Sep 16: The U.S. House began heated debate on the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R.6899), sponsored by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) with cosponsors John Dingell (D-MI), George Miller (D-CA) and Gene Green (D-TX). The bill, according to its description is: To advance the national security interests of the United States by reducing its dependency on oil through renewable and clean, alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas industry and the consumers who own those resources and deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other purposes.
Much of the early debate was on a point of order over a provision that would provide $1.2 billion non-energy related benefit solely to New York City. Republicans argued that the provision was clearly an "earmark" benefiting only on location. Republicans also complained that the bill was not available until late last evening and has not been reviewed by any House Committee. Republicans said "no body expects this bill to become law." Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said "enough is enough. . . We have no opportunity to bring forth our alternative American Energy Act. . . " He said the Democrats' bill is "nothing but a hoax on the American people."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a release entitled, "America - It's Time For An Oil Change." Pelosi said, "Today, the House will consider the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 6899. The legislation is a bold step forward, helping end our dependence on foreign oil and increase our national security. It launches a clean renewable energy future that creates new American jobs, expands domestic energy supply--including new offshore drilling, and invents and builds more efficient vehicles, buildings, homes, and infrastructure. It will lower costs to consumers and protect the interests of taxpayers. It is a comprehensive strategy, and the product of bipartisan compromise. It offers Republicans who want a comprehensive approach the choice to make sure Big Oil pays its fair share."
According to Pelosi's release and explanation of the bill it would provide for: Royalty Reform: Making Oil Companies Pay Their Fair Share for Drilling on Public Lands; Repeal of Tax Subsidies for the Big 5; Releasing Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; Mineral Management Service Ethics Reform; Investing in Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Home Heating Assistance (LIHEAP), Paid for by Making Oil Companies Pay their Fair Share for Drilling on Public Lands (98/99 leases); Electricity from Clean Renewable Sources; Renewable Biomass; Responsible Compromise on Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf; Require Oil Companies to Drill on the 68 Million Acres of Federal Lands They Already Control; Increase Domestic Oil Production in Alaska; Promote Natural Gas, E-85 Infrastructure; Carbon Capture & Sequestration; Oil Shale Development With State Approval; Strengthen Energy Efficiency in Buildings to Bring Down Costs; Incentives for Energy Efficient Homes; and Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act.
Access legislative details for H.R. 6899, including a link to the text of the legislation (click here). Access the House Floor votes as they occur (click here). Access a lengthy release from Speaker Pelosi including further explanation of the above highlights and a graphic to explain the offshore drilling provision (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Senate Leaders Speak Out At Energy Summit
Sep 12: At the Senate-Wide Energy Summit [See WIMS 9/11/08, & 9/12/08], both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed their views on energy issues which will guide their parties in upcoming votes on energy bills expected very soon, perhaps this week.
Senate Majority Leader Reid said, “We have seen two diverging trends in the energy debate – one very encouraging, one less helpful. On one side, as the fall campaign heats up, we have seen energy move into a more partisan realm, with candidates looking to score points with sound bites that solve nothing. But on the other side, we are seeing an increasing consensus that when all the political dust settles, our energy challenges cannot fall victim to partisan bickering. “We see this encouraging trend toward bipartisanship in the Gang of 22 [outgrowth of the Gang of 10]. . .
"I think it’s important we all agree that a problem as big as this requires comprehensive solutions. In all the places where truth counts more than slogans, it is agreed that there is no single ‘magic bullet.’ We need to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels. We can conserve energy painlessly and cost-effectively by improving efficiency in household appliances and the ways we build new buildings. We also need to demand and expect better fuel efficiency from our automobiles. . . one part of the solution is the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentives Program.
“We need to hasten our transition away from oil. That means incentivizing the production of home-grown renewable alternatives. We also need to bring prices down for the oil we use. That means going after any speculator, price gouger or oil-producing nation who game or cheat the system and leave American consumers paying the bill. . . The transition from the fossil fuels of old to the renewable fuels of tomorrow can create jobs, protect our national security and cleanse our environment. . . "
Minority Leader McConnell said, "Republicans, I assure you, are open to any reasonable suggestion that will lead to a concrete, meaningful result. And it is with this in mind that Republicans have already coalesced around a simple and straightforward principle that we believe could and should form the basis of bipartisan legislation on this issue: we need to both find more American energy and use less.
“We know that we can ' find more ' domestic energy by means of deep sea exploration off our coasts and by developing Western oil shale deposits which, according to conservative estimates, represent at least 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. . . But it must be said at the outset that conservation alone is clearly insufficient. While all of us may envision a future in which America does not run on fossil fuels, this is not today’s reality. Nor will it be for many years to come. We need to be realistic and recognize that -- in the near term -- we will still need more oil and gas. And I believe that this oil and gas should come from America’s own ample domestic reserves -- not from the Middle East. We cannot, and should not, ask people like rural Kentuckians to assume the burden of this transition when we have enormous energy reserves under our own feet, reserves that the government has made increasingly difficult to tap. . .
“The American people are demanding that Congress do something to alleviate high gas prices, and to do something significant. Some of the proposals we have heard from the other side make an effort. But, by and large, they fall seriously short. They either ignore the need for increased domestic supply, or they’re disproportionally meager in light of the severity of the crisis. . . We have the resources. Americans want us to use them. And they are exactly right. . ."
Access the complete statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator McConnell (click here). Access the Summit meeting website for links to all testimony and link to a 5 hour and 20 minute webcast (click here, testimony should be posted soon). [*Energy]
Senate Majority Leader Reid said, “We have seen two diverging trends in the energy debate – one very encouraging, one less helpful. On one side, as the fall campaign heats up, we have seen energy move into a more partisan realm, with candidates looking to score points with sound bites that solve nothing. But on the other side, we are seeing an increasing consensus that when all the political dust settles, our energy challenges cannot fall victim to partisan bickering. “We see this encouraging trend toward bipartisanship in the Gang of 22 [outgrowth of the Gang of 10]. . .
"I think it’s important we all agree that a problem as big as this requires comprehensive solutions. In all the places where truth counts more than slogans, it is agreed that there is no single ‘magic bullet.’ We need to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels. We can conserve energy painlessly and cost-effectively by improving efficiency in household appliances and the ways we build new buildings. We also need to demand and expect better fuel efficiency from our automobiles. . . one part of the solution is the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentives Program.
“We need to hasten our transition away from oil. That means incentivizing the production of home-grown renewable alternatives. We also need to bring prices down for the oil we use. That means going after any speculator, price gouger or oil-producing nation who game or cheat the system and leave American consumers paying the bill. . . The transition from the fossil fuels of old to the renewable fuels of tomorrow can create jobs, protect our national security and cleanse our environment. . . "
Minority Leader McConnell said, "Republicans, I assure you, are open to any reasonable suggestion that will lead to a concrete, meaningful result. And it is with this in mind that Republicans have already coalesced around a simple and straightforward principle that we believe could and should form the basis of bipartisan legislation on this issue: we need to both find more American energy and use less.
“We know that we can ' find more ' domestic energy by means of deep sea exploration off our coasts and by developing Western oil shale deposits which, according to conservative estimates, represent at least 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. . . But it must be said at the outset that conservation alone is clearly insufficient. While all of us may envision a future in which America does not run on fossil fuels, this is not today’s reality. Nor will it be for many years to come. We need to be realistic and recognize that -- in the near term -- we will still need more oil and gas. And I believe that this oil and gas should come from America’s own ample domestic reserves -- not from the Middle East. We cannot, and should not, ask people like rural Kentuckians to assume the burden of this transition when we have enormous energy reserves under our own feet, reserves that the government has made increasingly difficult to tap. . .
“The American people are demanding that Congress do something to alleviate high gas prices, and to do something significant. Some of the proposals we have heard from the other side make an effort. But, by and large, they fall seriously short. They either ignore the need for increased domestic supply, or they’re disproportionally meager in light of the severity of the crisis. . . We have the resources. Americans want us to use them. And they are exactly right. . ."
Access the complete statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator McConnell (click here). Access the Summit meeting website for links to all testimony and link to a 5 hour and 20 minute webcast (click here, testimony should be posted soon). [*Energy]
Friday, September 12, 2008
EDF Launches Carbon Offset Purchase Website
Sep 10: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) announced the launch of CarbonOffsetList.org, which they say will help bring transparency to the fast-growing voluntary carbon offset market to combat climate change. The website is a first-of-its-kind online resource that will help businesses and consumers identify and purchase carbon offsets that represent real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon offsets allow buyers to offset, or neutralize, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) produced from their own activities by funding projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere.
Developed through a rigorous review process in collaboration with a committee of external experts in the fields of science and policy, the website identifies 11 pre-screened, independently verified offset projects that meet EDF's criteria for high-quality carbon offsets. EDF's evaluation focused on the environmental integrity of the projects and whether projects could show verifiable and measurable proof of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The approach focused on finding high-quality emissions reductions regardless of project type, technology or supplier.
Thomas Murray, managing director of corporate partnerships for EDF said, “Companies increasingly see the value in incorporating carbon offsets into their overall climate action strategies, but until now, buyers had to do their own homework to determine which projects were most credible. CarbonOffsetList.org eliminates the guesswork and offers buyers direct access to a list of thoroughly vetted projects that meet EDF's high-quality criteria.” In response to numerous inquiries from companies seeking guidance on using carbon offsets as part of a comprehensive sustainability strategy, EDF developed the current list through a request-for-proposal and project-by-project review process. In order to be considered for inclusion, providers submitted project documentation for review, including project design documents and third-party verification reports. CarbonOffsetList.org features 11 emissions reduction projects ranging from capturing and destroying methane from landfills and dairy farms to reducing emissions at truck stops across the country.
They EDF-approved projects and their sponsors include: (1) Greater New Bedford LFG Utilization, Dartmouth, MA, offered by CommonWealth Resource Management Corp. and Carbonfund.org; (2) North Country LFG Utilization, Bethlehem, NH, offered by CommonWealth Resource Management Corp.; (3) Development Authority of the North Country Solid Waste Management Facility, Rodman, NY, offered by Carbonfund.org; (4) Upper Rock Island Landfill, East Moline, IL, offered by Renewable Choice Energy (5) Newton-McDonald landfill, Neosho, MO, offered by 3Degrees; (6) Greater Lebanon Refuse Authority Landfill, Lebanon, PA, offered by Terrapass; (7) Greenville County Landfill, Greer, SC, offered by Sterling Planet; (8) Inland Empire Dairy Methane, Chino, CA, offered by Carbonfund.org; (9) IdleAire Technologies Corporation Advanced Truckstop Electrification, Nationwide, offered by Carbonfund.org; (10) IGRS landfill, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, offered by GreenLife; and (11) Irani Wastewater Methane, Santa Catarina, Brazil, offered by EcoSecurities.
EDF said it expects this list to continue to grow as additional information about the projects under consideration is received. EDF received more than 70 project proposals from dozens of suppliers, with a wide ranging diversity of project types and approaches. EDF said it has no financial interest in any of the featured projects on CarbonOffsetList.org, gets no benefit from transactions initiated at the site and accepts no funding from corporate partners.
Access a release from EDF with links to further details (click here). Access the CarbonOffsetList.org website (click here) [*Climate]
Developed through a rigorous review process in collaboration with a committee of external experts in the fields of science and policy, the website identifies 11 pre-screened, independently verified offset projects that meet EDF's criteria for high-quality carbon offsets. EDF's evaluation focused on the environmental integrity of the projects and whether projects could show verifiable and measurable proof of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The approach focused on finding high-quality emissions reductions regardless of project type, technology or supplier.
Thomas Murray, managing director of corporate partnerships for EDF said, “Companies increasingly see the value in incorporating carbon offsets into their overall climate action strategies, but until now, buyers had to do their own homework to determine which projects were most credible. CarbonOffsetList.org eliminates the guesswork and offers buyers direct access to a list of thoroughly vetted projects that meet EDF's high-quality criteria.” In response to numerous inquiries from companies seeking guidance on using carbon offsets as part of a comprehensive sustainability strategy, EDF developed the current list through a request-for-proposal and project-by-project review process. In order to be considered for inclusion, providers submitted project documentation for review, including project design documents and third-party verification reports. CarbonOffsetList.org features 11 emissions reduction projects ranging from capturing and destroying methane from landfills and dairy farms to reducing emissions at truck stops across the country.
They EDF-approved projects and their sponsors include: (1) Greater New Bedford LFG Utilization, Dartmouth, MA, offered by CommonWealth Resource Management Corp. and Carbonfund.org; (2) North Country LFG Utilization, Bethlehem, NH, offered by CommonWealth Resource Management Corp.; (3) Development Authority of the North Country Solid Waste Management Facility, Rodman, NY, offered by Carbonfund.org; (4) Upper Rock Island Landfill, East Moline, IL, offered by Renewable Choice Energy (5) Newton-McDonald landfill, Neosho, MO, offered by 3Degrees; (6) Greater Lebanon Refuse Authority Landfill, Lebanon, PA, offered by Terrapass; (7) Greenville County Landfill, Greer, SC, offered by Sterling Planet; (8) Inland Empire Dairy Methane, Chino, CA, offered by Carbonfund.org; (9) IdleAire Technologies Corporation Advanced Truckstop Electrification, Nationwide, offered by Carbonfund.org; (10) IGRS landfill, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, offered by GreenLife; and (11) Irani Wastewater Methane, Santa Catarina, Brazil, offered by EcoSecurities.
EDF said it expects this list to continue to grow as additional information about the projects under consideration is received. EDF received more than 70 project proposals from dozens of suppliers, with a wide ranging diversity of project types and approaches. EDF said it has no financial interest in any of the featured projects on CarbonOffsetList.org, gets no benefit from transactions initiated at the site and accepts no funding from corporate partners.
Access a release from EDF with links to further details (click here). Access the CarbonOffsetList.org website (click here) [*Climate]
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Senate-Wide Energy Summit & Upcoming Vote
Sep 11: As the House prepares for an energy vote showdown between Republicans and Democrats [See WIMS 9/10/08], the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), will host an all-day summit (Friday, September 12) to facilitate the development of comprehensive legislation to address America’s many energy challenges. The "Senate-wide meeting," from 9:30 AM until 3:30 PM, will feature two panels of witnesses that include energy analysts, academics and corporate leaders, all of whom will offer recommendations on how our country can achieve a more secure, reliable, sustainable and affordable energy future. All 100 Senators will be invited to participate. The discussion, in Dirksen G50, also is open to the public and the press. [Note: The House has now decided to put off the energy vote until next week, as many members are leaving to deal with Hurricane Ike].
Senator Bingaman said, “This critical discussion will provide a broad spectrum of views on how to tackle the difficult energy challenges confronting our nation, including economic security, national security, global warming and ending our addiction to oil. It will be an excellent opportunity for Senators to listen, learn and contribute firsthand to this important and timely conversation.”
Committee Ranking Member, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) said, “I’m pleased to join Senator Bingaman in welcoming our fellow Senators as well as experts from the private sector to provide their views on how best to address our many energy challenges. We have assembled a diverse panel that will bring many different perspectives to this debate. I look forward to a free-wheeling discussion that will bring about greater understanding of the issues confronting us and the best ways to address them.”
In advance of the meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying, “We will continue our efforts to pass comprehensive legislation to address our energy challenges. I am encouraged by the work of what started as the Gang of 10 [See WIMS 8/1/08], and has now expanded to the Gang of 16, and perhaps a gang of many more by the time this process has concluded. Next week, following Friday’s energy summit, we expect to vote on several comprehensive energy bills. . ." Senator Reid listed the: (1) The Bingaman-Baucus amendment, which opens up new areas of the Outer Continental shelf to drilling, including parts of the eastern Gulf of Mexico; (2) The Gang of 16 bill, which, similar to the Bingaman/Baucus amendment, opens up the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling, as well as other areas off the coasts of the Southeastern states at those states request; and, (3) Reid said, "we are open to a vote on the Republican amendment -- S.amdt 5108 -- that Senator McConnell filed to the speculation bill. This amendment opens up all coastal areas to drilling at the states’ requests, except for the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which stays closed until 2022. It also closes the London loophole and requires index trader and swaps dealers to report their energy-commodity transactions."
Reid concluded his discussion of the energy issue saying, "It should be clear to all that we are offering Republicans multiple opportunities to vote for increased drilling, which they have chosen to make their marquee legislative priority and campaign issue. We offered votes on drilling before the August recess, and Republicans rejected our offers. This time, I hope Republicans will put their votes where their mouths are to pass comprehensive legislation that includes drilling."
In the meantime, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced further details on the Democrats energy bill which will be voted on next week. The bill reportedly includes major new concessions on offshore oil drilling (See link below). Reportedly, the bill would give states control over drilling between 50 and 100 miles offshore and open lift the Federal ban on areas more than 100 miles from the coast for oil exploration.
Access a release from Senator Bingaman listing the Panel members for the Energy Summit (click here). Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access a transcript of a lengthy interview with Majority Leader Hoyer on the House energy bill (click here). Access a Reuters report on the House energy bill (click here). [*Energy]
Senator Bingaman said, “This critical discussion will provide a broad spectrum of views on how to tackle the difficult energy challenges confronting our nation, including economic security, national security, global warming and ending our addiction to oil. It will be an excellent opportunity for Senators to listen, learn and contribute firsthand to this important and timely conversation.”
Committee Ranking Member, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) said, “I’m pleased to join Senator Bingaman in welcoming our fellow Senators as well as experts from the private sector to provide their views on how best to address our many energy challenges. We have assembled a diverse panel that will bring many different perspectives to this debate. I look forward to a free-wheeling discussion that will bring about greater understanding of the issues confronting us and the best ways to address them.”
In advance of the meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying, “We will continue our efforts to pass comprehensive legislation to address our energy challenges. I am encouraged by the work of what started as the Gang of 10 [See WIMS 8/1/08], and has now expanded to the Gang of 16, and perhaps a gang of many more by the time this process has concluded. Next week, following Friday’s energy summit, we expect to vote on several comprehensive energy bills. . ." Senator Reid listed the: (1) The Bingaman-Baucus amendment, which opens up new areas of the Outer Continental shelf to drilling, including parts of the eastern Gulf of Mexico; (2) The Gang of 16 bill, which, similar to the Bingaman/Baucus amendment, opens up the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling, as well as other areas off the coasts of the Southeastern states at those states request; and, (3) Reid said, "we are open to a vote on the Republican amendment -- S.amdt 5108 -- that Senator McConnell filed to the speculation bill. This amendment opens up all coastal areas to drilling at the states’ requests, except for the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which stays closed until 2022. It also closes the London loophole and requires index trader and swaps dealers to report their energy-commodity transactions."
Reid concluded his discussion of the energy issue saying, "It should be clear to all that we are offering Republicans multiple opportunities to vote for increased drilling, which they have chosen to make their marquee legislative priority and campaign issue. We offered votes on drilling before the August recess, and Republicans rejected our offers. This time, I hope Republicans will put their votes where their mouths are to pass comprehensive legislation that includes drilling."
In the meantime, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced further details on the Democrats energy bill which will be voted on next week. The bill reportedly includes major new concessions on offshore oil drilling (See link below). Reportedly, the bill would give states control over drilling between 50 and 100 miles offshore and open lift the Federal ban on areas more than 100 miles from the coast for oil exploration.
Access a release from Senator Bingaman listing the Panel members for the Energy Summit (click here). Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access a transcript of a lengthy interview with Majority Leader Hoyer on the House energy bill (click here). Access a Reuters report on the House energy bill (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
House Dems Set Stage For Energy Bill Showdown This Week
Sep 9: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders held a news conference to discuss the comprehensive energy bill to be introduced this week. While details are sparse, it seems that the bill would draw on previous Democratic proposals contained in various bills. One "compromise" appears to be drawn from early efforts of Representative Gene Green (D-TX), leader of an informal group of some 15 Democrats representing energy-producing districts, who proposed the Long-term Energy Assurance and Security Enhancement Act of 2008 (LEASE Act) at the end of July. Some of the legislation would also come from the energy legislation, The National Conservation, Environment and Energy Independence Act (H.R. 6709), led by Representatives Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and John Peterson (R-PA) with 109 cosponsors proposed in early August [See WIMS 8/8/08]. That bill provided for offshore and onshore leasing and other energy provisions.
Reportedly the new proposal would allow "environmentally responsible oil and gas drilling," with state approval in nearshore areas off some East Coast states and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the package is expected to include the repeal of tax breaks for oil companies, incentives for natural-gas vehicles, a national renewable portfolio standard and renewable energy incentives.
Speaker Pelosi said, “This week, the House will vote on comprehensive energy legislation that is a result of a reasonable compromise. I am very proud of our Caucus and how we are coming together on this. It will put us on the path toward energy independence by expanding domestic supply. It will protect consumers and taxpayers with strong action to lower the price of the pump and end taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil. It will ensure a clean green future through energy efficiency and conservation, and it will commit America to renewable energy and help create millions of good paying green jobs. It will put us on that path to make America energy independent of foreign oil within a decade. That was a goal of President Nixon in 1970. It wasn’t fulfilled then; it will be fulfilled now.
“This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of serious compromising among Democrats to bring down gas prices now and invest in a renewable future. Republicans must set aside their ‘drill only’ policy; even their own supporters have said we cannot drill ourselves out of this emergency situation. It will come down to this when it comes to energy. Whose side are you on? The side of the American consumer and the taxpayer, or Big Oil?
“If they want to drill offshore we say, ‘Okay, if you want to drill on the outer continental shelf, let’s have a discussion and a change of the relationship between our oil, which is owned by the American people, the desire of Big Oil for us to subsidize their drilling, and us not to, the American people not getting the benefit of the profits.’ So more drilling, no subsidies, and we want our royalties, in order to pay for investments in renewable energy resources, make a strong commitment to LIHEAP and the land and conservation fund, something like that.
“And if you oppose that, what are you saying? ‘I’m for drilling and for subsidized Big Oil and I want all of the profits to go to Big Oil, and I don’t want to visit this relationship of getting the funds that we are owed from the royalties of holidays in the late 90s.’ “It’s pretty exciting because we’re at a crucial place in our energy future and this decision will be an important one, and we want the American people to see the distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans on this. Do you want to drill now on the continental shelf? We want our royalties. No more subsidies for you. We want those subsidies and those royalties for LIHEAP, for renewable energy resources, for a better energy future for our country.”
House Republicans responded immediately. House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) issued a statement saying "published reports indicated that Democrats’ latest “energy” plan will attempt to offer up a sliver of America’s deep-ocean energy supply in exchange for imposing billions in new taxes, new mandates designed to push electricity rates to historic highs, and permanently locking away nearly 80 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf."
He said, “Having failed to earn support for their previous four energy bills this year, many of us had hoped that Democrats would return from their five-week-long recess ready to work on meaningful energy legislation, and willing to consider an ‘all of the above’ approach to lowering prices at the pump. Unfortunately, what we know of the plan right now suggests it’s just more of the same from this Democratic majority -- written for the specific purpose of allowing those who oppose responsible energy development a chance to say that they support it, confident that no such development will ever take place. In fact, this package would permanently put 80 percent of our offshore resources under lock and key. That’s hardly the kind of comprehensive approach to crafting real energy solutions that the American people are demanding.
"Add in the prospect of billions in new taxes, the resurrection of their discredited ‘Use It or Lose It’ bill, and an unfunded mandate that will cost millions of American families billions in higher electricity rates, and it’s clear this majority’s position on energy remains ‘less is more.’ Regrettably, very little of it will do very much to bring down the price of gas, diesel or electricity – today, tomorrow or in the future.”
Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) in a speech on the House Floor said, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi, you can turn off the lights on the House floor and shut off the mics, but you cannot silence the voice of millions of Americans who say with increasing clarity, ‘Give us all of the above: conservation, alternative energy, fuel efficiency, and drill more, drill here, drill now!’ House Democrats should heed the overwhelming majority of the American people who want this Congress to take immediate action to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, come together and allow the pro-drilling bipartisan majority a fair and open debate on the American Energy Act." [See WIMS 8/13/08, (H.R. 6566)].
Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Representative Blunt (click here). Access a release from Representative Pence (click here). Access an earlier release on the LEASE Act (click here). Access links to various media reports (click here). [*Energy]
Reportedly the new proposal would allow "environmentally responsible oil and gas drilling," with state approval in nearshore areas off some East Coast states and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the package is expected to include the repeal of tax breaks for oil companies, incentives for natural-gas vehicles, a national renewable portfolio standard and renewable energy incentives.
Speaker Pelosi said, “This week, the House will vote on comprehensive energy legislation that is a result of a reasonable compromise. I am very proud of our Caucus and how we are coming together on this. It will put us on the path toward energy independence by expanding domestic supply. It will protect consumers and taxpayers with strong action to lower the price of the pump and end taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil. It will ensure a clean green future through energy efficiency and conservation, and it will commit America to renewable energy and help create millions of good paying green jobs. It will put us on that path to make America energy independent of foreign oil within a decade. That was a goal of President Nixon in 1970. It wasn’t fulfilled then; it will be fulfilled now.
“This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of serious compromising among Democrats to bring down gas prices now and invest in a renewable future. Republicans must set aside their ‘drill only’ policy; even their own supporters have said we cannot drill ourselves out of this emergency situation. It will come down to this when it comes to energy. Whose side are you on? The side of the American consumer and the taxpayer, or Big Oil?
“If they want to drill offshore we say, ‘Okay, if you want to drill on the outer continental shelf, let’s have a discussion and a change of the relationship between our oil, which is owned by the American people, the desire of Big Oil for us to subsidize their drilling, and us not to, the American people not getting the benefit of the profits.’ So more drilling, no subsidies, and we want our royalties, in order to pay for investments in renewable energy resources, make a strong commitment to LIHEAP and the land and conservation fund, something like that.
“And if you oppose that, what are you saying? ‘I’m for drilling and for subsidized Big Oil and I want all of the profits to go to Big Oil, and I don’t want to visit this relationship of getting the funds that we are owed from the royalties of holidays in the late 90s.’ “It’s pretty exciting because we’re at a crucial place in our energy future and this decision will be an important one, and we want the American people to see the distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans on this. Do you want to drill now on the continental shelf? We want our royalties. No more subsidies for you. We want those subsidies and those royalties for LIHEAP, for renewable energy resources, for a better energy future for our country.”
House Republicans responded immediately. House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) issued a statement saying "published reports indicated that Democrats’ latest “energy” plan will attempt to offer up a sliver of America’s deep-ocean energy supply in exchange for imposing billions in new taxes, new mandates designed to push electricity rates to historic highs, and permanently locking away nearly 80 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf."
He said, “Having failed to earn support for their previous four energy bills this year, many of us had hoped that Democrats would return from their five-week-long recess ready to work on meaningful energy legislation, and willing to consider an ‘all of the above’ approach to lowering prices at the pump. Unfortunately, what we know of the plan right now suggests it’s just more of the same from this Democratic majority -- written for the specific purpose of allowing those who oppose responsible energy development a chance to say that they support it, confident that no such development will ever take place. In fact, this package would permanently put 80 percent of our offshore resources under lock and key. That’s hardly the kind of comprehensive approach to crafting real energy solutions that the American people are demanding.
"Add in the prospect of billions in new taxes, the resurrection of their discredited ‘Use It or Lose It’ bill, and an unfunded mandate that will cost millions of American families billions in higher electricity rates, and it’s clear this majority’s position on energy remains ‘less is more.’ Regrettably, very little of it will do very much to bring down the price of gas, diesel or electricity – today, tomorrow or in the future.”
Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) in a speech on the House Floor said, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi, you can turn off the lights on the House floor and shut off the mics, but you cannot silence the voice of millions of Americans who say with increasing clarity, ‘Give us all of the above: conservation, alternative energy, fuel efficiency, and drill more, drill here, drill now!’ House Democrats should heed the overwhelming majority of the American people who want this Congress to take immediate action to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, come together and allow the pro-drilling bipartisan majority a fair and open debate on the American Energy Act." [See WIMS 8/13/08, (H.R. 6566)].
Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Representative Blunt (click here). Access a release from Representative Pence (click here). Access an earlier release on the LEASE Act (click here). Access links to various media reports (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Yucca Mountain Application Docketed - Triggers 3-Year+ Review
Sep 8: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has formally docketed the Department of Energy’s license application for the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. The Agency staff has also recommended that the Commission adopt, with further supplementation, DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement for the repository project. The decision to docket the application follows the NRC staff’s determination that the application, submitted June 3 [See WIMS 6/3/08], is sufficiently complete for the staff to begin its full technical review. Docketing the application does not indicate whether the Commission will approve or reject the construction authorization for the repository, nor does it preclude the Commission or the agency staff from requesting additional information from DOE during the course of its comprehensive technical review.
Docketing the application triggers a three-year deadline, with a possible one-year extension, set by Congress for the NRC to decide whether to grant a construction authorization. NRC officials have stated that meeting this deadline is contingent on the agency receiving sufficient resources from Congress. After reviewing DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement and its supplements, the NRC staff determined that it would be practicable for the Agency to adopt the DOE report. However, the staff is requesting that DOE supplement some aspects of its groundwater analyses. A notice of docketing will be published soon in the Federal Register. A subsequent Federal Register notice will provide an opportunity for interested parties to seek an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding the NRC’s adoption of the Environmental Impact Statement or the substance of the license application.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel Bodman said, “This is a significant step forward in solving the nation’s problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste currently sitting at 121 temporary locations in 39 states across the country. I am confident the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rigorous review process will validate that the Yucca Mountain repository will safely store this waste in a manner that is most protective of human health and the environment. As energy demand in the United States grows, the expansion of commercial nuclear power will be the key to providing the large amounts of emissions-free base load power we need, and the establishment of the Yucca Mountain repository is an important step toward enabling that expansion to occur.”
Access a release from NRC (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). Access complete information on the Yucca application including links to all detailed documents (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear]
Docketing the application triggers a three-year deadline, with a possible one-year extension, set by Congress for the NRC to decide whether to grant a construction authorization. NRC officials have stated that meeting this deadline is contingent on the agency receiving sufficient resources from Congress. After reviewing DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement and its supplements, the NRC staff determined that it would be practicable for the Agency to adopt the DOE report. However, the staff is requesting that DOE supplement some aspects of its groundwater analyses. A notice of docketing will be published soon in the Federal Register. A subsequent Federal Register notice will provide an opportunity for interested parties to seek an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding the NRC’s adoption of the Environmental Impact Statement or the substance of the license application.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel Bodman said, “This is a significant step forward in solving the nation’s problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste currently sitting at 121 temporary locations in 39 states across the country. I am confident the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rigorous review process will validate that the Yucca Mountain repository will safely store this waste in a manner that is most protective of human health and the environment. As energy demand in the United States grows, the expansion of commercial nuclear power will be the key to providing the large amounts of emissions-free base load power we need, and the establishment of the Yucca Mountain repository is an important step toward enabling that expansion to occur.”
Access a release from NRC (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). Access complete information on the Yucca application including links to all detailed documents (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear]
Monday, September 08, 2008
Everyone Blames Everyone Else For Highway Trust Fund Shortfall
Sep 5: U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters directed the Federal Highway Administration to take immediate steps to protect the solvency of the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and called on Congress to act quickly to finally address this long-predicted problem. The Administration said that the HTF "fix" was needed because "Congress ignored three years' worth of warnings." Secretary Peters said, “Time and again, the President has warned Congress of the pending shortfall and submitted fiscally prudent budgets to close the gap. Americans cannot afford to have Congress play ‘kick the can’ with highway funding for another year, another month, or frankly, another week.”
Peters called on Congress to provide immediate short-term relief by passing pending legislation, already approved by the House of Representatives, that would make an additional $8 billion available for the highway trust fund. She urged Congress, however, to avoid adding pet projects, new earmarks or unrelated provisions on the “must pass” legislation and to get the bill done by the end of next week (week of September 8). She added that the recent and sudden decline in American driving and the resulting decline in gas tax revenue during the summer had accelerated the predicted shortfall.
The Secretary said that, in order to allow for continued highway payments to states while Congress acts, the Federal government would begin making reimbursements to states on a weekly basis starting this week. In addition, she said the agency would make funds available on a pro-rated basis. For example, if there are only enough funds to cover 80 percent of requests, the highway agency will pay only 80 percent of each.
In July, the Administration opposed the House Trust Fund legislation, in part because the $8 billion would come from the government’s general fund. However, the recent decline in Federal gas tax revenue requires immediate action on legislation that has already passed the House to ensure states are not adversely affected. Peters said, “Taking money from other pressing national priorities to plug a hole caused by poor fiscal discipline sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent." She added, though, that “states are working hard to keep the nation’s bridges and roads in good repair and deserve better than IOUs from Congress.”
The Secretary said it was time to fundamentally reform the nation’s "scattered approach to transportation." She said, "Congress should do away with billions in annual earmarks and consolidate the over 100 special niche programs that require states to slice and dice federal transportation funds to do things like build museums and restore lighthouses." She noted that the Administration issued a comprehensive transportation reform proposal along those lines several weeks ago. To avoid future shortfalls, the Secretary said it was time to "embrace new funding mechanisms that respond to today’s transportation challenges and are in keeping with national energy policies." She said, "The current approach may have made sense 50 years ago, but it is ineffective and unsustainable when we are trying to reduce congestion and encouraging Americans to embrace more fuel-efficient cars.”
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a brief statement regarding the Bush Administration's announcement that the Highway Trust Fund could begin to run out of money as early as this week. Senator Boxer said, "Today the Bush Administration has finally stopped denying there is a dangerous shortfall in the federal fund that helps states pay for critical highway construction. Three times the Senate has brought up legislation to restore money to the Highway Trust Fund and protect millions of construction jobs, but Republicans have put up roadblocks and filibusters over and over again. It's time that Republican opponents to action move out of the way so we can solve this transportation crisis now."
During the week of September 2, Senator Boxer held a series of field hearing to discuss the next authorization of the Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs. This legislation will impact all Americans because it sets the policy and provides funding for surface transportation nationwide. She said the current authorization bill will expire on September 30, 2009, and she is leading the effort to develop the new transportation bill. The Committee has already begun the authorization process by holding several hearings in Washington, DC and will continue to hold hearings, meetings, and listening sessions to make sure all points of view are considered.
She said she has been working to develop a set of principles for the next bill including: Maintaining the National character of the interstate and federal highway system; Efficient movement of people and goods (including intermodal); Safety (including condition and design of infrastructure); Reducing congestion and its impacts; Sustainable funding (Trust Fund Including Alternatives); Consolidating programs substantially to refocus the program; and Establishing funding and performance criteria. She said the principals are reflected in the title for the bill, "MAP 21" (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century). She said, "One of my primary goals for this bill is to improve air quality." Another challenge, she indicated that must be addressed in the next bill is that the Highway Trust Fund, which funds the legislation primarily through gas tax receipts, and which is expected to run out of funding before the end of the 2009.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, also commented on the announcement by the Department of Transportation that the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is not going to be able to fully meet its obligations to the states. Previously, DOT had estimated it would remain solvent until next summer. Tax receipts have been dropping precipitously in recent months due largely to high gas prices. Senator Inhofe said, "Gas receipts have been declining because the Democratic opposition to drilling for more oil has caused prices to rise." The Administration indicated their support for quick passage of legislation to restore $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Inhofe indicated, "Today the Department of Transportation announced that the HTF will be unable to fully meet its obligations beginning this month. While this announcement came well before anyone expected, we have been working on a solution to this problem for the quite some time. The solution I have been advocating for, an immediate restoration of $8 billion transfer that had been taken from the Highway Trust Fund in 1998, will ensure the states receive the money promised to them. This short term fix enjoys overwhelming support in the Senate, has already passed the House, and now has the support of the White House. With just three weeks left until Congress adjourns, we need to make this fix happen next week (week of September 8). I will continue to lead the effort in the Senate to make that happen.”
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Chaired by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) issued a statement saying, "In July, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6532, the Highway Trust Fund Restoration Act, to address the impending shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, by a bipartisan vote of 387-37. The bill restores $8.017 billion in motor vehicle user-fee revenues to the Trust Fund. Despite the overwhelming House vote in support of this legislation, the Administration threatened to veto it. Today [September 5], the Secretary of Transportation recognized the dire circumstances of the Highway Trust Fund, and reversed the Administration’s irresponsible opposition to restoring these user fee revenues. The Trust Fund is approaching a zero balance and, beginning next week, the Federal Government will be unable to pay all of the bills submitted by the States for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. The Federal Government will be required to begin paying interest on unpaid bills."
Access a lengthy release from DOT that outlines immediate steps to address the shortfall (click here). Access two releases from Senator Boxer (click here); and (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access Chairman Oberstar's Floor Statement on passage of H.R. 6532 (click here). Access the Dear Colleague letter on H.R. 6532 from Oberstar, et al (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6532 (click here). [*Transport]
Peters called on Congress to provide immediate short-term relief by passing pending legislation, already approved by the House of Representatives, that would make an additional $8 billion available for the highway trust fund. She urged Congress, however, to avoid adding pet projects, new earmarks or unrelated provisions on the “must pass” legislation and to get the bill done by the end of next week (week of September 8). She added that the recent and sudden decline in American driving and the resulting decline in gas tax revenue during the summer had accelerated the predicted shortfall.
The Secretary said that, in order to allow for continued highway payments to states while Congress acts, the Federal government would begin making reimbursements to states on a weekly basis starting this week. In addition, she said the agency would make funds available on a pro-rated basis. For example, if there are only enough funds to cover 80 percent of requests, the highway agency will pay only 80 percent of each.
In July, the Administration opposed the House Trust Fund legislation, in part because the $8 billion would come from the government’s general fund. However, the recent decline in Federal gas tax revenue requires immediate action on legislation that has already passed the House to ensure states are not adversely affected. Peters said, “Taking money from other pressing national priorities to plug a hole caused by poor fiscal discipline sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent." She added, though, that “states are working hard to keep the nation’s bridges and roads in good repair and deserve better than IOUs from Congress.”
The Secretary said it was time to fundamentally reform the nation’s "scattered approach to transportation." She said, "Congress should do away with billions in annual earmarks and consolidate the over 100 special niche programs that require states to slice and dice federal transportation funds to do things like build museums and restore lighthouses." She noted that the Administration issued a comprehensive transportation reform proposal along those lines several weeks ago. To avoid future shortfalls, the Secretary said it was time to "embrace new funding mechanisms that respond to today’s transportation challenges and are in keeping with national energy policies." She said, "The current approach may have made sense 50 years ago, but it is ineffective and unsustainable when we are trying to reduce congestion and encouraging Americans to embrace more fuel-efficient cars.”
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a brief statement regarding the Bush Administration's announcement that the Highway Trust Fund could begin to run out of money as early as this week. Senator Boxer said, "Today the Bush Administration has finally stopped denying there is a dangerous shortfall in the federal fund that helps states pay for critical highway construction. Three times the Senate has brought up legislation to restore money to the Highway Trust Fund and protect millions of construction jobs, but Republicans have put up roadblocks and filibusters over and over again. It's time that Republican opponents to action move out of the way so we can solve this transportation crisis now."
During the week of September 2, Senator Boxer held a series of field hearing to discuss the next authorization of the Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs. This legislation will impact all Americans because it sets the policy and provides funding for surface transportation nationwide. She said the current authorization bill will expire on September 30, 2009, and she is leading the effort to develop the new transportation bill. The Committee has already begun the authorization process by holding several hearings in Washington, DC and will continue to hold hearings, meetings, and listening sessions to make sure all points of view are considered.
She said she has been working to develop a set of principles for the next bill including: Maintaining the National character of the interstate and federal highway system; Efficient movement of people and goods (including intermodal); Safety (including condition and design of infrastructure); Reducing congestion and its impacts; Sustainable funding (Trust Fund Including Alternatives); Consolidating programs substantially to refocus the program; and Establishing funding and performance criteria. She said the principals are reflected in the title for the bill, "MAP 21" (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century). She said, "One of my primary goals for this bill is to improve air quality." Another challenge, she indicated that must be addressed in the next bill is that the Highway Trust Fund, which funds the legislation primarily through gas tax receipts, and which is expected to run out of funding before the end of the 2009.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, also commented on the announcement by the Department of Transportation that the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is not going to be able to fully meet its obligations to the states. Previously, DOT had estimated it would remain solvent until next summer. Tax receipts have been dropping precipitously in recent months due largely to high gas prices. Senator Inhofe said, "Gas receipts have been declining because the Democratic opposition to drilling for more oil has caused prices to rise." The Administration indicated their support for quick passage of legislation to restore $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Inhofe indicated, "Today the Department of Transportation announced that the HTF will be unable to fully meet its obligations beginning this month. While this announcement came well before anyone expected, we have been working on a solution to this problem for the quite some time. The solution I have been advocating for, an immediate restoration of $8 billion transfer that had been taken from the Highway Trust Fund in 1998, will ensure the states receive the money promised to them. This short term fix enjoys overwhelming support in the Senate, has already passed the House, and now has the support of the White House. With just three weeks left until Congress adjourns, we need to make this fix happen next week (week of September 8). I will continue to lead the effort in the Senate to make that happen.”
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Chaired by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) issued a statement saying, "In July, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6532, the Highway Trust Fund Restoration Act, to address the impending shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, by a bipartisan vote of 387-37. The bill restores $8.017 billion in motor vehicle user-fee revenues to the Trust Fund. Despite the overwhelming House vote in support of this legislation, the Administration threatened to veto it. Today [September 5], the Secretary of Transportation recognized the dire circumstances of the Highway Trust Fund, and reversed the Administration’s irresponsible opposition to restoring these user fee revenues. The Trust Fund is approaching a zero balance and, beginning next week, the Federal Government will be unable to pay all of the bills submitted by the States for reimbursement under the Federal-aid highway program. The Federal Government will be required to begin paying interest on unpaid bills."
Access a lengthy release from DOT that outlines immediate steps to address the shortfall (click here). Access two releases from Senator Boxer (click here); and (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access Chairman Oberstar's Floor Statement on passage of H.R. 6532 (click here). Access the Dear Colleague letter on H.R. 6532 from Oberstar, et al (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6532 (click here). [*Transport]
Friday, September 05, 2008
McCain Will Drill Now & Attack Energy Problem On Every Front
Sep 4: On August 28, Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama told the country about his plans for energy, the environment and climate change [See WIMS 9/2/08]. One week later (September 4, 2008), Republican John McCain, accepting the Party's nomination for President, announced his plans at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN.
McCain said, "My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.
"Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It’s an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It’s time for us to show the world again how Americans lead.
"This great national cause will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce." Like Obama's speech, McCain did not mention the word "environment." He also did not mention global warming or climate change.
On September 3, during the endorsement speech of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani said, "He [John McCain] will lead us toward an America that will be independent of foreign oil by an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear power and off-shore drilling." Following that statement, the entire Convention floor broke into a repeated chant of "Drill Baby Drill."
Also on September 3, Sarah Palin said in her VP acceptance speech, ". . .we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both. Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources."
Access the complete McCain acceptance speech (click here). Access details of the McCain energy plan (click here). Access the complete 2008 Republican Party Platform (click here). Access the GOP Convention website for links to all speeches and additional information (click here). Access details of other issue positions of John McCain (click here). [*Energy]
McCain said, "My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.
"Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It’s an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It’s time for us to show the world again how Americans lead.
"This great national cause will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce." Like Obama's speech, McCain did not mention the word "environment." He also did not mention global warming or climate change.
On September 3, during the endorsement speech of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani said, "He [John McCain] will lead us toward an America that will be independent of foreign oil by an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear power and off-shore drilling." Following that statement, the entire Convention floor broke into a repeated chant of "Drill Baby Drill."
Also on September 3, Sarah Palin said in her VP acceptance speech, ". . .we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both. Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources."
Access the complete McCain acceptance speech (click here). Access details of the McCain energy plan (click here). Access the complete 2008 Republican Party Platform (click here). Access the GOP Convention website for links to all speeches and additional information (click here). Access details of other issue positions of John McCain (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Challenges For A Comprehensive CO2 Capture Strategy
Aug 15: The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released a report entitled, Capturing CO2 from Coal-Fired Power Plants: Challenges for a Comprehensive Strategy. According to the report summary, "Any comprehensive approach to substantially reduce greenhouse gases must address the world’s dependency on coal for a quarter of its energy demand, including almost half of its electricity demand. To maintain coal in the world’s energy mix in a carbon-constrained future would require development of a technology to capture and store its carbon dioxide emissions. This situation suggests to some that any greenhouse gas reduction program be delayed until such carbon capture technology has been demonstrated. However, technological innovation and the demands of a carbon control regime are interlinked; a technology policy is no substitute for environmental policy and must be developed in concert with it.
"Much of the debate about developing and commercializing carbon capture technology has focused on the role of research, development, and deployment (technology-push mechanisms). However, for technology to be fully commercialized, it must also meet a market demand -- a demand created either through a price mechanism or a regulatory requirement (demand-pull mechanisms). Any conceivable carbon capture technology for coal-fired powerplants will increase the cost of electricity generation from affected plants because of efficiency losses. Therefore, few companies are likely to install such technology until they are required to, either by regulation or by a carbon price. Regulated industries may find their regulators reluctant to accept the risks and cost of installing technology that is not required. . .
"Finally, it should be noted that the status quo for coal with respect to climate change legislation isn’t necessarily the same as 'business as usual.' The financial markets and regulatory authorities appear to be hedging their bets on the outcomes of any federal legislation with respect to greenhouse gas reductions, and becoming increasingly unwilling to accept the risk of a coal-fired power plant with or without carbon capture capacity. The lack of a regulatory scheme presents numerous risks to any research and development effort designed to develop carbon capture technology. Ultimately, it also presents a risk to the future of coal."
Access the complete 39-page report (click here). [*Climate]
"Much of the debate about developing and commercializing carbon capture technology has focused on the role of research, development, and deployment (technology-push mechanisms). However, for technology to be fully commercialized, it must also meet a market demand -- a demand created either through a price mechanism or a regulatory requirement (demand-pull mechanisms). Any conceivable carbon capture technology for coal-fired powerplants will increase the cost of electricity generation from affected plants because of efficiency losses. Therefore, few companies are likely to install such technology until they are required to, either by regulation or by a carbon price. Regulated industries may find their regulators reluctant to accept the risks and cost of installing technology that is not required. . .
"Finally, it should be noted that the status quo for coal with respect to climate change legislation isn’t necessarily the same as 'business as usual.' The financial markets and regulatory authorities appear to be hedging their bets on the outcomes of any federal legislation with respect to greenhouse gas reductions, and becoming increasingly unwilling to accept the risk of a coal-fired power plant with or without carbon capture capacity. The lack of a regulatory scheme presents numerous risks to any research and development effort designed to develop carbon capture technology. Ultimately, it also presents a risk to the future of coal."
Access the complete 39-page report (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
NRDC Sues EPA For Bee CCD Pesticide Information
Aug 18: The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit to uncover critical information which they say the U.S. government is withholding about the risks posed by pesticides to honey bees. NRDC legal experts and a leading bee researcher say they are convinced that U.S. EPA has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country. The phenomenon has come to be called “colony collapse disorder,” or CCD, and according to a release from NRDC "it is already proving to have disastrous consequences for American agriculture and the $15 billion worth of crops pollinated by bees every year."
EPA failed to respond to NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for agency records concerning the toxicity of pesticides to bees, which precipitated the legal action. NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo said, “Recently approved pesticides have been implicated in massive bee die-offs and are the focus of increasing scientific scrutiny. EPA should be evaluating the risks to bees before approving new pesticides, but now refuses to tell the public what it knows. Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?”
In its release NRDC indicates that in 2003, EPA granted a registration to a new pesticide manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the condition that Bayer submit studies about its product’s impact on bees. NRDC said EPA has refused to disclose the results of these studies, or if the studies have been submitted. They said the pesticide in question, clothianidin, recently was banned in Germany due to concerns about its impact on bees. A similar insecticide was banned in France for the same reason a couple of years before. NRDC indicates that In the United States, these chemicals still are in use despite a growing consensus among bee specialists that pesticides, including clothianidin and its chemical cousins, may contribute to CCD.
In the past two years, some American beekeepers have reported unexplained losses of 30-90% of the bees in their hives. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. NRDC warns that as the die-offs worsen, Americans will see their food costs increase.
Access a release from NRDC and link to additional information (click here). Access WIMS-eNewsUSA posts on CCD (click here). [*Wildlife, *Agriculture]
EPA failed to respond to NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for agency records concerning the toxicity of pesticides to bees, which precipitated the legal action. NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo said, “Recently approved pesticides have been implicated in massive bee die-offs and are the focus of increasing scientific scrutiny. EPA should be evaluating the risks to bees before approving new pesticides, but now refuses to tell the public what it knows. Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?”
In its release NRDC indicates that in 2003, EPA granted a registration to a new pesticide manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the condition that Bayer submit studies about its product’s impact on bees. NRDC said EPA has refused to disclose the results of these studies, or if the studies have been submitted. They said the pesticide in question, clothianidin, recently was banned in Germany due to concerns about its impact on bees. A similar insecticide was banned in France for the same reason a couple of years before. NRDC indicates that In the United States, these chemicals still are in use despite a growing consensus among bee specialists that pesticides, including clothianidin and its chemical cousins, may contribute to CCD.
In the past two years, some American beekeepers have reported unexplained losses of 30-90% of the bees in their hives. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. NRDC warns that as the die-offs worsen, Americans will see their food costs increase.
Access a release from NRDC and link to additional information (click here). Access WIMS-eNewsUSA posts on CCD (click here). [*Wildlife, *Agriculture]
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Obama Vows 10-Year End To Dependence On Middle East Oil
Aug 28: As Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama accepted his party's nomination before some 84,000 in attendance at Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High stadium he said, "And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." He continued with more comments on the energy issue saying, "Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.
"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
"America, now is not the time for small plans."
Climate change received only a brief mention when Obama said, "I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. . . " Interestingly, the word "environment" did not appear in the speech.
Access the complete Obama acceptance speech (click here). Access the Obama campaign website on energy and environment issues (click here). Access links to the Obama "Blueprint for Change" and individual issue positions (click here). Access an overview of the Democratic Party Platform and link to the 94-page 2008 Platform (click here). [*Energy]
"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
"America, now is not the time for small plans."
Climate change received only a brief mention when Obama said, "I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. . . " Interestingly, the word "environment" did not appear in the speech.
Access the complete Obama acceptance speech (click here). Access the Obama campaign website on energy and environment issues (click here). Access links to the Obama "Blueprint for Change" and individual issue positions (click here). Access an overview of the Democratic Party Platform and link to the 94-page 2008 Platform (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, August 15, 2008
U.S. Chamber Applauds DOI Endangered Species Act Proposal
[Subscribers & Readers Please Note: WIMS will be on break for the next two weeks. We'll be back on Tuesday, September 2, 2008. Have a safe and enjoyable end of summer and we'll be reporting to you again on September 2.]
Aug 14: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commended Interior (DOI) Secretary Dick Kempthorne’s proposed rule changes to clarify the use of the consultation process surrounding the application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the literally thousands of federal actions that may be subject to consultation under the Act [See WIMS 8/12/08]. William Kovacs, Chamber Vice President for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs said, “1986 was the last time the relationship between ESA and the consultation process was discussed and the world was not then discussing the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment. Since then some have argued that any federal action anywhere has the potential to generate greenhouse gases and therefore, the consultation process should be applied to every federal action. That is just a ridiculous concept that would literally paralyze the ability of the federal government to move forward with projects."
“To address this huge bureaucratic nightmare and gross waste of federal resources, the Secretary is providing clear guidance to his agency as to when the Endangered Species Act consultation process must be used. By mandating that it must be used when the potential impacts are reasonable likely to occur but not requiring it when the potential impacts are unlikely, the Secretary has made a commonsense decision that greatly assists Department staff on the use of precious federal resources.
“Every year the federal government issues over 4000 new regulations that join the already existing 102,000 regulations. Within this massive regulatory maze of complex and costly mandates, it is reassuring to find someone in Washington willing to exercise commonsense. By making this clear distinction between the use of consultations for reasonably likely impacts but not mandating consultations in situations where impact is unlikely, the Secretary is bringing efficiency and rationality to the rulemaking process.”
Most major environmental and conservation organizations expressed outrage at Kempthorne's proposal. They said the Bush Administration plans to rollback protections for America’s imperiled wildlife by re-writing the ESA regulations which "would weaken the safety net of habitat protections that have helped protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years."
On August 11, Kempthorne announced the proposal which he called "common-sense modifications" to the existing ESA regulations. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register today [73 FR 47868-47875, 8/15/08]. Comments on the proposal are due by September 15, 2008. [Note: An earlier draft of the proposal had included a 60-day comment period; however, it has been reduced to 30-days.]
Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the docket for the proposed rulemaking for the proposed rule and to submit and review comments (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate]
Aug 14: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commended Interior (DOI) Secretary Dick Kempthorne’s proposed rule changes to clarify the use of the consultation process surrounding the application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the literally thousands of federal actions that may be subject to consultation under the Act [See WIMS 8/12/08]. William Kovacs, Chamber Vice President for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs said, “1986 was the last time the relationship between ESA and the consultation process was discussed and the world was not then discussing the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment. Since then some have argued that any federal action anywhere has the potential to generate greenhouse gases and therefore, the consultation process should be applied to every federal action. That is just a ridiculous concept that would literally paralyze the ability of the federal government to move forward with projects."
“To address this huge bureaucratic nightmare and gross waste of federal resources, the Secretary is providing clear guidance to his agency as to when the Endangered Species Act consultation process must be used. By mandating that it must be used when the potential impacts are reasonable likely to occur but not requiring it when the potential impacts are unlikely, the Secretary has made a commonsense decision that greatly assists Department staff on the use of precious federal resources.
“Every year the federal government issues over 4000 new regulations that join the already existing 102,000 regulations. Within this massive regulatory maze of complex and costly mandates, it is reassuring to find someone in Washington willing to exercise commonsense. By making this clear distinction between the use of consultations for reasonably likely impacts but not mandating consultations in situations where impact is unlikely, the Secretary is bringing efficiency and rationality to the rulemaking process.”
Most major environmental and conservation organizations expressed outrage at Kempthorne's proposal. They said the Bush Administration plans to rollback protections for America’s imperiled wildlife by re-writing the ESA regulations which "would weaken the safety net of habitat protections that have helped protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years."
On August 11, Kempthorne announced the proposal which he called "common-sense modifications" to the existing ESA regulations. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register today [73 FR 47868-47875, 8/15/08]. Comments on the proposal are due by September 15, 2008. [Note: An earlier draft of the proposal had included a 60-day comment period; however, it has been reduced to 30-days.]
Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the docket for the proposed rulemaking for the proposed rule and to submit and review comments (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate]
Thursday, August 14, 2008
New Draft Global Sustainability Standard For Biofuels
Aug 13: A United Nations-backed group of international experts has endorsed a first draft of a new global sustainability standard for biofuels to assess their economic, social and environmental effects. The Steering Board of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), which includes an expert from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), signed off on the draft criteria, called “Version Zero,” which is based on a comprehensive “land to tank” analysis spanning the entire chain of biofuel production. It is hoped that the new standard will be used by investors, governments, corporations and civil society to analyze the sustainability of different types of biofuels.
Version Zero contains input -- submitted during teleconferences, over an innovative Wiki online format and at various meetings held worldwide -- from over 300 experts from dozens of countries. It addressed such concerns as biofuels’ potential contribution to mitigating the effects of climate change, the protection of land and labor rights, soil pollution, water availability and food security. It is hoped that all feedback on the draft standard will be submitted by February 2009.
The RSB, housed at the Energy Center at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), is comprised of over three hundred experts from organizations, corporations and civil society groups, including UNEP, WWF, and a number of fossil fuel producers such as BP and Shell.
Dr. Claude Martin, formerly Director-General of World Wildlife Fund, and current chair of the RSB issued a statement commenting on the Version Zero release and said, “With all of the mixed messages we hear about biofuels, there is a clear need for a standard that can differentiate the good from the bad. For an issue of such seminal importance, it was necessary to bring many different stakeholder groups together to agree on how to define and measure sustainable biofuels.” Jean-Philippe Denruyter, Global Bioenergy Coordinator at WWF and member of the RSB board said, “Ensuring sustainability is what all these discussions are hinged upon. Biofuels are one of a number of potential alternatives to fossil fuels, and today’s agreement allows us to initiate a stakeholder-driven process that will determine their value right across the production process, from field or forest to tank.”
The RSB indicated in its announcement, "As we wish this to be a globally-applicable and globally-accessible standard for sustainable biofuels, we are actively encouraging stakeholder feedback from any interested party. The Steering Board will take all of this feedback into account through February, 2009 and publish a revised 'Version One' in April, 2009. We encourage all stakeholders to post feedback on 'Version Zero' in English on the Bioenergy Wiki (See contacts below). We will also be co-hosting several in-person feedback sessions on Version Zero around the world." A sign up form is available.
The Version Zero standard is organized around 12 major principles with criteria and guidance for each: (1) Legality: Biofuel production shall follow all applicable laws of the country in which they occur, and shall endeavor to follow all international treaties relevant to biofuels' production to which the relevant country is a party. (2) Consultation, Planning and Monitoring: Biofuels projects shall be designed and operated under appropriate, comprehensive, transparent, consultative, and participatory processes that involve all relevant stakeholders. (3) Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas: Biofuels shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels.(4) Human and Labor Rights: Biofuel production shall not violate human rights or labor rights, and shall ensure decent work and the well-being of workers. (5) Rural and Social Development: Biofuel production shall contribute to the social and economic development of local, rural and indigenous peoples and communities. (6) Food Security: Biofuel production shall not impair food security.
(7) Conservation and Biodiversity: Biofuel production shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and areas of High Conservation Value. (8) Soil: Biofuel production shall promote practices that seek to improve soil health and minimize degradation. (9) Water: Biofuel production shall optimize surface and groundwater resource use, including minimizing contamination or depletion of these resources, and shall not violate existing formal and customary water rights. (10) Air: Air pollution from biofuel production and processing shall be minimized along the supply chain. (11) Economic efficiency, technology, and continuous improvement: Biofuels shall be produced in the most cost-effective way. The use of technology must improve production efficiency and social and environmental performance in all stages of the biofuel value chain. (12) Land Rights: Biofuel production shall not violate land rights.
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the Version Zero of the RSB Principles and Criteria (click here). Access RSB website for extensive information and background (click here). Access the BionergyWiki (click here). Access a release from WWF (click here). [*Energy]
Version Zero contains input -- submitted during teleconferences, over an innovative Wiki online format and at various meetings held worldwide -- from over 300 experts from dozens of countries. It addressed such concerns as biofuels’ potential contribution to mitigating the effects of climate change, the protection of land and labor rights, soil pollution, water availability and food security. It is hoped that all feedback on the draft standard will be submitted by February 2009.
The RSB, housed at the Energy Center at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), is comprised of over three hundred experts from organizations, corporations and civil society groups, including UNEP, WWF, and a number of fossil fuel producers such as BP and Shell.
Dr. Claude Martin, formerly Director-General of World Wildlife Fund, and current chair of the RSB issued a statement commenting on the Version Zero release and said, “With all of the mixed messages we hear about biofuels, there is a clear need for a standard that can differentiate the good from the bad. For an issue of such seminal importance, it was necessary to bring many different stakeholder groups together to agree on how to define and measure sustainable biofuels.” Jean-Philippe Denruyter, Global Bioenergy Coordinator at WWF and member of the RSB board said, “Ensuring sustainability is what all these discussions are hinged upon. Biofuels are one of a number of potential alternatives to fossil fuels, and today’s agreement allows us to initiate a stakeholder-driven process that will determine their value right across the production process, from field or forest to tank.”
The RSB indicated in its announcement, "As we wish this to be a globally-applicable and globally-accessible standard for sustainable biofuels, we are actively encouraging stakeholder feedback from any interested party. The Steering Board will take all of this feedback into account through February, 2009 and publish a revised 'Version One' in April, 2009. We encourage all stakeholders to post feedback on 'Version Zero' in English on the Bioenergy Wiki (See contacts below). We will also be co-hosting several in-person feedback sessions on Version Zero around the world." A sign up form is available.
The Version Zero standard is organized around 12 major principles with criteria and guidance for each: (1) Legality: Biofuel production shall follow all applicable laws of the country in which they occur, and shall endeavor to follow all international treaties relevant to biofuels' production to which the relevant country is a party. (2) Consultation, Planning and Monitoring: Biofuels projects shall be designed and operated under appropriate, comprehensive, transparent, consultative, and participatory processes that involve all relevant stakeholders. (3) Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas: Biofuels shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels.(4) Human and Labor Rights: Biofuel production shall not violate human rights or labor rights, and shall ensure decent work and the well-being of workers. (5) Rural and Social Development: Biofuel production shall contribute to the social and economic development of local, rural and indigenous peoples and communities. (6) Food Security: Biofuel production shall not impair food security.
(7) Conservation and Biodiversity: Biofuel production shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and areas of High Conservation Value. (8) Soil: Biofuel production shall promote practices that seek to improve soil health and minimize degradation. (9) Water: Biofuel production shall optimize surface and groundwater resource use, including minimizing contamination or depletion of these resources, and shall not violate existing formal and customary water rights. (10) Air: Air pollution from biofuel production and processing shall be minimized along the supply chain. (11) Economic efficiency, technology, and continuous improvement: Biofuels shall be produced in the most cost-effective way. The use of technology must improve production efficiency and social and environmental performance in all stages of the biofuel value chain. (12) Land Rights: Biofuel production shall not violate land rights.
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the Version Zero of the RSB Principles and Criteria (click here). Access RSB website for extensive information and background (click here). Access the BionergyWiki (click here). Access a release from WWF (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Republicans Continue Energy Protest On House Floor
Aug 12: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) announced they are continuing the historic gas prices revolt and urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reconvene the House and schedule an up-or-down vote on the American Energy Act (H.R. 6566), the House Republicans’ comprehensive plan to increase production of American energy to lower gas prices. The bill, introduced by Representative Boehner on July 22, has 127 cosponsors.
House Republicans have transformed their “all-of-the-above” energy strategy into a single piece of legislation: the American Energy Act. The bill -- a product made possible by energy policies proposed by Members throughout the House Republican Conference -- they say will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the price at the pump and reduce America’s increasingly costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.
In a release, the Republicans said, "House Democrats are in chaos. Not only are they continuing to feel the heat in their congressional districts from Americans fed up with paying high gas prices, but they also are buckling under the weight of immense public support for more production of American energy to help bring down the price at the pump. The latest example: Speaker Pelosi herself, who yesterday on CNN’s Larry King Live said that the House 'can have a vote' on expanded drilling for oil and gas."
In a second release, Representative Boehner said, "If Speaker Pelosi is truly sincere about having a vote on deep ocean oil and gas drilling to help bring down fuel costs, she should use her power as Speaker to call Congress back into session immediately and schedule a vote on the American Energy Act. Ever since Speaker Pelosi adjourned Congress for a five-week break while Americans are left to suffer at the pump, House Republicans have taken our message of more American-made energy and lower gas prices directly to the American people – on the floor of the House and in communities across the country. Based on the Speaker’s comments last night, it is clear our unprecedented nationwide effort is having an impact.
“Our message to Speaker Pelosi is very simple: we are ready to vote on more energy production and lower gas prices right now, and we should not wait one more day to begin giving the American people the relief they expect and deserve. If you meant what you said last night, we welcome you and your Democratic colleagues to join us in our historic call to action on American energy. End your five-week break early and call Congress back into session now so we can vote for more American-made energy and lower gas prices without any further delay.”
Although Speaker Pelosi did not respond directly to the Republicans, she has posted a series of responses on her website. On August 8 she posted the Top 10 for the House GOP on Energy and said, "As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for 'drill only' legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?"
She said earlier that, "The New Direction Congress has repeatedly brought forth proposals to increase domestic supply, reduce the price at the pump, protect American consumers and businesses and promote renewable energy and conservation. To date, Democrats have brought forward 13 major initiatives to accomplish the above goals, yet each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals." She said, "A key proposal would codify Democrats’ call for releasing a small portion of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Releasing a small amount from the government stockpile is a positive short-term step that would provide immediate impact on the price at the pump and ease the pain American families and businesses are feeling every day." She also said, "Republicans falsely claim that drilling in protected areas will provide immediate relief to America’s consumers. The Republican plan to drill on protected lands will result in only a 2 cents savings more than 10 years from now."
Access a release from House Republicans (click here). Access the 2nd Republican release (click here). Access a Republican website summarizing H.R. 6566 (click here). Access Speaker Pelosi's many responses to Republicans including a list of the 13 measures that large percentages of House Republicans voted against (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6566 (click here). [*Energy]
House Republicans have transformed their “all-of-the-above” energy strategy into a single piece of legislation: the American Energy Act. The bill -- a product made possible by energy policies proposed by Members throughout the House Republican Conference -- they say will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the price at the pump and reduce America’s increasingly costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.
In a release, the Republicans said, "House Democrats are in chaos. Not only are they continuing to feel the heat in their congressional districts from Americans fed up with paying high gas prices, but they also are buckling under the weight of immense public support for more production of American energy to help bring down the price at the pump. The latest example: Speaker Pelosi herself, who yesterday on CNN’s Larry King Live said that the House 'can have a vote' on expanded drilling for oil and gas."
In a second release, Representative Boehner said, "If Speaker Pelosi is truly sincere about having a vote on deep ocean oil and gas drilling to help bring down fuel costs, she should use her power as Speaker to call Congress back into session immediately and schedule a vote on the American Energy Act. Ever since Speaker Pelosi adjourned Congress for a five-week break while Americans are left to suffer at the pump, House Republicans have taken our message of more American-made energy and lower gas prices directly to the American people – on the floor of the House and in communities across the country. Based on the Speaker’s comments last night, it is clear our unprecedented nationwide effort is having an impact.
“Our message to Speaker Pelosi is very simple: we are ready to vote on more energy production and lower gas prices right now, and we should not wait one more day to begin giving the American people the relief they expect and deserve. If you meant what you said last night, we welcome you and your Democratic colleagues to join us in our historic call to action on American energy. End your five-week break early and call Congress back into session now so we can vote for more American-made energy and lower gas prices without any further delay.”
Although Speaker Pelosi did not respond directly to the Republicans, she has posted a series of responses on her website. On August 8 she posted the Top 10 for the House GOP on Energy and said, "As a small band of House Republicans remain on the House floor to call for 'drill only' legislation that would not bring immediate relief to consumers, their constituents deserve to know why their representatives in Congress have failed to support serious, responsible proposals put forward by the New Direction Congress. Americans have a right to know if House Republicans will reverse their opposition to these proposals; will Senate Republicans, including Senator McCain, stop blocking these bills; and will the President sign them?"
She said earlier that, "The New Direction Congress has repeatedly brought forth proposals to increase domestic supply, reduce the price at the pump, protect American consumers and businesses and promote renewable energy and conservation. To date, Democrats have brought forward 13 major initiatives to accomplish the above goals, yet each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals." She said, "A key proposal would codify Democrats’ call for releasing a small portion of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Releasing a small amount from the government stockpile is a positive short-term step that would provide immediate impact on the price at the pump and ease the pain American families and businesses are feeling every day." She also said, "Republicans falsely claim that drilling in protected areas will provide immediate relief to America’s consumers. The Republican plan to drill on protected lands will result in only a 2 cents savings more than 10 years from now."
Access a release from House Republicans (click here). Access the 2nd Republican release (click here). Access a Republican website summarizing H.R. 6566 (click here). Access Speaker Pelosi's many responses to Republicans including a list of the 13 measures that large percentages of House Republicans voted against (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6566 (click here). [*Energy]
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
NWF Warns Of "Sneaky Attack" On Endangered Species Act
Aug 11: According to leaked documents obtained by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Bush Administration plans to rollback protections for America’s imperiled wildlife by re-writing the regulations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed changes would weaken the safety net of habitat protections that have helped protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years.
John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the NWF said, “I have been working on the Endangered Species Act for 15 years and have never seen such a sneaky attack. To suggest that our nation's most important wildlife law could be gutted after a mere 60 day written comment period is the height of arrogance and disrespect for wildlife science. Elected officials have been saying no to proposals like this for 15 years. Do not be fooled when the Administration claims it is merely tweaking the law. The cumulative impact of these changes equals a full blown attack on America’s premier conservation law. We owe it to future generations to stop this attack and continue our legacy of protecting wildlife on the brink of extinction.”
NWF indicated in a release that since 1973, the ESA has served as "America's safety net for wildlife." NWF said it has saved hundreds of species from extinction, put hundreds more on the road to recovery and safeguarded the habitats upon which they depend. Without it, the bald eagle, condor, gray wolf, grizzly bear, Florida panther, manatee and hundreds of other species would be extinct today. The proposed changes target the ESA's "consultation process," which serves as the main safety net for species on the brink by allowing scientists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if listed species will be harmed before moving forward with activities such as logging, mining or filling of wetlands.
Late Monday, August 11, Secretary of the Interior (DOI) Dirk Kempthorne announced that he was following through on his commitment to propose "common-sense modifications" to the existing ESA regulations. When Secretary Kempthorne on May 15, 2008, listed the polar bear as a “threatened species” under the ESA, he said the ESA was not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy or regulate green house gas emissions. DOI indicated in a release that the proposal is intended to update a portion of the ESA regulations dealing with section 7 of the Act. Section 7 governs the endangered species responsibilities of Federal agencies. The proposed changes to the regulations are designed to reflect current practices and recent courts cases. DOI said, "The changes will make it easier for agencies to understand when and how the regulations apply. While this rule will help avoid misuse of the ESA to regulate climate change, the rule will also generally improve the consultation process."
Each Federal agency is responsible under the regulations to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) before they undertake an action that may affect an endangered species. Such consultation may involve either a formal written request or it may be an informal conversation between the agencies. The purpose of these proposed changes is to clarify process, replace ambiguous definitions, explain when formal consultation is applicable, and improve the informal consultation process.
Kempthorne said, “ESA consultations in the 21st century address increasingly complex issues. We need a regulatory framework to guide those consultations that is consistent with the ESA and will address new challenges such as climate change,” said Kempthorne. “The existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts and delays. The proposed regulations will continue to protect species while focusing the consultation process on those federal actions where potential impacts can be linked to the action and the risks are reasonably certain to occur. The result should be a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources.”
Dale Hall, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service said, “The purpose of these changes is to reduce ambiguity, improve consistency, and narrow interpretive differences, even within the Services. They are a positive step forward. In 1986, our existing rules made sense. At that time very few Federal action agencies had any in-depth expertise with section 7 and listed species, but that is not the case today. We are not being good stewards of our resources when we pursue consultation in situations where the potential effects to a species are either unlikely, incapable of being meaningfully evaluated, wholly beneficial, or pose only a remote risk of causing jeopardy to the species or its habitat.” DOI said the announcement was being made in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Department of Commerce which shares responsibility for implementing the ESA.
DOI said, the proposed rule is consistent with the FWS current understanding that it is not possible to draw a direct causal link between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and distant observations of impacts affecting species. As a result, it is inappropriate to consult on a remote agency action involving the contribution of emissions to global warming because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on specific listed species such as polar bears. DOI said, "The Bush Administration has acknowledged climate change as a serious problem but has stressed that the proper forums to address it are through the Congress and the Bali Action Plan."
Finally, DOI said the proposal also adds timelines to help limit the duration of informal consultation and lend greater certainty to the process. It would allow action agencies to terminate consultation if the Fish and Wildlife Service has not acted on its request for concurrence within 60 days. However, the Service may request an additional 60 days. If, after that time, there is no written determination from the Service within the appropriate time frame, the action agency may terminate the consultation. The Department is seeking comment on this proposal for the next 30 days.
Noah Greenwald, science director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the lead organization that filed the formal petition to list the polar bear under the Act said, “The proposed regulations are an absolute disaster for the nation’s endangered species. Secretary Kempthorne seems determined to establish a legacy of environmental destruction and extinction and surpass even James Watt as the most anti-environmental interior secretary in U.S. history. These regulations are a recipe for the extinction of endangered species. It’s a classic example of letting the fox guard the henhouse. It would allow thousands of projects that harm endangered species to move forward without mitigation.”
Earthjustice Vice-President of Litigation Patti Goldman said, "It takes great hubris to resurrect an issue the court has already definitely struck down. This is like a zombie movie… their proposal to toss the Endangered Species Act over the cliff died, but now has somehow come back to life. The Bush/Cheney administration is looking back over the last eight years to see what real benefits they've brought to those who favor short term gain over our environment. They have little to show due to vigilance by conservation, fishing, and hunting groups who have worked to hold the line. Nonetheless, they're trying again to leave favors for powerful friends before leaving office." Environmental Defense and Sierra Club also issued releases (See below).
Access a release from NWF that summarizes the major proposals in the regulations and link to an analysis (click here). Access the draft regulations on the NWF website (click here). Access a release from DOI (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the FWS ESA website for additional information (click here). Access the NMFS ESA website for more information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate]
John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the NWF said, “I have been working on the Endangered Species Act for 15 years and have never seen such a sneaky attack. To suggest that our nation's most important wildlife law could be gutted after a mere 60 day written comment period is the height of arrogance and disrespect for wildlife science. Elected officials have been saying no to proposals like this for 15 years. Do not be fooled when the Administration claims it is merely tweaking the law. The cumulative impact of these changes equals a full blown attack on America’s premier conservation law. We owe it to future generations to stop this attack and continue our legacy of protecting wildlife on the brink of extinction.”
NWF indicated in a release that since 1973, the ESA has served as "America's safety net for wildlife." NWF said it has saved hundreds of species from extinction, put hundreds more on the road to recovery and safeguarded the habitats upon which they depend. Without it, the bald eagle, condor, gray wolf, grizzly bear, Florida panther, manatee and hundreds of other species would be extinct today. The proposed changes target the ESA's "consultation process," which serves as the main safety net for species on the brink by allowing scientists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if listed species will be harmed before moving forward with activities such as logging, mining or filling of wetlands.
Late Monday, August 11, Secretary of the Interior (DOI) Dirk Kempthorne announced that he was following through on his commitment to propose "common-sense modifications" to the existing ESA regulations. When Secretary Kempthorne on May 15, 2008, listed the polar bear as a “threatened species” under the ESA, he said the ESA was not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy or regulate green house gas emissions. DOI indicated in a release that the proposal is intended to update a portion of the ESA regulations dealing with section 7 of the Act. Section 7 governs the endangered species responsibilities of Federal agencies. The proposed changes to the regulations are designed to reflect current practices and recent courts cases. DOI said, "The changes will make it easier for agencies to understand when and how the regulations apply. While this rule will help avoid misuse of the ESA to regulate climate change, the rule will also generally improve the consultation process."
Each Federal agency is responsible under the regulations to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) before they undertake an action that may affect an endangered species. Such consultation may involve either a formal written request or it may be an informal conversation between the agencies. The purpose of these proposed changes is to clarify process, replace ambiguous definitions, explain when formal consultation is applicable, and improve the informal consultation process.
Kempthorne said, “ESA consultations in the 21st century address increasingly complex issues. We need a regulatory framework to guide those consultations that is consistent with the ESA and will address new challenges such as climate change,” said Kempthorne. “The existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts and delays. The proposed regulations will continue to protect species while focusing the consultation process on those federal actions where potential impacts can be linked to the action and the risks are reasonably certain to occur. The result should be a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources.”
Dale Hall, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service said, “The purpose of these changes is to reduce ambiguity, improve consistency, and narrow interpretive differences, even within the Services. They are a positive step forward. In 1986, our existing rules made sense. At that time very few Federal action agencies had any in-depth expertise with section 7 and listed species, but that is not the case today. We are not being good stewards of our resources when we pursue consultation in situations where the potential effects to a species are either unlikely, incapable of being meaningfully evaluated, wholly beneficial, or pose only a remote risk of causing jeopardy to the species or its habitat.” DOI said the announcement was being made in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Department of Commerce which shares responsibility for implementing the ESA.
DOI said, the proposed rule is consistent with the FWS current understanding that it is not possible to draw a direct causal link between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and distant observations of impacts affecting species. As a result, it is inappropriate to consult on a remote agency action involving the contribution of emissions to global warming because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on specific listed species such as polar bears. DOI said, "The Bush Administration has acknowledged climate change as a serious problem but has stressed that the proper forums to address it are through the Congress and the Bali Action Plan."
Finally, DOI said the proposal also adds timelines to help limit the duration of informal consultation and lend greater certainty to the process. It would allow action agencies to terminate consultation if the Fish and Wildlife Service has not acted on its request for concurrence within 60 days. However, the Service may request an additional 60 days. If, after that time, there is no written determination from the Service within the appropriate time frame, the action agency may terminate the consultation. The Department is seeking comment on this proposal for the next 30 days.
Noah Greenwald, science director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the lead organization that filed the formal petition to list the polar bear under the Act said, “The proposed regulations are an absolute disaster for the nation’s endangered species. Secretary Kempthorne seems determined to establish a legacy of environmental destruction and extinction and surpass even James Watt as the most anti-environmental interior secretary in U.S. history. These regulations are a recipe for the extinction of endangered species. It’s a classic example of letting the fox guard the henhouse. It would allow thousands of projects that harm endangered species to move forward without mitigation.”
Earthjustice Vice-President of Litigation Patti Goldman said, "It takes great hubris to resurrect an issue the court has already definitely struck down. This is like a zombie movie… their proposal to toss the Endangered Species Act over the cliff died, but now has somehow come back to life. The Bush/Cheney administration is looking back over the last eight years to see what real benefits they've brought to those who favor short term gain over our environment. They have little to show due to vigilance by conservation, fishing, and hunting groups who have worked to hold the line. Nonetheless, they're trying again to leave favors for powerful friends before leaving office." Environmental Defense and Sierra Club also issued releases (See below).
Access a release from NWF that summarizes the major proposals in the regulations and link to an analysis (click here). Access the draft regulations on the NWF website (click here). Access a release from DOI (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the FWS ESA website for additional information (click here). Access the NMFS ESA website for more information (click here). [*Wildlife, *Climate]
Monday, August 11, 2008
Next Round Of International Climate Change Talks Set For Ghana
Aug 11: The next round of United Nations international climate change negotiations is set to begin in Accra, Ghana, from August 21 to 27, 2008. The Accra Climate Change Talks will take forward work on a strengthened and effective international climate change deal under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as well as work on emission reduction rules and tools under the Kyoto Protocol. Over a thousand participants including government representatives, participants from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions are expected to attend the Accra gathering, which is part of the UN negotiating process that was launched that will be concluded in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. The process of global climate change negotiations will culminate in 2008 in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, in December.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in 2007, the international community embarked on a two-year negotiating process which is both critically important and under severe time pressure. We are now 8 months into these negotiations, and while progress has been made, there is no doubt that we need to move forward quickly." The crucial Accra talks comprise the third session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 3) and the first part of the sixth session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 6, part I).
Within the context of negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol, work is scheduled to be concluded on analyzing the means available to developed countries to reach their emission reduction targets. In the context of the negotiation process on strengthened international action against climate change, workshops will be held on policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. A second workshop will deal with on cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions.
Access a release on the upcoming meeting (click here). Access the Accra website for agendas, documents and further information as it becomes available (click here). [*Climate]
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in 2007, the international community embarked on a two-year negotiating process which is both critically important and under severe time pressure. We are now 8 months into these negotiations, and while progress has been made, there is no doubt that we need to move forward quickly." The crucial Accra talks comprise the third session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 3) and the first part of the sixth session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 6, part I).
Within the context of negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol, work is scheduled to be concluded on analyzing the means available to developed countries to reach their emission reduction targets. In the context of the negotiation process on strengthened international action against climate change, workshops will be held on policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. A second workshop will deal with on cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions.
Access a release on the upcoming meeting (click here). Access the Accra website for agendas, documents and further information as it becomes available (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, August 08, 2008
Reactions To EPA Denial Of Texas RFS Waiver Request
Aug 7: Various reactions are being expressed to U.S. EPA's decision to deny the request from Texas to reduce the nationwide Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by 50%. As a result of the denial, the required total volume of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, mandated by law to be blended into the fuel supply will remain at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009 [See WIMS 8/7/08]. Nearly all of the 162 U.S. ethanol biorefineries currently utilize corn as the feedstock and have a current capacity of 9,407 million gallons per year (mgy) with 4,208 mgy of expansions under construction [See contacts below].
Texas Governor Rick Perry who requested the waiver said, "I am greatly disappointed with the EPA’s inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers and American households. For the EPA to assert that this federal mandate is not affecting food prices not only goes against common sense, but every American’s grocery bill. Denying Texas’ request is a mistake that will only increase the already-heavy financial burden on families while doing even more harm to the livestock industry. Good intentions and laudable goals are small compensation to the families, farmers and ranchers who are being hurt by the federal government’s efforts to trade food for fuel. Any government mandate that artificially props-up a single industry to the detriment of millions of Americans is bad public policy. Congress specifically created an emergency waiver provision for situations like these and EPA refuses to implement it."
Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman issued a release and said, “Clean, green, domestic, sustainable biofuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase our energy security are a crucial part of America’s energy policy. Advanced biofuels are just one part of a diverse portfolio of renewable energy and efficiency technologies that the Department of Energy is pursuing. . . In June, DOE announced an estimate that gasoline prices would be between 20 cents to 35 cents per gallon higher without ethanol, a first-generation biofuel. Also, without biofuels, DOE estimates that the U.S. would have to use 7.2 billion more gallons of gasoline in 2008 in order to maintain current levels of travel, a 5 percent increase. Since 2007 DOE has dedicated more than $1 billion in non-food based, sustainable, and cost competitive second-generation cellulosic biofuels research and demonstration. The Bush Administration is committed to continually monitoring the situation and is open to considering all policy options with respect to biofuels moving forward."
U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, commented saying, "In the face of mounting questions and growing concern surrounding the corn-based ethanol mandates, today’s decision is a disappointment. In my home state of Oklahoma, the ethanol mandates are undoubtedly causing severe economic hardships for many cattlemen, pork producers, poultry producers and consumers."
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) responded to the EPA decision saying, "The Alliance is pleased with EPA’s decision. Alliance members are working hard to do their part to help achieve the goals of renewable fuels standard. Alliance members have already produced more than 12.5 million alternative-fuel vehicles, including 5.5 million Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) capable of operating on a blend up of up to 85% ethanol, and 6 million diesel powered vehicles capable of operating on 5% biodiesel fuel. Yet only about 1 in 100 of the nation’s gas stations currently offer E85 fuel, with an even smaller percentage offering biodiesel blends. If the U.S. is to continue on the road to energy security, it is critical that the federal government continue to encourage growth in biofuels production and in the infrastructure needed to deliver these fuels to customers across the nation." AAM is a trade association of 10 car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the largest chicken company in the United States and Puerto Rico and the second-largest in Mexico said, "We are extremely disappointed . . . The RFS has caused feed ingredient prices to spiral out of control, inflicting extreme economic damage on food companies, and ultimately, on consumers, in the form of increased food costs. We expect our company's feed-ingredient costs for fiscal 2008 will increase $900 million from last fiscal year as a result of the U.S. government's failed ethanol policy. It's apparent that the government intends to blindly pursue this misguided and destructive policy despitereams of data demonstrating its negative impact on the environment, food prices, and world hunger. Not only are the 2008 mandates destructive, but the scheduled mandate next year will again increase another 16.7% from corn, consuming an additional 4.5% or more of the 2009-2010 corn crop than the anticipated 34% of the crop being consumed this year for ethanol production."
The American Meat Institute (AMI) issued a statement saying, “. . .using a third of our corn crop for ethanol production has driven corn and all feed prices up to levels that are severely impacting U.S. meat and poultry producers as well as consumers. . . the tripling of corn prices has done severe economic harm to the meat and poultry industry. The meat and poultry industry has already seen a contraction in production, resulting in smaller herd sizes and higher meat prices for consumers. Governor Perry recognized earlier this year that a near tripling of feed prices would harm Texas livestock and poultry farmers greatly, put meat industry employees out of jobs and strain Texas consumers. The same is true all across the country, and unfortunately EPA’s decision ensures that this will continue to be the case unless Congress acts quickly to restructure the ethanol mandates, taxes and tariffs.” A number of other food, restaurant and grocery associations expressed disappointment in the decision.
Access a release from Governor Perry (click here). Access 55-pages of supplemental arguments submitted by Texas on August 6 (click here). Access a release and link to additional information from DOE (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from AAM (click here). Access the statement from Pilgrim's Pride (click here). Access the AMI statement (click here). Access another release from AMI with other association comments (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for the action with all comments received and background information (click here). Access EPA's RFS Program website for further details and background (click here). Access a complete list of U.S. biorefineries and a locational map (click here). [*Energy, *Agriculture]
Texas Governor Rick Perry who requested the waiver said, "I am greatly disappointed with the EPA’s inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers and American households. For the EPA to assert that this federal mandate is not affecting food prices not only goes against common sense, but every American’s grocery bill. Denying Texas’ request is a mistake that will only increase the already-heavy financial burden on families while doing even more harm to the livestock industry. Good intentions and laudable goals are small compensation to the families, farmers and ranchers who are being hurt by the federal government’s efforts to trade food for fuel. Any government mandate that artificially props-up a single industry to the detriment of millions of Americans is bad public policy. Congress specifically created an emergency waiver provision for situations like these and EPA refuses to implement it."
Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman issued a release and said, “Clean, green, domestic, sustainable biofuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase our energy security are a crucial part of America’s energy policy. Advanced biofuels are just one part of a diverse portfolio of renewable energy and efficiency technologies that the Department of Energy is pursuing. . . In June, DOE announced an estimate that gasoline prices would be between 20 cents to 35 cents per gallon higher without ethanol, a first-generation biofuel. Also, without biofuels, DOE estimates that the U.S. would have to use 7.2 billion more gallons of gasoline in 2008 in order to maintain current levels of travel, a 5 percent increase. Since 2007 DOE has dedicated more than $1 billion in non-food based, sustainable, and cost competitive second-generation cellulosic biofuels research and demonstration. The Bush Administration is committed to continually monitoring the situation and is open to considering all policy options with respect to biofuels moving forward."
U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, commented saying, "In the face of mounting questions and growing concern surrounding the corn-based ethanol mandates, today’s decision is a disappointment. In my home state of Oklahoma, the ethanol mandates are undoubtedly causing severe economic hardships for many cattlemen, pork producers, poultry producers and consumers."
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) responded to the EPA decision saying, "The Alliance is pleased with EPA’s decision. Alliance members are working hard to do their part to help achieve the goals of renewable fuels standard. Alliance members have already produced more than 12.5 million alternative-fuel vehicles, including 5.5 million Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) capable of operating on a blend up of up to 85% ethanol, and 6 million diesel powered vehicles capable of operating on 5% biodiesel fuel. Yet only about 1 in 100 of the nation’s gas stations currently offer E85 fuel, with an even smaller percentage offering biodiesel blends. If the U.S. is to continue on the road to energy security, it is critical that the federal government continue to encourage growth in biofuels production and in the infrastructure needed to deliver these fuels to customers across the nation." AAM is a trade association of 10 car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the largest chicken company in the United States and Puerto Rico and the second-largest in Mexico said, "We are extremely disappointed . . . The RFS has caused feed ingredient prices to spiral out of control, inflicting extreme economic damage on food companies, and ultimately, on consumers, in the form of increased food costs. We expect our company's feed-ingredient costs for fiscal 2008 will increase $900 million from last fiscal year as a result of the U.S. government's failed ethanol policy. It's apparent that the government intends to blindly pursue this misguided and destructive policy despitereams of data demonstrating its negative impact on the environment, food prices, and world hunger. Not only are the 2008 mandates destructive, but the scheduled mandate next year will again increase another 16.7% from corn, consuming an additional 4.5% or more of the 2009-2010 corn crop than the anticipated 34% of the crop being consumed this year for ethanol production."
The American Meat Institute (AMI) issued a statement saying, “. . .using a third of our corn crop for ethanol production has driven corn and all feed prices up to levels that are severely impacting U.S. meat and poultry producers as well as consumers. . . the tripling of corn prices has done severe economic harm to the meat and poultry industry. The meat and poultry industry has already seen a contraction in production, resulting in smaller herd sizes and higher meat prices for consumers. Governor Perry recognized earlier this year that a near tripling of feed prices would harm Texas livestock and poultry farmers greatly, put meat industry employees out of jobs and strain Texas consumers. The same is true all across the country, and unfortunately EPA’s decision ensures that this will continue to be the case unless Congress acts quickly to restructure the ethanol mandates, taxes and tariffs.” A number of other food, restaurant and grocery associations expressed disappointment in the decision.
Access a release from Governor Perry (click here). Access 55-pages of supplemental arguments submitted by Texas on August 6 (click here). Access a release and link to additional information from DOE (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from AAM (click here). Access the statement from Pilgrim's Pride (click here). Access the AMI statement (click here). Access another release from AMI with other association comments (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for the action with all comments received and background information (click here). Access EPA's RFS Program website for further details and background (click here). Access a complete list of U.S. biorefineries and a locational map (click here). [*Energy, *Agriculture]
Thursday, August 07, 2008
EPA Denies Texas RFS 50% Waiver Request
Aug 7: U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced his decision in the State of Texas’ request to reduce the nationwide Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Johnson said following extensive analysis, the Agency decided to deny the request from Texas. As a result, the required total volume of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, mandated by law to be blended into the fuel supply will remain at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009.
Johnson said, “After reviewing the facts, it was clear this request did not meet the criteria in the law. The RFS remains an important tool in our ongoing efforts to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, in aggressive yet practical ways.” Current law authorizes EPA to waive the national RFS if the Agency determines that the mandated biofuel volumes would cause “severe harm” to the economy or the environment. EPA said it recognizes that high commodity prices are having economic impacts, but indicated that extensive analysis of the Texas request found no compelling evidence that the RFS mandate is causing severe economic harm during the time period specified by Texas.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the RFS program -- and included amendments to the Clean Air Act to set strict criteria for RFS-related waivers. RFS nationwide volume mandates were increased in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law in December 2007. EPA said it conducted detailed analysis, consulted closely with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, and carefully considered more than 15,000 public comments in response to the Texas request. This is the first RFS-related waiver request. In a Federal Register notice, EPA is publishing a detailed rationale that will also serve as a framework for any future waiver considerations.
In an April 25, 2008 letter to EPA, Governor Rick Perry asked EPA to grant a 50% waiver of the nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) mandate for the production of ethanol derived from grain, citing adverse economic impact due to higher corn prices in Texas. EPA's actions followed intensified debates over the RFS which have legislators divided on how to address the issue [See WIMS 5/12/08].
In May, EPA initiated a public comment during which it received over 15,000 comments and a number of the comments "raised substantive issues and included significant economic analysis," according to Johnson [See WIMS 7/22/08]. At that time, Johnson indicated EPA would need more time to respond to the Texas request and said, "I believe it is very important to take sufficient time to review and understand these comments in order to make an informed decision. EPA is also required to consult with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy in considering whether to grant or deny the waiver request and has begun these consultations. The process remains fair and open and no agreements have been made with any party in regard to the substance and timing of the decision on the waiver request."
Access the announcement from Administrator Johnson (click here). Access a fact sheet on the decision (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for the action with comments and background information (click here). Access EPA's RFS Program website for further details and background (click here). Access an April 25 release from Governor Perry (click here). [*Energy, *Agriculture]
Johnson said, “After reviewing the facts, it was clear this request did not meet the criteria in the law. The RFS remains an important tool in our ongoing efforts to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, in aggressive yet practical ways.” Current law authorizes EPA to waive the national RFS if the Agency determines that the mandated biofuel volumes would cause “severe harm” to the economy or the environment. EPA said it recognizes that high commodity prices are having economic impacts, but indicated that extensive analysis of the Texas request found no compelling evidence that the RFS mandate is causing severe economic harm during the time period specified by Texas.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the RFS program -- and included amendments to the Clean Air Act to set strict criteria for RFS-related waivers. RFS nationwide volume mandates were increased in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law in December 2007. EPA said it conducted detailed analysis, consulted closely with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, and carefully considered more than 15,000 public comments in response to the Texas request. This is the first RFS-related waiver request. In a Federal Register notice, EPA is publishing a detailed rationale that will also serve as a framework for any future waiver considerations.
In an April 25, 2008 letter to EPA, Governor Rick Perry asked EPA to grant a 50% waiver of the nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) mandate for the production of ethanol derived from grain, citing adverse economic impact due to higher corn prices in Texas. EPA's actions followed intensified debates over the RFS which have legislators divided on how to address the issue [See WIMS 5/12/08].
In May, EPA initiated a public comment during which it received over 15,000 comments and a number of the comments "raised substantive issues and included significant economic analysis," according to Johnson [See WIMS 7/22/08]. At that time, Johnson indicated EPA would need more time to respond to the Texas request and said, "I believe it is very important to take sufficient time to review and understand these comments in order to make an informed decision. EPA is also required to consult with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy in considering whether to grant or deny the waiver request and has begun these consultations. The process remains fair and open and no agreements have been made with any party in regard to the substance and timing of the decision on the waiver request."
Access the announcement from Administrator Johnson (click here). Access a fact sheet on the decision (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for the action with comments and background information (click here). Access EPA's RFS Program website for further details and background (click here). Access an April 25 release from Governor Perry (click here). [*Energy, *Agriculture]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
