President Obama Takes Energy & Oil Subsidy Issues To Indiana

May 6: Speaking to the to workers at Allison Transmission Headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana, President Obama said, "Today there are more than 3,800 buses using hybrid technology all over the world -– buses that have already saved 15 million gallons of fuel. And pretty soon, you'll be expanding this technology to trucks as well.  And that means we'll have even more vehicles who are using even less oil.  That means more jobs here at Allison.  Last month, you added 50 jobs at this company and I hear that you plan to add another 200 over the next two years.  So we are very proud of that.  We are very happy about that. This is where the American economy is rebuilding, where we are regaining our footing. . ."

 

    He stressed that just today the latest jobs report indicated that another 268,000 private sector jobs were added in April. He said, "So that means over the past 14 months, just in a little bit over a year, we've added more than 2 million jobs in the private sector." Despite the good news he said, ". . .people are thinking, where are those new jobs going to come from, that pay well, have good benefits, can support a family? And how do we finally reduce our dependence on oil so that we're not hostage to high gas prices all the time?

    "The reason I'm here today is because the answers to these questions are right here at Allison, right here in these vehicles, right here in these transmissions.  This is where the jobs of the future are at.  We're going to have a lot of jobs in the service sector because we're a mature economy, but America's economy is always going to rely on outstanding manufacturing, where we make stuff -- where we're not just buying stuff overseas, but we're making stuff here, and we're selling it to somebody else.  And that's what Allison is all about. 

    "This is also where a clean energy economy is being built.  This is the kind of company that will make sure that America remains the most prosperous nation in the world.  See, other countries understand this.  We're in a competition all around the world, and other countries -- Germany, China, South Korea -- they know that clean energy technology is what is going to help spur job creation and economic growth for years to come. And that's why we've got to make sure that we win that competition.  I don't want the new breakthrough technologies and the new manufacturing taking place in China and India.  I want all those new jobs right here in Indiana, right here in the United States of America, with American workers, American know-how, American ingenuity. . .

 

   ". . .in the short term, we still need to do everything we can to encourage safe and responsible oil production here at home.  In fact, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003.  So I want everybody to remember that if people ask -- because sometimes I get letters from constituencies saying, why aren't we just drilling more here?  We're actually producing more oil here than ever.  But the challenge is we've only got about 2 to 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's oil. So we can't just drill our way out of the problem. If we're serious about meeting our energy challenge we're going to have to do more than drill. . .

 

    The President outlined the many alternative and green energy initiatives that are currently underway and said, "Of course, these investments in clean energy do cost some money, and we're going to need to find a way to pay for them. Part of the cost can be made up by putting an end to the unwarranted subsidies that we are giving oil companies right now through the tax code. I want everybody to listen here. Oil companies over the last five years, through a recession, through ups and downs, the top five oil companies, their profits have ranged between $75 billion and $125 billion. That's with a B -- not million; billion. And yet, they still have a tax loophole that is costing taxpayers $4 billion every year. Now, if you're already paying them at the pump, we don't need to pay them through the tax code. We do not need to do it. Especially at a time when we're scouring every part of the budget to try to figure out how we bring down our deficit and our debt. . .

 

    He concluded by saying, "I know that in this difficult fiscal climate, it may be tempting for some people to say let's stop investing in hybrid technology; let's stop investing in basic research; let's stop investing in the infrastructure that's needed to make sure that we can transition to new forms of transportation. That's the temptation. But I profoundly disagree with that approach. If we're going to win the future, we've got to cut out the things we don't need, but still make investments in the things that we do. . ." He said that's what people do at home. Even in hard times, they have to invest in the most important things -- He said, "Those are the things -- that's like your seed corn. You don't eat that."

 

    Despite the President's strong position to end the oil company tax credits, Republicans say removing the credits/subsidies is in effect a tax hike. On May 5, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated the Republican position on the FY 2012 budget and the upcoming vote to raise the national debt ceiling. He said, ". . .we will not increase the debt limit without real spending cuts and budget reforms," and added that when it comes to tackling our spending-driven debt crisis, "nothing is off the table except raising taxes." Boehner said "raising taxes will hurt our economy and hurt job creation in our country."

 

    In the meantime, Speaker Boehner and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee both issued releases praising the House passage yesterday of H.R.1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, with a "bipartisan vote" of 266 to 149 (33 Democrats supported) [See WIMS 5/5/11]. Introduced by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), H.R. 1230 requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that have been delayed or cancelled by the Obama Administration.

 

    Speaker Boehner said, ". . .the House has voted to restart job-creating energy projects the Obama Administration has either delayed or canceled.  The very need for legislation to move forward on projects that have already been approved shows just how far behind Washington is when it comes to expanding American energy production.  Unfortunately, the Administration remains fixated on raising taxes, which would only drive up prices further and push our economy backwards. . ."

 

    Representative Upton said, ". . . What happens when the production goes down and the demand goes up? The price goes up -- way up. Add to that the uncertainty and unrest in the Middle East, and there is no surprise that we have gas prices at $4 and $5 now in this country, and who knows where they are headed. This legislation. . . helps turn the key to unlocking the door on domestic energy production. This legislation is not about new lease sales, it simply catches up with the leases already approved." Upton supports an "all of the above" energy strategy, "a commonsense approach to meeting our nation's growing energy needs through the development of domestic energy resources, a renewed commitment to safe nuclear power, and the utilization of renewable and alternative energy technologies."

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representative Tim Bishop (D-NY) held a press conference on the House vote on "tax payer subsidies to big oil companies and rising gas prices." Rep. Markey said in a separate release, "Republicans passed the first part of their 'Oil Above All' energy plan today that will make oil drilling less safe, while protecting billions in tax breaks for the largest oil companies. The bill passed today would use shoddy, pre-BP-spill environmental review to accelerate drilling lease sales already scheduled by the Obama administration, and would open up new areas off Virginia's beaches to new drilling."

 

    Markey indicated that the Democratic energy package would "fight back against price gouging and close oil company loopholes that would cost taxpayers up to $53 billion. The bill would also end tax breaks for oil companies, of which the five largest earned more than $35 billion in profits in the first three months of 2011." He said, "Republicans want to keep grandfathering in tax breaks for the most profitable companies in the world, while cutting the funds to help grandma with her prescriptions," said Rep. Markey, the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee, from which these bills originated. "Republicans are playing favorites with an industry that does the American people no favors by continuing to protect tax breaks. Republicans are paying for these tax breaks for oil companies by erecting a drilling rig on the Medicare program, poking holes in our nation's safety net for seniors." 

    Access the full text of the President's comments in Indiana (click here). Access Speaker Boehner's comments and video (click here). Access the Speaker's statement on H.R.1230 (click here). Access Rep. Upton's statement on H.R.1230 (click here). Access the Democrats press conference transcript (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey with additional details on amendments that were rejected on H.R.1230 (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hastings with a brief summary of the legislation (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1230 including the roll call vote (click here). [*Energy/OilGas, *Energy/Tax]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

 

(Click here for details)

GOP & Dems Argue Over Yucca Mountain At NRC Hearing

May 4: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittees on Environment and the Economy and Energy and Power held a joint hearing on, "The Role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in America's Energy Future." The hearing included the joint testimony from Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and three Commissioners: William Magwood, William Ostendorff, and Kristine Svinicki. Additionally, opening statements were delivered by: Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY); Environment and Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL); Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI); and Full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA).

 

    NRC Chairman Jaczko indicated that the remaining Commissioner Apostolakis conveyed his regrets that he was not able to attend the hearing. Jaczko indicated that for the first time since 2007, the Commission is operating at full strength, with five members. He provided an update on the Japan situation and the NRC's response to that tragedy, and then move into an overview of the NRC.

 

    Jaczko said, "The NRC continues to characterize the status of the Fukushima site as static – meaning that while we have not seen or predicted any new significant challenges to safety at the site, we have only seen incremental improvements towards stabilizing the reactors and spent fuel pools. Given the devastating conditions at the site due to the earthquake, tsunami, and hydrogen explosions, progress at the site, while being made, is very challenging as important equipment and structures were either damaged or destroyed in the event, or are not accessible due to high radiation fields. The Government of Japan and the nuclear industry are providing significant resources and expertise to address the situation, and we will continue to provide support as needed. "

 

    On more local matters, Jaczko said, "I am pleased to report that the Commission revised and finalized the Waste Confidence rule, providing a measure of certainty in an important and high-visibility area. We believe the Waste Confidence Rule has a solid legal foundation that is clearly explained in the Commission's decision and is in full accord with earlier court decisions interpreting the Commission's obligations under NEPA. The Commission found that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safety and without significant environmental impact for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation. . .

 

    "Among the most dynamic and rapidly evolving areas is the development of small modular reactors. Just a few years ago, these projects remained largely conceptual. Today, they have advanced to the point that the agency anticipates receiving the first SMR design certification application as early as next year. . ."

 

    "On the subject of nuclear waste, storage and long-term disposal, Jaczko said, "As part of our Waste Confidence decision, the Commission initiated a comprehensive review of this regulatory framework. This multi-year effort will (1) identify near-term regulatory improvements to current licensing, inspection, and enforcement programs; (2) enhance the technical and regulatory basis for extended storage and transportation; and (3) identify long-term policy changes needed to ensure safe extended storage and transportation. As the question of permanent disposal is for the Congress or the courts to decide, the Commission has been clear that it was neither assuming nor endorsing indefinite, onsite storage by ordering these actions. . ."

 

    A release from Republican Committee members on the meeting indicated, "Listening to the Commissioners' testimony, it became apparent that Chairman Jazcko has attempted to circumvent the collegial structure of the Commission and prevent other Commissioners' voices from being heard on key policy matters including license review for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository." They reminded that they had recently launched an investigation into the NRC's decision-making process on the Department of Energy's license application for construction at Yucca Mountain.

    During the hearing, NRC's processes came into question  when the discussion shifted to the NRC's pending vote on the nuclear waste site. The NRC Commissioners were due to vote on matters related to the Yucca Mountain project after President Obama set out to shut down support for the program. According to the release, "Members pressed the Commissioners on the status of those votes. Despite Chairman Jaczko's stance that the voting process will still open, several of the Commissioners testified that they had already voiced their final votes on the matter."

    Today (May 5) following the hearing, Ranking Member Henry Waxman sent a letter to Subcommittee Chairman Shimkus regarding what he called "inflammatory comments" made about Waxman's questions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In his letter to Shimkus, Waxman said, "You have publicly accused NRC Chairman Jaczko of 'illegal' conduct and engaging in 'politics at its worst' for halting the license processing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository." Waxman told Shimkus that his authority as Chairman did "not extend to censoring the content of Committee members' questions. Each member has the right to review the record before the Committee and ask any relevant questions."

    Shimkus objected to a question by Waxman that Waxman said was designed to "giving Chairman Jaczko the opportunity to respond to allegations that his actions were improper." Waxman indicated to Shimkus, ". . .I believe you risk undermining the investigation by appearing to pre-judge its outcome. You stated yesterday that the Yucca investigation 'only started last week.' But even though your investigation has just started, you've already announced your conclusions regarding Yucca on several occasions over the last four months." Waxman cited several instances where Shimkus had stated that he though the NRC and Obama Administration had acted illegally in stopping funding and closing Yucca Mountain.

    Access the Republican website for the hearing and link to a background memo, opening statements, testimony and a webcast  (click here). Access the Democrats website for the hearing and link to Rep. Waxman's opening statement (click here). Access a Republican release on the hearing and links to various media reports and the letter to Chairman Jaczko (click here). Access Rep. Waxman's letter to Rep. Shimkus (click here). [Energy/Nuclear, *Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

 

(Click here for details)

Status Of Stimulus Infrastructure Funding Two Years Later

May 4: The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Chaired by Representative John Mica (R-FL), with Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV), held a hearing to examine the status of the "stimulus" (ARRA, Recovery Act funding) two years later, including audit work performed by the General Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG), and the U.S. EPA Inspector General (EPA OIG) uncovering lapses in oversight by the implementing agencies, mismanagement of grants and funds, and a lack of transparency. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included the: Department of Transportation Inspector General; U.S. EPA Inspector General; Government Accountability Office; and Department of Transportation Undersecretary for Policy.

 

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law in February 2009, its supporters claiming it would boost the struggling U.S. economy by creating jobs, stabilizing state and local government budgets, and investing in infrastructure. Chairman Mica indicated that two years later, the nation's unemployment rate remains high, unemployment in the construction industry continues at a staggering 20 percent, and a significant portion of infrastructure stimulus funds remains unspent. Wednesday's hearing will examine implementation of the stimulus and the status of the $64.1 billion in infrastructure funds for programs within the Committee's jurisdiction.

 

    The EPA reported that ARRA provided U.S. EPA with $7.2 billion, roughly equal to its fiscal year 2009 appropriation, for the following six EPA programs: $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) to provide funds to upgrade wastewater treatment systems; $2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide funds to upgrade drinking water infrastructure; $600 million for the Superfund Program to initiate and accelerate clean-up at National Priorities List sites; $300 million for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program to accelerate emission reductions from diesel engines; $200 million for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program to clean up contamination from underground storage tank petroleum leaks; $100 million for the Brownfields Program to carry out revitalization projects at brownfields sites. EPA retained $71.5 million for management and oversight activities.

 

    EPA's OIG reported that, "As of April 2011, EPA reported that it has obligated over 99 percent of its Recovery Act funds. For the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, which account for $6 billion of its $7.2 billion Recovery Act funds, EPA stated that all of its SRF funds awarded to states were under contract or construction by the February 17, 2010, statutory deadline. We expressed concerns about EPA being able to meet this deadline, and to their credit, they accomplished this task. Additionally, EPA reported that all of its funds for Superfund projects have been obligated."

 

    EPA's OIG indicated, "Despite the billions EPA received under the Recovery Act, the OIG has detected limited fraud of EPA funds expended so far. The OIG has received fewer Recovery Act-related hotline complaints than anticipated. Recipient reporting requirements and greater transparency seem to have made a positive impact."

 

    The GAO issued a separate report entitled, Recovery Act: Preliminary Observations on the Use of Funds for Clean and Drinking Water Projects (GAO-11-642T May 4, 2011). GAO indicated that nationwide, the 50 states have awarded and obligated the almost $6 billion in Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF program funds provided under the Recovery Act and reported using the majority of these funds for sewage treatment infrastructure and drinking water treatment and distribution systems. The funds supported more than 3,000 water quality infrastructure projects nationwide. Since the Recovery Act was passed, states have drawn down $3.1 billion (79 percent) of the Clean Water SRF program funds and $1.7 billion (83 percent) of the Drinking Water SRF program funds provided under the Recovery Act.

 

    GAO said the states also met the act's requirements that at least: (1) 20 percent of the funds provided be used to support "green" projects, such as those that promote energy or water efficiency; and, (2) 50 percent of the funds provide additional subsidies in the form of loans for which the principal is forgiven, loans for which the repayment is less than the principal (negative interest loans), or grants. In the nine states GAO reviewed, Recovery Act funds have paid for 419 infrastructure projects that help to address major water quality problems, although state officials said that in some cases, Recovery Act requirements changed their priorities for ranking projects or the projects selected.

 

   In the nine states 24 percent of the funds they received to pay for projects in economically disadvantaged communities, the majority of which was provided as additional subsidies. States reported that the Recovery Act SRF programs funded an increasing amount of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions from the quarter ending December 2009 through the quarter ending June 2010, from 6,000 FTEs to 15,000 FTEs, declining to 6,000 FTEs for the quarter ending in March 2011 as projects were completed. EPA and the states are overseeing Recovery Act projects and funds using EPA's oversight plan, updated in June 2010 in response to recommendations GAO made to specify procedures for oversight.

     The Department of Transportation's (DOT) indicated that ARRA designated $48 billion for new and existing DOT programs to create and save jobs, invest in long-term growth, and improve the Nation's transportation system. Almost 95 percent of DOT's ARRA funds are distributed to FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the construction and maintenance of highway, road, bridge, rail, and transit projects. DOT said the funding had allowed 15,000 projects in all 50 states; providing 82,000 direct job-years of work and over 280,000 job-years in the overall economy considering indirect jobs.

    GAO issued a separate report on DOT funding entitled, Recovery Act: Use of Transportation Funds, Outcomes, and Lessons Learned (GAO-11-610T,  May 04, 2011). GAO indicated that it has previously reported on numerous challenges DOT and states faced in implementing the transportation maintenance-of-effort requirement, which required states to maintain their planned levels of spending over approximately 18 months or be ineligible to participate in the August 2011 redistribution of obligation authority under the Federal-Aid Highway Program. A January 2011 preliminary DOT report found that 29 states met the requirement while 21 states did not. In this report, DOT also discussed how the maintenance-of-effort provision could be improved. With regard to the high speed intercity passenger rail and TIGER programs, GAO found that while DOT generally followed recommended grant-making practices, DOT could have better documented its award decisions.

    Access the Republican website for the hearing including links to testimony and reports, background information and a video (click here). Access the Democrats website for the hearing which includes an opening statement video (click here). [*Water, *Drink, *Transportation]

Senate Hearing On Clean Energy Deployment Administration

May 3: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), held a hearing to receive testimony on the proposal for a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) as contained in Title I, Subtitle A of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462 of the 111th Congress) [See WIMS 6/17/09]. Witnesses included: Jonathan Silver, Executive Director of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program; and representatives from the Center for Energy Policy and Finance, Stanford University; Tana Energy Capital LLC; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Institute for 21st Century Energy.

 

    Chairman Bingaman indicated in an opening statement, "This legislation has been in development for several years now and has benefitted greatly from the input of many people in the private sector, including the ones here today to testify on the proposal of CEDA. The problems of bringing new energy technologies to the commercial marketplace have been documented for a long time.  In many hearings, over several years, we have heard about the challenging environment for securing investment in emerging clean energy technologies.  The high capital requirements, coupled with unavailability of affordable financing, have generally steered investments toward largely proven technologies while the real 'game changing' technologies have not been able to get the money they need. . .

 

    "Although research and development in the United States has been strong - leading to some very promising advances in renewable energy, highly fuel-efficient and electric drive vehicles, smart grid technology and ultra-efficient lighting and appliances – their transition to the commercial marketplace has been frustratingly slow. The rest of the world is working hard to accelerate this deployment cycle and, as we have heard in a hearing in March of this year, our global competitors are committing significant resources to make their countries attractive environments for clean energy technology deployment, including through financing support. . . "

 

    In relation to the current budget debates in Congress and future investments in clean energy technology, Chairman Bingaman said, "One thing I think has been made clear in the hearings we have had so far on this topic is that we should not wait in making these investments. The budgeting conventions we use here dictate that the funds set aside for CEDA within the Treasury are considered 'spent' immediately, even though any actual losses may not happen for years and could be offset by fees collected.  We need to find a way to pay for that amount when the bill comes to the full Senate. While I acknowledge that the current environment makes this difficult, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a suitable offset, and we should not lose sight of the fundamental cost-effectiveness of this type of financing support. CEDA will generate significant private sector spending and will finance projects that have many times the value of the actual risks taken."

 

    Ranking Member Murkowski made clear that the cost of the program would need to be offset by spending reductions elsewhere in the federal budget. She said, "This debate should be about how to make better use of all of our resources, including the revenues that result from energy production. Despite the high initial costs of creating a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, I continue to believe that it's a smarter, more efficient way for the federal government to promote clean energy technologies.

 

    "Legislation creating CEDA was voted out of the Energy Committee on a bipartisan basis last Congress. The proposal would address the persistent lack of available financing for clean energy projects. CEDA allows the opportunity to re-use its funding over time to back private lending for clean energy projects, instead of only offering one-time payments in the form of grants or tax credits as previous programs have done. It is my view that we must find an acceptable offset for CEDA. An offset will not only help CEDA become a reality; it will also help us hold the line on new spending and ensure we do not add to our national debt."

 

    The Chamber of Commerce testified that, ". . .this Committee's version of CEDA from ACELA is elegantly tailored to address the primary problem of commercializing technologies because of their newness and inherent technological risk, while doing it in a technology-neutral fashion. I must be clear, the label 'clean energy' is not reserved solely for renewables, but must be accurately applied to any and all new technologies and processes that reduce environmental impact, whether it be clean coal, advanced biofuels, natural gas vehicles, advanced nuclear, or energy storage to name a few. The ability to acquire financing is not the only hurdle to clean energy deployment. Our existing siting process has proven to be an absolute obstacle for dozens of clean energy projects. Without substantive reform to the current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, clean energy deployment will not reach its potential. . . CEDA combines a domestic energy mission with sophisticated financial risk management skills to bring emerging clean energy technologies to the market significantly faster than would occur under current market conditions."

 

    The Center for Energy Policy & Finance at Stanford University testified that, ". . .We support significant FY 2012 funding for the DOE Loan Guarantee Program to continue its important work in the near term. However, over the longer term, supporting the financing of capital-intensive energy projects with serious scale-up risks – with leadership from and in close collaboration with the private sector -- is not a good match for the current structure, oversight, risk tolerance, and financial tools of the Department of Energy. If the U.S. is to regain its competitiveness in the global clean energy technology race, commercializing energy technology innovations requires a new more effective approach – and that approach is CEDA. I would also note that political support for -- and the ultimate success of -- a national Clean Energy Standard, that this committee is currently considering and the Obama Administration supports, will be greatly enhanced if a complementary and comprehensive financing mechanism, like CEDA, is also adopted. . ."

 

    Tana Energy Capital LLC, an energy investment and advisory firm, testified that, "CEDA has a focused purpose to promote affordable financing for clean energy technologies and projects which would not get financing otherwise. CEDA will help to improve U.S. competitiveness in clean energy and reduce the cost of new energy technologies. Support for breakthrough technologies developed and deployed domestically could strengthen U.S. clean technology leadership and lay the groundwork for a competitive U.S. export market. In this time of fiscal austerity, I see CEDA as a win‐win for the American people, legislators, and energy companies alike. . ."

   

    Access the hearing website and link to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the ACELA, S.1462, which included CEDA from the last Congress including summaries, support, a report and more (click here) [*Energy/Tech]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

 

(Click here for details)

Oil Subsidies Are "Neither Right, Nor Smart, And They Should End"

Apr 30: In follow-up to his letter to Congressional leaders on April 26 [See WIMS 4/27/11], calling for an end to what he called subsidies to "yesterday's energy sources," President Obama used his weekly address to once again call for an end to at least $4 billion annually in taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies. Since the President's initial request to Congress, House and Senate Republican leaders have indicated there disagreement with and said they will not vote to end the subsidies [See WIMS 4/29/11].

 

    The President said, ". . .chances are you're having a tougher time paying the rising costs of everything from groceries to gas. In some places, gas is now more than $4 a gallon, meaning that you could be paying upwards of $50 or $60 to fill up your tank.

Of course, while rising gas prices mean real pain for our families at the pump, they also mean bigger profits for oil companies. This week, the largest oil companies announced that they'd made more than $25 billion in the first few months of 2011 – up about 30 percent from last year.

 

    "Now, I don't have a problem with any company or industry being rewarded for their success. The incentive of healthy profits is what fuels entrepreneurialism and helps drives our economy forward. But I do have a problem with the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies we've been handing out to oil and gas companies – to the tune of $4 billion a year. When oil companies are making huge profits and you're struggling at the pump, and we're scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren't right. They aren't smart. And we need to end them. . .

 

    ". . .instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, we should invest in tomorrow's – and that's what we've been doing. Already, we've seen how the investments we're making in clean energy can lead to new jobs and new businesses. I've seen some of them myself – small businesses that are making the most of solar and wind power, and energy-efficient technologies; big companies that are making fuel-efficient cars and trucks part of their vehicle fleets. And to promote these kinds of vehicles, we implemented historic new fuel-economy standards, which could save you as much as $3,000 at the pump.

    "Now, I know that in this tough fiscal environment, it's tempting for some in Washington to want to cut our investments in clean energy. And I absolutely agree that the only way we'll be able to afford the things we need is if we cut the things we don't, and live within our means. But I refuse to cut things like clean energy that will help America win the future by growing our economy and creating good-paying jobs; that will help make America more secure; and that will help clean up our planet in the process. An investment in clean energy today is an investment in a better tomorrow. And I think that's an investment worth making. . ."

    Solidifying the Republican position not to support ending the subsidies, Representative James Lankford (R-OK) responded, also on April 30, with the weekly Republican address and stated that the President's plan to hike "taxes by billions of dollars -- will not lower gas prices and would actually make the problem worse." He said, "The President may think he's punishing CEOs of big companies, but his plan will hurt the everyday consumer of energy. . ."

    Representative Lankford said, "Americans are looking for leadership to tackle the rising gas prices, but President Obama has only offered a tax increase on energy and the prospect of reduced supply.  For more than two years, his administration has knowingly increased energy prices by choking off new sources of traditional American energy and smothering our economy in new energy regulations. His latest proposal – hiking taxes by billions of dollars – will not lower gas prices and would actually make the problem worse.

 

    "In my state, and in many other states, thousands of people depend directly on American energy production for their paychecks. The President may think he's punishing CEOs of big companies, but his plan will hurt the everyday consumer of energy and imperil the jobs of millions of hardworking people in American-based companies. There is a better way. Republicans are focused on expanding all American energy production to help lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create millions of American jobs.

 

    "Next week, the House of Representatives will begin this process by passing legislation to increase the supply of American energy and create jobs. This legislation is part of our American Energy Initiative – an ongoing effort to lower costs and allow the private sector to create more American jobs. . ."

    Access the President's weekly address (click here). Access the President's video (click here). Access the complete Republican weekly address (click here). [*Energy/OilGas]

3 WIMS Blogs Named to LexisNexis' 2011 Top 50 List

Apr 21: Three of the Waste Information & Management Services' (WIMS') blogs -- eNewsUSA; Environmental - Appeals Court; Great Lakes Environment -- were selected from a nominated list of about 99 blogs to be recognized as part of the LexisNexis Top 50 Environmental Law & Climate Change Community Blogs for 2011.

 

Access the announcement and listing of 50 blogs from LexisNexis (click here).

As Oil Profits & Gas Prices Soar; Standoff Continues On Tax Subsidies

Apr 28: As major oil companies posted increased first quarter profits, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and 28 other House Democrats urged Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to allow an up-or-down vote on the repeal of nearly $8 billion a year in wasteful subsidies for the nation's largest oil companies. President Obama, the day before, had called on Congress to end "$4 billion per year in these subsidies." [See WIMS 4/27/11]. Representative Blumenauer has introduced a bill, H.R.601, which he indicates would end nearly $8 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies to the largest oil companies. All members that signed the letter to Speaker Boehner are cosponsors of this legislation. The bill now has 35 cosponsors.

 

    In a release, Blumenauer indicated that the letter to Boehner comes as oil majors report skyrocketing quarterly profits, including a spike of nearly 70 percent for ExxonMobil. Media reports indicated that ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Shell posted a combined $18.2 billion in first quarter profits -- a 40 percent increase over their profits in the first quarter of 2010. Exxon alone posted a $10.7 billion profit. He said, "Today we learned that ExxonMobil saw its profits soar nearly 70 percent while Americans are getting clobbered at the pump. It is unconscionable that we are cutting government services left and right while continuing billions in giveaways to giant oil companies. Now is the time for Republicans to respect the will of the people and hold an up-or-down vote on repealing these wasteful subsidies."

    In their letter to the Speaker, the Representatives said they were acknowledging the Speaker's statement earlier in the week that he was "open to eliminating unnecessary tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry." They said, "We agree with you that, especially in an era of high gas prices and high profits, the big oil companies don't need all of the generous subsidies that taxpayers currently provide." The said their legislation (H.R.601) reserves the subsidies for small independent producers, but "would save roughly $40 billion over the next 5 years."

 

    As WIMS previously reported, Speaker John Boehner, through a statement from his spokesman, backed away from his comments in an ABC News interview, and indicated that "raising taxes was a non-starter." Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) immediately rejected the President's call for eliminating the tax subsidies saying the President's request was "predictable as it is counterproductive." Instead, McConnell said the President should open "areas to development, stop penalizing American job creation with new fees and tax hikes, and call an end to the anti-energy crusade at the Environmental Protection Agency."

    In their letter the House Democrats said, "President Obama has written to Congress urging us to pass legislation to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil companies. This position is shared by a majority of the Democratic Caucus, as evidenced by the vote on the Motion to Recommit on H.J. Res. 44 (Roll Call 153), and by 74 percent of the American public according to recent opinion polls. You may hear concern from some in your caucus that closing tax loopholes for the oil companies will raise gas prices. As you know, this is not the case. The Joint Economic Committee and other experts have determined that closing tax loopholes for the big oil companies will not increase consumer energy prices. Since the price of oil is set on the world market, the subsidies we provide in this country only do one thing: increase oil company profits.

    "Oil prices are sufficiently high for companies to explore and drill without incentives. In the words of former President George W. Bush, 'I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.' Today prices are double that amount, making tax incentives even less necessary. As Exxon Mobil, BP and other big oil companies announce record profits in the coming days, we urge you to schedule an up-or-down vote on the House Floor providing members with the opportunity to vote to repeal some of the most egregious tax subsidies. With gas prices on the rise, we would welcome the opportunity to show our constituents that Congress is ready to stop wastefully subsidizing some of the most profitable businesses in the world and instead use that money to reduce the deficit and invest in real relief from high gas prices."

 

    In a report from The Hill publication, Speaker Boehner again replied to the letter through his spokesperson, Michael Steel in an email saying, "The Speaker wants to increase the supply of American energy to lower gas prices and create millions of American jobs. Raising taxes will not do that."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee sent his own letter to Speaker Boehner outlining three more measures. in addition to H.R.601, that he said the House should pass to decrease gas prices in the short term, increase drilling safety, and end oil company practices that hold hostage American oil underneath taxpayer owned lands. Beyond H.R.601, he listed:

1. The Enhanced SPR Act (H.R.1017), which would help consumers at the pump by deploying a small amount of our nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and strengthen the reserves by later adding refined petroleum product like gasoline when prices subside.
2. The USE IT Act (H.R.927), would impose a fee on oil companies to pressure them to begin drilling on the tens of millions of acres of public land where we know there is oil and they are not producing.
3. The Implementing the Recommendations of the BP Oil Spill Commission Act (H.R.501), to increase safety in the offshore oil industry.

    Access the release and letter from Rep. Blumenauer and the list of signers (click here). Access the report in The Hill (click here). Access a release and letter from Rep. Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.601 (click here). Access a fact sheet from Rep. on H.R.601 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1017 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.927 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.501 (click here). [*Energy/OilGas]

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

 

(Click here for details)

Industry Groups Petition EPA To Stay Boiler MACT & CISWI Rules

Apr 27: American Forest & Paper Association President and CEO Donna Harman issued a statement regarding the AF&PA- led coalition request to U.S. EPA to stay the Boiler MACT and Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) rules. The standards cover more than 200,000 boilers and incinerators that emit harmful air pollution, including mercury, cadmium, and particle pollution.

    On February 23, 2011, in response to Federal court orders in Sierra Club v. EPA requiring the issuance of final standards [See WIMS 1/21/11], U.S. EPA issued final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators -- the so-called "Boiler MACT" rules -- that EPA says will achieve significant public health protections through reductions in toxic air emissions, including mercury and soot, but cut the cost of implementation by about 50 percent from an earlier proposal issued last year [See WIMS 2/23/11]. In response to a September 2009 court order, EPA issued the proposed rules in April 2010, prompting significant public input. The proposed rules followed a period that began in 2007, when a Federal court vacated a set of industry specific standards proposed during the Bush Administration. Based on the public input received following the April 2010 proposal, EPA made extensive revisions, and in December 2010 requested additional time for review to ensure the public's input was fully addressed. EPA was seeking in its motion to the court an extension to finalize the rules by April 13, 2012. Instead, the court granted EPA 30 days, resulting in February 23 announcement.

    Harman said, "Today, we are collectively filing a petition with the EPA to stay the Boiler MACT and CISWI rules while issues with the rules are addressed. Without a stay, the rules published in the Federal Register on March 21 are set to become effective next month.  EPA already has announced it plans to reconsider major parts of the rules. While it is apparent that extensive changes are still needed to the rules, businesses cannot plan effectively in the face of this uncertainty. The Boiler MACT and CISWI rules are interrelated, and businesses need adequate lead-time to prepare once the rules are indeed finalized. A stay is a necessary first step to ensure that resources are spent where they will ultimately be needed to make the greatest difference and that companies will not lose compliance time during the continuing rulemaking.

    "Within our request are detailed accounts from forest product companies showing the serious harm that would occur should any part of the three-year implementation period be taken up by EPA's reconsideration. Not only could hundreds of millions of dollars be wasted designing a compliance plan for a rule that become obsolete, but precious compliance time could also be lost if the rule is not stayed. EPA has the authority to stay these rules, and we are asking it to exercise that authority. Our current capital cost estimate for the forest products industry exceeds $4 billion, and as our technical experts delve deeper, their concerns about achievability and cost are growing. We anticipate that the capital cost for all industrial sectors from Boiler MACT alone to be over $14 billion, plus billions more in annual operating costs. We will continue to work with the Administration toward a more affordable and achievable set of Boiler MACT and CISWI rules."

    Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) also issued a statement saying, "EPA is reconsidering major portions of these rules, and businesses should not be asked to comply until final requirements are clear. Otherwise, businesses could spend millions, if not billions, to comply with rules that may change. A stay would avoid premature and potentially misguided expenditures and allow companies to keep their immediate focus on expansion, hiring and growth."

    The Coalition of industry organizations includes: American Forest & Paper Association, National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Home Furnishings Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Municipal Power, Inc., American Petroleum Institute, American Wood Council, Biomass Power Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Corn Refiners Association, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Florida Sugar Industry (joined by sugarcane processors in Texas and Hawaii), National Oilseed Processors Association, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Treated Wood Council, and their members (collectively the "Petitioners").

    According to the petition to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the petitioners, "respectfully request an immediate stay of (1) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,554 (Mar. 21, 2011) (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058) (the "Boiler rule"), and (2) the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011) (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119) (the "CISWI rule") pending reconsideration.

    Access the statement from AF&PA (click here). Access the statement from ACC (click here). Access the 58-page petition  (click here). Access links to the final rules, fact sheets, and regulatory impact analyses for each of EPA's regulatory actions (click here). Access more information from EPA's Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial / Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators website (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

 

(Click here for details)

Gridlock Continues On End To $4 Billion/Yr. Oil & Gas Tax Subsidies

Apr 26: In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), President Obama pressed the legislative leaders to address the issue of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. The President called for an end to subsidies to "yesterday's energy sources." Immediately, House and Senate Republican leaders responded negatively to the President's letter.

 

    In his letter the President said, "I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. High oil and gasoline prices are weighing on the minds and pocketbooks of every American family. While our economy has begun to recover, with 1.8 million private sector jobs created over the last 13 months, too many Americans are still struggling to find a job or simply just to pay the bills. The recent steep increase in gas prices, driven by increased global demand and compounded by unrest and supply disruptions in the Middle East, has only added to those struggles. If sustained, these high prices have the potential to slow down the pace of our economy's growth at precisely the moment when we need to be accelerating it.  

    "While there is no silver bullet to address rising gas prices in the short term, there are steps we can take to ensure the American people don't fall victim to skyrocketing gas prices over the long term. One of those steps is to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks to the oil and gas industry and invest that revenue into clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Our outdated tax laws currently provide the oil and gas industry more than $4 billion per year in these subsidies, even though oil prices are high and the industry is projected to report outsized profits this quarter. In fact, in the past CEO's of the major oil companies made it clear that high oil prices provide more than enough profit motive to invest in domestic exploration and production without special tax breaks. As we work together to reduce our deficits, we simply can't afford these wasteful subsidies, and that is why I proposed to eliminate them in my FY11 and FY12 budgets.  

    "I was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Our political system has for too long avoided and ignored this important step, and I hope we can come together in a bipartisan manner to get it done. In addition, we need to get to work immediately on the longer term goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and our vulnerability to price fluctuations this dependence creates. Without a comprehensive energy strategy for the future we will stay stuck in the same old pattern of heated political rhetoric when prices rise and apathy and neglect when they fall again.

    "I recently laid out my approach to a comprehensive strategy in my Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future [See WIMS 3/30/11 & WIMS 3/31/11, which includes safe and responsible production of our domestic oil and gas resources and doubling down on fuel efficiency in the transportation sector while investing in everything from wind and solar to biofuels and natural gas. None of you will agree with every aspect of this strategy. But I am confident that, in many areas, we can work together to help show the American people that we can make progress on an energy policy that creates jobs and makes our country more secure. And I hope we can all agree that, instead of continuing to subsidize yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's. We need to invest in a 21st century clean energy economy that will keep America competitive. In the long term, that's the answer. That's the key to helping families avoid pain at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

    Senator McConnell issued a quick response to the President's letter and said, "The President's latest call to raise taxes on U.S. energy is as predictable as it is counterproductive. If someone in the administration can show me that raising taxes on American energy production will lower gas prices and create jobs, then I will gladly discuss it. But since nobody can, and the President's letter to Congress today doesn't, this is merely an attempt to deflect from the policies of the past two years. Instead of returning again and again to tax hikes that increase consumers' costs, the administration and its Democrat allies in Congress should open their eyes to the vast energy resources we have right here at home and to the hundreds of thousands of jobs that opening them up could create. If the President were truly serious about lowering the price of gas at the pump, he would open these areas to development, stop penalizing American job creation with new fees and tax hikes, and call an end to the anti-energy crusade at the Environmental Protection Agency."

    Speaker Boehner did not have an official release or statement on the letter but a spokesman seemed to indicate that the Speaker was backing away from his previous comments in an ABC News interview. Reportedly, the spokesman said, "The Speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a non-starter, and he's told the president that. He simply wasn't going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending 'Big Oil' companies. Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We'll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump."

    Democratic Leader Pelosi issued a release and letter to Speaker Boehner calling for him to schedule a vote next week to end what she said was "billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. House Democrats have long advocated the elimination of these outdated and costly subsidies." In the letter to Boehner, Pelosi wrote: "…we have had several votes on this subject in the House, and have been disappointed that these proposals have not been supported by the Republican leadership. Your comments yesterday acknowledged that oil companies ought to be paying their fair share. It makes little sense for American consumers -- who are now paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline in most parts of the United States -- to have billions of their taxpayer dollars subsidizing oil companies that are making record profits."

    Senator Reid responded with a statement and said, "I agree with the President that it is long past time to end wasteful subsidies to big oil companies that are raking in record profits. If Senate Republicans are serious about cutting spending, as Democrats are, they'll stop filibustering our efforts to eliminate corporate welfare that even a former Shell Oil CEO said is unnecessary. Rather than giving handouts to big corporations, we should be investing in clean energy development and construction here at home to create jobs, diversify our economy, break our dangerous dependence on oil and make our nation safer. As a bipartisan delegation of senators saw first-hand, China and other countries are aggressively investing in this industry for exactly those reasons. Abundant solar, wind and geothermal resources in Nevada and across the country combined with American know-how give our country the ability to be the world leader in clean energy. We should not lose our edge in this global competition just so Republicans can give even more taxpayer money to companies that don't need it." The Senate Majority Leader also released a transcript of Speaker Boehner's interview with ABC.

    Access the President's letter (click here). Access the statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access a report from The Hill on the ABC News interview and Speaker Boehner comments (click here). Access the statement and letter from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Reid (click here). Access the transcript of the Speaker Boehner interview (click here). [*Energy/OilGas]

Parties At Odds Over Major TransCanada Keystone Pipeline

Apr 22: The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has prepared a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) for the controversial proposed TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (TransCanada) Keystone XL Project (Project). On September 19, 2008, TransCanada filed an application for a Presidential Permit for the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of a pipeline and associated facilities at the border of the U.S. and Canada for the transport of crude oil across the U.S.-Canada international boundary. Comments on the SDEIS are being accepted until June 6, 2011. DOS indicated previously that it expects to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of 2011 [See WIMS 3/21/11].

 

    The Keystone XL project is a $7 billion pipeline that would transport up to 900,000 barrels/day (bpd) of tar sands crude oil almost 2,000 miles from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf Coast. TransCanada has requested authorization to construct and operate border crossing facilities at the U.S.-Canadian border in Phillips County, near Morgan, Montana, in connection with its proposed international pipeline project (Keystone XL Project) that is designed to transport Canadian crude oil production from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) to destinations in the south central United States, including to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and East Houston areas of Texas.

 

    The (API) issued a release saying the State Department environmental analysis to the Keystone XL project is "a positive indicator for eventual approval of the project. The analysis found 'no new issues of substance' and 'does not alter the conclusions reached in the draft EIS regarding the need for and the potential impacts of the proposed Project.'" Cindy Schild, API's refining issues manager said, "We urge the administration to turn aside any additional efforts to delay this important project. The pipeline has passed every analysis and review over the last two years, while additional American job creation and economic growth from this important project are delayed. We need to expand our energy relationship with America's number one source of imported oil: Canada."

    "For decades, U.S. refineries have been processing crude from Canadian oil sands. The Keystone pipeline could expand access to this vital resource by providing transportation for an additional 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Investing in Canadian oil sands will also produce more than 340,000 U.S. jobs and generate about $34 billion in revenue for the U.S. government, according to an economic analysis by the Canadian Energy Research Institute."

    Kate Colarulli, Associate Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Oil campaign, issued a statement on the SDEIS and said, "We are deeply disappointed to see such an inadequate environmental analysis from the State Department. Given the destructive nature and far-reaching effects of that these dirty tar sands would have on our economy, farms in the Heartland, and Americans' health, we expect more. The American people deserve more. Alarmingly, the State Department is moving ahead with the permitting process before the Department of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has completed a thorough, scientific analysis of the chemical composition of tar sands oil, its potential effects on pipeline safety, affected drinking water sources, and the risk of a major oil spill.

    "What's more, the minimal public comment period issued today would mean that the millions of Americans affected by the pipeline would have little time to make their concerns heard. We are dismayed that the State Department is rushing forward with this process at the behest of a foreign corporation and despite the fact that there are still critical, outstanding questions that must be answered about the threats this project poses to Americans' health and safety."

    On April 22, API issued a second release saying it welcomed the support for the Keystone XL pipeline from the Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and the State's two U.S. Senators James Inhofe (R) and Tom Coburn (R). API said the lawmakers are joined in their support for the project by Oklahoma U.S. Representatives Frank Lucas (R-3rd), Dan Boren (D-2nd), Tom Cole (R-4th) and John Sullivan (R-1st), as well as the State Chamber of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Trucking Association, Continental Resources, Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association of Oklahoma, Kay County, Ponca City Development Authority and Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett. Nebraska's Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mike Johanns (R-NE) have both previously raised concerns to Secretary of State Clinton about the Keystone XL pipeline project [See WIMS 10/25/10]. Last September, U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) urged the State Department to expedite the permit by TransCanada to create its Keystone XL pipeline.

    Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the State Department Keystone Project website for complete information (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the 2nd release from API (click here). [*Energy/Oilsands]

Political Angst & Rhetoric Abound Over High Gas Prices

April 22: As the national average for a gallon of gasoline approaches $4.00 and is well over that in many parts of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats are trading barbs about who is at fault.

 

    In his weekly address on April 23, President Obama laid out his plans to address rising gas prices over the short and the long term. He said, while there is "no silver bullet to bring down prices right away, there are a few things we can do." He said the Attorney General launched a task force dedicated to rooting out fraud or manipulations in the oil markets. He called for ending the $4 billion in taxpayer money that the oil and gas companies receive annually. And, he said we need to continue "safe, responsible production" of oil at home." And, in the long term, "we need to invest in clean, renewable energy." He said he strongly disagrees with a proposal in Congress that cuts our investments in clean energy by 70 percent.

 

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (D-KY) said there are: "Simple Solutions to Provide Relief at the Pump." He said, "Increased energy costs are forcing some Kentucky businesses to lay off employees. A truck plant in Louisville has temporarily shut down due, in part, to high fuel costs. And Kentuckians across the state cringe every time they pull up to the pump. Gas prices have nearly doubled over the past two years. In some parts of the country gas costs more than four dollars a gallon. How did it come to this? President Obama's policies certainly haven't helped..."

 

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) issued a statement after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) announced the completion of the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for oil and gas lease sale 218 in the Western Planning Area in the Gulf of Mexico. He said the announcement comes on the heels of the Natural Resources Committee passing H.R. 1230, "a bill that would reverse the Obama Administration's actions and proceed now with the scheduled lease sales in a prompt, timely and safe manner." Hastings said, "As Americans brace for $5 gasoline, the Obama Administration has quickly realized the outrage that would follow if 2011 was the first year since 1958 without an offshore lease sale. . . the Administration should move forward with other sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that were scheduled to take place this year. The Administration has already determined that offshore drilling can move forward safely and responsibly, and now it's time to hold lease sales and issue permits to create jobs, lower prices, and produce more American energy."

 

    The Washington, DC insider publication, The Hill, published a timely analysis which they called, "Fact-checking the Washington rhetoric on oil, drilling and energy." The article addresses a number of questions and generally cites answers from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Questions include: What impact will additional drilling have on gas prices?; How much oil did the United States produce in 2010?; Who is responsible for the increase in oil production in 2010?; How much oil will the United States produce in the coming years?; How many barrels of proven oil reserves does the United States have?; How does that compare with other countries?; What's the best way to determine how much oil the United States has?; How much oil does the United States consume?; and How much oil does the U.S. import?

 

    On the major question of the impact of more drilling on gas prices at the pump, the article cites EIA Administrator Richard Newell, in written testimony delivered to the House Natural Resources Committee March 17, saying: "Long term, we do not project additional volumes of oil that could flow from greater access to oil resources on Federal lands to have a large impact on prices given the globally integrated nature of the world oil market and the more significant long-term compared to short-term responsiveness of oil demand and supply to price movements." But Newell said that longer-term domestic production "would impact local economic activity, net oil imports, and the associated U.S. international trade balance resulting from oil imports."

 

    Also noted is that in 2010 domestic oil production reached its highest level since 2003 -- 5.5 million barrels of oil a day. U.S. oil production peaked at 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970. The U.S. consumed 18,771,400 barrels of oil per day in 2009, or a total of 6.85 billion barrels and in 2010 the figure was 6.99 billion barrels -- about one-fourth of the world's oil.

 

    Access the President's address (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Attorney General (click here). Access Sen. McConnell's release  (click here). Access the release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the fact check article from The Hill (click here). [*Energy]

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument In AEP v. Connecticut
• House Democrats Releases Report On Fracking Chemicals
• Cornell Researchers Question CO2 Emissions From Fracking
• BP Oil Spill Anniversary & $1 Billion Restoration Payment
• Final Rule Extends Subpart W BAMM GHG Reporting Deadlines
• Senators Say EPA Continues To "Botch" Lead-Based Paint Rule
• Worldwide Interviews From Climate Change Delegation Officials
• Critical Infrastructure For Ocean Research & Societal Needs
• Presidential Proclamation--Earth Day
• Southern Alliance for Clean Energy v. Duke Energy
• Yankee Gas Services Co. v. UGI Utilities., Inc.
• Sierra Club v. U.S. Army COE
• Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

(Click here for details)