Enhanced Oil Recovery Could Cut Imports By 40%+

Mar 10: A new analysis by Advanced Resources International (ARI), a research and consulting firm providing services related to unconventional gas and carbon sequestration, indicates that the U.S. has a significant opportunity to increase its energy independence, slash foreign oil imports by as much as half by 2030, and cut carbon emissions through a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) with carbon capture and storage (CCS). ARI says that EOR with CCS would help drive domestic economic growth and increase U.S. oil reserves. Clean energy and climate legislation that is being considered in the U.S. Congress is projected to lead to large volumes of captured CO2 from power plants and other industrial sites, sufficient to fully develop oil recovery potential in existing U.S. oil fields.

    In a release from ARI, Tracy Evans, President of Denbury Resources Inc., a leader in CO2-enhanced oil recovery in the Southeast and Northwest said, "Using CO2 to enhance oil recovery is neither a new nor an exotic technology. There is no doubt that a large market exists for CO2 emissions captured from industrial sources and power plants for expanding domestic oil production. The single largest deterrent to expanding production from CO2-EOR today is the lack of large volumes of reliable and affordable CO2."

    The report finds that carbon capture stimulated by Federal clean energy and climate legislation could boost U.S. oil production between 3 to 3.6 million barrels per day, cutting imports of crude oil up to 40 percent compared to today's levels and up to 52 percent by 2030 (based on 2009 figures), depending on how much of the captured CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery purposes. The release indicates that the CO2-enhanced domestic oil production "would help keep more than $700 billion in the U.S. economy, employing tens of thousands American workers, while increasing state and Federal revenues between $190 and $210 billion."

    In addition, the report shows that the U.S. can significantly cut and sequester carbon emissions by up to 530 million tons per year by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 88 million cars off the road. Jon Powers, CEO of the Truman National Security Project and an Iraq War veteran said, "For too long our nation's energy policies have kept us tied to unfriendly countries in the Middle East and elsewhere that weakens our national security and puts our troops in harm's way. Using carbon emissions to boost domestic oil production can be an important step in dramatically increasing our energy independence, while simultaneously cutting the pollution that also threatens our climate."

    The clean energy and climate legislation that is pending in Congress would help to stimulate and support rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage in power generation and other industrial facilities that emit significant volumes of carbon dioxide. The report indicates that the states that would benefit the most from CO2-EOR include: Arkansas, California, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming.

    Mike Godec, ARI Vice President said, "This is an important piece of the puzzle for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and cutting carbon emissions. With the right policies and investment in demonstrating EOR technologies, captured CO2 could be productively used to produce more domestic oil from existing oil fields. These are benefits that should appeal to a broad range of politicians and business leaders - not to mention the general public that wants greater national security and more energy independence."

    Access a release from ARI with links to additional information (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the complete 56-page report (click here). Access the ARI website for additional information (click here).

2,000+ U.S. Scientists & Economists Urge Action On Climate Bill

Mar 11: Nobel Prize-winning economists and scientists delivered a letter to the U.S. Senate urging lawmakers to require immediate cuts in global warming emissions. The letter was signed by more than 2,000 prominent U.S. economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, 32 National Academy of Sciences members, 11 MacArthur "genius award" winners, and three National Medal of Science recipients. 

    James McCarthy, one of the letter's organizers and a biological oceanography professor at Harvard University said, "The nation's leading scientists and economists have joined together to tell policymakers we agree about the urgency of addressing climate change now. The bad news is the science of climate change is indisputable. The good news is we can cost-effectively cut the emissions that are causing it." McCarthy is a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) board, and a leader of the Nobel Peace Prize winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The letter states, "We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e., prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate. . .

 

    "The longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be to limit climate change and to adapt to those impacts that will not be avoided. Many emissions reduction strategies can be adopted today that would save consumers and industry money while providing benefits for air quality, energy security, public health, balance of trade, and employment. . .

 

    "A strong U.S. commitment to reduce emissions is essential to drive international climate progress. Voluntary initiatives to date have proven insufficient. We urge U.S. policy makers to put our nation onto a path today to reduce emissions on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The first step on this path should be reductions on the order of 15-20 percent below 2000

levels by 2020, which is achievable and consistent with sound economic policy. There is no time to waste. The most risky thing we can do is nothing."

 

    According to a release, the letter was issued "partly as a response to escalating attacks on climate science and disinformation about the costs of addressing global warming." Elinor Ostrom, an Indiana University professor and a Nobel Prize-winner in economics said, "In the economic emergency we are experiencing, some people think that we cannot afford to address the problem of climate change. It's the other way around. If we don't act now, we will run into even greater economic problems in the future."

 

    Access a release and link to the complete letter and signers (click here).

Competing, Confusing Electronics Recycling Certification Programs

Mar 9: A release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored electronic recycling certification program does not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 2/11/10]. Both programs are just now getting underway and are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    U.S. EPA's release indicates that through "a brand new electronics recycling certification program," the Agency "is taking steps to ensure that electronics recyclers adhere to highly protective standards for workers and the environment in processing pre-owned electronics. This new certification process also means that recycled materials will not be shipped overseas without the consent of the designated country."

    According to EPA only "three companies nationwide have received this new designation – called Responsible Recycling [R2] Practices Certification. The first, and only certified recycler in the mid-Atlantic region is E-structors, Inc. of Elkridge, Md." TechTurn of Austin, Texas, and Waste Management of Minnesota were also certified as electronic recycling firms.

    EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin said, "This new e-cycling certification program will take the guesswork out of choosing a responsible recycler. Recycling is an important tool in our arsenal and we need to make sure it's done correctly to prevent environmental harm and ensure the safe re-use of materials. We strongly encourage other electronic recyclers to obtain the certification to ensure that public health and the environment receive the highest protection available."

    In its release EPA indicates that, "The protocols required of certified recyclers help to reduce energy and natural resource consumption, greenhouse gases and hazardous waste. Recyclers are not permitted to burn or landfill certain materials. If electronics are going to be sold for reuse, the recycler must show that all personal data has been cleared or destroyed, that the equipment has been tested and is in working condition, and that the equipment is packaged properly. A recycler must exercise due diligence to ensure appropriate management of the materials throughout the recycling chain, whether domestic or international."

    EPA says that "To apply for certification, electronics recyclers should contact either SGS or Perry Johnson Registrars to receive certification, provided they meet the rigorous certification standards. Both SGS and Perry Johnson Registrars are leading inspection, verification, testing and certification companies. As accredited certifying bodies for certification, SGS and Perry Johnson Registrars are required to list companies they have certified on their respective websites."

 

    However, the EPA release fails to mention or acknowledge the competing new e-Stewards Certification and Standard from the Basel Action Network (BAN) -- a certification program for electronics recycling created jointly by the environmental community and business leaders. In February, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced its endorsement of the e-Stewards program which it called "the first-ever certification program for electronics recycling." NRDC Senior Scientist Dr. Allen Hershkowitz said, "This initiative is sorely needed. Many e-waste recyclers claim to be green, but in reality they rely on unsafe and ecologically damaging methods like dumping millions of tons of toxic waste each year in China, India and Africa. E-Stewards provide businesses and consumers with a first-of-a-kind seal to identify the truly responsible recyclers."

 

    When it announced its support for the e-Stewards program, NRDC pointed out that, "In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report roundly criticizing the US EPA for not doing more to promulgate and enforce rules to control the e-waste trade. Unfortunately, to date little has changed and a market-based solution is seen as more necessary than ever."

 

    The e-Steward Certification is a fully accredited certification that relies on independent, third-party auditors to verify safe and ethical e-waste disposal. It is awarded to companies that recycle electronics without using practices that far too many in U.S. electronics recycling industry rely upon -- the use of municipal landfills and incinerators, the export to developing countries, or U.S. prison labor for disposing of toxic old electronics. While the EPA sponsored program lists only three certified recyclers, the eSteward program indicates that there are about 50 North American recyclers that are considered "Pledged e-Stewards" which have been vetted by BAN and are licensed and committed to becoming certified in the next 18 months. These companies include some of the largest electronics recyclers in North America.

 

    A February 17, 2010, editorial in Green Computing, critical of the EPA sponsored R2 program says, "R2 lacks the support of the environmental community and some of the most prominent electronics recyclers in the United States. In fact, a number of recyclers now pursuing e-Stewards Certification were once participants in the R2 development process and walked away when it became clear that the manufacturers' special interests would prevail over truly responsible recycling practices." An article in Plastics News describing differences between the two competing programs quotes Barb Kyle, national coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, who said her organization left the R2 discussions along with BAN and decided to help develop the e-Stewards standard. She said, "It was only too clear they were headed for a low bar."

 

    Access the release from EPA (click here). Access the Perry Johnson Registrars (click here).  Access SGS (click here). Access more information on EPA's Responsible Recycling program (click here).  Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the complete list of Pledged e-Stewards (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete information on certification and related information (click here). Access the BAN website for more information (click here). Access the Green Computing editorial (click here). Access the Plastics News article (click here).

Jackson Speaks at Press Club On Environment & Economy

Mar 7: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, delivered a speech to the National Press Club with the theme that what's good for the environment is good for the economy. Jackson said, "We've restored the rightful place of science as the first factor in all of our decisions; developed and implemented rules that will protect children, keep people healthy and save lives; and taken long-overdue action on climate change, including a revolutionary clean cars program built on the historic finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare.

    "On that last point, the overwhelming scientific evidence was recently met with arguments that Washington DC experienced an unprecedented blizzard and record snowfalls this winter -- as if an unexpected change in our climate somehow disproves climate change. Today I want to talk about a misconception that threatens to do more harm to our progress as a nation than the carping over climate science. And that's the misconception that we must make a choice between cleaning up our environment and growing our economy. . ."

 

    She said environmental protection "makes us healthier. It eliminates contributors to costly and often deadly diseases like asthma, cancer and heart disease. Second, environmental protection makes our communities more prosperous and our workforce more productive. . . These are two reasons why our environment is essential to our economy. But what I want to focus on today is the vital role environmentalism plays for a critical driver of our economic success: our capacity for innovation and invention."

 

    She indicated that, "Everyone wants a clean environment. 10 out of 10 Republicans want clean air to breathe. 10 out of 10 Democrats think safe water is important. Ask all 20 and they'd actually agree. As a Boston Globe editorial put it last week, even 'anti-government' protestors know it's 'no fun having a tea party with contaminated water.'"

 

    As one example, Jackson cited, "the phase out of ozone-depleting CFCs. CFCs were the chemicals in aerosol cans and other products that led to a growing hole in the ozone layer. I remember a lot of people wondering if they were going to have to give up their hairspray or their deodorant – and not being too happy about it. And they weren't the only ones. The chemical industry predicted severe economic disruption. Refrigeration companies forecasted shutdowns of supermarket coolers and chiller machines used to cool office buildings, hotels and hospitals. Companies that used CFCs in manufacturing believed the transition would be next to impossible. The doom-and-destruction never came to pass. Refrigerators and air conditioners stayed on.
When innovators took up the manufacturing challenge, they found alternatives that worked better than CFCs. Some developed new technology that cut costs while actually improving productivity and quality. . ."

 

    She said, "New environmental protections. New innovations. New jobs. This is the direction we are moving in 2010 . . . And of course, we will continue to face down our climate crisis and move into the clean energy future. As you might expect, we're running into the same old tired arguments. Once again industry and lobbyists are trying to convince us that changes will be absolutely impossible. Once again alarmists are claiming this will be the death knell of our economy. Once again they are telling us we have to choose: Economy? Or environment? Most drastically, we are seeing efforts to further delay EPA action to reduce greenhouse gases. This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change…despite the Supreme Court's 2007 decision that EPA must use the Clean Air Act to reduce the proven threat of greenhouse gases…and despite the fact that leaving this problem for our children to solve is an act of breathtaking negligence. . .

 

    ". . .the economic costs of unchecked climate change will be orders of magnitude higher for the next generation than it would be for us to take action today. . . 7 in 10 consumers say they will choose brands that are doing good things for people and the planet. 74 percent believe that our companies should do more to protect our planet. And more than half of Americans will look for environmentally friendly products in their next purchase. . . Industry can try to resist and ignore EPA, but I know – and they know – that they resist the forces of the green marketplace at their own peril. It's time to put to rest the notion that economic growth and environmental protection are incompatible. It's time to finally dismiss this false choice. . . I'm done with the false choice between the economy and the environment. I want an EPA that is a leader in innovations that protect our health and our environment and expand new opportunities. I'm not interested in leading an agency that only tells us what we can't do. I want to work together on all the things we can do.

 

    Access a release from EPA with excerpts, and link to the full speech and sound bites (click here).

 

Wind Turbine Guidelines Committee Complete 2-Year Effort

Mar 5: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar praised the work of the 22-member Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee, which reached consensus on a set of draft recommendations aimed at minimizing the impacts of land-based wind farms on wildlife and its habitat. Salazar said he will review the recommendations and take them under advisement as he asks the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop guidelines for evaluating wind energy development on public and private lands.

    He said, "Wind power is one of the keys to America's clean energy future, but its development must be balanced with the long-term protection of the natural resources under our management. I commend the committee for their two years of work developing these recommendations, which will help us ensure that wind energy is developed in a responsible manner." Highlights of the committee's recommendations include: A decision-making framework that guides all stages of wind energy development; Reliance on the best available science when assessing renewable energy projects and their potential environmental impact; and Use of landscape-scaled planning that recognizes the need to think long-term about protecting our nation's economic and natural resources.

    Michael Bean, Counselor to Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks said, "The Interior Department is creating a new energy frontier for America by harnessing the renewable energy potential of America's public lands while protecting wildlife. The Committee's recommendations will help us reach science-based decisions for future wind energy projects, while minimizing and mitigating local and regional impacts to wildlife." The draft report contains both policy recommendations and recommended voluntary guidelines for siting and operating wind energy projects in order to avoid or minimize potential impacts to wildlife and habitat.

 

    The Committee was created in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and represents varied interests associated with wind energy development as well as wildlife management professionals. The Committee does not address off-shore wind energy development. The Committee reports to DOI Secretary through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It functions solely as an advisory body, providing recommendations on effective measures to protect wildlife resources and coordinate the review and evaluation of facilities by state, tribal, local and federal agencies.

 

    Access a release from DOI (click here). Access the latest Committee 6.1 draft 122-page document (click here). Access the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee website for a list of committee members, their affiliations, and background information including a 23-page legal white paper (click here).  Access the FWS Wind Energy website for more information (click here).

Key House & Senate Dems Push To Halt EPA Climate Regulations

Mar 4: In what has to be interpreted as a Democratic pushback and a setback for the Obama Administration's climate change legislative and regulatory agenda, key legislators from the Senate and House have introduced legislation to suspend potential U.S. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) from stationary sources for two years. In the Senate, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation introduced S. 3072. In the House, Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources introduced the companion legislation (H.R. 4753) along with cosponsors Representatives Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Rick Boucher (D-VA).

    In a release from Senator Rockefeller he said, "Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology. This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources -- giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue."

    Senator Rockefeller said further, "Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA's potential regulation of greenhouse gases [See WIMS 2/23/10]. Administrator Jackson responded quickly and showed some willingness to move the agency's timetable for regulation to the end of 2010. This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time. We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need.  At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency." 

    Although Senator Rockefeller's bill did not have any original cosponsors, it's important to note that he was joined by Senate Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Sherrod Brown (OH), Carl Levin (MI), Bob Casey Jr. (PA), Robert Byrd (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Max Baucus (MT) in the letter to Administrator Jackson. That letter said, "We write with serious economic and energy concerns relating to the potential regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. Ill-time or imprudent regulation of GHGs may squander critical opportunities for our nation, impeding the investment necessary to create jobs and position our nation to develop and produce its own clean energy. We strongly believe this is ultimately Congress' responsibility, and if done properly, will create jobs, spur new clean energy industries, and greatly advance the goal of U.S. energy independence. If done improperly, these opportunities could be lost."

    Representative Rahall and his cosponsors issued even stronger statements. Rahall said, "I am dead-set against the EPA's plowing ahead on its own with new regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. This is reasonable and responsible legislation that will protect a vital industry -- coal -- and essential jobs for West Virginia and the Nation." Mollohan said, "EPA must be stopped from moving further down this very dangerous road -- one that would throw West Virginians out of work and increase energy prices for all Americans. Climate change will remain deeply controversial, but our approach is the only one that has a chance of bringing all sides together to stop what most everyone agrees is a very bad idea -- EPA pushing ahead with its own regulations." Boucher said, "EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would be the worst outcome for the coal industry and coal related jobs. Our bill is a responsible, achievable approach which prevents the EPA from enacting regulations that would harm coal and gives Congress time to establish a balanced program."

   

    In background information included with Senator Rockefeller's release he indicates that, "The bill will give Congress the time it needs to design and pass well thought-out legislation. Comprehensive energy legislation should be crafted with a combination of certainty and incentives to create the right business atmosphere for coal's continued use well into the 21st century. In order to give businesses, energy company CEOs, and investors a reason to invest in technology, they need to know there will be a market for that technology and some level of comfort around the certainty of future environmental regulations. 

    In April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that EPA must make a determination (i.e. "endangerment finding") when it comes to regulating motor vehicle emissions. On December 15, 2009, EPA published its final rule in the Federal Register, stating: "The Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare." The Supreme Court ruling gives the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Senator Rockefeller indicated that, "If Congress wants to change or alter that authority -- or suspend it long enough to pass comprehensive legislation -- Congress must be able to pass a bill that addresses the real life economic impacts that EPA is not equipped to consider."

    The latest efforts by House and Senate Democrats only adds to the already significant resistance to the White House and EPA efforts to develop climate change and energy legislation and regulations. In the House, the Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) and 85 other Republicans have cosponsored  H.J. Res. 77, a resolution of disapproval on U.S. EPA's anticipated rules to regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas (GHG) as a pollutant [See WIMS 3/3/10]. In the Senate, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced her disapproval resolution S.J.Res. 26 which has at least 40 cosponsors [See WIMS 1/22/10].

    Access a lengthy release from Senator Rockefeller with links to the letters to and from EPA (click here). Access a release from Representative Rahall (click here). Access legislative details for S. 3072 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 4753 (click here). Access legislative details for H.J. Res. 77 (click here). Access legislative details for H.J. Res. 76 (click here). Access legislative details for S.J.Res. 26 (click here).

Report & Hearing Critical Of Corps Implementation Of 2007 WRDA

Mar 3: The House  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I), Chaired by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), released a report criticizing the U.S. Corps of Engineer's implementation of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. A release from the Committee indicates that WRDA 2007's requirements for increased transparency, accountability, and modernization "are the most sweeping reforms of how the Corps of Engineers develops and implements its projects and programs since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986."

    The release says the report shows that since WRDA 2007 was enacted, "the Corps has been slow to implement the programmatic reforms and projects in the law, and the results often have been inadequate and inconsistent with the statute and Congressional intent. Among the issues the report examines are the Corps' failure to follow its mitigation requirements and monitoring, submit larger and controversial project proposals to an independent review, improve the quality of modeling and analysis, update its guidelines for project planning and implementation, and streamline its project formulation and delivery process."

    The full Committee held a hearing entitled, The Water Resources Development Act of 2007: A Review of Implementation in its Third Year. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Department of Army and Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and representatives from the: Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) & American Association of Port Authorities; National Wildlife Federation (NWF); The National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA); American Society of Civil Engineers; and National Waterways Conference.

    On November 8, 2007, Congress enacted the WRDA 2007 over the veto of President Bush. On November 6, 2007, the House of Representatives voted 361-54 to override the veto. On November 8, 2007, the Senate voted 79-14 to override the veto. A background report from the Committee indicates that since November 8, 2007, the Department of the Army and the Corps have been slow to implement the programmatic reforms and projects contained in that law.6 Where the Army and the Corps have implemented reforms, the results often have been inadequate and inconsistent with the statute and Congressional intent.

 

    The Committee report indicates, "In April 2008, the Committee initiated an oversight investigation of WRDA 2007 implementation. The Committee learned that neither the office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) nor the Corps is implementing WRDA 2007 in a timely manner, and neither office possesses information sufficient to determine whether Corps district and division offices are implementing the law. The lack of information and awareness at the Washington, D.C. level severely inhibits the ability of the Corps to achieve the results of WRDA 2007 as intended by Congress."

 

    In a lengthy opening statement Chairman Oberstar said, "Since November 8, 2007, the Department of the Army and the Corps of Engineers have been slow to implement the programmatic reforms and projects contained in that law. Where the Army and the Corps have implemented reforms, the results often have been inadequate and inconsistent with the statute and Congressional intent." Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment said, " I hope that this hearing will shed light on why many of the mandates in the bill still await action 28 months after the Water Resources bill's enactment. The Corps was required to implement revised principles and guidelines within one year of enactment – we still have not seen them."

 

    The Corps testified that it "established a joint team to oversee the implementation of [WRDA 2007] upon its passage on November 7, 2007. The joint team continues to work toward completing implementation guidance of the Act. . .We have given priority for implementation guidance to national policy provisions and to those project and program provisions where funds have been appropriated. We are nearing 80% completion of WRDA Implementation Guidance and are working to complete this important task."

 

    NWF testified that it would focus its testimony on what they see as "the most critical WRDA reform areas: independent peer review (Section 2034), mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses (Section 2036), and revision of the Water Resources Principles and Guidelines (Section 2031) of WRDA 2007." NWF said they had reviewed the guidance and the extensive amount of other material provided by Assistant Secretary Darcy and the Corps in response questions submitted on November 19, 2009 by Senators Feingold, McCain, Carper, Lieberman, Cardin, and Landrieu; and had conferred with conservation leaders across the country on their experiences regarding many of the projects identified in the documents and the WRDA policy reforms. They said, "On the whole, we have found that to date the implementation of these provisions is in many cases barely underway, guidance that has been prepared in many ways falls short, in some cases far short, of what we believe Congress and the law intended and the objectives sought in the WRDA reforms are still mostly unimplemented."

 

    The National Waterways Conference, Inc., which represents water resources stakeholders, including flood control associations, levee boards, waterways shippers and carriers, industry and regional associations, port authorities, shipyards, dredging contractors, regional water districts, engineering consultants, and state and local governments; used the hearing to relay its opposition to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) "Proposed National Objectives, Principles and Standards for Water and Related Resources Implementation Studies" (Proposal) issued in December [See WIMS 12/9/09]. [Note: comment on the CEQ proposal has been extended from March 5, to April 5, 2010, see link below]. The Waterways Conference said that "CEQ took over the proceeding" of developing Principles and Standards applicable to planning studies of water resource projects which was assigned to the Corps under WRDA 2007. The Conference said CEQ's goal was "expanding application of the Principles to water resources development programs and activities government-wide."

 

    The Waterways Conference included its comments on the CEQ proposal and said, "As drafted, the Proposal fails to establish a clear, concise, and workable framework to guide the development of water resources projects. It is incoherent and inconsistent - and thus not implementable in a practical sense. It substantially fails to comply with the explicit directions in Section 2031 of WRDA 07 as well as the large body of previous law and policy related to water resources. It is written so as to not require or even encourage use of proven analytical tools to distinguish among alternatives. It limits in a preemptive manner certain categories of alternatives, and (even while encouraging 'collaboration') seems to assume that water resources planning decisions are the exclusive prerogative of the Federal government thus not recognizing the keystone role played by non-Federal sponsors. Because of these critical and extensive failings, we recommend that this effort be put aside and restarted from the beginning."

 

    Access a lengthy release from Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson (click here). Access a release on the Committee report and link to the complete 21-page report (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a video, and related information (click here). Access the 9-page hearing background report on the hearing (click here). Access the Federal Register announcement extending the comment period on the CEQ Proposal (click here). Access the proposed CEQ Principles and Guidelines (click here). Access an overview and links from CEQ to extensive background information (click here). Access the CEQ public comment website to submit comments (click here).

Senate Hearing On Importance Of Transportation Investments

Mar 3: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing on, The Importance of Transportation Investments to the National Economy and Jobs. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; American Road and Transportation Builders Association; National Construction Alliance II; and the Associated General Contractors of America. Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) both delivered opening statements.

 

    The Committee discussed the agreement reached in the Senate in the evening of March 2, that ended Senator Jim Bunning's (R-KY) one-man hold on key legislation to extend he authority another 30 days of surface transportation authorization under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) which expired March 1, 2010. Another bill to extend SAFETEA-LU through the end of 2010 is now pending action [See WIMS 3/1/10].

 

    Chairman Boxer said, "We know transportation infrastructure investment is a proven jobs creator. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) every $1 billion in Federal money for transportation that is matched by state and local funds supports approximately 34,700 jobs. According to a recent report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), more than 280,000 direct jobs have been created or sustained at projects across the country as a result of the highway and transit funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). "

 

    She said, "In coming weeks we will be considering many important aspects of the surface transportation authorization, including , among other topics, federal, state and local partnerships to accelerate transportation benefits, mobility and congestion in urban and rural America, and transportation's impact on the environment. The next highway, transit and highway safety authorization provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at these programs and make the changes necessary to ensure our transportation system will meet America's needs in the coming years. At the end of the day it's a matter of setting the right priorities and crafting innovative and effective means to address them." Both Senator Boxer and Inhofe commented that while there are major disagreements on many issues considered by the Committee, Republicans and Democrats generally agree on many transportation issues.

 

    Senator Inhofe said he was "relieved the Senate was able to work out a deal last night on the 30-day extension of the highway program." But, he continued "this is in no way a victory. This simply means that we will go back to the highway program being funded $1 billion a month lower than 2009 levels and living with the uncertainty of short-term extension. In fact, the states won't receive the new funding provided by this extension for close to a month -- just when this extension is expiring. The House needs to move and pass the long-term extension the Senate sent over last week."

 

    Senator Inhofe indicated, "Despite the relatively small amount of highway investment in the stimulus bill, it is evident that highway investment is a proven job creator-much more so than any of the other of the Administration's so-called "stimulus" initiatives. Although I support increased infrastructure investment in any form, it is important to note that supplemental highway funding in the so called "jobs bill" is in no way a substitute for the short- and long-term economic necessity of a multi-year highway bill re-authorization.

 

    He said, "The Department of Transportation has estimated that the maintenance backlog on our nation's roads and bridges exceeds $600 billion. I have often said that, despite its large size, SAFETEA didn't even maintain the system we have. The previous estimate was just $500 billion-in other words, increases in the costs of steel, cement and higher wages, combined with chronic underinvestment, have put us into an even deeper hole. . . As the rest of the world continues to finance new ports, highways, and sophisticated rail networks to attract new commerce, we are falling far behind, and our underinvestment means that our domestic industries are operating globally at a competitive disadvantage. If we fail to provide a free-flowing transportation system to accommodate the needs of our economy, our manufacturing industries will be forced to export their operations abroad."

 

    Access the hearing website and links to all testimony and a webcast of the hearing (click here).

Hearing On Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Drinking Water

Feb 25: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) held a hearing entitled, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Drinking Water: Risks to Human Health and the Environment. The hearing examined the science and regulation of endocrine disruptors that may be found in sources of drinking water.Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Jim Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA; Linda Birnbaum, Director, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences; and representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology, Inc.

 

In an opening statement Chairman Markey said, “Lately, not a day goes by where the public is not reminded of the presence of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the potential harmful effects that these chemicals can have on public health and the environment." Markey cited as an example, bisphenol A [BPA], which is used in many plastic containers and as a lining in canned food, and he said, "is associated with developmental and reproductive disorders in humans. To this end, the FDA recently announced that it is concerned about these health effects. I’ve got a bill to ban its use in food and beverage containers, and hope we can finally start limiting our exposure." He also cited, triclosan is another example of an endocrine disruptor which is used as an antimicrobial in hand soaps; and perchlorate, used as an ingredient in rocket fuel, is "pervasively showing up in drinking water all across the nation."


EPA testified that the implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) is part of one of Administrator Jackson’s top priorities ‐‐ "to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies. Issuing test orders for the generation of data to better understand potential endocrine effects is an important step in improving our ability to protect the public health and the environment from chemicals." EPA said it is "on track to obtain Tier 1 endocrine screening data on several hundred chemicals within the next several years. Although it has taken a long time to develop and implement the EDSP, we have developed and validated some useful tools and learned lessons that can be applied to other areas."

NRDC offered extensive and detailed testimony and said, "There are serious concerns about contaminants in our nation's drinking water and source waters. Fish have been found in numerous rivers, including the Potomac, with disrupted sexual development -- specifically feminized male fish. When this finding was first noted in England in the 1990'S,1 it was considered possibly a fluke. But what was once a localized, spotty observation is now being recognized as a widespread, pervasive phenomenon. Four months ago, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey reported finding intersex fish in one third of sites surveyed in eight river basins (the Apalachicola, Colorado, Columbia, Mobile, Mississippi, Pee Dee, Rio Grande, and Savannah river basins). . . . The same kind of thing happened with deformed frogs: local observations in the Midwest led to the eventual realization that these amphibian abnormalities are widespread. A recent review by researchers at Yale University concluded that the mystery of these deformities remains unsolved. . ."

NRDC offered a number of specific recommendations for EPA and for Congress. The Congressional recommendations included: - Require EPA to prioritize and screen chemicals in drinking water, including mixtures, for endocrine disrupting effects; - Restore adequate funding for the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), so more data are available on contaminants in source water and drinking water; and - Reform the Toxic Substances Control Act to require testing of chemicals for toxicity, and require EPA action to promptly regulate hazardous chemicals.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement on the House subcommittee hearing and said, “As with any potential chemical risks, ACC members have taken these concerns seriously and have worked to make sure that there are well established scientifically robust methods for assessing endocrine activity and adverse effects and that there are well established regulatory processes to act on this scientific information. Since 1996, ACC has played a constructive role in EPA’s development of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program and our goal has been to see it implemented as quickly as possible and in a manner consistent with the law and the science. The importance of basing regulatory decisions on the best science cannot be overstated. Decisions not based on the best science and on established risk assessment and management procedures can misallocate limited resources and limit the use of safe chemicals, and create potentially unnecessary public health concerns.”

Access the statement from Chairman Markey (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a video (click here). Access the ACC statement and link to additional information (click here).

President Responds To Climate Science & "Cap & Tax" Critics

Feb 19: At a At Town Hall meeting at Green Valley High School, Henderson, Nevada, President Obama responded to a question regarding clean energy and jobs and took the opportunity to address climate science  and cap and trade critics [i.e. so-called "cap & tax" by critics]. He responded saying:

 

    "Well, let me just talk about -- this is -- when the conservatives have their conventions and they yell at me and say how terrible I am -- along with health care this is the other thing that they usually point out, which is that "the President wants to create this cap and trade system and it's going to be a job killer and it's one more step in the government takeover of the American economy."  So this is a good place for me to maybe just spend a little time talking about energy and climate change.

 

     "First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like -- a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there's all this snow on the ground, this doesn't mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.

 

     "The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.      So I just -- that's one aspect of the science that I think everybody should understand.  That's point number one.

 

     "Point number two: The best way for us to unleash the free market -- the best way for us to unleash the free market and capitalism and innovation and dynamism in the energy sector is for us to fully take into account all the costs that go into producing energy and using energy. And what do I mean by that?  Look, if you tell a company that there are no mileage standards on cars, then people end up making Hummers. Right? And everybody drives Hummers until finally gas gets so crazy and at a certain point people start saying maybe I should get a more fuel-efficient car.

 

     "But if you've got a fuel-efficiency standard in place that says your car needs to get 20 miles a gallon or 30 miles a gallon, suddenly all these engineers are thinking, well, how do we do that? And all these companies start coming up with new technologies that make your cars more fuel-efficient. Ultimately, you end up seeing jobs and businesses thriving in response to the regulation that's been put there. Now, that's one way to regulate, is just to tell people you got to produce more energy-efficient cars. 

 

    "Another way of doing it is just to send a price signal. You say, it's going to be more expensive for you if you've got a less fuel-efficient car. Well, that's the only idea that we're trying to talk about when it comes to these greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. If we say that, you know what, the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere has a cost to all of us -- in terms of in some cases the air we breathe that's causing asthma, in some cases because it's causing climate change -- we just want you to take into account those costs and price energy accordingly. And that means that things like wind energy suddenly become more appealing because they don't produce those pollution -- those pollutants, and other sources of energy become less appealing because they do produce those pollutants. The idea has been that if we put a price on these carbons, then maybe that would be a way that companies would all respond and start inventing new things that would make our planet cleaner. That's the whole idea. 

 

    "Now, last point I'm going to make on this. What is true is that a lot of us depend on dirty sources of energy and a lot of us depend on really inefficient cars and buildings and et cetera. And so there's got to be a transition. We're not going to suddenly get all our energy from wind or all our energy from sun because we just don't have the technology to do it. But what we should be doing is planning over the next 20, 30 years to move in that direction. 

 

    "That's what countries like China are doing. That's what countries like France are doing.  That's what countries all across Europe are doing, and all across Asia are doing.  We don't want to be left behind. We're the only ones who have kind of missed the boat.  So we're still using 20th century technologies and everybody else is producing 21st century technologies. Look what happened with the car. We started getting our clock cleaned when consumers decided they wanted a cleaner car and suddenly everybody was buying their cars from Japan, or now South Korea. And we want to make sure that that doesn't happen when it comes to wind turbines, it doesn't happen when it comes to solar energy, et cetera. . . It is true, though, that it's not going to happen overnight; it's going to take some time. And we're still going to be getting our electricity from coal; we're still going to be getting electricity from nuclear energy; we're still going to be getting electricity and power from natural gas and other traditional sources."

 

    Access the full text of the President's Henderson, NV speech with questions and answers (click here).

Reps Question Power Association Position On Endangerment Finding

Feb 25: House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Environment and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to Mark Crisson, President and CEO of the American Public Power Association (APPA), regarding the association's letter urging Senators to overturn U.S. EPA's scientific finding on greenhouse gases (i.e. the endangerment finding). In the letter, the chairmen express concern that APPA appears to be "actively misinforming its members" and request clarification regarding the association's position.

 

    The chairmen said, "This scientific finding is supported by an overwhelming amount of scientific research that has been produced, reviewed,and validated over a period of decades. Numerous APPA members have informed us over the last 24 hours that they do not support APPA's position."

 

    They continue, ". . .when APPA informed its members that the association had taken a position on SJ. Res. 26, the Murkowski resolution [See WIMS 1/22/10], APPA stated that whether the resolution would prevent EPA from issuing tailpipe standards for automobiles 'remains a point of debate between the lawyers.' APPA's staff knows this is not the case. . ." The chairmen then referred to EPA Administrator Jackson's February 22, 2010, letter to Senator Rockefeller where she stated that, "One result [of the Murkowski resolution] "would be to prevent EPA from issuing its greenhouse gas standard for light-duty vehicles." [See WIMS 2/23/10].

 

    Waxman and Markey request APPA to "clarify what exactly" their position is on EPA's endangerment finding; and to indicate weather the association  opposes "the regulation of carbon pollution from automobiles? If so, why?" Finally, they say, "we request that you update your members with accurate information that explains the effect that S.J. Res. 26 would have, if enacted, upon EPA's pending greenhouse gas standard for light-duty vehicles."

 

    However, the Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in a February 19 letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) regarding the "Potential Impact of Murkowski Resolution on NHTSA's CAFE Rulemaking" that, "As a strictly legal matter, the Murkowski Resolution does not directly impact NHTSA's independent statutory authority to set fuel economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. . .  However, passage of the Murkowski Amendment would have profoundly adverse effects on the national economy, national environmental and energy security objectives, and the economically distressed automobile manufacturing industry. While NHTSA's promulgation of independent, stand alone CAFE standards would make important contributions, its standards could not avoid those adverse effects."

 

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has released several statements regarding EPA's response to Senator Rockefeller and her disapproval resolution (SJ. Res. 26) recently. She said the announcement that EPA will adopt greenhouse gas regulations this spring, but delay implementation regarding stationary sources until January "is a small forced step in the right direction," but, she said, "the Clean Air Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline continues to create significant and ongoing uncertainty for a business community. Congress is the appropriate body to address climate policy. Until the specter of command-and-control regulations goes away, it will remain a counterproductive threat hanging over the work that must be done to find common ground. The EPA has restated its commitment to regulating greenhouse gases, down to the smallest emitters, regardless of the economic consequences."   

 

    Access the complete letter from Representatives Waxman and Markey (click here). Access releases from Senator Murkowski (click here); (click here); and (click here). Access the letter from NHTSA (click here). Access legislative details for SJ. Res. 26 (click here).

President On Business, Government, Smart Energy & Climate Policy

Feb 24: President Obama gave a major address to the Business Roundtable to encourage cooperation from business leaders to promote economic recovery. He said, "I want to spend most of my time talking about the specific steps we need to take to build this more competitive America. But before I do, I want to talk a little bit about the relationship between business and government in promoting economic growth. Now, contrary to the claims of some of my critics and some of the editorial pages, I am an ardent believer in the free market. I believe businesses like yours are the engines of economic growth in this country. You create jobs.You develop new products and cutting-edge technologies. And you create the supply chains that make it possible for small businesses to open their doors. So I want everyone in this room to succeed. I want your shareholders to do well, I want your workers to do well, I want you to do well -- because I firmly believe that America's success in large part depends on your success internationally. . .

 

    He indicated, "I also believe this: Government has a vital, if limited, role to play in fostering sustained economic growth and creating the foundations for you to succeed.  Throughout our history, government has done so in three ways." He outlined: (1) "government has set up basic rules of the marketplace. . . these rules have been good for business, not bad, for they ensure honest competition and fair dealing and a level playing field." (2) "only government can make those investments in common goods that serve the general welfare but are too expensive for any individual or firm to purchase on their own." e.g. the Armed Forces is the most obvious example.  (3) "government has also provided a social safety net to guarantee a basic level of security for all our citizens." He said this function has become controversial in the last several decades and highlighted programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and unemployment insurance but said, they "haven't just saved millions from poverty, they've helped secure broad-based consensus that is so critical to a functioning market economy."

 

    He said, "I take the time to make these points because we've arrived at a juncture in our politics where reasonable efforts to update our regulations, or make basic investments in our future, are too often greeted with cries of 'government takeover' or even 'socialism.' Not only does that kind of rhetoric deny our history, but it prevents us from asking hard questions about the right balance between the private and public sectors. . . So rather than hurling accusations about big-government liberals or mean-spirited conservatives, we're going to have to answer those tough questions.  And getting that balance right has less to do with big government or small government than it has to do with smart government. . ."

 

    He pointed out that, "One year ago, we were looking at the possible end of General Motors. Today, GM has increased production, is paying us back ahead of schedule. Yesterday, we learned they're hiring 1,200 more workers in their Lordstown, Ohio plant. One year ago, there was a chance we would lose most of the $700 billion we were given to rescue the financial system. Today, most of that money has been repaid. The financial fee we've proposed would recover the rest and close the books on government's involvement. . . "

 

    The President talked about laying the foundation for a more competitive America in part by investing in a 21st century infrastructure by expanded broadband access and health information technology, clean energy facilities and the first high-speed rail network in America. He also reminded that in the State of the Union, he set a goal of doubling our exports over the next five years, an increase he said will support 2 million jobs.

 

    On the issues of energy and climate change, the President said, "A competitive America is also America that finally has a smart energy policy. We know there's no silver bullet here. We understand that to reduce our dependence on oil and the damage caused by climate change, we're going to need more production in the short term, we're going to need more efficiency, and we need more incentives for clean energy. And already, the Recovery Act has allowed us to jumpstart the clean energy industry in America -- an investment that will lead to 720,000 clean energy jobs by the year 2012. To take just one example, the United States used to make less than 2 percent of the world's advanced batteries for hybrid cars.  By 2015, we'll have enough capacity to make up to 40 percent of these batteries.  

    "We've also launched an unprecedented effort to make our homes and businesses more energy efficient. We've announced loan guarantees to break ground on America's first new nuclear plant in nearly three decades. We're supporting three of the largest solar plants in the world. And I've said that we're willing to make tough decisions about opening up new offshore areas for oil and gas development. So what we're looking at is a comprehensive strategy, not an either/or strategy but a both/and strategy when it comes to energy. But to truly transition to a clean energy economy, I've also said that we need to put a price on carbon pollution. Many businesses have embraced this approach -- including some who are represented here today. Still, I am sympathetic to those companies that face significant potential transition costs, and I want to work with this organization and others like this to help with those costs and to get our policies right. 

    "What we can't do is stand still. The only certainty of the status quo is that the price and supply of oil will become increasingly volatile; that the use of fossil fuels will wreak havoc on weather patterns and air quality. But if we decide now that we're putting a price on this pollution in a few years, it will give businesses the certainty of knowing they have the time to plan for the transition.  This country has to move towards a clean energy economy. That's where the world is going. And that's how America will remain competitive and strong in the 21st century. . ."

    Access a White House blog post summarizing the President's speech (click here). Access the President's complete speech (click here).

Launch Of The "Bloom Box" - Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

Feb 24: Bloom Energy Corporation, a Silicon Valley-based company committed to changing the way people generate and consume energy, launched the availability of the Bloom Energy Server™, a patented solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology that it says provides a cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable alternative to both today's electric grid as well as traditional renewable energy sources. The Bloom Energy Server provides distributed power generation, allowing customers to efficiently create their own electricity onsite. The company introduced what it is calling "groundbreaking technology" at an event hosted today at eBay Inc. headquarters along with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, General Colin Powell, and several of its early customers.

 

    According to a release the technology is built using abundant and affordable materials, and the company indicates Bloom's fuel cell technology is fundamentally different from the legacy "hydrogen" fuel cells most people are familiar with. The Bloom Energy Server is distinct in four primary ways: (1) it uses lower cost materials; (2) provides unmatched efficiency in converting fuel to electricity; (3) has the ability to run on a wide range of renewable or traditional fuels; and (4) is more easily deployed and maintained. Unlike traditional renewable energy technologies, like solar and wind, which are intermittent, Bloom's technology can provide renewable power 24/7.

 

    Each Bloom Energy Server provides 100 kilowatts (kW) of power in roughly the footprint of a parking space. Each system generates enough power to meet the needs of approximately 100 average U.S. homes or a small office building. For more power, customers simply deploy multiple Energy Servers side by side. The modular architecture allows customers to start small and "pay

as they grow". Bloom's customers have deployed the solution to lower and/or fix their energy costs, while significantly cutting their carbon footprint and enhancing their energy security by reducing their dependence on the grid.

 

    The company said that customers who purchase Bloom's systems can expect a 3-5 year payback on their capital investment from the energy cost savings. Depending on whether they are using a fossil or renewable fuel, they can also achieve a 40-100% reduction in their carbon footprint as compared with the U.S. grid. Bloom's customers that were announced include: Bank of America; The Coca-Cola Company; Cox Enterprises; eBay; FedEx Express, an operating company of FedEx Corp.; Google;

Staples; and Walmart. The company said that since the first commercial customer installation in July 2008, the Energy Servers have collectively produced more than 11 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, with CO2 reductions estimated at 14 million pounds -- the equivalent of powering approximately 1,000 American homes for a year and planting one million trees.

 

    Dr. KR Sridhar, principal co-founder and CEO of Bloom Energy said, "Bloom Energy is dedicated to making clean, reliable energy affordable for everyone in the world. We believe that we can have the same kind of impact on energy that the mobile phone had on communications. Just as cell phones circumvented landlines to proliferate telephony, Bloom Energy will enable the adoption of distributed power as a smarter, localized energy source. Our customers are the cornerstone of that vision and we are thrilled to be working with industry leading companies to lower their energy costs, reduce their carbon footprint, improve their energy security, and showcase their commitment to a better future."

 

    Founded in 2001, Bloom Energy can trace its roots to the NASA Mars space program. For NASA, Sridhar and his team were charged with building technology to help sustain life on Mars using solar energy and water to produce air to breath and fuel for transportation. They soon realized that their technology could have an even greater impact here on Earth and began work on what

would become the Bloom Energy Server. The Bloom Energy Server converts air and nearly any fuel source -- ranging from natural gas to a wide range of biogases -- into electricity via a clean electrochemical process, rather than dirty combustion. Even running on a fossil fuel, the systems are approximately 67% cleaner than a typical coal-fired power plant. When powered by a renewable fuel, they can be 100% cleaner. Each Energy Server consists of thousands of Bloom's fuel cells – flat, solid ceramic squares made from a common sand-like "powder."

 

    Access a release from Bloom Energy (click here). Access a second release with customer background and comments (click here). Access the Bloom Energy website for complete information and background (click here). Access a server data sheet for product specifications (click here). Access 2/21 CBS 60-Minutes feature on the Bloom Box (click here).

EPA Responds To Senate Dems Call To Stop EPA GHG Regs

Feb 22: Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, lead a group of coal state Senators in sending a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA's potential regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. The letter requests that Administrator Jackson clarify the EPA timetable and suspend EPA regulations for industrial facilities so Congress can consider comprehensive energy and climate legislation. According to a release from Senator Rockefeller, "EPA regulation of GHGs from stationary sources has far-reaching implications for the economy as a whole and the energy sector in particular.  These affected industrial facilities are significant job generators in coal states, including West Virginia, and can ill-afford ad hoc regulations."

    Senator Rockefeller was joined by Senate Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Sherrod Brown (OH), Carl Levin (MI), Bob Casey Jr. (PA), Robert Byrd (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Max Baucus (MT) in sending the letter, demanding a response to their concerns for the workers and industries affected in their states. Senator Rockefeller said, "At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put the decisions about our energy future in to the hands of the people and their elected representatives -- especially on issues impacting clean coal. EPA actions in this area would have enormous implications and these issues need to be handled carefully and appropriately dealt with by the Congress, not in isolation by a federal environmental agency." Senator Rockefeller indicated that he is drafting legislation to suspend EPA's regulatory authority to allow sufficient time for Congressional consideration of the nation's larger energy policy and economic needs.

    The letter begins, "We write with serious economic and energy concerns relating to the potential regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. Ill-time or imprudent regulation of GHGs may squander critical opportunities for our nation, impeding the investment necessary to create jobs and position our nation to develop and produce its own clean energy. We need a clear understanding of how you view your agency's responsibilities and the processes by which you intend to carry them out in order to represent the workers, industries, taxpayers, and economic interests or our states. . ."

 

    The letter continues, "We remain concerned about the possible impacts on American workers and businesses in a number of industrial sectors, along with the farmers, miners, and small business owners who could be affected as your agency moves beyond automobile emissions standards to implement regulations to curtail GHG pollution from stationary sources. . . We have a responsibility to the workers and industries in our states to address both your agency's timetable for the implementation of these stationary source regulations, and what you intend the exact requirements for businesses to be. . ."  

    The letter concludes, "The President and you have been explicit in calling on Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that would enhance our nation's energy and climate security.  We strongly believe this is ultimately Congress' responsibility, and if done properly, will create jobs, spur new clean energy industries, and greatly advance the goal of U.S. energy independence.   If done improperly, these opportunities could be lost."

 

    On February 22, Administrator Jackson responded to the Senators and issued a news release and copy of the letter. In the release, EPA said the Administrator outlines several of the decisions she has made for 2010-2011 including: (1) "No facility will be required to address greenhouse gas emissions in Clean Air Act permitting of new construction or modifications before 2011. (2) For the first half of 2011, only facilities that already must apply for Clean Air Act permits as a result of their non-greenhouse gas emissions will need to address their greenhouse gas emissions in their permit applications.

    "(3) EPA is also considering a modification to the rule announced in September requiring large facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year to obtain permits demonstrating they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions. EPA is considering raising that threshold substantially to reflect input provided during the public comment process. (4) EPA does not intend to subject smaller facilities to Clean Air Act permitting for greenhouse gas emissions any sooner than 2016."

    Regarding a question posed by the Senators about the result of passage of Senator Murkowski's resolution of disapproval of EPA's endangerment finding, Jackson responded, "One result would be to prevent EPA from issuing its greenhouse gas standard for light-duty vehicles, because the endangerment finding is a legal prerequisite of that standard. The impacts of that result would be significant. In particular, it would undo an historic agreement among states, automakers, the federal government, and other stakeholders. California and at least thirteen other states that have adopted California's emissions likely would enforce those standards within their jurisdictions, leaving the automobile industry without the explicit nationwide uniformity that it has described as important to its business." Jackson went on to say that EPA is planning to issue greenhouse-gas emissions standards for Model Year 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles late next month."

 

    Jackson also concluded that enactment of Senator Murkowski's resolution "would be viewed as a vote to reject the scientific work of the thirteen U.S. government departments that contribute to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. It also would be viewed by many as a vote to move the United States to a position behind that of China on the issue of climate change, and more in line with the position of Saudi Arabia." Jackson also said that she believes that any legal challenges to the so-called "tailoring rule" will fail.

 

    Following the EPA response, Senator Rockefeller issued a statement saying, "I am glad to see that the EPA is showing some willingness to set their timetable for regulation in to the future -- this is good progress but I am concerned it may not go far enough. I believe we need to set in stone through legislation enough time for Congress to consider a comprehensive energy bill. EPA actions in this area would have enormous implications on clean coal state economies and these issues need to be handled carefully and appropriately dealt with by the Congress, not in isolation by a federal environmental agency. We cannot gamble on our future especially at a time when so many people are hurting. As I evaluate the EPA's letter, I remain committed to presenting legislation that would provide Congress the space it needs to craft a workable policy that will protect jobs and stimulate the economy."

 

    Access a release from Senator Rockefeller (click here). Access the complete letter from the Senators (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 6-page response letter from EPA (click here). Access the statement from Senator Rockefeller in response to EPA's response (click here).