Senate Stops Energy Independence And Security Act 53-42

Dec 7: Vowing to work over the weekend on a compromise to resolve differences in the House-passed energy bill, the Senate brought a quick halt to the momentum to pass comprehensive energy legislation -- the Energy Independence and Security Act .

With harsh criticism from Republicans, and threats of a veto from the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 235-181 to pass the comprehensive House-Senate "compromise" energy bill. The bill is a mix of the Senate passed H.R. 6, which passed on June 21 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and H.R. 3221, that passed the House on August 4 [See WIMS 8/4/07]. The compromise bill, which was negotiated without a Conference Committee, temporarily took the form of H.Res.846, and has now become the new version of H.R. 6. In the end, the bill which is being called bipartisan by Democrats received 221 Democratic votes and 14 Republican votes. Seven Democrats voted against the bill along with 174 Republicans. Sixteen members did not vote on the bill -- 11 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

The Senate began its consideration of H.R. 6 bill for final adoption early on December 7, and quickly voted on a cloture motion which was unable to obtain the necessary 60 votes (53-42) and thus has temporarily suspended Senate floor action on the bill. Democrats voting against the cloture vote included: Bayh (D-IN); Byrd (D-WV); and Landrieu (D-LA). Republicans voting for the cloture motion included: Collins (R-ME); Thune (R-SD). Both Independents, Sanders (I-VT) and Lieberman (ID-CT), voted for the cloture motion. Five Republicans did not vote on the measure.

Following passage in the House, Senator Pete Dominici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a statement outlining many Senate Republican issues with the bill. Domenici indicated that he spent weeks negotiating with Democrats in the House and Senate to draft a bipartisan energy bill that contained a Renewable Fuel Standard, strengthened CAFE standards, and provided for energy efficiency improvements. However, he said, "after agreement had been reached on most issues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed out of the deal, and inserted several costly and controversial measures into the energy bill."

Domenici said, "...the Senate will be asked to pass a bill that was drafted behind closed doors by a select few House Democrats. The process by which this bill has been drafted is unprecedented. The Senate should not be forced to accept a bill written by Speaker Pelosi behind closed doors with no input from the Senate. For that reason alone, Senators should oppose this legislation and insist to be heard. I will do everything in my power to defeat this measure so we can get to work on a bipartisan bill that will tackle our problems, not add to them.

"Unlike the agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators, the House bill contains a one-size-fits-all Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would mandate that 15% of our nation’s electricity supply come from renewable sources. However, many states, particularly those in the Southeast, lack the natural resources to meet the standard. As a result, utilities in those states would be forced to pay billions in fines, leading to higher electricity costs for consumers. Industry estimates put the cost of the House RPS proposal at over $95 billion by 2030.

"The Pelosi energy bill also contains $21 billion in tax increases on domestic oil and natural gas production. Over $13 billion of that total is achieved by repealing provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which make it easier for American companies to compete in the global oil market, which is dominated by Saudi, Russian, and Chinese state-owned companies. By increasing the cost of doing business for American companies, the House energy bill will lead to higher prices at the pump and could result in an increased reliance on foreign oil.

"The House bill also significantly weakens the Renewable Fuels Standard by allowing for the EPA Administrator to completely cancel the mandate after 2016, which will create uncertainty in the market. The House also seeks to punish ethanol because it is transported in trucks, by including transportation and land-usage as factors in the requirement that biofuels have 20% lower greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum it displaces."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the floor in support for the Energy Independence and Security Act just prior to final passage and said "...this is a very important day for our country." She said, “This vote on this legislation will be a shot heard ‘round the world for energy independence for America." She thanked may Representatives who contributed to the passage with a special thanks to Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who was largely responsible for the deal struck on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

She said, “This is about our national security, it’s about jobs and the economic security of our country, it’s about the environment, therefore it’s a health issue, and it’s a moral issue. That’s why we have scientists and evangelicals. We have business and labor. We have the environmental community all strongly supporting this legislation." She indicated that over 20 generals have signed a letter saying that "we have to move in this direction in terms of reversing global warming."

She said that consumers will save $700 to $1,000 as a result of this bill per year resulting in $22 billion by 2020. She said, “It’s an historic day because it’s been so long since we have come to a place where we are, as has been said, over 30 years since we have addressed this issue in this substantial way in the Congress of the United States. The point of this is, ‘Are we about the past or are we about the future?’ I hope that we can have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. We were able to accomplish in this 12-month period, as Mr. Emanuel said, what was not done in 32 years in the Congress of United States."

In her previous letter to Allan Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, responding to White House concerns about the bill [See WIMS 12/6/07], Pelosi had indicated the legislation contains an ambitious national renewable fuel standard that will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it reforms and strengthens the CAFE fuel economy standard for cars and trucks, setting a tight goal of 35 miles per gallon as a fleetwide average by 2020; and increase domestic energy production by promoting homegrown renewable fuels and domestic renewable energy. She said specifically the legislation would not: affect our relations with other countries; not impose price controls; and not significantly expand the application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. She said it includes provisions to "pay for our investments in domestic renewable energy resources by closing tax loopholes given to large oil and gas companies at a time that they are reporting record profits." And, the legislation contains a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) which requires states to derive a percentage of their energy from renewable sources.

With a much different point of view, Republican's were harshly critical of the bill and called the "bipartisan" claims a mystery. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said, “The bill before us is a change. It may be historic but it is not positive. We are moving from a market-based energy policy, which has served this economy well for over 150 years to a government-mandated energy policy mandating 36 billion gallons of biofuels which don’t exist and probably won’t exist.

“We are mandating that 15 percent of all investor-owned utilities be generated by renewable means where in some states that is physically impossible. We are mandating that we improve automobile fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by a date certain, which while technically feasible, is going to be very expensive and probably raise the average price of an automobile several thousands of dollars. We are mandating all of these things in the interests of energy security, which is a noble goal but I think we would be better off developing the domestic resources of our great land, just like it says up there in the quote from Daniel Webster, instead of engaging in government mandates which will raise costs and probably not increase supply.”

Following the failed cloture vote, Senator Dominici issued a second release saying, "Now that we’ve rejected this one-sided bill, I hope that the Senate can now go back to the agreement that we originally reached with the House. Much of the hard work has already been done. An energy bill that contains a CAFE compromise, a strong Renewable Fuels Standard, and energy efficiency improvements is the right approach, and I’m willing to go back to work on such a bill right away.”

Access a release and the letter from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access legislative details for H.Res.846 (click here). Access links to the full text of House Report 110-474 (click here). Access the summary of House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access the House roll call vote on the final passage (click here). Access the statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a second release from Senator Domenici (click here). Access the Senate roll call vote on cloture (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

Full Senate EPW Committee Approves Climate Security Act

Dec 5: Following a marathon, nearly 10-hour markup session that extended into the evening hours, the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), approved S. 2191, the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 12/5/07, & 11/2/07]. The final vote on approval was 11-8, with all eight Democrats voting for the bill, two Independents voting for the bill, and one Republican, sponsor Senator Warner voting for the bill. The bill will now be considered before the full Senate.

Chairman Boxer issued a brief statement saying, "The vote of the Environment and Public Works Committee in favor of the Climate Security Act was a historic moment for our country and for my Committee. For me, it was the greatest legislative accomplishment of my political career of thirty years. Finally, America is taking bold steps to avert the catastrophe that awaits our children and grandchildren if we do nothing.

"Our bill has two goals...to fight global warming and to do it in a way that keeps our economy strong. That will be my focus in the coming weeks and months as we move the bill forward to the Senate floor. This bill is the most far reaching global warming bill in the world and I am grateful to Senators Lieberman and Warner for breaching the partisan divide and unleashing a spirit of cooperation that puts the wind at our backs."

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also issued a brief statement indicating, “Today, the Senate took a giant and historic step forward toward reversing a clear and present danger to our planet. By adopting America’s Climate Security Act, the Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a powerful message that will be heard across the country and around the world -- America is now truly in the fight to combat global warming. I would like to thank Senator Boxer for her effective leadership on this legislation and Senator Warner for his dedicated partnership in bringing about this significant victory.

“We still have a challenging effort ahead of us on the Senate floor, but the momentum is clearly in favor of taking action on climate change before the end of the 110th Congress. In the coming months, I believe that you will see a wave of support and pressure to pass this legislation when it comes to the Senate floor next year. The message that came out of this Committee is that there will be no more denying, no more waiting, and no more equivocating when it comes to addressing this threat to the future of our planet.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and outspoken opponent of global warming legislation issued a more lengthy statement saying, “For the first time in history, a fatally flawed global warming cap-and-trade bill was passed out of committee. Not only is the entire cap-and-trade approach fatally flawed, but the Lieberman-Warner bill failed to improve today, as Democrat amendments were added. Instead of engaging in substantive debate, the Democrats’ chose to simply reject all serious efforts to mitigate the unintended consequences of this bill and ensure adequate future energy supplies for this nation.

“The rejection of key amendments has guaranteed an enormous floor fight as many major issues were side-stepped. While the vote today was never in question, it did provide an opportunity for Republicans to expose the serious deficiencies of this bill. The full Senate now needs to look at a cost-benefit analysis of this bill. It is simply all economic pain for no climate gain. Numerous analyses have placed the costs at trillions of dollars. Even if you accept the dire claims of man-made global warming, this bill would not have a measurable impact on the climate.

“Within seven years, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 to 65 percent and will have a huge economic hit on households. These costs are far greater than the McCain-Lieberman bill that was voted down by the Senate two years ago. Additionally, the poor will be the hardest hit as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. By 2015 this bill is estimated to cost up to 2.3 million jobs, and these lost jobs will go to China, India, and other emerging nations without carbon limits..."

Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the hearing website for a links to the complete webcast and opening statements (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from the National Wildlife Federation supporting (click here). Access a release from the Natural Resources Defense Council supporting (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense supporting (click here). Access a release from the National Association of Manufacturers opposing (click here) [*Climate]

Groups & Governments Petition For Action On Aviation Emissions

Dec 5: A coalition of environmental groups, states and regional governments filed petitions with the U.S. EPA urging the Agency to address the effects of vast amounts of global warming pollution from the world's aircraft fleet. The petitions are the first step in a process that requires the EPA to evaluate the current impacts of aircraft emissions, seek public comment and develop rules to reduce aircraft emissions or explain why it will not act. Earthjustice, the public interest environmental firm, filed the environmental groups' petition on behalf of Friends of the Earth, Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity. Also filing petitions are the States of California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico and the District of Columbia through their Attorneys General, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its Department of Environmental Protection, the City of New York through its Corporation Counsel, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District through its District Counsel.

According to a release from Earthjustice, aircraft emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide. They currently account for 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. transportation sources and three percent of the United States' total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The U.S. is responsible for nearly half of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft. Aircraft also emit nitrogen oxides, known as NOx, which contribute to the formation of ozone, another greenhouse gas (GHG). Emissions of NOx at high altitudes result in greater concentrations of ozone than ground-level emissions. Aircraft also emit water vapor at high altitude that forms condensation trails or "contrails." Contrails are visible cloud lines that form in cold, humid atmospheres and contribute to the warming impacts of aircraft emissions. Moreover, the persistent formation of contrails is associated with increased cirrus cloud cover, which also warms the Earth's surface.

The release indicates that together, these high altitude emissions have a greater global warming impact than if the emissions were released at ground-level. A recent report by the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Protection found that the net effects of ozone, contrail and aviation-induced cloud cover is likely to triple the warming effect of aircraft-emitted CO2 alone. The report concludes that if these estimates are correct and the anticipated growth in aviation realized, aviation may be responsible for between six and ten percent of the human impact on climate by the year 2050.

The petition filed asks EPA to respond within 180 days and initiate a formal process to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all U.S. certified aircraft and all foreign aircraft arriving in or departing from U.S. airports, which the groups say it could do by: Adopting operational measures to minimize fuel use and reduce emissions from aircraft; Requiring the use of lighter, more aerodynamic, and more energy efficient airplanes, as well as the development of even more efficient designs; and Adopting regulatory measures to create incentives for the use of cleaner jet fuels.

Access a release from Earthjustice with links to additional information including key aviation and global warming resources cited in the petition (click here). Access the petition filed by environmental groups (click here). Access a release from California Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. and link to the states' petition (click here). [*Climate, *Air]

Environmental Trust Releases "Taking Responsibility" Climate Report

Dec 3: Many individual states release more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than entire groups of developing countries. Forty-two U.S. states individually emit more carbon dioxide than 50 developing countries combined, and three states individually emit more CO2 than 100 developing countries. Taking Responsibility, a new report by the National Environmental Trust (NET), examines the greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. states as compared to developing countries and underscores the moral necessity for the United States to assume global leadership in ongoing efforts to craft a new post-Kyoto global climate treaty. Featuring a state by state profile of GHG emissions, the report also examines individual and collective efforts by U.S. states to reduce GHG emissions.

The report points out that the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), applying the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” specific ed that developed nations should be obligated to make greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions before less-polluting developing nations. Fairness decreed that developed countries -- responsible for the vast majority of historic emissions -- should have the responsibility for developing the technological solutions needed to reduce them.

Developing nations would thus have time to grow their economies, putting them in a better position to more quickly apply the technological solutions devised in the interim. This principle was upheld by the United States Senate, which ratified the 1992 UNFCCC, and has been a cornerstone of subsequent international agreements on climate change. The report says, "Unfortunately, some developed countries have begun arguing that 'differentiated responsibilities' no longer apply due to the rapid emissions increases by developing countries. They contend that binding emissions reduction goals must be undertaken by developed and developing countries alike. This argument may jeopardize efforts to create a framework for a new international agreement to stabilize the climate after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012."

As world leaders begin working on a new treaty for reducing greenhouse gases, the "report aims to provide perspective on who bears first responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also examines commitments made by developed and developing nations, and individual U.S. states, to reduce emissions."

Access a brief announcement of the report (click here). Access the complete 99-page report (click here). [*Climate]

Energy Bill Good News-Bad News: CAFE Compromise; RPS Stalemate

Nov 30: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a brief statement on energy legislation pending in Congress and an apparent agreement on the controversial issued of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The Senate passed H.R. 6 on June 21 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and on August 4, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221 [See WIMS 8/4/07]. The bills have been stalled by the inability to appoint a Conference Committee [See WIMS 10/22/07]. The new compromise bill is expected to be voted on this week in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Speaker Pelosi said, “CAFE will serve as the cornerstone of the energy legislation that will be on the House floor next week. We will achieve the major goal of increasing vehicle efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon in 2020, marking an historic advancement in our efforts in the Congress to address our energy security and laying strong groundwork for climate legislation next year. We are confident that this final product will win the support of the environmental, labor and manufacturing communities. This landmark energy legislation will offer the automobile industry the certainty it needs, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring we keep American manufacturing jobs and continued domestic production of smaller vehicles. This comprehensive package will also include an increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard [RFS] and a Renewable Electricity Standard [RES], among other key provisions.”

On December 1, 2007, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) President and CEO Dave McCurdy issued a statement saying, "The Alliance commends Congressional leaders for reaching agreement on an aggressive, nationwide fuel economy program. This agreement reflects much hard work and tough negotiating by many parties. Importantly, this agreement establishes nationwide fuel economy requirements for the next 12 years and beyond. Upon adoption of this legislation, Congress will have established aggressive, nationwide fuel economy requirements, concluding a longstanding debate.

"As we understand the agreement, these tough, national mileage standards merge provisions of both the Senate and House CAFE proposals. The agreement includes a number of necessary measures to help make the overall regulatory program more realistic and reasonable. Automakers are pleased that Congressional negotiators ultimately accepted the need for practical provisions like separate car and light truck standards and incentives for building more autos that run on non-petroleum-based fuels. The bill also provides mechanisms that help automakers balance the natural ups and downs of the product cycle.

"This historic legislation would not have been possible without the efforts of auto workers, dealers, suppliers, user groups and industry allies in the business community -- whose leaders and members participated in this process. One in 10 jobs in the U.S. is dependent on the auto industry. Indeed, no other industry is linked so much [to] U.S. manufacturing or generates more retail business and employment. We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage."

Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who was instrumental in securing the CAFE deal, issued the following statement saying, "I have supported raising CAFE standards in a sensible and effective way, and I believe the agreement reached today prescribes standards that are both aggressive and attainable. After weeks of productive discussion and negotiation, we have achieved consensus on several provisions that provide critical environmental safeguards without jeopardizing American jobs." Dingell thanked Representatives Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE) for their work on the compromise and said the deal would provide incentives to preserve approximately 17,000 domestic assembly plant jobs, and expand incentives for production of vehicles that run on biofuels such as ethanol or biodiesel.

Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and author of the 35 mile per gallon standard in the House, praised his colleague, John Dingell, for accepting this major step forward, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for holding firm on the 35 mpg standard. Markey said, "I know this is a difficult step to take for America’s auto companies, but the status quo was helping neither our nation nor the companies themselves. I especially appreciate Chairman Dingell’s willingness to let this reform go forward at this time, with the nation heavily dependent on oil costing $90 a barrel.” Markey said that as the chief House proponent of the 35 mpg standard, he did not force a vote on the measure last summer in hopes that with the help of Speaker Pelosi and the Senate, an agreement could be reached that would unite the Democratic Caucus. He said, "This strategy now appears to be paying off."

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), an original backer of the Senate CAFE standards agreement, announced details of what she called a landmark, bipartisan agreement on CAFE standards reached by key Senate and House negotiators. Senator Feinstein said, “The House and Senate have reached an historic agreement that achieves the first major mileage efficiency increase in two decades. It will increase the mileage of the overall fleet of vehicles by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years. We have been able to reach an agreement with the House that achieves the goal of the 10-in-10 Fuel Economy Act, without affecting the integrity of the bill..."

According to the Feinstein release by 2025, the fuel economy increases for cars and light-duty trucks would: Save 1.1 million barrels of oil saved per year, or nearly half the oil imported by the United States today from the Persian Gulf. (Union of Concerned Scientists); Remove 192 million metric tons of global warming pollution in 2020, a savings that will continue to increase in subsequent years. (Union of Concerned Scientists); and Save American families $700 - $1000 per year at the pump, depending on driving habits, (based on a $3.00 gas price). By 2020, the standards are estimated to save consumers $22 billion in net consumer savings in that year alone, a savings that will continue to increase in subsequent years. The release includes details of the agreement which will require that beginning in 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will annually increase the nationwide average fleet fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to achieve a standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020.

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee and outspoken opponent of the issued a statement on the apparent compromise saying, “From the beginning, I have been concerned that the lack of a formal conference committee would make it impossible to complete work on an energy bill that would contain the right priorities and have the votes to pass the Senate. It appears as though my fears have been well founded. For weeks, my staff, along with Senator Bingaman’s [D-NM, Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee], has been engaged in good faith negotiations with the House under a defined set of parameters laid out at the start of the process. We have made substantial bipartisan progress toward finalizing a bill. The legislation we have been working on contained a robust, much-needed Renewable Fuels Standard, important provisions on energy efficiency and carbon sequestration, and a long overdue increase in fuel economy standards. The parameters agreed to by Speaker Pelosi and communicated to us by Senate Democrats did not include a renewable portfolio standard [RPS or RES].

“It appears, however, that Speaker Pelosi has gone back on her word and chosen to go her own path on the energy bill. The inclusion of a costly, ineffective Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will make this bill untenable for many in the Senate. RPS may not be the only deviation from the negotiated bill text, as the Speaker appears willing to take advantage of the lack of a formal conference committee process and institute other changes in the bill as she sees fit. The Speaker expects the Senate to discard a negotiated, bipartisan agreement in favor of her bill without amendment. That is no way to pass legislation and is another in a long list of reasons why Congress has lost the faith and trust of the American people...

“At this time, I have instructed my staff to cease their work on the energy bill, since the final bill apparently will not be the product of our bipartisan negotiations. As someone who has been working for 35 years to forge bipartisan, good-faith compromises on tough issues like the federal budget and energy policy, I know that your word means everything. It is particularly disappointing for me to see that such a sentiment seems to be a thing of the past."

Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release from AAM (click here). Access a release from Representative Dingell (click here). Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access a detailed release from Senator Feinstein (click here). Access a release from Senator Domenici (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

12 States Sue EPA Over Toxics Release Inventory Regs

Nov 28: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced that New York and eleven other states are suing the U.S. EPA over new regulations which they say deny the public access to information about toxic chemicals in their communities. The other states include: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont. According to a release the suit seeks to overturn the weakened reporting requirements and provide the public with the access they had in the past. The states indicated that EPA rules will allow thousands of companies to avoid disclosing information to the public about the toxic chemicals they use, store, and release into the environment by rolling back chemical reporting requirements. The suite was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 07 CV 10632).

Attorney General Cuomo said, "The EPA’s new regulations rob New Yorkers -- and people across the country -- of their right to know about toxic dangers in their own backyards. Along with eleven other states throughout the nation, we will restore the public’s right to information about chemical hazards, despite the Bush administration’s best attempts to hide it.” The changes to the reporting requirements affect the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. The TRI is the only comprehensive, publicly-available database of toxic chemical use, storage, and release in the United States. Under the TRI, companies are required to provide the EPA and the states in which the company’s facilities are located with information critical to public health and safety, and the environment. The information includes the types and amounts of toxic chemicals stored at the company’s facilities and the quantities they release into the environment.

In December 2006 [See WIMS 1/2/07], EPA issued revised regulations that the states say significantly weakened the TRI by reducing the amount of information companies must report for most of the toxic chemicals covered by the program. They said that for most toxic chemicals, the EPA’s new regulations increased by 10-fold the quantity of chemical waste a facility can generate without providing detailed TRI reports. They also said EPA also weakened TRI reporting requirements for the vast majority of the most dangerous toxic chemicals -- those that are persistent and bioaccumulative -- including chemicals such as lead and mercury. As a result, "thousands of companies can now avoid filing a complete report on harmful chemicals."

According to the release, under the former regulations, TRI information became a powerful tool used by communities to protect public health and safety, and the environment: Citizen groups used TRI data to monitor companies in their communities; State and local government entities used TRI data to track toxic chemicals; Labor organizations used TRI data to ensure the safety of their workers; Companies used the TRI program to learn of the toxic pollution they had created; this resulted in companies voluntarily reducing their toxic chemical releases by billions of pounds nationwide. "The EPA’s rollback of TRI regulations now limits the ability of labor organizations, environmental and public health advocates, community groups, and individuals to effectively monitor and respond to the presence of toxins in their communities. The EPA’s rollback particularly impacts low-income communities and communities of color, many of which are burdened with the siting of industrial facilities."

On February 6, 2007, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing on, Oversight of Recent EPA Decisions, which included the weakening the Community’s Right to Know, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Stephen Johnson, U.S. EPA Administrator; U.S. Government Accountability Office; Chief Counsel for Advocacy for the U.S. Small Business Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Baltimore Glassware Decorators; American Library Association; Air Lawyer with Holland and Hart; and Professor of Medicine at University of California, San Francisco. GAO released its testimony entitled, Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability of Environmental Information to the Public (GAO-07-464T, February 6, 2007). [See the link to the eNewsUSA Blog posting below to link to the hearing website, GAO report and related information]

Access a lengthy release from Attorney General Cuomo with numerous quotes from various groups and organizations supporting the lawsuit (click here). Access the 99-page complaint filed by the 12 states (click here). Access the eNewsUSA Blog post on the Senate hearing (click here). Access EPA's TRI final "burden reduction rule" website for related background documents (click here). [*Toxics]

Major Multi-Interest Report On GHG Reduction Options

Nov 29: McKinsey & Company and The Conference Board released a major study on the options for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the United States. Published on the eve of the thirteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-13), December 3-14, 2007, in Bali, Indonesia, the report is based on in-depth analysis of more than 250 abatement options covering the main greenhouse gas emitting sectors of the economy.

McKinsey indicates that for the first time, the report gives business leaders and policy makers a comprehensive framework for assessing the costs and benefits associated with alternate paths towards greenhouse gas abatement. The analysis suggests that the United States can make substantial progress towards lowering emissions at manageable costs to the economy, if early action is taken. The report was produced in association with DTE Energy, Environmental Defense, Honeywell, National Grid, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), PG&E, and Shell.

The Conference Board, the world's preeminent business membership and research organization, best known for the Consumer Confidence Index and the Leading Economic Indicators, said it hopes the report will "stimulate an important national dialogue, one that is based on facts, analysis and quantitative metrics. And we will need to be prepared for an enduring dialogue fueled by continuing research, because the issues and choices we face are complex."

McKinsey & Company notes in the Executive Summary, "the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas abatement will for some period of time be shared unequally among stakeholders, and this will likely cause a great deal of contention." The Conference Board said it does not advocate any particular policy direction, nor does it suggest ways in which these contentious choices can be resolved. But, they said, "we do argue -- forcefully -- that creating a common base of facts and a clear analytical framework will help better inform the business community, policy makers and the public at large to make better choices. We look forward to helping achieve this goal."

McKinsey & Company indicates that over the past 2 years, it has worked with leading institutions and experts to develop a framework and fact base to understand the costs and potentials of different options for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – first at a global level, then through country-specific analyses for major GHG-emitting nations. In February 2007, we launched the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative (US GHG AMI) in collaboration with leading U.S.-based companies and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Our effort examined opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from human activity within U.S. borders using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. This report is the product of that work.

Among the main findings of the report, Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, are:

• Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are highly fragmented and widely spread across the economy. The largest single option -- carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal-fired power plants -- offers less than 11 percent of total potential identified. The largest sector, power generation, accounts for less than one third of the total.
  
• Reducing emissions by 3 gigatons of CO2e in 2030 would require $1.1 trillion of additional capital spending, or roughly 1.5 percent of the $77 trillion in real investment the U.S. economy is expected to make over this period.
  
• Investment would need to be higher in the early years, in order to capture energy efficiency gains at lowest overall costs and accelerate the development of key technologies, and would be highly concentrated in the power and transportation sectors.
  
• If pursued, such investment would likely put upward pressure on electricity prices and vehicle costs. Policymakers would need to weigh these added costs against the energy efficiency savings, opportunities for technological advances, and other societal benefits.

The report identifies what it calls the "Central Conclusion Of This Report" as: "The United States could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO2e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options available at marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future."

NRDC issued a release saying the report offers the most comprehensive assessment to date of the options and opportunities for cutting U.S. global warming emissions to levels that experts say are needed to avert costly and dangerous environmental damages. Using detailed pricing and technological analyses for more than 250 different measures, the study concludes that the needed results are achievable at little or no net cost to the economy, provided we act now. NRDC said the report strongly emphasizes that policy, rather than technology itself, is the key to moving cleaner, more efficient solutions off the shelves, out of the labs, and into the marketplace.

Environmental Defense issued a statement saying, "The independent analysis drew on actual industrial experience, assumed that consumer behavior and preferences would remain in line with current trends, and did not assume major technological breakthroughs... [and] found that emissions reductions along the lines of climate change legislation pending in Congress can be achieved by 2030 with proven and emerging technologies, and that nearly 40 percent of 250 potential emissions reductions opportunities would more than pay for themselves and create net savings for the economy."

National Grid, the company that delivers electricity to approximately 3.3 million customers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, and manages the electricity network on Long Island under an agreement with the Long Island Power Authority issued a release saying, "We are pleased to have sponsored this important and thorough analysis. It is vital that corporations and policymakers immediately start working together to tackle the challenge of global warming. Doing nothing is no longer an option - greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, resulting in more damage to the environment and even greater costs when we inevitably come to address the problem. We believe energy efficiency programs are the best way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. The report gives business leaders and policy makers the first comprehensive framework for prioritizing the most cost effective options to cut greenhouse gas emissions. By covering the main GHG emitting sectors, this report gives decision makers the information they need to craft cost effective policy initiatives. The analysis suggests that the U.S. can substantially cut emissions at a manageable cost to the economy and that energy efficiency has an important part to play. Many efficiency options will pay for themselves, significantly reducing CO2 emissions at no cost to the economy."

Access an announcement from The Conference Board (click here). Access a link to the complete 107-page report (click here), registration requested). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the release from the National Grid (click here). Access The Conference Board Center for Corporate Citizenship & Sustainability for additional information (click here). [Note: Other companies including: DTE Energy, Honeywell, PG&E, and Shell has not issued press statements or releases at press time.] [*Climate]

Representatives Object To EPA Proposed Comparable Fuel Exclusion

Nov 26: Twenty-five members of Congress, led by Representatives Mark Kirk (R-IL), Hilda L. Solis (D-CA), have sent a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson expressing "serious concerns" over EPA's proposed rule of June 15, 2007, that would expand the RCRA "Comparable Fuel Exclusion [72 FR 33284, 6/15/07]. The Members said, "This rule seeks to expand by more than eight times the current amount of hazardous waste reclassified as Comparable Fuel and excluded from all hazardous waste regulations. With an expansion of this magnitude, it is imperative that all relevant information be made available to the public so that potentially affected communities are afforded the right to comment on such a serious proposal..."

The Members indicate that in issuing the proposed rule, EPA never made available the exact facilities expected to handle and dispose of the deregulated waste. They said, "This information was released only after the comment period ended. The communities surrounding these eighty-six facilities were unaware that the rule would directly affect them and should be allowed to comment in light of this new information."

A release by the public interest law firm, Earthjustice states that EPA plan would "reclassify over 100,000 tons of hazardous waste, allowing many companies to use this waste as fuel rather than handle it as dangerous hazardous waste. The result is that many companies will burn this waste onsite, instead of sending it to a strictly controlled hazardous waste incinerator." They said that 90% of the companies that would be able to burn this hazardous waste onsite have been identified by EPA as needing "corrective action" for not fully complying with existing federal hazardous waste management regulations.

Congressman Kirk said, "The communities that would see increases in toxic pollutants were not notified until after the EPA comment period ended. This is particularly alarming, given that the EPA's own best-case estimates indicate the waste could release more pollutants than the combustion of fossil fuels. The 86 communities affected nationwide have a right to voice their concerns to this plan." Congresswoman Solis said, "By failing to reveal information about the location of facilities likely to burn hazardous waste, the EPA knowingly denied communities the chance to comment. Communities such as those in Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley deserve an opportunity to participate in the process, particularly when their health and their environment are at risk. I urge the EPA to re-open this comment period and hope they will listen closely to the concerns of environmental justice communities across this country."

Earthjustice attorneys filed a Freedom of Information Act request that ultimately forced EPA to finally divulged the data. Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans said, "The gamble that EPA is taking with people's lives to make it easier for companies to burn more hazardous waste is simply wrong. EPA itself freely admits that they cannot guarantee burning this waste will have little or no adverse impact." Earthjustice said the so-called "emission-comparable fuels" rule is another EPA discretionary rulemaking in a "long line of free passes for polluters." They cite a 2006, the U.S. District Court of Appeals decision finding saying that EPA routinely neglects its duty to protect public health and the environment, and instead, "devotes substantial resources to discretionary rulemakings, many of which make existing regulations more congenial to industry." Earthjustice said, "In 2005, the Office of Management and Budget gave EPA its marching orders by publishing a list of regulatory rollbacks sought by industry. The Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council had put this relaxed hazardous waste burning regulation at the top of their wish list."

Earthjustice identifies some of the major facilities and notes: the Clean Harbors Baltimore facility in Baltimore, MD, will store and transport 2,077 tons of hazardous waste; the Systech Environmental Corporation in Paulding, OH, will store and transport 10,450 tons of hazardous waste; and the Safety Kleen Systems facility in Dolton, IL, just south of Chicago, will burn 1,786 tons of additional hazardous waste annually in boilers not permitted to burn hazardous waste. Information on the other facilities is available from the link below.

Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the letter from Congressional members and the list of members (click here). Access more information about the other 83 facilities (click here). Access a map of the United States indicating the where the facilities are located and additional information (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the EPA Docket for this proposed rulemaking (click here). [*Haz]

Pelosi Says Energy Package Deal May Be Next Week

Nov 26: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued the statement following a White House ceremony honoring former Vice President Al Gore and other American winners of the Nobel Prize. Pelosi said, “Vice President Al Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has awakened the world, and particularly young people, to the enormous and looming threat of the climate crisis and the need for immediate action." With only a couple of weeks left in this year's legislative session, the Speaker made a major prediction.

She said, “Congress is now moving forward with historic energy legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign fuels and promote energy efficiency. We have made significant progress toward completing this package and hope to have a final agreement next week. This energy package will lay the groundwork for the Congress to move forward next year with comprehensive action to address climate change. It is also incumbent on the Bush Administration, after years of resistance, to become a leader in the global effort to reduce climate change. We owe it to our children and to the future to act now.

“I again congratulate Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on their winning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is a culmination of decades of dedication and perseverance. Just as Al Gore tirelessly fought to change the global warming debate, Congress must now act to change America’s energy policy and begin to halt climate change.”

Just prior to the Thanksgiving Day break, Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi indicating possible compromises on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards; as well as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) [See WIMS 11/21/07]. The Senate passed H.R. 6 on June 21 [See WIMS 6/22/07] and on August 4, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221 [See WIMS 8/4/07]. The bills have been stalled by the inability to appoint a Conference Committee [See WIMS 10/22/07].

Access a statement from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access Chairman Dingell's 3-page letter (click here). Access links to various media reports on the latest activity including a lengthy article in the Detroit Free Press (click here). [*Energy]

European Commission Outlines Bali Roadmap Building Blocks

Nov 26: Stavros Dimas, the European Commissioner for the Environment, delivered a speech to the Lisbon Council on November 26, entitled, The Road to Bali. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be holding the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP), third Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (formerly known as MOP3, now CMP3), in Bali, Indonesia from December 3-13, 2007.

Dimas said, "Three years ago climate change was still seen as a 'green issue'. It was important -- but nowhere near the top of the political agenda. Corporate interest in cutting emissions was limited to a few sectors such as renewable energy. Many companies worried about a potential loss of competitiveness. And a number of influential companies were actively lobbying against legislation to reduce emissions. Some were even funding campaigns to discredit the scientific evidence. We are now on the final miles of the Road to Bali and it seems that the world has been turned upside down. Prime ministers who oppose Kyoto are being voted out of office -- and I would like to publicly congratulate Kevin Rudd on his decision to sign and ratify the Kyoto protocol.

"Business is now realizing that there are huge competitive opportunities from being at the head of the inevitable shift to the low carbon economy. Instead of skepticism, company leaders are now competing to demonstrate their green credentials. It is against this context that I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to set out the EU's position in view of the crucial UN conference on climate change opening in Bali on 3 December...

"The end of 2012 is just five years away, so time is not on our side. That is why it is essential that the Bali conference reach a consensus to launch negotiations on this future agreement. Bali must also set a clear deadline for completing the negotiations by the end of 2009 so there will be enough time to ratify the new agreement and bring it into force by the end of 2012. To guide the negotiations there needs to be a 'shared vision' of what the new agreement is seeking to achieve. For the EU it is clear the objective must be to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Centigrade above the pre-industrial temperature. This goal is fully supported by the IPCC's projections of far more dangerous impacts beyond this level. Keeping within the 2 degrees limit means that global emissions must peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then be cut by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050...

"...we need consensus at Bali on what a post-2012 agreement should cover. The EU is proposing seven key building blocks that should constitute the main elements of the agreement and which should therefore be reflected in the ‘Bali Roadmap’ that will set the agenda for the negotiations."

The seven "building blocks" outlined included: (1) binding and absolute emissions reduction commitments by the developed countries, who are responsible for the bulk of today's emissions. Developed countries must reduce their collective emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. (2) fair and effective contributions by developing countries, in particular the emerging economies. (3) extend the use of carbon markets as a key tool to foster development and deployment of low carbon investments and technologies. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will also help to finance action in developing countries. (4) cooperation on research, development and deployment of clean technologies must be scaled up. (5) emissions from international aviation and maritime transport have to be addressed. (6) find performance-based incentives and other tools that can halt deforestation as soon as possible. (7) step up action on adaptation to climate change, in particular, increase assistance to the poorest developing countries.

Dimas’ remarks served as a keynote for the Lisbon Council’s Climate Change Action Group, which convened in Brussels. The Lisbon Council for Economic Competitiveness and Social Renewal is a think tank and policy network committed to defining and articulating a mature strategy for managing current and future challenges.

Access the European Commission Bali position speech (click here). Access further information on the upcoming COP13 meeting in Bali (click here). Access the Lisbon Council website for additional information (click here). [*Climate]

Third Circuit Reverses DuPont Due To Atlantic Research Decision

WIMS will not be publishing Thursday and Friday,
November 22 and 23, 2007,

in observance of the Thanksgiving Day holiday.

We hope you have an enjoyable and safe Thanksgiving.

Nov 20: In the case of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 04-2096, has reversed its previous decision in the case in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. [See WIMS 6/12/07]. In its opening discussion the Third Circuit indicates that the case is being reviewed on the order of the Supreme Court of the United States dated June 18, 2007, which granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by DuPont, vacated the previous judgment of Third Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its opinion in Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 2331 (2007). In their earlier opinion the Third Circuit majority held that DuPont could not pursue an action under CERCLA to recover from the United States a portion of its cleanup costs. The dissenting opinion would have held that DuPont could maintain an action for cost recovery under § 107 of CERCLA.

In its Atlantic Research Corp decision, the High Court succinctly summarizes its opinion saying, "Two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -- §§107(a) and 113(f) -- allow private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites. 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a), 9613(f). In this case, we must decide a question left open in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004): whether §107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 42 U. S. C. §§9607(a)(1)–(4), with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs. We hold that it does." The Third Circuit Appeals Court said, "In light of the Supreme Court’s order, we return to the issue presented."

In the DuPont case before the Third Circuit, DuPont admits that its industrial facilities throughout the U.S. are contaminated with hazardous waste and it contaminated those sites, but alleges that the United States also contaminated parts of the sites. After DuPont voluntarily cleaned up a site jointly polluted by both DuPont and the government, DuPont filed this suit under CERCLA seeking an order requiring the government to reimburse it for a share of the cleanup costs.

On its review, the Third Circuit says, "The Supreme Court decision thereafter in Atlantic Research Corp... is dispositive of the issue before us. Atlantic Research, a PRP, had contaminated the soil and groundwater at an ammunition facility with burned fuel, but the United States had also polluted the site... Atlantic Research voluntarily cleaned up the site, even though it had not been the subject of a suit under §106 or § 107... It then sued the United States under both §§ 107(a) and 113(f) to recover a share of its voluntary cleanup expenses... The Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, held that, although Atlantic Research could not sue the United States under § 113(f) in that case because no §106 or § 107 action was pending or had been brought against Atlantic Research, it could bring a cost recovery claim under §107(a)..."

The Appeals Court states further that, "Voluntary cleanups are vital to fulfilling CERCLA’s purpose. During deliberations on the SARA Amendments, Congress emphasized the importance of voluntary action... Although supervised cleanups are to be encouraged wherever possible, they need not be encouraged at the expense of unsupervised cleanups. Under § 107(a)(4)(B), a party is liable for costs incurred in a cleanup (voluntary or otherwise) only insofar as those costs are 'costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan...' By the plain text of the statute, a party that seeks recovery for costs incurred in a cleanup that does not comport with the national contingency plan is without recourse. Because there has been no suggestion that DuPont’s cleanup is in that position, it has stated a viable cause of action for cost recovery under § 107(a).

"For the reasons set forth, we will reverse the decision of the District Court with respect to any claim made by DuPont for costs incurred while undertaking voluntary cleanup efforts and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion."

Access the complete 17-page opinion (click here). [*Remed]

Furnace & Boiler Energy Standards Called "Extraordinarily Weak"

Nov 19: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced it has increased the energy efficiency standards for residential furnaces and boilers, underscoring the Department’s commitment to meet its aggressive, five-year appliance standard rulemaking schedule, as established in its January 31, 2006, Report to Congress. The Department said it estimates that these amended standards, which become effective in 2015, will save the equivalent of the total amount of energy consumed by 2.5 million American households in one year, or approximately 0.25 quadrillion (10x15) British thermal units (Btus) of energy, over a period of 24 years [from 2015–2038].

DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner said, “As a nation, we must find better and more ways to both conserve energy and use it more efficiently and productively. These amended standards will not only cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, but they also allow consumers to make smarter energy choices that will save energy and money. Improving appliance standards is a top priority of the Department of Energy, and in the coming years, we intend to maintain and, where possible, accelerate the extraordinary progress we have made over the last two years.”

DOE has determined that energy efficiency standards for residential non-weatherized and weatherized gas furnaces, mobile home gas furnaces, oil-fired furnaces, and gas- and oil-fired boilers are technologically feasible, economically justified, and will result in significant conservation of energy as a result of increased efficiency. The total energy savings are estimated to result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 7.8 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide -- an amount equal to the emissions produced by 2.6 percent of all light truck vehicles on U.S. roads in one year.

The Final Rule for residential furnaces and boilers was issued under a consent decree schedule entered in State of New York v. Bodman. DOE sought to modify the schedule in order to more fully review comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments indicated the feasibility and desirability of addressing natural gas price impacts as a result of the standards at issue in this rulemaking. DOE wished to more fully consider such potential impacts, prior to finalizing this Rule, and preliminarily believed that, if confirmed, would have merited consideration in evaluating higher efficiency standards for the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE’s motion to modify the consent decree was denied and therefore, DOE issued the Final Rule on November 19, 2007, The amended standards were published in the Federal Register [72 FR 65135-65170].

A coalition of consumer, energy, and environmental organizations sharply criticized the new standards calling them "extraordinarily weak" [See WIMS 10/6/06]. They said not only are the standards little changed from the original levels set by Congress twenty years ago, but also 99% of natural gas furnaces currently sold already meet the new minimum efficiency level. Andrew deLaski, Executive Director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) said, "DOE has delivered a 'turkey' of an efficiency rule. This Thanksgiving, that's bitter news for Americans who care about global warming, high energy prices, and our dependence on overseas energy."

The groups said the standard just increases the minimum gas furnace efficiency level to 80% from the current level of 78%. The rule also modestly increases the standards for oil furnaces and oil and gas boilers, which, on a national basis, are far less common than gas furnaces. David B. Goldstein, Energy Program Co-Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "This standard is grossly inadequate -- a 90% natural gas furnace efficiency standard would provide more than seventeen times the carbon savings. Today's decision makes it all too clear that the Energy Department attaches zero value to cutting global warming emissions." Goldstein noted that recently both the head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, and Secretary of State Rice have highlighted appliance standards as one of best ways to cut global warming emissions.

The groups also point out that four states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maryland); frustrated with the pace and direction of the Federal standards, have already set their own furnace and boiler standards. Other states such as New Hampshire and New Jersey are considering following suit. Susan Coakley, Executive Director of the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) said, "In the Northeast, consumer energy bills and global warming rank as top concerns and efficiency ranks as the top solution. We urge northeast states to move forward immediately to implement their legislation to establish higher, more cost-effective state standards. Such state leadership is crucial to protect consumers and reduce carbon emissions in light of this federal failure to lead." The final rule provides guidance to states for how they can seek a waiver from Federal preemption, which is necessary for them to enforce their own standards. However, such an approach likely will lead to a patchwork of standards among the various states. Other major groups objecting to the standards include the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the final rules (click here). Access DOE's residential furnaces and boilers website for additional information (click here). Access a lengthy release from ACEEE (click here). [*Energy]

Markey Introduces Bottle Deposit Recycling Climate Protection Act

Nov 15: Representative. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, introduced the Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act (H.R. 4238), which would decrease global warming pollution and cut down on energy use by encouraging large-scale recycling of cans, bottles and other beverage containers throughout America. The introduction of the bill coincided with America Recycles Day. The bill has 11 cosponsors. A December 2006 GAO report cited a nationwide deposit law as an effective policy option to increase municipal recycling [See WIMS 1/29/07].

The bill would establish a national 5 cent deposit on beverage containers, including plastic water bottles and other containers that have become more prevalent in recent years after many state programs were established. According to Markey, the bottles and other containers pour into landfills and use energy to produce, thereby creating global warming pollution and other environmental issues. In 2006, more than half of the 200 billion beverage containers that could have been recycled in the United States were incinerated or littered.

Markey said, “Congress can send the nation a global warming message in a bottle. We can still quench our thirst while reducing our thirst for energy. And we can have carbon dioxide in our fizzy drinks, while cutting down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” Currently, 11 states have deposit programs that encourage consumers to return containers to claim the refund on the deposit. In the states that have passed bottle bills, recycling rates are twice that of states without deposit laws. The new National Bottle Bill recognizes the leadership of the states on this issue, and exempts states that have high recycling rates or existing state legislation from the national standard for 3 years, or as long as they maintain high recycling rates.

Plastic water and juice bottles have become increasingly prevalent since many state bottle bills were initially adopted. Including plastic bottles in a national bottle bill would lead to significant savings in energy and oil consumption. One ton of recycled plastic saves 5,774 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity and 685 gallons of oil. Aluminum cans also account for an increasing amount of waste. 58 billion cans are thrown away every year in the United States, enough to fill the Empire State Building six times. If all these cans were recycled, it would cut the emissions of heat-trapping carbon pollution by nearly 6 million tons, or the equivalent of the pollution from more than one million cars. Cans made from recycled aluminum use 95 percent less energy than cans manufactured with new materials.

Markey said, “Recycling is an everyday action that we can all take to cut global warming emissions and be good environmental stewards. Our national goal should be to one day recycle every single bottle we use, and this bill will get us closer to that goal and that day.” The National Bottle Bill has already gained support from leading environmental and recycling organizations, including the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Public Interest Research Group.

The CRI's has issued a report and presentation on the problems with increasing numbers of plastic bottle from bottled water. The report, Water, Water Everywhere:The Growth of Non-Carbonated Beverages in the U.S., chronicles the dramatic increase in sales of bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages in recent years and looks at the projected growth of the non-carbonated market. A separate presentation addresses the rapid growth of bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages and how state legislatures are considering updating deposit laws to include these beverages that did not exist 25 years ago.

Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4238 (click here). Access the CRI website for links to their reports and information (click here). [*Solid, *P2]

2007 CBO Director's Conference On Climate Change

Nov 16: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Peter Orszag hosted the 2007 Director's Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC. The conference is held each year to bring outside experts together with CBO analysts in a collaborative effort that helps further the agency's research agenda. This year's conference featured leading researchers addressing key questions in the debate on climate change. In opening the Conference, Director Orszag delivered a 17-page statement entitled, Issues In Climate Change, to the Conference. The document provides an excellent summary of the policy debate that is now beginning to crystallize in legislation currently being considered in Congress and which will be intently scrutinized next month (December 3-14) in Bali, Indonesia when 180 countries meet at the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP13) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Orszag indicates, global climate change is one of the nation’s most significant long-term policy challenges. Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). The accumulation of those gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world. The magnitude of such damage remains highly uncertain. But there is growing recognition that some degree of risk exists for the damage to be large and perhaps even catastrophic.

Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions would be beneficial in limiting the degree of damage associated with climate change. However, decreasing those emissions would also impose costs on the economy -- in the case of CO2, because much economic activity is based on fossil fuels, which release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide when they are burned. Most analyses suggest that a carefully designed program to begin lowering CO2 emissions would produce greater benefits than costs.

Employing incentive-based policies to reduce CO2 emissions would be much more cost-effective than using more-restrictive command-and-control approaches (such as imposing technology standards on electricity generators). Incentive-based policies use the power of markets to identify the least costly sources of emission reductions. Thus, they can better reflect technological advances, differences between industries or companies in their ability to make low-cost emission reductions, and changes in market conditions. Policymakers can choose between two general forms of incentive-based policies -- those that limit the overall level of emissions (so-called quantity instruments) or those that reduce emissions by raising their price (so-called price instruments). The simplest price-based mechanism would be a tax on emissions. The simplest quantity-based mechanism would be a cap-and-trade program.

Designing policies to address climate change is complicated by uncertainty about the damage that might result from unchecked emissions and uncertainty about the cost of reducing those emissions. A pragmatic climate policy will probably involve a sequence of decisions based on the gradual accumulation of information and the resolution of uncertainties. For such an approach, policies that can be easily modified over time would offer advantages. A flexible approach to dealing with climate change could include three different policy strategies: Researching the problem and developing technologies to address it; Adapting to a warmer climate, and; Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition, a comprehensive climate policy would inevitably involve coordinating U.S. policies with those of other countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Other presentations at the Conference included CBO representatives discussing both micro and macro economics; researchers from Stanford, Northeastern, Tufts, and MIT universities; Resources for the Future; U.S. EPA and the DOE Energy Information Administration.

Access the CBO Director's statement and links to all other presentations at the Conference (click here). [*Climate]

9th Circuit CAFE Ruling: Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA

Nov 15: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 06-71891, 06-72317, 06-72694, 06-73807, and 06-73826. As explained by the Appeals Court, eleven states, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, and four public interest organizations petition for review of a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) entitled “Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model Years 2008-2011,” 71 Fed. Reg. 17,566 (Apr. 6, 2006) (Final Rule) (codified at 49 C.F.R. pt. 533). Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 49 U.S.C. §§ 32901-32919 (2007), the Final Rule sets corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks, defined by NHTSA to include many Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and pickup trucks, for Model Years (MYs) 2008-2011. For MYs 2008-2010, the Final Rule sets new CAFE standards using its traditional method, fleet-wide average (Unreformed CAFE). For MY 2011 and beyond, the Final Rule creates a new CAFE structure that sets varying fuel economy targets depending on vehicle size and requires manufacturers to meet different fuel economy levels depending on their vehicle fleet mix (Reformed CAFE).

Petitioners challenge the Final Rule under the EPCA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). First, they argue that the Final Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the EPCA because (a) the agency’s cost-benefit analysis does not set the CAFE standard at the “maximum feasible” level and fails to give due consideration to the need of the nation to conserve energy; (b) its calculation of the costs and benefits of alternative fuel economy standards assigns zero value to the benefit of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction; (c) its calculation of costs and benefits of alternative fuel economy standards fails to evaluate properly the benefit of vehicle weight reduction; (d) Reformed CAFE standards will depend on manufacturer fleet mix and not guarantee a minimum average fuel economy or “backstop”; (e) the transition period during which manufacturers may choose to comply with either Unreformed or Reformed CAFE is contrary to the “maximum feasible” requirement and unnecessary; (f) it perpetuates the “SUV loophole,” which allows SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks to satisfy a lower fuel economy standard than cars; and (g) it excludes most vehicles rated between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (comprised mostly of large pickup trucks) from any fuel economy regulation, even though these vehicles satisfy the statutory criteria for regulation.

Second, Petitioners argue that NHTSA’s Environmental Assessment is inadequate under NEPA because it fails to take a “hard look” at the greenhouse gas implications of its rulemaking and fails to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives or examine the rule’s cumulative impact. Petitioners also argue that NEPA requires NHTSA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

NHTSA argues that the Final Rule is not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to the EPCA, the Environmental Assessment’s evaluation of the environmental consequences of its action is adequate, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that it has jurisdiction to review the Final Rule issued by NHTSA and said, "the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the EPCA in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement."

Sierra Club, one of the parties in the case issued a statement calling the decision, "a huge victory for the Sierra Club, several other environmental groups, and several states by voiding the Bush administration’s fuel economy standards for light trucks... This decision is a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, its continued insistence on ignoring the law, and stubborn refusal to take meaningful steps to address global warming pollution from automobiles. NHTSA is free to use a cost-benefit analysis to set fuel economy standards, but today the court told them they cannot put a thumb on the scale by continuing to ignore the costs of failing to act on global warming."

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) issued a statement saying, "Automakers support aggressive fuel economy increases that would raise the standards for all vehicles to as much as 35 miles per gallon by 2022. We share the goal of an energy bill and CAFE standard that is good for the consumer, environment and energy security. We continue to believe such a bill can be reached with industry support. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set national fuel economy standards at the ‘maximum feasible’ level taking into account key elements such as technological feasibility, affordability, safety, emissions controls, consumer choice, disparate impacts on manufacturers and effects on American jobs. A good balance of safety, higher fuel economy, and jobs benefits all Americans.

"Announced more than 19 months ago the MY 2008-2011 light truck fuel economy rule represented the largest fuel economy increase in the history of the CAFE program. It has become the basis for product planning through 2011. Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made towards increasing fleet wide fuel economy. Ongoing advancements by auto engineers are leading to even greater fuel economy gains. New models are increasingly available with highly fuel-efficient technologies like variable valve timing, continuously variable transmissions, cylinder deactivation and more. Advanced technology vehicles, including hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen internal combustion engines and clean diesel vehicles, offer the promise of significant increases in fuel efficiency without sacrificing consumer needs for safety, performance, comfort and utility, but adequate lead time is necessary in order to fully integrate these technologies into the marketplace."

Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from AAM (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

Despite Critics DOE Touts GNEP On European & Central Asia Tour

Nov 13: U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman delivered remarks at the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, highlighting the importance of robust investments in a diversity of energy supplies and breakthrough technologies to meet growing global demand for energy. While in Rome, Secretary Bodman welcomed Italy to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an international framework that DOE says is "aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide while responsibly managing nuclear waste and reducing proliferation risks." Italy is the most recent nation to sign the GNEP Statement of Principles, which 16 nations joined in September at the Partnership’s second Ministerial in Vienna, Austria.

The GNEP program has recently come under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. Despite the NAS concerns, Secretary Bodman said, “By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future. To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth.”

In signing the GNEP Principles, Italy joins China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, who are original GNEP partners, as well as Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Ukraine in efforts to address the prospects of expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks, and advanced technologies. DOE indicates that GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.

Italy is the first stop in Secretary Bodman’s five-nation visit to Europe and Central Asia. Later in the week, he will travel to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan to address the Turkmenistan Industrial Oil and Gas Exhibit (TIOGE) and meet with the President and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan. Following his visit to Turkmenistan, he will travel to Turkey to highlight the importance of expanding and securing oil and gas infrastructure and to Greece to celebrate the opening of the Turkey-Greece Inter-connector pipeline, which will be a critical link between the gas suppliers of central Asia and the consumers of Europe. He will conclude his trip in London, England where he is expected to hold bilateral meetings with senior English officials and deliver remarks to U.S. and British business leaders.

The GNEP program has also been criticized by others. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."

Simultaneously, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held a hearing today (November 14, 2007), to receive testimony on GNEP as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel management. Those testifying at the hearing included: the Department of Energy; the Congressional Budget Office; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Harvard University Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; and The Boston Consulting Group.

DOE testified that, "GNEP is crucial to developing an effective and durable waste management strategy in the United States, aswell as around the world. To that end, GNEP is completely compatible with our near-term effort to license and open the waste repository at Yucca Mountain."

CBO testified that, "The cost of directly disposing of spent nuclear fuel is less than the cost of reprocessing it..." CBO said that one study by the Boston Consulting Group estimates that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost $585 per kilogram and another study, by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government indicates a cost about $1,300 per kilogram -- or more than twice as much as direct disposal. CBO concludes that for the roughly 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel produced each year in the United States, the reprocessing alternative would be likely to cost at least $5 billion more in present-value terms than the direct-disposal alternative over the life of a reprocessing plant.

Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center testified that, "Some elements of GNEP could make important contributions to reducing proliferation risks. Unfortunately, GNEP’s heavy focus on building a commercial-scale reprocessing plant in the near term would, if accepted, increase proliferation risks rather than decreasing them...The recent National Academy of Sciences review has provided an excellent discussion of just how premature it would be to build commercial-scale facilities now, unanimously recommending against proceeding with a GNEP program focused on near-term large-scale construction." Neil Todreas of MIT testified, "I believe such an R&D program to evaluate the potential of nuclear energy systems operating in the closed fuel cycle is an important national undertaking."

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the GNEP website for further details (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the letter to Senators (click here). Access the Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]