Jul 13: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale Buchanan announced that USDA researchers have finalized an action plan for dealing with colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honey bees. The CCD is characterized by the sudden and mysterious die-off of honey bee colonies [See WIMS 4/4/07]. Buchanan said, "There were enough honey bees to provide pollination for U.S. agriculture this year, but beekeepers could face a serious problem next year and beyond. This action plan provides a coordinated framework to ensure that all of the research that needs to be done is covered in order to get to the bottom of the CCD problem."
The action plan coordinates the Federal strategy in response to CCD. It addresses four main components: (1) survey and data collection needs; (2) analysis of samples to determine the prevalence of various pests and pathogens, exposure to pesticides, or other unusual factors; (3) controlled experiments to carefully analyze the potential causes of CCD; and (4) developing new methods to improve the general health of bees to reduce their susceptibility to CCD and other disorders.
According to USDA, four possible causes for CCD are identified in the plan: (1) new or reemerging pathogens, (2) new bee pests or parasites, (3) environmental and/or nutritional stress, or (4) pesticides. Research will focus on determining which of these factors are contributing causes of CCD, either individually or in combination.
CCD became apparent as a problem beginning in the winter of 2006-2007 when some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. While colony losses are not unexpected during winter weather, the magnitude of loss suffered by some beekeepers was highly unusual. There is currently no recognizable underlying cause for CCD. The main symptom is finding no or a low number of adult honey bees present with no dead honey bees in the hive. Often there is still honey in the hive and immature bees (brood) are present. Pollination is a critical element in agriculture, as honey bees pollinate more than 130 crops in the United States and add $15 billion in crop value annually.
Access a release from USDA (click here). Access the 28-page action plan (click here). [*Wildlife]
Monday, July 16, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Peer Review Process & Listserv
Jul 13: U.S. EPA provided formal notice in the Federal Register [72 FR 38577-38580] of the approach it intends to take for conducting peer reviews of the Tier 1 screening assays and Tier 2 testing assays that are being validated by the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), as well as EPA's approach for conducting the peer review of the Tier 1 battery. EPA also announced the availability of a listserver (Listserv) that will allow interested parties to sign up to receive e-mail notifications of EDSP peer review updates, including information on the availability of peer review materials to be posted on the EDSP website. The materials may include the documents to be peer reviewed, background documents, the charge to the peer reviewers, and reports that summarize the results of peer reviews.
In recent years, some scientists have proposed that certain chemicals might be disrupting the endocrine system of humans and wildlife. A variety of chemicals have been found to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals in laboratory studies, and compelling evidence shows that endocrine systems of certain fish and wildlife have been affected by chemical contaminants, resulting in developmental and reproductive problems. Based on this and other evidence, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, requiring that EPA initiate EDSP to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential to affect the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife.
Endocrine disruptor screening is currently proceeding on three fronts: 1) Performing scientific and technical testing needed to validate the endocrine disruptor screens and tests; 2) Setting priorities for selecting chemicals for initial screening and testing; and 3) Developing the policies and procedures the Agency will use to require testing. In June 2007 [See WIMS 6/11/07], EPA published a Pre-Publication Federal Register Notice announcing the draft list of initial pesticide active ingredients and pesticide inerts to be considered for screening under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The list includes 73 chemicals to be screened under Tier 1 of the program. Comments are due to EPA by September 17, 2007.
Access the FR announcement (click here). Access information on the Listserv (click here). Access information on the peer review process (click here). Access the FR announcement of the list of 73 chemical (click here). Access EPA's EDSP website for further information (click here). [*Toxics]
In recent years, some scientists have proposed that certain chemicals might be disrupting the endocrine system of humans and wildlife. A variety of chemicals have been found to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals in laboratory studies, and compelling evidence shows that endocrine systems of certain fish and wildlife have been affected by chemical contaminants, resulting in developmental and reproductive problems. Based on this and other evidence, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, requiring that EPA initiate EDSP to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential to affect the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife.
Endocrine disruptor screening is currently proceeding on three fronts: 1) Performing scientific and technical testing needed to validate the endocrine disruptor screens and tests; 2) Setting priorities for selecting chemicals for initial screening and testing; and 3) Developing the policies and procedures the Agency will use to require testing. In June 2007 [See WIMS 6/11/07], EPA published a Pre-Publication Federal Register Notice announcing the draft list of initial pesticide active ingredients and pesticide inerts to be considered for screening under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The list includes 73 chemicals to be screened under Tier 1 of the program. Comments are due to EPA by September 17, 2007.
Access the FR announcement (click here). Access information on the Listserv (click here). Access information on the peer review process (click here). Access the FR announcement of the list of 73 chemical (click here). Access EPA's EDSP website for further information (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Senate Hearing On Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS
Jul 11: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Chaired by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), held a hearing entitled, Review of EPA’s Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson; and representatives of Yale University, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies; Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control; Environmental Defense; City of St. Gabriel, Louisiana; and an Advisor on Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis.
On June 21, 2007, U.S. EPA announced its proposal to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997 [See WIMS 6/21/07]. The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm.
In opening remarks, Senator Carper said, "as the federal government strengthens national ozone standards, Congress must also act to strengthen national pollution-control strategies. Setting more stringent national air standards must be coupled with a national strategy to help states achieve cleaner air. The Clean Air Planning Act (CAPA, S. 1177) that I introduced this year provides a national solution by ensuring power plants reduce NOx emissions, which contribute to many states’ current ozone problems.” He said the 2007 version of CAPA would require power plants to drastically reduce their emissions of mercury, as well as the pollutants (nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide) that produce smog and acid rain. Carper’s CAPA bill also would set up a mandatory cap-and-trade program for utilities to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming.
Full Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) also issued opening remarks highly critical of EPA. She said, "EPA Administrator Johnson has publicly stated that he agrees that the current smog standard is not protective. Unfortunately, as we will hear today, EPA’s ozone proposal allows for more pollution than the science supports, and it could even leave the current unsafe standard in place. The science overwhelmingly supports closing the door on the current standard once and for all. Instead of listening to science, the Administrator seems to be listening to the wish lists of polluting industries. The final ozone rule must protect clean air and public health, period. Anything less is unacceptable... EPA has failed to heed the unanimous scientific opinion of the expert review panel created under the Clean Air Act specifically to provide advice regarding these standards. EPA has said that it may set the standard at levels above those recommended by the review panel, and has agreed to take comments about retaining the existing standard. EPA did this even though we know now that ozone harms people at levels below the existing standard...
"...the independent review panel to say unanimously that 'there is no scientific justification for retaining the current [standard]…of 0.08 parts per million.' As a result, the panel 'unanimously recommends a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million' as the ozone standard. Yet EPA proposed a standard in the range of 0.070-0.075 parts per million. EPA’s proposal is unacceptable."
Administrator Johnson testified that more than 1,700 studies examining the relationship between ozone exposure and human health and the environment have been published over the past decade since EPA last updated the ozone standards. He said, "I proposed that the current standard does not protect public health with an adequate margin of safety." He said the 1997 standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) -- effectively 0.084 ppm because of our rounding conventions.
He said, "After considering the advice from EPA’s scientists and our Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, I proposed to set a standard within the range of 0.070 to 0.075 ppm. This proposal marks the beginning of an open public comment process, during which EPA is inviting comment on a range of primary standard levels from as low as 0.060 parts per million up to the level of the current standard, 0.084 ppm... I fully welcome information from the public addressing whether there are other interpretations of the science or other public health policy judgments that would suggest different levels than those I put forward in the proposal."
Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) issued a statement saying, "If enacted, it [the proposed regulations] would have enormous consequences for our nation, with the disadvantaged among the hardest hit. Defenders of tightening the ozone standard will say that the law does not take into account the economic devastation, the loss of jobs, and ruined lives that will be left in its wake. But it should. And more to the point, we should... I find it odd that our government would force cities to comply with standards over which they have no control. As we regulate almost every city in America under this standard, even collectively they cannot control the outcome because you have included emissions from Mexico and Canada...
"Not a single county in Oklahoma is in violation of the ozone standards. Not a single one, Mr. Administrator. Yet your proposal will put virtually the entire State into non-attainment. How is it that EPA last year considered States like Oklahoma to have clean air that was healthy to breathe, yet next year it will consider the air unhealthy – even as their pollution levels continue to plummet?.. am asking you to see the enormous importance of this decision and to ensure that your decision does not go beyond what you are required to do -- that is, set the standard a level requisite to protect the public health. I also encourage you to focus more of your attention to where it should be -- getting areas with truly dirty air into compliance with the existing law.
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, member statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release from Senator Carper (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1177 (click here). [*Air]
On June 21, 2007, U.S. EPA announced its proposal to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997 [See WIMS 6/21/07]. The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm.
In opening remarks, Senator Carper said, "as the federal government strengthens national ozone standards, Congress must also act to strengthen national pollution-control strategies. Setting more stringent national air standards must be coupled with a national strategy to help states achieve cleaner air. The Clean Air Planning Act (CAPA, S. 1177) that I introduced this year provides a national solution by ensuring power plants reduce NOx emissions, which contribute to many states’ current ozone problems.” He said the 2007 version of CAPA would require power plants to drastically reduce their emissions of mercury, as well as the pollutants (nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide) that produce smog and acid rain. Carper’s CAPA bill also would set up a mandatory cap-and-trade program for utilities to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming.
Full Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) also issued opening remarks highly critical of EPA. She said, "EPA Administrator Johnson has publicly stated that he agrees that the current smog standard is not protective. Unfortunately, as we will hear today, EPA’s ozone proposal allows for more pollution than the science supports, and it could even leave the current unsafe standard in place. The science overwhelmingly supports closing the door on the current standard once and for all. Instead of listening to science, the Administrator seems to be listening to the wish lists of polluting industries. The final ozone rule must protect clean air and public health, period. Anything less is unacceptable... EPA has failed to heed the unanimous scientific opinion of the expert review panel created under the Clean Air Act specifically to provide advice regarding these standards. EPA has said that it may set the standard at levels above those recommended by the review panel, and has agreed to take comments about retaining the existing standard. EPA did this even though we know now that ozone harms people at levels below the existing standard...
"...the independent review panel to say unanimously that 'there is no scientific justification for retaining the current [standard]…of 0.08 parts per million.' As a result, the panel 'unanimously recommends a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million' as the ozone standard. Yet EPA proposed a standard in the range of 0.070-0.075 parts per million. EPA’s proposal is unacceptable."
Administrator Johnson testified that more than 1,700 studies examining the relationship between ozone exposure and human health and the environment have been published over the past decade since EPA last updated the ozone standards. He said, "I proposed that the current standard does not protect public health with an adequate margin of safety." He said the 1997 standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) -- effectively 0.084 ppm because of our rounding conventions.
He said, "After considering the advice from EPA’s scientists and our Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, I proposed to set a standard within the range of 0.070 to 0.075 ppm. This proposal marks the beginning of an open public comment process, during which EPA is inviting comment on a range of primary standard levels from as low as 0.060 parts per million up to the level of the current standard, 0.084 ppm... I fully welcome information from the public addressing whether there are other interpretations of the science or other public health policy judgments that would suggest different levels than those I put forward in the proposal."
Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) issued a statement saying, "If enacted, it [the proposed regulations] would have enormous consequences for our nation, with the disadvantaged among the hardest hit. Defenders of tightening the ozone standard will say that the law does not take into account the economic devastation, the loss of jobs, and ruined lives that will be left in its wake. But it should. And more to the point, we should... I find it odd that our government would force cities to comply with standards over which they have no control. As we regulate almost every city in America under this standard, even collectively they cannot control the outcome because you have included emissions from Mexico and Canada...
"Not a single county in Oklahoma is in violation of the ozone standards. Not a single one, Mr. Administrator. Yet your proposal will put virtually the entire State into non-attainment. How is it that EPA last year considered States like Oklahoma to have clean air that was healthy to breathe, yet next year it will consider the air unhealthy – even as their pollution levels continue to plummet?.. am asking you to see the enormous importance of this decision and to ensure that your decision does not go beyond what you are required to do -- that is, set the standard a level requisite to protect the public health. I also encourage you to focus more of your attention to where it should be -- getting areas with truly dirty air into compliance with the existing law.
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, member statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release from Senator Carper (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1177 (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Bingaman-Specter Cap & Trade Bill Introduced
Jul 11: Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced bipartisan legislation designed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while protecting the U.S. economy and interacting with key developing countries in their efforts to deal with the challenges of global warming. Original cosponsors include Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI).
The Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 creates an economy-wide mandatory tradable-permits system that is modeled after the successful U.S. Acid Rain Program. By setting an annual target and allowing firms to buy, sell and trade credits to achieve that target, the program is designed to achieve what the sponsors say is "the most cost-effective carbon reductions across the economy." The target and technology incentives are designed to avoid harm to the economy while promoting a gradual but decisive transition to new, lower-carbon technologies.
Bingaman, Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, “There is a great desire in our country to address the global warming crisis. I believe our legislation represents a strong and balanced approach. It will dramatically reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while also spurring new energy technologies, protecting the American economy and engaging developing nations in their efforts to address climate change. It’s a bipartisan approach that strikes the right balance and would return the U.S. to a position of global leadership.” Senator Specter said, “This legislation provides a deliberative and measured response to climate change. It brings together many interest groups in the fight against global warming, and I believe this is a bill that can be passed.”
The Low Carbon Economy Act is the product of a lengthy and open process. It reflects revisions of the Bingaman-Specter discussion draft on climate change, first circulated in January. That draft was the basis for hearings, analyses and extensive input from a broad range of stakeholders.
The environmental targets of the Act are to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030. To limit economic uncertainty and price volatility, the government would allow firms to make a payment at a fixed price in lieu of submitting allowances. This “Technology Accelerator Payment” (TAP) price starts at $12 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent in the first year of the program and rises steadily each year thereafter at 5 percent above the rate of inflation. If technology improves rapidly and if additional policies such as fuel efficiency standards and a renewable electricity standard are adopted, the TAP option will never be engaged. Conversely, if technology improves less rapidly than expected and program costs exceed predictions, companies could make a payment into the “Energy Technology Deployment Fund” at the TAP price, to cover a portion or their entire allowance submission requirement.
Under the Act, GHG emissions from petroleum and natural gas are regulated “upstream” -- that is, at or close to the point of fuel production. For these fuels, regulated entities are required to submit tradable allowances equal to the carbon content of fuels produced or processed at their facilities. GHG emissions from coal are regulated “downstream” at the point of fuel consumption. Regulated entities that must submit allowances include petroleum refineries, natural gas processing plants, fossil fuel importers, large coal-consuming facilities and producers/importers of non-CO2 GHGs.
The proposal sets out a detailed methodology for distributing tradable emission allowances. At the beginning of the program, a majority of allowances are given out for free to the private sector. This amount is gradually reduced each year after the first five years of the program. In addition, 8 percent of allowances will be set aside annually to create incentives for carbon capture and storage and jump-start these critical technologies. Twenty-four percent of total allowances will be auctioned by the government to generate much-needed revenue for research, development and deployment of low- and no-carbon technologies, to provide for climate change adaptation measures and to provide assistance to low income households. Five percent of allowances are reserved to promote agricultural sequestration, and 1 percent of the allowances will reward companies that have undertaken “early actions” to reduce emissions before program implementation. Another 9 percent of the allowances are to be distributed directly to States, which can use associated revenues at their discretion to address regional impacts, promote technology or energy efficiency and enhance energy security.
To effectively engage developing countries, the Low Carbon Economy Act would fund joint research and development partnerships and technology transfer programs similar to the Asia Pacific Partnership. The bill also calls for a Five-Year Review Process that requires a reassessment of domestic action in light of efforts by our major U.S. trade partners and relevant scientific and technological developments. If there is sufficient international progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the President could recommend changes in the U.S. program designed to achieve further reductions that are at least 60 percent below current levels by 2050. If other countries are deemed to be making inadequate efforts, starting in 2020 the President could require importers from such countries to submit special emission allowances (from a separate reserve pool) to cover the carbon content of certain products.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee commented on the bill saying, Kyoto’s spectacular global failure should give any advocates of mandatory CO2 cap-and-trade schemes serious reasons to reconsider their support... Senator Bingaman’s bill would needlessly increase energy costs to already overburdened Americans without any measurable climate benefits. CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans..."
Environmental Defense commented on the bill saying, "The safety valve is a dangerous kill switch that could turn off the whole program. There are much better ways of managing costs than giving up on the environmental goal altogether. The safety valve in Senator Bingaman’s bill would put a price ceiling of $12 per ton of carbon dioxide under an emissions cap and trade system. If emissions allowances traded by companies reached the price ceiling, companies could buy unlimited cut-rate emissions allowances from the government – effectively jettisoning the bill's mandatory emissions limits."
Access a release from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access links to extensive documentation on the bill including full text, summary, FAQ, section-by-section, briefings, slide show, side-by-side comparison to other bills, etc (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
The Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 creates an economy-wide mandatory tradable-permits system that is modeled after the successful U.S. Acid Rain Program. By setting an annual target and allowing firms to buy, sell and trade credits to achieve that target, the program is designed to achieve what the sponsors say is "the most cost-effective carbon reductions across the economy." The target and technology incentives are designed to avoid harm to the economy while promoting a gradual but decisive transition to new, lower-carbon technologies.
Bingaman, Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee said, “There is a great desire in our country to address the global warming crisis. I believe our legislation represents a strong and balanced approach. It will dramatically reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while also spurring new energy technologies, protecting the American economy and engaging developing nations in their efforts to address climate change. It’s a bipartisan approach that strikes the right balance and would return the U.S. to a position of global leadership.” Senator Specter said, “This legislation provides a deliberative and measured response to climate change. It brings together many interest groups in the fight against global warming, and I believe this is a bill that can be passed.”
The Low Carbon Economy Act is the product of a lengthy and open process. It reflects revisions of the Bingaman-Specter discussion draft on climate change, first circulated in January. That draft was the basis for hearings, analyses and extensive input from a broad range of stakeholders.
The environmental targets of the Act are to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030. To limit economic uncertainty and price volatility, the government would allow firms to make a payment at a fixed price in lieu of submitting allowances. This “Technology Accelerator Payment” (TAP) price starts at $12 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent in the first year of the program and rises steadily each year thereafter at 5 percent above the rate of inflation. If technology improves rapidly and if additional policies such as fuel efficiency standards and a renewable electricity standard are adopted, the TAP option will never be engaged. Conversely, if technology improves less rapidly than expected and program costs exceed predictions, companies could make a payment into the “Energy Technology Deployment Fund” at the TAP price, to cover a portion or their entire allowance submission requirement.
Under the Act, GHG emissions from petroleum and natural gas are regulated “upstream” -- that is, at or close to the point of fuel production. For these fuels, regulated entities are required to submit tradable allowances equal to the carbon content of fuels produced or processed at their facilities. GHG emissions from coal are regulated “downstream” at the point of fuel consumption. Regulated entities that must submit allowances include petroleum refineries, natural gas processing plants, fossil fuel importers, large coal-consuming facilities and producers/importers of non-CO2 GHGs.
The proposal sets out a detailed methodology for distributing tradable emission allowances. At the beginning of the program, a majority of allowances are given out for free to the private sector. This amount is gradually reduced each year after the first five years of the program. In addition, 8 percent of allowances will be set aside annually to create incentives for carbon capture and storage and jump-start these critical technologies. Twenty-four percent of total allowances will be auctioned by the government to generate much-needed revenue for research, development and deployment of low- and no-carbon technologies, to provide for climate change adaptation measures and to provide assistance to low income households. Five percent of allowances are reserved to promote agricultural sequestration, and 1 percent of the allowances will reward companies that have undertaken “early actions” to reduce emissions before program implementation. Another 9 percent of the allowances are to be distributed directly to States, which can use associated revenues at their discretion to address regional impacts, promote technology or energy efficiency and enhance energy security.
To effectively engage developing countries, the Low Carbon Economy Act would fund joint research and development partnerships and technology transfer programs similar to the Asia Pacific Partnership. The bill also calls for a Five-Year Review Process that requires a reassessment of domestic action in light of efforts by our major U.S. trade partners and relevant scientific and technological developments. If there is sufficient international progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the President could recommend changes in the U.S. program designed to achieve further reductions that are at least 60 percent below current levels by 2050. If other countries are deemed to be making inadequate efforts, starting in 2020 the President could require importers from such countries to submit special emission allowances (from a separate reserve pool) to cover the carbon content of certain products.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee commented on the bill saying, Kyoto’s spectacular global failure should give any advocates of mandatory CO2 cap-and-trade schemes serious reasons to reconsider their support... Senator Bingaman’s bill would needlessly increase energy costs to already overburdened Americans without any measurable climate benefits. CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans..."
Environmental Defense commented on the bill saying, "The safety valve is a dangerous kill switch that could turn off the whole program. There are much better ways of managing costs than giving up on the environmental goal altogether. The safety valve in Senator Bingaman’s bill would put a price ceiling of $12 per ton of carbon dioxide under an emissions cap and trade system. If emissions allowances traded by companies reached the price ceiling, companies could buy unlimited cut-rate emissions allowances from the government – effectively jettisoning the bill's mandatory emissions limits."
Access a release from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access links to extensive documentation on the bill including full text, summary, FAQ, section-by-section, briefings, slide show, side-by-side comparison to other bills, etc (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Jobs Plus Economic Dollars With Effective Hog Waste Management
Jul 10: Environmental Defense released an economic analysis which they say shows that "North Carolina can gain the equivalent of 7,000 jobs and add $10 billion to its economy if the hog industry moves from open-air lagoons to innovative systems for treating swine waste." They said the study confirms that public and private investment in innovative waste systems will bring economic benefits for both farmers and the communities that surround them. The study provides further evidence that incentives and cost-share programs can help make new systems that protect the environment and public health affordable for farmers.
Joe Rudek, senior scientist with the NC office of Environmental Defense said, "This study should end debate over the affordability of cleaner systems and refocus efforts to get these systems on the ground and develop markets for byproducts. Bottom line is that the hog industry will remain economically strong, and communities will become healthier places to live and work. Now policy makers have reliable data showing that incentives and cost-share programs can help make cleaner waste systems affordable for all farmers. Public investment in cost-share programs will deliver big benefits to North Carolina, especially to the eastern region of the state."
Tanja Vujic, an attorney with the NC office of Environmental Defense said, "This is good news for hog farmers and for communities. Economic progress and environmental progress go hand in hand. Lawmakers now have solid evidence to guide them in making North Carolina the cleanest hog-producing state in the country. It's time to sharpen the pencils and design meaningful programs to put innovative systems into farmers' hands."
The study was conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates in collaboration with the NC office of Environmental Defense. Wilbur Smith Associates is a leading provider of economics and market analysis consulting services to various government agencies, including federal, state, local and regional agencies, as well as private sector clients.
The primary focus of this study is to examine the macroeconomic impacts on North Carolina and specific regions of the state. This includes not only the direct economic effects but also the indirect economic effects stimulated by the installation of the innovative technology and the marketing of its byproducts. According to the report, "As North Carolina's hog farms install innovative technologies, they will incur costs associated with construction, operating and maintenance. They will also benefit from the net income generated from producing and selling byproducts such as fertilizers and alternative fuel from hog wastes. In addition, farms can receive credits as a result of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
The study also considers the results for two financial support options, one where producers pay 25 percent of construction costs and the federal government pays the remainder (for example through a Farm Bill cost share program), and the other where producers pay all construction costs. The economic impacts are evaluated over the twenty years from 2007 to 2026.
The report concludes, "If all farms produced and sold container mix in bags (a soilless media used by nurseries and other plant rearing industries) an estimated increase of more than 141,000 jobs-years over 20 years would result (i.e. the equivalent of more than 7000 jobs on average) and the net present value over 20 years of an increase in gross regional product of approximately $10 billion."
Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the complete 45-page report (click here). [*Water, *Air, *Climate]
Joe Rudek, senior scientist with the NC office of Environmental Defense said, "This study should end debate over the affordability of cleaner systems and refocus efforts to get these systems on the ground and develop markets for byproducts. Bottom line is that the hog industry will remain economically strong, and communities will become healthier places to live and work. Now policy makers have reliable data showing that incentives and cost-share programs can help make cleaner waste systems affordable for all farmers. Public investment in cost-share programs will deliver big benefits to North Carolina, especially to the eastern region of the state."
Tanja Vujic, an attorney with the NC office of Environmental Defense said, "This is good news for hog farmers and for communities. Economic progress and environmental progress go hand in hand. Lawmakers now have solid evidence to guide them in making North Carolina the cleanest hog-producing state in the country. It's time to sharpen the pencils and design meaningful programs to put innovative systems into farmers' hands."
The study was conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates in collaboration with the NC office of Environmental Defense. Wilbur Smith Associates is a leading provider of economics and market analysis consulting services to various government agencies, including federal, state, local and regional agencies, as well as private sector clients.
The primary focus of this study is to examine the macroeconomic impacts on North Carolina and specific regions of the state. This includes not only the direct economic effects but also the indirect economic effects stimulated by the installation of the innovative technology and the marketing of its byproducts. According to the report, "As North Carolina's hog farms install innovative technologies, they will incur costs associated with construction, operating and maintenance. They will also benefit from the net income generated from producing and selling byproducts such as fertilizers and alternative fuel from hog wastes. In addition, farms can receive credits as a result of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
The study also considers the results for two financial support options, one where producers pay 25 percent of construction costs and the federal government pays the remainder (for example through a Farm Bill cost share program), and the other where producers pay all construction costs. The economic impacts are evaluated over the twenty years from 2007 to 2026.
The report concludes, "If all farms produced and sold container mix in bags (a soilless media used by nurseries and other plant rearing industries) an estimated increase of more than 141,000 jobs-years over 20 years would result (i.e. the equivalent of more than 7000 jobs on average) and the net present value over 20 years of an increase in gross regional product of approximately $10 billion."
Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the complete 45-page report (click here). [*Water, *Air, *Climate]
EcoBizPort.com
Monday, July 09, 2007
Six Major CEO's Launch “The CEO Water Mandate”
Jul 5: In an extraordinary call to action, a group of chief executive officers representing some of the world’s largest corporations urged their business peers everywhere to take immediate action to address the emerging global water crisis. The CEOs of six corporations -- The Coca-Cola Company, Levi Strauss & Co., Läckeby Water Group, Nestlé S.A., SABMiller, and Suez -- announced their call to action at the 2007 Global Compact Leaders Summit in Geneva, Switzerland [See WIMS 7/5/07]. The CEOs called the initiative “The CEO Water Mandate” and said it is a project designed to help companies better manage water use in their direct operations and throughout their supply chains.
E. Neville Isdell, Chairman and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company said, "There is huge potential for the private sector to make a real, positive and lasting difference in protecting and preserving fresh-water resources. We are pleased to come together with other business leaders to endorse the UN Global Compact CEO Water Mandate as another indicator of our desire to establish a truly water-sustainable business on a global scale”. According to the Human Development Report 2006, a water crisis is deepening around the world. More than 1 billion people lack clean water for drinking, and 2.6 billion lack sanitation. Water experts predict that the situation will worsen in many parts of the world in the coming decades as a result of factors including urbanization and population growth, increasing food production, changing consumption patterns, industrialization, pollution, and climate change.
As the six business leaders state in The CEO Water Mandate: “It is increasingly clear that lack of access to clean water and sanitation in many parts of the world causes great suffering in humanitarian, social, environmental, and economic terms and seriously undermines development goals. The private sector has an important stake in helping to address the water challenge faced by the world today”. The CEO Water Mandate asks companies to make progress in six areas: direct operations, supply chain and watershed management, collective action, public policy, community engagement, and transparency. More specifically, endorsers of The CEO Water Mandate pledge to set water-use targets, assist suppliers with water-efficiency practices and partner with governments, policy makers and community groups to address water shortages and sanitation.
The CEO Water Mandate was developed in partnership with the UN Global Compact and the Government of Sweden. The six endorsing CEOs are: E. Neville Isdell, The Coca-Cola Company; John Anderson, Levi Strauss & Co.; Martin Hagbyhn, Läckeby Water Group; Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Nestlé S.A.; Graham Mackay, SABMiller; and Gérard Mestrallet, Suez.
Access a release on the CEO Water Mandate (click here). Access an overview and link to the 11-page CEO Water Mandate and list of signers (click here). Access the UN Global Compact website for additional information (click here). [*Water]
E. Neville Isdell, Chairman and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company said, "There is huge potential for the private sector to make a real, positive and lasting difference in protecting and preserving fresh-water resources. We are pleased to come together with other business leaders to endorse the UN Global Compact CEO Water Mandate as another indicator of our desire to establish a truly water-sustainable business on a global scale”. According to the Human Development Report 2006, a water crisis is deepening around the world. More than 1 billion people lack clean water for drinking, and 2.6 billion lack sanitation. Water experts predict that the situation will worsen in many parts of the world in the coming decades as a result of factors including urbanization and population growth, increasing food production, changing consumption patterns, industrialization, pollution, and climate change.
As the six business leaders state in The CEO Water Mandate: “It is increasingly clear that lack of access to clean water and sanitation in many parts of the world causes great suffering in humanitarian, social, environmental, and economic terms and seriously undermines development goals. The private sector has an important stake in helping to address the water challenge faced by the world today”. The CEO Water Mandate asks companies to make progress in six areas: direct operations, supply chain and watershed management, collective action, public policy, community engagement, and transparency. More specifically, endorsers of The CEO Water Mandate pledge to set water-use targets, assist suppliers with water-efficiency practices and partner with governments, policy makers and community groups to address water shortages and sanitation.
The CEO Water Mandate was developed in partnership with the UN Global Compact and the Government of Sweden. The six endorsing CEOs are: E. Neville Isdell, The Coca-Cola Company; John Anderson, Levi Strauss & Co.; Martin Hagbyhn, Läckeby Water Group; Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Nestlé S.A.; Graham Mackay, SABMiller; and Gérard Mestrallet, Suez.
Access a release on the CEO Water Mandate (click here). Access an overview and link to the 11-page CEO Water Mandate and list of signers (click here). Access the UN Global Compact website for additional information (click here). [*Water]
Friday, July 06, 2007
Report Looks At Energy Efficiency & CO2 Emissions In Manufacturing
Jun 25: The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), released a new publication which it says contributes to the G8 “Plan of Action for Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable development” [See WIMS 6/7/07]. The report, Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions, shows that efficiencies differ widely between countries producing similar products and using similar processes, which is a clear indication of the potential for further efficiency gains. This finding is of global significance as manufacturing industry accounts for 36% of world CO2 emissions.
Claude Mandil, Executive Director of IEA said, “Manufacturing industries in OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries have made great progress in energy efficiency during the last 25 years, but important opportunities to reduce emissions remain. Good information and analyses of trends in energy and emissions -- or indicators -- are vital. This study elaborates a set of powerful new indicators that look at energy use per unit of physical product. This approach has been developed in close collaboration with industry experts."
Much of the efficiency differences that have been identified can be attributed to the age of plants. New plants tend to be more efficient than older ones. As a consequence, the most efficient industries can in some cases be found in emerging economies where production is expanding. For example, the most efficient aluminum smelters are in Africa, and Brazil is among the most efficient cement producers. Similarly, some of the most efficient steel plants can be found in China. Industrial energy efficiency is consistently high in certain IEA member countries such as Japan, which has had active efficiency policies for decades.
Another notable finding is that China accounts for four fifths of the growth in industrial production and CO2 emissions during the past 25 years. China is now the single largest industrial producer of a wide range of energy intensive industrial commodities such as aluminum, ammonia, cement and steel. The rapid growth of production in less efficient developing countries has limited the average efficiency gains worldwide.
Mandil said, “Improving industrial energy efficiency is an approach that can help developing countries in their economic growth and contribute to a significant global greenhouse gas reduction. We know a lot about the efficiency of specific industrial processes, but much less about the overall energy efficiency of conventional factory systems and product life cycles. This includes motor and steam systems, combined heat and power generation and the efficiency of materials and resource use. The analysis identifies even greater potential for energy savings in these areas. This offers important additional opportunities for decision makers to reduce the energy and CO2 footprint." The study suggests a technical efficiency improvement potential of 18-26% for the whole manufacturing industry, if process improvement options and systems options are taken into account. Because the estimate does not consider the potential role of new technologies, the impact could be much larger.
Access a release from IEA (click here). Access an 11-page Executive Summary (click here). Access ordering information for the complete 324-page report (click here). Access other related IEA reports, workshops and information related to the G8 Plan (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Claude Mandil, Executive Director of IEA said, “Manufacturing industries in OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries have made great progress in energy efficiency during the last 25 years, but important opportunities to reduce emissions remain. Good information and analyses of trends in energy and emissions -- or indicators -- are vital. This study elaborates a set of powerful new indicators that look at energy use per unit of physical product. This approach has been developed in close collaboration with industry experts."
Much of the efficiency differences that have been identified can be attributed to the age of plants. New plants tend to be more efficient than older ones. As a consequence, the most efficient industries can in some cases be found in emerging economies where production is expanding. For example, the most efficient aluminum smelters are in Africa, and Brazil is among the most efficient cement producers. Similarly, some of the most efficient steel plants can be found in China. Industrial energy efficiency is consistently high in certain IEA member countries such as Japan, which has had active efficiency policies for decades.
Another notable finding is that China accounts for four fifths of the growth in industrial production and CO2 emissions during the past 25 years. China is now the single largest industrial producer of a wide range of energy intensive industrial commodities such as aluminum, ammonia, cement and steel. The rapid growth of production in less efficient developing countries has limited the average efficiency gains worldwide.
Mandil said, “Improving industrial energy efficiency is an approach that can help developing countries in their economic growth and contribute to a significant global greenhouse gas reduction. We know a lot about the efficiency of specific industrial processes, but much less about the overall energy efficiency of conventional factory systems and product life cycles. This includes motor and steam systems, combined heat and power generation and the efficiency of materials and resource use. The analysis identifies even greater potential for energy savings in these areas. This offers important additional opportunities for decision makers to reduce the energy and CO2 footprint." The study suggests a technical efficiency improvement potential of 18-26% for the whole manufacturing industry, if process improvement options and systems options are taken into account. Because the estimate does not consider the potential role of new technologies, the impact could be much larger.
Access a release from IEA (click here). Access an 11-page Executive Summary (click here). Access ordering information for the complete 324-page report (click here). Access other related IEA reports, workshops and information related to the G8 Plan (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, July 05, 2007
UN & Business Meet At Global Compact Leaders Summit
Jul 5: The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged action on climate change and other shared international concerns in an address to the Global Compact Leaders Summit -- a gathering in Geneva of business leaders, government ministers, and heads of civil society groups committed to UN principles. The Summit is taking place from July 5-6. Ban told those assembled from over 90 countries, "This Summit is an important opportunity to take our partnership forward -- in learning as well as action. Over these two days, we must make an honest appraisal of what the Global Compact has achieved, renew our commitments, and chart a courageous course for the next three years."
The Secretary-General stressed the importance of joint actions to address climate change and announced the planned launch of a Business Leadership Platform on "Caring for Climate" -- a joint project with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). He recalled that since the Global Compact was launched in 2000 with 47 companies, it had grown to what is today the world's largest corporate citizenship initiative, consisting of 4,000 stakeholders in 116 countries.
Participants, who are split almost evenly between developed and developing economies, "have taken thousands of actions in support of the Global Compact's ten principles" which relate to the environment and anti-corruption as well as human and labor rights. Ban said, "business is still too often linked with exploitative practices, corruption, income equality and other barriers that discourage innovation and entrepreneurship." He called on representatives from business, trade unions, academia and governments to do their part to ensure the Compact's success, and pledged his full support in this endeavor "so that we fulfill the Global Compact's aspirations and vision."
The Global Compact seeks to promote responsible corporate citizenship by partnering the private sector with other social players to achieve a more sustainable and inclusive global economy. It is not a regulatory instrument but relies instead on what it terms "public accountability, transparency and the enlightened self-interest of companies, labor and civil society to initiate and share substantive action in pursuing the principles upon which the Global Compact is based." The official theme -- Facing Realities: Getting Down to Business -- will be addressed within the initiative's unique multi-stakeholder orientation.
At the Summit, the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), were unveiled to the UN Secretary-General and participants. PRME are a framework for academic institutions to advance the broader cause of corporate social responsibility and a call for the incorporation of universal values in curricula and research. The initiative was developed by an international task force of sixty deans, university presidents and official representatives of leading business schools. It was co-convened by the United Nations Global Compact, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International), the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), the Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program, the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI), and Net Impact.
Also at the Summit, a report released by Goldman Sachs, one of the world’s leading investment banks, showed that among six sectors covered – energy, mining, steel, food, beverages, and media – companies that are considered leaders in implementing environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies to create sustained competitive advantage have outperformed the general stock market by 25 per cent since August 2005. In addition, 72 per cent of these companies have outperformed their peers over the same period.
In advance of the Summit the Global Compact launched the Global Business Leadership Platform on Climate Change and invited all business participants to join by becoming signatories to the statement, “Caring for Climate: The Business Leadership Platform.” A company’s decision to endorse the Statement requires CEO-level support and a significant number of business leaders have expressed their support. A list of company supporters is available (See link below). The statement is based on the principles that there is now a consensus that the climate change agenda will affect business and society in fundamental and transformative ways; the importance of early action is increasingly recognized; and as climate change has become a fundamental issue for society, the need for leadership and voluntary action is becoming ever more urgent.
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the Summit website (click here). Access the UN Global Compact website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the PRME (click here). Access a release on the Goldman Sachs report and other reports released at the Summit (click here). Access details on the Caring for Climate statement including the statement, background and list of supporters (click here). [*All, *Climate]
The Secretary-General stressed the importance of joint actions to address climate change and announced the planned launch of a Business Leadership Platform on "Caring for Climate" -- a joint project with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). He recalled that since the Global Compact was launched in 2000 with 47 companies, it had grown to what is today the world's largest corporate citizenship initiative, consisting of 4,000 stakeholders in 116 countries.
Participants, who are split almost evenly between developed and developing economies, "have taken thousands of actions in support of the Global Compact's ten principles" which relate to the environment and anti-corruption as well as human and labor rights. Ban said, "business is still too often linked with exploitative practices, corruption, income equality and other barriers that discourage innovation and entrepreneurship." He called on representatives from business, trade unions, academia and governments to do their part to ensure the Compact's success, and pledged his full support in this endeavor "so that we fulfill the Global Compact's aspirations and vision."
The Global Compact seeks to promote responsible corporate citizenship by partnering the private sector with other social players to achieve a more sustainable and inclusive global economy. It is not a regulatory instrument but relies instead on what it terms "public accountability, transparency and the enlightened self-interest of companies, labor and civil society to initiate and share substantive action in pursuing the principles upon which the Global Compact is based." The official theme -- Facing Realities: Getting Down to Business -- will be addressed within the initiative's unique multi-stakeholder orientation.
At the Summit, the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), were unveiled to the UN Secretary-General and participants. PRME are a framework for academic institutions to advance the broader cause of corporate social responsibility and a call for the incorporation of universal values in curricula and research. The initiative was developed by an international task force of sixty deans, university presidents and official representatives of leading business schools. It was co-convened by the United Nations Global Compact, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International), the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), the Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program, the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI), and Net Impact.
Also at the Summit, a report released by Goldman Sachs, one of the world’s leading investment banks, showed that among six sectors covered – energy, mining, steel, food, beverages, and media – companies that are considered leaders in implementing environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies to create sustained competitive advantage have outperformed the general stock market by 25 per cent since August 2005. In addition, 72 per cent of these companies have outperformed their peers over the same period.
In advance of the Summit the Global Compact launched the Global Business Leadership Platform on Climate Change and invited all business participants to join by becoming signatories to the statement, “Caring for Climate: The Business Leadership Platform.” A company’s decision to endorse the Statement requires CEO-level support and a significant number of business leaders have expressed their support. A list of company supporters is available (See link below). The statement is based on the principles that there is now a consensus that the climate change agenda will affect business and society in fundamental and transformative ways; the importance of early action is increasingly recognized; and as climate change has become a fundamental issue for society, the need for leadership and voluntary action is becoming ever more urgent.
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the Summit website (click here). Access the UN Global Compact website for additional information (click here). Access a release on the PRME (click here). Access a release on the Goldman Sachs report and other reports released at the Summit (click here). Access details on the Caring for Climate statement including the statement, background and list of supporters (click here). [*All, *Climate]
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
EU Hearing On CO2 Emission Controls On New Cars & Vans
Jul 3: The European Commission has scheduled a public hearing on July 11, 2007 on the implementation of its new strategy to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new cars and vans sold in the European Union (EU). The new strategy, proposed in February 2007 [See WIMS 2/7/07], aims to reach the EU objective of 120 g/km average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new cars by 2012 by means of an integrated approach. The public hearing seeks to gather views and ideas from all interested stakeholders on the possible options available for designing the various legislative components of the integrated approach.
In a release the Commission said that road transport generates about one fifth of the EU's CO2 emissions, with passenger cars responsible for around 12%. Although recent years have seen a significant improvement in vehicle technology -- particularly in fuel efficiency, which translates into lower CO2 emissions -- this has not been enough to neutralize the effect of increases in traffic and car size. While the EU-25 reduced overall emissions of greenhouse gases by almost 5% between 1990 and 2004, CO2 emissions from road transport rose by 26% despite an average new-car CO2 emissions reduction of 12.4% between 1995 and 2004.
The European Commission said it is committed to addressing these rising emissions. In this context, on February 7, 2007, it published two communications on the future strategy to reduce CO2 emission from cars and on the future regulatory framework in the car sector. As outlined in the communications, the Commission has decided to pursue an integrated approach with a view to reaching the EU objective of 120 g/km average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new cars by 2012. The public hearing is designed to bring together the key stakeholders to gather views on the implementation of the Commission’s proposed strategy and to receive input and ideas on the possible options available for designing the future legislative framework, including the economic, social and environmental aspects of these options. An internet based public consultation will continue until July 15, 2007.
A June 29, EurActiv article indicates that while the EU's 27 environment ministers agree on the need to reduce car emissions in order to tackle climate change, they remain divided on how the burden of these reductions should be spread out among the industry (See link below).
Access a release from the Commission with links to all pertinent documents (click here). Access the EurActiv article with links to additional information (click here). [*Climate]
In a release the Commission said that road transport generates about one fifth of the EU's CO2 emissions, with passenger cars responsible for around 12%. Although recent years have seen a significant improvement in vehicle technology -- particularly in fuel efficiency, which translates into lower CO2 emissions -- this has not been enough to neutralize the effect of increases in traffic and car size. While the EU-25 reduced overall emissions of greenhouse gases by almost 5% between 1990 and 2004, CO2 emissions from road transport rose by 26% despite an average new-car CO2 emissions reduction of 12.4% between 1995 and 2004.
The European Commission said it is committed to addressing these rising emissions. In this context, on February 7, 2007, it published two communications on the future strategy to reduce CO2 emission from cars and on the future regulatory framework in the car sector. As outlined in the communications, the Commission has decided to pursue an integrated approach with a view to reaching the EU objective of 120 g/km average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new cars by 2012. The public hearing is designed to bring together the key stakeholders to gather views on the implementation of the Commission’s proposed strategy and to receive input and ideas on the possible options available for designing the future legislative framework, including the economic, social and environmental aspects of these options. An internet based public consultation will continue until July 15, 2007.
A June 29, EurActiv article indicates that while the EU's 27 environment ministers agree on the need to reduce car emissions in order to tackle climate change, they remain divided on how the burden of these reductions should be spread out among the industry (See link below).
Access a release from the Commission with links to all pertinent documents (click here). Access the EurActiv article with links to additional information (click here). [*Climate]
Monday, July 02, 2007
Senate Hearing On Global Warming & Power Plants
Jun 28: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held a hearing entitled, Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from: Duke Energy; PG&E Corporation; FPL Group; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Commission on Energy Policy; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Murray Energy Corporation and the Free Enterprise Action Fund.
In opening the hearing, Boxer said, "...reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming. Powerplants are the single largest CO2 emitting sector in the U.S. economy. They account for 40% of U.S. emissions. The single largest source of fuel for powerplants is coal, which accounts for about 50% of our electricity generation. In the fight against global warming, the electricity sector will play a critical role -- both as a source of emissions and as a source of possible emission reductions. The technological choices that we make in this area will affect our ability to combat global warming for many years to come. These choices can lead to large decreases in emissions or commit us to large increases in emissions."
Duke Energy testified that the issue of global climate change can be addressed "with appropriate design of a comprehensive, long-term program that caps emissions, provides the right cost-control tools and supports the development, demonstration and deployment of new technologies. Both cost containment and technology development are critical if Congress is to craft and enact a workable climate change protection act." He stressed the necessity for legislation to be flexible; the program should apply economy-wide, resisting the urge to focus solely on the electric sector; and start a cap now, and gradually reduce that cap so that technologies have time to develop and deploy. He also said that areas of the country facing the largest increases in electricity rates due to climate change policy also represent the nation’s industrial heartland; he said the program must actively support the development and deployment of low-carbon baseload generation technologies (including coal with carbon capture and sequestration) and must address and remove barriers associated with nuclear energy production. He said, "We will need all five fuels – nuclear, coal, natural gas, renewables and the 'fifth fuel,' energy efficiency."
NRDC testified that if all 3000 of the next wave of coal plants are built with no CO2 controls, their lifetime emissions will impose an enormous pollution lien on our children and grandchildren. Over a projected 60-year life these plants would likely emit 750 billion tons of CO2, a total, from just 25 years of investment decisions, that is 30% greater than the total CO2 emissions from all previous human use of coal. They said given the power sector’s large contribution to annual and cumulative CO2 emissions, "it will be necessary to achieve large reductions in total power sector emissions if we are to achieve reductions in total emissions on the order of 80% by 2050... A robust portfolio of energy efficiency, major expansion of renewable generating resources and deployment of CO2 capture and geologic disposal (CCD) at fossil generating plants can achieve these targets in our view..."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). [*Climate]
In opening the hearing, Boxer said, "...reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming. Powerplants are the single largest CO2 emitting sector in the U.S. economy. They account for 40% of U.S. emissions. The single largest source of fuel for powerplants is coal, which accounts for about 50% of our electricity generation. In the fight against global warming, the electricity sector will play a critical role -- both as a source of emissions and as a source of possible emission reductions. The technological choices that we make in this area will affect our ability to combat global warming for many years to come. These choices can lead to large decreases in emissions or commit us to large increases in emissions."
Duke Energy testified that the issue of global climate change can be addressed "with appropriate design of a comprehensive, long-term program that caps emissions, provides the right cost-control tools and supports the development, demonstration and deployment of new technologies. Both cost containment and technology development are critical if Congress is to craft and enact a workable climate change protection act." He stressed the necessity for legislation to be flexible; the program should apply economy-wide, resisting the urge to focus solely on the electric sector; and start a cap now, and gradually reduce that cap so that technologies have time to develop and deploy. He also said that areas of the country facing the largest increases in electricity rates due to climate change policy also represent the nation’s industrial heartland; he said the program must actively support the development and deployment of low-carbon baseload generation technologies (including coal with carbon capture and sequestration) and must address and remove barriers associated with nuclear energy production. He said, "We will need all five fuels – nuclear, coal, natural gas, renewables and the 'fifth fuel,' energy efficiency."
NRDC testified that if all 3000 of the next wave of coal plants are built with no CO2 controls, their lifetime emissions will impose an enormous pollution lien on our children and grandchildren. Over a projected 60-year life these plants would likely emit 750 billion tons of CO2, a total, from just 25 years of investment decisions, that is 30% greater than the total CO2 emissions from all previous human use of coal. They said given the power sector’s large contribution to annual and cumulative CO2 emissions, "it will be necessary to achieve large reductions in total power sector emissions if we are to achieve reductions in total emissions on the order of 80% by 2050... A robust portfolio of energy efficiency, major expansion of renewable generating resources and deployment of CO2 capture and geologic disposal (CCD) at fossil generating plants can achieve these targets in our view..."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). [*Climate]
Friday, June 29, 2007
Pelosi Declares Energy Independence Day
Jun 28: It appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was attempting to make good on her previous commitment to have comprehensive energy legislation ready by the Fourth of July; when she gave her Energy Independence Day speech at a press conference on June 28. However, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), had already indicated that some of the difficult issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal-to-liquids, and a renewable portfolio standard have all been left out and will be addressed in the fall in the context of comprehensive climate change legislation.
Despite the lack of a complete package, the Speaker was joined by other Democratic Leaders and Committee Chairs to announce the “Energy Independence Day” legislation. Pelosi said, Today, in the tradition of our Founding Fathers and in the interest of our children and our grandchildren, we begin a new American revolution. With confidence in American ingenuity and high faith in our future, we Democrats declare America’s independence from foreign oil. For their extraordinary efforts I thank our chairs, Chairman Dingell, Chairman Obey, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Miller, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rahall, Chairman Lantos, Chairman Gordon, Chairman Peterson, and Chairwoman Velazquez.
“At the beginning of this Congress, I asked our distinguished chairs to bring to the House of Representatives legislation that addressed the issues of energy independence and reversing global warming, and to do so in a way that promoted innovation, to create small businesses in our country, and to do so in a way that was fiscally sound. On the 11 committees of jurisdiction that relates to energy independence and global warming, almost every Member of Congress serves. So almost every Member of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, has had an opportunity to weigh in on the legislation that I am announcing today. As promised, as part of our open process that allowed Republicans and Democrats to weigh in on the House committees, the committee chairs crafted a New Direction energy independence initiative."
Dingell discussed the Committee markups for six sections of an energy bill. While indicating that many difficult issues were being delayed until fall, Dingell announced on June 27 that "We should set ambitious goals and targets..." and he called for reductions in "U.S. greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions of between 60, and perhaps as much as 80, percent by 2050." [See WIMS 6/27/07]. The sections (Committee Prints #1-#6) were just finally approved by the Committee at meetings on June 27 and 28. On the Energy and Commerce website the various prints, and the amendments considered for each are available. In summary form the prints deal with the following subjects and were approves as follows: Committee Print #1: Title I: Energy Efficiency, approved by a vote of 27-18; Committee Print #2: Smart Grid, approved by voice vote; Committee Print #3: Amount of Loans Guaranteed, approved by voice vote; Committee Print #4: Renewable Fuels Infrastructure, approved by vote of 33-21; Committee Print #5: Advanced Battery and Plug-in Hybrid Programs, approved by voice vote; and Committee Print #6: Energy Information Enhancement, approved by voice vote.
While the Speaker was touting energy independence, another group of 47 fiscally conservative House Democratic legislators known as the "Blue Dog Coalition," unveiled an endorsed set of principles to guide Congress as it works to rewrite the nation’s energy policy. The “Blue Dog Energy Principles” were endorsed by the Coalition as a moderate and comprehensive approach to our nation’s energy policy that emphasizes a focus on national and economic security. The principles represent a broad range of stakeholders, with the underlying belief that our country’s current reliance on foreign energy supplies threatens our national security and our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
The Blue Dog Energy Task Force Co-Chairs Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Charlie Melancon (D-LA) led the effort that produced the Blue Dog Coalition Energy Principles -- eight planks dealing with topics such as domestic energy production, climate change, fuel diversity and technology development. Both are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On climate change, for example, the Blue Dogs say, "the U.S. should address climate change by developing predictable long term policies that do not disproportionately affect one industry or sector."
The Blue Dog principles struck a cord with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President John Engler who commented that, "Forward-thinking principles like the Coalition’s will go a long way toward crafting a functional domestic energy infrastructure. Supporting these principles is the right course of action for our country, and will help lead the nation toward lower energy costs and a more secure energy future.” Engler said the Principles were a “break from the usual rhetoric,” and said they were "highly consistent with the NAM’s own energy and economic security plan, support domestic energy production, diversity, and technology development."
Access a release from the Speaker (click here). Access the Committee Prints #1, #2, & #3 and the various amendments considered (click here). Access the Committee Prints #4, #5, & #6 and the various amendments considered (click here). Access a release from the Blue Dog Coalition (click here). Access the Blue Dog Energy Principles (click here). Access the Blue Dog Coalition website for a list of members and additional information (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access various media reports on the House energy bill efforts (click here).[*Energy, *Climate]
Despite the lack of a complete package, the Speaker was joined by other Democratic Leaders and Committee Chairs to announce the “Energy Independence Day” legislation. Pelosi said, Today, in the tradition of our Founding Fathers and in the interest of our children and our grandchildren, we begin a new American revolution. With confidence in American ingenuity and high faith in our future, we Democrats declare America’s independence from foreign oil. For their extraordinary efforts I thank our chairs, Chairman Dingell, Chairman Obey, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Miller, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rahall, Chairman Lantos, Chairman Gordon, Chairman Peterson, and Chairwoman Velazquez.
“At the beginning of this Congress, I asked our distinguished chairs to bring to the House of Representatives legislation that addressed the issues of energy independence and reversing global warming, and to do so in a way that promoted innovation, to create small businesses in our country, and to do so in a way that was fiscally sound. On the 11 committees of jurisdiction that relates to energy independence and global warming, almost every Member of Congress serves. So almost every Member of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, has had an opportunity to weigh in on the legislation that I am announcing today. As promised, as part of our open process that allowed Republicans and Democrats to weigh in on the House committees, the committee chairs crafted a New Direction energy independence initiative."
Dingell discussed the Committee markups for six sections of an energy bill. While indicating that many difficult issues were being delayed until fall, Dingell announced on June 27 that "We should set ambitious goals and targets..." and he called for reductions in "U.S. greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions of between 60, and perhaps as much as 80, percent by 2050." [See WIMS 6/27/07]. The sections (Committee Prints #1-#6) were just finally approved by the Committee at meetings on June 27 and 28. On the Energy and Commerce website the various prints, and the amendments considered for each are available. In summary form the prints deal with the following subjects and were approves as follows: Committee Print #1: Title I: Energy Efficiency, approved by a vote of 27-18; Committee Print #2: Smart Grid, approved by voice vote; Committee Print #3: Amount of Loans Guaranteed, approved by voice vote; Committee Print #4: Renewable Fuels Infrastructure, approved by vote of 33-21; Committee Print #5: Advanced Battery and Plug-in Hybrid Programs, approved by voice vote; and Committee Print #6: Energy Information Enhancement, approved by voice vote.
While the Speaker was touting energy independence, another group of 47 fiscally conservative House Democratic legislators known as the "Blue Dog Coalition," unveiled an endorsed set of principles to guide Congress as it works to rewrite the nation’s energy policy. The “Blue Dog Energy Principles” were endorsed by the Coalition as a moderate and comprehensive approach to our nation’s energy policy that emphasizes a focus on national and economic security. The principles represent a broad range of stakeholders, with the underlying belief that our country’s current reliance on foreign energy supplies threatens our national security and our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
The Blue Dog Energy Task Force Co-Chairs Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Charlie Melancon (D-LA) led the effort that produced the Blue Dog Coalition Energy Principles -- eight planks dealing with topics such as domestic energy production, climate change, fuel diversity and technology development. Both are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On climate change, for example, the Blue Dogs say, "the U.S. should address climate change by developing predictable long term policies that do not disproportionately affect one industry or sector."
The Blue Dog principles struck a cord with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President John Engler who commented that, "Forward-thinking principles like the Coalition’s will go a long way toward crafting a functional domestic energy infrastructure. Supporting these principles is the right course of action for our country, and will help lead the nation toward lower energy costs and a more secure energy future.” Engler said the Principles were a “break from the usual rhetoric,” and said they were "highly consistent with the NAM’s own energy and economic security plan, support domestic energy production, diversity, and technology development."
Access a release from the Speaker (click here). Access the Committee Prints #1, #2, & #3 and the various amendments considered (click here). Access the Committee Prints #4, #5, & #6 and the various amendments considered (click here). Access a release from the Blue Dog Coalition (click here). Access the Blue Dog Energy Principles (click here). Access the Blue Dog Coalition website for a list of members and additional information (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access various media reports on the House energy bill efforts (click here).[*Energy, *Climate]
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Bald Eagle Is Un-Endangered; But, Controversy Persists
Jun 28: Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI) Dirk Kempthorne announced the removal of the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species at a ceremony at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. After nearly disappearing from most of the United States decades ago, the bald eagle is now flourishing across the nation and no longer needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act. The eagle population fell into steep decline, due primarily to widespread use of the pesticide DDT after World War II. DDT accumulated in eagles and caused them to lay eggs with weakened shells, decimating the eagle population across the nation.
Secretary Kempthorne said, “Today I am proud to announce: the eagle has returned. In 1963, the lower 48 states were home to barely 400 nesting pairs of bald eagles. Today, after decades of conservation effort, they are home to some 10,000 nesting pairs, a 25-fold increase in the last 40 years. Based on its dramatic recovery, it is my honor to announce the Department of the Interior’s decision to remove the American Bald Eagle from the Endangered Species List.” Kempthorne emphasized the ongoing commitment of the Interior Department and the entire federal government to the eagle’s continued success, noting that bald eagles will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both Federal laws prohibit “taking” -- killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service clarified its regulations implementing the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and published a set of National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines [72 FR 31131-31140, 6/5/07] . These measures are designed to give landowners and others clear guidance on how to ensure that actions they take on their property are consistent with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, the Service is accepting public comments on a proposal to establish a permit program under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that would allow a limited take of bald and golden eagles. Any take authorized would be consistent with the purpose and goal of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, ensuring eagle populations remain healthy and sustainable.
Those new guidelines are not without controversy. On June 4, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) said the new bald eagle regulations effectively extend the "delisting" under the Endangered Species Act and create "harsh land use controls." [See WIMS 6/6/07] PLF said, "After dragging its feet for nearly eight years since President Clinton declared the bald eagle recovered... to remove the bald eagle from the Endangered Species Act list... a new federal rule on land use in the vicinity of bald eagles is too harsh and will burden small property owners and businesses without justification..." PLF said "the rule is so restrictive that it would effectively negate the removal of the bald eagle from the federal Endangered Species Act list." For this reason PLF attorneys and their client are considering a legal challenge because the restriction may mean that their client's long wait to be able to build small lakeside cabins on his land could go on, because there are eagle nests in the area.
The official removal of the bald eagle from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Upon delisting, the Service will continue to work with state wildlife agencies to monitor eagles for at least five years, as required by the Endangered Species Act. If at any time it appears that the bald eagle again needs the Act’s protection, the Service can propose to relist the species. The Service has developed a draft monitoring plan that is available for public review and comment.
Susan Holmes, Senior Legislative Representative for Earthjustice issued a statement saying, "We can all be proud that together, we have brought bald eagle populations back from the brink... As we applaud this national success, it is troubling to note that the Bush administration has recently been working behind closed doors to undermine the Endangered Species Act's ability to recovery other species at risk of extinction. Even as they celebrate the eagle's comeback, the administration is drafting new regulations that could severely weaken the law which has so effectively kept our nation's symbol with us..."
John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society said, "The rescue of the bald eagle from the brink of extinction ranks among the greatest victories of American conservation. Like no other species, the bald eagle showed us all that environmental stewardship has priceless rewards. In every state, parents and grandparents can still point to the sky and share a moment of wonder as a bald eagle soars overhead. The success is evident in the Audubon counts. Over a 40-year period from 1967 to 2006, bald eagle sightings have gone up nine-fold and increased an average of six percent per year every year. The top five states with the most dramatic increases were Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Vermont and Michigan, which all had at least a 13-fold increase over 40 years."
Access a release and links to related information including the Bald Eagle website from the DOI (click here). Access a release from PLF (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Audubon Society and link to additional information (click here). [*Wildlife]
Secretary Kempthorne said, “Today I am proud to announce: the eagle has returned. In 1963, the lower 48 states were home to barely 400 nesting pairs of bald eagles. Today, after decades of conservation effort, they are home to some 10,000 nesting pairs, a 25-fold increase in the last 40 years. Based on its dramatic recovery, it is my honor to announce the Department of the Interior’s decision to remove the American Bald Eagle from the Endangered Species List.” Kempthorne emphasized the ongoing commitment of the Interior Department and the entire federal government to the eagle’s continued success, noting that bald eagles will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both Federal laws prohibit “taking” -- killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service clarified its regulations implementing the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and published a set of National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines [72 FR 31131-31140, 6/5/07] . These measures are designed to give landowners and others clear guidance on how to ensure that actions they take on their property are consistent with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, the Service is accepting public comments on a proposal to establish a permit program under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that would allow a limited take of bald and golden eagles. Any take authorized would be consistent with the purpose and goal of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, ensuring eagle populations remain healthy and sustainable.
Those new guidelines are not without controversy. On June 4, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) said the new bald eagle regulations effectively extend the "delisting" under the Endangered Species Act and create "harsh land use controls." [See WIMS 6/6/07] PLF said, "After dragging its feet for nearly eight years since President Clinton declared the bald eagle recovered... to remove the bald eagle from the Endangered Species Act list... a new federal rule on land use in the vicinity of bald eagles is too harsh and will burden small property owners and businesses without justification..." PLF said "the rule is so restrictive that it would effectively negate the removal of the bald eagle from the federal Endangered Species Act list." For this reason PLF attorneys and their client are considering a legal challenge because the restriction may mean that their client's long wait to be able to build small lakeside cabins on his land could go on, because there are eagle nests in the area.
The official removal of the bald eagle from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Upon delisting, the Service will continue to work with state wildlife agencies to monitor eagles for at least five years, as required by the Endangered Species Act. If at any time it appears that the bald eagle again needs the Act’s protection, the Service can propose to relist the species. The Service has developed a draft monitoring plan that is available for public review and comment.
Susan Holmes, Senior Legislative Representative for Earthjustice issued a statement saying, "We can all be proud that together, we have brought bald eagle populations back from the brink... As we applaud this national success, it is troubling to note that the Bush administration has recently been working behind closed doors to undermine the Endangered Species Act's ability to recovery other species at risk of extinction. Even as they celebrate the eagle's comeback, the administration is drafting new regulations that could severely weaken the law which has so effectively kept our nation's symbol with us..."
John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society said, "The rescue of the bald eagle from the brink of extinction ranks among the greatest victories of American conservation. Like no other species, the bald eagle showed us all that environmental stewardship has priceless rewards. In every state, parents and grandparents can still point to the sky and share a moment of wonder as a bald eagle soars overhead. The success is evident in the Audubon counts. Over a 40-year period from 1967 to 2006, bald eagle sightings have gone up nine-fold and increased an average of six percent per year every year. The top five states with the most dramatic increases were Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Vermont and Michigan, which all had at least a 13-fold increase over 40 years."
Access a release and links to related information including the Bald Eagle website from the DOI (click here). Access a release from PLF (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Audubon Society and link to additional information (click here). [*Wildlife]
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Dingell Calls For 60-80% GHG Reduction By 2050
Jun 27: In a statement to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on the mark up of energy policy legislation, Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) said, "We should set ambitious goals and targets for that legislation. It should stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that will avoid or avert large-scale climate change consequences. That will require a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions of between 60, and perhaps as much as 80, percent by 2050." While the Senate was debating its comprehensive energy bill on the Senate Floor last week [See WIMS 6/22/07], one of Dingell's Subcommittees was debating a set of Committee prints addressing energy efficiency standards, a smart electricity grid, loan guarantees for innovative energy technologies, renewable fuels infrastructure incentives, and advanced battery and plug-in hybrid vehicle promotion [See WIMS 6/19/07]. The prints are now being considered by the full Committee this week, beginning June 27, and subsequent days if necessary. The Committee will consider six Committee prints related to energy legislation that were approved by the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Dingell also indicated that issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal-to-liquids, and a renewable portfolio standard have been left out of the base text and although members may wish to offer amendments on those subjects, he recommended that those issues be addressed in the fall in the context of comprehensive climate change legislation. He said, "We will have to examine the future of coal and the role of nuclear power. We will need to get beyond the stale debate over miles per gallon. We should be talking about the lifetime carbon footprint of vehicles, about the carbon content of fuels, about the promotion of renewable fuels and advanced batteries and other technologies. We will need to discuss the role of carbon sinks and sequestration, as well as land use policies. "
He concluded saying, "We should leave as few of these issues to bureaucratic discretion as possible. It is the job of the Congress, and of this Committee, to make tough calls – as we did in writing the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. This will allow us to distribute the burdens fairly – and there will be burdens. But let’s accept that, and also accept our own responsibility: to create a secure future for our country and our world, one that preserves economic opportunity and our natural environment."
Access the complete statement from Representative Dingell (click here). Access links to the Committee prints and section-by-section explanations (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Dingell also indicated that issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal-to-liquids, and a renewable portfolio standard have been left out of the base text and although members may wish to offer amendments on those subjects, he recommended that those issues be addressed in the fall in the context of comprehensive climate change legislation. He said, "We will have to examine the future of coal and the role of nuclear power. We will need to get beyond the stale debate over miles per gallon. We should be talking about the lifetime carbon footprint of vehicles, about the carbon content of fuels, about the promotion of renewable fuels and advanced batteries and other technologies. We will need to discuss the role of carbon sinks and sequestration, as well as land use policies. "
He concluded saying, "We should leave as few of these issues to bureaucratic discretion as possible. It is the job of the Congress, and of this Committee, to make tough calls – as we did in writing the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. This will allow us to distribute the burdens fairly – and there will be burdens. But let’s accept that, and also accept our own responsibility: to create a secure future for our country and our world, one that preserves economic opportunity and our natural environment."
Access the complete statement from Representative Dingell (click here). Access links to the Committee prints and section-by-section explanations (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Home Builders & EPA Prevail In Supreme Ct. CWA/ESA Ruling
Jun 25: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a split 5-4 decision, has decided two consolidated cases -- National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (No. 06-340) and Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife et al. (No. 06–549). The majority decision is in favor of the arguments of U.S. EPA and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). The cases were on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and involve competing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Judge Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, joined. Justice Stevens, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion.
As explained by the majority, these cases concern the interplay between two Federal environmental statutes. Section 402(b) of the CWA requires that U.S. EPA transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 provides that a Federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." The question presented is whether §7(a)(2) effectively operates as a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned. The majority opinion said, "We conclude that it does not. The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities -- who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes -- was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
Under Federal law, a state may take over the CWA pollution permitting program in its state from the Federal EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards. The case concerned Arizona’s application to run the CWA program in Arizona. In its August 22, 2005, 2-1 split opinion [See WIMS 8/29/05] the Ninth Circuit had said the case, "...largely boils down to consideration of one fundamental issue: Does the Endangered Species Act authorize -- indeed, require -- the EPA to consider the impact on endangered and threatened species and their habitat when it decides whether to transfer water pollution permitting authority to state governments?" The Ninth Circuit ruled that, EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise," and said EPA’s decision was "arbitrary and capricious."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens indicates, "These cases present a problem of conflicting 'shalls...' When faced with competing statutory mandates, it is our duty to give full effect to both if at all possible... The Court [majority opinion] fails at this task. Its opinion unsuccessfully tries to reconcile the CWA and ESA by relying on a federal regulation... which it reads as limiting the reach of §7(a)(2) to only discretionary federal actions... Not only is this reading inconsistent with the text and history of §402.03, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the ESA itself."
In a release, NAHB President Brian Catalde said, “This decision recognizes that we must always maintain a balance when we look at environmental regulations. We can’t say that the Endangered Species Act is an ‘uber-statute’ that should slow down regulatory decisions under the Clean Water Act even as we recognize that both laws concern issues that are vital to preserving this earth for the next generation. This decision also tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping to preserve housing affordability by striking down efforts at unnecessary, duplicative regulation. Congress created the Clean Water Act to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution. But it’s the Clean Water Act, not the Arid Desert Act. There is no logic to twisting a program designed to protect the waters of the United States to give special considerations to species that have no relation to that water.”
In a statement from Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife he said the decision limits, "...the obligation of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize imperiled species. The majority held that the Endangered Species Act’s duty to consult applies only to discretionary actions. Today’s decision, while unfortunate, should apply only to a very narrow category of actions by federal agencies -- actions compelled by the terms of another federal law -- and should not be read as a broad abrogation of the authority of the Endangered Species Act. We are very disappointed with the majority’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, which we think ignores the clear intention of Congress when they enacted the Endangered Species Act. The Act was intended by Congress as a clear, independent mandate for all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or destroy their critical habitat."
Access the Supreme Court decision, the Syllabus and the dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the complete Ninth Circuit opinion (click here). Access a release from NAHB (click here). Access a release from Defenders (click here). [*Water, *Wildlife]
As explained by the majority, these cases concern the interplay between two Federal environmental statutes. Section 402(b) of the CWA requires that U.S. EPA transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 provides that a Federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." The question presented is whether §7(a)(2) effectively operates as a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned. The majority opinion said, "We conclude that it does not. The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities -- who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes -- was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
Under Federal law, a state may take over the CWA pollution permitting program in its state from the Federal EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards. The case concerned Arizona’s application to run the CWA program in Arizona. In its August 22, 2005, 2-1 split opinion [See WIMS 8/29/05] the Ninth Circuit had said the case, "...largely boils down to consideration of one fundamental issue: Does the Endangered Species Act authorize -- indeed, require -- the EPA to consider the impact on endangered and threatened species and their habitat when it decides whether to transfer water pollution permitting authority to state governments?" The Ninth Circuit ruled that, EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise," and said EPA’s decision was "arbitrary and capricious."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens indicates, "These cases present a problem of conflicting 'shalls...' When faced with competing statutory mandates, it is our duty to give full effect to both if at all possible... The Court [majority opinion] fails at this task. Its opinion unsuccessfully tries to reconcile the CWA and ESA by relying on a federal regulation... which it reads as limiting the reach of §7(a)(2) to only discretionary federal actions... Not only is this reading inconsistent with the text and history of §402.03, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the ESA itself."
In a release, NAHB President Brian Catalde said, “This decision recognizes that we must always maintain a balance when we look at environmental regulations. We can’t say that the Endangered Species Act is an ‘uber-statute’ that should slow down regulatory decisions under the Clean Water Act even as we recognize that both laws concern issues that are vital to preserving this earth for the next generation. This decision also tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping to preserve housing affordability by striking down efforts at unnecessary, duplicative regulation. Congress created the Clean Water Act to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution. But it’s the Clean Water Act, not the Arid Desert Act. There is no logic to twisting a program designed to protect the waters of the United States to give special considerations to species that have no relation to that water.”
In a statement from Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife he said the decision limits, "...the obligation of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize imperiled species. The majority held that the Endangered Species Act’s duty to consult applies only to discretionary actions. Today’s decision, while unfortunate, should apply only to a very narrow category of actions by federal agencies -- actions compelled by the terms of another federal law -- and should not be read as a broad abrogation of the authority of the Endangered Species Act. We are very disappointed with the majority’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, which we think ignores the clear intention of Congress when they enacted the Endangered Species Act. The Act was intended by Congress as a clear, independent mandate for all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or destroy their critical habitat."
Access the Supreme Court decision, the Syllabus and the dissenting opinions (click here). Access the Supreme Court Docket for the case (click here). Access the complete Ninth Circuit opinion (click here). Access a release from NAHB (click here). Access a release from Defenders (click here). [*Water, *Wildlife]
Friday, June 22, 2007
Senate Passes Energy Bill: CAFE Yes; Taxes No; RPS No
By a vote of 65-27 (7 not voting) the U.S. Senate passed the Senate version of H.R. 6, the National Energy and Environmental Security Act of 2007. On its passage, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) issued a statement saying, “Tonight’s vote was a victory for the American people. This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation’s use of renewable fuels and, for the first time in decades, significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks. We are saving consumers money, protecting them from gas price-gouging, creating new jobs and making our country safer -- all while taking steps to reduce global warming. It is unfortunate that in passing this bill the Administration and most Senate Republicans blocked an effort to require more of our nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources as well as incentives to spur the production of more renewable fuels right here in America."
The Democrats major accomplishment was the inclusion of a last minute compromise on CAFE standards that will require an increase from 25-35 mpg by 2020. While the bill contains many other items of importance including a requirement for 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, gasoline price-gouging provisions, various grant and loan programs, carbon dioxide sequestration testing; the hotly debated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was not included and the major $32 billion tax package for energy investment was defeated by three votes.
The big win for Democrats was the compromise on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) gas mileage standards. The Senate approved, by voice vote, the bipartisan compromise to increase fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. The compromise legislation, offered by Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Thomas Carper (D-DL), was endorsed by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Kerry (D-MA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Larry Craig (R-ID). According to a release from Senator Feinstein the measure will save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil saved per day by 2025 -- nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.
According to a summary from Feinstein, the compromise gives automakers the time and flexibility needed to meet these new fuel economy standards. It would requires the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine vehicle fuel economy based on their attributes, such as size or weight. Each class of vehicles – as determined by NHTSA – would be required to meet the new fuel economy standard for that particular class to achieve the fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This means that each automaker will no longer be required to average the fuel economy for the entire fleet of cars they produce. This creates a level playing field for all automakers. From 2011 to 2019, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up, making steady progress, to meet the 2020 target of 35 miles per gallon. In 2020, the total average must meet 35 miles per gallon, unless NHTSA determines -- based on clear and convincing evidence -- that the achievement of the 35 miles per gallon standard would not be cost-effective for the nation. From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up at a "reasonable rate."
The national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as advocated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) [See WIMS 6/14/07], that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2022, was defeated in a procedural slight of hand. As reported by insiders, because the Senate invoked cloture on the Energy Bill, lawmakers could not introduce an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard because it would not be germane to the base bill.
According to Marchant Wentworth, Washington representative for the Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Despite majority support in the Senate, a small group of senators mugged the latest effort to pass a national renewable electricity standard. They didn't take a vote, there's no record of who actually killed the initiative, so there is no accountability to the American people - who overwhelmingly support a strong standard.
On the defeat of the $32 billion tax investment package (Baucus Amdt. No. 1704), Senator Reid said, "...Republicans continue to pander to the big oil and energy companies. In voting against tax incentives that would spur investment in renewable fuels, clean-coal technology and energy-efficient vehicles, not to mention consumer incentives for buying green products and cars, the Grand Oil Party has sided yet again with the industry that fills Republican campaign coffers as those same oil companies drill deeper into Americas’ pockets." The amendment was defeated when it failed by three votes to gain the necessary 60 votes in a cloture vote.
U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled his tax incentive package for developing clean energy on June 15, which he indicated would provide various tax incentives for developing clean and green power, alternative vehicles and biofuels, and clean coal technologies. The $32.1 billion cost was to be "fully offset, in part by changes to tax laws concerning major oil and gas companies."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) sent a letter to all members of the U.S. Senate prior to the final vote, urging them to vote against the Reid substitute to H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, to oppose all procedural motions to end debate on the bill and specifically to oppose the Baucus amendment (#1704) that would hike taxes on the oil and gas industry. Jay Timmons, NAM Senior Vice President for Policy said, “Adequate, affordable and reliable energy supplies are essential to the growth of the U.S. economy and especially vital to U.S. manufacturers who use one-third of our energy. Unfortunately, we believe this legislation has progressively worsened and is now beyond repair.”
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), the trade association representing BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen; did not comment directly on the CAFE compromise, but had supported an alternative proposal advanced by Senators Pryon-Bond-Levin-Voinovich and others that would have required a 36 mpg requirement for "passenger cars". They said, "manufacturers understand the need for CAFE reform, and want to be part of the solution to meeting our energy needs. A 36 mpg passenger car standard is a tough standard. This is a floor with no loopholes. While tough on the industry, this bipartisan bill protects consumer choice by maintaining the distinction between passenger cars and light trucks, and acknowledging the key attributes that separate these two types of vehicles." They said the original H.R. 6 proposal was a "wildly extreme measure" and would have required all passenger cars and light trucks to ultimately average "an unattainable 52 mpg."
Access releases from Senator Reid on overall passage (click here); and the tax-cut package (click here). Access the vote details on final passage (click here). Access legislative voting details on all amendments (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access a detailed release from Senator Feinstein on the CAFE compromise (click here). Access a release from the UCS on the defeat of the RPS standard (click here). Access a summary of the Baucus tax package (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from AAM on the alternative CAFE proposal (click here). [*Energy]
The Democrats major accomplishment was the inclusion of a last minute compromise on CAFE standards that will require an increase from 25-35 mpg by 2020. While the bill contains many other items of importance including a requirement for 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, gasoline price-gouging provisions, various grant and loan programs, carbon dioxide sequestration testing; the hotly debated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) was not included and the major $32 billion tax package for energy investment was defeated by three votes.
The big win for Democrats was the compromise on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) gas mileage standards. The Senate approved, by voice vote, the bipartisan compromise to increase fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. The compromise legislation, offered by Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Thomas Carper (D-DL), was endorsed by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Kerry (D-MA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Larry Craig (R-ID). According to a release from Senator Feinstein the measure will save between 2.0 and 2.5 million barrels of oil saved per day by 2025 -- nearly the amount of oil imported today from the Persian Gulf.
According to a summary from Feinstein, the compromise gives automakers the time and flexibility needed to meet these new fuel economy standards. It would requires the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine vehicle fuel economy based on their attributes, such as size or weight. Each class of vehicles – as determined by NHTSA – would be required to meet the new fuel economy standard for that particular class to achieve the fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This means that each automaker will no longer be required to average the fuel economy for the entire fleet of cars they produce. This creates a level playing field for all automakers. From 2011 to 2019, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up, making steady progress, to meet the 2020 target of 35 miles per gallon. In 2020, the total average must meet 35 miles per gallon, unless NHTSA determines -- based on clear and convincing evidence -- that the achievement of the 35 miles per gallon standard would not be cost-effective for the nation. From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up at a "reasonable rate."
The national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as advocated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) [See WIMS 6/14/07], that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2022, was defeated in a procedural slight of hand. As reported by insiders, because the Senate invoked cloture on the Energy Bill, lawmakers could not introduce an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard because it would not be germane to the base bill.
According to Marchant Wentworth, Washington representative for the Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Despite majority support in the Senate, a small group of senators mugged the latest effort to pass a national renewable electricity standard. They didn't take a vote, there's no record of who actually killed the initiative, so there is no accountability to the American people - who overwhelmingly support a strong standard.
On the defeat of the $32 billion tax investment package (Baucus Amdt. No. 1704), Senator Reid said, "...Republicans continue to pander to the big oil and energy companies. In voting against tax incentives that would spur investment in renewable fuels, clean-coal technology and energy-efficient vehicles, not to mention consumer incentives for buying green products and cars, the Grand Oil Party has sided yet again with the industry that fills Republican campaign coffers as those same oil companies drill deeper into Americas’ pockets." The amendment was defeated when it failed by three votes to gain the necessary 60 votes in a cloture vote.
U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled his tax incentive package for developing clean energy on June 15, which he indicated would provide various tax incentives for developing clean and green power, alternative vehicles and biofuels, and clean coal technologies. The $32.1 billion cost was to be "fully offset, in part by changes to tax laws concerning major oil and gas companies."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) sent a letter to all members of the U.S. Senate prior to the final vote, urging them to vote against the Reid substitute to H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, to oppose all procedural motions to end debate on the bill and specifically to oppose the Baucus amendment (#1704) that would hike taxes on the oil and gas industry. Jay Timmons, NAM Senior Vice President for Policy said, “Adequate, affordable and reliable energy supplies are essential to the growth of the U.S. economy and especially vital to U.S. manufacturers who use one-third of our energy. Unfortunately, we believe this legislation has progressively worsened and is now beyond repair.”
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), the trade association representing BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen; did not comment directly on the CAFE compromise, but had supported an alternative proposal advanced by Senators Pryon-Bond-Levin-Voinovich and others that would have required a 36 mpg requirement for "passenger cars". They said, "manufacturers understand the need for CAFE reform, and want to be part of the solution to meeting our energy needs. A 36 mpg passenger car standard is a tough standard. This is a floor with no loopholes. While tough on the industry, this bipartisan bill protects consumer choice by maintaining the distinction between passenger cars and light trucks, and acknowledging the key attributes that separate these two types of vehicles." They said the original H.R. 6 proposal was a "wildly extreme measure" and would have required all passenger cars and light trucks to ultimately average "an unattainable 52 mpg."
Access releases from Senator Reid on overall passage (click here); and the tax-cut package (click here). Access the vote details on final passage (click here). Access legislative voting details on all amendments (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6 (click here). Access a detailed release from Senator Feinstein on the CAFE compromise (click here). Access a release from the UCS on the defeat of the RPS standard (click here). Access a summary of the Baucus tax package (click here). Access a release from NAM (click here). Access a release from AAM on the alternative CAFE proposal (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, June 21, 2007
EPA Proposes Tighter NAAQS Standards For Ozone
Jun 21: U.S. EPA is proposing to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997. The proposal is based on the most recent scientific evidence about the health effects of ozone -- the primary component of smog. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, "Advances in science are leading to cleaner skies and healthier lives. America's science is progressing and our air quality is improving. By strengthening the ozone standard, EPA is keeping our clean air momentum moving into the future."
The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm. The Agency will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings. The hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on August 30, and in Chicago and Houston on September 5.
EPA says that since 1980, ozone levels have dropped 21 percent nationwide as the Agency, states and local governments have worked together to continue to improve the nation's air. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created through a reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of these ozone precursors.
EPA also is proposing to revise the "secondary" standard for ozone to improve protection for plants, trees and crops during the growing season. The secondary standard is based on scientific evidence indicating that exposure to even low levels of ozone can damage vegetation. EPA is proposing two alternatives for this standard: a standard that would be identical to the "primary" standard to protect public health; and a cumulative standard aimed at protecting vegetation during the growing season.
EPA is estimating the health benefits of meeting a range of alternative ozone standards based on published scientific studies and the opinion of outside experts. These findings will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks, which will include both the estimated costs and benefits. EPA projects that health benefits of the proposed standard could be in the billions of dollars. However, EPA does not consider costs in setting ozone standards.
The American Lung Association (ALA) said it was pleased that the EPA is calling for tighter standards and it was "a step toward cleaner air;" however, the organization said, "the agency’s plan falls short of the goal recommended by its own scientific experts [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel, See WIMS 10/25/07]. We are particularly concerned that the EPA has left the door open to choosing options that are simply not acceptable. We have reason to be concerned... Under today’s proposal, the EPA could tighten the smog standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb), a clear improvement, but far short of the 60 to 70 ppb unanimously recommended by the scientists after they conducted an extensive review of the evidence. Alarmingly, the new EPA plan leaves the door wide open to an option the American Lung Association considers unacceptable: Making no improvements in the standards at all by retaining the current standard."
The United States Chamber of Commerce said, “It would be ludicrous for EPA to revise any NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards], let alone the standards for ozone, without first considering the impact of these extraterritorial emissions.” The Chamber made the comment in a release that applauded the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP), which released a draft interim study finding that emissions from foreign nations constitute a significant share of the background ozone levels; which they said would make it "very difficult for localities to meet the new more restrictive standards being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." The Chamber's vice president for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Bill Kovacs said, “This confirms what the Chamber has been saying for years: emissions from China, India, Mexico, and Africa don’t just disappear—they come to the United States.” The Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Executive Body created the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollutants.
The Chamber said that lowering the current standard of 84 ppb to either 70 ppb or 60 ppb, as recommended by the Science Advisory Board, would double, or even triple, the number of U.S. counties in non-attainment. They said the economic consequences of non-attainment are serious -- "non-attainment counties can lose federal highway and transit funding; restrictive permit requirements deter companies from building new plants or modifying existing ones; and mandated federal pollution control measures inhibit business expansion as local plans for economic development are put on hold."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access EPA's 2007 Proposed Revisions to Ground-Level Ozone Standards website with links to background information, a fact sheet, the Proposed Rule and Tech Support Documents (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the HTAP recently revised executive summary (click here). Access the draft chapters of the 2007 interim report for review and discussion at a May HTAP Task Force Meeting (click here). Access the HTAP website (click here). Access additional information on the LRTAP (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel website for their review documents (click here). [*Air]
The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm. The Agency will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings. The hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on August 30, and in Chicago and Houston on September 5.
EPA says that since 1980, ozone levels have dropped 21 percent nationwide as the Agency, states and local governments have worked together to continue to improve the nation's air. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created through a reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of these ozone precursors.
EPA also is proposing to revise the "secondary" standard for ozone to improve protection for plants, trees and crops during the growing season. The secondary standard is based on scientific evidence indicating that exposure to even low levels of ozone can damage vegetation. EPA is proposing two alternatives for this standard: a standard that would be identical to the "primary" standard to protect public health; and a cumulative standard aimed at protecting vegetation during the growing season.
EPA is estimating the health benefits of meeting a range of alternative ozone standards based on published scientific studies and the opinion of outside experts. These findings will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks, which will include both the estimated costs and benefits. EPA projects that health benefits of the proposed standard could be in the billions of dollars. However, EPA does not consider costs in setting ozone standards.
The American Lung Association (ALA) said it was pleased that the EPA is calling for tighter standards and it was "a step toward cleaner air;" however, the organization said, "the agency’s plan falls short of the goal recommended by its own scientific experts [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel, See WIMS 10/25/07]. We are particularly concerned that the EPA has left the door open to choosing options that are simply not acceptable. We have reason to be concerned... Under today’s proposal, the EPA could tighten the smog standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb), a clear improvement, but far short of the 60 to 70 ppb unanimously recommended by the scientists after they conducted an extensive review of the evidence. Alarmingly, the new EPA plan leaves the door wide open to an option the American Lung Association considers unacceptable: Making no improvements in the standards at all by retaining the current standard."
The United States Chamber of Commerce said, “It would be ludicrous for EPA to revise any NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards], let alone the standards for ozone, without first considering the impact of these extraterritorial emissions.” The Chamber made the comment in a release that applauded the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP), which released a draft interim study finding that emissions from foreign nations constitute a significant share of the background ozone levels; which they said would make it "very difficult for localities to meet the new more restrictive standards being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." The Chamber's vice president for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Bill Kovacs said, “This confirms what the Chamber has been saying for years: emissions from China, India, Mexico, and Africa don’t just disappear—they come to the United States.” The Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Executive Body created the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollutants.
The Chamber said that lowering the current standard of 84 ppb to either 70 ppb or 60 ppb, as recommended by the Science Advisory Board, would double, or even triple, the number of U.S. counties in non-attainment. They said the economic consequences of non-attainment are serious -- "non-attainment counties can lose federal highway and transit funding; restrictive permit requirements deter companies from building new plants or modifying existing ones; and mandated federal pollution control measures inhibit business expansion as local plans for economic development are put on hold."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access EPA's 2007 Proposed Revisions to Ground-Level Ozone Standards website with links to background information, a fact sheet, the Proposed Rule and Tech Support Documents (click here). Access a release from ALA (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the HTAP recently revised executive summary (click here). Access the draft chapters of the 2007 interim report for review and discussion at a May HTAP Task Force Meeting (click here). Access the HTAP website (click here). Access additional information on the LRTAP (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel website for their review documents (click here). [*Air]
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
New Farm Bill Blog To Track Congressional Debate
Jun 19: A leading Farm Bill reform expert, Environmental Defense Farm Policy Campaign Director Scott Faber, launched a blog called, “The Ruminant” to respond to rapidly changing developments in the debate over congressional renewal of the Farm Bill this summer. Faber has testified before Congress on the issue and been quoted in many news outlets.
Faber’s blog launch coincides with a vote by the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management about whether to increase depression-era farm subsidies that help few farmers and violate international trade agreements. Specifically, the Subcommittee is expected to approve a hike in target prices for wheat, soybeans, oats and barley. Faber says, “As a result, most farm spending would continue to flow to a handful of farmers in a handful of districts -- farmers in just 19 congressional districts would continue to collect more than half of all farm spending. In fact, eight of the top ten congressional districts collecting about one-third of all farm spending between 2003 and 2005 are represented by legislators who serve on the Committee."
Environmental Defense is a member of left-right alliance of groups that support Farm Bill reform proposals to provide more funding for voluntary conservation programs that reward farmers who offer to meet our environmental challenges, such as providing clean air, clean water, clean energy, and wildlife habitat. The group says, "Unlike subsidies, conservation payments flow to all farmers, ranchers and landowners regardless of what they grow, how much they grow or where they grow it. As a result of inadequate conservation funding of the current Farm Bill that took effect in 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now turns away two out of three farmers who are eligible for conservation payments."
A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (219 members) have cosponsored legislation endorsed by Environmental Defense that would dramatically increase funding for voluntary conservation programs in the Farm Bill. These bills include The Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuels Act (H.R. 1551/S.919), EAT Healthy America Act (H.R. 1600), Chesapeake's Healthy and Environmentally Sound Stewardship of Energy and Agriculture Act (H.R. 1766/S.1346), Farm, Nutrition, and Community Investment Act (H.R. 2144), NOURISH Act (H.R. 2401) and FARM 21 Act (H.R. 2720/S. 1422).
In a related matter Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns issued a release regarding Farm Bill legislation advanced by House Subcommittees and said, "I am disappointed in the Title I legislation put forth today by the House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. The bill fails to recognize the need for greater equity and predictability in farm policy, and does nothing to provide a more responsive safety net... The House draft also fails to bring greater equity to farm policy. Some farmers would continue to receive guaranteed money while others, including 60% of farmers, are left out. Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported... The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the Administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion. The House draft offers no mandatory funding in an area Congress itself has identified as a top priority - renewable energy, while the Administration proposes more than $1.6 billion in new renewable energy funding, targeted to cellulosic ethanol projects..."
Access a release on the new Blog (click here). Access The Ruminant Blog (click here). Access ED's Farm Bill reform website for additional information (click here). Access a release from Secretary Johanns (click here). Access the latest information on the House Farm bill development from the Agricultural Committee website (click here). [*Land, *Water, *Agriculture]
Faber’s blog launch coincides with a vote by the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management about whether to increase depression-era farm subsidies that help few farmers and violate international trade agreements. Specifically, the Subcommittee is expected to approve a hike in target prices for wheat, soybeans, oats and barley. Faber says, “As a result, most farm spending would continue to flow to a handful of farmers in a handful of districts -- farmers in just 19 congressional districts would continue to collect more than half of all farm spending. In fact, eight of the top ten congressional districts collecting about one-third of all farm spending between 2003 and 2005 are represented by legislators who serve on the Committee."
Environmental Defense is a member of left-right alliance of groups that support Farm Bill reform proposals to provide more funding for voluntary conservation programs that reward farmers who offer to meet our environmental challenges, such as providing clean air, clean water, clean energy, and wildlife habitat. The group says, "Unlike subsidies, conservation payments flow to all farmers, ranchers and landowners regardless of what they grow, how much they grow or where they grow it. As a result of inadequate conservation funding of the current Farm Bill that took effect in 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now turns away two out of three farmers who are eligible for conservation payments."
A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (219 members) have cosponsored legislation endorsed by Environmental Defense that would dramatically increase funding for voluntary conservation programs in the Farm Bill. These bills include The Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuels Act (H.R. 1551/S.919), EAT Healthy America Act (H.R. 1600), Chesapeake's Healthy and Environmentally Sound Stewardship of Energy and Agriculture Act (H.R. 1766/S.1346), Farm, Nutrition, and Community Investment Act (H.R. 2144), NOURISH Act (H.R. 2401) and FARM 21 Act (H.R. 2720/S. 1422).
In a related matter Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns issued a release regarding Farm Bill legislation advanced by House Subcommittees and said, "I am disappointed in the Title I legislation put forth today by the House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. The bill fails to recognize the need for greater equity and predictability in farm policy, and does nothing to provide a more responsive safety net... The House draft also fails to bring greater equity to farm policy. Some farmers would continue to receive guaranteed money while others, including 60% of farmers, are left out. Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported... The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the Administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion. The House draft offers no mandatory funding in an area Congress itself has identified as a top priority - renewable energy, while the Administration proposes more than $1.6 billion in new renewable energy funding, targeted to cellulosic ethanol projects..."
Access a release on the new Blog (click here). Access The Ruminant Blog (click here). Access ED's Farm Bill reform website for additional information (click here). Access a release from Secretary Johanns (click here). Access the latest information on the House Farm bill development from the Agricultural Committee website (click here). [*Land, *Water, *Agriculture]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
