State Department Issues Draft EIS For Keystone XL Pipeline

Mar 1: The U.S. Department of State (DOS) released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) late Friday afternoon in response to TransCanada's May 2012 application for the Keystone XL pipeline that would run from Canada to Nebraska. The document is a draft technical review of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, including: impacts from construction, impacts from potential spills, impacts related to climate change, and economic impacts.

 

    A 45-day public comment period will begin when U.S. EPA posts the Draft SEIS on its website, a process that generally takes about one week following today's submission of the document to that agency. Specific instructions about how to submit comments will be provided via the Federal Register and on the State Department Keystone XL website. After the end of the public comment period, the Department will consider comments received and prepare a Final SEIS. The National Interest Determination period will begin following the release of the Final SEIS, during which time the Department will obtain the views of other agencies about whether to grant or deny the permit.

 

    In releasing the draft SEIS, Kerri-Ann Jones the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at DOS conducted a press briefing teleconference to explain the release and the process going forward. The pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border near Morgan, Montana, passes through Montana then South Dakota and Nebraska, and terminates in Steel City, Nebraska.

 

    The first question from the press related to one of the major issues raised by environmental organizations in opposition to the pipeline -- i.e. about the greenhouse gas emission impacts of the tar sands in the pipeline. DOS responded:

". . .the greenhouse gas question and the relationship to climate is a very important topic, and what we have done in the draft supplemental is we have looked at the greenhouse gas impact from a number of ways, both the overall lifecycle of greenhouse gas emission related to the oil that would be moving through this pipeline, as well as how the construction of the pipeline might influence the overall development of the oil sands.

 

"And I think that this has been an area of great interest, and as I said in my opening comments, this is a draft SEIS, and it's a preliminary document. We're very anxious to have a lot of public comment. But with this preliminary analysis, we find in this draft that the approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S. But let me reiterate that this is a draft document, and we're anxious to get a lot of comments from the public and to have a lot of discussion about this document. . ."

    The second question indicated that according to the DOS analysis it looks like "part of what the analysis is showing is that, in fact, in terms of the next decade, we would not need this pipeline to get the 830,000 barrels of oil a day to the United States." DOS responded:

"You raise a good question. Certainly, that is one of the areas we look at in the draft and that's sort of in the discussion where we look at alternatives. We have a very robust discussion of alternatives, including the no-action alternative, where what we look at is what would happen if this pipeline were not to be built, what would happen with other forms of transport, not just pipelines, but rail and barge. And also we look at what would happen to -- with the existing pipeline structure. Would there be other changes or modifications for that? So there is a tremendous amount of analysis in this draft on that very issue, and I would refer you to that. . ."

    Considering the fact, that the document was just release and very few people had a chance to even begin review it, a question was asked, "We literally have only just opened this report up and it's very dense and very comprehensive. But could you tell us, overall, if you found the environmental impact of the pipeline would be significant or would it meet the standards that you need for an eventual approval to go ahead?"

Well, as I said in my opening remarks, again, this is a draft. And so while there is a section where there is a summary discussion, I don't think it's -- I think it's somewhat premature to get into that, because we feel that we need to have a public debate. We covered a range of issues regarding what could be environmental impacts, covering what's been already mentioned on this call -- greenhouse gases and climate considerations -- as well as groundwater, as well as the ability when you're passing through somewhat fragile areas, the effects on threatened and endangered species. So I would just refer you to the summary piece and just say I think it's premature at this point to really try to come down with strong conclusions, as we want to make sure we get a lot of comments on this and we have a full public debate about the document.

    Section 4.15, Cumulative Effects Assessment of the SEIS, presents information and analysis regarding indirect cumulative impacts and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions including the potential impact of further development of the oil sands on climate change. Environmental groups have argued that Keystone XL tar sands project would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America to be shipped overseas through the Gulf of Mexico. It would be a disaster for our climate, producing tar sands crude that kicks out two or three times as much carbon pollution as producing conventional crude oil [See WIMS 2/19/13].

 

    DOS indicates in the SEIS, that previous comments received included requests for analysis of the potential climate impacts of increasing development of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) oil sands associated with the proposed Project. DOS says, "While such a broad review is typically beyond the scope of NEPA, this Supplemental EIS nonetheless presents information and analysis related to the proposed Project's potential life-cycle climate impacts." Among some of the findings, the SEIS concludes:

• it is unlikely that the proposed Project construction would have a substantial impact on the rate of WCSB oil sands development
• Producing a barrel of premium fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel, and kerosene/jet fuel) from bitumen produces roughly the same amount of petroleum coke as a barrel of premium fuels refined from heavy crudes, such as Venezuelan Bachaquero or Mexican Maya.
• The relative GHG-intensity of both reference crudes and oil sands-derived crudes will change differently over time. Conventional (deep) crude reservoirs require higher energy intensive secondary and tertiary production techniques as the reservoirs deplete and as water cut of the produced reservoir fluids increases. Oil sands surface mining is expected to have a relatively constant energy intensity long into the future.

    Obviously, many groups, organizations and legislators are reacting to the draft SEIS release -- too many to cover in-depth here. The following are a few representative reactions:

 

    TransCanada Corporation, the project developer responded to the draft SEIS saying in a release, "While TransCanada is still reviewing the DSEIS, it builds on more than 10,000 pages of review already completed for Keystone XL. The DSEIS reaffirmed that 'there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route.' It noted that Keystone XL would result in no 'substantive change in global GHG emissions' and it is 'unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.' Finally, it also noted that 'the denial of a Presidential Permit would likely result in actions by other firms in the United States (and global) petroleum market, such as use of alternative modes to transport WCSB and Bakken crude.'"

    Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer said, "Completing the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL is an important step towards receiving a Presidential Permit for this critical energy infrastructure project. No one has a stronger interest than TransCanada does in making sure that Keystone XL operates safely, and more than four years of exhaustive study and environmental review show the care and attention we have placed on ensuring this is the safest oil pipeline built to date in the United States."

    The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) issued a statement saying, "The SEIS findings confirm what we already knew --   this pipeline is safe and in the best interest of the American people. There are no legitimate reasons not to move forward on the landmark jobs project. The president should stand up for families and immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  It has been over four years since TransCanada first applied for a permit to build this pipeline that will bring jobs and energy security to America. At a time when gas prices are rising toward $4.00 a gallon, we must use every available tool we can to increase America's access to affordable and secure energy supplies. It should be a no-brainer to approve Keystone and accept Canada's oil. The Obama administration's unnecessary delays have prevented the pipeline's construction from moving forward, and in turn, put the project at risk. As China covets Canada's abundant oil resources, we can't afford to wait any longer.

    "The SEIS findings suggest the president should approve the pipeline's permit, but we were in a similar situation last year and the president chose to ignore the evidence and reject the middle class jobs project. Sadly, there is still no guarantee this pipeline will be approved absent an act of Congress. We fear the delays have allowed the opposition to grow so out-of-control that congressional action is still necessary to get the pipeline built."

    E&C Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a brief statement saying, "The draft impact statement appears to be seriously flawed. We don't need this dirty oil. To stop climate change and the destructive storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires that we are already experiencing, we should be investing in clean energy, not building a pipeline that will speed the exploitation of Canada's highly polluting tar sands."  

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement saying, "No matter how many times KXL is reviewed, the result is the same: no significant environmental impact. The latest impact statement from the State Department puts this important, job-creating project one step closer to reality. Nebraska has finished its final Keystone XL assessment and the governor has given it his full support. The last approval needed is by President Obama, and we urge him to do so as soon as possible. The president could truly implement his 'all of the above' energy strategy by approving Keystone XL. We hope the president will choose to side with the American people who strongly support the pipeline in poll after poll. The project will create thousands of good paying jobs for the safest, most highly trained workers of the building trades at a time when construction workers have an unemployment rate higher than the national average. Keystone XL will also enhance our energy security. It would be a win win for the U.S."

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, issued a statement saying, "The Environmental Impact Statement released today is long overdue, and continues to build a strong case supporting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL project has become one of the most closely examined infrastructure projects in our nation's history -- and it continues to pass with flying colors. Once again, the State Department has confirmed that this project is environmentally sound. The Keystone XL pipeline will make more Canadian and U.S. oil available to us—oil that will not need to be imported from unfriendly places.  It will create thousands of jobs and generate millions in revenue for state and local governments that badly need them. We'll be working over the next 45 days to ensure that the voice of the majority of American people, who favor this project, is heard loud and clear by the Obama Administration."

 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicated that its experts have begun analyzing the draft SEIS and indicate that they have found numerous major flaws, including:

• Climate Impacts:  The analysis minimizes the climate impacts of up to 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands -- which has been termed "the dirtiest oil on the planet" due to its high-carbon liabilities. Building this pipeline would be the same as putting 6 million new cars on the road. And that doesn't even account for emissions that come from petroleum coke, which would increase carbon pollution from Keystone XL by an additional 13 percent. But the draft SEIS discounted this carbon pollution. 
• Tar Sands Development: The State Department analysis specifically avoids the impact that this project would have in empowering a tripling of tar sands oil production by noting that the oil would be delivered in other ways, despite very clear evidence and press reporting in Canada to the contrary.
• Water Impacts: In a significant change from the first environmental impact study, the State Department now acknowledges that the acidic and corrosive properties of diluted bitumen (a rawer form of tar sands oil that would flow through the pipeline) has elevated safety risks compared to conventional oil, and requires new response strategies to deal with spills in water. The ongoing cleanup of the nation's biggest inland oil spill two and a half years ago -- in Michigan's Kalamazoo River -- illustrates the danger underplayed in the draft report.

    Access the DOS press briefing (click here). Access a DOS brief fact sheet on the draft SEIS (click here). Access the detailed draft SEIS with executive summary, each section and appendices (click here). Access the DOS Keystone XL New Application website for updates and links to information (click here). Access a release from the E&C Committee Republicans (click here). Access a release from the E&C Committee Democrats (click here). Access a release from TransCanada (click here). Access the TransCanada KXL website for more information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to further analysis (click here).  [#Climate, #Energy/KXL]

 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

• White House News
• Congressional News
• Federal Agencies News
• Industry News
• Enviro Group News
• Air Quality News
• Hazardous Waste News
• Transportation News

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Budget Sequestration In Effect; Just 27 Days Until Next "Crisis"

Mar 1: March 1 has arrived and the self-imposed budget sequester of $85 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 spending goes into effect despite the fact that most everyone agrees it will cause a critical disruption to the U.S. economy [See WIMS 2/26/13]. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and Texas Instruments have said the cuts are a "self-inflicted body blow" to the American economy [See WIMS 2/11/13]. Yet, with very little effort on the part of Washington Democrats and Republicans to avoid the "crisis", the disruptive cuts were allowed to go into effect. Because government moves slowly, it will take some time for the impacts of the sequester cuts to be felt. A last minute meeting called by the President for today (March 1) with House and Senate leadership will have little meaning, as the House and Senate have adjourned and left town. The President is required by law to order the sequester by the end of the day.

 

    Now, there are just 27 days until the next major, self-inflicted budget crisis -- the Continuing Budget Resolution (CR) -- which was put off until March 27, because no agreement could be reached. If not addressed, or put off again, the Federal government will shut down. Then, its just a few more months until Washington again deals with the debate over raising the "debt ceiling" again.

 

    President Obama issued a statement on the sequestration saying, "Today, Republicans in the Senate faced a choice about how to grow our economy and reduce our deficit. And instead of closing a single tax loophole that benefits the well-off and well-connected, they chose to cut vital services for children, seniors, our men and women in uniform and their families.  They voted to let the entire burden of deficit reduction fall squarely on the middle class.

    "I believe we should do better. We should work together to reduce our deficit in a balanced way – by making smart spending cuts and closing special interest tax loopholes.  That's exactly the kind of plan Democrats in the Senate have proposed.  But even though a majority of Senators support this approach, Republicans have refused to allow it an up-or-down vote – threatening our economy with a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts that will cost us jobs and slow our recovery.

    "Tomorrow [March 1] I will bring together leaders from both parties to discuss a path forward. As a nation, we can't keep lurching from one manufactured crisis to another. Middle-class families can't keep paying the price for dysfunction in Washington.  We can build on the over $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we've already achieved, but doing so will require Republicans to compromise.  That's how our democracy works, and that's what the American people deserve."   

    At 11:30 AM today, the President delivered a lengthy statement and held a press briefing answering detailed questions from reporters on the process which lead to the sequester, the anticipated impacts, and the future prospects of budget negotiations with Congress. He said, in part:

"As you know, I just met with leaders of both parties to discuss a way forward in light of the severe budget cuts that start to take effect today.  I told them these cuts will hurt our economy.  They will cost us jobs.  And to set it right, both sides need to be willing to compromise.

"The good news is the American people are strong and they're resilient.  They fought hard to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we will get through this as well.  Even with these cuts in place, folks all across this country will work hard to make sure that we keep the recovery going.  But Washington sure isn't making it easy.  At a time when our businesses have finally begun to get some traction -- hiring new workers, bringing jobs back to America -- we shouldn't be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on and workers depend on, like education, and research, and infrastructure and defense.  It's unnecessary.  And at a time when too many Americans are still looking for work, it's inexcusable. . .

"The longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy -- a slow grind that will intensify with each passing day. . . I do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach that asks something from everybody:  Smart spending cuts; entitlement reform; tax reform that makes the tax code more fair for families and businesses without raising tax rates --  all so that we can responsibly lower the deficit without laying off workers, or forcing parents to scramble for childcare, or slashing financial aid for college students.

"I don't think that's too much to ask.  I don't think that is partisan.  It's the kind of approach that I've proposed for two years.  It's what I ran on last year.  And the majority of the American people agree with me in this approach, including, by the way, a majority of Republicans.  We just need Republicans in Congress to catch up with their own party and their country on this. . ."

    Access a 2/28 statement from the President (click here). Access the 3/1 statement from the President and responses to questions from the press (click here). Access the White House blog posting on the Sequester impacts, background and links to the state by state reports (click here). Access the Senate Appropriations Committee, "Impacts of Sequestration" website with agency letters and testimony (click here). Access the House Appropriations Committee Democratic report of February 13, 2013, on sequestration for more background and details (click here). Access the House Republican's website on the Sequester (click here). [#All, #MIAll]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Shell Backs Off Arctic Alaska Drilling For Now

Feb 27: Royal Dutch Shell plc (Shell) announced it will "pause its exploration drilling activity for 2013 in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas [See WIMS 9/5/12] to prepare equipment and plans for a resumption of activity at a later stage." Marvin Odum, Director, Upstream Americas said, "We've made progress in Alaska, but this is a long-term programme that we are pursuing in a safe and measured way. Our decision to pause in 2013 will give us time to ensure the readiness of all our equipment and people following the drilling season in 2012."

    In a release Shell indicated that Alaska holds important energy resources. At the same time, securing access to those resources requires special expertise, technology and an in depth understanding of the environmental and societal sensitivities unique to the region. Shell is one of the leaders in an industry move into offshore Arctic exploration. The company continues to use its extensive experience in Arctic and sub-Arctic environments to prepare for safe activities in Alaska. Alaska remains an area with high potential for Shell over the long term, and the company is committed to drill there again in the future. If exploration proves successful, resources there would take years to develop.

    Shell completed top-hole drilling on two wells in 2012 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, marking the industry's return to offshore drilling in the Alaskan Arctic after more than a decade. This drilling was completed safely, with no serious injuries or environmental impact. After the drilling season ended, however, one of Shell's drilling rigs, the Kulluk, was damaged in a maritime incident related to strong weather conditions. The Kulluk and the second drilling rig, the Noble Discoverer, will be towed to locations in Asia for maintenance and repairs.

    Odum said, "Shell remains committed to building an Arctic exploration program that provides confidence to stakeholders and regulators, and meets the high standards the company applies to its operations around the world. We continue to believe that a measured and responsible pace, especially in the exploration phase, fits best in this remote area.

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a statement saying, "I have been a strong supporter of Shell's activities in the waters off Alaska's northern coastline and in energy exploration in general, but I have always said that it must be done to the highest safety standards. Shell's decision to postpone this summer's exploratory drilling program shows that it shares that commitment to safety. This pause -- and it is only a pause in a multi-year drilling program that will ultimately provide great benefits both to the state of Alaska and the nation as a whole -- is necessary for Shell to repair its ships and make the necessary updates to its exploration plans that will ensure a safe return to exploration soon."

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee, who has been questioning and exposing issues with Shell's Arctic endeavors said this was the right decision on the part of Shell, and asked the Department of Interior to expand its current expedited review of Arctic drilling prospects, given additional time this postponement now allows. He indicated among the incidents were catastrophic failures of proposed containment systems, one of two drilling ships running aground while being towed through a storm to avoid tax considerations, and another ship receiving 16 safety and performance violations. Rep. Markey said, "After bumbling through a year of mishaps, beachings, and complete safety failures, it's clear that Shell and the oil industry were not ready to drill in the Arctic. This postponement is the right decision and should allow the Department of Interior the time it needs to do a full review of the oil industry's capability to handle the harsh conditions in the Arctic."

    A number of environmental organizations issued statements including Greenpeace, Earthjustice, Wilderness Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and others (See links below). Greenpeace said it welcomed the announcement and Phil Radford, Greenpeace USA Executive Director said in response said, "This is the first thing Shell's done right in Alaska -- calling it quits. Shell was supposed to be the best of the best, but the long list of mishaps and near-disasters is a clear indication even the 'best' companies can't succeed in Arctic drilling. Secretary Salazar and President Obama gave drilling a chance; now the responsible decision is to make Arctic drilling off limits, forever. . . "Shell's announcement today is an admission that the millions of people around the world were right to urge Obama to keep the company out of the Arctic. Now Obama needs to listen to the 2.7 million people who have signed on to #SaveTheArctic and make Arctic drilling off-limits forever."

    Earthjustice President, Trip Van Noppen, issued a statement saying, "Shell did the only thing it could do -- suspend Arctic drilling and halt operations for oil exploration this summer. Whether it was the Kulluk's grounding, the problems both drilling operations had with Arctic weather and ice, or the total failure of their oil spill containment system, Shell's drilling effort last summer demonstrated with vivid clarity that the oil industry is not ready to drill safely in the Arctic Ocean. The administration should take the time it needs to perform a thorough assessment of Shell's operations last summer, rather than a rushed review that fails to address the systemic failures -- both of the industry and the Department of the Interior. The Obama administration should now suspend all permitting and further activities related to Arctic drilling in America's waters until it completes a thorough review and determines a more responsible approach for the Arctic Ocean."

    Access a release from Shell (click here). Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey with links to his previous inquiries (click here). Access the statement from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from Wilderness Society including images and a chronology of events (click here). Access a release from Center for Biological Diversity (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). [#Energy/OCS]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Bipartisan Policy Center Makes 50+ Energy Policy Recommendations

Feb 27: The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) unveiled a report at the National Press Club  -- America's Energy Resurgence: Sustaining Success, Confronting Challenges -- which includes over 50 energy policy recommendations developed by its Strategic Energy Policy Initiative, which is co-chaired by former Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), General James Jones USMC (Ret.) and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator William Reilly. Together, they led a diverse group of key stakeholders, including high-level industry executives, scientists, economists, environmental advocates, labor leaders and former government and elected officials through a lengthy, deliberative process.

    The group notes that the nation is undergoing an energy resurgence -- both in energy production and energy efficiency -- many energy challenges remain that demand high-level bipartisan attention. Over the last year and a half the group has been deliberating on policy options to diversify energy production, improve energy productivity through cost-effective energy efficiency, accelerate innovation and technology improvements, and improve energy policy governance and accountability. The consensus-based recommendations are aimed at all relevant policymakers -- state governments, Congress, Executive Branch agencies and local utilities.

    Former EPA Administrator Reilly said, "Our country faces great challenges in ensuring safe, reliable, affordable energy to power our economy and meet the needs of our citizens. At the same time, we have tremendous opportunities to improve the way we secure energy supplies and how we use them in transportation, buildings, and commerce. We need to exploit those opportunities and we need to ensure that energy policy is well integrated with environmental policy. Both are essential for the country's long-term well being." Former Sen. Dorgan said, "Our country is in a very different position in terms of energy supply than it was just a few years ago, and my home state's economy is flourishing as a result. We must use this era of energy abundance as the ideal time for driving a diversity of policies that can serve as a buffer in more difficult times."

    BPC President Jason Grumet said, "This report is proof that people with strong differences can develop a consensus plan to advance national energy policy. While Congress is not in a particularly collaborative mood, energy policy has often been a source of bipartisan agreement. Recent achievements in production, efficiency, and advanced technologies create an opportunity for Congress to legislate from a position of national strength. These detailed recommendations are designed to provide impetus for a serious legislative effort."

    The report indicates that the U.S. energy system should provide "affordable, secure, and reliable supplies of energy and strive for continuous improvement in environmental performance." The report outlines four overriding objectives to achieve the recommendations including: 1. Pursue a diverse portfolio of energy resources; 2. Improve the energy productivity of the economy; 3. Accelerate innovation and technology improvements across the energy sector; and 4. Improve energy policy governance and accountability.

 

    Under the diverse portfolio, the report calls for: • Expanding production of domestic oil and gas resources while improving the environmental performance of shale oil and gas development; • Supporting investments in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects; • Addressing barriers to maintaining a strong nuclear energy sector; • Encouraging renewable energy production and consumption through streamlined siting on federal lands, extended tax incentives, and increased Department of Defense (DOD) procurement; • Supporting alternative transportation fuels through local, state, and federal infrastructure investments and DOD procurement; • Evaluating training needs for a skilled and technical energy workforce and facilitating multi-stakeholder energy-sector training programs; • Avoiding restrictions on international trade of energy, in keeping with the nation's traditional commitment to free trade; and • Reviewing the full range of energy tax expenditures and developing a reasonable phase-out plan for those tax expenditures that constitute subsides for mature fuels and technologies.

 

    In the policy and governance area, the report recommends: • Developing a high-level National Energy Strategy, through a new National Energy Security Council, and conducting a companion Quadrennial Energy Review; and • Pairing the Strategy with a well-coordinated implementation plan that can respond to often unpredictable economic, political, and technological conditions and regularly tracking and reporting progress.

 

    In a lengthy blog posting, Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the report "misses the mark in a number of significant ways. It fails to address the urgent need for policies to combat climate change and proposes a significant expansion of fossil fuel extraction in the United States." NRDC's Ralph Cavanagh, was a member of the BPC Energy Board that produced the report, but Beinecke indicates that, "Board members serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of their companies or organizations. And as noted in the report's introduction, signing the report does not indicate agreement with all of the report's recommendations." She said both Cavanaugh and NRDC disagree with the report's conclusions and recommendations on "dirty energy development."

 

    NRDC said the report is off-base in its "embrace of vastly expanded oil and gas production"; failure to discuss "the toll oil and gas development takes on our shared public lands"; a "skewed approach to offshore drilling"; and its allegation that seismic exploration mitigation measures for Atlantic drilling are "too expensive and potentially impossible to conduct." But, NRDC indicates that "the report does provide a strong plan for how to expand America's cleanest and safest energy resources: efficiency and renewables."

 

    NRDC also emphasizes that, ". . .perhaps most interesting, given recent political fights, the report also calls for extending the renewable energy production tax credit (now set to expire in 2013) through the end of 2016, while calling for a phase-out of all federal tax subsidies for mature energy technologies (including longtime fossil fuel beneficiaries). That's an important twin policy goal that will advance our growing clean energy sector." NRDC concludes that while it "does not consider this report, as a whole, to be a blueprint for how our nation can curb carbon emissions and build a stronger, more sustainable energy future, we welcome the strides made in reaching a bipartisan consensus on efficiency, renewables, and other innovations. It's those clean energy proposals that we can and will support."

 

     Other members on the BPC Energy Board included high-ranking representative from: Marathon Oil Corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc.; Booz Allen Hamilton; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Exelon Corporation; Arkansas Public Service Commission; Sandia National Laboratories; DuPont; American Council on Renewable Energy; BNSF Railway Company; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Southern Company Services, Inc.; and Analysis Group (and Former Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy).

    Access a release from the BPC (click here). Access a report overview and link to the complete 188-page report and a 5-page summary (click here). Access a video of the report release event at the National Press Club (click here). Access the Strategic Energy Policy Initiative website for additional information (click here). Access the complete NRDC blog posting (click here). [#Energy]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

GAO Report On Challenges Of Airborne Pollutants Of Water Bodies

Feb 25: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Water Quality; EPA Faces Challenges in Addressing Damage Caused by Airborne Pollutants (GAO-13-39, Jan 24, 2013). The report was requested by Representatives Timothy Bishop (D-NY) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the Ranking Member and Member respectively, of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

 

    Atmospheric deposition, a process that transfers pollutants, including NOx, SO2, and mercury, from the air to the earth's surface, can significantly impair the quality of the nation's waters. EPA can potentially address atmospheric deposition through the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA), but concerns have been raised about its ability to do so. GAO was asked to examine EPA's efforts to address atmospheric deposition of pollutants that impair waterbodies. The report examines: (1) the extent to which atmospheric deposition of NOx, SO2, and mercury contributes to the impairment of the nation's waters and identify the key sources of these pollutants; (2) the regulatory tools that EPA uses under the CWA to address the effects of atmospheric deposition, and the challenges, if any, that it faces in doing so; and, (3) the regulatory tools that EPA uses under the CAA to address the effects of atmospheric deposition, and the challenges, if any, that it faces in doing so. To conduct the work, GAO reviewed EPA data, reports, and activities and interviewed agency officials and other experts.

 

    GAO indicates that it found that atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury contributes to the impairment of the nation's waters, but the full extent is not known. For example, states provide EPA with data on the extent to which their waterbodies do not meet water quality standards, and some states have reported that some of their waterbodies are polluted because of atmospheric deposition. However, the states have not assessed all of their waterbodies and are not required to report on the sources of pollution. Similarly, Federal studies show that atmospheric deposition of NOx, SO2, and mercury is polluting waterbodies but have data for only some waters. The main sources of NOx and SO2 are cars and other forms of transportation and coal-burning power plants. Power plants are also the largest U.S. source of mercury emissions, but international sources also contribute to the mercury deposited in U.S. waters.

    GAO indicates that EPA has sought to address atmospheric deposition through Clean Water Act (CWA) programs but faces challenges in doing so. Specifically, states typically establish water quality standards -- considering EPA recommended criteria -- for each waterbody. If a waterbody does not meet standards, CWA generally requires the state to set a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that identifies the maximum amount of pollutant that can enter the waterbody and still meet standards. States are responsible for taking actions to ensure the TMDL is met. For point sources of pollution, such as a pipe from a sewer treatment plant, CWA requires new or renewed permits to be consistent with the TMDL. However, there is no similar statutory requirement for nonpoint sources of pollution, such as atmospheric deposition. States may take actions, such as providing technical or financial assistance to limit pollution from nonpoint sources, but face a challenge when atmospheric deposition pollution affecting their waters originates in emissions from a different state.

    EPA has also sought to address atmospheric deposition through Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations but also faces challenges in doing so. EPA issued regulations that reduced emissions of NOx, SO2, and mercury and in turn the amount of pollution in waterbodies. Even with reduced emissions, NOx, SO2, and mercury continue to pollute the nation's waterbodies. EPA's recent attempt to address atmospheric deposition by establishing secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) -- standards to protect public welfare -- targeting the effects of acid rain caused by NOx and SO2 on water bodies was not successful. EPA stated that uncertainty regarding atmospheric modeling and limitations in available data prevented determination of secondary NAAQS adequate to protect against the effects of acid rain, and the agency has not identified alternative strategies. EPA has begun a 5-year pilot program to gather additional scientific data, but it is unclear whether or when the agency will be able to address scientific uncertainties to enable adoption of a protective secondary NAAQS. EPA also did not set secondary NAAQS to address nutrient over-enrichment in aquatic ecosystems caused by NOx because of the limited available scientific data. Many sources of nitrogen can contribute to nutrient over-enrichment in a waterbody, including sources of nitrogen unrelated to atmospheric deposition. EPA recently announced an effort that is to lead to the development of an integrated nitrogen research strategy that includes approaches to reducing atmospheric deposition of NOx into waters impaired because of nutrient over-enrichment by nitrogen.

    GAO recommends that EPA determine whether EPA can obtain in a timely manner the data it needs to establish secondary NAAQS adequate to protect against the effects of acid rain and, if not, identify alternative strategies to do so. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendation.

    In the report conclusions, GAO indicates that, "EPA has long recognized atmospheric deposition as a problem and has sought to mitigate its effects; however, EPA's efforts are being hindered by limitations in the regulatory tools available to it. The CAA provides EPA with regulatory tools to reduce airborne emissions -- and this has reduced atmospheric deposition. Even with these reductions, atmospheric deposition continues to affect water quality and harm aquatic ecosystems. One CAA tool for airborne emissions is also currently available to EPA to directly address the effects of atmospheric deposition -- secondary NAAQS -- but EPA has not been successful in using secondary NAAQS to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems from acid rain or nutrient over-enrichment.

 

    "We acknowledge the innovative approach EPA developed for establishing secondary NAAQS to address acid rain. However, as of April 2012, EPA stated it did not have sufficient scientific data to determine with an acceptable degree of scientific certainty if its new approach would meet applicable legal standards to establish the secondary NAAQS. Further, the 5-year pilot program it has initiated to inform future reviews of NAAQS to address acid rain is not designed specifically to obtain these data. However, EPA has not identified alternative strategies to address the acidification of aquatic ecosystem if it cannot resolve the scientific uncertainties that prevented it from issuing the secondary NAAQS in April 2012. Furthermore, secondary NAAQS may not be well suited to address acid rain because EPA must satisfy the legal requirement that secondary NAAQS provide the requisite degree of protection -- that is, that the standards are neither more nor less stringent than necessary -- for all parts of the nation, and some areas of the nation are sensitive to the effects of acid rain, while others are naturally resistant to them.

 

    "Additionally, EPA does not have the scientific data it needs to establish a secondary NAAQS to address the contribution of NOx to nutrient overenrichment in aquatic ecosystems. Because there can be many sources of nitrogen that contribute to nutrient over-enrichment in a waterbody, including sources of nitrogen unrelated to atmospheric deposition, secondary NAAQS by themselves may not be well suited to address nutrient over-enrichment. EPA announced in 2012 that it will develop a "Nitrogen Roadmap" that identifies how it will foster research, program implementation, and policy integration for nitrogen and other pollutants across the agency. This roadmap is intended to be a scoping document that is to precede more concrete steps to develop an integrated nitrogen research strategy to address nutrient over-enrichment. We encourage EPA to continue its effort to develop an integrated nitrogen research strategy, which may lead to more suitable approaches to address nutrient over-enrichment.

 

    "Regarding mercury, because most emissions originate outside of the United States, EPA's regulatory tools are of limited applicability to the majority of emissions, but the agency is involved in the UNEP negotiations to, among other things, reduce atmospheric emissions of mercury on a global scale. This will be an important step toward reducing mercury levels in our nation's waters."

 

    Access the complete 59-page report (click here). [#Water, #Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

A CEO Vision For America's Energy Future

Feb 25: The Business Roundtable (BRT), an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies, released a report entitled, Taking Action on Energy: A CEO Vision for America's Energy Future, a detailed, comprehensive national energy strategy to capitalize on U.S. strengths and accelerate economic growth and job creation. David Cote, Chairman and CEO of Honeywell International, Inc., and Chair of BRT's Energy and Environment Committee said, "America's energy economy is firing on all cylinders -- efficiency, renewable power, oil and gas production, and advanced coal and nuclear power technology. North American energy self-sufficiency is within reach, but the missing piece is an effective strategy to capitalize on U.S. advantages.Taking Action on Energy is that strategy."

    In Taking Action on Energy, CEOs, who lead major U.S. companies that operate in every sector of the economy -- and represent energy producers, consumers and technology suppliers -- offer a vision for America's energy future that is more affordable, more secure and more sustainable. John Watson, Chairman and CEO of Chevron Corporation said, "Driven by private sector innovation and investment, the United States is poised to regain its status as an energy superpower. The dramatic rise in U.S. oil and natural gas production is creating jobs and economic growth across America, but our ability to take full advantage of the historic opportunity in front of us depends upon the right policy framework."

    Andrew Liveris, Chairman and CEO of The Dow Chemical Company said, "Reliable, affordable energy makes the United States the location of choice for manufacturing. We have outlined a strategy to ensure America stays on top." Nicholas Akins, President and CEO of American Electric Power said, "America's electric power infrastructure has long delivered value to consumers and enhanced industrial competitiveness. To preserve that value, sound energy strategy must maintain fuel diversity for power generation, support investment in our nation's transmission system, provide a long-term solution for storing spent nuclear fuel and consider the economic consequences of energy and environmental regulation."

    In Taking Action on Energy, BRT CEOs call on Congress and the Administration to adopt policies that will enhance U.S. self-sufficiency, boost economic growth and promote environmental stewardship. The plan includes detailed and specific recommendations in each of four areas -- energy efficiency; traditional energy production; renewable energy production; and electric power generation, transmission and distribution -- including measures to:

• Foster innovation by sustaining public investments in a diverse portfolio of pre-commercial research and development (R&D) activities, including:
  • R&D on cost-effective technologies that have the potential to improve energy efficiency while diversifying energy sources;
  • Projects to demonstrate the commercial viability of carbon capture, utilization and storage, provided that such funding is offered for a finite timeframe and limited in scope; and
  • R&D and demonstration projects for pre-commercial renewable electricity generation and transportation fuels, with an emphasis on performance, emissions reductions and technology neutrality.
• Drive increased energy efficiency by:
  • Ensuring that state legislatures and public utility commissions consider policies that promote investment in cost-effective energy efficiency measures, and ensure that such investments are as profitable for utilities as generation and distribution assets;
  • Expanding the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Services Contracts (UESCs) in the federal government, as well as training and education for federal energy managers, policymakers and procurement/legal staff regarding the use and benefits of these contracts; and
  • Encouraging energy efficiency measures at the state level based on effective federal policy guidelines that can be cost-effectively implemented; and giving states the flexibility to account for local differences in regulatory approaches. 
• Improve access to promising energy resources by:
  • Increasing access to onshore and offshore federal lands to ensure reliable supplies of coal, oil and natural gas;
  • Streamlining the permitting and approval processes to expedite critical infrastructure projects;
  • Respecting the role that states have traditionally played in regulating oil and natural gas activity on non-federal lands, and ensuring that new regulations for federal lands are developed in consultation with states and are consistent with state regulations; and
  • Ensuring that EPA regulations are based on sound science, undergo thorough net cost-benefit analysis, and take into consideration the net cumulative impact these regulations have on energy costs, economic growth and job creation, while being protective of human health and the environment.
• Reform incentives for renewable power technology deployment by:
  • Providing wind-powered electricity generation with a smooth transition to an era of unsubsidized competitiveness by extending the wind production tax credit so that the benefit is gradually reduced and ultimately eliminated;
  • Ensuring that decisions regarding tax incentives for renewable resources are designed to address well-documented market inefficiencies, applied only to those fuels and technologies with a credible path to unsubsidized competitiveness and finite in duration and eventually phased out in a predictable fashion;
  • Accounting for regional variations in renewable energy resource availability when developing legislation and regulation; and
  • With respect to the renewable fuel standard, policymakers should consider the limitations of the current vehicle fleet, fuel distribution infrastructure and actual production capacity, and adopt targeted modifications as needed.
• Encourage accelerated modernization of the electric power sector by:
  • Carefully evaluating the timing and cumulative impact of EPA regulations on the electric utility industry and, as appropriate, modifying these regulations to ensure continued reliability, avoid unreasonable rate impacts, and maintain a diverse, market-driven portfolio of baseload electricity generation fuel options;
  • Devising a long-term solution to remove and manage nuclear spent fuel;
  • Providing transparent rate incentives for cost-effective upgrades to the nation's transmission infrastructure in order to facilitate grid modernization and support competitive wholesale electricity markets;
  • Improving coordination among federal agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), state commissions and other stakeholders, to address the complexity, unpredictability and inefficiency of transmission planning, siting and cost allocation decisions for interstate projects;
  • Supporting DOE and National Institute of Standards and Technology efforts to accelerate and coordinate the development of "smart grid" standards; and
  • Requiring actionable and timely cybersecurity threat intelligence sharing from government to critical infrastructure owners and operators.   

    The BRT is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in annual revenues and more than 14 million employees. Our companies generate an estimated $420 billion in sales for small and medium-sized businesses annually. BRT members comprise nearly a third of the total value of the U.S. stock market and invest more than $150 billion annually in research and development -- nearly half of all private U.S. R&D spending. BRT companies pay $163 billion in dividends to shareholders and give nearly $9 billion a year in combined charitable contributions.

    Access a release from BRT with links to summaries of the complete report and each sector recommendations (click here). Access the complete 76-page report (click here). [#Energy]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Business Coalition Appeals E15 Use To Supreme Court

Feb 21: The American Petroleum Institute (API) and other groups announced that they have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a D.C. Circuit Court decision rejecting a challenge to EPA's grant of partial waivers for use of the ethanol-gasoline blend, E15. On January 15, 2013, D.C. Circuit, denied an en banc reconsideration [See WIMS 1/16/13] of Grocery Manufacturers Association v. U.S. EPA (consolidated with a number of other cases) and thus the original 2-1 decision was upheld. That decision ruled "that no petitioner has standing to bring this action, we dismiss all petitions for lack of jurisdiction." [See WIMS 8/17/12].

 

    API's group director for downstream and industry operations Bob Greco told reporters at a press briefing teleconference, "We've filed this petition because the D.C. Circuit incorrectly concluded that none of the 17 petitioners had standing to challenge the E15 partial waivers -- not the engine manufacturers whose products will run on this new fuel blend, not the petroleum industry who must undertake massive infrastructure changes to accommodate the blend and meet the renewable fuel mandate, and not the food producers who now face significantly greater competition in the commodities market for corn, the conventional feedstock for ethanol.

    "Had EPA stayed within its statutory authority and followed proper procedures, it would have waited until ongoing E15 testing on engines and fuel systems was completed before allowing the use of E15. Then it would have discovered that E15 is not safe for millions of vehicles now on the road. Although we hope the court will resolve the E15 problem, we also believe our experience here represents only one of many underlying problems with the Renewable Fuel Standard, so we are calling on Congress to repeal the program."

 

    The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Louis Finkel, a part of the coalition petitioning the Supreme Court said, "The procedural grounds on which the DC Circuit Court based its split decision to dismiss our petition are unfounded. All the while, the significant issues at the heart of our case continue to go unanswered. In the end, it's consumers who will pay the heaviest toll for the court's decision, as it cleared the way for an expansion of misguided food–to-fuel policies at a time when Americans can least afford it. 

    "The DC Circuit's decision came as the most devastating drought the U.S. had experienced in 50 years was driving the price of corn up nearly 40 percent. The decision effectively increased demand for a crop that was already in extremely short supply, thanks to Mother Nature and an unworkable Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) policy. A few short months later, the Environmental Protection Agency denied the petitions of eight governors asking the agency to waive in whole or in part the RFS mandate requirements in response to the drought-induced low level of stocks.

    "If the lower court and the regulating agency are unable or unwilling to provide relief under these most extreme circumstances, it's clear that further action is needed to pursue responsible energy policies that don't pit our nation's energy needs against food security for families. That is why GMA is elevating this issue to the highest court in the land. Implementation of the RFS has had a profound negative impact on the economy and the structure of markets in energy, agricultural commodities and food manufacturing. The application of the RFS to allow E15 into the market will only exacerbate a situation that is already having a negative impact on consumers and the economy.

 

    "Corn acreage increased from nearly 82 million acres planted in 2005 to more than 96 million acres in 2012. By comparison, the acreage planted with the next two biggest crops, soybean and wheat, stayed flat. From 2005 through 2011, the price of: corn rose by $4.05; soybean rose by $6.85; and wheat rose by $4.08. By comparison, in the previous six year period, commodities rose only modestly. These increased acres planted should provide some price relief by adding additional supply. However, any gains in supply are largely offset by the fact that 40 percent of production acreage planted is devoted to ethanol production. 

 

    "The available supply and price of corn and other affected commodities has an enormous impact on the cost inputs to food production. As hard as food and beverage companies work to deliver safe, nutritious food to consumers at affordable prices, the laws of economics dictate that consumers will feel the effects of these higher input costs at the retail level at a time when many families are struggling. The original suit filed argued that EPA had exceeded its authority and violated the law when approving the use of E15; but more importantly, it put consumers at risk of food insecurity. These facts have not changed. We continue to support this position and are now looking to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the lower court to ensure that GMA and the coalition's arguments are heard."

 

    Other groups participating in the legal action include: American Meat Institute; National Chicken Council; National Council of Chain Restaurants of the National Retail Federation; North American Meat Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Turkey Federation;and Snack Food Association.

 

    Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), issued a short reply saying, "Good luck with that. We now know why gas prices keep going up and up -- to fund unnecessary Big Oil lawsuits to protect their monopoly on the fuel market. I wonder if food prices will spike as well to cover the cost of this Supreme Court challenge?"

 

    Access a release from API and link to the lengthy teleconference transcript for more details (click here). Access the GMA release (click here). Access the RFA response (click here). Note: See the WIMS links above for legal and regulatory background. [#Energy/E15, #Energy/RFS]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Final ROD & IAP/EIS For National Petroleum Reserve In Alaska

Feb 21: Outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). The final action allows for the development of 72 percent of the estimated economically recoverable oil in the nearly 23-million-acre Reserve, while protecting the vital subsistence resources of Alaska Natives and the habitat of world-class wildlife populations. Salazar said, "The balanced approach under this plan is the result of extensive local input and will help guide the responsible production and transport of the substantial oil and gas resources in and around the Reserve. This comprehensive plan will allow us to continue to expand our leasing in the NPR-A, as has happened over the last three years, while protecting the outstanding and unique resources that are critically important to the culture and subsistence lifestyle of Alaska Natives and our nation's conservation heritage."

    The Record of Decision addresses two key issues that Secretary Salazar identified for special attention when he released the final Environmental Impact Statement for the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan. First, the ROD provides explicit confirmation that potential pipelines carrying oil or gas from operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas can be constructed through the NPR-A. Second, following additional consultations with North Slope communities, the Record of Decision requires that BLM establish an "NPR-A Working Group" that will include representatives of North Slope tribal entities, Native corporations and local governments.

    The NPR-A Working Group will provide input on the full range of management issues and possible future development in the NPR-A, including pipelines and related oil and gas infrastructure development. The Working Group also will be a forum to gather additional scientific information and traditional knowledge about wildlife populations and needs, and it can inform potential adjustments to the boundaries of special areas including, for example, potential future adjustments to the southernmost boundary of the Teshekpuk Lake special area. The Plan itself is consistent with the Congressional intent that oil and gas leases be offered in the NPR-A while providing significant protections for the subsistence resources of Alaska Native residents of the area and the Reserve's extensive wildlife and recreational values. 

    After receiving more than 400,000 public comments and following two days of meetings and visits with North Slope leaders in August 2012, Salazar announced the Preferred Alternative, which was adopted by the ROD that he signed today. The ROD includes the creation of the Peard Bay Special Area and enlarges the Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special Areas, expanding Special Areas in the NPR-A from 8.3 million acres to 13.35 million acres.

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has estimated that the NPR-A lands made available for development under this plan contain nearly three-fourths of NPR-A's estimated economically recoverable oil and over half of the estimated economically recoverable gas. The plan will allow for access to oil and gas resources on 11.8 million acres, which are estimated to hold 549 million barrels of economically recoverable oil and 8.7 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas.

    Following President Obama's directive in May 2011 that annual oil and gas lease sales be conducted in the NPR-A, BLM offered three million acres in December 2011. That sale generated 17 winning bids covering more than 120,000 acres. Another lease sale on November 7, 2012, offered 4.5 million acres and received 14 winning bids on 160,088 total acres. There are now 191 authorized oil and gas leases in the NPR-A, encompassing 1.5 million acres. To date, only exploratory drilling has occurred, but in 2011, with the assistance of the President's Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, the Corps of Engineers issued permits to ConocoPhillips that will allow for the first commercial oil and gas production in the Reserve.

    The ROD makes all lands along the Chukchi Sea coast, most of the lands along the Beaufort Sea coast, and other lands available for application for a wide range of route options for pipelines and other infrastructure that would support offshore development. The decision concurrently protects a wide range of resources, including critical areas for sensitive bird populations from all seven continents and for the roughly 400,000 caribou found in the Teshekpuk Lake and Western Arctic Caribou Herds. Subsistence users in more than 40 villages in northwest Alaska rely on these caribou herds.

    The plan, which is detailed in the Final Integrated Activity Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final IAP/EIS) for the NPR-A, is the first management plan that covers the entire Reserve, including 9.2 million acres in the southwest area. Previous plans covered the northeast and northwest planning areas only. The Final IAP/EIS for the NPR-A, released in December 2012, was developed through extensive consultations that considered the viewpoints of Alaskans who live in the region, tribal governments, the State of Alaska, industry, environmental organizations and other stakeholders and federal partners. The BLM hosted seven public meetings and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act subsistence hearings in North Slope villages. The BLM also held meetings in Fairbanks and Anchorage. Also, following release of the Final IAP/EIS, the BLM conducted meetings in communities on the North Slope to receive recommendations on future ongoing outreach efforts with communities located within or near the NPR-A.

    Environmental and conservation groups applauded the plan and said they look forward to continuing to work with the DOI to refine needed protections for key special areas within the Reserve. Cindy Shogan, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness League said,. "We thank the Department of the Interior for protecting special areas within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The Department of the Interior has crafted a plan that protects and recognizes the vital role of subsistence, scenic and recreational values, and unique wildlife values. The Reserve is home to our most iconic wildlife, like caribou, muskoxen, grizzly bears and beluga whales. Thank you for protecting this special place for future generations."

    Martin Hayden, Vice President, Policy and Legislation for Earthjustice said, "The plan is a huge step for conservation of the Western Arctic, an area increasingly stressed by climate change, and provides critical protections for key lands in the Reserve and the wildlife dependent on it, including migratory birds from around the world, caribou, bears, wolves, beluga whales, and walrus." Jamie Williams, president of The Wilderness Society said, "We are grateful to the Obama administration for a fair and thoughtful decision that balances conservation, Alaska Natives' needs for subsistence resources, and the nation's demand for energy. This strategy protects incredibly valuable wildlife habitat for caribou, bears and migratory waterfowl in the Western Arctic, yet still allows industry access to the majority of economically recoverable oil in the reserve. It's a plan that meets the needs of all Americans."

    Access a lengthy release from DOI with links to related information (click here). Access the NPR-A ROD and related documents (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice with comments from many organizations (click here). [#Energy/NPR-A, #Land, #Wildlife, #Water]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals