Green Tech

Greener-than-thou Google, which takes environmentalism seriously, is under investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency for an alleged coolant problem at one of its data centers, the company disclosed Wednesday.

"In February 2009, we learned of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigation into an alleged release of refrigerant at one of our smaller data facilities, which we acquired from DoubleClick, and the accuracy of related statements and records," Google said in a quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"We are cooperating with the EPA and have provided documents and other materials. The EPA investigation could result in fines, civil or criminal penalties, or other administrative action," Google said.

How much in the way of fines? Probably peanuts, compared to Google's net income of $1.3 billion for the first quarter of 2009, but any amount would probably sting for a company that's focused on efficient data centers and fixing the country's energy problems.

"While we currently believe this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, we have noted it in accord with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations that call for disclosure of certain environmental proceedings that may result in monetary sanctions of $100,000 or more," Google said in the filing.

The Obama administration on Tuesday took steps to promote biofuels and is expected to publish a proposal for measuring the environmental impact from biofuels, in a move likely to spark a debate within the industry.

The administration has created the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, which is tasked with helping the ailing biofuels industry and creating policies to improve the environmental sustainability of biofuels. Measures include making money available to refinance existing biorefineries or to make them more energy efficient.

During a conference call on Tuesday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the availability of $786.5 million for biofuels research and to accelerate commercialization of advanced biofuels, such as ethanol from wood chips and grasses.

The bulk of the money--$480 million--will be made available in grants to demonstrate "integrated biorefinery technologies" where refineries use alternatives to fossil fuels to operate, such as biofuels and combined heat and power systems. Of the total, $130 million will go toward research, including the creation of an algae biofuels consortium and a group dedicated to biofuels compatible with the existing infrastructure.

Later on Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency will publish a proposal for rules on how to assess the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, EPA director Lisa Jackson said during the call. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) required the EPA to do a lifecycle analysis of biofuels' greenhouse gas emissions compared with petroleum fuels.

Representatives from the biofuels industry said that they are pleased with the creation of the working group and that the EPA has moved ahead on the lifecycle assessment process. But they are wary that including land use changes in measuring biofuels' environmental impact could hurt the industry, even for fuels considered less polluting than corn ethanol.

During the call, Jackson said that the EPA analysis found that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions 16 percent compared with gasoline. Different factors, such as what fuel is used at the refinery, affect the overall impact.

"We were concerned that the EPA ruling would have a chilling effect on the whole industry," said Paul Winters, the director of communications of the Biotechnology Industry Association. "We do expect the announcements will give people the confidence to keep investing in advanced biofuels."

However, Winters said that biofuels companies will be participating in the EPA's comment period to delve into the details of the greenhouse gas analysis, particularly a controversial indirect land use factor.

Under the 2007 EISA, biofuels makers need to reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of their products in the coming years on a scale that ranges from 20 percent for corn ethanol producers to 60 percent for different advanced biofuels.

The increased demand from government biofuels mandates has led to farmers devoting more land to fuel crops and, in other countries, the destruction of rain forests for farming. But biofuels producers oppose including indirect land use into the environmental analysis, said Brooke Coleman, the executive director of biofuels industry group New Fuels Alliance.

Land use policies should be addressed directly in biofuels policies, rather than adding to the greenhouse gas score of biofuels producers, he said. In addition, the indirect land model isn't a fair comparison because the indirect land use of petroleum or power generation industries isn't considered, he argued.

"There's a breaking point of how hard you can push a new industry. You're already requiring these new fuels to be 20 percent to 60 percent better than status quo. Then if you look at the ripple effect (of land use) that you're not doing for petroleum or natural gas, then you're really pushing a fledgling industry really hard," Coleman said.

Some environmental groups said that he EPA's proposal opens a public discussion on indirect effects of biofuels, which will need to be addressed sooner or later.

"To ignore it is going to really tilt the playing field in a direction that is going to send the industry off in a direction that will have to be reversed later and will be counterproductive," Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' clean vehicles program, told Reuters.

The Natural Resources Defense Council's director of renewable energy policy, Nathanael Greene, said the EPA is taking the right approach to lifecycle analysis because biofuels have the potential for environmental harm.

"It is imperative that we develop biofuels the smart way, and we are encouraged that EPA Administrator Jackson has offered a science-based proposal to get this done. If we get the rules of the road right through policies such as this one, we can harness the ingenuity of America's farmers, foresters, and entrepreneurs to create a new generation of biofuels that will help create jobs and end our dependence on oil," he said in a statement.

In signing two executive orders on Monday, President Barack Obama made the first moves in a bold multi-pronged strategy to reshape energy policy and spur technology innovation.

At a press conference, the president ordered the Department of Transportation to establish rules by 2011 to raise fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

He also ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of a waiver that would allow California and other states to set limits on tailpipe emissions.

In Washington, D.C., the moves signal a sharp change in direction from the Bush administration which was the first to block a waiver request from California and did not implement existing legislation that mandated a 40 percent increase in car and light truck fuel economy.

Technology entrepreneurs and investors got the signal, too. If firmer regulations around fuel efficiency take hold, the business for energy-efficient technologies in transportation technology starts to look more attractive.

"Right now, the investment community is thinking that by 2015, if we're lucky, electric vehicles may be one percent of the marketplace--that's not very many," said Bilal Zuberi, an investor at venture-capital firm General Catalyst Partners. "But if that becomes larger and becomes nearer, then that's pretty interesting."

If California adopts stricter greenhouse gas emissions levels, at least 13 other states and the District of Columbia are expected to adopt those mandates. That effectively creates a larger market for fuel-efficient technologies like electric vehicles, efficient transmissions, or lighter vehicle materials.

Zuberi said technology investors typically have a seven- or eight-year window for making a financial return. Knowing that there is demand for fuel-efficient technologies allows investors to invest with more confidence and a better-understood timescale.

The auto technology companies themselves can also develop and validate products faster, he added. Established car companies could also seek to acquire auto start-ups.

Not so fast
Through its industry association, automakers quickly voiced their opposition to granting California its waiver, underscoring the difficulty of establishing tougher environmental standards in an ailing industry.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement on Monday calling for a set of national regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It noted that, at the moment, there are effectively three "voices" influencing fuel economy and carbon dioxide emission regulations: the EPA, California, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It also urged the administration to have the higher fuel efficiency standards to go into effect for model year 2011 cars "because automakers are working on their product plans now and need the certainty of final standards," according to the statement.

General Catalysts' Zuberi noted that large automakers typically make less money on small, fuel-efficient cars. Changing the mix of their sales to include more fuel-efficient vehicles will force them to innovate on technology or manufacturing, he argued.

Environmental groups, meanwhile, praised the move.

"The cleaner cars he will help put on the road will show us the way to reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and will push automakers to make the cars that the world will want and need in the 21st Century," wrote Dave Hawkins, head of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Other shoes to drop
During Obama's press conference--his first official event in the East Room of the White House--he indicated that the proposed changes in transportation policy are part of broader set of measures his administration is rapidly lining up on energy and environment.

A proposed $825 billion stimulus package includes billions of dollars in tax incentives and direct government spending on clean-energy programs.

In addition to repeating the administration's pledge to doubling the amount of renewable energy in the country in three years, Obama on Monday said that the stimulus plan calls for laying 3,000 miles of new transmission lines--considered crucial for moving wind and solar power to different corners of the country.

The plan also has billions for dedicated to weatherizing two million homes and saving $2 billion a year by making 75 percent of federal buildings more energy efficient.

"Embedded in America's soil, wind, and sun, we have the capacity to change," Obama said. "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence of foreign oil while creating a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."

In transportation, plug-in electric or all-electric vehicles do promise to bring a jump in fuel efficiency. All major automakers are preparing some form of electric sedans to be first released in the next two years.

But the policies outlined by Obama on Monday only address a portion of the policies needed to get electric car on the roads en masse, said Brian Wynne, the president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.

Auto suppliers are not yet prepared to meet a huge spike in demand for electric cars, in particularly the lithium-ion batteries planned for these vehicles.

"There's little doubt this will impact the demand for greener vehicles across the board," said Wynne. "But trying to transition to deployment and a new manufacturing infrastructure for advanced electric vehicles as the auto industry is shedding capacity is a big challenge."

Update 10:30 a.m. PST: Added new information, including comments from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

President Obama on Monday signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review its denial of California's request to set auto emissions standards stricter than the national standards, saying, "the days of Washington dragging its heels are over."

Obama commended California for trying to forge tougher fuel efficiency standards and said, "Instead of standing as a partner, Washington stood in their way."

The president also said new fuel efficiency standards should be implemented so car manufacturers can apply them to 2011 models.

"Our goal is to help American automakers prepare for the future by building the cars of tomorrow," he said.

Noting the recently announced layoffs by Microsoft, Sprint Nextel, and other major companies, Obama said urgent action is needed to pursue energy independence.

He urged Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The energy provisions of the bill, he said, will create jobs for 460,000 Americans.

"America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet," he said. "Now is the time to make tough choices."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called Obama's energy plans a "long overdue step for energy independence and the environment." His committee approved the energy-related portions of the so-called "stimulus" package last week, though the vote fell largely down party lines.

Republicans today were no less wary of the president's plans for stricter emissions regulations.

"I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of setting the American auto industry back even further," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "The federal government should not be piling on an industry already hurting in a time like this."

Voinovich sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will convene Tuesday to review portions of the economic package, as will the Senate Finance Committee. Senate Democrats are hoping to pass their version of the bill by February 6 or 7, while House Democrats intend to vote on their version this week. The aim is to get the bill on Obama's desk before Congress breaks for Presidents Day.

WASHINGTON--Electronic waste is still being exported to other nations, a move that has negative environmental consequences and may run afoul of federal law, government auditors told Congress on Wednesday.

Environmental Protection Agency regulations over e-waste exports are very limited, according to a new report (PDF) from the Government Accountability Office, and the existing regulations are not well-enforced.

E-waste is "a low priority for EPA," John Stephenson, director of natural resources and environment for the GAO, told politicians on Wednesday at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs' subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment.

A child in Guiyu, China where a high volume of electronic waste is processed. Click the photo for a gallery on e-waste in China.

(Credit: Greenpeace)

The EPA's e-waste regulations cover only old cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and monitors. Meanwhile, other exported used electronics, such as computers, printers, and cell phones, "flow virtually unrestricted" into other countries, the report said. A substantial amount of exported e-waste ends up in countries like China and India, where it is improperly handled, potentially exposing people to toxins like lead, if the material is disposed of improperly.

Not only are the EPA rules narrow, but they apparently are poorly enforced and easily circumvented. The rules covering CRTs went into effect in January 2007, and since then, only one company has been fined for violating them. However, by posing as foreign CRT buyers, the GAO says it found 43 U.S. companies readily willing to ignore the regulations.

"The EPA told us there were no plans for an enforcement strategy," Stephenson said.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, a Democrat from American Samoa, said, "These companies essentially trick consumers into thinking they are doing the right thing by recycling their electronics."

Faleomavaega claimed that the impending switch to digital-television broadcasting, scheduled for February 2009, could render millions of CRT televisions obsolete. (In reality, the DTV converter box works fine with analog televisions. Another option is for a broadcast TV viewer to sign up to receive cable or satellite TV on their old-fashioned CRTs.)

While it's true that some materials used in manufacturing can be health hazards, the volume of e-waste is relatively small. EPA data show that it represents less than a 10,000th of the more than 30 million tons of solid waste produced by the United States each day.

In addition, the EPA has sometimes been overly pessimistic. One 2003 study performed by researchers Timothy Townsend and Yong-Chul Jang of the University of Florida tested soil from 11 actual landfills that included color TVs, monitors, and circuit boards. They found that concentrations of lead that were less than 1 percent of that which the EPA's computer models had predicted.

Some politicians argued that exporting toxic e-waste to other countries--including CRT screens, which have a few pounds of lead used for shielding in each--will result in dangerous amounts of lead ending up in children's toys.

"They are getting the raw material from someplace," Stephenson said. (In reality, the Chinese also mine it. A report on ChinaMining.org says one company alone--not even the largest lead-mining outfit--will produce between 54,300 tons and 70,000 tons of lead this year.)

The GAO made three recommendations to mitigate the problem of exporting hazardous e-waste: the EPA should expand its definition of "hazardous" materials so it encompasses products that pose risk upon disassembly; the U.S. should improve its identification and tracking of imports to identify used electronics; and Congress should implement legislation to ratify the Basel Convention.

Stephenson said the first step is to "make it easier for recyclers to do the right thing, and make it competitive with illicit recyclers taking things overseas."

There is significant economic incentive for recycling companies to export hazardous e-waste because the need for raw materials in countries like China is driving up the demand for used electronics.

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Ca., also said, "The U.S. fails to hold manufacturers responsible for the end-of-life management of their products that contain toxic materials."

Not all companies are at fault, said Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., pointing out that Dell and Hewlett-Packard have programs to safely refurbish and recycle e-waste.

Some relief from the e-waste problem has also come from the United States, said Stephenson, noting that 17 states have landfill bans on e-waste.

Yet the fact remains, Stephenson said, that "we have a serious problem." Americans dispose of more than 300 million computers and electronics annually, "and this number is growing exponentially," Stephenson said.

"Nobody knows what to do with these," he added. "I have three used computers in my basement, and now I'm afraid to give them to a recycler."

CNET's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday that Congress, not the EPA, should regulate greenhouse gases.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson hosted a conference call with reporters on Friday where he said that existing law, the Clean Air Act, is "ill-suited" to addressing greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, Johnson said that Congress should draft legislation to address climate change.

"It's really at the feet of the Congress to come up with good legislation that cuts through what will likely be decades of litigation and regulation," he said on the call.

A document published by the EPA on Friday, called Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), compiles concerns from other government agencies and solicits public comments.

The ANPR was issued in response to a Supreme Court ruling last April that compelled the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as pollutants if they affect human health.

With the Clean Air Act, the EPA cannot adequately address climate change regulations because of the complexity of the task, which affects other government agencies, the U.S. economy, and potentially individual citizens, Johnson said.

Earlier this week at the G8 meeting of industrialized countries, world leaders called on countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050, but it was unclear whether 1990 or today's levels serve as a baseline.

Although hailed as a victory by the Bush administration, environmentalists said that the targets are too low to avert the most serious effects of climate change.

The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, lambasted the EPA's move on Friday, saying that "the first thing the next administration will do is toss the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking into the circular file."

Most businesses believe that some sort of climate change regulation that put limits on air pollution will take hold in the next president's administration.

These regulations could let green-tech companies make money from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But, in general, most start-ups are not expecting to monetize those reductions in the near term.

Three of the biggest makers of TVs have formed a company to help manage the wave of electronics waste set to swell with the onset of digital television. Panasonic, Sharp, and Toshiba have launched the Manufacturers Recycling Management Co. in Minnesota.

That state last year enacted a law making vendors responsible for their brands' discarded electronics. MRM contracts with third-party recyclers including CRT Processing and Materials Processing Corporation, which specialize in handling tired monitors and televisions.

Old televisions and monitors are laced with lead, cadmium, and toxic flame retardants, but careful recycling can recover valuable and reusable metals and plastics.

Since September, MRM has collected some 750 tons of TVs, PCs, audio equipment, fax machines, and other gear through events such as Plug-In to eCycling programs managed by the EPA and more than 20 tech vendors and stores.

MRM has recycling agreements with vendors including Hitachi, JVC, Mitsubishi, Philips, and Pioneer. The company, which currently has just one employee, plans to make money through fees from manufacturers seeking help to cope legally with cast-off electronics.

MRM is set to expand within the next year in Connecticut, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington states, and possibly in other states in coming years.

Some 35 states are mulling individual e-waste recycling laws, to the dismay of much of the electronics industry. The Consumer Electronics Association has campaigned for national laws to replace the state-by-state patchwork of regulations. That group runs the Consumer Electronics Show being held this week in Las Vegas, where news of MRM's launch was announced.

"We do desire a federal program and will continue to work toward that," said Christopher Loncto, a spokesman for Sharp.

New rules in Minnesota, for one, appear to be driving up recycling rates there. At the Mall of America in November, for instance, organizers concerned about the danger of traffic jams canceled an e-waste recycling drive that drew overwhelming crowds.

As big brand names try to manage the growing tide of e-waste, small-time entrepreneurs also hope to profit by giving new life to old gadgets. New Web-based companies such as BuyMyTronics and Second Rotation offer to buy people's old iPods and mobile phones.