POTUS $447B American Jobs Act "The Right Thing To Do Right Now"

Sep 8: In an effort to bolster a near-recession economy and historic unemployment, President Obama laid the groundwork for what will either be a remarkable coming together of warring political parties; or, the permanent fracture that drives both sides further apart. Following the political circus of the debt ceiling debate, that has driven public approval ratings of Congress and the President to all time lows, the President announced his $447 billion American Jobs Act. The proposed package includes $245 billion in tax cuts; $140 billion in investments in infrastructure and local aid; and $62 billion in continued unemployment benefits.

 

    In sum, the plan includes tax cuts for small businesses and workers; investments in infrastructure and schools via a National Infrastructure Bank a new "Project Rebuild" program; assistance to keep teacher, cops and firefighters on the job; and, extension of unemployment insurance for 5 million workers and program reforms. And, importantly, the President promised that the initiative would be "fully paid for" via additional deficit reductions which he will detail in a submission to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Supercommittee) within the next 10 days.

 

    The President emphasized repeatedly the seriousness and urgency of what he called "the economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that's made things worse. . . The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities.  The question tonight is whether we'll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy. . ."

 

    He said, "I know there's been a lot of skepticism about whether the politics of the moment will allow us to pass this jobs plan -- or any jobs plan. Already, we're seeing the same old press releases and tweets flying back and forth. Already, the media has proclaimed that it's impossible to bridge our differences. And maybe some of you have decided that those differences are so great that we can only resolve them at the ballot box. But know this: The next election is 14 months away. And the people who sent us here -- the people who hired us to work for them -- they don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months.  (Applause.)  Some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, even day to day. They need help, and they need it now. . . Regardless of the arguments we've had in the past, regardless of the arguments we will have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now.  You should pass it."

 

    In a direct affront to much of the Republican's Job Plan [See WIMS 9/8/11], the President said, "Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations. . .  Well, I agree that we can't afford wasteful spending, and I'll work with you, with Congress, to root it out. . . [and] We should have no more regulation than the health, safety and security of the American people require. Every rule should meet that common-sense test. 

    "But what we can't do -- what I will not do -- is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards.  America should be in a race to the top. And I believe we can win that race. In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody's money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own -- that's not who we are. That's not the story of America. . ."

    Again, the President vowed to encourage public support and pressure in support of his plan and said, "I intend to take that message to every corner of this country. And I ask -- I ask every American who agrees to lift your voice: Tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now.  Tell Washington that doing nothing is not an option. Remind us that if we act as one nation and one people, we have it within our power to meet this challenge."

 

    As of early this morning, the White House has posted support comments on the President's plan from: Steve Case, Chairman & CEO of Revolution LLC, Chairman of the Startup America Partnership; Mark Gallogly Co-founder and Managing Principal, Centerbridge Partners; Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Ken Chenault, Chairman and CEO, American Express; Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO, GE; Matthew Rose, Chairman and CEO, BNSF Railway; Richard D. Parsons, Chairman of Citigroup; Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Daniel Inouye (D-HI); and Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Frederica Wilson (D-FL). 

 

    Republican support for the President's plan appears in question. Even before the President's speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a release saying, ". . .in a two-party system like ours, it shouldn't be surprising that there would be two very different points of view about how to solve this particular crisis. What is surprising is the President's apparent determination to apply the same government-driven policies that have already been tried and failed. The definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein once famously put it, is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Frankly, I can't think of a better description of anyone who thinks the solution to this problem is another Stimulus. The first Stimulus didn't do it. Why would another one?. . . This isn't a jobs plan. It's a re-election plan. That's why Republicans will continue to press for policies that empower job creators, not Washington. . ." Senator McConnell did not issue a release following the speech.

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement after President Obama's address and said, "American families and small businesses are hurting, and they are looking for the White House and Congress to seek common ground and work together to help get our economy back on track. Republicans have laid out a blueprint for economic growth and job creation -- our Plan for America's Job Creators -- that focuses on one thing: removing government barriers to private-sector job growth. The proposals the President outlined tonight merit consideration. We hope he gives serious consideration to our ideas as well. It's my hope that we can work together to end the uncertainty facing families and small businesses, and create a better environment for long-term economic growth and private-sector job creation."

 

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and author of much of the Republican Jobs Plan issued a series of statements. Rep. Cantor said in part, "We are very focused on making sure that we can do something to provide incentives for small business people to get back in the game of job creation. That is what last night's speech was about. We have a plan to do that. I was glad to hear the Vice President say they are willing to compromise, because last night the President said it is an all or nothing proposal here for us to pick up and pass his bill. I can say there are a lot of things, whether it's the trade agreements, whether it's tax relief for small business people, whether it's the reform of unemployment compensation, that are in our plan as well. We could very easily take these items, put them across the floor, and I believe pass them. Hopefully we can work together and create an environment for jobs. . . on the need for infrastructure spending, we believe that states have monies right now, but Washington has tied up their ability to use those monies. We want to straighten out the system of how money is spent before we start spending more. We don't support the idea of creating a Fannie and Freddie for roads and bridges in an infrastructure bank. We believe that you can facilitate a better flow of funds to construction projects by fixing the current system."

 

    The President said he will ask the 12-member Super Committee, [See WIMS 8/10/11] that is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, to reduce the deficit by another $1.5 trillion over 10 years to add the cost of the American Jobs Act to their considerations. He said he is willing to consider modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and reforming the tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. He will details his proposals soon. A separate, September 9, White House communication from David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to the President indicated the Act would be "fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."

 

    The Supercommittee is just now getting underway and includes the following 12 members. Senate Democrats: Patty Murray (D-WA, Co-Chair), Max Baucus (D-MT), and John Kerry (D-MA). Senate Republicans: Jon Kyl (R-AZ); Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Rob Portman (R-OH). House Republicans: Jeb Hensarling (R-TX, Co-Chair); Dave Camp (R-MI); and Fred Upton (R-MI). House Democrats: James Clyburn (D-SC); Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

 

    Access the full text of the President's speech and link to an enhanced video that includes charts, graphs and summary information (click here). Access an overview fact sheet from the White House (click here). Access a additional fact sheet on the American Jobs Act (click here). Access another 3-page summary of the Act (click here). Access links to various supporting comments on the White House website (click here). Access extensive follow-up on the Jobs Act including support and schedule of activities on the White House Blog (click here). Access a release from Senator McConnell (click here). Access a release from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access a series of statements from Rep. Cantor (click here). [#All]

House GOP & Romney Job Plans In Advance Of The President

Sep 8: As the country prepares to hear the President's job's plan this evening it's important to review the House Republican jobs plan that was detailed further on August 29, in a memo to House Republicans from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). Representative Cantor indicated, ". . .we released The House Republican Plan for America's Job Creators earlier this year. While the debt crisis has demanded much of our attention, our new majority has passed over a dozen pro-growth measures to address the equally troubling jobs crisis, such as the Energy Tax Prevention Act and the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. Aside from repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement in ObamaCare, however, each House Republican jobs bill now sits dormant in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

 

    The Cantor memo indicates, "By pursuing a steady repeal of job-destroying regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty hanging over small and large employers alike, empowering them to hire more workers. Our regulatory relief agenda will include repeal of specific regulations, as well as fundamental and structural reform of the rule-making system through legislation like the REINS Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, and reform of the Administrative Procedures Act (all three bills are expected on the floor in late November and early December)." The memo provides a listing of "the 10 most harmful job-destroying regulations" as well as a "selective calendar for their repeal." Among the 10 regulations targeted, 7 are environmentally related. The following is excerpted from the Cantor memo regarding the environmental regulations including:

• Utility MACT and CSAPR (Week of September 19): "The Administration's new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants will affect electricity prices for nearly all American consumers. In total, 1,000 power plants are expected to be affected. The result for middle class Americans? Annual electricity bill increases in many parts of the country of anywhere from 12 to 24 percent. H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would require a cumulative economic analysis for specific EPA rules, and specifically delay the final date for both the utility MACT and CSAPR rules until the full impact of the Obama Administration's regulatory agenda has been studied."
• Boiler MACT (Week of October 3): "From hospitals to factories to colleges, thousands of major American employers use boilers that will be impacted by the EPA's new 'boiler MACT' rules. These new stringent rules will impose billions of dollars in capital and compliance costs, increase the cost of many goods and services, and put over 200,000 jobs at risk. The American forest and paper industry, for example, will see an additional burden of at least $5-7 billion. H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA), would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated rules issued by the EPA in March of this year. The legislation would also provide the EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period."
• Cement MACT (Week of October 3): "The 'cement MACT' and two related rules are expected to affect approximately 100 cement plants in America, setting exceedingly stringent requirements that will be cost-prohibitive or technically infeasible to achieve. Increased costs and regulatory uncertainty for the American cement industry—the foundation of nearly all infrastructure projects—are likely to offshore thousands of American jobs. Ragland, Alabama, for example, recently saw the suspension of a $350 million cement production facility, putting 1,500 construction jobs on hold and additional permanent and high-paying plant operation jobs in limbo. H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would provide a legislative stay of these three rules and provide EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period."
• Coal Ash (October/November): "These anti-infrastructure regulations, commonly referred to as the "coal ash" rules, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, affecting everything from concrete production to building products like wall board. The result is an estimated loss of well over 100,000 jobs. H.R. 2273, the Coals Residuals Reuse and Management Act, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (WV), would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the states, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs."
• Ozone Rule (Winter): This effective ban or restriction on construction and industrial growth for much of America is possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations. Consequences would reach far across the U.S. economy, resulting in an estimated cost of $1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs. Unlike her predecessors, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing for a premature readjustment of the current ozone standards, dramatically increasing the number of "nonattainment" areas. The new readjustment rule is expected early this fall and I expect the Energy and Commerce Committee to act swiftly to prevent its implementation, in order to protect American jobs." [Note: On September 2, President Obama announced his decision to delay changes to the ground-level ozone standards until the regular review scheduled for 2013, See WIMS 9/6/11].
• Farm Dust (Winter): "The EPA is expected to issue revised standards for particulate matter (PM) in the near future. Any downward revision to PM standards will significantly impact economic growth and jobs for businesses and people throughout rural America that create dust, like the farmer in Atkinson, Illinois, who raised his concerns with the President at a town hall earlier this month. While the President may have sent him on a bureaucratic wild goose chase, the House will act promptly on H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (SD). H.R. 1633 would protect American farmers and jobs by establishing a one year prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse PM and limiting federal regulation of dust where it is already regulated under state and local laws."
• Greenhouse Gas (Winter): "The EPA's upcoming greenhouse gas new source performance standards (NSPS) will affect new and existing oil, natural gas, and coal-fired power plants, as well as oil refineries, nationwide. While the impact on the economy and jobs are likely to be severe, the rules are quickly moving forward, once again revealing the Administration's disregard for the consequences of their policies on our jobs crisis. Again, I expect Chairman Upton and the Energy and Commerce Committee to move swiftly in the coming months to protect American jobs and consumers."

    Meanwhile, on September 6, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney released his detailed 160-page book titled "Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth," which includes more than fifty policy proposals across seven different areas: Taxes, Regulation, Trade, Energy, Labor, Human Capital, and Fiscal Policy. Romney's plan is the first detailed plan to be released by the various Republican Presidential candidates. According to a release from Romney, the specific proposals include fundamental tax reform, a significant overhaul of the Federal regulatory system, innovative new approaches for opening foreign markets to American exports and for confronting China over its unfair trade practices, an aggressive commitment to developing America's energy resources, and a dramatically reduced role in the economy for the federal government.

 

    On September 6, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Cantor sent a letter to President Obama highlighting several House-passed jobs bills which they say "remain stalled in the Democrat-led Senate and outlining potential opportunities for Congress and the White House to work together this fall on jobs." In the letter the House Republican leaders indicate, "We understand that many in your party want to build on the $800 billion stimulus bill that you proposed (and the Democratic Congress passed) as the best method for improving the economy. As you know, we argued at the time that a large, deficit-financed, government spending bill was not the best way to improve our economic situation or create sustainable growth in employment. Given the current unemployment and deficit numbers, we believe our concerns have been validated. . .

 

    "Last week we also announced a legislative calendar for the fall with a heavy focus on repeal of excessive, job-destroying regulations and the pursuit of pro-growth tax relief.  . . Our hope is that both parties can work together in the coming weeks to reduce excessive regulation that is hampering job growth in our country. To facilitate such efforts, we hope that prior to your address to a Joint Session, you will disclose the cost estimates for the remaining 212 new regulatory actions planned by your administration. . ."

 

    Tonight at 7:00 PM EDT, President Obama will lay out his plan for creating American jobs and growing our economy in a speech before a special joint session of Congress. Senior Advisor David Plouffe recorded a short video to preview the speech and highlighted some key points (see the link below). Immediately following the President's speech, the White House will offer a live panel where policy experts from the White House will answer questions.

 

    Access the Cantor memo (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2401 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2250 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2681 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2273 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1633 (click here). Access a 1-page summary of the House Republican jobs plan (click here). Access the complete 10-page House Republican jobs plan (click here). Access the Republican JobsBill legislative progress tracker (click here). Access a release from the Romney campaign and link to the complete plan (click here). Access the lengthy letter from House GOP leaders to the President (click here). Access the Plouffe video preview of the President's speech (click here). Access more information on the White House follow-up Q&A to the President's speech (click here). [#All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

State Department Releases Final EIS On Keystone XL Pipeline Project

Aug 26: At a press teleconference briefing the U.S. Department of State (DOS), Assistant Secretary Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs discuss the proposed Keystone XL project Final Environmental Impact Statement and details on the upcoming public meetings. In an announcement, DOS indicated that the final EIS does not represent a decision on TransCanada's permit application to build the 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast. Rather, the final EIS is an environmental and safety analysis of the proposed project, developed to inform the decision. The data in the EIS will be used along with additional input to determine whether the Keystone XL project is in the national interest.

    DOS explained that it will now begin a 90-day consultation period with eight cooperating Federal agencies before making a decision on the Presidential Permit. During late September and early October, the Department also will host a series of nine public meetings around the United States to give individuals an opportunity to voice their views on whether granting or denying a Presidential Permit for the pipeline would be in the national interest. The Department will also be accepting public comments now through midnight on October 9, 2011. The meeting schedule includes meetings in: Port Arthur, TX; Glendive, MT; Lincoln, NE; Austin, TX; Pierre, SD; Midwest City, OK; and a final meeting in Washington, DC, on Friday October 7, 2011.

    At the press briefing, Dr. Jones said the final environmental impact statement "thoroughly examines and assesses the potential environmental impacts of this proposed project." She said, "I have been looking at the press, and I have noticed that some are touting that this statement is a victory and some are touting that it's a loss. And I would like to clarify at the beginning that these characterizations are wrong because we have -- this is not a decision document. This is a document that presents the analytical and the data information that we have regarding the environmental impacts. The process that was used to produce this impact statement looked to technical expertise across the U.S. Government and to engineering and technical experts outside of the U.S. Government, as well as extensive public feedback. We have listened to the comments received during this process and we have addressed the key issues raised in the final statement that we put out today."

    In response to a question regarding states' rights and for example: "could the state of Nebraska make a determination that the route needs to change or that the pipeline can't go through the state, or has that window passed?" Dr. Jones responded, "There are roles for the states in a lot of these different questions, but right now I'm really unable to comment on the specifics for what each of the states' actions may or may not do. I mean, the states – that's in the states' court to decide about that. And their future actions, I really can't comment on that."

    One question requested that in "plain English describe how you would characterize, as a result of this FEIS, what the potential environmental impact would be of this pipeline. . . if you had to say how extensive or not extensive you think you think the environmental impact of the construction and operation of this pipeline would be, it would be helpful to just get your characterization of that." Dr. Jones responded, "The FEIS does have a summary of findings, and what that summary states is that there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed pipeline corridor. However, with that statement there are a lot of follow-on descriptions as to steps that the applicant is required to take and has agreed to take in terms of complying with all applicable laws and regulations, following some of the special conditions that I've already alluded to, and also following up on many of the other mitigation actions that they have agreed to. . . "

    Another question asked, ". . .the refining industry in the U.S. has said repeatedly, including those refiners in the Gulf Coast, that they're doing very well, they're making a lot of money exporting refined products overseas. And so I was wondering what assurances do we have that this – that this oil would be refined for products sold in the United States, and have you assessed how much of the tar sands crude would be used in the United States and how much of it might be exported?" Dr. Jones indicated, "What we have looked at is that certainly the refineries that would be receiving this oil do have the capacity and the demand to get this type of oil. . . DOE has also done a study -- a paper and a study that is in part of the FEIS that looks at the overall supply of crude oil and the market issues that you're raising and speaks to it. In addition . . . the broader kind of commercial energy security issue, and that's very much going to be dealt with in the national interest determination. So while there's some information in the FEIS regarding this. . . it will be further examined in the national interest determination."

    On the question of CO2 impacts, one question asked, "I just wanted to get clear exactly what you're saying about potential greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions increases as a result of the project going ahead." Dr. Jones responded, "Regarding the greenhouse gas emissions, I think there's a couple of different perspectives on that. One is the overall greenhouse gas emissions, sort of, life cycle from this type of crude oil. And the FEIS does say that this type of crude has a higher lifetime production of greenhouse gases relative to some others, but that really depends on what you're comparing it to. The other question is – I think you may be getting at is just in terms of whether or not this pipeline was built if the oil sands in Canada would be developed or not and how that may contribute to greenhouse gases. And we have – in the FEIS, there is a study that was commissioned by the Department of Energy to look at that issue, and the summary – that was the EnSys report, and the summary of that basically states that regardless of whether or not this pipeline would be built, there would be continued development of the oil sands, and there would be other methods for transporting that crude oil to refineries, and those would include such things as barges or tankers or rail."

    Regarding a question on routes and the Ogallalla Aquifer Dr. Jones said, "We analyzed a number of major alternative routes, I think about 14. Five of those in particular were looked at in order to avoid the Ogallalla Aquifer because we understand – we've had many comments about that. We are – recognize the importance of that. And we did analysis on those alternatives based on both the environmental conditions as well as some of the technical and economic considerations. And we've had a lot of feedback on that, and we feel that the proposed route of the applicant is the preferred route at this point, because there's – the environmental alternative seemed to all be rather worse or similar."

    American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement welcoming the DOS final EIS on the Keystone XL project and urged the agency to complete its national interest determination and issue permits for the pipeline without delay. API Refining Manager Cindy Schild said, "The nation's quintessential shovel-ready project is a step closer to reality. That's good news for tens of thousands of Americans who stand to find new jobs when this pipeline project is finally approved. If the State Department gives the final okay, hiring could begin immediately in hundreds of American companies in the Midwest and across the country. The President should support our biggest trading partner and number one importer of oil. More energy from a friendly ally makes sense. We need this critical project because more jobs and a move to secure energy equal a stronger economy."

    The timing of the release coincided with an ongoing civil disobedience campaign at the White House, where 275 peaceful protesters were arrested. In a release the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "From Alberta to the Gulf, tar-sands oil will hurt endangered species and sensitive habitats and have an inordinate impact on global climate change. Extraction of oil from tar sands generates from two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases as conventional oil production." Tierra Curry, a conservation biologist at CBD said, "The Keystone XL Pipeline is an environmental disaster in the making. The pipeline threatens the survival of at least 20 endangered species, risks contaminating the drinking water of millions of Americans, and spirals us further toward catastrophic climate change. It is outrageous that the final environmental impact statement was issued before U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had time to issue a biological opinion on the many impacts of the pipeline on endangered species -- a gaping hole that highlights the inadequacy of this hasty environmental impact statement."

    Nebraska's Republican Governor Dave Heineman sent a letter to President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging the Federal government to deny the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Governor Heineman said, "I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to pipelines. I am opposed to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route because it is directly over the Ogallala Aquifer." In his letter the Governor said, "Of the current proposed route, 254 miles of the pipeline would come through Nebraska and be situated directly over the Ogallala Aquifer. The aquifer provides water to farmers and ranchers of Nebraska to raise livestock and grow crops.  Nebraska has 92,685 registered, active irrigation wells supplying water to over 8.5 million acres of harvested cropland and pasture. Forty-six percent of the total cropland harvested during 2007 was irrigated. Maintaining and protecting Nebraska's water supply is very important to me and the residents of Nebraska.  This resource is the lifeblood of Nebraska's agriculture industry. Cash receipts from farm markets contribute over $17 billion to Nebraska's economy annually. I am concerned that the proposed pipeline will potentially have detrimental effects on this valuable natural resource and Nebraska's economy."

    On the question of groundwater contamination, the final EIS states, "DOS recognizes the public's concern for the Northern High Plains Aquifer System, which includes the Ogallala aquifer formation and the Sand Hills aquifer unit. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture. Of particular concern is the part of the aquifer which lies below the Sand Hills region. In that region, the aquifer is at or near the surface. DOS assessed the potential impacts of the proposed Project on many aquifer systems. The aquifer analysis included the identification of potable groundwater in water wells within 1 mile of the proposed centerline of the pipeline. More than 200 Public Water Supply wells, most of which are in Texas, are within 1 mile of the proposed centerline, and 40 private water wells are within 100 feet of the centerline. No sole-source aquifers, or aquifers serving as the principal source of drinking water for an area, are crossed by the proposed pipeline route."

 

    Access the lengthy full text of the press teleconference (click here). Access a DOS announcement and details on the meetings (click here). Access a fact sheet and map of the proposed pipeline (click here). Access a 27-page Executive Summary of the final EIS (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). Access a comment form on the project website (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the statement from CBD (click here). Access the release and letter from Gov. Heineman (click here). [*Energy/OilSands, *Energy/Pipeline]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Obama Backs Away From New NAAQS Ozone Standard At This Time

Sep. 2: To applause from industry groups & Republicans and groans from environmentalist & Democrats, President Obama announced his decision on proposing an upgrade to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone in advance of a regularly scheduled review in 2013. The President said, "Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."

 

    In a brief statement the President said, "Over the last two and half years, my administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution. From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from outdated power plants to doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, the historic steps we've taken will save tens of thousands of lives each year, remove over a billion tons of pollution from our air, and produce hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people.
 
    "At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time. Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. . .  I want to be clear: my commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering. I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution. And my administration will continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act or dismantle the progress we have made."

 

    The official directive to U.S. EPA came in the form of a 2-page letter from OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Sunstein said the draft final rule, submitted to OMB on July 11, warrants reconsideration based on three related points. He cited: (1) "finalizing a new standard now is not mandatory and could produce needless uncertainty." (2) indicating that EPA's proposed rule is based on a 2006 scientific review, "work has already begun on a new and forthcoming scientific review, 'based on the best available science.'" (3) citing the recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and other proposed rules [e.g. Utility Mact & Boiler MACT], "Cumulatively, these and other recently proposed and finalized rules count as truly historic achievements in protecting public health by decreasing air pollution levels, across the nation." The White House also released a summary by Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, summarizing the Obama Administration's actions "taken to reduce harmful air pollution while promoting the nation's economic growth and well-being." (see link below).

 

    EPA announced on July 26, that it would not meet its self-imposed July 29 deadline for releasing new NAAQS for ozone [See WIMS 7/26/11]. An Agency spokesperson said that although it would not issue the final rule on July 29th, which it had intended, it would be finalizing the standard shortly and it would be "based on the best science and meet the obligation established under the Clean Air Act to protect the health of the American people. In implementing this new standard, EPA will use the long-standing flexibility in the Clean Air Act to consider costs, jobs and the economy."

 

    EPA Administrator Jackson commented on the President's announcement and said, "Since day one, under President Obama's leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans by reducing our exposures to harmful air pollution like mercury, arsenic and carbon dioxide.  This Administration has put in place some of the most important standards and safeguards for clean air in U.S. history: the most significant reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide air pollution across state borders; a long-overdue proposal to finally cut mercury pollution from power plants; and the first-ever carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks.  We will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act."

 

    On July 28, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) pressed Jackson for more information concerning the Agency's "discretionary reconsideration of ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and its proposal to issue costly new standards." They said, "If finalized, these standards will impose unprecedented costs, ranging from $19 billion to $90 billion annually by your agency's own estimates, and result in new regulatory burdens for employers, businesses and already cash-strapped states and communities struggling to grow their local economies and create jobs. . ." [See WIMS 7/28/11].

 

    Environmental organizations argue that according to the Clean Air Act -- and reinforced by a 2001 Supreme Court decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (Nos. 99-1257, 99-1426) -- ground-level ozone standards must be set solely according to the findings of EPA scientists and the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, an independent panel of experts. According to the law, states and localities can take economics into consideration during the implementation process. As expressed recently by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) [See WIMS 7/28/11], "The Obama administration promised in 2009 to revisit an unscientific Bush administration decision to define dangerous levels of ozone at 75 parts per billion. That decision, which was later challenged in court, disregarded public health scientists' finding in 2007 that only a standard of 60 to 70 parts per billion was scientifically justifiable. In 2010, the EPA issued a proposed rule in that range. However, a final rule with a specific numerical standard has been repeatedly delayed." [See WIMS 12/9/10]. 

 

    Following the announcement, the White House released a number of comment from state and local officials regarding the President's decision. Included in the comments were Michigan's Republican Governor Rick Snyder who said, "The President made the right decision to stop this move by the EPA. The present ozone standard was last reviewed a mere three years ago.  Michigan companies have worked hard to meet the standard, because we all support a healthy environment. It is important to balance environmental goals with the need for economic development, particularly as Michigan and the rest of the nation work to recover from the recession."

    Also included, Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman (D) said, "I want to thank President Obama and his administration for listening and working with state and local governments. Withdrawing the new standard allows an update of the science and the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013 while granting our state and local governments and businesses more regulatory certainty and flexibility. President Obama and his administration are strong partners with those of us on the state and local level of government in the fight for clean air and public health." 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, issued a statement saying, "I strongly believe that protecting air quality based on the science leads to more job growth because it brings so many positive health benefits to our workers. Although I am disappointed with this decision to delay action, I am heartened by the President's commitment to vigorously oppose any efforts to dismantle the Clean Air Act and the progress that we have made."

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate EPW Committee said, "President Obama has finally pulled the plug on what would have been the most expensive EPA regulation in history. . .  I am pleased that today's announcement offers some good news for Oklahoma and the nation. . . Yet the ozone standard is just the beginning of the Obama EPA's regulatory 'train wreck' that is set to wreak havoc on our economy.  If the President is truly serious about reducing the regulatory burdens on our country, as he said today, he should immediately apply the brakes to this regulatory train and get on the right track to restoring the balance between environmental progress and economic growth."

 

    American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard welcomed President Obama's decision and said, "The President's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work.  EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority. Ozone levels and air quality continue to improve under current regulations and our industry is committed to making the air we all breathe cleaner while creating new jobs. . ."

 

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce's President and CEO Thomas Donohue issued a statement saying, "The U.S. Chamber is glad the White House heeded our warning and withdrew these potentially disastrous – and completely voluntary – actions from the EPA. This an enormous victory for America's job creators, the right decision by the President, and one that will help reduce the uncertainty facing businesses. It's also a big first step in what needs to be a broader regulatory reform effort. If today's employment report reveals anything, it's that our economy is in neutral. Private sector studies predicted that the standards would have cost as many as 7.3 million American jobs by 2020. I'm pleased the administration recognizes that now is not the time to burden America's job creators with unwarranted regulations. . ."

 

    John Engler, president of Business Roundtable (BRT), an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies said, "This is the number one regulatory priority for Business Roundtable member companies. Creating U.S. jobs and providing more economic certainty for all Americans, especially on the heels of today's news that the U.S. unemployment rate remains persistently high, is our greatest challenge. If President Obama's speech next week is as positive as this decision was today, it will be a success." Andrew Liveris, Chairman and CEO of The Dow Chemical Company and Vice Chair of BRT and Chair of BRT's Regulatory Reform Working Group said, "We applaud the president's decision to withdraw the ozone rule. This was the right decision and consistent with policy established in his executive order. It will have a direct and positive impact on the business community providing more certainty and will contribute to economic growth and job creation. We hope this sets the standard for future regulatory actions."

      

    Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) issued a statement saying, "This is a new low for President Obama. He sold out public health and environmental protection to appease polluters. Mr. Obama's shortsighted political decision will have long-term health consequences for millions of Americans. . ." Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "This unfortunate decision puts millions of Americans, particularly children, at risk from industrial pollution. We're deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to leave in place outdated standards that lag far behind what scientists have unanimously recommended."

 

    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President Frances Beinecke issued a statement saying, "The White House is siding with corporate polluters over the American people. The Clean Air Act clearly requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set protective standards against smog--based on science and the law. The White House now has polluted that process with politics. Our public officials, including in the White House, serve to protect us from harm. They need to get on with doing their jobs. Inaction cannot be an option when it comes to ensuring a healthy and prosperous America."   

   

    Access the statement from the President (click here). Access the 2-page letter from OIRA (click here). Access the White House comments from state and local officials (click here). Access the White House summary of clean air actions (click here). Access EPA's ground-level ozone regulatory website for complete background (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the statement from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the statement from the BRT (click here). Access the statement from CBD (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). [#Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

WIMS Publication Break

WIMS is on our late summer break.

We will return on September 6, 2011

Thank you very much for visiting our blog.

 

Click here for more information on our

Daily Environmental News

CRS Report Analyzes So-Called EPA "Train Wreck" Regulations

Aug 8: A recent 50-page Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, EPA's Regulation of Coal-Fired Power: Is a "Train Wreck" Coming?, (No. 7-5700), provides an overview and analysis of many of the regulatory impact studies conducted by interest groups that discuss the impact of proposed regulations by U.S. EPA. The analysis emphasizes the impact on coal-fired power plants, but also includes discussions of regulations affecting other industry sectors. The report includes an important reference appendix of Bibliography of Analytic Reports which lists the various analytic reports with Internet links by policy and advocacy groups both for and against the regulations. CRS mission is to "serve the Congress throughout the legislative process by providing comprehensive and reliable legislative research and analysis that are timely, objective, authoritative, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature."

 

    The report indicates that, "Given the central role of electric power in the nation's economy, and the importance of coal in power production, concerns have been raised recently about the cost and potential impact of regulations under development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would impose new requirements on coal-fired power plants. Six of the rules, which have drawn much of the recent attention, are Clean Air Act regulations. Two others are Clean Water Act rules, and one is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rule. The majority are expected to be promulgated over the next 18 months. All together, these rules have been characterized by critics as a regulatory "train wreck" that would impose excessive costs and lead to plant retirements that could threaten the adequacy of electricity capacity (i.e., reliability of supply) across the country, especially from now through 2017.

 

    "Although some question why EPA is undertaking so many regulatory actions in such a short timeframe, supporters of the regulations assert that it is decades of regulatory delays and court decisions that have led to this point, resulting in part from special consideration given electric utilities by Congress under several statutes. Further, several of the current regulatory developments have been under consideration for a decade or longer, or are being reevaluated after an earlier action was vacated or remanded to EPA by the courts. The regulations are supported by proponents and EPA as having substantial benefits for public health and the environment.

 

    "Recent reports by industry trade associations and others have discussed potential harm of EPA's prospective regulations to U.S. electricity generating capacity, with emphasis on coal-fired generation. One of these reports, by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which represents investor-owned utilities, has attracted considerable attention by depicting a timeline in which multiple rules would take effect more or less simultaneously over the next five years. Congress has shown significant interest in these issues, and bills have been introduced that would de-fund or restrict EPA's ability to develop rules, and which would legislate new regulatory analytic requirements. The report describes nine rules in seven categories that are at the core of recent critical analyses, with background on the rule and its requirements and, where possible, a discussion of the rule's potential costs and benefits.

 

    "The EEI and other analyses discussed here generally predate EPA's actual proposals and reflect assumptions about stringency and timing (especially for implementation) that differ significantly from what EPA actually may propose or has promulgated. Some of the rules are expected to be expensive; costs of others are likely to be moderate or limited, or they are unknown at this point because a rule has not yet been proposed. Rules when actually proposed or issued may well differ enough that a plant operator's decision about investing in pollution controls or facility retirement will look entirely different from what these analyses project. Further, promulgation of standards is not the end of the road: court challenges are likely, potentially delaying implementation for years, and even when final, EPA rules must be adopted by states and implemented over time through

state-issued permits.

 

    "The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel -- natural gas -- continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules."

 

    CRS concludes, ". . .evaluating regulatory impacts, compliance costs, and possible retirement decisions depends on facility-specific considerations—micro, not macro. Utilities and states will be affected differently. Rules when actually proposed or issued may well differ enough that investment or retirement decisions look entirely different. Technology options available to a unit or plant depend on the specific rule, and compliance costs may be less than projected. Even some units with high assumed control costs, or others that look to be marginal economically, may install controls and continue to operate. Many utilities have already installed technology needed to comply with new rules; for them, costs will be minimal: EPA said that, with regard to the most expensive proposed rule, the Utility MACT, more than half of the coal-fired units fall in this category. The EEI and NERC [North American Electric Reliability Corporation] reports did not account for the fact that plants' compliance costs may be less because of investments already made in pollution control equipment.

 

    "Frequently overlooked in analyses of EPA regulations are the benefits to public health and the environment that will occur, benefits that for the most part are difficult to monetize. EPA does estimate benefits of individual rules, while acknowledging that it is challenging to quantify benefits due to data limitations and uncertainties in approaches used to value benefits. The costs of the rules may be large, but, in most cases, the benefits are larger, especially estimated public health benefits. Neither the EEI nor the NERC report addresses benefits."

    

    CRS indicates that several other conclusions bear repeating:

• The studies sponsored by industry groups (EEI and NERC) were written before EPA proposed most of the rules whose impacts they analyze, and they assumed that the rules would impose more stringent requirements than EPA proposed in many cases.
• Of the regulations so far proposed, the Utility MACT, which will set standards for power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, appears to be the most expensive. EPA's analysis concluded that it will impose annual costs of $10 billion to $11 billion annually
• Other rules that industry expected to impose major costs now appear less likely to do so. The Cooling Water Intake rule, for example, proposes a less costly, more flexible regulatory option than EEI and NERC anticipated. Further, NERC believes that few coal-fired EGUs will be affected by this rule, which will have greater impact on older, oil-fired units. The Coal Combustion Waste Rule has been delayed, with no deadline for promulgation.
• For coal-fired plants, the primary impacts will be on units more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient, and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants.
• Lower prices for natural gas and recent increases in its projected availability may reduce the impact of the proposed rules on electric utilities and consumers, although they may lead to more retirements of coal-fired units.
• There is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present, due in part to the recession and also due to the large number of natural gas combined cycle plants constructed in the last decade, muting reliability concerns.

    CRS also provides concluding thoughts on the uncertainty of the actual implementation of EPA rules including changes in effective dates, court challenges, interactions and actual state-level implementation, permitting and compliance schedules -- all of which involves time periods of years in actual final implementation of regulations. CRS concludes, "In short, the road to EPA regulation is rarely a straight path. There are numerous possible causes of delay. It would be unusual if the regulatory actions described here were all implemented on the anticipated schedule, and even if they were, existing facilities would often have several years before being required to comply. Unable to account for such factors, which will vary from case to case, timelines that show dates for proposal and promulgation of EPA standards effectively underestimate the complexities of the regulatory process and overstate the near-term impact of many of the regulatory actions."

 

    Access the CRS report on the Foley Hoag's Environmental Practice Group website (click here). [#All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

DOE Adopts Full-Fuel-Cycle Policy For Energy Use & Emissions

Aug 18: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a Statement of Policy in the Federal Register [76 FR 51281-51289] which it indicated is consistent with recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (the Academy) regarding its intent to modify the methods it uses to estimate the likely impacts of energy conservation standards. The impacts for covered products include energy use and emissions and DOE said it will work to expand the energy use and emissions information made available to consumers. Specifically, DOE intends to use "full-fuel-cycle" (FFC) measures of energy use and emissions, rather than the primary (or site) energy measures it currently uses. Additionally, DOE said it intends to work collaboratively with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to make information readily available to consumers on the FFC energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of specific products to enable consumers to make cross-class comparisons of product energy use and emissions.

 

    In August 2010, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy published a Notice of Proposed Policy indicating its intent to begin using full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions in the national impact analyses and environmental assessments included in rulemakings for future energy conservation standards (referred to herein as "energy conservation standards" or "energy efficiency levels." DOE stated that using the FFC measure in these analyses will provide more complete information about the total energy use and GHG emissions associated with a specific energy efficiency level rather than the primary (or site) energy measures currently used by DOE. DOE also indicated that utilizing the FFC measure for environmental assessments and national impact analyses would not require alteration of the measures used to determine the energy efficiency of covered products (i.e. "appliances and equipment" or just "appliances") because the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, requires that such measures be based solely on the energy consumed at the point of use.

 

    However, DOE indicated in the Notice that using the FFC measure in lieu of primary energy in environmental assessments and national impact analyses could affect the alternative standard levels that DOE considers before choosing an energy efficiency level in the future. A policy change to consider FFC impacts would increase the energy and emission reductions estimated to result from energy efficiency levels. DOE said this shift would, consequently, increase some of the estimated benefits of such standards.

 

    The Notice also proposed that DOE would significantly improve upon the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) existing online databases of appliance site energy use and efficiency ratings by including FFC energy use and emissions data. DOE solicited public comment on whether such an online service would likely benefit consumers and, if so, the most effective way to present this information. DOE also solicited comments on the merits of providing GHG emissions and other product-specific comparative data on Energy Guide labels.

 

    After consideration of the comments received on its NOPP, DOE has decided to use FFC measures of energy use and GHG and other emissions in the national impact analyses and environmental assessments included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings.

 

    DOE currently uses primary (or site) energy consumption for national impact analyses and environmental assessments using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) developed by DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA). DOE will continue to rely upon NEMS-based estimates of primary energy and emission impacts, but intends to use conversion factors generated by the DOE Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model to convert the estimates into estimates of FFC energy and emission impacts. DOE said it will also, subject to the availability of funds, support efforts to make readily available to consumers and other users of regulated products information on the FFC energy use and emissions associated with specific products, and the means to compare this energy use and emissions to other comparable products, whether or not those other products use the same type of energy.

    Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed DOE to commission a study with the National Academy of Sciences to examine whether the goals of energy conservation standards are best served by measurement of energy consumed, and efficiency improvements at, the actual point-of-use or through the use of the FFC, beginning at the source of energy production The FFC measure includes point-of-use energy, the energy losses associated with generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, and the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting or distributing primary fuels. The study, "Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards," (Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and included five recommendations.

 

    The Academy's primary recommendation was that "DOE consider moving over time to use of a FFC measure of energy consumption for assessment of national and environmental impact, especially levels of GHG emissions, and to providing more comprehensive information to the public through labels and other means such as an enhanced Web site."

 

    DOE indicates that in response to its Notice, it received comments from 41 entities. Comments were submitted by utilities, research facilities, consumer representatives, non-profit organizations, farmers and others. The final Statement of Policy announcement includes an extensive review of the comments and DOE responses and includes a series of policy statements responding to the various comments.

 

    Access the complete final Statement of Policy FR announcement (click here). Access the National Academy of Sciences report (click here). [#Energy/Efficiency]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Investor Groups Praise Northeast States' Clean Fuels Proposal

Aug 17: Ceres President Mindy Lubber and two leading investors issued public statements on the proposed Clean Fuels Standard for 11 Northeast states and the early release of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) economic analysis showing clear economic benefits stemming from a Clean Fuels Standard (CFS). NESCAUM includes the eight Northeastern states of CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI and VT. [Note: DE, MD and PA are added to form the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region]. The analysis modeled the impacts of a regional CFS that would achieve a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels over a 10 year period ending in 2022.

    The CFS analysis was undertaken by the NESCAUM at the request of the Northeast states in 2009. The analysis assumed different scenarios accounting for uncertainties with gasoline and diesel demand, greenhouse gas emissions, fuel expenditures, delivery infrastructure and vehicle mix and macroeconomic factors such as employment and disposable income. Though the specifics of a regional CFS are still under development by the states, it would generally require fuel providers to gradually decrease the carbon intensity of their fuel, either by adding cleaner fuels into their fuel mix, or by purchasing credits generated by alternative fuels such as electricity or natural gas. The transition would reduce regional dependence on imported oil by diversifying transportation fuels to include domestic alternatives such as advanced biofuels, electricity and natural gas.

    The NESCAUM report findings, which will be formally released soon, show that a CFS would:

• reduce oil consumption in the 11 states by up to 29 percent, or 9 billion gallons annually, in 2022 when the program is fully implemented
• increase total jobs by up to 50,000 over the 10-year period. The new jobs would be in various industries, including utility-related jobs due to increased demand for electricity and natural gas for transportation purposes, as well as manufacturing and construction jobs related to installing fueling  infrastructure and building and operating biofuel and biogas production plants.
• increase cumulative net savings on transportation costs for households and businesses by up to $74.7 billion by 2022.
• Additionally, construction, manufacturing, forestry and agricultural services sectors would benefit. The health care and finance/insurance sectors would also experience positive indirect impacts.

    Lubber, who leads a national coalition of investors and public interest groups working to build a sustainable economy, said of the findings, "NESCAUM's analysis demonstrates that a Clean Fuels Standard would bring significant economic benefits to the region and foster investment in a strong regional clean fuels system. The standard would provide the market certainty that investors and businesses need to invest in the development and production of alternative fuels, creating a robust clean fuels market and minimizing our vulnerability to volatile oil prices. By investing at home, rather than spending billions on foreign oil, the standard will also help create badly needed jobs."

    Matthew Fitzmaurice, Managing Partner of AWJ Capital Partners, LLC, a global fund of funds manager, and member of Ceres' Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) added, "America's overdependence on oil generally, and foreign oil specifically, is unacceptable, as it will weaken our competiveness in a global economy.  To change the status quo, we need clear standards. Investment capital now plays on a global stage, and capital represented by hedge funds will find its way into those economies and thus companies where clear standards exist. Failure to enact clean fuel standards will result in the U.S. becoming less competitive in the allocation of global investment capital."

    Access a release from Ceres (click here). Access the Maine release of the 146-page NESCAUM "Economic Analysis of a Program to Promote Clean Transportation Fuels in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region" (click here). Access the NESCAUM website for more information (click here). [#Energy/CFS, #Transport/CFS]

Review Panel For Refinery MACT Is "Inadequate" & "Premature"

Aug 16: In a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) has indicated that it believes the agencies are conducting an "inadequate" and "premature" Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel on its upcoming rulemaking, "Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)." The panel is to focus on developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for multiple pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs) [See WIMS 5/3/11].

    Advocacy states in the August 4, letter, "Today, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel on its upcoming rulemaking, 'Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).' The Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) does not agree that this panel should have convened at this time. We believe that EPA is not yet ready for this panel, since it has not provided the other panel members with information on the potential impacts of this rule and will not provide small entity representatives (SERs) with sufficient information upon which to discuss alternatives and provide recommendations to EPA. It is Advocacy's position that EPA is not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) due to the lack of information provided and that a panel conducted under these circumstances is unlikely to succeed at identifying reasonable regulatory alternatives, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Advocacy acknowledges that EPA is conducting this rulemaking under court-agreed deadlines as part of negotiated settlement agreements, deadlines to which Advocacy objected in a public comment letter to EPA on January 19, 2011. EPA cannot rely on these deadlines to justify an inadequate SBAR panel." [Note: EPA indicates that it must comply with the settlement agreement proposal date of December 10, 2011 and promulgation date of November 10, 2012].

 

    Advocacy states that, "EPA has broad discretion to design a regulatory program to regulate GHGs under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. For that reason, Advocacy believes that SERs have not been provided enough information to project how EPA will structure this regulation or establish the relevant standards. In the absence of information, SERs will be unable to understand potential impacts of the rulemaking and make recommendations about regulatory alternatives that would minimize the impacts on small entities while fulfilling EPA's goals. Advocacy raised this concern at the convening of the SBAR panel for the EGU GHG standards of performance rulemaking earlier this year."

 

    Advocacy concludes, "Advocacy states its objection to the convening of this panel because we believe EPA is not providing sufficient information to the SERs. As a result, the SBAR panels will likely be unable to identify specific regulatory alternatives that would 'accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.' We believe input from small entities will be valuable in this important rulemaking, and we want to ensure SERs on this SBAR panel are able to contribute effectively to this process."

 

    Access the letter from SBA Advocacy which includes further details (click here). Access details from EPA including, background information for the Refinery panel (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Transport, *Energy]

Advisors See Health & Climate Benefits From Black Carbon Mitigation

Aug 11: U.S. EPA's Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis has completed its review of the draft EPA document, Report to Congress on Black Carbon, with respect to its accuracy and clarity in summarizing the available scientific literature, including uncertainties [See WIMS 3/28/11]. Black carbon is a mixture of light-absorbing particles that results from incomplete combustion of organic materials such as petroleum fuels or biomass, and these particles have been implicated in climate change and impacts on human health. In 2009, Congress directed EPA, in consultation with other Federal agencies, to summarize the available science on the impacts of black carbon on climate, sources of black carbon emissions, benefits to climate and human health from reductions in those emissions, and the cost-effectiveness of available mitigation strategies. The Council, augmented with experts in the chemistry, modeling and control of black carbon, has reviewed the draft 386-page EPA report and provides advice and recommendations in their own 74-page report.

    The Council indicates that it commends EPA on the quality of the draft report. In a cover letter to Administrator Jackson the Council indicates, "It is comprehensive and well-written, and summarizes much of the relevant scientific literature on the nature of black carbon particles; their formation, transformation and transport in the atmosphere; associated climate and health impacts; and possible mitigation technologies. In addition, the Report successfully uses text boxes and figures to convey a wealth of complex information. However, the enclosed Council report has many substantial recommendations for how the EPA report can be improved."

 

    The Council indicates that the preponderance of the available data support a conclusion that there are actions to reduce black carbon emissions that will be a -- "win-win" for public health and climate, and the Council urges the Agency to strengthen this message in the report. "The report should expand the discussion of health effects associated with black carbon, which is a component of particulate matter, and highlight the considerable health benefits that would derive from reductions in black carbon emissions. In addition, the Council recommends that the report be revised to include a more rigorous treatment of benefits and costs and associated uncertainties of black carbon mitigation options to inform policy."

 

    Without prescribing specific policies, the Council says, "the report should develop recommendations for U.S. black carbon mitigation strategies in the short and longer term, and strategies for developing countries, and discuss how the selection of metrics and mitigation approaches would vary for the different timescales and geographic domains.

 

    "The EPA report appropriately emphasizes that black carbon reductions should not be viewed as a substitute for needed reductions in long-lived greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) over the long term, but is relatively silent on the unique benefits that might be expected from changes in more near-term influences. The Council recommends a more thorough discussion of these implications and the desirability of placing a higher priority on the control of a short-term climate forcer such as black carbon in addition to controls on long-lived greenhouse gases. In closing, the Council agrees that meaningful reductions in short-term climate forcers such as black carbon could provide additional time for society to implement climate change adaptation as well as to transition to low-carbon economies."

 

    Among the many recommendations, the Council's report indicates:

• Based on the preponderance of available data, the Council suggests an affirmative statement that BC appears to warm climate and that BC mitigation will produce both health and climate benefits.
• The Report should expand the discussion of health effects associated with BC, drawing upon the particulate matter, traffic emissions and other relevant literature, and highlight the considerable health benefits that would derive from reductions in BC emissions. This health co-benefit may exceed climate-mediated benefits.
• The discussion of BC climate impacts should focus more on measures of climate response (such as changes in temperature and precipitation patterns), rather than on changes in radiative forcing, so that a broader set of impacts are considered and presented in terms that are meaningful to the generalist reader.
• The Report should articulate potential benefits to pursuing a goal of reducing short-term climate change or slowing the rate of change, as a complement to the existing policy goal of limiting the long-term increase in global mean temperature. The discussion of metrics should discuss how policy goals will influence the selection of appropriate metrics.
• The Report should discuss a broader range of BC mitigation approaches, including policies that could influence demand for sustainable transport, vehicle use generally, modal substitution, enhanced energy use efficiency, electrification using wind/water/solar, and improved fuel combustion and engine technologies.

    Access the Council's final report (click here)Access the Council website on the report and link to background, information on meetings and the 386-page draft report (click here). [#Air, #Climate]