Nov 8: In a precedent setting lawsuit, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. sued the U.S. EPA, to force the agency to take action on California’s request to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington DC, charges the EPA with an unreasonable delay in reaching a decision on California’s landmark law, known as the Pavley bill, which mandates a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions by 2016. Fourteen other states were expected to support California as interveners in the lawsuit.
Attorney General Brown told a news conference at the State capitol with Governor Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board chair, Mary Nichols that, “Despite the mounting dangers of global warming, the EPA has delayed and ignored California’s right to impose stricter environmental standards. We have waited two years and the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. What is the EPA waiting for?” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has previously indicated that he will make a decision by the end of this calendar year. Under the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963, California can adopt environmental standards that are stricter than Federal rules, if the state obtains a waiver from the U.S. EPA. Congress allowed California to impose stricter laws in recognition of the state’s “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” After a California waiver request is granted, other states are permitted to adopt the same rules.
Sixteen other states -- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington -- have adopted, or are in the process of adopting California’s emissions standards and are also awaiting the EPA decision. In the Act’s 40-year history, EPA has granted approximately 50 waivers for innovations like catalytic converters, exhaust emission standards, and leaded gasoline regulations. In the lawsuit, California asserts that EPA has failed to act in a reasonable length of time.
In 2002, California passed AB 1493 which require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016, starting with model year 2009. In December 2005, the California Air Resources Board applied for a waiver to implement the law. Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the EPA in April 2006 and in October 2006, requesting action on California’s application. The state asserts that EPA does not need any additional time to review the facts—the California Air Resources Board submitted a detailed 251-page assessment in 2005 and the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants. In September, a Vermont District Court ruled in favor of the state regulations, rejecting a challenge from the automobile lobby.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "It’s ridiculous that California should have to sue EPA to get permission to implement its clean car standards. California has the legal right under the Clean Air Act to set motor vehicle pollution rules that are tougher than the federal government’s. There’s an old saying: lead, follow or get out of the way. For forty years, California has been the nation’s leader in bringing us cleaner cars. The Bush administration has been blocking this road for two years. Now it’s time for them to move to the shoulder and let California pass. California and 16 other states that have adopted or are adopting the state’s rules are taking the lead in fighting global warming. The Bush EPA should just get out of their way.”
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort issued a statement saying, "We applaud California on its continued leadership in tackling the issue of global warming. The state legislature, the Governor and the Attorney General recognize global warming is a problem that will not simply disappear without major changes in the way our cars, power plants, and other pollution sources operate. The state's tougher emission standards for cars and trucks will lead the way for the rest of the country. Automakers can no longer drag their feet when it comes to fighting global warming. Cars and trucks are major greenhouse gas emitters, and requiring manufacturers to build cleaner cars is good for California, good for the country, and good for the planet..."
Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement saying, "Alliance members share the concerns of our customers, the President, the Congress and the American public about fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions. It is the view of the Alliance that enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all Americans, but a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level is not the answer. Automakers are currently supporting legislation in Congress that would increase fuel economy by as much as 40 percent in 2022. California’s lawsuit against the EPA is not helpful to the waiver process. EPA must deliberately and thoroughly approach the questions raised by the waiver application, especially when that application does not show that the standards address a problem unique to California. EPA can and should take the appropriate time needed to properly analyze and respond to the waiver request."
Access a release from the CA AG (click here). Access a release from Governor Schwarzenegger with links to video and additional information (click here). Access the complaint filed (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Alliance (click here). Access previous WIMS articles and links on the California waiver from various eNewsUSA blog posts (click here). [*Climate, *Air]
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Colorado Climate Action Plan Includes "Clean Car" Standards
Nov 5: Colorado's Democratic Governor Bill Ritter released the State's first Climate Action Plan, which according to a release is an ambitious call to action that establishes firm goals and clear strategies to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and also provides simple suggestions so everyone in Colorado can address global warming. Ritter said, "Climate change is our generation's greatest environmental challenge. It threatens our economy, our Western way of life and our future. It will change every facet of our existence, and unless we address it and adapt to it, the results will be catastrophic for generations to come. I strongly believe we can make a difference. In setting and achieving the goals in this Colorado Climate Action Plan, we will continue to expand the New Energy Economy, show leadership as a state, increase our energy security, and call on the federal government to take strong action."
Ritter indicated that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have grown by 35% in Colorado from 1990 to 2005. The largest contributors are electricity consumption (36%) and transportation (23%). The Climate Action Plan, which includes an agricultural carbon sequestration and offset program, establishes two greenhouse-gas reduction goals: 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The agricultural program would enlist farmers and ranchers to participate in a regional consortium to sequester carbon and reduce emissions on agricultural lands, and sell the resulting carbon credits over a multi-state region.
Other strategies in the Climate Action Plan include: Move toward "clean car" standards to ensure automakers reduce emissions in new vehicles; Work collaboratively to reduce emissions from investor-owned utilities by 20% by 2020 and create reasonable goals for other utilities; Expand voluntary, and over time phase in mandatory, emission reporting requirements for major greenhouse gas producers; Adopt energy-efficiency programs to reduce the demand for electrical energy; Expand renewable energy opportunities; and Partner with research institutions and industry to develop clean-coal technologies, and urge the federal government to accelerate financial investments and incentives.
Environmental Defense issued a release pointing out that Colorado had become the 17th state to move forward with clean car standards that will lower global warming and smog pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil and save consumers money at the pump. Colorado joins 16 other states, which collectively account for nearly 50% of the total U.S. population, in taking action to adopt the innovative standards including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. Environmental Defense indicated that this week the State of California is expected to file its lawsuit pressing EPA to make a decision on California’s waiver request so that it and other states like Colorado can implement their clean cars laws. The California lawsuit has been delayed due to the wildfires in Southern California.
Access a release from Governor Ritter and link to the 35-page Colorado Climate Action Plan (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Ritter indicated that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have grown by 35% in Colorado from 1990 to 2005. The largest contributors are electricity consumption (36%) and transportation (23%). The Climate Action Plan, which includes an agricultural carbon sequestration and offset program, establishes two greenhouse-gas reduction goals: 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The agricultural program would enlist farmers and ranchers to participate in a regional consortium to sequester carbon and reduce emissions on agricultural lands, and sell the resulting carbon credits over a multi-state region.
Other strategies in the Climate Action Plan include: Move toward "clean car" standards to ensure automakers reduce emissions in new vehicles; Work collaboratively to reduce emissions from investor-owned utilities by 20% by 2020 and create reasonable goals for other utilities; Expand voluntary, and over time phase in mandatory, emission reporting requirements for major greenhouse gas producers; Adopt energy-efficiency programs to reduce the demand for electrical energy; Expand renewable energy opportunities; and Partner with research institutions and industry to develop clean-coal technologies, and urge the federal government to accelerate financial investments and incentives.
Environmental Defense issued a release pointing out that Colorado had become the 17th state to move forward with clean car standards that will lower global warming and smog pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil and save consumers money at the pump. Colorado joins 16 other states, which collectively account for nearly 50% of the total U.S. population, in taking action to adopt the innovative standards including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. Environmental Defense indicated that this week the State of California is expected to file its lawsuit pressing EPA to make a decision on California’s waiver request so that it and other states like Colorado can implement their clean cars laws. The California lawsuit has been delayed due to the wildfires in Southern California.
Access a release from Governor Ritter and link to the 35-page Colorado Climate Action Plan (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Bloomberg Tells Mayors Carbon Tax Provides More Certainty
Nov 2: On the final day of the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit [See WIMS 11/2/07], hosted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the City of Seattle, over one hundred mayors convened to stress the importance of forming a federal partnership to boost energy independence. Due to recent geopolitical events and the dramatic rise in global energy prices, the mayors called on Congress to complete its work on major energy efficiency legislation by the end of the year and send it to the president for his signature. Mayors have been working closely with Congressional leaders to authorize an Energy Efficiency Block Grant to expand and accelerate community-based energy saving projects.
Among other items the Conference announced a new partnership with the Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative (CCI) which will allow 1,100 U.S. cities to gain access to volume discounts on energy-efficient and clean-energy products and technologies through CCI's purchasing consortium. Congressional leaders traveled to Seattle on November 2, specifically to get ideas from mayors about local energy strategies that could be used as national models. Conference leaders, President and Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, as well as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, provided that input.
In his keynote address Mayor Bloomberg had some interesting comments on climate change and the hot debate over a "cap and trade" approach versus a "carbon tax." He said, "On climate change, the duck-and-cover usually involves pointing the finger at others. It's China-this and India-that. But wait a second. This is the United States of America. When there's a major challenge, we don't wait for others to act. We lead. And we lead by example. That's what all of us here are doing... "Leadership is not waiting for others to act, or bowing to special interests, or making policy by polling or political calculus, and it's not hoping that technology will rescue us down the road or forcing our children to foot the bill. Leadership is about facing facts, making hard decisions, and having the independence and courage to do the right thing, even when it's not easy or popular. We've all heard people say, 'It's a great idea, but for the politics.' I hear it a lot..."
Bloomberg, who indicated he will be going to the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Bali next month, as part of an international delegation of mayors, said, “Climate change presents a national security imperative for us, because our dependence on foreign oil has entangled our interests with tyrants and increased our exposure to terrorism. It’s also an economic imperative, because clean energy is going to be the oil gusher of the 21st century.” Mayor Bloomberg called for increased research and development for climate protection, a pollution fee to discourage practices that generate greenhouse gas pollution and raising fuel efficiency standards.
On carbon dioxide emissions, Bloomberg said, "we have to stop ignoring the laws of economics. As long as greenhouse gas pollution is free, it will be abundant. If we want to reduce it, there has to be a cost for producing it. The voluntary targets suggested by President Bush would be like voluntary speed limits - doomed to fail. If we're serious about climate change, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it."
Regarding a cap and trade system as opposed to a carbon tax, Bloomberg said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden - but they're still there. And the payoff is more uncertain." However, he noted, "the price volatility for carbon credits can discourage investment since an investment that might make sense if carbon credits are trading at $50 a ton, may not make sense at $30 a ton." He said further, "A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start - and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first.
"A direct charge would eliminate the uncertainty that companies would face in a cap-and-trade system. It would be easier to implement and enforce, it would prevent special interests from opening up loopholes, and, it would create an opportunity to cut taxes... Creating a direct charge for greenhouse gas pollution would also incentivize the kinds of innovation that a cap-and-trade system is designed to encourage - without creating market uncertainty. To do this, a portion of the revenue from the pollution charge would be used to create an innovation fund, which would finance tax credits for companies that reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. As a result, companies would have two big incentives to reduce their pollution: Minimizing the charges they would have to pay and maximizing their tax savings. And unlike a cap-and-trade system, the certainty of tax credits would be more likely to lead companies to make the long-term investments in clean technology that will allow us to substantially reduce greenhouse gas pollution."
In concluding, Bloomberg said, "Both cap-and-trade and pollution pricing present their own challenges -- but there is an important difference between the two. The primary flaw of cap-and-trade is economic - price uncertainty; while the primary flaw of a pollution fee is political - the difficulty of getting it through Congress. But I've never been one to let short-term politics get in the way of long-term success..."
Access a release from the Conference (click here). Access the Mayors Climate Protection Center website for extensive information (click here). Access the complete text of Mayor Bloomberg's presentation (click here). Access links to all video presentations including Bloomberg, Clinton, Gore, etc. (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Among other items the Conference announced a new partnership with the Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative (CCI) which will allow 1,100 U.S. cities to gain access to volume discounts on energy-efficient and clean-energy products and technologies through CCI's purchasing consortium. Congressional leaders traveled to Seattle on November 2, specifically to get ideas from mayors about local energy strategies that could be used as national models. Conference leaders, President and Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer, Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, as well as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, provided that input.
In his keynote address Mayor Bloomberg had some interesting comments on climate change and the hot debate over a "cap and trade" approach versus a "carbon tax." He said, "On climate change, the duck-and-cover usually involves pointing the finger at others. It's China-this and India-that. But wait a second. This is the United States of America. When there's a major challenge, we don't wait for others to act. We lead. And we lead by example. That's what all of us here are doing... "Leadership is not waiting for others to act, or bowing to special interests, or making policy by polling or political calculus, and it's not hoping that technology will rescue us down the road or forcing our children to foot the bill. Leadership is about facing facts, making hard decisions, and having the independence and courage to do the right thing, even when it's not easy or popular. We've all heard people say, 'It's a great idea, but for the politics.' I hear it a lot..."
Bloomberg, who indicated he will be going to the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Bali next month, as part of an international delegation of mayors, said, “Climate change presents a national security imperative for us, because our dependence on foreign oil has entangled our interests with tyrants and increased our exposure to terrorism. It’s also an economic imperative, because clean energy is going to be the oil gusher of the 21st century.” Mayor Bloomberg called for increased research and development for climate protection, a pollution fee to discourage practices that generate greenhouse gas pollution and raising fuel efficiency standards.
On carbon dioxide emissions, Bloomberg said, "we have to stop ignoring the laws of economics. As long as greenhouse gas pollution is free, it will be abundant. If we want to reduce it, there has to be a cost for producing it. The voluntary targets suggested by President Bush would be like voluntary speed limits - doomed to fail. If we're serious about climate change, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it."
Regarding a cap and trade system as opposed to a carbon tax, Bloomberg said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden - but they're still there. And the payoff is more uncertain." However, he noted, "the price volatility for carbon credits can discourage investment since an investment that might make sense if carbon credits are trading at $50 a ton, may not make sense at $30 a ton." He said further, "A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start - and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It's like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first.
"A direct charge would eliminate the uncertainty that companies would face in a cap-and-trade system. It would be easier to implement and enforce, it would prevent special interests from opening up loopholes, and, it would create an opportunity to cut taxes... Creating a direct charge for greenhouse gas pollution would also incentivize the kinds of innovation that a cap-and-trade system is designed to encourage - without creating market uncertainty. To do this, a portion of the revenue from the pollution charge would be used to create an innovation fund, which would finance tax credits for companies that reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. As a result, companies would have two big incentives to reduce their pollution: Minimizing the charges they would have to pay and maximizing their tax savings. And unlike a cap-and-trade system, the certainty of tax credits would be more likely to lead companies to make the long-term investments in clean technology that will allow us to substantially reduce greenhouse gas pollution."
In concluding, Bloomberg said, "Both cap-and-trade and pollution pricing present their own challenges -- but there is an important difference between the two. The primary flaw of cap-and-trade is economic - price uncertainty; while the primary flaw of a pollution fee is political - the difficulty of getting it through Congress. But I've never been one to let short-term politics get in the way of long-term success..."
Access a release from the Conference (click here). Access the Mayors Climate Protection Center website for extensive information (click here). Access the complete text of Mayor Bloomberg's presentation (click here). Access links to all video presentations including Bloomberg, Clinton, Gore, etc. (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]
Monday, November 05, 2007
Bush Vetoes Water Resources Development Act; Override Expected
Nov 2: On Friday, President Bush announced his veto of H.R. 1495, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2007." Some Congressional members called the President's action "galling." The bill had widespread support from Democrats, Republicans, environmental groups, business, and various local governments.
On May 16, 2007, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 91-4, passed its $13.9 billion version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R.1495) [See WIMS 5/17/07]. The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed, $15 billion version, approved by a vote of by a vote of 394-25, on April 19, 2007 [See WIMS 4/30/07]. On August 1, 2007, the House approved the Conference report by a vote of 381-40 [See WIMS 8/1/07] and on September 24, 2007, the Conference Report bill, passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 81 to 12. At the time of the Senate vote on the Conference report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, sent a letter to all U.S. Senators indicating their strong support for the WRDA conference report to H.R. 1495. There has not been a WRDA passed since 2000.
President Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.
"This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility. My Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs -- including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.
"I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment. For the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 1495."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said at the time of Senate approval of the Conference report, “If the President chooses to veto the bill, as he has threatened to do, we are committed -- on a bipartisan basis -- to move to override his veto." Making good on that promise she issued a release on November 2, saying, "President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act breaks his commitment to the people of Louisiana to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina; breaks his commitment to America's communities to make them economically strong and protect them from flooding; breaks his commitment to make America's infrastructure a priority; and breaks his commitment to restore our environment, including the Everglades. We are already working across party lines in the Congress to override this ill-advised veto."
Likewise, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, reaffirmed that he intends to lead the effort in the Senate to override President Bush's WRDA veto. Inhofe said, "As a fiscal conservative, I certainly appreciate and share the President's concerns over 'excessive spending' by the Federal government. The fact is, though, that the WRDA bill is not a spending bill; it is an authorizing bill. It simply sets out which projects and programs are allowed to get in line for future funding and sets the maximum amount of money that can be funded. Authorization is the best tool we have for keeping discipline over the annual appropriations process. Additionally, this bill includes a provision requiring independent third-party reviews of certain projects, which will inform future authorizations and appropriations..."
Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and sponsor of the House bill, said President Bush’s veto of the major waterways infrastructure bill is "a mistake," and he expects Congress to override the veto in the next few weeks. Oberstar said, “It’s a sad moment for the presidency and for Congress; it is an unnecessary veto, pointless. For seven years, a succession of Republican congresses has failed to enact the most important internal development bill in this country and it’s all been on this president’s watch.
“With one stroke of the pen, President Bush has halted progress on vital projects that range from the construction of a second lock at Sault Ste. Marie to the restoration of coastal wetlands that protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes like Katrina. There’s a great deal of concern in this administration about homeland security, but our biggest terrors are flood, hurricane, the freezing up of the locks, and natural disasters on land. These projects in this legislation will deal with the greatest source of terror to the homeland - the natural terror that we seek to prevent with this legislation.”
Oberstar and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, also issued a joint statement saying, "What makes this veto particularly galling is that President Bush is now asking the American people to spend another $196 billion on Iraq. Yet, he is unwilling to invest our own nation’s future and in the recovery of the Gulf Coast region."
Access the President's veto statement (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access the joint release from Representatives Oberstar and Johnson (click here). Access a 3-page summary of WRDA from Representative Oberstar(click here). Access a 72-page Joint Explanatory Statement from the Conference Committee (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1495 (click here). Access links to various media reports on the President's action (click here). [*GLakes, *Water]
On May 16, 2007, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 91-4, passed its $13.9 billion version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, H.R.1495) [See WIMS 5/17/07]. The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed, $15 billion version, approved by a vote of by a vote of 394-25, on April 19, 2007 [See WIMS 4/30/07]. On August 1, 2007, the House approved the Conference report by a vote of 381-40 [See WIMS 8/1/07] and on September 24, 2007, the Conference Report bill, passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 81 to 12. At the time of the Senate vote on the Conference report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, sent a letter to all U.S. Senators indicating their strong support for the WRDA conference report to H.R. 1495. There has not been a WRDA passed since 2000.
President Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.
"This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility. My Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs -- including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.
"I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment. For the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 1495."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said at the time of Senate approval of the Conference report, “If the President chooses to veto the bill, as he has threatened to do, we are committed -- on a bipartisan basis -- to move to override his veto." Making good on that promise she issued a release on November 2, saying, "President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act breaks his commitment to the people of Louisiana to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina; breaks his commitment to America's communities to make them economically strong and protect them from flooding; breaks his commitment to make America's infrastructure a priority; and breaks his commitment to restore our environment, including the Everglades. We are already working across party lines in the Congress to override this ill-advised veto."
Likewise, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, reaffirmed that he intends to lead the effort in the Senate to override President Bush's WRDA veto. Inhofe said, "As a fiscal conservative, I certainly appreciate and share the President's concerns over 'excessive spending' by the Federal government. The fact is, though, that the WRDA bill is not a spending bill; it is an authorizing bill. It simply sets out which projects and programs are allowed to get in line for future funding and sets the maximum amount of money that can be funded. Authorization is the best tool we have for keeping discipline over the annual appropriations process. Additionally, this bill includes a provision requiring independent third-party reviews of certain projects, which will inform future authorizations and appropriations..."
Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and sponsor of the House bill, said President Bush’s veto of the major waterways infrastructure bill is "a mistake," and he expects Congress to override the veto in the next few weeks. Oberstar said, “It’s a sad moment for the presidency and for Congress; it is an unnecessary veto, pointless. For seven years, a succession of Republican congresses has failed to enact the most important internal development bill in this country and it’s all been on this president’s watch.
“With one stroke of the pen, President Bush has halted progress on vital projects that range from the construction of a second lock at Sault Ste. Marie to the restoration of coastal wetlands that protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes like Katrina. There’s a great deal of concern in this administration about homeland security, but our biggest terrors are flood, hurricane, the freezing up of the locks, and natural disasters on land. These projects in this legislation will deal with the greatest source of terror to the homeland - the natural terror that we seek to prevent with this legislation.”
Oberstar and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, also issued a joint statement saying, "What makes this veto particularly galling is that President Bush is now asking the American people to spend another $196 billion on Iraq. Yet, he is unwilling to invest our own nation’s future and in the recovery of the Gulf Coast region."
Access the President's veto statement (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a lengthy release from Representative Oberstar (click here). Access the joint release from Representatives Oberstar and Johnson (click here). Access a 3-page summary of WRDA from Representative Oberstar(click here). Access a 72-page Joint Explanatory Statement from the Conference Committee (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.1495 (click here). Access links to various media reports on the President's action (click here). [*GLakes, *Water]
Friday, November 02, 2007
Sanders Calls Lieberman-Warner Climate Vote "One Small Step"
Nov 1: While many environmental organizations and Democratic Senators called the 4-3 vote on the America's Climate Security Act (ACSA, S. 2191) in the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee a "turning point" and "milestone," in the debate on global warming, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the no votes, called the vote "One Small Step, No Giant Leap" [See WIMS 11/1/07]. The bill, introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) to address global climate change [See WIMS 10/18/07], was narrowly approved when Senators Lieberman, Warner, Baucus (D-MT), and Lautenberg (D-NJ) voted for the measure; and Barrasso (R-WY), Isakson (R-GA), and Sanders (I-VT) voted against it. The legislation is expected to be taken up by the full Environment & Public Works Committee as soon as the week of November 12.
Sanders opposed the bill because he said "it would not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as much as scientists say is necessary to stop catastrophic changes in the Earth’s climate." He said, “This bill is a step in the right direction, but it simply does not go far enough to do what scientists tell us must be done to stop global warming. If we are not extremely bold and aggressive, this planet faces a catastrophe in the years to come.” Sanders said he worked with Senator Lautenberg to strengthen the bill in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the past two weeks. At the subcommittee meeting, Sanders offered amendments that were supported by all of the major national environmental organizations. Added to the bill was a Sanders provision that would encourage automobile manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. To be eligible for a pool of new funds to produce more fuel efficient cars, auto makers first would have to manufacture vehicles that get at least 35 miles per gallon.
Sanders indicated in a release that the subcommittee turned down proposals to carve out resources for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources in the bill that guarantees "whopping sums" for coal ($324 billion) and car makers ($232 billion). It blocked a Sanders amendment to make utilities dramatically reduce emissions from new coal-fired power plants. It voted down an amendment to make polluters pay for carbon emissions starting in 2026 instead of 2036. The majority also failed to set a goal of reducing emissions of heat trapping gases by mid-century by 80 percent -- the amount scientists say must be achieved to be effective. The bill calls for at most a 63 percent reduction by 2050, not enough to matter according to experts.
Sanders said, “I am proud that we pushed to improve the bill. It is stronger today than it was when it was unveiled two weeks ago. I appreciate the support for my amendment to improve fuel economy standards for cars. I look forward to making the bill better. The American people favor bolder action than this bill to prevent a catastrophe for our planet. I hope grass-roots activists will put pressure on senators to pass a stronger bill out of the full environment committee.”
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), another "no" vote, issued a release saying he fought successfully to improve the legislation and winning votes on two key amendments. Barrasso indicated his first successful amendment ensures that Wyoming, and all states, receive financial assistance to ease any negative impacts the legislation would have on state economies. He said “This bill poses serious challenges for Wyoming 's economy. Our state is the nation's top source for energy, and more specifically energy derived from coal. I will continue to fight to make sure Wyoming jobs and communities are protected from any negative impacts this bill would have on our economic future.”
Barrasso said the second successful amendment allows lower British thermal unit (Btu) coal to qualify for capture and sequestration program incentives.This provision is important because most Wyoming coal has less than 9,000 Btu. Barrasso said he will continue to fight at the full EPW committee level for making the University of Wyoming the new home of a national center for coal research, focusing on clean coal technology on a Federal level.
He said, “When oil is between $90 and $100 dollars a barrel, it is abundantly clear that we need strategic focus on domestic energy sources. Clean coal technologies are the future of a safe, reliable domestic energy source for this nation. Foreign energy sources are unstable. Period. It won't always be a presidential election season when Washington thinks anti-coal views are the vogue. By establishing Wyoming at the forefront of clean-coal technology nationally, we strengthen Wyoming 's role in that future, and provide needed domestic energy sources for our great nation.”
Access a release from Senator Sanders (click here). Access a release from Senator Barrasso (click here). Access the Subcommittee meeting website for a link to the webcast, the original bill and a statement from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Sanders opposed the bill because he said "it would not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as much as scientists say is necessary to stop catastrophic changes in the Earth’s climate." He said, “This bill is a step in the right direction, but it simply does not go far enough to do what scientists tell us must be done to stop global warming. If we are not extremely bold and aggressive, this planet faces a catastrophe in the years to come.” Sanders said he worked with Senator Lautenberg to strengthen the bill in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the past two weeks. At the subcommittee meeting, Sanders offered amendments that were supported by all of the major national environmental organizations. Added to the bill was a Sanders provision that would encourage automobile manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. To be eligible for a pool of new funds to produce more fuel efficient cars, auto makers first would have to manufacture vehicles that get at least 35 miles per gallon.
Sanders indicated in a release that the subcommittee turned down proposals to carve out resources for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources in the bill that guarantees "whopping sums" for coal ($324 billion) and car makers ($232 billion). It blocked a Sanders amendment to make utilities dramatically reduce emissions from new coal-fired power plants. It voted down an amendment to make polluters pay for carbon emissions starting in 2026 instead of 2036. The majority also failed to set a goal of reducing emissions of heat trapping gases by mid-century by 80 percent -- the amount scientists say must be achieved to be effective. The bill calls for at most a 63 percent reduction by 2050, not enough to matter according to experts.
Sanders said, “I am proud that we pushed to improve the bill. It is stronger today than it was when it was unveiled two weeks ago. I appreciate the support for my amendment to improve fuel economy standards for cars. I look forward to making the bill better. The American people favor bolder action than this bill to prevent a catastrophe for our planet. I hope grass-roots activists will put pressure on senators to pass a stronger bill out of the full environment committee.”
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), another "no" vote, issued a release saying he fought successfully to improve the legislation and winning votes on two key amendments. Barrasso indicated his first successful amendment ensures that Wyoming, and all states, receive financial assistance to ease any negative impacts the legislation would have on state economies. He said “This bill poses serious challenges for Wyoming 's economy. Our state is the nation's top source for energy, and more specifically energy derived from coal. I will continue to fight to make sure Wyoming jobs and communities are protected from any negative impacts this bill would have on our economic future.”
Barrasso said the second successful amendment allows lower British thermal unit (Btu) coal to qualify for capture and sequestration program incentives.This provision is important because most Wyoming coal has less than 9,000 Btu. Barrasso said he will continue to fight at the full EPW committee level for making the University of Wyoming the new home of a national center for coal research, focusing on clean coal technology on a Federal level.
He said, “When oil is between $90 and $100 dollars a barrel, it is abundantly clear that we need strategic focus on domestic energy sources. Clean coal technologies are the future of a safe, reliable domestic energy source for this nation. Foreign energy sources are unstable. Period. It won't always be a presidential election season when Washington thinks anti-coal views are the vogue. By establishing Wyoming at the forefront of clean-coal technology nationally, we strengthen Wyoming 's role in that future, and provide needed domestic energy sources for our great nation.”
Access a release from Senator Sanders (click here). Access a release from Senator Barrasso (click here). Access the Subcommittee meeting website for a link to the webcast, the original bill and a statement from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access a statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Union of Concerned Scientists (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). [*Climate]
Thursday, November 01, 2007
10 U.S. States Join International Carbon Action Partnership
Oct 29: A coalition of European countries, U.S. states, Canadian provinces, New Zealand and Norway announced the formation of the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP) to fight global warming. ICAP will provide an international forum in which governments and public authorities adopting mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cap and trade systems will share experiences and best practices on the design of emissions trading schemes. According to a release, the cooperative effort will ensure that the programs are more compatible and are able to work together as the foundation of a global carbon market. Such a market will boost demand for low-carbon products and services, promote innovation, and allow cost effective reductions so as to allow swift and ambitious global reductions in global warming emissions.
The ground-breaking international and interregional agreement was signed by U.S. and Canadian members of the Western Climate Initiative [Arizona, British Columbia, California, Manitoba, New Mexico, Oregon, & Washington], northeastern U.S. members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, & New York], as well as European members including the European Commission, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain & United Kingdom. New Zealand and Norway joined on behalf of their emissions trading programs.
Leaders attending the summit included: President José Sócrates, Council of the European Union and Prime Minister of Portugal; European Commission President José Manuel Barroso; Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey; Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York and Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, participated with video messages.
ICAP said it will open lines of communication for sharing valuable information, such as research, effective policy initiatives, lessons learned and new developments. By working together to establish similar design principles, ICAP partners are ensuring that future market systems, in conjunction with regulation in the form of enforceable caps, will boost worldwide demand for low-carbon products and services, provide a larger market for innovators, and achieve global emissions reductions at the swiftest pace and lowest cost possible. The new partnership supports the current ongoing efforts undertaken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which all ICAP members agree has a central role in fighting global warming.
Access a release (click here). Access the ICAP Declaration (click here). Access a webcast of the launch event (click here). Access an audio from U.S. Governor's Conference call with U.S. Press (click here, .wav format). Access the ICAP website (click here). [*Climate]
The ground-breaking international and interregional agreement was signed by U.S. and Canadian members of the Western Climate Initiative [Arizona, British Columbia, California, Manitoba, New Mexico, Oregon, & Washington], northeastern U.S. members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, & New York], as well as European members including the European Commission, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain & United Kingdom. New Zealand and Norway joined on behalf of their emissions trading programs.
Leaders attending the summit included: President José Sócrates, Council of the European Union and Prime Minister of Portugal; European Commission President José Manuel Barroso; Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey; Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York and Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, participated with video messages.
ICAP said it will open lines of communication for sharing valuable information, such as research, effective policy initiatives, lessons learned and new developments. By working together to establish similar design principles, ICAP partners are ensuring that future market systems, in conjunction with regulation in the form of enforceable caps, will boost worldwide demand for low-carbon products and services, provide a larger market for innovators, and achieve global emissions reductions at the swiftest pace and lowest cost possible. The new partnership supports the current ongoing efforts undertaken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which all ICAP members agree has a central role in fighting global warming.
Access a release (click here). Access the ICAP Declaration (click here). Access a webcast of the launch event (click here). Access an audio from U.S. Governor's Conference call with U.S. Press (click here, .wav format). Access the ICAP website (click here). [*Climate]
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Senate Hearing On Yucca Mountain Repository Licensing Process
Oct 31: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held a hearing entitled, Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository. The hearing included testimony from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Senator John Ensign (R-NV); Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC); the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy; the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA; the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Attorney General for the State of Nevada; the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and the Environmental Working Group. Senators Boxer, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and James Inhofe (R-OK) all delivered opening statements and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) submitted a letter statement to the Committee.
The Yucca Mountain project is nearing a critical stage of the process and DOE testified that it is preparing to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "not later than June 30, 2008." EPA testified that its draft final rule was submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review in December 2006. "We have engaged in productive discussions with other federal agencies about the important and complex issues raised by setting a standard that will protect public health and safety and the environment for up to one million years after the Yucca Mountain repository closes. We look forward to completing those discussions and our analysis of the public comments and issuing the final rule soon."
Senator Boxer said, "My serious concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository date back many years because my state of California will be severely impacted if it is built and put into operation... Billions of taxpayer dollars could be wasted on a proposal that is fatally flawed because it will put millions of people at risk. If Yucca Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste will be transported there from across the Nation."
Senator Inhofe said, "Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security and environmental progress. However, I am concerned that the resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there isn’t sufficient progress toward development of a repository for spent fuel... So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking for authorization to build the repository. Yet there are those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over without the NRC ever even considering the project... To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain, then where are we going to build a repository?... It’s time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."
Senator Clinton said, "I want to start by stating what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors. Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an earthquake registering 6 or more on the Richter scale is likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is the third-most earthquake-prone state in the country after California and Alaska. An even greater potential risk at the site is its history of volcanic activity. As an MIT geologist testified to this committee last year, and I quote: 'Though the likelihood of an explosive volcano erupting directly beneath the repository is remote, the outcome would be devastating, spewing radioactive material directly into the atmosphere...' We do need to find a long-term storage solution for our nation’s nuclear waste. But Yucca Mountain is not the answer. It’s time to step back and take a deep breath."
Indicating that the technical and legal issues could delay the repository for at least another 20 years, Senator Obama indicated in his letter that "I believe it no longer a sustainable Federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered a permanent repository... the time has come for the Federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel... In short the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and its time to start exploring new alternatives... "
Senator Reid testified that, "We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca Mountain."
Senator Ensign testified, "I want to be clear that I am not against nuclear power. I believe that it presents this nation with a viable clean air energy alternative that can help our nation meet its growing needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil... The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is not a responsible solution... On-site dry cask storage is a viable, safe, and secure alternative that is readily available and will allow science and industry the time to catch up... Storing the waste on-site will allow the necessary time to develop a viable reprocessing program using advanced fuel-cycle technologies."
Senator DeMint testified, "While the United States abandoned already built facilities to recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American technology, improved it, and have proven the ability to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries are proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements... my state of South Carolina embraced nuclear energy, and today more than half of the energy produced in my state comes from nuclear... What I find perplexing is that people argue the environmental standards are not strict enough to justify opening Yucca. However, if Yucca cannot meet these standards, then no other location where nuclear waste currently resides can qualify either... Without Yucca, a nuclear renaissance will not occur, and without nuclear energy we will never see significant improvements to our environment. We should not set our nation back even further like the misguided policies of 30 years ago. I applaud President Bush and the administration of every President since Carter for their strong support of Yucca Mountain."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements, letter and a webcast (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
The Yucca Mountain project is nearing a critical stage of the process and DOE testified that it is preparing to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "not later than June 30, 2008." EPA testified that its draft final rule was submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review in December 2006. "We have engaged in productive discussions with other federal agencies about the important and complex issues raised by setting a standard that will protect public health and safety and the environment for up to one million years after the Yucca Mountain repository closes. We look forward to completing those discussions and our analysis of the public comments and issuing the final rule soon."
Senator Boxer said, "My serious concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository date back many years because my state of California will be severely impacted if it is built and put into operation... Billions of taxpayer dollars could be wasted on a proposal that is fatally flawed because it will put millions of people at risk. If Yucca Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste will be transported there from across the Nation."
Senator Inhofe said, "Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security and environmental progress. However, I am concerned that the resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there isn’t sufficient progress toward development of a repository for spent fuel... So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking for authorization to build the repository. Yet there are those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over without the NRC ever even considering the project... To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain, then where are we going to build a repository?... It’s time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."
Senator Clinton said, "I want to start by stating what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors. Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an earthquake registering 6 or more on the Richter scale is likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is the third-most earthquake-prone state in the country after California and Alaska. An even greater potential risk at the site is its history of volcanic activity. As an MIT geologist testified to this committee last year, and I quote: 'Though the likelihood of an explosive volcano erupting directly beneath the repository is remote, the outcome would be devastating, spewing radioactive material directly into the atmosphere...' We do need to find a long-term storage solution for our nation’s nuclear waste. But Yucca Mountain is not the answer. It’s time to step back and take a deep breath."
Indicating that the technical and legal issues could delay the repository for at least another 20 years, Senator Obama indicated in his letter that "I believe it no longer a sustainable Federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered a permanent repository... the time has come for the Federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel... In short the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and its time to start exploring new alternatives... "
Senator Reid testified that, "We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca Mountain."
Senator Ensign testified, "I want to be clear that I am not against nuclear power. I believe that it presents this nation with a viable clean air energy alternative that can help our nation meet its growing needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil... The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is not a responsible solution... On-site dry cask storage is a viable, safe, and secure alternative that is readily available and will allow science and industry the time to catch up... Storing the waste on-site will allow the necessary time to develop a viable reprocessing program using advanced fuel-cycle technologies."
Senator DeMint testified, "While the United States abandoned already built facilities to recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American technology, improved it, and have proven the ability to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries are proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements... my state of South Carolina embraced nuclear energy, and today more than half of the energy produced in my state comes from nuclear... What I find perplexing is that people argue the environmental standards are not strict enough to justify opening Yucca. However, if Yucca cannot meet these standards, then no other location where nuclear waste currently resides can qualify either... Without Yucca, a nuclear renaissance will not occur, and without nuclear energy we will never see significant improvements to our environment. We should not set our nation back even further like the misguided policies of 30 years ago. I applaud President Bush and the administration of every President since Carter for their strong support of Yucca Mountain."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements, letter and a webcast (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
NAS Recommends Scale Back Of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Oct 29: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) says that the research and development component of the U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program that aims to reprocess spent nuclear fuel which could then be shared with partner countries, should not go forward at its current pace. DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, of which GNEP is a part, should instead assign the highest priority to facilitating the startup of new commercial nuclear power plants, a program that is currently falling behind schedule due to funding gaps.
Amid renewed interest in nuclear power, the Office of Nuclear Energy's budget has grown nearly 70 percent since 2003. In light of this growth, the administration's 2006 budget requested that funds be set aside for the Research Council to review and prioritize all of the office's programs, which besides reprocessing and new plant assistance include development of new types of nuclear reactors, the use of nuclear energy to create hydrogen, and the upgrade of facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The purpose of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is to remove materials from the radioactive waste that can be recycled for use at another plant. In the past, the United States has resisted reprocessing because the methods available at the time created a plutonium byproduct that would have increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. But in recent years the Federal government began to reconsider reprocessing as new technologies emerged that could recycle the spent nuclear fuel without separating plutonium. This process is a main technical goal of GNEP; the committee that wrote the report did not review or comment on the international aspects of the partnership.
However, the committee's report -- Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program -- says the "technologies required for achieving GNEP's goals are too early in development to justify DOE's accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities that would use these technologies." DOE claims that the program will save time and money if pursued on the commercial scale, but the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true and found no economic justification. And although a stated goal of the program is to reduce the overall amount of radioactive waste, which would in turn decrease the need for a second geological repository in addition to Yucca Mountain, it was not clear to the committee that such a need currently exists. Moreover, there has been insufficient peer review of the program.
While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so. Two committee members advocated holding DOE's spending on reprocessing research to pre-AFCI levels and that DOE should not develop commercial reprocessing technologies beyond the early laboratory stage. In addition, three other committee members believe a technology not currently being explored by GNEP would be better suited for reprocessing.
The committee said that although the GNEP R&D program should be scaled back, the Office of Nuclear Energy should place greater emphasis on the Nuclear Power 2010 program. Key elements of that program include identifying sites for new nuclear power plants, completing the design engineering of advanced light water reactors, and assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its efforts to grant both construction and operating licenses in one action. The office has focused on many parts of the program, such as finalizing designs, and has established a good working relationship with industry, but overall progress has been slower than expected. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry need to improve the pace of specific licensing reviews for nuclear power plants, avoiding review of previously settled issues and setting a tighter schedule. If nuclear power is indeed going to play an increased role in meeting U.S. energy needs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear Power 2010 needs full funding in all aspects of the program, the committee said. While an increase in funding has been proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget, it would not be enough for the program to meet all of its goals.
Similarly, the committee found that another program of the office, called Generation IV, is unlikely to achieve its goal of a next-generation nuclear power plant in operation by 2017 because of the focus on GNEP. The office's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a program to generate hydrogen using nuclear energy, is dependent on the success of the Generation IV program, so its budget and timetable should reflect this connection according to the report. The committee also reviewed the Idaho National Laboratory, which represents a significant part of the Office of Nuclear Energy's management responsibilities and budget. While the site will provide the office with important capabilities for research and development of nuclear technology, funding for the program is substantially less than what is necessary to upgrade the facilities.
DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Dennis Spurgeon reacted to the NAS report saying, "...the report’s findings related to Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or “GNEP” are based on faulty premises that are inconsistent with the fuel cycle research and development (R&D) program actually being implemented by DOE. The report errantly assumes that DOE has pre-selected the separations technologies to be deployed and the scale of the facilities to be built. A series of critical findings are based on these incorrect premises.
"Furthermore, the Report’s use of the term “GNEP” interchangeably with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program is confusing and, as the Committee’s Chairman has noted to me, in no way reflects criticism of the burgeoning international partnership. Through GNEP, we are taking a leadership role with 16 partner nations that share a common vision for need to expand nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner. This partnership agreed to a Statement of Principles that establishes the goals, amongst other things, of developing mechanisms to support infrastructure development as well as creation of reliable fuel services.”
On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse -- and perhaps surprising -- group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." [See WIMS 6/18/07] GNEP, first announced by President Bush in 2006, is part of his Advanced Energy Initiative. GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of "clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy" to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.
Access a release from NAS/NRC (click here). Access a report brief (click here). Access links to the full report and an extensive 29-page summary (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Amid renewed interest in nuclear power, the Office of Nuclear Energy's budget has grown nearly 70 percent since 2003. In light of this growth, the administration's 2006 budget requested that funds be set aside for the Research Council to review and prioritize all of the office's programs, which besides reprocessing and new plant assistance include development of new types of nuclear reactors, the use of nuclear energy to create hydrogen, and the upgrade of facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The purpose of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is to remove materials from the radioactive waste that can be recycled for use at another plant. In the past, the United States has resisted reprocessing because the methods available at the time created a plutonium byproduct that would have increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. But in recent years the Federal government began to reconsider reprocessing as new technologies emerged that could recycle the spent nuclear fuel without separating plutonium. This process is a main technical goal of GNEP; the committee that wrote the report did not review or comment on the international aspects of the partnership.
However, the committee's report -- Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program -- says the "technologies required for achieving GNEP's goals are too early in development to justify DOE's accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities that would use these technologies." DOE claims that the program will save time and money if pursued on the commercial scale, but the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true and found no economic justification. And although a stated goal of the program is to reduce the overall amount of radioactive waste, which would in turn decrease the need for a second geological repository in addition to Yucca Mountain, it was not clear to the committee that such a need currently exists. Moreover, there has been insufficient peer review of the program.
While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so. Two committee members advocated holding DOE's spending on reprocessing research to pre-AFCI levels and that DOE should not develop commercial reprocessing technologies beyond the early laboratory stage. In addition, three other committee members believe a technology not currently being explored by GNEP would be better suited for reprocessing.
The committee said that although the GNEP R&D program should be scaled back, the Office of Nuclear Energy should place greater emphasis on the Nuclear Power 2010 program. Key elements of that program include identifying sites for new nuclear power plants, completing the design engineering of advanced light water reactors, and assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its efforts to grant both construction and operating licenses in one action. The office has focused on many parts of the program, such as finalizing designs, and has established a good working relationship with industry, but overall progress has been slower than expected. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry need to improve the pace of specific licensing reviews for nuclear power plants, avoiding review of previously settled issues and setting a tighter schedule. If nuclear power is indeed going to play an increased role in meeting U.S. energy needs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear Power 2010 needs full funding in all aspects of the program, the committee said. While an increase in funding has been proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget, it would not be enough for the program to meet all of its goals.
Similarly, the committee found that another program of the office, called Generation IV, is unlikely to achieve its goal of a next-generation nuclear power plant in operation by 2017 because of the focus on GNEP. The office's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a program to generate hydrogen using nuclear energy, is dependent on the success of the Generation IV program, so its budget and timetable should reflect this connection according to the report. The committee also reviewed the Idaho National Laboratory, which represents a significant part of the Office of Nuclear Energy's management responsibilities and budget. While the site will provide the office with important capabilities for research and development of nuclear technology, funding for the program is substantially less than what is necessary to upgrade the facilities.
DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Dennis Spurgeon reacted to the NAS report saying, "...the report’s findings related to Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or “GNEP” are based on faulty premises that are inconsistent with the fuel cycle research and development (R&D) program actually being implemented by DOE. The report errantly assumes that DOE has pre-selected the separations technologies to be deployed and the scale of the facilities to be built. A series of critical findings are based on these incorrect premises.
"Furthermore, the Report’s use of the term “GNEP” interchangeably with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program is confusing and, as the Committee’s Chairman has noted to me, in no way reflects criticism of the burgeoning international partnership. Through GNEP, we are taking a leadership role with 16 partner nations that share a common vision for need to expand nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner. This partnership agreed to a Statement of Principles that establishes the goals, amongst other things, of developing mechanisms to support infrastructure development as well as creation of reliable fuel services.”
On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse -- and perhaps surprising -- group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed." [See WIMS 6/18/07] GNEP, first announced by President Bush in 2006, is part of his Advanced Energy Initiative. GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of "clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy" to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.
Access a release from NAS/NRC (click here). Access a report brief (click here). Access links to the full report and an extensive 29-page summary (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]
Monday, October 29, 2007
Eleventh Circuit Interprets Rapanos Definition Of "Navigable Waters”
Oct 24: In the case of USA v. Robison, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 05-17019. Defendants McWane, Inc. (McWane), James Delk (Delk), and Michael Devine (Devine) appeal their convictions for their roles in a Clean Water Act (CWA) conspiracy (Count 1), as well as their convictions for substantive violations of the CWA (Counts 2, 3, 5, 7-19, 21, and 22). After the defendants’ convictions, the United States Supreme Court addressed how to define “navigable waters” under the CWA in Rapanos v. United States [See link below].
The Appeals Court ruled, "The definition of 'navigable waters' in the jury charge in this case was erroneous under Rapanos, and the government has not shown that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we must vacate defendants’ CWA convictions and remand the case for a new trial." The Appeals Court also said that McWane appeals its conviction for making a false statement to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Count 24). Because McWane was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on that charge, we vacate McWane’s conviction on Count 24 as well."
In the case, the parties agree that the definition of “navigable waters” is a key element of the CWA criminal offenses in this case. Based on the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision, defendants contend that a key discharge point, Avondale Creek, is not a “navigable water” within the meaning of the CWA, and that the district court erroneously instructed the jury as to the definition of the term “navigable waters.” The district court charged the jury that “navigable waters” include “any stream which may eventually flow into a navigable stream or river,” and that such stream may be man-made and flow “only intermittently.”
The Appeals Court said the district court's jury charge relied on the definitions in United States v. Eidson, 108 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 1997), however the defendants’ trial occurred before Rapanos, and the Supreme Court indicated in Rapanos that Eidson’s “expansive definition” of "tributaries," "is no longer good law." The Appeals Court said, "Accordingly, we consider Rapanos in detail in order to determine exactly how and to what extent the district court’s 'navigable waters' instruction was erroneous. We then consider whether the incorrect jury instruction was harmless error."
In interpreting Rapanos, the Eleventh Circuit said, "The entire Supreme Court agreed that the term 'navigable waters' encompasses something more than traditionally 'navigable-in-fact' waters... However, five Justices concluded that remand was necessary for consideration of whether the wetlands at issue were 'navigable waters' covered by the CWA, and whether the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers had impermissibly extended their regulatory authority under the CWA. The Eleventh Circuit analyzes in some detail the Rapanos decision in three parts including: Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion; Justice Kennedy’s concurrence; and Justice Stevens’s dissent.
The Eleventh Circuit says the various appeals court circuits are also split on the question of "which Rapanos opinion provides the holding." They say both the Seventh and the Ninth Circuits concluded that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence controls and adopted the “significant nexus” test. But, they said the First Circuit, on the other hand, concluded that because the dissenting Rapanos Justices would find jurisdiction under either Justice Scalia’s plurality test or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test, “'the United States may elect to prove jurisdiction under either test.'"
The Appeals Court concludes, "in determining the governing holding in Rapanos, we cannot disconnect the facts in the case from the various opinions and determine which opinion is narrower in the abstract. Thus, pursuant to Marks, we adopt Justice Kennedy’s 'significant nexus' test as the governing definition of 'navigable waters' under Rapanos. See Gerke, 464 F.3d at 725; River Watch II, 496 F.3d at 999-1000."
Next the Appeals Court considered whether the district court’s jury charge comported with Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test. Restating that, "under Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, a water can be considered 'navigable' under the CWA only if it possesses a 'significant nexus' to waters that 'are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made...' Moreover, a 'mere hydrologic connection' will not necessarily be enough to satisfy the 'significant nexus' test." The Eleventh Circuit then rules that, "The district court here did not mention the phrase 'significant nexus' in its 'navigable waters' instruction to the jury... Rather, the district court instructed the jury that a continuous or intermittent flow into a navigable-in-fact body of water would be sufficient to bring Avondale Creek within the reach of the CWA. As such, the instruction did not satisfy Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test and was erroneous..."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access WIMS eNewsUSA Blog for various articles related to Rapanos (click here). Access various eNewsUSA blog posts related to the Rapanos decision (click here). [*Water]
The Appeals Court ruled, "The definition of 'navigable waters' in the jury charge in this case was erroneous under Rapanos, and the government has not shown that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we must vacate defendants’ CWA convictions and remand the case for a new trial." The Appeals Court also said that McWane appeals its conviction for making a false statement to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Count 24). Because McWane was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on that charge, we vacate McWane’s conviction on Count 24 as well."
In the case, the parties agree that the definition of “navigable waters” is a key element of the CWA criminal offenses in this case. Based on the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision, defendants contend that a key discharge point, Avondale Creek, is not a “navigable water” within the meaning of the CWA, and that the district court erroneously instructed the jury as to the definition of the term “navigable waters.” The district court charged the jury that “navigable waters” include “any stream which may eventually flow into a navigable stream or river,” and that such stream may be man-made and flow “only intermittently.”
The Appeals Court said the district court's jury charge relied on the definitions in United States v. Eidson, 108 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 1997), however the defendants’ trial occurred before Rapanos, and the Supreme Court indicated in Rapanos that Eidson’s “expansive definition” of "tributaries," "is no longer good law." The Appeals Court said, "Accordingly, we consider Rapanos in detail in order to determine exactly how and to what extent the district court’s 'navigable waters' instruction was erroneous. We then consider whether the incorrect jury instruction was harmless error."
In interpreting Rapanos, the Eleventh Circuit said, "The entire Supreme Court agreed that the term 'navigable waters' encompasses something more than traditionally 'navigable-in-fact' waters... However, five Justices concluded that remand was necessary for consideration of whether the wetlands at issue were 'navigable waters' covered by the CWA, and whether the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers had impermissibly extended their regulatory authority under the CWA. The Eleventh Circuit analyzes in some detail the Rapanos decision in three parts including: Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion; Justice Kennedy’s concurrence; and Justice Stevens’s dissent.
The Eleventh Circuit says the various appeals court circuits are also split on the question of "which Rapanos opinion provides the holding." They say both the Seventh and the Ninth Circuits concluded that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence controls and adopted the “significant nexus” test. But, they said the First Circuit, on the other hand, concluded that because the dissenting Rapanos Justices would find jurisdiction under either Justice Scalia’s plurality test or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test, “'the United States may elect to prove jurisdiction under either test.'"
The Appeals Court concludes, "in determining the governing holding in Rapanos, we cannot disconnect the facts in the case from the various opinions and determine which opinion is narrower in the abstract. Thus, pursuant to Marks, we adopt Justice Kennedy’s 'significant nexus' test as the governing definition of 'navigable waters' under Rapanos. See Gerke, 464 F.3d at 725; River Watch II, 496 F.3d at 999-1000."
Next the Appeals Court considered whether the district court’s jury charge comported with Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test. Restating that, "under Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, a water can be considered 'navigable' under the CWA only if it possesses a 'significant nexus' to waters that 'are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made...' Moreover, a 'mere hydrologic connection' will not necessarily be enough to satisfy the 'significant nexus' test." The Eleventh Circuit then rules that, "The district court here did not mention the phrase 'significant nexus' in its 'navigable waters' instruction to the jury... Rather, the district court instructed the jury that a continuous or intermittent flow into a navigable-in-fact body of water would be sufficient to bring Avondale Creek within the reach of the CWA. As such, the instruction did not satisfy Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test and was erroneous..."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access WIMS eNewsUSA Blog for various articles related to Rapanos (click here). Access various eNewsUSA blog posts related to the Rapanos decision (click here). [*Water]
Friday, October 26, 2007
UNEP Releases Fourth Global Environment Outlook Report
Oct 25: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says that major threats to the planet such as climate change, the rate of extinction of species, and the challenge of feeding a growing population are among the many that remain unresolved, and all of them put humanity at risk. The warning comes in UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook: Environment for Development (GEO-4) report published 20 years after the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) produced its seminal report, Our Common Future.
GEO-4, the latest in UNEP’s series of flagship reports, assesses the current state of the global atmosphere, land, water and biodiversity, describes the changes since 1987, and identifies priorities for action. GEO-4 is the most comprehensive UN report on the environment, prepared by about 390 experts and reviewed by more than 1 000 others across the world. It salutes the world’s progress in tackling some relatively straightforward problems, with the environment now much closer to mainstream politics everywhere. But despite these advances, there remain the harder-to-manage issues, the “persistent” problems. Here, GEO-4 says, “There are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favorable.”
Failure to address these persistent problems, UNEP says, may undo all the achievements so far on the simpler issues, and may threaten humanity’s survival. But it insists: “The objective is not to present a dark and gloomy scenario, but an urgent call for action.” Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director said, “The international community’s response to the Brundtland Commission has in some cases been courageous and inspiring. But all too often it has been slow and at a pace and scale that fails to respond to or recognize the magnitude of the challenges facing the people and the environment of the planet”.
“Over the past 20 years, the international community has cut, by 95 per cent, the production of ozone-layer damaging chemicals; created a greenhouse gas emission reduction treaty along with innovative carbon trading and carbon offset markets; supported a rise in terrestrial protected areas to cover roughly 12 per cent of the Earth and devised numerous important instruments covering issues from biodiversity and desertification to the trade in hazardous wastes and living modified organisms.”
“But, as GEO-4 points out, there continue to be ‘persistent’ and intractable problems unresolved and unaddressed. Past issues remain and new ones are emerging -- from the rapid rise of oxygen ‘dead zones’ in the oceans to the resurgence of new and old diseases linked in part with environmental degradation. Meanwhile, institutions like UNEP, established to counter the root causes, remain under-resourced and weak.”
On climate change the report says the threat is now so urgent that large cuts in greenhouse gases by mid-century are needed. Negotiations are due to start in December on a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate agreement which obligates countries to control anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Although it exempts all developing countries from emission reduction commitments, there is growing pressure for some rapidly-industrializing countries, now substantial emitters themselves, to agree to emission reductions.
GEO-4 also warns that we are living far beyond our means. The human population is now so large that “the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available... humanity’s footprint [its environmental demand] is 21.9 hectares per person while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person.“ And it says the well-being of billions of people in the developing world is at risk, because of a failure to remedy the relatively simple problems which have been successfully tackled elsewhere. GEO-4 recalls the Brundtland Commission’s statement that the world does not face separate crises - the “environmental crisis”, “development crisis”, and “energy crisis” are all one. This crisis includes not just climate change, extinction rates and hunger, but other problems driven by growing human numbers, the rising consumption of the rich and the desperation of the poor.
Regarding the future, GEO-4 acknowledges that technology can help to reduce people’s vulnerability to environmental stresses, but says there is sometimes a need “to correct the technology-centered development paradigm”. It explores how current trends may unfold by 2050 in four scenarios. The real future will be largely determined by the decisions individuals and society make now, GEO-4 says, “Our common future depends on our actions today, not tomorrow or some time in the future.”
Access an 8-page release and listing of facts of the report (click here). Access links to the complete 572-page report, summaries, individual sections, background information, contacts and more (click here). Access links to other GEO resources (click here). [*All]
GEO-4, the latest in UNEP’s series of flagship reports, assesses the current state of the global atmosphere, land, water and biodiversity, describes the changes since 1987, and identifies priorities for action. GEO-4 is the most comprehensive UN report on the environment, prepared by about 390 experts and reviewed by more than 1 000 others across the world. It salutes the world’s progress in tackling some relatively straightforward problems, with the environment now much closer to mainstream politics everywhere. But despite these advances, there remain the harder-to-manage issues, the “persistent” problems. Here, GEO-4 says, “There are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favorable.”
Failure to address these persistent problems, UNEP says, may undo all the achievements so far on the simpler issues, and may threaten humanity’s survival. But it insists: “The objective is not to present a dark and gloomy scenario, but an urgent call for action.” Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director said, “The international community’s response to the Brundtland Commission has in some cases been courageous and inspiring. But all too often it has been slow and at a pace and scale that fails to respond to or recognize the magnitude of the challenges facing the people and the environment of the planet”.
“Over the past 20 years, the international community has cut, by 95 per cent, the production of ozone-layer damaging chemicals; created a greenhouse gas emission reduction treaty along with innovative carbon trading and carbon offset markets; supported a rise in terrestrial protected areas to cover roughly 12 per cent of the Earth and devised numerous important instruments covering issues from biodiversity and desertification to the trade in hazardous wastes and living modified organisms.”
“But, as GEO-4 points out, there continue to be ‘persistent’ and intractable problems unresolved and unaddressed. Past issues remain and new ones are emerging -- from the rapid rise of oxygen ‘dead zones’ in the oceans to the resurgence of new and old diseases linked in part with environmental degradation. Meanwhile, institutions like UNEP, established to counter the root causes, remain under-resourced and weak.”
On climate change the report says the threat is now so urgent that large cuts in greenhouse gases by mid-century are needed. Negotiations are due to start in December on a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate agreement which obligates countries to control anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Although it exempts all developing countries from emission reduction commitments, there is growing pressure for some rapidly-industrializing countries, now substantial emitters themselves, to agree to emission reductions.
GEO-4 also warns that we are living far beyond our means. The human population is now so large that “the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available... humanity’s footprint [its environmental demand] is 21.9 hectares per person while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person.“ And it says the well-being of billions of people in the developing world is at risk, because of a failure to remedy the relatively simple problems which have been successfully tackled elsewhere. GEO-4 recalls the Brundtland Commission’s statement that the world does not face separate crises - the “environmental crisis”, “development crisis”, and “energy crisis” are all one. This crisis includes not just climate change, extinction rates and hunger, but other problems driven by growing human numbers, the rising consumption of the rich and the desperation of the poor.
Regarding the future, GEO-4 acknowledges that technology can help to reduce people’s vulnerability to environmental stresses, but says there is sometimes a need “to correct the technology-centered development paradigm”. It explores how current trends may unfold by 2050 in four scenarios. The real future will be largely determined by the decisions individuals and society make now, GEO-4 says, “Our common future depends on our actions today, not tomorrow or some time in the future.”
Access an 8-page release and listing of facts of the report (click here). Access links to the complete 572-page report, summaries, individual sections, background information, contacts and more (click here). Access links to other GEO resources (click here). [*All]
Thursday, October 25, 2007
BP To Pay Largest Criminal Fine Ever For CAA Violations
Oct 25: BP Products North America, Inc. agreed to pay a total criminal fine of more than $60 million for violations of Federal environmental regulations in Texas and Alaska. In addition to the penalty, the company will spend approximately $400 million on safety upgrades and improvements to prevent future chemical releases and spills. Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "BP committed serious environmental crimes in our two largest states, with terrible consequences for people and the environment. Today's agreement sends a message that these types of crimes will be prosecuted."
EPA said this is the largest criminal fine ever assessed against a corporation for Clean Air Act (CAA) violations and the first criminal prosecution of the requirement that refineries and chemical plants take steps to prevent accidental releases. The requirement was passed in 1990 as part of the Clean Air Act following the explosion at the Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal, India where thousands were killed and injured. BP will pay $50 million for a catastrophic explosion in 2005 that killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others at its Texas City refinery. BP will also pay a $12 million fine for spilling 200,000 gallons of crude oil onto the Alaskan tundra and onto a frozen lake in March 2006, resulting in the largest spill that ever occurred on the North Slope.
In addition to the $50 million fine, the company pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act and will serve three years of probation for the Texas City incident. BP is also required to complete a facility-wide study of its safety valves and renovate its flare system to prevent excess emissions at an estimated cost of $265 million. For the Alaska spill, BP pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor of the Clean Water Act and will serve three years probation, pay $4 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to support research and activities on the North Slope, and pay $4 million in restitution to the State of Alaska. BP is required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at an estimated cost of $150 million.
On March 23, 2005, an explosion occurred at the Texas City refinery when hydrocarbon vapor and liquid released from a stack and ignited during the process of increasing octane levels in unleaded gasoline. Investigators learned that operators regularly failed to follow written standard operating procedures for ensuring mechanical integrity of safety equipment. The stack where the release occurred had been in poor operating condition since at least April 2003. Alarms failed to function or were ignored. The Texas City refinery is BP's largest U.S. refinery, which covers more than 1,200 acres and can process as much as 460,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The refinery was previously owned by Amoco, which merged with BP in December 1998.
In March 2006, BP spilled more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil on the North Slope in Alaska. A second spill occurred in August 2006 [See WIMS 8/7/06], but was quickly contained after leaking approximately 1,000 gallons of oil. Investigators determined the leak was caused by a build up of sediment in the pipe, and that BP failed to properly inspect or clean the pipeline, which is required by law to prevent pipeline corrosion. The investigation revealed that in 2004, the company became aware of increased corrosion in the pipeline.
The company also agreed to pay fines and restitution for fraud in conspiring to corner the market and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines. Corporate Fraud Task Force (CFTC) Acting Chairman Walt Lukken said, “This case demonstrates that the CFTC will aggressively combat manipulation in the nation’s energy markets. Disrupting the energy markets hurts American consumers, and traders who engage in such misconduct face serious consequences. This announcement marks the largest manipulation settlement in CFTC history and requires the return of approximately $53 million to victims of the company’s misconduct. BP engaged in a massive manipulation -- the magnitude of this settlement reflects that the Commission will not tolerate trading abuses in our open and competitive markets.”
Access a release from EPA with links to additional information (click here). Access a separate and detailed release from the Department of Justice (click here). Access additional information from the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division (click here). [*Air, *Water, *Haz, *Energy]
EPA said this is the largest criminal fine ever assessed against a corporation for Clean Air Act (CAA) violations and the first criminal prosecution of the requirement that refineries and chemical plants take steps to prevent accidental releases. The requirement was passed in 1990 as part of the Clean Air Act following the explosion at the Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal, India where thousands were killed and injured. BP will pay $50 million for a catastrophic explosion in 2005 that killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others at its Texas City refinery. BP will also pay a $12 million fine for spilling 200,000 gallons of crude oil onto the Alaskan tundra and onto a frozen lake in March 2006, resulting in the largest spill that ever occurred on the North Slope.
In addition to the $50 million fine, the company pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act and will serve three years of probation for the Texas City incident. BP is also required to complete a facility-wide study of its safety valves and renovate its flare system to prevent excess emissions at an estimated cost of $265 million. For the Alaska spill, BP pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor of the Clean Water Act and will serve three years probation, pay $4 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to support research and activities on the North Slope, and pay $4 million in restitution to the State of Alaska. BP is required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at an estimated cost of $150 million.
On March 23, 2005, an explosion occurred at the Texas City refinery when hydrocarbon vapor and liquid released from a stack and ignited during the process of increasing octane levels in unleaded gasoline. Investigators learned that operators regularly failed to follow written standard operating procedures for ensuring mechanical integrity of safety equipment. The stack where the release occurred had been in poor operating condition since at least April 2003. Alarms failed to function or were ignored. The Texas City refinery is BP's largest U.S. refinery, which covers more than 1,200 acres and can process as much as 460,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The refinery was previously owned by Amoco, which merged with BP in December 1998.
In March 2006, BP spilled more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil on the North Slope in Alaska. A second spill occurred in August 2006 [See WIMS 8/7/06], but was quickly contained after leaking approximately 1,000 gallons of oil. Investigators determined the leak was caused by a build up of sediment in the pipe, and that BP failed to properly inspect or clean the pipeline, which is required by law to prevent pipeline corrosion. The investigation revealed that in 2004, the company became aware of increased corrosion in the pipeline.
The company also agreed to pay fines and restitution for fraud in conspiring to corner the market and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines. Corporate Fraud Task Force (CFTC) Acting Chairman Walt Lukken said, “This case demonstrates that the CFTC will aggressively combat manipulation in the nation’s energy markets. Disrupting the energy markets hurts American consumers, and traders who engage in such misconduct face serious consequences. This announcement marks the largest manipulation settlement in CFTC history and requires the return of approximately $53 million to victims of the company’s misconduct. BP engaged in a massive manipulation -- the magnitude of this settlement reflects that the Commission will not tolerate trading abuses in our open and competitive markets.”
Access a release from EPA with links to additional information (click here). Access a separate and detailed release from the Department of Justice (click here). Access additional information from the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division (click here). [*Air, *Water, *Haz, *Energy]
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Forum Explores Establishing National Environmental Accounts
Oct 24: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Measuring Our Nation's Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability: Highlights of a Forum Jointly Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States and the National Academy of Science (GAO-08-127SP, October 24, 2007). GAO indicates that one of the greatest challenges facing the United States in the 21st century is sustaining our natural resources and safeguarding our environmental assets for future generations while promoting economic growth and maintaining our quality of life. To manage natural resources effectively and efficiently, policymakers need information and methods to analyze the dynamic interplay between the economy and the environment.
Enhancing the information to make sound decisions can be facilitated by developing national environmental accounts. These accounts provide a framework for organizing information on the status, use, and value of natural resources and environmental assets, as well as on expenditures on environmental protection and resource management. While many countries have developed and are using environmental accounts, the United States lags behind. GAO and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convened a forum to discuss developing accounts in the United States. Participants included U.S. Federal agency officials and national and international statistical, energy, environment, and natural resource experts.
Participants suggested four broad criteria to use in determining what components of environmental accounting should be developed. These criteria were identifying the objective of the accounts, considering the availability and quality of data, ensuring that accounts provide information on current natural wealth, and considering the timeliness and regularity with which accounts can be produced. Participants generally agreed that pollution and material flow accounts, which provide industry-level information about the generation of pollutants and solid waste and energy and material use, are most critical for the United States to develop first.
Participants broadly agreed that the greatest challenge to developing environmental accounts in the United States is the need for support from policymakers and others. Other key challenges include institutional differences based on agencies’ varying missions; the need for funding; data availability, compatibility, and reliability; and methodological uncertainty. Participants suggested the following strategies, among others, for overcoming these challenges: • Identify policymakers, experts, and others who support the effort. • Build an economic business case for environmental accounting. • Use an incremental approach. • Take the time necessary to develop high quality accounts.
In terms of general observations and next steps, participants generally agreed that developing environmental accounts is important for both our nation’s environmental and economic sustainability. Several participants offered to be partners in an effort to develop U.S. environmental accounts but noted that they would need congressional support and a designated lead agency to spearhead the effort.
The United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and other international institutions have recommended that countries develop environmental accounts. Environmental accounts provide a framework for collecting and organizing information on the status, use, and value of the nation’s natural resources and environmental assets, as well as on expenditures on environmental protection and resource management. To support the development of such accounts, the UN, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, OECD, and the World Bank issued a handbook in 2003 for use by both national and international agencies for compiling environmental accounts reflecting their information needs and priorities.
Many industrialized countries, such as Australia, Canada, and France, and some developing countries, including Namibia and the Philippines, have developed some components of environmental accounting and continue to refine their accounts. For example, to better understand how to make the most of Australia’s limited water resources, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the National Water Commission have produced three water accounts since 2000 that track the supply and use of water in the Australian economy. In addition, since the early 1990s, Canada has annually produced environmental accounts, which have been used, among other things, to develop environment-economy indicators such as urban-rural land use change and annual stock estimates for timber, energy, and mineral resources. The United States, however, lags behind these and other countries.
Access the complete 38-page report (click here). [*All]
Enhancing the information to make sound decisions can be facilitated by developing national environmental accounts. These accounts provide a framework for organizing information on the status, use, and value of natural resources and environmental assets, as well as on expenditures on environmental protection and resource management. While many countries have developed and are using environmental accounts, the United States lags behind. GAO and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convened a forum to discuss developing accounts in the United States. Participants included U.S. Federal agency officials and national and international statistical, energy, environment, and natural resource experts.
Participants suggested four broad criteria to use in determining what components of environmental accounting should be developed. These criteria were identifying the objective of the accounts, considering the availability and quality of data, ensuring that accounts provide information on current natural wealth, and considering the timeliness and regularity with which accounts can be produced. Participants generally agreed that pollution and material flow accounts, which provide industry-level information about the generation of pollutants and solid waste and energy and material use, are most critical for the United States to develop first.
Participants broadly agreed that the greatest challenge to developing environmental accounts in the United States is the need for support from policymakers and others. Other key challenges include institutional differences based on agencies’ varying missions; the need for funding; data availability, compatibility, and reliability; and methodological uncertainty. Participants suggested the following strategies, among others, for overcoming these challenges: • Identify policymakers, experts, and others who support the effort. • Build an economic business case for environmental accounting. • Use an incremental approach. • Take the time necessary to develop high quality accounts.
In terms of general observations and next steps, participants generally agreed that developing environmental accounts is important for both our nation’s environmental and economic sustainability. Several participants offered to be partners in an effort to develop U.S. environmental accounts but noted that they would need congressional support and a designated lead agency to spearhead the effort.
The United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and other international institutions have recommended that countries develop environmental accounts. Environmental accounts provide a framework for collecting and organizing information on the status, use, and value of the nation’s natural resources and environmental assets, as well as on expenditures on environmental protection and resource management. To support the development of such accounts, the UN, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, OECD, and the World Bank issued a handbook in 2003 for use by both national and international agencies for compiling environmental accounts reflecting their information needs and priorities.
Many industrialized countries, such as Australia, Canada, and France, and some developing countries, including Namibia and the Philippines, have developed some components of environmental accounting and continue to refine their accounts. For example, to better understand how to make the most of Australia’s limited water resources, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the National Water Commission have produced three water accounts since 2000 that track the supply and use of water in the Australian economy. In addition, since the early 1990s, Canada has annually produced environmental accounts, which have been used, among other things, to develop environment-economy indicators such as urban-rural land use change and annual stock estimates for timber, energy, and mineral resources. The United States, however, lags behind these and other countries.
Access the complete 38-page report (click here). [*All]
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Roadmap For Sustainable Development Of Global Energy Resources
Oct 22: A new report from the InterAcademy Council -- made up of over 100 of the world's science, engineering, and medical academies -- lays out a roadmap for sustainable development of global energy resources. It recommends that governments provide research and financial incentives for the development of renewable energy sources, impose prices to discourage carbon emissions, and take steps to meet the basic needs of the 1.6 billion people worldwide who currently live without modern energy services. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences is a member of the IAC.
The report, Lighting The Way, commissioned by the governments of Brazil and China, identifies a scientific consensus framework for directing global energy development. It lays out the science, technology and policy roadmap for developing energy resources to drive economic growth in both industrialized and developing countries while also securing climate protection and global development goals. The report was produced by a study panel of 15 world-renowned energy experts, co-chaired by Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in the United States, and José Goldemberg, former Secretary of State for the Environment for the State of São Paulo, Brazil.
The report establishes the best practices for a global transition to a clean, affordable and sustainable energy supply in both developing and developed countries. The report addresses incentives that can accelerate the development of innovative solutions, provides recommendations for financial investments in research and development and explores other transition pathways that can transform the landscape of energy supply and demand around the globe.
In addressing mitigation of the environmental impacts of energy generation and use, the report informs global action on climate change, such as implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, agenda setting for the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, and ongoing multinational talks on future global action to reduce greenhouse emissions. The report also confronts the unequal access to energy experienced by the one-third of the world’s population without access to basic energy services, and makes recommendations for addressing this disparity as well as for promoting national and global energy security.
Access an overview and link to the report by sections or in total (click here). Access a 15-page executive summary (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
The report, Lighting The Way, commissioned by the governments of Brazil and China, identifies a scientific consensus framework for directing global energy development. It lays out the science, technology and policy roadmap for developing energy resources to drive economic growth in both industrialized and developing countries while also securing climate protection and global development goals. The report was produced by a study panel of 15 world-renowned energy experts, co-chaired by Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in the United States, and José Goldemberg, former Secretary of State for the Environment for the State of São Paulo, Brazil.
The report establishes the best practices for a global transition to a clean, affordable and sustainable energy supply in both developing and developed countries. The report addresses incentives that can accelerate the development of innovative solutions, provides recommendations for financial investments in research and development and explores other transition pathways that can transform the landscape of energy supply and demand around the globe.
In addressing mitigation of the environmental impacts of energy generation and use, the report informs global action on climate change, such as implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, agenda setting for the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, and ongoing multinational talks on future global action to reduce greenhouse emissions. The report also confronts the unequal access to energy experienced by the one-third of the world’s population without access to basic energy services, and makes recommendations for addressing this disparity as well as for promoting national and global energy security.
Access an overview and link to the report by sections or in total (click here). Access a 15-page executive summary (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]
Monday, October 22, 2007
Energy Bill Tensions; Senators Want Conference & Changes To CAFE
Oct 18: Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and a bipartisan group of Senate colleagues including Mark Pryor (D-AR), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Christopher Bond (R-MO), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) wrote to Senate leaders and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee to call for a House-Senate conference on the energy bill and to highlight four issues related to fuel economy standards that would need to be satisfactorily resolved in the conference. The Senators said, “We agree that CAFE standards must be increased and support aggressive yet achievable new standards, and we are wiling to work with you to find a compromise that accomplishes this goal. While we support efforts to go to conference, for the same reasons we opposed the Senate provisions on CAFE, we would strongly object to a conference report that adopted these provisions because they would have a needlessly detrimental effect on the auto industry and its workers.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) criticized the Senators' action, and particularly Senators Levin and Stabenow saying they had asked Senate leaders to weaken the vehicle fuel economy provision in the energy bill. UCS said the Senators' "laundry list of complaints are based on tired auto industry rhetoric that has been debunked by multiple critics, including the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute." The group also pointed out that the Senate rejected a nearly identical attempt to weaken the provision, which would require automakers to meet a 35-miles-per-gallon fleet average by 2020, when it passed its version of the energy bill this summer.
Eli Hopson, Washington representative for the UCS's Clean Vehicle Program said, "The auto industry and its allies in Congress have long since lost any credibility when it comes to fuel economy legislation. It's time for Michigan's senators to acknowledge that what's good for America is good for Detroit. A 35-miles-per-gallon fleet average would generate hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs, save consumers tens of billions of dollars at the pump, and dramatically cut our dependence on oil. With oil now at more than $80 a barrel, we're sending a billion dollars a day out of the country to pay for oil imports."
UCS said the weak, automaker-backed proposal Senators Levin and Stabenow favor also would extend a flex-fuel loophole allowing automakers to earn fuel economy credits for vehicles that can run on alternative fuels, but which, in practice, run on conventional gasoline 99 percent of the time.
On October 18, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calling for a formal Senate-House conference committee to finalize an energy bill. Domenici was joined on the letter by Senator Ted Stevens, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Senator James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In their letter, the three Senators said, "We are writing in regard to energy legislation pending before the Congress. As you recall, the Senate passed H.R. 6 on June 21st [See WIMS 6/22/07]. On August 4th [See WIMS 8/4/07], the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221. Last Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi announced her intention to bypass the appointment of a conference committee to reconcile the differences between these two bills. We regret the Speaker’s decision to do this and we are deeply concerned about the integrity of long-standing procedures in the Congress if the Speaker’s decision is allowed to stand. Upon the commencement of the 110th Congress, the Senate Majority Leadership stated that the Congress would have 'real, public, conferences in which public issues would be debated and voted upon.' Today, the Majority Leadership in the House of Representatives is putting that promise to the test."
Access a brief announcement from Senator Levin (click here). Access the Levin, et al letter (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access the release and letter from Senators Domenici, et al (click here). [*Energy]
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) criticized the Senators' action, and particularly Senators Levin and Stabenow saying they had asked Senate leaders to weaken the vehicle fuel economy provision in the energy bill. UCS said the Senators' "laundry list of complaints are based on tired auto industry rhetoric that has been debunked by multiple critics, including the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute." The group also pointed out that the Senate rejected a nearly identical attempt to weaken the provision, which would require automakers to meet a 35-miles-per-gallon fleet average by 2020, when it passed its version of the energy bill this summer.
Eli Hopson, Washington representative for the UCS's Clean Vehicle Program said, "The auto industry and its allies in Congress have long since lost any credibility when it comes to fuel economy legislation. It's time for Michigan's senators to acknowledge that what's good for America is good for Detroit. A 35-miles-per-gallon fleet average would generate hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs, save consumers tens of billions of dollars at the pump, and dramatically cut our dependence on oil. With oil now at more than $80 a barrel, we're sending a billion dollars a day out of the country to pay for oil imports."
UCS said the weak, automaker-backed proposal Senators Levin and Stabenow favor also would extend a flex-fuel loophole allowing automakers to earn fuel economy credits for vehicles that can run on alternative fuels, but which, in practice, run on conventional gasoline 99 percent of the time.
On October 18, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calling for a formal Senate-House conference committee to finalize an energy bill. Domenici was joined on the letter by Senator Ted Stevens, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Senator James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In their letter, the three Senators said, "We are writing in regard to energy legislation pending before the Congress. As you recall, the Senate passed H.R. 6 on June 21st [See WIMS 6/22/07]. On August 4th [See WIMS 8/4/07], the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221. Last Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi announced her intention to bypass the appointment of a conference committee to reconcile the differences between these two bills. We regret the Speaker’s decision to do this and we are deeply concerned about the integrity of long-standing procedures in the Congress if the Speaker’s decision is allowed to stand. Upon the commencement of the 110th Congress, the Senate Majority Leadership stated that the Congress would have 'real, public, conferences in which public issues would be debated and voted upon.' Today, the Majority Leadership in the House of Representatives is putting that promise to the test."
Access a brief announcement from Senator Levin (click here). Access the Levin, et al letter (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access the release and letter from Senators Domenici, et al (click here). [*Energy]
Friday, October 19, 2007
Electrical Demand Projected To Double Resource Commitment
Oct 16: Electricity usage in the United States is projected to grow more than twice as fast as committed resources over the next 10 years, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and its annual 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2007-2016. Unless additional resources are brought into service, some areas could fall below their target capacity margins within two or three years. In parts of western Canada, demand is projected to outpace resource growth within about two years.
Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC said, “We are at the stage where emergency situations are becoming more frequent. Though some improvements have been made, we are requiring our aging grid to bear more and more strain, and are operating the system at or near its limits more often than ever before. As operating margins decrease, we are limiting our ability to manage unplanned events like equipment failures and extreme weather."
NERC’s primary roles in providing this assessment are to identify areas of concern regarding the reliability of the North American bulk power system, and to make recommendations for their remedy. This is the second such assessment prepared by NERC in its capacity as the U.S. Electric Reliability Organization. NERC cannot order construction of additional generation or transmission or adopt enforceable standards having that effect, as that authority is explicitly withheld by Section 215 of the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition, NERC does not make any projections or draw any conclusions regarding expected electricity prices or the
efficiency of electricity markets.
The 2007 Assessment provides a high-level assessment of future resource adequacy, an overview of projected electricity demand growth and generation and transmission additions, an analysis of two scenarios that could affect future reliability, and regional self-assessments. This year’s report also includes an in-depth discussion of long-term emerging issues and trends that, while not posing an immediate threat to reliability, will influence future bulk power system planning, development, and system analysis. Specific reliability findings, as detailed in the report, include findings on: wind, solar, and nuclear generation; capacity margins; transmission; aging workforce; and natural gas reliance.
The NERC mission is to ensure the reliability of the bulk power system in North America. To achieve that, NERC develops and enforces reliability standards; assesses adequacy annually via a 10-year forecast and winter and summer forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; audits owners, operators, and users for preparedness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC is a self-regulatory organization, subject to oversight by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and governmental authorities in Canada.
As of June 18, 2007, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted NERC the legal authority to enforce reliability standards with all U.S. owners, operators, and users of the bulk power system, and made compliance with those standards mandatory, as opposed to voluntary. NERC has similar authority in Ontario and New Brunswick, and is seeking to extend that authority to the other Canadian provinces. NERC will seek recognition in Mexico once the necessary legislation is adopted.
Access a release from NERC (click here). Access the complete 237-page report (click here). [*Energy]
Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC said, “We are at the stage where emergency situations are becoming more frequent. Though some improvements have been made, we are requiring our aging grid to bear more and more strain, and are operating the system at or near its limits more often than ever before. As operating margins decrease, we are limiting our ability to manage unplanned events like equipment failures and extreme weather."
NERC’s primary roles in providing this assessment are to identify areas of concern regarding the reliability of the North American bulk power system, and to make recommendations for their remedy. This is the second such assessment prepared by NERC in its capacity as the U.S. Electric Reliability Organization. NERC cannot order construction of additional generation or transmission or adopt enforceable standards having that effect, as that authority is explicitly withheld by Section 215 of the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition, NERC does not make any projections or draw any conclusions regarding expected electricity prices or the
efficiency of electricity markets.
The 2007 Assessment provides a high-level assessment of future resource adequacy, an overview of projected electricity demand growth and generation and transmission additions, an analysis of two scenarios that could affect future reliability, and regional self-assessments. This year’s report also includes an in-depth discussion of long-term emerging issues and trends that, while not posing an immediate threat to reliability, will influence future bulk power system planning, development, and system analysis. Specific reliability findings, as detailed in the report, include findings on: wind, solar, and nuclear generation; capacity margins; transmission; aging workforce; and natural gas reliance.
The NERC mission is to ensure the reliability of the bulk power system in North America. To achieve that, NERC develops and enforces reliability standards; assesses adequacy annually via a 10-year forecast and winter and summer forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; audits owners, operators, and users for preparedness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC is a self-regulatory organization, subject to oversight by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and governmental authorities in Canada.
As of June 18, 2007, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted NERC the legal authority to enforce reliability standards with all U.S. owners, operators, and users of the bulk power system, and made compliance with those standards mandatory, as opposed to voluntary. NERC has similar authority in Ontario and New Brunswick, and is seeking to extend that authority to the other Canadian provinces. NERC will seek recognition in Mexico once the necessary legislation is adopted.
Access a release from NERC (click here). Access the complete 237-page report (click here). [*Energy]
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Lieberman-Warner Introduce America's Climate Security Act
Oct 18: Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) formally introduced their America's Climate Security Act (S. 2191). The two Senators, who are the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection, originally announced their intention to develop the bill on June 28 [See WIMS 6/29/07]; then unveiled a more detailed proposal for the bill on August 2, 2007 [See WIMS 8/2/07].
Senator Lieberman said, "With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation. If we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
Senator Warner said, "In my 28 years in the Senate, I have focused above all on issues of national security, and I see the problem of global climate change as fitting squarely within that focus. Today we introduced a balanced bill. Senator Lieberman and I found a good, sound, starting point that sends a significant signal that the U.S. is serious about taking a leadership role in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a floor statement on the introduction of the bill. Boxer said, "today will be remembered as a turning point in the fight against global warming. Here's why:
"First, it represents a bi-partisan breakthrough on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I have made restoring bipartisanship one of my priorities as Chairman of the Committee. And second, if enacted it would be the strongest global warming program in the world in terms of its reach...
"Today, with the introduction of this bill, we are taking the first, immensely important legislative step to meet the challenge of global warming with hope not fear and with approaches that are carefully thought out and some already successfully tried out...like a cap and trade system that has been so successful in addressing acid rain, and energy efficiency which has been so effective in lowering per capita energy use, costs and greenhouse gas emissions in states like California.
"I have been working closely with Senators Warner and Lieberman as they have assembled their bill. I have been very impressed with the effort they have invested in seeking out the views of other Senators and other groups, and in the work they have put into examining the other global warming bills that have been proposed. In my own conversations with them, I have laid out some important principles that I believe must be reflected in legislation to address the challenge of global warming.
"1) The first, most important thing is that any bill has to include real, mandatory cuts in global warming pollution. Any bill we pass must set the nation on the path to achieving the emissions reductions that will avoid dangerous climate change. Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, we anticipate reaching 1990 emissions levels in the U.S. by 2020. That will send a strong, early signal to the marketplace - a very important part of getting where we need to go.
"2) The second necessary element is the flexibility to respond to new information. I like to call it "look backs." The bill must include provisions for continuing to review the science and the results of our policies at regular intervals. We also must know if we need to do more, and we must always reflect the most current science.
"3) Third, we must establish a cap-and-trade program for global warming pollution like the one that has worked so well in curbing acid rain. A cap and trade system will put a market price on carbon, driving greater efficiency and new technologies while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"4) Fourth, we must protect the pioneering state efforts that are already underway. The states have been leading the way on this issue. My home state of California has been the trail blazer on this issue, and other states are also making tremendous progress. Of course, California's AB 32 -- passed by the state's Democratic legislature and signed by a Republican governor -- is the gold standard. A total of 29 states have completed comprehensive Climate Action Plans and many have set mandatory reduction targets.
"5) Fifth, it is a moral imperative to do what we can to ease the impacts of global warming -- not only on the American consumer, but on world populations suffering from droughts, floods and famine. I look forward to working with communities of faith and others as we work to address theses issues.
"6) Finally, a bill must take into account the actions of countries that are not making progress toward a clean, sustainable energy future and must help level the playing field. Countries that want to export their goods to the U.S. must take steps consistent with our global warming policy or be held accountable for their emissions.
"These elements are all included in the Lieberman Warner bill... The bipartisan progress made in this bill is a reflection of how far we have come, and brings us closer to the day when we enact comprehensive legislation to deal with the challenge of global warming."
Environmental Defense, a key supporter of the bill, issued a release saying that the bill would require that covered sectors (about 80% of the U.S. economy) reduce emissions by 15% below 2005 levels in 2020, a "strong target" that they say "helps put the U.S. on the path to much deeper reductions by the middle of the century." The sponsors estimate that energy-efficiency policies also included in the bill would generate additional reductions, for a total economy-wide reduction of up to 18% by 2020. Responding to environmental concerns the senators tightened their short-term target from earlier proposals. Environmental Defense said, "This new target is at a level that would send a clear signal to companies and markets to begin investing now in new low-carbon technologies, and would make sure America is on the path necessary to achieve the long term goals required by global warming science." They said the centerpiece of the bill is a mandatory cap on emissions from the electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sectors, coupled with emissions trading provisions that will help companies meet the cap at the lowest cost. The cap requires a 70% reduction from these covered sources. The sponsors estimate that the bill's energy-efficiency policies, when combined with the cap, would produce overall reductions of up to 63% compared to 2005 levels.
In a second release, Environmental Defense said bipartisan support for the bill was growing. Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense said, “The momentum has never been greater and the path forward has never been clearer. These Senators deserve real credit for recognizing the need for action and bringing their vital support to an approach that promises to deliver environmental and economic results.” Cosponsors included: Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
In a release from Lieberman and Warner, the two also highlighted support statements for the bill from: National Wildlife Federation; Exelon Corporation; PGE Corp; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access an webcast of Senators Lieberman, Boxer and Warner, on introduction of the bill (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here, posted soon). Access two releases from Environmental Defense (click here); and (click here). [*Climate]
Senator Lieberman said, "With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation. If we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
Senator Warner said, "In my 28 years in the Senate, I have focused above all on issues of national security, and I see the problem of global climate change as fitting squarely within that focus. Today we introduced a balanced bill. Senator Lieberman and I found a good, sound, starting point that sends a significant signal that the U.S. is serious about taking a leadership role in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions."
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a floor statement on the introduction of the bill. Boxer said, "today will be remembered as a turning point in the fight against global warming. Here's why:
"First, it represents a bi-partisan breakthrough on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I have made restoring bipartisanship one of my priorities as Chairman of the Committee. And second, if enacted it would be the strongest global warming program in the world in terms of its reach...
"Today, with the introduction of this bill, we are taking the first, immensely important legislative step to meet the challenge of global warming with hope not fear and with approaches that are carefully thought out and some already successfully tried out...like a cap and trade system that has been so successful in addressing acid rain, and energy efficiency which has been so effective in lowering per capita energy use, costs and greenhouse gas emissions in states like California.
"I have been working closely with Senators Warner and Lieberman as they have assembled their bill. I have been very impressed with the effort they have invested in seeking out the views of other Senators and other groups, and in the work they have put into examining the other global warming bills that have been proposed. In my own conversations with them, I have laid out some important principles that I believe must be reflected in legislation to address the challenge of global warming.
"1) The first, most important thing is that any bill has to include real, mandatory cuts in global warming pollution. Any bill we pass must set the nation on the path to achieving the emissions reductions that will avoid dangerous climate change. Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, we anticipate reaching 1990 emissions levels in the U.S. by 2020. That will send a strong, early signal to the marketplace - a very important part of getting where we need to go.
"2) The second necessary element is the flexibility to respond to new information. I like to call it "look backs." The bill must include provisions for continuing to review the science and the results of our policies at regular intervals. We also must know if we need to do more, and we must always reflect the most current science.
"3) Third, we must establish a cap-and-trade program for global warming pollution like the one that has worked so well in curbing acid rain. A cap and trade system will put a market price on carbon, driving greater efficiency and new technologies while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"4) Fourth, we must protect the pioneering state efforts that are already underway. The states have been leading the way on this issue. My home state of California has been the trail blazer on this issue, and other states are also making tremendous progress. Of course, California's AB 32 -- passed by the state's Democratic legislature and signed by a Republican governor -- is the gold standard. A total of 29 states have completed comprehensive Climate Action Plans and many have set mandatory reduction targets.
"5) Fifth, it is a moral imperative to do what we can to ease the impacts of global warming -- not only on the American consumer, but on world populations suffering from droughts, floods and famine. I look forward to working with communities of faith and others as we work to address theses issues.
"6) Finally, a bill must take into account the actions of countries that are not making progress toward a clean, sustainable energy future and must help level the playing field. Countries that want to export their goods to the U.S. must take steps consistent with our global warming policy or be held accountable for their emissions.
"These elements are all included in the Lieberman Warner bill... The bipartisan progress made in this bill is a reflection of how far we have come, and brings us closer to the day when we enact comprehensive legislation to deal with the challenge of global warming."
Environmental Defense, a key supporter of the bill, issued a release saying that the bill would require that covered sectors (about 80% of the U.S. economy) reduce emissions by 15% below 2005 levels in 2020, a "strong target" that they say "helps put the U.S. on the path to much deeper reductions by the middle of the century." The sponsors estimate that energy-efficiency policies also included in the bill would generate additional reductions, for a total economy-wide reduction of up to 18% by 2020. Responding to environmental concerns the senators tightened their short-term target from earlier proposals. Environmental Defense said, "This new target is at a level that would send a clear signal to companies and markets to begin investing now in new low-carbon technologies, and would make sure America is on the path necessary to achieve the long term goals required by global warming science." They said the centerpiece of the bill is a mandatory cap on emissions from the electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sectors, coupled with emissions trading provisions that will help companies meet the cap at the lowest cost. The cap requires a 70% reduction from these covered sources. The sponsors estimate that the bill's energy-efficiency policies, when combined with the cap, would produce overall reductions of up to 63% compared to 2005 levels.
In a second release, Environmental Defense said bipartisan support for the bill was growing. Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense said, “The momentum has never been greater and the path forward has never been clearer. These Senators deserve real credit for recognizing the need for action and bringing their vital support to an approach that promises to deliver environmental and economic results.” Cosponsors included: Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
In a release from Lieberman and Warner, the two also highlighted support statements for the bill from: National Wildlife Federation; Exelon Corporation; PGE Corp; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
Access a release from Senator Lieberman (click here). Access the complete statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access an webcast of Senators Lieberman, Boxer and Warner, on introduction of the bill (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here, posted soon). Access two releases from Environmental Defense (click here); and (click here). [*Climate]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
