Political Angst & Rhetoric Abound Over High Gas Prices

April 22: As the national average for a gallon of gasoline approaches $4.00 and is well over that in many parts of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats are trading barbs about who is at fault.

 

    In his weekly address on April 23, President Obama laid out his plans to address rising gas prices over the short and the long term. He said, while there is "no silver bullet to bring down prices right away, there are a few things we can do." He said the Attorney General launched a task force dedicated to rooting out fraud or manipulations in the oil markets. He called for ending the $4 billion in taxpayer money that the oil and gas companies receive annually. And, he said we need to continue "safe, responsible production" of oil at home." And, in the long term, "we need to invest in clean, renewable energy." He said he strongly disagrees with a proposal in Congress that cuts our investments in clean energy by 70 percent.

 

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (D-KY) said there are: "Simple Solutions to Provide Relief at the Pump." He said, "Increased energy costs are forcing some Kentucky businesses to lay off employees. A truck plant in Louisville has temporarily shut down due, in part, to high fuel costs. And Kentuckians across the state cringe every time they pull up to the pump. Gas prices have nearly doubled over the past two years. In some parts of the country gas costs more than four dollars a gallon. How did it come to this? President Obama's policies certainly haven't helped..."

 

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) issued a statement after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) announced the completion of the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for oil and gas lease sale 218 in the Western Planning Area in the Gulf of Mexico. He said the announcement comes on the heels of the Natural Resources Committee passing H.R. 1230, "a bill that would reverse the Obama Administration's actions and proceed now with the scheduled lease sales in a prompt, timely and safe manner." Hastings said, "As Americans brace for $5 gasoline, the Obama Administration has quickly realized the outrage that would follow if 2011 was the first year since 1958 without an offshore lease sale. . . the Administration should move forward with other sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that were scheduled to take place this year. The Administration has already determined that offshore drilling can move forward safely and responsibly, and now it's time to hold lease sales and issue permits to create jobs, lower prices, and produce more American energy."

 

    The Washington, DC insider publication, The Hill, published a timely analysis which they called, "Fact-checking the Washington rhetoric on oil, drilling and energy." The article addresses a number of questions and generally cites answers from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Questions include: What impact will additional drilling have on gas prices?; How much oil did the United States produce in 2010?; Who is responsible for the increase in oil production in 2010?; How much oil will the United States produce in the coming years?; How many barrels of proven oil reserves does the United States have?; How does that compare with other countries?; What's the best way to determine how much oil the United States has?; How much oil does the United States consume?; and How much oil does the U.S. import?

 

    On the major question of the impact of more drilling on gas prices at the pump, the article cites EIA Administrator Richard Newell, in written testimony delivered to the House Natural Resources Committee March 17, saying: "Long term, we do not project additional volumes of oil that could flow from greater access to oil resources on Federal lands to have a large impact on prices given the globally integrated nature of the world oil market and the more significant long-term compared to short-term responsiveness of oil demand and supply to price movements." But Newell said that longer-term domestic production "would impact local economic activity, net oil imports, and the associated U.S. international trade balance resulting from oil imports."

 

    Also noted is that in 2010 domestic oil production reached its highest level since 2003 -- 5.5 million barrels of oil a day. U.S. oil production peaked at 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970. The U.S. consumed 18,771,400 barrels of oil per day in 2009, or a total of 6.85 billion barrels and in 2010 the figure was 6.99 billion barrels -- about one-fourth of the world's oil.

 

    Access the President's address (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Attorney General (click here). Access Sen. McConnell's release  (click here). Access the release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the fact check article from The Hill (click here). [*Energy]

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument In AEP v. Connecticut
• House Democrats Releases Report On Fracking Chemicals
• Cornell Researchers Question CO2 Emissions From Fracking
• BP Oil Spill Anniversary & $1 Billion Restoration Payment
• Final Rule Extends Subpart W BAMM GHG Reporting Deadlines
• Senators Say EPA Continues To "Botch" Lead-Based Paint Rule
• Worldwide Interviews From Climate Change Delegation Officials
• Critical Infrastructure For Ocean Research & Societal Needs
• Presidential Proclamation--Earth Day
• Southern Alliance for Clean Energy v. Duke Energy
• Yankee Gas Services Co. v. UGI Utilities., Inc.
• Sierra Club v. U.S. Army COE
• Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

(Click here for details)

UN Says "Work Harder" On Global Warming This Year

Subscribers Notice:

We are beginning our Spring publication break next week, 

We'll catch you up on all the news when we resume publication on Monday, April 25, 2011

 

 

Apr 8: As Republicans and Democrats in the United States appear to be on polar opposites, not only on regulating greenhouse gas (GHG), but on the underlying science of global warming; and climate change issues are in part responsible for a possible government-wide shutdown; the top UN climate change official is urging countries to work harder for further progress on combating global warming this year.

 

    Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), made the comments in Bangkok, Thailand, saying there were positive discussions on the Kyoto Protocol and on greenhouse gas emission reduction at this week's meeting [See WIMS 4/4/11]. The six-day Bangkok meeting was attended by an estimated 2,000 participants from 175 countries, including government delegates, representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions.

    Figueres said, "Discussions in Bangkok under the Kyoto Protocol importantly included not only a focus on what should happen with regard to the future of the protocol but also how it will happen. It is significant that there is a strong desire to build on the Kyoto rules and a desire to find a political solution in 2011." The Kyoto Protocol is an addition to the UNFCCC that contains legally binding measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whose first commitment period is due to expire next year. Negotiations on the second commitment phase of the Protocol continue.

    Picking up on the climate change agreements reached in Cancún, Mexico last year, governments began organizing their work for 2011 in Bangkok, including activities under the long-term cooperative action negotiating track of the convention, which brings countries together to decide collective solutions to climate change. In a release, UNFCCC said the climate change talks in Cancún concluded with a package of decisions to help countries advance towards a low-emissions future. Dubbed the "Cancún Agreements," the decisions included formalizing climate change mitigation pledges and ensuring increased accountability for them, as well as taking concrete action to protect the world's forests.

    Figueres said that while developed countries were mainly focused on addressing the implementation of the Cancún Agreements, developing countries wanted to ensure that those issues that were not resolved in Cancún yet are part of the comprehensive Bali Action Plan that governments agreed to in 2007 are dealt with in a balanced way. The Bangkok meeting is one of a series of meetings that will take place this year and culminate at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa, at the end of this year. The next meeting will take place in Bonn, Germany, beginning on June 6. Figueres said, "What is clear from this week is that in Durban, governments will address both the work to complete what was agreed in Cancún and the work which Cancún left unresolved."

    The Bangkok meetings included the sixteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), the fourteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), as well as workshops pursuant to the Cancun Agreements, are taking place in Bangkok, from April 3 through April 8.

    Figueres indicated that while Cancún was a "significant step, meeting the long-term challenge of climate change requires increasingly strong international agreements, backed by national policies that give incentives to all sides to take aggressive and collective action on a global scale." She said, "The UNFCCC is the place where governments have committed to act together on climate change. At home, under their different political systems, they need to back up collective action with strong domestic policies." Considering the current divided political climate in the United States, it seems that progress on regulating GHG emissions will be made at a slower, rather than a faster pace in this country.

    Jennifer Haverkamp, International Climate Director at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) commented on the meetings and said it was "a tough week of U.N. climate negotiations." She said, "The Bangkok meetings did manage to produce an agenda, but they also served as further proof that the process of getting a global climate agreement is going to take a long time. Countries are clearly in a marathon, not a sprint, toward Durban, and this week they could barely crawl past the starting line. At least now they're headed in the same direction, but they really need to pick up the pace if South Africa is to yield any real results. Meanwhile the major emitters must continue to address the problem through their own domestic actions, if we're to keep from falling even further behind in the race to save the planet. The significant, but incomplete, progress achieved in Cancun left large, overarching and very difficult political questions unanswered. In Bangkok, countries all too slowly picked up from where they left off last year. The good news is that by persevering and grappling their way toward a collective agreement on political priorities, they have re-upped their commitment to the process."

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video of Figueres remarks concluding the Bangkok meetings (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access complete information and documents on the  AWG-KP16 meeting (click here); the AWG-LCA14 meeting (click here); and the pre-sessional workshops (click here). Access live and on-demand webcasts from the Bangkok meetings (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for more information (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Approves Bill To Stop EPA GHG Regulations
• GAO Report On ARRA State & Local Energy Efficiency Grants
• U.S. & Qatar Sign MOU On Clean Energy Technologies
• Assessment Of World Shale Gas Resources Outside The U.S.
• Emissions Of Greenhouse Gases In The United States 2009
• Karuk Tribe v. US Forestry Service
• Gardner v. U.S. Bureau Of Land Management
• Energy Northwest v. U.S. 

(Click here for details)

Senate Vote Of 50-50 Fails To Stop EPA GHG Regs

Apr 7: In a rare occurrence, late in the afternoon on April 6, both chambers of the U.S. Congress were simultaneously debating legislative proposals to prohibit the Administrator of U.S. EPA from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change [See WIMS 4/6/11]. Although the House proposal was a separate bill (H.R.910), and the Senate proposal was an amendment to another bill (S.493), the substance of each proposal was essentially the same. In the end, the Senate narrowly defeated the major amendment to S.493 (McConnell Amdt. No. 183) by a vote of 50-50 -- i.e. 60 votes necessary for approval. In the House, members debated a number of amendments but delayed a vote on final passage, which is expected today and passage is near certain in the Republican-dominated House.

 

    The Senate vote is a true representation of the ideological split between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. The 50 votes against the amendment were all Democrats and two Independents. Democrats Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted with 47 Republicans in support of the amendment. The Senate vote and the expected House vote essentially set up a stalemate on this issue. Additionally, the White House has indicated it would not support such legislation. It should be noted that Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) offered amendments for various delays and exemptions to the regulations (i.e. Amendments # 236, #277, #215, respectively) which were all defeated. However, all three Senators voted against the main McConnell amendment.

    The White House issued a brief statement saying, "The administration is encouraged by the Senate's actions today to defend the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect public health under the Clean Air Act. By rejecting efforts to rollback EPA's common-sense steps to safeguard Americans from harmful pollution, the Senate also rejected an approach that would have increased the nation's dependence on oil, contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming, and jeopardized America's ability to lead the world in the clean energy economy. The Clean Air Act is a vital tool in protecting our families -- particularly children -- from a wide variety of harmful pollutants that cause asthma and lung disease, and the administration remains committed to protecting this important law.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and EPW Committee Members released a joint statement in response to the Senate's rejection of four proposals that they said "would interfere with the implementation of the Clean Air Act and block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from doing its job of curbing carbon pollution from the nation's largest polluters. The Senate action to vote down the measures today avoided an unprecedented repeal of protections under the Clean Air Act." In addition to the comments below, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also issued comments in support of the Senate vote.

    Senator Boxer said, "Today, the Senate stood up for children and families by defeating four amendments that would have interfered with EPA's efforts to protect the health and safety of the American public. The Clean Air Act has had strong bipartisan support since it was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The American people support EPA's efforts to safeguard us from polluters, and I will continue to fight any effort to weaken the Clean Air Act." Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), Chair of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee said, "Forty years ago, naysayers claimed the Clean Air Act was too costly and would doom our economy. We heard the same predictions in 1990 when we strengthened the Clean Air Act. But the naysayers were wrong. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act's benefits have outweighed costs by 30 to 1, and our Gross Domestic Product has grown over 200 percent. Cleaner air has saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars in health care costs and it has grown our economy. By voting down these amendments, we have kept America on the right course."

    Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chair of the Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee said, "I find it unconscionable that in the year 2011 the Clean Air Act is being attacked by big polluters and their allies in Congress who want to gut this successful public health law. We know the very real health benefits of cleaner air, and that is why I introduced a Resolution, S. Res. 119, with 33 co-sponsors, to fight back against efforts to deregulate polluters." Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Chair of the Children's Health and Environmental Responsibility Subcommittee said. "The ongoing assault against the Clean Air Act, as evidenced by the McConnell amendment, represents the dramatic shift to ideological politics that have taken over Washington. The Clean Air Act was passed with strong support from Republicans and Democrats before being signed into law by President Nixon to protect the integrity of our air supply. Today, instead of protecting the health and well-being of our people, some are protecting the profits of large polluters, and I simply think that's wrong."

    U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement saying "an overwhelming bipartisan majority of senators voted in favor of proposals to stop job- and economy-destroying EPA regulations." Senator McConnell was referring to alternative amendments offered by Democrats and the votes on those amendments and indicating that there were 64 votes for one or more EPA amendments. He said, "An overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Senate today voted to rein in job- and economy-destroying EPA regulations, underscoring the fact that both Republicans and Democrats oppose giving unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to impose a new national energy tax on American job creators and families. Altogether, more than 60 senators voted in favor of four amendments that, to one degree or another, would restrain the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions from farmers, manufacturers and power plants. I welcome the House's expected approval today of legislation similar to the McConnell/Inhofe amendment, one of the four amendments voted on by the Senate. McConnell's amendment garnered 50 votes, significantly more than the other three combined. We in the Senate will continue to fight for legislation that will give the certainty that no unelected bureaucrat at the EPA is going to make efforts to create jobs even more difficult than the administration already has."

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a statement after what he called, "the Senate's resounding bipartisan repudiation of EPA's cap-and-trade agenda." He said, "Today's Senate votes demonstrate clear momentum behind stopping EPA's cap-and-trade agenda to make consumers pay more for gasoline, electricity, and effectively end affordable energy for the American economy. A total of 64 senators voted for amendments that, in one form or another, expressed opposition to various aspects of EPA's global warming regulatory schemes. I will continue to press for votes on my legislation until we get it to the President's desk. When all is said and done, a bipartisan majority in the Senate issued a sobering message to EPA: its cap-and-trade agenda is wearing thin, suggesting it's time to reverse course to put Congress back in charge of America's energy policy."

    Access the statement from the White House (click here). Access the statement from Senator Boxer and colleagues (click here). Access the statement from Senator McConnell (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe with links to votes on various amendments (click here). Access legislative details including roll call votes of H.R. 910 (click here). Access legislative details including roll call votes of S.493 (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• FY2011 Budget Resolution Discussions Breaking Down
• Upton & Shimkus Call For Withdrawal Of TSCA IUR Proposed Rule
• Senate Bill For Auto Recharging Stations At Capitol Complex
• House Subcommittee Hearing On Draft TRAIN Act
• Sen. EPW Hearing State & Local Perspectives On Transportation
• Morrison Enterprises  v.  Dravo Corporation

(Click here for details)

Now: House & Senate Considering Actions To Stop EPA GHG Rules

Apr 6: The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are both simultaneously considering on their respective floors at this time (Apr. 6, 3:47 PM EDT) a bill and an amendment, respectively, to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change.

 

    The House is debating the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) sponsored by Chairman Upton that passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee by a vote of 34-19, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting for the approval [See WIMS 3/16/11]. The Senate is debating an amendment to S. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs (small business research programs), offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) [See WIMS 3/30/11]. The McConnell amendment would also strip U.S. EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and was originally introduced as a stand-alone bill (S.482) by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee [See WIMS 3/4/11]. The Senate bill/amendment has 43 co-sponsors including one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and is substantially similar to a House bill (H.R.910).

 

    Access legislative details including roll call votes of H.R. 910 (click here). Access legislative details including roll call votes of S.493 (click here). Access legislative details of S.482 (click here). Access the House Floor debate video (click here). Access the Senate Floor debate video (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Agencies & Committee Kick Off Next National Climate Assessment
• New EPA Standards Up 30%+ For Energy Star Light Fixtures
• $112.5 Million For Advanced Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing
• DOE & DOI RFP For $26.5 Million Advance Hydropower Research
• Research On Lithium Ion Batteries For Second-Use Applications
• Effective Today No New TSCA Notices & Documents On Paper

(Click here for details)

U.S. & Japanese Updates On Fukushima Nuclear Plant Incident

Apr 4: U.S. EPA's update on radiation monitoring as a result of the incident with the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, indicates that several EPA air monitors have detected very low levels of radioactive material in the United States consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors. EPA said it has stepped up monitoring of precipitation, milk, and drinking water in response to the Fukushima events. The detections in air, precipitation, and milk were expected, and the levels detected have been far below levels of public-health concern.

    EPA released its latest RadNet results, which include the first results for drinking water. Drinking water samples from two locations, Boise, Idaho and Richland, Washington, showed trace amounts of Iodine-131 -- about 0.2 picocuries per liter in each case. EPA said an infant would have to drink almost 7,000 liters of this water to receive a radiation dose equivalent to a day's worth of the natural background radiation exposure which the population experiences continuously from natural sources of radioactivity in the environment. Earlier precipitation samples collected by EPA have shown trace amounts of radioactivity, so EPA has expected to find results such as these in some drinking water samples. Similar findings are to be expected in the coming weeks.

 

    Overall the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that as of April 5, "the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains very serious." Currently, the IAEA monitoring team is working in the Fukushima region. On April 5, measurements were made at 7 locations at distances of 16 to 41 km (10 -25.5 miles), South and South West to the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The dose rates ranged from 0.3 to 31 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.01 to 3.2 megabecquerel per square meter. The highest dose rates and beta gamma contaminations were measured at the location closest to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. An posting on the New Scientist website indicates, "Caesium fallout from Fukushima rivals Chernobyl."

 

    The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported in an article today that, "Japanese authorities said Tuesday they had discovered for the first time fish swimming off the country's Pacific coast carrying high levels of radioactive materials."

    Access a release from EPA with multiple links to various data and monitoring for precipitation, air, and milk (click here). Access the latest information on the radiological situation in Japan, updated day-by-day as information becomes available and verified from the IAEA website (click here). Access the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Actions on Japan's Emergency (click here). Access the New Scientist posting (click here). Access the lengthy WSJ article (click here). Access press release from the operating company Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc. (click here). Access monitoring reports from the Japan Health Ministry (click here). Access extensive information from the Japanese government for students and researchers (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Subcommittee Hearing On Energy & The Rising Role Of China
• Bill Would Call For Cumulative Impacts Of EPA Significant Rules
• Despite Montreal Protocol Arctic Ozone Loss Is Highest Ever
• 150+ Democrats Urge Speaker Boehner To Support The Clean Air Act
• Water Research Foundation Responds To EWG Cr-6 Allegation
• World Business Leaders Stress Need For Energy Efficient Buildings

(Click here for details)

UNFCCC Climate Change Meetings Get Underway In Bangkok

Apr 4: As the U.S. Congress continues to argue over the science of climate change and is on the verge of voting on measures that will strip U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; half a world away, some 1,500 participants from 173 countries are meeting in Bangkok, Thailand to develop a global response to climate change.

 

    The sixteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), the fourteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), as well as workshops pursuant to the Cancun Agreements, are taking place in Bangkok, from April 3 through April 8. The meetings and workshops were preceded by preparatory regional group meetings from March 30 to April 2. Christiana Figueres, the top United Nations climate change official urged countries to tackle the key issues of emission reduction targets as well as funding and technology to assist developing nations tackle global warming.

 

    The first UN negotiations for this year are designed to build on the Cancun Agreements of last year. Figueres said, "Here in Bangkok, governments have the early opportunity to push ahead to complete the concrete work they agreed in Cancún, and to chart a way forward that will ensure renewed success at the next UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, [South Africa in December 2011]. If governments move forward in the continued spirit of flexibility and compromise that inspired them in Mexico, then I'm confident they can make significant new progress in 2011." she added.

    Dubbed the Cancún Agreements, the decisions reached at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December last year [See WIMS 12/15/10] include formalizing mitigation pledges and ensuring increased accountability for them, as well as taking concrete action to tackle deforestation, which account for nearly one-fifth of global carbon emissions. Delegates at that meeting also agreed to ensure no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol, an addition to the Convention that contains legally binding measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whose first commitment period is due to expire in 2012.

    Agreement was also reached on establishing a fund for long-term climate financing to support developing countries, and bolstering technology cooperation and enhancing vulnerable populations' ability to adapt to the changing climate. Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, called on governments to rapidly advance work to complete the institutions which were agreed and deliver the funding and technology to help developing countries deal comprehensively with climate change. She said, "It is important that the agreed actions and institutions are delivered on time and in accordance with the deadlines agreed in Cancun so that the broader global climate regime is up and running in 2012." 

    According to a release, the institutions include a Green Climate Fund to house the international management, deployment and accountability of long-term funds for developing country support; a Technology Mechanism to promote clean technologies; and an Adaptation Framework to boost international cooperation to help developing countries protect themselves from climate change impacts.

    The other main task governments have before them, Figueres noted, relates to the emission reduction targets and actions which would allow the world to stay below the maximum temperature rise of two degrees Celsius, which was agreed in Cancún. Figures pointed out that the sum of national promises so far equals only around 60% of what science requires by 2020 to stay below the agreed two degrees goal.

    Figueres said governments this year need to resolve fundamental issues over the future of the Kyoto Protocol. She said, "Governments need to figure out how to address this issue and how to take it forward in a collective and inclusive way. Resolving the issue will create a firmer foundation for a greater collective ambition to cut emissions."

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access complete information and documents on the  AWG-KP16 meeting (click here); the AWG-LCA14 meeting (click here); and the pre-sessional workshops (click here). Access live and on-demand webcasts from the Bangkok meetings (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Administration & Republicans Spar Over Gas Prices & Energy Security
• EWG Says Widespread Cr-6 Contamination Known For Years
• GAO Report On CDC Confusion About Lead In Tap Water
• USDA Appoints Members To Agricultural Air Quality Task Force
• USDA Promotes Wood As Green Building Material
• 32 Sustainable Communities Building Block Participants Named

(Click here for details)

President Continues To Talk About Energy Independence Issues

Apr 1: At a speech to UPS workers, President Obama continued talking about energy issues and making the country less dependent on foreign oil imports. He announced the National Clean Fleets Partnership and reemphasized the goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025 [See WIMS 3/30/11].

 

    The President also talked about the improving economy as evidenced from the latest jobs report and the potential negative impacts of a government-wide shut down due to a breakdown in budget negotiations. He reminded that there must be budget compromises on both sides; but, he also said we cannot stop investing in energy research, projects and technology that will lead to energy independence. The President indicated that House, Senate and Administration negotiators had come close to agreeing on a "number" for FY 2011 budget reductions (generally thought to be between $30-$33 billion); however, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, "Democrats are rooting for a government shutdown. . . There's no agreement on numbers, and nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to. We control one-half of one-third of the government here, but we're going to continue to fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get to keep the government open and funded through the balance of this fiscal year."

 

    On the National Clean Fleets Partnership the Administration is calling for a public-private partnership to help large companies reduce diesel and gasoline use in their fleets by incorporating electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and fuel-saving measures into their daily operations. Through the Partnership, the Department of Energy (DOE) will assist companies in their efforts to reduce fuel use and achieve greater efficiency and cost-savings by offering specialized resources, technical expertise, and support. The partnership is part of the DOE Vehicle Technology Program's "Clean Cities" initiative.
 
    The President and the Partnership announced the commitments of five of its charter members: AT&T, FedEx, PepsiCo, UPS and Verizon. The charter members represent five of the nation's 10 largest national fleets and collectively own and operate more than 275,000 vehicles. Their planned current and near-term petroleum reduction strategies will account for the deployment of over 20,000 advanced technology vehicles and annual petroleum displacement in excess of 7 million gallons. DOE is challenging other companies to join this important effort.

 

    According to a White House fact sheet, large commercial fleets are heavily dependent on petroleum-based fuels (gasoline and diesel) to deliver their goods and services every day. In 2009, there were more than 3 million commercial fleet vehicles on the road, consuming nearly 4 billion gallons of fuel. Fleets, which are typically centrally managed and comprised of a large number of vehicles, offer significant opportunities to reduce fuel use and carbon pollution.
 
    Through the National Clean Fleets Partnership, DOE will help companies: reduce fuel use through the use of more efficient vehicles and technologies, including hybrids; and replace conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles with advanced technology vehicles or ones that use alternative fuels, such as electricity, natural gas, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, or propane. Partners will benefit from participation including: Opportunities for collaboration with DOE and their peers; and DOE technical tools and resources. DOE indicated it has developed a wide range of technical tools to help partner companies navigate the world of alternative fuels and advanced vehicles. A diverse collection of cost calculators, interactive maps, customizable database searches, and mobile applications puts vital information and analysis at fleets' fingertips. The DOE initiative will compliment U.S. EPA's Smartway Transport partnership program with the freight industry by furthering efforts to improve efficiency in goods movement and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

 

   Additionally, since the President delivered his energy speech at Georgetown University on March 30, the White House has released a 44-page Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. The Blueprint outlines a three-part strategy:

• "Develop and Secure America's Energy Supplies: We need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology so that we can safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy.
• "Provide Consumers With Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy: Volatile gasoline prices reinforce the need for innovation that will make it easier and more affordable for consumers to buy more advanced and fuel-efficient vehicles, use alternative means of transportation, weatherize their homes and workplaces, and in doing so, save money and protect the environment. These measures help families' pocketbooks, reduce our dependence on finite energy sources and help create jobs here in the United States.
• "Innovate our Way to a Clean Energy Future: Leading the world in clean energy is critical to strengthening the American economy and winning the future. We can get there by creating markets for innovative clean technologies that are ready to deploy, and by funding cutting-edge research to produce the next generation of technologies. And as new, better, and more efficient technologies hit the market, the Federal government needs to put words into action and lead by example.

    Access Speaker Boehner's comments on budget negotiations (click here); and (click here). Access the full text of the President's UPS speech (click here). Access the White House fact sheet on the National Clean Fleets Partnership (click here). Access the 44-page Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future (click here). Access a White House blog post on Helping American Families Make Good Choices and Cut Energy Bills (click here). Access various interest group reactions to the President's energy plan (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Senators Introduce Bipartisan Plan For Energy Security By 2030
• House Science Committee Hearing On Climate Change 
• House Passes Bill To Avoid CWA-FIFRA Duplicate Permitting
• Senate Vote On Amendment To Stop EPA GHG Regs Delayed
• Rep. Upton House Committee Launches Yucca Mountain Investigation
• Senate EPW Subcommittee Hearing On Army Corps FY12 Budget

(Click here for details)

Reactions To President's Energy Policy Plan

Mar 30: Interest groups are reacting to President Obama speech at Georgetown University which outlined and clarified the President called the "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" -- a comprehensive national energy policy, "one that we've been pursuing since the day I took office." [See WIMS 3/30/11]. As we reported yesterday, Senate Republicans generally oppose the President's strategy and instead offered a two part plan: "First, let's increase American energy production by cutting the red tape and opening up areas that the administration has either temporarily blocked, stalled, or closed off to production. And let's block any new regulations that will drive up production costs for energy --including the administration's proposed new EPA regulations on carbon emissions. . ."

    In a blog post the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) said it agreed with President Obama on the need to increase domestic oil and gas production. They said, "Domestic energy producers want new exploration and drilling and to resume projects that were forced to shut down under the moratorium imposed last spring. While the Administration is advocating for greater domestic production, it simultaneously is preventing the permit process from operating in a timely and efficient manner. The Administration bears the responsibility to grant leases and permits for exploration and production to begin. Implicating domestic energy producers for lack of action, shortage or delay is irresponsible and inaccurate. It is time this Administration follow the policies it proposes. Action is required, not additional oratory.

    "The National Association of Manufacturers supports an 'all of the above' approach to energy supply. To successfully compete in a global marketplace, American manufacturers must have reliable, affordable and secure energy sources. By increasing domestic production and incorporating renewables into a larger energy portfolio, manufacturers will be protected from the unpredictable price swings that come along with foreign energy sources, providing the stability needed for manufacturers to grow, create high-paying jobs and invest in the future."

 

    NAM's Senior VP for Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse also released a statement on the DOI report on drilling leases released the day before and which the President referred to in his speech. He said the report "undercuts manufacturers and domestic energy producers and fundamentally mischaracterizes the leasing process. Companies are investing billions of dollars in these leases to explore for resources, which the Department has long understood to be part of the exploration process. . . Shifting blame and slowing the permitting process poses a serious threat to domestic energy exploration, which fuels the manufacturing industry, the backbone of our nation's research, innovation and job creation. . ."

 

    Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) said, "President Obama is right to say our nation needs to safely and responsibly develop and produce oil and natural gas in the United States while protecting our environment, and right to say we need to develop a wide range of energy sources for the future. However, he is wrong to believe that the best way to achieve these goals is to impose costly mandates and taxpayer-funded subsidies to pick energy winners and losers. American taxpayers can't afford to be burdened with billions upon billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize ethanol, electric cars, and other energy ideas that can't survive in the free market. These endless subsidies only increase the economic pain Americans are suffering, as do the greenhouse gas regulations and similar mandates the Environmental Protection Agency is imposing on our economy that drive up energy costs without improving our environment.

    "Instead of adopting a government-led model of command and control, President Obama should let American consumers and the free market determine the energy sources that best meet our economic and national security needs. This is the historic source of America's economic strength. America is rich in energy resources, and President Obama and Congress should move to make more of them available to serve the American people. This means allowing more exploration and production of oil and natural gas within our nation and offshore. President Obama should also allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that will enable us to get more oil to serve the American people from our good friend and neighbor Canada."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) did not comment directly on the President's speech, but in two separate releases said it supports legislation introduced by Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) that would increase access to domestic energy supplies and indicated that the DOI Report on idle leases "whitewashes government inaction." API said, "Our economy will still need oil and natural gas for decades to come. America must pursue policies that encourage responsible development of our resources instead of relying on imported energy from unstable parts of the world." They also said the DOI report, "completely whitewashes the fact that in many cases, the reason these leases have no exploration plans is that BOEMRE is sitting on those plans."

 

    The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) President and CEO Bob Dinneen said, "We are encouraged by President Obama's recognition of the important role domestic biofuels must play in America's energy future. When it comes to replacing imported oil, no other energy technology can match ethanol today. The productivity of American farmers is allowing us to replace 10 percent of the nation's gasoline demand with cleaner-burning ethanol today and new technologies and increased productivity will allow for even greater replacement of petroleum-based fuels in the future. America's ethanol industry stands ready to work with the Obama Administration and Congress to transform current biofuel policies to reflect the evolving nature of the industry and the fiscal concerns voiced by many on Capitol Hill. . ."

 

    T. Boone Pickens, oil man, wind and natural gas-powered vehicle advocate said, "Today the President articulated the national security and economic threats associated with our escalating dependence on foreign oil. With the increasing price of gasoline, natural gas is an important domestic fuel at our disposal that can replace foreign oil to power heavy-duty fleet vehicles. Converting heavy-duty trucks and high-fuel use commercial fleet vehicles to natural gas can reduce our OPEC dependence now while we wait for technology to power the vehicles of tomorrow. It is clear President Obama is committed to weaning America off Middle Eastern oil, securing our own energy future and recognizes the role natural gas can play as a domestic transportation fuel. Recent unrest in the Middle East underscores the need to take action now and I'm encouraged by the President's promise to secure America's energy future and national security by reducing our dependence on OPEC oil."

 

    Environmental and public policy organizations including the Sierra Club, Center for American Progress and the League of Conservation Voters released their "Cleaner Cars, Less Foreign Oil" plan, "calling for President Obama and Congress to set firm targets for ending Big Oil's stranglehold on our economy." They said, "We join the President in his call for American ingenuity and innovation and we share his vision for a safer, healthier and more prosperous nation. However, the Sierra Club is firmly opposed to the misconception that coal or nuclear power can ever be clean. Instead of perpetuating our dependence on dirty energy, we urge the President and Congress to take meaningful action to move America into a clean energy economy."

 

    Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said, "We need a partnership between government and business to harness our most extraordinary natural resource—American ingenuity—to develop clean, alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, hydrogen, and biofuels. The best way to reduce our dependence on oil is to make cars go farther on a gallon of gas and to invest in clean, renewable forms of energy. The president's plan outlines some important steps toward that goal. But some elements of the plan are flawed and signal a lingering attachment to outdated ways of thinking. For one, offshore oil drilling in America's Arctic Ocean is simply a bad idea. . . "And before we talk about boosting domestic gas drilling, we need to require companies to take responsibility for their actions by closing the loopholes that allow them to pump secret chemicals into the earth. . . Just like with an old clunker, at a certain point we need to stop throwing good money after bad."

 

    Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford said, "President Obama's energy policy has already been riddled with disasters, so it's astounding that he would encourage even greater dependence on dangerous energy sources like oil drilling and nuclear power at a time when the risks have been made all too clear. For the millions of Americans put at risk by the inherent dangers of nuclear power, or those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the Gulf oil disaster, more of the same is hardly the path toward 'Energy Security.' True leadership in the face of these disasters would mean setting out an energy plan that would move us away from our dependence on fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power and instead harnessing abundant, safe and clean renewable energy."

 

   David Friedman, deputy director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said, "Making our cars cleaner and more fuel efficient is the most important step we can take to cut America's oil dependence. You don't have to look further than $4 a gallon gas or turmoil in the oil markets to see why we need strong vehicle standards." UCS indicated that "To reach the President's goal of reducing oil imports by a third by 2025, U.S. petroleum imports would need to drop by at least 3.7 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2025 compared with 2008 imports of 11 mbd." They issued a plan to meet or exceed the president's 2025 savings goal, delivering total savings of more than 5 mbd.
   

    Access the NAM blog post (click here). Access the NAM statement on the leasing report (click here). Access the API statements (click here); and (click here). Access a release from NPRA (click here). Access a release from RFA (click here). Access the statement from T. Boone Pickens (click here). Access the release from Sierra Club et al and link to the their Cleaner Cars plan (click here). Access the statement from Earthjustice (click here). Access the statement from Greenpeace USA (click here). Access a release from UCS with more information on their analysis and proposals (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Hydropower Resource Assessment At Existing Reclamation Facilities
• Senate EPW Hearing On GSA Opportunities
• EPA & FDA Joint Statement On Radiation Monitoring
• OIG Report On EPA Additional SBIR Certifications
• Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. U.S.
• Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA

(Click here for details)

President's National Energy Policy; Republicans Object

Mar 30: President Obama delivered a lengthy speech at Georgetown University today outlining and clarifying the Administration's national energy policy. The President said in part:

 

    The President outlined what he called "a tumultuous time for the world" and said "the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security.  The situation in Japan leads us to ask questions about our energy sources. . . In an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody -– workers, farmers, truck drivers, restaurant owners, students who are lucky enough to have a car.  (Laughter.)  Businesses see rising prices at the pump hurt their bottom line.  Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank.  And for Americans that are already struggling to get by, a hike in gas prices really makes their lives that much harder.  It hurts. . .

 

    ". . .we have been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon.  I remember because I was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Working folks certainly remember because it hit a lot of people pretty hard.  And because we were at the height of political season, you had all kinds of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians -- they were waving their three-point plans for $2 a gallon gas. You remember that -- 'drill, baby, drill' -- and we were going through all that. And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand-wringing, but nothing actually happened. . .

 

    "So here's the bottom line:  There are no quick fixes.  Anybody who tells you otherwise isn't telling you the truth. . . I'm proud of the historic progress that we've made over the last two years towards that goal, and we'll talk about that a little bit.  But I've got to be honest.  We've run into the same political gridlock, the same inertia that has held us back for decades. That has to change.  That has to change.  We cannot keep going from shock when gas prices go up to trance when they go back down -- we go back to doing the same things we've been doing until the next time there's a price spike, and then we're shocked again.  We can't rush to propose action when gas prices are high and then hit the snooze button when they fall again.  We can't keep on doing that. . .

 

    ". . .today, my administration is releasing a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future that outlines a comprehensive national energy policy, one that we've been pursuing since the day I took office. And cutting our oil dependence by a third is part of that plan. . . I understand we've got a tight fiscal situation, so it's fair to ask how do we pay for government's investment in energy. And as we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we're going to have to make some tough choices.  We're going to have to cut what we don't need to invest in what we do need. Unfortunately, some folks want to cut critical investments in clean energy.  They want to cut our research and development into new technologies.  They're shortchanging the resources necessary even to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling. These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs. . .

 

    "So at moments like these, sacrificing these investments in research and development, in supporting clean energy technologies, that would weaken our energy economy and make us more dependent on oil.  That's not a game plan to win the future. That's a vision to keep us mired in the past.  I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America.  We are not going to do that. . .

 

    A White House fact sheet summarizing some of the key points in the President's speech indicates that in 2008, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day and the President's goal is that by 2025 -- a little over a decade from now -- we will have cut that by one-third. The strategy will include: (1) Expanding Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and Production by Implementing critical safety reforms; Identifying underdeveloped resources; and Developing incentives for expedited development and production. (2) Securing Access to Diverse and Reliable Sources of Energy (3) Developing Alternatives to Oil, Including Biofuels and Natural Gas. (4) Cutting Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks. (5) Leading by Example With the Federal Fleet.

 

    Additionally, the strategy calls for charting a path  towards cleaner sources of electricity and greater energy efficiency, and remaining on the cutting edge of clean energy technology by: (1) Creating Markets for Clean Energy (i.e. Clean Energy Standard (CES) of 80% by 2035); (2) Cutting Energy Bills through More Efficient Homes and Buildings; and (3) Staying on the Cutting Edge through Clean Energy Research and Development.

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a statement in response to President speech saying, "President Obama knows that the best formula for America's energy security is to subtract foreign oil from our energy mix and add better alternatives like fuel efficiency and clean energy technologies. In contrast to the know-nothing attitudes permeating Congress on climate change and clean energy, the President believes in American know-how to move our country away from dangerous and expensive sources of energy. Oil companies shouldn't be allowed to sit on drilling rights without producing, while drooling over the public land they don't yet lease. That's why the President is right to push the oil industry to drill on the tens of millions of acres they already possess, but aren't using, just as legislation I have introduced would do. I look forward to working with the Obama administration and my colleagues in Congress to enact the president's forward-looking energy policies."

 

    Even before the President delivered his speech on a national energy policy, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was delivering a speech on the Senate floor saying, "Americans Want a Sensible Approach to Energy." He said, ". . .as we've frequently seen with this administration, what it says and what it does are often two very different things. So this morning, I'd like to discuss some of the things the administration has actually done when it comes to energy. Then I'd like to propose some things Republicans would do differently. It should go without saying that Americans are ready for action on this issue. With average gas prices approaching $4 a gallon in most parts of the country, growing uncertainty and unrest in the Middle East, and a jobs crisis here at home, Americans want the President to outline a serious plan today that will make us less dependent, not more, on foreign sources of oil, and which stimulates job creation here.

 

    "Unfortunately, what they've gotten instead are more of the same half-hearted proposals Democrats have trotted out every other time Americans get squeezed at the pump. Instead of facing the problem of higher energy prices head on, Democrats are once again paying lip service to these concerns with fake solutions that only aim to distract people from what they're really up to. . .

 

    "Tell a Democrat in Washington that gas prices are too high, and, as if on cue, they'll throw together a speech or a press conference to suggest that we open an underground oil reserve that was created to deal with calamities, not market pressures; they'll take you on a tour of some alternative car plant that promises to have one of its $100,000 prototypes to market 25 years down the road; or they'll quietly release some report to the media about how energy companies aren't working hard enough to extract oil -- while schizophrenically claiming American reserves are minuscule and that more production isn't the solution. . .

 

    "The idea here is to somehow blame energy companies for not producing enough energy on their own. What Democrats don't mention, however, is that a drilling lease is nothing more than an agreement with the government that a company has a right to explore for oil or gas in a certain area, not a guarantee that they'll find it. And they never see fit to mention that most of the area that could be leased is effectively off limits — thanks to the red tape factory Democrats operate here in Washington. And, honestly, are we really supposed to believe that the same administration that declared a blanket moratorium on all offshore drilling off the Gulf Coast, which chased away rigs and jobs to other countries, and which established new regulations that make getting a new drilling permit virtually impossible, now believes that energy companies aren't drilling enough?. . .

 

    "Initial news reports about the President's speech today mention that the administration is determined to derive 80% of U.S. electricity from clean energy sources — in the year 2035. And I'm sure we could generate a great deal of bipartisan support for much of what the President will call for, assuming it doesn't involve federal mandates. But what does any of this have to do with the crisis at hand? The guy who's trying to make ends meet wants to know what you're going to do for him today, not 24 years from now. But, of course, the administration doesn't have anything to say to that guy, because the administration's energy policy isn't really aimed at him. . .

 

    "Consider this: just three of the areas we could tap in Alaska are thought to hold enough oil to replace our crude imports from the Persian Gulf for nearly 65 years. So the problem isn't that we need to look elsewhere for our energy. The problem is that Democrats don't want us to use the energy we have. . . the crisis we face is immediate, and it requires immediate action. And that's why Republicans have come up with two concrete proposals that will have a positive practical effect, two things we can do to give Americans relief, job creators a reason to hire, and make all of us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. First, let's increase American energy production by cutting the red tape and opening up areas that the administration has either temporarily blocked, stalled, or closed off to production. And let's block any new regulations that will drive up production costs for energy --including the administration's proposed new EPA regulations on carbon emissions. . ."

 

    Access the full text of the President's speech (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on America's Energy Security (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the floor speech and video from Senator McConnell (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Sen. McConnell Urges Passage Of Amendment To Stop GHG Regs
• Senate Democrats Urge Support For EPA FY11 Funding
• Hastings: DOI Lease Report "Concocts Definitions To Grab Headlines"
• EPA Streamlines Regulations For Car & Truck Fuel Conversion
• EPA Announces XML Greenhouse Gas Reporting Schema
• Higher Mileage Standards To Boost U.S. Automakers Profits

(Click here for details)

Enviros Oppose EPA's New Proposed Cooling Water Intake Rule

Mar 28: As required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and pursuant to a settlement agreement, U.S. EPA is proposing for public comment standards to protect billions of fish and other aquatic organisms drawn each year into cooling water systems at large power plants and factories. The proposal, based on Section 316(b) of CWA, would establish a common sense framework, putting a premium on public input and flexibility. 

 

    The proposed rule is one of the Republican designated, high profile EPA rulemakings which have been targeted for extensive oversight. Late last year, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) and Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee called on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to provide greater transparency as the Agency considers rules for cooling water intake structures at existing electric generation and manufacturing facilities. He said, "Given that this rulemaking has the potential to affect more than 400 power plants throughout the country and could impact energy supply and reliability, I am concerned about the direction of the proposal and its timing. The potential retrofit costs could be substantial ($200-300 million per unit for coal and $700 million to $1 billion for nuclear power plants) and some coal steam generators may not have the space necessary for the installation of cooling towers and other associated equipment. This could result in the retirement of some of these generators." He called on EPA to allow 180 days at minimum for the public to digest and prepare comments for a rule of this magnitude [See WIMS 12/8/10]. 

    Nancy Stoner, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water said, "This proposal establishes a strong baseline level of protection and then allows additional safeguards for aquatic life to be developed through a rigorous site-specific analysis, an approach that ensures the most up to date technology available is being used. It puts implementation analysis in the hands of the permit writers, where requirements can be tailored to the particular facility. The public's comments will be instrumental in shaping safeguards for aquatic life and to build a commonsense path forward. The input we receive will make certain that we end up with a flexible and effective rule to protect the health of our waters and ecosystems."

    Safeguards against impingement will be required for all facilities above a minimum size; closed-cycle cooling systems may also be required on a case by case basis when, based on thorough site-specific analysis by permitting authorities, such requirements are determined to be appropriate. EPA is proposing the regulation as a result of a settlement agreement with Riverkeeper, Inc. and other environmental groups [See WIMS 1/26/07, WIMS 4/2/09].

    EPA indicates that for "fish impingement" (i.e. being pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake structure), existing facilities that withdraw at least 25 percent of their water exclusively for cooling purposes and have a design intake flow of greater than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) would be required to reduce fish impingement under the proposed regulations. To ensure flexibility, the owner or operator of the facility will be able to choose one of two options for meeting best technology available requirements for reducing impingement. They may conduct monitoring to show the specified performance standards for impingement mortality of fish and shellfish have been met, or they may demonstrate to the permitting authority that the intake velocity meets the specified design criteria. EPA estimates that more than half of the facilities that could be impacted by this proposed rule already employ readily available technologies that are likely to put them into compliance with the proposed standard.

    For "fish entrainment" (i.e. being drawn into cooling water systems and affected by heat, chemicals or physical stress), EPA is proposing a site-specific determination to be made based on local concerns and on the unique circumstances of each facility. The proposed rule establishes requirements for the facility owner to conduct comprehensive studies and develop other information as part of the permit application, and then establishes a public process, with opportunity for public input, by which the appropriate technology to reduce entrainment mortality would be implemented at each facility after considering site-specific factors.

    EPA indicates that because new units can incorporate the most efficient, best-performing technology directly into the design stage of the project, thus lowering costs and avoiding constraints associated with technology that has already been locked in, the proposed rule would require closed-cycle cooling (cooling towers) for new units at existing facilities, as is already required for new facilities. The public will be able to comment on the proposal upon its publication in the Federal Register. EPA will conduct a 90 day comment period, and will carefully consider those comments before taking final action on the proposal. The administrator must take final action by July 27, 2012.

 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Riverkeeper issued a release saying, "The proposed rule, released this evening (March 28), was supposed to modernize the way power plants take in and release water used for cooling. Instead, EPA will leave it up to state agencies to figure out requirements for plants, but decades of experience have shown that states lack the resources and expertise to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis and have complained to EPA of the extreme burden of having to do so.

    Riverkeeper's Executive Director, Paul Gallay said, "We expected more out of the EPA to protect the country's waterways from power plants' destructive impacts. A case-by-case approach will simply not work. Instead, it will continue an endless cycle of paperwork and litigation that will leave water bodies across the country unprotected and countless species at risk." The groups said, "In the absence of a national cooling water rule for nearly 40 years, the country's waterways have been subjected to case-by-case determinations by individual permit writers, typically state agencies, exercising 'best professional judgment' when deciding what cooling system a plant can use." In 2001, EPA identified closed-cycle recirculating cooling systems as the best technology available for new power plants to use, but this did not extend to existing plants.

    The groups said, with nearly 500 U.S. power plants still relying on the "antiquated and destructive, once-through cooling system," each plant can withdraw at least 50 million (and often, more than a billion) gallons of cooling water. This water goes through a condenser where it absorbs heat from the boiler steam, and then is discharged back into the water at higher temperatures. Not only does this super-heated water kill marine life but billions of fish are sucked in with the water and killed with this system. Environmental groups want all power and manufacturing plants, new or old, to use closed-cycle cooling systems. This would generally reduce that amount of water taken in by 95 percent when compared with once-through cooling, leaving trillions of gallons of water untouched every year and fish out of cooling systems. Some plants have voluntarily moved to this system but other still refuse to make the move.

    Reed Super, an attorney representing Riverkeeper and others, who has worked on the cooling water rule since 2000 said, "EPA has the ability to set national standards that would protect the environment with readily-available and affordable technology, but has instead abdicated the responsibility to state agencies who are simply not equipped to make these decisions alone. Unfortunately, EPA's proposal will perpetuate the unacceptable status quo that has allowed antiquated plants to withdraw nearly 100 trillion gallons from our waters each year and indiscriminately kill fish and wildlife, instead of recycling their cooling water as modern plants have for the last three decades."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Cooling Water Intake Structure website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the environmental organizations (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• DOI Report Shows Most Public Oil Lease Acres Remain Idle
• Sen. Hearing On Disease Clusters & Environmental Health
• DOE Announces "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" Challenge
• BOEMRE Issues Guidance For Offshore Deepwater Drilling
• U.S. Climate Change Negotiator Position Announcement
• Pacific Merchant Shipping Asso. v. Goldstene (CARB)

(Click here for details)