Small Biz Benefits Of Natural Gas Production And Exports

May 2: The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) published a new report entitled, The Benefits of Natural Gas Production and Exports for U.S. Small Businesses. The report highlights the significant growth in the number of employer firms and jobs in the energy sector between 2005-2010. According to the report, the job growth is most striking among small businesses. During this same period, total U.S. employment and firms experienced a decline. The findings of the report underscore the need for policies that encourage and enable this positive development for the U.S. economy.

    Raymond Keating, chief economist for SBE Council and author of the report said, "The tremendous increase in domestic natural gas production has been a boon for small business and job growth in the energy sector in recent years.  Looking ahead, growth opportunities for small businesses and employment in the U.S. energy sector look bright due to increased natural gas demand, including in international markets. The opportunity exists for exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG). Expanded demand for U.S. natural gas internationally will be a net positive, resulting in greater U.S. natural gas production, increased investment, enhanced GDP growth, rising incomes, and more jobs."

    On the jobs front, according to the report, while total U.S. employment declined by 3.7 percent from 2005 to 2010, jobs grew by 27.6 percent in the oil and gas extraction sector; by 15.1 percent in the drilling oil and gas wells sector; by 38.5 percent in the support sector for oil and gas operations; by 47 percent in the oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction sector; and by 62 percent in the oil and gas field machinery and equipment manufacturing sector.

    As for business growth, while total U.S. employer firms declined from 2005 to 2010, the number of employer firms grew by 3.1 percent among oil and gas extraction businesses (including 2.5 percent among firms with less than 20 workers); by 7.2 percent among drilling oil and gas wells businesses (including 4.7 percent among firms with less than 20 workers); by 24.5 percent among oil and gas operations businesses (including 24.5 percent among firms with less than 20 workers); by 5.1 percent among oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction businesses (including 3.5 percent among firms with less than 500 workers); and by 61 percent among oil and gas field machinery and equipment manufacturing businesses (including 59.0 percent among firms with less than 20 workers).

    The overall case of energy industries adding jobs and small businesses held in the 10 states -- Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming -- examined in the report where natural gas production was up markedly. The study also showed that each energy sector is overwhelmingly populated by small businesses. Keating noted, "The expectation that nearly two-thirds of LNG exports would be met via new production speaks to further strong growth for small and midsize businesses, and for employment." He said, "Policymakers -- at the federal level and in the states -- must make sure that policies support enhanced domestic energy production, and therefore increased opportunity for small businesses and workers. It is critical that they resist regulatory and tax measures that would undercut domestic energy production, including policies that would in any way limit natural gas exports."

    The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power will explore the benefits of increased LNG exports at a hearing on Tuesday, May 7. The hearing is entitled, "U.S. Energy Abundance: Exports and the Changing Global Energy Landscape." In a release from the Republicans on the Committee, Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX) said, "The dramatic growth in natural gas production over the last decade has completely transformed our energy landscape and our economy. In the midst of a recession, Texas actually experienced employment growth thanks to this energy renaissance. Increasing natural gas exports and expanding the market for America's abundant energy resources will allow our economy to continue to thrive and bring more jobs and businesses to America."

    Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include: Johnston & Associates; World Resources Institute; Columbiana County Board of Commissioners; Bipartisan Policy Center; Truman National Security Project; and UC Davis Graduate School of Management. Testimony has already been posted and may be accessed from the link below.

    Access a release from SBE Council and link to a summary of each state examined and a U.S. summary (click here). Access the 49-page report (click here). Access House hearing website for links to testimony and background information (click here). [#Energy/LNG]

WMO Issues Annual Statement On The Status Of The Global Climate

May 2: The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued its Annual Statement on the Status of the Global Climate which indicates that 2012 joined the ten previous years as one of the warmest -- at ninth place -- on record despite the cooling influence of a La Niña episode early in the year. The statement indicates that the 2012 global land and ocean surface temperature during January–December 2012 is estimated to be 0.45°C (±0.11°C) above the 1961–1990 average of 14.0°C. This is the ninth warmest year since records began in 1850 and the 27th consecutive year that the global land and ocean temperatures were above the 1961–1990 average. The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record. The Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), adopted by the Extraordinary World Meteorological Congress in 2012, now provides the necessary global platform to inform decision-making for climate adaptation through enhanced climate information.

    WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said, "Although the rate of warming varies from year to year due to natural variability caused by the El Niño cycle, volcanic eruptions and other phenomena, the sustained warming of the lower atmosphere is a worrisome sign. The continued upward trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the consequent increased radiative forcing of the Earth's atmosphere confirm that the warming will continue. The record loss of Arctic sea ice in August-September -- 18% less than the previous record low of 2007 of 4.17 million km2 -- was also a disturbing sign of climate change. The year 2012 saw many other extremes as well, such as droughts and tropical cyclones. Natural climate variability has always resulted in such extremes, but the physical characteristics of extreme weather and climate events are being increasingly shaped by climate change. For example, because global sea levels are now about 20 cm higher than they were in 1880, storms such as Hurricane Sandy are bringing more coastal flooding than they would have otherwise."

    WMO's annual statements gather the key climate events of each year. The series stands today as an internationally rec­ognized authoritative source of information about temperatures, precipitation, extreme events, tropical cyclones, and sea ice extent. The newly released statement provided in-depth analysis of regional trends as part of a WMO drive to provide more information at regional and national levels to support adaptation to climate variability and change.

    The 2012 climate assessment, the most detailed to date, will inform discussion at WMO's Executive Council meeting (May 15-23, 2013). Above-average temperatures were observed during 2012 across most of the globe's land surface areas, most notably North America, southern Europe, western Russia, parts of northern Africa and southern South America. Nonetheless, cooler-than-average conditions were observed across Alaska, parts of northern and eastern Australia, and central Asia. Precipitation across the globe was slightly above the 1961-1990 long-term average. There were drier-than-average conditions across much of the central United States, northern Mexico, northeastern Brazil, central Russia, and south-central Australia. Wetter-than-average conditions were present across northern Europe, western Africa, north-central Argentina, western Alaska, and most of northern China.

    Snow cover extent in North America during the 2011/2012 winter was below average, resulting in the fourth smallest winter snow cover extent on record, according to data from the Global Snow Laboratory. This was in marked contrast to the previous two winters (2009/2010 and 2010/2011), which had the largest and third largest snow cover extent, respectively, since records began in 1966.

    Meanwhile, the Eurasian continent snow cover extent during the winter was above average, resulting in the fourth largest snow cover extent on record. Overall, the northern hemisphere snow cover extent was above average -- 590,000 km2 above the average of 45.2 million km2 -- and was the fourteenth largest snow cover extent on record.
Greenland ice sheet: In early July, Greenland's surface ice cover melted dramatically, with an estimated 97 per cent of the ice sheet surface having thawed in mid-July. This was the largest melt extent since satellite records began 34 years ago. During the summer it is typical to observe nearly half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet melt naturally, particularly across the lower elevations. However, in 2012 a high-pressure system brought warmer-than-average conditions to Greenland, which are associated with the rapid melting.

 

    Arctic sea ice extent reached its record lowest level in its annual cycle on 16 September at 3.41 million km2. This value broke the previous record low set on September 18, 2007, by 18 per cent. It was 49 percent or nearly 3.3 million km2 below the 1979–2000 average minimum. The difference between the maximum Arctic sea-ice extent on March 20, and the lowest minimum extent on September 16, was 11.83 million km2 -- the largest seasonal sea-ice extent loss in the 34-year satellite record.

    Antarctic sea-ice extent in March was the fourth largest on record at 5.0 million km2 or 16.0 per cent above the 1979–2000 average. During its growth season, the Antarctic sea-ice extent reached its maximum extent since records began in 1979 on September 26, at 19.4 million km2. This value surpassed the previous maximum sea-ice extent record of 19.36 million km2 set on September 21, 2006.

    WMO highlights Extreme Events as follows: Hurricane Sandy killed close to 100 people and caused major destruction in the Caribbean and tens of billions of US dollars in damage and around 130 deaths in the eastern United States of America. Typhoon Bopha, the deadliest tropical cyclone of the year, hit the Philippines -- twice -- in December. During the year, the United States and south-eastern Europe experienced extreme drought conditions, while West Africa was severely hit by extreme flooding. The populations of Europe, northern Africa and Asia were acutely affected by extreme cold and snow conditions. Severe flooding occurred in Pakistan for a third consecutive year.

    Jarraud said, "Climate change is aggravating naturally occurring climate variability and has become a source of uncertainty for climate-sensitive economic sectors like agriculture and energy. It is vital that we continue to invest in the observations and research that will improve our knowledge about climate variability and climate change. We need to understand how much of the extra heat captured by greenhouse gases is being stored in the oceans and the consequences this brings in terms of ocean acidification and other impacts. We need to know more about the temporary cooling effects of pollution and other aerosols emitted into the atmosphere. We also need a better understanding of the changing behavior of extreme weather and climate events as a consequence of global warming, as well as the need to assist countries in the most affected areas to better manage climate-related risks with improved climate early warning and climate watch systems."

 

    Access a release on the WMO Annual Statement (click here). Access the complete 36-page statement report (click here). [Climate]

 

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

EPA-USDA Scientific Report On Honey Bee Health

May 2: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. EPA released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health. The report states that there are multiple factors playing a role in honey bee colony declines, including parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure. The agencies said, "the report represents the consensus of the scientific community studying honey bees."

 

    Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan said, "There is an important link between the health of American agriculture and the health of our honeybees for our country's long term agricultural productivity. The forces impacting honeybee health are complex and USDA, our research partners, and key stakeholders will be engaged in addressing this challenge." Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe said, "The decline in honey bee health is a complex problem caused by a combination of stressors, and at EPA we are committed to continuing our work with USDA, researchers, beekeepers, growers and the public to address this challenge. The report we've released today is the product of unprecedented collaboration, and our work in concert must continue. As the report makes clear, we've made significant progress, but there is still much work to be done to protect the honey bee population."

    In October 2012, a National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, led by Federal researchers and managers, along with Pennsylvania State University, was convened to synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding the primary factors that scientists believe have the greatest impact on managed bee health. Key findings include:

• Parasites and Disease Present Risks to Honey Bees: The parasitic Varroa mite is recognized as the major factor underlying colony loss in the U.S. and other countries. There is widespread resistance to the chemicals beekeepers use to control mites within the hive. New virus species have been found in the U.S. and several of these have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).
• Increased Genetic Diversity is Needed: (1) U.S. honeybee colonies need increased genetic diversity. Genetic variation improves bees thermoregulation (the ability to keep body temperature steady even if the surrounding environment is different), disease resistance and worker productivity. (2) Honey bee breeding should emphasize traits such as hygienic behavior that confer improved resistance to Varroa mites and diseases (such as American foulbrood).
• Poor Nutrition Among Honey Bee Colonies: (1) Nutrition has a major impact on individual bee and colony longevity. A nutrition-poor diet can make bees more susceptible to harm from disease and parasites. Bees need better forage and a variety of plants to support colony health. (2) Federal and state partners should consider actions affecting land management to maximize available nutritional forage to promote and enhance good bee health and to protect bees by keeping them away from pesticide-treated fields.
• There is a Need for Improved Collaboration and Information Sharing: (1) Best Management Practices associated with bees and pesticide use, exist, but are not widely or systematically followed by members of the crop-producing industry. There is a need for informed and coordinated communication between growers and beekeepers and effective collaboration between stakeholders on practices to protect bees from pesticides. (2) Beekeepers emphasized the need for accurate and timely bee kill incident reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.
• Additional Research is Needed to Determine Risks Presented by Pesticides: The most pressing pesticide research questions relate to determining actual pesticide exposures and effects of pesticides to bees in the field and the potential for impacts on bee health and productivity of whole honey bee colonies.

    Those involved in developing the report include USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Agricultural Research Services (ARS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), National Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) as well as the EPA and Pennsylvania State University. The agencies indicated that the report will provide important input to the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) Steering Committee, led by the USDA, EPA and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

    The agencies indicated in a release that an estimated one-third of all food and beverages are made possible by pollination, mainly by honey bees. In the United States, pollination contributes to crop production worth $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually. A decline in managed bee colonies puts great pressure on the sectors of agriculture reliant on commercial pollination services. This is evident from reports of shortages of bees available for the pollination of many crops. The Colony Collapse Steering Committee was formed in response to a sudden and widespread disappearance of adult honey bees from beehives, which first occurred in 2006. The Committee will consider the report's recommendations and update the CCD Action Plan which will outline major priorities to be addressed in the next 5-10 years and serve as a reference document for policy makers, legislators and the public and will help coordinate the Federal strategy in response to honey bee losses.

 

    Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau  (AFB) issued a statement on the report saying, "The Agriculture Department/Environmental Protection Agency report issued today concludes what farmers and scientists have known for some time -- that there isn't just one cause to the decline in honey bee numbers. It's a multitude of factors, which makes it even more important that we continue work on a solution through collaborative efforts among farmers, beekeepers, researchers, the federal government and the public. The good health of the honey bee is extremely important to American agriculture. Many farmers and ranchers require honey bees and other pollinators to produce a healthy, bountiful crop. Farm Bureau supports funding for research to find real answers to the Colony Collapse Disorder, as well as practical, effective methods to remedy the situation."

 

    In a blog posting, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the report, ". . . finds that pesticides may be part of the problem, including both the pyrethroid and neonicotinoid classes of pesticides. Both of these classes of pesticides were developed and promoted as reduced-risk replacements for the war-era organophosphate pesticides that were not only deadly to bees and other wildlife, but also highly toxic to people. However, emerging science is proving that these replacement chemicals pose significant risks of harm to bees and beneficial insects, and therefore ultimately to agriculture and our ability to grow our own food. Unfortunately, the USDA/EPA report recommendations are mainly limited to recommendations about best management practices and technical advancements for applying pesticides to reduce dust, etc. The report is conspicuously silent on reducing the overall use of bee-killing pesticides, that is, on recommendations that would reduce the overall sales and profits for chemical makers."

 

    On March 21, 2013, a coalition of four beekeepers and five environmental and consumer groups filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against U.S. EPA for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The pesticides involved -- clothianidin and thiamethoxam -- are "neonicotinoids," a newer class of systemic insecticides that are absorbed by plants and transported throughout the plant's vascular tissue, making the plant potentially toxic to insects. The coalition, represented by attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), is seeking suspension of the registrations of insecticides which they say "have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD)" [See WIMS 4/4/07]. The suit challenges EPA's ongoing handling of the pesticides as well as the agency's practice of "conditional registration" and labeling deficiencies [See WIMS 3/21/13].

 

    On the issue of neonicotinoids, the EPA-USDA report indicates, "Pesticide exposure to pollinators continues to be an area of research and concern, particularly the systemic pesticides such as neonicotinoids. Despite concerns regarding the potential hazard that systemic pesticides may represent to honey bee colonies, when pesticides are viewed in the aggregate at the national level, the frequency and quantity of residues of pyrethroids coupled with the toxicity of these insecticides to bees could pose a 3-fold greater hazard to the colony than the systemic neonicotinoids." 

 

    Access a release from the agencies (click here). Access the complete 72-page report (click here). Access the AFB statement (click here). Access the NRDC blog posting (click here). [#Agriculture, #Wildlife, #Toxics] 

Extending Energy Policies Will Reduce Use & CO2

Apr 30: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released, as part of EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013), the so-called "Extended Policies case" which shows that extending certain Federal energy efficiency and renewable energy laws and regulations could reduce annual energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States in 2040 by roughly 6% relative to a "Reference case" projection that generally assumes current laws and policies. Between 2013 and 2040, this reduction adds up to a cumulative emission savings approaching five billion metric tons. A release of an additional "Impact of natural gas liquids growth" analysis is scheduled for May 2. The natural gas analysis release will complete the full AE02013 analysis which will also be available on May 2. The full analysis includes sections on: Oil price and production trends in AEO2013; U.S. reliance on imported liquid fuels in alternative scenarios; Competition between coal and natural gas in the electric power sector; Nuclear power in AEO2013; Updated no sunset and extended policy cases; and Impact of natural gas liquids growth. The AEO2013 also includes additional chapters on: Market Trends; Legislation & Regulations;and  Comparisons.

    Projected emissions reductions result from decreased energy consumption as well as additional energy production from low-carbon resources. In 2040, the Extended Policies case projects four quadrillion Btu lower annual U.S. energy consumption than the Reference case. The cumulative amount of energy use is 55 quadrillion Btu lower between 2013 and 2040.

    The Extended Policies case differs from the Reference case, which generally reflects policies as they exist in spring 2013, including the assumption that any sunset dates (for example, scheduled expirations for tax credits) or other scheduled milestones occur as specified in law. In the Extended Policies case, EIA explores the possible effects of the indefinite continuation of certain provisions that have expiration dates and the expansion of certain energy laws and regulations. The Extended Policies case includes key assumptions affecting: Electric power; Residential and commercial buildings; Transportation; and Industry. The continuation of the production tax credit for wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable resources, and the investment tax credit for solar generation technologies exemplify the policy extensions included in this case.

    The Extended Policies case includes several add-on assumptions to the "No Sunset case," e.g. additional updates to Federal equipment efficiency standards; residential and commercial end-use technologies eligible for incentives would not be subject to new standards. The assumptions of the No Sunset case include:

• The PTC of 2.2 cents per kilowatthour and the 30-percent investment tax credit (ITC) available for wind, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric, and landfill gas resources, assumed in the Reference case to expire at the end of 2012 for wind and 2013 for the other eligible resources, are extended indefinitely.
• For solar power investments, a 30-percent ITC that is scheduled to revert to a 10-percent credit in 2016 is, instead, assumed to be extended indefinitely at 30 percent.
• In the buildings sector, personal tax credits for the purchase of renewable equipment, including photovoltaics (PV), are assumed to be extended indefinitely, as opposed to ending in 2016 as prescribed by current law. The business ITCs for commercial-sector generation technologies and geothermal heat pumps are assumed to be extended indefinitely, as opposed to expiring in 2016; and the business ITC for solar systems is assumed to remain at 30 percent instead of reverting to 10 percent. 
• In the industrial sector, the 10-percent ITC for combined heat and power (CHP) that ends in 2016  is assumed to be preserved through 2040.

     In addition to the above, the Extended Policies case adds the following assumptions:

• Federal equipment efficiency standards are assumed to be updated at periodic intervals, consistent with the provisions in existing law, at levels based on ENERGY STAR specifications or on the Federal Energy Management Program purchasing guidelines for federal agencies, as applicable. Standards are also introduced for products that currently are not subject to federal efficiency standards.
• Updated Federal energy codes for residential and commercial buildings increase by 30 percent in 2020.
• Modifies the assumption in the Reference and No Sunset cases and assumes continued increases in CAFE standards after MY 2025. CAFE standards for new LDVs are assumed to increase by an annual average rate of 1.4 percent.
• In the industrial sector, the ITC for CHP is extended to cover all properties with CHP, no matter what the system size (instead of being limited to properties with systems smaller than 50 megawatts.  Also, the ITC is modified to increase the eligible CHP unit cap to 25 megawatts from 15 megawatts.

    EIA also analyzes other cases including: the "Reference" case; "Low Oil Price" case; and the "High Oil Price" case. Additionally, the "Low Oil and Gas Resource" case only reflects the uncertainty around tight oil and shale gas resources; while the "High Oil and Gas Resource" case reflects a broad-based increase in crude oil and natural gas resources.

Also a "Low Coal Cost" case, assumes higher mining productivity and lower costs for labor, mine equipment, and coal transportation, leading to lower coal prices for electric power plants. A "High Coal Cost" case assumes coal-fired plants are used less, and more coal-fired capacity is retired than in the Reference case.

 

    Nuclear power is also projected. In 2011, approximately 19 percent of the nation's electricity was generated by 104 operating commercial nuclear reactors, totaling 101 gigawatts of capacity. In the AEO2013 Reference case, annual generation from nuclear power grows by 14.3 percent from the 2011 total to 903 gigawatt hours in 2040. However, the nuclear share of the overall generation mix declines to 17 percent as growth in nuclear generation is outpaced by the increases in generation from natural gas and renewables. The Reference case projects the addition of 19 gigawatts of nuclear capacity from 2011 to 2040, in comparison with the addition of 215 gigawatts of natural gas capacity and 104 gigawatts of renewable capacity. There are also "Low Nuclear" and "High Nuclear" cases.

 

    EIA indicates, "A key contributing factor to the recent decline in net import dependence has been the rapid growth of U.S. oil production from tight onshore formations, which has followed closely after the rapid growth of natural gas production from similar types of resources. Projections of future production trends inevitably reflect many uncertainties regarding the actual level of resources available, the difficulty in extracting them, and the evolution of the technologies (and associated costs) used to recover them. To represent these uncertainties, the assumptions used in the High and Low Oil and Gas Resource cases represent significant deviations from the Reference case."

 

    Also, EIA notes that, "Liquid fuels play a vital role in the U.S. energy system and economy, and access to affordable liquid fuels has contributed to the nation's economic prosperity. However, the extent of U.S. reliance on imported oil has often been raised as a matter of concern over the past 40 years. U.S. net imports of petroleum and other liquid fuels as a share of consumption have been one of the most watched indicators in national and global energy analyses. After rising steadily from 1950 to 1977, when it reached 47 percent by the most comprehensive measure, U.S. net import dependence declined to 27 percent in 1985. Between 1985 and 2005, net imports of liquid fuels as a share of consumption again rose, reaching 60 percent in 2005. Since that time, however, the trend toward growing U.S. dependence on liquid fuels imports has again reversed, with the net import share falling to an estimated 41 percent in 2012, and with EIA projecting further significant declines in 2013 and 2014."

 

    Access an overview of the Extended Policies case (click here). Access the extensive EIA analysis with numerous links to referenced information, data, appendices, additional chapters and more (click here). [#Energy, #Energy/Renewable, #Climate]

 

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

NAS Report On Assessing Species Risks From Pesticides

Apr 30: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) released a report entitled, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species From Pesticides. According to a release, the report indicates that when determining the potential effects pesticides could pose to endangered or threatened species, U.S. EPA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should use a common scientific approach. Specifically, the agencies should use a risk assessment approach that addresses problem formulation, exposure analysis, effects analysis, and risk characterization.

 

    NRC indicates that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), before a pesticide can be sold, distributed, or used in the United States, EPA must ensure that it does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, which includes species that are listed as endangered or threatened and their habitats.  Moreover, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies, including EPA, to consult with FWS and NMFS when a Federal action "may affect" a listed species or its habitat. If EPA determines that a pesticide is "not likely to adversely affect" a listed species -- and FWS or NMFS agrees -- no further consultation is required. However, if EPA determines that a pesticide is "likely to adversely affect" a listed species, a formal consultation with FWS or NMFS is required, and FWS or NMFS determines whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the listed species and issues a biological opinion. 

 

    Over the last decade, questions have been raised regarding the best approaches or methods for determining the risks pesticides pose to listed species and their habitats. EPA, FWS, and NMFS have developed their own approaches because their legal mandates, responsibilities, institutional cultures, and expertise differ. Although the agencies have tried to resolve their differences in assessment approaches, they have been unsuccessful at reaching a consensus. As a result, the NRC was asked to examine the scientific and technical issues related to determining risks posed by pesticides to listed species. 

 

    The committee that wrote the report said that a common approach among the agencies is needed. The risk assessment paradigm that traces its origins to the Research Council reports -- Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process; and more recently to -- Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment; has become scientifically credible, transparent, and consistent. It is reliably anticipated by all parties involved in decisions regarding pesticide use; and clearly articulates where scientific judgment is required and the bounds within which such judgments can be made. Such a process is used broadly for human-health and ecological risk assessments throughout the Federal government.

 

    The committee said, "If FWS and NMFS could build on EPA's analysis of whether a pesticide is likely to adversely affect a listed species rather than conduct a completely new analysis, the assessment would likely be more effective and scientifically credible."  Furthermore, agreement among the agencies has been impeded by a lack of communication and coordination throughout the process. Therefore, the committee emphasized the need for coordination, which it views as necessary to ensure a complete and representative assessment of risk and that each agency's technical needs are met.

 

    The committee examined several components of the risk assessment process where better coordination and agreement would facilitate an integrated approach to examining risks to listed species and their habitats. These included evaluating methods for identifying the best scientific data available, assessing approaches for developing modeling assumptions, identifying geospatial information that might be used in the risk assessment, reviewing approaches for characterizing effects, analyzing the scientific information available for estimating effects of mixtures and inert ingredients, and examining the use of uncertainty factors to account for gaps in data.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete 176-page report and related information (click here). [#Toxics, #Wildlife]

 

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

Revised Bristol Bay Assessment For Review & Comment

Apr 26: U.S. EPA released a revised version of the Bristol Bay Assessment for peer review follow-up and public comment. The assessment includes updates following an initial peer review and public comment period of the draft Bristol Bay Assessment released in May, 2012 [See WIMS 5/21/12, & WIMS 10/3/12]. EPA is arranging for the original independent, scientific peer reviewers to evaluate the revisions made following their feedback. EPA is also inviting the public to submit comments until May 31, 2013. The peer review follow-up and comment period are meant to ensure that EPA is using the best available science for its assessment, and that information from a range of stakeholders is considered, including industry, conservation groups, and Tribes. The revised assessment reflects feedback from the initial peer review report and 233,000 public comments EPA received when it released the original assessment.

    EPA indicates that key changes to the assessment include refinement and better explanation of the mine scenarios assessed, including the role in developing these scenarios of worldwide industry standards for porphyry copper mining and specific preliminary mine plans submitted to state and Federal agencies related to the Pebble Mine Project [See WIMS 10/3/12]. Pebble Mine is a giant gold and copper mine proposed at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed. The Bristol Bay watershed feeds the greatest wild salmon fishery in the world, supporting valuable (around $500 million annually) fish- and tourism-related activity, indigenous people, and a vast array of wildlife. Environmental groups have said that the proposed Pebble Mine, one of the largest mines in the world with a footprint that would cover 28 square miles of land, would siphon as much as 35 billion gallons of fresh water out of the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska every year, eliminating critical salmon habitat, and would likely facilitate the development of a much larger mining district, further endangering the world's largest wild sockeye salmon fishery. EPA highlights the following changes:

• Incorporation of modern conventional mining practices into mine scenarios and clarification that some of the projected impacts assume that those practices are in place and working properly.
• Addition of an appendix describing methods to compensate for impacts to wetlands, streams and fish.
• Reorganization of the assessment to better reflect the ecological risk assessment approach and to clarify the purpose and scope.
• Additional details about projected water loss and water quality impacts on stream reaches, drainage of waste rock leachate to streams, and mine site water balance to assessment of potential mine impacts.
• Expanded information on the potential transportation corridor, including analysis of potential diesel pipeline spills, product concentrate spills, truck accidents involving process chemicals and culvert failures.

    EPA released the draft Bristol Bay Assessment on May 18, 2012. The agency held a series of public meetings concurrent with the release and received feedback from 12 independent expert peer reviewers. In February 2011, in response to growing interest in large-scale mining in the watershed from a number of stakeholders and local communities with a range of views, EPA launched the Bristol Bay assessment to gain a better understanding of the watershed and the potential impacts of large-scale mining in the area. The assessment provides a scientific foundation for future decision-making by federal and state agencies and to inform public discussion. EPA has made no decisions about using its Clean Water Act authorities in Bristol Bay. After this peer review follow-up and public comment period are complete, EPA will review feedback and move forward to finalize the assessment. EPA intends to issue a final assessment in 2013.

 

    U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), issued a statement on the revised assessment saying, "My review of the full document is still underway, but in the meantime I want to reiterate what I have said in the past. Attempts to prejudge any mining project before the full details of that proposal are submitted to the EPA for review is unacceptable. The permitting process exists for a reason and a federal agency can no more ignore the established process than can an applicant. If the EPA has concerns about the impact of a project there is an appropriate time to raise them -- after a permit application has been made, not before. It is clear to me that a preemptive veto of resource development is quite simply outside the legal authority that Congress intended to provide to of the EPA. I made that clear to the previous EPA administrator and I will make it clear to the current nominee, Gina McCarthy."

    Sen. Murkowski indicates that EPA undertook the watershed assessment in response to petitions to preemptively veto development in Alaska. She has continually criticized the EPA for failing to rule out using the watershed assessment to justify preemptively blocking development, including mineral production by the Pebble Limited Partnership, in Southwest Alaska. Sen.Murkowski has also stated that EPA's use of a hypothetical mine -- much of which is designed to violate modern environmental standards -- is a fundamental flaw that must be fixed if Alaskans are to make informed decisions about development in the state. The revised watershed assessment does not fix this flaw.

    More than 300 leading scientists sent a letter to the White House on April 26, 2013 expressing "deep concerns" about the prospect of large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed of Southwest Alaska, home to the world's largest wild salmon runs. In their letter, the scientists indicate in part, "In our view, EPA's draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment aptly identifies the outstanding ecological and cultural values at risk from a mine on the scale of the Pebble discovery or from other mine operations that would likely follow an initial mine opening in the region. The Bristol Bay area, comprised of the Nushagak and Kvichak river watersheds, the headwaters of three other pristine rivers, and the largest undeveloped lake on Earth, is one of the most productive, beautiful, and bountiful landscapes on the continent. Undeveloped watersheds are a rarity throughout the world and Bristol Bay's pristine watersheds support a world-class salmon fishery, which includes all five salmon species native to Alaska and the largest sockeye salmon runs in the world. Annual salmon returns, fully unsupported by hatcheries, typically average in the millions. The Bristol Bay Sport Management Area also supports abundant sport and subsistence fisheries. Together, this keystone fishery and the diverse habitats of the region are home to abundant populations of brown bears, gray wolves, and bald eagles. Caribou and moose frequent the areas' wetlands. . .

    "We understand that no specific mining proposal has yet been put forward for approval and that the agency has been criticized for utilizing hypothetical mine scenarios for assessment of impacts. We disagree strongly with these criticisms and believe that the use of credible mining scenarios is appropriate for this sort of forward-looking analysis. We would also note that the nature of metal mining, with its high potential for encountering unanticipated conditions, means that nearly any major mine plan is subject to change. Indeed, the footprints of many mines that have operated over decades are far larger than initially planned. . ."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the Bristol Bay assessment website for complete information and commenting instructions (click here). Access the release from Sen. Murkowski with links to her previous inquiries and EPA's responses (click here). Access more information from the Wild Salmon Center on the Pebble Mine proposal (click here). Access more information on the Pebble Mine from Northern Dynasty (click here). Access a 4-page fact sheet from Northern Dynasty (click here). Access the Pebble Partnership website for more information including a Pebble Environmental Baseline Document (click here). Access the Keystone Center website for the Pebble Mine project for background and links to more information (click here). [#Land, #Wildlife, #Water] 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

                   (click to access)

• 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

WIMS Spring Break

WIMS will be taking our Spring publication break the next two weeks. 

 

We will resume regular publication on Monday, April 29, 2013.

 

During our break you may want to

follow some of the news on our:

 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

                   (click to access)

• 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 

 

House Hearing Focuses On Nuclear Waste Disposal

Apr 11: The House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, held a hearing on Nuclear Programs and Strategies that focused for the most part on siting and developing a high-level nuclear waste disposal site. Witnesses included representative from the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board; Member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff; Department of Energy staff; and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO's testimony provides background and was summarized in a report entitled, Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel: Observations on the Key Attributes and Challenges of Storage and Disposal Options (GAO-13-532T, Apr 11, 2013).

 

    GAO indicates that spent nuclear fuel, the used fuel removed from commercial nuclear power reactors, is one of the most hazardous substances created by humans. Commercial reactors have generated nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel, which is currently stored at 75 reactor sites in 33 states, and this inventory is expected to more than double by 2055. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, directs DOE to investigate the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada --100 miles northwest of Las Vegas -- to determine if the site is suitable for a permanent repository for this and other nuclear waste. DOE submitted a license application for the Yucca Mountain site to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, but in 2010 DOE suspended its licensing efforts and instead established a Blue Ribbon Commission to study other options. The commission issued a report in January 2012 recommending a new strategy for managing nuclear waste, and DOE issued a new nuclear waste disposal strategy in 2013.

 

    GAO testified that in November 2009, it reported on the attributes and challenges of a Yucca Mountain repository. A key attribute identified was that the Department of Energy (DOE) had spent significant resources to carry out design, engineering, and testing activities on the Yucca Mountain site and had completed a license application and submitted it to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory authority over the construction, operation, and closure of a repository. If the repository had been built as planned, GAO concluded that it would have provided a permanent solution for the nation's commercial nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste and minimized the uncertainty of future waste safety. Constructing the repository also could have helped address issues including federal liabilities resulting from industry lawsuits against DOE related to continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites. However, not having the support of the administration and the state of Nevada proved a key challenge. As GAO reported in April 2011, DOE officials did not cite technical or safety issues with the Yucca Mountain repository project when the project's termination was announced but instead stated that other solutions could achieve broader support.

    Temporarily storing spent fuel in a central location offers several positive attributes, as well as challenges, as GAO reported in November 2009 and August 2012. Positive attributes include allowing DOE to consolidate the nation's nuclear waste after reactors are decommissioned. Consolidation would decrease the complexity of securing and overseeing the waste located at reactor sites around the nation and would allow DOE to begin to address the taxpayer financial liabilities stemming from industry lawsuits. Interim storage could also provide the nation with some flexibility to consider alternative policies or new technologies. However, interim storage faces several challenges. First, DOE's statutory authority to develop interim storage is uncertain. Provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, that allow DOE to arrange for centralized interim storage have either expired or are unusable because they are tied to milestones in repository development that have not been met. Second, siting an interim storage facility could prove difficult. Even if a community might be willing to host a centralized interim storage facility, finding a state that would be willing to host such a facility could be challenging, particularly since some states have voiced concerns that an interim facility could become a de facto permanent disposal site. Third, interim storage may also present transportation challenges since it is likely that the spent fuel would have to be transported twice -- once to the interim storage site and once to a permanent disposal site. Finally, developing centralized interim storage would not ultimately preclude the need for a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel.

    Siting, licensing, and developing a permanent repository at a location other than Yucca Mountain could provide the opportunity to find a location that might achieve broader acceptance, as GAO reported in November 2009 and August 2012, and could help avoid costly delays experienced by the Yucca Mountain repository program. However, developing an alternative repository would restart the likely costly and time-consuming process of developing a repository. It is also unclear whether the Nuclear Waste Fund--established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to pay industry's share of the cost for the Yucca Mountain repository--will be sufficient to fund a repository at another site.

    University of Michigan professor Rodney Ewing, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board addressed issues relating to: 1. What do international and U.S. experiences tell us about consent-based siting? 2. What can we learn from Yucca Mountain, technically and otherwise? 3. What is the current thinking and consensus around preferable options for nuclear waste disposal and the siting of a geologic repository? He summarized his testimony saying, "I would observe that not using a consent-based approach for repository siting can slow the process or lead to delay or failure, but using a consent-based process does not guarantee that a repository will be successfully sited. Programs in other countries are using a variety of consent-based approaches, with mixed results. Deep-mined geologic disposal remains the approach that is being pursued by most of the countries with nuclear waste programs, worldwide, and a deep geologic repository will be needed regardless of the fuel cycle option selected. The only operating deep-mined geologic repository in the world for disposal of radioactive waste is the WIPP [Waste Isolation Pilot Plant] facility in New Mexico, and important lessons can be taken from the development of that facility. Finally, ongoing, independent technical oversight of the activities undertaken by the implementer of a consent-based repository-siting program is crucial, regardless of whether the implementing entity is a government agency, a non-governmental organization, or a federal corporation."

    DOE testified that, "The Administration looks forward to working with this Subcommittee and other members of Congress on crafting a path forward for used nuclear fuel and high-level waste management and disposal. This progress is critical to assure that the benefits of nuclear power are available to current and future generations." DOE said the President's FY 2014 budget request includes a multi-part proposal to move ahead with developing the nation's used nuclear fuel and high-level waste management system outlined in the Administration's Strategy [See WIMS 1/14/13]. First, it lays out a comprehensive funding reform proposal. As described in the Strategy, the Administration's proposal includes three elements for funding reform: ongoing discretionary appropriations, reclassification of existing annual fees from mandatory to discretionary or a direct mandatory appropriation, and access to the balance of the nuclear waste fund. Included in the amounts that would be made available under this proposal, are defense funds to pay for the management and disposal of government-owned wastes within the overall system. In total, the Administration proposes $5.6 billion in spending to implement the strategy over the next 10 years.

 

    The representative from the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) said, "Development of consolidated storage capability was one of many of the Commission's recommendations incorporated into the Administration's January 2013 Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste. The Subcommittee asked that I provide my personal views on the Administration's strategy. On balance, I was pleased to see that the Administration's strategy embraces the spirit of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations, from supporting a consent-based siting process and establishing a new waste management organization to conducting R&D on advanced fuel cycles. As noted earlier, the Administration's projected timeframe for establishing consolidated storage capability is generally consistent with the Commission's findings, though the Administration projects that development of a repository will take a decade-plus longer than the Commission believed is achievable."

 

    She said, "According to a legal analysis performed for the BRC, which I would like to submit for the record, further legislative action would not be required prior to the designation of a storage site (and potentially not until the construction phase). . . We must couple this siting effort with a renewed initiative to communicate broadly about the benefits and risks associated with the long-term management of spent fuel and high-level waste. In particular, I believe we must communicate effectively about the steps that are taken to ensure safety in the transport of radioactive wastes. During my service on the Commission I learned of the outstanding track record accumulated over decades of safe spent fuel shipments in the U.S. I firmly believe that an effective outreach program is essential to building public confidence that spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes can be safely shipped, stored and disposed in the U.S."

 

    Access links to all of the testimony (click here, See 4.11.13). Access the January 2013 Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear]

 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

                   (click to access)

• 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

Rep. Goodlatte's RFS Elimination & Reform Acts

Apr 10: Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) released introduced legislation to alter the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). He said, "The RFS debate is no longer just a debate about fuel or food. It is also a debate about jobs, small business, economic growth and freedom. The federal government's creation of an artificial market for the ethanol industry has quite frankly triggered a domino effect that is hurting American consumers, energy producers, livestock producers, food manufacturers, and retailers. Extreme drought last summer and record corn prices made it clear that the RFS is not working. 

    "Diverting feed stocks to fuel has diminished corn supplies for livestock and food producers resulting in higher corn prices.  Higher prices are then passed on to livestock and food producers, meaning consumers across the nation see that increase reflected in the price of food on the grocery store shelves and in restaurants.  At a time when our economy is still struggling to recover, the last thing families and small businesses need are costly government policies that increase their gasoline and grocery bills. Today, I introduced the RFS Elimination Act [H.R.1461], which eliminates the RFS and makes ethanol compete in a free market. This legislation would give relief to livestock and food producers as well as consumers of these products. Renewable fuels play an important role in our all-of-the-above energy policy, but should compete fairly in the marketplace and not be the beneficiary of an anti-competitive government mandate. American families and businesses should not have to shoulder the high cost of this unworkable federal ethanol mandate."

    The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be part of our nation's fuel supply by 2022. Almost all of this is currently being fulfilled by corn ethanol. In 2011, five billion bushels of the corn supply was used for ethanol -- equal to nearly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Rep. Goodlatte also introduced the bipartisan RFS Reform Act (H.R.1462), which eliminates corn-based ethanol requirements, caps the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10 percent, and requires the EPA to set cellulosic biofuels levels at production levels. He said, "This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our demands." Both the RFS Elimination Act and the RFS Reform Act will be referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    According to a release from Rep. Goodlatte, the RFS Reform Act is supported by a diverse group of more than 45 organizations, including ActionAid USA, the American Frozen Food Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental Working Group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Milk Producers Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Turkey Federation, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

 

    The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) forcefully responded to the new legislation. Bob Dinneen, RFA's President and CEO, fired back saying, "The motivation behind this bill is backwards, silly, circular logic. The authors insist they're not anti-biofuels, but the bill guts the only program that has successfully opened the market to these new technologies, lowering our dependence on imported oil and reducing the consumer price of gasoline. The authors state they want a 'free market' for energy, but they do nothing to end the billions in subsidies to Big Oil and they deny market access to E15. The authors portend to retain the mandate for new cellulosic and advanced biofuels, but the bill handcuffs the commercialization of these fuels by removing the forward-looking, market-driving provisions of the original legislation. It would be more direct and intellectually honest to simply say 'this bill restores Big Oil's monopoly.' You can't legitimately say 'we support biofuels' and then pull the rug out from underneath companies that relied upon government policy and are now building biorefineries that create hundreds of construction jobs at each location or are hitting milestones in new production. This legislation should have been introduced on Halloween because it will scare away investors. Nothing undermines next generation innovation like uncertainty."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard said he welcomed the bipartisan proposals. He said, "The nation's ever increasing ethanol mandate is a crisis in waiting, and a chorus of concerned groups has joined API in calling on congress to repeal it. Unless we stop this madness now, the mandate could put consumers in harm's way, hurt the economy, and disrupt the nation's fuel supply. Ethanol and other renewable fuels have an important role to play in our transportation fuel mix and will continue to be used after Congress repeals the mandate. But we cannot allow a mandate for ethanol that exceeds what is safe and that could put upward pressure on fuel prices."

 

    Gerard said that the industry is hitting the ethanol blend wall, meaning the amount of ethanol required to be blended under the RFS is unsafe for most vehicles on the road today. He said millions of cars could be severely damaged by fuel blends that contain more than 10 percent ethanol, and cited studies by the Coordinating Research Council. He also cited statements by the automakers which have said higher ethanol blends would void car warranties. He indicated that by 2015, the mandate would cause severe fuel rationing that would lead to a $770 billion decrease in U.S. GDP and a $580 billion decrease in take-home pay for American workers according to a study by NERA economic consulting. 

 

    Environmental Working Group (EWG) Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber issued a statement indicating that the RFS Reform Act, which is also sponsored by Jim Costa (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Steve Womack (R-AR), ". . .makes much-needed room in the fuel pool for advanced alternatives that actually lower greenhouse gas emissions and do not compete with our food needs. In doing so, it helps ensure a cleaner energy future that benefits both consumers and the environment."

 

    Access a release from Rep. Goodlatte (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1461 (click here); and H.R.1462 (click here). Access a release from RFA (click here). Access a release from API with links to the cited information (click here). Access the statement from EWG (click here). [#Energy/RFS, #Energy/Ethanol, #Energy/Biofuels]

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

                   (click to access)

• 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

President Announces His Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal

Apr 10: The President announced his Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal which he said would make critical investments in infrastructure, strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and grow the economy while continuing to cut the deficit in a balanced way. Among other items he said the budget proposes to continue efforts towards energy independence and address the threat of climate change. The budget calls for more than $2 in spending cuts for every $1 of new revenue from closing tax loopholes and reducing tax benefits for the wealthiest. The President said in part:

"The point is, our economy is poised for progress -- as long as Washington doesn't get in the way.  Frankly, the American people deserve better than what we've been seeing:  a shortsighted, crisis-driven decision-making, like the reckless, across-the-board spending cuts that are already hurting a lot of communities out there -- cuts that economists predict will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs during the course of this year. If we want to keep rebuilding our economy on a stronger, more stable foundation, then we've got to get smarter about our priorities as a nation.  And that's what the budget I'm sending to Congress today represents -- a fiscally responsible blueprint for middle-class jobs and growth. . .

". . .this budget invests in new manufacturing hubs to help turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.  We'll spark new American innovation and industry with cutting-edge research like the initiative I announced to map the human brain and cure disease.  We'll continue our march towards energy independence and address the threat of climate change.  And our Rebuild America Partnership will attract private investment to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads, our bridges and our schools, in turn attracting even more new business to communities across the country. . .

"For years, the debate in this town has raged between reducing our deficits at all costs, and making the investments necessary to grow our economy.  And this budget answers that argument, because we can do both.  We can grow our economy and shrink our deficits.  In fact, as we saw in the 1990s, nothing shrinks deficits faster than a growing economy.  That's been my goal since I took office.  And that should be our goal going forward. . .

"My budget also replaces the foolish across-the-board spending cuts that are already hurting our economy. . . My budget makes these investments to grow our economy and create jobs, and it does so without adding a dime to our deficits. Now, on the topic of deficits, despite all the noise in Washington, here's a clear and unassailable fact: our deficits are already falling.  Over the past two years, I've signed legislation that will reduce our deficits by more than $2.5 trillion -- more than two-thirds of it through spending cuts and the rest through asking the wealthiest Americans to begin paying their fair share. 

"That doesn't mean we don't have more work to do.  But here's how we finish the job.  My budget will reduce our deficits by nearly another $2 trillion, so that all told we will have surpassed the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that independent economists believe we need to stabilize our finances.  But it does so in a balanced and responsible way, a way that most Americans prefer.

    A summary from the Department of Management and Budget indicates that the budget invests in repairing existing infrastructure and building the infrastructure of tomorrow, including high-speed rail, high-tech schools, and power grids that are resilient to future extreme conditions. The investments will both lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and put workers back on the job now. 

• Provides $50 billion for upfront infrastructure investments, including $40 billion for "Fix it First" projects, to invest immediately in repairing highways, bridges, transit systems, and airports nationwide; and $10 billion for competitive programs to encourage innovation in completing high-value infrastructure projects.
• Boosts private investment in infrastructure by creating a Rebuild America Partnership including" Establishes an independent National Infrastructure Bank to leverage private and public capital to support infrastructure projects of national and regional significance; and Creates America Fast Forward (AFF) Bonds, building on the successful Build America Bonds program to attract new sources of capital for infrastructure investment.
• Dedicates funding for the development of high-speed rail to link communities across the country, the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NexGen) to improve air travel and safety, and a robust long term increase in levels for core highways, transit, and highway safety programs. 
• Expedites infrastructure projects by modernizing the Federal permitting process to cut through red tape while creating incentives and better outcomes for communities and the environment.  Establishes a new goal of cutting timelines in half for major infrastructure projects in areas such as highways, bridges, railways, ports, waterways, pipelines, and renewable energy.

    A separate fact sheet on "Building a Clean Energy Economy, Improving Energy Security, and Addressing Climate Change" indicates that the Budget "supports a range of investments and initia­tives to help make the United States the leader in the clean energy sector and bring about a clean energy econo­my with new companies and jobs.  The Budget also supports work to prepare and strengthen our communities against extreme weather and other impacts of climate change, while cutting the carbon pollution that causes it. Cleaner energy will play a crucial role in meeting the President's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and enhancing energy security by reducing our dependence on oil.  The President is committed to an "all-of-the-above" approach that develops all American energy sources in a safe and responsible way and builds a clean and secure energy future." The Budget increases funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE) clean energy technology activities by more than 40 percent above the 2012 enacted level, to $6.2 billion, and increasing funding for clean energy technology across all agencies by 30 percent, to approximately $7.9 billion.

    The Budget proposed to "eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that im­pede investment in clean energy sources and un­dermine efforts to address the threat of climate change. The Budget would repeal over $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas, and other fos­sil fuel producers." It calls for $200 million for "Climate Ready Infrastructure" and provides for $2.7 billion for thirteen Federal agencies in the U.S. Global Change Research Program to support research to improve our ability to understand, predict, mitigate, adapt to climate change, and increase communication among scientific and stakeholder communities. The budget provides $8.2 billion for U.S. EPA, a decrease of $296 million, or 3.5 percent, below the 2012 enacted level.

    Access the full text of the President's budget announcement (click here). Access the DMB overview with links to complete budget details including Analytical Perspectives, Historical Tables, Supplemental Materials, Fact Sheets, Past Budgets and more (click here). Access a fact sheet on clean energy and climate change initiatives (click here). Access a fact sheet on Infrastructure (click here). Access a 20-page detail of the U.S. EPA budget proposals (click here). Access the 140-page EPA budget detail (click here). Access the 1024-page EPA FY2014 budget justification document (click here). Access the 48-page detail of the DOE budget proposals (click here). Access links to other agencies details (click here). Access links to the 244-page budget summary and details by section (click here). [#All]

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

                   (click to access)

• 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