EU Leaders Said to Delay Decision on 2030 Targets for Emissions

BRUSSELS -- European Union leaders intend next month to agree on a timeline for developing energy and climate targets for 2030, delaying a final decision on the polices, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

Most governments in the 28-nation bloc need more time to reconcile differences over a proposal by the EU’s regulatory arm calling for tighter emissions restrictions and an overhaul of renewable energypolicies by 2030, said the people, who asked not to be identified because of policies against speaking publicly. EU presidents and prime ministers will debate the issue in Brussels for the first time on March 20 and may back setting a deadline for a decision later this year, they said.

The delay may be a setback for the global effort to fight climate change and for United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon, who is convening world leaders on Sept. 23 to set out ways to curb fossil fuel emissions. The EU has for decades been at the forefront of that process, and hesitation on its part may remove a spur for the U.S. and China to act.

“It’s very important that EU leaders set a time horizon in March for endorsement of the commission’s proposal -- that’s a signal that Europe must send globally,” said Tomas Wyns, a researcher at the Institute of European Studies at the Brussels Free University. “Hopefully that will be June. Otherwise it may only be October or at the end of the year.”

Summit Schedule

Before the EU summit in March, governments are scheduled to discuss the commission’s proposal at a gathering of competition ministers on Feb. 20, with environment ministers on March 3, and energy ministers the next day, according to Greece, which holds the bloc’s rotating presidency.

Heads of state will probably give political guidance on the matter through the European Council, said a presidency official, who asked not to be identified because of communication policy rules. The official declined to comment on the possible outcome of the March meeting.

EU carbon prices rose as much as 3 percent to a 13-month high of 6.88 euros on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London today, buoyed by the commission’s plan to start temporary curbs on supply as soon as next month. The 2030 package will be the next focal point for investors, since stricter climate targets would mean the supply of allowances will have to be cut more aggressively after 2020.

Debate about the timing of adopting the target highlights the divide between countries in western Europe such as Britain and France, which want a quick decision, and those in the east led by Poland, which are concerned that the new targets will boost energy prices.

Commission Proposal

The European Commission’s proposal calls for carbon dioxide emissions to be cut by 40 percent by 2030, double the goal for 2020. It would require an average annual investment of 38 billion euros ($52 billion), according to an EU policy paper on Jan. 22. The current pace of reductions would lead the EU to a 32 percent cut by 2030.

The commission’s ambition is to have a political decision on the direction of future policy in time for the Sept. 23 summit, where the UN is seeking pledges that can underpin a global treaty limiting emissions to be approved in 2015 in Paris.

The strategy recommended by the commission also includes an EU-wide target to boost the share of renewables in energy consumption to 27 percent by 2030. The decision to focus on a single greenhouse-gas reduction target binding on member states and discontinue renewables goals for individual nations has been supported by the U.K. and criticized by companies including Vestas Wind Systems A/S and Alstom SA, which make wind turbines and nuclear reactors.

EU Leadership

EU nations have established the world’s largest carbon market and extended restrictions on emissions under the Kyoto Protocol until 2020 as Russia, Japan and Canada rejected further limits. The U.S. never endorsed the Kyoto treaty, which was negotiated in the Japanese city by that name in 1997.

It is “imperative” that EU leaders turn the commission’s proposal into a decision in March, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Feb. 6, according to Agence France Presse. Without a political declaration next month, Europe may have nothing to offer at the UN climate summit in September, because elections to the European Parliament in May and the end of the current commission’s term in October will complicate the decision-making process, he said.

Polish Opposition

Poland, which relies on coal for more than 90 percent of its electricity production, said no decision on new energy and climate targets should be made before the commission’s term expires. Future policies in Europe must take into account the region’s competitiveness and the costs of energy, which in some parts of the region are double U.S. levels, according to the Polish government.

“We want a broad discussion in March, not a decision,” Economy Minister Janusz Piechocinski told reporters on Feb. 12 in Warsaw. “Our logic is the following: If Poland is forced, it will veto those European solutions. We are calling for a more ambitious goal: a global agreement.”

Environment ministers will not aim to adopt a unanimous political statement on the 2030 package at their gathering, leaving the matter to the EU leaders, according to the two people with knowledge of the matter.

Only after EU leaders back the strategy for the next decade will the commission be able to start drafting legislation on how to achieve the targets. The law proposed by the commission will then need to be adopted by member states and the European Parliament. That process typically takes a year or two.

Copyright 2014 Bloomberg

View the original article here

California decision may speed up energy efficiency financing

A new market shaping decision found the California public utilities Commission (CPUC) on Sept. 19. The State dependence of private capital for energy efficiency, to increase the funding, the CPUC has provided private utilities $65.9 million for a suite of pilot finance programs for the State. California diversified approach could lead to original solutions, which other States could adopt.

"It's a very aggressive effort", said Frank Spasaro, head of the energy efficiency partnerships and financial Sciences at the Southern California gas company.

Most new programs offered by all State major private utilities. California has other great use, but they are not part of the CPUC decision.

"We have much effort into things that are market transformative," said David Nemtzow, Rector of Nemtsov & associates. "You can imagine it as a catalyst."

Taxpayers use the new suite of programs to access private capital funds. The programs will go on at the same time financing challenges from many angles. It tests a wide range of financing approaches to discover how to effectively perform. Utilities can later, as they by their experiences during the pilot phase these programs expand.

"This is a pilot project to learn how the market reacts in different ways to see," Nemtsov said. "Will lead it to lower interest rates [or] different terms? Borrowers will be more willing to lend? These are the things, which we want to test."

It has been somewhat controversial, that on-Court programs require repayment of the written consent of buyers of commercial real estate if the properties are sold. After Brad Copithorne, energy and financial policy specialist at Environmental Defense Fund can this feature be discouraged investment, because some lenders prefer loan, which are automatically transferable.

The new financing of programmes includes three residential and three non-residential programs.

Residential programs include an energy efficiency finance items fee, a master-metered more families pilot program with Bill-repayment and a single-family house direct loan program.

The non-residential programs include two on-Bill-repayment programs for companies and a small-business area on Bill repayment of lease provider program (for equipment leasing).

New residential programs

Energy efficiency post free finance program offered by Pacific gas and electric company. Participants will be on line article-to-/ discounts on their electricity bills to pay back. Private investors will finance the loans.

Even if participants do not pay their bills, California will protect them law breakers. According to Spasaro if homeowners partial payments, these payments applied to other duties on the Bills before they are applied to the energy-efficiency loans.

The master metered more families pilot program with Bill-repayment is designed for the affordable housing market. This program connects private investors with multifamily owners who strive, retrofit their buildings more energy efficient. (A master is meter an electricity meter, serve several households.)

California Spasaro said affordable housing market is fairly limited, so it is difficult to develop effective programs for this sector. He said community development, which involved financial institutions, to create this program.

Spasaro said that this program in the price can provide heating included, discounts and solar water. Credit enhancements are probably to be expected. (Incentives offer credit enhancements for lenders to improved conditions for projects to offer.)

The CPUC decided that this program does not require that loan recipient enough energy to financially break save each year. (This requirement is also known as "Bill neutrality.") Program participants who do not their credit payments will be protected from interruptions.

The House direct loan program is a loan program, provides the private capital for low to middle income homeowners. The program was expanded to allow both direct and indirect loans. There is a provision for outstanding claims loans lenders protect, in case that some loans will not be repaid.

New non-residential programs

The two on-Bill-repayment programs for company records grant private capital from lenders to energy-efficiency loans. One of the programs is for small businesses, while the other programme covers the rest of the industry.

The small-business program is aimed at organizations that have difficulties with the procurement, energy efficiency financing.

The medium to large business program covers various approaches to energy efficiency, including the distributed generation and demand response. (Demand response programs energy consumption of a company customize, so that it is better makes in accordance with the, the utilities provide.) This company can be more energy efficient.)

Electrical service can be separated in both programs, if companies fail to make loan payments. When companies make installment payments, these payments will be split the cost of energy and their loans. These programs will include loan loss reserves as a credit enhancement.

An attempt to engage, Spasaro the equipment leasing market said the small businesses on-Bill-repayment leasing provider program. "We think there is a very large effort that goes in the area of leasing." It will be a competitive tender, any plants to find leasing providers.

Existing programs

The existing on-account-financing programs use funds collected from utilities by the taxpayer to energy efficiency financing support. The CPUC modified decision these programs so that they will reduce their focus on lighting. Spasaro said that these programs have waiting lists.

The new generation of pilot programmes these programmes in the area of the on account repayment, search go a step further private capital to the energy efficiency retrofit support.

Data management

Requires California new mediator - so-called organisational "hub these programs" for data and financial information set up sharing. This hub is the California hub for energy are called efficiency financing (Mamadou) and California are running from the alternative energy and advanced transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA).

Spasaro said the CHEEF activities responsible for the management of the master servicer, credit enhancements and loan performance data.

The CHEEF will stand between the utilities and the financial organizations and handle their transactions and data. Exchange of information between these organisations will be expected to be very complex. California adopts an IT system that can process these transactions, find other States copy it a useful model.

View the original article here

Security risk in pipeline valve decision played down

WASHINGTON officials for the company, the California in a deadly pipeline explosion in September last year acknowledged Tuesday, four years before the accident you install valves rejected, which could have automatically switched or remote-controlled the flow of Erdgas.Pacific gas and electric co. employees were surveyed in a National Transportation Safety Board hearing on a 2006 memo, which said that the valves install "to ensure little or no effect on human safety or properties."Gas engineer Chih-hung Lee, author of the memo, said that he as only industry studies, not Government to reach its conclusions. Industry studies, he said that that most of the damage to gas-accidents pipeline occurs in the first 30 seconds.But if ruptured the pipeline Sept. 9 under a San Francisco suburb suburb, still gas feed a pillar of fire for an hour and a half, before flow could manually close workers. Eight people were killed, many injured, and dozens of houses destroyed."Investigators pointed to a study from 1999, Transport Department, which was previously warned that it be given a significant security risk, as long as gas on the fracture site and operators it not possible, manual valves rapidly close."All fire would have greater intensity and would have more potential for surrounding infrastructure damage, if it is constantly replenished with gas, "said the Government study." "The degree of the disruption in heavily populated and commercial areas would fire in direct proportion to the duration."Coroner's reports indicate that at least five people killed in San Bruno tried have to flee, when they died.Keith Slibasager, PG & E's Manager of gas system operations, said that it took control room staff about 15 minutes after the explosion, find out what happened and would have taken over an another 15 minutes to the gas with automatic or remote of controlled valves shut down. This is an hour consumes less than it took in San Bruno.Instead, about 12 minutes after the explosion, PG & E's dispatch center sent an off-duty employee which was explosion reported to investigate, but he not qualified to the manual valves necessary, feeding a huge fire, Switch off gas houses operate the Safety Board investigator, Ravi Chhatre, said.It took a team, the able to isolate the pipeline and 90 minutes for you, the valves 30 minutes after the break for the company crank dispatch, all stop gas, he said.PG & E officials acknowledged that after Lee's memo no effort made to check the valves. They said that since the disaster, the company to study a dozen of the valves in this year and their effectiveness has begun a pilot project for the installation.But Slibasager said there are potential safety drawbacks for the valves. If closed, he said you in the region widely used gas could cause failures that would put in homes and other buildings, from pilot light.The risk that when gas is again turned on, it could build in buildings in the pilot light is not immediately relit are saying.

View the original article here

Chevron digging in Ecuadorian decision

Protesters outside Chevron keep headquarters photos of the Ecuadorian people who say they were affected by the pollution of dumped toxic waste Tuesday.

In November 2009 Philadelphia lawyer suing Chevron Corp. of oil pollution in Ecuador had some advice for his colleagues on the case: now may be the time to settle.Joseph Kohn, said in a letter to two Ecuadorian legal team members, he thought that the company may be protracted dispute between $700 million and $1.2 billion for convinced rules could be. Chevron CEO David O'Kane was Reilly, about to retire and a lawyer working for the company based in suburban San Francisco Kohn told that O'Reilly didn't want to pass the suit to his successor.Operation for a larger settlement, Kohn wrote, would probably not work. "I think Chevron for the next 10 or 20 years if necessary, fight before paying a settlement in the billion dollar range," wrote Kohn, November 10, 2009, letter to lawyer Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza Organizer. Kohn, whose Firma had spent $7 million bankrolling of the lawsuit claimed also against settlement turned talks in the hope that the Ecuadorian judge, hearing the case eventually would exclude their benefit. Chevron, he wrote could possibilities for years pay to avoid.Kohn's colleagues and your customers in Ecuador rejected his advice and Kohn finally left the case is to pursue talks partly due to disagreements about the settlement. A spokesman for Kohn fell next comment on Tuesday.Now that intervene Sue Chevron won $ 9.5 billion against the company - a substantial sum have a decision in principle but far behind the $27 billion to $113 billion you sought.A judge in the Ecuadorian town of Lago Agrio ruled Monday that Chevron to clean a part of the Amazon rain forest where Texaco, drilled bought by Chevron in 2001 oil before decades numbers should be. Monday's judgment orders Chevron over $8 billion for environmental health and the clean-Up to pay. Judge Nicolas ZAMBRANO also $ 864 million awarded to the Amazon defense Coalition, a group representing the plaintiffs.But Chevron has vowed not to pay, and temporary order powers has the courts in the United States and Europe convinced block enforcement of the judgment. The company has a counterclaim against the plaintiff in the United States by it you presented fraud and extortion.The wisdom of the plaintiff decision not to push a around $1 billion settlement to be seen. "We know this years could last", Juan Pablo Saenz, Member of the plaintiff said legal team in Ecuador. "This is not our customers like to spoil-, we are fully aware go."He added that proposed by Kohn settlement amount too low to provide all necessary renovation. Chevron, for its part, shows no interest in resolving now.

View the original article here