Super Committee Fizzles; Obama Says "No" To Altering Cuts

Nov 21: After three months and much expectation, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (JSC, a.k.a. "Super Committee") created under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (i.e. debt ceiling legislation of last August) has announced it has failed to reach agreement on anything. The JSC was charged with devising a long-term approach to reducing the nation's deficit by at least another $1.2 trillion before this Thanksgiving. The Super Committee includes the following 12 members. Senate Democrats: Patty Murray (D-WA, Co-Chair), Max Baucus (D-MT), and John Kerry (D-MA). Senate Republicans: Jon Kyl (R-AZ); Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Rob Portman (R-OH). House Republicans: Jeb Hensarling (R-TX, Co-Chair); Dave Camp (R-MI); and Fred Upton (R-MI). House Democrats: James Clyburn (D-SC); Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

 

    The Co-Chairs of the Super Committee, Representative Jeb Hensarling and Senator Patty Murray, released a brief statement saying:

"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline. Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve.  We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee's work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy.

"We are deeply disappointed that we have been unable to come to a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, but as we approach the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving, we want to express our appreciation to every member of this committee, each of whom came into the process committed to achieving a solution that has eluded many groups before us. Most importantly, we want to thank the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task.

"We would also like to thank our committee staff, in particular Staff Director Mark Prater and Deputy Staff Director Sarah Kuehl, as well as each committee member's staff for the tremendous work they contributed to this effort. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Douglas Elmendorf and Mr. Thomas Barthold and their teams at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, respectively, for the technical support they provided to the committee and its members."

    President Obama issued a statement in response to the Committee's failure saying:

"As you all know, last summer I signed a law that will cut nearly $1 trillion of spending over the next 10 years.  Part of that law also required Congress to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion by the end of this year. In September, I sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that goal. It's a plan that would reduce the deficit by an additional $3 trillion, by cutting spending, slowing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. . .

"But despite the broad agreement that exists for such an approach, there's still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington.  They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at any cost, even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research. Even if it means deep cuts in Medicare. So at this point, at least, they simply will not budge from that negotiating position. And so far, that refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that has prevented Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit.

"Now, we are not in the same situation that we were -- that we were in in August. There is no imminent threat to us defaulting on the debt that we owe.  There are already $1 trillion worth of spending cuts that are locked in.  And part of the law that I signed this summer stated that if Congress could not reach an agreement on the deficit, there would be another $1.2 trillion of automatic cuts in 2013 -– divided equally between domestic spending and defense spending. One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. . .

Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise -- not turn off the pressure. . . The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. . .

Now, in the meantime, we've got a lot of work left to do this year. Before Congress leaves next month, we have to work together to cut taxes for workers and small business owners all across America. If we don't act, taxes will go up for every single American, starting next year. And I'm not about to let that happen. Middle-class Americans can't afford to lose $1,000 next year because Congress won't act. And I can only hope that members of Congress who've been fighting so hard to protect tax breaks for the wealthy will fight just as hard to protect tax breaks for small business owners and middle-class families. We still need to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges. We still need to put our teachers back in the classroom educating our kids. . ."   

    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons issued a statement saying, "The Committee's failure to reach an agreement on deficit reduction is at best a missed opportunity to put our fiscal house in order and represents a serious step back from the goal of creating a pro-growth environment that fosters job creation and investment. Manufacturers continue to be negatively affected by the rising debt crisis and its accompanying uncertainty and shaken consumer confidence. We are extremely disappointed that the Committee did not take advantage of the opportunity to restore confidence and stability to our economy by reforming entitlement programs and creating a tax code that promotes investment, growth and jobs.

    "Moving forward, it is imperative that Congress act to stop the automatic, significant cuts to defense spending. Cuts in defense spending will have a massive ripple effect throughout the entire manufacturing economy, affecting large defense contractors, tens of thousands of small and medium-sized manufacturers in the defense supply chains and over 1 million workers -- a result we can ill-afford in a struggling economy and a period of such global unrest." The NAM's Defense Manufacturing Working Group issued a report on the true impact of defense cuts and job losses.

    Access the statement from the Super Committee (click here). Access the President's complete statement (click here). Access the statement from NAM from (click here). Access the NAM report on defense cuts and job losses (click here). [#All]

Senate Hearing On "Safe Chemicals Act" (S.847)

Nov 17: The Full Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) and the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health held a joint hearing on the "Safe Chemicals Act" (S.847) designed to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from: Department of Ecology, State of Washington; BlueGreen Alliance; American Chemistry Council; McKenna Long & Aldridge; and Environmental Defense Fund. Full Committee Chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), and Subcommittee Chair Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) all delivered opening statements.

 

    Senator Boxer indicated, ". . .a closer look at TSCA reveals that adjustments to the law are necessary if we are to ensure that people are safe from dangerous chemicals.  Improvements are needed, because the law's effectiveness has been severely weakened over the years. In particular, a 1991 court decision that partially overturned EPA's ban of asbestos -- a deadly substance known to cause cancer -- put a heavy burden on EPA to prove that a toxic chemical presents an 'unreasonable risk' before the agency can restrict the use of a chemical. Public health and environmental groups point to other weaknesses in TSCA -- for example, the law does not include specific protections for pregnant women, infants, children, and others who are far more vulnerable to many chemicals than the general population. The time to reform our approach to regulating toxic chemicals is overdue. Europe has recently reformed its toxic chemical controls laws by creating a program, called 'REACH' [Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals]. This program requires companies to develop information on chemicals' impacts, and it puts the burden to show that its chemicals are safe where it should be -- on the chemical industry."

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "It is vital - given an unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent and numerous costly new regulations coming from this administration - that we make sure any TSCA reforms help to not only protect human health, but jobs and the economy. My interest in TSCA modernization - which I have said before - is in large part due to TSCA's broad reach over chemical manufacturing and its potential, and real, impacts on the economy. TSCA regulates the manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal of chemicals-authority that covers thousands of transactions and decisions by thousands of people every day. I have consistently said that TSCA modernization must be accomplished with a broad base of support, including industry up and down the value chain. It also must take into account the small and medium size businesses that could be affected the most if the law is updated improperly. . . My principles for reform remain the same: any modernization of TSCA should be based on the best available science; use a risk-based standard for chemical reviews; include cost-benefit considerations; protect proprietary information; and must prioritize reviews for existing chemicals."
   

    Senator Lautenberg reviewed the history of the Committee consideration over the past two years and five hearings and said, "Our hearings revealed that the status quo does not work for the chemical industry, either. In a hearing last February, executives from Dow and DuPont, two major chemical companies, testified in support of reform, in part because of the difficulties their companies face operating under different rules in different states. We heard similar messages earlier this year from the chemical maker, BASF, and S.C. Johnson, the global consumer product company. And we heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agreed TSCA must be revised to work better for businesses and the health of our citizens. . . "Earlier this year, Senator Inhofe and I met about trying to make this bill bipartisan, and he suggested a process for getting more ideas from industry and others on the table. Throughout the summer, our staffs held 10 meetings with representatives from industry, labor, and environmental groups on different sections of the Safe Chemicals Act. . ."

 

    He  concluded saying, "The bottom line is this: this legislation establishes a strong, but practical system for guaranteeing the safety of chemicals, many of which end up in our bodies and the bodies of our children. And we remain open to other ways of achieving our shared goal of a system that improves safety and encourages continued innovation and growth in the chemical industry. But we must act on this issue soon. I plan to call for a vote in this committee in the near future. I hope we will be able to address any concerns raised today so we can approve a bipartisan bill that encourages the use of chemicals that help, and protects our children from the chemicals that harm." 

    American Chemistry Council (ACC) testified that, "Unfortunately. . . today we are discussing a bill that remains very similar to the bill introduced in 2010, which we consider unworkable." In his testimony Dooley outlined several fundamental flaws with the bill, including an unachievable safety standard, data requirements that would undermine the success of the current program to evaluate new chemicals, the creation of an overly burdensome and unnecessary minimum date set for all chemicals, and the lack of an effective prioritization process. He said, "We also believe that S.847 would compromise the protection of confidential business information, inappropriately expand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority into the jurisdiction of other federal agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), further complicate issues surrounding national uniformity of standards, and fail to adequately consider animal welfare."      

    Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) on behalf of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of over 300 organizations that speak for more than 11 million Americans. The coalition includes groups representing health professionals and health-affected populations and communities, environmental justice organizations, leading businesses, and state and national environmental groups -- all of whom came together to urge Congress to fundamentally reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. After outlining a series of problems with TSCA, EDF said, "All of these problems would be largely or entirely ameliorated by adoption of legislation introduced this year, S.847, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. It provides the framework for a comprehensive, systematic solution to a set of problems that until now have only been addressed -- if at all -- through reactive, piecemeal actions.

    EDF said, "We have ongoing dialogues with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and more than a dozen of their member companies; these have involved many days of substantive meetings on key issues in TSCA reform over the past six months. . . While confidentiality agreements preclude me from discussing details, let me say that in our dialogue with CSPA we are on the cusp of agreement on recommendations to consider in the legislation that would address two key needs in TSCA reform: balancing public access to chemical information with the need to protect legitimate confidential business information; and designing a system to provide EPA with more robust information on how chemicals are used for purposes of both prioritizing and assessing the safety of chemicals. I have come away from my deep involvement in these dialogues with the belief that there is not a single major issue in TSCA reform for which, working together, we cannot find a solution. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website and link to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access more information on the REACH program (click here). [#Toxics]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

IPCC SREX Report On Climate Change Risks & Adaptation

Nov 18: The member governments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, approved the release of The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The event was held in Kampala, the largest city and capital of Uganda. The full report is scheduled to be available in February 2012. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, said today, "This summary for policymakers provides insights into how disaster risk management and adaptation may assist vulnerable communities to better cope with a changing climate in a world of inequalities. It also underlines the complexity and the diversity of factors that are shaping human vulnerability to extremes -- why for some communities and countries these can become disasters whereas for others they can be less severe."

 

    Qin Dahe, Co-chair of IPCC Working Group I, which together with Working Group II was responsible for the development and preparation of the report, said, "There is high confidence that both maximum and minimum daily temperatures have increased on a global scale due to the increase of greenhouse gases. Changes in other extremes, such as more intense and longer droughts are observed in some regions, but the assessment assigns medium confidence due to a lack of direct observations and a lack of agreement in the available scientific studies. Confidence in any long-term trend in tropical cyclone intensity, frequency or duration is assessed to be low."

 

    Regarding the future, the assessment concludes that it is virtually certain that on a global scale hot days become even hotter and occur more often. Thomas Stocker the other Co-chair of Working Group I said, "For the high emissions scenario, it is likely that the frequency of hot days will increase by a factor of 10 in most regions of the world. Likewise, heavy precipitation will occur more often, and the wind speed of tropical cyclones will increase while their number will likely remain constant or decrease.

 

    Other members of the Work Groups indicated that, "Nevertheless, there are many options for decreasing risk. Some of these have been implemented, but many have not. The best options can provide benefits across a wide range of possible levels of

climate change." They said they hoped the report can be "a scientific foundation for sound decisions on infrastructure, urban development, public health, and insurance, as well as for planning -- from community organizations to international disaster risk management."

 

    Back in the U.S. Representative Ed. Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee and former Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued a statement on the report saying, "The problem isn't just the extreme weather devastating communities in America and abroad, it's also the extreme ideology of Republicans leaders in Washington who continue to deny the existence of global warming. Congress needs to act on energy policies that put limits on the carbon pollution warming our planet and making these disasters worse. The human and broader economic costs of climate impacts will only grow in significance if we wait to act."
 
    Representative Markey indicated that the extreme weather events of 2011 have brought the costly impact of climate change into sharp focus. The latest insurance analysis finds that the United States has experienced 15 weather disasters causing at least a billion dollars in damage thus far in 2011, more billion-dollar events than any other year. He said, "This huge potential price tag should be all the reason we need, especially in this economy, for taking steps now to reduce global warming pollution. Knowing the great risk extreme weather poses to our economy and citizens -- why wouldn't we act? Rather than being distracted by debunked attacks on climate science, Congress should be debating the steps we need to take to reduce pollution, create jobs and reclaim our lead in the clean energy race."
 
    Earlier in the week, Representatives Markey and Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, held a Congressional briefing entitled, "End of Climate Change Skepticism" with several prominent scientists, including Dr. Richard Muller, a scientist who was previously skeptical about many aspects of climate science, but the two-year study he led at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has validated the fact that the world is warming [See WIMS 10/25/11].

 

    The IPCC report also comes one day after President Obama speaking to the Australian Parliament in Canberra said, ". . .we need growth that is sustainable. This includes the clean energy that creates green jobs and combats climate change, which cannot be denied. We see it in the stronger fires, the devastating floods, the Pacific islands confronting rising seas." [See WIMS 11/17/11]. And, just three days ago the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force issued a report entitled, Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security, which warned that "Changes in climate patterns and their impact on the physical environment can create profound effects on populations in parts of the world and present new challenges to global security and stability." [See WIMS 11/14/11].

   

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) and a critic of the science of global warming commented on the IPCC report saying, "The discredited United Nations IPCC is back with another global warming report, only this time it faces an increasingly skeptical public," Senator Inhofe said. "The lack of attention on this latest report is a symptom of the crisis of confidence in the IPCC, which is ongoing. For years I warned that the IPCC would lose its credibility entirely and eventually be ignored if it did not make significant reforms. . .

 

    "Of course, in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, when over one hundred errors in the IPCC science were revealed, I was proven right, so much so that even the mainstream media began to call for reform at the IPCC. Today, the consequences are clear: as the discredited IPCC releases its latest report, very few people have even noticed. Look for many in the liberal media to use the IPCC report to link weather events of today with global warming, as several have already done, but a closer look reveals this is not exactly the case. As for these attempts by the left, I simply say 'nice try.' This effort will fail as miserably as all their previous endeavors to promote fear and scare the public into action. . ."

 

    Access a release from the IPCC (click here). Access the report website for links to the Summary, a video and presentation (click here). Access the 29-page Summary for Policymakers of the SREX (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the Markey-Waxman briefing with links to testimony (click here). Access the complete 175-page DSB report (click here). Access a statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). [#Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Down Under President Says "Climate Change Cannot Be Denied"

Nov 17: As part of his Asia-Pacific tour, President Obama, in a speech to the Australian Parliament in Canberra, Australia, said, ". . .we need growth that is sustainable. This includes the clean energy that creates green jobs and combats climate change, which cannot be denied. We see it in the stronger fires, the devastating floods, the Pacific islands confronting rising seas. And as countries with large carbon footprints, the United States and Australia have a special responsibility to lead. Every nation will contribute to the solution in its own way -- and I know this issue is not without controversy, in both our countries. But what we can do -- and what we are doing -- is to work together to make unprecedented investments in clean energy, to increase energy efficiency, and to meet the commitments we made at Copenhagen and Cancun. We can do this, and we will."

 

    On November 16, at a press conference with Prime Minister Gillard of Australia, President Obama responded to a question regarding U.S. efforts on energy and climate change. He said, "With respect to carbon emissions, I share the view of your Prime Minister and most scientists in the world that climate change is a real problem and that human activity is contributing to it, and that we all have a responsibility to find ways to reduce our carbon emissions. Each country is trying to figure out how to do that most effectively. Here in Australia, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, you've moved forward with a bold strategy. In the United States, although we haven't passed what we call a cap-and-trade system, an exchange, what we have done is, for example, taken steps to double fuel efficiency standard on cars, which will have an enormous impact on removing carbon from the atmosphere.

    "We've invested heavily in clean energy research. We believe very strongly that we've improved efficiencies and a whole step range of steps that we can meet and the commitments that we made in Copenhagen and Cancun. And as we move forward over the next several years, my hope is, is that the United States, as one of several countries with a big carbon footprint, can find further ways to reduce our carbon emissions. I think that's good for the world. I actually think, over the long term, it's good for our economies as well, because it's my strong belief that industries, utilities, individual consumers -- we're all going to have to adapt how we use energy and how we think about carbon.

    "Now, another belief that I think the Prime Minister and I share is that the advanced economies can't do this alone. So part of our insistence when we are in multilateral forum -- and I will continue to insist on this when we go to Durban -- is that if we are taking a series of step, then it's important that emerging economies like China and India are also part of the bargain. That doesn't mean that they have to do exactly what we do. We understand that in terms of per capita carbon emissions, they've got a long way to go before they catch up to us. But it does mean that they've got to take seriously their responsibilities as well. And so, ultimately, what we want is a mechanism whereby all countries are making an effort. And it's going to be a tough slog, particularly at a time when the economies are -- a lot of economies are still struggling. But I think it's actually one that, over the long term, can be beneficial."

    Access the Australian Parliament speech (click here). Access the President's press conference remarks (click here). Access a fact sheet on the U.S. and Australia Bilateral Meeting including a Statement on Energy (click here). [#Energy, #Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

EPA & DOT Release New CAFE Proposed Rules

Nov 16: U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) formally unveiled their joint proposal to set stronger fuel economy and greenhouse gas pollution standards for model year 2017-2025 passenger cars and light trucks [See WIMS 7/29/11]. Cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks are currently responsible for nearly 60 percent of U.S. transportation-related petroleum use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On September 27, the agencies announced they were delaying the issuance of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which was scheduled for the end of September 2011. At that time the said they expected to have a proposal by mid-November [See WIMS 9/28/11].

    A release from the agencies indicated that the announcement is "the latest in a series of executive actions the Obama Administration is taking to strengthen the economy and move the country forward because we can't wait for Congressional Republicans to act." EPA said that when combined with other historic steps the administration has taken to increase energy efficiency, this proposal will save Americans over $1.7 trillion at the pump, nearly $8,000 per vehicle by 2025. These combined actions also will reduce America's dependence on oil by an estimated 12 billion barrels, and, by 2025, reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day -- enough to offset almost a quarter of the current level of our foreign oil imports. Taken together, the actions will also slash 6 billion metric tons in GHG emissions over the life of the programs. The proposed standards alone will slash oil consumption by 4 billion barrels and cut 2 billion metric tons of GHG pollution over the lifetimes of the vehicles sold in those years. 

    U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "These unprecedented standards are a remarkable leap forward in improving fuel efficiency, strengthening national security by reducing our dependence on oil, and protecting our climate for generations to come. We expect this program will not only save consumers money, it will ensure automakers have the regulatory certainty they need to make key decisions that create jobs and invest in the future. We are pleased that we've been able to work with the auto industry, the states, and leaders in the environmental and labor communities to move toward even tougher standards for the second phase of the president's national program to improve fuel economy and reduce pollution."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "By setting a course for steady improvements in fuel economy over the long term, the Obama Administration is ensuring that American car buyers have their choice of the most efficient vehicles ever produced in our country. That will save them money, reduce our nation's oil consumption and cut harmful emissions in the air we breathe. This is an important addition to the landmark clean cars program that President Obama initiated to establish fuel economy standards more than two years ago. The progress we made with the help of the auto industry, the environmental community, consumer groups and others will be expanded upon in the years to come -- benefitting the health, the environment and the economy for the American people."

    The proposed program for model year 2017-2025 passenger cars and trucks is expected to require increases in fuel efficiency equivalent to 54.5 mpg if all reductions were made through fuel economy improvements. These improvements would save consumers an average of up to $6,600 in fuel costs over the lifetime of a model year 2025 vehicle for a net lifetime savings of $4,400 after factoring in related increases in vehicle cost. Overall, the net benefit to society from this rule would total more than $420 billion over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in model year 2017-2025.

    Today's action builds on the success of the first phase of the Obama Administration's national program(2012-2016), which will raise fuel efficiency equivalent to 35.5 mpg by 2016 and result in an average light vehicle tailpipe CO2 level of 250 grams per mile. These standards are already in effect and saving consumers money at the pump now. Combined with 2011 fuel economy standards and the standards in effect for 2012-2016, today's proposal represents the most significant Federal action ever taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. Taken together, these actions would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by half and result in model year 2025 light-duty vehicles with nearly double the fuel economy of model year 2010 vehicles.

    The national policy on fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions created by DOT and EPA provides regulatory certainty and flexibility that reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers while reducing oil consumption and harmful air pollution. By continuing the national program developed for model year 2012-2016 vehicles, EPA and DOT have designed a proposal that allows manufacturers to keep producing a single, national fleet of passenger cars and light trucks that satisfies all federal and California standards. It also ensures that consumers will continue to enjoy a full range of vehicle choices with performance, utility and safety features that meet their individual needs.

    The standards will rely on innovative technologies that are expected to spur economic growth and create high-quality jobs across the country. Major auto manufacturers are already heavily invested in developing advanced technologies that can significantly reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions beyond the existing model year 2012-2016 standards. In addition, a wide range of technologies are currently available for automakers to meet the new standards, including advanced gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle weight reduction, lower tire rolling resistance, improvements in aerodynamics, diesel engines, more efficient accessories, and improvements in air conditioning systems. The standards should also spur manufacturers to increasingly explore electric technologies such as start/stop, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles. The model year 2017-2025 proposal includes a number of incentive programs to encourage early adoption and introduction of "game changing" advanced technologies, such as hybridization for pickup trucks.

    The proposal released today follows President Obama's announcement in July that the administration and 13 major automakers representing more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S. have agreed to build on the first phase of the national vehicle program. EPA and DOT worked closely with a broad range of stakeholders to develop the proposal -- including manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, the State of California, and consumer and environmental groups.

    There will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposal for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. In addition, DOT and EPA plan to hold several public hearings around the country to allow further public input. California plans to issue its proposal for model year 2017-2025 vehicle greenhouse gas standards on December 7 and will finalize its standards in January.

   

    The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) issued a statement saying, "America's auto dealers support continuous improvement in the fuel economy of the fleet of vehicles that drive on the nation's roads. To this end, we are concerned that adding about $3,000 to the average cost of a car will price millions of Americans out of the market, which could reduce fleet turnover and delay environmental gains. This regulation gambles that millions of consumers will be able to afford thousands more for generally smaller, more expensive vehicles that may not meet their needs. This policy is contrary to what most consumers are actually buying today, despite the wide availability of more fuel efficient models. We need fuel economy policies that encourage the sales of fuel efficient vehicles, instead of risky mandates that frustrate consumer demand and depress fleet turnover.  The number one question that must be asked is: How many people will no longer be able to afford a new vehicle if the government raises the price of a new car by about $3,000? We will analyze the rule with this principal question in mind. We urge Congress to do the same."

 

    President and CEO Michael Stanton of the Association of Global Automakers, representing international motor vehicle manufacturers, issued a statement saying, "Global Automakers and its members have always endorsed a comprehensive and harmonized national approach to reducing GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. We have been working diligently with the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation and the California Air Resources Board to create a program that meets our national environmental and energy objectives while providing manufacturers the needed flexibility and lead-time to design and build advanced technology vehicles so they can continue to provide consumers with a full range of vehicle choices. Though we need time to review the details of the proposed rule, we are pleased that the agencies have aligned their processes to eliminate redundancies and coordinate schedules to create one harmonized national program."

 

    Mitch Bainwol, President of the Auto Alliance, representing both U.S. and foreign manufacturers said, "This proposal continues the approach of establishing a single national program for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, which is the right overall direction. The proposed regulations present aggressive targets, and the Administration must consider that technology break-throughs will be required and consumers will need to buy our most energy-efficient technologies in very large numbers to meet the goals."

 

    Michelle Robinson, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Clean Vehicles Program said, "If you love going to the gas station, you are going to hate these standards. President Obama continues to take the burden of America's oil addiction seriously. The benefits we'll see show how essential the Clean Air Act is for protecting American's health. Seven years ago, California used its Clean Air Act authority to set the nation's first vehicle global warming pollution standards. Now, President Obama has used his combined authority on fuel efficiency and auto pollution to pave the way for cleaner cars through 2025."

 

    Derek Walker, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Director of Strategic Climate Initiatives said, "Fortunately, when it comes to climate and energy policies, what happens in California doesn't stay in California. The Golden State's leadership charting the path to cleaner cars that will make our nation more prosperous and secure have led to one of President Obama's greatest energy and environmental successes. Consumers and businesses are rightly concerned about our dependence on imported oil and rising energy prices. These standards will address those concerns, save them money and create a healthier environment."

 

    EDF notes that California and 13 other states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington -- adopted state clean car standards that provided the foundation for the national emission standards.

    Access a release from EPA & DOT (click here). Access the NHTSA and EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking (click here). Access more information from EPA (click here). Access more information from NHTSA (click here). Access a release from NADA (click here). Access a release from Global Automakers (click here). Access a statement from the Auto Alliance (click here, posted soon). Access a lengthy release from UCS with more information (click here). Access a release from EDF with more information (click here).  [#Energy/CAFE, #Climate, #Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Report Says Power Plants Are Stressing Freshwater Resources

Nov 15: A new report by the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative, a three-year research collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of more than a dozen scientists indicates that power plants are stressing freshwater resources around the country. The report, Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity's Thirst for a Precious Resource, is the first systematic assessment of how power-plant cooling affects freshwater resources across the United States and of the quality of the data available on power plant water usage.

    Lead researcher Kristen Averyt, who is deputy director of the Western Water Assessment at the University of Colorado Boulder said, "Our research found that power plants can be very important in terms of the pressure put on the freshwater resources we depend on -- rivers, streams, lakes, and aquifers -- even in unexpected places. Some of the watersheds our analysis identified -- in places like Texas -- should come as no surprise. But unlike in arid regions, where many power plants have already minimized their water use, we found indicators of potential problems in seemingly water-rich regions like the Southeast. Here our analysis uncovered some surprises, such as the Seneca River in South Carolina and the Upper Dan in North Carolina. It's important for the public to know that because many power plants depend so heavily on water, there's a real risk that they'll have to cut back electricity production at times when they can't get enough cooling water. Just ask power companies in Texas."

    To gauge water-supply stress, the analysis examined the balance of local water supply and demand in each major watershed or "sub-basin" in the United States, then factored in the amount of water that power plants are using. The analysis then focused on areas where power plant demands were the largest contributor to water body stress based on the methodology. Because of the need for good information to perform these types of analyses, the study also assessed the U.S. Department of Energy's reporting system used to track power plant water usage. The analysis looked at what power plants reported as their water usage in 2008 – the most recent data then available.

    John Rogers, the report's co-author and senior analyst at UCS said, "Uncovering power plants' water use was not an easy task because the data reported by plant operators and compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- the most comprehensive set of information on power plant water use and cooling technologies -- was full of holes and errors. We had to piece together a lot of information to get a better handle on how much water power plants were really using. If we had used the Department of Energy data, we would have gotten a different picture of water stress from what we see in our results. Where our analysis found water-supply stress to be driven mainly by power plants, several did not show up when we used the available data from the Energy Department."

    The report also showed that power plants are stressing water bodies by discharging water at temperatures harmful to fish and other wildlife. In 2008, 350 power plants across the country reported discharging water at temperatures of over 90 degrees Fahrenheit and some at temperatures over 110 degrees.

"It's unsafe for people to sit in a Jacuzzi at 105 degrees, let alone live in it," said Rob Jackson, director of the Center on Global Environmental Change at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and a member of the report's scientific advisory committee. "Fish and other species can't climb out of the hot tub." The report indicates that in recent years, a number of power plants have had to cut back power production because they were unable to stay within water temperature discharge limits. And, concludes, "Without water-smart energy choices, energy-water collisions may worsen as the population and the corresponding demand for energy and freshwater supplies grows, and as the climate changes. Water-smart technologies include wind and solar photovoltaics, which use essentially no water, and produce no carbon emissions."

    Access a release from UCS (click here). Access links to the complete 62-page report, appendices, executive summary and related information (click here). [#Energy/Electric, #Water]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

More Mixed Reactions To State Department Project XL Decision

Nov 10: House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican leaders expressed deep disappointment in response to the Administration's announced delay of the Keystone XL pipeline decision [See WIMS 11/11/11]. On November 10, the State Department announced that it had determined it is necessary delay the project which could extend well into 2013 while it examines in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. The State Department noted that the Sand Hills area includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater. The final decision had originally been scheduled for the end of this year. The President issued a statement in support of the State Department decision.

 

    In a release, the Republican members including Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and Representative Lee Terry (R-NE) said, "Instead of approving the pipeline, and allowing this construction project to move forward and create a massive infusion of American jobs, the President refused to issue a decision on the Presidential Permit and continued to delay the project by directing the State Department to come up with an alternate route."

    The Republican Members said further, "The Keystone XL pipeline gives the President the unique opportunity to create thousands of jobs and advance our nation's energy security. All he has to do is say 'yes' and the jobs will come. Unfortunately, his plan to re-route the pipeline would delay a final decision until 2013. This is conveniently past election day, but far too long to make workers wait. Today's announcement doesn't get us any closer to a solution and does nothing to increase our nation's energy security or create needed jobs. All it does is kick the can down the road at a time we can least afford such inaction.

    "With a sluggish economy and stubbornly high unemployment, more delays are simply unacceptable. The Keystone XL pipeline is a shovel-ready jobs stimulus that won't cost taxpayers a dime. Construction of the pipeline will directly employ 20,000 Americans and create more than 100,000 spin-off jobs. Manufacturers and labor unions are begging the President to approve the pipeline so they can get blue-collar Americans back to work. Each day the President delays the project is another day an American worker remains unemployed.

    "This project has undergone more than three years of study since the application was submitted in September 2008, and about a year ago, Secretary Clinton said she was inclined to approve the pipeline. The President says we can't wait for jobs, but his decision to delay this project is jeopardizing the entire project and harming our energy and economic security in the process. Several analysts believe a delay of this magnitude could effectively kill the pipeline. If we don't import Canada's oil, China gladly will. The President's window of opportunity is quickly closing, and by refusing to make a decision, he is all but painting it shut. Bipartisan legislation sailed through the House once this year already, and we won't hesitate to act again to do whatever we can to move this job-creating project forward."

    The Democratic Ranking Member of the Committee, Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a very brief statement on the project saying, "The State Department recognized today that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline threatens our health and security. We can act to avoid catastrophic climate change or we can lock in a 100-year dependence on tar sands -- the dirtiest, most carbon-polluting oil available -- but we cannot choose both. As the State Department further evaluates this misguided proposal, it must thoroughly and impartially address how the pipeline would exacerbate climate change, as well as other concerns."

    TransCanada Corporation, the project developer issued a lengthy release indicating that it has spoken with the State Department (DOS) and will have conversations with the DOS in the coming days to discuss next steps. The company said it has been informed that further analysis of route options for the Keystone XL pipeline need to be investigated, with a specific focus on the Sandhills in Nebraska.

 

    Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer said, "We remain confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved. This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed." But Girling acknowledges while Keystone XL remains the best option for American and Canadian producers to get their oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast, the announcement by the DOS "could have potential negative ramifications, especially where shippers and U.S. refiners are concerned." He said, "Supplies of heavy crude from Venezuela and Mexico to U.S. refineries will soon end. If Keystone XL is continually delayed, these refiners may have to look for other ways of getting the oil they need.  Oil sands producers face the same dilemma -- how to get their crude oil to the Gulf Coast. If Keystone XL dies, Americans will still wake up the next morning and continue to import 10 million barrels of oil from repressive nations, without the benefit of thousands of jobs and long term energy security. That would be a tragedy."

 

    On November 10, Nebraska's Republican Governor Dave Heineman issued a statement regarding pipeline siting legislation being developed in the State. He said, "Yesterday the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee made a very important decision when it advanced pipeline siting legislation to the full Legislature for debate. I appreciate the extensive discussion that went into making this decision. The issue of pipeline siting legislation deserves a thoughtful and thorough debate by the full Legislature. Senator Langemeier's bill, LB 4, is a good starting point for the discussion. I want to commend Nebraskans for sharing their thoughts and concerns at the Legislature's committee hearings this week. Their comments were serious and sincere." Governor Heineman did not comment specifically on the State Department decision.

 

    Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson issued a statement saying, "For more than a year, Nebraskans have voiced concerns about the proposed route of the pipeline. I have been in regular communication with the Department of State urging them to extend the comment period to allow Nebraska state agencies to comment, and to conduct hearings in Nebraska to hear firsthand from Nebraskans. The State department has responded to those concerns. Today's decision now allows the State of Nebraska another opportunity to exercise its authority and take action on behalf of Nebraskans, rather than waiting until it's too late. The State Department noted today that state laws govern routes of interstate pipelines, but Nebraska currently has no such law or process in place. It is my hope that the State of Nebraska will use the State Department's decision today to protect the interests of Nebraska citizens by exercising its authority to determine the appropriate pipeline route in Nebraska, and that the State Department will support Nebraska's decision. As I've said before, this is a fundamental states' rights issue."

 

    Nebraska's Republican Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) sent a brief letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the State Department's announcement on the decision to delay saying, "If the announcement is a sincere effort to identify a better route within my state, I applaud the decision. I am concerned, however, that the Department's move today may serve only to delay the final decision until after the Presidential election. . . Considering your agency has studied the proposed route for several years, keeping it under consideration makes no sense given today's announcement. Please therefore consider this letter a formal request that the Department of State immediately acknowledge that the current route is no longer being considered." Senator Johanns said, ". . .while I oppose neither the development of the oil that will flow in the pipeline, nor the pipeline itself, I am convinced that the propose rout is the wrong route and should be rejected."

    Note: For additional reactions from other interests see the WIMS posting [See WIMS 11/11/11].

    Access the statement from the Republican Committee Members (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the release from TransCanada (click here). Access the TransCanada Keystone XL project website (click here). Access the statement from Gov. Heineman (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Nelson (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Johanns (click here). Access the State Department announcement (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/OilSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

State Department's Keystone XL Pipeline Announcement & Reaction

Note: WIMS is not publishing today, in observance of the Veterans Day holiday. However, yesterday, following our regular daily posting, we issued a Special Supplement Breaking News report to our subscribers on the State Department's Keystone XL Pipeline Announcement and reactions from various interests. We are posting that report today.

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 10, 2011

Statement by the President on the State Department's Keystone XL Pipeline Announcement

 

November 10, 2011

 

"I support the State Department's announcement today regarding the need to seek additional information about the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal.  Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood.  The final decision should be guided by an open, transparent process that is informed by the best available science and the voices of the American people.  At the same time, my administration will build on the unprecedented progress we've made towards strengthening our nation's energy security, from responsibly expanding domestic oil and gas production to nearly doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, to continued progress in the development of a clean energy economy."

 

The State Department release indicates:

"Executive Order 13337 authorizes the Department of State to lead the review of Presidential Permit applications for transborder pipelines, granting the Department discretion in determining what factors to examine to inform a determination of whether the proposed project is in the national interest. Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough and rigorous review of TransCanada's application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project. As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska.

"As part of the National Interest Determination process, the State Department held a public comment period, including public meetings in the six potentially affected states and Washington, D.C., to increase the opportunity for public comments. During this time, the Department also received input from state, local, and tribal officials. We received comments on a wide range of issues including the proposed project's impact on jobs, pipeline safety, health concerns, the societal impact of the project, the oil extraction in Canada, and the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, which was one of the most common issues raised. The comments were consistent with the information in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about the unique combination of characteristics in the Sand Hills (which includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater) and provided additional context and information about those characteristics. The concern about the proposed route's impact on the Sand Hills of Nebraska has increased significantly over time, and has resulted in the Nebraska legislature convening a special session to consider the issue.

"State law primarily governs routes for interstate petroleum pipelines; however, Nebraska currently has no such law or regulatory framework authorizing state or local authorities to determine where a pipeline goes. Taken together with the national concern about the pipeline's route, the Department has determined it is necessary to examine in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills in Nebraska in order to move forward with a National Interest Determination for the Presidential Permit.

"Based on the Department's experience with pipeline project reviews and the time typically required for environmental reviews of similar scope by other agencies, it is reasonable to expect that this process including a public comment period on a supplement to the final EIS consistent with NEPA could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013. After obtaining the additional information, the Department would determine, in consultation with the eight other agencies identified in the Executive Order, whether the proposed pipeline was in the national interest, considering all of the relevant issues together. Among the relevant issues that would be considered are environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy."

 

11/10/11  Keystone XL Pipeline Project Review Process: Decision to Seek Additional Information; State Department Office of the Spokesperson; Washington, DC

Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here).[#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/OilSands]

 

NPRA Says Keystone XL Pipeline Delay A Blow to America - 11/10/2011

from National Petrochemical & Refiners Association: Latest News 

 

Victory Today, Clean Energy Tomorrow - Sierra Club

 

Speaker Boehner Statement on the Keystone Announcement

 

U.S. Chamber President Calls Delay on Keystone XL Pipeline Decision a Political and Job-Killing Move

 

Keystone XL Do-Over Likely a Lethal Blow

from NWF Global Warming News 

 

API: White House decision on Keystone XL puts politics above jobs

 

Nov. 10, 2011: Markey Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline Route

from Rep. Markey (D-MA) - 

 

Obama Administration Delays Decision on Controversial Keystone XL Pipeline - Center for Biological Diversity (press release)

 

President's Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline Shows Leadership and Courage

Natural Resources Defense Council; and Robert Redford, an NRDC Trustee

 

Big Announcement Today  

from Tar Sands Action

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Bipartisan Senate Proposal To Delay CSAPR & Utility MACT

Nov 9: Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Dan Coats (R-IN) introduced the bipartisan "Fair Compliance Act" (S.1833) which they say would create "reasonable timelines and benchmarks" for utilities to comply with two major U.S. EPA rules "to protect jobs and keep utility rates stable." The legislation would extend the compliance deadline for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) [See WIMS 11/8/11] by three years and the deadline for the Utility MACT rule by two years – so that both would fall on January 1, 2017. Both the CSAPR and Utility MACT are also subject to modification and delays under the House approved H.R. 2401 -- the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 (TRAIN Act) [See WIMS 9/23/11]. Additional cosponsors include Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE). The Utility MACT rule requires a decrease in mercury emissions at power plants. The CSAPR requires utilities to reduce power plant emissions that may cause air-quality complications in neighboring states.

    Senator Manchin said, "I've always said government should be your partner, not your adversary -- and that's not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, it's a common sense idea. With millions of jobs on the line in this country -- and especially in my state of West Virginia -- it just makes sense to work to make sure we don't lose any more jobs in putting these rules in place. I'm proud to bring together Republicans and Democrats on this commonsense solution to a real problem."

    Senator Coats said, "The current EPA rules and unreasonable deadlines will be devastating for Hoosiers and every ratepayer in America. After visiting with Indiana utilities and power plants, it is clear that the current EPA timeline will result in more job loss and skyrocketing rates. While I support a complete overturn of these rules, this bill is a bipartisan commonsense solution that gives states and utilities the time needed to plan and prepare."

    According to a release from the Senators, S.1833 bill would provide utilities with an extension of time and synchronize the implementation schedule for complying with the rules. The bill would extend the date of compliance for Utility MACT by two years and for CSAPR by three years changing the deadline for both rules to January 1, 2017.  Under the current EPA rules, the compliance date for Utility MACT is January 1, 2015. The deadline for Phase I of the CSAPR is January 1, 2012 and Phase II is January 1, 2014. The Manchin-Coats bill would postpone Phase I until January 1, 2015 and Phase II of CSAPR until January 1, 2017. The compliance date is the date by which a utility either must have installed emissions controls or retired the pant. The bill also would require utilities to submit implementation plans to ensure compliance occurs. To safeguard the reliability of the electric grid and avoid brownouts, utilities would need to submit their implementation plans to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). [Note: On October 6 EPA signed a proposed rule that would make significant changes in CSAPR [See WIMS 10/7/11].

    In a fact sheet from Senator Manchin he emphasizes that the "proposal does not reduce existing authority under the Clean Air Act, nor does it relax the standards under any existing or proposed Clean Air Act regulations." The fact sheet indicates, "The proposed Utility MACT and finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rules pose a major challenge for utilities to comply by the deadline. This legislation would give utilities a reasonable, responsible timeframe to make the necessary investments that would help them meet the requirements of the proposed regulations. The proposed Utility MACT regulation would require coal-fired plants to achieve a 91 percent reduction of mercury and other emissions, and the Cross-State Air Pollution rule would impose caps on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that drift across borders. While the Utility MACT and Cross-State Air Pollution rules address different problems, both would require utilities to make substantial investments in similar equipment. This legislation would streamline the compliance timelines for these two rules, creating one timeline for industry to meet the requirements of both regulations. The bill would extend the compliance schedule on the Utility MACT and Cross-State Air Pollution rules by two years and three years, respectively."

 

    In a release from the nonprofit, public interest law firm Earthjustice, Stephanie Maddin, Associate Legislative Counsel said, "The Manchin-Coats bill amounts to a terrible trade: the health of our children and thousands of American lives for the surplus profit of already rich corporate polluters who want to avoid complying with life-saving clean air standards. We deserve more than that, and poll after poll has demonstrated that the public expects better leadership from their elected representatives. The EPA estimated that cleaning up these dirty power plants will be a net job creator. Beyond that, the American economy is far less productive when workers are sick. Cleaning up coal- and oil-fired power plants will lead to a healthier workforce and stimulate the American pollution control industry. Contrary to what the sponsors of this bill and their corporate backers might say, now is precisely the time to adopt clean air standards for power plants. The money that industry will spend to clean up -- miniscule compared to the economic benefits that society will derive -- will very likely have a positive impact by kickstarting our stalled economy. Promoting pollution isn't a jobs plan, it's an assault on the public's health that is simply unacceptable."

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access a 2-page fact sheet on the S.1833 (click here). Access legislative details for S.1833 (click here). Access EPA's website for CSAPR for complete details and background (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). [#Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Few Pleased With Administration's OCS 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Nov 8: On November 8, 2011, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar announced the Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017, which he said makes more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources estimated in Federal offshore areas available for exploration and development [See WIMS 11/8/11]. The Proposed Program, which he said is in line with President Obama's direction to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic production, includes six offshore areas where there are currently active leases and exploration, and where there is known or anticipated hydrocarbon potential. The plan schedules 15 potential lease sales for the 2012-2017 period -- 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and three off the coast of Alaska. Industry and environmental interests both appear to be opposed to the proposals and House Republicans were very critical.

 

    One of the few positive statements came from Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. Senator Murkowski said, "The lease sales the administration has proposed in the coming five years are a positive sign for our energy security. While the administration has not opened any new areas to leasing, I'm encouraged that they are moving forward with offering sales in both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Leasing is only half the story, however. The permitting process will be the determining factor as to whether these lease sales are ultimately successful or not. Any company interested in exploring for oil and gas off the coast of Alaska must have a reasonable expectation that the permitting process will be robust but with a timeline that is not unreasonable. We can't expect companies to invest billions of dollars and then subject them to a permitting process that drags on for years with no end in sight."

 

    Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said, "I am still reviewing the details of this plan, but I am not yet confident that it is strong enough to meet our nation's energy needs or will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. . . areas offshore of Virginia that were included in the previous five-year plan are not part of the current proposal.  This represents a step backward, not forward, for our nation's offshore energy production.  Additionally, if the permitting process continues to move at a glacial pace, there is no way that this plan will meet our energy needs or result in the stepped-up production we require. . ."

 

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) was highly critical of the proposal and called it a 5-year drilling ban on the majority of offshore areas. He said, "After imposing a nearly three-year moratorium on new offshore drilling by discarding the 2010-2015 lease plan that allowed for new development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the Obama Administration announced a draft plan today that closes the majority of the OCS to new energy production through 2017. The Administration's draft five-year plan prohibits new offshore drilling and only allows lease sales to occur in areas that are already open. The draft plan includes lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic -- leaving portions of Alaska and the entire Atlantic and Pacific Coasts off-limits to new energy production and job creation."

    Rep. Hastings continued, "In 2008, a bipartisan agreement was reached to lift the decades-long ban on new offshore drilling and open new areas off the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts. Since President Obama took office, he has systematically taken steps to re-impose an offshore drilling moratorium and today he is one step closer to making that a reality for the next five years. The Obama Administration's draft plan places some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits and indefinitely abandons the scheduled lease sale off the coast of Virginia that was supposed to take place last year.

"No new drilling or new lease sales will occur during President Obama's term in office -- despite the overwhelming support of the American people for new offshore energy production. The President's plan is to simply say 'no' to new energy production and 'no' to new American jobs created by new offshore drilling. It's a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil. Developing the United State's offshore resources would create over a million jobs, generate billions in revenue and significantly reduce foreign oil imports. It's been six months since the House has passed bipartisan bills to reverse the Obama moratorium and allow new offshore drilling and the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act."

    American Petroleum Institute (API) Group Director of Upstream and Industry Operations Erik Milito said he welcomed the announcement but said it he was disappointed with the "trimmed down" proposal. He said, "Moving forward with the proposed 2012-2017 five-year OCS leasing program is a good first step. However, this is a missed opportunity to open additional areas that could have helped address rising energy demand, create American jobs and reduce the federal deficit.  

    "There is significant public support for policies that expand our domestic energy development, diversify our energy sources, and advance energy technologies. We hope that many more lease sales will follow in the Gulf and in Alaska. And we urge the administration to reconsider its decision to exclude other offshore regions, such as the vast majority of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, offshore Virginia, and elsewhere off of the Atlantic Coast, from lease sales until 2017. Taking these areas off the table at this stage could impede the nation's drive toward enhancing both its economic and energy security. Opening these areas could create additional jobs, enhance our economic growth and energy security, and create a national energy policy that our country needs. Unfortunately, the proposed plan falls short of this approach."  

    API indicated that the proposed program will have sales scheduled in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico and the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Cook Inlet in Alaska. No sales are scheduled for the Atlantic, Pacific, or Eastern Gulf of Mexico. "Despite our disappointment with this trimmed down leasing program, we will continue to seek more robust offshore lease sales in the future. We are confident such sales will highlight the industry's ability to develop American resources responsibly while spurring the economy."

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy issued a statement saying they were disappointed and stating, "Today the administration's proposed leasing plan rejected the opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this country by taking yet another step to constrain options for increased domestic energy production. Oil and natural gas production on federal lands continues to decline under this administration, and the new Offshore Oil & Gas Program does not provide much hope that this destructive trend will be reversed anytime soon. We are disappointed that the administration is once again forgoing an opportunity to make our energy future more secure and our economy more competitive. We will continue to call on the president to revise this nearsighted approach and include areas in the mid-Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico that were included in previous versions of the Offshore Oil & Gas Program, as well as preserve the opportunity of greater exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off of Alaska."

    Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO for Defenders of Wildlife said, "The Obama administration made the wise decision to protect vast tracts of the country's oceans from oil and gas exploration. However, the inclusion of the Arctic Ocean in the country's five-year drilling plan is indefensible. From the extreme and unpredictable conditions of the region to the lack of a realistic spill response, the risks of a drilling disaster in the Arctic remain too high to authorize exploratory drilling. While the announcement proposes to address these threats by deferring drilling for a handful of years, the only way to protect this fragile marine environment from the threats posed by dangerous oil and gas exploration is to take it off the table altogether. Instead of enabling our country's addiction to oil for five more years, the administration should strengthen its efforts to wean America off dirty fossil fuels, accelerating the transition to a clean energy future."

    Earthjustice attorney Holly Harris issued a statement saying, "Secretary Salazar is right to admit that we need more science and the capacity to clean up an oil spill in the icy waters of the Arctic. For those same reasons, he is wrong to propose new leasing in the Arctic and he was wrong in August to have approved part one of the largest Arctic Ocean drilling proposal in the history of our country. Today's announcement also makes clear the government made a serious mistake last month when it affirmed its decision to lease 2.7 million acres of Arctic Ocean bottom in the Chukchi Sea given Secretary Salazar now acknowledges the need to gain a better scientific understanding of this region before developing oil.

    "The federal government scientists admit big gaps in what they know about the basic features of the Arctic Ocean like where various species of fish and marine mammals live and feed at different times of the year, how ocean currents move and affect the food chain in this ocean and how an oil spill could be stopped and cleaned up under frozen ice. It's hard to imagine a responsible way to develop oil now in this largely unknown body of water when we don't understand what harms we need to avoid or how to avoid them."

    Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "Last year's disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was supposed to be a wake-up call about the dangers of offshore drilling, but it looks like President Obama hit the snooze button and slept right through it. We just can't keep expanding offshore drilling and not expect to have more disastrous spills. Gulf of Mexico communities are still reeling from the impacts of last year's oil spill, and now the president wants to put those same communities at risk again. The administration's claiming significant steps have been taken to make drilling safer, but in fact there's been no fundamental reform that can keep the Gulf of Mexico or the Arctic safe from the next spill catastrophe. Polar bears are already teetering at the brink of extinction. Policies that worsen climate change and raise the risk of disastrous oil spills in their habitat will push them over the edge."

    Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "Green-lighting more oil drilling under inadequate safety measures is a reckless gamble we cannot afford. The President's Oil Spill Commission put forth a gameplan to improve the industry's safety, but it has yet to be realized. Congress has failed to pass a single law to better protect workers or the environment. Industry has not invested sufficiently in developing the technologies needed to prevent future disasters. And the government still needs additional resources and science in order to effectively police an industry that so desperately needs it. Today, the Gulf region is still struggling to rebuild. This is not the time to put the region at greater risk. Nor is it the time to open the doors to drilling in the treacherous and remote Arctic, which is more than a thousand miles from the closest clean-up crew and home to pristine habitat for a range of endangered species. This is just another distraction from our clean energy future. . ."

    Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Landrieu (click here). Access a release, maps and chronology from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access the U.S. Chamber statement (click here). Access a release from Defenders (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from DOI with multiple links to the proposal details and information (click here). [#Energy/OCS]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)