House Hearing On EPA & Fostering Quality Science

Feb 3: The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) held a hearing entitled, "Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on Common Sense Reform – Day II." Witnesses included representatives from the Health Effects Institute; EPA's Science Advisory Board; American Chemistry Council; Regulatory Checkbook; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa; and the National Institute of Statistical Sciences.

 

    In a release from the Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) it was noted that the first hearing of this series, held last November, was intended to serve as an opportunity to evaluate EPA's research enterprise, but instead the discussion focused on hydraulic fracturing. The second hearing was intended to inform the subcommittee on structural and substantive concerns of external stakeholders related to EPA's research activities, but the witness panel was primarily made up of representatives from right-wing think tanks.

 

    In a brief opening statement, Chairman Harris said, "Unfortunately, the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act, or ERDDAA, which is the statute authorizing R&D at EPA as well as the Science Advisory Board, was last reauthorized for fiscal year 1981. I think we can all agree that our fiscal, environmental, and economic priorities have changed dramatically over the last 30 years, and we should have statutes and a Congressional role in environmental policy that reflects these changes. As we have held nearly a dozen oversight hearings on specific EPA issues during this Congress, we have seen patterns of behavior that suggest the need for significant reforms.

 

    At day one of this hearing, we received testimony from several witnesses with decades of experience. . . They provided specific recommendations on reforming scientific activities at EPA, including the need to separate science and policy, to quantify uncertainties, to ensure greater transparency in the data, models, and assumptions used in regulatory decisions, to prioritize environmental problems and solutions, and to stop overly alarmist approaches to benefit-cost analysis."

 

    Representative Miller said, "I am pleased to see that we have some panelists with the experience and knowledge required to address in detail critical improvements that can make EPA's research enterprise more effective, efficient, and transparent. At the least, this is not just a panel of witnesses armed only talking points and flailing criticism meant to undermine or dismantle the one agency charged with protecting our citizens and the environment from unlawful pollution. . . As I have stated before, I approach this task hoping to work with my Republican counterparts in pursuing reforms that will lead to better research practices that help EPA accomplish its mission. . . I understand the amount of research, stakeholder conversations, and thought that must take place to write legislation as important and ambitious as the reauthorization of ERDDA."

 

    A GOP release indicated that witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need for greater transparency of scientific data and research results. Dr. Stanley Young, Assistant Director for Bioinformatics at the National Institute of Statistical Sciences said, "On publication of a paper, where research is funded by the EPA, the data should be made public. When the EPA proposes a regulation based on science, it should name the papers it is depending on and it should make data sets used in those papers publicly available. . . Claims are more likely to be valid and the resulting policy sensible.  Let normal science help in the vetting process.  Make the data available."

 

    Michael Walls, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council said, "At the heart of the problem in the Federal government's processes for assessing risks to environment and human health is the lack of a consistent, coherent, science-based framework that binds the agencies to an appropriate and transparent approach for weighing evidence, considering uncertainty, and keeping up with advances in the field. The processes for considering scientific information and data and the standards and criteria used in risk assessment need to be modernized and streamlined to meet both today's needs and greater challenges of the future."

 

    To demonstrate how the quality of science has eroded, Walls pointed to problems with the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments of n-butanol and dioxin as well as with the evaluation of formaldehyde and styrene in the 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC). He said, "Why do we need to get this right? About 80% of IRIS assessments haven't been updated for more than 15 years. 90% are now at least 10 years old. Meanwhile, the science that informs our understanding of chemicals and exposures has continued to advance by leaps and bounds. That new science should surely inform our regulatory and policy decisions."

 

    The Chairwoman of EPA's Science Advisory Board, appointed in 2008 by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson summarized saying, ". . .we are supportive of these changes at ORD. More could be done, more is being done, but I believe, and our reports have indicated, that ORD is moving in the right direction." She said, "The best available science is essential to sound decision‐making, but is not the only aspect to sound policy decisions. What is "best available science"? While hard to provide a simple one‐size‐fits‐all definition, generally it is scientific results, conclusions, and technical information that has been produced using proven methods, that has been peer‐reviewed, where hypotheses are tested with objective and unbiased approaches, and that has support for its conclusions from other independent studies. EPA cannot possibly do all of the science needed by the Program Offices and Regional Offices. Some of this needed science is conducted within EPA, and some science is used from outside research to verify, supplement, and in general add to the collective body of knowledge used to inform a given decision. . ."

   

    She continued saying, "For purposes of maximum transparency and quality assurance, we usually advise the Agency not to include reports that have not been peer‐reviewed, or journal manuscripts in preparation or draft form but not yet published. As a researcher who has received funding from EPA and many other agencies, I have found that EPA has very high standards for data quality and assurance. . . It [EPA] is sorely short of resources to provide the capacity needed for all the science questions at the Agency, and yet there is no other agency where such environmentally focused and directed science is being done to fill the unique mission of protecting the public's health and the environment on which they depend. Investing in EPA science is a wise investment. . ."

 

    Access a Republican release on the hearing (click here). Access the Republican hearing website for links to statements,  testimony and webcast (click here). Access a Democratic release on the hearing (click here). Access the Democrats website for the hearing (click here).

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

"Common-Sense Approach" Or "Plan To Block" Oil Shale Development

Feb 3: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The publication opens a 90-day public review and comment period. BLM called the proposal a "common-sense approach" while House Republican leaders said it was the Obama Administration's "plan to block U.S. oil shale development and U.S. job creation."

 

    The Draft PEIS analyzes several alternatives for land allocation and resource management. Under the BLM's Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft PEIS, the BLM would continue to support the research and development of hydrocarbon deposits in an environmentally responsible way that protects scarce water supplies in the arid West.

 

    If the BLM decides to adopt the Preferred Alternative, 461,965 acres would be available for research and development of oil shale, a kerogen-rich rock (35,308 acres in Colorado; 252,181 acres in Utah; and 174,476 acres in Wyoming). In addition, 91,045 acres in eastern Utah would be available for activities related to tar sands, a type of hydrocarbon-wet sedimentary deposit. BLM Director Bob Abbey said, "The preferred alternative continues our commitment to encouraging research, development, and demonstration projects so that companies can develop technologies that can lead to economic and commercial viability. Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale development, we are proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial-scale activity. If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first."

 

    BLM indicated in a release that, "To date, technological and economic conditions have not combined to support a sustained commercial oil shale industry in the United States, and there is currently no commercial development of oil shale in the areas under review in the draft PEIS." Lands that would be open to oil shale development under the Preferred Alternative would be available for Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) leases. BLM could issue a commercial lease after a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and meets all federal regulations for conversion to a commercial lease.

 

    Additionally, following the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office -- which determined that several fundamental questions about oil shale technologies remain unanswered, including critical questions about water demands -- the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is undertaking an analysis of baseline water resources conditions to improve the understanding of groundwater and surface water systems that could be affected by commercial-scale oil shale development.

 

    BLM indicates that "oil shale" is a term used to describe a wide range of fine-grained, sedimentary rocks that contain solid bituminous materials called kerogen. It should not be confused with "shale oil," which is not addressed by the draft PEIS.  Kerogen, which is organic matter derived mainly from aquatic organisms, releases petroleum-like liquids when subjected to extremely high temperatures -- more than 750 degrees.  Developers have been trying to produce oil from this rock in an economically-viable way for more than a century. The majority of U.S. oil shale (and the world's largest oil shale deposit) is found in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

 

    Tar sands are sedimentary rocks containing a heavy hydrocarbon compound called bitumen. They can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. However, unlike the oil sands deposits in Canada, oil is not currently produced from tar sands on a significant commercial level in the United States. Additionally, the U.S. tar sands are hydrocarbon wet, whereas the Canadian oil sands are water wet. This difference means that U.S. tar sands will require different processing techniques.

 

    Any new land allocation decisions made on the basis of the Final PEIS would replace the land allocation decisions made in 2008 that proposed making up to 2 million acres of public lands available for commercial oil shale leasing in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming and 431,000 acres available for tar sands leasing in Utah.  Some Western communities argued that the 2008 PEIS and Record of Decision would have prematurely allowed commercial leasing without technologies having been proven viable and without a clear understanding of impacts on scarce Western water supplies. In response to those concerns and in settlement of litigation, the agency agreed to reconsider the 2008 land allocation decisions.

 

    BLM indicates that a 90-day public review and comment period began on February 3, 2012 and is scheduled to end on May 4, 2012 [Note: The FR notice 77 FR 5513, indicates that the comment deadline ends on 05/02/2012]. Public meetings on the Draft PEIS will also be held in Rifle, CO; Rock Springs, WY; Salt Lake City; and Vernal, UT. The public will be notified of the dates and times of these meetings at least 15 days in advance via local media and the project website.

 

    House Natural Resources (NR) Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) immediately released a statement entitled, "Obama Admin. Announces Plan to Block U.S. Oil Shale Development and U.S. Job Creation." Representative Hastings said, "The distinction between the pro-American job policies of House Republicans and the anti-American energy policies of the Obama Administration could not be clearer. On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Committee approved a bipartisan bill [H.R.3408] to promote the development of U.S. oil shale and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs. On Friday, the Obama Administration released their plan to close over a million acres of federal land to oil shale development. Republicans have a plan to expand access to American energy resources, grow our economy, and put people back to work. The Obama Administration has a plan to lock-up U.S. energy resources and send jobs overseas. This unfortunately is just one more example to add to the ever-growing list of Obama Administration actions that block U.S. energy production."

    Rep. Hastings said that according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. holds more than half of the world's oil shale resources. The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. USGS estimates show the region may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil -- six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources, and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years.

    On February 1, the House NR Committee approved H.R.3408, the "Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act" or "PIONEERS Act" as part of the House American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R.7). The sponsor, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said, "Oil Shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made energy and the United States is fortunate to have an abundance of oil shale resources. These resources are an important component of America's energy future. This bill removes the uncertainty from oil shale development and opens up land for both research and commercial development of oil shale. It will create consistent policies that businesses can rely on to move forward, contribute to our energy security, and create good paying American jobs for thousands of Americans." 

    Access a lengthy release from BLM with contact and commenting information, and links to the Draft PEIS, FR notice and related information (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the markup website for opening statements, a video and a summary of the NR Committee's actions on the Markup (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3408 (click here). [#Energy/OilShale, #Energy/TarSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Is It Time To Move Past The "Obsession With Yucca Mountain"?

Feb 1: The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), held a hearing today to discuss the final recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future [BRC, See WIMS 1/27/12]. Members welcomed several of the commission's recommendations, which propose a series of reforms to help solve our nation's growing nuclear waste challenge. Witnesses included: Former Congressman Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft, co-chairmen of the commission; and representatives from: L. Barrett Consulting; NorthWorks, Inc.; Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence; Union for Concerned Scientists; Citizens Against Government Waste; and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

    The co-chairmen of the commission, testified on the commission's findings over the past two years. Hamilton and Scowcroft delivered a 27-page joint statement and warned of the dire situation facing nation's nuclear waste program and stressed the need for urgent action, explaining, "What we have found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues." In their statement, the two said:

"America's nuclear waste management program is at an impasse. The Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain is but the latest indicator of a policy that has been troubled for decades and has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out under the 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has simply not worked to produce a timely solution for dealing with the nation's most hazardous radioactive materials. The United States has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay.

 

"What we have found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues: damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to state – federal relations and public confidence in the federal government's competence, and damaging to America's standing in the world as a source of nuclear expertise and as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety, non‐proliferation, and security.

 

"This failure is also costly to utility ratepayers who continue to pay for a nuclear waste management solution that has yet to be delivered, to communities that have become unwilling hosts of long-term waste storage facilities, and to U.S. taxpayers who face billions in liabilities as a result of the failure to meet federal waste management commitments.

 

"This generation has a fundamental ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with finding a safe permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating. At the same time, we owe it to future generations to avoid foreclosing options wherever possible so that they can make choices—about the use of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy resource and about the management of the nuclear fuel cycle—based on emerging technologies and developments and their own best interests.

 

"The national interest demands that our nuclear waste program be fixed. Complacency with a failed nuclear waste management system is not an option. With a 65,000 metric ton inventory of spent nuclear fuel spread across the country and growing at over 2000 metric tons per year, the status quo is not acceptable. The need for a new strategy is urgent."

    The key recommendation of the BRC is: a new, "consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities." The recommendations indicates that: "Experience in the United States and in other nations suggests that any attempt to force a top-down, federally mandated solution over the objections of a state or community -- far from being more efficient -- will take longer, cost more, and have lower odds of ultimate success. By contrast, the approach we recommend is explicitly adaptive, staged, and consent-based. Based on a review of successful siting processes in the United States and abroad -- including most notably the siting of a disposal facility for transuranic radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, and recent positive outcomes in Spain, Finland and Sweden -- we believe this type of approach can provide the flexibility and sustain the public trust and confidence needed to see controversial facilities through to completion."

 

    In an opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) said he agreed with many of the Commission's recommendations, however, he went beyond the BRC recommendations and said, "I agree that Yucca Mountain - as designated by law - remains fixed on the table as a solution to the nuclear waste debate. In the wake of the Administration's interference with the independent technical evaluation of the repository at Yucca Mountain, the resulting Blue Ribbon Commission found what many of us have long been saying about the failed management of nuclear waste. The Commission's report correctly advises control of the Nuclear Waste Fund be removed from the purse strings of political ideologues and entrusted to "a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program" set forth under law."

 

    The BRC did not recommend Yucca Mountain as a solution, and in fact said, ". . .we have not evaluated Yucca Mountain or any other location as a potential site for the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, nor have we taken a position on the Administration's request to withdraw the license application. We simply note that regardless what happens with Yucca Mountain, the U.S. inventory of spent nuclear fuel will soon exceed the amount that can be legally emplaced at this site until a second repository is in operation. So under current law, the United States will need to find a new disposal site even if Yucca Mountain goes forward. . ."

 

    Rep. Shimkus said, "Yucca Mountain remains the most shovel-ready, thoroughly studied geological repository for spent nuclear fuel. There are possibly no other 230 square miles in the world that have been examined and reexamined more by America's greatest scientific minds than Yucca Mountain. Three decades of study, 15 billion dollars, and, quite frankly, common sense, support the current requirement to secure high-level nuclear waste on federal property, under a mountain, in a desert." Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Over the past three years, we have watched as the Obama Administration brazenly dismantled the Yucca Mountain program, with no legal, technical, or safety basis for doing so. These actions present serious questions about this Administration's respect for taxpayers, for nuclear power consumers who have paid in billions for this project, and for the public at large. We must keep our promise to the public to ensure safe disposal of the nation's nuclear waste, and not keep putting it off."

    The Commission's proposal for a "consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities" was met with some opposition from Republican members and witnesses who argued we must follow the law and build Yucca Mountain. Congress decided Yucca Mountain was the best available option for our nation's nuclear waste over 25 years ago. Committee members pointed out that decades of work and billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars were poured into the project, only to have it shuttered by the Obama administration. Given the urgency of our nation's nuclear crisis, we do not have the time or the money to start over.

    In response to the Republican position, full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "Twenty-five years after the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is clear that this top-down, federally mandated approach has not worked. The Department of Energy has terminated its Yucca Mountain activities. Last year – and again this year – Congress has provided no funding for Yucca Mountain. Even the biggest advocates for Yucca Mountain in the Republican House have not acted to provide any funding. . . The Blue Ribbon Commission spent nearly two years conducting this review and its recommendations are timely. The Commission recommendations deserve our serious consideration. They raise a number of important policy questions, such as whether a new organization should be established to address the nuclear waste problem, how the Nuclear Waste Fund should be used, and whether one or more centralized storage facilities should be developed in addition to one or more geologic repositories. Answering these questions requires an open mind and a willingness to move past a narrow obsession with Yucca Mountain.

    The Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is conducting a hearing on the report today (February 2). The witnesses simply include the two co-chairmen Hamilton and Scowcroft who are expected to deliver their same joint statement.

    Access the House Republican E&C hearing website for background, opening statements and witness testimony (click here). Access the Democrats E&C hearing website for opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the Senate ENR hearing website for testimony and webcast (click here).  [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House GOP Introduces Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act

Jan 31: House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL) and Members of the Committee unveiled the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R.7). A Committee release indicates that the initiative is a long overdue infrastructure bill that reforms transportation programs and promotes increased domestic energy production to create American jobs. The House Natural Resources Committee is holding a Full Committee markup on the energy portion of the Act today (February 1), [See WIMS 1/30/12, and article below]. Chairman Mica said, "This bill will put Americans back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and developing new sources of low cost energy. This legislation may be the most important jobs measure to pass Congress this year."

    Mica continued saying, "The American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act is the largest transportation reform bill since the creation of the Interstate Highway System in 1956. This is a five-year bill that reforms our federal transportation programs, cuts the red tape and bureaucracy that delays projects across the country, gives states more flexibility to determine their most critical infrastructure needs, provides states with the long-term stability to undertake major improvements, and encourages private sector participation in helping to finance transportation projects."

    Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) said, "The average federal highway project takes 15 years from concept to completion in the U.S. because of excessive regulations. This is far more than any other Nation. This bill will streamline the way we approach infrastructure projects by cutting red tape and reducing federal bureaucracy, all while creating millions of jobs for hard working Americans right here in the United States. These jobs will also greatly improve highway safety. Highway fatalities have steadily declined in recent years, and the funding provided in this bill will work to continue improving safety."

    Chairman Mica also noted that the new legislation contains no earmarks. The previous long-term law authorizing federal surface transportation programs, known as SAFETEA-LU, contained over 6,300 earmarks. That law expired in September 2009. Since then, Congress has passed eight short-term extensions, six of which were approved when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House. Mica said, "President Obama and the Democrats' policy of passing short-term extensions and the massive stimulus have not helped the economy." The Transportation Committee is scheduled to begin consideration of the transportation reauthorization portion of the bill on February 2, 2012. The Committee outlined a summary of the transportation reauthorization and reform provisions as follows:

• Authorize approximately $260 billion over five years to fund federal highway, transit and safety programs, consistent with current funding levels

• Provide long-term stability for states to undertake major infrastructure projects
• Contain no earmarks, compared to the previous transportation law which contained over 6,300 earmarks
• Consolidate or eliminate nearly 70 federal programs
• Eliminate mandates that states spend highway funding on non-highway activities
• Allow states to set their own transportation priorities
• Delegate more project approval authority to states
• Condense deadlines for federal agency project approvals
• Accelerate the approval process for projects in an existing right-of-way
• Encourage states to partner with the private sector to finance and build projects
• Streamline the project delivery process and reduces regulatory burdens for rail projects
• Call for the funds collected for the improvement of the nation's harbors to be invested for that purpose
• Ensure the safe, efficient transportation of hazardous materials in a manner that does not impose unnecessary burdens on the flow of commerce

House Marks Up Energy Part Of Energy Production & Infrastructure Bill - Feb 1: The House Committee on Natural Resources, Chaired by Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), with Ranking Member Edward Markey (D-MA) held a full Committee markup of the energy portions of the American Energy Production & Infrastructure Jobs Bill (H.R.7, see related article above). The energy portion of the bill consists of three separate bills as follows:

• HR 3407 (Hastings), To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, to ensure secure energy supplies for the continental Pacific Coast of the United States, lower prices, and reduce imports, and for other purposes. "Alaskan Energy for American Jobs Act"
• HR 3408 (Lamborn), To set clear rules for the development of United States oil shale resources, to promote shale technology research and development, and for other purposes. "Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act" or "PIONEERS Act"
• HR 3410 (Stivers), To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, to provide fair and equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, to formulate future offshore energy development plans in areas with the most potential, to generate revenue for American infrastructure, and for other purposes. "Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act"

    In an opening statement, Chairman Hastings said, "By removing government barriers to American energy production we can help fund road and bridge construction and repairs without raising taxes or relying on borrowed 'stimulus' spending. This is a vastly different approach from what we've seen from the Obama Administration and the previous Democrat-run Congress. This is a jobs plan without earmarks or stimulus spending. This plan allows access to American energy resources, which leads to the creation of new jobs, certainty for small businesses that depend on affordable energy, and the generation of new revenue that can be used to build road and infrastructure projects to create even more American jobs. Unlocking our energy resources starts a wave of economic benefits and job creation that will touch nearly every aspect of our lives and economy. . .

 

    "This plan will expand access to our energy resources that are currently being kept under lock and-key by the Obama Administration. This Republican pro-energy, job creation plan stands in stark contrast to the failed, job-destroying energy policies of the Obama Administration. Last week, President Obama tried in his State of the Union address to take credit for increased oil and natural gas production and claims to now support 'all-of-the-above' American energy. However, don't be fooled, President Obama's rhetoric is 180 degrees from his actions. . ."

 

     Ranking Member Markey issued a release the day before the markup entitled, "Exxon's $41 Billion Reasons to End Tax Breaks, Pay for Infrastructure Jobs." Representative Markey indicated that 2011 was a "very good year" for Exxon Mobil, as the oil giant posted a $41 billion profit for the period. He cited the new profit numbers as "yet another example of the misplaced priorities of House Republicans, and called for the repeal of oil company tax breaks instead of allowing new drilling off America's coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to provide much-needed funding for infrastructure and transportation jobs."

 

    Rep. Markey said, "As if there weren't already enough reasons to end these tax breaks for oil companies, here are 41 billion more. Opening up America's coasts, Florida's beaches and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling won't come close to funding needed infrastructure projects, but closing 100 year-old tax breaks and loopholes protected by oil industry lobbyists will." He said the "Natural Resource Committee Republicans will consider three bills tomorrow to open up large swaths of America's coasts and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which they have touted as the 'revenue portion' of the House Republican transportation reauthorization bill."

    "Ending tax breaks for the largest oil companies could contribute $43 billion over the next 10 years to transportation funding or deficit reduction. Natural Resources Democrats have also introduced legislation that would recover $19 billion in additional funds from oil, mining and other companies by reforming outdated laws that allow for free extraction of minerals, oil and other resources from public lands. Meanwhile, even using the most optimistic projections, Republican drilling proposals as introduced would generate, at most, a little more than $5 billion over 10 years. The current funding shortfall to just keep our bridges, roads, airports and other existing transportation elements running is $12 billion for the next two years, and more than $75 billion over the next six years."

    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President Frances Beinecke issued a statement on the House bill saying, "The Republican leadership has the temerity to call this horrible package a jobs bill, but it's actually a measure that will make it impossible to pass a transportation bill -- the one true jobs bill Congress could pass this year. Instead of going the bipartisan route taken by the Senate, House Republican leaders have loaded the bill with environmental protection rollbacks, extreme measures that mandate oil drilling just about everywhere, and a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The American people need a transportation bill; this bill will prevent them from getting one."

    On January 25, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), called a letter signed by more than 1,000 organizations in support of legislation to rebuild the nation's transportation systems "historic in its breadth and width." According to a release, organizations, businesses, coalitions and other groups from all 50 states sent a letter to Senator Boxer and other Members of Congress urging quick action on a strong surface transportation bill before the current extension expires on March 31. The Senate has developed a bipartisan proposal, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21, S.1813), which would reauthorize surface transportation programs for two years at current funding levels [See WIMS 1/27/12].

    Access a release from Chairman Mica (click here). Access a summary of the bill (click here). Access the full 846-page text of the bill (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.7 (click here). Access the markup website for opening statements, a video and a summary of the Committee's actions  following the conclusion of the Markup (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3407 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3408 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3410 (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access legislative details for S.1813 (click here). [#Transport, #Energy]

Solar Industry Divided On Job Losses From Trade Tariffs With China

Jan 30: An economic analysis prepared by The Brattle Group -- The Employment Impacts of Proposed Tariffs on Chinese Manufactured Photovoltaic Cells and Modules -- finds that a 100% tariff on imported solar PV cells and modules from China would result in as many as 50,000 net lost jobs in the U.S. over the next three years. Furthermore, retaliatory tariffs placed on U.S. exports of polysilicon to China would put nearly 11,000 more American jobs at risk in the first year following tariff imposition. According to the analysis, the imposition of tariffs will "slow the growth in domestic demand for photovoltaic systems by homeowners, commercial establishments and power producers, resulting in substantial job losses."
 
    The study, commissioned by the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), examined the impacts that imposing a 50% tariff or a 100% tariff would have on the U.S. solar industry through 2014. Both scenarios are lower than the up to 250% tariffs sought by SolarWorld, the German-based solar cell company, in its petition to the U.S. Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission.  For each scenario, the study provides both a low and high estimate to account for variability in modeling the price elasticity of supply and demand.
 
    According to the study, a tariff of 100% would result in consumer losses between $698 million and $2,620 million. That would eliminate between 16,917 and 49,589 American jobs over the next three years. Similarly, a tariff of 50% would result in net consumer losses between $621 million and $2,287 million. That would cause between 14,877 and 43,178 job losses over the same period. These figures are all net of any potential gains in cell or module manufacturing. Jigar Shah, President of CASE said, "This analysis makes it clear that imposing even a 50% tariff, much less than SolarWorld has requested, would be devastating for American workers. We cannot allow one company's anti-China crusade to threaten the U.S. solar industry and tens of thousands of American jobs." [See WIMS 11/16/11].
 
    Dr. Mark Berkman, author of the report and principal at The Brattle Group stated, "While the U.S. solar industry has many facets and is quite complex, we were able to model the industry by utilizing straightforward economic analytical methods. We started by projecting the reduced demand for solar systems resulting from price increases due to tariffs. We then analyzed projected job gains and losses under two scenarios, each using a 50% and 100% tariff on imported solar cells and modules. Even under the most conservative assumptions, we did not find a scenario where imposing a tariff would create more jobs than it eliminates."
 
    According to the Brattle analysis, if no tariff is imposed "the aggregate demand for photovoltaic systems is expected to grow from 1,678 MW in 2011 to 4,894 MW by 2014. A 50% tariff will raise industry-wide prices and delay solar industry growth, with total MW demand falling to as low as 3,350 MW in 2014. A 100% tariff will delay this growth even more with demand falling to as low as 3,159 MW in 2014.  It is a significant decline in the market for solar cells that is central to the decrease in jobs identified in this study." To measure job effects of solar module price increases, the Brattle analysis uses the same type of analytical model (IMPLAN) as government agencies, industry and economists to measure economic impacts.
 
    Another aspect analyzed in the report is the effect of likely retaliation by the Chinese to any U.S. imposed tariff on imported solar cells from China. According to the report, "retaliation would likely take the form of a tariff on U.S. polysilicon exports. The U.S. is a major supplier of this component of photovoltaic modules, and removing Chinese demand for U.S.‐manufactured polysilicon is expected to result in around 10,881 U.S. job losses in the first year after tariffs are imposed." CASE's Shah said, "This is an eye-opening analysis. Even after accounting for job gains in solar cell manufacturing, the likely job losses in the rest of America's solar industry and economy are staggering."
 
    Shah also noted that the findings of this study are consistent with a recent story ("Get-Tough Policy on Chinese Tires Falls Flat") in The Wall Street Journal in regard to tariffs placed on Chinese tires.  As the Journal reported, "The measure was meant to whack imports of passenger and light-truck tires and give a boost to manufacturers and job creation in the U.S. Yet, for a variety of reasons, it has apparently done little of either—and has surely raised prices for consumers."  Shah added, "Imposing tariffs on imported Chinese solar modules will have the same perverse results."

 

    On January 25, 2012, an evaluation of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data released by the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) indicated that Chinese producers have more than doubled imports of crystalline silicon solar cells and modules in advance of potential U.S. government duties on those imports. The coalition, which represents 11,000 U.S. workers at more than 150 American companies across the country, alleges that the recent 110 percent surge in import volume since July 2011, is further proof of illegal dumping and subsidies by Chinese solar producers and warrants a finding of critical circumstances that would apply retroactive duties to Chinese imports.

    Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld Industries America Inc., based in Oregon said, "This significant increase in imports demonstrates that the Chinese know they have violated U.S. and international trade rules and are trying to evade the consequences. Year to date, Chinese imports of solar cells and modules in 2011 are up 346 percent by quantity and 138 percent by value. Since 2008, Chinese imports have risen 939 percent by value and 1664 percent by quantity. This most recent surge of Chinese solar imports gives the U.S. Department of Commerce the evidence it needs not only to make a preliminary determination in our favor, but also to apply a critical-circumstances finding to address this last-minute import surge."

    Brinser continued saying, "The Chinese have made it clear that, contrary to various World Trade Organization agreements they signed 10 years ago, they will employ any means necessary to dominate the American and international solar markets. Rather than reward the Chinese for cheating, Commerce and the International Trade Commission need to take every possible action to enable American manufacturers to compete fairly."

    Brinser, speaking for CASM issued a statement in response to the new CASE economic analysis saying, "SolarWorld and the other members of CASM strongly support the creation of American jobs in the solar industry. This highly speculative study ignores the illegality of China's actions and fails to consider the harm those actions have caused to high-tech manufacturing jobs in the solar sector. We do know that thousands of good-paying American manufacturing jobs have already been lost to illegal Chinese dumping and subsidies for solar products. Our goal is to build America's solar manufacturing base and the good jobs with benefits, innovation and competition that come along with it."

    On January 30, CASM, led by SolarWorld recognized the U.S. Department of Commerce for taking expedited action against what they called "a massive, evasive surge of Chinese solar cell and panel imports" ahead of Commerce's first preliminary determination on duties, now scheduled for March 2, 2012. Commerce's finding of "critical circumstances" means that if the agency imposes preliminary countervailing duties on March 2, the duties will apply to all imports of cells and modules from Chinese exporters that were brought into the United States starting December 3, 2011.

    CASM said this critical-circumstances ruling marks the first time that Commerce has issued such a finding in advance of a preliminary countervailing duty determination. Aside from the determination on anti-subsidy (also called countervailing) duties, the agency is scheduled to issue a separate preliminary ruling on anti-dumping duties on March 27. Commerce will issue a separate critical-circumstances ruling in the anti-dumping investigation. Separately, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a unanimous preliminary determination on December 2, that the imports are harming the U.S. solar manufacturing industry.

    Brinser said, "After several years of massive imports of illegally subsidized and dumped Chinese solar products, the U.S. solar manufacturing industry and its workers greatly appreciate the Department of Commerce's finding that importers of Chinese products have mounted a massive surge in product to evade accountability to U.S. and international trade law. Recognizing that an attempt at circumvention can happen, the trade law allows Commerce to act against such abusive behavior. We value Commerce's decision, and we hope that it will send a clear message to the marketplace about Commerce's commitment to using all of its tools to combat unfair trade. We filed these trade cases as a key step to rekindle growth in America's renewable energy manufacturing and jobs. SolarWorld and CASM believe that free trade is trade free of illegal governmental intervention. Robust and legal international competition, not predatory pricing that relies on massive and improper subsidies, will produce the best products and sustainable price declines over the long term. Today, we are one step closer to these aims."

    The Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), is a coalition of American solar companies representing 97% to 98% of the U.S. solar industry jobs, and believes free trade and industry competition are critical to making solar electricity affordable for everyone. CASE is united in its commitment to creating jobs through the growth and development of the American solar industry.

    The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) is made up of seven companies, including SolarWorld that manufacture solar cells and modules in the United States as well as more than 150 employers of more than 11,000 workers who have registered their support for CASM's case as associate members. These member companies have plants in nearly every region in the United States, including the Northwest and California, the Southwest, Midwest, Northeast and South and support several thousand U.S. manufacturing jobs. 
 
    Access a release from CASE and link to their report (click here). Access the CASE website for more information (click here).  Access a release from SolarWorld and CASM and link to their Solar Import report (click here). Access the CASM statement in response to the CASE study (click here). Access the CASM statement on the Commerce Department action (click here). Access the Department of Commerce Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances (click here). Access the Department of Commerce Monthly Shipment Q&V Analysis for Critical Circumstances (click here). Access the CASM website (click here). [#Energy/Solar]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Senate Republican Bill To Approve Keystone XL Pipeline Project

Jan 30: U.S. Senators David Vitter (R-LA), John Hoeven (R-ND) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and a total of 44 senators, including one Democrat, Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced that they will introduce legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project under Congress's authority enumerated in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. Senator Vitter said, "This new bill is a lot like the old one, but it makes it definitive that Congress has the authority to push the Keystone XL Pipeline forward. Everyone in Washington talks about saving the economy and creating jobs -- the Keystone XL project will actually do something about that. And it would be pure politics for the president not to support it."
                                              
    The legislation would authorize TransCanada to construct and operate the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. Gulf Coast, transporting an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries, which includes 100,000 barrels a day from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana. The bill allows the company to move forward with construction of the pipeline in the United States while the State of Nebraska works to determine an alternative route. Senator Hoeven secured an opinion from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) which he said confirms Congress's constitutional authority to approve the project.

    The Keystone XL pipeline project has been under review for more than three years, but President Obama rejected it last week saying the 60-day provision authored by Lugar, Hoeven and Vitter included in the payroll tax cut extension bill passed in December didn't give him enough time to review the project [See WIMS 1/23/12]. In fact, the Obama Administration spent 1,217 days reviewing the pipeline and there was no time limit on the State Department's ability to review the Nebraska portion of the project.

     Senator Hoeven said, "Our legislation not only acknowledges the vital national interest this project represents on many levels, but also works in a bipartisan way to begin construction. It will create thousands of jobs, help control fuel prices at the pump and reduce our reliance on Middle East oil and it can be accomplished with congressional authority, just as the Alaska Pipeline was nearly 40 years ago. The reality is that if America doesn't build the Keystone project the Canadian oil will still be produced and shipped, but instead of being refined in the United States by American workers and benefiting American consumers, it will be shipped by tanker across the Pacific to China." Senator Lugar said, "The job creation, economic and energy security arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of building the pipeline. A majority of Americans support it. President Obama's opposition is not in the best interest of the United States. The President has failed to lead but we will not stop trying to complete this critical supply line."

    When the State department recommended the denial, President Obama issued a statement saying, ". . .the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. . . This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.:

    Russ Girling, TransCanada's (the project developer) president and chief executive officer said, "This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project. We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014."

    Noah Greenwald at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said, "President Obama made the right decision when he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans in Congress need to stop wasting precious time doing the bidding of Big Oil and address the climate crisis and create long-term jobs in a new, clean energy economy. Keystone XL would be an environmental disaster and create few permanent jobs in the process. Instead much of the oil will be exported — even as the pipeline deepens our dependence on the fossil fuels that are polluting our air, land and water and driving the global climate crisis."

    CBD indicated in a release that "Keystone XL would transport dirty tar-sands oil 1,700 miles across six states and hundreds of water bodies, posing an unacceptable risk of spill. An existing pipeline called Keystone 1 has already leaked 14 times since it started operating in June 2010, including one spill that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. The pipeline would directly threaten at least 20 imperiled species, including whooping cranes. Extraction and refinement of tar-sands oil produces two to three times more greenhouse gases per barrel than conventional oil and represents a massive new source of fossil fuels that leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen has called 'game over' for our ability to avoid a climate catastrophe. Strip mining of oil from Alberta's tar sands is also destroying tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest and polluting hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the Athabasca River, in the process creating toxic ponds so large they can be seen from space."

    On the House side, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said on ABC's "This Week"  "If it's not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it'll be part of it [i.e. Keystone pipeline bill]." The House is expected to consider the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act (set to be H.R.7), which would link new American energy production to high-priority infrastructure projects.  Instead of more 'stimulus' spending or wasteful earmarks, the bill would permanently remove government barriers to American energy production and use the revenues to repair and improve America's roads and bridges – both of which support long-term job growth. Speaker Boehner also said there will be no earmarks in legislation which he indicated "the House will soon vote on that permanently removes government barriers to energy production to help create thousands of private-sector jobs, lower gas prices, and repair our roads and bridges."

    On February 1, the Natural Resources Committee will hold a Full Committee markup on the energy portion of the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act, legislation to link new American energy production with high-priority infrastructure projects. The bill will remove government barriers to American energy production, creating over a million new American jobs, lowering gasoline prices, and helping repair our roads and bridges – with no earmarks. The energy portion includes: expanded Offshore Energy Production (H.R. 3410, Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act); Opening less than 3 percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to responsible energy development (H.R. 3407, Alaskan Energy for American Jobs Act); and increasing oil shale development by setting clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources and promoting shale technology research and development (H.R. 3408, Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act).

    Access a release from the Senators with a list of cosponsors and additional background (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a statement from Speaker Boehner and link to an overview of H.R.7 (click here). Access a report in The Hill re: the House consideration of the Keystone XL project (click here). Access the statement from the President (click here). Access a release on the House Natural Resources Committee meeting (click here). Access the Presidential Memorandum (click here). Access the release from TransCanada (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here).  [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/KXL, #Energy/OilSands, #Energy/TarSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House & Senate Prepare To Hear Nuclear Waste Issues

Jan 26: Following the release of the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) which details comprehensive recommendations for creating a safe, longterm solution for managing and disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high‐level radioactive waste [See WIMS 1/26/12], House and Senate Committees announced plans to hold hearings on the recommendations.

 

    The United States currently has more than 65,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at about 75 operating and shutdown reactor sites around the country. More than 2,000 tons are being produced each year. The DOE also is storing an additional 2,500 tons of spent fuel and large volumes of high‐level nuclear waste, mostly from past weapons programs, at a handful of government‐owned sites.

 

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) welcomed the final report. They said they were "disappointed that President Obama prohibited the commission from reviewing the merits of Yucca Mountain." They indicated that they agree with several of the commission's recommendations and believe the report's findings only underscore the urgent need to move forward with development of the Yucca program. The Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, February 1, 2012, at 9:30 AM.

 

    The two issued a joint statement saying, "In the wake of the Obama administration's mismanagement of Yucca Mountain, we agree with the commission that a new organizational structure must be put into place to manage our country's nuclear waste. The current administration has proved unwilling to carry out the law; it's time to think about a new single-purpose entity to put our country's nuclear future back on track. As recommended in the report, it is crucial this authority have full access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Recent House efforts to fund Yucca Mountain have been repeatedly thwarted by Harry Reid's Democratic Senate and the White House. We must decouple these funds from political whims imposed by the budget cycle to ensure the billions of dollars taxpayers and ratepayers have poured into Yucca Mountain will not be squandered.

 

    "The commission underscored the need for prompt action on a long-term storage disposal facility, and we believe Yucca Mountain remains the most shovel-ready, thoroughly studied option. While we develop this repository, we agree that we must also prepare for the large-scale transport of nuclear waste. As our nation's nuclear waste increases, so does the need for a long-term nuclear waste solution. We will continue to examine the commission's findings as we work to ensure the safety of our nuclear future."

 

   The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX), issued a statement saying, "I welcome the release of the report and look forward to its thoughtful review by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Nuclear energy will continue to be an integral piece of America's energy portfolio, and identifying a workable path forward to manage nuclear waste, including new technology pathways, deserves consideration. I thank the Blue Ribbon Commission panel for its hard work, particularly the leadership of its Co-Chairmen, General Scowcroft and former Congressman Hamilton. 

    "President Obama threw the future of U.S. nuclear waste management into disarray when he unilaterally decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository. While by law Yucca Mountain continues to be the only designated permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste, sensible steps to make it easier for future generations to manage nuclear waste warrant examination. The BRC's Report is a productive contribution to that ongoing discussion. "In the meantime, American taxpayers deserve to see the results of their $15 billion investment in Yucca Mountain, including the results of the comprehensive scientific review, which have yet to be released.  At a time when the country desperately needs a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy strategy – including expanded use of nuclear energy – the lack of a permanent storage solution continues to burden existing nuclear plants and increase liability to the American taxpayer. I look forward to an informative hearing in the coming weeks to review the Commission's report."

    Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) announced the Committee will hold a hearing on the Commission's report on Thursday, February 2, with witnesses including Co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Lt. General Brent Scowcraft, USAF. Ranking Member Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), released a statement saying, "I've been working with Sens. Feinstein, Alexander and Bingaman to find a plan to deal with our nation's spent nuclear fuel. We have a lot of issues to address -- not just the need for a long-term repository, but also transportation safety issues, the federal government's contractual liability and the need to consolidate and prioritize the existing temporary storage facilities -- and I'll be looking to the commission for guidance as we consider possible legislative action.

 

    "While the commission's report doesn't break a lot of new ground, it does offer some solid recommendations for improving U.S. policy, especially the call for the creation of a new organization that's protected from political influence or annual funding bills to handle nuclear waste disposal. I think that's an idea that's overdue, which is why I cosponsored Sen. Voinovich's Fed-Corp proposal.

 

    In its report, the BRC indicated, ". . .the Obama Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the latest indicator of a nuclear waste management policy that has been troubled for decades and has now reached an impasse. Allowing that impasse to continue is not an option. . .The Commission noted that it was specifically not tasked with rendering any opinion on the suitability of Yucca Mountain, proposing any specific site for a waste management facility, or offering any opinion on the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy supply mix. . . the urgent need to change and improve our strategy for managing the high‐level wastes and spent fuel that already exist and will continue to accumulate so long as nuclear reactors operate in this country."

 

    The Commission said what it has endeavored to do is "recommend a sound waste management approach that can lead to the resolution of the current impasse, and can and should be applied regardless of what site or sites are ultimately chosen to serve as the permanent disposal facility for America's spent nuclear fuel and other high‐level nuclear wastes."

 

    Access a release from Reps. Upton and Shimkus (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hall (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from BRC (click here). Access the complete 180-page report (click here). Access the BRC website for complete background information (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

 

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

House Hearing Indicates Chevy Volt Has No Defects

Jan 25: The House Ovesight & Government Reform Committee, Chaired by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending, Chaired by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), held a hearing entitled, "Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?" Witnesses included: David L. Strickland, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Daniel Akerson, Chairman and CEO General Motors; and John German, Senior Fellow and Program Director for the International Council on Clean Transportation.

 

    A Republican committee staff report indicates, "The delayed public notification of serious safety concerns relating to the Chevy Volt raises significant concerns regarding the unnatural relationship between General Motors (GM), Chrysler and the Obama Administration. Rather than allowing GM and Chrysler to enter into a traditional bankruptcy process, the Obama Administration intervened and forced the companies to participate in a politically orchestrated process. The result was that GM and Chrysler emerged as quasi-private entities, partially owned by the United States government.

 

    "President Obama has used this unusual blurring of public and private sector boundaries to openly tout the results of this partnership as a top accomplishment of his Administration -- creating a dynamic where the President is politically reliant on the success of GM and Chrysler. Moreover, in the case of GM, the Administration has offered substantial taxpayer funded subsidies to encourage production of the Volt, such as $151.4 million in stimulus funds for a Michigan-based company that produces lithium-ion polymer battery cells for the Volt as well as $105 million directly to GM. It has also extended a significant subsidy to encourage consumers to purchase the vehicle, offering buyers of the Volt a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle.

 

    "In the face of that political dependency, it is deeply troubling that public notification of the safety concerns related to the Volt was inexplicably delayed for six months – a period of time that also coincides with the negotiation over the 2017-2025 fuel economy standards. The necessity of a full explanation for NHTSA's silence concerning the Volt's safety risk has been compounded by its lack of cooperation with the Committee."

 

    NHTSA testified, ". . .we have concluded the agency's investigation and have found no discernible defect trend. The vehicle modifications recently developed by GM effectively address the issue of battery intrusion and they have included this modification as they manufacture new vehicles going forward. NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles show great promise as a safe and fuel-efficient option for American drivers."

 

    GM's Akerson testified, "We engineered the Volt to be among the safest vehicles on the road – earning an overall NHTSA 5 Stars for occupant safety and a Top Safety Pick from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder. . . In other words, we engineered the Volt to be the only current EV on the road that you can drive across town or across the country without fear of being stranded when the battery power is depleted. . .

 

    ". . .the Volt's entry into the market came soon after GM's emergence from its government rescue and restructuring -- and during this political season. As such, the Volt seems, perhaps unfairly, to have become a surrogate for some to offer broader

commentary on General Motors' business prospects and Administration policy." Following some concerns raised by NHTSA, Akerson said, "GM volunteered to conduct a Customer Satisfaction Program and implement structural and cooling system enhancements to further protect the Volt battery from the possibility of an electrical fire occurring days or weeks after a severe side crash. . .

 

    "It's also important that we reaffirm our commitment to the Volt's battery technology, and the actions we are taking have nothing to do with the battery pack itself. None of these changes will touch the battery cell or pack. As a result, we will not change any part of the manufacturing process at our Brownstown, Michigan, battery pack assembly plant. We have tested the Volt's battery system for more than 285,000 hours, or 25 years, of operation. It's important to note, the battery cell design used in the Volt was not the cause of the incidents that prompted the investigation. . .

 

    "Since news of the investigation broke, a couple of hundred out of our nearly eight thousand owners have requested either a loaner vehicle or a potential buy back. And that's no surprise as 93% of Volt owners in a recent Consumer Reports survey report

the highest customer satisfaction with their vehicles -- more than any other vehicle and the highest ever recorded by this respected third party. . . We have treated this process with NHTSA with the highest level of urgency and seriousness from day one. For its part, NHTSA has certainly been very thorough in this process and we have responded accordingly. In closing, the Volt is safe. It's a marvelous machine. It represents so much of what is right at GM and, frankly, American ingenuity and manufacturing."

 

    Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee said, "If I thought there was any kind of a cover-up in efforts by GM or NHTSA to protect consumer safety, I would not tolerate it. Today, I saw no such evidence. Based on what we know so far, NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program appeared to do just what it is supposed to do: catch potential safety concerns with new cars before they become a risk to consumers. And General Motors appeared to do exactly what we would hope it would do….So far, we have seen no evidence to support the implication that NHTSA has allowed politics to guide its decision-making."

 

    Rep. Kucinich said further, "A very detailed, one-hundred-and-thirty-five page final report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on its investigation into the Volt Battery Fire Incident … provides detailed answers to the question this hearing seems to ask. Considering that in the last few months there have been efforts by the majority to defund programs that support the development of technologies for electric and alternative fuel vehicles, and other proposals to take away tax incentives for purchasing electric cars, I am concerned that an effect of this hearing could be to undermine technology that is critical to both protecting the environment and ensuring the success of the U.S. auto manufacturing industry, as well as U.S. economic competitiveness generally. The Chevy Volt has helped to propel the resurgence of GM, and the jobs that come with it. Technologies developed for the Volt have been adopted on other vehicles to increase their efficiency, desirability and marketability."

 

    Access the Republican hearing website for links to the testimony, staff report and video (click here). Access a release from Rep. Kucinich (click here). [#Transport/Electric, #MITransport/Electric]

 

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