Browsing by Author "Profeta, Timothy H"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Finding Opportunities for Pre-Compliance Species Conservation in North Carolina(2013-04-25) Whelan, AndrewPOLICY QUESTION: Which pre-compliance conservation strategies have the greatest potential to conserve multiple unprotected species in North Carolina? BACKGROUND: Pre-compliance conservation involves landowners working cooperatively with conservation managers to conserve imperiled yet unprotected species. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) wants to pursue pre-compliance measures in North Carolina. Unfortunately, species require different mitigation strategies on the basis of the threats they faced and their ecological characteristics. EDF is unclear which strategies could potentially conserve the greatest number of species. This project analyzes different conservation strategies on their ability to protect multiple species simultaneously in several geographic regions of North Carolina. It hopes to provide a tool to aid EDF in its ability to optimize preemptive species conservation. RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: EDF should consider the following criteria when deciding between pre-compliance strategies in each region: • Address the primary threats or stressors facing populations in the region • Align with the ecological characteristics of the species in the region • Align with the incentives, motivations, and opportunities of the region’s landowners Accounting for these criteria, I recommend that EDF implement the following strategies: 1) In the high-elevation western region of North Carolina, landowners should retrofit dams to naturalize stream flow conditions and allow for the passage of migratory species. The incentives for pre-compliance action may differ for private and public landowners. Private landowner participation might be incentivized by conservation easements or through protections from future regulatory action. Public landowners might be motivated by federal guidance promoting ecosystem services. I recommend focusing on this region first, due to its large number of unique species and potential for federal cooperation. 2) In the southeastern region of North Carolina, landowners should establish riparian buffers to limit siltation and runoff, reduce stream temperatures, and restore woody debris to aquatic ecosystems. Landowner participation might be incentivized by direct payments or through protections from future regulatory action. I recommend focusing on this region second, due to its large number of unique species. 3) In the agricultural eastern region of North Carolina, landowners should establish riparian buffers and improve irrigation technology; these strategies could be incentivized by direct payments or through protections from future regulatory action. Landowners should also adopt best management practices regarding fertilizer application, water use, and livestock management; these practices could be incentivized by conservation easements or the option to revert to previous management practices in the future. Reverse auctions could be used to identify participating landowners for all mitigation strategies in this region. I recommend focusing on this region third due to the abundant opportunities for landowner compensation provided by farm bill conservation programs. 4) In the developed central region of North Carolina, landowners should employ a combination of mitigation strategies. Potential strategies include riparian buffering, adopting best management practices, modifying development, retrofitting dams, stream shading, controlling erosion, removing invasive species, and conducting on-site stream restoration. I recommend prioritizing this region fourth; its large variety of threats might make it difficult to develop a comprehensive conservation plan. METHODS: 1. After identifying species that fit my criteria (wetland or aquatic animals in North Carolina that are imperiled yet unprotected), I grouped species populations into four geographic regions on the basis of spatial proximity, dominant land uses, and elevation. This was done to identify regions where a mitigation strategy might cover multiple species threatened by similar stressors. 2. I next conducted a spatial analysis of five stressors threatening target species populations: agriculture, development, deforestation, roads, and dams. For most stressors, threat levels were determined by the density of the threat within a 5 km radius; for dams, threat level was determined by the distance from the nearest upstream dam. 3. I conducted a literature review to identify common mitigation techniques for each threat class. 4. I analyzed programs that are commonly used to reach conservation agreements with landowners to identify policy alternatives, or tools. I then analyzed how the policy tools align with the previously identified mitigation techniques; this produced a list of mitigation techniques and policy tools that could be employed within each geographic region. 5. I then conducted a literature review on the ecological characteristics of the target species to ensure that the chosen mitigation techniques and policy tools aligned with the dominant species traits in each region. DISCUSSION: This project identified several opportunities for effective pre-compliance species conservation in North Carolina. While it tried to identify a “best option” for each geographic region, there are often multiple strategies with the potential for effective conservation. There are many resources that landowners and conservation managers can use to implement pre-compliance agreements. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides resources that allow farmers to reduce their NPS runoff (CWA 33 U.S.C. § 1329, EPA 2005). A variety of farm bill conservation programs provide technical assistance, financial compensation, and education to help farmers reduce their environmental impacts. This tool can potentially help EDF conserve many species by bypassing a long and contentious listing process under the federal Endangered Species Act.Item Open Access Finding Opportunities for Pre-Compliance Species Conservation in North Carolina(2013-04-25) Whelan, AndrewPre-compliance conservation involves landowners working cooperatively with conservation managers to conserve imperiled yet unprotected species. This strategy has the potential to conserve many species by bypassing a long and contentions listing process under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) wants to pursue pre-compliance measures in North Carolina. Unfortunately, species require different mitigation strategies on the basis of the stressors they face and their unique suites of life history traits. EDF is unclear which strategies could potentially conserve the greatest number of species. This masters project identifies pre-compliance programs with the potential to protect multiple species. I targeted wetland or aquatic species that are imperiled yet unprotected, and focused on four North Carolina regions that had large numbers of target populations. I conducted a spatial threat analysis to identify the main stressor within each region, and identified potential mitigation techniques for each of these stressors. I then analyzed policy tools that might be used to implement these mitigation techniques. Finally, I conducted a literature review on the life history characteristics of the target species to ensure that the chosen mitigation techniques and policy tools aligned with the dominant species traits in each region. In western North Carolina, landowners should retrofit dams to naturalize stream flow conditions. In southern North Carolina, landowners should establish riparian buffers to limit runoff, reduce stream temperatures, and restore woody debris to aquatic ecosystems. In eastern North Carolina, landowners should establish riparian buffers and improve their management practices and technology. Threats in central North Carolina are more varied, and a combination of mitigation strategies may be needed. Several tools are available to implement these strategies, including Farm Bill conservation programs and federal guidelines to incorporate ecosystem services. This project hopes to provide a tool to aid EDF in its ability to optimize preemptive species conservation.Item Open Access How Can Multi-State Compliance Programs in State Implementation Plans under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act Inform the Potential Use of Multi-State, Market-Based Mechanisms for Compliance with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act?(2013-04-19) Hauser, JanieThe Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has committed to regulating greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from stationary sources under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). There are only a few established regulatory programs under section 111(d) that EPA can reference as guidance during this process. Furthermore, the courts have not ruled on whether EPA may authorize the use of multi-state or market-based compliance mechanisms under section 111(d). However, section 111(d) explains that the regulatory process in 111(d) should be “similar to that provided by [section] 110.” Many states use multi-state, market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the requirements of section 110. Three section 110 programs, specifically, the NOx SIP Call, the Regional Haze program, and the Transportation Conformity program, serve as legal and structural examples of how EPA could develop regulations for GHG emissions under 111(d). Based on experiences with these 110 programs, EPA can learn valuable lessons for the development of a regulatory program that provides flexibility for states to use multi-state, market-based mechanisms for compliance. First, the NOx SIP Call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) litigation demonstrate the D.C. Circuit’s commitment to the exact language in the CAA. The court was, and could be suspicious of any programs that deviate from the source specific language of 111(d), making it important for EPA to provide sound legal ground for varying from the source-specific nature of 111(d). Furthermore, EPA should not create a program that forces states to impose regulations outside of the states’ statutory responsibilities. EPA should not restrain states choices, but instead, allow states the flexibility in the development standards of performance. EPA should also develop backstops for flexible programs to ensure all states and all sources meet their emissions reductions, regardless of what happens in the courts. This would allow EPA to give states the authority to implement flexible mechanisms while ensuring that all states will reduce GHG emissions, even if the court strikes down EPA’s authorization of non-source-specific programs, thereby avoiding the “unpromulgated limbo” problems that arose in the Regional Haze litigation. Finally, Transportation Conformity stands as an example of a flexible compliance mechanism under 110 that could be used as a model for justifying the use of similarly flexible mechanisms in a 110-like program under section 111(d). The regional budget setting process that states use under the Transportation Conformity program provides a concrete example of states working together to achieve compliance under section 110. After analyzing these three programs, this paper considers two lines of policy arguments supporting the use of multi-state, market-based programs under 111(d). This paper assumes that EPA has the authority to create regulations under 111(d) that are not source-specific, technology standards. Rather, the language of 111(d) authorizes the agency to create the “best system of emissions reduction” which could include market-based programs.Item Open Access SEEKING PRODUCTIVE POWER: A PROPOSAL FOR BLOCKCHAIN-ENABLED MICROGRIDS IN THE AFRICAN CONTEXT(2017-04-28) Seelaus, AndrewIn the past five years, significant advances have been made in providing energy access to base of the pyramid African consumers. Increased attention to energy poverty on a global scale has galvanized innovative business models and spurred new investment aimed at ensuring that energy consumers across the spectrum have access to electricity. Governments, non-profits, and for-profit entities are working to provide sustainable energy solutions to the more than 600 million Africans that lack access to electricity. This study investigates productive power, or electricity access enabling meaningful economic development at the community level. In particular, it identifies a gap in current methods for providing productive power to consumers in the peri-urban and near-grid market segment, and proposes a new business model to promote more rapid scaling of microgrid solutions. The first section of the paper provides an overview of the spectrum of African energy consumers, and examines the methods in which that energy demand is being met. It finds that central grid connections and solar home systems are meeting the needs of either end of the spectrum, i.e. rural, off-grid consumers and urban, grid connected consumers. However, there is a gap in effective, economically productive power for consumers in the middle. The second section examines the methods being used to address the productive power gap, namely grid extension programs, expanded solar home systems, and microgrids. It shows that grid extension efforts are too slow to make in impact in electrification rates due to population growth rates, and that expanded solar home systems remain too small to offer true productive power solutions. Microgrids are an area that is experiencing significant innovation and investment interest. The third section identifies critical factors that limit scaling of renewable microgrids. These constraining factors are: a) means of selling the system, b) standardization of technology and regulation, and c) lack of financing due to perceived risk. Finally, the author proposes a novel business model for microgrids that incorporates recent advances in smart metering devices and blockchain technology. By combining elements of three diverse businesses using these new technologies, the author argues that the three limitations to scale can be mitigated. The result is trading-enabled, ad-hoc microgrids that facilitate external investment by providing avenues for portfolio-based securitization, and international real asset financing. The paper concludes with recommendations of topics for further investigation that can help scrutinize operational feasibility of the proposed business model.Item Open Access The Anchor-Business-Community Model for Rural Energy Development: Is it a Viable Option?(2016-04-29) Givens, RebekahThe Anchor Business Community (ABC) Model is a proposed method of rural energy development in which energy companies leverage anchor customers to reduce the risk of business in areas of uncertain demand, thereby incentivizing electrification of all customer types in a community. However, practitioners observe a lower implementation rate than expected of the model. This study examines possible barriers by using HOMER, an economic analysis modeling tool, to compare the levelized costs of rural electricity among eight scenarios. In most cases, the ABC model produces electricity at a lower cost than electrification absent the model, but cost distribution burdens individual customer groups and creates an economic disincentive to engage. Therefore, the ABC model requires public intervention (cross-subsidization, spatial analysis and planning, and forums for customer engagement) to be a viable option.