CEQ Draft Plan To Protect Water Resources In A Changing Climate

Jun 2: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)released a 108-page draft Action Plan which it said recognizes that a changing climate will affect the quality and availability of the Nation's water resources. The Plan is designed to help Federal agencies assure adequate water supplies, safeguard water quality, and protect public health and property. The draft Action Plan will be available for 45 days of public comment to allow the public to provide input and feedback before it is finalized. 

 

    The Draft National Action Plan for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate recommends Federal agency actions to aid freshwater resource managers in managing and protecting the Nation's water resources. It also outlines ways in which Federal agencies can support state, local and tribal governments in their water resources planning by improving access to quality data and information and best practices. The draft Action Plan responds to a 2010 report from the Obama Administration's interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force that identified freshwater resources planning as a priority [See WIMS 10/15/10].

 

    Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality said, "American communities rely on freshwater resources for drinking water, farming, energy production, and a host of activities that directly affect the health of our families and our economy.  The quality and availability of our water resources is vulnerable to significant impacts from a changing climate, demanding smart planning to safeguard these critical resources. By ensuring Federal agencies and state and local partners have the tools they need to assess and plan for risks to water resources and infrastructure, we are protecting our assets across the country so that they can continue to meet the needs of American communities."

 

    The U.S. Global Change Research Program has identified several major impacts of a changing climate on the Nation's freshwater resources, including rising water temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and increasing intensity of rain and storm events. These changes are predicted to result in on-the-ground impacts on communities' water supplies. For example, rising sea levels are expected to degrade coastal groundwater resources and flood water treatment facilities, threatening the health, safety and economic viability of communities.

 

    According to a release, government agencies and citizens should collaboratively manage freshwater resources in response to a changing climate in order to assure adequate water supplies, protect human life, health and property, and protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. To accomplish that goal, the draft Action Plan identifies specific actions Federal agencies should take, including:

• Establish a planning process to adapt water resources management to a changing climate that includes better coordinating Federal agencies and maintaining strong engagement with state, local and tribal governments, stakeholders and the public.
• Improve the quality of water resources and climate change information available to decision-makers.
• Expand the use of water efficiency practices and technologies.
• Develop a toolbox of the most effective freshwater conservation practices to help state and local officials and facility managers identify and adopt these practices.
• Develop a pilot climate change vulnerability index for a major category of water facilities, such as drinking water systems, to help facility managers prioritize their adaptation responses. 
• Develop a "one stop" internet portal for up-to-date data and information on water resources and climate change.
• Encourage state, tribal and local governments to continue their leadership in developing and implementing climate adaptation plans, and provides information and best practices to support their work. 

    The interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is co-chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance, the Task Force released recommendations the President in October 2010 outlining actions the Federal Government should take to expand and strengthen the Nation's capacity to better understand and manage climate-related risks.

 

    Access the draft Action Plan (click here). Access the Action Plan website for more information and to submit comments (click here). Access the U.S. Global Change Research Program website (click here). [*Climate, *Water]

DOI Memo Clarifies Continuing Responsibilities For "Wild Lands"

Jun 1: In a memo to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Bob Abbey, Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar confirmed that, pursuant to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, the BLM will not designate any lands as "Wild Lands," and outlined how the Department will work in collaboration with Members of Congress, states, tribes, and local communities to identify public lands that may be appropriate candidates for Congressional protection under the Wilderness Act. Salazar said, "The protection of America's wilderness for hunting, fishing, and backcountry recreation should be a unifying issue that mobilizes us to a common purpose. We will focus our effort on building consensus around locally-supported initiatives and working with Members to advance their priorities for wilderness designations in their states and districts. Together, we can advance America's proud wilderness legacy for future generations."

    In the memo, Secretary Salazar directs Deputy Secretary David Hayes to work with the BLM and interested parties to develop recommendations regarding the management of public lands with wilderness characteristics. Noting the longstanding and widespread support for the designation of wilderness areas, Salazar also directed Hayes to solicit input from Members of Congress, state and local officials, tribes and federal land managers to identify BLM lands that may be appropriate candidates for Congressional protection under the Wilderness Act. Hayes will deliver a report to the Secretary and Congress regarding those areas.

    In the memo, Salazar also confirmed that BLM must continue to meet its responsibilities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), including the requirement that it maintain inventories of the public lands, their resources and other values that it manages. The BLM currently manages 221 Wilderness Areas designated by Congress and 545 Wilderness Study Areas, comprising approximately 8.8 percent of the nearly 245 million acres managed by the BLM.

    In December, 2010, Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3310, directing the BLM to use the public resource management planning process to gather public input and designate certain lands with wilderness characteristics as "Wild Lands." On April 14, 2011, Congress passed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, which includes a provision (Section 1769) that prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 in fiscal year 2011.

    U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), a critic of the Administration's management of wild, wilderness and roadless areas, released a statement regarding DOI's decision to abandon what he called "its sweeping wild lands order (Secretarial Order 3310)." He said, "This Administration's 'wild lands' proposal was misguided right out of the box. Public lands should be managed in a way that provides the greatest benefit to the public. This anti-multiple use order would have severely limited access to public lands and threatened Western economies. I am pleased the Administration appears to finally understand that bypassing Congress and ignoring input from local officials is the wrong way to go. We need to have a balanced approach to managing our public lands that involves listening to folks on the ground who know the land the best. I look forward to working with Secretary Salazar to ensure that we achieve this goal. I will fight any additional attempts by Washington to backdoor designate de-facto wilderness areas."

 

    On May 26, Senator Barrasso and other Senators introduced the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act (S.1087). According to a release from Sen. Barrasso at that time he said the bill will "fix a broken Washington system that has kept millions of acres of non-wilderness land off limits for decades." Ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) are the lead co-sponsors of the bill. The bill has been endorsed by over 90 different agriculture, recreation and sportsmen organizations [See WIMS 5/26/11]. A similar bill (H.R.1581) was introduced in the House in April by Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

 

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) issued a statement saying, "It's welcome news that the Interior Department will follow the law. After this positive initial step of halting the 'Wild Lands' order, we'll be taking a close look at how the Administration proceeds. Congressional oversight has served a vital role in this entire process and the Committee's active oversight on this matter will continue. Attempts to prohibit forms of public access, block job-creating activities and manage land as wilderness, even though they haven't been designated as such by Congress, will be met with a strong reaction by this Committee. It's important that BLM maintains this new promise of an open process, through conversations with interested parties, states, and Congress."

 

    William Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society issued a statement calling the DOI announcement disappointing. He said, "We are deeply disappointed in Secretary Salazar's decision today to undermine his Wild Lands policy. This policy helped provide the guidance needed by the Bureau of Land Management to properly manage lands as required by the Federal Land policy and Management Act of 1976. Today's memorandum ignores the BLM's obligation to protect wilderness values and effectively lets stand former Secretary Gale Norton's deeply flawed decision to prohibit the BLM from properly managing those public lands that harbor wilderness values. Without strong and decisive action from the Department of Interior, wilderness will not be given the protection it is due, putting millions of acres of public lands at risk. It's important to keep in mind that these lands belong to all Americans. This apparent capitulation to opponents of wilderness protection is deeply disturbing -- we hope the Secretary will reassert his previous leadership in recognizing the Interior Department's responsibly to protect our most sensitive landscapes for future generations."

    Access a release from DOI (click here). Access Secretary Salazar's signed memo (click here). Access the BLM Wilderness Areas website for more information (click here). Access a release from Sen. Barrasso with additional information (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access a release from The Wilderness Society and link to more information on wild land policy (click here). Access legislative details for S.1087 (click here, posted soon). Access legislative details for H.R.1581 (click here). [*Land]

High-Stakes Debt Ceiling Political Game Includes Big Oil Subsidies

May 31: With trillions of dollars and potential global economic collapse on the line, Republicans and Democrats are engaged in a high-stakes poker game over raising the U.S. debt ceiling. By most calculations the "drop-dead date" is somewhere around the beginning of August when the existing ceiling must be raised, but Wall Street insiders are warning that investors could get nervous before that if it appears a standoff is imminent.

 

    Normally, raising the debt ceiling, to back up the full faith and credit of the U.S., is a perfunctory act of Congress. But this time, Republicans have insisted that the action must include large-scale program and entitlement funding cuts. At yesterday's White House press briefing, the Press Secretary said, "We also believe quite strongly that we have to raise the debt ceiling -- there is no option to doing that -- and that that will happen, because the economic impacts of not voting to raise the debt ceiling would be calamitous. Both will happen, we believe, and both are happening concurrently and, in many ways, on parallel tracks. So the President looks forward to an agreement on deficit reduction and to the Congress doing what it must do, which is vote to raise the debt ceiling that so that we, as the United States of America, continue to honor our obligations and pay our debts. . ."

 

    Last evening a so-called "clean bill" (H.R.1954) to raise the debt ceiling with no additional spending cuts was purposely offered and defeated in the Republican-controlled House. Republicans are insistent that tax increases, including ending tax breaks for the very wealthy and subsidies for "Big Oil," are "off the table." Conversely, Democrats are arguing for both, and calling for reasoned cuts in entitlement programs.

 

    Following last night's vote, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, "Tonight's vote shows the House is listening to the American people. The Obama Administration and congressional Democrats have repeatedly asked for a debt limit hike without any spending cuts and budget reforms, and the American people simply will not tolerate it. Raising the debt limit without major spending cuts and meaningful reforms would hurt our economy and destroy more jobs, adding to our debt crisis. . ."

 

    House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a lengthy statement on the vote, but said in part, "The Republicans have introduced a bill which they have now resoundingly said they will oppose. So where is the good faith effort here?  We are, I believe, in good faith efforts -- in a bipartisan way, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans with Vice President Biden -- to find ways to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again. As a mother and as a grandmother, I have absolutely no intention of passing any bills, personal or official, onto my children or grandchildren. And let me say, the Democrats know how to clean up the debt. We've had to do it before. . ."

 

    Today, President Obama met with House Republicans on the debt ceiling issue. Speaker Boehner issued a statement following the meeting saying, "This morning, I released a letter signed by 150 economists who agreed that if we're going to get serious about creating jobs in America, we have got to reduce some of the uncertainty. Some of that uncertainty is caused by the giant debt that's facing our country. The fact is, if we're going to raise the debt limit, the spending cuts should exceed the increase in the debt limit. Otherwise, it'll serve to cost us jobs in our country, and that's not what the American people want. We had a very frank conversation. I thought it was productive. I'm looking forward to more serious conversations about how we reduce the deficit and the debt to get our economy going again and creating jobs."

 

    On May 31, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and 19 of his colleagues sent a letter to Vice President Biden calling for an end to "billions in Big Oil tax subsidies in any deal to raise the debt ceiling or cut the deficit." In the letter the Senators urged the Vice President to ensure oil companies pay their fair share to help lower the deficit "just as working class taxpayers do." They said closing the tax loopholes would immediately recoup an estimated $21 billion over the next decade, money that currently pads oil company profits while doing nothing to lower gas prices. The NJ Senator recently led efforts in the Senate to put an end to these tax loopholes through the "Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act", which was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators two weeks ago [See WIMS 5/18/11].

 

    Access the 5/31 White House press briefing (click here). Access a release Speaker Boehner following the H.R.1954 vote (click here). Access a release Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access a release Speaker Boehner following the White House meeting (click here). Access the release and letter from Sen. Menendez (click here). Access legislative details including the roll call vote for H.R.1954 (click here). [*Energy/OilGas]

35 Senators Urge Support For Water & Sewer State Revolving Funds

May 27: U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, was joined by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK) and a bipartisan group of 32 additional senators on a letter to leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging continued support for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. They said a nationwide investment in water infrastructure projects creates jobs, repairs crumbling infrastructure and protects public health.

    In the letter to the Appropriations Committee, the Senators stressed the urgent need to revitalize the nation's deteriorating water infrastructure, which poses risks to human health and the environment from broken water and sewer mains and sewage overflows. The senators indicated that U.S. EPA estimates that over the next 20 years $187.9 billion is needed for wastewater improvements and $334.8 billion is needed to upgrade our nation's drinking water systems. The letter also highlighted the tremendous job-creating potential of water infrastructure investment, which yields significant economic benefits for every dollar spent.  The National Association of Utility Contractors estimates that $1 billion invested in water infrastructure can create more than 26,000 jobs.

    Joining Senators Cardin, Boxer and Inhofe on the letter to Appropriations Committee are U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John Boozman (R-AR), Chris Coons (D-DE), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Tim Johnson (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Thune (R-SD), Mark Udall (D-CO), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR). 

    In their letter the senators said in part, "Investments in water infrastructure provide significant economic benefits to the economy and enjoy a strong return on investment. The U.S. Conference of Mayors notes that each public dollar invested in water infrastructure increases private long-term GDP output by $6.35. The National Association of Utility Contractors estimates that one billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000 jobs. In addition, the Department of Commerce estimates that each job created in the local water and sewer industry creates 3.68 jobs in the national economy and each public dollar spent yields $2.62 dollars in economic output in other industries. As you can see, this is a highly leveraged Federal investment that results in significant job and economic benefits for every dollar spent. It is critical that the federal government remains a reliable partner in meeting the nation's clean water and safe drinking water needs.  Therefore, we urge your continued support for investments in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds."

 

    Access a release and link to the letter (click here). [*Drink, *Water]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Republicans React To White House Regulatory Reform Plans

May 26: House and Senate Republicans reacted harshly to the White House release of 30 individual agency plans designed to significantly reduce regulatory burdens on individuals, small businesses, and state and local governments, while maintaining the critical health and safety protections that Americans deserve. The plans are in response to President Obama's January 18, 2011, Executive Order on Regulation [See WIMS 1/18/11].

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) was outraged and issued a statement saying, "Two days after missing a congressional deadline, Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein has unveiled the preliminary recommendations that federal agencies were required to submit, identifying onerous regulations. Sunstein and his staff ignored formal requests from the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for the preliminary plans by May 24, only releasing details a few hours in advance of a publicity tour that included a public speech this morning. Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is scheduled to testify before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on June 3.

 

    "My message to Mr. Sunstein and the Obama administration is that congressional inquiries are not optional. It is astonishing that despite this administration's repeated claims of transparency, it continues to ignore and defy basic requests for information. With today's findings, we redouble our efforts to close the Obama administration's red tape factory and remain vigilant in protecting good paying jobs and fostering a new era of economic growth. We look forward to having an honest and thoughtful conversation with regulatory czar Sunstein next week."

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), issued a highly critical statement saying, "There's no question that regulatory red tape is hurting the economy and stifling job growth. But President Obama's actions are out of step with his talking points. Let's put this in perspective: over the past two years the Obama administration has unleashed the most aggressive regulatory regime in American history. From cap and trade regulations to a clean water power grab, Obama is doing through regulation what he could not achieve through legislation. This agenda has increased costs on every American and put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Any steps to reduce red tape are more than welcome, but if the President truly wants to make a difference to job growth, he can begin by reining in the Environmental Protection Agency's stringent greenhouse gas regulations and water rules, which are unrivaled in the harm they pose to the American economy."

 

    Access the statement from Rep. Stearns (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the White House Regulatory Reform website for links to all of the plans, the Executive Order, a video and related information (click here). [*All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Republicans React To White House Regulatory Reform Plans
UN Says Metal Recycling Rates Worldwide Discouragingly Low
NOAA Says Atlantic Bluefin Tuna ESA Listing Not Warranted
Senators Press For CFTC Action On Gas Price Manipulation
Bicameral, Bipartisan Fuel Feedstock Freedom Act
Clean Air Advisors Issue Report On Monitoring For NOx & SOx
Clean Air Advisors Issue Consultation On Lead NAAQS
G8 Meeting Lacks Attention To Climate Change & Energy Issues
Kentucky Republicans Introduce Energy and Revenue Enrichment Act

Hearing Signals Problems With Climate Politics & Negotiations

May 25: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chaired by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), with Ranking Member Russ Carnahan (D-MO) held a hearing entitled, "UN Climate Talks and Power Politics: It's Not about the Temperature." The full committee is Chaired by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-RI), with Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA) held a hearing Oversight and Investigations. Witnesses included: Todd Stern, U.S. Department of State, Special Envoy for Climate Change; and representatives from the: Pew Center on Global Climate Change; German Marshall Fund of the United States; and American Enterprise Institute. In an opening statement by Chairman Rohrabacher said:

"In December 2007, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Bali, Indonesia. There, in one of the most opulent resort areas in the world, a playground for the rich, a plan was drawn up to impose a lower standard of living on the rest of us. The imperative was alleged to be "Man-made global warming" which poses a danger against which the whole world should unite. In the years since, the scientific assumptions of this supposed crisis have increasingly been challenged by prominent scientists throughout the world. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Frank Tipler, a Professor of both Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University, and Roy Spencer, a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville are among the many eminent scientists whose work has contradicted the flawed UN orthodoxy of Man-made global warming. I have a list of 100 other prominent scientists who agree with the five I have just mentioned, which I will place in the record. . .

 

"Under the slogan 'common but differentiated responsibilities' a 'zero sum' world was created which pitted developed and developing countries against each other and within each block of nations. Behind the debate over the supposed science of climate change, nations have fought for trade advantages, the transfer of technology, the flow of capital, and political influence. Coalitions have formed that will affect the global balance of power far beyond the conference halls.

 

"The stakes are high; nothing less than how the future growth of the world economy will be divided up. Who will be allowed to prosper and who will be forced to slow down or even go into decline are issues on the table. The current talks aim at a 'binding agreement' to be signed in December at a conference in Durham, South Africa. It is meant to replace the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 which is to expire in 2012.

 

"The United States did not accept the Kyoto Protocol because it imposed restrictions only on the developed countries while leaving the developing countries free to follow whatever strategy for economic growth they desired. UN documents still call for the next agreement to follow this same pattern, protecting the "right" of some nations to rise while imposing a debt burden on the developed countries of North America, Europe and Japan as a penalty for modernizing first and being successful. . ."

    Chairman Rohrabacher concluded saying, "The purpose of this hearing is to examine the UN climate talks and the swirling maneuvers and power plays observed in the wake of these global gatherings. Are our national interests at stake? How can America protect its national interests against the demands of rivals? What coalitions confront us and how can we thwart moves hostile to our interests? Why do we not claim the same right to growth as other nation's claim, and act as they do to protect that right?"

 

    Stern testified that the first priority for the U.S. leading up to the COP 17 conference in Durban, South Africa, should be to "implement the key agreements reached in Cancun -- to draft guidelines establishing a transparency and accountability system; to design the  new Green Fund that was agreed to in principle; to set up a Climate Technology Center and Network; and to create a new Adaptation Committee. If we take these steps and start building the new institutions needed for a pragmatic international regime, COP 17 will be a solid success."

 

    Stern concluded after outlining many problems in the upcoming negotiations saying, "The question for the UN climate negotiations, at the end of the day, is what parties want. The UNFCCC has the potential to be a cooperative, mutually beneficial platform -- though not the sole platform -- for combating climate change. It also has the potential to be a platform focused mostly on rhetorical thrust and parry, with a thick overlay of accusation and blame. The one vision is useful. The other it not. We will continue working to support that first, cooperative vision, always bearing in mind that the central mission of our discussions must be to try to address the climate challenge, not to settle old scores. . . But much work remains."

 

    Steven Hayward, Ph.D., with the American Enterprise Institute testified, "I will begin with my contentious conclusion, which is that the international diplomacy of climate change is the most implausible and unpromising initiative since the disarmament

talks of the 1930s, and for many of the same reasons; that the Kyoto Protocol and its progeny are the climate diplomacy equivalent of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 that promised to end war (a treaty that is still on the books, by the way), and finally, that future historians are going to look back on this whole period as the climate policy equivalent of wage and price controls to fight inflation in the 1970s."

 

    Elliot Diringer with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said, "The United States must remain fully engaged in the talks with the aim of strengthening multilateral support and transparency, thereby promoting action while laying the groundwork for a future binding agreement. A growing number of countries are pursuing policies that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many see the challenge as an important opportunity as well. Some of our major trading partners are moving aggressively to grow their clean energy technology industries, which create domestic jobs and high-value exports. Without stronger policies creating similar incentives here, the United States risks falling further behind in the rapidly expanding clean energy market.

 

    "U.S. inaction on climate change exposes our nation to real and rising risks. The longer we delay action, the harder it will be to avert the worst consequences of warming, the higher the cost of coping with those that can not be avoided, and the further we fall behind in the clean energy race. Taking steps now to expand clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is squarely in our strong national interest."

   

    Daniel Twining with the German Marshall Fund of the United States testified that, ". . .poor American diplomacy combined with the flaws of the United Nations-led climate-change negotiations have had the effect of isolating the United States from important friends and allies rather than enabling it to build like-minded coalitions on environmental issues of shared concern. A more effective approach would integrate U.S. interests in mitigating climate change with broader strategic concerns vis-à-vis both allies and rising powers. It would work to produce positive-sum outcomes to climate negotiations facilitated by joint development and deployment of key energy and environmental technologies, rather than succumbing to a zero-sum logic pitting the developed world against the developing world in global, U.N.-led multinational arenas.

 

"An instructive example of an unfortunate outcome for broader U.S. interests was the United Nations' Copenhagen climate conference of December 2009. American diplomacy and the flaws inherent in a multilateral conference with universal membership undermined Washington's ties with its European allies and with rising powers including China, Brazil, and India. . . the Copenhagen endgame produced a crisis in transatlantic relations. . . The 'developed versus developing world' quality of multilateral climate change negotiations with universal membership also compromises U.S. interests with a range of key emerging powers. . .

 

    Access the statements and testimony posted separately: Rep. Rohrbacher (click here); Stern (click here); Diringer (click here); Twining (click here); and Hayward (click here). [*Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS 

House Subcommittee Approves Two More Energy Initiative Bills

May 24: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) with Ranking Member Bobby Rush (D-IL), approved what Republicans are calling "two key pieces of legislation under the American Energy Initiative" -- the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act (Discussion Draft); and the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act, or TRAIN Act (H.R.1705). Both "bipartisan" bills passed out of the subcommittee by voice vote.

    The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, led by Subcommittee members Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Gene Green (D-TX), would allow oil gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf by streamlining the U.S. EPA's permitting process and "eliminating the needless regulatory delays that have prevented energy development in these waters for years."  

    The TRAIN Act, introduced by Subcommittee Vice Chairman John Sullivan (R-OK) and Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT), would require an interagency committee to conduct an analysis of the cumulative economic impacts of several rules that "would increase energy costs and threaten manufacturing and job growth in the United States." This analysis will provide a greater understanding of how these regulations are impacting America's global competiveness, energy prices, and jobs.

    Chairman Whitfield said, "I am pleased to send these two bills to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for action. The TRAIN Act would provide a much needed cumulative analysis of the effects EPA's proposed regulations and actions will have on jobs and the economy. Further, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act would enable the U.S. to responsibly access and develop our own domestic resources in the Outer Continental Shelf in order to reduce our energy dependence on unstable supply lines from foreign nations. I look forward to advancing these bills through the full committee and the House."

 

    Ranking Member Rush said in an opening statement, "The TRAIN Act would highlight the costs of implementing certain EPA rules but does not take into account all of the benefits of these regulations, including enhanced public health, increased job productivity or lives saved. This bill would also not take into account the positive impacts that EPA regulations have had on our economy, including spurring additional research and development of clean energy technologies, instituting higher fuel efficiency standards and helping make the country less dependent on foreign oil.

    "Unfortunately, for many of my colleagues, if the benefits of a regulation cannot be monetized, such as lives saved or job loss prevented, then they are written off as having no economic value. I would submit that for many local communities, especially those less affluent ones which are so often disproportionately affected by dirty air and the consequences that come with it, the omission of health impacts in the analysis that the TRAIN Act calls for would be a great disservice to them. Additionally, my concerns with the 'Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011' have been expressed through each step of this legislative process. . ." Amendments offered by Democrats were defeated on voice votes.

    Access the statement from Chairman Whitfield (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Rush (click here). Access the Republican Markup hearing website for background, statements, webcast, amendments and voting information (click here). Access legislative details for the TRAIN Act (click here). Access the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, Discussion Draft (click here). [*Air, *Energy]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

GOP & DEMS Trade Reports & Barbs On Gas Prices At Hearing

May 24: The House Committee on Oversight &  Government Reform, Chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA) with Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), held a hearing entitled, "Pain at the Pump: Policies that Suppress Domestic Production of Oil and Gas." The hearing featured testimony from U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and David Hayes, Deputy Secretary U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Additionally, Chairman Issa released a 43-page report entitled, Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result of Government Action; and, Ranking Member Cummings released a Democratic staff report entitled, Real Help for American Consumers: Who's Profiting at the Pump?

 

    Administrator Jackson testified, "As a matter of geology, America will never control more than a tiny fraction of the world's oil supply.3 America cannot prevent gasoline and diesel prices from rising when global supplies are constrained and world demand for oil is steady or increasing. Still, there are benefits to being less reliant on oil imports. Last year, American oil production

reached its highest level since 2003, and this Administration supports increasing safe and responsible oil production here at home. . ."

 

    Jackson said, "We can mitigate the impact of high fuel prices on American families and businesses by enabling them to travel the same distances and conduct the same commerce on less gasoline and diesel. The fuel efficiency standards that EPA and the Department of Transportation established last year for new cars and light trucks will save the average American driver three thousand dollars over the life of the car and conserve 1.85 billion barrels of oil over the life of vehicles of Model Years 2012 through 2016. The Administration will soon issue similar standards for heavy-duty vehicles of Model Years 2014 through 2018 and is designing ones for cars and light trucks of Model Years 2017 through 2025."

 

    DOI's Hayes testified that, "President Obama has said that 'we cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again.' At the Department, we are working to expand cleaner sources of energy, including renewables like wind, solar, and geothermal, as well as clean coal and natural gas on public lands. . . Last year, America produced more oil than at any time since 2003."

 

    Hayes continued providing testimony on: Measures to Facilitate Development; Incentives for the Prompt Development of Oil and Gas Leases; Tools for the Federal Government to Oversee Offshore Oil and Gas Development Activities on a Timely and Effective Basis; Ensuring a Fair Return for American Taxpayers and Accountability for Safety Violations and Oil Spills; Necessary Reforms for Offshore Development; Onshore Development: Restoring Balance to the Process; and Improving Our Regulatory Programs.

 

    Chairman Issa indicated that the Republican report highlights evidence that the statements by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu about "intentionally raising energy costs for Americans" can be seen across the federal government: from blocking production in the Gulf of Mexico, to hindering "fracking" technology, and stifling oil and gas production on public lands. He said, "The most troubling things about outlandish statements made by key Obama Administration officials about the need to raise energy costs is that when we examined the evidence, they appear to reflect the agenda they are pursuing. These are obviously not the policies Americans want or support." He outlined the key of the report as follows:

• Key Obama Administration figures have expressed a belief that Americans should pay more for energy – a pattern of actions shows the Administration is, in fact, pursuing an agenda to raise the price Americans pay for energy.
• While the Administration touts nascent "green" energy technologies, U.S. domestic energy resources are currently the largest on earth -- greater than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada combined.
• Recent Administration action has already led to significant cost and regulatory barriers that have limited domestic production of oil.
• EPA has collaborated with environmental groups to target independent energy producers for environmental concerns not related to their operations.
• Some green energy sources the Administration is promoting at the expense of expanded domestic oil, gas, and coal supplies create unintended environmental, security and economic consequences.

    Ranking Member Cummings called on Chairman Issa to work with him to investigate the growing impact of excessive oil speculation on high gas prices. He released the Democratic staff report which finds that, "Addressing excessive speculation offers the single most significant opportunity to reduce the price of gas for American consumers." He said the report's "chief conclusion" is that, in order to make the most significant impact on lowering gas prices, the Committee's primary focus should be on countering the growing impact of excessive speculation, rather than pursuing the oil industry's priorities of increasing domestic drilling or repealing safety measures put in place after the devastating BP oil spill." Major findings of the 31-page Democratic report include:

• Excessive oil speculation could be inflating gas prices by as much as 30%.
• Efforts to expand domestic drilling or eliminate safety measures put in place after the devastating BP oil spill would have a negligible impact on gas prices, potentially saving only pennies per gallon even after several decades
• Despite claims of a "permitorium," or a de facto moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, the reality is that the Administration has approved 14 deepwater drilling permits, 55 shallow water permits, and two new exploration plans since the BP oil spill. Initial delays in obtaining permits were a result of efforts to develop technology to prevent and contain the same type of blowout that caused the BP oil spill.
• Despite the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, oil companies have continued to make the highest profits of any industry in the world. 
• OMB estimates that eliminating unnecessary tax subsidies could save more than $43 billion over the next ten years

    Access the GOP hearing website for links to testimony and related information (click here). Access the DEMS hearing website for links to testimony and related information  (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete GOP report (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete DEMS report (click here). [*Energy/Gasoline]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

House Hearing & Major Debate Over U.S.-Canada Keystone XL Pipeline

May 23: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), is holding the eighth day of its hearings on the "American Energy Initiative" today. The hearing began at 3:00 PM and will focus on the discussion draft of legislation -- the "North American-Made Energy Security Act". The draft legislation aims to bring more North American oil supplies online by expediting the consideration of the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline expansion [See WIMS 4/26/11]. The draft legislation requires the President to issue a Presidential Permit decision no later than November 1, 2011. According to a Republican release the completion of the Keystone pipeline extension would more than double the current system's capacity, bringing 1.29 million barrels per day to into U.S. markets. 
 

    Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include representatives from: Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board; Murray Smith & Associates; TransCanada; United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters; IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and National Wildlife Federation. 
   

    On May 20, in anticipation of a hearing today on the draft legislation to expedite federal approval of the pipeline project, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Bobby Rush (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, sent a letter urging the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries relating to the company's interest in Canadian tar sands and the extent to which it will benefit if the Keystone XL pipeline is constructed.

 

    The letter to full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield, which references several related documents, indicates that, "According to Reuters, Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries, are 'positioned to be big winners if Keystone XL pipeline is approved' and would receive 'great financial opportunity.' Publicly available information indicates that the company is involved in several aspects of Canadian tar sands development. Koch's Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota currently processes roughly 25% of the tar sands fuel imports to the United States. Koch owns Flint Hills Resources, LLP, in Calgary, Canada, which is 'among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters.' Flint Hills Resources also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, where the Keystone XL pipeline will begin. According to the Government of Alberta, Koch Industries has both proposed and producing tar sands projects in the province. The Oil Sands Developers Group also indicates that Koch is a tar sands project developer. Koch's Corpus Christi refinery is positioned near the end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and would be a potential buyer for the tar sands crude shipped through the pipeline."

 

    Waxman and Rush said, "In light of these reports, we asked our staff to contact Koch Industries to learn more about the company's role in the Keystone XL pipeline and Canadian tar sands.  Yesterday, our staff spoke with representatives of the company.  In that conversation, the Koch representatives would not answer questions about Koch's investments in Canadian tar sands. The Koch representatives said that the Keystone XL pipeline has 'nothing to do with any of our businesses' and that Koch had 'no financial interest' in the pipeline. They also stated that the company neither supports nor opposes the legislation we will be considering. . . 

 

    "However, Koch's representatives refused to answer questions about Koch's activities or interests in the Canadian tar sands.  They refused to confirm or deny reports that the company is developing tar sand projects. They also refused to say whether Koch Industries owns -- through a wholly owned subsidiary -- a terminal involved in the tar sands business." They said, "There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the published reports that Koch Industries would be 'big winners' if the pipeline is approved and the statement of the Koch representatives that the pipeline has 'nothing to do' with Koch's businesses. We do not presume that Koch's representations are inaccurate. But we were dismayed by the company's lack of candor in responding to staff's questions and believe additional inquiry is warranted." The Democratic Representatives requested that the Committee request a number of listed documents regarding the Koch brother involvement or interests in the Keystone XL pipeline project.

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement in advance of the hearing saying the "bipartisan" legislation that would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline by November 1, is "an important driver of U.S. economic growth and job creation." API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin said, "U.S. jobs supported by Canadian oil sands development could grow from 21,000 jobs today to 465,000 jobs by 2035. The Keystone XL pipeline has undergone extensive analysis and review over the last two years and it is time to focus efforts on creating jobs and strengthening our relationship with America's number one source of imported oil: Canada. Nearly 1000 U.S. businesses in 47 states already provide services, materials or equipment to Canada in support of oil sands development," said Durbin. "A recent survey of Americans showed that 85 percent believe that U.S. government policies should support the use of oil from Canada's oil sands. Other countries are looking out for their energy futures. The U.S. needs to as well." API also thanked U.S. Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Mike Ross (D-AR) for their bipartisan support.

 

    Charles Drevna, President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) also wrote and op-ed indicating in part, ". . .our good neighbor to the north is offering to sell us more oil taken from oil sands in Western Canada that would benefit the American people by strengthening our economic and national security and by creating desperately needed jobs for American workers. According to a study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, more than 342,000 new U.S. jobs are likely to be created directly and indirectly between 2011 and 2015 because of Canadian oil sands development. In part this is because much of the money Americans send to Canada to buy oil is spent by Canadians on U.S. goods and services. All that's needed is U.S. State Department approval for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would act as a superhighway to bring oil from Alberta to our country . ."

 

    Peter Lehner, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement saying, "Tar sands oil is dirty and destructive, and the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline won't reduce gas prices. Instead, this pipeline will perpetuate our dependence on oil, with all its attending problems of climate change and high energy costs. Given the major consequences involved in locking ourselves into tar sands oil, this pipeline should not be rushed -- not through an expedited State Department process or through legislation. And yet recently the State Department issued a supplemental environmental review after the EPA deemed its first round inadequate. Unfortunately, the department failed once again to do its homework and only gave superficial treatment to serious questions of need, greenhouse gas emissions, pipeline safety, environmental justice around refineries, and alternative routes to the current proposal to cross the Ogallala Aquifer -- the source of freshwater for eight states. The department only gave 45 days for public comment and has completely disregarded the many requests from farmers and landowners for hearings . ."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to the draft legislation, a background memo, and witness testimony following the hearing (click here). Access the letter from Reps. Waxman and Rush (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access a number of statements for and against the XL project, including those from the NRDC and NPRA, posted on the National Journal Energy & Environment Experts blog (click here). Access the 4/22/11 FR announcement on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement  (click here). Access the State Department Keystone Project website for complete information (click here). [*Energy/TarSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

EPA Issues Final Rule On GHG CBI Determinations

May 19: U.S. EPA issued final confidentiality business information (CBI) determinations for data elements to be reported under 34 subparts of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting (GHG) Rule. In the action, EPA also amended the regulations that govern the handling procedures for data collected under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA said the action does not include data elements that are inputs to emission equations. The Subparts, which refer to specific industrial sectors and operations, covered by the final action include: A,C, D, E, F, G, H, K, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, Y, V, X, T, Z, AA, BB, CC, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, LL, MM, NN, OO, PP, and TT. The final confidentiality determinations and amendment to 40 CFR 2.301 will be published in the Federal Register soon. In the meantime a prepublication copy is available (See link below).

 

    The final rule which will become effective 60-days following publication indicates that, "This action finalizes the confidentiality determinations for certain data elements required to be reported under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. This action also finalizes amendments to the Special rules governing certain information obtained under the Clean Air Act, which authorizes EPA to release or withhold as confidential reported data under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule according to the final determinations for such data without taking further procedural steps. This action does not include final confidentiality determinations for data elements that are in the 'Inputs to Emission Equations' category."

 

    According to a fact sheet, in addition to finalizing confidentiality determinations for data elements to be reported under 34 subparts of the GHG Reporting Program, the action:

• Delineates which data elements can be released to the public and which ones will be treated as confidential.
• Is also amending the regulations that govern EPA's handling of information obtained under the Clean Air Act. The amendments allow EPA to release or withhold as CBI data elements according to these final confidentiality determinations.
• Is not [emphasis in original] making final confidentiality determinations for data elements that are "Inputs to Emission Equations." In December 2010, EPA proposed to defer reporting of "Inputs to Emissions Equations" so that EPA can obtain and review additional information to resolve issues related to reporting and public availability of data elements that are "Inputs to Emission Equations."
• Is not [emphasis in original] making final confidentiality determinations for the data elements to be reported under eight subparts. EPA plans to re-propose confidentiality determinations for the data collected under these eight subparts.

    EPA indicated that it typically makes confidentiality determinations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on a case-by-case basis. However, due to the large numbers of entities expected to report under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (over 13,000) and the large number of data reporting elements (over 1,900), EPA concluded that case-by-case determinations would not result in a timely release of non-confidential data. As a result, EPA said it:

• grouped data elements into data categories and generally made confidentiality determinations on a category basis.
• evaluated the data reporting elements to determine which data elements are "emission data" and, therefore, are not eligible for confidential treatment.
• (for the remaining data elements), evaluated whether the data elements qualify for confidential treatment. In particular, EPA evaluated whether the data are already publicly available and whether the release of the data would be "likely to cause substantial harm to the reporting business's competitive position.
• solicited comment on the proposed determinations during a 60-day public comment period and addressed those comments in this final action.
• And, for a list of the data elements along with the corresponding final confidentiality determinations, EPA issued a memorandum "Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 Reporting Elements" (See the link below).

    Access the EPA Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 Data website for link to all related information and background (click here). Access the prepublication copy of the final rule (click here). Access a fact sheet on the final rule (click here). Access the EPA memorandum (click here). Access more information on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) including guidance and a schedule of training opportunities (click here). [*Air, *Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

NRC Releases Unredacted Yucca Report To Congressional Members

May 17: Back in February, Republican members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to release for public review information related to its scientific and technical evaluation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. In particular, the letter requests Volume III of the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The report was planned for release last year and was delivered to the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in July 2010 for final approval and publishing, but has yet to be released by the Commission. In addition, the members requested answers to a number of questions about the Yucca Mountain site.

 

    On May 17, Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) released an April 28, 2011, letter from NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko. In the letter Jaczko explains that despite his reservations, a majority of the Commission is willing to provide unredacted copies in response to Congressional Committee requests provided that they are held in confidence. Jaczko said that, "Even my colleagues and I have not had access to the redacted portions of SER Volume III." He said the findings and conclusions in the document are preliminary and "The staff's preliminary findings may turn out to be incorrect or incomplete. As such, they can mislead or confuse the public." He indicated that the document was being released "with the request that you and your staff will respect the potential adverse impact of public release and safeguard this information accordingly."

 

    In response to a question stating: "In October, you noted "No specific actions have yet been taken to terminate the program." Since then, what specific actions have been taken or will be taken to terminate review of the license application, including all actions related to Staff review of the application?"

 

    Jaczko responded, "As explained in my response to an earlier letter on the matter (attached), at the beginning of the new fiscal year, the staff began the process of transitioning to close-out of the Yucca Mountain program consistent with Commission policy, the general principles of appropriation law, and applicable guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability office on expenditure of funds under continuing resolutions. At that time, the staff began the process of documenting and preserving the staff's review, including the development of a technical evaluation report (TER). The agency will continue and conclude these close-out activities consistent with the recently enacted Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations law."

 

    Access the 3-page Jaczko letter to Rep. Hall (click here). Access links to related Science Committee releases on the Yucca Mountain issue (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear, *Energy/Nuclear]

 

WIMS Environmental News Blogs - On April 20, 2011, WIMS launched its new network of 24/7 Environmental News Blogs. The first phase of the launch includes the following news blogs: (see news release)

·         White House News; Congressional News; Federal Agencies News; Industry News;
Enviro Group News; Air Quality News; Hazardous Waste News; and Transportation News

DEMS Fail To End Oil Subsidies; GOP Fails In Call For More Drilling

May 17: As expected, the Senate Democrats' effort to end the tax subsidies for the five big oil companies -- the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, S. 940 -- was defeated by a 52-48 vote due to the Senate rule that required a 60-vote majority to move the bill forward [See WIMS 5/17/11]. Two Republicans, Snowe (R-ME) and Collins (R-ME) voted with the Democrats; while three Democrats -- Begich (D-AK), Landrieu (D-LA) & Nelson (D-NE) -- voted with Republicans to defeat the measure.

    Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a brief statement saying, "Republicans would rather cut college scholarships, slash cancer research and end Medicare than take away taxpayer-funded giveaways to oil companies that are raking in billions in profits. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities. We could have cut our deficit by $20 billion today, but Republicans defended oil companies instead. This is exactly the kind of wasteful spending we should be cutting. Democrats are not going to stop trying to end these wasteful taxpayer giveaways. I hope next time my Republican colleagues will put America's seniors, students and middle-class families ahead of oil companies."

 

    The White House Press Secretary issued a statement following the vote saying, "It is disappointing that at a time when oil companies are posting near record profits, Republican Leadership in the Senate led an effort to protect billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry that even oil and gas CEO's in the past have admitted are unwarranted and unnecessary. The bottom line is that there are more responsible ways to spend tens of billions of federal dollars, including investments that will help protect American consumers from high gas prices. The vote today -- with support from over half the U.S. Senate -- is an important step towards repealing these unwarranted subsidies for the oil and gas industry. The Administration will continue to pursue this important reform."

 

    Democrats indicated the battle over ending oil company subsidies was not over and vowed to make it part of the upcoming debate over raising the U.S. debt ceiling. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)the sponsor of S.940 said following the vote, "A bipartisan majority of the Senate has spoken. If we are going to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling, cutting wasteful oil subsidies needs to be on the table. We cannot reduce the deficits on the backs of working class Americans alone.  Even the most wealthy and powerful among us must pay their fair share."

 

    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivered a speech on the Senate floor this morning discussing the vote on S.940 last evening and in support of the upcoming vote this afternoon on S.953, the Offshore Production & Safety Act of 2011, which he sponsored with 22 cosponsors. Like the Democrats' bill, the Republican bill was also defeated for a lack of 60 votes. The final vote on the bill, which was just completed at about 2:55 PM today was 42-57. The details of the roll call vote will be posted in about an hour (see link below).

 

    Sen. McConnell said, "Last night, Senate Democrats put forth a plan to raise taxes on American energy that, in their own words, would have done nothing to lower the price of gas at the pump. As the Chairman of the Finance Committee put it, `That's not the issue.' Well, I think that for most Americans high gas prices actually is the issue. . . Americans are struggling. My constituents in Kentucky are hurting. They want relief. And all they're getting from Democrats in Washington is a dog and pony show. . .

    "They spent a week vilifying the energy industry and another week trying to punish them. The legislation they proposed yesterday would have done three things: destroy jobs, send American jobs overseas, make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil. And Democrats themselves admit it wouldn't lower gas prices by a penny. . . I would suggest that Democrats spend a little bit more time looking at the price of gas at their local gas stations than at the latest polling numbers about class warfare rhetoric. . .

    "Our plan has three objectives: "First, to restore American offshore production. Second, to improve safety. Third, to require bureaucrats in Washington to get to work on the permitting process, to make a decision one way or the other. And it would have three corresponding effects: First, and most importantly, our plan would help reduce the price of gas at the pump. By unlocking our own domestic resources, and speeding up the permitting process, our plan would actually do something to increase supply, putting downward pressure on price. . . And it would create thousands of energy jobs in America, instead of sending them overseas, which is why this bill has the support of both the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . ."

    Senator McConnell said that S.953 would directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct previously scheduled offshore lease sales in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico, Virginia, and Alaska. In addition, the plan will extend lease terms by one year for Gulf leases which were suspended under the 2010 Obama Moratorium. The bill establishes a public/private task force on oil spill response and mitigation, and orders a study on Federal response to oil spills by the Comptroller General to examine capabilities and legal authorities related to spill prevention and response to clarify appropriate Federal roles. Finally, the bill puts time limits on the review of and decision on drilling permits, providing for 30 days of application review with two opportunities for the Interior Department to extend the time period. Beyond that, it provides for default approval if Interior doesn't reject the application within 60 days. Additionally, it directs the Interior Department to provide rationale for rejection of permits.

    Access the roll call vote for S.940 (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Reid (click here). Access the statement from the White House (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Menendez (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access the roll call vote for S.953 (click here, posted soon). Access legislative details for S.940 (click here). Access legislative details for S.953 (click here). [*Energy/Tax]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Senate Attempt To Eliminate Big Oil Subsidies Defeated

6:50 PM: The Senate vote on S.940 to eliminate big oil tax subsidies was defeated on a vote of 52-48. 60 votes were necessary to move the item forward. Roll call vote should be posted soon (click here).