Enviros Comment On "Bittersweet" Ruling On 4(d) Polar Bear Rule

Oct 17: In response to a challenge brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife, a Federal judge struck down a Bush administration rule that exempted greenhouse gas emissions from regulation under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, for the D.C. District, ruled that the Department of the Interior (DOI) violated the environmental review provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it issued a special rule that excluded from regulation activities occurring outside the range of the polar bear, such as greenhouse gas emissions from polluting facilities like coal plants.

    The groups reported, however, the court also held that DOI had broad discretion when crafting species-specific rules and therefore did not substantively violate the ESA in adopting the exemption for the polar bear. A similar interim rule issued simultaneously with listing of the polar bear as threatened in May 2008 remains in place until Interior complies with NEPA by completing a new environmental impact statement and issues a new final rule. The polar bear was the first species added to the endangered species list solely because of threats to the species from global warming. The groups said the ruling does not limit the applicability of the ESA to greenhouse gas emissions affecting species listed as endangered under the Act or to other threatened species for which Interior has not issued a specific exemption.

    Brendan Cummings at CBD commented, "Today's decision squarely places the fate of the polar bear back in the hands of the Obama administration. Rather than continue to defend an ill-conceived Bush-era rule, the Obama administration should take this opportunity to carefully craft a new rule that meaningfully addresses greenhouse gas emissions, the primary threat to the polar bear." Andrew Wetzler, director of the Lands and Wildlife program for NRDC said, "Now that the Department of the Interior must weigh in for the first time with full environmental analysis, the Obama administration is going to own this issue. It affords the president an opportunity to show he is serious about dealing with climate change and protecting wildlife. The court's ruling means the Obama administration won't be able to hide behind Bush-era policies on an issue the public clearly cares about."

    John Hocevar, oceans director at Greenpeace said, "The court's decision is bittersweet -- it acknowledges the devastating impact of global warming on polar bears and requires further review of the 4(d) rule, but stops short of fully disallowing an exemption for greenhouse gases. We will redouble our efforts to protect the polar bear's Arctic Ocean habitat, and continue to press the Obama administration to use all available tools, including the Endangered Species Act, to address greenhouse emissions and the climate crisis."

    On May 8, 2009, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar announced that he would retain the controversial special rule issued in December 2008, under the Bush Administration for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act [See WIMS 5/8/09]. But DOI said it would closely monitor the implementation of the rule to determine if additional measures are necessary to conserve and recover the polar bear and its habitat. Salazar said at the time, "To see the polar bear's habitat melting and an iconic species threatened is an environmental tragedy of the modern age. This administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear. I have reviewed the current rule, received the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and concluded that the best course of action for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is to wisely implement the current rule, monitor its effectiveness, and evaluate our options for improving the recovery of the species." At the same time, Salazar had received a letter from 53 law professors from around the country urging him to rescind the "special rule" created by the Bush administration which they said sharply limits protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

 

    In the case , Judge Sullivan explained, "Plaintiffs claim, first, that the Service's Special Rule violates the ESA because it fails to provide for the conservation of the polar bear. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the Service cannot effectively provide for the conservation of the polar bear without addressing global greenhouse gas emissions, which the agency itself identified as the cause of increasing Arctic temperatures that are expected to lead to a significant decline of the polar bear's sea ice habitat. Plaintiffs argue that the Service purposely and unlawfully crafted its Special Rule in such a way as to avoid addressing this threat, in contravention of the ESA's conservation mandate. The Court understands plaintiffs' frustration. However, as this Court has previously observed, climate change poses unprecedented challenges of science and policy on a global scale, and this Court must be at its most deferential where the agency is operating at the frontiers of science. . .

 

    "The question before the Court, then, is whether the Service reasonably concluded that its Special Rule provides for the conservation of the polar bear even if it does not reverse the trend of Arctic sea ice loss. . . the Court is persuaded that the

agency has done so. Accordingly, with respect to plaintiffs' ESA claim, the Court denies plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants the federal defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motions for summary judgment. . .

 

    "In addition to their claims under the ESA, plaintiffs claim that the Service violated NEPA by failing to analyze the potential environmental impacts of its Special Rule, which is generally required for all 'major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.' 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). With respect to this claim, the Court agrees with plaintiffs. The Court declines to recognize the broad NEPA exemption that the federal defendants urge. Accordingly. . . the Court finds that the Service was required to conduct at least an initial assessment to determine whether its Special Rule for the polar bear warranted a full 'environmental impact statement' (EIS). Here, the Service conducted no analysis whatsoever; as a result, its Special Rule for the polar bear violates NEPA.

 

    "Accordingly, with respect to plaintiffs' NEPA claim, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denies the federal defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that vacatur of the final Special Rule is the appropriate remedy for the Service's NEPA violation. Upon vacatur of the final Special Rule [i.e. December 16, 2008], the prior May 15, 2008, interim final Special Rule for the polar bear shall remain in effect until further Order of the Court." 

 

    Access a release from the environmental groups (click here). Access the Doc No. 283 memorandum opinion (click here)Access a 5/2009 release from DOI and link to a Section 4(d) Q&A document (click here). Access the DOI Polar Bear Conservation and Management website (click here). [#Wildlife, #Climate]

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

GOP & Dems Continue Debate Over Solyndra Loan Guarantee

Oct 14: The House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Chaired by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) held a hearing on "Continuing Developments Regarding the Solyndra Loan Guarantee." [See WIMS 9/14/11]. Despite requests from Democrats for representation from the Department of Energy, the Subcommittee only heard testimony from two witnesses from the Department of Treasury.

    The Treasury Department testified about that Agency's belief that DOE violated the 2005 Energy Policy Act when restructuring the loan to the now-bankrupt Solyndra of a $535 million taxpayer guaranteed loan and, in the restructuring, placed taxpayers at the back of the line so that private investors would be the first to recoup losses on the company. Republican Members indicated that Treasury officials agreed to testify after the White House last Friday (October 7) "unloaded a significant new document production, including alarming emails from Treasury and OMB personnel expressing frustration that DOE had failed to communicate with them regarding the Solyndra loan guarantee or consult with the Department of Justice, as Treasury had advised. Moreover, the Treasury and OMB officials' emails clearly indicate they believe DOE's legal justification for placing taxpayers at the back of the line was inconsistent with their interpretation of the law."
 
    Republican Members cite a December 15, 2010 email, from senior officials at OMB questioning the legality of DOE's restructuring, writing: "There are some questions at the staff level about how DOE is going about the restructuring for Solyndra. At least one involves the legal question of what 1703(d) (3) means for their plan to make some of the debt 'junior' to the new debt. … I think they have stretched this definition beyond its limits." The Members indicate that the emails refer to a legal analysis prepared by DOE to justify its decision to place private investors ahead of taxpayers in the event of Solyndra's bankruptcy, despite a clear prohibition of such 'subordination' of the taxpayers' obligation in the law. 
 
    A Senior Treasury lawyer offered additional commentary on DOE's actions, writing in an August 16, 2011, email: "I would bet a quarter that the DOE lawyers have some kind of theory on how whatever restructuring they have done and whatever they are considering doing does not violate these requirements. Cant wait to hear it." Chairman Cliff Stearns said after the hearing, "I have never seen anything like this in all my years in Congress -- here we have one cabinet level agency concerned that another has broken the law, and taxpayers are on the hook for half a billion dollars as a result."

    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said in part, "What we have seen so far suggests that DOE essentially ignored Treasury after signing off on the $535 million loan guarantee. The documents also reveal a Department of Energy fervently steering more taxpayer cash to Solyndra with complete disregard to the alarm bells coming from Treasury and others within the Obama administration. DOE apparently stonewalled Treasury, failing or refusing to turn over information related to Solyndra's restructuring. . . The Department of Energy has a lot more explaining to do, and we will hear from them again soon. Unfortunately, we also have to ask: how many more Solyndras are there? Were other warning flags ignored, and risky gambles made with the taxpayers' hard-earned money?. . ."

    Full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "The Committee has received a six-page document from the Department of Energy that explains the Department's legal rationale for subordination. We asked last week if the majority would object if we released this document so the public could understand DOE's rationale. The majority objected. They did not want the public to see DOE's explanation. On Wednesday, the Democratic staff asked the Republican staff if there would be an objection if we included a discussion of the DOE legal memorandum in the background memorandum we provide to Democratic members. Again, the Republicans objected. They asked us to withhold this critical information -- DOE's legal rationale for its actions -- from our own members. And yesterday, the Republicans said they don't believe this memo should be made public at this time. This investigation is beginning to resemble a kangaroo court. . . I don't object to an investigation into Solyndra. Based on the record to date, I don't see evidence of wrongful conduct by government officials, just a bad investment decision. . ."

    According to the DOE legal analysis as contained in the memos referred to by Rep. Waxman, "On the current facts, the Loan Programs Office has determined that the proposed restructuring offers the best prospect of eventual repayment in full of the Borrower's obligations under the Loan Guarantee Agreement, and is demonstrably preferable to a liquidation of the Borrower. In light of that determination, we conclude that the proposed subordination of the Borrower's obligations to DOE is consistent with both the text and the purposes of Title XVII. . ."
 
    Access a release from Committee Republicans with links to the email, the Solyndra Restructuring Legal Memo and the second version Solyndra Restructuring Legal Memo (click here). Access the Republican website for the hearing with background documents, opening statements, witness testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the Democratic website for the hearing with links to opening statements and the DOE Memos (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

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

House Approves H.R.2250 To Delay "Boiler MACT" Rules

Oct 13: The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R.2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act (i.e. Boiler MACT bill) by a vote of 275-142 -- 234 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted for the bill; and 142 Democrats voted against it. The proposal would direct EPA to develop achievable standards affecting non-utility boilers and incinerators and grants additional time for development of and compliance with the rules. The legislation would stay the boiler and incinerator rules and calls for EPA to repropose the rules within 15 months and extend compliance times from 3 to 5 years [See WIMS 6/22/11]. The bill had been scheduled for passage on October 12, but was delayed [See WIMS 10/12/11].

 

    The House Energy & Commerce Committee Republicans issued a release indicating that, "The Obama administration recently issued a series of multi-billion dollar regulations affecting tens of thousands of manufacturing and industrial facilities nationwide. H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, offers a common-sense alternative approach to these rules, providing America's job creators with much-needed regulatory relief." Republicans said the bill, introduced by Representatives Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), "will preserve hundreds of thousands of jobs currently at risk from EPA's boiler MACT rules. To protect jobs and produce sensible environmental safeguards, this legislation gives EPA time to re-propose and finalize new rules so that standards and timelines for reducing emissions from industrial boilers and incinerators are achievable for real world facilities."

"H.R. 2250 helps lift the burden of excessive regulations on America's job creators," said Rep. Griffith. "Unreasonable regulations – like the currently written Boiler MACT rules – are threatening jobs across the nation and creating uncertainty for businesses. The investments required by these rules are irreversible. For those businesses that decide to stop producing their product at a particular location, the job losses are also irreversible. The good news here is that excessive regulations are reversible and fixable. H.R. 2250 is an opportunity to fix these regulations and keep the focus on protecting valuable American jobs. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up this bipartisan jobs legislation soon."

    Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) praised passage of both H.R.2250 and H.R.2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act [See WIMS 10/6/11], which passed the House last week and offers similarly sensible regulatory solutions for cement manufacturers. Rep. Whitfield said, "The passage of these two bills is yet another example of the House's leadership in bringing balance to our environment and energy policies. EPA must consider the consequences on jobs and the economy when they implement new regulations and the passage of the Boiler and Cement MACT bills will provide EPA the time it needs and a framework to propose regulations that have achievable and workable timelines and standards without putting jobs at risk.  These bills protect over 230,000 jobs at risk as a result of the Boiler MACT rules, and at least 19,000 at risk because of the Cement MACT rules, while also ensuring that there is a timeline in place for the agency to issue new regulations to protect health and the environment."

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released a statement saying H.R.2250 would protect thousands of American jobs from excessive government regulations and is a key part of the Republican jobs plan. He said, "Removing government obstacles to job growth is a key part of the Republican jobs plan. This bipartisan bill protects hundreds of thousands of jobs by stopping excessive new federal regulations on boilers used in factories, colleges, and hospitals across the country. And it forces Washington to go back to the drawing board and develop sensible rules that don't raise prices on families or put thousands of jobs at risk. House leaders have sought common ground with the president on this bipartisan jobs bill, and I hope he'll urge the Senate to quickly pass it and commit to signing it so we can remove yet another government barrier to job growth."

 

    Speaker Boehner also referenced an October 3, letter from House leaders to President Obama regarding the two bills -- H.R.2250 & H.R.2681. The Members said in part, "The federal government has a responsibility under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, and there are reasonable regulations that protect our children and help keep our environment clean. But there are also excessive regulations that unnecessarily increase costs for consumers and small businesses, and make it harder for our economy to create jobs. The rules addressed by the bills the House will consider this week are examples of such harmful government excess. . . It is our hope that in the spirit of putting country before party, you will call on the Senate to follow the House in passing these measures, and commit to signing them into law should they reach your desk."

 

    John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on H.R. 2250 said in a statement, "We all lose with this legislation. The latest installment of the tea party's unraveling of the Clean Air Act allows dirty incinerators and industrial boilers to pollute our air with more cancer-causing dioxins, arsenic, mercury and lead. This bill, together with the cement bill and TRAIN Act passed earlier, will sacrifice tens of thousands of lives, pollute the air we breathe, and expose our children, families, and communities to toxic air pollutants that cause asthma, other illnesses and even brain damage in children. Polluters might claim victory but in the end, no one wins."

    Steve Cochran, Vice President of Climate and Air at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a statement saying, "Two weeks ago, they voted to let power plants, the nation's largest source of mercury air emissions, off the hook. Now they've decided to let industrial boilers and cement plants, the nation's second and third largest sources of mercury air emissions, off the hook too -- letting them continue to release mercury, arsenic, chromium, lead and dioxins into the air without limit. It's time Congress stopped pretending that increasing air pollution is an economic policy, or that forcing us to breathe dangerous toxins is a job creation plan. No one benefits when Americans suffer more heart attacks, asthma attacks, birth defects and premature deaths."

 

    American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement saying, "By passing this bipartisan bill, House lawmakers have shown their commitment to effective, achievable emission standards for industrial boilers and heaters affecting 200,000 businesses, institutions and municipalities across the country. We urge the U.S. Senate to quickly approve its version (S.1392), which currently has 35 co-sponsors from both parties. Enactment into law will give EPA time to get the rules right, provide certainty about the rules and compliance deadlines, and enhance business confidence to move ahead with investments, expansions and hiring now. In April, ACC and other groups filed a petition asking EPA for an administrative 'stay' of the boiler emission standards pending reconsideration. While EPA granted the stay, its decision is being challenged in two courts, so legislation is essential."

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Senior Vice President for Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse issued a statement saying, "During this critical time in our nation's economic recovery, manufacturers simply cannot afford another costly and burdensome regulation that will put 230,000 jobs at risk, according to the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners. The Boiler MACT rule will cost manufacturers more than $14 billion in valuable capital that could be spent on investments to create jobs. Manufacturers thank the House members who stood up today for jobs and voted in support of this important legislation to rein in the EPA. We will continue to work to stop the EPA's aggressive agenda. Today's vote was another step to protect jobs and competitiveness, and we strongly urge the Senate to act on the EPA Regulatory Relief Act as soon as possible."

    Access a release from the Republican Energy & Commerce Committee (click here). Access the statement from Speaker Boehner and link to the letter to the President and related information (click here). Access the statement from NRDC (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to related information (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access the roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2250 including the roll call votes for passage and for all amendments (click here). [#Air] 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
House Approves Controversial Coal Ash Regulation Bill
GOP Senators Announce Alternative "Jobs Through Growth Act"
House Dems Want Hearing On Natural Gas Flaring
Air Advisors Consultation On NAAQS For Lead
ACC Launches New Blog "American Chemistry Matters"
Thiebaut vs. Colorado Springs Utilities

Solar Energy Industries Urge Extension Of Section 1603 Program

Oct 12: The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) released a report entitled, "Economic Impact of Extending the Section 1603 Treasury Program," prepared by renowned the global energy analysis firm EuPD Research. The report examines projected job growth and solar deployment associated with a one-year extension of the Section 1603 Treasury Program. According to the report, a one-year extension would result in the solar industry supporting an additional 37,394 jobs in 2012. In addition, a one-year extension would result in nearly 2,000 additional megawatts (MW) of solar installations above baseline by 2016, enough to power 400,000 homes. The report also analyzed scenarios for two and five-year extensions of the program.

    Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA said, "More than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, double the number in 2009. Solar is a proven job creator at a time when the unemployment rate for the country remains stubbornly high. The 1603 Treasury Program has been the single most effective policy driving renewable energy growth during the past two years."

    The program was created in 2009 in the wake of the financial crisis, which drastically reduced the availability of tax equity financing for energy projects. The Section 1603 Treasury Program allows energy developers to receive a federal grant in lieu of claiming an existing energy tax credit. The program does not create any new incentives, but instead simply accelerates the timing of the existing credit. This solution was designed to provide the liquidity needed for the further development of domestic energy projects during difficult financial times. 

    The state of financial markets and the availability of tax equity are still woefully inadequate to meet demand for renewable energy projects. The program, set to expire on December 31, 2011, was intended to outlast the stagnant markets, which have proven more resilient than anticipated. Resch added, "At a time when President Obama and Congress are looking for solutions for America's jobs crisis, it would be unconscionable to allow this proven job-creating program to expire. Killing the 1603 Program amounts to a tax increase on the thousands of small businesses that are creating jobs in solar. The bottom line is that our capital markets are still in trouble and this program is needed today as much as it was when it was created. Allowing it to lapse would kill jobs and severely restrict the market's ability to leverage private sector capital to finance new domestic energy projects. Congress must extend the 1603 program to help the American economy."

    In a background document released by SEIA, the organization indicated, "In a background document released by SEIA, the organization indicated, "The Solyndra bankruptcy is not indicative of the health of the U.S. solar industry and, as with any competitive and dynamic market, some companies will prosper and others will fail. Despite support from the federal government, Solyndra failed due to an unsustainable business model, as the company faced pressure from cheaper solar panels and simply could not compete in a high-tech, dynamic market. Competition in the solar industry is good for American consumers. It drives down costs, making solar affordable for more and more Americans every day.

    The report indicates that, "The 1603 Treasury Program [TGP] was created to address the shortage of tax equity available to renewable energy projects due to the collapse of the financial markets. The TGP allows developers to receive a cash grant in lieu of the Section 48 Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The TGP has supported more than a thousand solar projects representing over $3 billion in total investment, contributing to a nearly two-fold increase in solar electric capacity in 2010.

    Access a release from SEIA and links to the 43-page full report, executive summary and extensive background information (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

GOP & Senate Rules Block Passage Of American Jobs Act

Oct 11: Because of unanimous Republican opposition and the Senate Rules regarding filibuster and the cloture procedure requiring 60 votes to proceed with threatened legislation, S.1660, the President's $447 billion American Jobs Act (AJA) [See WIMS 10/6/11], was defeated by a vote of 51-48, with Senator Coburn (R-OK) not voting. [Note: the official count was 50-49-1; however, Senator Majority Reid voted no on the cloture vote for procedural reasons]. The proposed package includes $245 billion in tax cuts; $140 billion in investments in infrastructure ($60 billion + $30 billion for school rehab) and local aid; and $62 billion in continued unemployment benefits. The proposal was to be paid for by the so-called millionaires surtax of 5.6% on incomes over $1 million.

 

    The President issued a statement saying, "Tonight, a majority of United States Senators voted to advance the American Jobs Act. But even though this bill contains the kind of proposals Republicans have supported in the past, their party obstructed the Senate from moving forward on this jobs bill. Tonight's vote is by no means the end of this fight. Independent economists have said that the American Jobs Act would grow the economy and lead to nearly two million jobs, which is why the majority of the American people support these bipartisan, common-sense proposals. And we will now work with Senator Reid to make sure that the individual proposals in this jobs bill get a vote as soon as possible. 

 

    "In the coming days, Members of Congress will have to take a stand on whether they believe we should put teachers, construction workers, police officers and firefighters back on the job. They'll get a vote on whether they believe we should cut taxes for small business owners and middle-class Americans, or whether we should protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. With each vote, Members of Congress can either explain to their constituents why they're against common-sense, bipartisan proposals to create jobs, or they can listen to the overwhelming majority of American people who are crying out for action. Because with so many Americans out of work and so many families struggling, we can't take 'no' for an answer.  Ultimately, the American people won't take 'no' for an answer. It's time for Congress to meet their responsibility, put their party politics aside and take action on jobs right now."

 

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement saying, "Republicans unanimously voted against our nation's economic health to advance their narrow political interests. Republicans blocked a bill that would put nearly two million Americans back to work. And they voted against this job-creating bill despite previously supporting many of the ideas it contains, such as tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses.

    "This balanced bill would have asked millionaires to pay their fair share to help get our economy get back on track. Americans want us to create jobs by cutting middle-class taxes, hiring veterans, and putting Americans back to work building roads, bridges and schools. Democrats will continue to advance these job-creating policies, and Republicans will have to explain to the American people why they oppose common-sense, bipartisan solutions for putting Americans back to work. With millions of Americans unemployed, and millions more struggling to make ends meet, we need to act now. I hope Republicans start listening to the American people."

    Senator Reid issued a separate, more lengthy statement today (October 12) and said in part, "Republican obstructionism has once against cost this nation millions of jobs. Last night, Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act, President Obama's plan to create 2 million jobs by giving tax cuts to business and middle-class families and investing in modern roads, bridges and schools. . .  Last night, a majority of the Senate voted to take up this bill. But Republicans won't put politics aside for a moment, even when the price of their stubbornness is struggling families and failing businesses. But I'll say it again: Democrats will not give up on creating jobs in America. We will introduce the American Jobs Act piece by piece. . ."

    U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement on the Senate Floor on October 11, prior to the vote saying in part, ". . .later today, the Senate will vote on President Obama's second attempt to address our nation's ongoing jobs crisis with a stimulus bill. And Republicans welcome the opportunity. "If voting against another stimulus is the only way we can get Democrats in Washington to finally abandon this failed approach to job creation, then so be it. "The President's been calling for this vote for weeks; and in my view, we can't have it soon enough. . .

    ". . .by proposing a second stimulus, Democrats are showing the American people that they have no new ideas for dealing with our jobs crisis. Today's vote is conclusive proof that Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn't worked — along with a massive tax hike that we know won't create jobs. So it's hard to overstate the importance of this vote. The President's first stimulus was a legislative and economic catastrophe.  Nearly three years after passage, we're still learning about its failures and abuses. We knew it was a bailout for states. We knew about all the absurd projects it funded. And over the past several weeks, we've also learned that the Obama administration was doing the very thing with solar companies that it once rightly criticized many others for doing on Wall Street: gambling with other people's money. But there's really only one thing you need to know about the first stimulus to oppose this second one, and it's this: $825 billion later, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs in this country than there were when the first stimulus was signed. . .

    "Democrats have designed this bill to fail -- they've designed their own bill to fail -- in the hopes that anyone who votes against it will look bad for opposing a bill they misleadingly refer to as a 'jobs bill.' . . . So I've got a better idea: how about we get this vote that Democrats already know won't pass behind us, so we can focus on real job-creating legislation that we actually know is worthy of passing with bipartisan support? . .

    "Over the next weeks and months, Republicans will continue to press our friends on the other side to work with us on legislation that will actually do something to create jobs in this country. Our first criterion for any proposal is that it would actually lead to more jobs, not fewer. I know that may seem crazy to some, but in our view it's not a jobs bill if it leads to fewer jobs. Our second criterion is that it doesn't add to the deficit. Republicans have been calling on Democrats to work with us on bipartisan job-creating bills for three years. . .

    "Democrats like to point out that the second stimulus we'll have a vote on today is 'paid for' with tax hikes and that it contains a tax cut. What they don't tell you, of course, is that the tax cut lasts for about 13 months while the tax hike lasts forever. They hide the fact that over the next five years it will actually increase the deficit by nearly $300 billion dollars next year alone. Another thing the Democrat supporters of this bill fail to mention is that about four out of five of the people who'd be hit with their new tax are businesses, including thousands of small businesses across the country — in other words, the very people Americans are relying on to create new jobs. . ."

    Senator McConnell issued a second statement today (October 12) indicating further, "Later today the Senate will show that Democrats and Republicans can, in fact, work together to make it easier for American businesses to create jobs. By passing free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, we will help the economy and we'll put the lie to the ridiculous Obama campaign claim that Republicans are somehow rooting against the economy. The fact of the matter is, if President Obama were willing to work with us on more bipartisan legislation like this, nobody would even be talking about a dysfunctional Congress. There wouldn't be any reason to. But, as we all know, that doesn't fit in with the President's reelection strategy. The White House has made it clear that the President is praying for gridlock, so he has somebody – besides himself -- to point the finger at next November. . ."

    Access the statement from the President (click here). Access the first statement from Sen.Reid (click here). Access the second statement from Sen.Reid (click here). Access the first statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access the second statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access the White House website on the AJA for complete details of the bill (click here). Access the roll call vote on the cloture motion (click here). Access legislative details for S.1660 which includes links to the Congressional Record and Floor remarks (click here).

 

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

Climate Interest Fading?; UNFCCC Last Session Before COP17/CMP7

Oct 11: A week of formal UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate negotiations in Panama City, Panama ended on Friday, October 7, with reportedly some progress on drafting the decision texts that will allow governments to move forward at the upcoming COP17/CMP7 meeting in Durban, South Africa November 28 to  - December 9, 2011. UNFCCC indicated in a release that the Panama meeting "made good progress on preparing the decisions that will help developing countries adapt to climate change and get access to the technologies they need to create their own clean energy futures." The COP is the "supreme body" of the Convention. The CMP is the "supreme body" of the Kyoto Protocol.

 

    Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary said, "This includes meeting deadlines for the launch of the new Adaptation Committee and Technology Mechanism which were agreed at last year's Cancun climate change conference. It also made clear progress on how efforts to limit emissions by developing countries will be matched with necessary support from developed countries in a transparent way. This includes work on a new Registry to record and account for this effort, which was also agreed

in Cancun.

 

    Figueres indicated that, "The progress made in Panama means governments can have more time and space in the coming weeks and during Durban to resolve those outstanding issues on the future of the global climate change regime which will require political guidance. Durban will have to resolve the open question over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and what that means for a future global climate agreement. Governments retain different positions but many technical issues related to this have already been brought to conclusion and there is a strong desire from all sides to see a final political decision made." She said that in Panama the South African Presidency led two inclusive and transparent consultations on those questions, one with governments and one with stakeholders and civil society.

 

    On the subject of financial support that developed countries have pledged to the developing world, Figueres said Panama had provided a better view of how the $30 billion (USD) in fast-track funds up to the end of 2012 have been committed and the plans to disburse them. Meanwhile, governments put forward their ideas for mobilizing the long-term finance that should reach USD100 billion a year by 2020. Figueres said, "It is critical that no financing gap occurs between the end of fast-start finance in 2012 and the ramp up of long-term finance to 2020."

 

    UNFCCC indicated that the Panama meeting also made some progress on the longer-term question of how governments will meet their agreed goal of limiting global average temperatures to no more than a 2 degree Centigrade (2C) rise. In Durban, governments will look to decide the shape of a formal Review between 2013 and 2015, which they agreed in Cancun as a reality check on progress towards their temperature goal. Governments discussed doing this via a possible expert body which would receive updates on the latest climate change science and its assessments. Figueres said, "Clarity on an effective, credible Review is most important, especially in light of the fact that the sum total of current national pledges to reduce global emissions falls 40% short of keeping below 2C and that gap will have to be filled in the future."

 

    While the UNFCCC painted an optimistic picture of the Panama meeting there was very little interest by U.S. interest groups, political leaders or news media. Others engaged in the process were not as encouraged and some even warned that the international negotiating process is on the verge of collapse. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF's) International Climate Program Director Jennifer Haverkamp observed, "Some positive signals came out of Panama – less rancor and obstructionism than we had come to expect this year, and some progress on teeing up negotiating texts -- but these glimmers of progress are eclipsed by the unresolved question of the Kyoto Protocol's future."

    Haverkamp said, "Our preferred Durban outcome is agreement on a timetable and pathway to a new mandatory agreement. Sad to say, that's looking like a heavy lift. But the prospect of a collapse of the existing legal framework will only strengthen the resolve of countries that actually want to tackle this problem to move forward in the avenues available to them. Much still needs to be done in the next six weeks if Durban is to successfully advance progress toward a climate regime that preserves the planet for our grandchildren in a form we would still recognize."

    Access a release from UNFCCC on the Panama meeting (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for links to more information and details from the Panama meeting (click here). Access a 16-page summary of the meeting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a NYT report on the meeting (click here) [#Climate]

 

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

EPA Proposes Significant Changes To CSAPR Transport Rule

Oct 6: U.S. EPA signed a proposed rule, yet to be published in the Federal Register, indicating it is proposing or seeking comment on revisions to the final Transport Rule promulgated on August 8, 2011 (i.e. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR) [See WIMS 7/7/11]. These revisions address discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the proper calculation of Transport Rule state budgets and assurance levels in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as new unit set-asides in Arkansas and Texas. EPA is also proposing to revise allowance allocations to specific units covered by certain consent decrees that restrict the use of those allowances. These important technical fixes maintain the Transport Rule's ability to achieve the elimination of significant contribution and interference with maintenance as quantified by the proper application of these methodologies.

    EPA is also proposing to amend the assurance penalty provisions of the rule to make them effective beginning January 1, 2014, rather than in 2012, in order to promote the development of allowance market liquidity as these revisions are finalized. EPA believes that deferring the effective date of the assurance provisions would provide additional confidence and would not compromise the air quality goals of the program. In addition, we are proposing to correct typographical errors in the rule.

    On amending the assurance penalty provisions to make them effective 2 years later, EPA indicates, "EPA is also proposing in this action to amend the effective date of the Transport Rule assurance provisions to make them effective beginning on January 1, 2014. During outreach discussions with various stakeholders, the application of assurance penalties at the outset of the program has been raised as a major concern for compliance and market development in the early years of the program. Several stakeholders have expressed concern that Transport Rule allowance market development may be delayed by uncertainty over how each state will transition from 2010 and 2011 emission levels to meet the projected Transport Rule assurance levels in 2012 and 2013. . . EPA proposes to determine that amending the assurance provisions to take effect starting in 2014 is appropriate. EPA believes that a limited postponement of the effectiveness of these provisions is justified in order to smooth the transition from the existing CAIR programs to the new Transport Rule programs. . ."

    EPA also issued a brief statement saying, "On October 6, 2011, following the submission of additional data from states and companies and further review of the rule, EPA is proposing a routine rulemaking that will maintain the extensive public health benefits of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule while also making certain technical adjustments to account for the updated information the Agency recently received. These adjustments, possible because of the inherent flexibility of the Clean Air Act, will increase CSAPR emission budgets in ten states and ease limits on market‐based compliance options. While individual state adjustments vary, overall, the budget increases are slight -- about one percent -- when compared to the millions of tons of pollution reductions secured by CSAPR. Today's proposal will maintain the significant health benefits of the rule -- saving up to 34,000 lives a year -- while continuing CSAPR'S flexibility and certainty for utilities as we work together to ensure that we protect the air we all breathe and the jobs of American workers. While the CSAPR trading programs begins in January 2012, companies have until the end of 2012 and early 2013 to demonstrate compliance. As with any proposal, this rulemaking will go through a public comment period to ensure important feedback from stakeholders will inform the final standard." The Agency also released additional Technical Support Information (see link below).

 

    House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) issued a statement on EPA proposed corrections saying, "EPA's announcement confirms several major shortcomings with the CSAPR that were highlighted in our Committee's September 15th hearing. These problems include unreasonable timelines, failure to consult stakeholders, and the use of non-transparent models that do not seem to match up with actual pollution measurements.

 

    "EPA's decision to increase emission budgets and allowances for some states and facilities demonstrates the finalized rule lacked sufficient scientific analysis and economic consideration.  EPA's process is broken.  As we have seen in Texas and throughout the United States, pursuing an 'EPA-knows-best' approach to compliance will unquestionably result in increased unemployment, power plant shut-downs, and more expensive, less reliable energy.  These proposed revisions still fail to avoid usurping the States' statutory prerogative under the Clean Air Act to develop their own implementation strategies.

 

    "The concept of preventing emissions from significantly affecting the air quality in another state seems reasonable, and states have been making great strides to reduce their cross-state pollution.  But they need sufficient time to comply with new restrictions.  EPA has options, including continuing to apply the current effective approach under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), while it takes a time out to finish the homework it should have completed before taking action.  Today's announcement is an ad hoc attempt to address certain deficiencies in an inherently flawed rule, but it does not do enough.  The CSAPR requires more than just a few 'technical adjustments.'  EPA needs to step back, reboot, and start over."

 

    Access a prepublication copy of EPA's proposal (click here). Access the statement from EPA (click here). Access additional Technical Support Information released by EPA (click here). Access the statement from Representative Hall with links to the Committee meeting and related information (click here). Access EPA's CSAPR website for complete background (click here). [#Air]

 

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

 

President Presses For Vote On The American Jobs Act

Oct 6: President Obama held a press conference on his $447 billion American Jobs Act (AJA) which he proposed after Labor Day [See WIMS 9/9/11]. The proposed package includes $245 billion in tax cuts; $140 billion in investments in infrastructure ($60 billion + $30 billion for school rehab) and local aid; and $62 billion in continued unemployment benefits.

 

    There has been no action on the proposal to date. However, the President announced that, "Next week, the Senate will vote on the American Jobs Act. And I think by now I've made my views pretty well known. Some of you are even keeping a tally of how many times I've talked about the American Jobs Act. And the reason I keep going around the country talking about this jobs bill is because people really need help right now. Our economy really needs a jolt right now.

 

    "This is not a game; this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. The problems Europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy at a time when it's already fragile. But this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn if the situation in Europe gets any worse. It will boost economic growth; it will put people back to work. And by the way, this is not just my belief. This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth.

    So as we look towards next week, any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and for our businesses. . .

    "The proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create make-work jobs. They are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts, if we want to be able to compete with other countries for jobs that restore a sense of security to middle-class families. And to do that, we've got to have the most educated workers. We have to have the best transportation and communications networks. We have to support innovative small businesses. We've got to support innovative manufacturers. . .

    ". . .this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share [i.e. 5% surcharge tax]. Some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job. . ."

    The President said, ". . .if Mr. McConnell chooses to vote against it, or if members of his caucus choose to vote against it, I promise you we're going to keep on going, and we will put forward maybe piece by piece each component of the bill. And each time they're going to have to explain why it is that they'd be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom, or rebuilding our schools, or giving tax cuts to middle-class folks, and giving tax cuts to small businesses. . . [If] everybody on Capitol Hill is cynical and saying there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep on going at it. I want everybody to be clear. My intention is to insist that each part of this, I want an explanation as to why we shouldn't be doing it, each component part: putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses and middle-class families, tax breaks for our veterans. We will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. . ."

    U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) responded to the President in a statement on the Senate floor to what he called "the President's partisan stimulus and tax hike plan." Senator McConnell said, "What this week has shown, beyond any doubt, is that Democrats would rather talk about partisan legislation that they know won't pass, than about actually passing legislation we know would create jobs. "Two and a half years after the President signed his first stimulus there are 1.7 million fewer jobs in this country. And now, he wants to do it again. Why? Because Democrats think it makes for good politics. . .

    "So the real goal here for the Democrats, as far as I can tell, is entirely political — by arguing for a permanent tax hike to pay for a temporary stimulus, they essentially admitting they're not interested in creating jobs–because proposing a partisan tax hike 13 months before an election won't create a single job. So I would suggest that our friends on the other side put away the playbook and work with us instead. . .

    "How can anyone be expected to make plans when the next 'gotcha' tax hike to pay for this President's spending binge is always lurking around the corner? The President has said it's wrong to raise taxes in this weak economic environment. If he meant what he said, surely he'll join me in opposing this unwise tax hike Senate Democrats have proposed. . . "Republicans, along with some Democrats, have pro-growth solutions to help solve this crisis, but we will not stand for a permanent tax hike for a temporary stimulus that is largely a rehash of the same failed stimulus ideas this administration has already tried. . . "It's time Democrats move beyond the political rhetoric and for the President to stop campaigning. It's time for Democrats to reach across the aisle on bipartisan legislation that can actually pass."

    Access the complete text from the President's news conference and question (click here). Access details on the AJA from the White House (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). [#All]

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

NAS Report Casts Doubt On Effects Of Renewable Fuel Standard

Oct 4: A Congressionally-requested report -- Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy -- from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) casts serious doubt about the effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The report indicates it is unlikely the United States will meet some specific biofuel mandates under the current Renewable Fuel Standard by 2022 unless innovative technologies are developed or policies change. The report also adds that the standard may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also, achieving the standard would likely increase Federal budget outlays as well as have mixed economic and environmental effects.

 

    In 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as part of the Energy Policy Act and amended it in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. The amended standard mandated that by 2022 the consumption volume of the renewable fuels should consist of: 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels, mainly corn-grain ethanol; 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel fuel; 4 billion gallons of advanced renewable biofuels, other than ethanol derived from cornstarch, that achieve a life-cycle greenhouse gas threshold of at least 50 percent; and 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels produced from wood, grasses, or non-edible plant parts -- such as from corn stalks and wheat straw. Except for biodiesel, these volumes are measured in ethanol units.            

    The committee that wrote the report said that production of adequate volumes of biofuels are expected to meet consumption mandates for conventional biofuels and biomass-based diesel fuel. However, whether and how the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be met is uncertain. Currently, no commercially viable biorefineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel. The capacity to meet the renewable fuel mandate for cellulosic biofuels will not be available unless the production process is unexpectedly improved and technologies are scaled up and undergo several commercial-scale demonstrations in the next few years. Additionally, policy uncertainties and high costs of production may deter investors from aggressive deployment, even though the government guarantees a market for cellulosic biofuels up to the level of the consumption mandate, regardless of price.  
 
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions - According to the report, the extent to which using biofuels rather than petroleum will reduce greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain. How biofuels are produced and the changes in land use or land cover that occur in the process affect biofuels' impact on such emissions. Dedicated energy crops will have to be grown to meet the mandate, which will probably require conversion of uncultivated land or the displacement of commodity crops and pastures.  If the expanded production involves removing perennial vegetation on a piece of land and replacing it with an annual commodity crop, then the land-use change would incur a one-time greenhouse gas emission from biomass and soil that could be large enough to offset benefits gained by displacing petroleum-based fuels with biofuels over subsequent years. Such land conversion may disrupt any future potential for storing carbon in biomass and soil. In addition, the renewable fuel standard can neither prevent market-mediated effects nor control land-use or land-cover changes in other countries. 
 
    Economic Effects - The report indicates that only in an economic environment characterized by high oil prices, technological breakthroughs, and a high implicit or actual carbon price would biofuels be cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels. The best cost estimates of cellulosic biofuel are not economical compared with fossil fuels when crude oil's price is $111 per barrel.  Furthermore, absent major increases in agricultural yields and improved efficiency in converting biomass to fuels, additional cropland will be required for growing cellulosic feedstock.  This could create competition among different land uses and, in turn, raise cropland prices. In addition, the report says that achieving the renewable fuel standard would increase the Federal budget outlays, mostly as a result of increased spending on grants, loans, loan guarantees, and other payments to support the development of cellulosic biofuels and foregone revenue as a result of biofuel tax credits. 
 
    Environmental Effects - The report indicates that although biofuels hold potential for providing net environmental benefits compared with using petroleum-based fuels, specific environmental outcomes from increasing biofuels production to meet the renewable fuel consumption mandate cannot be guaranteed. The type of feedstocks produced, management practices used, land-use changes that feedstock production might incur, and such site-specific details as prior land use and regional water availability will determine the mandate's environmental effects. Biofuels production has been shown to have both positive and negative effects on water quality, soil, and biodiversity. However, air-quality modeling suggests that production and use of ethanol to displace gasoline is likely to increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides. In addition, published estimates of water use over the life cycle of corn-grain ethanol are higher than petroleum-based fuels. 
 
    Barriers and Opportunities - The report indicates that key barriers to achieving the renewable fuel mandate are the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels and uncertainties in future biofuel markets, the report finds.  Biofuel production is contingent on subsidies, the nature of the mandate, and similar policies. Although the mandate guarantees a market for the cellulosic biofuels produced, even at costs considerably higher than fossil fuels, uncertainties in enforcement and implementation of the mandated levels affect investors' confidence and discourage investment. To reduce costs of biofuels, the committee suggested carrying out research and development to improve feedstock yield and increasing the conversion yield from biomass to fuels.

 

    The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) reacted immediately saying the results NAS study "should be interpreted with extreme caution." RFA said the study "largely assesses ethanol and other biofuels in a vacuum and fails to appropriately compare the costs and benefits of renewable fuels to the impacts of the marginal petroleum sources they are displacing." RFA Vice President Geoff Cooper said, "Global demand for energy continues to escalate yet this report chooses to focus with laser-like precision on the perceived shortcomings of conventional and next-generation biofuels. Instead, we should be comparing the relative costs and benefits of all future energy options." RFA indicated that it agrees with reports view that "commercializing advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies will require more policy certainty and a recommitment to reducing oil import dependency."

 

    The RFA-affiliated Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC) also reacted quickly. AEC Executive Director Brooke Coleman issued a statement saying, "It is discouraging to see the National Research Council (NRC) miss an opportunity to cast the RFS in the proper light. The most glaring problem is the Council analyzed the ongoing development of the biofuels industry in a vacuum, as if these fuels are not displacing the marginal barrel of oil, which comes at great economic and environmental cost to the consumer. Congress was seeking a sober analysis of the RFS, and regrettably, this is not it."

 

    Among other concerns, Coleman challenged the report's conclusion that the RFS may not be an effective tool to manage greenhouse gases from transportation fuels.  She said, "The idea that the RFS may not be an effective strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is regrettable given the published science on the subject. Even with land use change considerations, advanced biofuels are the lowest carbon fuels being developed in the marketplace; far and away less carbon intensive than electricity, natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells."
 

    Access a release from NAS including a listing of the committee members (click here). Access a 4-page summary (click here). Access the complete 650-page report (click here). Access a lengthy release from RFA (click here). Access a lengthy release from AEC (click here). [#Energy/Biofuels]

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

Gulf Coast Task Force Releases Ecosystem Restoration Strategy
Enviros Sue To Stop Early Clearing On Keystone XL Pipeline Route
EPA Announces Three Combined Heat & Power Awards
Administration Accelerates Grid Modernization Pilot Projects
Efficient Water Heating Can Save Consumers Nearly $18 Billion
USDA Announces $115+ Million In Water & Sewer Loans & Grants
New Mexico Group Sues To Save State's Carbon Reduction Law

Mining Association Sues To Stop Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

Oct 3: National Mining Association (NMA) President and CEO Hal Quinn announced that the association was filing a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for reconsideration and stay and petition for review of U.S. EPA's "Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals." [76 FR 48208-48483, 8/8/11]. Quinn said, "NMA today requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reconsider and stay its Transport Rule because new information demonstrates EPA's assessments of grid reliability and resource adequacy as a result of the rule are incomplete, inaccurate and lack credibility. NMA further contends EPA, in violation of administrative law requirements, has either not consulted with other agencies responsible for ensuring electricity reliability or, if it has done so, has not subjected those consultations to public scrutiny."

    NMA said, "Five alarming facts have emerged from this new information that compel EPA to reconsider and stay the rule" [as follows]:

• EPA failed to consider the cumulative impact of its power sector regulations on grid reliability, as recommended by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff. Even after FERC staff estimated possible retirement of as much as 40 percent of the entire coal-based generation fleet, EPA did not pursue a rigorous analysis of reliability impacts;
• EPA incorrectly assumed power can be transmitted freely within broad geographic regions of the country—discounting cautions raised by FERC, Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO);
• FERC has only provided "preliminary" and "tentative" analysis to EPA that is "inadequate to use as a basis for decision making," according to FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff and contrary to EPA's assertions;
• FERC staff have questioned whether the compliance deadlines set forth in EPA's regulations were too expedited to allow utilities sufficient lead-time to replace retiring resources -- raising additional reliability concerns; and
• EPA disclosed none of the consultations that occurred with FERC or other agencies responsible for grid reliability, nor is there a public record of those consultations, contrary to EPA's assertion it would operate in a "fishbowl" and in violation of EPA's rulemaking responsibilities.

    Quinn said, "A safe, reliable and affordable supply of electricity -- underwritten by the energy attributes of coal -- is essential. In its rush to regulate, EPA has failed in its responsibilities to the American people by jeopardizing the foundation of our economy. Aside from the legal requirements unmet by EPA, the rule should be reconsidered and stayed on public policy grounds."

 

    When EPA announced the rule on July 7, 2011 [See WIMS 7/7/11], the Agency said the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, a.k.a. Transport Rule) "will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 -- achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits."

 

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "No community should have to bear the burden of another community's polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe. By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren't suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way."

 

    On September 12, in a lengthy company release, Luminant, the largest power generator in Texas that employees approximately 4,400 employees throughout the state (2,580 in coal plant and mining operations) announced the need to close facilities and layoff workers to comply with U.S. EPA's recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, a.k.a. Transport Rule) [See WIMS 7/7/11]. The company said the action will cause the loss of approximately 500 jobs.

 

    On September 23, 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. Among other provisions the bill includes language to delay implementation of CSAPR and requires consideration of the rule's economic and job impacts [See WIMS 9/23/11].

 

    Access a release from NMA and link to a 37-page letter to the EPA Administrator and the 5-page petition for review of the rule (click here). Access a 7/7/11 release from EPA (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA docket for this action with comments and documents (click here). [#Air]

 

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

Senate Committee Hears From Shale Gas Advisors
Trade Agreements For Korea, Colombia & Panama
DOI Report On Impacts Of Climate Change On Freshwater Resources
DOE Receives 1st Entry In Commercial Air Conditioner Challenge
Senate Hearing On Nutrient Reduction Approaches
Maryland Man Sells $9 Million In Phony Renewable Fuel Credits
Raritan Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc.

DOE Approves $4.743 Billion In Solar Project Loan Guarantees

Sep 30: On the final day for release of the funding for loan guarantees under this section 1705, and in the midst of the intense political controversy over the Solyndra bankruptcy and its $535 million loan guarantee, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu announced four additional projects including: $1.46 billion to support the Desert Sunlight Project in eastern Riverside County, CA; $646 million for the Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 1 Project in Antelope Valley in North Los Angeles County, CA; $1.4 billion loan to support Project Amp for 750 existing rooftop solar projects in 28 states and Washington, D.C. on properties owned and managed by Prologis; and $1.237 billion for the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, in San Luis Obispo County, CA -- a grand total of $4.743 billion.

 

    The Desert Sunlight Project a 550 MW project is expected to be one of the world's largest solar photovoltaic plants and is expected to fund over 550 construction jobs. The project is expected to use approximately 8.8 million cadmium telluride thin film solar PV modules, which are commercially proven and have been deployed since 2001. The facility is expected to generate enough electricity to power over 110,000 homes and will avoid over 735,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Project construction will take place in two phases, both of which are supported by power purchase agreements.  Phase I will generate 300MW of power, which will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Company, while Phase II will generate 250 MW of power, which will be sold to Southern California Edison.

 

    The Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 1 Project will employ First Solar's FS Series 3 PV Module and will feature innovative inverters with voltage regulation and monitoring technologies that are new to the U.S. market. The inverters enable the project to provide more stable and continuous power, increasing the reliability of large-scale solar power plants. The facility is expected to generate over 622,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year, equivalent to powering over 54,000 homes, and will avoid over 350,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 1 Project is supported by a power purchase agreement to sell the power it will generate to Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

 

    Project Amp includes the installation of approximately 752 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, which is over 80% of the total amount of PV installed in the U.S. in 2010. The electricity generated from those panels will contribute directly to the electrical grid. The project sponsor estimates Project Amp will create more than a thousand construction jobs over a four year period. NRG Energy is the lead investor for Phase I of the installations. The project is expected to generate enough clean, renewable electricity to power over 88,000 homes and is expected to avoid approximately 580,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. 

 

    The California Valley Solar Ranch Project includes the construction of a 250 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic (PV) solar generating facility and associated infrastructure. The project is expected to fund 350 jobs during construction. The project is also expected to avoid over 425,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually and produce enough to power over 64,000 homes. The project will be the largest utility-scale PV project in the U.S. to utilize tracking technology combined with an innovative monitoring system that will improve annual output by approximately 25 percent compared with traditional fixed PV installations. The project uses a wireless tracker monitoring and control (TMAC) system to orient the PV modules toward the sun and maximize solar collection. The TMAC monitoring system receives real time weather updates so the solar array can be stowed in harsh weather conditions to preserve the life of the solar modules.

 

    In its releases, DOE indicated, "Loan applications reviewed by the Department have undergone many months of due diligence and often receive bipartisan support. DOE evaluates the technical aspects of an application to make sure the technology is feasible, works to ensure that projects can be built to scale, does extensive market analysis to ensure there is a place in the market for the product, and evaluates the finances of the project to ensure it is commercially viable. We are confident that supporting these projects will help American companies compete in the global clean energy market."

   

    Access a release on the Desert Sunlight Project (click here). Access a release on the Antelope Valley project (click here). Access a release on Project Amp (click here). Access a release on the California Valley project (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

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

SCOTUS Denies Challenge To CA Indirect Air Source Rule
DOE Finalizes Rule For NEPA Categorical Exclusion 
NASA Says Arctic Ozone Hole Is "Unprecedented"
DOI Completes Reforms Of Old Minerals Management Service
GAO Finds Problems With NOAA Historical Climatology Network
EPA Adds State Enforcement Actions Map To ECHO
Agencies Partners On Health & Safety Of Commercial Imports

Major Enviros Sue Administration On Shell Oil Arctic Drilling Plan

Sep 29: A coalition of Alaska Native and conservation groups headed to court to challenge the Obama administration's decision to allow offshore oil drilling by Shell Oil in the Beaufort Sea in America's Arctic Ocean. In a release, the groups said that after the devastating Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama administration wisely delayed plans by Shell Oil to drill in the Arctic Ocean. But this August, the administration reversed course and approved the first part of what they called "the most aggressive Arctic drilling proposal in the history of the country" by approving Shell's plans to start drilling in the Beaufort Sea as early as the summer of 2012.

    Earthjustice, on behalf of the Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Oceana, Pacific Environment, REDOIL, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society initiated litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the decision by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) to allow oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

    Earthjustice attorney Holly Harris said, "Allowing Shell to drill when it has no credible plan to cleanup an oil spill in the Arctic's icy waters, and instead simply assumes it can clean up 95 percent of oil spilled, isn't just unrealistic, it's insulting and irresponsible." The groups said, "A spill in the Arctic Ocean would devastate polar bears, bowhead whales and other marine mammals and would severely affect Native subsistence communities, which have thrived in this region for generations."

    Caroline Cannon, president of the Native Village of Point Hope said, "Approving Shell drilling in the Beaufort Sea is irresponsible and risks disaster. We have a right to life, to physical integrity, to security, and the right to enjoy the benefits of our culture. For this, we will fight, and this is why we have gone to court today. Our culture can never be bought or repaired with money. It is priceless."

    The groups indicated that the most recent oil-spill drill in the Beaufort Sea (which took place more than 10 years ago) described mechanical cleanup in icy conditions as a "failure." They provided a link to a video and report on the failure and said, "Nothing has changed since that drill. A recent report to the Canadian government concluded cleanup would be impossible 44 to 84 percent of the time during the short summer drilling season, and completely impossible the other seven to eight months of the year." They indicated that U.S. Coast Guard officials have repeatedly explained that the resources to clean up an oil spill in the waters of the Arctic Ocean simply don't exist. This summer, Commandant Admiral Robert Papp told Congress that the federal government has "zero" spill response capability in the Arctic.

    Additionally they cite a recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) which they say makes clear, basic scientific information about nearly every aspect of the Arctic Ocean ecosystem is missing. They said, "This lack of data makes it impossible to adequately assess the risks and impacts of drilling to wildlife and people in the Arctic and, as a result, makes it impossible to make informed, science-based decisions."

    Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League said, "Any oil company that wants to drill in the Arctic Ocean must demonstrate an ability to clean up oil spilled in these icy waters with proven technology. Shell's current oil spill plan is full of inadequacies and falsehoods. Shame on the Obama administration for allowing politics to trump science by approving such an unrealistic plan to drill in the Beaufort Sea." Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for Center for Biological Diversity said, "Given the risk of a catastrophic oil spill, the Obama administration should not allow Shell to play Russian roulette with the future of polar bears, Pacific walruses and the entire Arctic ecosystem. If polar bears, walruses and other imperiled species are going to survive in a rapidly melting Arctic, we need to protect their critical habitat, not sacrifice it to oil companies."

    Sierra Weaver, attorney for Defenders of Wildlife said, "Both Shell and the federal government are proceeding as if the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster -- the worst environmental catastrophe this country has ever seen -- simply didn't happen. Pretending there's no risk associated with drilling, especially in the fragile waters of the Arctic, is not only irresponsible, it's unacceptable." Chuck Clusen, NRDC's director of national parks and Alaska projects said, "Water and oil may not mix, but ice and oil is even worse. Any drilling in Camden Bay -- right off the shore of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- is unacceptable. A proper process or technology does not exist that could appropriately protect or clean up this sea. A spill could spoil the barrier islands of the Refuge threatening many species of wildlife, poison the migratory route of the endangered bowhead whale and kill other marine mammals such as polar bears, walrus and ice seals and substantially damage the very sensitive ecology of the Beaufort Sea for what could be many years."

    On September 19, U.S. EPA Region 10 issued final air quality permits to Shell for oil and gas exploration drilling in the Alaska Arctic. The permits will allow Shell to operate the Discoverer drillship and a support fleet of icebreakers, oil spill response vessels, and supply ships for up to 120 days each year in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf starting in 2012. EPA also noted that it has proposed another draft air permit for Shell to operate its drilling rig Kulluk, in the Beaufort Sea starting in 2012. Many of the same organization opposed those permits and said, "The EPA decision to issue these inadequate permits is one more step down the path toward drilling operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas that pose a grave danger to the Arctic environment. . ." [See WIMS 9/21/11].

    Access a release from the organizations with more quotes from the organizations and links to the lawsuit and attachments (click here). Access the video of the failed cleanup and link to the report (click here). Access more information on BOEMRE's approval of Shell's Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan (click here) [#Energy/OCS]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
$132.4 Million Loan Guarantee For Kansas Cellulosic Ethanol Plant
Six Winners Of The i6 Green Innovation Challenge
EPA Seeks 125 Smart Growth Communities For $1.5 Million Funding
SAB Okays Assessment Of Hg Exposures To Subsistence Fishers
DOE Releases First Quadrennial Technology Review Report
Global Change Strategic Plan Outline & Public Comment Period