Nov 19: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced it has increased the energy efficiency standards for residential furnaces and boilers, underscoring the Department’s commitment to meet its aggressive, five-year appliance standard rulemaking schedule, as established in its January 31, 2006, Report to Congress. The Department said it estimates that these amended standards, which become effective in 2015, will save the equivalent of the total amount of energy consumed by 2.5 million American households in one year, or approximately 0.25 quadrillion (10x15) British thermal units (Btus) of energy, over a period of 24 years [from 2015–2038].
DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner said, “As a nation, we must find better and more ways to both conserve energy and use it more efficiently and productively. These amended standards will not only cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, but they also allow consumers to make smarter energy choices that will save energy and money. Improving appliance standards is a top priority of the Department of Energy, and in the coming years, we intend to maintain and, where possible, accelerate the extraordinary progress we have made over the last two years.”
DOE has determined that energy efficiency standards for residential non-weatherized and weatherized gas furnaces, mobile home gas furnaces, oil-fired furnaces, and gas- and oil-fired boilers are technologically feasible, economically justified, and will result in significant conservation of energy as a result of increased efficiency. The total energy savings are estimated to result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 7.8 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide -- an amount equal to the emissions produced by 2.6 percent of all light truck vehicles on U.S. roads in one year.
The Final Rule for residential furnaces and boilers was issued under a consent decree schedule entered in State of New York v. Bodman. DOE sought to modify the schedule in order to more fully review comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments indicated the feasibility and desirability of addressing natural gas price impacts as a result of the standards at issue in this rulemaking. DOE wished to more fully consider such potential impacts, prior to finalizing this Rule, and preliminarily believed that, if confirmed, would have merited consideration in evaluating higher efficiency standards for the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE’s motion to modify the consent decree was denied and therefore, DOE issued the Final Rule on November 19, 2007, The amended standards were published in the Federal Register [72 FR 65135-65170].
A coalition of consumer, energy, and environmental organizations sharply criticized the new standards calling them "extraordinarily weak" [See WIMS 10/6/06]. They said not only are the standards little changed from the original levels set by Congress twenty years ago, but also 99% of natural gas furnaces currently sold already meet the new minimum efficiency level. Andrew deLaski, Executive Director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) said, "DOE has delivered a 'turkey' of an efficiency rule. This Thanksgiving, that's bitter news for Americans who care about global warming, high energy prices, and our dependence on overseas energy."
The groups said the standard just increases the minimum gas furnace efficiency level to 80% from the current level of 78%. The rule also modestly increases the standards for oil furnaces and oil and gas boilers, which, on a national basis, are far less common than gas furnaces. David B. Goldstein, Energy Program Co-Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "This standard is grossly inadequate -- a 90% natural gas furnace efficiency standard would provide more than seventeen times the carbon savings. Today's decision makes it all too clear that the Energy Department attaches zero value to cutting global warming emissions." Goldstein noted that recently both the head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, and Secretary of State Rice have highlighted appliance standards as one of best ways to cut global warming emissions.
The groups also point out that four states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maryland); frustrated with the pace and direction of the Federal standards, have already set their own furnace and boiler standards. Other states such as New Hampshire and New Jersey are considering following suit. Susan Coakley, Executive Director of the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) said, "In the Northeast, consumer energy bills and global warming rank as top concerns and efficiency ranks as the top solution. We urge northeast states to move forward immediately to implement their legislation to establish higher, more cost-effective state standards. Such state leadership is crucial to protect consumers and reduce carbon emissions in light of this federal failure to lead." The final rule provides guidance to states for how they can seek a waiver from Federal preemption, which is necessary for them to enforce their own standards. However, such an approach likely will lead to a patchwork of standards among the various states. Other major groups objecting to the standards include the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the final rules (click here). Access DOE's residential furnaces and boilers website for additional information (click here). Access a lengthy release from ACEEE (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Markey Introduces Bottle Deposit Recycling Climate Protection Act
Nov 15: Representative. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, introduced the Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act (H.R. 4238), which would decrease global warming pollution and cut down on energy use by encouraging large-scale recycling of cans, bottles and other beverage containers throughout America. The introduction of the bill coincided with America Recycles Day. The bill has 11 cosponsors. A December 2006 GAO report cited a nationwide deposit law as an effective policy option to increase municipal recycling [See WIMS 1/29/07].
The bill would establish a national 5 cent deposit on beverage containers, including plastic water bottles and other containers that have become more prevalent in recent years after many state programs were established. According to Markey, the bottles and other containers pour into landfills and use energy to produce, thereby creating global warming pollution and other environmental issues. In 2006, more than half of the 200 billion beverage containers that could have been recycled in the United States were incinerated or littered.
Markey said, “Congress can send the nation a global warming message in a bottle. We can still quench our thirst while reducing our thirst for energy. And we can have carbon dioxide in our fizzy drinks, while cutting down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” Currently, 11 states have deposit programs that encourage consumers to return containers to claim the refund on the deposit. In the states that have passed bottle bills, recycling rates are twice that of states without deposit laws. The new National Bottle Bill recognizes the leadership of the states on this issue, and exempts states that have high recycling rates or existing state legislation from the national standard for 3 years, or as long as they maintain high recycling rates.
Plastic water and juice bottles have become increasingly prevalent since many state bottle bills were initially adopted. Including plastic bottles in a national bottle bill would lead to significant savings in energy and oil consumption. One ton of recycled plastic saves 5,774 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity and 685 gallons of oil. Aluminum cans also account for an increasing amount of waste. 58 billion cans are thrown away every year in the United States, enough to fill the Empire State Building six times. If all these cans were recycled, it would cut the emissions of heat-trapping carbon pollution by nearly 6 million tons, or the equivalent of the pollution from more than one million cars. Cans made from recycled aluminum use 95 percent less energy than cans manufactured with new materials.
Markey said, “Recycling is an everyday action that we can all take to cut global warming emissions and be good environmental stewards. Our national goal should be to one day recycle every single bottle we use, and this bill will get us closer to that goal and that day.” The National Bottle Bill has already gained support from leading environmental and recycling organizations, including the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Public Interest Research Group.
The CRI's has issued a report and presentation on the problems with increasing numbers of plastic bottle from bottled water. The report, Water, Water Everywhere:The Growth of Non-Carbonated Beverages in the U.S., chronicles the dramatic increase in sales of bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages in recent years and looks at the projected growth of the non-carbonated market. A separate presentation addresses the rapid growth of bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages and how state legislatures are considering updating deposit laws to include these beverages that did not exist 25 years ago.
Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4238 (click here). Access the CRI website for links to their reports and information (click here). [*Solid, *P2]
The bill would establish a national 5 cent deposit on beverage containers, including plastic water bottles and other containers that have become more prevalent in recent years after many state programs were established. According to Markey, the bottles and other containers pour into landfills and use energy to produce, thereby creating global warming pollution and other environmental issues. In 2006, more than half of the 200 billion beverage containers that could have been recycled in the United States were incinerated or littered.
Markey said, “Congress can send the nation a global warming message in a bottle. We can still quench our thirst while reducing our thirst for energy. And we can have carbon dioxide in our fizzy drinks, while cutting down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” Currently, 11 states have deposit programs that encourage consumers to return containers to claim the refund on the deposit. In the states that have passed bottle bills, recycling rates are twice that of states without deposit laws. The new National Bottle Bill recognizes the leadership of the states on this issue, and exempts states that have high recycling rates or existing state legislation from the national standard for 3 years, or as long as they maintain high recycling rates.
Plastic water and juice bottles have become increasingly prevalent since many state bottle bills were initially adopted. Including plastic bottles in a national bottle bill would lead to significant savings in energy and oil consumption. One ton of recycled plastic saves 5,774 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity and 685 gallons of oil. Aluminum cans also account for an increasing amount of waste. 58 billion cans are thrown away every year in the United States, enough to fill the Empire State Building six times. If all these cans were recycled, it would cut the emissions of heat-trapping carbon pollution by nearly 6 million tons, or the equivalent of the pollution from more than one million cars. Cans made from recycled aluminum use 95 percent less energy than cans manufactured with new materials.
Markey said, “Recycling is an everyday action that we can all take to cut global warming emissions and be good environmental stewards. Our national goal should be to one day recycle every single bottle we use, and this bill will get us closer to that goal and that day.” The National Bottle Bill has already gained support from leading environmental and recycling organizations, including the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Public Interest Research Group.
The CRI's has issued a report and presentation on the problems with increasing numbers of plastic bottle from bottled water. The report, Water, Water Everywhere:The Growth of Non-Carbonated Beverages in the U.S., chronicles the dramatic increase in sales of bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages in recent years and looks at the projected growth of the non-carbonated market. A separate presentation addresses the rapid growth of bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages and how state legislatures are considering updating deposit laws to include these beverages that did not exist 25 years ago.
Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4238 (click here). Access the CRI website for links to their reports and information (click here). [*Solid, *P2]
Friday, November 16, 2007
2007 CBO Director's Conference On Climate Change
Nov 16: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Peter Orszag hosted the 2007 Director's Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC. The conference is held each year to bring outside experts together with CBO analysts in a collaborative effort that helps further the agency's research agenda. This year's conference featured leading researchers addressing key questions in the debate on climate change. In opening the Conference, Director Orszag delivered a 17-page statement entitled, Issues In Climate Change, to the Conference. The document provides an excellent summary of the policy debate that is now beginning to crystallize in legislation currently being considered in Congress and which will be intently scrutinized next month (December 3-14) in Bali, Indonesia when 180 countries meet at the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP13) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Orszag indicates, global climate change is one of the nation’s most significant long-term policy challenges. Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). The accumulation of those gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world. The magnitude of such damage remains highly uncertain. But there is growing recognition that some degree of risk exists for the damage to be large and perhaps even catastrophic.
Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions would be beneficial in limiting the degree of damage associated with climate change. However, decreasing those emissions would also impose costs on the economy -- in the case of CO2, because much economic activity is based on fossil fuels, which release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide when they are burned. Most analyses suggest that a carefully designed program to begin lowering CO2 emissions would produce greater benefits than costs.
Employing incentive-based policies to reduce CO2 emissions would be much more cost-effective than using more-restrictive command-and-control approaches (such as imposing technology standards on electricity generators). Incentive-based policies use the power of markets to identify the least costly sources of emission reductions. Thus, they can better reflect technological advances, differences between industries or companies in their ability to make low-cost emission reductions, and changes in market conditions. Policymakers can choose between two general forms of incentive-based policies -- those that limit the overall level of emissions (so-called quantity instruments) or those that reduce emissions by raising their price (so-called price instruments). The simplest price-based mechanism would be a tax on emissions. The simplest quantity-based mechanism would be a cap-and-trade program.
Designing policies to address climate change is complicated by uncertainty about the damage that might result from unchecked emissions and uncertainty about the cost of reducing those emissions. A pragmatic climate policy will probably involve a sequence of decisions based on the gradual accumulation of information and the resolution of uncertainties. For such an approach, policies that can be easily modified over time would offer advantages. A flexible approach to dealing with climate change could include three different policy strategies: Researching the problem and developing technologies to address it; Adapting to a warmer climate, and; Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition, a comprehensive climate policy would inevitably involve coordinating U.S. policies with those of other countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases.
Other presentations at the Conference included CBO representatives discussing both micro and macro economics; researchers from Stanford, Northeastern, Tufts, and MIT universities; Resources for the Future; U.S. EPA and the DOE Energy Information Administration.
Access the CBO Director's statement and links to all other presentations at the Conference (click here). [*Climate]
Orszag indicates, global climate change is one of the nation’s most significant long-term policy challenges. Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). The accumulation of those gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world. The magnitude of such damage remains highly uncertain. But there is growing recognition that some degree of risk exists for the damage to be large and perhaps even catastrophic.
Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions would be beneficial in limiting the degree of damage associated with climate change. However, decreasing those emissions would also impose costs on the economy -- in the case of CO2, because much economic activity is based on fossil fuels, which release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide when they are burned. Most analyses suggest that a carefully designed program to begin lowering CO2 emissions would produce greater benefits than costs.
Employing incentive-based policies to reduce CO2 emissions would be much more cost-effective than using more-restrictive command-and-control approaches (such as imposing technology standards on electricity generators). Incentive-based policies use the power of markets to identify the least costly sources of emission reductions. Thus, they can better reflect technological advances, differences between industries or companies in their ability to make low-cost emission reductions, and changes in market conditions. Policymakers can choose between two general forms of incentive-based policies -- those that limit the overall level of emissions (so-called quantity instruments) or those that reduce emissions by raising their price (so-called price instruments). The simplest price-based mechanism would be a tax on emissions. The simplest quantity-based mechanism would be a cap-and-trade program.
Designing policies to address climate change is complicated by uncertainty about the damage that might result from unchecked emissions and uncertainty about the cost of reducing those emissions. A pragmatic climate policy will probably involve a sequence of decisions based on the gradual accumulation of information and the resolution of uncertainties. For such an approach, policies that can be easily modified over time would offer advantages. A flexible approach to dealing with climate change could include three different policy strategies: Researching the problem and developing technologies to address it; Adapting to a warmer climate, and; Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition, a comprehensive climate policy would inevitably involve coordinating U.S. policies with those of other countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases.
Other presentations at the Conference included CBO representatives discussing both micro and macro economics; researchers from Stanford, Northeastern, Tufts, and MIT universities; Resources for the Future; U.S. EPA and the DOE Energy Information Administration.
Access the CBO Director's statement and links to all other presentations at the Conference (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, November 15, 2007
9th Circuit CAFE Ruling: Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA
Nov 15: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 06-71891, 06-72317, 06-72694, 06-73807, and 06-73826. As explained by the Appeals Court, eleven states, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, and four public interest organizations petition for review of a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) entitled “Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model Years 2008-2011,” 71 Fed. Reg. 17,566 (Apr. 6, 2006) (Final Rule) (codified at 49 C.F.R. pt. 533). Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 49 U.S.C. §§ 32901-32919 (2007), the Final Rule sets corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks, defined by NHTSA to include many Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and pickup trucks, for Model Years (MYs) 2008-2011. For MYs 2008-2010, the Final Rule sets new CAFE standards using its traditional method, fleet-wide average (Unreformed CAFE). For MY 2011 and beyond, the Final Rule creates a new CAFE structure that sets varying fuel economy targets depending on vehicle size and requires manufacturers to meet different fuel economy levels depending on their vehicle fleet mix (Reformed CAFE).
Petitioners challenge the Final Rule under the EPCA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). First, they argue that the Final Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the EPCA because (a) the agency’s cost-benefit analysis does not set the CAFE standard at the “maximum feasible” level and fails to give due consideration to the need of the nation to conserve energy; (b) its calculation of the costs and benefits of alternative fuel economy standards assigns zero value to the benefit of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction; (c) its calculation of costs and benefits of alternative fuel economy standards fails to evaluate properly the benefit of vehicle weight reduction; (d) Reformed CAFE standards will depend on manufacturer fleet mix and not guarantee a minimum average fuel economy or “backstop”; (e) the transition period during which manufacturers may choose to comply with either Unreformed or Reformed CAFE is contrary to the “maximum feasible” requirement and unnecessary; (f) it perpetuates the “SUV loophole,” which allows SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks to satisfy a lower fuel economy standard than cars; and (g) it excludes most vehicles rated between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (comprised mostly of large pickup trucks) from any fuel economy regulation, even though these vehicles satisfy the statutory criteria for regulation.
Second, Petitioners argue that NHTSA’s Environmental Assessment is inadequate under NEPA because it fails to take a “hard look” at the greenhouse gas implications of its rulemaking and fails to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives or examine the rule’s cumulative impact. Petitioners also argue that NEPA requires NHTSA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
NHTSA argues that the Final Rule is not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to the EPCA, the Environmental Assessment’s evaluation of the environmental consequences of its action is adequate, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that it has jurisdiction to review the Final Rule issued by NHTSA and said, "the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the EPCA in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement."
Sierra Club, one of the parties in the case issued a statement calling the decision, "a huge victory for the Sierra Club, several other environmental groups, and several states by voiding the Bush administration’s fuel economy standards for light trucks... This decision is a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, its continued insistence on ignoring the law, and stubborn refusal to take meaningful steps to address global warming pollution from automobiles. NHTSA is free to use a cost-benefit analysis to set fuel economy standards, but today the court told them they cannot put a thumb on the scale by continuing to ignore the costs of failing to act on global warming."
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) issued a statement saying, "Automakers support aggressive fuel economy increases that would raise the standards for all vehicles to as much as 35 miles per gallon by 2022. We share the goal of an energy bill and CAFE standard that is good for the consumer, environment and energy security. We continue to believe such a bill can be reached with industry support. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set national fuel economy standards at the ‘maximum feasible’ level taking into account key elements such as technological feasibility, affordability, safety, emissions controls, consumer choice, disparate impacts on manufacturers and effects on American jobs. A good balance of safety, higher fuel economy, and jobs benefits all Americans.
"Announced more than 19 months ago the MY 2008-2011 light truck fuel economy rule represented the largest fuel economy increase in the history of the CAFE program. It has become the basis for product planning through 2011. Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made towards increasing fleet wide fuel economy. Ongoing advancements by auto engineers are leading to even greater fuel economy gains. New models are increasingly available with highly fuel-efficient technologies like variable valve timing, continuously variable transmissions, cylinder deactivation and more. Advanced technology vehicles, including hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen internal combustion engines and clean diesel vehicles, offer the promise of significant increases in fuel efficiency without sacrificing consumer needs for safety, performance, comfort and utility, but adequate lead time is necessary in order to fully integrate these technologies into the marketplace."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from AAM (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Petitioners challenge the Final Rule under the EPCA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). First, they argue that the Final Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the EPCA because (a) the agency’s cost-benefit analysis does not set the CAFE standard at the “maximum feasible” level and fails to give due consideration to the need of the nation to conserve energy; (b) its calculation of the costs and benefits of alternative fuel economy standards assigns zero value to the benefit of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction; (c) its calculation of costs and benefits of alternative fuel economy standards fails to evaluate properly the benefit of vehicle weight reduction; (d) Reformed CAFE standards will depend on manufacturer fleet mix and not guarantee a minimum average fuel economy or “backstop”; (e) the transition period during which manufacturers may choose to comply with either Unreformed or Reformed CAFE is contrary to the “maximum feasible” requirement and unnecessary; (f) it perpetuates the “SUV loophole,” which allows SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks to satisfy a lower fuel economy standard than cars; and (g) it excludes most vehicles rated between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (comprised mostly of large pickup trucks) from any fuel economy regulation, even though these vehicles satisfy the statutory criteria for regulation.
Second, Petitioners argue that NHTSA’s Environmental Assessment is inadequate under NEPA because it fails to take a “hard look” at the greenhouse gas implications of its rulemaking and fails to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives or examine the rule’s cumulative impact. Petitioners also argue that NEPA requires NHTSA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
NHTSA argues that the Final Rule is not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to the EPCA, the Environmental Assessment’s evaluation of the environmental consequences of its action is adequate, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that it has jurisdiction to review the Final Rule issued by NHTSA and said, "the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the EPCA in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement."
Sierra Club, one of the parties in the case issued a statement calling the decision, "a huge victory for the Sierra Club, several other environmental groups, and several states by voiding the Bush administration’s fuel economy standards for light trucks... This decision is a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, its continued insistence on ignoring the law, and stubborn refusal to take meaningful steps to address global warming pollution from automobiles. NHTSA is free to use a cost-benefit analysis to set fuel economy standards, but today the court told them they cannot put a thumb on the scale by continuing to ignore the costs of failing to act on global warming."
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) issued a statement saying, "Automakers support aggressive fuel economy increases that would raise the standards for all vehicles to as much as 35 miles per gallon by 2022. We share the goal of an energy bill and CAFE standard that is good for the consumer, environment and energy security. We continue to believe such a bill can be reached with industry support. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set national fuel economy standards at the ‘maximum feasible’ level taking into account key elements such as technological feasibility, affordability, safety, emissions controls, consumer choice, disparate impacts on manufacturers and effects on American jobs. A good balance of safety, higher fuel economy, and jobs benefits all Americans.
"Announced more than 19 months ago the MY 2008-2011 light truck fuel economy rule represented the largest fuel economy increase in the history of the CAFE program. It has become the basis for product planning through 2011. Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made towards increasing fleet wide fuel economy. Ongoing advancements by auto engineers are leading to even greater fuel economy gains. New models are increasingly available with highly fuel-efficient technologies like variable valve timing, continuously variable transmissions, cylinder deactivation and more. Advanced technology vehicles, including hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen internal combustion engines and clean diesel vehicles, offer the promise of significant increases in fuel efficiency without sacrificing consumer needs for safety, performance, comfort and utility, but adequate lead time is necessary in order to fully integrate these technologies into the marketplace."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from AAM (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Despite Critics DOE Touts GNEP On European & Central Asia Tour
Nov 13: U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman delivered remarks at the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, highlighting the importance of robust investments in a diversity of energy supplies and breakthrough technologies to meet growing global demand for energy. While in Rome, Secretary Bodman welcomed Italy to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an international framework that DOE says is "aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide while responsibly managing nuclear waste and reducing proliferation risks." Italy is the most recent nation to sign the GNEP Statement of Principles, which 16 nations joined in September at the Partnership’s second Ministerial in Vienna, Austria.
The GNEP program has recently come under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. Despite the NAS concerns, Secretary Bodman said, “By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future. To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth.”
In signing the GNEP Principles, Italy joins China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, who are original GNEP partners, as well as Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Ukraine in efforts to address the prospects of expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks, and advanced technologies. DOE indicates that GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.
Italy is the first stop in Secretary Bodman’s five-nation visit to Europe and Central Asia. Later in the week, he will travel to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan to address the Turkmenistan Industrial Oil and Gas Exhibit (TIOGE) and meet with the President and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan. Following his visit to Turkmenistan, he will travel to Turkey to highlight the importance of expanding and securing oil and gas infrastructure and to Greece to celebrate the opening of the Turkey-Greece Inter-connector pipeline, which will be a critical link between the gas suppliers of central Asia and the consumers of Europe. He will conclude his trip in London, England where he is expected to hold bilateral meetings with senior English officials and deliver remarks to U.S. and British business leaders.
The GNEP program has also been criticized by others. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."
Simultaneously, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held a hearing today (November 14, 2007), to receive testimony on GNEP as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel management. Those testifying at the hearing included: the Department of Energy; the Congressional Budget Office; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Harvard University Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; and The Boston Consulting Group.
DOE testified that, "GNEP is crucial to developing an effective and durable waste management strategy in the United States, aswell as around the world. To that end, GNEP is completely compatible with our near-term effort to license and open the waste repository at Yucca Mountain."
CBO testified that, "The cost of directly disposing of spent nuclear fuel is less than the cost of reprocessing it..." CBO said that one study by the Boston Consulting Group estimates that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost $585 per kilogram and another study, by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government indicates a cost about $1,300 per kilogram -- or more than twice as much as direct disposal. CBO concludes that for the roughly 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel produced each year in the United States, the reprocessing alternative would be likely to cost at least $5 billion more in present-value terms than the direct-disposal alternative over the life of a reprocessing plant.
Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center testified that, "Some elements of GNEP could make important contributions to reducing proliferation risks. Unfortunately, GNEP’s heavy focus on building a commercial-scale reprocessing plant in the near term would, if accepted, increase proliferation risks rather than decreasing them...The recent National Academy of Sciences review has provided an excellent discussion of just how premature it would be to build commercial-scale facilities now, unanimously recommending against proceeding with a GNEP program focused on near-term large-scale construction." Neil Todreas of MIT testified, "I believe such an R&D program to evaluate the potential of nuclear energy systems operating in the closed fuel cycle is an important national undertaking."
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the GNEP website for further details (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the letter to Senators (click here). Access the Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
The GNEP program has recently come under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. Despite the NAS concerns, Secretary Bodman said, “By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future. To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth.”
In signing the GNEP Principles, Italy joins China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, who are original GNEP partners, as well as Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Ukraine in efforts to address the prospects of expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks, and advanced technologies. DOE indicates that GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.
Italy is the first stop in Secretary Bodman’s five-nation visit to Europe and Central Asia. Later in the week, he will travel to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan to address the Turkmenistan Industrial Oil and Gas Exhibit (TIOGE) and meet with the President and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan. Following his visit to Turkmenistan, he will travel to Turkey to highlight the importance of expanding and securing oil and gas infrastructure and to Greece to celebrate the opening of the Turkey-Greece Inter-connector pipeline, which will be a critical link between the gas suppliers of central Asia and the consumers of Europe. He will conclude his trip in London, England where he is expected to hold bilateral meetings with senior English officials and deliver remarks to U.S. and British business leaders.
The GNEP program has also been criticized by others. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."
Simultaneously, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held a hearing today (November 14, 2007), to receive testimony on GNEP as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel management. Those testifying at the hearing included: the Department of Energy; the Congressional Budget Office; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Harvard University Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; and The Boston Consulting Group.
DOE testified that, "GNEP is crucial to developing an effective and durable waste management strategy in the United States, aswell as around the world. To that end, GNEP is completely compatible with our near-term effort to license and open the waste repository at Yucca Mountain."
CBO testified that, "The cost of directly disposing of spent nuclear fuel is less than the cost of reprocessing it..." CBO said that one study by the Boston Consulting Group estimates that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost $585 per kilogram and another study, by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government indicates a cost about $1,300 per kilogram -- or more than twice as much as direct disposal. CBO concludes that for the roughly 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel produced each year in the United States, the reprocessing alternative would be likely to cost at least $5 billion more in present-value terms than the direct-disposal alternative over the life of a reprocessing plant.
Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center testified that, "Some elements of GNEP could make important contributions to reducing proliferation risks. Unfortunately, GNEP’s heavy focus on building a commercial-scale reprocessing plant in the near term would, if accepted, increase proliferation risks rather than decreasing them...The recent National Academy of Sciences review has provided an excellent discussion of just how premature it would be to build commercial-scale facilities now, unanimously recommending against proceeding with a GNEP program focused on near-term large-scale construction." Neil Todreas of MIT testified, "I believe such an R&D program to evaluate the potential of nuclear energy systems operating in the closed fuel cycle is an important national undertaking."
Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the GNEP website for further details (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the letter to Senators (click here). Access the Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Global Think Tank To Look At Risks Of Biofuels & Metal Recycling
Nov 9: Assessing the environmental risks of biofuel production and metal recycling are two of the issues likely to top the agenda of a newly formed global think tank on resource efficiency. Launched at the World Science Forum being held in Budapest, Hungary, the new International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management (IPSRM) will provide scientific assessments and expert advice on the use intensity, the security of supplies and the environmental impacts of selected products and services on a global level.
Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which established the panel said, "Climate change rightly tops the environmental agenda at the moment, but the world faces more inconvenient truths that must be addressed. Economic growth in our modern times cannot be achieved with old consumption and production patterns -- a point brought into sharp relief by our new Global Environment Outlook-4 [See WIMS 10/26/07] which shows that collectively humans are over-utilizing the Earth's nature-based resources at a rate that is outstripping nature's ability to renew and replenish them. We need to provide a boost to resource-efficient growth and innovation. We need to break the links between economic growth and environmental degradation, and finding ways to achieve this 'decoupling' is what the new resource panel is all about."
Established by UNEP, with the support of a wide range of governments, the European Commission and representatives from civil society, the new scientific panel is part of an international partnership on resource management. It will look at the impacts on resources and materials used in all phases of their life cycle. The new IPSRM is expected to provide hard scientific and empirical assessments, written in a clear language about complex issues and reports which can be read by those who can take action. The Panel is expected to assess the situation at the global level and advise which priority issues to address, for instance metal recycling (should we 'mine or recycle', and what are the environmental risks); or the complex issue of bio-based products (are we tackling climate change, or are we 'burning our food' as some say).
The Panel is supported by a Secretariat, hosted by the Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch of UNEP's Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. To date, interest has been received from some twenty countries and support has been pledged by the governments of Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Tanzania and the European Commission. Prominent scientists will be invited to join the Panel as members. Candidatures for Panel membership are currently open. Government representatives are invited to join the Board which will help shape the Panel's strategy.
Access a release from UNEP with links to additional information (click here). Access the IPSRM website for additional information (click here). [*All]
Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which established the panel said, "Climate change rightly tops the environmental agenda at the moment, but the world faces more inconvenient truths that must be addressed. Economic growth in our modern times cannot be achieved with old consumption and production patterns -- a point brought into sharp relief by our new Global Environment Outlook-4 [See WIMS 10/26/07] which shows that collectively humans are over-utilizing the Earth's nature-based resources at a rate that is outstripping nature's ability to renew and replenish them. We need to provide a boost to resource-efficient growth and innovation. We need to break the links between economic growth and environmental degradation, and finding ways to achieve this 'decoupling' is what the new resource panel is all about."
Established by UNEP, with the support of a wide range of governments, the European Commission and representatives from civil society, the new scientific panel is part of an international partnership on resource management. It will look at the impacts on resources and materials used in all phases of their life cycle. The new IPSRM is expected to provide hard scientific and empirical assessments, written in a clear language about complex issues and reports which can be read by those who can take action. The Panel is expected to assess the situation at the global level and advise which priority issues to address, for instance metal recycling (should we 'mine or recycle', and what are the environmental risks); or the complex issue of bio-based products (are we tackling climate change, or are we 'burning our food' as some say).
The Panel is supported by a Secretariat, hosted by the Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch of UNEP's Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. To date, interest has been received from some twenty countries and support has been pledged by the governments of Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Tanzania and the European Commission. Prominent scientists will be invited to join the Panel as members. Candidatures for Panel membership are currently open. Government representatives are invited to join the Board which will help shape the Panel's strategy.
Access a release from UNEP with links to additional information (click here). Access the IPSRM website for additional information (click here). [*All]
Monday, November 12, 2007
Veterans Day
Note: WIMS will not be publishing today
Monday, November 12, 2007, in observance of the
Veterans Day Federal holiday.
Monday, November 12, 2007, in observance of the
Veterans Day Federal holiday.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Hearing On Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act
Nov 8: The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, Chaired by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), held a hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act of 2007, sponsored by Representative John Linder (R-GA). Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Representative Linder; Benjamin Grumbles, U.S. EPA's Assistant Administrator for Office of Water; the Deputy Executive Administrator for Planning for the Texas Water Development Board; the National Wildlife Federation; a water rights attorney from Phoenix, AZ; and a professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. Chairwoman Johnson also delivered an opening statement.
Representative Linder began his testimony by addressing the concerns of some on the Committee that his bill would somehow infringe upon states’ water rights. He said, “First, I want to hasten to assure my friends from Michigan [i.e. Representatives Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Candice S. Miller (R-MI)] that the only thing worse than a national water policy is a global water policy. This is not to establish a national policy for use of water, but to get people around the same table to bring all of the knowledge we have about water to the same place to advise the Congress and the President.”
Linder explained that there are new ideas all across this country, and the world, that are making their way into the water discussion, and an effort needs to be made to bring them to the same table. The Water Commission will focus on storage, water conservation, and repairing the leaky pipes that contribute to so much unnecessary water loss. Linder noted that Philadelphia alone loses 85 million gallons of water a day through leaky pipes. He said, “We need to increase the revolving loan fund under the Clean Water Act so that more states can fix their problems. In Atlanta, we’re fixing a $3 billion problem with our sewage treatment. We ought to be able to borrow that money at low interest rates from the Federal government under the Clean Water Act.”
Linder finished his testimony by reiterating to the Committee that the intention of the Water Commission is not to establish a national water policy. Rather, he concluded, the Commission’s true intention is to establish exactly what we know about water and what we know works across the country, and then to bring that information to the President and Congress so it can be looked at, and then decide how to help improve our nation’s water needs.
Michigan Representative Miller issued a release stating, "Don't even consider using a seemingly harmless bill to study the nation's water usage as cover to begin a process aimed at taking Great Lakes water." She said, "I don't think I'm being too alarmist about this. Do not look to the Great Lakes to solve the nation's water problems." According to the release, Michigan colleague on the Subcommittee, Vern Ehlers, predicted what might happen if anyone attempted a water grab saying, "I would suspect we'd call up the militia and take up arms. We feel that serious about it." Miller noted that the witness panel, talking about the legislation, included speakers from Arizona, Georgia and Texas -- and none from the Great Lakes region. Miller asked the bill's supporters if they would be willing to add a provision specifically saying the commission wouldn't recommend diverting water from the Great Lakes. Some supporters were somewhat in agreement, though they generally were against taking any point of discussion off the table.
Miller noted that similar legislation was passed by the House in the last Congress, over her objections, but got bottled up in the Senate. This year, it was included in the House Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007, approved by the House, though the Senate, again, hasn't taken it up. In a related matter, on October 10, a number of western Senators, including Senators Domenici (R) and Bingaman (D) from New Mexico, introduced S. 2156, the SECURE Water Act, which among other things requires an assessment of whether available surface and groundwater supplies will be available to meet the future needs of the United States [See WIMS 10/11/07].
EPA testified that the Office of Water is working closely with the Western Governors’ Association and the Western States Water Council to implement the recommendations in their June 2006 report, Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future. Contained within the Report are many recommendations that are consistent with EPA initiatives as well as recommendations contained in a report released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy titled, A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States. The responsibility for water, both in terms of quality and quantity, is divided among many different federal agencies as well as each of our states, tribes, and territories. In light of this shared and diverse responsibility, it is imperative that we all work collectively to meet the growing needs and demands of our limited water resources.
David Conrad, Senior Water Resources Specialist with the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) applauded Representative Linder and the 22 cosponsors and indicated that NWF believes there is a "strong need for a national water commission." He emphasized the language of Section 8207 regarding the Commission duties, included in the House-passed comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 3221, which creates a similar commission as that contemplated in H.R. 135. He suggested including the provisions of Section 8207 in Section 4 of H.R. 135. Although, the National Wildlife Federation along with the National Parks Conservation Association are major actors in the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, he did not specifically discuss the issue of Great Lakes water diversion.
Access the hearing website with links to background information and witness testimony (click here). Access a release from Representative Linder (click here). Access a release from Representative Miller (click here). Access the White House report, A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States, dated September, 2007 (click here). Access links to various media reports of the meeting (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 135 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2156 (click here). [*Water, *GLakes]
Representative Linder began his testimony by addressing the concerns of some on the Committee that his bill would somehow infringe upon states’ water rights. He said, “First, I want to hasten to assure my friends from Michigan [i.e. Representatives Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Candice S. Miller (R-MI)] that the only thing worse than a national water policy is a global water policy. This is not to establish a national policy for use of water, but to get people around the same table to bring all of the knowledge we have about water to the same place to advise the Congress and the President.”
Linder explained that there are new ideas all across this country, and the world, that are making their way into the water discussion, and an effort needs to be made to bring them to the same table. The Water Commission will focus on storage, water conservation, and repairing the leaky pipes that contribute to so much unnecessary water loss. Linder noted that Philadelphia alone loses 85 million gallons of water a day through leaky pipes. He said, “We need to increase the revolving loan fund under the Clean Water Act so that more states can fix their problems. In Atlanta, we’re fixing a $3 billion problem with our sewage treatment. We ought to be able to borrow that money at low interest rates from the Federal government under the Clean Water Act.”
Linder finished his testimony by reiterating to the Committee that the intention of the Water Commission is not to establish a national water policy. Rather, he concluded, the Commission’s true intention is to establish exactly what we know about water and what we know works across the country, and then to bring that information to the President and Congress so it can be looked at, and then decide how to help improve our nation’s water needs.
Michigan Representative Miller issued a release stating, "Don't even consider using a seemingly harmless bill to study the nation's water usage as cover to begin a process aimed at taking Great Lakes water." She said, "I don't think I'm being too alarmist about this. Do not look to the Great Lakes to solve the nation's water problems." According to the release, Michigan colleague on the Subcommittee, Vern Ehlers, predicted what might happen if anyone attempted a water grab saying, "I would suspect we'd call up the militia and take up arms. We feel that serious about it." Miller noted that the witness panel, talking about the legislation, included speakers from Arizona, Georgia and Texas -- and none from the Great Lakes region. Miller asked the bill's supporters if they would be willing to add a provision specifically saying the commission wouldn't recommend diverting water from the Great Lakes. Some supporters were somewhat in agreement, though they generally were against taking any point of discussion off the table.
Miller noted that similar legislation was passed by the House in the last Congress, over her objections, but got bottled up in the Senate. This year, it was included in the House Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007, approved by the House, though the Senate, again, hasn't taken it up. In a related matter, on October 10, a number of western Senators, including Senators Domenici (R) and Bingaman (D) from New Mexico, introduced S. 2156, the SECURE Water Act, which among other things requires an assessment of whether available surface and groundwater supplies will be available to meet the future needs of the United States [See WIMS 10/11/07].
EPA testified that the Office of Water is working closely with the Western Governors’ Association and the Western States Water Council to implement the recommendations in their June 2006 report, Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future. Contained within the Report are many recommendations that are consistent with EPA initiatives as well as recommendations contained in a report released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy titled, A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States. The responsibility for water, both in terms of quality and quantity, is divided among many different federal agencies as well as each of our states, tribes, and territories. In light of this shared and diverse responsibility, it is imperative that we all work collectively to meet the growing needs and demands of our limited water resources.
David Conrad, Senior Water Resources Specialist with the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) applauded Representative Linder and the 22 cosponsors and indicated that NWF believes there is a "strong need for a national water commission." He emphasized the language of Section 8207 regarding the Commission duties, included in the House-passed comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 3221, which creates a similar commission as that contemplated in H.R. 135. He suggested including the provisions of Section 8207 in Section 4 of H.R. 135. Although, the National Wildlife Federation along with the National Parks Conservation Association are major actors in the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, he did not specifically discuss the issue of Great Lakes water diversion.
Access the hearing website with links to background information and witness testimony (click here). Access a release from Representative Linder (click here). Access a release from Representative Miller (click here). Access the White House report, A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States, dated September, 2007 (click here). Access links to various media reports of the meeting (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 135 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2156 (click here). [*Water, *GLakes]
Thursday, November 08, 2007
California Sues EPA Over Vehicle GHG Emission Waiver Request
Nov 8: In a precedent setting lawsuit, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. sued the U.S. EPA, to force the agency to take action on California’s request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington DC, charges the EPA with an unreasonable delay in reaching a decision on California’s landmark law, known as the Pavley bill, which mandates a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions by 2016. Fourteen other states were expected to support California as interveners in the lawsuit.
Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the State capitol with Governor Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board chair, Mary Nichols that, “Despite the mounting dangers of global warming, the EPA has delayed and ignored California’s right to impose stricter environmental standards. We have waited two years and the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. What is the EPA waiting for?” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has previously indicated that he will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Under the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963, California can adopt environmental standards that are stricter than Federal rules, if the state obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. Congress allowed California to impose stricter laws in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” After a California waiver request is granted, other states are permitted to adopt the same rules.
Sixteen other states -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards and are also awaiting the EPA decision. In the Act’s 40-year history, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. In the lawsuit, California asserts that EPA has failed to act in a reasonable length of time.
In 2002, California passed AB 1493 which require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. In December 2005, the California Air Resources Board applied for a waiver to implement the law. Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the EPA in April 2006 and in October 2006, requesting action on California’s application. The state asserts that EPA does not need any additional time to review the facts—the California Air Resources Board submitted a detailed 251-page assessment in 2005 and the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants. In September, a Vermont District Court ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a challenge from the automobile lobby.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "It’s ridiculous that California should have to sue EPA to get permission to implement its clean car standards. California has the legal right under the Clean Air Act to set motor vehicle pollution rules that are tougher than the federal government’s. There’s an old saying: lead, follow or get out of the way. For forty years, California has been the nation’s leader in bringing us cleaner cars. The Bush administration has been blocking this road for two years. Now it’s time for them to move to the shoulder and let California pass. California and 16 other states that have adopted or are adopting the state’s rules are taking the lead in fighting global warming. The Bush EPA should just get out of their way.”
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort issued a statement saying, "We applaud California on its continued leadership in tackling the issue of global warming. The state legislature, the Governor and the Attorney General recognize global warming is a problem that will not simply disappear without major changes in the way our cars, power plants, and other pollution sources operate. The state's tougher emission standards for cars and trucks will lead the way for the rest of the country. Automakers can no longer drag their feet when it comes to fighting global warming. Cars and trucks are major greenhouse gas emitters, and requiring manufacturers to build cleaner cars is good for California, good for the country, and good for the planet..."
Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement saying, "Alliance members share the concerns of our customers, the President, the Congress and the American public about fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions. It is the view of the Alliance that enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all Americans, but a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level is not the answer. Automakers are currently supporting legislation in Congress that would increase fuel economy by as much as 40 percent in 2022. California’s lawsuit against the EPA is not helpful to the waiver process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application does not show that the standards address a problem unique to California. EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request."
Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to video and additional information (click here). Access the complaint filed (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access previous WIMS articles and links on the California waiver from various eNewsUSA blog posts (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the State capitol with Governor Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board chair, Mary Nichols that, “Despite the mounting dangers of global warming, the EPA has delayed and ignored California’s right to impose stricter environmental standards. We have waited two years and the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. What is the EPA waiting for?” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has previously indicated that he will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Under the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963, California can adopt environmental standards that are stricter than Federal rules, if the state obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. Congress allowed California to impose stricter laws in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” After a California waiver request is granted, other states are permitted to adopt the same rules.
Sixteen other states -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards and are also awaiting the EPA decision. In the Act’s 40-year history, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. In the lawsuit, California asserts that EPA has failed to act in a reasonable length of time.
In 2002, California passed AB 1493 which require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. In December 2005, the California Air Resources Board applied for a waiver to implement the law. Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the EPA in April 2006 and in October 2006, requesting action on California’s application. The state asserts that EPA does not need any additional time to review the facts—the California Air Resources Board submitted a detailed 251-page assessment in 2005 and the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants. In September, a Vermont District Court ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a challenge from the automobile lobby.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "It’s ridiculous that California should have to sue EPA to get permission to implement its clean car standards. California has the legal right under the Clean Air Act to set motor vehicle pollution rules that are tougher than the federal government’s. There’s an old saying: lead, follow or get out of the way. For forty years, California has been the nation’s leader in bringing us cleaner cars. The Bush administration has been blocking this road for two years. Now it’s time for them to move to the shoulder and let California pass. California and 16 other states that have adopted or are adopting the state’s rules are taking the lead in fighting global warming. The Bush EPA should just get out of their way.”
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort issued a statement saying, "We applaud California on its continued leadership in tackling the issue of global warming. The state legislature, the Governor and the Attorney General recognize global warming is a problem that will not simply disappear without major changes in the way our cars, power plants, and other pollution sources operate. The state's tougher emission standards for cars and trucks will lead the way for the rest of the country. Automakers can no longer drag their feet when it comes to fighting global warming. Cars and trucks are major greenhouse gas emitters, and requiring manufacturers to build cleaner cars is good for California, good for the country, and good for the planet..."
Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement saying, "Alliance members share the concerns of our customers, the President, the Congress and the American public about fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions. It is the view of the Alliance that enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all Americans, but a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level is not the answer. Automakers are currently supporting legislation in Congress that would increase fuel economy by as much as 40 percent in 2022. California’s lawsuit against the EPA is not helpful to the waiver process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application does not show that the standards address a problem unique to California. EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request."
Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to video and additional information (click here). Access the complaint filed (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access previous WIMS articles and links on the California waiver from various eNewsUSA blog posts (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Colorado Climate Action Plan Includes "Clean Car" Standards
Nov 5: Colorado's Democratic Governor Bill Ritter released the State's first Climate Action Plan, which according to a release is an ambitious call to action that establishes firm goals and clear strategies to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and also provides simple suggestions so everyone in Colorado can address global warming. Ritter said, "Climate change is our generation's greatest environmental challenge. It threatens our economy, our Western way of life and our future. It will change every facet of our existence, and unless we address it and adapt to it, the results will be catastrophic for generations to come. I strongly believe we can make a difference. In setting and achieving the goals in this Colorado Climate Action Plan, we will continue to expand the New Energy Economy, show leadership as a state, increase our energy security, and call on the federal government to take strong action."
Ritter indicated that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have grown by 35% in Colorado from 1990 to 2005. The largest contributors are electricity consumption (36%) and transportation (23%). The Climate Action Plan, which includes an agricultural carbon sequestration and offset program, establishes two greenhouse-gas reduction goals: 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The agricultural program would enlist farmers and ranchers to participate in a regional consortium to sequester carbon and reduce emissions on agricultural lands, and sell the resulting carbon credits over a multi-state region.
Other strategies in the Climate Action Plan include: Move toward "clean car" standards to ensure automakers reduce emissions in new vehicles; Work collaboratively to reduce emissions from investor-owned utilities by 20% by 2020 and create reasonable goals for other utilities; Expand voluntary, and over time phase in mandatory, emission reporting requirements for major greenhouse gas producers; Adopt energy-efficiency programs to reduce the demand for electrical energy; Expand renewable energy opportunities; and Partner with research institutions and industry to develop clean-coal technologies, and urge the federal government to accelerate financial investments and incentives.
Environmental Defense issued a release pointing out that Colorado had become the 17th state to move forward with clean car standards that will lower global warming and smog pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil and save consumers money at the pump. Colorado joins 16 other states, which collectively account for nearly 50% of the total U.S. population, in taking action to adopt the innovative standards including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. Environmental Defense indicated that this week the State of California is expected to file its lawsuit pressing EPA to make a decision on California’s waiver request so that it and other states like Colorado can implement their clean cars laws. The California lawsuit has been delayed due to the wildfires in Southern California.
Access a release from Governor Ritter and link to the 35-page Colorado Climate Action Plan (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Ritter indicated that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have grown by 35% in Colorado from 1990 to 2005. The largest contributors are electricity consumption (36%) and transportation (23%). The Climate Action Plan, which includes an agricultural carbon sequestration and offset program, establishes two greenhouse-gas reduction goals: 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The agricultural program would enlist farmers and ranchers to participate in a regional consortium to sequester carbon and reduce emissions on agricultural lands, and sell the resulting carbon credits over a multi-state region.
Other strategies in the Climate Action Plan include: Move toward "clean car" standards to ensure automakers reduce emissions in new vehicles; Work collaboratively to reduce emissions from investor-owned utilities by 20% by 2020 and create reasonable goals for other utilities; Expand voluntary, and over time phase in mandatory, emission reporting requirements for major greenhouse gas producers; Adopt energy-efficiency programs to reduce the demand for electrical energy; Expand renewable energy opportunities; and Partner with research institutions and industry to develop clean-coal technologies, and urge the federal government to accelerate financial investments and incentives.
Environmental Defense issued a release pointing out that Colorado had become the 17th state to move forward with clean car standards that will lower global warming and smog pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil and save consumers money at the pump. Colorado joins 16 other states, which collectively account for nearly 50% of the total U.S. population, in taking action to adopt the innovative standards including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. Environmental Defense indicated that this week the State of California is expected to file its lawsuit pressing EPA to make a decision on California’s waiver request so that it and other states like Colorado can implement their clean cars laws. The California lawsuit has been delayed due to the wildfires in Southern California.
Access a release from Governor Ritter and link to the 35-page Colorado Climate Action Plan (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Bloomberg Tells Mayors Carbon Tax Provides More Certainty
Nov 2: On the final day of the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit [See WIMS 11/2/07], hosted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the City of Seattle, over one hundred mayors convened to stress the importance of forming a federal partnership to boost energy independence. Due to recent geopolitical events and the dramatic rise in global energy prices, the mayors called on Congress to complete its work on major energy efficiency legislation by the end of the year and send it to the president for his signature. Mayors have been working closely with Congressional leaders to authorize an Energy Efficiency Block Grant to expand and accelerate community-based energy saving projects.
Among other items the Conference announced a new partnership with the Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative (CCI) which will allow 1,100 U.S. cities to gain access to volume discounts on energy-efficient and clean-energy products and technologies through CCI's purchasing consortium. Congressional leaders traveled to Seattle on November 2, specifically to get ideas from mayors about local energy strategies that could be used as national models. Conference leaders, President and Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, as well as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, provided that input.
In his keynote address Mayor Bloomberg had some interesting comments on climate change and the hot debate over a "cap and trade" approach versus a "carbon tax." He said, "On climate change, the duck-and-cover usually involves pointing the finger at others. It's China-this and India-that. But wait a second. This is the United States of America. When there's a major challenge, we don't wait for others to act. We lead. And we lead by example. That's what all of us here are doing... "Leadership is not waiting for others to act, or bowing to special interests, or making policy by polling or political calculus, and it's not hoping that technology will rescue us down the road or forcing our children to foot the bill. Leadership is about facing facts, making hard decisions, and having the independence and courage to do the right thing, even when it's not easy or popular. We've all heard people say, 'It's a great idea, but for the politics.' I hear it a lot..."
Bloomberg, who indicated he will be going to the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Bali next month, as part of an international delegation of mayors, said, “Climate change presents a national security imperative for us, because our dependence on foreign oil has entangled our interests with tyrants and increased our exposure to terrorism. It’s also an economic imperative, because clean energy is going to be the oil gusher of the 21st century.” Mayor Bloomberg called for increased research and development for climate protection, a pollution fee to discourage practices that generate greenhouse gas pollution and raising fuel efficiency standards.
On carbon dioxide emissions, Bloomberg said, "we have to stop ignoring the laws of economics. As long as greenhouse gas pollution is free, it will be abundant. If we want to reduce it, there has to be a cost for producing it. The voluntary targets suggested by President Bush would be like voluntary speed limits - doomed to fail. If we're serious about climate change, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it."
Regarding a cap and trade system as opposed to a carbon tax, Bloomberg said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden - but they're still there. And the payoff is more uncertain." However, he noted, "the price volatility for carbon credits can discourage investment since an investment that might make sense if carbon credits are trading at $50 a ton, may not make sense at $30 a ton." He said further, "A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start - and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first.
"A direct charge would eliminate the uncertainty that companies would face in a cap-and-trade system. It would be easier to implement and enforce, it would prevent special interests from opening up loopholes, and, it would create an opportunity to cut taxes... Creating a direct charge for greenhouse gas pollution would also incentivize the kinds of innovation that a cap-and-trade system is designed to encourage - without creating market uncertainty. To do this, a portion of the revenue from the pollution charge would be used to create an innovation fund, which would finance tax credits for companies that reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. As a result, companies would have two big incentives to reduce their pollution: Minimizing the charges they would have to pay and maximizing their tax savings. And unlike a cap-and-trade system, the certainty of tax credits would be more likely to lead companies to make the long-term investments in clean technology that will allow us to substantially reduce greenhouse gas pollution."
In concluding, Bloomberg said, "Both cap-and-trade and pollution pricing present their own challenges -- but there is an important difference between the two. The primary flaw of cap-and-trade is economic - price uncertainty; while the primary flaw of a pollution fee is political - the difficulty of getting it through Congress. But I've never been one to let short-term politics get in the way of long-term success..."
Access a release from the Conference (click here). Access the Mayors Climate Protection Center website for extensive information (click here). Access the complete text of Mayor Bloomberg's presentation (click here). Access links to all video presentations including Bloomberg, Clinton, Gore, etc. (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Among other items the Conference announced a new partnership with the Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative (CCI) which will allow 1,100 U.S. cities to gain access to volume discounts on energy-efficient and clean-energy products and technologies through CCI's purchasing consortium. Congressional leaders traveled to Seattle on November 2, specifically to get ideas from mayors about local energy strategies that could be used as national models. Conference leaders, President and Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, as well as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, provided that input.
In his keynote address Mayor Bloomberg had some interesting comments on climate change and the hot debate over a "cap and trade" approach versus a "carbon tax." He said, "On climate change, the duck-and-cover usually involves pointing the finger at others. It's China-this and India-that. But wait a second. This is the United States of America. When there's a major challenge, we don't wait for others to act. We lead. And we lead by example. That's what all of us here are doing... "Leadership is not waiting for others to act, or bowing to special interests, or making policy by polling or political calculus, and it's not hoping that technology will rescue us down the road or forcing our children to foot the bill. Leadership is about facing facts, making hard decisions, and having the independence and courage to do the right thing, even when it's not easy or popular. We've all heard people say, 'It's a great idea, but for the politics.' I hear it a lot..."
Bloomberg, who indicated he will be going to the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Bali next month, as part of an international delegation of mayors, said, “Climate change presents a national security imperative for us, because our dependence on foreign oil has entangled our interests with tyrants and increased our exposure to terrorism. It’s also an economic imperative, because clean energy is going to be the oil gusher of the 21st century.” Mayor Bloomberg called for increased research and development for climate protection, a pollution fee to discourage practices that generate greenhouse gas pollution and raising fuel efficiency standards.
On carbon dioxide emissions, Bloomberg said, "we have to stop ignoring the laws of economics. As long as greenhouse gas pollution is free, it will be abundant. If we want to reduce it, there has to be a cost for producing it. The voluntary targets suggested by President Bush would be like voluntary speed limits - doomed to fail. If we're serious about climate change, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it."
Regarding a cap and trade system as opposed to a carbon tax, Bloomberg said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden - but they're still there. And the payoff is more uncertain." However, he noted, "the price volatility for carbon credits can discourage investment since an investment that might make sense if carbon credits are trading at $50 a ton, may not make sense at $30 a ton." He said further, "A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start - and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first.
"A direct charge would eliminate the uncertainty that companies would face in a cap-and-trade system. It would be easier to implement and enforce, it would prevent special interests from opening up loopholes, and, it would create an opportunity to cut taxes... Creating a direct charge for greenhouse gas pollution would also incentivize the kinds of innovation that a cap-and-trade system is designed to encourage - without creating market uncertainty. To do this, a portion of the revenue from the pollution charge would be used to create an innovation fund, which would finance tax credits for companies that reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. As a result, companies would have two big incentives to reduce their pollution: Minimizing the charges they would have to pay and maximizing their tax savings. And unlike a cap-and-trade system, the certainty of tax credits would be more likely to lead companies to make the long-term investments in clean technology that will allow us to substantially reduce greenhouse gas pollution."
In concluding, Bloomberg said, "Both cap-and-trade and pollution pricing present their own challenges -- but there is an important difference between the two. The primary flaw of cap-and-trade is economic - price uncertainty; while the primary flaw of a pollution fee is political - the difficulty of getting it through Congress. But I've never been one to let short-term politics get in the way of long-term success..."
Access a release from the Conference (click here). Access the Mayors Climate Protection Center website for extensive information (click here). Access the complete text of Mayor Bloomberg's presentation (click here). Access links to all video presentations including Bloomberg, Clinton, Gore, etc. (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, November 05, 2007
Bush Vetoes Water Resources Development Act; Override Expected
Nov 2: On Friday, President Bush announced his veto of H.R. 1495, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2007." Some Congressional members called the President's action "galling." The bill had widespread support from Democrats, Republicans, environmental groups, business, and various local governments.
On May 16, 2007, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 91-4, passed its $13.9 billion version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R.1495) [See WIMS 5/17/07]. The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed, $15 billion version, approved by a vote of by a vote of 394-25, on April 19, 2007 [See WIMS 4/30/07]. On August 1, 2007, the House approved the Conference report by a vote of 381-40 [See WIMS 8/1/07] and on September 24, 2007, the Conference Report bill, passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 81 to 12. At the time of the Senate vote on the Conference report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, sent a letter to all U.S. Senators indicating their strong support for the WRDA conference report to H.R. 1495. There has not been a WRDA passed since 2000.
President Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.
"This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility. My Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs -- including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.
"I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment. For the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 1495."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said at the time of Senate approval of the Conference report, “If the President chooses to veto the bill, as he has threatened to do, we are committed -- on a bipartisan basis -- to move to override his veto." Making good on that promise she issued a release on November 2, saying, "President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act breaks his commitment to the people of Louisiana to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina; breaks his commitment to America's communities to make them economically strong and protect them from flooding; breaks his commitment to make America's infrastructure a priority; and breaks his commitment to restore our environment, including the Everglades. We are already working across party lines in the Congress to override this ill-advised veto."
Likewise, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, reaffirmed that he intends to lead the effort in the Senate to override President Bush's WRDA veto. Inhofe said, "As a fiscal conservative, I certainly appreciate and share the President's concerns over 'excessive spending' by the Federal government. The fact is, though, that the WRDA bill is not a spending bill; it is an authorizing bill. It simply sets out which projects and programs are allowed to get in line for future funding and sets the maximum amount of money that can be funded. Authorization is the best tool we have for keeping discipline over the annual appropriations process. Additionally, this bill includes a provision requiring independent third-party reviews of certain projects, which will inform future authorizations and appropriations..."
Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and sponsor of the House bill, said President Bush’s veto of the major waterways infrastructure bill is "a mistake," and he expects Congress to override the veto in the next few weeks. Oberstar said, “It’s a sad moment for the presidency and for Congress; it is an unnecessary veto, pointless. For seven years, a succession of Republican congresses has failed to enact the most important internal development bill in this country and it’s all been on this president’s watch.
“With one stroke of the pen, President Bush has halted progress on vital projects that range from the construction of a second lock at Sault Ste. Marie to the restoration of coastal wetlands that protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes like Katrina. There’s a great deal of concern in this administration about homeland security, but our biggest terrors are flood, hurricane, the freezing up of the locks, and natural disasters on land. These projects in this legislation will deal with the greatest source of terror to the homeland - the natural terror that we seek to prevent with this legislation.”
Oberstar and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, also issued a joint statement saying, "What makes this veto particularly galling is that President Bush is now asking the American people to spend another $196 billion on Iraq. Yet, he is unwilling to invest our own nation’s future and in the recovery of the Gulf Coast region."
Access the President's veto statement (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access the joint release from Representatives Oberstar and Johnson (click here). Access a 3-page summary of WRDA from Representative Oberstar(click here). Access a 72-page Joint Explanatory Statement from the Conference Committee (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1495 (click here). Access links to various media reports on the President's action (click here). [*GLakes, *Water]
On May 16, 2007, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 91-4, passed its $13.9 billion version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R.1495) [See WIMS 5/17/07]. The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed, $15 billion version, approved by a vote of by a vote of 394-25, on April 19, 2007 [See WIMS 4/30/07]. On August 1, 2007, the House approved the Conference report by a vote of 381-40 [See WIMS 8/1/07] and on September 24, 2007, the Conference Report bill, passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 81 to 12. At the time of the Senate vote on the Conference report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, sent a letter to all U.S. Senators indicating their strong support for the WRDA conference report to H.R. 1495. There has not been a WRDA passed since 2000.
President Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.
"This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility. My Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs -- including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.
"I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment. For the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 1495."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said at the time of Senate approval of the Conference report, “If the President chooses to veto the bill, as he has threatened to do, we are committed -- on a bipartisan basis -- to move to override his veto." Making good on that promise she issued a release on November 2, saying, "President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act breaks his commitment to the people of Louisiana to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina; breaks his commitment to America's communities to make them economically strong and protect them from flooding; breaks his commitment to make America's infrastructure a priority; and breaks his commitment to restore our environment, including the Everglades. We are already working across party lines in the Congress to override this ill-advised veto."
Likewise, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, reaffirmed that he intends to lead the effort in the Senate to override President Bush's WRDA veto. Inhofe said, "As a fiscal conservative, I certainly appreciate and share the President's concerns over 'excessive spending' by the Federal government. The fact is, though, that the WRDA bill is not a spending bill; it is an authorizing bill. It simply sets out which projects and programs are allowed to get in line for future funding and sets the maximum amount of money that can be funded. Authorization is the best tool we have for keeping discipline over the annual appropriations process. Additionally, this bill includes a provision requiring independent third-party reviews of certain projects, which will inform future authorizations and appropriations..."
Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and sponsor of the House bill, said President Bush’s veto of the major waterways infrastructure bill is "a mistake," and he expects Congress to override the veto in the next few weeks. Oberstar said, “It’s a sad moment for the presidency and for Congress; it is an unnecessary veto, pointless. For seven years, a succession of Republican congresses has failed to enact the most important internal development bill in this country and it’s all been on this president’s watch.
“With one stroke of the pen, President Bush has halted progress on vital projects that range from the construction of a second lock at Sault Ste. Marie to the restoration of coastal wetlands that protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes like Katrina. There’s a great deal of concern in this administration about homeland security, but our biggest terrors are flood, hurricane, the freezing up of the locks, and natural disasters on land. These projects in this legislation will deal with the greatest source of terror to the homeland - the natural terror that we seek to prevent with this legislation.”
Oberstar and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, also issued a joint statement saying, "What makes this veto particularly galling is that President Bush is now asking the American people to spend another $196 billion on Iraq. Yet, he is unwilling to invest our own nation’s future and in the recovery of the Gulf Coast region."
Access the President's veto statement (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access the joint release from Representatives Oberstar and Johnson (click here). Access a 3-page summary of WRDA from Representative Oberstar(click here). Access a 72-page Joint Explanatory Statement from the Conference Committee (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1495 (click here). Access links to various media reports on the President's action (click here). [*GLakes, *Water]
Friday, November 02, 2007
Sanders Calls Lieberman-Warner Climate Vote "One Small Step"
Nov 1: While many environmental organizations and Democratic Senators called the 4-3 vote on the America's Climate Security Act (ACSA, S. 2191) in the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee a "turning point" and "milestone," in the debate on global warming, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the no votes, called the vote "One Small Step, No Giant Leap" [See WIMS 11/1/07]. The bill, introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) to address global climate change [See WIMS 10/18/07], was narrowly approved when Senators Lieberman, Warner, Baucus (D-MT), and Lautenberg (D-NJ) voted for the measure; and Barrasso (R-WY), Isakson (R-GA), and Sanders (I-VT) voted against it. The legislation is expected to be taken up by the full Environment & Public Works Committee as soon as the week of November 12.
Sanders opposed the bill because he said "it would not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as much as scientists say is necessary to stop catastrophic changes in the Earth’s climate." He said, “This bill is a step in the right direction, but it simply does not go far enough to do what scientists tell us must be done to stop global warming. If we are not extremely bold and aggressive, this planet faces a catastrophe in the years to come.” Sanders said he worked with Senator Lautenberg to strengthen the bill in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the past two weeks. At the subcommittee meeting, Sanders offered amendments that were supported by all of the major national environmental organizations. Added to the bill was a Sanders provision that would encourage automobile manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. To be eligible for a pool of new funds to produce more fuel efficient cars, auto makers first would have to manufacture vehicles that get at least 35 miles per gallon.
Sanders indicated in a release that the subcommittee turned down proposals to carve out resources for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources in the bill that guarantees "whopping sums" for coal ($324 billion) and car makers ($232 billion). It blocked a Sanders amendment to make utilities dramatically reduce emissions from new coal-fired power plants. It voted down an amendment to make polluters pay for carbon emissions starting in 2026 instead of 2036. The majority also failed to set a goal of reducing emissions of heat trapping gases by mid-century by 80 percent -- the amount scientists say must be achieved to be effective. The bill calls for at most a 63 percent reduction by 2050, not enough to matter according to experts.
Sanders said, “I am proud that we pushed to improve the bill. It is stronger today than it was when it was unveiled two weeks ago. I appreciate the support for my amendment to improve fuel economy standards for cars. I look forward to making the bill better. The American people favor bolder action than this bill to prevent a catastrophe for our planet. I hope grass-roots activists will put pressure on senators to pass a stronger bill out of the full environment committee.”
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), another "no" vote, issued a release saying he fought successfully to improve the legislation and winning votes on two key amendments. Barrasso indicated his first successful amendment ensures that Wyoming, and all states, receive financial assistance to ease any negative impacts the legislation would have on state economies. He said “This bill poses serious challenges for Wyoming 's economy. Our state is the nation's top source for energy, and more specifically energy derived from coal. I will continue to fight to make sure Wyoming jobs and communities are protected from any negative impacts this bill would have on our economic future.”
Barrasso said the second successful amendment allows lower British thermal unit (Btu) coal to qualify for capture and sequestration program incentives.This provision is important because most Wyoming coal has less than 9,000 Btu. Barrasso said he will continue to fight at the full EPW committee level for making the University of Wyoming the new home of a national center for coal research, focusing on clean coal technology on a Federal level.
He said, “When oil is between $90 and $100 dollars a barrel, it is abundantly clear that we need strategic focus on domestic energy sources. Clean coal technologies are the future of a safe, reliable domestic energy source for this nation. Foreign energy sources are unstable. Period. It won't always be a presidential election season when Washington thinks anti-coal views are the vogue. By establishing Wyoming at the forefront of clean-coal technology nationally, we strengthen Wyoming 's role in that future, and provide needed domestic energy sources for our great nation.”
Access a release from Senator Sanders (click here). Access a release from Senator Barrasso (click here). Access the Subcommittee meeting website for a link to the webcast, the original bill and a statement from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Sanders opposed the bill because he said "it would not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as much as scientists say is necessary to stop catastrophic changes in the Earth’s climate." He said, “This bill is a step in the right direction, but it simply does not go far enough to do what scientists tell us must be done to stop global warming. If we are not extremely bold and aggressive, this planet faces a catastrophe in the years to come.” Sanders said he worked with Senator Lautenberg to strengthen the bill in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the past two weeks. At the subcommittee meeting, Sanders offered amendments that were supported by all of the major national environmental organizations. Added to the bill was a Sanders provision that would encourage automobile manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. To be eligible for a pool of new funds to produce more fuel efficient cars, auto makers first would have to manufacture vehicles that get at least 35 miles per gallon.
Sanders indicated in a release that the subcommittee turned down proposals to carve out resources for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources in the bill that guarantees "whopping sums" for coal ($324 billion) and car makers ($232 billion). It blocked a Sanders amendment to make utilities dramatically reduce emissions from new coal-fired power plants. It voted down an amendment to make polluters pay for carbon emissions starting in 2026 instead of 2036. The majority also failed to set a goal of reducing emissions of heat trapping gases by mid-century by 80 percent -- the amount scientists say must be achieved to be effective. The bill calls for at most a 63 percent reduction by 2050, not enough to matter according to experts.
Sanders said, “I am proud that we pushed to improve the bill. It is stronger today than it was when it was unveiled two weeks ago. I appreciate the support for my amendment to improve fuel economy standards for cars. I look forward to making the bill better. The American people favor bolder action than this bill to prevent a catastrophe for our planet. I hope grass-roots activists will put pressure on senators to pass a stronger bill out of the full environment committee.”
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), another "no" vote, issued a release saying he fought successfully to improve the legislation and winning votes on two key amendments. Barrasso indicated his first successful amendment ensures that Wyoming, and all states, receive financial assistance to ease any negative impacts the legislation would have on state economies. He said “This bill poses serious challenges for Wyoming 's economy. Our state is the nation's top source for energy, and more specifically energy derived from coal. I will continue to fight to make sure Wyoming jobs and communities are protected from any negative impacts this bill would have on our economic future.”
Barrasso said the second successful amendment allows lower British thermal unit (Btu) coal to qualify for capture and sequestration program incentives.This provision is important because most Wyoming coal has less than 9,000 Btu. Barrasso said he will continue to fight at the full EPW committee level for making the University of Wyoming the new home of a national center for coal research, focusing on clean coal technology on a Federal level.
He said, “When oil is between $90 and $100 dollars a barrel, it is abundantly clear that we need strategic focus on domestic energy sources. Clean coal technologies are the future of a safe, reliable domestic energy source for this nation. Foreign energy sources are unstable. Period. It won't always be a presidential election season when Washington thinks anti-coal views are the vogue. By establishing Wyoming at the forefront of clean-coal technology nationally, we strengthen Wyoming 's role in that future, and provide needed domestic energy sources for our great nation.”
Access a release from Senator Sanders (click here). Access a release from Senator Barrasso (click here). Access the Subcommittee meeting website for a link to the webcast, the original bill and a statement from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, November 01, 2007
10 U.S. States Join International Carbon Action Partnership
Oct 29: A coalition of European countries, U.S. states, Canadian provinces, New Zealand and Norway announced the formation of the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP) to fight global warming. ICAP will provide an international forum in which governments and public authorities adopting mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cap and trade systems will share experiences and best practices on the design of emissions trading schemes. According to a release, the cooperative effort will ensure that the programs are more compatible and are able to work together as the foundation of a global carbon market. Such a market will boost demand for low-carbon products and services, promote innovation, and allow cost effective reductions so as to allow swift and ambitious global reductions in global warming emissions.
The ground-breaking international and interregional agreement was signed by U.S. and Canadian members of the Western Climate Initiative [Arizona, British Columbia, California, Manitoba, New Mexico, Oregon, & Washington], northeastern U.S. members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, & New York], as well as European members including the European Commission, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain & United Kingdom. New Zealand and Norway joined on behalf of their emissions trading programs.
Leaders attending the summit included: President José Sócrates, Council of the European Union and Prime Minister of Portugal; European Commission President José Manuel Barroso; Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey; Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York and Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, participated with video messages.
ICAP said it will open lines of communication for sharing valuable information, such as research, effective policy initiatives, lessons learned and new developments. By working together to establish similar design principles, ICAP partners are ensuring that future market systems, in conjunction with regulation in the form of enforceable caps, will boost worldwide demand for low-carbon products and services, provide a larger market for innovators, and achieve global emissions reductions at the swiftest pace and lowest cost possible. The new partnership supports the current ongoing efforts undertaken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which all ICAP members agree has a central role in fighting global warming.
Access a release (click here). Access the ICAP Declaration (click here). Access a webcast of the launch event (click here). Access an audio from U.S. Governor's Conference call with U.S. Press (click here, .wav format). Access the ICAP website (click here). [*Climate]
The ground-breaking international and interregional agreement was signed by U.S. and Canadian members of the Western Climate Initiative [Arizona, British Columbia, California, Manitoba, New Mexico, Oregon, & Washington], northeastern U.S. members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, & New York], as well as European members including the European Commission, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain & United Kingdom. New Zealand and Norway joined on behalf of their emissions trading programs.
Leaders attending the summit included: President José Sócrates, Council of the European Union and Prime Minister of Portugal; European Commission President José Manuel Barroso; Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey; Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York and Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, participated with video messages.
ICAP said it will open lines of communication for sharing valuable information, such as research, effective policy initiatives, lessons learned and new developments. By working together to establish similar design principles, ICAP partners are ensuring that future market systems, in conjunction with regulation in the form of enforceable caps, will boost worldwide demand for low-carbon products and services, provide a larger market for innovators, and achieve global emissions reductions at the swiftest pace and lowest cost possible. The new partnership supports the current ongoing efforts undertaken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which all ICAP members agree has a central role in fighting global warming.
Access a release (click here). Access the ICAP Declaration (click here). Access a webcast of the launch event (click here). Access an audio from U.S. Governor's Conference call with U.S. Press (click here, .wav format). Access the ICAP website (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Senate Hearing On Yucca Mountain Repository Licensing Process
Oct 31: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held a hearing entitled, Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository. The hearing included testimony from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Senator John Ensign (R-NV); Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC); the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy; the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA; the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Attorney General for the State of Nevada; the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and the Environmental Working Group. Senators Boxer, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and James Inhofe (R-OK) all delivered opening statements and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) submitted a letter statement to the Committee.
The Yucca Mountain project is nearing a critical stage of the process and DOE testified that it is preparing to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "not later than June 30, 2008." EPA testified that its draft final rule was submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review in December 2006. "We have engaged in productive discussions with other federal agencies about the important and complex issues raised by setting a standard that will protect public health and safety and the environment for up to one million years after the Yucca Mountain repository closes. We look forward to completing those discussions and our analysis of the public comments and issuing the final rule soon."
Senator Boxer said, "My serious concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository date back many years because my state of California will be severely impacted if it is built and put into operation... Billions of taxpayer dollars could be wasted on a proposal that is fatally flawed because it will put millions of people at risk. If Yucca Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste will be transported there from across the Nation."
Senator Inhofe said, "Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security and environmental progress. However, I am concerned that the resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there isn’t sufficient progress toward development of a repository for spent fuel... So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking for authorization to build the repository. Yet there are those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over without the NRC ever even considering the project... To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain, then where are we going to build a repository?... It’s time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."
Senator Clinton said, "I want to start by stating what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors. Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an earthquake registering 6 or more on the Richter scale is likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is the third-most earthquake-prone state in the country after California and Alaska. An even greater potential risk at the site is its history of volcanic activity. As an MIT geologist testified to this committee last year, and I quote: 'Though the likelihood of an explosive volcano erupting directly beneath the repository is remote, the outcome would be devastating, spewing radioactive material directly into the atmosphere...' We do need to find a long-term storage solution for our nation’s nuclear waste. But Yucca Mountain is not the answer. It’s time to step back and take a deep breath."
Indicating that the technical and legal issues could delay the repository for at least another 20 years, Senator Obama indicated in his letter that "I believe it no longer a sustainable Federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered a permanent repository... the time has come for the Federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel... In short the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and its time to start exploring new alternatives... "
Senator Reid testified that, "We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca Mountain."
Senator Ensign testified, "I want to be clear that I am not against nuclear power. I believe that it presents this nation with a viable clean air energy alternative that can help our nation meet its growing needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil... The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is not a responsible solution... On-site dry cask storage is a viable, safe, and secure alternative that is readily available and will allow science and industry the time to catch up... Storing the waste on-site will allow the necessary time to develop a viable reprocessing program using advanced fuel-cycle technologies."
Senator DeMint testified, "While the United States abandoned already built facilities to recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American technology, improved it, and have proven the ability to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries are proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements... my state of South Carolina embraced nuclear energy, and today more than half of the energy produced in my state comes from nuclear... What I find perplexing is that people argue the environmental standards are not strict enough to justify opening Yucca. However, if Yucca cannot meet these standards, then no other location where nuclear waste currently resides can qualify either... Without Yucca, a nuclear renaissance will not occur, and without nuclear energy we will never see significant improvements to our environment. We should not set our nation back even further like the misguided policies of 30 years ago. I applaud President Bush and the administration of every President since Carter for their strong support of Yucca Mountain."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements, letter and a webcast (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
The Yucca Mountain project is nearing a critical stage of the process and DOE testified that it is preparing to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "not later than June 30, 2008." EPA testified that its draft final rule was submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review in December 2006. "We have engaged in productive discussions with other federal agencies about the important and complex issues raised by setting a standard that will protect public health and safety and the environment for up to one million years after the Yucca Mountain repository closes. We look forward to completing those discussions and our analysis of the public comments and issuing the final rule soon."
Senator Boxer said, "My serious concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository date back many years because my state of California will be severely impacted if it is built and put into operation... Billions of taxpayer dollars could be wasted on a proposal that is fatally flawed because it will put millions of people at risk. If Yucca Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste will be transported there from across the Nation."
Senator Inhofe said, "Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security and environmental progress. However, I am concerned that the resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there isn’t sufficient progress toward development of a repository for spent fuel... So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking for authorization to build the repository. Yet there are those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over without the NRC ever even considering the project... To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain, then where are we going to build a repository?... It’s time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."
Senator Clinton said, "I want to start by stating what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors. Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an earthquake registering 6 or more on the Richter scale is likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is the third-most earthquake-prone state in the country after California and Alaska. An even greater potential risk at the site is its history of volcanic activity. As an MIT geologist testified to this committee last year, and I quote: 'Though the likelihood of an explosive volcano erupting directly beneath the repository is remote, the outcome would be devastating, spewing radioactive material directly into the atmosphere...' We do need to find a long-term storage solution for our nation’s nuclear waste. But Yucca Mountain is not the answer. It’s time to step back and take a deep breath."
Indicating that the technical and legal issues could delay the repository for at least another 20 years, Senator Obama indicated in his letter that "I believe it no longer a sustainable Federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered a permanent repository... the time has come for the Federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel... In short the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and its time to start exploring new alternatives... "
Senator Reid testified that, "We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca Mountain."
Senator Ensign testified, "I want to be clear that I am not against nuclear power. I believe that it presents this nation with a viable clean air energy alternative that can help our nation meet its growing needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil... The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is not a responsible solution... On-site dry cask storage is a viable, safe, and secure alternative that is readily available and will allow science and industry the time to catch up... Storing the waste on-site will allow the necessary time to develop a viable reprocessing program using advanced fuel-cycle technologies."
Senator DeMint testified, "While the United States abandoned already built facilities to recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American technology, improved it, and have proven the ability to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries are proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements... my state of South Carolina embraced nuclear energy, and today more than half of the energy produced in my state comes from nuclear... What I find perplexing is that people argue the environmental standards are not strict enough to justify opening Yucca. However, if Yucca cannot meet these standards, then no other location where nuclear waste currently resides can qualify either... Without Yucca, a nuclear renaissance will not occur, and without nuclear energy we will never see significant improvements to our environment. We should not set our nation back even further like the misguided policies of 30 years ago. I applaud President Bush and the administration of every President since Carter for their strong support of Yucca Mountain."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements, letter and a webcast (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
NAS Recommends Scale Back Of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Oct 29: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) says that the research and development component of the U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program that aims to reprocess spent nuclear fuel which could then be shared with partner countries, should not go forward at its current pace. DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, of which GNEP is a part, should instead assign the highest priority to facilitating the startup of new commercial nuclear power plants, a program that is currently falling behind schedule due to funding gaps.
Amid renewed interest in nuclear power, the Office of Nuclear Energy's budget has grown nearly 70 percent since 2003. In light of this growth, the administration's 2006 budget requested that funds be set aside for the Research Council to review and prioritize all of the office's programs, which besides reprocessing and new plant assistance include development of new types of nuclear reactors, the use of nuclear energy to create hydrogen, and the upgrade of facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The purpose of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is to remove materials from the radioactive waste that can be recycled for use at another plant. In the past, the United States has resisted reprocessing because the methods available at the time created a plutonium byproduct that would have increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. But in recent years the Federal government began to reconsider reprocessing as new technologies emerged that could recycle the spent nuclear fuel without separating plutonium. This process is a main technical goal of GNEP; the committee that wrote the report did not review or comment on the international aspects of the partnership.
However, the committee's report -- Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program -- says the "technologies required for achieving GNEP's goals are too early in development to justify DOE's accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities that would use these technologies." DOE claims that the program will save time and money if pursued on the commercial scale, but the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true and found no economic justification. And although a stated goal of the program is to reduce the overall amount of radioactive waste, which would in turn decrease the need for a second geological repository in addition to Yucca Mountain, it was not clear to the committee that such a need currently exists. Moreover, there has been insufficient peer review of the program.
While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so. Two committee members advocated holding DOE's spending on reprocessing research to pre-AFCI levels and that DOE should not develop commercial reprocessing technologies beyond the early laboratory stage. In addition, three other committee members believe a technology not currently being explored by GNEP would be better suited for reprocessing.
The committee said that although the GNEP R&D program should be scaled back, the Office of Nuclear Energy should place greater emphasis on the Nuclear Power 2010 program. Key elements of that program include identifying sites for new nuclear power plants, completing the design engineering of advanced light water reactors, and assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its efforts to grant both construction and operating licenses in one action. The office has focused on many parts of the program, such as finalizing designs, and has established a good working relationship with industry, but overall progress has been slower than expected. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry need to improve the pace of specific licensing reviews for nuclear power plants, avoiding review of previously settled issues and setting a tighter schedule. If nuclear power is indeed going to play an increased role in meeting U.S. energy needs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear Power 2010 needs full funding in all aspects of the program, the committee said. While an increase in funding has been proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget, it would not be enough for the program to meet all of its goals.
Similarly, the committee found that another program of the office, called Generation IV, is unlikely to achieve its goal of a next-generation nuclear power plant in operation by 2017 because of the focus on GNEP. The office's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a program to generate hydrogen using nuclear energy, is dependent on the success of the Generation IV program, so its budget and timetable should reflect this connection according to the report. The committee also reviewed the Idaho National Laboratory, which represents a significant part of the Office of Nuclear Energy's management responsibilities and budget. While the site will provide the office with important capabilities for research and development of nuclear technology, funding for the program is substantially less than what is necessary to upgrade the facilities.
DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Dennis Spurgeon reacted to the NAS report saying, "...the report’s findings related to Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or “GNEP” are based on faulty premises that are inconsistent with the fuel cycle research and development (R&D) program actually being implemented by DOE. The report errantly assumes that DOE has pre-selected the separations technologies to be deployed and the scale of the facilities to be built. A series of critical findings are based on these incorrect premises.
"Furthermore, the Report’s use of the term “GNEP” interchangeably with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program is confusing and, as the Committee’s Chairman has noted to me, in no way reflects criticism of the burgeoning international partnership. Through GNEP, we are taking a leadership role with 16 partner nations that share a common vision for need to expand nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner. This partnership agreed to a Statement of Principles that establishes the goals, amongst other things, of developing mechanisms to support infrastructure development as well as creation of reliable fuel services.”
On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse -- and perhaps surprising -- group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." [See WIMS 6/18/07] GNEP, first announced by President Bush in 2006, is part of his Advanced Energy Initiative. GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of "clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy" to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.
Access a release from NAS/NRC (click here). Access a report brief (click here). Access links to the full report and an extensive 29-page summary (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Amid renewed interest in nuclear power, the Office of Nuclear Energy's budget has grown nearly 70 percent since 2003. In light of this growth, the administration's 2006 budget requested that funds be set aside for the Research Council to review and prioritize all of the office's programs, which besides reprocessing and new plant assistance include development of new types of nuclear reactors, the use of nuclear energy to create hydrogen, and the upgrade of facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The purpose of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is to remove materials from the radioactive waste that can be recycled for use at another plant. In the past, the United States has resisted reprocessing because the methods available at the time created a plutonium byproduct that would have increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. But in recent years the Federal government began to reconsider reprocessing as new technologies emerged that could recycle the spent nuclear fuel without separating plutonium. This process is a main technical goal of GNEP; the committee that wrote the report did not review or comment on the international aspects of the partnership.
However, the committee's report -- Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program -- says the "technologies required for achieving GNEP's goals are too early in development to justify DOE's accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities that would use these technologies." DOE claims that the program will save time and money if pursued on the commercial scale, but the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true and found no economic justification. And although a stated goal of the program is to reduce the overall amount of radioactive waste, which would in turn decrease the need for a second geological repository in addition to Yucca Mountain, it was not clear to the committee that such a need currently exists. Moreover, there has been insufficient peer review of the program.
While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so. Two committee members advocated holding DOE's spending on reprocessing research to pre-AFCI levels and that DOE should not develop commercial reprocessing technologies beyond the early laboratory stage. In addition, three other committee members believe a technology not currently being explored by GNEP would be better suited for reprocessing.
The committee said that although the GNEP R&D program should be scaled back, the Office of Nuclear Energy should place greater emphasis on the Nuclear Power 2010 program. Key elements of that program include identifying sites for new nuclear power plants, completing the design engineering of advanced light water reactors, and assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its efforts to grant both construction and operating licenses in one action. The office has focused on many parts of the program, such as finalizing designs, and has established a good working relationship with industry, but overall progress has been slower than expected. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry need to improve the pace of specific licensing reviews for nuclear power plants, avoiding review of previously settled issues and setting a tighter schedule. If nuclear power is indeed going to play an increased role in meeting U.S. energy needs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear Power 2010 needs full funding in all aspects of the program, the committee said. While an increase in funding has been proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget, it would not be enough for the program to meet all of its goals.
Similarly, the committee found that another program of the office, called Generation IV, is unlikely to achieve its goal of a next-generation nuclear power plant in operation by 2017 because of the focus on GNEP. The office's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a program to generate hydrogen using nuclear energy, is dependent on the success of the Generation IV program, so its budget and timetable should reflect this connection according to the report. The committee also reviewed the Idaho National Laboratory, which represents a significant part of the Office of Nuclear Energy's management responsibilities and budget. While the site will provide the office with important capabilities for research and development of nuclear technology, funding for the program is substantially less than what is necessary to upgrade the facilities.
DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Dennis Spurgeon reacted to the NAS report saying, "...the report’s findings related to Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or “GNEP” are based on faulty premises that are inconsistent with the fuel cycle research and development (R&D) program actually being implemented by DOE. The report errantly assumes that DOE has pre-selected the separations technologies to be deployed and the scale of the facilities to be built. A series of critical findings are based on these incorrect premises.
"Furthermore, the Report’s use of the term “GNEP” interchangeably with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program is confusing and, as the Committee’s Chairman has noted to me, in no way reflects criticism of the burgeoning international partnership. Through GNEP, we are taking a leadership role with 16 partner nations that share a common vision for need to expand nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner. This partnership agreed to a Statement of Principles that establishes the goals, amongst other things, of developing mechanisms to support infrastructure development as well as creation of reliable fuel services.”
On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse -- and perhaps surprising -- group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." [See WIMS 6/18/07] GNEP, first announced by President Bush in 2006, is part of his Advanced Energy Initiative. GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of "clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy" to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.
Access a release from NAS/NRC (click here). Access a report brief (click here). Access links to the full report and an extensive 29-page summary (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
