DOI Announces Virginia OCS Wind Energy Lease Sale

Jul 22: Department of  Interior (DOI) Secretary Sally Jewell and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy Beaudreau announced that BOEM will hold its second competitive lease sale for renewable energy on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The auction, scheduled to take place on September 4, will offer nearly 112,800 acres offshore Virginia for commercial wind energy leasing. In June, Secretary Jewell and Director Beaudreau announced the nation's first wind energy lease sale for an area offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which will be held on July 31. 

    Secretary Jewell said, "The competitive lease sale offshore Virginia will mark an important transition from planning to action when it comes to capturing the enormous clean energy potential offered by Atlantic wind. Responsible commercial wind energy development has the potential to create jobs, increase our energy security, and strengthen our nation's competitiveness."

    Under the terms of the Final Sale Notice, the wind energy area offshore Virginia will be auctioned as a single lease. The area is located 23.5 nautical miles from the Virginia Beach coastline and has the potential to support more than 2,000 megawatts of wind generation -- enough electricity to power approximately 700,000 homes. A release from DOI indicates that as part of President Obama's comprehensive Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13], he challenged DOI to re-double efforts on the renewable energy program by approving an additional 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy production on public lands and waters by 2020.

    The area, composed of 19 full OCS blocks and 13 sub-blocks, was selected after intensive work with the Commonwealth and stakeholders to avoid existing uses of the OCS offshore Virginia, including sensitive ecological habitat and shoals along the coast north of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, military training areas, marine vessel traffic, a dredge disposal site, and areas of concern specified by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility. The area available for auction is identical to the one announced in the Proposed Sale Notice that was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2012, for a 60-day public comment period. BOEM carefully considered public comments before developing the Final Sale Notice. The Final Sale Notice will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow (July 23).

 

    The following companies are eligible to participate: Apex Virginia Offshore Wind, LLC; Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Virginia Power); Energy Management, Inc.; EDF Renewable Development, Inc.; Fisherman's Energy, LLC; IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc.; Sea Breeze Energy, LLC; and Orisol Energy U.S., Inc. Beaudreau said, "After careful review, BOEM has determined that these companies are legally, technically and financially qualified to participate in the upcoming lease sale. We applaud their leadership and look forward to overseeing a fair and competitive leasing process."

 

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee responded indicating that "Interior has already granted one other lease, without competitive bidding. As the Administration moves forward with more offshore wind energy off the east coast, the ban on oil and gas leasing, which started when President Obama took office, continues in the same region." He said, "Energy sources that can work to be sustainable and affordable are something we can all support, but the Administration has a bad habit of picking energy industry winners and losers. According to the Interior's own analysis, the government assistance the wind industry receives in leasing and special tax credits exceeds the money they can generate for the Treasury in offshore production. Alternative energy has potential for our 'all of the above' energy future, but the Administration needs to quit ignoring the economic benefits of traditional energy."

 

    Senator Vitter indicated in a release that in November 2012, Senators Vitter and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) wrote a letter to former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, noting that the agency will not allow offshore oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and requested data on the economics of the wind lease sale to compare with "the value of a similar lease for oil and gas on equivalent acreage." Seven months later on June 5, 2013, the Senators finally received a response from Interior which they indicate "provides limited analysis that further undermines justification for offshore wind." Sen. Vitter indicated, "As part of Interior's response, they explain that a minimum bid for oil and gas offshore lease sales are $100 per acre for deepwater leases, compared to $1 or $2 per acre for the upcoming wind lease sales. In addition, there is strong indication that the royalty rate is a fraction of the tax credit, thus meaning federal subsidies more than cover what these projects are expected to pay in royalties."

 

    Access a lengthy release from DOI with additional details and links to more information (click here). Access a map of the Virginia wind energy area (click here). Access the Proposed Sale Notice, public comments and responses on BOEM's website (click here). Access a release from Sen. Vitter with links to the letter, response and analysis by the Heritage Foundation (click here). [#Energy/Wind]

Next EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Confirmed 59-40

Jul 18: Four Republicans, joined 53 Democrats and 2 Independents to confirm Regina (Gina) McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be the next Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The four Republicans were Ayotte (R-NH), Corker (R-TN), Flake (R-AZ), and McCain (R-AZ). One lone Democrat, Manchin (D-WV), voted with 39 Republicans against the nomination.

    President Obama issued a statement saying, "I am pleased that today the Senate took bipartisan action to confirm Gina McCarthy as the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.  With years of experience at the state and local level, Gina is a proven leader who knows how to build bipartisan support for commonsense environmental solutions that protect the health and safety of our kids while promoting economic growth. Over the past four years, I have valued Gina's counsel and I look forward to having her in my Cabinet as we work to slow the effects of climate change and leave a cleaner environment for future generations."

    Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "We are very gratified the Senate has finally voted to confirm Gina McCarthy as America's new EPA Administrator. McCarthy has always been an ideal candidate for this crucially important job. She has exceptional qualifications and experience, and she has a well-earned reputation for bipartisanship. She has a history of working with both environmental advocates and industry stakeholders, and for pursuing a regulatory approach that is flexible, cost-effective and environmentally effective. It's time to put politics behind us and get to work on the many important issues facing EPA, including implementing key parts of the President's Climate Action Plan. I look forward to working with Gina McCarthy and her staff at EPA to ensure that Americans have a cleaner, healthier environment."

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement saying, "We commend the Senate for confirming Gina McCarthy to head EPA. ACC and its members look forward to working with her to ensure that regulations protect health and the environment while at the same time encouraging innovation, competitiveness and job creation. Stakeholder engagement and reliance on sound science will be essential to the development of balanced environmental rules that, combined with sensible energy policies, will ensure the United States remains an attractive place for manufacturers to invest."

    U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (EPW), delivered a highly critical speech on the Senate Floor during the debate on the nomination and urged his colleagues to vote no on the confirmation of Gina McCarthy.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the EPW Committee issued a statement saying, "I am so pleased that the full Senate has confirmed Gina McCarthy to be EPA Administrator, because she is the right person for the job. With more than three decades of public service experience, Gina has a deep understanding that public health and a growing economy depend on clean air and clean water. Gina McCarthy has worked for five Republican Governors and a Democratic President, and she will lead EPA in a way that protects the health and safety of the American people."

    Access the roll call vote on the confirmation (click here). Access a statement from the President (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access the statement from ACC (click here). Access a video of the Senator Vitter Floor statement (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). [#All]

Hearing: "Climate Change: It's Happening Now"

Jul 18: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), with Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA), held a hearing entitled, "Climate Change: It's Happening Now."

 

    The hearing included testimony from number of climate experts including: Dr. Heidi Cullen, Chief Climatologist Climate Central; Mr. Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of America; Mr. KC Golden, Policy Director, Climate Solutions; Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; Dr. Robert P. Murphy, Senior Economist, Institute for Energy Research; Dr. Jennifer Francis, Research Professor, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University; Dr. Scott Doney, Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Dr. Margaret Leinin, Executive Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University; Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist IV, University of Alabama, Huntsville. Senator Boxer opened the hearing stating:

"Today's hearing will focus on climate change and the serious threat it poses to our nation. The body of evidence is overwhelming, the world's leading scientists agree, and predictions of the impact of climate change are coming true before our eyes. This issue has been a priority for me since I became Chairman of this Committee, because climate change puts our environment and public health at great risk. Scientists and other experts have testified before this Committee in the past, and they spoke many times about the severe impact of climate change. Let me share just a few of these experts' predictions with you:

• "It is very likely that hot extremes [and] heat waves . . . will continue to become more frequent." (Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth in 2008)
• "It is likely that tropical storms and hurricanes will become more intense and with much heavier rainfalls, and thus risk of flooding." (Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth in 2008)
• "With climate change, an increase in the severity, duration, and frequency of extreme heat waves is expected in the United States." (Dr. Howard Frumkin in 2009)
• "On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a frequency far beyond those we see today." (Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn in 2009)

"In 2012, Superstorm Sandy resulted in the loss of life, wiped out entire communities, and caused approximately $65 billion of damage. And the impacts of climate change are being felt throughout our nation. The Arctic has lost more than a third of total sea ice volume over the last decade -- making Alaskan native villages increasingly vulnerable to erosion and storms. We have seen large wildfires break out earlier in the season in California, and recently 19 brave firefighters in Arizona tragically lost their lives. In 2012, New Mexico experienced the largest wildfire in state history, Colorado suffered the second largest wildfire in state history, and Oregon had its largest wildfire since the 1860s. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), over the past two years there have been 25 weather and climate disasters - each one costing more than $1 billion. Climate change is real, human activities are the primary cause, and the warming planet poses a significant risk to people and the environment. . ."

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the outspoken critic of climate change science, said in a statement that he was disappointed that because he was looking forward to hearing from Administration officials about the President's global warming proposal. He said, "Around the same time the President gave his speech on global warming last month [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13], his campaign team developed a secret talking points memo that was crafted to provide alarmists around the country with specific instructions about how they should talk about global warming."

    Senator Inhofe said, "Most meteorologists agree.  A recent study by George Mason University reported that 63% of weathercasters believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of 'natural variation' and not 'human activities.'  That is a significant two-to-one majority. . . And just this past week, Harvard and the Forest Service came out with a study that shows trees are growing faster and using less water with higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2.  This is the opposite of what scientists expected before, but the alarmists can't talk about it because they've received their instructions from the President.

    Senator Inhofe cited Richard Lindzen, "the world renowned atmospheric physicist at MIT" who said that regulating carbon is a "bureaucrat's dream," because "if you control carbon, you control life."  Sen. Inhofe said, "When you zoom out and consider this from a distance, it is the core tenant of liberalism and the President political philosophy.  He believes that government can make better decisions than the people, and regulating carbon dioxide will give him all he needs to make nearly every decision for the American people."

 

    Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University said, "As the oceans continue to absorb additional heat trapped by ever-accumulating greenhouse gases, as sea ice continues to disappear, and as the Arctic continues to warm faster than the rest of the globe, we can only expect to see more weather-related adverse impacts. The details of those impacts are still emerging from ongoing research, but the overall picture of the future is clear."

 

    Dr. Scott Doney of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said, "Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Increasingly this will cause major problems for many marine organisms like shellfish and corals."

 

    Dr. Heidi Cullen of the University of Pennsylvania said, "Climate change was for a long time thought to be an issue for the distant future. But I am here today to testify that it has, in many respects, moved into the present. The impacts of human -- caused climate change are being observed right here and right now in our own backyards and neighborhoods."

 

    Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado provided a counter point of view and said, "It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases." He said, "Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP. . . Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. . . Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. . . Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. . .some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research. . ."

 

--- Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama also offered a counter point of view saying, "My overall view of the influence of humans on climate is that we probably are having some influence, but it is impossible to know with any level of certainty how much influence. The difficulty in determining the human influence on climate arises from several sources: (1) weather and climate vary naturally, and by amounts that are not currently being exceeded; (2) global warming theory is just that -- based upon theory; and (3) there is no unique fingerprint of human caused global warming. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a video (click here). Access the opening statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the complete statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). [#Climate]

12 GOP AGs File Lawsuit Related To "Sue & Settle"

Jul 16: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, joined by 11 other attorneys general from AL, AZ, GA, KS, MI, NE, ND, SC, UT, WY, TX, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Federal court requesting access to documents related to the U.S. EPA's so-called "sue and settle" strategy with environmental groups. Pruitt said, "The EPA is picking winners and losers, exhibiting favoritism, at the expense of due process and transparency. They are manipulating our legal system to achieve what they cannot through our representative democracy. The outcomes of their actions affect every one of us by sticking states with the bill and unnecessarily raising utility rates by as much as 20 percent."

    The lawsuit, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and comes after the states filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking documents related to the "sue and settle" strategy. According to a release from AG Pruitt, the agency employs the tactic as a way to settle lawsuits with environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra Club, without allowing state involvement. In some instances, the EPA entered a consent decree the same day a lawsuit was filed by the special interest group, suggesting prior knowledge. The agreements between the EPA and environmental groups have led to new rules and regulations for states without allowing attorneys general to enter the process to defend the interest of states, businesses and consumers. 

     Pruitt said, "This appears to be a blatant strategy by the EPA to go around the process and bend the rules to create environmental regulations that have failed in Congress. As part of our investigation into the pervasiveness of this tactic, we requested documents that the EPA has refused to produce. If the EPA is making backdoor deals with environmental groups to push their agenda on the American people while bypassing the states and Congress, we need to know." According to the release, out of the 45 settlements made public, the EPA has paid nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees to the environmental groups, while also committing to develop sweeping new regulations. One EPA consent decree led to the EPA's costliest regulation ever -- the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

    The 12 states led by Oklahoma, filed a FOIA request in February, seeking communications between EPA officials and specific special interest groups concerning consent decrees that dictate how EPA is to implement the Clean Air Act's Regional Haze program in various states. Under the Clean Air Act, the states -- not the EPA -- design and implement plans for compliance with the Regional Haze program. States' also requested a fee waiver. According to the complaint, "Ninety-two percent of the time EPA grants fee waiver requests from noncommercial requesters who are supportive of EPA's policies and agendas, but denies a majority of fee waiver requests from noncommercial requesters who are critical of EPA." States properly asked for specific records ... (and) EPA violated FOIA's mandate."

    The release indicates that once the documents are received, the requesting states will analyze the data and evaluate the prevalence of EPA's "sue and settle" strategy to determine further action. A report on the states' findings will be disseminated to each state as well as to the news media and Congress as a component of the AGs' active involvement in state efforts to address environmental issues.

 

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, commended the 12 Attorneys General (AG) lawsuit saying, "Looking at FOIA fee waivers, it's clear that EPA favors far-left environmentalist groups over conservative think tanks, but today's lawsuit is just another example demonstrating EPA's discrimination extends toward States, as well. We recently got the EPA to agree to completely retrain their staff on FOIA practices and issue new agency-wide guidance on FOIA practices following completion of the Inspector General investigation. However, their obstructionist tactics while trying to bend FOIA laws remains a problem, especially when they seek to block Attorneys General who clearly are acting to advance the public interest."

 

    On May 22, in a lengthy blog posting [See WIMS 5/22/13] the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) provided a detailed response to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report entitled, Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors [See WIMS 5/21/13] and various Republican charges. In general sue & settle agreements (i.e. settlements) result when environmental and citizen groups exercise the citizen suit provisions in various environmental laws passed by Congress to force EPA to meet "not discretionary" deadlines or set new deadlines when the Agency has already missed a deadline.

 

    In a July 16, article EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson told The Hill publication that, "EPA has no input or control over what parties sue the agency or what issues they focus on. Furthermore, an outside entity cannot compel EPA to take an action that it was not already required to take by law."

 

    Access a release from the OK AG (click here). Access the FOIA legal complaint (click here). Access the FOIA request (click here). Access a release from Sen. Vitter (click here). Access the NRDC blog posting with multiple links to referenced information (click here). Access The Hill article (click here).  [#All, #MIAll]

Friends Of The Earth Sues State Department Re: KXL Conflicts

Jul 16: Friends of the Earth (FoE) sued the State Department in Federal court for failure to turn over records detailing the contacts between lobbyists for the Keystone XL (KXL) tar sands pipeline and the Obama administration. On April 15, Friends of the Earth filed an extensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding the expedited release of all communications since October 2011 between the State Department and numerous lobbyists and lobbying firms for TransCanada and the Province of Alberta. The State Department (DOS) denied the group's request for a speedy release of the records, and three months later has yet to release any records or say when they will be released. FoE says the matter is urgent because DOS is in the final stages of an environmental review that is key to whether it recommends that the President approve or reject a permit for the pipeline.

    The lawsuit, filed today in U.S District Court for the District of Columbia by DC law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal says, "The requested information is critical because a number of the lobbyists presently advocating for the project formerly worked for Secretary of State John Kerry, or for former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton. In light of these relationships, the requested records would allow FoE to inform the public about the nature of the State Department's decision-making, and the role any of these lobbyists may be playing in that process."

    After similar FOIA requests by FoE in 2010 and 2011 uncovered records that showed how cozy relationships between State Department officials and Keystone lobbyists tainted the first environmental review of the pipeline, DOS promised to tighten its lobbying rules to assure objectivity in the current round. But FoE's latest FOIA request said it is clear that the permit process remains compromised by conflicts of interest, secrecy and deceit. It identified more than two dozen Washington lobbyists, lawyers and consultants helping to push for pipeline approval who have close ties to Obama, Kerry, Clinton or other elected officials with a stake in the outcome.

    Heading the list is Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director and senior advisor to the President's re-election campaign and the former communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under then-Senator Kerry. Dunn is now a principal with the lobbying firm SDKnickerbocker, which represents TransCanada. According to The New York Times, Dunn has met with top White House officials more than 100 times since leaving the Administration in 2009.

    FoE also says that, "The new environmental review for Keystone XL is being conducted by a contractor with deep financial ties to TransCanada and oil companies who would benefit from the pipeline -- connections the State Department tried to cover up. Last week, FoE released evidence that the contractor, Environmental Resources Management [ERM], lied on its federal conflict-of-interest disclosure form when it said it had not worked for TransCanada or other companies with an interest in the pipeline. ERM's draft of the environmental review contends that the pipeline will cause little environmental harm and absurdly suggests that the pipeline will not spur development of the climate-wrecking tar sands in northern Alberta. Scientists and the EPA alike contend that without the pipeline, tar sands development would be constrained and would therefore produce less climate destroying carbon."

    Ross Hammond, senior campaigner for FoE said, "From the beginning the State Department's handling of the environmental review of the Keystone pipeline has been hopelessly compromised by TransCanada, the Province of Alberta and their army of lobbyists. The Department's refusal to release records of the lobbying effort makes you wonder what they're hiding now." FoE's investigation has yielded a dossier of Keystone lobbyists and their connections to Obama, Kerry and Clinton. Besides Dunn, the list includes:

• Paul Elliott, chief lobbyist for TransCanada, a top Clinton operative in her 2008 presidential campaign and a key figure in the 2011 conflict of interest scandal over the earlier environmental review.
• David Castagnetti of Mehlman, Vogel & Castagnetti, who was director of Congressional relations for Kerry's 2004 campaign for president; and Brandon Pollak of Bryan Cave LLP, who also worked on Kerry's campaign.
• Three former U.S. ambassadors to Canada: David Wilkins of Nelson, Mullins et al, which has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Province of Alberta; Gordon Giffin of Long & Albridge, a top fundraiser in Clinton's presidential campaign; and Jim Blanchard of DLA Piper, also a top Clinton fundraiser.

    Damon Moglen, senior strategic advisor for FoE's climate and energy program said, "Release of these records will shed more light on lobbyists' influence on the State Department's Keystone review, but it is already clear that State can not be trusted to manage the review process objectively. It is clear that Secretary Kerry inherited a flawed review process in which TransCanada and Alberta continue to call the shots. The current draft analysis is fundamentally flawed and invalidated by ERM's clear conflict of interest. Secretary Kerry needs to convene both an investigation by his Inspector General into undue influence and conflict of interest, and order a new, independent analysis of the pipeline."

    Access a release from FoE with links to the legal complaint, the FOIA request, the dossier of Keystone lobbyists and other referenced information (click here). [#Energy/KXL]

Senate Showdown Over Rules & Presidential Nominees

Jul 15: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are leading their members into battle this evening at 6:00 PM at a joint-special caucus for all Senators. The subject will be a proposal by Senate Reid to require a simple majority vote, up or down, for the approval of a Presidential nominee. Currently, Senate rules provide for a filibuster and cloture vote procedure requiring 60 votes for approval. Senator McConnell said the proposal was "one of the most consequential changes to the United States Senate in the history of our nation."

    In a  fact sheet, Senator Reid points out that, "At the current rate, President Obama will face more filibusters on Executive Branch nominees than every other American president combined. Before President Obama took office, there had been a total of 20 filibusters on executive nominations in the entire history of the United States, from George Washington to George W. Bush. Since President Obama took office, there have been 16 filibusters. At this rate, there will be nearly 30 by the end of his second term. Executive nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the Senate have been pending an average of 260 days – more than 8 months – since they were first nominated."

    Senator Reid said, "For centuries, a President's nominees received simple up-or-down votes in the Senate, except in extraordinary circumstances. The change contemplated by Senate Democrats would simply restore the Senate's long tradition of delivering simple up-or-down votes for Executive nominees. Senators would still be free to debate and vote against nominations they oppose." Senator Reid said his proposal only applies to Presidential nominees, not legislation or other matters.
    
    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor last Friday that Democrats were  "concocting a phony crisis over three unlawfully appointed nominees to alter the rules of the Senate."  He said, "Senate Democrats are gearing up today to make one of the most consequential changes to the United States Senate in the history of our nation. And I guarantee you, it is a decision that, if they actually go through with it, they will live to regret. It's an open secret at this point that Big Labor and others on the Left are putting a lot of pressure on Senate Democrats to change the rules of the Senate -- and to do so by breaking the rules. That would violate every protection of minority rights that have defined the United States Senate for as long as anyone can remember.

    "Let me assure you: this Pandora's Box, once opened, will be utilized again and again by future majorities -- and it will make the meaningful consensus-building that has served our nation so well a relic of the past. The short-term issue that's triggered this dangerous and far-reaching proposal is simple enough: the Hard-Left is so convinced that every one of the President's nominees should just sail through the confirmation process, that they're willing to do permanent, irreversible damage to this institution in order to get their way. And they've apparently convinced the Majority Leader to do their bidding as they hijack the Senate. . ."

    Access the fact sheet from Senator Reid (click here). Access Senator McConnell's complete floor statement (click here). [#All]

House Passes "Farm Bill" Without SNAP - What Next?

Jul 11: The U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of a Farm Bill -- H.R.2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act of 2013 -- by a vote of 216-208. The revised bill, introduced July 10, which breaks an historic legislative tradition by eliminating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, i.e. food stamp program), passed with no Democratic votes in support. Twelve Republicans voted against the bill. An earlier House version H.R.1947, that included a $20.5 billion cut in SNAP funding, was defeated because many House conservatives did not think to SNAP cuts were deep enough [See WIMS 6/21/13]. The Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill -- S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 ) -- by a wide bipartisan margin, 66-27, on June 10 [See WIMS 6/11/13]. 

 

    House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) said, "Today was an important step toward enacting a five-year farm bill this year that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty, provides regulatory relief to small businesses across the country, significantly reduces spending, and makes common-sense, market-oriented reforms to agricultural policy. I look forward to continuing conversations with my House colleagues and starting conversations with my Senate colleagues on a path forward that ultimately gets a farm bill to the President's desk in the coming months."

 

    The Ranking Member on the Agricultural Committee Collin Peterson (D-MN) had a different reaction saying, "The House Majority's decision to ignore the will of the more than 500 organizations with a stake in the farm bill, setting the stage for draconian cuts to nutrition programs and eliminating future farm bills altogether would be laughable if it weren't true. This was not the only option. Following the House failure to pass a comprehensive, bipartisan, five-year farm bill, I repeatedly expressed a willingness to work with the Majority on a path forward. I firmly believed that if we could find a way to remove the partisan amendments adopted during the House farm bill debate we would be able to advance a bipartisan bill, conference with the Senate and see it signed into law this year. Now all that is in question."

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement saying, "Our farm and food stamp programs need reform. The status quo is unacceptable, which is why I voted against most of the farm bills of the past two decades, and supported this one.  I'm pleased the House took a positive first step forward in providing some much-needed reforms to our farm programs today. Reforming our food stamp programs is also essential. Chairman Lucas should be commended for his work on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and our members as we move this process forward."

 

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a statement saying, "House Republicans have stooped to a new low.  Unable to secure passage of a farm bill the first time around, Republicans decided to conjure up a new version late last night, strip out SNAP, and hastily push their partisan agenda through the House without a single Democratic vote. In turning their back on a long history of bipartisanship on the farm bill, Republicans abandoned the health and economic security of millions of Americans -- from seniors and children to farmers and ranchers.

    "Americans in the districts of every single Member of Congress needed us to work together so they wouldn't have to worry about going to bed hungry. Instead, Republicans decided to jeopardize the certainty and stability of America's rural communities, and risk taking food out of the mouths of those who need it most. It is shameful, disgraceful, and wrong -- wrong for our families, wrong for our communities, and wrong for our country. As Americans, our democracy is only as strong as we are as a people. Our strength depends on the economic security and prosperity of every hardworking American family who aspires to become part of the middle class -- the backbone of our democracy. Today, House Republicans undermined that strength. Now, it's time for them to change course and work with Democrats to protect and promote the prosperity of our children, families, and future generations."

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, issued a statement saying, "The bill passed by the House today is not a real Farm Bill and is an insult to rural America, which is why it's strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups. We will go to conference with the bipartisan, comprehensive Farm Bill that was passed in the Senate that not only reforms programs, supports families in need and creates agriculture jobs, but also saves billions more than the extremely flawed House bill."

    The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) issue a brief statement saying it "looks forward to moving ahead with fundamental farm policy legislation, following House passage today of H.R. 2642. While we don't yet know what the next steps will be, we will be working with both sides of the aisle and both chambers of Congress to ensure passage of a new five-year farm bill. While we were hopeful the farm bill would not be split, nor permanent law repealed, we will now focus our efforts on working with lawmakers to deliver a farm bill to the president's desk for his signature by September."

 

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administrative Policy on H.R.2642 on July 10, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642. . .[and] if the President were presented with H.R.2642, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The OMB Statement indicates further, "Because the 608 page bill was made available only this evening, the Administration has had inadequate time to fully review the text of the bill. It is apparent, though, that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the country. Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the Nation. This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans -- in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our Nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances."

 

    Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Vice President for Government Affairs said, ". . .The 'farm only' farm bill passed today by House Republicans – over the objections of everyone from the American Farm Bureau to the Heritage Foundation – is, simply put, the most fiscally irresponsible piece of farm legislation in history. This bill not only increases unlimited insurance subsidies, but also increases price guarantees for major crops and creates new subsidy programs for farm businesses. This bill locks in these new income subsidies for eternity under the guise of 'reform.' No one who voted for this terrible farm bill can reasonably claim to be fiscally conservative. At a time of record farm profits and record fiscal deficits, lawmakers should reject – not expand – the sort of needless corporate welfare that causes Americans to lose faith in Congress."

 

    Franz Matzner, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) associate director of government affairs said, "Once again, House Republicans are pushing an extreme agenda, this time to gut critically important conservation programs farmers depend on to be good stewards of our land and water and wildlife. Their farm bill also eviscerates oversight of pesticides and in a stunning example of federal overreach, blocks states from adopting food and farm standards. Without a moment's hesitation, this House farm bill should be plowed under, like the fertilizer it is, and never again see the light of day."

 

    There appears to be general confusion about what the next steps will be. The two, drastically different bills, based in wildly different political philosophies, will go to a Conference Committee, where it seems impossible to imagine a "compromise." Whatever emerges, if anything, will likely be rejected by one of the Chambers and a veto is certainly possible if the Administration's position is not preserved. The various scenarios do not look good for the Farm Bill, SNAP, or continuing budget debates that must be resolved before September 30.

    Access a release from Rep. Lucas and link to his Floor speech (click here). Access a release from Rep. Peterson and link to his Floor speech (click here). Access a release from Speaker Boehner that includes an opportunity to comment (click here). Access a release from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Sen. Stabenow  (click here). Access the statement from AFBF (click here). Access the OMB Statement of Administrative Policy (click here). Access the statement from EWG (click here). Access the roll call vote for H.R.2642 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2642 (click here). Access legislative details for S.954 including amendments and roll call votes (click here). [#Agriculture, #MIAgriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy] 

NRC 17-Yr. Old Environmental Review Guidance Needs Updating

Jul 10: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Nuclear Reactor License Renewal: NRC Generally Follows Documented Procedures, but Its Revisions to Environmental Review Guidance Have Not Been Timely (GAO-13-493, May 30, 2013). The report was requested by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman EPW Subcommittee on Oversight; Bernard Sanders (I-VT); and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA).

 

    In background information, GAO indicates that many U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors are reaching the end of their initial 40-year operating period. To continue operating, their owners must renew their licenses with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the independent federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear reactors. NRC evaluates license renewal applications under two parallel reviews for safety and potential environmental impacts. NRC's license renewal process has received increasing public scrutiny due, in part, to the 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

    GAO was asked to review NRC's license renewal process for commercial nuclear power reactors. The report examines: (1) the scope of the license renewal process; (2) the extent to which NRC updates its safety and environmental review guidance; (3) the extent to which NRC follows its documented license renewal procedures; and (4) knowledgeable stakeholders' views on the strengths and weaknesses in the license renewal process and any suggestions for improvements. GAO reviewed documents; visited two nuclear power plants selected based on characteristics such as having gone through the license renewal process; assessed the consistency of NRC reviews with documented procedures; and interviewed NRC officials and stakeholders from industry and public interest groups. GAO did not evaluate the adequacy or substance of NRC reviews or the quality of the agency's license renewal procedures. The plants that GAO visited included: Millstone Power Station in Connecticut and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts.

    GAO found that the scope of NRC's license renewal process focuses on managing the effects of aging on a reactor and its associated systems, structures, and components (i.e. safety) and assessing certain potential environmental impacts of extending a reactor's operating-life. As a result, reviews done as part of this process are not required to address as many topics as reviews for initial licensing, which include security and emergency planning.

    GAO indicates that NRC has regularly updated the safety review guidance it uses in the license renewal process but has not revised most of its environmental review regulations and guidance since they were first issued. NRC has revised its safety review guidance twice -- in 2005 and 2010 -- and has issued interim updates for selected safety issues between those revisions. In contrast, NRC has not revised most of its environmental review regulations and guidance since they were first issued starting in 1996. NRC regulations state the agency's goal is to review its environmental findings every 10 years and update its license renewal regulations and guidance, if necessary. Consistent with this goal, NRC initiated the revision process in 2003. In December 2012, the NRC Commissioners approved draft regulations, but they directed agency staff to make additional changes. As of March 2013, NRC staff were working on these changes. According to NRC officials, reasons for the lengthy revision process include limited staff resources and competing demands on those resources as well as an unusually large number of technical issues needing evaluation. NRC requires applicants and expects agency staff to consider new and significant environmental information in the license renewal process, but its use of regulations and guidance originally issued 17 years ago has created the impression among some that the agency is using outdated information and has caused uncertainty for some license renewal applicants about what guidance will be used to evaluate their application.

    GAO said that NRC generally followed its procedures when reviewing selected safety and environmental elements in eight license renewal applications GAO examined. NRC's safety reviews were generally consistent with the agency's procedures for evaluating both an applicant's identification of components within the scope of the license renewal process and proposed buried piping and tanks inspection and fire protection programs for aging management. NRC's environmental reviews were also generally consistent with agency procedures for evaluating: (1) new and significant information for two generic environmental issues; (2) applicants' assessments of two site-specific environmental issues; and (3) applicants' analyses of alternatives for mitigating severe reactor accidents.

    Knowledgeable stakeholders interviewed by GAO identified various perceived strengths and weaknesses and potential improvements to the license renewal process. Stakeholders most often identified NRC staff's technical knowledge and the thoroughness of the agency's reviews as perceived strengths of the process. Stakeholders also identified a range of perceived weaknesses in the license renewal process, including claims that its scope is too narrow and that its public hearing process is flawed and inhibits meaningful public participation. Accordingly, some stakeholders suggested potential changes to improve the license renewal process, including broadening the scope of NRC's reviews and modifying aspects of the public hearing process.

    Access the complete 60-page GAO report (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

Alaska Submits Plan For 3-D Seismic Exploration In ANWR

Jul 9: Alaska Governor Sean Parnell announced that the State of Alaska is officially submitting a plan for seismic exploration activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area, pursuant to Section 1002(e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Governor Parnell said, "The 1002 Area of ANWR holds enormous promise for Alaska and for our nation. Federal law provides clear direction and mandates a number of actions that the Interior Secretary must take upon the submission of a 1002 Area exploration plan. We look forward to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell's prompt review and approval of this exploration plan."

    On May 18, with support from North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Rex Rock, the State of Alaska submitted a detailed 1002 Area exploration proposal and offered to help finance seismic studies in the 1002 Area. In late June, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell completely rejected the State's proposal and offer of funding support. Therefore, the State is submitting a formal exploration plan and special use permit application for the 1002 Area.

    Natural Resource Commissioner Dan Sullivan, noting that the U.S. Department of Interior approved 1002 Area exploration plans in the 1980s and that the law does not contain a sunset provision and therefore is still on the books, said, "ANILCA requires the Secretary to take formal action on this exploration plan. This 240-page, world-class document meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements for a 1002 Area exploration plan contained within the Code of Federal Regulations and in ANILCA. If an exploration plan meets all of these requirements, the Secretary is required by law to approve it."

    The exploration plan and accompanying special permit application builds upon the detailed proposal the State submitted in May. The plan will take advantage of current technology, which will have significantly less environmental impacts than the exploration activities approved and conducted in the 1002 Area during the 1980s. The 1002 Area is thought to be one of the most prolific regions for undiscovered oil in America. The State seeks to conduct low-impact, three-dimensional surveys across the 1002 Area from 2014 to 2017. This work will only be done during the winter, with very limited impact to tundra, fish and wildlife. The Governor said, "I am renewing my pledge to seek support from the Alaska Legislature during its 2014 session to fund a 3-D seismic program for the 1002 Area. If this plan and permit application is promptly reviewed and approved as required by ANILCA, I will request a minimum of $50 million to execute this plan."

    U..S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, voiced her continued support for the state of Alaska's plan to fully assess the potential oil and natural gas resources in ANWR coastal plain. She said, "The coastal plain holds valuable oil and natural gas resources, which is why Congress reserved it for oil production more than 30 years ago. Any effort to change the way the area is managed must only be considered with the best available information. Gov. Parnell's offer to help pay for a full resource assessment of the coastal plain using 3-D seismic is generous, sensible and legally allowed under the 1980 lands act."

    She indicated in a release that the ANWR coastal plain offers the United States' best chance of a major onshore, domestic oil and natural gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the coastal plain has a 50 percent chance of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, resources worth more than $1 trillion at current market prices. Those estimates are based on old two-dimensional seismic studies done in 1982-1983. Sen. Murkowski said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is drafting a new management plan for the refuge, which is expected to include new wilderness designation recommendations for the coastal plain. Such a recommendation without knowing the full potential of the coastal plain is "irresponsible." She said, "The problem with Fish and Wildlife Service's work on a new management plan is that it fails to consider the potential economic benefits of oil and gas production. They claim that's because development would require an act of Congress, but, of course, so would a wilderness designation -- their argument doesn't hold up. Instead of trying to lock up our resources, we should develop them as part of a balanced energy plan that creates jobs, invests in research and technology, and bolsters our economy."

    Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director for The Wilderness Society said, "The Arctic Refuge was established for the conservation of the landscape's extraordinary values, including fish and wildlife populations, and habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, other predators, musk oxen, Dall sheep, and migratory birds and fish, among others. Drilling on the coastal plain of the refuge would not lower gasoline prices, but it would permanently diminish one of the last great wilderness landscapes in the world. Instead, this portion of our nation's heritage should be protected for future generations."

    The Wilderness Society indicated in a release, "Like other supporters of the oil industry, Alaska's governor looks at the wilderness landscape of the Arctic Refuge and sees only dollar signs. But the refuge is worth far more than the value of the oil that may lie beneath it. Parnell's assault on the refuge – like all the attacks that came before it – must be stopped. The refuge must be protected for the creatures that call it home, for the Alaska Native communities that depend on its wildlife for cultural traditions and as a source of food, and for future generations of Americans who deserve to inherit an intact, spectacular, wilderness."

    Access a release from the Governor and link to the letter to Secretary Jewell (click here). Access the 240-page ANILCA Section 1002(e) Exploration Plan and Special Use Permit Application and Supporting Materials (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from The Wilderness Society (click here). [#Energy/ANWR]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

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

Beekeeping Organizations Appeal Sulfoxaflor Registration

Jul 8: National Beekeeping organizations along with the National Honey Bee Advisory Board have come together in an attempt to protect the bee industry by an appeal against EPA for its approval of the pesticide Sulfoxaflor, which they indicate has been shown to be "highly toxic" to honey bees, and other insect pollinators. Sulfoxaflor is a new chemistry, and the first of a newly assigned sub-class of pesticides in the "neonicotinoid" class of pesticides, which scientists across the globe have linked as a potential factor to widespread and massive bee colony collapse. The case is filed as the beekeeping industry across the country struggles for survival, and faces the costly effects of pesticides upon their businesses. The groups are being represented by the public interest law organization Earthjustice. The appeal process through the courts is the only mechanism open to challenge EPA's decision; it is commonly used by commodity groups to rectify inadequate pesticide labeling.

 

    The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith have filed the appeal against U.S. EPA in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes needed in the Sulfoxaflor label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA's Risk Assessment Process. According to a release, the changes would acknowledge pollinator's critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws.

    Sulfoxaflor was granted a full registration by EPA for most crops, many of which require pollinators. Many other registered crops are utilized by pollinators, including honey bees, as forage. Based on the approved registration, pollinators, especially honey bees, may potentially be exposed numerous times by labeled Sulfoxaflor applications as honey bees are moved across the country to pollinate crops, produce the nation's supply of honey, and recuperate from the rigors of pollination.

    On May 6, 2013, EPA granted unconditional registrations for the new active ingredient sulfoxaflor, formulated as a manufacturing use product and two end-use products for use in production agriculture. EPA is granted the use of sulfoxaflor on barley, bulb vegetables, canola, citrus, cotton, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, low-growing berries, okra, ornamentals (herbaceous and woody), pistachio, pome fruits, root and tuber vegetables, small vine climbing fruit (except fuzzy kiwifruit), soybean, stone fruit, succulent, edible podded and dry beans, tree nuts, triticale, turfgrass, watercress and wheat. The registrant is Dow AgroSciences LLC.

    Attorney Janette Brimmer of Earthjustice said, "Our country is facing widespread bee colony collapse, and scientists are pointing to pesticides like Sulfoxaflar as the cause. The effects will be devastating to our nation's food supply and also to the beekeeping industry, which is struggling because of toxic pesticides. This lawsuit against the EPA is attempt by the beekeepers to save their suffering industry. The EPA has failed them. And the EPA's failure to adequately consider impacts to pollinators from these new pesticides is wreaking havoc on an important agricultural industry and gives short shrift to the requirements of the law."

    According to an Earthjustice release, EPA is required by FIFRA to determine that a pesticide does not pose an unreasonable risk to the environment or to economic interests such as that of the bee industry. Earthjustice indicates that "EPA's testing did not adequately examine the impact of acute and sub-lethal poisoning of adult honey bees, brood, bee life span, in light the dynamics of the colony organism. The EPA's reviewed research and analysis of bee foraging behavior and habits is being questioned based on long accepted publications; the Agency lacked the necessary data on how Sulfoxaflor remains systemically absorbed in the crop tissue, and how that may harm bees and bee colonies long term subjected to levels below the lethal toxicity level to adult bees; and the EPA failed entirely to look at how differing amounts of pesticides affect pollinators over time."

    On May 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 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." [See WIMS 5/2/13].

    Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice with additional quotes from various parties to the case, additional facts on Sulfoxaflar and links to related information (click here). Access EPA's statement of registration approval and link to the EPA docket for background information (click here). Access the complete 72-page report on honey bee health (click here). [#Agriculture, #Wildlife, #Toxics]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

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

Bill Calls For Transparency In "Social Cost Of Carbon"

Jul 1: U.S. Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced H.R.2593, the Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Transparency Enhancement Act in response to a change in what is known as the "social cost of carbon," included in a little-noticed federal rule on microwave ovens. The bipartisan legislation requires that any cost-benefit analysis and key methods used to justify regulations must be held for at least 60-days pending public review and comment. 

    According to a release from the Members, by increasing the social cost of carbon to $38 a metric ton, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions are considered more valuable, while actions supporting the completion of the Keystone Pipeline and other energy production, for instance, are deemed more costly. Rep. Hunter said, "The social cost of carbon has significant implications on rule making and this calculation could be revised and even manipulated to make cuts in emissions appear more or less valuable in any cost-benefit analysis. Tucking the latest social cost of carbon calculation into an unnoticed rule on microwave ovens raises questions about intent, given that the calculation could be used to justify specific actions supported by the Administration. There should be an opportunity for public review and comment, so that industry and stakeholders can weigh in and provide feedback on cost-benefit analyses and key methods, including the social cost of carbon.  Evidently, this is a process that needs to be more open and transparent, and this legislation will guarantee adequate time and opportunity for congressional and public review."

    The Congressional Research Service (CRS) indicates that the bill, in essence, would require executive branch agencies to report to, and allow the opportunity for comment from,Congress and the public (using the Federal Register) on any cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or regulatory impact analysis (RIA)used in rulemaking. The reporting requirement would apply when an agency is required to conduct an RIA under current statutory and executive order requirements. This bill itself does not appear to create any new requirement for an RIA. The required report would include both the results of the agency's analysis and the methods used to come to those results, including any "key method." The bill explicitly defines a "key method" to include any method that determines the social cost of carbon.

   On May 31, 2013, U.S. Department Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz announced that the Agency had finalized new energy efficiency standards for microwave ovens that would save consumers nearly $3 billion on their energy bills through 2030. The regulatory impact analysis associated with the rule also incorporates an update to the interagency "social cost of carbon" (SCC) values [See WIMS 6/3/13], based on the best available science, used to calculate the societal and health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed in this year's Economic Report of the President. 

        Access a release from Rep. Hunter (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2593 (click here). Access the CRS analysis H.R.2593 (click here). Access the EPA docket for the microwave rule with supporting documents and comments (click here). [#Climate, #Energy/Efficiency]

WMO: Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Extremes

SUBSCRIBERS & READERS NOTICE:

WIMS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHING ON JULY 4 & 5, 2013.

WE WILL RESUME PUBLICATION ON MONDAY, JULY 8, 2013.

 

HAVE A SAFE AND ENJOYABLE JULY 4TH HOLIDAY & WEEKEND !

 

Jul 3: A new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) indicates that the world experienced "unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of accelerating global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade. The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Extremes, analyzed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.

    According to a release, the decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world's glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report. The WMO report charted rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global-average concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 389 parts per million in 2010 (an increase of 39% since the start of the industrial era in 1750), methane to 1 808.0 parts per billion (158%) and nitrous oxide to 323.2 parts per billion (20%).

    WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said, "A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change. WMO's report shows that global warming accelerated in the four decades of 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat. Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans -- as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events -- means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times."

    The 100-page report and an executive summary, incorporating findings from a unique survey of 139 National Meteorological and Hydrological Services and socio-economic data and analysis from several UN agencies and partners, were released to coincide with the first session of the Intergovernmental Board on Climate Services. This Board is overseeing the implementation of the Global Framework for Climate Services -- an international initiative to improve and expand scientifically-based climate information to help society cope with the natural variability of our climate and human induced climate change.

    Jarraud said, "A decadal perspective makes it possible to assess trends in the climate system and anticipate the future. It can also inform efforts to develop operational climate services that provide information and forecasts for decision-making in agriculture, health, disaster risk, water resources and other sectors. These efforts are being coordinated through the WMO-led Global Framework for Climate Services. Climate services are more necessary than ever to help us cope with global changes in our climate, which are accentuated at regional and national scales. Despite the significant decrease in casualties due to severe storms and flooding, the WMO report highlighted an alarming impact on health and mortality rates caused by the European and Russian heat-waves. Given that climate change is expected to lead to more frequent and intense heat-waves, we need to be prepared.''

Temperatures: The average land and ocean-surface temperature for the decade 2001-2010 was estimated to be 14.47°C, or 0.47°C above the 1961 - 1990 global average and +0.21°C above the 1991 - 2000 global average (with a factor of uncertainty of ± 0.1°C). Results from WMO's survey showed that nearly 94% of reporting countries had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.

Precipitation, floods, & droughts: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records. Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet. Droughts affect more people than any other kind of natural disaster owing to their large scale and long-lasting nature. The decade 2001-2010 saw droughts occur in all parts of the world. Some of the highest-impact and long-term droughts struck Australia (in 2002 and other years), East Africa (2004 and 2005, resulting in widespread loss of life) and the Amazon Basin (2010) with negative environmental impacts.

Tropical cyclones: Between 2001 and 2010, there were 511 tropical cyclone related disaster events which resulted in a total of nearly 170,000 persons reported killed, over 250 million people reported affected and estimated economic damages of US$ 380 billion. According to the U.S. NOAA, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin. An average of 15 named storms per year was recorded, well above the long-term average of 12. The North Indian Ocean saw the deadliest tropical cyclone recorded during the decade, when Tropical Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in early May 2008. More than 138 000 people were reported killed or missing, eight million people were affected and thousands of homes were destroyed.

Impacts: During the decade 2001-2010, more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat, cold, drought, storms and floods, according to the data provided by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). This was 20% higher than 1991-2000. This increase is due mainly to the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2010 in Russia which contributed to an increase of more than 2000% in the global death toll from heat waves (from less than 6000 in 1991-2000 to 136 000 in 2001-2010). On the other hand, there was a 16% decline in deaths due to storms and 43% decline in deaths from floods, thanks mainly to better early warning systems and increased preparedness and despite an increase in populations in disaster-prone areas. According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114% globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world's population increased by 87% from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192%, in the same period.

    Access a release from WMO with charts and link to the more information and a video (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access a 20-page summary report(click here). Access the WMO website for more information (click here). Access the Global Framework for Climate Services (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

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

Prioritizing Energy Efficient Renewables (PEER) Act

Jun 27: U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced H.R.2539, the Prioritizing Energy Efficient Renewables (PEER) Act. The legislation would permanently extend the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind, geothermal, hydro, and marine power and eliminate the tax credit for intangible drilling costs, the domestic manufacturing tax credit for oil and gas, and the percentage depletion credit for oil and gas wells. The legislation is revenue positive, as the approximately $1.6 billion cost of the PTC last year is outweighed by the approximately $3.7 billion in annual costs of the three oil and gas credits.

 

    Rep. Schakowsky was joined by 17 colleagues in introducing the legislation, which is supported by major environmental organizations including Earthjustice, Environment America, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Wilderness Society. Rep. Schakowsky said, "As the President highlighted this week, global warming is real and its consequences are devastating. The tremendous challenge of climate change also offers an opportunity. We should invest in renewable energy technologies that will help our country reduce hazardous carbon emissions, driving the growth of good American jobs, improving public health, and leaving behind a safe climate for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to moving the PEER Act forward as we discuss our country's energy future."

    Dave Hamilton, Director of Clean Energy at the Sierra Club commented saying, "We thank Representative Schakowsky for introducing the Prioritizing Energy Efficient Renewables Act of 2013. It's high time we provide renewable energy the same certainty of federal support that big oil and gas have enjoyed for decades. The Schakowsky bill would make a commitment to developing clean energy sources while ending unnecessary support for highly profitable and polluting fossil fuels. Wind, solar, and other clean energy innovators should not have to scrap for federal investment every year, while oil and gas fat cats sit back and enjoy unfair tax breaks while racking up billions in profits."

    Without Congressional action, the PTC will again expire at year's end. The tax credit, which provides up to 2.3 cents per kWh of energy produced, has driven clean energy and economic growth nationwide. The PTC has been especially important for wind energy. Last year wind power represented 44 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in the U.S., leading all other sources. Wind also employs about 75,000 Americans, and the American Wind Energy Association believes it could employ 500,000 and supply 20 percent – up from 3.5 percent today -- of U.S. electricity by 2030.

    The bill is timely considering the President's Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13] and developments in the wind energy market. On June 28, Nordex USA, Inc. that it will cease manufacturing wind turbine housings at its factory in Jonesboro, Arkansas, largely because of unpredictable U.S. policies, the U.S. wind energy industry renewed its call for a predictable tax policy to keep U.S. manufacturing jobs. Dr. Jürgen Zeschky, CEO of the German-based, Nordex SE, explained, "This was an extremely difficult decision for Nordex. We are reacting to the weakened demand from the US market, brought on by the unpredictable extensions of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), and the resulting low utilization rate of our US assembly plant. We see great potential in the US and Latin American markets and are committed to serving those markets and increasing our installed base. With this decision we also increase our flexibility to react to US demand for our turbines out of one single plant in Rostock, Germany. We will be maintaining the extensive expertise in sales, engineering, service, project management, training and support which we have built at our Chicago and Jonesboro locations to continue the growth we have achieved through these challenging times."

    Rob Gramlich, Senior Vice President for Public Policy of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said, "Wind power has been good for Arkansas consumers and businesses, and wind power could do a lot more for the state if we had predictable national policies to create a stable business environment. That starts by keeping the federal Production Tax Credit in place to allow wind energy to scale up as rapidly as it can. Nordex said uncertainty is one of the main reasons for their business decision to cease building wind turbine nacelles in Jonesboro. Arkansas has positioned itself to take advantage of the wind industry's growth in the region, which is providing low-cost electricity in Arkansas and exporting energy east. And consumers are saving, because wind power holds down the overall cost of electricity on fixed-price contracts. But predictable policies to create a stable business environment are critical, especially if we want to maintain this new U.S. manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. That will take action by Congress."
 
    Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) responded to the news today by saying, "I've always supported the renewable energy production tax credit. Unfortunately, some in Congress believe we should cut funding for renewable energy. I hope we'll consider a long-term production tax credit as part of comprehensive tax reform. These companies need more certainty than a one-year extension." Senator John Boozman (R-AR) commented, "Promising industries like wind turbine production are particularly sensitive to this uncertainty as Washington has been unable to tell them what their tax burden will be beyond a very short term. You can't make major planning decisions from a business perspective on that timeframe. There must be a longer term extension in place so that companies like Nordex and Mitsubishi can grow and put Arkansans to work. I support the credit, have voted for the extensions, and would like to see the wind tax credit authorized for a longer time period to provide certainty to business owners." Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe (D) said, "I have been saying for years that there must be stable tax policy with this kind of intense capital investment. Congress has totally failed to provide one, wavering year-to-year on the wind energy tax credit. This indecisiveness is costing Arkansas, and America, jobs."

    The Wilderness Society issued a release on Rep. Schakowsky's bill saying, "Without a long-term extension of the PTC, we will see investments in wind energy projects dry up and they will be abandoned across the country. This would be disastrous for the renewable energy industry and the economy as a whole as the wind energy industry is a vital, growing part of the economy. Oil and gas development is a major issue confronting our public lands. But it is important to remember that renewable energy on public lands have large impacts as well. That is why The Wilderness Society has long advocated a "Smart from the Start" policy when it comes to energy development on public lands. While we certainly support a transition from a fossil fuel based economy to one that is focused on clean and renewable energy, as an organization we are continuing to make sure that these renewable energy projects are directed to low impact places that do not spoil our wild lands and important habitats. This bill displays the folly of giving tax breaks to an industry that has claimed over a trillion dollars in profits over the last decade but it also helps a growing industry that is moving our economy away from a fossil fuels based one to a clean energy one."

    Access a release from Rep. Schakowsky (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2539 (click here). Access a release from Nordex (click here). Access a release from AWEA (click here). Access a release from the Wilderness Society with links to further information (click here). [#Energy/Wind, #Energy/Renewable]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

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