone, including homeowners, businesses and commercial energy producers.

Feed-in tariffs are largely credited for the boom in renewable energy in places like Germany and Spain, but have not been implemented in the U.S. except for a small pilot project in California.  In Germany, feed-in tariffs have led to the development of 110,000 solar PV systems, 2,000 biomass plants, 6,000 small hydro plants, 16,500 wind turbines, and 45,000 jobs in the wind industry.

Meanwhile, it's still chilly in New York.

Source:  http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44408

Local Rules! The Feds Drool :-(

Local policy can make a huge difference in creating a sustainable economy (and is probably the only way to do it).  The San Luis Obisbo (CA) City Council just announced that 50% of new homes will be required to have solar panels by 2020. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispotribune/news/breaking_news/13990488.htm

Compare this to what our friends in Washington are doing.  The House of Representatives will vote on March 2 for a "national food uniformity" labeling law that will prevent states and localities from requiring labelling that specific foods or beverages are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. The bill would also prevent localities from requiring labelling on genetically engineered foods and ingredients.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2752