Jun 11: In a relatively brief, 11-page unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has decisively settled an important liability issue left open in a previous decision and which has been dealt with by three separate circuits. The case, U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (Docket: 06-0562), appealed by the U.S. from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of August 11, 2006 [See WIMS 8/14/06]. Oral arguments were held on April 23, 2007 [See WIMS 4/23/07].
The High Court succinctly summarizes its opinion saying, "Two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -- §§107(a) and 113(f) -- allow private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites. 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a), 9613(f). In this case, we must decide a question left open in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004): whether §107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(1)–(4), with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs. We hold that it does."
The High Court explains that after SARA’s [Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986] enactment, some Courts of Appeals believed it necessary to “direc[t]traffic between” §107(a) and §113(f). As a result, many Courts of Appeals held that §113(f) was the exclusive remedy for PRPs. But as courts prevented PRPs from suing under§107(a), they expanded §113(f) to allow PRPs to seek “contribution” even in the absence of a suit under §106 or §107(a). Aviall Servs., Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 312 F. 3d 677, 681 (CA5 2002) (en banc). In Cooper Industries, we held that a private party could seek contribution from other liable parties only after having been sued under §106 or §107(a). 543 U. S., at 161. The High Court said, "This narrower interpretation of §113(f) caused several Courts of Appeals to reconsider whether PRPs have rights under §107(a)(4)(B), an issue we declined to address in Cooper Industries. Id., at 168."
The Eighth Circuit opinion in Atlantic Research Corp agreed with a similar ruling in the Second Circuit decision in Consolidated Edison Co. v. UGI Utilities, Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir. 2005]; however, those decisions were in conflict with a decision of the Third Circuit in E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 460 F. 3d 515 (CA3 2006).
In brief review of the instant case, the High Court summarizes that Atlantic Research cleaned the site at its own expense and then sought to recover some of its costs by suing the United States under both §107(a) and §113(f). After our decision in Cooper Industries foreclosed relief under §113(f), Atlantic Research amended its complaint to seek relief under §107(a) and federal common law. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that §107(a) does not allow PRPs (such as Atlantic Research) to recover costs.The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on a case decided prior to our decision in Cooper Industries, Dico, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 340 F. 3d 525 (CA8 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed.
The Supreme Court says, "The parties’ dispute centers on what 'other person[s]' may sue under §107(a)(4)(B). The Government argues that 'any other person' refers to any person not identified as a PRP in §§107(a)(1)–(4).2 In other words, subparagraph (B) permits suit only by non-PRPs and thus bars Atlantic Research’s claim. Atlantic Research counters that subparagraph (B) takes its cue from subparagraph (A), not the earlier paragraph (1)–(4). In accord with the Court of Appeals, Atlantic Research believes that subparagraph (B) provides a cause of action to anyone except the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe -- the persons listed in subparagraph (A). We agree with Atlantic Research... The Government’s interpretation makes little textual sense."
The Supreme Court summarizes the Government's arguments as follows: the Government maintains that our interpretation, by offering PRPs a choice between §107(a) and §113(f), effectively allows PRPs to circumvent §113(f)’s shorter statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Government argues, PRPs will eschew equitable apportionment under §113(f) in favor of joint and several liability under §107(a). Finally, the Government contends that our interpretation eviscerates the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2).
The High Court counters the three Government arguments and explains in some detail why "in the case of reimbursement, the PRP cannot choose the 6-year statute of limitations for cost-recovery actions over the shorter limitations period for §113(f) contribution claims." Likewise, the High Court says, "a PRP could not avoid §113(f)’s equitable distribution of reimbursement costs among PRPs by instead choosing to impose joint and several liability on another PRP in an action under §107(a). The choice of remedies simply does not exist. In any event, a defendant PRP in such a §107(a) suit could blunt any inequitable distribution of costs by filing a §113(f) counter-claim." And, finally the High Court says, "...permitting PRPs to seek recovery under §107(a) will not eviscerate the settlement bar set forth in §113(f)(2). That provision prohibits §113(f) contribution claims against '[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement . ..'”
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna hailed the decision as a victory for his State and explained why the decision is important to other states as well. McKenna said, "The Court’s decision ensures that many contaminated sites which might have been unaddressed for a significant time will be cleaned up. In Washington, more than 1,200 sites are listed on the state’s contaminated sites list. Of these, approximately 250 are in the process of being cleaned up by liable parties under the state’s formal oversight. Because the state does not have resources to address every known site in the state, the remaining sites will likely be addressed as voluntary cleanups. This means that a party who has liability for cleaning up the property will undertake the cleanup without any action by the federal or state government. The ability to obtain contribution to the costs of cleanup from other parties who have liability for a contaminated site is one of the key incentives for parties to perform these voluntary cleanups.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the U.S. Supreme Court Docket listing all amici curiae parties for the case (click here). Access a release from the Washington State AG (click here). Access a discussion of the opinion on the SCOTUS Blog (click here). [*Remed]
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Appeals Court Denies Rehearing Of South Coast Ozone Case
Jun 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 04-1200, 04-1201. The case, South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, involves five petitions for rehearing with regard to the vacatur and remand of a final rule implementing the eight-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA) [See Final Phase 1 Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, 69 Fed. Reg. 23,951 (Apr. 30, 2004) (codified at 40 C.F.R. parts 40, 51, 81) (2004 Rule)]. The petitions were filed by a group of Environmental Petitioners, the Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge et al. (Baton Rouge), National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), American Chemistry Council et al. (ACC), and EPA.
According to the Appeals Court, the petitions overlap in part, challenging principally the court’s interpretation of the statutory gap, described in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that arises from the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change from a one-hour to an eight-hour measurement system for ozone, and the court’s construction of the CAA’s anti-backsliding provision. See S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) [See WIMS 1/02/07].
The Appeals Court said, "None of these challenges has merit and we deny the petitions. However, we grant the joint request of EPA and the Environmental Petitioners to clarify the description of the required conformity determinations and to modify the scope of the vacatur of the 2004 Rule."
Earthjustice represented a group of public health and environmental organizations including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club; that challenged the EPA rule and then subsequently defended the court's December decision that overturned the rule. In explaining the decision, Earthjustice said, "Today's decision reaffirms that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing limits on ozone, or smog pollution, from large power plants, factories and other industrial sources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the EPA and industry petitions for rehearing, and actually clarified in even stronger terms that weakening air protections is illegal under federal law. The court characterized the industry's desired readings of the law as a 'glaring loophole' that nothing suggests Congress intended." The Appeals Court said, "EPA is urged to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eight-hour standard, which was deemed necessary to protect the public health a decade ago."
Access the complete 8-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]
According to the Appeals Court, the petitions overlap in part, challenging principally the court’s interpretation of the statutory gap, described in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that arises from the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change from a one-hour to an eight-hour measurement system for ozone, and the court’s construction of the CAA’s anti-backsliding provision. See S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) [See WIMS 1/02/07].
The Appeals Court said, "None of these challenges has merit and we deny the petitions. However, we grant the joint request of EPA and the Environmental Petitioners to clarify the description of the required conformity determinations and to modify the scope of the vacatur of the 2004 Rule."
Earthjustice represented a group of public health and environmental organizations including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club; that challenged the EPA rule and then subsequently defended the court's December decision that overturned the rule. In explaining the decision, Earthjustice said, "Today's decision reaffirms that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing limits on ozone, or smog pollution, from large power plants, factories and other industrial sources. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the EPA and industry petitions for rehearing, and actually clarified in even stronger terms that weakening air protections is illegal under federal law. The court characterized the industry's desired readings of the law as a 'glaring loophole' that nothing suggests Congress intended." The Appeals Court said, "EPA is urged to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eight-hour standard, which was deemed necessary to protect the public health a decade ago."
Access the complete 8-page opinion (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access other related South Coast articles posted on the WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog (click here). [*Air]
Friday, June 08, 2007
Environmental Impacts Of The"Thirst for Corn"
Jun 7: A 10-page World Resources Institute (WRI) Policy Note entitled, Thirst for Corn: What 2007 Plantings Could Mean for the Environment, says that now that the ethanol industry has been jump-started by legislation, priorities should be directed less at the expansion of the industry and more at an evolution that offers the most benefits for the environment and energy security. The brief indicates that as a result, in large part from the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) -- legislative mandate for increased renewable fuels use that passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- the corn ethanol industry is expanding at an unprecedented rate in the United States.
The 115 ethanol plants operating in April 2007 have the capacity to produce 5.75 billion gallons per year (BGY) of ethanol, and an estimated 86 plants under construction are expected to produce an additional 6.34 BGY of capacity within the next 18 months. The cumulative total capacity -- more than 12 BGY by 2009 -- far exceeds the RFS blending mandate of 7.5 BGY by 2012, and has been the driving force behind skyrocketing corn prices in the last 12 months.
The brief points out, "Although ethanol is widely promoted as a green alternative to gasoline, there are many different ways to produce ethanol, using many different feedstocks, and some ways are greener than others. Production of the feedstock represents a significant share of the environmental footprint of ethanol production; to ensure sustainability of production, we need to pay close attention to the environmental impacts of producing those feedstocks and have policies in place to avoid or mitigate those impacts."
The brief provides a sophisticated analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ethanol production from corn. WRI uses a national scale agro-environmental production model, which integrates the Regional Environmental and Agricultural Production model (REAP) -- a national agricultural production model developed and maintained by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and formerly known as USMP -- with the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), a plant growth and environmental impact model. The combined model allows projections indicating how increased corn demand will translate into regional changes in crops grown, tillage practices used, and crop rotations employed, and to then estimate the net environmental impacts of those changes. To measure environmental impacts WRI looked specifically at agricultural GHG emissions, which are often under-represented in the dialogue about greenhouse gas reductions, as well as at nitrogen and phosphorus loads into local waterways and rates of soil erosion, which have been the focus of most existing and pilot agricultural conservation programs.
The baseline agricultural production scenario for our analysis uses the USDA’s 2006 projected baseline for 2007 crop production patterns and a baseline ethanol production level of 6 BGY. Relative to that scenario, we explore how 2007 planting patterns are likely to respond to meet projected corn demands for 2008 ethanol production levels ranging from the baseline of 6 BGY up to 11 BGY.
The analysis results suggest that meeting projected demands for ethanol will require a substantial reallocation of land to corn production and that the shift to corn production will have significant negative environmental impacts if we assume that existing production practices continue under the current policy framework. The results of that analysis for each land-supply scenario are summarized and described in more detail in the briefing report.
Access the 10-page analysis and recommendations (click here). [*Energy]
The 115 ethanol plants operating in April 2007 have the capacity to produce 5.75 billion gallons per year (BGY) of ethanol, and an estimated 86 plants under construction are expected to produce an additional 6.34 BGY of capacity within the next 18 months. The cumulative total capacity -- more than 12 BGY by 2009 -- far exceeds the RFS blending mandate of 7.5 BGY by 2012, and has been the driving force behind skyrocketing corn prices in the last 12 months.
The brief points out, "Although ethanol is widely promoted as a green alternative to gasoline, there are many different ways to produce ethanol, using many different feedstocks, and some ways are greener than others. Production of the feedstock represents a significant share of the environmental footprint of ethanol production; to ensure sustainability of production, we need to pay close attention to the environmental impacts of producing those feedstocks and have policies in place to avoid or mitigate those impacts."
The brief provides a sophisticated analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ethanol production from corn. WRI uses a national scale agro-environmental production model, which integrates the Regional Environmental and Agricultural Production model (REAP) -- a national agricultural production model developed and maintained by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and formerly known as USMP -- with the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), a plant growth and environmental impact model. The combined model allows projections indicating how increased corn demand will translate into regional changes in crops grown, tillage practices used, and crop rotations employed, and to then estimate the net environmental impacts of those changes. To measure environmental impacts WRI looked specifically at agricultural GHG emissions, which are often under-represented in the dialogue about greenhouse gas reductions, as well as at nitrogen and phosphorus loads into local waterways and rates of soil erosion, which have been the focus of most existing and pilot agricultural conservation programs.
The baseline agricultural production scenario for our analysis uses the USDA’s 2006 projected baseline for 2007 crop production patterns and a baseline ethanol production level of 6 BGY. Relative to that scenario, we explore how 2007 planting patterns are likely to respond to meet projected corn demands for 2008 ethanol production levels ranging from the baseline of 6 BGY up to 11 BGY.
The analysis results suggest that meeting projected demands for ethanol will require a substantial reallocation of land to corn production and that the shift to corn production will have significant negative environmental impacts if we assume that existing production practices continue under the current policy framework. The results of that analysis for each land-supply scenario are summarized and described in more detail in the briefing report.
Access the 10-page analysis and recommendations (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, June 07, 2007
G-8 Says GHG Must Stop Rising; Followed By Reductions
Jun 7: At the G-8 meeting being held in Heiligendamm, Germany from June 6-8, the member countries adopted a Summit Declaration that includes major provisions on climate change and energy efficiency and energy security. The forum brings together heads of state from the G-8 countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan) plus 5 countries (China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa), which together produce 75 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.The European Commission and United Nations are also represented at the meetings.
As part of the 38-page Summit Declaration document entitled, Growth and Responsibility In The World Economy, the G-8 countries addressed the issue of climate change by saying, "Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while avoiding economic distortions...
"We recognize the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction... we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year...
"Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies... we herewith strongly reaffirm our commitment to Global Energy Security Principles... Improving energy efficiency worldwide is the fastest, the most sustainable and the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and enhance energy security.
Noting the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the G-8 nations said,"We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavor...
"We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognize however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development."
The countries also agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change, and said they are committed "to moving forward" by participating in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007, "with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters." The declaration further details the countries' positions on Technology, Market Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions by Curbing Deforestation, Adapting to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and a major section on Energy Efficiency; where they indicated energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply. Under Energy Efficiency they agreed to principles on Sustainable Buildings, Transportation, Power Generation, and Energy Diversification.
Access the 38-page Summit Declaration (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access a June 6 press briefing including Jim Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality, with comments on the G-8 meeting (click here). Access links to various media reports on the G-8 climate change action (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
As part of the 38-page Summit Declaration document entitled, Growth and Responsibility In The World Economy, the G-8 countries addressed the issue of climate change by saying, "Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies, while avoiding economic distortions...
"We recognize the important opportunities offered by effective action addressing climate change, in particular for innovation, technological development as well as poverty reduction... we are committed to the further development of the international regime to combat climate change, especially in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year...
"Addressing the challenge of energy security will require unprecedented international cooperation in several areas, including market transparency, enhancing energy efficiency, diversifying energy supplies and developing and deploying new and transformational technologies... we herewith strongly reaffirm our commitment to Global Energy Security Principles... Improving energy efficiency worldwide is the fastest, the most sustainable and the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and enhance energy security.
Noting the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the G-8 nations said,"We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavor...
"We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognize however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development."
The countries also agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change, and said they are committed "to moving forward" by participating in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007, "with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters." The declaration further details the countries' positions on Technology, Market Mechanisms, Reducing Emissions by Curbing Deforestation, Adapting to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and a major section on Energy Efficiency; where they indicated energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply. Under Energy Efficiency they agreed to principles on Sustainable Buildings, Transportation, Power Generation, and Energy Diversification.
Access the 38-page Summit Declaration (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access a June 6 press briefing including Jim Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality, with comments on the G-8 meeting (click here). Access links to various media reports on the G-8 climate change action (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Sediment Dredging Has Fallen Short of Achieving Cleanup Goals
Jun 5: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) indicates that at many projects to dredge contaminated sediments from U.S. rivers and other bodies of water, it has not been demonstrated that dredging has reduced the long-term risks the sediments pose to people and wildlife. Many dredging projects have had difficulty meeting short-term goals for reducing pollution levels. Whether dredging alone can reduce long-term risks was difficult to determine at many sites because of inadequate monitoring data and other limitations. The report, Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites: Assessing the Effectiveness, calls on the U.S. EPA to improve and intensify its monitoring at dredging and other projects intended to remediate contaminated sediments at the nation's Superfund sites.
The report concludes that dredging's ability to achieve cleanup goals depends on a site's characteristics. If a particular site has one or more unfavorable conditions -- the presence of debris such as boulders or cables, for example, or bedrock lying beneath the contaminated sediment -- then dredging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The presence or absence of such conditions should be a major consideration in deciding whether to dredge at a site.
Contaminated sediments can be found at the bottoms of many U.S. rivers and other water bodies near former mining, agricultural, or industrial sites. Tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, or other toxic substances, the sediments can pose risks to people, fish, and aquatic animals. Many of these sites are slated for cleanup by EPA under Federal Superfund legislation, and a minimum of 14 of them are sediment "megasites" -- sites where the cost of remediating sediments is expected to reach at least $50 million, or has already done so. Decisions about whether to dredge at these sites have proved controversial, so Congress asked the Research Council to evaluate the method's effectiveness. To inform its conclusions, the committee examined 26 dredging projects, five of them at megasites, and evaluated whether they had attained their cleanup and risk-reduction goals.
The report indicates that dredging is effective at removing contaminated sediment mass permanently from the environment. But removing mass may not be enough to achieve desired cleanup levels or long-term goals for reducing risks, because dredging inevitably leaves residual contamination behind. Dredging alone achieved expected cleanup results at only a few of the sites the committee analyzed. At many others, capping -- placing a layer of uncontaminated material over the tainted sediments -- was also necessary to contain the remaining contamination at acceptable levels. Assessments of the sites also revealed that the dredging process releases contaminants into the water, which in the short term can have adverse effects on fish and other aquatic animals and could potentially raise health risks in people who consume them.
Dredging remains one of the few approaches available for cleaning up contaminated sediments, and EPA should continue to consider its use among other methods. In locations where buried contaminated sediments could be dislodged by storms, for example, dredging the sediments to prevent them from being transported may reduce risks. If dredging is used, planners need to recognize that residual contamination and releases of chemicals into the water will invariably occur; they should estimate the effects of these processes in advance, and employ best practices to minimize them. Using a combination of methods should also be considered, particularly if a site has any characteristics unfavorable to dredging.
The report also says that the typical Superfund approach, in which EPA conducts an investigation and a feasibility study that establishes a single path to remediation, is not the best way to choose remedies for these sites. Given the long time frames and many unknowns involved in cleaning up megasites, adaptive management -- which uses monitoring data to review progress and adjust plans when needed -- should be used to select and implement cleanup methods. In addition, dredging and other remediation projects should be designed to meet long-term goals for reducing risks to people and wildlife, instead of objectives not directly related to risk, such as removing a specified amount of sediment. The report emphasizes that without adequate monitoring before and after dredging, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which cleanup objectives have been reached. EPA should invest in better and more consistent measurement tools to monitor conditions in the field reliably and efficiently.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 27-page summary and a 4-page report in brief (click here). [*Remed, *Water]
The report concludes that dredging's ability to achieve cleanup goals depends on a site's characteristics. If a particular site has one or more unfavorable conditions -- the presence of debris such as boulders or cables, for example, or bedrock lying beneath the contaminated sediment -- then dredging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. The presence or absence of such conditions should be a major consideration in deciding whether to dredge at a site.
Contaminated sediments can be found at the bottoms of many U.S. rivers and other water bodies near former mining, agricultural, or industrial sites. Tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, or other toxic substances, the sediments can pose risks to people, fish, and aquatic animals. Many of these sites are slated for cleanup by EPA under Federal Superfund legislation, and a minimum of 14 of them are sediment "megasites" -- sites where the cost of remediating sediments is expected to reach at least $50 million, or has already done so. Decisions about whether to dredge at these sites have proved controversial, so Congress asked the Research Council to evaluate the method's effectiveness. To inform its conclusions, the committee examined 26 dredging projects, five of them at megasites, and evaluated whether they had attained their cleanup and risk-reduction goals.
The report indicates that dredging is effective at removing contaminated sediment mass permanently from the environment. But removing mass may not be enough to achieve desired cleanup levels or long-term goals for reducing risks, because dredging inevitably leaves residual contamination behind. Dredging alone achieved expected cleanup results at only a few of the sites the committee analyzed. At many others, capping -- placing a layer of uncontaminated material over the tainted sediments -- was also necessary to contain the remaining contamination at acceptable levels. Assessments of the sites also revealed that the dredging process releases contaminants into the water, which in the short term can have adverse effects on fish and other aquatic animals and could potentially raise health risks in people who consume them.
Dredging remains one of the few approaches available for cleaning up contaminated sediments, and EPA should continue to consider its use among other methods. In locations where buried contaminated sediments could be dislodged by storms, for example, dredging the sediments to prevent them from being transported may reduce risks. If dredging is used, planners need to recognize that residual contamination and releases of chemicals into the water will invariably occur; they should estimate the effects of these processes in advance, and employ best practices to minimize them. Using a combination of methods should also be considered, particularly if a site has any characteristics unfavorable to dredging.
The report also says that the typical Superfund approach, in which EPA conducts an investigation and a feasibility study that establishes a single path to remediation, is not the best way to choose remedies for these sites. Given the long time frames and many unknowns involved in cleaning up megasites, adaptive management -- which uses monitoring data to review progress and adjust plans when needed -- should be used to select and implement cleanup methods. In addition, dredging and other remediation projects should be designed to meet long-term goals for reducing risks to people and wildlife, instead of objectives not directly related to risk, such as removing a specified amount of sediment. The report emphasizes that without adequate monitoring before and after dredging, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which cleanup objectives have been reached. EPA should invest in better and more consistent measurement tools to monitor conditions in the field reliably and efficiently.
Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, a 27-page summary and a 4-page report in brief (click here). [*Remed, *Water]
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
EPA & Corps Issue Wetland Guidance Documents
Jun 5: Just days after Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced legislation with over 150 cosponsors which he said is designed "to fix the Clean Water Act (CWA) after it was damaged by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings" [See WIMS 5/22/07]; U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued joint guidance for their field offices which they say will "ensure America's wetlands and other water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA)." The agencies said the action reinforces the Bush Administration's commitment to protect and enhance the quality of our nation's wetlands and water bodies.
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water said, "The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions. Today's action sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals." John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works) said, "We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision. This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent, and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."
EPA and Corps staff will also use the guidance when taking enforcement actions under the CWA. The guidance clarifies those circumstances where a person may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, and other waters. Individual tribal, state and local laws, regulations, or policies may further protect aquatic water resources. The guidance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States regarding the scope of the agencies' jurisdiction under the CWA [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities].
Specifically, the guidance discusses the agencies' protection of three classes of waters through the following actions: (1) Continuing to regulate "traditionally navigable waters," including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters; (2) Continuing to regulate "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries"; and (3) Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.
The guidance supports a strong regulatory program that ensures no net loss of wetlands, which is one of three key elements to the Bush Administration wetlands policy. The other two elements include an active management program that will result in the restoration, enhancement and protection of three million acres of wetlands by 2009 and a commitment to conserve isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
EPA said that during the first six months of implementing the guidance, the agencies are inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the guidance. The guidance notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register soon. The agencies said they will more broadly consider jurisdictional issues, including additional clarification and definition of key terminology, through rulemaking or other appropriate policy practice.
As part of the latest action, U.S. EPA has posted three new documents: (1) June 2007 Legal Memorandum (12 pp, discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.); (2) June 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (7 pp, regarding Coordination on Jurisdictional Determinations under Clean Water Act Section 404 in Light of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions.); (3) June 2007 Questions and Answers (7 pp).
Access a joint EPA/COE release (click here). Access the legal memorandum and Q&A document and background information on EPA's website (click here). Access the prepublication copy of FR notice (click here). Access additional documents and a powerpoint presentation on the COE website (click here). [*Water]
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for Water said, "The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions. Today's action sends a clear signal we'll use our regulatory tools to meet the president's ambitious wetlands goals." John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works) said, "We are committed to protecting America's aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision. This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent, and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined."
EPA and Corps staff will also use the guidance when taking enforcement actions under the CWA. The guidance clarifies those circumstances where a person may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before conducting activities in wetlands, tributaries, and other waters. Individual tribal, state and local laws, regulations, or policies may further protect aquatic water resources. The guidance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States regarding the scope of the agencies' jurisdiction under the CWA [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities].
Specifically, the guidance discusses the agencies' protection of three classes of waters through the following actions: (1) Continuing to regulate "traditionally navigable waters," including all rivers and other waters that are large enough to be used by boats that transport commerce and any wetlands adjacent to such waters; (2) Continuing to regulate "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries"; and (3) Continuing to regulate based on case-by-case determinations for other tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have certain characteristics that significantly affect traditionally navigable waters.
The guidance supports a strong regulatory program that ensures no net loss of wetlands, which is one of three key elements to the Bush Administration wetlands policy. The other two elements include an active management program that will result in the restoration, enhancement and protection of three million acres of wetlands by 2009 and a commitment to conserve isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
EPA said that during the first six months of implementing the guidance, the agencies are inviting public comments on case studies and experiences applying the guidance. The guidance notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register soon. The agencies said they will more broadly consider jurisdictional issues, including additional clarification and definition of key terminology, through rulemaking or other appropriate policy practice.
As part of the latest action, U.S. EPA has posted three new documents: (1) June 2007 Legal Memorandum (12 pp, discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.); (2) June 2007 Memorandum of Agreement (7 pp, regarding Coordination on Jurisdictional Determinations under Clean Water Act Section 404 in Light of the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions.); (3) June 2007 Questions and Answers (7 pp).
Access a joint EPA/COE release (click here). Access the legal memorandum and Q&A document and background information on EPA's website (click here). Access the prepublication copy of FR notice (click here). Access additional documents and a powerpoint presentation on the COE website (click here). [*Water]
Monday, June 04, 2007
Small, Poor Countries Hold Major Emitters Accountable For Climate Change
May 29: Oxfam America, an international non-profit organization that works to end global poverty has issued a new report saying that human-induced climate change is already causing harm to the world’s poorest people, and indicating that those people are the least responsible for emissions and least able to adapt to climatic shocks. The report, published ahead of the G-8 summit, called on G-8 countries to urgently take action to keep global warming below 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) and pledge to help poorest cope with the impacts. Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America said, “Poor countries should not have to pay for damage caused by the emissions of rich countries. As world leaders head to the G8 summit in Germany, they must be prepared to cut their emissions and to start helping poor countries to cope with the high costs of adaptation.”
The report, Adapting to Climate Change: What’s Needed in Poor Countries and Who Should Pay, estimates that poor countries will need around $50 billion a year to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, a conservative estimate that will rise sharply if emissions are not cut drastically. Offenheiser said, “Rich countries must find ways to help address the harm caused to those who are least responsible for the problem. It is important to not think of this as aid in a traditional sense, but as the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable -- an entirely separate and added responsibility.”
In a related matter, representatives of Arctic communities and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from the Caribbean, and Pacific have formed an alliance called Many Strong Voices to press for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions saying the cultures and economies of their countries and regions are the most affected by climate change. In an address, described as "passionate and forthright," supporting the establishment of the Many Strong Voices alliance, John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister of Belize said “we need action now, not tomorrow.” He urged participants to raise their voices and insist that those responsible for climate change be held accountable for their actions.
The participants, who came from 16 countries and regions, including Alaska, the Caribbean, Fiji, the Canadian Arctic and the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union, including Greenland and French Polynesia, met in Belize City to prepare a five-year action plan. The strategy includes plans to push for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also includes an assessment of the SIDS to adapt to climate change and a plan to inform and warn the world of the dramatic effects of climate change in their regions. Taito Nakalevu, Climate Change Officer with the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, based in Samoa said, “Together, we have identified common problems as a consequence of climate change, and our communities are suffering. We insist that those countries that are causing the problems have a responsibility to those whose lives are being affected.”
Access a release from Oxfam America (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the Oxfam America website for additional information (click here). Access the Many Strong Voices website for extensive information (click here). [*Climate]
The report, Adapting to Climate Change: What’s Needed in Poor Countries and Who Should Pay, estimates that poor countries will need around $50 billion a year to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, a conservative estimate that will rise sharply if emissions are not cut drastically. Offenheiser said, “Rich countries must find ways to help address the harm caused to those who are least responsible for the problem. It is important to not think of this as aid in a traditional sense, but as the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable -- an entirely separate and added responsibility.”
In a related matter, representatives of Arctic communities and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from the Caribbean, and Pacific have formed an alliance called Many Strong Voices to press for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions saying the cultures and economies of their countries and regions are the most affected by climate change. In an address, described as "passionate and forthright," supporting the establishment of the Many Strong Voices alliance, John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Environment Minister of Belize said “we need action now, not tomorrow.” He urged participants to raise their voices and insist that those responsible for climate change be held accountable for their actions.
The participants, who came from 16 countries and regions, including Alaska, the Caribbean, Fiji, the Canadian Arctic and the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union, including Greenland and French Polynesia, met in Belize City to prepare a five-year action plan. The strategy includes plans to push for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also includes an assessment of the SIDS to adapt to climate change and a plan to inform and warn the world of the dramatic effects of climate change in their regions. Taito Nakalevu, Climate Change Officer with the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, based in Samoa said, “Together, we have identified common problems as a consequence of climate change, and our communities are suffering. We insist that those countries that are causing the problems have a responsibility to those whose lives are being affected.”
Access a release from Oxfam America (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the Oxfam America website for additional information (click here). Access the Many Strong Voices website for extensive information (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, June 01, 2007
White House Policy Change On Climate Change?
May 31: As part of a broader agenda of items leading up to the G-8 meeting on June 6-8, in Heiligendamm, Germany, [See WIMS 5/18/07], President Bush described his ideas that will be presented to the G8 ministers about the environment. While there are many critics and accusations of posturing in advance of the international meeting, other observers are calling the announcement a major turning point in the Administration's policy on global warming and climate change. The G8+5 includes: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan; the plus 5 countries are China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. The European Commission is also represented at all the meetings.
In his overall remarks President Bush said, "In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012... It's important to ensure that we get results, and so we will create a strong and transparent system for measuring each country's performance. This new framework would help our nations fulfill our responsibilities under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States will work with all nations that are part of this convention to adapt to the impacts of climate change, gain access to clean and more energy-efficient technologies, and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture."
According to a White House fact sheet summarizing the President's proposals the U.S. announces its support for "an effort to develop a new post-2012 framework on climate change by the end of 2008. The plan recognizes that it is essential that a new framework include both major developed and developing economies that generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions and consume the most energy, and that climate change must be addressed in a way that enhances energy security and promotes economic growth.
The President said the U.S. will convene the major emitters and energy consumers to advance and complete the new framework by the end of 2008. The fact sheet indicates that: (1) The U.S. remains committed to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we expect the new framework to complement ongoing UN activity; (2) The President’s proposal breaks new ground in advancing areas of common interest between developed countries and the major emerging economies. (3) The effort will build on and advance U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and other technology and bilateral partnerships.
Further, the President's proposal is based on the principle that climate change must be addressed by fostering both energy security and economic security, by accelerating the development and deployment of "transformational clean energy technologies."
In developing the new framework, the White House is calling on the major emitters to work together to develop a long-term global goal to reduce greenhouse gasses. Importantly, the proposal says that, "Each country will work to achieve this emissions goal by establishing its own ambitious mid-term national targets and programs, based on national circumstances. They will ensure advancement towards the global goal with a review process that assesses each country’s performances."
White House press secretary Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality held a press briefing to explain the new Administration initiative which Connaughton said was the "going forward strategy on the issue of energy security and climate change." Connaughton described a somewhat confusing, multi-part agenda that included the United States committing to "help lead the way on the development of a new framework on climate change" for the time after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. He said, "We are going to bring to the United States the countries that represent the largest energy use and the largest emissions of greenhouse gases" [i.e. about 10 to 15 countries]. We hope to find consensus on the statement of the statement of a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases."
Additionally the U.S. will facilitate industry sectors (e.g. power generation, fuels, buildings) representatives in each country to "see if they can come up with a common work program to share best practices, but also, we would anticipate they would set targets, too... The final element of part one is that we will have a stronger program of measuring performance and making that very transparent so we can compare apples to apples on how we're doing."
Also, the U.S. will work through the U.N. Framework on Climate Change to develop a common agenda around four: sustainable land use; better forestry practices; better agricultural practices; better thinking through our cities; halting illegal logging and deforestation.
There was considerable discussion about whether the U.S. is advocating voluntary or mandatory agreements. The answers from Connaughton reflected a great deal of flexibility, i.e. "The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term aspirational goal... There's a lot of misconception about what's binding and what's not binding. The issue is you agree on goals in the international process; you implement them through national strategies that include binding measures... it's just challenging because you're trying to deal with big economic issues."
[Note: We have included extensive links to various individual and organization reactions to the President's plan below]
Access the White House fact sheet on its climate change proposal (click here). Access the complete transcript of the White House press briefing on the proposal (click here). Access the President's overall international development remarks (click here). Access a release from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (click here). Access a release from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Representative Ed Markey (click here). Access a release from U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Pete Domenici (click here). Access a release from the National Environmental Trust (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
In his overall remarks President Bush said, "In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012... It's important to ensure that we get results, and so we will create a strong and transparent system for measuring each country's performance. This new framework would help our nations fulfill our responsibilities under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States will work with all nations that are part of this convention to adapt to the impacts of climate change, gain access to clean and more energy-efficient technologies, and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture."
According to a White House fact sheet summarizing the President's proposals the U.S. announces its support for "an effort to develop a new post-2012 framework on climate change by the end of 2008. The plan recognizes that it is essential that a new framework include both major developed and developing economies that generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions and consume the most energy, and that climate change must be addressed in a way that enhances energy security and promotes economic growth.
The President said the U.S. will convene the major emitters and energy consumers to advance and complete the new framework by the end of 2008. The fact sheet indicates that: (1) The U.S. remains committed to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we expect the new framework to complement ongoing UN activity; (2) The President’s proposal breaks new ground in advancing areas of common interest between developed countries and the major emerging economies. (3) The effort will build on and advance U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and other technology and bilateral partnerships.
Further, the President's proposal is based on the principle that climate change must be addressed by fostering both energy security and economic security, by accelerating the development and deployment of "transformational clean energy technologies."
In developing the new framework, the White House is calling on the major emitters to work together to develop a long-term global goal to reduce greenhouse gasses. Importantly, the proposal says that, "Each country will work to achieve this emissions goal by establishing its own ambitious mid-term national targets and programs, based on national circumstances. They will ensure advancement towards the global goal with a review process that assesses each country’s performances."
White House press secretary Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality held a press briefing to explain the new Administration initiative which Connaughton said was the "going forward strategy on the issue of energy security and climate change." Connaughton described a somewhat confusing, multi-part agenda that included the United States committing to "help lead the way on the development of a new framework on climate change" for the time after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. He said, "We are going to bring to the United States the countries that represent the largest energy use and the largest emissions of greenhouse gases" [i.e. about 10 to 15 countries]. We hope to find consensus on the statement of the statement of a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases."
Additionally the U.S. will facilitate industry sectors (e.g. power generation, fuels, buildings) representatives in each country to "see if they can come up with a common work program to share best practices, but also, we would anticipate they would set targets, too... The final element of part one is that we will have a stronger program of measuring performance and making that very transparent so we can compare apples to apples on how we're doing."
Also, the U.S. will work through the U.N. Framework on Climate Change to develop a common agenda around four: sustainable land use; better forestry practices; better agricultural practices; better thinking through our cities; halting illegal logging and deforestation.
There was considerable discussion about whether the U.S. is advocating voluntary or mandatory agreements. The answers from Connaughton reflected a great deal of flexibility, i.e. "The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term aspirational goal... There's a lot of misconception about what's binding and what's not binding. The issue is you agree on goals in the international process; you implement them through national strategies that include binding measures... it's just challenging because you're trying to deal with big economic issues."
[Note: We have included extensive links to various individual and organization reactions to the President's plan below]
Access the White House fact sheet on its climate change proposal (click here). Access the complete transcript of the White House press briefing on the proposal (click here). Access the President's overall international development remarks (click here). Access a release from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (click here). Access a release from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Representative Ed Markey (click here). Access a release from U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Pete Domenici (click here). Access a release from the National Environmental Trust (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from National Wildlife Federation (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Thursday, May 31, 2007
NAS Report Claims A "Spectacular Future" In Plasma Science
May 29: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) entitled, Plasma Science: Advancing Knowledge in the National Interest, indicates that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science should reorient its research programs to promote plasma science research and create a focal point for federal efforts in that field. The report says that breakthroughs in plasma science have the potential to enhance national and economic security, energy production, and general scientific knowledge. In general, plasma science (the study of ionized gases) is critical to the development of fusion energy (involving the fusion of nuclei), which could be an abundant energy source in the future.
According to the report, "Plasma science is on the cusp of a new era. It is poised to make significant breakthroughs in the next decade that will transform the field. For example, the international magnetic fusion experiment, ITER, is expected to confine burning plasma for the first time -- a critical step on the road to commercial fusion. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) plans to ignite capsules of fusion fuel to acquire knowledge necessary to improve the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Low-temperature plasma applications are already ushering in new products and techniques that will change everyday lives. And plasma scientists are being called on to help crack the mysteries surrounding exotic phenomena in the cosmos. This dynamic future will be exciting, but also challenging for the field. It will demand a well-organized national plasma science enterprise. This report examines the broad themes that frame plasma research and offers a bold vision for the future."
The report concludes that, "The expanding scope of plasma research is creating an abundance of new scientific opportunities and challenges. These opportunities promise to further expand the role of plasma science in enhancing economic security and prosperity, energy and environmental security, national security, and scientific knowledge."
Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here). Access further information from DOE's Office of Science (click here). [*Energy]
According to the report, "Plasma science is on the cusp of a new era. It is poised to make significant breakthroughs in the next decade that will transform the field. For example, the international magnetic fusion experiment, ITER, is expected to confine burning plasma for the first time -- a critical step on the road to commercial fusion. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) plans to ignite capsules of fusion fuel to acquire knowledge necessary to improve the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Low-temperature plasma applications are already ushering in new products and techniques that will change everyday lives. And plasma scientists are being called on to help crack the mysteries surrounding exotic phenomena in the cosmos. This dynamic future will be exciting, but also challenging for the field. It will demand a well-organized national plasma science enterprise. This report examines the broad themes that frame plasma research and offers a bold vision for the future."
The report concludes that, "The expanding scope of plasma research is creating an abundance of new scientific opportunities and challenges. These opportunities promise to further expand the role of plasma science in enhancing economic security and prosperity, energy and environmental security, national security, and scientific knowledge."
Access links to the complete report and an executive summary (click here). Access further information from DOE's Office of Science (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Battle Lines Drawn On California Waiver Request
May 30: [Editor Note: The following three article and referenced article from last week, summarize positions of major interest groups involved in the debate over the State of California's request regarding a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act for its Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulation for cars and light-duty trucks.]
Automakers Request More Time On CA Waiver
May 22: At hearings conducted by U.S. EPA on California's waiver request for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines in Washington, DC (May 22) and Sacramento (May 30) [See WIMS 5/21&23/ 07], the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) formally requested a 30-day extension to the comment period because of what it said was "the scope of the issues involved." The current deadline for submitting public comments to EPA is June 15, 2007.
AAM, representing nine manufacturers including BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, delivered testimony at the DC hearing and stated its position on the California waiver request. AAM said:
"Three important points about the waiver request need to be considered. First, California has the initial burden of fully explaining the basis for its waiver request in this proceeding. The waiver application presented to EPA contains many assumptions and undocumented claims about the benefits of the regulation and how the industry can comply with it.
"California needs to fully document those claims in order for EPA to move forward. For example, there has been no demonstration by the State in its waiver application that the regulations would help address the issue of climate change or global warming in a concrete manner. If California cannot show that its regulation has a demonstrable impact on global warming, EPA should reject the waiver request. It is impossible to contend that any measure is required to meet a compelling condition if the measure has no impact on the condition. For that simple reason, EPA must reject California’s waiver request.
"Second, and equally important, the Clean Air Act’s primary goal is to improve air quality, and in particular, to ensure that the air is healthy to breathe. The waiver provision of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review California’s evaluation of how the California regulations compare to the federal regulations in their ability to protect and improve air quality. The waiver application from California asserts that the California program is superior to the federal program as a method of reducing smog-forming emissions, but offers no direct comparison between federal and California programs taken as a whole. California’s omission of such a comparison requires EPA to deny the waiver.
"Finally, we believe that California’s threat to sue EPA is not helpful to this process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application contains no evidence that the new standards will have any beneficial impact on the environmental conditions of concern. In short, EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request. The Alliance member companies are committed to improving energy security and fuel economy, but piecemeal regulation at the state level is not the answer. Moreover, California has not demonstrated a basis for this waiver request, and EPA should deny the waiver."
NACAA Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 22: The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, formerly known as STAPPA and ALAPCO) testified at U.S. EPA's public hearing in Arlington, VA offering strong support for full and prompt approval of California's request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions. California adopted its regulations in September 2005 and submitted its waiver request to EPA in December 2005.
Bill Becker, NACAA Executive Director urged EPA to respond to California's request without further delay and to grant complete approval of the waiver of Federal preemption. NACAA testified that EPA's role in considering a waiver request is narrow and deferential. NACAA said, "Under the law, EPA must grant California's request for a waiver unless it can demonstrate that California acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its regulations, that there is no longer a compelling and extraordinary need for California to maintain its own motor vehicle program or that California's regulations are not consistent with Section 202(b) of the CAA." NACAA said that in the case of California's greenhouse gas regulations, none of these can be demonstrated and EPA does not have the discretion to deny the waiver request.
Sierra Club Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 30: Testifying at the Sacramento, CA hearing on California's request for a waiver of Federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra Club denounced what it called "more than a year and a half of delay by the federal government that has prevented California and 11 other states from implementing a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks." Sierra Club called on the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately approve a needed "waiver" to the Clean Air Act permitting states to exceed Federal standards in combating pollution.
Sierra Club's regional staff director Carl Zichella, told agency officials that further delay in approving California's waiver was "making global warming more dangerous and difficult to solve." This failure to act was "unacceptable, irresponsible and immoral." Zichella said, "The debate over the science of global warming and the role of human activities in causing the problem is over. The debate over whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 is now also over. EPA has refused to act on California's request for more than a year and a half. It is now time for this unnecessary and dangerous delay to end. In the face of scientific and legal consensus, further delay amounts to playing politics with a lethal problem."
Sierra Club's testimony adds to the environmental group positions announced last week by Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Both groups indicated that they had filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. EPA to force a long-delayed ruling on California’s request to establish new tailpipe emissions standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They indicated that they join California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action. Governor Schwarzenegger said in April that he would give the Agency 180 days to reach a final decision before filing a lawsuit. California and eleven states including: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland; are awaiting the waiver decision from EPA.
Additionally, on May 22, the Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Examining the Case for the California Waiver. Witnesses testifying included: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General State of California; Professor Jonathan H. Adler Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Access the AAM testimony (click here). Access links to the Federal Register notice and complete background information and documents on the California request (click here). Access the complete NACAA testimony (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club and the complete testimony (click here). Access a joint release from Environmental Defense and NRDC (click here). Access the EPW hearing website for links to testimony and the hearing webcast (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Automakers Request More Time On CA Waiver
May 22: At hearings conducted by U.S. EPA on California's waiver request for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines in Washington, DC (May 22) and Sacramento (May 30) [See WIMS 5/21&23/ 07], the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) formally requested a 30-day extension to the comment period because of what it said was "the scope of the issues involved." The current deadline for submitting public comments to EPA is June 15, 2007.
AAM, representing nine manufacturers including BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, delivered testimony at the DC hearing and stated its position on the California waiver request. AAM said:
"Three important points about the waiver request need to be considered. First, California has the initial burden of fully explaining the basis for its waiver request in this proceeding. The waiver application presented to EPA contains many assumptions and undocumented claims about the benefits of the regulation and how the industry can comply with it.
"California needs to fully document those claims in order for EPA to move forward. For example, there has been no demonstration by the State in its waiver application that the regulations would help address the issue of climate change or global warming in a concrete manner. If California cannot show that its regulation has a demonstrable impact on global warming, EPA should reject the waiver request. It is impossible to contend that any measure is required to meet a compelling condition if the measure has no impact on the condition. For that simple reason, EPA must reject California’s waiver request.
"Second, and equally important, the Clean Air Act’s primary goal is to improve air quality, and in particular, to ensure that the air is healthy to breathe. The waiver provision of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review California’s evaluation of how the California regulations compare to the federal regulations in their ability to protect and improve air quality. The waiver application from California asserts that the California program is superior to the federal program as a method of reducing smog-forming emissions, but offers no direct comparison between federal and California programs taken as a whole. California’s omission of such a comparison requires EPA to deny the waiver.
"Finally, we believe that California’s threat to sue EPA is not helpful to this process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application contains no evidence that the new standards will have any beneficial impact on the environmental conditions of concern. In short, EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request. The Alliance member companies are committed to improving energy security and fuel economy, but piecemeal regulation at the state level is not the answer. Moreover, California has not demonstrated a basis for this waiver request, and EPA should deny the waiver."
NACAA Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 22: The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, formerly known as STAPPA and ALAPCO) testified at U.S. EPA's public hearing in Arlington, VA offering strong support for full and prompt approval of California's request for a waiver of federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions. California adopted its regulations in September 2005 and submitted its waiver request to EPA in December 2005.
Bill Becker, NACAA Executive Director urged EPA to respond to California's request without further delay and to grant complete approval of the waiver of Federal preemption. NACAA testified that EPA's role in considering a waiver request is narrow and deferential. NACAA said, "Under the law, EPA must grant California's request for a waiver unless it can demonstrate that California acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its regulations, that there is no longer a compelling and extraordinary need for California to maintain its own motor vehicle program or that California's regulations are not consistent with Section 202(b) of the CAA." NACAA said that in the case of California's greenhouse gas regulations, none of these can be demonstrated and EPA does not have the discretion to deny the waiver request.
Sierra Club Testifies In Support Of CA Waiver
May 30: Testifying at the Sacramento, CA hearing on California's request for a waiver of Federal preemption under CAA Section 209(b), to permit enforcement of the State's new motor vehicle emission standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra Club denounced what it called "more than a year and a half of delay by the federal government that has prevented California and 11 other states from implementing a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks." Sierra Club called on the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately approve a needed "waiver" to the Clean Air Act permitting states to exceed Federal standards in combating pollution.
Sierra Club's regional staff director Carl Zichella, told agency officials that further delay in approving California's waiver was "making global warming more dangerous and difficult to solve." This failure to act was "unacceptable, irresponsible and immoral." Zichella said, "The debate over the science of global warming and the role of human activities in causing the problem is over. The debate over whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 is now also over. EPA has refused to act on California's request for more than a year and a half. It is now time for this unnecessary and dangerous delay to end. In the face of scientific and legal consensus, further delay amounts to playing politics with a lethal problem."
Sierra Club's testimony adds to the environmental group positions announced last week by Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Both groups indicated that they had filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. EPA to force a long-delayed ruling on California’s request to establish new tailpipe emissions standards for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They indicated that they join California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown in promising legal action to force a decision if EPA fails to take prompt action. Governor Schwarzenegger said in April that he would give the Agency 180 days to reach a final decision before filing a lawsuit. California and eleven states including: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland; are awaiting the waiver decision from EPA.
Additionally, on May 22, the Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Examining the Case for the California Waiver. Witnesses testifying included: Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General State of California; Professor Jonathan H. Adler Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Access the AAM testimony (click here). Access links to the Federal Register notice and complete background information and documents on the California request (click here). Access the complete NACAA testimony (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club and the complete testimony (click here). Access a joint release from Environmental Defense and NRDC (click here). Access the EPW hearing website for links to testimony and the hearing webcast (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Congressional Climate Investigation Goes To Greenland & Europe
May 26-28: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is joining House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other members of the Select Committee on an international fact-finding mission on global warming impacts and solutions over the Memorial Day weekend and this week. The bipartisan delegation arrived in Greenland on Saturday, May 26, continuing on to Germany, Great Britain and Belgium to meet with leading scientists and political leaders working on solutions to combat global warming. In Greenland the delegation met with Dr. Konrad Steffen, who is the lead scientist at Swiss Camp located on the Jakobshavn Glacier. In Europe, the delegation was to meet with Chancellor Merkel, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, foreign and environmental ministers, members of parliament and leading environmentalists and scientists.
In a release, Markey said that reports had surfaced that the U.S. delegation to the Group of Eight Nations (G-8) has rejected a climate proposal from G-8 head and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that calls for limiting the worldwide temperature increase this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 [See WIMS 5/18/07]. Markey indicated that the congressional delegation will meet with Chancellor Merkel.
Speaker Pelosi said, “Scientific evidence and real-world examples tell us that global warming is an international crisis that must be solved with international cooperation and innovative solutions. As we begin to craft legislative solutions to address this international crisis, Members of Congress will see firsthand the economic and environmental impact of global warming, as well as the actions our allies are already taking to address this global challenge.”
Earlier this year, the Speaker called for legislation to curb global warming and created the Select Committee Energy Independence and Global Warming. She said Congress is drafting wide-ranging legislation on energy independence by July 4 and global warming later this year.
Along with Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Markey, the delegation includes Select Committee members Hilda Solis (D-CA), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin(D-SD), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Larson (D-CT), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). David Hobson (R-OH), Ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee is also traveling with the group. According to the release, the air travel was to be carbon "offset" through the Pacific Forest Trust - a forest conservation and stewardship project that will permanently reduce approximately 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions over a 100-year period. Speaker Pelosi will personally pay for this effort.
Access links to several releases on the mission and subsequent posts on further developments (click here). Access the Speaker's Blog for daily posts of the trip (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). [*Climate]
In a release, Markey said that reports had surfaced that the U.S. delegation to the Group of Eight Nations (G-8) has rejected a climate proposal from G-8 head and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that calls for limiting the worldwide temperature increase this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 [See WIMS 5/18/07]. Markey indicated that the congressional delegation will meet with Chancellor Merkel.
Speaker Pelosi said, “Scientific evidence and real-world examples tell us that global warming is an international crisis that must be solved with international cooperation and innovative solutions. As we begin to craft legislative solutions to address this international crisis, Members of Congress will see firsthand the economic and environmental impact of global warming, as well as the actions our allies are already taking to address this global challenge.”
Earlier this year, the Speaker called for legislation to curb global warming and created the Select Committee Energy Independence and Global Warming. She said Congress is drafting wide-ranging legislation on energy independence by July 4 and global warming later this year.
Along with Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Markey, the delegation includes Select Committee members Hilda Solis (D-CA), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin(D-SD), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Larson (D-CT), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). David Hobson (R-OH), Ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee is also traveling with the group. According to the release, the air travel was to be carbon "offset" through the Pacific Forest Trust - a forest conservation and stewardship project that will permanently reduce approximately 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions over a 100-year period. Speaker Pelosi will personally pay for this effort.
Access links to several releases on the mission and subsequent posts on further developments (click here). Access the Speaker's Blog for daily posts of the trip (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, May 25, 2007
Appeals Court Deals Blow To Industry MTBE Litigation Strategy
May 24: In the case of consolidated cases, In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case Nos. 04-5974 & 04-6056. The case includes the consolidated cases of: State of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. and State of New Hampshire v. Amerada Hess Corporation, et al. The two cases are among scores of related actions removed from state court and transferred to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to MDL No. 1358, In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation.
The case involves an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions to remand. The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because the district court erroneously held that it had removal jurisdiction over these actions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and/or the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction is satisfied, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed." While the various states have been arguing that the cases should be tried in state courts; oil companies and refineries have argued that they were operating as "federal officers" in carrying out a mandate to add MTBE to their reformulated gasoline, and therefore, the cases should be heard in Federal courts.
According to the Appeals Court, two issues are presented: "(1) whether principles of sovereign immunity are violated when a state plaintiff voluntarily prosecutes a claim in state court and the action is removed from state to federal court pursuant to a statute that expressly authorizes removal; and (2) if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, or some other ground."
On the issue of "sovereign immunity," the Appeals Court ruled, "...California and New Hampshire have each made and acted upon the decision to commence a lawsuit. This voluntary act subjects them to the consequences that Congress may legitimately attach to such an action. Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the removal of these state-commenced actions to federal court."
On the second issue, the Appeals Court said in part, "The California and New Hampshire actions relate primarily to matters of public health and welfare, and the money damages sought will not inure, strictly speaking, to the economic benefit of the states. Instead, the clear goal of these proceedings is to remedy and prevent environmental damage with potentially serious consequences for public health, a significant area of state policy. Thus, even under the tests advocated by the defendant companies, these proceedings represent efforts by California and New Hampshire to enforce their 'police or regulatory power' and are not subject to removal..."
The Appeals Court also indicates that the district judge concluded, “defendants have sufficiently alleged that they added MTBE to gasoline at the direction of the EPA, a federal agency.” The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The conclusion of the district judge is not based on an explicit directive in either the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Significantly, after oral argument in this appeal, the district judge held that 'federal law did not require the use of MTBE...' the district judge and the defendants acknowledged that the EPA identified six other additives, besides MTBE, that could be blended into reformulated gasoline to meet the requirements imposed by the CAA and the regulations... That it may have been more convenient or less expensive for the defendants to use MTBE does not mean it would have been impossible for them to use other, less polluting additives..."
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte issued a release saying that New Hampshire’s lawsuit against oil companies for MTBE contamination of state waters will be returned to state court, as a result the decision by the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit appeals court. She said the Appeals Court ruled that there was no Federal jurisdiction to hear New Hampshire’s state case and that it must be returned to state court, where it was originally filed.
In 2003, the State had sued oil companies that added the chemical methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline sold in New Hampshire. The State sought full recovery for Statewide contamination of drinking water supplies. The oil companies immediately removed the case to Federal district court, which denied the State’s request to return to State court. The State appealed on grounds that there was no Federal jurisdiction over the State’s case. The appeals court agreed and remanded the state’s case to the Merrimack County Superior Court.
Ayotte said, “We are very pleased that the Federal appeals court agreed with us that the proper place to hear this important case about New Hampshire’s drinking water is in our State’s courts. We look forward to trying the case as soon as possible before a jury of New Hampshire citizens.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Hampshire AG (click here). [*Remed, *Water, *Drink]
The case involves an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions to remand. The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because the district court erroneously held that it had removal jurisdiction over these actions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and/or the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction is satisfied, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed." While the various states have been arguing that the cases should be tried in state courts; oil companies and refineries have argued that they were operating as "federal officers" in carrying out a mandate to add MTBE to their reformulated gasoline, and therefore, the cases should be heard in Federal courts.
According to the Appeals Court, two issues are presented: "(1) whether principles of sovereign immunity are violated when a state plaintiff voluntarily prosecutes a claim in state court and the action is removed from state to federal court pursuant to a statute that expressly authorizes removal; and (2) if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, or some other ground."
On the issue of "sovereign immunity," the Appeals Court ruled, "...California and New Hampshire have each made and acted upon the decision to commence a lawsuit. This voluntary act subjects them to the consequences that Congress may legitimately attach to such an action. Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the removal of these state-commenced actions to federal court."
On the second issue, the Appeals Court said in part, "The California and New Hampshire actions relate primarily to matters of public health and welfare, and the money damages sought will not inure, strictly speaking, to the economic benefit of the states. Instead, the clear goal of these proceedings is to remedy and prevent environmental damage with potentially serious consequences for public health, a significant area of state policy. Thus, even under the tests advocated by the defendant companies, these proceedings represent efforts by California and New Hampshire to enforce their 'police or regulatory power' and are not subject to removal..."
The Appeals Court also indicates that the district judge concluded, “defendants have sufficiently alleged that they added MTBE to gasoline at the direction of the EPA, a federal agency.” The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The conclusion of the district judge is not based on an explicit directive in either the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Significantly, after oral argument in this appeal, the district judge held that 'federal law did not require the use of MTBE...' the district judge and the defendants acknowledged that the EPA identified six other additives, besides MTBE, that could be blended into reformulated gasoline to meet the requirements imposed by the CAA and the regulations... That it may have been more convenient or less expensive for the defendants to use MTBE does not mean it would have been impossible for them to use other, less polluting additives..."
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte issued a release saying that New Hampshire’s lawsuit against oil companies for MTBE contamination of state waters will be returned to state court, as a result the decision by the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit appeals court. She said the Appeals Court ruled that there was no Federal jurisdiction to hear New Hampshire’s state case and that it must be returned to state court, where it was originally filed.
In 2003, the State had sued oil companies that added the chemical methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline sold in New Hampshire. The State sought full recovery for Statewide contamination of drinking water supplies. The oil companies immediately removed the case to Federal district court, which denied the State’s request to return to State court. The State appealed on grounds that there was no Federal jurisdiction over the State’s case. The appeals court agreed and remanded the state’s case to the Merrimack County Superior Court.
Ayotte said, “We are very pleased that the Federal appeals court agreed with us that the proper place to hear this important case about New Hampshire’s drinking water is in our State’s courts. We look forward to trying the case as soon as possible before a jury of New Hampshire citizens.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Hampshire AG (click here). [*Remed, *Water, *Drink]
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Senate Hearing On Coal Gasification
May 24: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held an oversight hearing entitled, Coal Gasification: Opportunities and Challenges. The hearing addressed opportunities and challenges associated with coal gasification, including coal-to-liquids and industrial gasification. Witnesses included representatives from: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, University of Tennessee; Eastman Gasification Services Company; the RAND Corporation; and SAIC-Energy Solutions Group.
In an opening statement Chairman Bingaman indicated, "Although the fundamental technology we are talking about today has been around for many decades, relatively recent developments in the technology point to a pathway that may allow us to use the our abundant coal reserves in a way that is responsible to our children and their children." Bingaman said that additional, longer, more in depth, hearings or workshops on coal gasification including coal to liquids will be held in the near future. He said Senators Tester (D-MT), Corker (R-TN), Dorgan (D-ND), Salazar (D-CO) and Conrad (D-ND) had all requested additional hearings.
Bingaman said, "I don’t think anyone here would seriously dispute that coal is an important part of our fuel mix for the foreseeable future. Our domestic reserves are abundant and the price spread between coal and other fossil fuels is likely make coal an attractive option for a long time to come. However, the capital costs associated with coal facilities, and particularly coal gasification facilities, are very high – often in range of four billion dollars or more -- and their expected useful life is over 20 years. As a result, if we make a mistake, and encourage the development of plants that we later find to be incompatible with our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will be a very costly mistake."
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Committee, said that development of coal-to-liquids technology is essential for strengthening U.S. energy security over the coming years. He said, "...other nations, like South Africa and China, are well on the way to using coal converted to liquid form. In fact, China is constructing an 80,000 barrel per day coal-to-liquid facility, and the Chinese government has proposed using as much as 1 million barrels of coal-to-liquid a day by 2020. Coal is a resource that we have in abundance, and if we develop it wisely and lead the march to new clean coal technology, it will give us the economic potential to compete with the world’s emerging economies. We can’t afford to fall much farther behind.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President & CEO Jack Gerard issued a statement highlighting the testimony of Eastman Gasification Services Company, and saying, “We applaud the Committee for looking at coal gasification and industrial gasification systems, which represent emerging technologies that can help the nation make use of its abundant domestic resources and develop a comprehensive energy policy. Industrial gasification, in particular, is a logical economic and technological path forward to achieve policy objectives such as environmental protection, energy security, reduction of natural gas prices and volatility, enhanced global competitiveness and job retention and growth. That’s because industrial gasification processes have unique characteristics that enable or advantage high levels of carbon capture. As Mr. Denton noted in his testimony today, industrial gasification is the ‘low hanging fruit’ as Congress considers programs to test and develop carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) technologies, protocols and financing issues. Gasification also has significant potential and benefit as a new source of feedstock for chemical manufacturers."
NRDC testified that, "One of the primary reasons that the electric power, chemical, and liquid fuels industries have become increasingly interested in coal gasification technology in the last several years is the volatility and high cost of both natural gas and oil. Coal has the advantages of being a cheap, abundant, and domestic resource compared with oil and natural gas. However, the disadvantages of conventional coal use cannot be ignored. From underground accidents and mountain top removal mining, to collisions at coal train crossings, to air emissions of acidic, toxic, and heat-trapping pollution from coal combustion, to water pollution from coal mining and combustion wastes, the conventional coal fuel cycle is among the most environmentally destructive activities on earth."
NRDC said, we can do better with both production and use of coal. And because the world is likely to continue to use significant amounts of coal for some time to come, we must do better... coal use and climate protection do not need to be irreconcilable activities... development and use of technologies such as coal gasification in combination with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and permanent disposal in geologic repositories under certain circumstances could enhance our ability to avoid a dangerous build-up of this heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere while creating a future for continued coal use... we need to focus government funding more sharply on the most promising technologies [and] More importantly, we need to adopt binding measures and standards that limit global warming emissions so that the private sector has a business rationale for prioritizing investment in this area."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and an archived webcast (click here). Access the statements from Senators Bingaman (click here); and Domenici (click here). Access the ACC release (click here). [*Energy]
In an opening statement Chairman Bingaman indicated, "Although the fundamental technology we are talking about today has been around for many decades, relatively recent developments in the technology point to a pathway that may allow us to use the our abundant coal reserves in a way that is responsible to our children and their children." Bingaman said that additional, longer, more in depth, hearings or workshops on coal gasification including coal to liquids will be held in the near future. He said Senators Tester (D-MT), Corker (R-TN), Dorgan (D-ND), Salazar (D-CO) and Conrad (D-ND) had all requested additional hearings.
Bingaman said, "I don’t think anyone here would seriously dispute that coal is an important part of our fuel mix for the foreseeable future. Our domestic reserves are abundant and the price spread between coal and other fossil fuels is likely make coal an attractive option for a long time to come. However, the capital costs associated with coal facilities, and particularly coal gasification facilities, are very high – often in range of four billion dollars or more -- and their expected useful life is over 20 years. As a result, if we make a mistake, and encourage the development of plants that we later find to be incompatible with our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will be a very costly mistake."
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Committee, said that development of coal-to-liquids technology is essential for strengthening U.S. energy security over the coming years. He said, "...other nations, like South Africa and China, are well on the way to using coal converted to liquid form. In fact, China is constructing an 80,000 barrel per day coal-to-liquid facility, and the Chinese government has proposed using as much as 1 million barrels of coal-to-liquid a day by 2020. Coal is a resource that we have in abundance, and if we develop it wisely and lead the march to new clean coal technology, it will give us the economic potential to compete with the world’s emerging economies. We can’t afford to fall much farther behind.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President & CEO Jack Gerard issued a statement highlighting the testimony of Eastman Gasification Services Company, and saying, “We applaud the Committee for looking at coal gasification and industrial gasification systems, which represent emerging technologies that can help the nation make use of its abundant domestic resources and develop a comprehensive energy policy. Industrial gasification, in particular, is a logical economic and technological path forward to achieve policy objectives such as environmental protection, energy security, reduction of natural gas prices and volatility, enhanced global competitiveness and job retention and growth. That’s because industrial gasification processes have unique characteristics that enable or advantage high levels of carbon capture. As Mr. Denton noted in his testimony today, industrial gasification is the ‘low hanging fruit’ as Congress considers programs to test and develop carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) technologies, protocols and financing issues. Gasification also has significant potential and benefit as a new source of feedstock for chemical manufacturers."
NRDC testified that, "One of the primary reasons that the electric power, chemical, and liquid fuels industries have become increasingly interested in coal gasification technology in the last several years is the volatility and high cost of both natural gas and oil. Coal has the advantages of being a cheap, abundant, and domestic resource compared with oil and natural gas. However, the disadvantages of conventional coal use cannot be ignored. From underground accidents and mountain top removal mining, to collisions at coal train crossings, to air emissions of acidic, toxic, and heat-trapping pollution from coal combustion, to water pollution from coal mining and combustion wastes, the conventional coal fuel cycle is among the most environmentally destructive activities on earth."
NRDC said, we can do better with both production and use of coal. And because the world is likely to continue to use significant amounts of coal for some time to come, we must do better... coal use and climate protection do not need to be irreconcilable activities... development and use of technologies such as coal gasification in combination with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and permanent disposal in geologic repositories under certain circumstances could enhance our ability to avoid a dangerous build-up of this heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere while creating a future for continued coal use... we need to focus government funding more sharply on the most promising technologies [and] More importantly, we need to adopt binding measures and standards that limit global warming emissions so that the private sector has a business rationale for prioritizing investment in this area."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and an archived webcast (click here). Access the statements from Senators Bingaman (click here); and Domenici (click here). Access the ACC release (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Ninth Circuit Vacates Army Corps Lake Filling Permit
May 22: In the case of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-35679. The case presents the question of whether the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violates the Clean Water Act [See WIMS eNewsUSA Blog posts on this issue]. The permit issued in this case authorizes Coeur Alaska, Inc., to discharge process wastewater containing tailings from its gold mine into a lake that is a navigable water of the United States. Coeur Alaska proposed to discharge daily 210,000 gallons of process wastewater containing 1,440 tons of tailings from its mine into Lower Slate Lake. The tailings in the discharge will raise the bottom elevation of the lake by 50 feet. A 90-foot high, 500-foot long dam will be built to contain the discharge and the area of the lake will be increased about three-fold.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends that the permit was properly granted under § 404 of the Clean Water Act, which relates to the disposal of “fill material,” and that it is not subject to the effluent restrictions of § 301 or § 306 of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs contend that this mine disposal discharge must comply with the effluent restrictions of § 301 and § 306, and that any permit allowing discharge must be issued by U.S. EPA. The district court held that the issuance of the permit was proper. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the permit.
In its conclusion the Appeals Court said, "In conclusion, we reverse the district court, remand to the district court to vacate the permits issued to Coeur Alaska and Goldbelt, and vacate the RODs that approved Coeur Alaska’s and Goldbelt’s plans of operations. The Corps violated the Clean Water Act by issuing a permit to Coeur Alaska for discharges of slurry from the froth-flotation mill at the Kensington Gold Mine. EPA’s performance standard for frothflotation mills, promulgated pursuant to § 301 and § 306 of the Clean Water Act, prohibits discharges from such operations into the navigable waters of the United States. No exceptions are provided by either the regulation or the statute.
"Even though the discharge in this case facially qualifies for the permitting scheme under § 404 of the Clean Water Act because it will change the bottom elevation of Lower Slate Lake, the discharge is nevertheless prohibited by the clearly applicable and specific performance standard. The plain language and structure of the Clean Water Act demonstrate that EPA’s performance standard governs in this case. Also, the agencies’ statements made during promulgation of the regulation defining 'fill material,' as well as their statements made to Coeur Alaska during the lengthy permitting process, indicate that they intended this result. Thus, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The case is remanded to the district court for action pursuant to this opinion."
Access the complete 31-page opinion (click here). [*Water]
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends that the permit was properly granted under § 404 of the Clean Water Act, which relates to the disposal of “fill material,” and that it is not subject to the effluent restrictions of § 301 or § 306 of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs contend that this mine disposal discharge must comply with the effluent restrictions of § 301 and § 306, and that any permit allowing discharge must be issued by U.S. EPA. The district court held that the issuance of the permit was proper. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the permit.
In its conclusion the Appeals Court said, "In conclusion, we reverse the district court, remand to the district court to vacate the permits issued to Coeur Alaska and Goldbelt, and vacate the RODs that approved Coeur Alaska’s and Goldbelt’s plans of operations. The Corps violated the Clean Water Act by issuing a permit to Coeur Alaska for discharges of slurry from the froth-flotation mill at the Kensington Gold Mine. EPA’s performance standard for frothflotation mills, promulgated pursuant to § 301 and § 306 of the Clean Water Act, prohibits discharges from such operations into the navigable waters of the United States. No exceptions are provided by either the regulation or the statute.
"Even though the discharge in this case facially qualifies for the permitting scheme under § 404 of the Clean Water Act because it will change the bottom elevation of Lower Slate Lake, the discharge is nevertheless prohibited by the clearly applicable and specific performance standard. The plain language and structure of the Clean Water Act demonstrate that EPA’s performance standard governs in this case. Also, the agencies’ statements made during promulgation of the regulation defining 'fill material,' as well as their statements made to Coeur Alaska during the lengthy permitting process, indicate that they intended this result. Thus, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The case is remanded to the district court for action pursuant to this opinion."
Access the complete 31-page opinion (click here). [*Water]
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
150 Reps Sponsor Bill To "Fix" Supreme Ct. CWA Decisions
May 22: Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced legislation which he said is designed "to fix the Clean Water Act (CWA) after it was damaged by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings." The pair of rulings issued in 2001 and 2006 question the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to enforce the Clean Water Act on wetlands, streams and ponds that are not part of a major “navigable” waterway [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities]. Oberstar said, “These rulings ignore everything we have learned about water pollution and wetland conservation. You have to control pollution at its source. If you wait until it hits a major waterway, it is too late to deal with the problem effectively.”
The Clean Water Act has also helped stop the draining of wetlands across the country. Oberstar indicated, “You only have to look at the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the flooding on the Mississippi River in the mid 1990s to see how wetlands protect us, holding back flood waters. Wetlands also filter ground water and allow it to recharge aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to eight states from Nebraska to Texas, but many of the wetlands that filter and recharge it have lost their protection due to these Supreme Court rulings.”
Oberstar's Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 (CWRA) was introduced along with Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI). The bill has 150 co-sponsors. Additionally, CWRA is endorsed by 300 organizations representing the conservation community, family farmers, fishers, boaters, labor unions and civic associations. According to a release the bill would eliminate a complex new jurisdictional application that has been added to the Federal permitting process because of the two Supreme Court rulings. That paperwork adds up to three months of processing time to a wetlands permit.
The bill is designed to restore the authority of the Clean Water Act so it has the same effect it had prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings. It would not create new rules or regulations. The first sentence of the act reads, “The Purpose of this act is as follows: To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.” CWRA would also reaffirm exemptions for farming, mining, logging and other activities that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Clean Water Project Senior Attorney Jon Devine issued a following statement saying, “We commend the introduction of this important bill and hope Congress will act quickly and decisively in passing it. For decades, the Clean Water Act has protected America’s water resources from industrial pollution, oil spills, sewage, and outright destruction. Recent interpretations of the law have placed many of the nation’s important water bodies in legal limbo, allowing polluters to discharge into water resources across the country without complying with the Clean Water Act’s intended safeguards. This legislation will end this uncertainty and ensure that all of America’s water resources remain protected for future generations.”
Access a release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Water]
The Clean Water Act has also helped stop the draining of wetlands across the country. Oberstar indicated, “You only have to look at the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the flooding on the Mississippi River in the mid 1990s to see how wetlands protect us, holding back flood waters. Wetlands also filter ground water and allow it to recharge aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to eight states from Nebraska to Texas, but many of the wetlands that filter and recharge it have lost their protection due to these Supreme Court rulings.”
Oberstar's Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 (CWRA) was introduced along with Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI). The bill has 150 co-sponsors. Additionally, CWRA is endorsed by 300 organizations representing the conservation community, family farmers, fishers, boaters, labor unions and civic associations. According to a release the bill would eliminate a complex new jurisdictional application that has been added to the Federal permitting process because of the two Supreme Court rulings. That paperwork adds up to three months of processing time to a wetlands permit.
The bill is designed to restore the authority of the Clean Water Act so it has the same effect it had prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings. It would not create new rules or regulations. The first sentence of the act reads, “The Purpose of this act is as follows: To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.” CWRA would also reaffirm exemptions for farming, mining, logging and other activities that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Clean Water Project Senior Attorney Jon Devine issued a following statement saying, “We commend the introduction of this important bill and hope Congress will act quickly and decisively in passing it. For decades, the Clean Water Act has protected America’s water resources from industrial pollution, oil spills, sewage, and outright destruction. Recent interpretations of the law have placed many of the nation’s important water bodies in legal limbo, allowing polluters to discharge into water resources across the country without complying with the Clean Water Act’s intended safeguards. This legislation will end this uncertainty and ensure that all of America’s water resources remain protected for future generations.”
Access a release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [*Water]
Monday, May 21, 2007
USDA Report Highlights Ethanol-Corn Domino Effect
May 18: According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A large expansion in ethanol production is underway in the United States. Cellulosic sources of feedstocks for ethanol production hold some promise for the future, but the primary feedstock in the United States currently is corn. Market adjustments to this increased demand extend well beyond the corn sector to supply and demand for other crops, such as soybeans and cotton, as well as to U.S. livestock industries. USDA’s long-term projections, augmented by farmers’ planting intentions for 2007, are used to illustrate anticipated changes in the agricultural sector."
The report, Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust? (Report No. FDS-07D-01, May 2007), indicates that ethanol production in the United States totaled almost 5 billion gallons in 2006, about 1 billion gallons more than in 2005. While this was a significant increase, further expansion in the industry is continuing, with production expected to exceed 10 billion gallons by 2009. This large and rapid expansion of U.S. ethanol production affects virtually every aspect of the field crops sector, ranging from domestic demand and exports to prices and the allocation of acreage among crops. Many aspects of the livestock sector are affected too. As a consequence of these commodity market impacts, farm income, government payments, and food prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are already underway and will continue for many years as interest grows in renewable sources of energy to lessen dependence on foreign oil.
In 2006, ethanol (by volume) represented about 3.5 percent of motor vehicle gasoline supplies in the United States. However, about 14 percent of corn use went to ethanol production in the 2005/06 crop year. With continued strong ethanol expansion, USDA’s 2007 long-term projections indicate that more than 30 percent of the corn crop will be used to produce ethanol by 2009/10, remaining near that share in subsequent years. Yet, even by 2017, ethanol production (by volume) is projected to represent less than 8 percent of annual gasoline use in the United States.
USDA says that its 2007 long-term projections show average corn prices reaching $3.75 a bushel in the 2009/10 marketing year and then declining to $3.30 by 2016/17 as the ethanol expansion slows. Higher corn prices affect corn’s role as an animal feed. Livestock feeding is the largest use of U.S. corn, typically accounting for 50-60 percent of the total. With higher prices, corn used for animal feeding declines to 40-50 percent of total use over the next decade.
The increased use of corn for ethanol production and higher corn prices have important implications for global trade and international markets. The United States has typically accounted for 60-70 percent of world corn exports. With the ethanol expansion and higher prices, however, the U.S. share of global corn trade drops to 55-60 percent. Global adjustments to higher corn prices include reduced foreign demand and increased foreign production.
With higher crop prices, farmland prices rise to reflect the increased value of crop production. This accelerates gains in farmland prices, which also reflect demand for land for nonagricultural uses, such as housing and recreation. As the livestock sector adjusts to higher feed costs resulting from the expansion in corn-based ethanol production, overall production of meats is reduced over the next few years. As a result, consumer prices for red meats, poultry, and eggs are expected to exceed the general inflation rate in 2008-10. Consequently, overall retail food prices in USDA’s 2007 long-term projections rise faster than the general inflation rate for several years.
Access the complete 20-page report which contains links to additional reference information (click here). Access a narrated slideshow providing an overview of this report (click here). Access additional information related to bioenergy is available from the USDA Economic Research Service Bioenergy Briefing Room (click here). [*Energy]
The report, Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust? (Report No. FDS-07D-01, May 2007), indicates that ethanol production in the United States totaled almost 5 billion gallons in 2006, about 1 billion gallons more than in 2005. While this was a significant increase, further expansion in the industry is continuing, with production expected to exceed 10 billion gallons by 2009. This large and rapid expansion of U.S. ethanol production affects virtually every aspect of the field crops sector, ranging from domestic demand and exports to prices and the allocation of acreage among crops. Many aspects of the livestock sector are affected too. As a consequence of these commodity market impacts, farm income, government payments, and food prices also change. Adjustments in the agricultural sector are already underway and will continue for many years as interest grows in renewable sources of energy to lessen dependence on foreign oil.
In 2006, ethanol (by volume) represented about 3.5 percent of motor vehicle gasoline supplies in the United States. However, about 14 percent of corn use went to ethanol production in the 2005/06 crop year. With continued strong ethanol expansion, USDA’s 2007 long-term projections indicate that more than 30 percent of the corn crop will be used to produce ethanol by 2009/10, remaining near that share in subsequent years. Yet, even by 2017, ethanol production (by volume) is projected to represent less than 8 percent of annual gasoline use in the United States.
USDA says that its 2007 long-term projections show average corn prices reaching $3.75 a bushel in the 2009/10 marketing year and then declining to $3.30 by 2016/17 as the ethanol expansion slows. Higher corn prices affect corn’s role as an animal feed. Livestock feeding is the largest use of U.S. corn, typically accounting for 50-60 percent of the total. With higher prices, corn used for animal feeding declines to 40-50 percent of total use over the next decade.
The increased use of corn for ethanol production and higher corn prices have important implications for global trade and international markets. The United States has typically accounted for 60-70 percent of world corn exports. With the ethanol expansion and higher prices, however, the U.S. share of global corn trade drops to 55-60 percent. Global adjustments to higher corn prices include reduced foreign demand and increased foreign production.
With higher crop prices, farmland prices rise to reflect the increased value of crop production. This accelerates gains in farmland prices, which also reflect demand for land for nonagricultural uses, such as housing and recreation. As the livestock sector adjusts to higher feed costs resulting from the expansion in corn-based ethanol production, overall production of meats is reduced over the next few years. As a result, consumer prices for red meats, poultry, and eggs are expected to exceed the general inflation rate in 2008-10. Consequently, overall retail food prices in USDA’s 2007 long-term projections rise faster than the general inflation rate for several years.
Access the complete 20-page report which contains links to additional reference information (click here). Access a narrated slideshow providing an overview of this report (click here). Access additional information related to bioenergy is available from the USDA Economic Research Service Bioenergy Briefing Room (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, May 18, 2007
Advice & Criticism On G-8 Meeting Climate Change Action
International Science Academies Urge G-8 Action
May 16: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 12 other worldwide national science academies in calling on world leaders -- particularly G-8 leaders who will meet in June [See related post below] -- to address global climate change and energy-access issues by promoting low carbon-emission energy systems and more efficient use of energy. The academies also urged leaders to facilitate scientific and technical innovation, and to simplify and enforce a balanced intellectual property regime.
The groups issued two statements: (1) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Promotion and Protection of Innovation; (2) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection. The 12 other academies include: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South America and United Kingdom.
In the statement addressing climate and energy the academies' said, "It is important that the 2007 G8 Summit is addressing the linked issues of energy security and climate change. These are defining issues of our time, and bring together the themes of growth and responsibility in a way that highlights our duties to future generations. In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that "climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions...
"Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken...
"G8 countries bear a special responsibility for the current high level of energy consumption and the associated climate change. Newly industrialized countries will share this responsibility in the future."
The 13 Academies of Sciences have called on "world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to: (1) Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems and in the energy sector itself; (2) Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioral changes within our societies; (3) Define and implement measures to reduce global Deforestation; (4) Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies; (5) Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies."
Access the joint statement on Promotion and Protection of Innovation (click here). Access the joint statement on Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection (click here).
Markey Blasts Bush On G-8 Climate Negotiations
May 17: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued a statement highly critical of the Administration's attempts to weaken the upcoming G-8 meeting agenda as it relates to climate change. The G8+5 includes: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan; the plus 5 countries are China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. The European Commission is also represented at all the meetings.
Markey indicated that in the final meetings between resigning British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush, global warming is reportedly high on the agenda. But reports indicate that the Bush administration is cutting key language from the G-8 climate agreement set to be unveiled at the body’s next meeting in Germany in early June [June 6-8, Heiligendamm, Germany], "a reprise of the regressive role adopted by the Bush Administration at earlier international summits such as the 2005 G-8 summit which Blair hosted at Gleneagles.
Markey said the actions follow the Rose Garden announcement earlier this week from the White House on their plan to cut gasoline use and heat-trapping emissions from vehicles [See WIMS 05/15/07]. He said Bush reiterated his “twenty in ten” plan, which includes a goal of increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent a year for ten years, but does not have any mandatory elements and would not be a completed proposal until three weeks before the President leaves office.
Markey said, “When it comes to making progress on combating the threat of global warming, President Bush has become very adept at the cynical game of maintaining a sunny demeanor while ordering his operatives to rain on the climate change parade. The President needs to tell his minions to re-engage with the international community on global warming, not continue their resistance.” Markey's comments follow the May 16 announcement from his colleague Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, that he would introduce on May 23, "serious, substantive legislation to reinvigorate international negotiations to stop global warming and to help developing nations produce energy in a clean and sustainable way."
According to Markey, U.S. negotiators are reportedly trying to expunge several important parts of the G-8 climate statement, including the need to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius; that dealing with global warming is an “imperative not a choice”; and targets on reducing global warming emissions. He said cited a similar event in late April, where President Bush discussed achieving progress on global warming with E.U. leaders at the U.S.--E.U. summit in Washington. Meanwhile, half a world away, in Bangkok, Thailand, the U.S. delegation was "criticizing the findings of the IPCC and downplaying the importance of stabilizing emissions, specifically disputing recommendations from European governments."
Access the complete statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the statement from Representative Lantos (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access background information on the G-8 upcoming climate negotiations (click here). Access a summary of actions entitled, The Road to Heiligendamm, compiled by the G-8 Research Group (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
May 16: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 12 other worldwide national science academies in calling on world leaders -- particularly G-8 leaders who will meet in June [See related post below] -- to address global climate change and energy-access issues by promoting low carbon-emission energy systems and more efficient use of energy. The academies also urged leaders to facilitate scientific and technical innovation, and to simplify and enforce a balanced intellectual property regime.
The groups issued two statements: (1) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Promotion and Protection of Innovation; (2) Science Academies' Joint Statement: Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection. The 12 other academies include: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South America and United Kingdom.
In the statement addressing climate and energy the academies' said, "It is important that the 2007 G8 Summit is addressing the linked issues of energy security and climate change. These are defining issues of our time, and bring together the themes of growth and responsibility in a way that highlights our duties to future generations. In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that "climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions...
"Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken...
"G8 countries bear a special responsibility for the current high level of energy consumption and the associated climate change. Newly industrialized countries will share this responsibility in the future."
The 13 Academies of Sciences have called on "world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to: (1) Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems and in the energy sector itself; (2) Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioral changes within our societies; (3) Define and implement measures to reduce global Deforestation; (4) Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies; (5) Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies."
Access the joint statement on Promotion and Protection of Innovation (click here). Access the joint statement on Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Climate Protection (click here).
Markey Blasts Bush On G-8 Climate Negotiations
May 17: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued a statement highly critical of the Administration's attempts to weaken the upcoming G-8 meeting agenda as it relates to climate change. The G8+5 includes: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, Canada and Japan; the plus 5 countries are China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. The European Commission is also represented at all the meetings.
Markey indicated that in the final meetings between resigning British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush, global warming is reportedly high on the agenda. But reports indicate that the Bush administration is cutting key language from the G-8 climate agreement set to be unveiled at the body’s next meeting in Germany in early June [June 6-8, Heiligendamm, Germany], "a reprise of the regressive role adopted by the Bush Administration at earlier international summits such as the 2005 G-8 summit which Blair hosted at Gleneagles.
Markey said the actions follow the Rose Garden announcement earlier this week from the White House on their plan to cut gasoline use and heat-trapping emissions from vehicles [See WIMS 05/15/07]. He said Bush reiterated his “twenty in ten” plan, which includes a goal of increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent a year for ten years, but does not have any mandatory elements and would not be a completed proposal until three weeks before the President leaves office.
Markey said, “When it comes to making progress on combating the threat of global warming, President Bush has become very adept at the cynical game of maintaining a sunny demeanor while ordering his operatives to rain on the climate change parade. The President needs to tell his minions to re-engage with the international community on global warming, not continue their resistance.” Markey's comments follow the May 16 announcement from his colleague Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, that he would introduce on May 23, "serious, substantive legislation to reinvigorate international negotiations to stop global warming and to help developing nations produce energy in a clean and sustainable way."
According to Markey, U.S. negotiators are reportedly trying to expunge several important parts of the G-8 climate statement, including the need to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius; that dealing with global warming is an “imperative not a choice”; and targets on reducing global warming emissions. He said cited a similar event in late April, where President Bush discussed achieving progress on global warming with E.U. leaders at the U.S.--E.U. summit in Washington. Meanwhile, half a world away, in Bangkok, Thailand, the U.S. delegation was "criticizing the findings of the IPCC and downplaying the importance of stabilizing emissions, specifically disputing recommendations from European governments."
Access the complete statement from Representative Markey (click here). Access the statement from Representative Lantos (click here). Access the G-8 Summit German website for additional information (click here). Access background information on the G-8 upcoming climate negotiations (click here). Access a summary of actions entitled, The Road to Heiligendamm, compiled by the G-8 Research Group (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
