NAS Report On Identifying & Destroying Buried Chemical Munitions

Aug 6: The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council has issued a new report indicating that the current approach for identifying and destroying buried chemical munitions and related chemical warfare materials uncovered during environmental remediation projects is neither reliable enough nor has the capability to efficiently tackle large-scale projects. An alternative or modified approach is needed to remediate the Redstone Arsenal and other such projects on active and former U.S. Department of Defense sites and ranges. The Redstone Arsenal facility in Alabama -- the site with the largest quantity of buried CWM in the U.S., and which has groundwater contamination -- is presented as a case study to show how issues raised in the report can be practically applied. 

   

    Following a 1985 directive from Congress, the Army has undertaken the monumental task of destroying the existing U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons. To date, 90 percent of the stockpile has been destroyed, and the remaining 10 percent is expected to be destroyed by 2022. However, during the early- to mid-20th century, chemical weapons and chemical warfare materiel were often disposed of by open pit burning and burial at approximately 250 sites in 40 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories. Remediation of this buried materiel, in addition to environmental cleanup of the burial sites, therefore poses significant challenges to the nation and DOD. The report examines important regulatory issues that ultimately affect the need, timing, and costs of remediating these sites. Federal and state environmental remediation policies address whether buried CWM must be excavated and destroyed or contained in place.

 

    Additionally, the report recommends that the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Army each select a single office to manage and fund recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM) remediation activities for DOD. Currently, authority and funding for RCWM activities depend on how and where the materiel is discovered, and could fall under multiple offices of either the secretary of defense or the Army Secretariat. The report indicates that the Army mission for RCWM remediation is turning into a much larger program that will rival those for conventional munition and hazardous substance cleanup and is expected to cost billions of dollars over several years. A clear organizational structure and long-term funding are needed.  

 

    The report calls for the secretary of the Army to establish a new position at the level of the senior executive service (civilian) or a general officer (military) to lead the RCWM program. The secretary should delegate full responsibility and accountability for RCWM program performance to this person, including for planning, budgeting, and execution and for day-to-day oversight, guidance, management, and direction of the program. 

 

    To destroy any intact chemical munitions uncovered during remediation efforts, teams will most likely use either the Army's Explosive Destruction System (EDS) or one of three commercially available technologies. The EDS is an effective and reliable technology, and the Army has an active research and development program under way to improve the throughput rate, or speed at which chemicals can be identified. The three commercially available destruction technologies have higher throughput rates, but reliability problems were encountered when one of these -- the Dynasafe Static Detonation Chamber -- was recently used to destroy a portion of stockpiled munitions in Anniston, AL. The report recommends ways to alleviate these problems and suggests alternatives to the EDS and commercial systems. Also explored is the potential use of robotic systems to access and remove buried CWM.

 

    The lack of an accurate inventory of buried munitions and of a reliable cost estimate for the RCWM program makes it difficult to establish precise, long-term budget requirements and draw up a funding plan for an RCWM program going forward that has the level of certainty typically associated with DOD project implementation. The report recommends as a "matter of urgency" that the secretary of defense increase funding for the remediation of chemical warfare materiel to enable the Army to complete the inventories of known and suspected buried chemical munitions no later than 2013 and develop a quantitative basis for overall funding of the program, with updates as needed to facilitate accurate budget forecasts. Pending establishment of a final RCWM management structure, this task should be assigned to the director of the Army's Chemical Materials Agency as chair of the provisional RCWM integrating office.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access the complete 144-page report and related information (click here). [#Remed, #Haz, #Water]

 

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

U.S. Settles With Gibson Guitar On Lacey Act Violations

Aug 6: The U.S. Department of Justice announced that Gibson Guitar Corp. entered into a criminal enforcement agreement with the U.S. resolving a criminal investigation into allegations that the company violated the Lacey Act by illegally purchasing and importing ebony wood from Madagascar and rosewood and ebony from India. The agreement was announced by Assistant Attorney General Ignacia S. Moreno of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, Jerry Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee and Dan Ashe, Director of the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

 

    According to a release, the criminal enforcement agreement defers prosecution for criminal violations of the Lacey Act and requires Gibson to pay a penalty amount of $300,000. The agreement further provides for a community service payment of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to be used to promote the conservation, identification and propagation of protected tree species used in the musical instrument industry and the forests where those species are found. Gibson will also implement a compliance program designed to strengthen its compliance controls and procedures. In related civil forfeiture actions, Gibson will withdraw its claims to the wood seized in the course of the criminal investigation, including Madagascar ebony from shipments with a total invoice value of $261,844.

           

    In light of Gibson's acknowledgement of its conduct, its duties under the Lacey Act and its promised cooperation and remedial actions, the government will decline charging Gibson criminally in connection with Gibson's order, purchase or importation of ebony from Madagascar and ebony and rosewood from India, provided that Gibson fully carries out its obligations under the agreement, and commits no future violations of law, including Lacey Act violations.

 

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Ashe noted, "The Lacey Act's illegal logging provisions were enacted with bipartisan support in Congress to protect vanishing foreign species and forest ecosystems, while ensuring a level playing field for America's forest products industry and the people and communities who depend on it. We're pleased that Gibson Guitar Corp. has recognized its duties under the Lacey Act to guard against the acquisition of wood of illegal origin from threatened forests and has taken responsibility for actions that may have contributed to the unlawful export and exploitation of wood from some of the world's most threatened forests."

 

    Since May 2008, it has been illegal under the Lacey Act to import into the United States plants and plant products (including wood) that have been harvested and exported in violation of the laws of another country. Congress extended the protections of the Lacey Act, the nation's oldest resource protection law, to these products in an effort to address the environmental and economic impact of illegal logging around the world.

 

    Gibson Guitar CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz commented on the settlement saying, "We felt compelled to settle as the costs of proving our case at trial would have cost millions of dollars and taken a very long time to resolve. This allows us to get back to the business of making guitars. An important part of the settlement is that we are getting back the materials seized in a second armed raid on our factories and we have formal acknowledgement that we can continue to source rosewood and ebony fingerboards from India, as we have done for many decades."

    The Gibson release states, "Despite the fact that, '...the government acknowledges that Gibson has cooperated with the Government and the investigation conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service', Gibson was subject to two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, the production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband, and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

    Juszkiewicz continued, "We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted, and a matter that could have been addressed with a simple contact a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means with the full force of the U.S. Government and several armed law enforcement agencies costing the tax payer millions of dollars and putting a job creating U.S.manufacture[r] at risk and at a competitive disadvantage. This shows the increasing trend on the part of government to criminalize rules and regulations and treat U.S. businesses in the same way drug dealers are treated. This is wrong and it is unfair. I am committed to working hard to correct the inequity that the law allows and insure there is fairness, due process, and the law is used for its intended purpose of stopping bad guys and stopping the very real deforestation of our planet."

    Gibson published the full agreement and an attached Statement of Facts that both the Government and Gibson agreed and a list of possible questions and answers from the company. Gibson invited anyone to "independently draw their own conclusions."

    Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) issued a release applauding the settlement. Rep. Markey said, "Gibson's admission of wrongdoing is a win for the Lacey Act, a win for US jobs and a win for consumers who can be assured that illegally trafficked 'blood wood' won't be used to make their guitars. Gibson, the Tea Party and House Republicans attempted to gut the Lacey Act by changing the law in Congress before the case against the guitar maker was resolved. I commend the hard and deliberate work of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Justice Department to bring this case to a close. I thank the U.S. hardwood and paper industries, who stood up for keeping jobs in America, rather than allowing cheap, illegal wood products from other countries to flood the market. I would also like to praise Sting, Dave Matthews Band, and Guster, along with the multitude of musicians and other individuals who stood up for the Lacey Act and who pledged to use legal, sustainable musical instruments. Let's keep the good tunes on good wood coming." 

 

    Rep. Blumenauer said, "This is another example of the Lacey Act working to protect valuable natural resources and positively reforming the global market for timber products. Not only has Gibson agreed to pay a penalty and forfeit its ill-gotten wood from Madagascar, but this case sends a message to other companies who think they can ignore the laws: The Lacey Act is on the job. The Lacey Act has been, and will continue to be, an effective tool in the fight to protect U.S. jobs and the environment." The Lacey Act was the focus of a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on May 8, 2012.

 

   Adam Grant, Senior Associate with World Resources Institute (WRI) issued a statement on the settlement saying, "This agreement closes an important chapter on the first major investigation and by far the most publicized cases under the 2008 amendments to the U.S. Lacey Act. The decision demonstrates that the Lacey Act has teeth. It shows that the law can be enacted with serious, but balanced penalties for violations. Fair enforcement of the Lacey Act, the world's first ban on the importation of illegally sourced wood, is important to ensure that the wood comes into the U.S. from legal sources. We are hopeful that this case will provide incentive to other wood product providers -- and their suppliers -- to engage in legal purchasing of wood and help protect endangered forests."

 

    Access a lengthy release with further details about the settlement (click here). Access the Gibson Guitar release, statement of facts, the full settlement language and list of Q&A's (click here). Access the statement from Reps. Markey & Blumenauer and link to the Pledge and musicians signing it (click here). Access the statement from WRI (click here). Access the House hearing on the Lacey Act with extensive testimony and a webcast (click here). [#Land, #Climate]

 

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

New NASA Study Links Extreme Weather & Climate Change

Aug 6: A new statistical analysis by NASA scientists, including Dr. James Hansen and colleagues, has found that Earth's land areas have become much more likely to experience an extreme summer heat wave than they were in the middle of the 20th century. The research was published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). According to a NASA posting, the statistics show that the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming. Noted climate scientists and lead author Hansen is with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

    Hansen said, "This summer people are seeing extreme heat and agricultural impacts. We're asserting that this is causally connected to global warming, and in this paper we present the scientific evidence for that." Hansen and colleagues analyzed mean summer temperatures since 1951 and showed that the odds have increased in recent decades for what they define as "hot," "very hot" and "extremely hot" summers.

    The researchers detailed how "extremely hot" summers are becoming far more routine. "Extremely hot" is defined as a mean summer temperature experienced by less than one percent of Earth's land area between 1951 and 1980, the base period for this study. But since 2006, about 10 percent of land area across the Northern Hemisphere has experienced these temperatures each summer. In 1988, Hansen first asserted that global warming would reach a point in the coming decades when the connection to extreme events would become more apparent. While some warming should coincide with a noticeable boost in extreme events, the natural variability in climate and weather can be so large as to disguise the trend.

    To distinguish the trend from natural variability, Hansen and colleagues turned to statistics. In this study, the GISS team including Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy did not focus on the causes of temperature change. Instead the researchers analyzed surface temperature data to establish the growing frequency of extreme heat events in the past 30 years, a period in which the temperature data show an overall warming trend. NASA climatologists have long collected data on global temperature anomalies, which describe how much warming or cooling regions of the world have experienced when compared with the 1951 to 1980 base period. In this study, the researchers employ a bell curve to illustrate how those anomalies are changing.

    A bell curve is a tool frequently used by statisticians and society. School teachers who grade "on the curve" use a bell curve to designate the mean score as a C, the top of the bell. The curve falls off equally to both sides, showing that fewer students receive B and D grades and even fewer receive A and F grades. Hansen and colleagues found that a bell curve was a good fit to summertime temperature anomalies for the base period of relatively stable climate from 1951 to 1980. Mean temperature is centered at the top of the bell curve. Decreasing in frequency to the left of center are "cold," "very cold" and "extremely cold" events. Decreasing in frequency to the right of center are "hot," "very hot" and "extremely hot" events.

    Plotting bell curves for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the team noticed the entire curve shifted to the right, meaning that more hot events are the new normal. The curve also flattened and widened, indicating a wider range of variability. Specifically, an average of 75 percent of land area across Earth experienced summers in the "hot" category during the past decade, compared to only 33 percent during the 1951 to 1980 base period. Widening of the curve also led to the designation of the new category of outlier events labeled "extremely hot," which were almost nonexistent in the base period.

    Hansen indicates that this summer is shaping up to fall into the new extreme category. He said, "Such anomalies were infrequent in the climate prior to the warming of the past 30 years, so statistics let us say with a high degree of confidence that we would not have had such an extreme anomaly this summer in the absence of global warming."

    Other regions around the world also have felt the heat of global warming, according to the study. Global maps of temperature anomalies show that heat waves in Texas, Oklahoma and Mexico in 2011, and in the Middle East, Western Asia and Eastern Europe in 2010 fall into the new "extremely hot" category.

 

    In an Op-Ed, published in the Washington Post on August 3, Hansen said, "This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change. . . These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.

 

    Access the NASA posting with video graphics and link to related information and data (click here). Access the Op-Ed (click here). [#Climate]

Senate Hearing On Climate Change Science & Local Adaptation

Aug 1: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) held a hearing entitled, "Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures." Witnesses providing testimony included: Professors and researchers from Carnegie Institution for Science; University of Alabama in Huntsville; and Harvard University; as well as representatives from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources; American Council for Capital Formation; and National Association of County & City Health Officials. Senator Boxer is a strong believer in climate change science and greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory controls, while Senator Inhofe is the most outspoken Congressional critic of the science behind climate change and regulation of GHG.

 

    In her opening statement, Senator Boxer said in part, "Climate change is real, human activities are the primary cause, and the warming planet poses a significant risk to people and the environment. To declare otherwise, in my view, is putting the American people in danger -- direct danger. The body of evidence is overwhelming, the world's leading scientists agree, and predictions of climate change impacts are coming true before our eyes. The purpose of this hearing is to share with the Committee the mountain of scientific evidence that has increased substantially over time: time that we should have used to reduce carbon pollution - the main cause of climate change. . .

 

    "Even some former climate deniers now see the light. Just this past weekend, Professor Richard Muller - a self-proclaimed climate skeptic - wrote the following in the New York Times: 'Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.' . .

 

    "We cannot turn away from the mountain of evidence that climate change has already started to impact the planet and will only grow worse without action. Leading scientists who are testifying today on the latest science will reinforce that point. Taking action to address this serious problem will benefit us and future generations. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses."

 

    Senator Inhofe, in an opening statement said in part, "I must say it feels like we're back to the good old days. It may be hard to believe, but it was in February of 2009, during the height of the global warming alarmist movement, that this committee last held a hearing on global warming science. . . what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was that the science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finally exposed. For years I had warned that the United Nations was a political body, not a scientific body - and finally the mainstream media took notice. . . The Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global warming and one of the reasons is because they don't trust the scientists' motivations. . .

 

    "It must be very hard for my friends on the left to watch the President who promised he would slow the rise of the oceans posing in front of pipelines in my home state of Oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas. I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they know President Obama is still moving forward with his global warming agenda - he just doesn't want the American people to know about it. . .

 

    "Today we should have a fascinating debate.  I want to thank climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the Committee to provide his insights. I am also looking forward to the testimony of Dr. Margo Thorning, a noted economist who will discuss the economic pain of the Obama EPA's current regulations. . ."

    Dr. Christopher B. Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science; Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth Science Stanford University testified saying, "As the U.S. copes with the aftermath of last year's record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year's massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear. Overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that, 'A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.' . . .

 

    "In summary, there is no doubt that climate has changed and that changes will continue in the future, with human emissions of heat-trapping gases playing a major role. There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risk of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster. It is only by understanding those risks in the most clear-headed, objective way possible that we, as a nation, can make good decisions about the challenges of protecting and enhancing our natural legacy, our economy, and our people."

 

    Dr. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor, Director of Earth System Science Center, Department of Atmospheric Science
University of Alabama in Huntsville delivered a lengthy 22-page testimony and said, "It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central U.S. drought, are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally. The recent "extremes" were exceeded in previous decades. . .

 

    "Coal use, which generates a major portion of CO2 emissions, will continue to rise as indicated by the Energy Information Administration's chart below. Developing countries in Asia already burn more than twice the coal that North America does, and that discrepancy will continue to expand. The fact our legislative actions will be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things can be seen by noting that these actions attempt to bend the blue curve for North American down a little, and that's all. So, downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere.

 

    "Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization's main energy sources, then compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered that must address, for example, ways to help poor countries develop affordable

energy. Climate change alone is a weak leg on which to stand to justify a centrally planned, massive change in energy production, infrastructure and cost."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to statements, testimony and a webcast (click here). [#Climate]

 

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

House GOP Report On Solyndra & DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Aug 2: The House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans released an extensive report detailing the findings of its investigation into the Department of Energy's (DOE's) management of its loan guarantee program. The 147-page report chronicles the committee's 18-month investigation into what Republicans called DOE's failed $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, which included the review of over 300,000 pages of documents, interviews with numerous individuals, and five committee oversight hearings. The report was released following the committee's approval yesterday of the "No More Solyndras Act," legislation authored by full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) to ensure taxpayers will never again be left on the hook for risky bets like Solyndra or other stimulus failures [See WIMS 7/13/12].

    The report states, "Now, after a thorough review of the record, the Committee is able to present a complete picture of the facts and circumstances surrounding the DOE's decision to award a loan guarantee to Solyndra, and the roles various Executive Branch agencies, including the White House, played in these events."

    According to a Republican release, the report details the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation and the committee's conclusions. "The evidence demonstrates administration officials knew Solyndra was a bad bet from the beginning, but the White House was determined to make Solyndra a stimulus success story at any cost. Despite repeated warnings that Solyndra was doomed to fail, the Obama administration went ahead in backing the solar company, cutting corners in the process, and rushed the loan guarantee out the door. The investigation also found DOE knowingly violated the law when it restructured the terms of the loan guarantee and subordinated taxpayers' interest to the interests of private investors.

    "Documents obtained by the committee exposed a startling relationship between Solyndra and another stimulus-backed project. The report details Solyndra's role as a supplier for Prologis' Project Amp, a solar panel installation project and the recipient of a partial loan guarantee for $1.4 billion. The White House was well aware of Solyndra's deteriorating financial condition when it allowed DOE to move forward with Project Amp.  DOE would later use the relationship between Project Amp and Solyndra as a key bargaining tool to push for a second restructuring while directly engaging in last minute negotiations between Solyndra and the Project Amp sponsor."

    The release also indicates that the report also gives an in-depth look into "the role played by one of President Obama's prominent backers in the administration's decision to issue the loan guarantee and the loan's restructuring that put taxpayers behind two private investors. Key decision makers at DOE, including head of the loans program office Jonathan Silver, knew of billionaire George Kaiser's influence and attempted to leverage it." According to the report, "Individuals connected to the George Kaiser Family Foundation (GKFF) -- whose primary investment arm, Argonaut, was Solyndra's largest shareholder -- played important roles in a series of critical discussions and negotiations with DOE. George Kaiser, whose fortune funds the GKFF, was closely involved in financial decisions related to Solyndra, often authorizing key disbursements and restructuring proposals, as well as in Solyndra's lobbying, public relations, and government procurement strategies in Washington."

    Chairman Upton said, "Solyndra will be remembered in the history books as a sad hallmark of a newly installed administration that felt it was above the rules, lusting for positive headlines rather than focused on delivering results. We now know the first domino of the Solyndra mess was DOE cutting the Treasury Department out of the approval process in the rush to send what will go down as the most expensive press release known to man. Now, Solyndra is a painful reminder of why the federal government should not be in the venture capital business. Our investigation revealed a shocking episode where politics were put before taxpayers and integrity was sacrificed for the sake of corporate favoritism. We discovered the problem, and now we reported legislation to correct the situation in The No More Solyndras Act to ensure that taxpayers will never again be the victims of the administration's blind political ambition and gross negligence."
 
    Representative Stearns said, "What was once the poster child for the administration's green energy spending plan, Solyndra is now a symbol of President Obama's failed stimulus economy. Our investigation uncovered a political saga starring key White House officials and big Obama donors. The story reaches a turning point when DOE subordinates taxpayers to outside funding and then Solyndra files for bankruptcy, laying off employees and leaving taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars. While this may make for a great Hollywood drama, it is a disturbing truth for taxpayers. We must ensure that the Solyndra story is never repeated."

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a release saying, "Energy and Commerce Republicans today released their 'report' on their specious probe into the solar firm Solyndra. He said, "Mitt Romney and Republicans in Congress are trying to deliver a knockout blow to clean energy through this one-two punch of investigating solar companies and forcing wind companies to lay off 40,000 workers. At the same time, they are protecting tens of billions of dollars in handouts to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries that are supporting their campaigns. The Solyndra investigation hasn't uncovered a scandal, but instead has created a symbol for Republicans to appease their fossil fuel fundraisers and eliminate competition for oil, coal and nuclear energy."

 

    Rep. Markey indicated in a release that, "Republican hypocrisy over their stated goal of oversight and the picking of winners and losers in the energy market was put on display yesterday when [he] offered an amendment to the 'No More Solyndras Act' that was passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. His amendment would have eliminated the loan guarantee program entirely, unlike the Republican bill which grandfathers more than $100 billion in applications that are still in the pipeline for nuclear, coal and other energy projects. All but three Committee Republicans voted against the amendment."

 

    Rep. Markey also offered other amendments to prevent the Department of Energy from awarding loan guarantees to troubled nuclear projects favored by Republicans that were also defeated. He indicated that these included amendments to prevent loan guarantees from being awarded to companies threatened with delisting from stock exchanges (such as the United States Enrichment Corporation, which has a $2 billion loan guarantee application pending), companies whose net losses in the past year exceed the $535 million value of the Solyndra loan guarantee (such as the United States Enrichment Corporation) and companies whose projects are already more than $535 million over budget (such as Georgia Power Company, which has had its $8.3 billion nuclear loan guarantee application conditionally approved). He said Republicans also rejected an amendment to ensure that 75 percent of each project's loan guarantee funds are not used to outsource jobs, a charge levied by Republicans against the Obama Administration's clean energy programs.

 

    Access a Republican release with a summary of findings and link to the complete report (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the Republican Committee website on markup of the H.R.6213 and other bills including voting details, statements, videos, etc. (click here). Access the Democrats Committee website with similar information (click here). [#Energy/Solar, #Energy/Wind]

 

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

Obama & Romney Clear Differences On Wind Energy PTC

Jul 31: The Governors' Wind Energy Coalition (GWEC) issued a release highlighting that "Mitt Romney's presidential campaign came out yesterday (July 30) with its strongest opposition to date on extending a key wind industry tax credit, saying the presumptive Republican nominee will allow it 'to expire' and tying the issue to broader opposition to President Obama's support for renewable energy." GWEC said, "Romney had not shied away from criticizing Obama's support for renewable energy -- highlighting the loan guarantee to now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, among other issues, at numerous campaign stops this year -- but the candidate until yesterday had avoided taking a firm position on the production tax credit [PTC] for wind, which is set to expire at the end of the year.

    According to the GWEC release, Romney's campaign said in a statement on July 30, "The President may believe that his economic plan 'worked' and that America wants to repeat the experience for another four years, but the facts don't back that up. Mitt Romney believes it is a time for a new approach to ensure our nation's energy independence. . . He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits. . . Wind energy will thrive wherever it is economically competitive, and wherever private sector competitors with far more experience than the President believe the investment will produce results." Member states of the GWEC include: AK, CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, NT, NM, NY, ND, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, & WA.

    Regarding energy issues, the Romney campaign website indicates that, "As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of 'green' jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation. The 'green' technologies are typically far too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and studies have shown that for every 'green' job created there are actually more jobs destroyed. Unsurprisingly, this costly government investment has failed to create an economic boom."

    Earlier in the day on Jul 30, GWEC indicates the Obama campaign targeted Romney's lack of support for wind energy in a conference call with officials from Iowa, Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- all swing states -- and a memo outlining the industry's contribution to the economy, citing industry estimates that the credit's expiration will cost 37,000 jobs nationwide. The industry supports 7,000 jobs in Iowa, 5,000 in Colorado, 6,000 in Ohio and 3,000 to 4,000 in Pennsylvania, according to the Obama campaign memo. The memo indicates, "In our states, windmills aren't imaginary. Wind energy is a real job creator and energy producer. For states like ours with storied manufacturing supply chains, wind energy is an emerging industry that's producing next-generation good-paying, manufacturing, middle-class jobs."

    GWEC reports on the Congressional activity regarding the PTC indicating that members of the Senate Finance Committee, which is aiming to produce an "extenders" package, met again to negotiate what provisions would be included in such a bill. Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said after the meeting that the members had continued to make progress toward a deal, but he would not say whether a bill would be marked up this week before the Senate adjourns for its August recess. Other reports indicate that the Senate is set to vote tomorrow on tax-extenders legislation that would keep the PTC in place, and keep the wind industry growing.

    The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) issue a release saying it was "disappointed that the Romney campaign has come out with an anti-wind stance, particularly in Iowa, the state that gets 20% of its power from wind and the state with more major manufacturing facilities than any other." AWEA said that according to a statement to the Des Moines Register, the presidential candidate supports letting the very popular and bipartisan wind industry Production Tax Credit expire at the end of this year. A poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for the American Wind Energy Association, shows that "an overwhelming majority of Iowa voters would be less likely to support an anti-wind candidate for office." A summary of bipartisan support for the PTC prepared by AWEA on June 27, indicates:

• Supporters in both parties have been raising this issue since late last year as an urgent action item for Congress, including more than 100 cosponsors of HR 3307 (almost a quarter of them Republicans) and S 2201.
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau, and Edison Electric Institute are among over 400 organizations and companies endorsing the PTC extension.
• A bipartisan coalition of 23 governors led by Gov. Terry Branstad (R-Iowa) supports extending the PTC. Gov. Branstad recently wrote The Wall Street Journal on its economic benefits.
• Republican, Democratic and Independent voters broadly support wind power and its expansion.
• Highlighting the bipartisan nature of wind power was a recent dialogue between Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, and Robert Gibbs, former Press Secretary and advisor to President Obama at WINDPOWER 2012 in Atlanta, GA. As Rove stated, "You don't need moderates to get this done. You need conservative Republicans who say this means jobs to my district and a resource we've got plenty of. And you need Democrats to say this is a way to expand the range of options that we have as a country for energy."

    AWEA indicates that the 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour PTC only applies to projects that succeed in putting electricity on the grid. It expires December 31, 2012, unless Congress extends it. The PTC has not been allowed to expire since 2005, when President George W. Bush signed it into law as part of the Energy Policy Act. This successful policy over the past five years has incentivized $15.5 billion a year on average in private investment in the U.S. U.S. domestic content has expanded from 25% to over 60% today. Wind has installed 35% of all U.S. electric generating capacity, a close second to natural gas.

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune released a statement saying, "We'd all heard Romney had a history of shipping American jobs overseas, but this is just proof that he's for eliminating them altogether. Even with tens of thousands of American jobs on the line in the very states he needs to win in November, Romney is more interested in padding the profits of his big polluter campaign donors than helping American workers stay in their jobs. Romney has billionaire polluters financing his campaign, calling the shots on his policies, and even serving as his surrogates. So, it's no surprise that he's siding with big oil and big coal, and turning his back on a bipartisan effort to keep tens of thousands of Americans at work in wind energy jobs that protect our air, our water, and the health of our families. By opposing the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit, Mitt Romney has made it abundantly clear: he is not serious about creating American jobs."

    Access the lengthy report from the GWEC (click here). Access the Romney energy plan (click here). Access a release and Iowa polling results from AWEA (click here). Access the summary of bipartisan support from AWEA and facts about wind energy (click here). Access the Sierra Club statement (click here). Access the AWEA website for more information (click here). [#Energy/Wind, #Energy/Renewable]

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

House Subcommittee Forums On Clean Air Act Issues

Jul 31: Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, announced bipartisan forums on today (July 31), and on Thursday, August 2, to examine state, local, and Federal cooperation in the Clean Air Act. The forums are intended to provide an opportunity for members of Congress to hear a broad range of perspectives from experts about their experiences in implementing the Clean Air Act.

    Rep. Whitfield said, "During my time as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, we have had numerous hearings on specific rules under the Clean Air Act and we have passed a number of bills relating to those rules. The goal of these forums is not to talk about legislation or focus on any specific rule or provision of the Act, but rather to foster a broad, bipartisan discussion about the law. We will hear from experts who live with this Act every day, about their experience implementing the law and coordinating with the various levels of government that share responsibility for our nation's air quality."

    Today's forum began at 2:00 PM. The participants for today's meeting included representatives from: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality; Indiana Department of Environmental Management; New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG); Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency; and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Additionally, a brief statement was submitted by a number of environmental groups including: Center for Biological Diversity; Conservation Law Foundation; Earthjustice; League of Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; and US Climate Action Network. Thursday's forum will also begin at 2:00 PM and includes representative from: AZ, TX, South Coast Air Quality Management District, DE, Dayton Regional Air Pollution Control Agency; OH, and Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

    Participant were requested to respond to a list of 6 questions including:

• In your agency's experience implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA), what is working well? What is not working well?
• Do state and local governments have sufficient autonomy and flexibility to address local conditions and needs?
• Does the current system balance federal, state, and tribal roles to provide timely, accurate permitting for business activities, balancing environment protection and economic growth?
• Does the CAA support a reasonable and effective mechanism for federal, state, tribal and local cooperation through State Implementation Plans? How could the mechanism be improved?
• Are cross-state air pollution issues coordinated well under the existing framework?
• Are there other issues, ideas or concerns relating to the role of federalism under the CAA that you would like to discuss?

    Access the Forum website and link to the today's Participant responses, the environmental group statement, and a video at the conclusion (click here). Access a list of Participants and responses for the August 2 Forum (click here). [#Air, #MIAir]

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

DOI Announces Alaska Energy Management Decisions

Jul 30: Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI) David Hayes announced two new efforts to further strengthen the role of science in resource management decisions regarding both onshore and offshore energy development activities in Alaska. The Administration, through the Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, established by Executive Order in July 2011, will begin work to establish a centralized hub of scientific information to help inform decision-makers and the public. The Alaska Working Group will also prepare a framework for building a more integrated approach to evaluating potential infrastructure development in the Alaskan Arctic. The initiatives are outlined further in a memorandum (see link below).

    Hayes, who serves as chair of the Alaska Interagency Working Group said, "The federal government must take a comprehensive, science-based approach when addressing energy and other development issues in the Arctic -- one that recognizes both the region's enormous resource potential and its irreplaceable natural and cultural resources. Getting it right in the Arctic requires a transparent, disciplined and integrated approach so that we can make sound, long-term planning decisions. Today's efforts are important steps toward strengthening our scientific knowledge-base and opening up the lines of communication between the science community and decision-makers."

    First, according to a release, the Alaska Interagency Working Group will partner with the Arctic Research Commission and other members of the scientific community to develop a centralized and accessible database of scientific information and traditional knowledge relevant to resource management in the Arctic -- with special consideration to ensuring that cultural and traditional knowledge are fully integrated. The initiative will build upon existing data collections, such as the North Slope Science Initiative's Data Catalogue, Arctic ERMA, regional observing systems, private industry and the University of Alaska's Geographic Information Network of Alaska, and it will complement existing interagency efforts like the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, which is developing a five-year plan for Arctic research in FY 2013-2017.

    Fran Ulmer, Chair of the Arctic Research Commission said, "Pulling relevant Arctic science information together in a more accessible and consolidated portal is critical. I look forward to continuing to work with Deputy Secretary Hayes and the mix of scientists and policy-makers involved in the Alaska Interagency Working Group -- including my colleagues Dr. John Holdren, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Dr. Marcia McNutt, Dr. Subra Suresh, and Dr. Alan Thornhill, among others – to make this happen."

    Second, the Alaska Interagency Working Group will prepare an initial report to address key elements of an "Integrated Arctic Management" framework for evaluating potential infrastructure development in the Alaskan Arctic. Working closely with the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, local communities and the many agencies and stakeholders that have been focusing on specific projects or regions, the framework will pull together Arctic-wide information that is relevant to future decision-making, including: (1) ecologically and culturally important areas, natural resources and processes, and key drivers of environmental changes in the Arctic; (2) trends -- environmental and otherwise -- that affect these resources over time; and (3) commercial, societal, and governmental trends that could lead to future infrastructure related needs in the Arctic.

    As a member of the eight-nation Arctic Council, the United States has embraced the concept of using this type of an "ecosystem-based management" approach to assist in making sound decisions regarding potential future infrastructure development in the Arctic. It recognizes the importance of a comprehensive approach in the Arctic, rather than evaluating activities on a sector-by-sector, project-by-project, or issue-by-issue basis.

    DOI indicated that completion of these initial key steps will lay the foundation for a full dialogue in how best to develop and apply an Integrated Arctic Management approach when making important development decisions in the Arctic. The Alaska Interagency Working Group will engage with a wide variety of governmental entities and stakeholders, including the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, local communities, industry, and conservation groups on these efforts and expects to present a report to President Obama on the initial efforts by December 31, 2012.

    Access a release from DOI (click here). Access the Memo on the initiatives (click here). Access more information on the initiative from a White House blog posting with links to further details (click here). [#Energy, #Lands]

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

Major DOE Report On Renewable Energy Potential By State

Jul 26: A new study of renewable energy's technical potential, by the Department of Energy (DOE), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), finds that every state in the nation has the space and resource to generate clean energy. NREL's study, U.S. RE Technical Potential, looks at available renewable resources in each state. It establishes an upper-boundary estimate of development potential. Economic or market restraints would factor into what projects might actually be deployed. NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

    According to a release, the report is valuable for decision-makers and utility executives because it compares estimates across six renewable energy technologies and unifies assumptions and methods. It shows the achievable energy generation of a particular technology given resource availability -- solar, wind, geothermal availability, etc. -- system performance, topographic limitations, and environmental and land-use constraints. The study includes state-level maps and tables containing available land area (square kilometers), installed capacity (gigawatts), and electric generation (gigawatt-hours) for each technology.

    NREL's Anthony Lopez, a co-author of the study said, "Decision-makers using the study will get a sense of scale regarding the potential for renewables, and which technologies are worth examining. Energy modelers also will find the study valuable." NREL's Donna Heimiller, another co-author added, "This is intended to be a living document. We'll be frequently updating the information as we get more data."

    According to the report, it is unique in unifying assumptions and application of methods employed to generate comparable estimates across technologies, where possible, to allow cross-technology comparison. Technical potential estimates for six different renewable energy technologies were calculated by NREL, and methods and results for several other renewable technologies from previously published reports are also presented.

    The report presents the state-level results of a spatial analysis calculating renewable energy technical potential, reporting available land area (square kilometers), installed capacity (gigawatts), and electric generation (gigawatt-hours) for six different renewable electricity generation technologies: utility-scale photovoltaics (both urban and rural), concentrating solar power, onshore wind power, offshore wind power, biopower, and enhanced geothermal systems. Each technology's system-specific power density (or equivalent), capacity factor, and land-use constraints were identified using published research, subject matter experts, and analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). System performance estimates rely heavily on NREL's Systems Advisor Model (SAM) and Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS), a multiregional, multi-time period, geographic information system (GIS) and linear programming model. This report also presents technical potential findings for rooftop photovoltaic, hydrothermal, and hydropower in a similar format based solely on previous published reports.

    The report notes, ". . .as a technical potential, rather than economic or market potential, these estimates do not consider availability of transmission infrastructure, costs, reliability or time-of-dispatch, current or future electricity loads, or relevant policies. Further, as this analysis does not allocate land for use by a particular technology, the same land area may be the basis for estimates of multiple technologies (i.e., non-excluded land is assumed to be available to support development of more than one technology)."

    Access a release from NREL with links to related information (click here). Access the complete report (click here). [#Energy/Renewable] 3

House Approves Expanded 5-Year OCS Plan; Senate Bill Introduced

Jul 25: U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced bipartisan legislation to expand American offshore, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), energy production with a revised five-year leasing plan and provide revenue sharing to all participating coastal states. The Offshore Petroleum Expansion Now Act of 2012 -- OPEN Act -- is co-sponsored by Senators Jim Webb (D-VA); Mark Warner  (D-VA); Mary Landrieu, (D-LA); John Hoeven (R-ND); and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). The Senate action came on the same day as the House voted, mostly along Republican party-lines to replace the Administration's 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan [See WIMS 6/29/12] with an expanded plan of their own [See WIMS 7/25/12]. The House Republican plan, included in H.R.6082, passed by a vote of 253 - 170. The Administration's plan, included in H.R.6168 failed to pass by a vote of 164 - 261.

    The Senate bill, S.3438, bill provides what Senator Murkowski calls "a common-sense alternative to the President's proposed 2012-2017 offshore plan," which included just 12 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, one in Alaska's Cook Inlet, and the potential for two sales in Alaska's Arctic. The OPEN Act would add an additional dozen lease sales to that list, and includes multiple area-wide sales in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 

    Under current law, the President must submit his five-year plan to Congress for a mandatory 60-day review. Senator Murkowski and other critics of the President's proposal point out that the President's plan excludes nearly 90 percent of America's outer continental shelf. When DOI/BOEM introduced the Administration plan on June 28, they indicated, "As is mandated by the OCS Lands Act, the Proposed Final Program has been submitted to Congress. The Secretary may implement the Program in 60 days, however no further action is needed prior to its implementation, and BOEM is on track to hold the first sale under the new program later this year." On July 23, BOEM announced more than 20 million acres offshore Texas for oil and gas exploration and development in a lease sale scheduled to take place in New Orleans on November 28, 2012 [See WIMS 7/24/12].

    Sen. Murkowski said, "The OPEN Act sends a clear message that America is serious about developing its energy resources to fuel an economic recovery. This bill will not only improve our energy security and create jobs, it also ensures that states receive a fair share of the revenue generated off their coastlines." Sen. Landrieu said, "This legislation would replace the administration's shortsighted five-year plan for drilling in the OCS, and instead allow the U.S. to tap into the vast oil and gas potential off our coasts. In addition to creating jobs and giving the U.S. economy a much needed boost through increased energy production revenues, this bill includes revenue sharing for coastal states that produce essential energy resources for our country, something that is lacking in other drilling legislation."

    Sen. Webb, who has repeatedly called for Virginia's inclusion in the administration's five-year oil and gas leasing plan said, "I have long advocated opening up more of the nation's outer continental shelf resources to responsible natural gas and oil exploration. Energy exploration and subsequent production within the Virginia Outer Continental Shelf -- if coupled with environmental protections and an equitable formula for sharing revenues between the state and federal governments -- would boost domestic energy supplies, while benefiting the Commonwealth's economy."

    In addition to the sales off Alaska's northern coast, the OPEN Act adds lease sales off the mid-Atlantic coast and allows exploration from existing infrastructure in Southern California. It also provides revenue sharing (37.5 percent) to any state with energy production off its coast. The revenue sharing language is technology neutral, covering all forms of energy production, including offshore wind energy.

    Access a release from Senator Murkowski with more comments from cosponsors (click here). Access legislative details for S.3438 (click here). [#Energy/OCS]

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

DEMS & GOP Stark Differences In Debate Over OCS Drilling Plan

Jul 23: The Republican-controlled U.S. House is considering legislation related to oil and gas development offshore on the outer continental shelf (OCS). Up or down votes are planned on the Administration's proposal or a much expanded Republican alternative plan. The votes are expected later today (see contacts below) [See WIMS 6/29/12].

 

    The White House has issued a formal Statement of Administrative Policy on H.R.6082, the Congressional Replacement of the President's Offshore Drilling Plan bill, introduced by Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. The bill is currently under consideration on the House Floor. The bill would "officially replace, within the 60-day Congressional review period under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation, and increased domestic energy production to ensure a more secure energy future in the United States, and for other purposes." The Administration's Policy Statement indicates:

"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6082, which would undermine the targeted, science-based, and regionally-tailored offshore development strategy that the American people and the States have helped develop over the last three years.

 

"The Administration is committed to promoting safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy to increase domestic production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The Administration's recently announced five-year strategy for offshore oil and gas leasing makes areas containing more than 75 percent of estimated, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in our oceans available for exploration and development -- including all of the highest resource areas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This plan was developed following extensive input from the public, industry, States, Tribes, and others, and incorporates lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

 

"H.R. 6082 would require the Department of the Interior to open a number of new areas on the OCS. This action would be directed without Secretarial discretion to determine whether those areas are appropriate for leasing through balanced consideration of factors such as resource potential, State and local views and concerns, and the maturity of infrastructure needed to support oil and gas development, including in the event of an oil spill. The bill would mandate OCS lease sales along the east and west coast and elsewhere without regard for significant issues such as State and local concerns and impacts on important fishing areas and with inadequate consideration of military use conflicts.

 

"The bill also would establish unworkable deadlines and substantive and procedural limitations on important environmental review and other analysis that is critical to complying with laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act. Full compliance with these laws is important for the protection of citizens, communities, and the environment and is necessary in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. If the President were presented with H.R. 6082, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

    Chairman Hastings issue a Floor statement saying:

"Under the shadow of the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare, the Obama Administration on June 28^th quietly announced the President's proposed final offshore drilling plan for 2012-2017. Despite claims of being proud of their energy record, the Obama Administration deliberately chose to announce their plan on a day when it would get buried in Obamacare news coverage. This shows that even the Obama Administration is not proud of their plan that would place 85 percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to energy production.

"Under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act, when any President proposes a new five-year offshore drilling plan it must be submitted to Congress for a mandatory 60-day review before it can become final and take effect. That 60-day clock is ticking. It's now Congress' responsibility to take action -- to reject President Obama's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan and to replace it with a robust, responsible plan to safely develop our offshore energy resources. According to analysis conducted by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the President has proposed fewer lease sales in his plan than any President since the process began. President Obama rates worse than even Jimmy Carter.

"President Obama's proposal doesn't open one new area for leasing and energy production. It would set our nation's energy production back to the days before 2008 when two moratoria prohibited drilling of the vast majority of America's offshore areas. Both moratoria were lifted after the summer of 2008 due to the outrage of the American people over the cost of four-dollar-per-gallon gasoline – and they demanded that the federal government take action. President Obama proposes to effectively re-impose the moratoria.

"From nearly the day he took the oath of office, President Obama has put the brakes on new American energy production and job creation. In the first weeks of the Administration, the Interior Department took a nearly complete new offshore lease plan and put it on hold for six-months, and then tossed that draft plan out entirely and started over. It took them over three and half years to get a new proposed plan in place. Along the way, they delayed and canceled multiple lease sales.

"For example, President Obama canceled the Virginia lease sale scheduled for 2011 and now refuses to include Virginia in his 2012-2017 plan. He is responsible for closing an entire new area to drilling and cheating the Commonwealth out of thousands of jobs. If President Obama has his way, Virginia will be left out in the cold until 2017 at the absolute soonest.

"The bill being considered today, H.R. 6082, is titled the 'Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-limiting Offshore Drilling Plan.' In stark contrast to President Obama's plan, this bill represents a drill-smart plan that includes 29 lease sales and focuses energy production in specific areas containing America's greatest known oil and natural gas resources. The bill would replace the lease sales schedule in the President's proposed plan and safely open new areas that were previously under moratoria -- such as the Mid-Atlantic, Southern Pacific and Arctic. It does this while ensuring that necessary and required environmental reviews are conducted. The Congressional replacement plan would generate $600 million in additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new American jobs.

"Tomorrow there will be a direct up or down vote on the President's proposed plan when we consider H.R. 6168 [also introduced by Rep. Hastings] under suspension of the rules. There will also be a direct up or down vote on this bill to replace it. Members can decide if the President's plan meets the standards expected by the American people or if we should replace it with a real plan to create jobs and grow our economy.

"The House is taking action to replace the President's proposed plan and I call on the Senate to do the same. If the Senate does nothing and lets the 60-day clock run out, that is an endorsement of the President's plan. It's an endorsement of a plan that re-imposes the drilling moratoria, creates no-new jobs and no-new energy. For the Senators of Virginia, it's an endorsement of a plan that forfeits energy production and job creation in the Commonwealth for at least another five years. We can do better than the President's proposed plan, and our Nation deservers better. By passing this bill, we are standing up for American energy and American jobs and moving our country forward."

        Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee issued a release highly critical of the Republican members consideration of "Big Oil" legislation. He indicated that "House Republicans have stalled Congress with nearly 100 hours of debate on oil drilling bills, passing 11 drilling bills out of the Natural Resources Committee and turning them into 6 massive packages of giveaways to Big Oil. Today's Republican 'Oil Above All' monstrosity, the sixth package to be voted on in the House this Congress, opens up America's coasts to drilling without setting any new safety standards."

    He indicated that in response to this agenda, Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee launched a new website called "Big Oil Congress" that keeps a counter of votes cast by House Republicans to benefit oil and gas companies ("139, as of the start of today's bill") and total hours spent debating these special interest favors ("89 hours and counting").

    Rep. Markey said in part, "And all of these bills have suffered the same fate. They were all far too extreme to pass the Senate and not a single one has been signed into law. Well, let me let everyone in on a little secret, this bill is also not becoming law. Like the bills before it, it can't pass the Senate and the Administration has already said that the President would veto it. But that reality hasn't stopped the Republican House from passing giveaways to the oil and gas industry over and over again. When you include bills that have been reported by all Committees, all together, this Republican House has already cast 139 votes on the Floor this Congress to benefit the oil and gas industry. We are going to pass 90 hours of debate on the Floor on oil and gas legislation this Congress. What a streak!"

UPDATE: 2:43 PM. On passage H.R.6082: Passed by recorded vote: 253 - 170 (Roll Call Vote no. 511).

UPDATE: 2:51 PM. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R.6168; Failed by the
Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 164 - 261 (Roll Call Vote no. 512).

    Access the Administration Policy Statement (click here). Access the House Floor activities website to track today's voting (click here). Access the statement and video from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the Democrat's website on oil & gas voting (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.6168 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.6082 (click here). [#Energy/OCS]

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

GAO Finds Substantial EGU Noncompliance With NSR

Jul 23: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a new report entitled, Air Pollution: EPA Needs Better Information on New Source Review Permits (GAO-12-590, Jun 22, 2012). The report was requested by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

 

    In background information GAO indicates that electricity generating units (EGUs) that burn fossil fuels supply most of the nation's electricity and are major sources of air pollution. Under the Clean Air Act, such units are subject to New Source Review (NSR), a permitting process that applies to: (1) units built after August 7, 1977; and (2) existing units that undertake a major modification. Owners of such units must obtain from the appropriate permitting agency a preconstruction permit that sets emission limits and requires the use of certain pollution control technologies. U.S. EPA oversees states' implementation of NSR, including reviewing and commenting on draft permits issued by state and local permitting agencies. GAO was asked to examine: (1) what information EPA maintains on NSR permits issued to fossil fuel electricity generating units; (2) challenges, if any, that EPA, state, and local agencies face in ensuring compliance with requirements to obtain NSR permits; and (3) what available data show about compliance with requirements to obtain NSR permits. GAO reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed EPA, state, and local officials, as well as representatives from industry, research, and environmental groups.

 

    GAO found that EPA does not maintain complete information on NSR permits issued to fossil fuel electricity generating units. State and local permitting agencies track the NSR permits they issue, but EPA does not maintain complete or centralized information on permits, despite a 2006 recommendation by the National Research Council (NRC) that it do so. EPA maintains several databases that compile data on draft and issued NSR permits, but these sources are incomplete and thus cannot be used to identify all of the NSR permits that have been issued nationwide. In addition, EPA has the opportunity to review and comment on every draft NSR permit issued by state and local permitting agencies, but it does not compile data on whether the permitting agencies address EPA's comments in final permits. The absence of more complete information on NSR permitting makes it difficult to know which units have obtained NSR permits or to assess how state and local permitting agencies vary from EPA in their interpretations of NSR requirements.

 

    GAO indicates that officials from EPA, state, and local agencies face challenges in ensuring that owners of fossil fuel electricity generating units comply with requirements to obtain NSR permits. Many of these challenges stem from two overarching issues. First (1), in some cases it is difficult to determine whether an NSR permit is required. NSR applicability depends on, among other factors, whether a change to a unit qualifies as routine maintenance, repair, and replacement; and whether the change results in a significant net increase in emissions. The rules governing NSR are complex, however, and applicability is determined on a case-by-case basis. Second (2), it is often difficult to identify noncompliance -- instances where unit owners made a major modification without first obtaining an NSR permit -- partly because owners of generating units determine whether a permit is needed, and in many cases their determinations are not reviewed by permitting agencies or EPA. State permitting agencies generally issue NSR permits, but EPA typically leads enforcement efforts, since identifying instances of noncompliance involves extensive investigations that go beyond the routine inspections conducted by state and local permitting agencies. EPA identifies NSR noncompliance through a lengthy, resource-intensive process that involves reviewing large amounts of information on units' past emissions and construction activities.

 

    Available data on compliance, although incomplete, suggest that "a substantial number of generating units did not comply with requirements to obtain NSR permits." Complete NSR compliance data do not exist for two main reasons: (1) EPA has not yet investigated all generating units for compliance; and (2) NSR compliance is determined at a point in time, and in some cases Federal courts have disagreed with EPA about the need for an NSR permit. Nonetheless, EPA has investigated most coal-fired generating units at least once, and has alleged noncompliance at more than half of the units it investigated. Specifically, of the 831 units EPA investigated, 467 units were ultimately issued notices of violation, had complaints filed in court, or were included in settlement agreements. In total, EPA reached 22 settlements covering 263 units, which will require affected unit owners to, among other things, install around $12.8 billion in emissions controls. These settlements will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by an estimated 1.8 million tons annually, and nitrogen oxides by an estimated 596,000 tons annually.

 

    GAO recommends that EPA, among other actions, consider ways to develop a centralized source of data on NSR permits issued to electricity generating units. EPA expressed its commitment to filling gaps in its data systems, but disagreed with the actions GAO recommended. GAO believes that its recommendations would enhance oversight of NSR permitting and enforcement.

 

    Access the complete 44-page report (click here). [#Air, #Energy/EGUs]

 

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