Senate Ag Appointment Raises New Climate Bill Questions

Sep 9: Arkansas’s senior U.S. Democratic Senator, Blanche Lincoln, has been tapped as the next Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. In the committee’s 184-year history, Lincoln will be the first Arkansan and first female ever to serve as Chairman. She replaces Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) who will fill the Chairmanship of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as a result of the death of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

Lincoln said, “As a seventh-generation Arkansan and farmer’s daughter, I know my father is smiling down on me today. I am fortunate to have served on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry since I was first elected to the Senate in 1998. It has been a committee of significant importance to my constituents and our state’s economy. The Committee’s responsibilities encompass a number of issues that are critical to Americans, particularly those living in rural areas. With such priorities as child nutrition reauthorization, farm bill implementation, and regulation of commodities, the Committee has a full plate. I thank Senator Harkin for his tremendous leadership. As Chairman, I will work with my colleagues to build upon the Committee’s strong record and devote my full energy to producing forward-looking, balanced priorities on behalf of all families and communities. I will continue to fight for the hardworking farm families and rural communities who provide the safest, most abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber in the world.”

The appointment raises new questions about the Senate passage of a climate and energy bill. Senator Lincoln has already expressed her strong opposition to the House-passed cap-and-trade legislation (HR 2454, ACES, Waxman-Markey) saying it is "deeply flawed." She said any prospective Senate bill must not place a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in rural America. The Senate Agriculture Committee is one of six major committees with jurisdiction over climate legislation. Others include: Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public Works (primary responsibility); Finance; and Foreign Relations.

Agriculture issue and concerns in climate legislation are highly contentious as demonstrated by concerns raised by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) during the debate over passage of the Waxman Markey bill [See WIMS 5/7/09]. Chairman Peterson vowed not to support the bill until several changes were made. Similarly, as WIMS reported yesterday, the National Wheat Growers Association (NWGA), joined many other agriculture organizations, and approved a new resolution indicating its opposition "to greenhouse gas legislation or regulation that has a negative impact on production agriculture," and saying, "We believe neither greenhouse gas regulation nor legislation should take effect until the major carbon emitting countries of the world have agreed to regulate their own greenhouse gases in a like manner to ours." [See WIMS 9/9/09].

In an August 4, 2009, Senate Finance Committee hearing on climate change, Senator Lincoln said, “In the current economic environment, the average Arkansas family sits down at their kitchen table, where they talk through their worries about retirement plans losing money, college savings accounts losing value, and their neighbors being laid off. Quite simply, they are scared. In addition, our businesses are making tough choices about whether to cut benefits, hours, or workers, or close their doors altogether.

“The majority of Arkansans believe efforts need to be made to reverse the detrimental effects of climate change. However, they are apprehensive, and rightly so, about what a massive policy change such as a cap-and-trade plan would mean for them at a time of tremendous economic uncertainty. The legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives has done nothing to ease these Arkansans’ apprehensions. The House’s Waxman-Markey bill picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in rural America. It is a deeply flawed bill. I will not support similar legislation in the Senate.

“Here in the Senate, and in this committee [then speaking of the Senate Finance Committee], we must craft a proposal that works for all of America. Last year, I joined several of my colleagues in laying out a set of principles that must be addressed before I would consider supporting any climate change legislation. I stand by those principles today and look forward to working to craft responsible legislation to curb carbon emissions. There are many options to deal with the issue of climate change and all should be up for discussion in order to meet our environmental and economic goals. I am very proud of the work already completed in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where we passed bipartisan legislation that will implement a national renewable electricity standard, increase our investments in energy research and technology, and put in place a plan to combat our energy challenges of the future.

“I hope that the Finance Committee will have the opportunity to create companion legislation to the Energy Committee’s bill, which will focus on investments in new renewable technologies and clean-energy technologies that, combined with the Energy Committee’s bill, will lay the foundation of a new national energy policy that will curb carbon output, create new jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.”

In a list of numerous persons commenting on the Lincoln appointment, Gary McChesney, Chief Technology Officer, FutureFuel Chemical Company said his company is "extremely pleased with Senator Lincoln's appointment as the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Senator's personnel association with agriculture, coupled with her passion for energy security and climate issues make her an excellent choice to lead the expansion of U.S. agriculture into the production biomass-derived (renewable) energy, the generation of carbon offsets, and the reduction of greenhouse gases. FutureFuel congratulates Senator Lincoln on her appointment and looks forward to supporting the Senator in her new responsibilities.”

Access Senator Lincoln's statement on the appointment (click here). Access an 8/4/09 release on the Senator's opposition to ACES (click here). Access the Senator's supporting comments on her appointment (click here).

Wheat Growers Oppose ACES; UN Touts NYC Summit

Sep 8: As Congress returns and prepares to take on climate change legislation, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and staunch opponent of such legislation, applauded the board of the National Wheat Growers Association (NWGA), which, on September 4, by a vote of 26 to 2, approved a new resolution on climate legislation and regulation. The new resolution puts the group on record as "opposed to greenhouse gas legislation or regulation that has a negative impact on production agriculture."

According to a release from Senator Inhofe, the new resolution marks a "stunning shift from the group's recent endorsement of the Waxman-Markey" (ACES) legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June [See WIMS 6/29/09]. The Wheat Growers Association resolution states, "NWGA is opposed to greenhouse gas legislation or regulation that has a negative impact on production agriculture. NWGA will strive for a net economic benefit to farmers, agriculture and food production. We believe neither greenhouse gas regulation nor legislation should take effect until the major carbon emitting countries of the world have agreed to regulate their own greenhouse gases in a like manner to ours. NWGA urges USDA to do a detailed economic analysis of any legislation or regulation before it becomes law. Furthermore, NWGA will oppose EPA regulation and will work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.” The board also voted 24 to 0 to "remove existing resolutions relating to greenhouse gas regulation and an agriculture cap-and-trade program."

Senator Inhofe said, "I'm pleased that the organization representing the interests of wheat growers nationwide has reached the right conclusion: cap-and-trade legislation and potential EPA greenhouse gas regulation pose serious harm to farmers and rural America. In times of great hardship in rural communities across America, both of these approaches to addressing climate change will only bring further job cuts and economic decline. This new resolution marks an important step in the effort to defeat a cap-and-trade energy tax and EPA's misguided regulations."

The original plan for a September 8 rollout of a draft Senate climate bill has been delayed until later this fall. On August 31, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) announced a delay due to intensive work necessary of health care reform and Senator Kerry's hip surgery. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had originally called for markup of the Senate bill to be completed by six Senate Committees by September 28. Senator Reid issued a brief statement on the delay and said he "appreciates the leadership of Senators Boxer and Kerry as they shepherd this important legislation through their respective committees. They are working diligently to craft a well-balanced bill and Senator Reid fully expects the Senate to have ample time to consider this comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation before the end of the year.”

In a related matter, at a press conference, Janos Pasztor, Director of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Change Support Team said the high-level United Nations climate change summit on September 22 in New York [See WIMS 6/24/09] seeks to allow leaders to hold candid discussions on how to resolve obstacles in talks with fewer than 90 days left before the start of December’s conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. He said the New York summit “is intended to provide political momentum at the highest level to accelerate progress toward a deal in Copenhagen.” He said only 15 official days of negotiations remain before conference in the Danish capital, where countries are expected to wrap up negotiations on a new agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To date, the pace of progress of climate talks has been “much too slow,” Pasztor underscored, with Ban continually urging leaders to take more urgent measures to reach a “fair, equitable, comprehensive and effective” global pact. All countries are invited to the special New York summit. Pasztor said, “This is not just for eight countries or 20, but for 192,” including highly vulnerable States, large emitters and fast-emerging developing nations. We need a global solution for a global problem.”

The day-long event will comprise round-table discussions chaired by heads of State and government on “how we can move toward a lower emissions, climate resilient global economy.” A release from the UN indicates that the Secretary-General has just returned from a visit to the Arctic ice rim where he saw the devastation wrought by climate change first hand, voicing hope that all leaders could see the effects of global warming for themselves [See WIMS 9/2/09]. Pasztor said his trip “reminds us that addressing climate change is not optional or something that could be postponed indefinitely. A failure to take action will have serious consequences, not just for polar bears in the Arctic, but for people on every continent and every country.” A 9-page background paper to help frame discussions at the Summit, focusing on the core political issues that need to be resolved to catalyze strengthened cooperative action on climate change is available.

Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from NWGA (click here). Access a statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access a release from the UN (click here). Access further details on the press conference (click here). Access the Background paper (click here). Access the Summit website for additional information (click here).

UN Enviro Chief Calls For Action On "Non-CO2" Pollutants

Sep 4: Addressing the High-Level policy forum at the World Climate Conference-3 (WCC-3) [See WIMS 9/4/09], Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), pointed out that the time has come for further urgent scientific assessments to determine the precise contribution, impacts and the options for action on "non-CO2" pollutants. He indicated that faster action on climate change may be possible if nations combine substantial cuts of carbon dioxide emissions alongside accelerated moves across a suite of other greenhouse gases and pollutants.

According to a lengthy release from the UNEP, scientists estimate that nearly 50 per cent of the emissions causing global warming in the 21st century are from non-CO2 pollutants ranging from black carbon and low-level ozone to methane and nitrogen compounds. Steiner indicated that these "climate forcers" will add to the warming caused by carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that have been building up since the Industrial Revolution unless their emissions are also addressed. Many of these non-CO2 gases and pollutants need to be addressed in their own right because of growing concern over their impact on human health, agriculture and ecosystems such as forests.

Steiner said, "There remains some scientific uncertainty about some of these pollutants' precise contribution to global warming. But a growing body of science points to a potentially significant role. The international community's over-arching concern must be to seal a convincing deal at the UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in less than 100 days time -- one that puts the world on track towards swift and significant cuts in carbon dioxide while also providing the funding to assist vulnerable countries and communities to adapt. It is clear that the world must deploy all available means to combat climate change. At this critical juncture, every transformative measure and every substance contributing to climate change should not be overlooked."

Drew Shindell, a leading climatologist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a lecturer in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University New York, said, "By including black carbon and tropospheric ozone precursors in climate mitigation strategies, alongside the longer-lived greenhouse gases, development strategies that are both more effective and less costly can be developed. The UN Environment Program should be congratulated for raising these issues and calling for action. The science supporting the strong role of these pollutants in climate change and in damage to human and ecosystem health is becoming increasingly strong."

Experts say that in addition their climate contribution, there are compelling and abundant economic and environmental reasons why some of the non-CO2 pollutants need to be addressed under treaties such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and regional health agreements, national air quality strategies and voluntary initiatives.

Black carbon is basically the smoke that comes out of diesel vehicles and biomass burning. It is a pollutant often linked to inefficient burning, its sources ranging from biomass burning (including wood and dung in cooking) to diesel engines and coal-fired power stations. Unlike CO2, which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia, black carbon has a life of few weeks or less. Black carbon, however, is a key component of air pollution and causes the atmosphere to absorb heat.

Access a release from UNEP with links to extensive additional information (click here). Access the WCC-3 website for complete details of the conference (click here).

Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications

Sep 2: A new peer reviewed study -- Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications -- released by the World Wildlife Fund at the World Climate Conference 3 in Geneva, finds that Arctic sea ice is melting at a faster than expected pace, with major implications well beyond the region. These include changes in temperature and precipitation patterns in North America and Europe that will affect agriculture, forestry and water supplies. The report indicates that warming in the Arctic will likely have far-reaching impacts throughout the world, resulting in a sharp increase in harmful greenhouse gases and significant shifts in global weather patterns that could disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.



Dr. Martin Sommerkorn said, “This is not about the Arctic, it’s what the Arctic means to the rest of the world and this study paints a truly sobering picture of the future if it continues to warm and melt. Warming in the Arctic will have negative consequences not just for polar bears, but for people across America and throughout the world. Simply put, if we do not keep the Arctic cold enough, people across the world will suffer the effects.”

With sea ice expected to recede to near-record levels later this month, the study found growing evidence that some of the anticipated impacts on the atmosphere have already emerged. The report also predicts that the negative effects of Arctic warming could make global climate change more severe than indicated by other recent projections, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 assessment. Keya Chatterjee, acting director of climate change with WWF-US said, “The planet’s alarm system is blaring loudly and we need to wake up and take action. We need to pass legislation in the U.S. and secure a global treaty to cut our emissions now and prepare for the rapidly emerging consequences of climate change.”

The Arctic’s frozen soils and wetlands store twice as much carbon as is held in the atmosphere, as warming trends continue, soils will increasingly thaw and release carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere as, at a significantly faster pace than previously predicted. Levels of atmospheric methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, have been increasing rapidly for the past two years, and many believe the increase is driven by the thawing Arctic. The report also concludes that sea-levels will very likely rise by more than one meter by 2100 -- more than twice the amount given in the IPCC’s 2007 assessment. The associated flooding of coastal regions will affect more than a quarter of the world’s population.

In a related matter on August 24, NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, CO announced it had teamed up with the U.S. Coast Guard at Kodiak Island, in an air-sampling project to search for natural and man-made sources of methane and carbon dioxide in the air above the Alaska tundra. North of the Brooks Range, the tundra is not yet melting, but south of the range, partial melting is already occurring.

NOAA said, "Billions of tons of carbon are buried in the frozen Arctic tundra, now heating up because of human-caused climate change. In the future, will the warming tundra dry out, exhaling large amounts of heat-holding carbon dioxide? Or will melting ice form pools and lakes, allowing microbes to feast on buried organic matter, burping up huge amounts of methane? Only the data will tell. . . It’s important to locate natural sources and measure how much methane and carbon dioxide are being released now so we can watch for signs of increasing emissions." Methane is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, though its lifetime in the atmosphere is significantly shorter.

Access a release from WWF with links to additional information (click here). Access links to the complete 100-page report, executive summary, a video discussion and additional information (click here). Access a release from NOAA and links to additional information (click here).

Study Says Carbon Cycling Models Ignore Role Of Inland Waters

Sep 2: In the paper, The Boundless Carbon Cycle, published in the September issue of Nature Geoscience, scientists from the University of Vienna, Uppsala University in Sweden, University of Antwerp, and the U.S.-based Stroud(TM) Water Research Center argue that current international strategies to mitigate manmade carbon emissions and address climate change have overlooked a critical player -- inland waters. Streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands play an important role in the carbon cycle that is unaccounted for in conventional carbon cycling models. According to a release, the commentary comes just months before COP15, the December 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen where representatives from 192 countries will gather to decide upon a 2012 climate agreement that will succeed the Kyoto protocol.

Dr. Tom J. Battin of the department of Freshwater Ecology at the University of Vienna and lead author of the paper states that, "While inland waters represent only 1% of the Earth's surface, their contribution to the carbon cycle is disproportionately large, underestimated, and not recognized within the models on which the Kyoto protocol was based." The team of scientists points out that all current global carbon models consider inland waters static conduits that transfer carbon from the continents to the oceans. In reality, inland waters are dynamic ecosystems with the potential to alter the fates of terrestrial carbon delivered to them including: burial in sediments leading to long-term storage or sequestration; and metabolism in rivers and subsequent outgassing of respired carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Dr. Lars Tranvik, Professor of Limnology at Uppsala University in Sweden said, "Twenty percent of the continental carbon sequestration actually occurs as burial in inland water sediments."

Dr. Anthony K. Aufdenkampe, a scientist at the Stroud Water Research Center said, "River outgassing of respired carbon contributes carbon to the atmosphere in an amount equivalent to 13% of annual fossil fuel burning." The researchers indicate that because the amount of atmospheric carbon is well-known and conservation of matter requires a balanced global carbon budget, this previously unaccounted-for source of carbon to the atmosphere implies the existence of an additional continental carbon sink such as higher rates of biomass accrual in forests. Dr. Sebastian Luyssaert of the department of Biology at University of Antwerp in Belgium said, "A larger accumulation of carbon in forest ecosystems that could offset the outgassing from rivers would be more consistent with current independently-derived estimates of carbon sequestration on the continents."

The authors indicated they feel that a Boundless Carbon Cycle -- that accounts for carbon transfers between the land-freshwater boundary, the freshwater-atmosphere boundary, and regional boundaries within continents -- presents opportunities and challenges for scientists and policy makers alike. They stress the need for collaborative scientific investigations augmented by new observatories and experimental platforms for long-term research to improve insights into carbon cycles across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. For policy makers, the authors note that riverine transport presents a bookkeeping challenge as carbon in rivers that escapes burial or outgassing flows downstream, traversing geographic regions and political boundaries, and thus altering regionally-based carbon accounts.

Access a release from Stroud (click here). Access a related illustration of the Boundless Carbon Cycle (click here). Access Nature Geoscience for information on obtaining the full paper (click here).

UNEP/TEEB "Climate Issues Update" Calls For Investment In Ecosystems

Sep 2: A new climate issues update by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), a project launched by Germany and the European Commission in response to a proposal by the G8+5 Environment Ministers (Potsdam, Germany 2007), indicates that investing in restoration and maintenance of the "Earth's multi-trillion dollar ecosystems" -- from forests and mangroves to wetlands and river basins -- can have a key role in countering climate change and climate-proofing vulnerable economies. TEEB designed to develop a global study on the economics of biodiversity loss is hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The issues update was launched by TEEB study leader Pavan Sukhdev, with German Federal Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel; Director-General for Environment, European Commission, Karl Falkenberg; and UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of UNEP, Achim Steiner.

The update says the planet's biological diversity and 'ecological infrastructure' are increasingly being put at risk from the impact of climbing greenhouse gases. The update indicates that "natural systems represent one of the biggest untapped allies against the greatest challenge of this generation." The paper is part of a stream of work towards a final study in 2010.

The update underlines that an agreement on funding for forests is a key priority for governments attending the crucial United Nations COP15 climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in December -- just 95 days away. An estimated 5 gigatonnes or 15 per cent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are being absorbed or sequestrated by forests every year, making them the "mitigation engine" of the natural world. A release indicates that this could also be described as "green carbon."

Investing in ecosystem-based measures such as financing Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) could thus not only assist in combating climate change but could also be a key anti-poverty and adaptation measure. Forests also provide services such as freshwaters, soil stabilization, nutrients for agriculture, eco-tourism opportunities and food, fuel and fiber -- all of which will be key to buffering vulnerable communities against the climate change already underway.

The TEEB team indicates in the Climate Issues Update that a more complete report on these and several other areas of relevance to national and international policy-makers will be published in November 2009. "However, in view of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009, we thought it appropriate to publish our climate-related conclusions and recommendations more urgently for policy-makers, negotiators, and the general public."

The Update addresses ongoing work in four domains which TEEB says it believes need to be highlighted in the run-up to Copenhagen as follows: "(1) Coral reefs: We now understand that the survival of these ecosystems is at risk. (2) Forest carbon: including forests in mitigation is a cost-effective way of preventing further emissions and removing CO2. Forests also provide cobenefits in the form of other ecosystem services. Giving rewards for these benefits is an important step towards a greener global economy. (3) National accounts: these currently do not measure natural capital, so it can not be managed well. The most urgent step is to include adequate measurement of carbon storage as this is an institutional prerequisite for a serious payment scheme for tropical forests. [and]

"(4) Public investment in ecological infrastructure: This has demonstrable value for adaptation to climate change, not only in terms of relevance and effectiveness but also in terms of cost-effectiveness. In the context of the current economic crisis and the fiscal stimulus packages unveiled by many nations, ecosystems represent an attractive area for high-return investment. our ‘natural capital’ can be a much-needed source of growth in a time of recession, a provider of new and decent jobs in a time of increasing unemployment, and a solution to persistent poverty, a vast human problem which we cannot ignore."

UNEP head Achim Steiner said, "It is clearly emerging that investments in the planet's ecosystem infrastructure can deliver the twin, Green Economy gains of curbing and cutting emissions while assisting vulnerable communities to adapt. Currently governments are considering multi-billion dollar investments in carbon capture and storage at power stations. Perhaps it is time to subject this to a full cost benefit analysis to see whether the technological option matches nature's ability to capture and store carbon -- a natural system that has been perfected over millions of years and with the multiple additional benefits for water supplies up to reversing the rate of biodiversity loss."

In the meantime, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on September 2, standing on the Polar Ice in Norway said, "I feel the power of nature, and at the same time, a sense of vulnerability. This is a common resource for human beings, and we must do all we can to preserve this Arctic ice. The Arctic is ground zero for analyzing the impact of climate change. In the Arctic, climate change is accelerating much faster than in any other region in the world. I am here to see for myself just how much damage this fragile Arctic is suffering from as a result of climate change. The ice is melting faster -- drifting, you have seen while coming here -- many icebergs, the glaciers are drifting and retreating; this is a very alarming situation.

"I'm sending [a message] from the Arctic to all world citizens, particularly world leaders, to draw urgent attention to take action immediately, to preserve Planet Earth, to preserve all that we can do to help our succeeding generations to be able to live in a hospitable environment in a sustainable way. . . we are losing the glaciers at the rate of 150 cubic km per year, that is 150 billion tonnes a year. . . To generate political will, the United Nations is going to convene a summit meeting on September 22 in New York; we have invited all world leaders, we expect more than 100 world leaders to participate. I expect them to demonstrate their political leadership. I expect them to play [their role] as global leaders, addressing these challenges, which require global leadership, global solidarity. We do not have any time to lose. The time is short. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen in December. . ."

Access a lengthy release from UNEP with links to additional information (click here). Access the 34-page TEEB Climate Issues Update (click here). Access the TEEB Study website for extensive information (click here). Access a release and link to the complete statement from the UN Secretary-General (click here).

FOIA Information Reveals More Problems With Coal Ash Sites

Aug 31: According to a release from the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, U.S. EPA has released information to environmental groups about America’s toxic coal ash dumps after months of data collection and inquiry. The groups, after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, discovered that there are 584 coal ash dump sites across the country -- almost twice as many as previously identified. These sites pose significant cancer and health risks that so far have gone unchecked. The groups said that because the EPA does not regulate the waste from coal-fired power plants, the agency had no information on the location and nature of the 584 wet ash dumps located throughout the EPA has acknowledged that wet disposal of coal ash presents a greater risk to human health and the environment than dry landfills because hazardous chemicals are more likely to migrate from such dumps and the large impoundments present a risk of catastrophic failure.

On June 30, 2009, following pressure from legislators and environmental organizations [See WIMS 6/22/09], EPA posted a list of 44 “high hazard potential” impoundments containing coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash, at 26 different coal burning electric utility facilities [See WIMS 6/30/09]. The groups indicated that the FOIA data the obtained note ownership, location, hazard potential, year commissioned, type and quantity of coal combustion waste disposed, dates of the last regulatory or company assessment, and in some instances whether an unregulated discharge of coal ash had occurred. Some critical data were not included because companies claimed the data as "Confidential Business Information."

According to a release, states with coal ash sites included in the list are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Lisa Evans, an attorney at Earthjustice said, "There is no lingering doubt, these coal ash dumps are dangerous and must be regulated immediately. The EPA list provides a clear view of the substantial extent of the threat. Now the agency needs to take the next step and ensure that communities are informed and protected against the possibility of another TVA-like tragedy."

On March 9, the EPA sent letters to hundreds of power generating facilities requesting information about coal ash surface impoundments [See WIMS 3/10/9]. The letters were in response to the disaster that occurred on December 22, 2008, at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, TN [See WIMS 1/9/09]. Over 1 billion gallons of coal ash sludge flooded 300 acres in and near the Emory River when a dike at a coal ash pond collapsed, destroying homes and property and poisoning surrounding waters and wildlife.

The groups said the FOIA data just released reveal the problems are much more widespread than EPA previously thought. The wet disposal of coal ash and affect communities in 35 states, with concentrations of dangerous dumps in the Midwest, Appalachia, Intermountain West and Southeast. The data reveal that the majority of dump sites are over three decades old -- raising questions about the structural integrity of their dams and whether the waste ponds are adequately lined. Most older dump sites are not lined to prevent the migration of harmful chemicals to drinking water. The data reveal also that regulatory inspections of these dams by state and federal agencies are infrequent or non-existent.

EPA's data also indicate that many of the wet dumps are very large, with over a hundred exceeding 50 acres, including numerous sites comprising several hundred acres. Furthermore the largest dumps tend to be the older sites with the least amount of protection. The groups said, "The problems are likely underestimated by the present data set because companies like Duke Energy, Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Progress Energy have withheld information on 74 dump sites, including some of the largest dump sites in the U.S, claiming the information is 'confidential business information.'"

The groups said that despite the obvious threats posed by coal ash dumps, 25 senators (nine Democrats and 16 Republicans) signed a letter supporting Federal regulation that would let the utility companies off the hook. Mary Anne Hitt, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign said, "Research has made it clear that coal ash is becoming increasingly toxic. In fact the cancer risk of people living near some coal ash sites is a staggering 1 in 50. Despite those chilling statistics, there are still no federal rules in place for safe disposal of coal ash. Coal ash should be treated like the hazardous substance it is, governed by strong rules to protect communities and hold the coal industry accountable for the risks posed by its toxic waste."

Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice with links to the FOIA data and related information (click here). Access information from EPA on the list of the units and other information related to coal ash (click here). Access EPA's Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste website for more information (click here). Access EPA's Coal Ash request website with links to the letter, facilities, corporations, Environmental Council of the States, and more (click here).

Business Groups Step Up Fight Against Climate Legislation

Aug 27: As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider its version of a climate change and energy bill, and the United Nations Secretary-General is telling countries that the major climate change agreement to be considered later this year in Copenhagen "will determine the future of our planet,” major business organizations including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), the American Petroleum Institute (API) are stepping up their fight in opposition to climate change legislation and regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Even with near filibuster-proof numbers, Senate Democrats will find it difficult to pass climate legislation amidst the backdrop of a struggling economy, high unemployment, contentious political divides over the cost of health care reform and regional political differences among their own ranks.

On August 27, NAM and NFIB launched a multi-state, multi-million-dollar comprehensive advertising campaign opposing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, ACES), the House-passed Waxman-Markey climate change bill [See WIMS 6/26/09]. Joining in opposition are several state manufacturing associations in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia. The groups are encouraging manufacturers, small business owners and the public to "Speak Out" against the bill and its potentially devastating impact on the economy. The advertisements will run through September 4 and will include television, radio and Internet. The initial phase of the campaign will be conducted in the following states: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia.

NAM Executive Vice President Jay Timmons said, “Our message to senators is that the Waxman-Markey bill is an ‘anti-jobs, anti-energy’ piece of legislation. It will shrink our nation’s economy, make us less competitive with foreign countries, raise energy costs for consumers and businesses, take away disposable income for Americans and cause significant job loss. Our country needs a growth strategy as we struggle to come out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. What we do not need are policies and regulations that will cost millions of jobs and harm our overall economy.”

NFIB president and CEO Dan Danner said, “We’re very concerned about the impact of the legislation on small businesses. America’s job creators are struggling enough in this economy and don’t need additional burdens. Small business owners are not able to adjust the price of their goods and services quickly enough to match potentially steep energy cost increases without hurting their customer base. The Waxman-Markey bill would significantly raise energy-related costs and lead to considerable job losses.” Earlier this month, the NAM, in partnership with the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), released a study that assesses the impact the Waxman-Markey bill would have on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and the overall economy [See WIMS 8/13/09]. NAM said the bill would cause losses in GDP up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030); employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030; and increase residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030.

Throughout the month of August the API has been releasing state-specific information on what it calls "the devastating impact" of job losses and reduced household purchasing power if ACES were implemented. The information is results from an API-commissioned analysis by CRA International. Information release thus far includes the states of TX, NM, NC, OH, TN, IN, CO,MO, FL, ND, AK, ND, and SC.

On August 24, API release information from another analysis by global consulting firm EnSys Energy of the impact of ACES on the U.S. refining sector which they say indicates "that investment in U.S. refining capacity could plummet because the cost of doing business could soar." API said the study shows that the "United States will be more dependent on imports of gasoline and other petroleum fuels while U.S. refining production would be shifted overseas" if ACES becomes law.

API and many other business organizations are funding a nationwide coalition effort called "Energy Citizens" which says it is "voicing their concerns about the impact climate legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would have on American jobs, families and businesses." Also, the U.S. Chamber has organized, The Alliance for Clear Climate Economics and Science Solutions (ACCESS) "to ensure that any regulation of greenhouse gases using existing environmental laws not harm the economy and American jobs."

On August 15, the U.S. Chamber announced that it was requesting that EPA conduct a formal on-the-record hearing on the evidence underlying its so-called "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 4/27/09]. The Chamber said, "EPA wants to use the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions from cars. Before it can do this, EPA must first find, as a matter of law, that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles endanger U.S. public health and welfare. Because EPA has proposed that man-made greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to rising global temperatures, to make the endangerment finding EPA must now establish that the rising temperatures threaten public health and welfare—that is their burden of proof. EPA is, by all accounts, on the verge of answering this question in the affirmative. We don’t think the evidence EPA set forth meets the legal criteria to support such a finding, and we think a judge would agree with us."

Meanwhile, on August 28, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today underscored the need for countries to "seal the deal" at the COP 15 climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. Ban said, “We have about three months until the [Conference] -- three months to reach an agreement that will determine the future of our planet.” The UN has launched "Global Climate Week" from September 21 to 25. Events are planned in more than 120 countries for this first Global Climate Week, which coincides with the summit on climate change, convened by Ban on September 22, in New York.

In an effort that attempts to counter the business groups' activity, Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection's (ACP) Repower America campaign, in partnership with the Blue Green Alliance and its labor and environmental partners, have embarked on a nationwide "Made in America Jobs" tour, highlighting the benefits to American workers and businesses of transitioning to a clean energy economy that will create millions of jobs. Maggie Fox, President and CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection said, "The Alliance for Climate Protection and the Blue Green Alliance are crossing the country to show Americans -- through tours of clean energy businesses, conversations with workers making the parts that harness clean energy and rallies with local residents -- that the benefits of transitioning to a clean energy economy are available today through good-paying jobs which are giving new meaning to the term Made in America."

The Blue Green Alliance Launched by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club in 2006, now includes the Natural Resources Defense Council, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees International Union, Laborers' International Union of North America, Utility Workers Union of America and American Federation of Teachers. An article in today's [August 31] Washington Post suggests that environmental and labor groups may be losing the campaign delivering a much more subtle message and being far out-spent by the business groups (See links below).

Access a release from NAM (click here). Access links to individual state releases and reports from API (click here). Access a release and link to the API EnSys Energy study (click here). Access the Energy Citizens website and list of participating organizations (click here). Access the ACCESS website (click here). Access blog comments from the Chamber on its petition to EPA (click here). Access more Chamber comments and link to the complete 23-page petition (click here). Access the EPA docket on CO2 regulation EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 (click here). Access a release from UN and link to further information (click here). Access a release from UNEP on the Climate Week initiative with links to additional information (click here). Access the Made In America tour schedule and information (click here). Access the Blue Green Alliance website (click here). Access the ACP website (click here). Access the Washington Post article (click here).

Climate Chief Reports “Limited Progress” On UNFCCC Talks

Subscribers & Readers Note: WIMS will be on break for the next two weeks. We'll be back on Monday, August 31, 2009. Have a safe and enjoyable end of summer.




Aug 14: Following earlier more positive reports [See WIMS 8/13/09], at a sobering press briefing, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reported that only “limited progress” was made at the most recent, week-long climate change talks in Bonn, Germany. The international negotiations are expected to culminate in December in Copenhagen with a new pact on slashing greenhouse gas emissions that will replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period ends in 2012.

In an end of meeting press briefing de Boer stressed that "a climate deal in Copenhagen this year is an unequivocal requirement to stop climate change from slipping out of control." However, de Boer went so far as to say that, "while selective progress had been made to consolidate the huge texts on the table, at this rate, we will not make it.” With only two more conferences, totaling 15 days, scheduled before the start of the critical COP 15 meeting, he said, “negotiations will need to considerably pick up speed for the world to achieve a successful result at Copenhagen.” The next informal meetings, prior to Copenhagen, are scheduled for Bangkok from September 28 to October 9, and Barcelona from November 2 to 6.

De Boer indicated that some accomplishments were made in the areas of adaptation, technology and capacity building, however, other issues such as how mid-term (2020) emission reduction pledges of industrialized countries could be translated into legally binding targets as a key component of the Copenhagen deal continue to be more difficult. He said, "Industrialized countries need to show a greater level of ambition in agreeing to meaningful mid-term emission reduction targets. The present level of ambition can be raised domestically and by making use of international cooperation. We also need a clear indication of the finance and technology industrialized countries are ready to provide to help developing countries green their economic growth and adapt to the impacts of climate change."

He continued, saying, "In the context of the G8 and Major Economies Forum, I see a group of countries considering actions that would allow them to profit from the boom in clean technology. The question is how all nations can profit from this development. Poorer countries risk being left by the wayside without access to technology and finance. International cooperation needs to provide them with the means to enable them to green their economies and to adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. In order for that support to be financed, I believe that countries need to be more specific about what they want supported and how."

In addition to the two informal work meeting mentioned above, a major opportunity for all Heads of State and governments of the world to provide clear political guidance to negotiators ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will be the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Change Summit for world leaders September 22 in New York. The New York meeting will assemble Heads of State and Government from all 192 Parties to the UNFCCC.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has prepared a useful 77-page tabulated summary of the various country/Party submissions for consideration that have been made from August 2008 through August 2009. Section I contains submissions as they relate to measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) support and actions; Section II contains submissions related to shared vision; Section III contains the legal aspects of proposals for an agreed outcome; Section IV contains submissions on finance; and Section V summarizes submissions on technology. WRI indicates that the table summaries represent WRI’s interpretation of a selection of Party submissions, and do not necessarily reflect the complete views of the Parties.

Access a closing release on the UNFCCC meeting (click here). Access a webcast of the de Boer closing press briefing (click here). Access complete information on the current meetings and on-demand webcasts (click here). Access the UNFCCC website for more information (click here). Access details of five proposals by Parties for a protocol to the Convention (click here), including a draft 23-page implementing agreement from the U.S. (click here); and twelve proposals by Parties for amendment to the Kyoto Protocol (click here). Access the complete WRI summary of submissions (click here).

NAM Says ACES Is "Anti-Jobs, Anti-Growth" Legislation

Aug 12: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) unveiled a comprehensive study on the impact of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 2454, or ACES). The legislation calls for a cap and trade program and other provisions governing fuel choices available to businesses and consumers. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a slim margin (219-212) [See WIMS 6/26/09] and the Senate is expected to release its version of climate legislation in September.

The study, which was commissioned by NAM and ACCF and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) using NAM and ACCF input assumptions, assesses the impact of the Waxman-Markey Bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and our overall economy. The NAM and ACCF released national data as well as the analysis for 15 industrial states that would be impacted greatly if this or similar legislation is signed into law. NAM said the full report, including the data covering the remaining 35 states will be released in the coming weeks.

The NAM/ACCF study is in addition to other recent studies on the economic impacts of climate legislation. On August 4, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report -- Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454 [See WIMS 8/5/09]. On June 22, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis of the potential effects on households of the cap-and-trade program that would be implemented pursuant to H.R. 2454 [See WIMS 6/23/09]. Also, on June 23, U.S. EPA released a new 53-page report with a 107-page appendix entitled, EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security [ACES] Act of 2009 H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress [See WIMS 6/24/09].

Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the NAM said, “Climate change is a very complex issue and I hope Senators will look closely at this study as they consider climate change legislation this fall. At a time when our country is struggling to come out of our longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, lawmakers should be focused on policies that provide incentives for businesses so they can create jobs and grow. Unfortunately, this study confirms that the Waxman-Markey Bill is an ‘anti-jobs, anti-growth’ piece of legislation. Further, leaders of countries such as China and India have made it clear they have no intention of reducing their own emissions. Waxman-Markey would give an edge to overseas competitors, discouraging domestic investment and the creation of American jobs.”

According to a release from NAM, the NAM/ACCF study accounts for all Federal energy laws and regulations currently in effect. It accounts for increased access to oil and natural gas supplies, new and extended tax credits for renewable generation technologies, increased World Oil Price (WOP) profile, as well as permit allocations for industry and international offsets. Additionally, the provisions of the stimulus package passed in February are included in this study.
Key findings of the NAM/ACCF study include: Cumulative Loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030); Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030; Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030; and Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030.

Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist for ACCF said, “This data shows that we cannot divorce the environmental impacts from potential economic damages. Policymakers may have the best of intentions when it comes to the environment, but it’s crucial that we compare the economic cost to the legislation’s actual impact on global GHG reductions. Considering that developing countries such as China and India have publicly stated that they will not undertake similar emissions policies, there would be almost no global environmental benefits from the bill. Ultimately, this study shows that Waxman-Markey, would significantly decrease employment and increase energy prices at a time when we can least afford it.”

The study also indicates that industrial states would be "disproportionately impacted by high energy prices, loss of jobs and income." The 15 states analyzed in the initial study include: AR; IL, IN; IA; KY; MI; MN; MO; NC; OH; PA; TN; VA; WV; AND WI. SAIC used a modified version of the National Energy Modeling System, NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2, and the NAM and ACCF input assumptions, to quantify the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.

In advance of the NAM/ACCF study, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a release providing links to several contradictory studies. EDF said, "NAM/ACCF's study from last year, which was seriously flawed. It looked at the earlier Lieberman-Warner bill, but it ignored important provisions of the legislation and imposed artificial constraints on the economy's ability to reduce emissions."

Access a release from NAM (click here). Access links to the national and 15 state-by-state economic impacts as well as a PowerPoint presentation and executive summary and more (click here). Access a release from EDF with links to additional studies (click here). Access EPA's website for various climate change legislation economic analyses (click here).

Article: Bringing The Peak Oil Debate Into Focus

Aug 10: The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review has published a 16-page article entitled, "The Peak Oil Debate." According to an overview of the article, for the past half-century, a debate has raged over when "peak oil" will occur -- the point at which output can no longer increase and production begins to level off or gradually decline. Determining how long the oil supply will last has become even more pressing because the world’s energy supply still relies heavily on oil, and global energy demand is expected to rise steeply over the next twenty years.

The article seeks to bring the peak oil debate into focus. The author notes that a number of factors cloud the energy outlook: Estimates of remaining resources are typically given as a range of probabilities and are thus open to interpretation. Variations also occur in estimates of future oil production and in the ways countries report their reserve data. The lack of a common definitional framework also confuses the debate. The author provides definitions of frequently used terms, delineating types of reserves and conventional versus nonconventional resources. The article also discusses how technological innovations, government policies, and prices influence oil production.

The article concludes, ". . .regardless of the exact timing of peak oil production -- be it this year or fi fty years down the road --
the world faces the challenge of adapting to a new model of energy supply. Although the peak oil literature tends to concentrate heavily on the scenarios of peaking world oil production, the true underlying issue is a fear that the transition from conventional oil to substitutes will be expensive and chaotic, leaving insuffi cient time for supply substitution and adaptation.

"This adaptation process -- which involves using more renewable resources and conservation and developing new technology and processes to better access hydrocarbon deposits and more effi ciently extract and refi ne nonconventional sources -- has already begun. But the road to the future energy balance -- one with dwindling amounts of conventional oil -- is far from mapped out.

"It is possible that the world’s vast endowments of hydrocarbon resources will be heavily relied upon to answer this growing call for substitutes for the conventional oil supply. However, there is also potential for an energy future largely diversified away from hydrocarbon use. Most likely, future energy sources will be a combination of the two. Perhaps the peak oil literature would better serve society by being more solution-oriented, focusing on discovering the best way to transition to a world with less conventional oil rather than locking horns about discrepancies in terminology."

Access the complete article (click here).

Moderate Democratic Senators Will Shape Climate Legislation

Aug 7: Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and nine of his Senate Democratic colleagues wrote to President Barack Obama on Thursday (August 6) to outline the need to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing in any climate change legislation to come before the Senate in the fall. The Senators expressed their support for a border adjustment mechanism and other initiatives that would ensure the future competiveness of U.S. manufacturing. The letter was signed by Bayh and Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Russell D. Feingold (D-WI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Robert P. Casey (D-PA), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Arlen Specter (D-PA), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Al Franken (D-MN).

As WIMS has previously noted on Mar 18, 2009, a group of 15 Senators -- 14 "moderate" Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced they were forming a coalition to help shape public policy that will have a major impact on pending proposals for environmental, energy and climate change legislation [See WIMS 3/19/09]. The original Group of 15, including some strong supporters of President Obama lead by Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper (D-DE) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); and also included Mark Udall (D-CO); Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK); Kay Hagan (D-NC); Herb Kohl (D-WI); Mary Landrieu (D-LA); Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Bill Nelson (D-FL); Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); and Mark Warner (D-VA). Comparing the original group of 15, with the new coalition of 10 Senators, it now appears that the "moderate" group has become much larger and will have an even greater influence on any energy and climate change legislation.

In the August 6 letter the senators wrote, “As Congress considers energy and climate legislation, it is important that such a bill include provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing. We must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them. Domestic manufacturers and the workers they employ can and must play a vital role in our nation’s clean energy future.”

The Senators also outlined initiatives to ensure manufacturers are not disproportionately affected by climate change legislation. They said, “Any climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United States. It is essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism, sufficient allowances to energy intensive industries and other effective measures that encourage international agreements and maintain a level playing field for American manufacturers.”

Access a release from Senator Bayh (click here). Access the Aug. 6 letter from the Senators (click here). Access a revealing March 2009 "Hardball" interview with Senator Evan Bayh (click here).

$2 Billion Clunkers Funding Approved; Only 6 GOP Votes

Aug 6: Although the Car Allowance Rebate Systems (CARS) or “Cash for Clunkers” program has been overwhelmingly popular with consumers, it was able to secure additional funding with the help of just six Senate Republicans [See WIMS 8/3/09]. The funding authorization bill, H.R. 3435, a supplemental appropriations for FY 2009, that passed the House 316-109 last week (incl. 77 Republicans), passed the Senate with 60 votes, including only six Republican votes. Republican Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Christopher Bond (R-MO), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and George Voinovich (R-OH) voted for additional funding that is expected to carry the program through the Congressional summer recess. Because no amendments were approved, the bill has been sent to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released a statement saying, “Cash for Clunkers is an extraordinarily popular program that is a good example of a public-private partnership where both consumers and business win, and one that contributes to Americans’ confidence in our continuing economic recovery. This program gives a much needed jolt to our economy and our manufacturers at a critical time. Retiring and recycling older, less efficient cars and trucks and replacing them with higher fuel economy models reduces oil consumption and air pollution. Beyond helping our domestic auto industry, this program will stimulate other sectors of the auto supply chain like mechanics and auto parts manufacturers.”

Senator Snowe issued a statement saying, “I believe it is unfortunate that we hastily approved this program in the first place. This rush explains the difficulties experienced by our dealers in Maine; hour-long waits to approve a single transaction, the consistent crashing of government websites, and a lack of clarity in terms of how much money has been spent. Yet, our auto dealers are fronting the cost of this program, and are participating in good faith with the expectation they will be reimbursed; Congress cannot afford to let them down.”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said, "This program obviously stimulates the economy, and the money to pay for it comes from the earlier stimulus bill that isn’t working. It is especially important in Tennessee where one out of every three manufacturing jobs is auto-related. I strongly oppose any effort now or in the future to pay for ‘cash for clunkers’ by adding to the debt.”

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) delivered a statement on the Senate floor just prior to the vote saying, "Rarely has this body passed legislation that has so clearly and quickly met our goals than when it approved the first installment of money for this program earlier this summer. The program offered rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 for consumers who traded in old, inefficient vehicles for new cars or trucks with higher mileage. Thousands of consumers who hoped to take advantage now wonder if they will have the opportunity. . . The impact has been so striking that one private economist has raised his estimate for economic growth in the third quarter of this year by more than 50 percent, based solely on the success of 'cash for clunkers.'

"This program accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. In just a few days, a quarter of a million Americans traded in their old car for a new model using the credits available from this program. That’s a quarter of a million American families that more fuel-efficient transportation; a quarter of a million transactions that will pump new money into local economies; and an incalculable boost to this nation’s struggling auto industry. . ."

Senator Levin reminded members that while some amendments may be "well intentioned. . . any amendment that is adopted here would be the death knell for this program. It would have to end immediately because of the uncertainty over whether any funds remain."

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), one of four Democrats to vote against the bill, posted her rationale in advance of the vote saying, "Of course the cash for clunkers program is popular, we’re giving away money. My concerns are first, that we are just moving demand around, and that the sales in this program are robbing sales from 2, 3, or 12 months from now when we are going to still need sustained growth in our economy. Remember, around 60,000 to 70,000 people are trading their cars in for new ones every month without this program. Second, I haven’t yet gotten clear answers on how many deals are currently in the pipeline and how they will wind this program down in a way that will give certainty to buyers and dealers. Third, I’m worried that an extension right now will penalize the two companies that we just made huge taxpayer investments in. I’m trying to verify, but I believe, based on my conversations with dealers and other research, that Chrysler and GM both have inventory issues with the cars that qualify for this program. . ."

Access the Senate roll call vote on H.R. 3435 (click here). Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the statement from Senator Snowe (click here). Access the statement from Senator Alexander (click here). Access the floor statement from Senator Levin (click here). Access a release from Senator McCaskill explaining her no vote on August 4 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 3435 (click here). Access the CARS website for additional information (click here).

Bipartisan Center Report On Science In Federal Regulation

Aug 5: A bipartisan panel of top scientific and regulatory experts released recommendations calling on the White House and Federal agencies to make specific changes in the regulatory process to clearly distinguish scientific questions from policy disputes. The report comes from the Science for Policy Project (SPP), a project of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). BPC is a non-profit organization that was established in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell to provide a forum where tough policy challenges can be addressed in a pragmatic and politically viable manner.

The SPP is co-chaired by former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), past chair of the House Science Committee, and Donald Kennedy, former editor of Science; and eleven other ideologically diverse members from business, academia, government and non-profits. Boehlert said, "The fundamental theme of the report is that the Administration needs to put in place procedures to try to distinguish science questions from policy questions. Often, policy disputes are cast as fights over science. This damages the credibility of science and obscures the real issues that ought to be debated. For example, how much risk a substance poses to human health or the environment is a science question; how much risk is acceptable is a policy question."

The report recommends requiring new information when regulations are proposed by agencies such as U.S. EPA and the FDA, and enhancing the credibility of Federal advisory committees to ensure the integrity of science in regulatory policymaking. Many of these recommendations are relevant to the White House and Federal agency effort to implement President Obama's March 9, 2009 Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity [See WIMS 3/10/09]. An interim version of the SPP report was released in March, and the White House has reviewed that report as part of its work to issue guidelines on scientific integrity and regulatory reform, which are expected soon. The report's recommendations include:

• Clarity regarding key science questions needed to write specific regulations. Federal Register notices for proposed regulations should make clear what science questions and what policy questions needed to be answered to formulate the regulation and what science was most influential in drafting the regulation. The notices might also make clear what additional science would help resolve remaining questions and might offer policy alternatives that are consistent with the science.
  
• Greater focus on science in advisory committees. Federal agencies should empanel scientific advisory committees – committees that are composed solely of members with relevant scientific expertise – to address science questions relevant to policy, and those panels should not make policy recommendations. Members of such committees should be Special Government Employees, a category that makes them subject to conflict of interest and other ethics rules.
  
• Greater transparency in committee appointment process. The process for appointing committees should be more transparent, with agencies taking steps including seeking names through the Web and asking for comments on proposed individuals on the Web.
  
• More disclosure by committee members. Members of scientific advisory committees should be required to disclose to the government and to the public far more information on their backgrounds than is currently the case so the government and the public can evaluate their qualifications and determine whether their service raises any concern about conflicts of interest or bias.
  
• Clearer conflict of interest rules. The government should set clear rules about what constitutes a conflict of interest for a member of a scientific advisory committee. The government should distinguish clearly between conflict of interest and bias.
  
• Greater transparency in committee selection might allow a limited number of closed committee meetings. If procedures are put in place to make the selection of advisory committee members more transparent, then the government could consider allowing scientific advisory committees to have a limited number of closed meetings under specific circumstances.
  
• Transparency in the use of scientific literature. The process agencies and scientific advisory committees use to review the scientific literature should become more transparent and thorough. In general, papers that have not been peer reviewed should be treated with skepticism, but they should not be automatically excluded.
  
• Legitimate use of Confidential Business Information. The Confidential Business Information designation, which limits public access to information, is legitimate but appears to be overused.
  
• Greater participation in, and improved quality of peer review. Federal agencies, universities and scientific journals need to experiment with ways to encourage more scientists to act as peer reviewers and to experiment with different peer review procedures to see what will improve the quality of reviews.

The Science for Policy Project is funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and ExxonMobil Foundation. The project was directed by David Goldston, the former chief of staff of the House Science Committee.

Access a release from BPC (click here). Access the complete 47-page report (click here). Access the BPC website for more information (click here).

EIA Report On ACES Market and Economic Impacts

Aug 4: The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report -- Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 -- prepared at the request of House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) for an analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). EIA indicates ACES, which narrowly passed the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, is a complex bill that regulates emissions of greenhouse gases through market-based mechanisms, efficiency programs, and economic incentives [See WIMS 6/26/09].

EIA says the cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which covers roughly 84 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions by 2016, is in many respects the centerpiece of the bill and the primary driver of the results presented in this report. The program subjects covered emissions to a cap that declines steadily between 2012 and 2050. The cap requires a 17- percent reduction in covered emissions by 2020 and an 83-percent reduction by 2050, both relative to a 2005 baseline. The cumulative GHG emissions covered by the Title III cap-and-trade program over the 2012 to 2030 period are estimated to be 113.4 billion metric tons (BMT) in CO2-equivalent terms.

EIA lists the key provisions of ACES that are represented in the policy cases developed in this analysis include: the GHG cap-and-trade program for gases other than HFCs, including provisions for the allocation of allowances to electricity and natural gas distribution utilities, low-income consumers, State efficiency programs, rebate programs, energy-intensive industries, and other specified purposes; the combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard for electricity sellers; the carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration and early deployment program; Federal building code updates for both residential and commercial buildings; Federal efficiency standards for lighting and other appliances; technology improvements driven by the Centers for Energy and Environmental Knowledge and Outreach; and the smart grid peak savings program.

EIA prepared a range of analysis cases for the report. The six main analysis cases discussed in the Executive Summary, while not exhaustive, focus on two key areas of uncertainty that impact the analysis results: The role of offsets is a large area of uncertainty in any analysis of ACES; and the other major area of uncertainty in assessing the energy system and economic impacts of ACES involves the timing, cost, and public acceptance of low- and no-carbon technologies. Several key findings include:

• Given the potential of offsets as a low-cost compliance option, the amount of reduction in covered emissions is exceeded by the amount of compliance generated through offsets in most of the main analysis cases. Cumulative compliance between 2012 and 2030, including reductions both in domestic emissions of covered gases and in domestic and international offsets, ranges from 24.4 BMT to 37.6 BMT carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions in the main analysis cases, representing a 21-percent to 33-percent reduction from the level of cumulative covered emissions projected in the Reference Case.
• The vast majority of reductions in energy-related emissions are expected to occur in the electric power sector. Across the ACES main cases, the electricity sector accounts for between 80 percent and 88 percent of the total reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions relative to the Reference Case in 2030.
• If new nuclear, renewable, and fossil plants with CCS are not developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with emissions reduction requirements under ACES, covered entities are expected to respond by increasing their use of offsets, if available, and by turning to increased natural gas use to offset reductions in coal generation.
• Emissions reductions from changes in fossil fuel use in the residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors are small relative to those in the electric power sector. Taken together, changes in fossil fuel use in these sectors account for between 12 percent and 20 percent of the total reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions relative to the Reference Case in 2030.
• GHG allowance prices are sensitive to the cost and availability of emissions offsets and low-and no-carbon generating technologies. Allowance prices in the ACES Basic Case are projected at $32 per metric ton in 2020 and $65 per metric ton in 2030. Across all main analysis cases, allowance prices range from $20 to $93 per metric ton in 2020 and from $41 to $191 (2007 dollars) per metric ton in 2030 (Figure ES-3). The lower prices in the range occur in cases where technological options such as CCS and adoption of new nuclear power plants can be deployed on a large scale before 2030 at relatively low costs.
• ACES increases energy prices, but effects on electricity and natural gas bills of consumers are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies. Except for the ACES No International/Limited Case, electricity prices in five of the six main ACES cases range from 9.5 to 9.6 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2020, only 3 to 4 percent above the Reference Case level. Average impacts on electricity prices in 2030 are projected to be substantially greater, reflecting both higher allowance prices and the phase-out of the free allocation of allowances to distributors between 2025 and 2030. By 2030, electricity prices in the ACES Basic Case are 12.0 cents per kilowatt-hour, 19 percent above the Reference Case level, with a wider band of 11.1 cents to 17.8 cents (10 to 77 percent above the Reference Case level) across all six main policy cases.

ACES increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls relative to the Reference Case. Total discounted GDP losses over the 2012 to 2030 time period are $566 billion (-0.3 percent) in the ACES Basic Case, with a range from $432 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,897 billion (-0.9 percent) across the main ACES cases.

Consumption and energy bill impacts can also be expressed on a per household basis in particular years. In 2020, the reduction in household consumption is $114 (2007 dollars) in the ACES Basic Case, with a range of $26 to $308 across all main ACES cases. In 2030, household consumption is reduced by $288 in the ACES Basic Case, with a range of $133 to $722 per household across all main ACES cases.

The report notes that the modeling horizon for this analysis ends in 2030. Unless substantial progress is made in identifying low- and no-carbon technologies outside of electricity generation, the ACES emissions targets for the 2030-to-2050 period are likely to be very challenging as opportunities for further reductions in power sector emissions are exhausted and reductions in other sectors are thought to be more expensive.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a release say the EIA report indicates that "for $83 per year per household – or a dime a day per person we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil." EDF indicated that the EIA analysis "has similar findings to two other impartial and substantive studies done recently, from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office." EDF said, "This analysis confirms what every other credible study has found, and it -- once again -- refutes the widely reported scare tactics about the cost of the cap and trade bill. Opponents of action will always try to cherry-pick the numbers and use models with biased assumptions. The EPA, EIA and CBO are the non-biased standard for economic analysis."

Access the complete report or individual sections as well as spreadsheets and appendices (click here). Access the EDF release (click here).