Full House GOP Approves TRAIN Act & Amendments

Sep 23: As expected, despite strong opposition from House Democrats [See WIMS 9/21/11] and an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "Statement of Administration Policy" opposing and recommending a veto of H.R. 2401 -- the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 (i.e. the TRAIN Act), the U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 249 to 169 -- 230 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted for the bill; and 165 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted against it. The Latta amendment was agreed to by recorded vote of  227-192; and the Whitfield amendment was agreed to by recorded vote of 234-188.

 

    Republicans said the bill would "protect jobs and provide certainty to America's job creators"; while Democrats said the bill and amendments would "gut" the Clean Air Act. Representative Waxman said, "The Whitfield amendment will eviscerate the law's ability to require power plants to install modern pollution controls. The Latta amendment will reverse 40 years of clean air policy, allowing our national goals for clean air to be determined by corporate profits -- not public health."

 

    The bill passed with an amendment offered by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) relating to two costly new rules affecting our nation's power sector -- the Utility MACT rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA will be required to continue the current Clean Air Interstate program to achieve further emissions reductions, and to re-propose the Utility MACT rule to ensure it is achievable in the real world. Republicans said the amendment "provides much-needed regulatory relief to America's power sector and will ensure American families can keep the lights on. These two rules have been estimated to cost $17.8 billion annually and 1.4 million job-years by 2020."

   

    The TRAIN Act, introduced by Representatives John Sullivan (R-OK) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), requires an interagency committee to analyze the cumulative economic impacts of certain EPA rules to better understand how these regulations affect jobs, energy prices, electric reliability and America's overall global competitiveness.

    Representative Sullivan said, "As House Republicans move forward with a bold agenda to grow our economy and put Americans back to work, one issue that must be addressed is overregulation by the federal government. I strongly believe the Obama Administration is moving too fast and showing little regard for the economic consequences of their energy and environmental policies. I introduced this bipartisan legislation to protect American jobs—jobs that we are in danger of losing due to the Obama Administration's environmental regulatory agenda. The Train Act will force the EPA and other federal agencies to conduct an in-depth economic analysis of the rules and regulations so Congress and the American people can understand how the EPA's regulatory train wreck will impact our economy."

    The bill had strong support from the business community. In a September 22, letter to Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee, former Michigan Governor John Engler and now President of BRT said his organization strongly supported H.R. 2401 and urged "swift House passage of this important legislation." Engler said, "The TRAIN Act would require an interagency analysis of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules either pending or that recently have been finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pending completion of this analysis, the legislation also would stay the effectiveness of certain of the covered rules until at least six months after the day on which the interagency committee analysis has been finalized and transmitted to the Congress."  He concluded, "The TRAIN Act directly addresses this issue with respect to certain EPA regulations in a thoughtful and creative way. We strongly support this legislation." Business Roundtable (BRT) is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in annual revenues and more than 14 million employees.

   The OMB statement of opposition issued on September 21 indicates, "H.R. 2401 would undermine this progress by blocking EPA's ability to move forward with two long overdue CAA rules -- the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. . . EPA estimates that these two rules alone will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in net benefits each year. H.R. 2401 would block these rules and indefinitely delay these public health and economic benefits. . ."   

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources delivered a lengthy Floor statement on the bill saying in part, "This Republican led House has initiated a full throttle 'repeal-a-thon' that denies science, delays regulations, and deters efforts to protect the health and security of millions of Americans. We keep hearing from Republicans about how EPA's clean air standards to reduce mercury, lead, dioxins and other pollutants need to be economically analyzed and re-analyzed. They insist that even if a standard for one toxic chemical was met by an entire industrial sector, the removal of just one more poisonous chemical would cause a domino effect of problems for industry, from loss of domestic manufacturing capacity to job loss to loss of electric reliability.

    "And the solution to these supposed problems? It's a time tested Republican tradition. First, pass legislation that repeals regulations that have already been set. Second, require endless study of the cumulative impacts of all regulations on all industries. And finally, just for good measure, pass an amendment that guts the very underpinnings of the Clean Air Act. Make no mistake, that is what we are doing here today. . ."

    Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) President issued a statement saying, "Today the U.S. House of Representatives made a stark choice, and put pollution over children's health. The TRAIN Act, if it becomes law, will result in more than 25,000 premature deaths in the first year alone, due to smog, soot, and toxic air pollution. There will be more than 175,000 more asthma attacks, many of them in children. This was no less than a fight about the integrity of the Clean Air Act, and clean air lost. Opponents of these common sense rules make the patently false argument that we can't have both clean air and a strong economy. Actually, analysis has shown that the economic benefits of enforcing the Clean Air Act outweigh the costs 30 to 1. . ."

    Franz Matzner, climate and legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "The House effectively tied the health of our children and all Americans to the tracks and plowed right over us today. By blocking clean air provisions that have been in the works for years, the TRAIN Act derails protections that studies show would prevent tens of thousands of deaths and hospital visits and millions of lost work and school days. . . "Next in the GOP's crosshairs are protections that would limit the toxic pollution from cement plants and other industrial polluters. . ."

    Access a release from House Republicans on the passage of the bill (click here). Access the Floor statement from Rep. Sullivan's (click here) Access details of the roll call vote (click here). Access the support letter from BRT (click here). Access the OMB Statement of Administration Policy (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the Floor statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2401 (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
Businesses Rally Behind Regulatory Accountability Act
Business Roundtable On Reforming Federal Regulatory Process
GOP Members Grill Jackson On EPA Clean Air Regulations
U.S. Commits $55 million To Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
USGS Study Of Earth Acidification Mechanisms & Scales

House Rejects CR To Keep Government Running Past Sept. 30

Sep 21: In a surprise to the House leadership, the House refused to pass the continuing appropriations resolution (CR) to keep the Federal government operating until November 18, 2011. For procedural reasons, the CR was included as an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 to speed passage through the Senate. In substance, it is the same as the Continuing Resolution, H.J. Res. 79, introduced by Representative Hal Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, on September 14. Rep. Rogers said the bill would give Congress the time needed to complete Fiscal Year 2012. The Republican Continuing Resolution failed to pass the House by a vote of 195 to 230. If the CR fails to pass by the end of the month, the government would be forced to shut down. The CR would have continued government operations at a rate of $1.043 trillion -- the total amount agreed to by the Congress and the White House in the Budget Control Act.

 

    The controversial portion of the bill relates to how disaster assistance is funded. In a Floor statement, Chairman Rogers explained, ". . . this CR will help meet the needs of the thousands of families, businesses and communities burdened by recent natural disasters. By providing an immediate $1 billion in emergency 2011 funding now, as well as an additional $2.65 billion for the next year, we are helping our citizens get back on their feet. The $776 million in this bill for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund – which is $276 million more than the President or the Senate proposed -- is time-sensitive and critical. The DRF is now below $250 million, and is running out of money fast. Unless we provide additional funding within a matter of days, the DRF will soon be empty, leaving millions of people in the lurch.

    "The $1 billion in emergency funding for fiscal year 2011 has been offset by a cut to the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program, which has more than $4 billion in unspent funds in the pipeline. Now is the time to use these idle dollars for true and immediate purposes -- aiding our fellow citizens in their times of greatest needs as they cope with the aftermath of wildfires, tornados, earthquakes and hurricanes.

    "Now, the notion of offsetting emergency spending has gotten a lot of attention as of late. Let me be VERY clear: Offsetting emergency spending is not a unique practice. In fact, over the last ten years, this body has used offsets in at least 15 of 30 emergency supplemental spending bills. In total, Congress has passed over $60 billion in emergency offsets since 2001 -- most of which had large support on both sides of the aisle, including the support of our former Speaker Pelosi.

    "The loan program used as an offset in this bill has had excess funds for years, and taking the money will not negatively affect the program. All entities in final loan stages will still get the funding they've worked for. Furthermore, this offset is identical to the one already passed by the House in June as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

    "In addition, the Committee will continue to consider additional disaster funding over the next few weeks as we bring the fiscal year 2012 Appropriations process to a close – including reviewing estimates that are still coming in from recent disasters – so that families and communities can get the assistance they need while making sure that every dollar is well-spent. The Budget Control Act – which both houses in Congress and the White House agreed to – provides for 2012 disaster funding in this capacity.

    "But with respect to this Continuing Resolution, at this time, we do not have all the necessary information on the cost of recent disasters, nor the time to work out a final, comprehensive agreement with the White House and the Senate. Therefore, we must meet the most immediate need and provide additional funding now for FEMA to keep the program going for the next several months. That is what this Continuing Resolution does and why we -- the House and Senate -- must pass this bill immediately. . ."

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement after the vote saying, "the bill sets a dangerous precedent by offsetting the cost of critical disaster assistance for states and communities hard hit by recent natural disasters by ending the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program -- an initiative that puts people to work producing cleaner cars and investing in innovation." In a release she said, "Instead of creating jobs, the number one priority of the American people, this Republican bill would have cost good-paying jobs; that is why Democrats rejected it tonight. House Democrats will work tirelessly to create jobs, and Democrats will always provide Americans struggling in the aftermath of a disaster what they need to rebuild. The rejection of this bill that destroys jobs was bipartisan. The House Republican leadership should now bring to the floor a clean CR and the bipartisan relief package already passed by the Senate."

 

    The bill met with stiff opposition from most Democrats and 48 Republicans. Rep. Pelosi said in a Floor speech, ""All of the disasters that are happening at once -- we don't know when the next one will come -- but what is frightening also is that we don't know where this Majority wants to go to pay for it. I have serious objection to the payfor in this legislation. I have a bigger objection that we would have to pay for disaster. We never paid for the tax cuts for the rich. They never were paid for. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were never paid for. But all of a sudden we have to pay, to try to make whole these people who have been affected, who've lost everything. . ."

 

    In another Floor statement, Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Norman Dicks (D-WA) explained the importance of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program saying, "The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, the program has awarded $7.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee.

 

    "Some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the FY 2009 CR. I say the loan review process is -- and ought to be -- strenuous. One company originally applied under a different loan program in 2006 and received an Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan in 2010; it required four years of due diligence and review to qualify for the loan. By taking away ATVM funding because the program spent time to do due diligence, Republicans seem to be issuing an ultimatum to all loan programs: expedite the review process or see your funding transferred away.

 

    "By the way, the company in question employed about 400 workers before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the fields of engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance and service, sales, and support. The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50 - 60,000 more jobs in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. One pending application would support investments at 11 plants in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. The company employs over 56,000 workers, having added nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of these jobs will be at risk by using this offset. This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk."

 

    Access the Floor statement from Chairman Rogers (click here). Access a release from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access Rep. Pelosi's complete Floor statement (click here). Access Rep. Dicks complete Floor statement (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2608 (click here). [#All]

 

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

White House Statement Of Administration Policy Against TRAIN Act
Senate EPW Approves Gulf Coast Restoration Bill
Rep. Larson Introduces President's American Jobs Act
House Hearing On ANWR Development 
Public Environmental Concern Drops As Economic Worries Rise

Dems Strongly Oppose New TRAIN Act Amendments

Sep 20: House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Rush (D-IL) sent a letter to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) strenuously objecting to an amendment to the TRAIN Act [H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act (TRAIN Act) See WIMS 7/13/11] which they say "would make radical changes in Clean Air Act provisions. The amendment, sponsored by Representative Whitfield, was never considered in the Committee's hearing or markup process and would result in dramatic increases in toxic and other deadly air pollution." The Committee passed the bill on July 13, with a 33-13 vote; and it was subsequently reported on September 15. The bill is scheduled to be considered on the House Floor on Friday, September 23.

 

    In their letter the two minority members say, "During Committee consideration of TRAIN, Chairman Whitfield offered an amendment that fundamentally changed the bill. The legislation started as a requirement that a newly created government commission evaluate the cumulative impacts of EPA regulations. The Whitfield amendment turned this study bill into a substantive bill by indefinitely delaying two major Clean Air Act regulations, the utility MACT rule, which reduces mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, and the cross-state air pollution rule, which reduces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants that cross state boundaries and harm downwind communities' efforts to achieve healthy air quality.

    "We objected to Chairman Whitfield's amendment on both procedural and substantive grounds. On process, the substantive changes made by the amendment had not been subject to Committee consideration and were circulated to members less than a day before the markup, allowing no time for deliberate consideration. Chairman Whitfield's floor amendment is an even more egregious abuse of process. It makes radical changes in the Clean Air Act provisions that address toxic air emissions.  These changes have never been considered in hearings or debated in Committee. Members are being asked to vote on major changes to the Clean Air Act without any idea what they would do. . .

    "The provisions in section 112 of the Clean Air Act that control toxic emissions have been an enormous success since they were enacted in 1990.  EPA's regulations under these provisions have required most major sources of air toxics to reduce their emissions, cutting releases of these dangerous chemicals by 1.7 million tons per year.  To cite one example, EPA's actions have resulted in outdoor air concentrations of benzene, a carcinogen, dropping by over 50% since 1994. 

    "Chairman Whitfield's amendment fundamentally alters these provisions as applied to power plants by replacing them with a new approach that appears to be unworkable.  Current law requires EPA to set a standard for each regulated pollutant that is no less stringent than the actual emissions levels achieved on average for the best-performing 12%  of sources. This approach is data-driven and effective. It has been used to set standards for roughly 100 discrete categories of sources over the past two decades. The new language in Chairman Whitfield's amendment would require EPA to identify the 12% of sources in a source category that are best-performing "in the aggregate" for all toxic pollutants. . .  The Whitfield amendment makes other changes to the legislation that have not been considered by the Committee. It nullifies, rather than delays, two major air regulations, one finalized and one proposed, requiring EPA to start over on both. It significantly extends the bill's minimum time periods during which the rules may not be enforced from 15 months to seven years (for the mercury air toxics rule) and eight years (for the cross-state air pollution rule). It prohibits EPA from implementing any new rule under one section of the Act (section 110(a)(2)(D)) to address transported air pollution for at least eight years and bars any such rule under another section (section 126) for at least five years. It also requires EPA to allow unrestricted trading under any such program that is ultimately adopted regardless of whether downwind states actually experience the pollution reductions that are the purpose of such rule. 

    "The Committee has held no hearings on the cross-state air pollution rule or the issue of transported emissions. The Committee held one hearing on three air toxics rules, including the utility MACT rule, but that hearing did not address the fundamental changes included in the amendment. No legislative hearing was held on any of this language. This approach to legislating conflicts with our Committee's proud history of working together to address serious air pollution problems, and it makes a mockery of the Committee hearing process."

    Access a release and the letter from the Democratic members (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2401 (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
House Committee Approves Pipeline & Boiler, Cement MACT Bills
EPA Issues Shell Air Permits For Arctic Sea Drilling; Enviros Object
GOP Presses DOE On Solyndra; Execs Take The 5th
DOE Touts Jobs & Advances In Weatherization & Green Energy
Technology Roadmap On CCS In Industrial Applications
Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Service

EIA Releases International Energy Outlook 2011 (IEO2011)

Sep 19: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its 301-page International Energy Outlook 2011 (IEO2011) which  presents updated projections for world energy markets through 2035. The IEO2011 Reference case projection does not incorporate prospective legislation or policies that might affect energy markets. According to the analysis world marketed energy consumption grows by 53 percent from 2008 to 2035. Total world energy use rises from 505 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2008 to 619 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and 770 quadrillion Btu in 2035. Much of the growth in energy consumption occurs in countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (non-OECD nations) where demand is driven by strong long-term economic growth. Energy use in non-OECD nations increases by 85 percent in the Reference case, as compared with an increase of 18 percent for the OECD economies.

    Strong economic growth leads China and India to more than double their combined energy demand by 2035, accounting for one-half of the world's energy growth according to EIA's recently released International Energy Outlook 2011 (IEO2011). The IEO2011 projects that China and India together will consume 31% of the world's energy in 2035, up from 21% in 2008. China, which surpassed the United States as the world's largest energy consumer in 2009, is the predominant driver of growing energy demand. By 2035, China's projected energy consumption is 68% higher than U.S. energy consumption. Global energy consumption grows 53% between 2008 and 2035, representing an average annual growth rate of 1.6%.

    Energy growth varies greatly between developed and developing countries. Energy demand in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD nations, which was nearly the same in 2007, diverges sharply in the projection as non-OECD growth further accelerates, averaging 2.3% per year compared to only 0.6% per year for OECD nations. At this rate, non-OECD nations account for 83% of global growth and consume 67% more energy than OECD nations by 2035, although their energy consumption is still far lower on a per capita basis. Additional IEO2011 highlights include:

• Renewable energy is projected to be the fastest growing source of primary energy over the next 25 years, but fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy. Renewable energy consumption increases by 2.8 percent per year and the renewable share of total energy use increases from 10 percent in 2008 to 15 percent in 2035 in the Reference case. Fossil fuels, however, continue to supply much of the energy used worldwide throughout the projection, and still account for 78 percent of world energy use in 2035 While the Reference case projections reflect current laws and policies as of the start of 2011, past experience suggests that renewable energy deployment is often significantly affected by policy changes.
• World oil prices remain high in the IEO2011 Reference case, but oil consumption continues to grow; both conventional and unconventional liquid supplies are used to meet rising demand. In the IEO2011 Reference case the price of light sweet crude oil (in real 2009 dollars) remains high, reaching $125 per barrel in 2035. Total world petroleum and other liquids fuel use increases by 26.9 million barrels per day between 2008 and 2035, but the growth in conventional crude oil production is less than half this amount at 11.5 million barrels per day, while production of natural gas plant liquids increase by 5.1 million barrels per day, World production of unconventional resources (including biofuels, oil sands, extra-heavy oil, coal-to-liquids, and gas-to-liquids), which totaled 3.9 million barrels per day in 2008, increases to 13.1 million barrels per day in 2035.
• Natural gas has the fastest growth rate among the fossil fuels over the 2008 to 2035 projection period. World natural gas consumption increases 1.6 percent per year, from 111 trillion cubic feet in 2008 to 169 trillion cubic feet in 2035. Unconventional natural gas (tight gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane) supplies increase substantially in the IEO2011 Reference case -- especially from the United States, but also from Canada and China.

    Other report highlights include:

• From 2008 to 2035, total world energy consumption rises by an average annual 1.6 percent in the IEO2011 Reference case. Strong economic growth among the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations drives the increase. Non-OECD energy use increases by 2.3 percent per year; in the OECD countries energy use grows by only 0.6 percent per year.
• Petroleum and other liquid fuels remain the largest energy source worldwide through 2035, though projected higher oil prices erode their share of total energy use from 34 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2035.
• Projected petroleum consumption and prices are very sensitive to both supply and demand conditions. Higher economic growth in developing countries coupled with reduced supply from key exporting countries result in a High Oil Price case in which real oil prices exceed $169 per barrel by 2020 and approach $200 per barrel by 2035. Conversely, lower economic growth in developing countries coupled with increased supplies from key exporting countries result in a Low Oil Price case in which real oil prices fall to about $55 per barrel in 2015 and then gradually decline to $50 per barrel after 2030 where they remain through 2035.
• World coal consumption increases from 139 quadrillion Btu in 2008 to 209 quadrillion Btu in 2035, at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent in the IEO2011 Reference case. In the absence of policies or legislation that would limit the growth of coal use, China and, to a lesser extent, India and the other nations of non-OECD Asia consume coal in place of more expensive fuels. China alone accounts for 76 percent of the projected net increase in world coal use, and India and the rest of non-OECD Asia account for another 19 percent of the increase.
• Electricity is the world's fastest-growing form of end-use energy consumption in the Reference case, as it has been for the past several decades. Net electricity generation worldwide rises by 2.3 percent per year on average from 2008 to 2035. Renewables are the fastest growing source of new electricity generation, increasing by 3.0 percent and outpacing the average annual increases for natural gas (2.6 percent), nuclear power (2.4 percent), and coal (1.9 percent).
• The transportation sector accounted for 27 percent of total world delivered energy consumption in 2008, and transportation energy use increases by 1.4 percent per year from 2008 to 2035. The transportation share of world total liquids consumption increases from 54 percent in 2008 to 60 percent in 2035 in the IEO2011 Reference case, accounting for 82 percent of the total increase in world liquids consumption
• In the IEO2011 Reference case, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rise from 30.2 billion metric tons in 2008 to 43.2 billion metric tons in 2035 -- an increase of 43 percent. Much of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions is projected to occur among the developing nations of the world, especially in Asia.

    Access a release from EIA (click here). Access the complete 301-page report (click here). Access an overview with links to 10 separate presentations and more information (click here). Access a summary of the China-India projections (click here). [#Energy]

Hearings & Comments On Air Rules For Oil & Gas Drilling Operations
UN Chief Calls For Greater Commitment To Address Climate Change
25% Of New 2010 Homes Were Energy Star Compliant
DOE Secretary Addresses International Atomic Energy Agency
Industrial Giant Siemens Exits Nuclear Energy Business Worldwide
EPA Launches Green Products Web Portal
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

 

The President's Plan For Economic Growth & Deficit Reduction

Sep 19: In follow-up to President Obama's $447 billion American Jobs Act (AJA) announced on September 8 [See WIMS 9/9/11], today he released his 80-page Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction. According to a summary released by the White House, "The health of our economy depends on what we do right now to create the conditions where businesses can hire and middle-class families can feel a basic measure of economic security. In the long run, our prosperity also depends on our ability to pay down the massive debt the federal government has accumulated over the past decade." As promised when he announced the AJA, the President said his initiatives 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 sent his Plan to the Joint Committee "to jumpstart economic growth and job creation now – and to lay the foundation for it continue for years to come."

    In announcing his Plan the President said, "You know, last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy [See WIMS 9/15/11].  And to his credit, he made the point that we can't afford the kind of politics that says it's "my way or the highway." I was encouraged by that. Here's the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is 'only one option.'  And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America's technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse.  It would cripple our competiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. So the Speaker says we can't have it 'my way or the highway,' and then basically says, my way -- or the highway. That's not smart. It's not right.  If we're going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together."

    The President continued, "This is not class warfare.  It's math. The money is going to have to come from someplace.  And if we're not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more:  We've got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We've got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow.  We've got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling. That's unacceptable to me. That's unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch.  I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans.  And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable. . ."

    According to the summary, "The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction lives up to a simple idea: as a Nation, we can live within our means while still making the investments we need to prosper -- from a jobs bill that is needed right now to long-term investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. It follows a balanced approach: asking everyone to do their part, so no one has to bear all the burden. And it says that everyone -- including millionaires and billionaires -- has to pay their fair share. Overall, it pays for the President's jobs bill and produces net savings of more than $3 trillion over the next decade, on top of the roughly $1 trillion in spending cuts that the President already signed into law in the Budget Control Act -- for a total savings of more than $4 trillion over the next decade. This would bring the country to a place, by 2017, where current spending is no longer adding to our debt, debt is falling as a share of the economy, and deficits are at a sustainable level."

    In summary form the President's Plan proposes to produce approximately $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction net the cost of the American Jobs Act.

• $1.2 trillion from the discretionary cuts enacted in the Budget Control Act.
• $580 billion in cuts and reforms to a wide range of mandatory programs;
• $1.1 trillion from the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and transition from a military to a civilian-led mission in Iraq
• $1.5 trillion from tax reform
• $430 billion in additional interest savings

    To spur economic growth and job creation, the plan includes one-time investment and relief in the American Jobs Act.  That adds to the deficit in 2012 but is fully paid for over 10 years, and deficit reduction phases in starting in 2013, as the economy grows stronger. Deficit reduction is achieved in a balanced approach, with a spending cut to revenue ratio for the entire plan (including discretionary cuts) of 2 to 1.  

 

    On the revenue side of the President's proposal he calls for the Joint Committee to undertake comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the "Buffett Rule" that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.

 

    The tax reform should draw on the specific proposals the President has put forward, together with elimination of additional inefficient tax breaks. If the Joint Committee is unable to undertake comprehensive tax reform, the President indicated he believes the discrete measures he has proposed should be enacted on a standalone basis. "Their enactment as a standalone package still would significantly improve the country's fiscal standing, represent an important step toward more fundamentally transforming our tax code, and serve as a strong foundation for economic growth and job creation." 

 

    To advance the debate, the President is offering a detailed set of specific tax loophole closers and measures to broaden the tax base that, together with the expiration of the high-income tax cuts, would be more than sufficient to hit the $1.5 trillion target. These include: Allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for upper income earners to expire ($866 billion); Limiting deductions and exclusions for those making more than $250,000 a year ($410 billion); and Closing loopholes and eliminating special interest tax breaks (approximately $300 billion).

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) reacted immediately with a statement in response to the President's debt plan saying, "Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership. The Joint Select Committee is engaged in serious work to tackle a serious problem: the debt crisis that is making it harder to get our economy growing and create more American jobs.  Unfortunately, the President has not made a serious contribution to its work today. This administration's insistence on raising taxes on job creators and its reluctance to take the steps necessary to strengthen our entitlement programs are the reasons the president and I were not able to reach an agreement previously, and it is evident today that these barriers remain."

    Speaker Boehner included a note saying, "The President's proposal would raise taxes on both small businesses and on private capital, which is the essential ingredient for job creation in our economy. By declining to support structural improvements to strengthen our entitlement programs, the President has chosen to ignore the warnings about our debt crisis sent by the markets in August – leaving Americans exposed to the possibility of further downgrades that will further damage confidence and make it harder for our economy to grow and create jobs."

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also issued an immediate response saying, "Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth -- or even meaningful deficit reduction. The good news is that the Joint Committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House."

    Senator McConnell appeared on Meet the Press Sunday and commented on the President's $447 billion AJA proposal and said, in part, "Right now, we've got -- we've thrown a big, wet blanket over the private sector economy. We've borrowed too much. We've spent too much. We're dramatically overregulating every aspect of the private sector in our country and now we're threatening to raise taxes on top of it. That's not going to get the economy moving. . . I mean, if you look at the stimulus bill, David, what did we get out of that? Turtle tunnels and Solyndra. Solyndra. Look, more money was lost on Solyndra than came to my state to fix roads and bridges out of the entire stimulus package last year. And now he's asking us to do it again. One of my favorite sayings here in Kentucky, out in the rural areas, is there's no education in the second kick of a mule. I mean, we've been there. We've done that. Now he's asking us to do it again. I'm trying to get him to go in a different direction."

     American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard issued a statement saying, "President Obama's call for higher taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry would undercut efforts to create jobs." He said, "The president's plan to raise taxes would destroy jobs and drive investment out of the United States. It's ironic that in his search for revenues, the president overlooks the revenues available from increased access to domestic oil and natural gas. Rather than raising taxes on a single industry, he could raise revenues, create jobs and strengthen our energy security. With one stroke of his pen, the president could allow the oil and natural gas industry to create a million new American jobs in just the next seven years.  This could also generate $127 billion in new revenue to the government. . ."

    John Engler, president of Business Roundtable (BRT) issued a statement saying, "With the current, anemic economic conditions, the unemployment rate will remain consistently high and tax receipts will remain low unless the focus shifts to long-term policies and economic growth. The uncertainty created by the threat of even higher taxes helps neither job creation nor growth. . . We remain convinced that a lower corporate rate and a competitive territorial system are essential elements of successful economic growth strategy."

    Access a fact sheet overview of the President's Plan (click here). Access a summary with links from Jack Lew is Director of the Office of Management and Budget (click here). Access the complete 80-page Plan (click here). Access the statement from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access Senator McConnell's statement (click here); and Meet the Press excerpts (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access the statement from BRT (click here). [#All]

NPC Major Report On Developing Natural Gas & Oil Resources

Sep 15: A major new report by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), a Federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, indicates that, significant technology advances have unlocked abundant natural gas and oil resources, but the potential benefits "can only be realized if developed prudently." The report entitled, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America's Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, was approved at the 121st meeting of the NPC held in Washington, DC, on September 15. The sole purpose of the Council is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, at his request, on matters relating to natural gas and oil or to the natural gas and oil gas industries.

 

     Jim Hackett, Chairman and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Chair of the NPC's Resource Development Committee, which conducted the study at the request of Department of Energy (DOE), "This landmark study represents a comprehensive and candid view of our nation's energy future that we hope will serve as an important tool in creating an informed energy policy for America. Prudent development of our domestic energy resources, particularly natural gas and oil, drives economic development, creates jobs, and enhances our nation's energy security, and this report recognizes those opportunities, as well as candidly addresses the challenges and potential solutions. It also suggests that natural gas is a good near-term answer for reducing America's carbon footprint."

 

    The 18-month study of North American natural gas and oil resources involved more than 400 experts from diverse backgrounds and organizations, the majority of them from outside the oil and gas industry. DOE Secretary Steven Chu, who asked the NPC to conduct the study, expressed his appreciation for the broad diversity of participants and extensive outreach efforts in its development.

 

    The study came to four major conclusions. First, the potential supply of North American natural gas is far bigger than was thought even a few years ago; Second – and perhaps surprising to many – America's oil resources are also proving to

be much larger than previously thought; Third, we need these natural gas and oil resources even as efficiency reduces energy demand and alternatives become more economically available on a large scale; and Fourth, realizing the benefits of natural gas and oil depends on environmentally responsible development.

 

    The report indicates that, "The critical path to sustained and expanded resource development in North America includes effective regulation and a commitment of industry and regulators to continuous improvement in practices to eliminate or minimize environmental risk. These steps are necessary for public trust. Recognizing that access to available resources can be undermined by safety and environmental incidents, all industry participants must continually improve their environmental, safety, and health practices, preserving the benefits of greater access for the industry, consumers, and all other stakeholders."

 

    Philip Sharp, Resources for the Future President and NPC study Vice Chair said, "this report affirms the importance to the country of developing our resources in a prudent way, and builds on the proactive efforts of industry to mitigate environmental, health, and safety concerns." The NPC proposed five core strategies:

• Support prudent development and regulation of natural gas and oil resources through such measures as councils of excellence covering environmental, safety, and health practices; corporate and regulatory commitment to advancing environmental performance; engaging affected communities; reducing methane emissions; and structuring policies to support prudent development of and access to resources.
• Better reflect environmental impacts in markets and fuel/technology choices by recognizing that the United States will find it difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions further without a mechanism for putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions that is economy-wide, market-based, predictable, transparent, and part of a global framework; keeping options open for carbon capture and sequestration; and developing information and methodologies on environmental footprints and full fuel cycle impacts.
• Enhance the efficient use of energy through policies that support continued progress to adopt cost-effective efficiency standards for buildings and appliances; remove the disincentives for utilities to deploy efficiency measures; and eliminate barriers to combined heat and power as a way to increase the efficiency of electricity production.
• Enhance the functioning of energy markets through policies and regulations that improve mechanisms for utilities to manage the impacts of price volatility; harmonize market rules and service arrangements between the wholesale natural gas and wholesale electric markets; and increase environmental regulatory certainty affecting investments and fuel choices in the power sector.
• Support the development of a skilled workforce through increased public and private financial support for educational and training activities.

    Erik Milito, director of the American Petroleum Institute's (API) upstream group, said the NPC report adds significant weight to API's belief in the enormous potential for oil and natural gas in North America. He said, "This report supports what our industry has been saying for some time -- including last week in a letter to the president -- that with policies that encourage responsible development of new and existing oil and natural gas resources, we could create 1.1 million additional jobs by 2020. It is our hope that the nation's leaders read this report and understand that the United States can greatly enhance its energy security, create jobs and provide more government revenue through effective policy that allows environmentally safe access to domestic resources. Our industry is committed to ensuring safe and environmentally responsible development of these domestic resources to help meet our nation's economic and energy needs."

 

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement on the report indicating it, ". . . provides yet another verification that new domestic supplies of natural gas, particularly shale gas, have the potential to kick-start economic growth, revitalize our nation's manufacturing sector and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Shale gas is proving to be a game-changer for America's chemistry industry, giving domestic chemical manufacturers a significant competitive edge for the first time in years -- new investments and new plants have already be[en] planned and announced by several U.S. chemical companies. . . The full potential from shale gas will only be realized with sound state regulatory policies that allow for aggressive production in an environmentally responsible way. We support efforts to continually improve production processes, including the use of best practices. Chemistry makes many of these advanced production technologies possible."  

 

    Access a release from NPC release (click here). Access the complete report including Transmittal Letter, Preface, Executive Summary and , description of the NPC, NPC membership and study roster (click here). Access the NPC website for more information including a slide show and additional information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). [#Energy/Oil, #Energy/NatGas]

 

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

Speaker Boehner Lays Out GOP Plan In Lieu Of President's Jobs Act

Sep 15: In a lengthy address to the Economic Club of Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), basically offered an alternative to the President's American Jobs Act and called for bipartisan action to "Liberate America's Economy" from "the shackles of excessive regulation, higher taxes, and out-of-control spending that are stifling private-sector economic growth and job creation." The Speakers proposal comes as Republican opposition to the President's plan is growing [See WIMS 9/13/11] and some Democrats are also beginning the to question the proposals. Speaker Boehner proposed eliminating a number of regulations, revising the tax code and reducing spending. He also laid out an agenda for the Joint Select Committee of Congress now meeting under the Budget Control Act to identify $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving. He said tax increases are off the table and they should focus on principles for tax code revisions and reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Speaker's Plan directly confronts the President's Plan in many areas and generally assures that the Joint Committee and American Jobs Act are headed for serious political confrontation and deadlock.

 

    Speaker Boehner said, "We all know the economy is stalled, and it's been stalled. And it's not because the American people have lost their way. It's because their government has let them down. Last week the president put forth a new set of proposals. The House will consider them, as the American people expect. Some of the president's proposals offer opportunities for common ground. But let's be honest with ourselves. The president's proposals are a poor substitute for the pro-growth policies that are needed to remove barriers to job creation in America…the policies that are needed to put America back to work.

 

    "If we want job growth, we need to recognize who really creates jobs in America. It's the private-sector. This building is named in memory of President Ronald Reagan, who recognized that private sector job creators are the heart of our economy. They always have been. That was the America I was raised in. My father and grandfather were small businessmen. They ran a tavern in Cincinnati that my grandpa started in the 1930s. I worked in that tavern growing up. I ran a small business myself. I know what it takes to meet a payroll, hire workers, and create jobs in the private sector.

 

    "There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy that leads to a lot of bad decisions in Washington, D.C. The reality is that employers will hire if they have the right incentives, but the incentives have to outweigh the costs. Businesses are not going to hire someone for a $4000 tax credit if government mandates impose long-term costs on them that significantly exceed the temporary credit. In recent years, such mandates have been overwhelming. Private-sector job creators of all sizes have been pummeled by decisions made in Washington. They've been slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that is always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating. They've been hurt by a government that offers short-term gimmicks rather than fundamental reforms that will encourage long-term economic growth. . .

 

    "I can tell you the American people -- private-sector job creators in particular -- are rattled by what they've seen out of this town over the last few years. My worry is that for American job creators, all the uncertainty is turning to fear that this toxic environment for job creation is a permanent state. Job creators in America are essentially on strike. The problem is not confusion about the policies. . .the problem is the policies.

 

    "We need to liberate our economy from the shackles of Washington. Let our economy grow! . . . The first aspect of this threat is excessive regulation. . . We all know some regulations are needed. We have a responsibility under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. There are reasonable regulations that protect our children and help keep our environment clean. And then there are excessive regulations that unnecessarily increase costs for consumers and small businesses. Those excessive regulations are making it harder for our economy to create jobs."

   

    "At this moment, the Executive Branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of at least $100 million — 219 times. I think it's reasonable to ask: is it wise to be doing all of this right now? The current regulatory burden coming out of Washington far exceeds the federal government's constitutional mandate. And it's hurting job creation in our country at a time when we can't afford it.

 

    "Government's threat to job creation has two other components. One is the current tax code, which [] discourages investment and rewards special interests. It strikes me as odd that at a time when it's clear that the tax code needs to be fundamentally reformed, the first instinct out of Washington is to come up with a host of new tax credits that make the tax code more complex. The final aspect of the threat is the spending binge in Washington. It has created a massive debt crisis that poses a direct threat to our country's ability to create jobs and prosper. . ."

 

    "The Budget Control Act of 2011, signed into law last month, establishes a Joint Select Committee of Congress for the purpose of identifying $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. . . The Joint Select Committee can tackle tax reform, and it should. It's probably not realistic to think the Joint Committee could rewrite the tax code by November 23. But it can certainly lay the groundwork by then for tax reform in the future that will enhance the environment for economic growth. . . Tax increases, however, are not a viable option for the Joint Committee. It's a very simple equation. Tax increases destroy jobs. And the Joint Committee is a jobs committee. Its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country. The Joint Committee can achieve real deficit reduction by reforming entitlements and taking real action to preserve and strengthen Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. . ."

 

    Access the full text of Speaker Boehner's address (click here). [#All]

 

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

Solyndra's Failure & Impacts On Alternative Energy Futures

Sep 14: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on "Solyndra and the DOE Loan Guarantee Program" as part of its seven month investigation into DOE's $535 million stimulus loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt solar company involved in the manufacturing of cylindrical, thin-film, solar cells. Last year, Solyndra was recognized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review as one of the "50 Most Innovative Companies in the World" and included by the Wall Street Journal in its review "The Next Big Thing: Top 50 Venture Backed Companies."

 

    The hearing included testimony from: Jeffrey Zients, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget; and Jonathan Silver, Executive Director, Loans Programs Office, U.S. Department of Energy. Solyndra President and CEO Brian Harrison and Senior Vice President and CFO W.G. Stover, Jr. were invited to testify but did not appear; however, counsels for Harrison and Stover assured the panel that both Solyndra executives will appear voluntarily to testify before the Oversight Subcommittee the week of September 19.

    Solyndra was awarded the first stimulus DOE loan in the spring of 2009 and has been widely promoted as a stimulus jobs "success story" ever since; with President Obama visiting the plant in May 2010. Solyndra announced its bankruptcy on August 31, 2011, and was the subject of an FBI raid on September 8, 2011. House Republicans indicated in a release indicated that, "Despite partisan roadblocks and repeated pushback, protest, and misleading claims on Solyndra's viability by administration officials, company executives, and Congressional Democrats, the Energy and Commerce Committee has continued investigating the highly publicized loan guarantee."

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) issued the following statement ahead of the hearing saying, "Solyndra was the hallmark of the President's green jobs program and widely promoted by the administration as a stimulus success story, right up until its bankruptcy and FBI raid. We had a sense Solyndra was a bad bet from the beginning and its failure raises significant red flags for the entire loan guarantee program. It is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in the market. With taxpayers potentially on the hook for this half-billion dollar bust, it's time to sound the alarm about the remaining $10 billion in loan guarantees set to expire September 30. Let's learn the lessons of Solyndra before another dollar goes out the door." 

    In an opening statement at the hearing, Chairman Upton said, "We started looking into the DOE Loan Guarantee program and Solyndra's deal in February. Some questioned the basis for this investigation. After four months of wrangling with the Obama Administration to produce relevant documents, the Committee was forced to issue a subpoena to OMB. I think Solyndra's recent

bankruptcy filing and last week's FBI raid clearly show that the Committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of this deal. Pursuant to our oversight functions, we have an important responsibility to pursue answers regarding the use of the taxpayer's money.

 

    "Our investigation raises several questions about whether the Administration did everything it could to protect taxpayer dollars. Why did the Administration think Solyndra was such a good bet? Why did the Administration push ahead with restructuring the Solyndra guarantee this year, when some in the government voiced serious concerns about the commercial viability of the company? Why did DOE and OMB allow the government to be subordinated to the private investors, in apparent violation of the law?. . .

 

    "Was Solyndra just one bad bet by an Administration rushing to claim credit for the first loan guarantee, or is it the tip of the iceberg? DOE has closed over $8 billion in loan guarantees to other "green tech" companies, and it has about $10 billion left to spend in the next few weeks, before the September 30 deadline. If the administration was so wrong about Solyndra after nine months of due diligence, how can it possibly exercise the proper controls when doling out $10 billion dollars in a matter of weeks?. . ."

 

    Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the full Committee issued an opening statement saying, "Taxpayers have over $500 million at risk as a result of Solyndra's bankruptcy. We need to understand what happened, who should be held accountable, and how we avoid future losses. We also need to ask whether Solyndra misled federal officials. In July, the company's CEO met with me in my office. He assured me the company was in a strong financial condition and in no danger of failing. In fact, he said the company was going to double its revenues in 2011. I have a hard time reconciling those representations with the company's decision to file for bankruptcy one month later. Committee staff have now reviewed thousands of pages of internal documents from the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget. They raise a number of questions.

 

    "The documents show that under both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, DOE officials strongly backed Solyndra. They believed its silicon-free solar panels offered cost savings and its tubular shape reduced installation costs. And they thought the internal reviews they conducted and the external studies they commissioned showed Solyndra could compete successfully in the global marketplace. . ."

 

    Rep. Waxman indicated in his statement that by late 2010, both DOE and OMB knew Solyndra was facing difficulty meeting its loan obligations. This triggered a vigorous internal debate about what the government should do to protect the taxpayer. DOE projected that an immediate liquidation would return less than 20 cents on the dollar to the government, so it favored restructuring because of the potential for recovering more of the taxpayer's investment. Some OMB officials, though, warned against restructuring on the grounds that it might not be enough to avoid bankruptcy and default.

 

    Aside from the factual and legal matters of the Solyndra issue which appear to have bipartisan concerns, Rep. Waxman highlighted the policy considerations and differences between Republican and Democratic positions. He said, "I disagree vehemently, however, with the policy conclusion my Republicans colleagues have already drawn. They say the collapse of Solyndra shows the folly of federal investments in solar and other clean energy technologies. And they argue the government should not pick 'winners' and 'losers' in the energy marketplace. This sounds superficially appealing, but there is a fundamental flaw in their logic. The majority of Republicans on this Committee deny that climate change is real. If you are a science denier, there is no reason for government to invest in clean energy. . ."

 

    OMB testified, "With respect to the Solyndra loan guarantee, OMB's approval of DOE's proposed credit subsidy cost was conducted in August and September of 2009. . . it is my understanding that OMB's review of the cost estimate was informed by the terms and conditions of the loan guarantee agreement, a credit rating report from an independent credit rating agency, additional independent reports on the engineering aspects of and market conditions surrounding Solyndra's proposal, and a proposed credit subsidy cash flow analysis by DOE. . .

 

    "In February 2011, DOE undertook a restructuring of Solyndra's debt in light of acute financial troubles the company was experiencing. . . OMB determined that DOE's analysis was reasonable, and reflected the information as it was understood at that time. . . Since then, a challenging global solar market has continued to affect a number of solar manufacturers, including Solyndra. The company's recent announcement that it was suspending operations and filing for bankruptcy. . . will limit the Government's recovery of funds loaned to the company. . . Congress designed the Title XVII loan guarantee program to fund innovative clean energy projects that might not otherwise receive the necessary capital for deployment. The program envisions that while some of these projects might not succeed, others will contribute to the United States' ability to achieve its clean energy goals. . ."

 

    DOE testified that "Solyndra submitted its initial application in 2006, and much of the extensive due diligence on the transaction was conducted between 2006 and the end of 2008. By late 2008, Solyndra was considered by those involved in the DOE loan programs to be the project most advanced in the due diligence process, and the likely recipient of the program's first loan guarantee. . . After the Obama Administration took office, the loan programs' staff, and their advisors, continued their comprehensive review of the transaction and, in March 2009, on the exact timeline that had been developed during the Bush Administration, the program issued Solyndra a conditional commitment for a $535 million loan guarantee."

 

    DOE said that, "Unfortunately, changes in the solar market have only accelerated in 2011, since the restructuring -- making it much more difficult for the company to compete. Chinese companies have flooded the market with inexpensive panels, and Europe — currently the largest customer base for solar panels -- has suffered from an economic crisis that has significantly reduced demand and forced cuts in subsidies for solar deployment that were important to Solyndra's business model. The result has been a further and unprecedented 42% drop in solar cell prices in the first eight months of 2011. . . Without DOE's agreement to restructure Solyndra's loan, the company likely would have faced bankruptcy much earlier -- in December 2010. . ."

 

    DOE summed up saying, "While we are all disappointed in the outcome, securing America's leadership in this vital new industry requires that we support innovation and deployment. Solyndra's situation should not overshadow the great work that the Department's loan programs have done to date, or the need to continue to find ways to support clean energy in this country. .  . developing a robust clean energy manufacturing sector in the United States is crucial to our long-term national interests, and we need to ensure that American companies and workers are given the tools they need to succeed in this competitive space. . . This isn't picking 'winners' and 'losers' -- it is helping ensure that we have winners here at all. We invented this technology, and we should produce it here."

    Access the prehearing statement from House Republicans (click here). Access Republican hearing website for a background memos, a slide show, opening statements from Reps. Upton & Stearns and the witness testimony (click here). Access a Republican Committee collection of news reports on the Solynda issue (click here). Access Democrat hearing website for an opening statement from Rep. Waxman, videos and the witness testimony (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

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

Republican Back Lash Growing To Obama's American Jobs Act

Sep 13: As President Obama traveled to Columbus, OH to push for his $447 billion American Jobs Act [See WIMS 9/9/11] and urged Congress to pass the Act with "No Games. No Politics. No Delays."; Republican opposition to the proposal seems to be building.

    At a press conference with Republican leaders, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warned against using "permanent tax increases…to pay for temporary spending," as President Obama has proposed. Speaker Boehner said, "The House is going to continue to work to create a better environment for economic development and job growth in our country. We're going to consider legislation this week that would stop the government from telling companies where and where they cannot locate. And we'll also have the Congressional Budget Office looking at the President's proposal as we prepare for hearings in the House on his proposal. 

 

    "As a former small businessman myself, I can tell you that we've got a little different approach to creating jobs than our friends across the aisle. When you look at what we saw in the President's pay-fors yesterday, we see permanent tax increases put into effect in order to pay for temporary spending. I just don't think that's going to help our economy the way it could. And the fact is, is that having talked to thousands of people over the August recess, and thousands of employers over the same recess, what the American employers want is they want some certainty about what's happening in Washington, certainty about what the tax rates [are] going to be, certainty about what their health care costs and commitments are going to be and certainty about the regulatory onslaught that they're under. These are the kind of things that I think need to be addressed if we're going to create the kind of environment where employers will feel comfortable in adding more employees to their company."

 

    On the Senate side, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, ""Last week, President Obama came up to Capitol Hill to unveil a stimulus bill he's calling a jobs plan; and yesterday, the White House explained how they'd like to pay for it. The first thing to say about this plan is that it's now obvious why the President left out the specifics last week. Not only does it reveal the political nature of this bill, it also reinforces the growing perception that this administration isn't all that interested in economic policies that will actually work. But none of this is really news. Over the past few days, press reports have made it perfectly clear that this legislation is more of a reelection plan than a jobs plan. It's an open secret which Democrats all over Washington have been acknowledging to reporters since the moment the President unveiled it. . .

 

    "But the specifics we got yesterday only reinforce the impression that this was largely a political exercise. For one, they undermine the President's claim that it's a bipartisan proposal — because much of what he's proposing has already been rejected on a bipartisan basis. The half-trillion dollar tax hike the White House proposed yesterday will not only face a tough road in Congress among Republicans, but from Democrats too. . . The President can call this bill whatever he wants. But in reality, all he's really doing is just proposing a hodge-podge of retread ideas aimed at convincing people that a temporary fix is really permanent and that it will create permanent jobs. And then daring Republicans to vote against it. . ."

 

    Access the release from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access the statement from Senator McConnell (click here). Access information from the White House on the American Jobs Act including state by state impacts (click here). [#All]

 

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