Sen. Hearing On Unregulated Drinking Water Contaminants Program

Jul 12: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) , with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) held a hearing entitled, "Oversight Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Unregulated Drinking Water Contaminants Program." Witnesses testifying at the hearing included the: Government Accountability Office; U.S. EPA; American Public Health Association; West Valley Water District; Joseph Cotruvo & Associates, LLC; George Washington University Cancer Institute; and Department of Public Health and Community Medicine Tufts University.

 

    Chairman Boxer indicated in an opening statement, "In order to ensure that enough is being done to protect our nation from emerging contaminants, I, along with Representatives Waxman and Markey, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the unregulated contaminant program. This report is being released today. . . the GAO report shows the development of new standards for unregulated drinking water contaminants, such as perchlorate, were derailed in a process that failed to use the best available science and was driven by factors other than the protection of public health. Scientific information has shown that certain emerging contaminants in our drinking water, such as perchlorate and chromium-6, could be harmful to children and families across the nation. . . EPA needs to have a process that vigorously addresses these contaminants to help ensure the safety of the nation's drinking water. . ."

 

    Ranking Member Inhofe said, "At the cornerstone of the Safe Drinking Water Act is the idea that we should be controlling those substances that pose risks to public health. Unfortunately, the system that EPA uses to determine health risks, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), has a decade's long issues in crafting risk assessments. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recently pointed out that IRIS assessments have suffered from a lack of transparency, inconsistency, and problems with evaluating studies and the weight of evidence. . . As analytical techniques continue to improve, we are able to detect constituents at increasingly lower levels. This ever increasing ability to detect will allow the numbers of chemicals in our water to increase infinitely. However, it is important that we do not associate any detection with risk. In nearly every case, the extremely low levels we are detecting are well below the dosage that would affect public health. To be perfectly clear, exposure does not mean there is risk. . ."

 

    GAO submitted 26-pages of testimony and a 146-page report entitled, Safe Drinking Water Act: EPA Should Improve Implementation of Requirements on Whether to Regulate Additional Contaminants (GAO-11-254, May 27, 2011). GAO was asked to: (1) evaluate the extent to which EPA's implementation of the 1996 amendments has helped assure the public of safe drinking water; and, (2) review the process and scientific analyses used to develop the 2008 preliminary regulatory determination on perchlorate. GAO analyzed relevant statutory provisions and regulatory determination documents and interviewed EPA officials.

 

    GAO found that, "Systemic limitations in EPA's implementation of requirements for determining whether additional drinking water contaminants warrant regulation have impeded the agency's progress in assuring the public of safe drinking water. EPA's selection of contaminants for regulatory determination in 2003 and 2008 was driven by data availability -- not consideration of public health concern. EPA does not have criteria for identifying contaminants of greatest public health concern and based most of its final determinations to not regulate 20 contaminants on the rationale of little or no occurrence of the contaminants in public water systems. Moreover, EPA's testing program for unregulated contaminants--which can provide key data to inform regulatory determinations--has fallen short in both the number of contaminants tested and the utility of the data provided because of management decisions and program delays. . ."

 

    GAO's 17 recommendations include that the EPA Administrator require: (1) development of criteria to identify contaminants that pose the greatest health risk; (2) improvements in its unregulated contaminants testing program; and, (3) development of policies or guidance to interpret the broad statutory criteria. According to GAO, EPA agreed with 2 recommendations but took the position that developing guidance and taking the other recommended actions are not needed. GAO believes EPA needs to adopt all of the recommendations to better assure the public of safe drinking water.

 

    EPA testified that, "Strong science and the law are the foundation of our decision-making at EPA. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA identifies priority contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and then evaluates whether new drinking water standards are warranted for these contaminants. . . GAO's report expresses concern that EPA's past decisions have been driven not by considering the greatest health concern but by considering available data. EPA agrees that we can improve our process to better focus on contaminants that may be of public health concern. The improved approach in the most recent CCL [Contaminant Candidate List] was a substantial step forward in achieving this by using a rigorous scientific process to better ensure that the contaminants on the list are the ones that should be of highest priority for public health protection. . .

 

    "In response to the GAO recommendations, EPA will also consult with an independent panel of scientists on the regulatory determinations, specifically on the evaluation of the contaminants against the first and second criteria defined by SDWA, the use of best available science to develop the determination, and whether the determination focuses on the greatest public health risk. We will post the regulatory determination process publicly and review the process every five years as we conduct the regulatory determination cycle. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, a webcast and Chairman Boxer's statement (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the complete GAO report (click here). [*Drink]

House Subcommittee Approves TRAIN Act To Curb EPA Rules

Jul 8: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), approved legislation which Republican members say will "hold the Obama administration accountable for the total cost of EPA's wave of biggest rules." H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act (TRAIN Act) [See WIMS 6/22/11], was approved by the subcommittee by voice vote. The "bipartisan" bill now moves to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration. The full Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a markup today (July 11) beginning at 5:00 PM for opening statements only. It will reconvene on Tuesday, July 12, at 10:00 AM. The Committee will also be considering the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2011 (Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2273) [See WIMS 6/22/11].

 

    According to a Republican Committee release, the TRAIN Act would require a cumulative analysis of major new rules recently proposed or promulgated by U.S. EPA. The interagency analysis will provide a greater understanding of the global competitive and economic impacts of these rules. The Subcommittee approved the TRAIN Act for a second time; as an earlier version of the legislation passed the panel in May, also by voice vote. The bill's authors, Energy and Power Subcommittee Vice Chairman John Sullivan (R-OK) and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), reintroduced the bill to place a ceiling on possible costs of the legislation and provide offsetting spending reductions, although it is expected that agencies will be able to complete the necessary economic analysis through existing resources by improving and better coordinating the studies they already conduct.
 
    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "I would like to applaud the efforts of Mr. Sullivan and Matheson on this bill. The ultimate goal of the TRAIN Act is to preserve jobs and American competitiveness by providing information necessary to harmonize these regulations. This legislation represents a worthwhile attempt to provide information that could help avoid substantial and unnecessary regulatory costs in the years ahead."
 
    Rep. Sullivan said, "The Obama Administration's lack of regard for the consequences of their energy and environmental policy is killing our economy and costing American jobs. It's absurd for taxpayer funded federal agencies to impose burdensome regulations on consumers and businesses without first determining how much it's going to cost and the potential consequences it could have on our overall economy. Our national unemployment rate rose to 9.2% over the past month -- this further illustrates the need for an honest accounting of how much EPA's regulations are costing our economy and American consumers, and that is exactly what the TRAIN Act will accomplish."

 

    The bill was approved over the objections of most Democrats. Full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "This bill is called the TRAIN Act because energy lobbyists have been complaining that regulations to protect public health from power plant air pollution will cause a 'train wreck' for the reliability of the nation's electric system.

This is another one of the myths that have become so commonplace in this room, like the myth that climate change is a hoax. Analysts have found that EPA regulations won't cause a "train wreck" or even a fender bender. Just last month, the Bipartisan Policy Center released a new report [See WIMS 6/14/11] that finds impacts on the reliability of the electric system are manageable while delivering significant public health and environmental benefits. CEOs of leading electric utilities have said the same thing. H.R. 2401 is seriously flawed. I support the effort to have good information about the potential impacts of regulations. But I can't support proposals that are one-sided or that will waste taxpayer dollars with redundant or infeasible analyses. . ."

 

    Access a Republican release on the Subcommittee approval (click here). Access the Republican's hearing website for statements, amendments, background and webcast (click here). Access the Democrat's hearing website for statements, amendments, background and webcast (click here). [*All]

Senators Announce Bipartisan Agreement On Ethanol Reform

Jul 7: U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Thune (R-SD), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced that a bipartisan agreement has been reached that allows for a transition to a more sustainable model of incentives for domestic renewable fuel production while reducing the nation's deficit by $1.3 billion. The agreement, based on Thune and Klobuchar's bipartisan Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act, would end the existing 45 cent per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit on July 31, 2011, instead of the current expiration date of December 31, 2011. The bipartisan agreement would dedicate two-thirds of the savings from existing money -- $1.3 billion -- to debt reduction and the remaining $668 million in savings to renewable fuel incentives, helping provide consumers with lower gas prices. The compromise can now be considered by the full Senate.

 

    Recent votes in the Senate on this issue have sought to end the current Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit while still continuing to fund blender pumps [See WIMS 6/17/11]. Sen. Klobuchar indicated that this agreement is consistent with those votes and would end the existing 45 cent per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, provide funding for homegrown energy infrastructure and reduce the nation's deficit, based only on remaining 2011 funding.

    Sen. Klobuchar said, "This bipartisan agreement is a major step toward providing our businesses a clear path forward and keeping the biofuels industry competitive while reducing our debt by over a billion dollars this year. With this agreement we can not only continue to support homegrown energy, we can also demonstrate that members with different viewpoints can come together to find common ground to reduce the debt. It is a model for reducing government subsidies going forward."

    Sen. Thune said, "After productive discussions with industry stakeholders over the past several weeks, we have reached a bipartisan solution that reduces the federal deficit and modifies current biofuels policy without pulling the rug out from under American renewable energy producers. Domestic biofuels production in South Dakota and throughout the country continues to play an important role in reducing our nation's dependence on foreign oil and creating American jobs. I look forward to moving our bipartisan plan through both the Senate and the House of Representatives."

   

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) issued a separate release and letter to the Senate leadership, signed by the three Senators, indicating the agreement would repeal the nearly $6-billion-a-year ethanol subsidy and end the tariff on foreign ethanol by the end of the month. Sen. Feinstein said, "This agreement is the best chance to repeal the ethanol subsidy, and it's the best chance to achieve real deficit reduction. Absent this agreement, taxpayers stand to lose $1.33 billion -- that was the bottom line for me. Every month that passes without repeal costs taxpayers $400 million. After years of fighting, there is simply no guarantee a full repeal would be signed into law. I believe this bipartisan agreement should be included in the deficit reduction package that will likely accompany a vote on raising the debt limit, and I hope the president will consider that approach."

    According to a release from Sen. Klobuchar the compromise has the support of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, the Minnesota's Farmer's Union, the American Coalition for Ethanol, Growth Energy, and the National Corn Growers Association.

 

    Brooke Coleman, Executive Director of the Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC) said, "We appreciate the willingness of Senators Klobuchar, Thune and Feinstein to put advanced biofuels at the forefront of ongoing negotiations about how to innovate and reduce the cost of U.S. ethanol policy. This agreement has enough of the right ingredients to move the conversation forward. At the same time, there is a fundamental problem with how the advanced biofuels piece is crafted that will need to be addressed to be meaningful to the industry. While we appreciate the ambition to lengthen the duration of the tax credits, the last minute switch from a yearly credit to a gallon-based, capped credit adds artificial and unnecessary layers of uncertainty and risk for the financing community. As the President said yesterday, it is critical to U.S. energy security and U.S. national security to get this right. We look forward to working with Congress and the Administration to fix these deficiencies before the proposal is enacted into law. We particularly appreciate Senators Klobuchar and Thune for their dogged commitment to reforming rather than terminating the federal commitment to renewable fuels, and their steadfast protection of tax incentives designed to create jobs and promote alternatives to foreign oil."

 

    Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) issued a statement saying, "This bipartisan effort to find common ground is the kind of sensible policy making American voters desperately want from their elected leaders. We greatly appreciate the leadership of Senators Klobuchar and Thune in doggedly pursuing a solution to this impasse. Walking away from investments made in America's ethanol industry cold turkey would jeopardize the future of biofuel production in America, including stifling the progress of advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies.

    "A particularly important part of this agreement is the commitment to continue the evolution of the industry to new technologies and new feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol. We are pleased the agreement recognizes the importance of cellulosic ethanol by committing $305 million to this effort. However, we are concerned that capping cellulosic ethanol development sends the wrong signal and we will continue to work with the Congress and the Obama Administration to address this anomaly. . . as this process continues. This is not the perfect compromise, but it does demonstrate the willingness of American ethanol producers and advocates to do their part to address budget concerns while not sacrificing the progress and evolution of the industry. I would challenge other industries to step up to the plate in the same manner. The status quo of American energy and tax policy simply won't work."

    Craig Cox, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior VP for Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a statement saying, "Thanks to Senator Feinstein's leadership, we are witnessing a remarkable reversal of fortune for the ethanol and corn lobbies. This deal is a welcome sign that the iron grip these lobbies have had on biofuel policy is loosening. However, there's still a long way to go to get U.S. biofuels policy on the right track. We encourage lawmakers to make a clean break with corn ethanol, American taxpayers shouldn't be called upon to support this industry any longer." 

    Access a lengthy release from Sen. Klobuchar with further details on the agreement (click here). Access a release from Sen. Feinstein with the letter to Senate leaders on the agreement (click here). Access the statement from AEC (click here). Access the statement from RFA (click here). Access the statement from EWG(click here). [*Energy/Biofuels]

---

Reactions To EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule - Jul 8: In general Republican environmental leaders and industry reacted negatively, while Democratic leaders along with environmental and public health officials were supportive of U.S. EPA's finalized

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, a.k.a. Transport Rule) announced yesterday (July 7). EPA said the rule "will slash hundreds of thousands of tons of smokestack emissions that travel long distances through the air leading to soot and smog, threatening the health of hundreds of millions of Americans living downwind." [See WIMS 7/7/11]. EPA said the rule will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 -- achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits. The final rule will become effective 60-days following publication in the Federal Register and will apply to 27 states in the Eastern half the United States and affect 3,642 electric generating units at 1,081 facilities.

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) issued a statement saying, "The goal for these rules should be reasonable regulation that protects public health and the environment while also preserving economic growth. Unfortunately, the unprecedented pace at which the administration is issuing major new rules that impose new costs and regulatory requirements on states, employers and consumers fails that basic test. By issuing multiple regulations for the energy and other sectors at such an accelerated rate, EPA has turned regulation from a manageable tool into an unpredictable moving target that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs." Upton cited EPA's estimates that the projected annualized compliance costs are $1.4 billion in 2012 and $800 million in 2014."

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) issued a statement saying, "This rule along with 'Utility MACT' could force the retirement of 30 to 100 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, raise the price of electricity by as much as 23 percent, and cause 1.4 million job losses by 2020. True environmental progress will not come from these costly, heavy-handed regulations that harm the very people EPA claims to protect; real progress on clean air is best achieved through common sense multi-pollutant legislation that streamlines the Clean Air Act's many redundant and overlapping mandates.  This is something that I have and will continue to support. 

    "The bottom line is that reducing emissions does not have to be this expensive -- the Obama EPA just wants it to be. On both sides of the aisle we support efforts to reduce real pollution, but we should be doing it in a way that protects workers from losing their jobs, families from skyrocketing electricity prices, and businesses from unachievable requirements. It is little consolation that Oklahoma is not included in today's final rule. By separate notice, EPA has proposed to include the state in the program in the near future. As Ranking Member of the EPW Committee I will be keeping a close eye on this process." 

 

    Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) issued a statement saying, "The continued jobs-destroying overreach of the EPA is outrageous, and it's incomprehensible that in these difficult economic times, the Administration would be so callous as to arbitrarily impose onerous rules that they know will cost countless American jobs and raise the daily costs of life for so many struggling families. Once again, the EPA is taking aim at the coal industry, small businesses and the hardworking families who help power and build this nation. As I have said before, it's time the EPA realizes that it cannot regulate what has not been legislated. Our government was designed so that elected representatives are in charge of making important decisions, not bureaucrats. That principle is even more true today when the American people see the consequences of the EPA making rules that affect our whole country and could hurt our fragile economy." 

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) , released a statement saying, "EPA's action will result in cleaner air and prevent thousands of premature deaths each year. Reducing smog and toxic soot that travels across states is good news for the millions of Americans who are harmed by this dangerous air pollution. These are the types of safeguards that are so important for the health of our children and families. I will continue to fight any effort to weaken the Clean Air Act's public health protections."

 

    Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), Chairman of the EPW Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety released a statement saying, ". . .Delaware and other so-called 'tail pipe' states on the East Coast know all too well, our neighboring states' dirty air has adversely affected the health and well-being of Delawareans, just by virtue of our location. We need to change that and this cross-state air pollution rule is an important tool to help us in that effort. . . As Governor of Delaware, I learned that despite their best efforts, states cannot clean up their air alone. We're all in this together. . . "Since coming to the Senate, I have worked to find a legislative solution to this challenge. While those efforts haven't born fruit, the courts have demanded that the EPA regulate this pollution. In response to those demands, the EPA has developed a sensible approach that will reduce smog and particle pollution and in turn, give us cleaner air and prevent thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in healthcare costs. In the end, this rule will help us achieve better health care results for less money. . ."

    Major environmental organizations issued supporting statements for the proposed CSAPR. For example, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) President Fred Krupp praised EPA's proposal saying, "These clean air standards for power plant pollution will provide some of the greatest human health protections in our nation's history. Millions of Americans live downwind from this deadly pollution -- from the communities that live in the shadows of these smokestacks to those afflicted by the pollution that drifts hundreds of miles downwind. Today's clean air protections will help eastern states restore healthy air in communities hard hit by air pollution, and will help all of us live longer and healthier lives." In addition, EPA issued a release summarizing supporting comments from a number of organizations and interests including: American Lung Association, Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, The American Public Health Association, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and Penn Environment.

    There were few releases commenting on the CSAPR from major industry associations. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) indicated in a posting on its "Shopfloor" blog that, ". . .EPA continued their aggressive regulatory agenda  and announced the first of two rules affecting power plants that will significantly increase electricity prices for manufacturers and consumers. . . In addition, the EPA plans to finalize the Utility MACT rule in November, which would require coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions. The combination of CSAPR, Utility MACT and other regulations impacting coal-fired utilities are already having a significant impact on the economy. . . Higher energy prices heighten uncertainty and prevent manufacturers from investing in the future and expanding their operations, inhibiting the job creating necessary to get our economy back on track. Manufacturers urge the EPA to end these unreasonable, overreaching regulations. . ."

    Access a release from Rep. Upton (click here). Access a release from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access a release from Sen. Manchin (click here). Access a release from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access a release from Sen. Carper (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the summary of supporting comments from EPA (click here). Access the NAM blog posting (click here). Access a release from EPA on the CSAPR (click here). Access a CSAPR fact sheet (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 1,323 final rule (click here). Access a 33-page presentation on the CSAPR (click here). Access the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final CSAPR (click here). Access more information on CSAPR (click here). [*Air]

House Proposes Major Cuts In FY12 Interior & Environment Funding

Jun 6: In the midst of intense and highly partisan debate over raising the U.S. debt ceiling, the House Appropriations Committee released the fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill which will be considered the subcommittee today (July 7). The legislation includes funding for the Department of the Interior, U.S. EPA, the Forest Service, and various independent and related agencies. In total, the bill includes $27.5 billion in spending -- a reduction of $2.1 billion below last year's level and $3.8 billion below the President's budget request. [Note: major cuts in these agency programs were recently passed as part of the FY11 budget in the Continuing Resolution. FY12 cuts will reduce this funding further].

 

    Overall, the funding level is $106 million below fiscal year 2009 spending levels. The legislation also includes a total cut to climate change programs of $83 million – or 22% – from last year, and decreases land acquisition funding by $239 million – or 79%.

    According to a Committee release, in addition, "the legislation unveiled today also includes several provisions aimed at reining in out-of-control federal bureaucracies and overly burdensome regulations that harm American businesses and hinder economic recovery." The proposal is particularly harsh on EPA funding which amounts to $1.5 billion of the total $2.1 billion in cuts over last year's level; and $1.8 billion of the total $3.8 billion that the President requested.

    The Committee said, "The EPA has been funded at unparalleled high levels over the past several years, leading to wasteful and unnecessary spending within the agency, as well as contributing to the agency's regulatory over-reach, which has a detrimental effect on American businesses and the recovering economy." EPA is funded at $7.1 billion in the proposed legislation, 18% below last year's level, 20% below the President's request. In total, the funding level is below FY 2006 level by $468 million. The bill also caps EPA's personnel at the 2010 level (the lowest since 1992), and rescinds certain unobligated grant and contract funding.

    According to a Committee summary, some of the EPA cuts include:

• $967 million cut in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These funds received $6 billion in the "stimulus" legislation, and this cut brings these accounts to the fiscal year 2008 level
• $102 million cut in grants for state implementation of environmental programs
• $46 million cut in requested funding to regulate greenhouse gases
• $422 million cut in EPA operations/administration
• $76 million cut in EPA regulatory programs
• $49 million cut in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
• $4 million cut in the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Initiative
• $8 million cut in the Puget Sound Restoration Initiative

    House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said, "Americans are sick to death of excessive government spending and regulation that is pushing us further and further away from economic recovery. This bill pinpoints and cuts extraneous, duplicative and unnecessary spending, prioritizes funding for programs with the most benefit to American families and businesses, and helps put a stop to free-wheeling government over-regulation." Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "At a time when we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend, our government can't afford to continue on its recent spending binge with its head in the sand when it comes to our fiscal challenges. In this bill we face those challenges head on, setting priorities and distinguishing between what is necessary and what would just be nice to do -- something American families do every day. The bill reins in out-of-control regulation and provides the certainty that our economy needs to make a strong recovery." 

    The bill also includes funding at $9.9 billion for the Department of the Interior (DOI), which is $720 million (7%) below last year's level and $1.2 billion below the President's request. Within the DOI funding cuts from FY11 levels are: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), -$63 million; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), -$315 million; National Park Service (NPS), -$129  million; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), -$30 million; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), -$72 million; and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), -$64 million.

    Additionally, the proposal includes the following cuts over FY11: U.S. Forest Service, -$164 million; Indian Health Service, -$392 million; Smithsonian Institution, -$8; National Gallery of Art, - $33 million; and National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, -$20 million for each endowment. 

    Finally, the legislation includes special provisions (i.e. special-interest riders), most directed at EPA including:

• A provision clarifying current permitting activities for the Outer Continental Shelf, and setting parameters for EPA approval of exploration permits. A similar legislative provision passed the full House in June
• A provision prohibiting the Office of Surface Mining from moving forward with proposed updates to the "stream buffer rule"
• A provision instituting a one-year prohibition on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources
• A provision prohibiting the EPA from changing the definition of "navigable waterways" under the Clean Water Act
• A provision providing exemptions from greenhouse gas reporting for certain agricultural activities
• A provision prohibiting funds for defining coal ash as hazardous waste
• A provision prohibiting funds for the EPA from expanding storm water discharge requirements
• Includes the House-passed "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011," approved by the House in March, which clarifies Congressional intent on the dual regulation of pesticides near navigable waterways

        House Appropriations Committee Ranking Democratic Member Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA) commented on the Republican proposal and said, "The Republican leadership proposed an exceedingly low subcommittee allocation that has now resulted in a bill that would be devastating for the environment and for the preservation of America's natural heritage, including the lowest level of spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund in more than 40 years.

    "Overall, the allocation for this bill is 7 percent below the amount enacted in the current year -- an irresponsible level that will have a negative impact on our natural resource agencies and on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After the EPA took a substantial cut of 16 percent in the current fiscal year, the Republican Majority is now proposing a further reduction in the agency's budget of 18 percent.  This bill would substantially diminish the capacity of EPA to carry out its responsibilities -- which may actually be the goal of some of my colleagues on the other side. But the repercussions will be felt across the nation, including an ever-growing backlog of water treatment infrastructure projects and a decline in air and water quality.

    "As was pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, the vast majority of the EPA's funds pass through to states and localities that are already squeezed by budget cuts. These infrastructure projects create jobs in communities all across the country and provide one of the most basic services taxpayers expect: clean water. The Bush Administration's EPA Administrator estimated that there was a $688 billion nationwide backlog of clean water infrastructure projects, and that total is even larger today. That backlog will not disappear if we just ignore it but, as we have seen in so many cases this year, the Republican leadership has decided to push this problem farther down the road.

    "In addition to the clearly insufficient levels of funding across the board in this legislation, we were surprised that the Majority also included a wish list of special-interest riders to the bill that will handcuff the EPA and the Department of the Interior. One of these riders is language that would effectively block any funding for new listing activities under the Endangered Species Act. These types of riders are largely ideological, have no impact on deficit reduction and most will be rejected by the Senate and the President."

 

    Access the Republican release and summary of the legislation and links to the full text and summary tables (click here). Access the Democratic release and summary of the legislation (click here). [*All]

ExxonMobil Yellowstone River Spill Taints World-Class Trout Stream

Jul 6: Early in the morning on July 2, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (EMPCo) discovered an undetermined amount of crude oil was released into the Yellowstone River in Montana, from an EMPCo pipeline. The release originated from a 12" crude pipeline operated by EMPCo that runs from Silver Tip, MT to Billings, MT. ExxonMobil reported that the pipeline was shutdown and the segment where the release occurred has been isolated. All appropriate state and Federal authorities were notified.

 

    On July 3, EMPCo indicated that it had expanded its clean up operation and was bringing in experts from across the country to clean up the oil. EMPCo President Gary Pruessing said in Billings, headquarters for the response effort, said, "We will stay with the cleanup until it is complete, and we sincerely apologize to the people of Montana for any inconvenience the incident is creating." EMPCo reported that the amount of oil released is estimated to be between 750 and 1,000 barrels. Air quality monitoring throughout the impacted area is ongoing and has confirmed no danger to public health. Municipal water systems have been notified to monitor water quality but no reports of impacts have been received to date. Oil has been found as far as five miles down the river from the pipeline location and additional reports of oil sightings are being investigated.

 

    ExxonMobil said it is working to coordinate the cleanup with local authorities, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, county commissioners, local response organizations and International Bird Rescue. For the purposes of the response, the area downriver of the spill has been organized into four zones. Cleanup activities are focused in the first two zones -- Laurel to Duck Creek Bridge, a distance of seven miles from the spill location, and Duck Creek Bridge to Johnson Lane (12 miles). Reconnaissance and evaluation activities are under way in the second two zones -- Johnson Lane to Miles City (144 miles) and Miles City to Glendive (78 miles). By July 4, ExxonMobil reported that more than 280 people are now involved in the response and cleanup effort including ExxonMobil's North America Regional Response Team, the Clean Harbors and ER oil spill response organizations and additional contractors. More than 150 people cleaned up oil along the river banks on the 4th.

 

        Information from Wikipedia indicates that the Yellowstone River is a tributary of the Missouri River, approximately 692 miles long, in the western United States. Considered the principal tributary of the upper Missouri, the river and its tributaries drain a wide area stretching from the Rocky Mountains in the vicinity of the Yellowstone National Park across the mountains and high plains of southern Montana and northern Wyoming. It is the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states. The Yellowstone River is considered to be one of the great trout streams of the world and is officially classed as a blue ribbon stream in Montana from the park to the confluence with the Boulder river east of Livingston and from the mouth of Rosebud creek near Rosebud, Montana to the North Dakota border. The lack of dams along the river provides for excellent trout habitat from high inside Yellowstone Park, downstream through Gardiner, the Paradise Valley, Livingston, and to Big Timber, a stretch of nearly 200 miles (320 km). The Yellowstone varies in width from 74 feet (23 m) to 300 feet (91 m), so fishing is normally done by boat. The most productive stretch of water is through Paradise Valley in Montana, especially near Livingston which produces brown trout, rainbow trout and native cutthroat trout as well as Rocky Mountain whitefish.

 

    The incident has sparked calls from the House and Senate for investigations and answers. Montana's senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) called on ExxonMobil to set up a quick and effective claims process to ensure Montanans impacted by the Yellowstone River oil spill have swift recourse for repayment. At the same time, Baucus pressed ExxonMobil for information on current cleanup efforts and a detailed history of risk evaluations and prevention measures leading up to the pipe rupture. He said, "Priority number one is getting the oil cleaned up quickly and making sure homeowners, businesses, sportsmen and wildlife are made whole. I'm keeping a close eye on ExxonMobil and working with the refinery and local officials to make sure the river is restored and Montanans are paid fairly and quickly for their losses. I'm calling on ExxonMobil to answer some tough questions so we can find out how this accident happened and what needs to be done to make sure something like this it never happens again."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee said concerns were growing that the pipeline spill "may be larger than previously thought," and called for investigative hearings to be held into the incident and related safety and environmental issues. Markey said, "ExxonMobil has turned parts of the Yellowstone River black with their spilled oil. Just as BP was held to account for their accident in the Gulf of Mexico, ExxonMobil should appear before Congress so that we can examine the holes in oil pipeline safety that led to this incident and how we might prevent another spill in the future."

 

    Although the House Energy and Commerce Committee has not issued a formal release, a report in The Hill quoted a spokesperson for Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), who said the panel's Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on pipeline safety legislation by the end of the month.

 

    Access links to the ExxonMobil news releases (click here). Access the Wikipedia for extensive information on the Yellowstone River (click here). Access a release from Sen. Baucus including the letter to the ExxonMobil CEO (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access The Hill report on the House hearing (click here). [*Energy/OilSpill, *Water]

GOP Senators Object To CWA Guidance Document; Comment Extended

Jul 5: U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers announced in the Federal Register [76 FR 39101-39102] they are extending the comment period until July 31, on their proposed Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act (CWA). On May 2, 2011, EPA the Corps officially announced availability of draft guidance (76 FR 24479) that describes how the agencies will identify waters protected by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA or Act) and implement the Supreme Court's decisions on this topic (i.e., Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) (531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715 (2006)) (Rapanos)). The comment period was originally set to expire on July 1, 2011, and the agencies are extending the public comment period by 30 days. EPA and the Corps originally announced the Guidance on April 27, as part of the Administration's National Clean Water Framework [See WIMS 4/27/11]. The Guidance would replace previous guidance concerning the scope of protection for critical waters.

 

    On June 30, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), along with 40 Republican colleagues sent a letter to EPA and the Corps asking the agencies to abandon their draft guidance document. Senator Inhofe, who is leading the effort said, "I am pleased to join 40 of my colleagues in opposition to EPA and Army Corps' recent guidance document, which seeks to greatly expand federal jurisdiction over our nation's waters. Whether it's global warming or clean water, the Obama EPA is aggressively trying to achieve through regulation what could not be achieved through legislation, and this guidance document is a prime example. The agencies should immediately abandon it and work to implement an effective balance between state and federal authority-that balance is the best way to achieve substantial progress in protecting water."

    In their letter the Senators said, "We have a great deal of concern about the actions that the Agencies are pursuing. The Agencies claim that this guidance document is simply meant to clarify how the Agencies understand the existing requirements of the CWA in light of the current law, regulations, and Supreme Court cases. More than clarifying, they greatly expand what could be considered jurisdictional waters through a slew of new and expanded definitions and through changes to applications of jurisdictional tests. This guidance document improperly interprets the opinions of the plurality and Justice Kennedy's opinion in Rapanos v. United States by incorporating only their expansive language in an attempt to gain jurisdictional authority over new waters, while ignoring both justices' clear limitations on federal CWA authority. . .

 

    "Because the draft guidance will substantively change how the agencies decide which waters are subject to federal jurisdiction and will impact the regulated community's rights and obligations under the CWA, this guidance has clear regulatory consequences and goes beyond being simply advisory guidelines. The draft guidance will shift the burden of proving jurisdictional status of waters from the Agencies to the regulated communities, thus making the guidance binding and fundamentally changing the legal rights and responsibilities that they have. When an agency acts to change the rights of an individual, we believe that the agency must go through the formal rulemaking process."

 

    On June 22, 2011, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy also submitted public comments on the Guidance and among other concerns raised questions regarding the "guidance" v. "rule" issue [See WIMS 6/24/11]. SBA Advocacy said, "Advocacy is concerned that the Agencies are choosing to address the very important issue of the determination of jurisdictional decision in guidance rather than through the rulemaking process. Advocacy believes that imposition of the changes the Agencies propose in the Guidance is properly made through the rulemaking process as governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. Advocacy realizes that the Agencies are soliciting comments on the proposed guidance. However, the rulemaking process provides the public and small businesses with important protections beyond the ability to comment such as the right to a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the requirement that agencies respond to comments. . ."

 

    Access today's FR announcement (click here). Access the letter from Republican Senators including highlights of several specific issues regarding the draft guidance document (click here). Access the EPA Docket for this action for background and to submit and review comments (click here). Access the Obama Administration's Clean Water Framework (click here). Access the draft Clean Water Act guidance from U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with supporting documents and commenting instructions (click here). [*Water]

Three Pesticides Added To International Rotterdam Convention PIC

Jun 27: Parties to a global treaty supporting information exchange in international trade of hazardous chemicals have acted to strengthen protection of human health and the environment by expanding the exchange of critical safety information between exporting and importing States. Agreement was reached on Friday, 24 June 2011, at the conclusion of a week-long meeting held in Geneva [See WIMS 6/20/11]. The fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP5) to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade agreed by consensus to add three pesticides, alachlor, aldicarb and endosulfan, to Annex III of the Convention. Listing in Annex III triggers an exchange of information between Parties and helps countries make informed decisions about future import and use of the chemicals. The U.S. signed the Convention in 1998, but has never ratified the Rotterdam Convention.

    Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director said, "The agreement on listing endosulfan coupled with decisions to strengthen technical assistance and synergies taken by the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention demonstrate that increasing cooperation between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions is yielding a rich harvest of benefits to countries by the protection of public health and the environment globally." Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) agreed earlier this year to eliminate endosulfan from production and use globally.

    The decisions to list three chemicals were among 12 separate decisions adopted at the conference aimed at strengthening the globe's first line of defense for chemical safety. Amendments to the Convention bringing the three new chemicals under the Prior Informed Consent procedure will enter into force on October 24, 2011. This will raise the number of chemicals covered under the Convention to forty-three. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary said, "The addition of these three chemicals marks the second time since the Convention entered into force that Parties have expanded the Convention's list of substances covered by the Prior Informed Consent procedure. This gives countries that are considering importing hazardous chemicals the right-to-know about the risks they carry and how they can protect public health and the environment, as well as the means to protect against unwanted imports."

    The conference agreed to include endosulfan as a pesticide in Annex III to the Convention as recommended by the Chemical Review Committee, a scientific expert body, at its second and sixth meetings. This marked a breakthrough, as past conferences had been unable to agree on inclusion of the pesticide in Annex III. Countries will now be provided with risk information allowing them to make informed decisions on importation of the hazardous chemical. The pesticides alachlor and aldicarb were recommended by the Chemical Review Committee at its fourth meeting. Agreement to list a fourth chemical, chrysotile asbestos, eluded the conference for the third time since it was first recommended for listing by the treaty's Chemical Review Committee in 2002. Debate over the recommended listing of chrysotile asbestos drew widespread public attention throughout a week of sometimes tense negotiations between the Convention's parties.

Peter Kenmore, Executive Secretary, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said, "The robust participation of developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the work of the Rotterdam Convention has been on display this past week, as they increasingly are taking over the responsibility to assess the risk attached to hazardous chemicals and severely hazardous pesticide formulations. The failure to find consensus on one substance does not diminish this achievement." Over 500 participants, representing more than 135 governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations attended the fifth meeting of Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention.

    Access a release on the COP5 meeting (click here). Access the documents for the COP5 meeting (click here). Access complete background and details on the Rotterdam Convention website (click here). [*Toxics, *Haz] 
(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- THIS IS THE LAST DAY -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

NOAA Release 2010 State Of The Climate Report

Jun 27: Worldwide, 2010 was one of the two warmest years on record according to the 2010 State of the Climate report, which was release by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The peer-reviewed report, issued in coordination with the American Meteorological Society, was compiled by 368 scientists from 45 countries. It provides a detailed, yearly update on global climate indicators, notable climate events and other climate information from every continent.

 

    This year's report tracks 41 climate indicators -- four more than last year -- including temperature of the lower and upper atmosphere, precipitation, greenhouse gases, humidity, cloud cover, ocean temperature and salinity, sea ice, glaciers, and snow cover. Each indicator includes thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets that allow scientists to identify overall trends. While several well-known cyclical weather patterns had a significant influence on weather and climate events throughout the year, the comprehensive analysis of indicators shows a continuation of the long-term trends scientists have seen over the last 50 years, consistent with global climate change.

 

    Thomas Karl, L.H.D, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC said, We're continuing to closely track these indicators because it is quite clear that the climate of the past cannot be assumed to represent the climate of the future. These indicators are vital for understanding and making reliable projections of future climate." Last year was marked by important climate oscillations like the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation, which affected regional climates and contributed to many of the world's significant weather events in 2010. Highlights of some of the climate indicators include:

• Temperature: Three major independent datasets show 2010 as one of the two warmest years since official record-keeping began in the late 19th century. Annual average temperatures in the Arctic continued to rise at about twice the rate of the lower latitudes.
• Sea Ice & Glaciers: Arctic sea ice shrank to the third smallest area on record, and the Greenland ice sheet melted at the highest rate since at least 1958. The Greenland ice sheet melt area was approximately 8 percent more than the previous record set in 2007. Alpine glaciers shrank for the 20th consecutive year. Meanwhile, average sea ice extent in the Antarctic grew to an all-time record maximum in 2010.
• Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Level: Even with a moderate-to-strong La Niña in place during the latter half of the year, which is associated with cooler equatorial waters in the tropical Pacific, the  2010 average global sea surface temperature was third warmest on record and sea level continued to rise.
• Ocean Salinity: Oceans were saltier than average in areas of high evaporation and fresher than average in areas of high precipitation, suggesting that the water cycle is intensifying.
• Greenhouse Gases:  Major greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise. Carbon dioxide increased by 2.60 ppm, which is more than the average annual increase seen from 1980-2010.

    NOAA indicated that several major cyclical weather patterns played a key role in weather and climate in 2010:

• El Niño-Southern Oscillation: A strong warm El Niño climate pattern at the beginning of 2010 transitioned to a cool La Niña by July, contributing to some unusual weather patterns around the world and impacting global regions in different ways. Tropical cyclone activity was below normal in nearly all basins around the globe, especially in much of the Pacific Ocean. The Atlantic basin was the exception, with near-record high North Atlantic basin hurricane activity. Heavy rains led to a record wet spring (September – November) in Australia, ending a decade-long drought.
• Arctic Oscillation: In its negative phase for most of 2010, the Arctic Oscillation affected large parts of the Northern Hemisphere causing frigid arctic air to plunge southward and warm air to surge northward. Canada had its warmest year on record while Britain had its coldest winter at the beginning of the year and coldest December at the end of the year. The Arctic Oscillation reached its most negative value in February, the same month several cities along the U.S. East Coast had their snowiest months ever.
• Southern Annular Mode: An atmospheric pattern related to the strength and persistence of the storm track circling the Southern Hemisphere and the Antarctic led to an all-time maximum in 2010 of average sea ice volume in the Antarctic.

    Access a release from NOAA (click here). Access the full report, previous reports, and a highlights document (click here). [*Climate] (click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- JUST 1 DAY LEFT -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Sackett v. U.S. EPA

Jun 28: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Ninth Circuit case of Sackett v. U.S. EPA (SupCt docket No. 10-1062). The High Court included the specific proviso that the review will be limited to the following questions: (1) May petitioners seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §704? (2) If not, does petitioners' inability to seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order violate their rights under the Due Process Clause?

 

    On September 20, 2010, the Ninth Circuit decided the case regarding the determination of whether Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct review of administrative compliance orders issued by the U.S. EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA) before EPA has filed a lawsuit in Federal court to enforce the compliance order. The Appeals Court said, "We join our sister circuits and hold that the Clean Water Act precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders, and that such preclusion does not violate due process."

 

    In making its ruling, the Appeals Court indicated that, ". . .we do not work from a blank slate. Every circuit that has confronted this issue has held that the "CWA impliedly precludes judicial review of compliance orders until the EPA brings an enforcement action in federal district court." The Appeals Court cited cases from the 10th, 6th, 4th, and 7th Circuits and many Districts and said, "The reasoning of these courts is persuasive to us, as well as the broad uniformity of consensus on this issue."

 

    Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access the order granting the petition (click here). Access the complete 9th Circuit opinion (click here). [*Water]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- JUST 2 MORE DAYS -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

Rep. Markey Probes Validity Of Natural Gas Reserve Estimates

Jun 27: Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee in a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission asks whether a 2008 rule allowing natural gas companies more flexibility in how they reported on unproven gas reserves had allowed the companies to "paint an overly-optimistic picture of their reserves and the industry's potential contribution to America's energy needs." The letter was sent by Rep. Markey in response to articles published in the New York Times (NYT) questioning whether the new rules provide investors with sufficient information regarding natural gas reserves and why they fail to provide for third-party verification of reported reserves. On June 25, NYT published an article entitled, Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush; followed by a second article, Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas, on June 26 (See links below).

    Markey said, "The SEC rules allow natural gas companies to self-report their reserves without providing enough detail or independent review of their claims. When it comes to fuel that millions of Americans depend upon to meet their energy needs, the SEC should not violate the 'trust, but verify' principle. The SEC needs to provide answers on how they think these new rules could be affecting assumptions of domestic natural gas reserves."

    According to a release from Markey, under prior SEC rules, natural gas companies were allowed to count gas only from areas close to their active wells as part of their proven reserves. Under the 2008 rules adopted by the Bush administration just days before former Chairman Christopher Cox's departure from the commission, companies can now include gas from yet untapped fields based on modeling methods. Markey indicated that the Times article reports that natural gas companies were not required under the rule to disclose precise details about the technology used to estimate reserve sizes, and that while the SEC considered requiring third party audits to verify the new reserve estimates, it did not do so in the final rule.

    Markey sent a similar inquiry to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) about their reported staff concerns regarding the official estimates of domestic natural gas reserves. In that letter, Markey asked the EIA "to justify their bullish claims on natural gas resources and reserves in light of reports in The New York Times "indicating skepticism exists within. . . [EIA] about its own estimates. In a letter to the head of the EIA, Markey asked "how the agency was justifying optimistic estimates of domestic natural gas production, especially from shale gas formations that require the increasingly-scrutinized technique called hydraulic fracturing to extract the trapped fuel, in light of the revelations."

    Markey said, "We need to know whether the natural gas located underneath the surface is a real source of fuel for the next generation, or a speculative bubble hyped by the oil and gas industry, and echoed by the federal government's energy experts. Natural gas has been touted as a 'bridge fuel' that will take us from dirtier fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy technologies. If these claims are accurate, natural gas could offer a viable pathway towards meeting our energy needs while reducing carbon dioxide pollution. If they are not, America's natural gas future could be a bridge to nowhere."

    Chesapeake Energy Corporation CEO Aubrey McClendon immediately sent a lengthy letter to all company employees in response to the NYT "Sound an Alarm" article. The letter, posted on the Company Facebook page indicates in part, "The story is misleading, at best, and is the latest in a series of articles produced by this publication that obviously have an anti-industry bias.  We know for a fact that today's NYT story is the handiwork of the same group of environmental activists who have been the driving force behind the NYT's ongoing series of negative articles about the use of fracking and its importance to the US natural gas supply growth revolution – which is changing the future of our nation for the better in multiple areas.  It is not clear to me exactly what these environmental activists are seeking to offer as their alternative energy plan, but most that I have talked to continue to naively presume that our great country need only rely on wind and solar energy to meet our current and future energy needs. . .

    "Since the shale gas revolution and resulting confirmation of enormous domestic gas reserves, there has been a relatively small group of analysts and geologists who have doubted the future of shale gas.  Their doubts have become very convenient to the environmental activists I mentioned earlier. . . But I wanted you to know that this reporter's claim of impending scarcity of natural gas supply contradicts the facts and the scientific extrapolation of those facts by the most sophisticated reservoir engineers and geoscientists in the world. Not just at Chesapeake, but by experts at many of the world's leading energy companies that have made multi-billion-dollar, long-term investments in U.S. shale gas plays, with us and many other companies. . ."

    Access a release from Rep. Markey on the SEC letter (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey on the EIA letter (click here). Access the Markey letter to SEC (click here). Access the Markey letter to EIA (click here). Access the NYT 6/25 article (click here). Access the NYT 6/26 article (click here). Access the McClendon letter to employees (click here). [*Energy/NatGas/Shale] (click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- JUST A FEW DAYS LEFT -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

NAS: Policy Options For Reducing Energy & GHG From Transportation

Jun 23: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) announced a new report entitled, Policy Options for Reducing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation, and indicated, "It will take more than tougher fuel economy standards for U.S. transportation to significantly cut its oil use over the next half century.  It will likely require a combination of measures that foster consumer and supplier interest in vehicle fuel economy, alternative fuels, and a more efficient transportation system. Public interest in reducing the cost of securing the nation's energy supplies, curbing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), and improving transportation operations could motivate such varied actions." 
 
    Emil Frankel, director of transportation policy, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "It is not simply a matter of choosing a single best policy. Decisions about whether and how to reduce transportation's use of oil will require officials to consider a range of options." The U.S. transportation sector accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's oil use and about 25 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions.  Federal regulations over the past 40 years such as fuel economy standards have helped the transportation sector make significant gains in controlling its oil use and emissions. However, the NAS committee said "these measures are likely to do little more than temper growth in the sector's carbon dioxide emissions and demand for oil over the next several decades." 
 
    According to the report, to achieve earlier, larger, and sustained gains, a longer-term strategy involving a mix of policy measures and impacts on transportation energy demand and supplies is needed.  The report was developed to inform policymakers of the pros and cons of available policy options to reduce energy use and emissions over time from cars, trucks, and aircraft -- the U.S. transportation modes that collectively account for 95 percent of transportation oil use.

 

    The policy options examined in the report include a range of approaches but are not ranked in any particular order:

•  land-use and travel-demand management measures aimed at curbing household vehicle use
• low-carbon standards for transportation fuels
• public investments in transportation infrastructure to increase vehicle operating efficiencies
•  transportation fuel taxes
• vehicle efficiency standards, "feebates," and other financial incentives to motivate interest in vehicle efficiency

    Because some of the policies are market and demand oriented, others regulatory, and others hybrids of the two, they produce different responses from users and suppliers of transportation vehicles and fuels. They also have different track records of implementation and thus differing prospects for early application. The report says that any serious actions must ultimately cut the amount of oil used and GHGs emitted from the nation's 225 million cars and light trucks. Policymakers need to look beyond measures that center largely on suppliers of vehicles and fuels and adopt policies that will also cause consumers to respond with strong and sustained interest in saving energy and lowering emissions. 

 

    In assessing opportunities for policy, the report says fuel taxes have both the greatest applicability across modes and the widest scope of impact. Raising fuel prices can lead to increased consumer and supplier interest in more fuel-efficient vehicles and operations. It can also reduce the total amount of energy-intensive travel by making it more expensive. However, the report indicates, "political resistance to fuel taxes is high. The federal gas tax, approximately 18 cents per gallon, has not been raised since 1993. To make this a more viable option over time, pursuing innovative ways to use the new tax dollars could help spur and sustain public support."

 

    The committee said that vehicle standards with a more focused impact on vehicle energy and emissions performance have the advantage of familiarity and public acceptance. This advantage is important because it can mean early savings in oil use and emissions. Purchase incentive programs that impose fees on inefficient vehicles to fund rebates on efficient ones -- known as feebates -- may ultimately motivate consumers to buy the newer designs. However, neither efficiency standards nor such purchase incentives will prompt vehicle users to engage in more energy-efficient operations, such as driving less or carpooling more. 

 

    Creating an environment less dependent on private vehicles may pay dividends by reducing the total demand for vehicle travel, but the Committee notes that it "may take decades to bring about through land-use planning and controls." In the meantime, public investment in infrastructure for highways, airways, and waterways can make transportation more efficient while reducing system delays and congestion. These operational benefits may be politically palatable ways to save energy and emissions in the near term, especially if consumers face higher energy prices down the road. 

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access a report brief (click here). Access a summary table of options (click here). Access the complete 162-page report (click here). [*Transport, *Climate, *Air, *Land]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.