CRS Report Ranks U.S. #1 In "Recoverable" Energy Resources

Mar 11: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released an updated government report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing America's combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. The 28-page report, dated November 30, 2010, U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, indicates that America's recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And, according to the Senators, that's not including "America's immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits."

 

    Senator Murkowski said, "It comes as no surprise that we are once again estimated to have the largest conventional energy resource endowment on Earth. As we debate ways to reduce gas prices and provide relief to American families and businesses, this report should be required reading for every member of Congress. For the sake of our national security, our economy, and the world's environment, we need to explore and develop more of our own resources."

    Senator Inhofe said, "The Obama Administration has made a conscious policy choice to raise energy prices, accomplished in good measure by restricting access to domestic energy supplies. Those supplies are, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest on Earth. We could help bring affordable energy to consumers, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the Obama Administration would simply get out of the way so America can realize its true energy potential."

 

    According to a summary provided by CRS: "Discussions of U.S. and global energy supply refer to oil, natural gas, and coal using several terms that may be unfamiliar to some. The terms used to describe different types of fossil fuels have technically precise definitions, and misunderstanding or misuse of these terms may lead to errors and confusion in estimating energy available or making comparisons among fuels, regions, or nations.

 

    "Fossil fuels are categorized, classified, and named using a number of variables. Naturally occurring deposits of any material, whether it is fossil fuels, gold, or timber, comprise a broad spectrum of concentration, quality, and accessibility (geologic, technical, and cultural). Terminology is adopted to reflect those characteristics.

 

    "For oil and natural gas, a major distinction in measuring quantities of energy commodities is made between proved reserves and undiscovered resources. Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, which are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.

 

    "In the United States, certain institutions are designated to determine and report quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal reserves and undiscovered resources. Other institutions also estimate these values, but differences in estimating methodology can produce significantly different values.

 

    "U.S. proved reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 488 billion short tons, of which 261 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable.

 

    "Comparisons of different fuel types can be made by converting all of them to a common unit, such as barrels of oil equivalent, based on their heat content. The amounts of fossil fuels found in other nations as reserves and undiscovered resources are much more difficult to determine reliably because data are sometimes lacking or unreliable, but gross comparisons of national endowments can be made using available data.

 

    Senators Murkowski and Inhofe in a release, summarized and commented on the CRS report by energy resource sectors and said:

 

    "Oil: CRS offers a more accurate reflection of America's substantial oil resources.  While America is often depicted as possessing just 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil - a figure which narrowly relies on America's proven reserves of just 28 billion barrels - CRS has compiled US government estimates which show that America, the world's third-largest oil producer, is endowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's enough oil to maintain America's current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.  

    "Natural Gas: Further, CRS notes the 2009 assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, which estimates America's future supply of natural gas is 2,047 trillion cubic feet (TCF) - an increase of more than 25 percent just since the Committee's 2006 estimate.  At today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet American demand for 90 years.

    "Coal: The report also shows that America is number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent of the world's coal. Russia, China, and India are in a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 5th, respectively. In fact, CRS cites America's recoverable coal reserves to be 262 billion short tons. For perspective, the US consumes just 1.2 billion short tons of coal per year. And though portions of this resource may not be accessible or economically recoverable today, these estimates could ultimately prove to be conservative. As CRS states: '...U.S. coal resource estimates do not include some potentially massive deposits of coal that exist in northwestern Alaska. These currently inaccessible coal deposits have been estimated to be more than 3,200 billion short tons of coal.'    

    "Oil Shale: While several pilot projects are underway to prove oil shale's future commercial viability, the Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. The Department of Energy estimates that, of this 6 trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially recoverable. That's equivalent to more than five times the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. 

 

    "Methane Hydrates: Although not yet commercially feasible, methane hydrates, according to the Department of Energy, possess energy content that is "immense ... possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels."  While estimates vary significantly, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently testified that: "the mean in-place gas hydrate resource for the entire United States is estimated to be 320,000 TCF of gas."  For perspective, if just 3% of this resource can be commercialized in the years ahead, at current rates of consumption, that level of supply would be enough to provide America's natural gas for more than 400 years."

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access the CRS report (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA Proposes 3-Year Delay For Biomass-Biogenic GHG Permitting
• GOP Blasts Obama Energy Policy; Tout Their "All-Of-The-Above" Plan
• Rep. Markey Responds To GOP Attack On Obama Energy Policy
• EPA Releases Update To National Air Toxics Assessment Tool
• House Subcommittees Hear EPA Budget Testimony
• Significant Problems With DOE Weapons Cleanup Models Guidance
• U.S. Cities With The Most Energy Star Certified Buildings 
• Southern Nuclear Operating Co. AL, & GA v. U.S

(Click here for details)

President Obama On Gas Prices, Energy Strategy & Budget

Mar 11: At a Presidential news conference today, President Obama had some focused comments on the rising gasoline prices; long-term energy strategy; and budget matters that are now being dealt with on a week-by-week basis in the Congress.

 

    On gasoline prices he said, "Of course, rising prices are not a new phenomenon. Three years ago, before the recession hit, a combination of factors, including rising demand from emerging economies like China, drove gas prices to more than $4 a gallon. The worldwide recession and the decrease in demand pushed prices back down. But over the past year, as the economy has picked up steam and global demand for oil has increased, prices have increased again. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East has added uncertainty to the mix and lost production in Libya has tightened supply. . .

    "Here at home, everybody should know that should the situation demand it, we are prepared to tap the significant stockpile of oil that we have in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're also using the resources at our disposal at the federal level to monitor any possible manipulation in the oil markets. And I'm asking the Attorney General and relevant state -- relevant agencies to work with state attorneys general to monitor for price gouging to make sure that nobody is taking advantage of working families at the pump. In addition, America is better prepared for supply disruptions than we used to be. Today, we use 7 percent less oil than we did in 2005, even as our economy has grown since then, partly because our economy as a whole is more efficient. We're adapting. We're producing more oil and we're importing less. Our automakers, for example, are manufacturing more fuel-efficient cars -- some that now get more than 50 miles to the gallon -- and our consumers are driving more of these cars. . .

    On a longer-term energy strategy, the President said, "Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we'll always be subject to price spikes. So we've got to get moving on a comprehensive energy strategy that pursues both more energy production and more energy conservation. We need to increase our access to secure energy supplies in the near term, and we've got to make our economy more energy-efficient and energy-independent over the long run. Let me be more specific. First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed. So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality. . .

    "There is more we can do, however. For example, right now, the industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres –- both offshore and on land –- where they aren't producing a thing. . . But let's be clear -- it is not a long-term solution. Even if we started drilling new wells tomorrow, that oil isn't coming online overnight. And even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can't escape the fact that we only control 2 percent of the world's oil, but we consume over a quarter of the world's oil. T. Boone Pickens, who made his fortune in the oil business -- and I don't think anybody would consider him unfriendly to drilling -- was right when he said that "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. We can't place our long-term bets on a finite resource that we only control 2 percent of -– especially a resource that's vulnerable to hurricanes, war, and political turmoil.

    "So beyond increased domestic production, if we want to secure our long-term prosperity and protect the American people from more severe oil shocks in the future, the way to do it is to gradually reduce demand and then do everything we can to break our dependence on oil. . . But the bottom line is this. We've been having this conversation for nearly four decades now. Every few years, gas prices go up; politicians pull out the same old political playbook, and then nothing changes. And when prices go back down, we slip back into a trance. And then when prices go up, suddenly we're shocked. I think the American people are tired of that. I think they're tired of talk. We've got to work together -- Democrats, Republicans, and everybody in between -- to finally secure America's energy future. I don't want to leave this for the next President, and none of us should want to leave it for our kids."

    In response to a question on Presidential leadership on budget matters and the latest discussion of another 2-3 week continuing budget resolution (CR), the President said, ". . .with respect to the budget, I think it's important to understand that right now the discussion is about last year's business. We're talking about how to fund the remainder of this fiscal year. This is an appropriations task. . . The Republicans in the House passed a budget that has been now rejected in the Senate. They are not going to get 100 percent of what they want. The Democrats have put forward spending cuts, many of them pretty painful, that give Republicans already half of what they were seeking, because they're the right thing to do. Many of those cuts are ones that were already embodied in the budget that I proposed for 2012. Now, that's been rejected as well. . . both sides are going to have to sit down and compromise on prudent cuts somewhere between what the Republicans were seeking that's now been rejected and what the Democrats had agreed to that has also been rejected. It shouldn't be that complicated. And so what I've done is, every day I talk to my team, I give them instructions in terms of how they can participate in the negotiations, indicate what's acceptable, indicate what's not acceptable. And our expectation is, is that we should be able to get this completed. . ."

    He continued, "But let me just make some broad points about this. Number one, we can't keep on running the government based on two-week extensions. That's irresponsible. We've got a war in Afghanistan going on. We've got a wide range of issues facing the country on a day-to-day basis. And the notion that we can't get resolved last year's budget in a sensible way with serious but prudent spending cuts I think defies common sense. So we should be able to get it done. . . There are going to be certain things that House Republicans want that I will not accept. And the reason I won't accept them is not because I don't think we've got to cut the budget; we do."

    He said certain cuts "don't make sense." He used examples of cutting $800 out of Pell Grants for 8 million kids and eliminating 200,000 Head Start slots that also would mean the layoffs of 55,000 teachers. He said, "we can't stop investing in our people. We can't stop investing in research and development. We can't stop investing in infrastructure -- those things that are going to make us competitive over the long term and will help us win the future." He also said the Republican budget that passed out of the House included a whole range "riders." He said, "These aren't really budget items. These are political statements. . . If Republicans are interested in social issues that they want to promote, they should put a bill on the floor of the House and promote it, have an up or down vote, send it over to the Senate. But don't try to use the budget as a way to promote a political or ideological agenda. . ."

    Access the President's complete press conference text and response to questions (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Subcommittee Approves Bill To Stop EPA GHG Rules
• House Republicans Announce The "American Energy Initiative"
• Report Highlights Navy Security & Funding Needs From Climate Change
• House Ag Committee Grills EPA On Agriculture Regulations
• Markey & Upton Release On Daylight Savings Time
• Permit Delays, NIMBY Activism & Lawsuits Block Energy Projects
• NRDC v. County Of Los Angeles

(Click here for details)

No Budget Deal In Sight With One Week To Go

Mar 10: As expected the Senate rejected both a Republican and Democratic proposal for a Continuing Resolution (CR) to continue funding the government through the end of the FY 2011 (ending September 30) [See WIMS 3/7/11]. The Republican proposal called for some $61 billion in cuts and the Democrats proposed some $5 billion in cuts. The short-term CR, passed on March 2, avoided a government shutdown and extended funding until March 18 [See WIMS 3/2/11]. The major differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats continue and yesterday's votes were largely political gamesmanship. As evidenced by the statements from party leaders below, Democrats and Republicans remain far apart on numbers and policy with just one week left on the short-term CR.

 

    Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made the following remarks regarding yesterday's budget votes in the Senate and said, "It's time, once again, for us to get down to business. Yesterday's budget votes didn't bring us any closer to a conclusion, but it did make one thing very clear. That lesson is this: One party alone will not reach a resolution without the other's cooperation and consent. We voted on the Republican budget proposal, and on the Democratic budget proposal. Neither plan came anywhere close to the 60 votes needed to pass, or even the 51 votes that would have represented a majority of the Senate. But the exercise was not in vain. We've demonstrated -- publicly and on the record -- that we know the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Now it's time to find that answer in a budget that will reflect our values, keep the country running and create jobs.

    "I can speak only for my caucus when I say we accept the lesson of yesterday's votes. We know we will have to make sacrifices to reach consensus. We're willing to do that. Republicans have to be willing to move their position, too. Perhaps they're willing to finally acknowledge that given our deep debt, we can't afford government giveaways to millionaires and oil companies making record profits. Both acknowledgements would help close the deficit gap. Both would be big pieces to the puzzle. Perhaps Republicans are willing to offer more reasonable cuts that the Democratic caucus can support. By reasonable cuts, I mean cuts that don't arbitrarily kick Head Start students out of class or rob college students of their Pell Grants -- both cuts the Senate resoundingly rejected yesterday.

    "I mean cuts that don't pull the plug on renewable-energy jobs, or cuts that fire thousands of workers at community health centers across the country. Perhaps Republicans are willing to look in our country's substantial budget and find cuts more worthy than those that would weaken the law enforcement and border security that keep us safe. I hope they will. I hope they will join Democrats in saving money by tackling waste, fraud and abuse. I hope they will join us making tough choices and avoiding the temptation to make counterproductive cuts. Let's come together to cut in a way that strengthens our economy, not weakens it.  Let's cut in a way that makes our neighborhoods, our schools and our borders stronger, not weaker.

    "As the negotiation process begins anew, I remind my Republican friends that time is short. I also remind them that the deadline we face -- March 18, one week from tomorrow -- is a deadline that they set. Democrats warned from the start that this process would take a month. Republicans would agree only to a period half as long -- two weeks. Those two weeks are up next Friday. So my message to my Republican colleagues is this: You set the deadline, and the responsibility of meeting it is as much yours as it is ours. Both parties also share a responsibility to be reasonable. Let's get to work. We cannot negotiate this in the media. We cannot negotiate this if we are unwilling to give any ground. We cannot be stubborn and expect a solution. It's time to negotiate in good faith.  The time for political posturing is over, and the time for pragmatism is overdue."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made the following comments prior to the Senate votes yesterday. Senator McConnell said, "At a time when Washington is borrowing about $4 billion a day, Democrat leaders want to cut about four and a half billion in government spending for the rest of the fiscal year, and then call it a day. In other words, they want to take what amounts to a day and a half long holiday from their out-of-control spending and then return to the status quo for the rest of the year. And let me just add that paying lip service to the threat caused by the deficit is not a substitute for responsible leadership and that job-destroying tax hikes on small businesses and American families are not the answer to out-of-control Washington spending.

    "At a time when increasing gas prices are already threatening our economic recovery, a minivan tax that some on the other side have proposed won't solve our nation's fiscal crisis. But I'll tell you what it will do: it will destroy jobs and impose a real on burden families every time they fill up at the pump -- at a time when people are looking for relief instead. Democrats' steadfast refusal to cut another dime from the bloated Washington budget has left them no choice, it seems, but to propose raising taxes on American families and small businesses so that they can continue spending at unsustainable levels. Republicans, on the other hand, have made a serious proposal to rein in wasteful spending.

    "So to me, at least, the choice before us is pretty clear. But as we approach today's vote, it's worth noting that even if we were to pass the biggest spending cuts that have been proposed so far in this debate, it wouldn't even put a dent in the fiscal problems we face as a result of the growth in entitlement spending. Think about it: Democrats have been waging war this week over a proposal to cut $4.7 billion. Meanwhile, the amount of money we've promised to spend on programs like Social Security and Medicare -- money we don't have -- is about $52 trillion. So this week's debate is just a dress rehearsal for the big stuff -- and so far Democrats are showing they're just not up to it. They either lack the stomach or the courage, and the President, as members of his own party point out, is nowhere to be found on the issue.

    "I've talked about this leadership vacuum repeatedly this week on the entitlements -- and how their unchecked growth threatens to bury all of us in red ink before we know it. We can argue about whether to cut $5 billion or $60 billion in day-to-day expenses all we want -- but the fact is, even if we hit the bigger number we're still staring at a catastrophe. And the President appears to be totally uninterested in leading us to a bipartisan solution -- the way Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did the last times we faced a crisis of this magnitude. But when it comes to another crisis -- the jobs crisis -- the President isn't just failing to lead, he's flat-out barring the door with a mountain of stifling new regulations and calculated inaction on outstanding free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. . .

    "In the last few weeks, company after company has come before Congress to testify how important accessing Latin American markets is for their future, and to create jobs here. According to the Chamber of Commerce, failing to pass these trade agreements along with the trade agreement with South Korea could cost us 380,000 U.S. jobs. . . The administration has no excuse for failing to act on these trade agreements. It's in the clear interest of the country to approve them. It would create jobs here at home at a time when we desperately need them. I am confident Congress could pass these on a bipartisan basis today. I urge the administration to act today, and not just on South Korea but on Colombia and Panama. I for one am prepared to do everything in my power to pass these agreements together this year."

    Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• High-Speed Robot Screening System To Test 10,000 Chemicals
• Senate Debates Appliance Efficiency & Light Bulbs
• House Ag Approves Overturn Of National Cotton Council v. EPA
• Subcommittee Markup On Stopping EPA Climate Rules Continues
• Study Examines Impacts Of Dams On Native Trout Species
• $12 Million Program Hopes To Stimulate Green Innovation Eco

(Click here for details)

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Nuclear Power 2021 Act

Mar 8: Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced legislation to direct the Department of Energy to develop innovative, low-cost nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 512) proposes a program to design and certify small modular reactors (< 300 megawatts) which can be built and operated in combination with similar reactors at a single site. According to a release, the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other study groups have identified nuclear energy as a promising and essential technical option for meeting our future electricity needs while lowering our overall emissions of greenhouse gases.    

 

    Senator Bingaman said, "Modular reactors make sense because they do not require as large [an] up-front capital investment as conventional reactors. They will keep construction costs down at a time when the expense of building a traditional plant has become so high. I believe that it is appropriate for the Energy Department to work with utilities on the design and approval process for these reactors because nuclear power will play an important role in a carbon-constrained energy world."

 

    Senator Murkowski said, "Small modular reactors have great potential to help meet our future domestic power needs in a flexible manner, both on and off the grid, as well as open market opportunities overseas. This legislation will help address existing challenges and overcome roadblocks by making the development, licensing, and deployment of small reactors a priority."

  

    Senator Udall said, "I've long said there is no silver bullet to solve today's energy challenges; we're going to need silver buckshot, and nuclear energy should be at the table. Nuclear is among the few low-carbon, large-scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today – and small reactors have the potential to make nuclear power more cost-efficient and secure. This bill will help bring small modular reactors to the market."

 

    The release indicates that smaller reactors can be less capital intensive than the larger 1000-megawatt reactors currently being licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They also have the potential to be built in a modular and step-wise fashion. Under the bill, the Federal effort would be cost-shared with the private sector and selected under a competitive merit review process that emphasizes efficiency, cost, safety and proliferation resistance.

 

    The release summarizes that the Nuclear Power 2021 Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to work in a public-private partnership to: Develop a standard design for two modular reactors, one of which will not be more than 50 megawatts; Obtain a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each design by 2018; and Obtain a combined operating license from the Commission by 2021.

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access legislative details for S.512 (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- CEQ Instructions On Integrating Climate Change Adaptation
- Mark Up On House Energy Tax Prevention Act Tomorrow
- Nuclear Interests Sue To Stop Waste Management Fee
- UCS Report On Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants
- USDA Reminds Of Conservation Reserve Program Sign-Up
- Energy Star Updates For TVs & Cable & Satellite Boxes
- On-Farm Renewable Energy Production Shows Significant Growth
- 48 Groups Request Sen. Boxer To Help Protect Wolves

 

(Click here for details)

House Subcommittee Hears Competing Views From Climate Scientists

Mar 8: The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), held a hearing entitled, "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations." The hearing was held at the request of Democrats and follows last week's introduction of the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) [See WIMS 3/4/11], a bill to block what Republican's said is "EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda" which they say "would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak." The bill was introduced in the House by full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Whitfield along with three Democratic leaders; and in the Senate (S.482) by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee and 43 cosponsors including one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV).

 

     Witnesses in today's hearing included a distinguished list of scientists including (in alphabetical order): (1) Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville; (2) Dr. Christopher Field (invited at the request of the minority), Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA; (3) Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer (invited at the request of the minority), Director, University of Michigan Biological Station, University of Michigan; (4) Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder; (5) Dr. Donald Roberts, Professor Emeritus, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; (6) Dr. Richard Somerville (invited at the request of the minority), Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA; (7) Dr. Francis W. Zwiers (invited at the request of the minority), Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.

 

    In advance of the hearing, Democrats issued a 5-page background memo on climate science and Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) delivered a speech at an event at the Center for American Progress. In his speech, Rep. Waxman said, "I've never been in a Congress where there was such an overwhelming disconnect between science and public policy. The Republicans in Congress have become the party of science deniers and that is profoundly dangerous. Exhibit A in the Republican attack on science is the Upton-Inhofe bill that overturns EPA's scientific determination that carbon emissions endanger health and welfare. When we had a hearing on this legislation last month, Senator Inhofe was the lead witness. He told us that climate change is a 'hoax.' The new Republican majority in the House has a lot of power to write our nation's laws, but they do not have the power to rewrite the laws of nature. Republicans in Congress can't cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can't stop climate change by declaring it a hoax. . ."

 

    In his opening statement, Chairman Whitfield said, "This is our third hearing on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. The first two focused on the adverse impact that the Environmental Protection Agency's global warming regulatory agenda would have on jobs and the economy. We could probably have another hearing on the economic impacts, as we still have not heard from some of the many job creating sectors that consider EPA's global warming agenda to be one of if not the biggest regulatory threat they face. But the minority wanted a separate science hearing and we have agreed to their request. In my view, holding yet another science hearing is rather excessive, given that we have held 24 such hearings in the House of Representatives over the past 4 years. In any event, I am pleased to have this diverse scientific panel today. . .

 

    ". . .one need not be a skeptic of global warming to be a skeptic of EPA's regulatory agenda. Case in point is EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who warned about how complex and costly greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act would be. Of course, that was in 2009 and 2010 when the administration was trying to pass through Congress cap and trade legislation. It is only now that cap and trade is dead that the Administrator has changed her tune and emphasizes how reasonable and workable these rules will be. . . Keep that in mind when you hear about these scary global warming scenarios. Even if you believe every word of them, the agency's rules are no solution. . ."

 

    Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville testified, ". . .downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere. . . Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization's main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered. Climate change alone is a weak leg on which to stand for such a massive undertaking. (I'll not address the fact there is really no demonstrated technology except nuclear that can replace large portions of the carbon-based energy production.)

 

    He also noted, ". . .we have not considered the many positive benefits of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially for the biological world, nor the tremendous boost to human health, welfare, and security provided by affordable, carbon-based energy. As someone who has lived in a developing country, I can assure the subcommittee that without energy, life is brutal and short."

 

    Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer (invited at the request of the minority), Director, University of Michigan Biological Station, University of Michigan, testified and offered his views on the current and expected ecological impacts of climate change, with a particular emphasis on the Great Lakes basin and said, "We know the climate is changing. It is real, it is happening, and the impacts are becoming clearer the more we observe and study plant and animal distributions, nutrient cycles, atmospheric chemistry, and long-term, large-scale weather and climate patterns. . .

 

    "In light of all of the scientific facts relating to climate change, Michigan scientists have overwhelmingly voiced their support for strong federal policies to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Science is not a partisan endeavor. It provides us with the best information available about how the earth and regions such as the Great Lakes basin are responding to the inexorable and unprecedented (in human time-scale) increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases. We ask that Congress support sound legislative and regulatory policies to limit harmful greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, welfare, environment and our economy.

 

    Access the hearing website and links to all witness testimony, a Republican background memo and opening statement from Rep. Whitfield (click here). Access the hearing announcement (click here). Access the Democrats background memo (click here). Access the speech of Rep. Waxman (click here). Access links to an opening statement from Rep. Waxman as well as letters from Scientists, National Academy of Sciences and Health and Medical Professionals (click here). Access a release from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Ranking Member Subcommittee on Energy and Power (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- Enviros Claim Victory In Ballast Water Discharge Settlement
- Upton & Inhofe Question EPA's Timing & Process For Ozone Rules
- EPA Updates Tools To Gauge Electric Generation Impacts
- Groups Urge Swift Development Of Atlantic Seaboard Offshore Wind
- Groups Deliver Annual "Green Budget" Report To Congress
- Ten Sites Added; 15 Proposed For National Priorities List 

 

(Click here for details)

"Political Games" As Budget Crisis Looms

Mar 4: While Congress bought 2-weeks of time when it approved a short-term extension to the Continuing Resolution (CR) that extends funding for the government and avoids a shutdown until March 18 [See WIMS 3/2/11], the major differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats continue. The Senate will be debating and  voting on a budget bill this week.

 

    Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, ". . . when you have to make the tough decisions that go into any budget, those decisions have to be practical, not political. They have to be realistic, not ideological. . . As careful as we must be not to waste the American people's money, we must be just as mindful not to waste their time. Regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political exercise, and little more. That's counterproductive. We need to be as serious as the challenge before us. I'm much more concerned with actually keeping our country running and investing smartly in our future than I am in this political game. When they wake up in the morning, the American people want to send their children to a good school and then go to a good job. They want their families to come home to a safe neighborhood at night and they want to go to sleep knowing our country is safe from those who want to harm us. They don't care who gets credit for it. They don't care who thought of how best to do it -- they just want us to do it."

    Senator Reid outlined the Republican and Democratic plans as follows:

 

    The Republican Plan: "First, the reckless Republican plan that the Tea Party has pushed through the House. That irresponsible proposal slashes investments, cuts jobs, and sacrifices security and education. Yes, it cuts a lot of money today, but America would lose so much more tomorrow because these cuts are made arbitrarily, without regard for consequences. That's why leading independent economists agree that it will hurt our recovery, slow growth and cost jobs. We can't afford that. We can't afford to be blinded by the big numbers in the House Republicans' plan. We have to scrutinize how they came to cut $61 billion. And the truth is that it adds up to $61 billion through significant subtraction of program the American people don't want to lose [See WIMS 2/22/11]:

• It slashes more than a billion dollars from Social Security, which means half a million seniors who paid into Social Security their entire lives will be waiting for benefits their country promised them.
• It cuts $700 million from education, which means a million disadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000 teachers, aides and school staff could lose their jobs. It would even take 200,000 children out of Head Start.
• It closes poison-control centers and cut $100 million from food-safety inspections. That means the food we eat could be both less safe and more expensive – and that's a lose-lose proposition.
• It cuts three-quarters of a billion dollars from renewable energy investments, which will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence and delay the day America lives and works in a clean-energy economy.
• It cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security, port security and FEMA. Even some Republican Congressmen readily admit it's not so smart to pinch pennies on the backs of our national security and first responders.

    "That's just the tip of the iceberg. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said these cuts – and many more like them – will cost a significant number of jobs. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's, put that number at 700,000 jobs.

    The Democrat's Plan: "We know that we have to make cuts. But we also know that when we cut, we have to cut in a way that strengthens our economy -- not in a way that weakens it. We know we have to look carefully at the quality of these cuts and not get blinded by the quantity. After all, as I've said before, you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs -- but no doctor would recommend it. Our plan cuts $51 billion from President Obama's budget, but in a much more responsible way. We're eliminating redundancies, ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs and cutting funding for earmarks.  [Note: analysts indicate that using the "same baseline," Democratic cuts amount to only $6-$10 billion].

    "Our plan recognizes that we're not in a competition to determine who can cut the most, without regard for the consequences. Rather, we need to cooperate to figure out where we can cut the smartest. While the House-passed plan is based in ideology, ours is based in reality. These are decisions about real money that solve real problems that affect real lives. Our budget affirms and reflects our values. We see our modestly recovering economy, including today's news that employers are hiring at the fastest pace in almost a year, and the national unemployment rate fell to a nearly two-year low. We can't squander this cautiously optimistic news with counterproductive cuts."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) commented on March 4 and said, "House Republicans have proposed a plan. It would reduce spending by $61 billion in this year's budget. Earlier this week, we voted on a two-week piece of that bill that reduces spending by $4 billion. The White House's proposal, as outlined by the President's economic advisor yesterday, is to cut another $6 billion and call it a day. Even more outrageous, they say that this proposal meets us 'halfway.' I won't get into their tortured justification. Suffice it to say that Politico says it requires Americans to 'suspend disbelief.' The Washington Post was equally unmoved by the White House's logic. They said Democrats are disingenuous in suggesting they've worked hard to reduce spending. And they agree that calling this latest proposal an effort to meet us halfway is nonsense.

 

    "So amid all the fanfare yesterday, what the White House is proposing is little more than one more proposal to maintain the status quo — to give the appearance of action where there is none. This latest proposal is unacceptable, and it's indefensible.

"The American people are tired of hearing the same tired talking points from our Democrat friends. They want action. They want to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation. It's time for Washington Democrats to get serious."

 

    President Obama said on March 5, "Just as both parties cooperated on tax relief that is now fueling job growth, we need to come together around a budget that cuts spending without slowing our economic momentum. We need a government that lives within its means without sacrificing job-creating investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. The budget I sent to Congress makes these investments, but it also includes a 5-year spending freeze, and it will reduce our deficits by $1 trillion over the next decade.  In fact, the cuts I've proposed would bring annual domestic spending to its lowest share of the economy under any president in more than 50 years.

    "Over the last few weeks, Members of Congress have been debating their own proposals.  And I was pleased that Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together a few days ago and passed a plan to cut spending and keep the government running for two more weeks. Still, we can't do business two weeks at a time. It's not responsible, and it threatens the progress our economy has been making. We've got to keep that momentum going. . . Getting our fiscal house in order can't just be something we use as cover to do away with things we dislike politically.  And it can't just be about how much we cut.  It's got to be about how we cut and how we invest.  We've got to be smart about it.  Because if we cut back on the kids I've met here and their education, for example, we'd be risking the future of an entire generation of Americans.  And there's nothing responsible about that. . ."

    Access the statement from Sen. Reid (click here). Access a release from Sen. McConnell (click here).Access the statement from President Obama (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

- NAM Questions "Good Faith" Of EPA Regulatory Review
- EPA Wants Comments On 2008 Clean Boating Act
- Draft Report To Congress On Benefits & Costs Of Federal Regulations
- Bill Would Extend Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards
- NOAA Website Tracks Coastal Community Program Funding
- $32 Million To Fund Four New Clean Air Research Centers
- California Seeks To Be First PERC-Free Dry Cleaning State
- Antarctica Research Turns Glacial Formation Upside Down

 

(Click here for details)

House & Senate Introduce "Energy Tax Prevention Act"

Mar 3: In a bicameral effort of Republican leaders and a few Democrats, members have introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910 & S. 482), a bill to block what they call the "U.S. EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda that would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak." The bill, they say, is narrowly drawn to clarify the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act, preserving the law's important and longstanding functions to reduce air pollution.

 

    In the House, the bill is introduced by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and has 9 cosponsors including three Democrats Collin Peterson (D-MN), Dan Boren (D-OK) and Nick Rahall (D-WV). In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, and has 43 cosponsors including one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). 

 

    According to a summary provided by Senator Inhofe, the bill would: Protect jobs in America's manufacturing sector; Protect consumers from higher energy costs; Put Congress in charge of the nation's climate change policies; and Ensure that the public health provisions of the Clean Air Act are preserved. Senator Inhofe commented on the provisions as follows:

• No More Back-Door Energy Taxes - "As the price of gasoline nears $4 a gallon, consumers can't afford to pay for the Obama EPA's back-door cap-and-trade regulations, which will inevitably mean higher prices for gasoline and electricity," Sen. Inhofe said.  "The Energy Tax Prevention Act protects consumers and their budgets." 
• No Two-Year Delay - "stops cap-and-trade regulations from taking effect-once and for all. A two-year delay won't help our economy grow or help those searching for work. It does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty plaguing businesses all across America. Simply put, EPA's cap-and-trade regime is bad policy that must be stopped."
• Takes Power Away from Unelected Bureaucrats - "imposes accountability. It takes power away from unelected bureaucrats and puts it where it belongs: in Congress, where the people can and should decide the nation's climate change policy."
• Stops Distortion of Nation's Clean Air Law - "leaves all of the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact, ensuring that Americans will be protected from pollution that has direct public health impacts. It also prevents EPA from twisting the Clean Air Act into a bureaucratic obstacle to growth and expansion. I recognize the tremendous strides businesses and communities have made in reducing air pollution, and I stand ready to modernize the Clean Air Act to make even greater strides in improving public health. But imposing energy taxes through EPA's cap-and-trade regulations and blocking expansion won't make Americans healthier-it will only mean fewer jobs, a higher cost of living, and less growth and innovation."

    Chairman Upton said, "Whether at the pump or on their monthly utility bills, American families, farmers, and employers feel the pinch when energy prices go up. The very last thing the federal government should do is make matters worse by intentionally driving up the cost of energy. Yet that is exactly what's in store if the EPA moves forward with its plans to regulate and penalize carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act." House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said, "The EPA is pursuing a dramatic shift in our nation's energy and environmental policy that would send shock waves through our economy. Setting the course of our energy policy is the job of Congress, not a single federal agency acting without authority. The Energy Tax Prevention Act is a sensible, straightforward plan to end the uncertainty and economic threat posed by the EPA's climate change agenda."

 

    The members listed earlier supporters of the bill as: American Electric Power, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Mining Association. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) issued a release supporting the bills and said, "Job creators, who have been struggling to comply with costly regulations in these economic times, are deeply concerned that more devastating regulations are on the way. We applaud this legislation and believe it can stop misguided regulations that have been putting manufacturers out of work."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) said it "welcomes the leadership of Senator Inhofe and Chairman Upton, and the growing list of bipartisan supporters in Congress, to stop unelected federal officials from regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act -- a policy never intended by Congress. This legislation will prevent EPA from imposing regulations that could significantly raise energy costs and harm our fragile economic recovery."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and other Democrats on the EPW Committee released statements saying the bills "would hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to implement the Clean Air Act and permanently block the agency from curbing carbon pollution from the nation's largest polluters. The Inhofe-Upton bill would block EPA from complying with the U.S. Supreme Court's direction to address carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act."

 

    Senator Boxer said, "This bill is an assault on the Clean Air Act and threatens the health and well-being of all Americans. One of EPA's core missions is to protect children and families from dangerous air pollution, and it is irresponsible to prevent EPA from holding major industrial polluters accountable. As recent polls have shown, including one by the American Lung Association, this bill is out of step with the American public who strongly support environmental safeguards." Other members commenting in the joint release included: Senators Thomas Carper (D-DE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

 

    Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "The Upton-Inhofe bill is an affront to science. It exempts the nation's largest polluters from regulation at the expense of public health and energy security. This proposal may be good for Koch Oil but it would gut the landmark Clean Air Act and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from addressing the enormous threat posed by carbon pollution.  I remain committed to fighting this and other Republican efforts to weaken the laws that form the cornerstone of public health and environmental protections in our nation."

 

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a statement saying the bill "would increase pollution and promote the importation of millions of barrels of foreign oil per day by negating advanced fuel economy standards." He said, "Along with the threats to public health this bill presents, it would curtail American clean energy innovation and eliminate fuel economy advances that would save millions of barrels of oil per day. The bill represents an impossibly shortsighted tradeoff for America: complacency on clean energy and public health in exchange for more Middle Eastern oil."

 

    The public interest law firm, Earthjustice issued a release stating, "This House bill is yet another Dirty Air Act intended to give the nation's biggest polluters a way out of limits to their carbon dioxide -- pollution that's likely to exacerbate asthma and lung diseases by worsening smog, and increase deadly heat waves and extreme weather conditions. But climate change isn't just threatening Americans' health; it is also threatening our well-being and ability to prosper now and into the future. We know that carbon dioxide pollution and climate change will have far-reaching effects on this country and the businesses that keep us running. We are threatened with heavy storm surges that will cost us both ecologically and economically, with harm to our clean drinking water supplies, with severe impacts on crop harvests and livestock production and food prices, with harm to life and critical fisheries in our coastal areas, and with new disease threats.

    "Volumes of science prove that wiping away limits on carbon dioxide pollution and the health benefits these limits will provide will hurt Americans all over the country. Most Americans recognize the importance of these pollution limits and agree that science, not politicians with political motives, should be followed when setting these pollution controls, as the Environmental Protection Agency has done. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that, based on all the science in front of us, the EPA must move forward on controlling carbon dioxide pollution under the Clean Air Act's requirements. It's been almost four years of these blocks and obstructions by some members of Congress who want to brush aside this mandate and ignore the science."

    Access a release from Rep. Upton and link to supporting letters (click here). Access a release from Sen. Inhofe including a summary, fact sheet, the bill and supporting comments from Senators (click here). Access legislative details of H.R. 910 (click here). Access legislative details of S.482 (click here). Access the release from NAM (click here). Access the release from API (click here). Access the joint release from EPW Committee Democrats (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the release from Earthjustice (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House & Senate Approve Surface Transportation FY11 Extension
• Senator Levin Calls For "Giant Leaps" In Fuel Efficiency
• EPA Proposes 30 Unregulated Contaminants For SDWA Monitoring
• Sen. Murkowski: Five Ways to Boost America's Oil Production
• Senate Hearing On Forest Service FY 2012 Budget
• Chamber Warns Of SEC Rule Effect On U.S. Oil Companies
• Pew Climate Center Issues Update Of "Climate Change 101"

(Click here for details)

Senate Hearing On EPA FY 2012 Budget & FY 2011 CR

Mar 2: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) held a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. The only witness was U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Both Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe delivered opening statements.

 

    Senator Boxer stated, "The President's budget recognizes the importance of EPA's mission while responsibly cutting spending by more than $1.3 billion -- a 13 percent reduction -- from 2010 levels. I respect the President's effort to cut the deficit during these tough economic times and do it responsibly. For example, the President's budget would make vital investments in enforcing our nation's public health laws, including an agency-wide effort to reduce toxic air pollution in at-risk communities and near schools and other places where kids may be exposed. The budget would also assist state and local efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution and to begin the process of getting the nation's largest emitters of carbon pollution to reduce their emissions. Even where this budget proposes to make cuts, such as the reductions in the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Revolving Loan programs -- it does so after significant increases in recent years that make these reductions more manageable.

    "In stark contrast to the President's support for EPA's essential work to protect our children and families, the recently passed House Continuing Resolution [CR] would cut EPA's overall budget -- and the critical public health protections EPA provides -- by 30 percent this year [See WIMS 2/16/11]. This represents the largest cut to any Federal agency. It would cut an astounding $2 billion from EPA's water infrastructure and water quality protection programs. These cuts mean that our drinking water has a far greater chance of contamination. These cuts also mean thousands of jobs lost – jobs that relate to clean water infrastructure. The CR would cut funds to clean up and redevelop brownfields by 30 percent from 2010 enacted levels – threatening the 5,000 jobs that EPA estimates this program supports. The House budget would slash 45 percent from the 2010 enacted level for federal aid to state, local and tribal governments to protect our communities from dangerous pollution. It also includes backdoor efforts to undermine EPA authorities that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. . ."

 

    Senator Boxer concluded saying, "The United States is also the world's largest producer and consumer of environmental technology goods and services. This industry has approximately 119,000 firms. It supports almost 1.7 million jobs and generates $300 billion in revenues -- including $43.8 billion in exports. Why take an axe to these industries? Budgets are clear expressions of priorities. The House-passed Continuing Resolution forces communities to bear the burden of more pollution in our air and water. But the President's budget makes tough choices in a thoughtful way that doesn't sacrifice the huge strides our nation has made towards a clean and safe environment."

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "Administrator Jackson, it is always good to see you. I suspect these are tough times at EPA, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is the nation's massive deficits and debt. If we want to eliminate them, Federal agencies must make meaningful fiscal sacrifices-and EPA is no exception. But Administrator Jackson-and I say this with all due respect-instead of sacrifice, I'm afraid EPA's budget submission is yet another fiscal bait and switch. We've seen this before, going back to the Bush Administration: EPA proposes significant cuts that appear fiscally responsible-but in truth they are cuts EPA knows Congress will readily restore.

 

    "By my calculations, 83% of EPA's proposed cuts come from three water programs with strong bipartisan support in Congress, including $947 million from State Revolving Funds (SRF). These cuts total $1.1 billion. EPA's overall cuts for FY 2012 amount to $1.3 billion. So it's not hard to see the math here. You can bet these cuts will be restored, because many of my colleagues believe these are worthwhile programs. For example, the SRF supports our nation's infrastructure-an area where the federal government has a crucial role to play. Administrator, I call on you to help us find cuts that are more responsible-and more politically realistic. I can think of many programs that don't deserve funding. Item number one-and this should be no surprise-is EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime.

 

    I must say, however, that, due to existing GHG regulations, this is more complicated than it seems. The problem is that EPA, states, and regulated entities have legal obligations stemming from existing GHG regulations. We have to ensure, therefore, that our cuts don't have unintended consequences. The best way to eliminate EPA's carbon regime is through an authorization bill. That's why I released the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 with Rep. Fred Upton. This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our nation's climate change policy, not EPA bureaucrats. And it will keep our focus on reducing real pollution, ensure people have jobs, and allow our economy to grow.

 

   If we want to make strides in improving public health, we won't do it by regulating carbon dioxide. It's not a pollutant-despite what EPA says. When it comes to real pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, EPA's budget falls short. For example, it eliminates funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, or DERA. This is a program with bipartisan support-from me, Chairman Boxer, Sen. Carper, and others-that we passed last year. It would help reduce real pollutants, but EPA has decided to spend elsewhere. This is irresponsible and, if followed, bad for public health. . ."

 

    Administrator Jackson testified that, "This budget reflects that good fiscal sense, and makes many tough choices. FY 2010's budget of $10.3 billion was EPA's highest funding level since its creation. This FY 2012 budget request, while a deep cut resulting in a total budget of $8.973 billion, will allow EPA to carry out its core mission and fund the most critical efforts to protect the health of American families. . .

 

    "This budget represents a nearly 13 percent reduction over the FY 2010 budget and reflects our priorities: supporting action on climate change and improving air quality; protecting America's waters; building strong state and tribal partnerships; strengthening enforcement and compliance; enhancing chemical safety; supporting healthy communities; and maintaining a strong science foundation. Because of the constrained fiscal environment, the Budget decreases the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by nearly $950 million while supporting a long‐term goal of providing about 5 percent of total water infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient system‐wide planning. The Budget also reduces the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by $125 million, eliminates about $160 million in targeted water infrastructure earmarks, and eliminates $60 million for clean diesel grants. . ."

 

    On the controversial subject of funding for greenhouse gas control and climate change she said, "Our budget requests $46 million for additional regulatory efforts aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. This includes $30 million in state grants and support for permitting, which will ensure that our state partners develop the technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Also included is $6.0 million in additional funding for the development and implementation of new emission standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as passenger cars, light‐duty trucks, and medium‐duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support EPA's assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7.5 million for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manageable for business. Finally, this amount includes an additional $2.5 million for priority measurement, reporting and verification activities related to implementing the GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website with links to testimony, statements and a webcast (click here). Access the 6-page summary of budget details for EPA (click here). Access the detailed 128-page budget summary for EPA (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• NPRA Says Proposed Ozone Changes Could Harm Economy & Jobs
• UN Climate Chief Urges Fast Follow-Up On Cancún Agreements
• Both Parties Grill EPA On Water & Remediation Budget Priorities
• RFP: $1.9 Million For Environmental Education Projects
• UNEP Reminds: "Get Onboard For World Environment Day 2011!"
• Dow Agrosciences L.L.C. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

(Click here for details)

House Hearing On EPA GHG Regulations & Jobs

Mar 1: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) with Ranking: Bobby Rush (D-IL), held a hearing on "EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs." Witnesses testifying included representatives from: Ohio Coal Association; Industrial Energy Consumers of America; James River Air Conditioning Company, Inc.; Charles River Associates; Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University; Gina McCarthy, U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation.

 

    In an opening statement Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield said, "The energy debate in America today has been summed up in about six words, and this is where we are: fossil fuels bad, green energy good. Many of us recognize that it's a lot more complicated than that. However, in order to meet our increased demands just on the electricity side, we are going to need electricity produced from all sources. The Obama administration has placed so much emphasis on green energy. Billions of dollars in stimulus money and tax incentives has gone for green energy. And the problem I have is that I think the American people are being misled about the role green energy can play in the immediate future as we use taxpayer money to help develop green energy. . ."

 

    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (D-MI) said in an opening statement, "This is a hearing about jobs. Jobs and the economy. To imply anything otherwise is misleading. Scare tactics from the other side are meant as a diversion from what EPA's greenhouse gas regulations would do to American jobs. We had this debate last Congress. Studies estimated that a cap-and-trade national energy tax would produce job losses in the millions. Yet EPA is unilaterally acting to impose the very same types of policies that Congress rejected in the 111th. . . Let's dispel a myth. Air quality and public health will not be harmed or affected in any way by efforts to slow and then stop EPA's expansive global warming agenda under the Clean Air Act. Let me repeat that: Air quality and public health will not be harmed by stopping EPA's job-crushing global warming agenda. . . Set aside the scare tactics. Listen to the facts. This issue is not about air quality and public health. It's about jobs. EPA is not looking at the impact on jobs, the Members of this Committee should and we must."

 

    Pursuant to a House rule, full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Democratic Members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, sent a letter to Chairman Whitfield requesting at least one additional day of hearings on the subject of EPA's greenhouse gas regulations in order to hear from scientific experts. The members said, "we believe it is essential that the Subcommittee hear from our nation's leading scientific experts. At the Subcommittee's first hearing, Senator James Inhofe told the Subcommittee that he believes climate change is a "hoax." We believe the members should have the opportunity to hear from top scientists on this subject and the implications of inaction before we are asked to vote on legislation premised on the assertion that carbon pollution is harmless."

 

    EPA's McCarthy testified on many benefits of the Clean Air Act and then discussed greenhouse gas regulation saying, "We are now starting to address greenhouse gases by applying some of the same Clean Air Act regulatory tools that we have used so successfully for decades. EPA is compelled to do so by the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, and the best available science, which strongly supports EPA's finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. These tools, which require the Agency to take cost into consideration, will allow the Agency to move forward with common-sense, reasonable requirements."

 

    She said, "The first greenhouse gas rule issued under pre-existing Clean Air Act authority is already demonstrating how sensible regulation can make sense for our economy. Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from new cars and trucks. The vehicles sold in model years 2012-2016 will save us 1.85 billion barrels of oil while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 962 million tons. These rules were supported by both the auto workers and the auto manufacturers, who recognize that the standards provide for certainty, drive technological innovation, and help American automakers stay competitive in a global marketplace where fuel efficiency increasingly matters."

 

    She also said, "EPA is also focusing on energy efficiency as the method of meeting greenhouse gas permit requirements for power plants and other large industrial facilities that are building new facilities or making major modifications at existing facilities. A group of 11 power companies observed that: 'EPA has proposed a reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of new power plants and large industrial facilities.' This focus on energy efficiency should promote measures that reduce both emissions and long-term costs for facilities."

 

    America's auto dealers said they "support a single national fuel economy standard and increases in fuel economy that make sense to consumers. Our primary concern is not necessarily over the stringency of the fuel economy standard, but rather the overall structure of the fuel economy regulations that govern automobiles today, which currently emanate from three different programs established by three separate government agencies. A single national standard will more effectively increase fuel economy, enhance economic growth, protect passenger safety, and protect the environment. Unless and until consumers actually purchase new vehicles, none of these benefits will be realized. . . State regulation is completely unnecessary and ineffective because the vigorous CAFE program Congress designed, coupled with EPA regulation of vehicle air conditioners, results in approximately the same amount of fuel saved and greenhouse gases reduced."

 

    Charles River Associates (CRA) discussed "how a study of green jobs released last month by Ceres and PERI gives a biased and incomplete picture of the effects of regulation and of how jobs are created." He discussed CRA model of the effects of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations on energy prices, employment and competitiveness. He said, "These regulations undeniably raise the cost of doing business. Tradeoffs must be made between economic costs and environmental benefits in designing regulations, and pretending there is no cost does not help those deliberations."

 

    Finally CRA indicated that, regulation of GHG under the Clean Air Act "is likely to take an even more costly course. Our analysis and that of just about every other modeling team has found that command and control regulations EPA must use under Clean Air Act authorities greatly increase costs above even the levels that carbon taxes or a cap and trade system would impose. The reason in simple terms is that command and control regulations are designed by bureaucrats who know next to nothing about the circumstances of individual businesses. Therefore, their orders cannot possible lead to the same cost-effective solutions that managers would find for their own businesses when facing a price on greenhouse gas emissions. So the result is that after the Congress decided not to create a cap and trade system, the EPA is following through with an approach that would impose far higher costs to achieve similar levels of emission reduction."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a background memo, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the letter from Rep. Waxman, et al (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House & Senate FY 11 Budget Battle Gets 2-Week Reprieve
• Major Enviros Intervene In GHG Reporting Lawsuits
• GAO Report On EPA Major Management Challenges
• DOE & DOD Cooperate On Advanced Clean Energy Technologies
• Groups Urge Senate To Reject Agriculture Conservation Budget Cuts
• NIEHS Begins BP Spill Long-Term Follow-Up Study Of 55,000 Workers

(Click here for details)