It’s enough to make any environmentalist giddy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Jared Blumenfeld, U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson and Linda Adams, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, yesterday announced just that: solar panels will power the cleanup of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund site in Davis, California.

“For the first time ever, solar will provide all of the power for a Superfund groundwater cleanup,” said Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Our goal should be to clean the environment in the greenest way possible—and this new treatment plant sets the benchmark for future actions.”

Solar panels were first installed at the Frontier site in 2007. The initial system, however, offset only a portion of the facility’s electricity needs. In 2010, $350,000 in federal stimulus funds were used to expand the system, which now provides 100 percent of the energy needed to power the groundwater treatment system. The solar panels cover half-an-acre of land and are expected to reduce the site’s electricity costs by about $15,000 a year.

a

In April, the EPA had announced a proposed finding, stating that the six main GHGs endanger public health and welfare. (For more discussion of that announcement and the formulation of U.S. climate policy, see my post here.) After a period of public comment and review, the proposed “endangerment finding,” as it has come to be known, was today adopted by the EPA. The finding paves the way for the agency to regulate GHG emissions, an outcome many observers believe to be less preferable than a cap-and-trade approach developed by Congress.

In her announcement, the agency’s Administrator, Lisa Jackson, noted: “These long overdue findings cement 2009′s place in history as the year when the U.S. government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform.”

Meanwhile, Barclays Capital analyst Vishal Shah raised his ratings on JA Solar Holdings (JASO), SunPower Corporation (SPWRA) and Suntech Power Holdings (STP). Shah cited future demand in Germany, Italy, the U.S., china and Canada could drive sector growth — to as many as 9.3 gigawatts (gWs) in 2010, versus previous expectations of 7.3 gW for the same time period.

a

BOEHNER: …the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide. And so i think it’s clear…

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don’t believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?

BOEHNER: We’ve had climate change over the last 100 years — listen, it’s clear we’ve had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can’t do it alone as one nation. If we got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we’re going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.”

At the start of this sound byte, Boehner is referring to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding, anounced last Friday, that may clear the way for the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In brief, it works like this: the EPA can’t just regulate anything it wants — there has to be a connection between the paritcular issue and the damages it causes. Specifically, the particular activity — be it emitting sulfur dioxide and causing acid rain, or selling leaded gasoline — has to shown to endanger public health and welfare. This is, in effect, what the EPA announced on Friday — evidence supporting the so-called “endagerment finding.” Here’s an excerpt from the press release:

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

On this point, I gotta say that I kind of side with Boehner (despite the obtuseness with which he makes his case — check out this video). Historically, the EPA has regulated harmful substances that stem from a relatively narrow set of activities and that create clear, fairly immediate damages. The same cannot be said of GHG emissions. Pretty much everything we do releases carbon. What’s more, the nexus between these activities and future damages is not nearly as tight as in other cases. In other words, the public health argument is much stronger for substances like atmospheric sulfur dioxide: the acid rain it causes leads to fairly immediate, quantifiable damages. Yes, climate change will undoubtedly cause lots of damages, many of them irreversible. But much debate remains on how to value them. And, finally, some states rely more heavily on high-carbon industries — like oil and gas, steel or manufacturing — than others. These differences raise legal, economic and logistical questions about whether the EPA should be the forum through which emissions are regulated. In short, an accross-the-board, command-and-control regulatory framework from the EPA would be a burden for many. So, I can understand Boener’s refutation of the Agency’s decision.

Then again, I “get” why the EPA acted the way that it did. Though the timing of the announcement feels more like political maneuvering than pure science. As Juliet Eilperin from the Washington Post suggests,

[t]he agency’s proposed finding is likely to intensify pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would limit greenhouse gases, as President Obama, many lawmakers and some industry leaders prefer. But cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit emissions and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances, is fiercely opposed by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats from fossil-fuel-dependent Midwestern states who fear that such a system would raise energy prices and hurt the nation’s economy.

Bottom line for me, I suppose, is that: (1) Yes, we need climate legislation that puts a price on emitting carbon — though I’m in the camp that favors a tax over a cap-and-trade system, (2) Yes, I think Rep Boehner sounds waaay out of touch when he hems and haws about the extent to which humans have altered the globe’s climate. The time for splitting hairs and flirting with climate change denial has passed. Now is the time for meaningful action. (3) Yes, I remain cautiously optimistic (bordering skeptical, depending on the day) about the prospects of large emitters in the developing world taking on some sort of economy-wide emissions reduction targets. Just check out this bit on China from the Yale Environment 360. Not that this will gurantee progress at the international climate negotiations scheduled for December… (4) Yes, I think DC can be a wacky town. Only here will you hear someone reference cow farts in the hope of generating a sound byte that actually advances their position.

a

After Wells Fargo & Company, Whole Foods Market ranks second and the U.S. Air Force ranks third. The U.S. EPA ranks fourth, with Johnson & Johnson rounding out the top five. Newcomers to the list include Cisco Systems Inc., New York University, Carbonfund.org, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and Kohl’s Department Stores.

EPA’s Top 25 green power purchasers are buying more than 4 billion kilowatt-hours of green power on an annual basis. This is equivalent to the energy needed to power more than 350,000 average American homes each year.

The EPA Green Power Partnership encourages organizations to purchase green power as a way to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the use of electricity from fossil fuels and to diversify America’s fuel supply. The partnership is comprised of a diverse set of organizations including Fortune 500 companies, small and medium businesses, government institutions as well as colleges and universities.

(To see who else made the top 25, view the press release.)

Organizations that participate in the Green Power Partnership may meet EPA purchase requirements in a variety of ways: (1) Buying renewable energy credits (RECs), (2) Installing capacity for on-site generation (e.g., solar PV or on-site wind systems), (3) Buying utility green power products, (4) Implementing any combination thereof. Check out Wells Fargo’s EPA partner profile for more information.

It’ll be interesting to see how the program does this year. Given the deteriorating economy, I wouldn’t be surprised if companies scale back their purchases of green power. On the other hand, the premuims for qualified renewable electricity aren’t THAT exorbitant. Plus, no one wants to be seen backing out of a market that’s increasingly viewed as integral to securing America’s energy future and rebuilding our economy, do they? Doubts? Thoughts? Prognostications?

a