House Subcommittee Hears Competing Views From Climate Scientists

Mar 8: The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), held a hearing entitled, "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations." The hearing was held at the request of Democrats and follows last week's introduction of the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) [See WIMS 3/4/11], a bill to block what Republican's said is "EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda" which they say "would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak." The bill was introduced in the House by full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Whitfield along with three Democratic leaders; and in the Senate (S.482) by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee and 43 cosponsors including one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV).

 

     Witnesses in today's hearing included a distinguished list of scientists including (in alphabetical order): (1) Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville; (2) Dr. Christopher Field (invited at the request of the minority), Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA; (3) Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer (invited at the request of the minority), Director, University of Michigan Biological Station, University of Michigan; (4) Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder; (5) Dr. Donald Roberts, Professor Emeritus, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; (6) Dr. Richard Somerville (invited at the request of the minority), Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA; (7) Dr. Francis W. Zwiers (invited at the request of the minority), Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.

 

    In advance of the hearing, Democrats issued a 5-page background memo on climate science and Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) delivered a speech at an event at the Center for American Progress. In his speech, Rep. Waxman said, "I've never been in a Congress where there was such an overwhelming disconnect between science and public policy. The Republicans in Congress have become the party of science deniers and that is profoundly dangerous. Exhibit A in the Republican attack on science is the Upton-Inhofe bill that overturns EPA's scientific determination that carbon emissions endanger health and welfare. When we had a hearing on this legislation last month, Senator Inhofe was the lead witness. He told us that climate change is a 'hoax.' The new Republican majority in the House has a lot of power to write our nation's laws, but they do not have the power to rewrite the laws of nature. Republicans in Congress can't cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can't stop climate change by declaring it a hoax. . ."

 

    In his opening statement, Chairman Whitfield said, "This is our third hearing on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. The first two focused on the adverse impact that the Environmental Protection Agency's global warming regulatory agenda would have on jobs and the economy. We could probably have another hearing on the economic impacts, as we still have not heard from some of the many job creating sectors that consider EPA's global warming agenda to be one of if not the biggest regulatory threat they face. But the minority wanted a separate science hearing and we have agreed to their request. In my view, holding yet another science hearing is rather excessive, given that we have held 24 such hearings in the House of Representatives over the past 4 years. In any event, I am pleased to have this diverse scientific panel today. . .

 

    ". . .one need not be a skeptic of global warming to be a skeptic of EPA's regulatory agenda. Case in point is EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who warned about how complex and costly greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act would be. Of course, that was in 2009 and 2010 when the administration was trying to pass through Congress cap and trade legislation. It is only now that cap and trade is dead that the Administrator has changed her tune and emphasizes how reasonable and workable these rules will be. . . Keep that in mind when you hear about these scary global warming scenarios. Even if you believe every word of them, the agency's rules are no solution. . ."

 

    Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville testified, ". . .downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere. . . Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization's main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered. Climate change alone is a weak leg on which to stand for such a massive undertaking. (I'll not address the fact there is really no demonstrated technology except nuclear that can replace large portions of the carbon-based energy production.)

 

    He also noted, ". . .we have not considered the many positive benefits of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially for the biological world, nor the tremendous boost to human health, welfare, and security provided by affordable, carbon-based energy. As someone who has lived in a developing country, I can assure the subcommittee that without energy, life is brutal and short."

 

    Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer (invited at the request of the minority), Director, University of Michigan Biological Station, University of Michigan, testified and offered his views on the current and expected ecological impacts of climate change, with a particular emphasis on the Great Lakes basin and said, "We know the climate is changing. It is real, it is happening, and the impacts are becoming clearer the more we observe and study plant and animal distributions, nutrient cycles, atmospheric chemistry, and long-term, large-scale weather and climate patterns. . .

 

    "In light of all of the scientific facts relating to climate change, Michigan scientists have overwhelmingly voiced their support for strong federal policies to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Science is not a partisan endeavor. It provides us with the best information available about how the earth and regions such as the Great Lakes basin are responding to the inexorable and unprecedented (in human time-scale) increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases. We ask that Congress support sound legislative and regulatory policies to limit harmful greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, welfare, environment and our economy.

 

    Access the hearing website and links to all witness testimony, a Republican background memo and opening statement from Rep. Whitfield (click here). Access the hearing announcement (click here). Access the Democrats background memo (click here). Access the speech of Rep. Waxman (click here). Access links to an opening statement from Rep. Waxman as well as letters from Scientists, National Academy of Sciences and Health and Medical Professionals (click here). Access a release from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Ranking Member Subcommittee on Energy and Power (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- Enviros Claim Victory In Ballast Water Discharge Settlement
- Upton & Inhofe Question EPA's Timing & Process For Ozone Rules
- EPA Updates Tools To Gauge Electric Generation Impacts
- Groups Urge Swift Development Of Atlantic Seaboard Offshore Wind
- Groups Deliver Annual "Green Budget" Report To Congress
- Ten Sites Added; 15 Proposed For National Priorities List 

 

(Click here for details)

"Political Games" As Budget Crisis Looms

Mar 4: While Congress bought 2-weeks of time when it approved a short-term extension to the Continuing Resolution (CR) that extends funding for the government and avoids a shutdown until March 18 [See WIMS 3/2/11], the major differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats continue. The Senate will be debating and  voting on a budget bill this week.

 

    Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, ". . . when you have to make the tough decisions that go into any budget, those decisions have to be practical, not political. They have to be realistic, not ideological. . . As careful as we must be not to waste the American people's money, we must be just as mindful not to waste their time. Regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political exercise, and little more. That's counterproductive. We need to be as serious as the challenge before us. I'm much more concerned with actually keeping our country running and investing smartly in our future than I am in this political game. When they wake up in the morning, the American people want to send their children to a good school and then go to a good job. They want their families to come home to a safe neighborhood at night and they want to go to sleep knowing our country is safe from those who want to harm us. They don't care who gets credit for it. They don't care who thought of how best to do it -- they just want us to do it."

    Senator Reid outlined the Republican and Democratic plans as follows:

 

    The Republican Plan: "First, the reckless Republican plan that the Tea Party has pushed through the House. That irresponsible proposal slashes investments, cuts jobs, and sacrifices security and education. Yes, it cuts a lot of money today, but America would lose so much more tomorrow because these cuts are made arbitrarily, without regard for consequences. That's why leading independent economists agree that it will hurt our recovery, slow growth and cost jobs. We can't afford that. We can't afford to be blinded by the big numbers in the House Republicans' plan. We have to scrutinize how they came to cut $61 billion. And the truth is that it adds up to $61 billion through significant subtraction of program the American people don't want to lose [See WIMS 2/22/11]:

• It slashes more than a billion dollars from Social Security, which means half a million seniors who paid into Social Security their entire lives will be waiting for benefits their country promised them.
• It cuts $700 million from education, which means a million disadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000 teachers, aides and school staff could lose their jobs. It would even take 200,000 children out of Head Start.
• It closes poison-control centers and cut $100 million from food-safety inspections. That means the food we eat could be both less safe and more expensive – and that's a lose-lose proposition.
• It cuts three-quarters of a billion dollars from renewable energy investments, which will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence and delay the day America lives and works in a clean-energy economy.
• It cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security, port security and FEMA. Even some Republican Congressmen readily admit it's not so smart to pinch pennies on the backs of our national security and first responders.

    "That's just the tip of the iceberg. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said these cuts – and many more like them – will cost a significant number of jobs. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's, put that number at 700,000 jobs.

    The Democrat's Plan: "We know that we have to make cuts. But we also know that when we cut, we have to cut in a way that strengthens our economy -- not in a way that weakens it. We know we have to look carefully at the quality of these cuts and not get blinded by the quantity. After all, as I've said before, you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs -- but no doctor would recommend it. Our plan cuts $51 billion from President Obama's budget, but in a much more responsible way. We're eliminating redundancies, ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs and cutting funding for earmarks.  [Note: analysts indicate that using the "same baseline," Democratic cuts amount to only $6-$10 billion].

    "Our plan recognizes that we're not in a competition to determine who can cut the most, without regard for the consequences. Rather, we need to cooperate to figure out where we can cut the smartest. While the House-passed plan is based in ideology, ours is based in reality. These are decisions about real money that solve real problems that affect real lives. Our budget affirms and reflects our values. We see our modestly recovering economy, including today's news that employers are hiring at the fastest pace in almost a year, and the national unemployment rate fell to a nearly two-year low. We can't squander this cautiously optimistic news with counterproductive cuts."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) commented on March 4 and said, "House Republicans have proposed a plan. It would reduce spending by $61 billion in this year's budget. Earlier this week, we voted on a two-week piece of that bill that reduces spending by $4 billion. The White House's proposal, as outlined by the President's economic advisor yesterday, is to cut another $6 billion and call it a day. Even more outrageous, they say that this proposal meets us 'halfway.' I won't get into their tortured justification. Suffice it to say that Politico says it requires Americans to 'suspend disbelief.' The Washington Post was equally unmoved by the White House's logic. They said Democrats are disingenuous in suggesting they've worked hard to reduce spending. And they agree that calling this latest proposal an effort to meet us halfway is nonsense.

 

    "So amid all the fanfare yesterday, what the White House is proposing is little more than one more proposal to maintain the status quo — to give the appearance of action where there is none. This latest proposal is unacceptable, and it's indefensible.

"The American people are tired of hearing the same tired talking points from our Democrat friends. They want action. They want to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation. It's time for Washington Democrats to get serious."

 

    President Obama said on March 5, "Just as both parties cooperated on tax relief that is now fueling job growth, we need to come together around a budget that cuts spending without slowing our economic momentum. We need a government that lives within its means without sacrificing job-creating investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. The budget I sent to Congress makes these investments, but it also includes a 5-year spending freeze, and it will reduce our deficits by $1 trillion over the next decade.  In fact, the cuts I've proposed would bring annual domestic spending to its lowest share of the economy under any president in more than 50 years.

    "Over the last few weeks, Members of Congress have been debating their own proposals.  And I was pleased that Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together a few days ago and passed a plan to cut spending and keep the government running for two more weeks. Still, we can't do business two weeks at a time. It's not responsible, and it threatens the progress our economy has been making. We've got to keep that momentum going. . . Getting our fiscal house in order can't just be something we use as cover to do away with things we dislike politically.  And it can't just be about how much we cut.  It's got to be about how we cut and how we invest.  We've got to be smart about it.  Because if we cut back on the kids I've met here and their education, for example, we'd be risking the future of an entire generation of Americans.  And there's nothing responsible about that. . ."

    Access the statement from Sen. Reid (click here). Access a release from Sen. McConnell (click here).Access the statement from President Obama (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- NAM Questions "Good Faith" Of EPA Regulatory Review
- EPA Wants Comments On 2008 Clean Boating Act
- Draft Report To Congress On Benefits & Costs Of Federal Regulations
- Bill Would Extend Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards
- NOAA Website Tracks Coastal Community Program Funding
- $32 Million To Fund Four New Clean Air Research Centers
- California Seeks To Be First PERC-Free Dry Cleaning State
- Antarctica Research Turns Glacial Formation Upside Down

 

(Click here for details)

House & Senate Introduce "Energy Tax Prevention Act"

Mar 3: In a bicameral effort of Republican leaders and a few Democrats, members have introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910 & S. 482), a bill to block what they call the "U.S. EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda that would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak." The bill, they say, is narrowly drawn to clarify the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act, preserving the law's important and longstanding functions to reduce air pollution.

 

    In the House, the bill is introduced by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and has 9 cosponsors including three Democrats Collin Peterson (D-MN), Dan Boren (D-OK) and Nick Rahall (D-WV). In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, and has 43 cosponsors including one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). 

 

    According to a summary provided by Senator Inhofe, the bill would: Protect jobs in America's manufacturing sector; Protect consumers from higher energy costs; Put Congress in charge of the nation's climate change policies; and Ensure that the public health provisions of the Clean Air Act are preserved. Senator Inhofe commented on the provisions as follows:

• No More Back-Door Energy Taxes - "As the price of gasoline nears $4 a gallon, consumers can't afford to pay for the Obama EPA's back-door cap-and-trade regulations, which will inevitably mean higher prices for gasoline and electricity," Sen. Inhofe said.  "The Energy Tax Prevention Act protects consumers and their budgets." 
• No Two-Year Delay - "stops cap-and-trade regulations from taking effect-once and for all. A two-year delay won't help our economy grow or help those searching for work. It does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty plaguing businesses all across America. Simply put, EPA's cap-and-trade regime is bad policy that must be stopped."
• Takes Power Away from Unelected Bureaucrats - "imposes accountability. It takes power away from unelected bureaucrats and puts it where it belongs: in Congress, where the people can and should decide the nation's climate change policy."
• Stops Distortion of Nation's Clean Air Law - "leaves all of the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact, ensuring that Americans will be protected from pollution that has direct public health impacts. It also prevents EPA from twisting the Clean Air Act into a bureaucratic obstacle to growth and expansion. I recognize the tremendous strides businesses and communities have made in reducing air pollution, and I stand ready to modernize the Clean Air Act to make even greater strides in improving public health. But imposing energy taxes through EPA's cap-and-trade regulations and blocking expansion won't make Americans healthier-it will only mean fewer jobs, a higher cost of living, and less growth and innovation."

    Chairman Upton said, "Whether at the pump or on their monthly utility bills, American families, farmers, and employers feel the pinch when energy prices go up. The very last thing the federal government should do is make matters worse by intentionally driving up the cost of energy. Yet that is exactly what's in store if the EPA moves forward with its plans to regulate and penalize carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act." House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said, "The EPA is pursuing a dramatic shift in our nation's energy and environmental policy that would send shock waves through our economy. Setting the course of our energy policy is the job of Congress, not a single federal agency acting without authority. The Energy Tax Prevention Act is a sensible, straightforward plan to end the uncertainty and economic threat posed by the EPA's climate change agenda."

 

    The members listed earlier supporters of the bill as: American Electric Power, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Mining Association. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) issued a release supporting the bills and said, "Job creators, who have been struggling to comply with costly regulations in these economic times, are deeply concerned that more devastating regulations are on the way. We applaud this legislation and believe it can stop misguided regulations that have been putting manufacturers out of work."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) said it "welcomes the leadership of Senator Inhofe and Chairman Upton, and the growing list of bipartisan supporters in Congress, to stop unelected federal officials from regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act -- a policy never intended by Congress. This legislation will prevent EPA from imposing regulations that could significantly raise energy costs and harm our fragile economic recovery."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and other Democrats on the EPW Committee released statements saying the bills "would hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to implement the Clean Air Act and permanently block the agency from curbing carbon pollution from the nation's largest polluters. The Inhofe-Upton bill would block EPA from complying with the U.S. Supreme Court's direction to address carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act."

 

    Senator Boxer said, "This bill is an assault on the Clean Air Act and threatens the health and well-being of all Americans. One of EPA's core missions is to protect children and families from dangerous air pollution, and it is irresponsible to prevent EPA from holding major industrial polluters accountable. As recent polls have shown, including one by the American Lung Association, this bill is out of step with the American public who strongly support environmental safeguards." Other members commenting in the joint release included: Senators Thomas Carper (D-DE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

 

    Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "The Upton-Inhofe bill is an affront to science. It exempts the nation's largest polluters from regulation at the expense of public health and energy security. This proposal may be good for Koch Oil but it would gut the landmark Clean Air Act and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from addressing the enormous threat posed by carbon pollution.  I remain committed to fighting this and other Republican efforts to weaken the laws that form the cornerstone of public health and environmental protections in our nation."

 

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a statement saying the bill "would increase pollution and promote the importation of millions of barrels of foreign oil per day by negating advanced fuel economy standards." He said, "Along with the threats to public health this bill presents, it would curtail American clean energy innovation and eliminate fuel economy advances that would save millions of barrels of oil per day. The bill represents an impossibly shortsighted tradeoff for America: complacency on clean energy and public health in exchange for more Middle Eastern oil."

 

    The public interest law firm, Earthjustice issued a release stating, "This House bill is yet another Dirty Air Act intended to give the nation's biggest polluters a way out of limits to their carbon dioxide -- pollution that's likely to exacerbate asthma and lung diseases by worsening smog, and increase deadly heat waves and extreme weather conditions. But climate change isn't just threatening Americans' health; it is also threatening our well-being and ability to prosper now and into the future. We know that carbon dioxide pollution and climate change will have far-reaching effects on this country and the businesses that keep us running. We are threatened with heavy storm surges that will cost us both ecologically and economically, with harm to our clean drinking water supplies, with severe impacts on crop harvests and livestock production and food prices, with harm to life and critical fisheries in our coastal areas, and with new disease threats.

    "Volumes of science prove that wiping away limits on carbon dioxide pollution and the health benefits these limits will provide will hurt Americans all over the country. Most Americans recognize the importance of these pollution limits and agree that science, not politicians with political motives, should be followed when setting these pollution controls, as the Environmental Protection Agency has done. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that, based on all the science in front of us, the EPA must move forward on controlling carbon dioxide pollution under the Clean Air Act's requirements. It's been almost four years of these blocks and obstructions by some members of Congress who want to brush aside this mandate and ignore the science."

    Access a release from Rep. Upton and link to supporting letters (click here). Access a release from Sen. Inhofe including a summary, fact sheet, the bill and supporting comments from Senators (click here). Access legislative details of H.R. 910 (click here). Access legislative details of S.482 (click here). Access the release from NAM (click here). Access the release from API (click here). Access the joint release from EPW Committee Democrats (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the release from Earthjustice (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House & Senate Approve Surface Transportation FY11 Extension
• Senator Levin Calls For "Giant Leaps" In Fuel Efficiency
• EPA Proposes 30 Unregulated Contaminants For SDWA Monitoring
• Sen. Murkowski: Five Ways to Boost America's Oil Production
• Senate Hearing On Forest Service FY 2012 Budget
• Chamber Warns Of SEC Rule Effect On U.S. Oil Companies
• Pew Climate Center Issues Update Of "Climate Change 101"

(Click here for details)

Senate Hearing On EPA FY 2012 Budget & FY 2011 CR

Mar 2: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) held a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. The only witness was U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Both Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe delivered opening statements.

 

    Senator Boxer stated, "The President's budget recognizes the importance of EPA's mission while responsibly cutting spending by more than $1.3 billion -- a 13 percent reduction -- from 2010 levels. I respect the President's effort to cut the deficit during these tough economic times and do it responsibly. For example, the President's budget would make vital investments in enforcing our nation's public health laws, including an agency-wide effort to reduce toxic air pollution in at-risk communities and near schools and other places where kids may be exposed. The budget would also assist state and local efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution and to begin the process of getting the nation's largest emitters of carbon pollution to reduce their emissions. Even where this budget proposes to make cuts, such as the reductions in the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Revolving Loan programs -- it does so after significant increases in recent years that make these reductions more manageable.

    "In stark contrast to the President's support for EPA's essential work to protect our children and families, the recently passed House Continuing Resolution [CR] would cut EPA's overall budget -- and the critical public health protections EPA provides -- by 30 percent this year [See WIMS 2/16/11]. This represents the largest cut to any Federal agency. It would cut an astounding $2 billion from EPA's water infrastructure and water quality protection programs. These cuts mean that our drinking water has a far greater chance of contamination. These cuts also mean thousands of jobs lost – jobs that relate to clean water infrastructure. The CR would cut funds to clean up and redevelop brownfields by 30 percent from 2010 enacted levels – threatening the 5,000 jobs that EPA estimates this program supports. The House budget would slash 45 percent from the 2010 enacted level for federal aid to state, local and tribal governments to protect our communities from dangerous pollution. It also includes backdoor efforts to undermine EPA authorities that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. . ."

 

    Senator Boxer concluded saying, "The United States is also the world's largest producer and consumer of environmental technology goods and services. This industry has approximately 119,000 firms. It supports almost 1.7 million jobs and generates $300 billion in revenues -- including $43.8 billion in exports. Why take an axe to these industries? Budgets are clear expressions of priorities. The House-passed Continuing Resolution forces communities to bear the burden of more pollution in our air and water. But the President's budget makes tough choices in a thoughtful way that doesn't sacrifice the huge strides our nation has made towards a clean and safe environment."

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "Administrator Jackson, it is always good to see you. I suspect these are tough times at EPA, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is the nation's massive deficits and debt. If we want to eliminate them, Federal agencies must make meaningful fiscal sacrifices-and EPA is no exception. But Administrator Jackson-and I say this with all due respect-instead of sacrifice, I'm afraid EPA's budget submission is yet another fiscal bait and switch. We've seen this before, going back to the Bush Administration: EPA proposes significant cuts that appear fiscally responsible-but in truth they are cuts EPA knows Congress will readily restore.

 

    "By my calculations, 83% of EPA's proposed cuts come from three water programs with strong bipartisan support in Congress, including $947 million from State Revolving Funds (SRF). These cuts total $1.1 billion. EPA's overall cuts for FY 2012 amount to $1.3 billion. So it's not hard to see the math here. You can bet these cuts will be restored, because many of my colleagues believe these are worthwhile programs. For example, the SRF supports our nation's infrastructure-an area where the federal government has a crucial role to play. Administrator, I call on you to help us find cuts that are more responsible-and more politically realistic. I can think of many programs that don't deserve funding. Item number one-and this should be no surprise-is EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime.

 

    I must say, however, that, due to existing GHG regulations, this is more complicated than it seems. The problem is that EPA, states, and regulated entities have legal obligations stemming from existing GHG regulations. We have to ensure, therefore, that our cuts don't have unintended consequences. The best way to eliminate EPA's carbon regime is through an authorization bill. That's why I released the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 with Rep. Fred Upton. This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our nation's climate change policy, not EPA bureaucrats. And it will keep our focus on reducing real pollution, ensure people have jobs, and allow our economy to grow.

 

   If we want to make strides in improving public health, we won't do it by regulating carbon dioxide. It's not a pollutant-despite what EPA says. When it comes to real pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, EPA's budget falls short. For example, it eliminates funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, or DERA. This is a program with bipartisan support-from me, Chairman Boxer, Sen. Carper, and others-that we passed last year. It would help reduce real pollutants, but EPA has decided to spend elsewhere. This is irresponsible and, if followed, bad for public health. . ."

 

    Administrator Jackson testified that, "This budget reflects that good fiscal sense, and makes many tough choices. FY 2010's budget of $10.3 billion was EPA's highest funding level since its creation. This FY 2012 budget request, while a deep cut resulting in a total budget of $8.973 billion, will allow EPA to carry out its core mission and fund the most critical efforts to protect the health of American families. . .

 

    "This budget represents a nearly 13 percent reduction over the FY 2010 budget and reflects our priorities: supporting action on climate change and improving air quality; protecting America's waters; building strong state and tribal partnerships; strengthening enforcement and compliance; enhancing chemical safety; supporting healthy communities; and maintaining a strong science foundation. Because of the constrained fiscal environment, the Budget decreases the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by nearly $950 million while supporting a long‐term goal of providing about 5 percent of total water infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient system‐wide planning. The Budget also reduces the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by $125 million, eliminates about $160 million in targeted water infrastructure earmarks, and eliminates $60 million for clean diesel grants. . ."

 

    On the controversial subject of funding for greenhouse gas control and climate change she said, "Our budget requests $46 million for additional regulatory efforts aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. This includes $30 million in state grants and support for permitting, which will ensure that our state partners develop the technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Also included is $6.0 million in additional funding for the development and implementation of new emission standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as passenger cars, light‐duty trucks, and medium‐duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support EPA's assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7.5 million for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manageable for business. Finally, this amount includes an additional $2.5 million for priority measurement, reporting and verification activities related to implementing the GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website with links to testimony, statements and a webcast (click here). Access the 6-page summary of budget details for EPA (click here). Access the detailed 128-page budget summary for EPA (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• NPRA Says Proposed Ozone Changes Could Harm Economy & Jobs
• UN Climate Chief Urges Fast Follow-Up On Cancún Agreements
• Both Parties Grill EPA On Water & Remediation Budget Priorities
• RFP: $1.9 Million For Environmental Education Projects
• UNEP Reminds: "Get Onboard For World Environment Day 2011!"
• Dow Agrosciences L.L.C. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

(Click here for details)

House Hearing On EPA GHG Regulations & Jobs

Mar 1: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) with Ranking: Bobby Rush (D-IL), held a hearing on "EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs." Witnesses testifying included representatives from: Ohio Coal Association; Industrial Energy Consumers of America; James River Air Conditioning Company, Inc.; Charles River Associates; Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University; Gina McCarthy, U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation.

 

    In an opening statement Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield said, "The energy debate in America today has been summed up in about six words, and this is where we are: fossil fuels bad, green energy good. Many of us recognize that it's a lot more complicated than that. However, in order to meet our increased demands just on the electricity side, we are going to need electricity produced from all sources. The Obama administration has placed so much emphasis on green energy. Billions of dollars in stimulus money and tax incentives has gone for green energy. And the problem I have is that I think the American people are being misled about the role green energy can play in the immediate future as we use taxpayer money to help develop green energy. . ."

 

    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (D-MI) said in an opening statement, "This is a hearing about jobs. Jobs and the economy. To imply anything otherwise is misleading. Scare tactics from the other side are meant as a diversion from what EPA's greenhouse gas regulations would do to American jobs. We had this debate last Congress. Studies estimated that a cap-and-trade national energy tax would produce job losses in the millions. Yet EPA is unilaterally acting to impose the very same types of policies that Congress rejected in the 111th. . . Let's dispel a myth. Air quality and public health will not be harmed or affected in any way by efforts to slow and then stop EPA's expansive global warming agenda under the Clean Air Act. Let me repeat that: Air quality and public health will not be harmed by stopping EPA's job-crushing global warming agenda. . . Set aside the scare tactics. Listen to the facts. This issue is not about air quality and public health. It's about jobs. EPA is not looking at the impact on jobs, the Members of this Committee should and we must."

 

    Pursuant to a House rule, full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Democratic Members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, sent a letter to Chairman Whitfield requesting at least one additional day of hearings on the subject of EPA's greenhouse gas regulations in order to hear from scientific experts. The members said, "we believe it is essential that the Subcommittee hear from our nation's leading scientific experts. At the Subcommittee's first hearing, Senator James Inhofe told the Subcommittee that he believes climate change is a "hoax." We believe the members should have the opportunity to hear from top scientists on this subject and the implications of inaction before we are asked to vote on legislation premised on the assertion that carbon pollution is harmless."

 

    EPA's McCarthy testified on many benefits of the Clean Air Act and then discussed greenhouse gas regulation saying, "We are now starting to address greenhouse gases by applying some of the same Clean Air Act regulatory tools that we have used so successfully for decades. EPA is compelled to do so by the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, and the best available science, which strongly supports EPA's finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. These tools, which require the Agency to take cost into consideration, will allow the Agency to move forward with common-sense, reasonable requirements."

 

    She said, "The first greenhouse gas rule issued under pre-existing Clean Air Act authority is already demonstrating how sensible regulation can make sense for our economy. Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from new cars and trucks. The vehicles sold in model years 2012-2016 will save us 1.85 billion barrels of oil while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 962 million tons. These rules were supported by both the auto workers and the auto manufacturers, who recognize that the standards provide for certainty, drive technological innovation, and help American automakers stay competitive in a global marketplace where fuel efficiency increasingly matters."

 

    She also said, "EPA is also focusing on energy efficiency as the method of meeting greenhouse gas permit requirements for power plants and other large industrial facilities that are building new facilities or making major modifications at existing facilities. A group of 11 power companies observed that: 'EPA has proposed a reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of new power plants and large industrial facilities.' This focus on energy efficiency should promote measures that reduce both emissions and long-term costs for facilities."

 

    America's auto dealers said they "support a single national fuel economy standard and increases in fuel economy that make sense to consumers. Our primary concern is not necessarily over the stringency of the fuel economy standard, but rather the overall structure of the fuel economy regulations that govern automobiles today, which currently emanate from three different programs established by three separate government agencies. A single national standard will more effectively increase fuel economy, enhance economic growth, protect passenger safety, and protect the environment. Unless and until consumers actually purchase new vehicles, none of these benefits will be realized. . . State regulation is completely unnecessary and ineffective because the vigorous CAFE program Congress designed, coupled with EPA regulation of vehicle air conditioners, results in approximately the same amount of fuel saved and greenhouse gases reduced."

 

    Charles River Associates (CRA) discussed "how a study of green jobs released last month by Ceres and PERI gives a biased and incomplete picture of the effects of regulation and of how jobs are created." He discussed CRA model of the effects of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations on energy prices, employment and competitiveness. He said, "These regulations undeniably raise the cost of doing business. Tradeoffs must be made between economic costs and environmental benefits in designing regulations, and pretending there is no cost does not help those deliberations."

 

    Finally CRA indicated that, regulation of GHG under the Clean Air Act "is likely to take an even more costly course. Our analysis and that of just about every other modeling team has found that command and control regulations EPA must use under Clean Air Act authorities greatly increase costs above even the levels that carbon taxes or a cap and trade system would impose. The reason in simple terms is that command and control regulations are designed by bureaucrats who know next to nothing about the circumstances of individual businesses. Therefore, their orders cannot possible lead to the same cost-effective solutions that managers would find for their own businesses when facing a price on greenhouse gas emissions. So the result is that after the Congress decided not to create a cap and trade system, the EPA is following through with an approach that would impose far higher costs to achieve similar levels of emission reduction."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a background memo, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the letter from Rep. Waxman, et al (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House & Senate FY 11 Budget Battle Gets 2-Week Reprieve
• Major Enviros Intervene In GHG Reporting Lawsuits
• GAO Report On EPA Major Management Challenges
• DOE & DOD Cooperate On Advanced Clean Energy Technologies
• Groups Urge Senate To Reject Agriculture Conservation Budget Cuts
• NIEHS Begins BP Spill Long-Term Follow-Up Study Of 55,000 Workers

(Click here for details)

EPA Announces Plans To Extend March 31 GHG Reporting Deadline

Mar 1: U.S. EPA announced that its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program has recently completed extensive work to develop GHG data reporting requirements for a wide range of different industries in response to Congressional mandates. The program will provide Congress, stakeholder groups and the public with information about the emissions while helping businesses identify cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. To ensure that the requirements are practical and understandable to the thousands of companies already registered to report under the program, the Agency is in the process of finalizing a user friendly online electronic reporting platform.

    EPA said, "Following conversations with industry and others, and in the interest of providing high quality data to the public this year, EPA is extending this year's reporting deadline -- originally March 31 -- and plans to have the final uploading tool available this summer, with the data scheduled to be published later this year. EPA said the extension will allow it to further test the system that facilities will use to submit data and give industry the opportunity to test the tool, provide feedback, and have sufficient time to become familiar with the tool prior to reporting." The Agency said it will provide more detail on these intended changes in the coming weeks and will ensure that this reporting extension is in effect before the original reporting deadline of March 31, 2011. However, the Agency did not specify the new reporting deadline.

    In addition to the nine rulemakings necessary to comply with Congressional direction for the program, EPA said that over the past two years it has established a public help center that operates through the Agency website and efficient mechanisms for stakeholders to get answers from EPA experts to detailed technical questions. EPA has also conducted training sessions with each affected sector and held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders across the country.

    EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program, launched in October 2009, requires the reporting of GHG emissions data from large emission sources and fuel suppliers across a range of industry sectors. EPA said the program will provide data that will help industries find ways to be more efficient and save money.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on these actions (click here).  Access more information on the GHG Reporting Program (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL NEWS

• EPA Announces Plans To Extend March 31 GHG Reporting Deadline
• DOI Issues 1st Deepwater Drilling Permit Since BP Spill
• Government Shutdown Debate Appears Delayed A Couple Of Weeks
• EPA Report On Benefits & Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments
• Report Highlights $789 Million In Benefits From RGGI CO2 Auctions
• Arch Coal To Pay $4 Million In Clean Water Act Settlement
• NAS Report Probes Earth's Deep Past & Our Climate Future
• GAO Report On Duplication In Government Program

(Click here for details)

Review Of Low-Carbon Development In China 2010

Feb 25: A study by Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) -- Review of Low-Carbon Development in China 2010 -- found that through 2009, China was on track to meet the 20% energy intensity reduction target in the 11th Five Year Plan (FYP 2006-2010), reversing the trend of increasing energy intensity from 2002 to 2005. Carbon intensity fell as a result of decreasing energy intensity, demonstrating the importance of energy efficiency in the transition to a low-carbon economy; with additional carbon-specific policies, China could expect carbon intensity to fall faster than energy intensity in the future. CPI's initial analysis also found that many of the measures implemented in the 11th Five Year Plan were top-down administrative measures that used significant resources, and that some policies, such as plant closures, will be more expensive to implement moving forward. According to CPI, the key findings of the study included:

Through 2009, China was on track to meeting its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.  

Through 2009, China was on track to meeting its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.  

Through 2009, China was on track to meeting its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 20 Through 2009, China was on track to meet its energy intensity targets.  These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.  

1. Through 2009, China was on track to meet its energy intensity targets. These targets called for a reversal of the trend of increasing energy intensity experienced between 2002 and 2005.
2. China's carbon emissions intensity fell largely as a result of reduced energy intensity, demonstrating the important role of energy efficiency in the transition to a low-carbon economy. With additional carbon-specific policies, China could expect carbon intensity to fall faster than energy intensity in the future. 
3. Our initial analysis indicates that many of the policies implemented to meet the 11th FYP target are top-down administrative measures. These required significant financial and human resources and may not be the most cost-effective way to achieve future targets.
4. Much of the low-hanging fruit for reducing energy intensity has been picked, for example, replacing old power plants with new, more energy-efficient plants. Further reductions in energy intensity during the 12th FYP period could impose higher costs on the economy.
5. In the power sector, CO2 emission increased 28% during the first three years of the 11th FYP period, but primary energy use per kWh decreased as the efficiency of China's coal-fired generation capacity improved an average of 5%, primarily due to the closure of old plants and replacement by newer, more efficient plants.  CO2 per kWh decreased 6.5% for the power sector as a whole due to this increased efficiency and the addition of low-carbon generation.
6. In the industrial sector, carbon emissions and energy use per unit of industrial value added were, respectively, 14.8% and 13.3% lower in 2008 than 2005, reflecting slower growth in energy-intensive heavy industry relative to other subsectors, a shift to higher value added products, and significant efficiency improvements in several subsectors. 
7. In the building sector, energy use grew by 28% and carbon emissions by 25% from 2005 to 2008, primarily due to higher living standards and increased urbanization. At the national level, energy use per square meter of building stock increased, although this trend slowed in 2008. Policies targeting district heating in northern China delivered significant reductions in energy consumption per square meter. 
8. Energy consumption in the transport sector grew 25% between 2005 and 2008.  While the energy intensity for most transport modes remained stable or improved slightly, the share of energy intensive transport modes such as road and air transport increased.
9. Agriculture is the only sector in which direct energy-related emissions declined during the 11th FYP period.  Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions were stable, however, CO2 emissions embedded in fertilizer production grew, leading to a small net increase in overall agriculture-related greenhouse gas emissions.  China's forestry development, especially the large scale of afforestation, contributed significantly to the building of carbon sinks, adding 420MtCO2 per year on average to the current stock, an amount nearly four times of CO2 emission from direct fossil fuel combustion in agriculture and forestry.

    According to an Executive Summary, in 2006, China began its 11th Five Year Plan (FYP) with the explicit goal of reducing the energy intensity of the Chinese economy by 20%. The goal was set, in part, to address the disturbing reversal in 2002-2005 of the long-term decline in energy intensity, but it also addressed other trends, which increased the energy efficiency imperative: the acceleration of GDP growth and the accompanying expansion of energy-intensive heavy industry; rapidly increasing energy and commodity prices; rapid expansion of the coal industry, leading to infrastructure strains; and China's emergence as the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter.

    Chapter 22 of the 11th FYP set the following strategies to meet the 20% energy intensity reduction goal: "The government shall strengthen policies that induce energy conservation and energy efficiency increase. Energy conservation can be achieved through structural changes (optimizing industrial structure and reducing the share of energy-intensive industries), technology improvement (developing and disseminating energy conservation technologies) and better management practices (institutional development and more effective regulation of energy production, transmission and consumption). Industries with priority for energy conservation are iron and steel, non-ferrous metal, coal, electricity, chemistry, building material and other energy-intensive industries. The implementation of vehicle fuel economy policies shall be enhanced and the inefficient old vehicles shall be phased out. Standards for alternative liquid fuels shall be developed to support the alternative fuel industry. The production and consumption of highly energy efficient products shall be encouraged."    

    Climate Policy Initiative is a policy effectiveness research and advisory service whose mission is to assess, diagnose, and support nations' efforts to achieve low-carbon growth.  An independent, not-for-profit research organization with long-term support from George Soros, CPI has headquarters offices in San Francisco and regional offices in Berlin, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, and Venice.

    Access a release from CPI (click here). Access the 50-page Executive Summary (click here). Access the summary of key findings (click here). 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- Rep. Markey Probes Radioactive Materials In Fracking Operations
- Study Touts Benefits Of Alaska Arctic OCS Development
- Sierra Club Questions Rep. Upton's Priorities In District Ad
- USDA Signs MOU With Governors' Biofuels Coalition
- New EPA Report On Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage
- Republicans & Democrats At Odds On Strategic Petroleum Reserve
- EPA Approves New Refrigerant - HFO-1234yf - For Auto AC Systems
- ACC Expands With 4 New Chemical Product & Sector Groups
- Center For Food Safety v. Monsanto 

(Click here for details)

Ceres Report On Improving Climate Risk & Opportunity Disclosure

Feb 25: Amid growing evidence that climate change is impacting the global environment and the global economy, the Ceres investor coalition announced a new report aimed at improving corporate disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities they face. The Ceres report, developed with input from its 90-plus member Investor Network on Climate Risk, outlines generally weak climate disclosure to date by businesses and steps for improving such disclosure, especially in annual 10-K financial filings that are next due from companies by March 31, 2011. It comes just a week after the consulting firm Mercer issued a new study warning that climate change could increase investment portfolio risk by 10 percent over the next 20 years. On February 15, Mercer's Responsible Investment (RI) team released, Climate Change Scenarios - Implications for Strategic Asset Allocation.

    Ceres president Mindy Lubber said, "Adjusting to a world profoundly shaped by climate change is a key challenge for all leading companies. Ensuring that investors are getting timely, material information on climate-related impacts, including regulatory and physical impacts, is essential. This report sets the bar on what investors expect on climate disclosure so that they better understand which companies are well positioned for the future and which are not." Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the nation's largest public pension fund, which provided input on the report said, "As a long-term investor, we need a clear account of the environmental challenges and opportunities facing the companies we choose to invest in. The roadmap offered by this report will guide all of us -- investors and business alike -- as we incorporate climate risk into our due diligence and our overall investment strategy."

    The Ceres report -- Disclosing Climate Risk & Opportunities In SEC Filings, A Guide For Corporate Executives, Attorneys & Directors -- comes one year after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued formal interpretive guidance for companies on climate-related information they should be disclosing to investors in their 10-Ks or 20-Fs, as well as quarterly filings [See WIMS 1/28/10]. The guidance, issued last February, capped a multi-year effort by leading investors, state law enforcement officials and others to boost corporate attention to the quality of their climate-related disclosure. According to a release, the report makes clear that while many more companies are disclosing climate-related information in voluntary reports -- such as annual reports, sustainability reports and Carbon Disclosure Project responses -- the quality of overall disclosure is still less than satisfactory.

    The report concludes that, "Assessments of corporate disclosure practices on climate change show significant improvements in recent years, particularly in voluntary disclosures. However, overall disclosure continues to be highly inconsistent and often inadequate, particularly in mandatory filings, and frequently fails to meet the needs of investors." Still, the report includes a half-dozen concrete examples of "good quality disclosure" in financial filings by companies such as Chiquita Brands International, Siemens, Rio Tinto, AES and Xcel Energy. It also lists examples of "poor" and "weak" disclosure.

    The report also includes an 11-point checklist to help companies to improve the quality of their disclosure and position themselves to respond more effectively. Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management. Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management said, "This document will be an important catalyst in the major shift in attitudes towards climate change that is now taking place in the investment industry. Institutional investors everywhere are recognizing that climate change is a risk they must take full account of in their overall portfolios. As DB Climate Change Advisors demonstrated in its own recent report on this issue, Investing in Climate Change 2011, greater  transparency and better information from companies is essential to enable them to assess the risk effectively. Ceres' report is critical in defining what investors need to know in setting the standard of information companies must aim at."

    Access a release from Ceres with more information and link to the complete report and the Mercer report (click here). Access last year's SEC's interpretive guidance (click here). Access the SEC website for more information (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- House Leaders Question DOE On Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository
- EPA Reminds Of Hearing On Proposed Carbon Monoxide Rule
- Commerce Inspector General Issues Report On "Climategate"
- Report Probes Issues Of Cuba Drilling In Gulf Of Mexico
- USDA Pursues Crop Insurance For Producers Of Biofuel Feedstocks
- EWG Urges SAB To Accelerate Approval Of EPA's Dioxin Science Plan
- DOE Cites Battelle For Information Security Violations
- "$100 Oil And Congress Asks for Seconds"

(Click here for details)

More Reaction To EPA's Final "Boiler MACT" Rules

Feb 23: The following represents additional reaction to U.S. EPA's issuance of the final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators -- the so-called "Boiler MACT" rules [See WIMS 2/23/11]. EPA said the standards will achieve significant public health protections through reductions in toxic air emissions, including mercury and soot, but cut the cost of implementation by about 50 percent from an earlier proposal issued last year. EPA indicates that mercury, soot, lead and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to developmental disabilities in children, as well as cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death in Americans. EPA said the standards will avoid between 2,600-6,600 premature deaths, prevent 4,100 heart attacks and avert 42,000 asthma attacks per year in 2014. Yesterday WIMS reported on the details of the rules and the early reactions of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Earthjustice and Sierra Club.

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) indicated that they were reiterating their concerns about efforts by EPA to finalize boiler and incinerator rules "despite the agency's own acknowledgement of a flawed rulemaking process and product." In mid-January, a Federal district court denied the EPA's request for a 15-month extension on the final emissions standards for boilers and incinerators -- rules that will affect thousands of manufacturing and industrial facilities, small businesses, educational institutions, hospitals, and local agencies. They said they continue to believe the new rules have the potential to impose significant economic harm and underscore the dangers of the agency's flawed regulatory tactics.

 

    In a joint statement the two said, "How can anyone have confidence in rules that the EPA was admittedly unprepared to issue just weeks ago? However, we are not the only ones lacking confidence. It is extraordinary that EPA itself announced that it will be filing for reconsideration of the rules on the very same day they were released. This is not how the rulemaking process is supposed to work. If the rules needs to be reconsidered, then let's take the time to get this done right to protect public health and jobs.

    "At a time when we are enduring 21 consecutive months of 9 percent or higher unemployment, we cannot afford to rush sweeping regulations that have the potential to do more harm than good. For example, the proposed rules were estimated to put more than 300,000 jobs at risk. The EPA was operating under court order to meet this week's deadline, but we continue to believe sound policymaking should trump arbitrary timelines. If congressional intervention is needed to provide EPA the time it needs to provide careful, defensible rules that will not invite additional judicial challenge, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is prepared to act. The American public deserves a thoughtful, deliberative ruling that it can have faith in."

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a statement saying, "The regulations released today provide another example of how EPA can both curb toxic air pollution and save lives cost-effectively, using industry input and sound science. EPA's action stands in stark contrast to the campaign that House Republicans launched on the House floor last week to prevent limits on toxic pollution that endangers the health of children, pregnant women and the elderly. I'm not holding my breath that industry-friendly Republicans will support the EPA's new anti-pollution rules, but the public's health and well-being depend on putting these standards in place as soon as possible."

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it welcomed the EPA changes in the standards; however, it believes further improvements are needed.  Cal Dooley, President and CEO of ACC said, "We commend EPA for its commitment to improving the Boiler MACT standards. The final rules show progress, but because the courts denied EPA's request for more time, more must be done to ensure important adjustments are made. We strongly support a reconsideration of the rules. By listening to stakeholders, seeking new data and revisiting early conclusions, we believe EPA had begun to lay the groundwork for more effective, less costly regulations that can help avoid the loss of U.S. business investment and jobs. Now EPA deserves the time to finish the job. Major industries, small businesses, municipalities and institutions across the country will be affected by the outcome."

    ACC listed what it considered "improvements" EPA made to the final rules as: More realistic emission limits based on its revised methodology; Work practice standards for Gas 2 fired boilers using clean burning fuels; Adjustments to emissions limits based on fuel variability; Work practices for periods of start-up and shut-down; and An acknowledgement that solid fuel boilers can burn a variety of fuels. However, ACC said it will continue to make additional changes including: The use of alternative health-based emissions limits; The use of a pollutant-by-pollutant approach to set limits; and Work practices for periods of malfunction.

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Clean Air Project Director John Walke issued a statement saying, "EPA could have done more, but these standards accomplish long overdue, needed cuts in mercury, benzene, heavy metal and acid gas pollution from industrial plants. While the final biomass standards are notably relaxed in response to industry complaints, overall the safeguards still will save up to 6,500 lives, avoid 4,000 heart attacks, and prevent more than 46,000 cases of aggravated asthma and bronchitis every year. Americans deserve these tremendous health benefits without political interference by Congress."

    The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) issued a release indicating that EPA's actions would "preserve scrap tire markets and ensure the continued success of scrap tire management." RMA said the rule allows annually generated scrap tires that are removed from vehicles to be used as fuel by an industrial facility. Cement kilns, pulp and paper mills and electric utilities are the major users of tire derived fuel (TDF).

    RMA said in its proposed rule, EPA recommended that annually generated tires be processed to remove the metal before being considered a fuel under the Clean Air Act. However, "that provision would have merely increased the energy consumption, air emissions and costs associated with delivering tire derived fuels to industrial customers without any environmental benefit." RMA said it recognizes that "EPA is still requiring processing of whole tires removed from historical scrap tire stockpiles. RMA continues to encourage EPA to consider a more expansive definition of processing to allow these whole tires to be combusted as tire derived fuel." RMA said it continues to evaluate the final rule for additional insights and impacts on the tire industry.

    Charles Cannon, RMA president and CEO said, "EPA clearly listened to the arguments advocated by RMA and other key stakeholders to deliver a rule that ensures continued improvement in scrap tire management efforts in the U.S. While we are still analyzing several aspects of this final rule, the big picture is that this is a victory for the environment and for RMA's scrap tire advocacy efforts."

    Access a release from Representatives Upton & Whitfield (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from ACC with link to more information (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access the complete release from RMA (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- 75% Of The World's Coral Reefs Are Currently Threatened
- Partnership Aims To Accelerate Environmental Innovation In Business
- EPA White Paper On Cost & Benefits Of The Clean Air Act
- $96.8 Million Loan Guarantee For Geothermal Power Project
- NAS Study Of Cancer Risk Near Nuclear Facilities
- NRDC Polling Shows Strong Support For EPA Clean Air Safeguards
- U.S. Chamber Africa Business Initiative Focuses On Infrastructure

(Click here for details)