May 20: Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform indicates that the Committee's investigation has uncovered details of White House involvement in EPA’s regulation of ozone on the eve of a court imposed deadline, forcing EPA staff to scrap a standard supported by its independent panel and to perform “emergency rewrites” to the regulation. Waxman said, "Documents obtained by the Committee show that EPA staff raised serious concerns about the merits and legality of the decision." Waxman also released extensive documentation on the Committee's investigation of the California waiver request decision (See more below).
On March 12, 2008, at approximately 6 PM, on the court-ordered deadline date, U.S. EPA met its requirements under the Clean Air Act and a court-ordered deadline by signing the new primary 8-hour ozone the final National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and the new secondary standard at a form and level identical to the primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards were identical 8-hour standards, set at 0.08 ppm; however, EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel had unanimously recommended a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.
Waxman released a 12-page memorandum providing additional information about EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and said the findings were based on a review of approximately 30,000 pages of previously undisclosed documents received from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as publicly available documents. Many of the documents are posted on the Committee's website. The memo indicates that, "The Committee's investigation shows that the process that led to the new standards was highly unusual, particularly the process of setting the secondary standard. . ."
The memo continues, "Late on March 11, the evening before the court-ordered deadline, EPA was informed that the President had rejected the position of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. This decision set off what one official described as an 'emergency rewrite' to justify setting the secondary standard at the same level as the primary standard, as the White House directed. The final rule dropped the language in the draft that concluded a cumulative, seasonal standard was 'necessary ... to ensure the requisite degree of protection.' In its place, the final rule stated: 'The Administrator ... does not believe that an alternative cumulative, seasonal standard is needed.' The documents show that the EPA staff questioned both the legality and motivation for the last-minute change in the secondary standard . . ."
"The Committee sought to learn the basis for the President's decision to reject the recommendations of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The White House, however, is withholding hundreds of pages of documents that would explain what happened inside the White House. . . "
On May 20, the Committee held a hearing on, “EPA’s New Ozone Standards.”Witnesses included: Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator; Susan Dudley, Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and representatives of the Union Of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council; an Advisor on Toxicology and Human Heath Risk Analysis; and a Partner with the law firm of Sidley Austin, LLP.
In an opening statement, Representative Waxman said, "For months this Committee has been investigating recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions relating to both global warming and new air quality standards. And after reviewing nearly 60 thousand pages of internal documents and interviewing officials involved in the rulemakings, we have found evidence that the White House again ignored the facts and the law."
Waxman cites recent instances where the White House intervened in the California waiver petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks and then in the NAAQS ozone rulemaking. He said the Committee's investigation revealed that "EPA officials were astounded by the President's decision and said it wasn't supported by either the science or the law." One official wrote: "I have been working on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for over 30 years and have yet to see anything like this."
Waxman said, "The same thing happened in a third critical rulemaking. Last April, the Supreme Court directed EPA to determine whether CO2 emissions endanger health and the environment and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. . . In each of these rulemakings, the pattern is the same: the President apparently insisted on his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA's scientific and legal experts. Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence that the President based his decisions on the science, the record, or the law. Indeed, there's virtually no credible record of any kind in support of the decisions.
"I recognize and support the broad powers our Constitution vests with the President of the United States. But the President does not have absolute power and he is not above the law. The President may have a personal opinion about the new ozone standards, California's motor vehicle standards, and regulating CO2, but he is not allowed to elevate his view above the requirements of the law."
In a separate release of investigative documents, on May 19, Chairman Waxman posted extensive information on the Committee's investigation of California's request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Waxman said the new documents and testimony obtained by the Committee show that EPA career staff unanimously supported granting California’s request. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson also supported granting the petition, at least in part, until he communicated with the White House.
According to a 20-page Committee memo on the California waiver decision, "During the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and deposed or interviewed eight key officials. This memorandum summarizes some of the significant evidence the Committee has received. The record before the Committee shows: (l) the career staff at EPA unanimously supported granting California's petition; (2) Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of EPA, also supported granting California's petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator Johnson reversed his position after communications with officials in the White House."
Access the May 20 hearing website with links to all testimony and related information (click here). Access links to the May 20 Ozone memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access links to the May 19 CA waiver memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access various eNewsUSA Blog posts on the Ozone NAAQS issue (click here); and the CA waiver issue (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of S. 2191
May 15: The Open CRS project has posted a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) entitled, Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of S. 2191 (RL34489, May 15, 2008). This report examines six studies that project the costs of S. 2191 (the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008) to 2030 or 2050. The report is important in light of the May 20 hearing of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation (See related article below) and the upcoming, tentatively scheduled June 2 vote in the Senate on S. 2191. In general, Republicans and the business community have concluded the bill would reek havoc on jobs and the economy; Democrats and environmental organizations are saying the bill will not have a significant affect on the economy and much cheaper than the eventual cost of doing nothing; and the bill sponsors say: "EPA's detailed analysis indicates that the U.S. can curb global warming without sacrificing economic prosperity;" and "EPA's analysis demonstrates what we have long known: You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers."
According to the CRS report, "It is difficult (and some would consider it unwise) to project costs up to the year 2030, much less beyond. The already tenuous assumption that current regulatory standards will remain constant becomes more unrealistic, and other unforeseen events (such as technological breakthroughs) loom as critical issues which cannot be modeled. Longterm cost projections are at best speculative, and should be viewed with attentive skepticism. Despite models' inability to predict the future, cases examined here do provide insights on the costs and benefits of S. 2191."
First, if enacted, the ultimate cost of S. 2191 would be determined by the response of the economy to the technological challenges presented by the bill. The bill provides numerous incentives for technology innovation. The potential for new technology to reduce the costs of S. 2191 is not fully analyzed by any of the cases, nor can it be. Technology development is not sufficiently understood at the current time for models to replicate with confidence. Likewise, it is difficult to determine if available incentives are directed in an optimal manner. The cases do suggest that S. 2191's Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) bonus allowances would encourage deployment of CCS, accelerating development by 5-10 years.
Second, a considerable amount of low-carbon generating capacity will have to be built under S. 2191 in order to meet the reduction requirement. How much capacity will be necessary depends on new and replacement capacity needs, along with consumer demand response to rising prices and incentives contained in S. 2191.
Third, offsets could be a valuable tool not only to potentially reduce costs, but also to buy time to permit further development of new, more efficient technologies. Cost could be lowered further by greater availability of offsets and international credits and with a broader definition of eligible international credits.
Fourth, the Carbon Market Efficiency Board could have an important effect on the cost of S. 2191 through its power to extend the availability of offsets and international credits. In this sense, the Board's powers could mesh with the previous insight about the potential effect of offsets on the bill's overall costs.
Fifth, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard could significantly raise fuel prices and limit supply. The effects will depend on what fuels are included, the emissions reductions achieved by alternatives, and the ability to produce those alternatives.
Finally, S. 2191's climate-related benefit is best considered in a global context and the desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort. The United States and other developed countries agreed both to reduce their own emissions to help stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to take the lead in reducing GHGs when they ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This context raises two issues for S. 2191: (1) whether S. 2191's GHG reduction program would be considered sufficiently credible by developing countries so that schemes for including them in future international agreements become more likely, and (2) whether S. 2191's reductions meet U.S. commitments to stabilization under the UNFCCC.
The CRS report indicates that the most comprehensive analysis has been conducted by U.S. EPA. The report is entitled: EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008: S. 2191 in 110th Congress (March 14, 2008) [See WIMS 3/17/08]. The analysis employs a suite of models and basecases, along with some useful sensitivity analyses. The CRS report focuses on three of the models, two basecases, and sensitivity analysis as appropriate.
The other analyses investigated by CRS include: (2) the Energy Information Administration (EIA), entitled Energy Market and Economic Impacts. (3) the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The report is an appendix to a more comprehensive analysis of cap-and-trade programs released in 2007.8 The appendix is titled: Appendix D: Analysis of the Cap and Trade Features of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191). (4) the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) by OnLocation. The report is titled The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act -- S.2191: A Summary of Modeling Results from the National Energy Modeling System (February 2008). (5) the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) by Science Applications International Corporation. The report is entitled Analysis of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) Using The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). (6) the National Mining Association (NMA) by CRA International. The report is entitled Economic Analysis of the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 Using CRA’s MRN-NEEM Model (April 8, 2008).
Senate Hearing On Energy & Economic Effects Of Climate Bills
May 20: the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on Energy, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) held a hearing to receive testimony on Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation -- most notably S. 2191 (the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008). A substitute for S. 2191 is being developed and will be considered on the Senate floor in June. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included mostly highly technical representatives of the Congressional Research Service (CRS); Energy Information Administration; U.S. EPA; and the Congressional Budget Office [See related article above on the CRS report analyzing 6 separate model projections on the economic impacts of S. 2191].
Chairman Bingaman set the stage for the hearing saying, "Debates on climate legislation -- and energy policy in general -- have often focused heavily on analyses and predictions. On the extremes, models have been used to show that legislation will have massive disruptions to the economy and cause widespread unemployment. They have also been used to show that legislation will be free to society and a net-benefit to the U.S. economy. Given this wide disparity of findings, it can be difficult to navigate the space in between and understand what the true impacts of legislation will be. We are faced with the question: how can reasonable people and institutions analyze the same policy and find completely incompatible results about its impacts. This hearing will attempt to learn more about the broader issues of what models can and cannot tell us about the impacts of policy and what assumptions can be used that will influence the findings of those models. . ."
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Committee issued a statement warning of “dire consequences” if the proposed Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation becomes law. Domenici noted that all eleven economic analyses done on such legislation found that cap and trade would result in higher energy prices for Americans. Of those, seven have been specific to Lieberman-Warner, and all found that the bill will have a negative impact on the economy, ranging from $444 billion to $4.8 trillion by 2030.
Domenici said, ". . .a range of more than $4.5 trillion is as massive as it is inconclusive, and has left me concerned about the dire consequences that Lieberman-Warner could have for our nation." He cited as an example that, the Energy Information Administration’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook projected the price of oil in 2010 as $25 per barrel, "a prospect which seems very unlikely now, as oil approaches $129 a barrel today." He said the European Union began operating its cap and trade program in 2005, and has seen an annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions of about one percent per year.
Domenici said, "Assume for a moment that Congress passes, and the President signs, the Lieberman-Warner legislation. What then will we have accomplished for the environment? As it turns out, the answer is next to nothing. This is a global program, but without further international action, the Lieberman-Warner bill would reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases by a mere one percent by 2050. To achieve that reduction, we may subject America’s economy, prosperity, and global competitiveness to irreparable harm." He noted that China has already surpassed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions, and that the U.S. has already stood strongly against the idea of unilateral action at a time when the American economy was significantly stronger than it is today [referring to the 1997, Senate passage of a resolution indicating its lack of support for the Kyoto Treaty on a 95-0 vote].
Domenici indicated that, “We, as a Congress and a nation, must realize that cap and trade is neither our only option nor our best option for addressing global climate change. Rather than choosing among cap and trade proposals, we should look at alternative measures -- promoting nuclear power, advancing clean energy tax incentives, and accelerating clean technologies.
Access the complete 79-page CRS report (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the opening statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the opening statement from Senator Domenici (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
According to the CRS report, "It is difficult (and some would consider it unwise) to project costs up to the year 2030, much less beyond. The already tenuous assumption that current regulatory standards will remain constant becomes more unrealistic, and other unforeseen events (such as technological breakthroughs) loom as critical issues which cannot be modeled. Longterm cost projections are at best speculative, and should be viewed with attentive skepticism. Despite models' inability to predict the future, cases examined here do provide insights on the costs and benefits of S. 2191."
First, if enacted, the ultimate cost of S. 2191 would be determined by the response of the economy to the technological challenges presented by the bill. The bill provides numerous incentives for technology innovation. The potential for new technology to reduce the costs of S. 2191 is not fully analyzed by any of the cases, nor can it be. Technology development is not sufficiently understood at the current time for models to replicate with confidence. Likewise, it is difficult to determine if available incentives are directed in an optimal manner. The cases do suggest that S. 2191's Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) bonus allowances would encourage deployment of CCS, accelerating development by 5-10 years.
Second, a considerable amount of low-carbon generating capacity will have to be built under S. 2191 in order to meet the reduction requirement. How much capacity will be necessary depends on new and replacement capacity needs, along with consumer demand response to rising prices and incentives contained in S. 2191.
Third, offsets could be a valuable tool not only to potentially reduce costs, but also to buy time to permit further development of new, more efficient technologies. Cost could be lowered further by greater availability of offsets and international credits and with a broader definition of eligible international credits.
Fourth, the Carbon Market Efficiency Board could have an important effect on the cost of S. 2191 through its power to extend the availability of offsets and international credits. In this sense, the Board's powers could mesh with the previous insight about the potential effect of offsets on the bill's overall costs.
Fifth, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard could significantly raise fuel prices and limit supply. The effects will depend on what fuels are included, the emissions reductions achieved by alternatives, and the ability to produce those alternatives.
Finally, S. 2191's climate-related benefit is best considered in a global context and the desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort. The United States and other developed countries agreed both to reduce their own emissions to help stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to take the lead in reducing GHGs when they ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This context raises two issues for S. 2191: (1) whether S. 2191's GHG reduction program would be considered sufficiently credible by developing countries so that schemes for including them in future international agreements become more likely, and (2) whether S. 2191's reductions meet U.S. commitments to stabilization under the UNFCCC.
The CRS report indicates that the most comprehensive analysis has been conducted by U.S. EPA. The report is entitled: EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008: S. 2191 in 110th Congress (March 14, 2008) [See WIMS 3/17/08]. The analysis employs a suite of models and basecases, along with some useful sensitivity analyses. The CRS report focuses on three of the models, two basecases, and sensitivity analysis as appropriate.
The other analyses investigated by CRS include: (2) the Energy Information Administration (EIA), entitled Energy Market and Economic Impacts. (3) the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The report is an appendix to a more comprehensive analysis of cap-and-trade programs released in 2007.8 The appendix is titled: Appendix D: Analysis of the Cap and Trade Features of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191). (4) the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) by OnLocation. The report is titled The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act -- S.2191: A Summary of Modeling Results from the National Energy Modeling System (February 2008). (5) the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) by Science Applications International Corporation. The report is entitled Analysis of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) Using The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). (6) the National Mining Association (NMA) by CRA International. The report is entitled Economic Analysis of the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 Using CRA’s MRN-NEEM Model (April 8, 2008).
Senate Hearing On Energy & Economic Effects Of Climate Bills
May 20: the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on Energy, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) held a hearing to receive testimony on Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation -- most notably S. 2191 (the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008). A substitute for S. 2191 is being developed and will be considered on the Senate floor in June. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included mostly highly technical representatives of the Congressional Research Service (CRS); Energy Information Administration; U.S. EPA; and the Congressional Budget Office [See related article above on the CRS report analyzing 6 separate model projections on the economic impacts of S. 2191].
Chairman Bingaman set the stage for the hearing saying, "Debates on climate legislation -- and energy policy in general -- have often focused heavily on analyses and predictions. On the extremes, models have been used to show that legislation will have massive disruptions to the economy and cause widespread unemployment. They have also been used to show that legislation will be free to society and a net-benefit to the U.S. economy. Given this wide disparity of findings, it can be difficult to navigate the space in between and understand what the true impacts of legislation will be. We are faced with the question: how can reasonable people and institutions analyze the same policy and find completely incompatible results about its impacts. This hearing will attempt to learn more about the broader issues of what models can and cannot tell us about the impacts of policy and what assumptions can be used that will influence the findings of those models. . ."
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Committee issued a statement warning of “dire consequences” if the proposed Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation becomes law. Domenici noted that all eleven economic analyses done on such legislation found that cap and trade would result in higher energy prices for Americans. Of those, seven have been specific to Lieberman-Warner, and all found that the bill will have a negative impact on the economy, ranging from $444 billion to $4.8 trillion by 2030.
Domenici said, ". . .a range of more than $4.5 trillion is as massive as it is inconclusive, and has left me concerned about the dire consequences that Lieberman-Warner could have for our nation." He cited as an example that, the Energy Information Administration’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook projected the price of oil in 2010 as $25 per barrel, "a prospect which seems very unlikely now, as oil approaches $129 a barrel today." He said the European Union began operating its cap and trade program in 2005, and has seen an annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions of about one percent per year.
Domenici said, "Assume for a moment that Congress passes, and the President signs, the Lieberman-Warner legislation. What then will we have accomplished for the environment? As it turns out, the answer is next to nothing. This is a global program, but without further international action, the Lieberman-Warner bill would reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases by a mere one percent by 2050. To achieve that reduction, we may subject America’s economy, prosperity, and global competitiveness to irreparable harm." He noted that China has already surpassed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions, and that the U.S. has already stood strongly against the idea of unilateral action at a time when the American economy was significantly stronger than it is today [referring to the 1997, Senate passage of a resolution indicating its lack of support for the Kyoto Treaty on a 95-0 vote].
Domenici indicated that, “We, as a Congress and a nation, must realize that cap and trade is neither our only option nor our best option for addressing global climate change. Rather than choosing among cap and trade proposals, we should look at alternative measures -- promoting nuclear power, advancing clean energy tax incentives, and accelerating clean technologies.
Access the complete 79-page CRS report (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the opening statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the opening statement from Senator Domenici (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, May 19, 2008
Committee Approves Fast-Tracked Energy & Tax Extenders Act
May 15: According to a release, the House Committee on Ways and Means has again approved bipartisan legislation "to extend vital tax relief to millions of families, strengthen investment opportunities for American businesses and encourage the production and use of renewable energy." The fast-tracked legislation, H.R. 6049, the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008, was introduced by Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) on May 14 and could be considered by the full House of Representatives as early as this week. H.R. 6049 passed the Committee by a vote of 25-12.
Chairman Rangel said, “This bill would provide critical tax relief to help working families cope with the rising cost of living. Furthermore, this bill would extend vital tax incentives for American businesses to help them invest in new technologies and remain competitive internationally. The legislation would also make an important investment in renewable energy and energy conservation to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This is a strong, timely, and fiscally responsible tax relief package.”
In addition to providing tax relief for to millions of families, the bill would provide critical tax incentives for businesses to invest in new technology by extending the research and development credit and active financing provisions. The bill would also encourage the use and production of renewable energy through: a six-year extension of the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy; three-year extensions of the production tax credit (PTC) for energy derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste; a one-year extension of the PTC for energy derived from wind; tax incentives for coal electricity plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide; incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and renewable diesel and cellulosic biofuels; incentives to encourage energy efficient products, such as plug-in hybrids cars, and incentives for energy conservation in both commercial buildings and residential structures; and tax credit bonds providing State and local government with funds to make energy conservation investments in public infrastructure and invest in research.
Access a release from Chairman Rangel (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6049 (click here). Access a detailed 12-page summary of the cost and revenue provisions of the bill (click here). Access links to additional Committee materials on details of the bill (click here). [*Energy]
Chairman Rangel said, “This bill would provide critical tax relief to help working families cope with the rising cost of living. Furthermore, this bill would extend vital tax incentives for American businesses to help them invest in new technologies and remain competitive internationally. The legislation would also make an important investment in renewable energy and energy conservation to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This is a strong, timely, and fiscally responsible tax relief package.”
In addition to providing tax relief for to millions of families, the bill would provide critical tax incentives for businesses to invest in new technology by extending the research and development credit and active financing provisions. The bill would also encourage the use and production of renewable energy through: a six-year extension of the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy; three-year extensions of the production tax credit (PTC) for energy derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste; a one-year extension of the PTC for energy derived from wind; tax incentives for coal electricity plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide; incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and renewable diesel and cellulosic biofuels; incentives to encourage energy efficient products, such as plug-in hybrids cars, and incentives for energy conservation in both commercial buildings and residential structures; and tax credit bonds providing State and local government with funds to make energy conservation investments in public infrastructure and invest in research.
Access a release from Chairman Rangel (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6049 (click here). Access a detailed 12-page summary of the cost and revenue provisions of the bill (click here). Access links to additional Committee materials on details of the bill (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, May 16, 2008
Report Focuses On Energy Efficiency Accomplishments & Future
May 15: A major new report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) shows that U.S. energy consumption (as measured per dollar of economic output) will have been slashed by the end of 2008 to half of what it was in 1970, from 18,000 Btus to about 8,900 Btus. ACEEE indicated in a release that, "It's the U.S. energy boom that no one knows about. Energy efficiency may be the farthest-reaching, least-polluting, and fastest-growing energy success story of the last 50 years. But it also is the most invisible, the least understood, and in serious danger of missing out on needed future investments."
ACEEE said the report, The Size of the U.S. Energy Efficiency Market: Generating a More Complete Picture, is the first attempt to quantify the overall impact of the hidden U.S. energy efficiency boom. The report concludes that "…our nation is not aware of the role that energy efficiency has played in satisfying our growing energy-service demands…the contributions of efficiency often go unrecognized. The contributions of energy efficiency often remain invisible..."
The report also notes that although efficiency is a proven resource, it remains underdeveloped. "In short, the evidence suggests that efficiency can make an even larger contribution towards stabilizing energy prices and reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- should we choose to fully develop it." The ACEEE report was prepared with major support from the Civil Society Institute (CSI). Additional support was provided by the Kendall Foundation and the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.
Key report findings include:
The report also identifies energy efficiency by industry. The size of energy efficiency investments varies considerably across U.S. sectors. In the buildings sector, investments in energy efficiency totaled about $178 billion, or nearly 60% of total energy efficiency investments in 2004. Of these investments, nearly half (49%) were made in energy-efficient appliances and electronics, while 29% were made in energy-efficient commercial building structures and 22% were made in energy-efficient residential building structures.
In the industrial sector, investments reached roughly $75 billion in 2004, representing one quarter of total efficiency investments for the year. In the transportation sector, investments represented approximately 11% of total efficiency investments, or $33 billion in 2004. Interestingly, this pattern of investments does not mirror the patterns of energy use across sectors. While the buildings sector accounts for 39% of total U.S. energy consumption, it received 62% of total efficiency investments. Within the buildings sector, investments in appliances and electronics (48%) far exceeded the proportion of energy consumed by these devices (8%). In the industrial sector, the proportion of investments was lower than the proportion of energy use (25% and 34%, respectively). Notably, the transportation sector also proved to be significantly unbalanced, representing only 11% of efficiency investments but 28% of overall energy use.
Access a release and link to the complete 58-page report (click here). [*Energy]
ACEEE said the report, The Size of the U.S. Energy Efficiency Market: Generating a More Complete Picture, is the first attempt to quantify the overall impact of the hidden U.S. energy efficiency boom. The report concludes that "…our nation is not aware of the role that energy efficiency has played in satisfying our growing energy-service demands…the contributions of efficiency often go unrecognized. The contributions of energy efficiency often remain invisible..."
The report also notes that although efficiency is a proven resource, it remains underdeveloped. "In short, the evidence suggests that efficiency can make an even larger contribution towards stabilizing energy prices and reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- should we choose to fully develop it." The ACEEE report was prepared with major support from the Civil Society Institute (CSI). Additional support was provided by the Kendall Foundation and the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.
Key report findings include:
- Given the right choices and investments in the many cost-effective but underutilized energy efficiency technologies, the United States can cost-effectively reduce energy consumption by an additional 25-30% or more over the course of the next 20-25 years.
- Annual investments in energy efficiency technologies currently support 1.6 million U.S. jobs. The $300 billion invested in energy efficiency in 2004 was three times the amount invested in traditional energy infrastructure.
- Investments in energy efficiency technologies are estimated to have generated approximately 1.7 quads of energy savings in 2004 alone – roughly the equivalent of the energy required to operate 40 mid-sized coal-fired or nuclear power plants.
- Since 1970, energy efficiency has met about three-fourths of the demand for new energy-related services while conventional energy supply has covered only one-fourth of this demand.
- Total investments in more energy efficiency technologies could increase the annual energy efficiency market by nearly $400 billion by 2030, resulting in an annual efficiency market of more than $700 billion – and total additional investments over the period 2008-2030 of nearly $7 trillion.
The report also identifies energy efficiency by industry. The size of energy efficiency investments varies considerably across U.S. sectors. In the buildings sector, investments in energy efficiency totaled about $178 billion, or nearly 60% of total energy efficiency investments in 2004. Of these investments, nearly half (49%) were made in energy-efficient appliances and electronics, while 29% were made in energy-efficient commercial building structures and 22% were made in energy-efficient residential building structures.
In the industrial sector, investments reached roughly $75 billion in 2004, representing one quarter of total efficiency investments for the year. In the transportation sector, investments represented approximately 11% of total efficiency investments, or $33 billion in 2004. Interestingly, this pattern of investments does not mirror the patterns of energy use across sectors. While the buildings sector accounts for 39% of total U.S. energy consumption, it received 62% of total efficiency investments. Within the buildings sector, investments in appliances and electronics (48%) far exceeded the proportion of energy consumed by these devices (8%). In the industrial sector, the proportion of investments was lower than the proportion of energy use (25% and 34%, respectively). Notably, the transportation sector also proved to be significantly unbalanced, representing only 11% of efficiency investments but 28% of overall energy use.
Access a release and link to the complete 58-page report (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Polar Bear Listed As A Threatened Species
May 14: Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced that he was accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.
On March 10, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace sued the Bush administration for missing the legal deadline to issue a final decision on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming [See WIMS 3/10/08]. On April 29, a Federal judge found the Bush administration guilty of violating ESA and ordered the administration to issue a final listing decision for the polar bear by May 15, 2008 [See WIMS 5/1/08].
In making the announcement, Kempthorne said, "I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States." Kempthorne further stated, "While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn't abused to make global warming policies."
In January 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as threatened throughout its range based on receding sea ice. Last year, Arctic sea ice fell to the lowest level ever recorded by satellite, 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. The amount of sea ice loss in years 2002-2007 exceeded all previous record lows. USGS models project declines in September sea ice of more than 30 percent by the middle of the 21st century. Four of the 10 models project declines in September sea ice in excess of 80 percent by the mid -21st century. Seven of the 10 models show a 97 percent loss in September sea ice by the end of the 21st century. Based on actual observations of trends in sea ice over the past three decades, these models may actually understate the extent and change rate of projected sea ice loss.
In making the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species, Kempthorne also announced he was using the authority provided in Section 4(d) of the ESA to develop a rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way. The conservation measures provide that the production, interstate sale, and export of native handicrafts by Alaska natives may continue and that the subsistence harvest of polar bears is not affected.
Secretary Kempthorne reiterated President Bush's statement last month that the ESA was never intended to regulate global climate change. He said, "Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears. But it should not open the door to use of the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources. That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the ESA law. The ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy." Last month President Bush said, "The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change." [See WIMS 4/28/08]
Kempthorne acknowledged Canada has not listed polar bears as threatened even though they have two-thirds of the world's population of the species. "Last week, I went to Canada and explored this issue. The Canadian law is different from U.S. law with respect to endangered species, both in its criteria for listing and administrative process for making listing determinations." While in Canada, Kempthorne signed a Memorandum of Understanding with his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, the minister of environment, for the conservation and management of polar bear populations shared by the U.S. and Canada.
Kempthorne indicated that to make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing the 4(d) rule mentioned above. Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action. The Department will issue a Solicitor's Opinion further clarifying these points. The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.
Additionally, the Department will continue to: monitor polar bear populations and trends, study polar bear feeding ecology, work cooperatively with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the North Slope Borough for co-management of the polar bears in Alaska, provide technical assistance to the participants of the 1988 North Slope Borough Inuvialuit Game Council Agreement for the conservation of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region and monitor the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.
Earthjustice issued a release saying it welcomed protection for polar bears under ESA, but called on the government to put the brakes on oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat. The public interest law firm indicated, "The Bush administration announced that polar bears would be listed as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act. The administration, however, is employing a loophole called a 4(d) rule that appears calculated to limit protection for the ice bears and their shrinking sea-ice habitat in areas where oil and gas development is planned or proceeding. Essentially the administration has signaled that it will extend the bears no greater protection from oil and gas development than they previously had under the Marine Mammal Protection Act."
Access a lengthy release from Fish and Wildlife Service (click here). Access the Final Rule Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (click here). Access the Special Section 4(d) Interim Final Rule (click here). Access the DOI Polar Bear Conservation and Management website (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Center for Biological Diversity one of the original petitioners for the ESA listing (click here). [*Wildlife]
On March 10, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace sued the Bush administration for missing the legal deadline to issue a final decision on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming [See WIMS 3/10/08]. On April 29, a Federal judge found the Bush administration guilty of violating ESA and ordered the administration to issue a final listing decision for the polar bear by May 15, 2008 [See WIMS 5/1/08].
In making the announcement, Kempthorne said, "I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States." Kempthorne further stated, "While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn't abused to make global warming policies."
In January 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as threatened throughout its range based on receding sea ice. Last year, Arctic sea ice fell to the lowest level ever recorded by satellite, 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. The amount of sea ice loss in years 2002-2007 exceeded all previous record lows. USGS models project declines in September sea ice of more than 30 percent by the middle of the 21st century. Four of the 10 models project declines in September sea ice in excess of 80 percent by the mid -21st century. Seven of the 10 models show a 97 percent loss in September sea ice by the end of the 21st century. Based on actual observations of trends in sea ice over the past three decades, these models may actually understate the extent and change rate of projected sea ice loss.
In making the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species, Kempthorne also announced he was using the authority provided in Section 4(d) of the ESA to develop a rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way. The conservation measures provide that the production, interstate sale, and export of native handicrafts by Alaska natives may continue and that the subsistence harvest of polar bears is not affected.
Secretary Kempthorne reiterated President Bush's statement last month that the ESA was never intended to regulate global climate change. He said, "Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears. But it should not open the door to use of the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources. That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the ESA law. The ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy." Last month President Bush said, "The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change." [See WIMS 4/28/08]
Kempthorne acknowledged Canada has not listed polar bears as threatened even though they have two-thirds of the world's population of the species. "Last week, I went to Canada and explored this issue. The Canadian law is different from U.S. law with respect to endangered species, both in its criteria for listing and administrative process for making listing determinations." While in Canada, Kempthorne signed a Memorandum of Understanding with his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, the minister of environment, for the conservation and management of polar bear populations shared by the U.S. and Canada.
Kempthorne indicated that to make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing the 4(d) rule mentioned above. Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action. The Department will issue a Solicitor's Opinion further clarifying these points. The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.
Additionally, the Department will continue to: monitor polar bear populations and trends, study polar bear feeding ecology, work cooperatively with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the North Slope Borough for co-management of the polar bears in Alaska, provide technical assistance to the participants of the 1988 North Slope Borough Inuvialuit Game Council Agreement for the conservation of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region and monitor the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.
Earthjustice issued a release saying it welcomed protection for polar bears under ESA, but called on the government to put the brakes on oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat. The public interest law firm indicated, "The Bush administration announced that polar bears would be listed as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act. The administration, however, is employing a loophole called a 4(d) rule that appears calculated to limit protection for the ice bears and their shrinking sea-ice habitat in areas where oil and gas development is planned or proceeding. Essentially the administration has signaled that it will extend the bears no greater protection from oil and gas development than they previously had under the Marine Mammal Protection Act."
Access a lengthy release from Fish and Wildlife Service (click here). Access the Final Rule Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (click here). Access the Special Section 4(d) Interim Final Rule (click here). Access the DOI Polar Bear Conservation and Management website (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Center for Biological Diversity one of the original petitioners for the ESA listing (click here). [*Wildlife]
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Water Supply Challenges For The 21st Century
May 14: The House Science & Technology Committee, Chaired by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) held a hearing on Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century. Witnesses included representatives of the Water Policy Program, University of California-Santa Barbara, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management; National Research Council Water Science and Technology Board; the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona; JPMorgan Chase, US Corporate Research; and the U.S. National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) & the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Climate Program Office.
In an opening statement, Representative Gordon said, "The recent droughts experienced in the west and the southeast and increased competition for water supplies suggest that we must take a closer look at how we are managing our water resources. Thirty-six states expect to experience significant water shortages by 2013. Population growth, increased per capita water use, degraded water quality, and climate change have all impacted our available supplies of water. In my district, water sources have dried up and wells have run dry, and towns have been forced to implement water restrictions to deal with decreased supply. According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first eight months of 2007 were the driest in the last 118 years of Tennessee history.
"When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River. According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight water shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat waves resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. A recent report by JP Morgan indicated that a single production interruption at a semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost revenue. I believe with investment in research and development, public education and better information on the status of our water supplies we can avoid the high costs, social disruption, and environmental damage associated with water shortages."
Testimony from the Bren School indicated that, "Climate models consistently indicate a warmer future for the U.S. West. Evidence of warming trends is already being seen in winter temperatures in the Sierra Nevada, which rose by almost 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) during the second half of the 20th century. Trends toward earlier snowmelt and runoff to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta over the same period have also been detected. Water managers are particularly concerned with the mid-range elevation levels where snow shifts to rain under warmer conditions, thereby reducing snow-water storage. California’s Department of Water Resources, along with the California Energy Commission, has been tracking the climate change science since the 1980s." Arizona State University also testified on what it called, "One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water supply will be climate variability and climate change."
NOAA also testified on the impacts of climate change and drought and said, "Adaptive capacity to manage climate changes can be increased by introducing adaptation measures into development planning and operations (sometimes termed ‘mainstreaming’). This can be achieved by including adaptation measures in land-use planning and infrastructure design, or by including measures to reduce vulnerability in existing disaster preparedness program (such as introducing drought warning systems based on actual management needs). Major barriers to implementing adaptive management measures are adaptation itself is not yet a high priority, and that the validity of local manifestations of global climate change remains in question."
JPMorgan testified that, ". . .investors are much less concerned about water supply risks than they should be. We recently published a report contending that water-supply risks are far more important to many companies than investors believe. We also found that very few companies seem fully aware of these risks. While many companies now produce public relations brochures that tell how they are reducing water use per unit of production, almost none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we call its water “footprint,” the total usage of water in the production and consumption of its product. Investors have no way of evaluating the risk of business disruption due to water scarcity, or of comparing risks among companies."
JPMorgan also said, " I know there is a great deal of talk on Capitol Hill about federal loans or loan guarantees for new-generation nuclear plants and for coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Both of these technologies require very large amounts of water. I think it is important that the social cost of those large water withdrawals be reflected in the prices users pay for electricity from those plants. It’s simply bad policy for the government to be subsidizing water usage. . ."
The National Research Council testified that, ". . . problems are especially pronounced in the West and in the Southeast. Both these areas are sites of rapidly-growing populations and have been affected by climate variability, drought, and a tightening water supply picture as multiple and new users vie for changes to more traditional allocation rules and patterns. Lasting solutions to these challenges of water supply and demand balances, as well as water quality, will require creative, science-based, and economically feasible strategies. . ."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a webcast and related information (click here). [*Water, *Climate]
In an opening statement, Representative Gordon said, "The recent droughts experienced in the west and the southeast and increased competition for water supplies suggest that we must take a closer look at how we are managing our water resources. Thirty-six states expect to experience significant water shortages by 2013. Population growth, increased per capita water use, degraded water quality, and climate change have all impacted our available supplies of water. In my district, water sources have dried up and wells have run dry, and towns have been forced to implement water restrictions to deal with decreased supply. According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first eight months of 2007 were the driest in the last 118 years of Tennessee history.
"When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River. According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight water shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat waves resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. A recent report by JP Morgan indicated that a single production interruption at a semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost revenue. I believe with investment in research and development, public education and better information on the status of our water supplies we can avoid the high costs, social disruption, and environmental damage associated with water shortages."
Testimony from the Bren School indicated that, "Climate models consistently indicate a warmer future for the U.S. West. Evidence of warming trends is already being seen in winter temperatures in the Sierra Nevada, which rose by almost 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) during the second half of the 20th century. Trends toward earlier snowmelt and runoff to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta over the same period have also been detected. Water managers are particularly concerned with the mid-range elevation levels where snow shifts to rain under warmer conditions, thereby reducing snow-water storage. California’s Department of Water Resources, along with the California Energy Commission, has been tracking the climate change science since the 1980s." Arizona State University also testified on what it called, "One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water supply will be climate variability and climate change."
NOAA also testified on the impacts of climate change and drought and said, "Adaptive capacity to manage climate changes can be increased by introducing adaptation measures into development planning and operations (sometimes termed ‘mainstreaming’). This can be achieved by including adaptation measures in land-use planning and infrastructure design, or by including measures to reduce vulnerability in existing disaster preparedness program (such as introducing drought warning systems based on actual management needs). Major barriers to implementing adaptive management measures are adaptation itself is not yet a high priority, and that the validity of local manifestations of global climate change remains in question."
JPMorgan testified that, ". . .investors are much less concerned about water supply risks than they should be. We recently published a report contending that water-supply risks are far more important to many companies than investors believe. We also found that very few companies seem fully aware of these risks. While many companies now produce public relations brochures that tell how they are reducing water use per unit of production, almost none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we call its water “footprint,” the total usage of water in the production and consumption of its product. Investors have no way of evaluating the risk of business disruption due to water scarcity, or of comparing risks among companies."
JPMorgan also said, " I know there is a great deal of talk on Capitol Hill about federal loans or loan guarantees for new-generation nuclear plants and for coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Both of these technologies require very large amounts of water. I think it is important that the social cost of those large water withdrawals be reflected in the prices users pay for electricity from those plants. It’s simply bad policy for the government to be subsidizing water usage. . ."
The National Research Council testified that, ". . . problems are especially pronounced in the West and in the Southeast. Both these areas are sites of rapidly-growing populations and have been affected by climate variability, drought, and a tightening water supply picture as multiple and new users vie for changes to more traditional allocation rules and patterns. Lasting solutions to these challenges of water supply and demand balances, as well as water quality, will require creative, science-based, and economically feasible strategies. . ."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a webcast and related information (click here). [*Water, *Climate]
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
DOE Report: 20 Percent Wind Energy By 2030
May 12: The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) released a first-of-its kind report that examines the technical feasibility of harnessing wind power to provide up to 20 percent of the nation’s total electricity needs by 2030. Entitled, 20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030, the report identifies requirements to achieve this goal including reducing the cost of wind technologies, citing new transmission infrastructure, and enhancing domestic manufacturing capability. Most notably, the report identifies opportunities for 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 to be avoided by 2030, saving 825 million metric tons in 2030 and every year thereafter if wind energy achieves 20 percent of the nation’s electricity mix.
DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy Andy Karsner said, “DOE’s wind report is a thorough look at America’s wind resource, its industrial capabilities, and future energy prices, and confirms the viability and commercial maturity of wind as a major contributor to America’s energy needs, now and in the future. To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our energy security, clean power generation at the gigawatt-scale will be necessary, and will require us to take a comprehensive approach to scaling renewable wind power, streamlining siting and permitting processes, and expanding the domestic wind manufacturing base.”
Prepared by DOE and a broad cross section of stakeholders across industry, government, and three of DOE’s national laboratories, the report presents an in-depth analysis of the potential for wind in the U.S. and outlines a potential scenario to boost wind electric generation from its current production of 16.8 gigawatts (GW) to 304 GW by 2030. For its technical report, DOE also drew on the expertise of the American Wind Energy Association and Black and Veatch engineering consultants and the report reflects input from more than fifty energy organizations and corporations.
With the U.S. leading the world in new wind installations and having the potential to be the world leader in total wind capacity by 2010, DOE’s report comes at an important time in wind development. Last year, U.S. cumulative wind energy capacity reached 16,818 megawatts (MW) -- with more than 5,000 MW of wind installed in 2007. Wind contributed to more than 30 percent of the new U.S. generation capacity in 2007, making it the second largest source of new power generation in the nation -- surpassed only by natural gas. The U.S. wind energy industry invested approximately $9 billion in new generating capacity in 2007, and has experienced a 30 percent annual growth rate in the last 5 years.
Access a DOE release (click here). Access the complete 248-page report (click here). Access links to additional wind energy documents and information from DOE (click here). [*Energy]
DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy Andy Karsner said, “DOE’s wind report is a thorough look at America’s wind resource, its industrial capabilities, and future energy prices, and confirms the viability and commercial maturity of wind as a major contributor to America’s energy needs, now and in the future. To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our energy security, clean power generation at the gigawatt-scale will be necessary, and will require us to take a comprehensive approach to scaling renewable wind power, streamlining siting and permitting processes, and expanding the domestic wind manufacturing base.”
Prepared by DOE and a broad cross section of stakeholders across industry, government, and three of DOE’s national laboratories, the report presents an in-depth analysis of the potential for wind in the U.S. and outlines a potential scenario to boost wind electric generation from its current production of 16.8 gigawatts (GW) to 304 GW by 2030. For its technical report, DOE also drew on the expertise of the American Wind Energy Association and Black and Veatch engineering consultants and the report reflects input from more than fifty energy organizations and corporations.
With the U.S. leading the world in new wind installations and having the potential to be the world leader in total wind capacity by 2010, DOE’s report comes at an important time in wind development. Last year, U.S. cumulative wind energy capacity reached 16,818 megawatts (MW) -- with more than 5,000 MW of wind installed in 2007. Wind contributed to more than 30 percent of the new U.S. generation capacity in 2007, making it the second largest source of new power generation in the nation -- surpassed only by natural gas. The U.S. wind energy industry invested approximately $9 billion in new generating capacity in 2007, and has experienced a 30 percent annual growth rate in the last 5 years.
Access a DOE release (click here). Access the complete 248-page report (click here). Access links to additional wind energy documents and information from DOE (click here). [*Energy]
Monday, May 12, 2008
President Will Veto House-Senate Farm Bill Compromise
May 8: Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and of the Senate-House conference committee on the new farm bill, announced a final farm bill conference agreement with principal negotiators at a press conference on Capitol Hill [See WIMS 4/29/08]. He said the agreement will lead to a formal conference report, which will then be passed by the Senate and House before being sent to the White House.
Immediately Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer issued a statement saying, "Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs. . . For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."
In announcing the compromise bill, Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan farm bill that benefits every American from Cumming, Iowa, population 162 to New York City, population 8 million. The bill provides a strong safety net, so it’s good for our farmers and producers. Consumers will like it because it will increase farmers’ markets and ensure a safe, dependable supply of high quality food. For low-income Americans, it ensures nutrition needs are met and for school children, increases their access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And as production increases, the farm bill will ensure our precious natural resources are protected. . .
“To meet soaring worldwide demand for food and energy crops, millions of new acres of land are being brought into production, including environmentally fragile land. To address this challenge, we authorize nearly $4.4 billion in additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program over the next 10 years. With this support, the Conservation Stewardship Program will enroll nearly 13 million acres each year. . . All-time high gasoline prices are wreaking havoc with family budgets, but, without the inputs of biofuels, prices at the pump would be as much as 50 cents higher. The new farm bill will dramatically ramp up the agricultural sector’s capacity to produce clean renewable energy. Significantly, it provides more than $1 billion to expand the supply of biofuels made from biomass and crop byproducts other than grain. The bill also provides new support to farmers who grow energy crops, and to entrepreneurs who build refineries to convert biomass into fuel.”
Harkin issued a separate statement on the President's announced veto plans saying, "Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect. But no piece of legislation is. It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances. It deserves the President’s signature. Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an active participant in the Farm Bill issue, said the compromise bill was a "mixed bag." They said, "The good news is that conference committee members recognized the need to boost conservation funding at a time when very high commodity prices are increasing pressure on our land, water, and important wildlife habitat. The bad news is that this new funding falls short of what’s needed to provide farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners with the resources they need to help us solve some of the nation’s biggest environmental problems.” EDF also criticized the House-Senate conference committee for increasing, rather than decreasing, farm subsidies.
Access a release from Senator Harkin and link to a 12-page summary of the compromise bill (click here). Access the Senate Farm Bill Conference website (click here). Access Harkin's statement on the President's announced veto (click here). Access the House Farm Bill website including links to audio and video of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access a May 8 release from USDA (click here). Access an audio (click here) and transcript of a May 9 USDA press conference on the bill (click here). Access the USDA Farm Bill website (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]
Immediately Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer issued a statement saying, "Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs. . . For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."
In announcing the compromise bill, Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan farm bill that benefits every American from Cumming, Iowa, population 162 to New York City, population 8 million. The bill provides a strong safety net, so it’s good for our farmers and producers. Consumers will like it because it will increase farmers’ markets and ensure a safe, dependable supply of high quality food. For low-income Americans, it ensures nutrition needs are met and for school children, increases their access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And as production increases, the farm bill will ensure our precious natural resources are protected. . .
“To meet soaring worldwide demand for food and energy crops, millions of new acres of land are being brought into production, including environmentally fragile land. To address this challenge, we authorize nearly $4.4 billion in additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program over the next 10 years. With this support, the Conservation Stewardship Program will enroll nearly 13 million acres each year. . . All-time high gasoline prices are wreaking havoc with family budgets, but, without the inputs of biofuels, prices at the pump would be as much as 50 cents higher. The new farm bill will dramatically ramp up the agricultural sector’s capacity to produce clean renewable energy. Significantly, it provides more than $1 billion to expand the supply of biofuels made from biomass and crop byproducts other than grain. The bill also provides new support to farmers who grow energy crops, and to entrepreneurs who build refineries to convert biomass into fuel.”
Harkin issued a separate statement on the President's announced veto plans saying, "Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect. But no piece of legislation is. It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances. It deserves the President’s signature. Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an active participant in the Farm Bill issue, said the compromise bill was a "mixed bag." They said, "The good news is that conference committee members recognized the need to boost conservation funding at a time when very high commodity prices are increasing pressure on our land, water, and important wildlife habitat. The bad news is that this new funding falls short of what’s needed to provide farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners with the resources they need to help us solve some of the nation’s biggest environmental problems.” EDF also criticized the House-Senate conference committee for increasing, rather than decreasing, farm subsidies.
Access a release from Senator Harkin and link to a 12-page summary of the compromise bill (click here). Access the Senate Farm Bill Conference website (click here). Access Harkin's statement on the President's announced veto (click here). Access the House Farm Bill website including links to audio and video of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access a May 8 release from USDA (click here). Access an audio (click here) and transcript of a May 9 USDA press conference on the bill (click here). Access the USDA Farm Bill website (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]
Thursday, May 08, 2008
U.S. Consumers Score Lowest On Geographic Society Greendex
May 7: The National Geographic Society (NGS) and the international polling firm GlobeScan unveiled a new mechanism for measuring and comparing individual consumer behavior as it relates to the environment. "Greendex™ 2008: Consumer Choice and the Environment -- A Worldwide Tracking Survey" looks at environmentally sustainable consumption and behavior among consumers in 14 countries. NGS said this first-of-its-kind study reveals surprising differences between consumers in developed and developing countries in terms of environmentally friendly actions. This year's results are a baseline against which results of future annual surveys will be compared, in order to monitor improvements or declines in environmentally sustainable consumption at both the global level and within countries.
The Greendex survey was conducted online earlier this year among 14,000 consumers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United States. A panel of 27 international experts in global sustainability helped identify which consumer behaviors were most crucial to investigate. One thousand people in each country answered questions that measured their behavior in the areas of housing, transportation, food and consumption of goods; each respondent earned a score that reflected the environmental impact of his or her consumption patterns, which included size and energy-efficiency of residence, commuting mode and distance and use of fresh water, among dozens of other measures. Consumers were then assigned a Greendex score (a measure of the relative environmental sustainability of their consumption patterns) out of 100. Consumers in Brazil and India scored highest; U.S. consumers scored lowest.
NGS said that unlike other measures that rank countries according to the environmental performance of their governments, businesses and other factors, the Greendex is the first to rank the performance of individual consumers, rather than countries as a whole. The results are strikingly different from existing performance rankings like the Environmental Performance Index [See WIMS 1/23/08], the Environmental Sustainability Index or Ecological Footprint.
Terry Garcia, NGS's executive vice president of Mission Programs said, "The Greendex gives us an unprecedented, meaningful look at how consumers across the globe are behaving. It will allow us over time to assess the progress that people are making to conserve, minimize waste and protect natural resources for the future. Consumers who score highest have a responsibility to maintain their behavior and provide an example to those who need to improve. We hope the study inspires all consumers, particularly those in countries where consumers scored lowest, to adopt the best behaviors of those who scored well, and that consumers in countries with expanding economies, who may consume more in the future, will do so responsibly."
The findings show that consumers in Brazil and India tie for the highest Greendex score for environmentally sustainable consumption at 60 points each. They are followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4). Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each have a Greendex score of 50.2, those in Spain register a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents, 49.1. U.S. consumers have the lowest Greendex score at 44.9. The other lowest-scoring consumers are Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.
Access a lengthy release with links to individual country profiles (click here). Access backgrounders, fact sheets and related release on the Greendex (click here). Access the Greendex website for additional information and links to calculate your personal Greendex score (click here). [*All]
The Greendex survey was conducted online earlier this year among 14,000 consumers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United States. A panel of 27 international experts in global sustainability helped identify which consumer behaviors were most crucial to investigate. One thousand people in each country answered questions that measured their behavior in the areas of housing, transportation, food and consumption of goods; each respondent earned a score that reflected the environmental impact of his or her consumption patterns, which included size and energy-efficiency of residence, commuting mode and distance and use of fresh water, among dozens of other measures. Consumers were then assigned a Greendex score (a measure of the relative environmental sustainability of their consumption patterns) out of 100. Consumers in Brazil and India scored highest; U.S. consumers scored lowest.
NGS said that unlike other measures that rank countries according to the environmental performance of their governments, businesses and other factors, the Greendex is the first to rank the performance of individual consumers, rather than countries as a whole. The results are strikingly different from existing performance rankings like the Environmental Performance Index [See WIMS 1/23/08], the Environmental Sustainability Index or Ecological Footprint.
Terry Garcia, NGS's executive vice president of Mission Programs said, "The Greendex gives us an unprecedented, meaningful look at how consumers across the globe are behaving. It will allow us over time to assess the progress that people are making to conserve, minimize waste and protect natural resources for the future. Consumers who score highest have a responsibility to maintain their behavior and provide an example to those who need to improve. We hope the study inspires all consumers, particularly those in countries where consumers scored lowest, to adopt the best behaviors of those who scored well, and that consumers in countries with expanding economies, who may consume more in the future, will do so responsibly."
The findings show that consumers in Brazil and India tie for the highest Greendex score for environmentally sustainable consumption at 60 points each. They are followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4). Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each have a Greendex score of 50.2, those in Spain register a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents, 49.1. U.S. consumers have the lowest Greendex score at 44.9. The other lowest-scoring consumers are Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.
Access a lengthy release with links to individual country profiles (click here). Access backgrounders, fact sheets and related release on the Greendex (click here). Access the Greendex website for additional information and links to calculate your personal Greendex score (click here). [*All]
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Senate Hearing On Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions
May 7: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection held a hearing on "Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions." Full committee Chair, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), serves as Chair of the Subcommittee. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: George Gray, PhD., U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and representatives of the Union of Concerned Scientists; Covanta Energy Corporation; George Washington University; New York University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine; a Private Advisor on Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis; the Gradient Corporation; and Environmental Defense Fund.
Senator Boxer issued an opening statement saying, "EPA was created by President Nixon as an independent agency, designed to protect families, children, and our natural environment from harm. Unfortunately, what we will hear today is that the Bush Administration is discarding the best available science, and instead is seeking the advice of special interests that would benefit from weak environmental standards. A clear pattern has emerged at EPA. When it comes to who wins and who loses, time and time again, the polluting special interests come out on top, at the expense of the health of the American people. . .
"EPA has a special children’s health advisory committee, because children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pollution. This important scientific advice has been repeatedly ignored by the agency. For example, the agency refused to follow that Committee’s proposals to better protect children from smog pollution, toxic fine soot pollution, lead contamination in air, and perchlorate contamination of tap water -- all of which are especially dangerous to children. . ." She recounted several examples of the "Administration’s rejection of scientific advice."
Finally, she said, "And just in the last few days, a senior EPA appointee, Mary Gade, told the Chicago Tribune she was forced to resign for aggressively pursuing the cleanup of a dioxin-contaminated site in Michigan [See WIMS 5/2/08, and related article below]. The Bush EPA is failing to meet its mandate to protect public health as an independent, science-driven institution. The American people are paying the price with their health. This is an unacceptable pattern, and it must be reversed."
On May 2, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Subcommittee, sharply criticized the Bush Administration for repeatedly putting politics before science at the Environmental Protection Agency. Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island U.S. Attorney and Attorney General who was deeply involved in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the Administration’s firing of several U.S. Attorneys, issued a lengthy statement on the Senate Floor saying Ms. Gade’s resignation “seems like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with a political agenda over the best interests of the American people.”
Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement indicating that,"Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better."
He said, "More science means better decisions—more defensible decisions. . . However, in the rush to try and dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether science was adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. Our air is cleaner than it ever has been before; the levels of the six criteria pollutants are continuing to decline, air toxics monitoring is expanding and reductions in benzene, acid rain, and haze are contributing to significant improvements in air quality and environmental health.
"However, despite these improvements, in the last 2 years, EPA has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen 3 of the 6 criteria pollutants, all driven by citizen suits and court ordered deadlines, and the agency once again has been attacked by stakeholders on both sides for doing so. Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such marginal levels that one must stop and consider if there ever will be a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, we are left with a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to the states, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from the previous strengthening. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.
"I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, a past Chair of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who has detailed the many flaws and questionable approaches taken in justification of the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule and others. I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no longer offers its judgment of the scientific integrity of the process, but its policy opinions."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release and floor statement from Senator Whitehouse (click here). [*All]
Senator Boxer issued an opening statement saying, "EPA was created by President Nixon as an independent agency, designed to protect families, children, and our natural environment from harm. Unfortunately, what we will hear today is that the Bush Administration is discarding the best available science, and instead is seeking the advice of special interests that would benefit from weak environmental standards. A clear pattern has emerged at EPA. When it comes to who wins and who loses, time and time again, the polluting special interests come out on top, at the expense of the health of the American people. . .
"EPA has a special children’s health advisory committee, because children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pollution. This important scientific advice has been repeatedly ignored by the agency. For example, the agency refused to follow that Committee’s proposals to better protect children from smog pollution, toxic fine soot pollution, lead contamination in air, and perchlorate contamination of tap water -- all of which are especially dangerous to children. . ." She recounted several examples of the "Administration’s rejection of scientific advice."
Finally, she said, "And just in the last few days, a senior EPA appointee, Mary Gade, told the Chicago Tribune she was forced to resign for aggressively pursuing the cleanup of a dioxin-contaminated site in Michigan [See WIMS 5/2/08, and related article below]. The Bush EPA is failing to meet its mandate to protect public health as an independent, science-driven institution. The American people are paying the price with their health. This is an unacceptable pattern, and it must be reversed."
On May 2, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Subcommittee, sharply criticized the Bush Administration for repeatedly putting politics before science at the Environmental Protection Agency. Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island U.S. Attorney and Attorney General who was deeply involved in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the Administration’s firing of several U.S. Attorneys, issued a lengthy statement on the Senate Floor saying Ms. Gade’s resignation “seems like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with a political agenda over the best interests of the American people.”
Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement indicating that,"Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better."
He said, "More science means better decisions—more defensible decisions. . . However, in the rush to try and dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether science was adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. Our air is cleaner than it ever has been before; the levels of the six criteria pollutants are continuing to decline, air toxics monitoring is expanding and reductions in benzene, acid rain, and haze are contributing to significant improvements in air quality and environmental health.
"However, despite these improvements, in the last 2 years, EPA has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen 3 of the 6 criteria pollutants, all driven by citizen suits and court ordered deadlines, and the agency once again has been attacked by stakeholders on both sides for doing so. Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such marginal levels that one must stop and consider if there ever will be a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, we are left with a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to the states, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from the previous strengthening. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.
"I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, a past Chair of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who has detailed the many flaws and questionable approaches taken in justification of the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule and others. I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no longer offers its judgment of the scientific integrity of the process, but its policy opinions."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release and floor statement from Senator Whitehouse (click here). [*All]
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Senate Hearing On Perchlorate And TCE In Water
May 6: Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Perchlorate and TCE in Water. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. EPA; representatives of the California EPA; Ohio EPA; the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA); Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; a State of New York legislator; HealthRisk Strategies; Medical University of South Carolina; and the Environmental Working Group. Additionally, Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe delivered opening statements.
Senator Boxer said, "In fact, today we will hear about EPA’s particularly disturbing failures to address significant risks to our families from two widespread drinking water contaminants: perchlorate and trichloroethylene, usually just called 'TCE.' Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel, but when it gets into drinking water, this toxic chemical can interfere with the thyroid and affect hormone systems, which control the way the body develops. Infants and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to perchlorate. Researchers have found that over 20 million Americans’ drinking water supplies contain perchlorate. GAO found in 2005 that there were nearly 400 sites in 35 states contaminated with perchlorate. My state of California had 106 sites. . . And we know that we are exposed to perchlorate from many sources, not just drinking water. A January 2008 study by the FDA found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food."
Boxer said that EPA had done "very little" to address the problem. She said, "I told EPA last week that if the Bush Administration failed to protect our people, Congress would step in. I have two bills to protect people from perchlorate contamination. The first bill, the “Perchlorate Monitoring and Right to Know Act,” S. 24, says that EPA is to restore the rule requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate, and that the results of those tests must be disclosed to the public. My second bill, the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act,” S. 150, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and children. In addition, Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, myself, and several colleagues have a bill, the “TCE Reduction Act,” S. 1911, that would protect people exposed the TCE."
Senator Inhofe indicated that he was opposed to all three of these pieces of legislation mentioned by Senator Boxer. He said, "Each bill assumes that the scientific data and findings are complete and that they require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, within a specified amount of time for both perchlorate and TCE. My concern isn’t that these chemicals may be harmful to human health at a certain level, but rather that politicians feel compelled to introduce legislation forcing EPA’s hand on what could become a 'contaminant of the month' scenario without scientific backing. It should also be noted that TCE already has a set MCL based on principals outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . .
"The legislative approach taken in S. 24, S. 150, and S. 1911 is simply politicians meddling in the scientific process clearly laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mike Baker from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will speak on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators about the current process and the concern of legislating contaminants rather than following the process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . ." [See WIMS 1/3/07]
EPA testified that the Agency has been working on the science related to perchlorate for more than ten years. "In 2003, EPA sent its January 2002 external review draft of the perchlorate risk assessment to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review. The NAS panel released a report in January 2005 which recommended that the Agency use a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0007 mg/kg/day (0.7 µg/kg/day) based on a human study (Greer et al., 2002). The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. EPA endorsed their recommendation and used the NAS panel report "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion” as the basis for establishing its RfD which was subsequently posted to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database in February 2005."
He said in January 2006, EPA issued guidance for contaminated sites which recommended a revised preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 24.5 ppb perchlorate in water. The PRG was calculated from EPA’s RfD using standard exposure values of 70 kg body weight and 2 liters of water consumed per day. This calculation provides the drinking water equivalent level, assuming
no other sources of perchlorate exposure." He also said, "In addition, if a state has promulgated a drinking water standard for perchlorate (e.g., Massachusetts adopted 2 ppb as a drinking water standard), that value would be considered an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) and used as the ground water cleanup level for sites in that state."
He indicated that the Agency has "significant concerns with the bills introduced by Senators Boxer and Clinton. With respect to drinking water our primary concern with these bills is that they return the Agency to the time before 1996 when Congress dictated the drinking water regulations developed by the Agency." He concluded saying, the Agency is "working expeditiously to address potential risks from perchlorate and to evaluate the need for and feasibility of a stronger standard for TCE using this framework. We believe this framework is sound, and respectfully request that you allow us time to complete the required analyses and determinations to ensure appropriate science-based protection of public health from these and other contaminants, as envisioned in the 1996 amendments. As noted above, we are committed to making a final regulatory determination for perchlorate by the end of 2008, and for TCE as soon as the necessary analyses have been completed."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). [*Water/Drink, *Toxics]
Senator Boxer said, "In fact, today we will hear about EPA’s particularly disturbing failures to address significant risks to our families from two widespread drinking water contaminants: perchlorate and trichloroethylene, usually just called 'TCE.' Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel, but when it gets into drinking water, this toxic chemical can interfere with the thyroid and affect hormone systems, which control the way the body develops. Infants and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to perchlorate. Researchers have found that over 20 million Americans’ drinking water supplies contain perchlorate. GAO found in 2005 that there were nearly 400 sites in 35 states contaminated with perchlorate. My state of California had 106 sites. . . And we know that we are exposed to perchlorate from many sources, not just drinking water. A January 2008 study by the FDA found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food."
Boxer said that EPA had done "very little" to address the problem. She said, "I told EPA last week that if the Bush Administration failed to protect our people, Congress would step in. I have two bills to protect people from perchlorate contamination. The first bill, the “Perchlorate Monitoring and Right to Know Act,” S. 24, says that EPA is to restore the rule requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate, and that the results of those tests must be disclosed to the public. My second bill, the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act,” S. 150, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and children. In addition, Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, myself, and several colleagues have a bill, the “TCE Reduction Act,” S. 1911, that would protect people exposed the TCE."
Senator Inhofe indicated that he was opposed to all three of these pieces of legislation mentioned by Senator Boxer. He said, "Each bill assumes that the scientific data and findings are complete and that they require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, within a specified amount of time for both perchlorate and TCE. My concern isn’t that these chemicals may be harmful to human health at a certain level, but rather that politicians feel compelled to introduce legislation forcing EPA’s hand on what could become a 'contaminant of the month' scenario without scientific backing. It should also be noted that TCE already has a set MCL based on principals outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . .
"The legislative approach taken in S. 24, S. 150, and S. 1911 is simply politicians meddling in the scientific process clearly laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mike Baker from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will speak on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators about the current process and the concern of legislating contaminants rather than following the process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . ." [See WIMS 1/3/07]
EPA testified that the Agency has been working on the science related to perchlorate for more than ten years. "In 2003, EPA sent its January 2002 external review draft of the perchlorate risk assessment to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review. The NAS panel released a report in January 2005 which recommended that the Agency use a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0007 mg/kg/day (0.7 µg/kg/day) based on a human study (Greer et al., 2002). The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. EPA endorsed their recommendation and used the NAS panel report "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion” as the basis for establishing its RfD which was subsequently posted to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database in February 2005."
He said in January 2006, EPA issued guidance for contaminated sites which recommended a revised preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 24.5 ppb perchlorate in water. The PRG was calculated from EPA’s RfD using standard exposure values of 70 kg body weight and 2 liters of water consumed per day. This calculation provides the drinking water equivalent level, assuming
no other sources of perchlorate exposure." He also said, "In addition, if a state has promulgated a drinking water standard for perchlorate (e.g., Massachusetts adopted 2 ppb as a drinking water standard), that value would be considered an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) and used as the ground water cleanup level for sites in that state."
He indicated that the Agency has "significant concerns with the bills introduced by Senators Boxer and Clinton. With respect to drinking water our primary concern with these bills is that they return the Agency to the time before 1996 when Congress dictated the drinking water regulations developed by the Agency." He concluded saying, the Agency is "working expeditiously to address potential risks from perchlorate and to evaluate the need for and feasibility of a stronger standard for TCE using this framework. We believe this framework is sound, and respectfully request that you allow us time to complete the required analyses and determinations to ensure appropriate science-based protection of public health from these and other contaminants, as envisioned in the 1996 amendments. As noted above, we are committed to making a final regulatory determination for perchlorate by the end of 2008, and for TCE as soon as the necessary analyses have been completed."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). [*Water/Drink, *Toxics]
Monday, May 05, 2008
CBO Report On Nuclear Power’s Role In Generating Electricity
May 2: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 46-page report entitled, Nuclear Power’s Role In Generating Electricity. At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, CBO assessed the competitiveness of nuclear power when compared with other sources of new capacity to generate electricity, focusing on the possible effects of constraints on carbon dioxide emissions and the impact of EPAct incentives.
The report indicates that concerns about the adequacy of electricity supply and the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on the environment have prompted policymakers to reevaluate the role that nuclear power might play in the future in meeting the nation’s demand for electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) offers incentives for expanding utilities’ capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil fuel technologies and a new generation of nuclear reactors that are designed to decrease costs and enhance safety. In addition, policymakers are considering various proposals that would impose charges on entities that emit carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Such policies could further encourage the use of nuclear power, which emits no such gases, by increasing the cost of generating electricity with competing fossil-fuel technologies.
To assess the competitiveness of advanced nuclear technology in comparison with other base-load options, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the levelized cost of alternatives under a reference scenario reflecting the agency’s best judgment about future market conditions and the policy environment before the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under alternatives that consider the effects of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. To calculate those costs, CBO adopted base-case assumptions about an array of technical and economic choices confronting investors in new electricity-generating capacity.
The results section of the report indicates, "under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is probable that at least a few nuclear power plants will be built over the next decade, most likely in markets where electricity usage and the corresponding demand for additional base-load capacity are expected to grow significantly. Ultimately, however, the longer-term competitiveness of nuclear technology as a source of electricity is likely to depend on policymakers’ decisions regarding carbon dioxide constraints. If such constraints are implemented, nuclear power will probably enjoy a cost advantage over conventional fossil-fuel alternatives as a source of electricity-generating capacity.
Today, even the anticipation that carbon dioxide emissions will be priced is a factor being weighed in investors’ decisions about new base-load capacity. Those conclusions are tentative, though, because the electricity industry faces numerous uncertainties. If expectations related to future market conditions -- especially those pertaining to construction costs or fuel prices-- shift before investors commit to the construction of new base-load capacity, the prospects for new nuclear capacity could change dramatically.
While the report does not make recommendations, it indicates that carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies as a source of new capacity and could lead utilities to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants. At charges below that threshold, conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of baseload capacity than coal technology. Below about $5 per metric ton, conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.
The report notes however, that even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented, it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. Replacing the 300,000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade.
Access the complete report (click here). Access a brief CBO blog summary of the study by the director (click here). Access a description of the Methodology Behind the Levelized Cost Analysis (click here). [*Energy]
The report indicates that concerns about the adequacy of electricity supply and the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on the environment have prompted policymakers to reevaluate the role that nuclear power might play in the future in meeting the nation’s demand for electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) offers incentives for expanding utilities’ capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil fuel technologies and a new generation of nuclear reactors that are designed to decrease costs and enhance safety. In addition, policymakers are considering various proposals that would impose charges on entities that emit carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Such policies could further encourage the use of nuclear power, which emits no such gases, by increasing the cost of generating electricity with competing fossil-fuel technologies.
To assess the competitiveness of advanced nuclear technology in comparison with other base-load options, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the levelized cost of alternatives under a reference scenario reflecting the agency’s best judgment about future market conditions and the policy environment before the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under alternatives that consider the effects of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. To calculate those costs, CBO adopted base-case assumptions about an array of technical and economic choices confronting investors in new electricity-generating capacity.
The results section of the report indicates, "under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is probable that at least a few nuclear power plants will be built over the next decade, most likely in markets where electricity usage and the corresponding demand for additional base-load capacity are expected to grow significantly. Ultimately, however, the longer-term competitiveness of nuclear technology as a source of electricity is likely to depend on policymakers’ decisions regarding carbon dioxide constraints. If such constraints are implemented, nuclear power will probably enjoy a cost advantage over conventional fossil-fuel alternatives as a source of electricity-generating capacity.
Today, even the anticipation that carbon dioxide emissions will be priced is a factor being weighed in investors’ decisions about new base-load capacity. Those conclusions are tentative, though, because the electricity industry faces numerous uncertainties. If expectations related to future market conditions -- especially those pertaining to construction costs or fuel prices-- shift before investors commit to the construction of new base-load capacity, the prospects for new nuclear capacity could change dramatically.
While the report does not make recommendations, it indicates that carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies as a source of new capacity and could lead utilities to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants. At charges below that threshold, conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of baseload capacity than coal technology. Below about $5 per metric ton, conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.
The report notes however, that even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented, it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. Replacing the 300,000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade.
Access the complete report (click here). Access a brief CBO blog summary of the study by the director (click here). Access a description of the Methodology Behind the Levelized Cost Analysis (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, May 02, 2008
EDF Says EPA's ChAMP Doesn’t Have The "REACH"
May 2: A new analysis by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) indicates that a set of mostly voluntary initiatives recently announced by the U.S. EPA to identify and manage the risks of thousands of chemicals "will provide far less protection than the more comprehensive approach taken under the European Union’s new REACH Regulation" [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), See WIMS 12/13/06, See EcoBizPort REACH]. EDF presented its latest critique of EPA’s Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) at a meeting held by EPA to receive input on its initiatives.
On March 18, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at a presentation to the Global Chemical Regulation Conference indicated, "While EPA supports the health and environmental protection goals of REACH, we believe that effective protection can be obtained through a more targeted and strategic approach to chemical assessment and management. In that vein, this past August, the countries of North America came together to announce a strategic approach under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP. . . I believe this approach can provide a more focused, productive and workable scheme than the REACH framework. . ." As part of that effort EPA has made a commitment to complete initial assessments and take needed actions on the thousands of chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds-per-year in the U.S. by 2012. The commitment is ChAMPs. [See WIMS 3/19/08]
Dr. Richard Denison, EDF Senior Scientist said, “ChAMP just doesn’t have the reach of REACH, despite EPA’s efforts to claim otherwise. It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them.” He said many of ChAMP’s shortcomings can be directly traced to structural deficiencies in the authority EPA has been provided under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the main U.S. statute that governs how tens of thousands of chemicals are produced, used and disposed of.
EDF’s analysis identified a number of additional shortcomings of ChAMP including: A lack of transparency in describing what information EPA possesses and relies on to judge the likelihood of exposure to the chemicals it is assessing; Failure to initiate steps to fill the gaps in safety data EPA has identified, and to compel testing of chemicals whose manufacturers have not volunteered to develop the needed data; Significantly overstating the number of high-volume chemicals for which EPA has data necessary to conduct screening-level hazard and risk characterizations; and Reliance on information provided by manufacturers on how a chemical is used even when other available information indicates additional uses that could cause greater exposure.
Access a release from EDF and link to their recent analysis as well as other recent analyses of chemicals policies in the U.S. and other jurisdictions (click here). Access the Federal Register notice of the meeting (click here). Access complete information on the SPP (click here). Access complete information on ChAMP (click here). [*Toxics]
On March 18, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at a presentation to the Global Chemical Regulation Conference indicated, "While EPA supports the health and environmental protection goals of REACH, we believe that effective protection can be obtained through a more targeted and strategic approach to chemical assessment and management. In that vein, this past August, the countries of North America came together to announce a strategic approach under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP. . . I believe this approach can provide a more focused, productive and workable scheme than the REACH framework. . ." As part of that effort EPA has made a commitment to complete initial assessments and take needed actions on the thousands of chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds-per-year in the U.S. by 2012. The commitment is ChAMPs. [See WIMS 3/19/08]
Dr. Richard Denison, EDF Senior Scientist said, “ChAMP just doesn’t have the reach of REACH, despite EPA’s efforts to claim otherwise. It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them.” He said many of ChAMP’s shortcomings can be directly traced to structural deficiencies in the authority EPA has been provided under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the main U.S. statute that governs how tens of thousands of chemicals are produced, used and disposed of.
EDF’s analysis identified a number of additional shortcomings of ChAMP including: A lack of transparency in describing what information EPA possesses and relies on to judge the likelihood of exposure to the chemicals it is assessing; Failure to initiate steps to fill the gaps in safety data EPA has identified, and to compel testing of chemicals whose manufacturers have not volunteered to develop the needed data; Significantly overstating the number of high-volume chemicals for which EPA has data necessary to conduct screening-level hazard and risk characterizations; and Reliance on information provided by manufacturers on how a chemical is used even when other available information indicates additional uses that could cause greater exposure.
Access a release from EDF and link to their recent analysis as well as other recent analyses of chemicals policies in the U.S. and other jurisdictions (click here). Access the Federal Register notice of the meeting (click here). Access complete information on the SPP (click here). Access complete information on ChAMP (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, May 01, 2008
EPA Proposes Lead NAAQS Between 0.1 - 0.3 Micrograms/M3
May 1: U.S. EPA announced it is taking steps toward revising the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead (Pb) for the first time in 30 years, proposing to "dramatically strengthen the standards" to reflect the latest science on lead and health. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "By tackling lead emissions, EPA is keeping America's clean air progress moving forward. With today's proposal, we can write the next chapter in America's clean air story."
EPA is under a judicial order in Missouri Coalition for the Environment, v. EPA (No. 4:04CV00660 ERW, Sept. 14, 2005). The order governing the review, entered by the court on September 14, 2005 and amended on April 29, 2008, specifies that EPA sign, for publication, notices of proposed and final rulemaking concerning its review of the Pb NAAQS no later than May 1, 2008 and September 15, 2008, respectively. EPA will accept public comment for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold two public hearings on June 12, 2008: one in St. Louis and one in Baltimore.
According to EPA the proposal would tighten the primary standard to protect public health by 80 to 93 percent. It would revise the existing standard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air to a level within the range of 0.10 to 0.30 micrograms per cubic meter. The Agency is taking comment on alternative levels within a range from less than 0.10 to 0.50 micrograms per cubic meter. With regard to the averaging time and form of the standard, EPA proposes two options: to retain the current averaging time of a calendar quarter and the current not-to-be-exceeded form, revised to apply across a 3-year span; and to revise the averaging time to a calendar month and the form to the second-highest monthly average across a 3-year span.
EPA also solicits comment on revising the indicator to Pb-PM10 and on the same broad range of levels on which EPA is soliciting comment for the Pb-TSP indicator (up to 0.50 µg/m3). EPA also invites comment on when, if ever, it would be appropriate to set a NAAQS for Pb at a level of zero. EPA proposes to make the secondary standard identical in all respects to the proposed primary standard.
EPA is also proposing corresponding changes to data handling procedures, including the treatment of exceptional events, and to ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for Pb including those related to sampling and analysis methods, network design, sampling schedule, and data reporting. Finally, EPA is providing guidance on its proposed approach for implementing the proposed revised primary and secondary standards for Pb.
EPA notes that since 1980, emissions of lead to the air have dropped nearly 98 percent nationwide, largely the result of the Agency's phaseout of lead in gasoline. And average levels of lead in the air are far below the level of the 1978 standard. Lead in the air today comes from a variety of sources, including smelters, iron and steel foundries, and general aviation gasoline. About 1,300 tons of lead are emitted to the air each year, according to EPA's most recent estimates.
Lead that is emitted into the air can be inhaled or, after it settles out of the air, can be ingested. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Once in the body, lead is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream and can affect many organ systems. More than 6,000 studies since 1990 have examined the effects of lead on health and the environment. Evidence from health studies indicates that lead in the blood can cause harm at much lower levels than previously understood. Exposure to lead is associated with a broad range of health effects, including harm to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys and immune system. Children are particularly vulnerable: Exposures to low levels of lead early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory and behavior. Lead also can cause toxic effects in plants and can impair reproduction and growth in birds, mammals and other organisms.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 452-page proposed rule (click here). Access additional information including a fact sheet and background documents (click here). Access more information on lead in air (click here). [*Air]
EPA is under a judicial order in Missouri Coalition for the Environment, v. EPA (No. 4:04CV00660 ERW, Sept. 14, 2005). The order governing the review, entered by the court on September 14, 2005 and amended on April 29, 2008, specifies that EPA sign, for publication, notices of proposed and final rulemaking concerning its review of the Pb NAAQS no later than May 1, 2008 and September 15, 2008, respectively. EPA will accept public comment for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. The agency will hold two public hearings on June 12, 2008: one in St. Louis and one in Baltimore.
According to EPA the proposal would tighten the primary standard to protect public health by 80 to 93 percent. It would revise the existing standard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air to a level within the range of 0.10 to 0.30 micrograms per cubic meter. The Agency is taking comment on alternative levels within a range from less than 0.10 to 0.50 micrograms per cubic meter. With regard to the averaging time and form of the standard, EPA proposes two options: to retain the current averaging time of a calendar quarter and the current not-to-be-exceeded form, revised to apply across a 3-year span; and to revise the averaging time to a calendar month and the form to the second-highest monthly average across a 3-year span.
EPA also solicits comment on revising the indicator to Pb-PM10 and on the same broad range of levels on which EPA is soliciting comment for the Pb-TSP indicator (up to 0.50 µg/m3). EPA also invites comment on when, if ever, it would be appropriate to set a NAAQS for Pb at a level of zero. EPA proposes to make the secondary standard identical in all respects to the proposed primary standard.
EPA is also proposing corresponding changes to data handling procedures, including the treatment of exceptional events, and to ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for Pb including those related to sampling and analysis methods, network design, sampling schedule, and data reporting. Finally, EPA is providing guidance on its proposed approach for implementing the proposed revised primary and secondary standards for Pb.
EPA notes that since 1980, emissions of lead to the air have dropped nearly 98 percent nationwide, largely the result of the Agency's phaseout of lead in gasoline. And average levels of lead in the air are far below the level of the 1978 standard. Lead in the air today comes from a variety of sources, including smelters, iron and steel foundries, and general aviation gasoline. About 1,300 tons of lead are emitted to the air each year, according to EPA's most recent estimates.
Lead that is emitted into the air can be inhaled or, after it settles out of the air, can be ingested. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Once in the body, lead is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream and can affect many organ systems. More than 6,000 studies since 1990 have examined the effects of lead on health and the environment. Evidence from health studies indicates that lead in the blood can cause harm at much lower levels than previously understood. Exposure to lead is associated with a broad range of health effects, including harm to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys and immune system. Children are particularly vulnerable: Exposures to low levels of lead early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory and behavior. Lead also can cause toxic effects in plants and can impair reproduction and growth in birds, mammals and other organisms.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 452-page proposed rule (click here). Access additional information including a fact sheet and background documents (click here). Access more information on lead in air (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Final Report On Industrial Farm Animal Production
Apr 29: The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), convened in 2005, to study the impacts of dramatic changes in animal agriculture in America over the past 40 years, has issued its final report -- Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America [See WIMS 3/4/08]. The PCIFAP is funded by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
John Carlin, Former Governor of Kansas and family farmer, who served as Chair of the PCIFAP said it, "sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best about American agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability for the future. Our work focuses on four areas of concern that we believe are key to that future: public health, environment, animal welfare, and the vitality of rural communities; specifically, we focus on how these areas have been impacted by industrial farm animal production.
Robert Martin, Executive Director, of the project said, "There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing its review and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industry is not monolithic, and the formation of this Commission was greeted by industrial agriculture with responses ranging from open hostility to wary cooperation. In fact, while some industrial agriculture representatives were recommending potential authors for the technical reports to Commission staff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those same authors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding for their college or university. We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, government regulation, and enforcement. . . The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food."
The 124-page report contains sections on How the Current System Developed; Public Health; Environmental Risks; Animal Welfare; Rural America; and includes Conclusion: Toward Sustainable Animal Agriculture and The Recommendations of the Commission, followed by various References. The PCIFAP concludes: "Among the many changes likely in the next 50 years, we believe the following three will be especially challenging to the US industrial food and agriculture system: the depletion of stored energy and water resources, and changing climate. These changes will be especially challenging because America’s successful industrial economy of the past century was based on the availability of cheap energy, a relatively stable climate, and abundant fresh water, and current methods have assumed the continued availability of these resources." [Emphasis in original]
The report indicates that "as industrial farm animal production (IFAP) systems have increased cost-efficient agricultural food production, they have also given rise to problems that are beginning to require attention by policymakers and the industry. Given the relatively rapid emergence of the technologies for industrial farm animal production, and the dependence on chemical inputs, energy, and water, many IFAP systems are not sustainable environmentally or economically."
The report makes detailed and documented recommendations within five issue areas: Public Health (12 recommendations); Environment (4 recommendations); Animal Welfare (5 recommendations); Community Impacts (2 recommendations); and a general recommendation for "Increase funding for, expand, and reform animal agriculture research." Each recommendation includes a background discussion and extensive details of the specific recommendations. Focusing here on the environmental and community impacts recommendations, the PCIFAP recommends:
John Carlin, Former Governor of Kansas and family farmer, who served as Chair of the PCIFAP said it, "sought to develop recommendations that protect what is best about American agriculture and to help to ensure its sustainability for the future. Our work focuses on four areas of concern that we believe are key to that future: public health, environment, animal welfare, and the vitality of rural communities; specifically, we focus on how these areas have been impacted by industrial farm animal production.
Robert Martin, Executive Director, of the project said, "There have been some serious obstacles to the Commission completing its review and approving consensus recommendations. The agriculture industry is not monolithic, and the formation of this Commission was greeted by industrial agriculture with responses ranging from open hostility to wary cooperation. In fact, while some industrial agriculture representatives were recommending potential authors for the technical reports to Commission staff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discouraging those same authors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding for their college or university. We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, government regulation, and enforcement. . . The present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food."
The 124-page report contains sections on How the Current System Developed; Public Health; Environmental Risks; Animal Welfare; Rural America; and includes Conclusion: Toward Sustainable Animal Agriculture and The Recommendations of the Commission, followed by various References. The PCIFAP concludes: "Among the many changes likely in the next 50 years, we believe the following three will be especially challenging to the US industrial food and agriculture system: the depletion of stored energy and water resources, and changing climate. These changes will be especially challenging because America’s successful industrial economy of the past century was based on the availability of cheap energy, a relatively stable climate, and abundant fresh water, and current methods have assumed the continued availability of these resources." [Emphasis in original]
The report indicates that "as industrial farm animal production (IFAP) systems have increased cost-efficient agricultural food production, they have also given rise to problems that are beginning to require attention by policymakers and the industry. Given the relatively rapid emergence of the technologies for industrial farm animal production, and the dependence on chemical inputs, energy, and water, many IFAP systems are not sustainable environmentally or economically."
The report makes detailed and documented recommendations within five issue areas: Public Health (12 recommendations); Environment (4 recommendations); Animal Welfare (5 recommendations); Community Impacts (2 recommendations); and a general recommendation for "Increase funding for, expand, and reform animal agriculture research." Each recommendation includes a background discussion and extensive details of the specific recommendations. Focusing here on the environmental and community impacts recommendations, the PCIFAP recommends:
- Improve enforcement of existing federal, state, and local IFAP facility regulations to improve the siting of IFAP facilities and protect the health of those who live near and downstream from them;
- Develop and implement a new system to deal with farm waste (that will replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today) to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste;
Increase and improve monitoring and research of farm waste to hasten the development of new and innovative systems to deal with IFAP waste and to better our understanding of what is happening with IFAP today; - Increase funding for research into improving waste handling systems and standardize measurements to allow better comparisons between systems;
- States, counties, and local governments should implement zoning and siting guidance governing new IFAP operations that fairly and effectively evaluate the suitability of a site for these types of facilities; and
- Implement policies to allow for a competitive marketplace in animal agriculture to reduce the environmental and public health impacts of IFAP.
Access the complete final report (click here). Access the PCIFAP website for extensive information (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort CAFO links for additional information (click here). [*Air, *Agriculture *Water]
Note: On April 24, 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released another report entitled, CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations, which is also critical of CAFO operations. Access a release from UCS (click here). Access links to the complete 94-page report and an executive summary (click here).
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Senate Hearing On EPA Toxic Chemical Policies
Apr 29: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held an Oversight Hearing on EPA Toxic Chemical Policies. Witnesses testifying at the hearing include James Gulliford, EPA Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances; the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO); and representatives of the Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences Department, University of California, San Francisco; the WELL Network; Fanwood Chemical, Inc. on the behalf of the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers Association; Integrative Biostrategies, LLC; and Occupational and Environmental Health, Johns Hopkins University. Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe also delivered opening statements.
In her remarks, Senator Boxer said the hearing would reveal "some disturbing news about the White House and the Bush Administration’s efforts to corrupt EPA’s toxic chemical risk assessment process. By placing politics before science, the Bush Administration is putting the public in harms way. This according to the GAO and EPA scientists." Boxer said, EPA regulates toxic chemicals in the environment under several laws but the overall toxic chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or “TSCA,” was adopted in 1976 and was supposed to help assure that toxic chemicals would be restricted or banned if they were hazardous. She said, "TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove a toxic chemical is a risk. That is unlike the European program, called REACH [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), See WIMS 3/19/08, See EcoBizPort REACH]. REACH puts the burden on the chemical industry -- where it should be -- to show that their chemicals are safe."
On April 10, U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development, announced that the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and process for developing chemical assessments would undergo several changes "to increase its transparency and efficiency." EPA said the changes include: an expanded process for recommending a substance be assessed; the earlier involvement of other agencies and the public; hosting “listening sessions” to allow for the broader participation and engagement of interested parties; and an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments [See WIMS 4/10/08]. EPA’s IRIS program is a chemical evaluation program that is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental regulations and policies. The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals.
Senator Boxer released a GAO report entitled, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (GAO-08-440, March 7, 2008). She said the report "criticizes the Bush Administration changes to the risk assessment process and makes clear the danger faced by the public when political interference and the influence of polluters affects EPA’s ability to address the risks of toxic chemicals. Under EPA’s new approach politics can be -- and already has been -- injected into multiple stages in the process. Even worse, the new procedure effectively requires the White House the Department of Defense (DOD) -- which contracts out much of its weapons programs -- to agree with EPA on any risk assessment before it goes forward and is made public. The entire process of White House and interagency debate is kept secret, which GAO and EPA scientists say undermines the credibility of EPA’s scientific assessments. That is because EPA scientists are being pushed aside by White House operatives and polluters."
In its review GAO found, among other items, that the IRIS database is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments -- a total of 4 were completed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In its testimony GAO said that EPA’s new process is largely the same as the draft GAO evaluated [prior to the April 10 release], and some key changes also are likely to further exacerbate the productivity and credibility concerns GAO identified. GAO testified, "GAO continues to believe it is critical that input from all parties—particularly agencies that may be affected by the outcome of IRIS assessments—be publicly available. As recommended in GAO’s March 2008 report, to effectively maintain IRIS, EPA must, among other things, streamline its lengthy assessment process and adopt transparency practices that provide assurance that IRIS assessments are appropriately based on the best available science and that they are not inappropriately biased by policy considerations. Since EPA’s new process is not responsive to GAO’s recommendations, the viability of this critical database has been further jeopardized."
Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements, the full 89-page GAO report, related letters & documents and a webcast of the hearing (click here). Access an EPA release on it new IRIS process (click here). Access the IRIS website (click here). Access links to contacts, a 9-page EPA description of the process revisions, and a 5-page FAQ document (click here). [*Toxics]
In her remarks, Senator Boxer said the hearing would reveal "some disturbing news about the White House and the Bush Administration’s efforts to corrupt EPA’s toxic chemical risk assessment process. By placing politics before science, the Bush Administration is putting the public in harms way. This according to the GAO and EPA scientists." Boxer said, EPA regulates toxic chemicals in the environment under several laws but the overall toxic chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or “TSCA,” was adopted in 1976 and was supposed to help assure that toxic chemicals would be restricted or banned if they were hazardous. She said, "TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove a toxic chemical is a risk. That is unlike the European program, called REACH [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), See WIMS 3/19/08, See EcoBizPort REACH]. REACH puts the burden on the chemical industry -- where it should be -- to show that their chemicals are safe."
On April 10, U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development, announced that the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and process for developing chemical assessments would undergo several changes "to increase its transparency and efficiency." EPA said the changes include: an expanded process for recommending a substance be assessed; the earlier involvement of other agencies and the public; hosting “listening sessions” to allow for the broader participation and engagement of interested parties; and an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments [See WIMS 4/10/08]. EPA’s IRIS program is a chemical evaluation program that is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental regulations and policies. The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals.
Senator Boxer released a GAO report entitled, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (GAO-08-440, March 7, 2008). She said the report "criticizes the Bush Administration changes to the risk assessment process and makes clear the danger faced by the public when political interference and the influence of polluters affects EPA’s ability to address the risks of toxic chemicals. Under EPA’s new approach politics can be -- and already has been -- injected into multiple stages in the process. Even worse, the new procedure effectively requires the White House the Department of Defense (DOD) -- which contracts out much of its weapons programs -- to agree with EPA on any risk assessment before it goes forward and is made public. The entire process of White House and interagency debate is kept secret, which GAO and EPA scientists say undermines the credibility of EPA’s scientific assessments. That is because EPA scientists are being pushed aside by White House operatives and polluters."
In its review GAO found, among other items, that the IRIS database is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments -- a total of 4 were completed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In its testimony GAO said that EPA’s new process is largely the same as the draft GAO evaluated [prior to the April 10 release], and some key changes also are likely to further exacerbate the productivity and credibility concerns GAO identified. GAO testified, "GAO continues to believe it is critical that input from all parties—particularly agencies that may be affected by the outcome of IRIS assessments—be publicly available. As recommended in GAO’s March 2008 report, to effectively maintain IRIS, EPA must, among other things, streamline its lengthy assessment process and adopt transparency practices that provide assurance that IRIS assessments are appropriately based on the best available science and that they are not inappropriately biased by policy considerations. Since EPA’s new process is not responsive to GAO’s recommendations, the viability of this critical database has been further jeopardized."
Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, opening statements, the full 89-page GAO report, related letters & documents and a webcast of the hearing (click here). Access an EPA release on it new IRIS process (click here). Access the IRIS website (click here). Access links to contacts, a 9-page EPA description of the process revisions, and a 5-page FAQ document (click here). [*Toxics]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
