GOP Takes Control Of House; Senate Dems Retain Control

Nov 3: Big changes will be taking place in the U.S. House of Representatives next year as a result of the Republican sweep to power in yesterday's election. Unofficially, Republican's will have something on the order of a 242-193 majority in the House. One of the first big changes will be in the House Committee makeup and Chairmanships. 

 

    Next year, Representative John Boehner (R-OH) will assume the office of Speaker of the House, replacing the current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Speaker-elect Boehner will be pursuing the House Republicans "A Pledge to America," release on September 23 [See WIMS 9/23/10]. Among other items, the Pledge indicates, "In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent. An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people. An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose. . ."

 

    Among other items the 48-page Pledge details, Republicans say: "We will fight to increase access to domestic energy sources and oppose attempts to impose a national 'cap and trade' energy tax. . . The constant threat of new taxes and new regulations prevents investors and entrepreneurs from putting capital at risk. These private sector employers must be given the certainty that if they take a risk to expand their company or hire a new employee, Washington won't yank the rug from under their feet. . . Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy. . ."

 

    Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) will likely assume the leadership of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing Chair Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). Representative Barton who previously Chaired the Committee and is currently the Ranking Member, was nearly stripped of his Committee assignments for his widely publicized public apology to BP and his comments about being "ashamed" of the $20 billion oil spill claims fund agreement which the White House negotiated with BP. In comments before the Committee, Barton apologized to BP and called the agreement a "shakedown." [See WIMS 6/18/10].

 

    Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) will likely assume the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environment and Energy Subcommittee, currently Chaired by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA). On October 20, Representative Upton authored a lengthy op-ed in the Washington Times entitled, "Declaring War on the Regulatory State." [See WIMS 10/20/10]. Rep. Upton said Republicans would terminate what he called the "wasteful" Select Committee on Climate Change, established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and also Chaired by Rep. Markey. He said the Committee "has needlessly spent nearly $8 million in taxpayer money. . . "

 

    Rep. Upton also said the "EPA is working on a regulatory train wreck that includes the following job-killing regulations." He specifically listed: Cooling water intake systems for power plants; Coal ash regulations; Industrial and commercial boilers; and Revised ozone standards. He said, "No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has voted to approve it and the president has had an opportunity to approve or veto congressional action."

 

    Unofficially, other major House Committee changes will likely include: House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, now Chaired by Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D-NY) will go to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA); the House Science & Technology Committee, now Chaired by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) (did not run for reelection) will likely go to Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX); House Transportation &  Infrastructure Committee, now Chaired by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), who was defeated in the election, will likely go to Rep. John Mica (R-FL); and the House Committee on Natural Resources, now Chaired by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) will likely go to Rep. Doc  Hastings (R-WA).

 

    In the U.S. Senate, changes will be less dramatic as Democrats narrowly retain control with 49 Democrats, 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, and 46 Republicans. Senate races in Arkansas, Alaska and Colorado still undecided in close races. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) retained his Nevada Senate seat in a highly publicized race against his Republican opponent Sharon Angle. In the close race, Senator Reid managed to win 50% of the vote as opposed to Angle's 45%. It is generally assumed that Committee chairmanships will remain the same. Senate floor votes will remain contentious with the ability to achieve cloture votes of 60 even more difficult than before.

 

    In a lengthy statement and news conference on the election results President Obama specifically mentioned energy alternatives and an alternatives to cap-and-trade as probable areas where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground. Specifically he said that cap and trade was a "means to an end" not the only means. He said it was only one way to "skin a cat."

 

    Access the CNN election website for results by the U.S., states, and local districts (click here). Access a link to the President's comments which should be posted soon (click here).

Agencies Say Gulf Seafood Coming To Market Is Safe

Oct 29: Building upon the extensive testing and protocols already in use by federal, state and local officials for the fishing waters of the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have developed and are using a chemical test to detect dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon-BP oil spill in fish, oysters, crab and shrimp. Trace amounts of the chemicals used in dispersants are common, and levels for safety have been previously set. The agencies said using this new test in the Gulf scientists have tested 1,735 tissue samples including more than half of those collected to reopen Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Only a few showed trace amounts of dispersants residue (13 of the 1,735) and they were well below the safety threshold of 100 parts per million for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp, crabs and oysters. As such, they do not pose a threat to human health.

    According to a release, experts trained in a rigorous sensory analysis process have been testing Gulf seafood for the presence of contaminants, and every seafood sample from reopened waters has passed sensory testing for contamination with oil and dispersant. Nonetheless, to ensure consumers have total confidence in the safety of seafood being harvested from the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have added this second test for dispersant when considering reopening Gulf waters to fishing. The new test detects dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, known as DOSS, a major component of the dispersants used in the Gulf. DOSS is also approved by FDA for use in various household products and over-the-counter medication at very low levels. The best scientific data to date indicates that DOSS does not build up in fish tissues.

    Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary for commerce and NOAA administrator said,  "The rigorous testing we have done from the very beginning gives us confidence in the safety of seafood being brought to market from the Gulf. This test adds another layer of information, reinforcing our findings to date that seafood from the Gulf remains safe." Margaret Hamburg, Ph.D., FDA commissioner said, "This new test should help strengthen consumer confidence in Gulf seafood. The overwhelming majority of the seafood tested shows no detectable residue, and not one of the samples shows a residue level that would be harmful for humans. There is no question Gulf seafood coming to market is safe from oil or dispersant residue."

    The 1,735 samples tested so far were collected from June to September and cover a wide area of the Gulf. The samples come from open areas in state and Federal waters, and from fishermen who brought fish to the docks at the request of federal seafood analysts. The samples come from a range of species, including grouper, tuna, wahoo, swordfish, gray snapper, butterfish, red drum, croaker, and shrimp, crabs and oysters. Nearly 9,444 square miles, or about 4 percent of the federal waters in the Gulf are still closed to commercial and recreational fishing.

    Previous research provided information about how finfish metabolize DOSS, and at FDA's Dauphin Island, Alabama lab, scientists undertook further exposure experiments on fish, oysters and crab; similar experiments on shrimp were held at NOAA's Galveston, Texas lab. These exposure studies further support that fish, crustaceans and shellfish quickly clear dispersant from their tissues, and provided samples with known concentrations for use as standards for validating the methodology. Samples undergoing chemical analysis are always accompanied by standards with known concentrations of DOSS, to verify the equipment continues to measure the compound accurately.

    Access a release from the agencies (click here).

Another Report & International Moratorium On Climate Geoengineering

Oct 29: The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) released an additional report on the highly controversial subject of geoengineerig entitled, Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Collaboration. The Chairman's report identifies Federal expertise and capabilities relevant to climate engineering research, and calls for transparency, public engagement, international collaboration and a robust risk assessment framework should research be pursued. The report follows the October 26 release of a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903, September 23, 2010) [See WIMS 10/26/10]. Ironically, the Committee's report was also released on the same day that 110 ministers at the COP10 meeting at the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Nagoya, Japan  [See WIMS 10/18/10] were approving a consensus decision to adopt a moratorium on geoengineering.

    Representative Gordon was quick to clarify that, "This report is in no way meant as an endorsement of climate engineering. It is my intent that this report, and all of the Committee's activities on this subject provide a forum for an open and honest public dialogue regarding the science of climate engineering. It gives insight into where existing federal research capacities lie that could be leveraged for these activities -- to  help preclude undesirable activities and to establish key next steps for the management and governance of research, in addition to encouraging continued conversation within the federal government on this important topic." 

    Chairman Gordon indicated the Committee's latest report reviews the results of an 18 month inquiry conducted in cooperation with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. During this inquiry the U.S. Committee held three public hearings on climate engineering (November 5th, 2009, February 4th, 2010, and March 18th, 2010), and staff reviewed expert testimony and conducted informal interviews with leading political and scientific experts within federal agencies.

   Chairman Gordon said, "Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects. I want to be absolutely clear that I am not in favor of deploying climate engineering; making firm commitments and taking real actions to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions should always be the priority. However, if we find ourselves passing an environmental tipping point, we will need to have done research to understand our options. Developing the science will take time, as will developing appropriate governance structures. We've started the conversation in Congress and with the UK House of Parliament; I hope that consideration of appropriate research investments will follow. We need healthy debate, a transparent process, clear action on emission reductions, and sound scientific research to provide a solid foundation for the tough decision-making that climate change will demand in the future."

    According to a release from Chairman Gordon the report:

• Contains background information on the topic of climate engineering and exploratory research activities currently being conducted.
• Summarizes the Science and Technology Committee's public hearings on climate engineering.
• Identifies key research needs.
• Identifies activities, tools and skills present in federal agencies that could be leveraged for climate engineering research and provides recommendations for research priorities within these agencies.  Featured agencies include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
• Explores potential capacities for, and provides recommendations on, how research might be organized at the federal level and what lessons can be learned from past experiences.
• Provides general recommendations about next steps, research priorities and management strategies.

    Recommendations in the report include:

• Policymakers should begin consideration of climate engineering research now to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable strategies for managing a changing climate and which pose unacceptable environmental or economic  risks.
• There must be an international consensus on climate engineering terminology that will best communicate the strategies, potential risks, and desired effects to the scientific community, policy makers, and the public.
• Any federal climate engineering research program should leverage existing facilities, instruments, skills and partnerships within federal agencies.
• Governments should make public engagement a priority of any climate engineering effort.
• Further collaborative work between national legislatures on topics with international reach, such as climate engineering, should be pursued, and this inquiry between the United States and the United Kingdom should serve as a model for future inter-Committee collaboration.

    On October 19, at the Biological Diversity COP10 meeting, the Canadian-based ETC Group released a 52-page report entitled, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering, which called for an international moratorium on geoengineering saying it was, "a political strategy aimed at letting industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt." [See WIMS 10/27/10]. On October 29, at the conclusion of the 2-week COP10 meeting, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) closed its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group said, "Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus."

    According to information released by ETC Group, the agreed to moratorium language reads in part, "in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until  there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting  in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment . ."

 

    The initial definition of "geo-engineering activities" referenced above includes: "Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insulation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insulation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere."

    Access a release from Rep. Gordon (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 56-page Committee report (click here). Access the Science Committee website on Climate Engineering for extensive background information and hearings (click here). Access a lengthy release from ETC including the full texts of the relevant COP10 decisions on geoengineering (click here). Access a release from ETC Group and link to the press conference webcast (click here). Access the CBD COP 10 website for additional background information, documents and webcasts (click here). Access the complete 70-page GAO report (click here).

Unstable Cement From Halliburton May Be Cause Of BP Blowout

Oct 28: In a letter to the National Commission on the BP Oil Spill, Fred Bartlit, Chief Counsel to the Commission and responsible for investigating the root causes of the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig wrote to report the results of cement testing recently conducted and several conclusions that have been reached based on that testing and documents provided by Halliburton. The bipartisan Commission was established by President Obama by an executive order on May 21, and is led by co-chairs including former two-term Florida Governor and former Senator Bob Graham and former Administrator of U.S. EPA William Reilly [See WIMS 10/7/10].

    Bartlit said, "We have known for some time that the cement used to secure the production casing and isolate the hydrocarbon zone at the bottom of the Macondo well must have failed in some manner. That cement should have prevented hydrocarbons from entering the well. For a variety of technical reasons that we will explain at the upcoming hearing, BP cemented the well with a nitrogen foam cement recommended and supplied by Halliburton."

    Chevron agreed as a public service to test the cement slurry on behalf of the Commission. Chevron employs some of the industry's most respected cement experts, and it maintains a state-of-the art cement testing facility in Houston, Texas. Halliburton agreed that the Chevron lab was highly qualified for this work. Bartlit writes, "Chevron's report states, among other things, that its lab personnel were unable to generate stable foam cement in the laboratory using the materials provided by Halliburton and available design information regarding the slurry used at the Macondo well. Although laboratory foam stability tests cannot replicate field conditions perfectly, these data strongly suggest that the foam cement used at Macondo was unstable. This may have contributed to the blowout."

    Further, Bartlit indicates, ". . .documents provided to us by Halliburton show, among other things, that its personnel conducted at least four foam stability tests relevant to the Macondo cement slurry. The first two tests were conducted in February 2010 using different well design parameters and a slightly different slurry recipe than was finally used. Both tests indicated that this foam slurry design was unstable [emphasis added]. . . on or about April 13, seven days before the blowout. Lab personnel used slightly different lab protocols than they had used in February. Although there are some indications that lab personnel may have conducted this test improperly, it once again indicated that the foam slurry design was unstable [emphasis added]. . .

    "Halliburton personnel began a second April foam stability test shortly after receiving the unfavorable results from the first April test. Halliburton personnel again modified the testing procedure, and this time – for the first time – the data indicated the foam slurry design would be stable [emphasis added].

    Based on the testing and documents, Bartlit's legal team concludes:

• (1) Only one of the four tests discussed above that Halliburton ran on the various slurry designs for the final cement job at the Macondo well indicated that the slurry design would be stable;
• (2) Halliburton may not have had—and BP did not have—the results of that test before the evening of April 19, meaning that the cement job may have been pumped without any lab results indicating that the foam cement slurry would be stable;
• (3) Halliburton and BP both had results in March showing that a very similar foam slurry design to the one actually pumped at the Macondo well would be unstable, but neither acted upon that data; and

• (4) Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well.

    The team says, "Finally, we want to emphasize that even if our concerns regarding the foam slurry design at Macondo are well founded, the story of the blowout does not turn solely on the quality of the Macondo cement job. Cementing wells is a complex endeavor and industry experts inform us that cementing failures are not uncommon even in the best of circumstances. Because it may be anticipated that a particular cement job may be faulty, the oil industry has developed tests, such as the negative pressure test and cement evaluation logs, to identify cementing failures. It has also developed methods to remedy deficient cement jobs. BP and/or Transocean personnel misinterpreted or chose not to conduct such tests at the Macondo well."

    The Oil Spill Commission and Bartlit have announced they will hold a two-day hearing on November 8-9, on preliminary findings regarding BP's Macondo well blowout. The primary focus of the hearing will be on the causes of the rig explosion. The Commissioners will hear from Chief Counsel Bartlit, representatives from companies involved in the incident, industry executives, technical experts, regulators and others regarding the rig explosion. The hearing will be held at the Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H St. NW, Washington, DC.

    Access the complete letter from Bartlit (click here). Access the complete report from Chevron (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and documents (click here).

Prison Industries E-waste Recycling Program Gets Failing Grade

Oct 27: The Council of Prison Locals (CPL) of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) responded to a massive October 21 report from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled, A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program. The main report is 433-pages and includes a 1008-page Appendix. The OIG report found that staff and inmates at several Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, have been exposed to toxic metals including cadmium and lead. The exposure occurred in the electronic waste recycling program run by the Federal Prison Industries -- also known as UNICOR, a government corporation within (BOP). The report concluded that the UNICOR recycling program did not value worker safety and environmental protection.

 

    As of June 2010, UNICOR had 103 factories at 73 prison locations, employing approximately 17,000 inmates or 11 percent of the inmate population. The factories produce a variety of consumer products and services, office furniture and clothing, and industrial products, such as security fencing and vehicle tags. Starting in 1997, UNICOR began to accept computers, monitors, printers, and other types of e-waste for recycling at Federal prisons. UNICOR sold these e-waste items to its customers, sometimes following refurbishment, or disassembled the items into their component parts and sold the parts to recyclers for further processing.

 

    Specifically, the OIG said, "Our investigation found that prior to 2009 UNICOR's management of the e-waste recycling program resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, regulations, and BOP policies. We concluded that UNICOR's Headquarters staff poorly managed UNICOR's e-waste program prior to 2009.6 UNICOR staff members often failed to perform hazard assessments on new e-waste operations or did so incorrectly, and important health and safety information was not shared with BOP executives and safety staff that could have prevented the violations from occurring. We also found that managers in UNICOR's Recycling Business Group, primarily General Manager Lawrence Novicky and his assistant, Bruce Ginther, concealed warnings about hazards related to toxic metals from UNICOR and BOP staff and from inmates. . . Overall, we found a culture at UNICOR that did not sufficiently value worker safety and environmental protection. We determined that the flawed organization and poor communication between UNICOR and the BOP made compliance difficult to achieve even with the best-intentioned employees. . ."

 

    CPL President Bryan Lowry said, "The inspector general's findings are in line with what we've been saying for years. Our staff members were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic metals, which BOP knew about and allowed to continue. The inspector general must hold BOP and UNICOR managers accountable for their actions and put appropriate safety measures in place to protect our staff." CPL indicated that it has been an advocate of the UNICOR work program, which provides inmates an opportunity to earn money, learn marketable skills, and become productive members of society once their incarceration ends. The program also keeps inmates occupied and out of trouble, which leads to a more safe and secure prison environment.

 

    Several BOP facilities had UNICOR e-waste operations, including the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Elkton, Ohio, where air quality was not monitored and staff and inmates were not provided protective equipment while breaking down computer monitors. AFGE Local 607 Vice President Bill Meek, who represents workers at FCI – Elkton, "The truth about these toxic exposures is finally coming out. Our primary concern has always been the safety of our staff, and we'll continue to fight for that."

 

    OIG summarized its major conclusions and said, "In conclusion, our investigation identified serious deficiencies with UNICOR's e-waste recycling program, especially prior to 2003. In recent years, UNICOR has made substantial progress to improve the safety of its e-waste operations. However, we believe that the success of these efforts in the future could be hindered by lingering, systemic problems such as the lack of technical resources, inadequate oversight, and a Health Services Division at BOP Headquarters that lacks authority to manage the delivery of quality safety services throughout the BOP and UNICOR. We believe our 12 recommendations can help ensure that BOP and UNICOR conduct its operations, including its e-waste recycling program, in compliance with federal regulations and BOP policies, and with the necessary concern for the health and safety of BOP staff and inmates."　　

　Access the OIG report (click here); and Appendix (click here). Access a release from CPL (click here).

Impacts On Bulk-Power System From EPA Air Regulations

Oct 26: The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) released a special assessment -- – Potential Resource Adequacy Impacts of U.S. Environmental Regulations -- examining the possible impacts of four potential U.S. EPA regulations. NERC is the electric reliability organization (ERO) certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish and enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system.

 

    According to NERC's assessment, several regulations currently being proposed by the EPA directly affect the electric utility industry. The assessment scenario was designed to evaluate the potential impacts of the four potential EPA regulations on Planning Reserve Margins to identify the need for additional resources to maintain bulk power system reliability. To accommodate the studied scenarios, industry may need more resources, beyond those identified in existing plans, in order to maintain bulk power system reliability. Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of NERC said, "The results of this assessment show a significant potential impact to reliability should the four EPA rules be implemented as proposed. To ensure bulk power system reliability, the proposed rules should provide sufficient time to acquire replacement resources, offsetting the reductions in capacity from unit retirements and deratings from environmental control retrofits."

 

    NERC's assessment reviews four EPA proposed rulemaking proceedings that could result in unit retirements or forced retrofits between 2015 and 2018. Specifically, the rules included in NERC's assessment under development were: • Clean Water Act – Section 316(b), Cooling Water Intake Structures; • Title I of the Clean Air Act – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the electric power industry (referred to as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard); • Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR); and • Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Regulations.

 

    The assessment evaluates the potential impacts on Planning Reserve Margins, assuming that there would be no industry actions in the near term to address compliance issues or market response, and identifies the need for additional resources that may arise in light of industry responses to each of these environmental regulations individually and in the aggregate. Mark Lauby, director of Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis at NERC said, "The combination of the proposed rules shows Planning Reserve Margins may be significantly impacted with deteriorating resource adequacy in a majority of the NERC regions/subregions. Additionally, considerable operational challenges to manage, coordinate and schedule the resulting industry-wide environmental control retrofit effort will occur if all these rules are enacted as currently proposed."

 

    Some findings from the NERC assessment are: • EPA's proposed regulations may have significant impacts on Planning Reserve Margins; • Capacity impacts will vary by region; • Section 316 (b) cooling water intake structures rule has the greatest potential for impact on Planning Reserve Margins; • The MACT, CATR and CCR rules also contribute to reductions in generating capacity; and • If implemented as proposed, the EPA regulations create a need for prompt industry response and action; 

 

    The Clean Air Task Force (CATF)a nonprofit organization with staff including senior engineers, MBAs, scientists, attorneys, and communications specialists issued a release commenting on the NERC assessment. CAFT said the "industry-funded group charged with keeping the lights on" released "a long-awaited and much anticipated report on the impact of a number of potential EPA regulations for the power sector. 'And guess what?' 'It's good news -- the lights will stay on. Moreover, the proposed regulations ensure that the lights will remain on with minimal disruption to the grid and to consumer electric bills, and will also improve the nation's air quality and protect public health.'"

 

    CATF said the NERC report analyzes four sets of potential regulations -- only two of which have even been proposed, and none finalized -- which will control emissions of toxic air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), coal ash disposal and cooling water intake. CATF said, "Since the content of most of these rules is still unknown, NERC had to estimate what they would cover and how stringent they would be. The coal industry and segments of the utility industry have been claiming for some time that the expected Clean Air Act regulations will cause a regulatory 'train wreck' that will strain electric system reliability. However, NERC found that even the strictest possible formulation of these air regulations will not materially erode reserve margins.

 

    Conrad Schneider, CATF Advocacy Director said, "Congress should take note that even the analysis of the power industry's own reliability organization undercuts claims that clean air regulations will turn off the lights." Schneider indicated that of the four potential regulations, NERC finds that only the cooling water intake rule has the potential to impact generation reserve margins. CATF said ironically, EPA has the most discretion in both timing and implementation of the cooling water intake rule. NERC however assumed that EPA would not use any of its discretion or authorities to reduce cost and decrease the regulatory burden.

 

    Schneider said, "It's disappointing that NERC's analysis assumes a static regulatory system incapable of system response, something the power sector has proved wrong time and time again simply by complying with regulations. So if EPA is again poised to issue intelligent regulations that will provide cleaner air and water and that leave the lights on, that sounds like a win-win to me."

 

    Access a release from NERC and link to the complete assessment (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the NERC assessment (click here). Access the release from CATF (click here).

GAO On Climate Change Geoengineering Strategy & Governance

Oct 26: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report entitled, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts (GAO-10-903, September 23, 2010). The report was prepared for the Chairman, of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN).

 

    GAO indicates that policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering -- large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth's climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts -- and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space.

    GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) Federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and Federal officials about the extent to which Federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed Federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.

    GAO found that few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO's review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results -- a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM.

 

    Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO's analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating Federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, Federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering. Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010. Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts.

 

    According to legal experts and Federal officials, the extent to which Federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements' applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts' and officials' views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the Federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability.

 

    GAO recommended that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the Federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated Federal approach. GAO said that OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation, but provided technical comments.

 

     In a related matter on March 2010, a week-long International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was held in Pacific Grove, CA (March 22-26). The conference included conversations and discussions on climate intervention and guidelines for research and experimentation. The conference was developed by Dr. Margaret Leinen of the Climate Response Fund, a non-profit based in Alexandria, VA in partnership with Guttman Initiatives. The scientific program was organized by an international scientific committee chaired by Dr. Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, based in Washington, DC [See WIMS 3/30/10].

 

    Access the complete 70-page report (click here). Access a November 5, 2009 House Science Committee hearing on Geoengineering including links to testimony, Chairman's statement, background document and a webcast (click here). Access numerous House Science Committee links to Geoengineering (click here).

Administration Proposes First-Ever GHG & Efficiency Rules For Trucks

Oct 25: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood jointly announced the first-ever fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution-reduction standards for medium and heavy trucks which includes long-haul tractor trailers, city buses, delivery vehicles and work trucks. Medium and heavy trucks consume 20 percent of the oil used in the transportation sector and emit about 20 percent of transportation sector's pollution yet represent only 4 percent of the vehicles on the roads. Trucking in the United States has increased by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s and today the nation depends on trucking for 70 percent of its shipping needs. The proposal is projected to reduce GHG emissions by about 250 million metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of the vehicles produced within the program's first five years.

    Administrator Jackson said, "These new standards are another step in our work to develop a new generation of clean, fuel-efficient American vehicles that will improve our environment and strengthen our economy. In addition to cutting greenhouse gas pollution, greater fuel economy will shrink fuel costs for small businesses that depend on pickups and heavy duty vehicles, shipping companies and cities and towns with fleets of these vehicles. Those savings can be invested in new jobs at home, rather than heading overseas and increasing our dependence on foreign oil." Secretary LaHood said, "Through new fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and buses, we will not only reduce transportation's environmental impact, we'll reduce the cost of transporting freight. This is a win-win-win for the environment, businesses and the American consumer."

    EPA and DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing new standards for three categories of heavy trucks: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. The categories were established to address specific challenges for manufacturers in each area. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year.

    For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 2018 model year.

    Overall, NHTSA and EPA estimate that the heavy-duty national program would provide $41 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of model year 2014 to 2018 vehicles. With the potential for significant fuel efficiency gains, ranging from seven to 20 percent, drivers and operators could expect to net significant savings over the long-term. For example, it is estimated an operator of a semi truck could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and save as much as $74,000 over the truck's useful life. Vehicles with lower annual miles would typically experience longer payback periods, up to four or five years, but would still reap cost-savings.

    The agencies said the innovative technologies fostered by the program would also yield economic benefits, enhance energy security, and improve air quality. New technologies include widespread use of aerodynamic improvements and tire rolling resistance, as well as engine and transmission upgrades.

    As part of the process of developing the proposed rulemaking, NHTSA prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposed fuel efficiency standards. The draft EIS compares the environmental impacts of the Agency's proposal with those of a number of regulatory alternatives. Comments may be submitted on the Draft EIS through January 3, 2011. EPA and NHTSA are providing a 60-day comment period that begins when the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

 

    Luke Tonachel, clean vehicles expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "Heavy trucks and buses are the energy hogs of America's roadways -- but they don't have to be. With more efficient engines, aerodynamic bodies and cleaner fuels, our nation's truck fleets can run cleaner and cheaper. These new standards will save truck owners and consumers money, while creating jobs and reducing pollution in the process. Every time the price of oil increases it sends shockwaves through the economy, with truck owners having to pay more for fuel, leading them to pass on higher shipping costs to the consumer. Using less fuel will make those shockwaves less damaging to everyone's wallet."

    NRDC supported the standards, but said the "proposal should be strengthened further to maximize the environmental, security and economic benefits. The National Academies have shown that cost-effective, clean-vehicle technologies exist that can go beyond the EPA and DOT proposal and more than double the pollution and fuel savings."

    On October 22, The American Trucking Associations (ATA) issued a release indicating that the organization adopted a carbon emissions control policy supporting a national fuel economy standard for trucks, rather than government actions to increase fuel prices or alternative fuel mandates. The policy states that "carbon emission reductions achieved through national truck fuel economy standards are preferable to government actions that increase fuel prices in an effort to discourage petroleum-based diesel fuel consumption or mandate the use of alternative fuels." ATA said, "While any federally mandated carbon control program applied to transportation fuels likely will increase the cost of fossil fuels, discussions of carbon control programs should be premised on fundamental principles designed to minimize disruptions to the transportation of goods and to protect the viability of the trucking industry."

    ATA's new energy policy outlines a framework for evaluating carbon control initiatives and specifies that an effective carbon control program for the trucking industry must address the following provisions: Produce cost-effective, verifiable carbon reductions; Ensure that revenue generated from motor carriers and other highway transportation consumers benefits highway users; Ensure that any increased costs are reasonable, predictable and do not increase the volatility of fuel prices; Avoid diesel fuel supply disruptions and ensure that only on-road diesel fuel that meets the ASTM standard for which trucks were designed to run on is sold in the marketplace; Maintain a level playing field among freight transportation modes; and Provides incentives for improved fuel efficiency and availability of alternative technologies.

    The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released its virtual tractor-trailer design, called the Convoy, which illustrates how various technologies could improve tractor-trailer fuel efficiency. In a release, UCS indicated that current average fuel economy for long-haul tractor-trailers, which often travel more than 100,000 miles annually, is only about 6.5 miles per gallon. Clean technology could boost it to 10 miles per gallon by 2017. A suite of technologies -- including more efficient engines, more aerodynamic designs for the tractor and trailer, and idle-off capability -- could reduce the average long-haul tractor-trailer's fuel consumption by 7,000 gallons annually, saving truck operators $24,500 in reduced fuel costs assuming diesel prices of $3.50 a gallon.

    Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the non-profit Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) issued a statement and said, "More than 95 percent of all heavy duty trucks are diesel-powered as are a majority of medium duty trucks. Diesel power is the driving force today of goods movement by truck in our economy. This proposal clearly envisions clean diesel power as the centerpiece of freight transportation in the clean energy economy of tomorrow. Diesel engines offer an unmatched combination of energy-efficiency, work capability, reliability and now near-zero emissions environmental performance making them the technology of choice for commercial trucks today and into the foreseeable future. For all parties, the challenge of increasing fuel efficiency while maintaining or improving environmental, safety and productivity of commercial vehicles is as important as it is complex. It is fitting that a key solution for solving this challenge lies in the diesel engine. . ."

 

    Access a release from the agencies (click here). Access the complete proposal and information about how to submit comments from EPA (click here); and NHTSA (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from ATA and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from UCS and link to the virtual tractor-trailer design and related information (click here). Access the statement from the DTF (click here).

Arctic Continues To Heat Up According To Annual Report Card

Oct 21: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its annual Arctic Report Card, a yearly assessment of Arctic conditions developed by a team of 69 international scientists. According to the report, the Arctic region, also called the "planet's refrigerator," continues to heat up, affecting local populations and ecosystems as well as weather patterns in the most populated parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Among the 2010 highlights: Greenland is experiencing record-setting high temperatures, ice melt and glacier area loss; Summer sea ice continues to decline -- the 2009-2010 summer sea ice cover extent was the third lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and sea ice thickness continues to thin. The 2010 minimum is the third lowest recorded since 1979, surpassed only by 2008 and the record low of 2007; and Arctic snow cover duration was at a record minimum since record-keeping began in 1966.

    NOAA indicates that there is also evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. Winter 2009-2010 showed a link between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic, related to a phase of the Arctic Oscillation.

    Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator said, "To quote one of my NOAA colleagues, 'whatever is going to happen in the rest of the world happens first, and to the greatest extent, in the Arctic'. Beyond affecting the humans and wildlife that call the area home, the Arctic's warmer temperatures and decreases in permafrost, snow cover, glaciers and sea ice also have wide-ranging consequences for the physical and biological systems in other parts of the world. The Arctic is an important driver of climate and weather around the world and serves as a critical feeding and breeding ground that supports globally significant populations of birds, mammals and fish."

    In 2006, NOAA's Climate Program Office introduced the annual Arctic Report Card, which established a baseline of conditions at the beginning of the 21st century to monitor the quickly changing conditions in the Arctic. Using a color-coded system of "red" to indicate consistent evidence of warming and "yellow" to show that warming impacts are occurring in many climate indicators and species, the Report Card is updated annually in October and tracks the Arctic atmosphere, sea ice, biology, ocean, land and changes in Greenland.

    Access a release from NOAA and links to a video and the Report Card (click here).

Justice Department Announces Cleanups Settlement With "Old GM"

Oct 20: The U.S. Department of Justice announced that the United States, 14 states and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe have entered into a settlement agreement with Chapter 11 debtor Motors Liquidation Company (Old GM), formerly known as General Motors Corporation, to settle certain environmental liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state environmental laws. A settlement agreement among the United States, the states and Old GM was filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court in the morning on October 20. The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe was expected to join shortly. Before being considered by the bankruptcy court for approval, the settlement agreement will be lodged with the bankruptcy court for a period of 30 days to provide public notice and to afford members of the public the opportunity to comment on the settlement.

    The announcement was made by Gary G. Grindler, Acting Deputy Attorney General; Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Lisa Jackson, Administrator U.S. EPA; and Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, as co-chair of the White House Council on Auto Communities and Workers. In Michigan, the MDNRE announced the settlement and its implications for the State [See WIMS 10/20/10].

    Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler said, "This settlement holds accountable those responsible for contaminating certain properties and ensures they help transform these communities by supporting the necessary cleanup. The agreement marks a new beginning by responsibly addressing hazardous waste contamination in impacted communities, and at the same time creates jobs to help clean up and return these sites to beneficial uses. It also shows how the federal government can work successfully in concert with states and tribes to resolve environmental legacy issues in their communities." Administrator Jackson said, "We're happy to have a path forward that addresses the needs of former auto communities. This trust -- the largest environmental trust in our history -- provides support for aggressive environmental cleanups at these sites, which will create jobs today and benefit the environment and human health over the long-term."

    Under the terms of the agreement, Old GM will pay approximately $641.4 million and will contribute additional non-cash assets (with an estimated value of $120 million) for the cleanup and administration of 89 properties and sites, 59 of which are known to have been contaminated with hazardous substances or waste. In addition, Old GM has spent approximately $11.5 million towards the cleanup of the properties with known contamination during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding. The funding provided under the settlement agreement, along with the properties that are currently owned by Old GM and certain other non-cash assets, will be placed in an environmental response bankruptcy trust to fund the cleanup and administration of the properties and their return to beneficial use.

    More than half of the cleanup funds to be paid to the environmental response trust will be provided for the environmental remediation of sites in New York and Michigan. In New York, the General Motors-Central Foundry Division Superfund Site – aka Massena – in Saint Lawrence County, will receive approximately $120.8 million in dedicated cleanup funds. The United States alleged in bankruptcy filings that Old GM operated an aluminum die-casting plant on the Massena property from 1959 to 2009, and that Old GM disposed of hazardous substances including polychlorinated biphenyls (also known as PCBs) at the property. The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, whose lands are affected by the contamination emanating from the Massena property, is also a party to the settlement. In Michigan, which will have the largest number of properties in the trust, approximately $160 million is allocated to the cleanup of 36 properties containing hazardous wastes or other hazardous substances.

    In June 2009, Old GM -- then the second-largest automotive manufacturer in the world -- and three wholly-owned subsidiaries filed Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The same day it filed for bankruptcy, Old GM also filed a motion to sell substantially all of its assets to a newly formed corporation, now known as General Motors Company (New GM), which was approved by the bankruptcy court in July 2009. The 89 properties at issue in the settlement agreement were excluded from the sale of assets to New GM and continued to be owned and managed by Old GM.

    In June and July 2009, in order to ensure, among other things, the orderly winding down of Old GM's affairs in the bankruptcy proceeding, the Treasury Department and Export Development Canada (EDC), Canada's export credit agency, collectively lent Old GM $1.175 billion. In October 2009, two additional wholly-owned subsidiaries of Old GM, which are a part of this settlement, filed their own Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. These petitions are jointly administered with Old GM's previously filed petitions by the bankruptcy court.

    In October 2009 and April 2010, the United States filed proofs of claim against Old GM and its affiliated debtors to recover, among other things, past and future environmental cleanup costs for sites owned or operated by Old GM and its affiliated debtors, or where Old GM and its affiliated debtors had disposed of hazardous wastes. Similarly, several states filed proofs of claim against Old GM for environmental liabilities at properties and sites located across the country. The settlement addresses Old GM's environmental liabilities under CERCLA, RCRA and state environmental laws at the 89 properties still owned by Old GM in Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Under the settlement, an environmental response bankruptcy trust will be established to take ownership and possession of the 89 properties and the funding provided to clean the properties up, administer them and return them to beneficial use.

    Old GM will pay approximately $499 million of the funding provided by the Treasury Department and EDC to the environmental response trust for environmental cleanup at the properties. Of this amount, more than $431 million will be placed in site-specific accounts for each of the 59 properties known to have been contaminated with hazardous substances or waste, and approximately $68 million will be placed in a pooled account for environmental cleanup that may arise in the future at any of the 89 properties transferred to the trust on account of unforeseen conditions. In addition, Old GM will place at least $142 million of the funding provided by the Treasury Department and EDC and certain non-cash assets in the trust to cover the administrative costs of the trust and the return of the properties to beneficial use.

    The number of properties and approximate funding specifically allocated by state are: 1) $11.7 million for a property in Delaware that has already been sold but for which the trust retains cleanup obligations; 2) $5.3 million for a property in Illinois; 3) $25 million for eight properties in Indiana; 4) $4.8 million for two properties in Kansas; 5) a property in Louisiana with no known cleanup costs; 6) $2.3 million for a property and associated site located in Massachusetts; 7) $159 million for 57 properties in Michigan; 8) $1.7 million for two properties in Missouri; 9) $24.7 million for two properties in New Jersey; 10) $154 million for four properties and an associated site located in New York; 11) $39.4 million for eight properties in Ohio; 12) $3.3 million for a property in Pennsylvania; 13) $26,000 for a property in Virginia; and 14) $211,000 for a property in Wisconsin. Additional financing for environmental remediation from the $68 million in unallocated cleanup funding will be available to all of 89 properties and sites placed in the trust upon meeting certain requirements.

    Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued a statement and said, "Today's settlement means that 57 former GM properties in Michigan will be cleaned-up and readied for new uses. This is a big boost for communities across Michigan as we work toward the rebirth of our economy." He indicated that Michigan is the location of the largest number of sites involved, with 57 of the 89 total properties. Of those 57, 36 properties involve contamination of some kind, and approximately $160 million of the trust monies will be allocated for their rehabilitation. Sites in Michigan include: Willow Run (Ypsilanti), Buick City (Flint), Pontiac North, Saginaw Nodular Iron, Delphi (Livonia), GMNA 2 & 3 (Lansing), Stamping (Grand Rapids), and GMPT (Bay City), among others.

    Access a release from DOJ (click here). Access a link to the settlement agreement (click here, posted soon). Access a release from the MI AG (click here). Access a White House fact sheet on the settlement (click here).

Republican Agenda: "Declaring War On The Regulatory State"

U.S. Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) who indicates he could be the next Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee if Republicans take over the House in upcoming mid-term election, authored a lengthy op-ed in the Washington Times entitled, "Declaring War on the Regulatory State." If selected, Upton would replace the current Chair Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). Representative Upton says:

 

    "Our nation is confronted with serious problems that require a fundamental reassessment of the size and role of government. With unemployment near 15 percent in many parts of the country, an unsustainable debt and unbridled federal spending, people fear the actions of a federal government that has grown too large and hinders rather than encourages economic growth. Folks desire a government that is responsive to their concerns and responsible with the resources they provide it. They want government returned to its proper, more limited role in their lives. They want a government that fosters the right conditions for job creation and economic growth. . .

    "Should Republicans recapture the House in November, we will have a fundamentally different approach. Over the past four years, the priorities of Congress have fallen out of sync with those of the American people. For instance, one of Nancy Pelosi's first acts as House speaker was to create a new Select Committee on Climate Change. To date, this new select committee has needlessly spent nearly $8 million in taxpayer money. . . We must terminate this wasteful committee. . .

    "If the EPA continues unabated, jobs will be shipped to China and India as energy costs skyrocket. Most of the media attention has focused on the EPA's efforts to regulate climate-change emissions, but that is just the beginning. The EPA is working on a regulatory train wreck that includes the following job-killing regulations:

• Cooling water intake systems for power plants: Costs would range from $300 million per coal plant (413 facilities impacted) to $1 billion for nuclear (59 units impacted). As a result, many plants would be shuttered and energy prices will rise significantly.
• Coal ash: Under current regulations, coal byproducts are widely recycled, creating jobs and protecting the environment. New EPA regulations could cost more than $20 billion and tens of thousands of jobs.
• Industrial and commercial boilers: New EPA regulations put nearly 800,000 jobs at risk.
• Revised ozone: Created without any new scientific evidence, this new rule would have a crushing impact on jobs (in the neighborhood of 7 million jobs lost) and business expansion nationwide with an estimated cost approaching $1 trillion annually. . .

    "No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has voted to approve it and the president has had an opportunity to approve or veto congressional action. Right now, these regulations are free to hide in the shadows of the Federal Register. By shedding additional light on the regulatory beast, we can keep government limited and accountable. . . If the gavel is taken out of Mrs. Pelosi's grasp, we will fight for economic growth and jobs and restore the American public's faith and pride in their government."

    Access the complete op-ed (click here).

Concerns About Formaldehyde & Brazilian Blowout Hair Product

Oct 18: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has updated its product information website regarding "Complaints Associated With the Use of Brazilian Blowout." FDA indicates that it has recently received a number of inquiries from consumers and salon professionals concerning the safety of "Brazilian Blowout" and similar "professional use only" hair care products. FDA says it will continue to monitor this problem and will report on any new developments.

 

    FDA indicates that it has been notified by some state and local organizations of reports from salons about problems associated with the use of Brazilian Blowout, a product used to straighten hair. Complaints include eye irritation, breathing problems, and headaches. State and local organizations with authority over the operation of salons are currently investigating these reports. FDA has recently received some adverse event reports on Brazilian Blowout from salon personnel or consumers. These reports included symptoms similar to those in the reports received by state and local organizations, as well as symptoms such as rashes and fainting.."

 

    FDA said it "is working with state and local organizations, as well as OSHA, to determine whether the products or ingredients would be likely to cause health problems under the intended conditions of use. The composition of the products and the labeling, including use instructions and any warning statements, will be factors in this determination. One safety issue we'll be evaluating is whether formaldehyde may be released into the air after the product is applied to the hair and heated."

 

    The American Chemistry Council's (ACC's) Senior Director, Ann Mason issued a statement saying, "As the manufacturers of formaldehyde, our members take their role as product stewards very seriously. We believe that the producers and users of formaldehyde and other chemicals should follow federal and state regulations, which set limits for the safe and appropriate use of chemicals. Media reports indicate that there are high levels of formaldehyde in the Brazilian Blowout. We encourage the company that makes the Brazilian Blowout to cooperate fully with government officials to ensure that the product meets federal and state standards for formaldehyde use. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), a national scientific organization that is sanctioned by the FDA to review and assess the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics, classifies formaldehyde in beauty products as 'safe' as long as the substance is no greater than 0.2 percent as free formaldehyde, kept to a minimum, and is not aerosolized. CIR's standards should inform any effort to measure the safety of the Brazilian Blowout and related products."

 

    The Brazilian Blowout website indicates it is, "The ONLY Professional Smoothing Treatment that improves the health of the hair. No Damage! and No harsh chemicals! CONTAINS NO FORMALDEHYDE!!" However, NPR reports that the Oregon Health & Science University's Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology tested samples of Brazilian Blowout from a Portland salon and found formaldehyde levels between 8.85 percent and 10.6 percent -- far higher than the 0.2 percent considered safe by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel.

 

    Access the FDA website (click here). Access the ACC release and link to additional information (click here). Access a report and links on the NPR website (click here). Access the Brazilian Blowout website (click here).

U.S. Investigates China Re: Green Technologies Trade & Investment

Oct 15: U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that the United States has initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act with respect to acts, policies and practices of the Government of China affecting trade and investment in green technologies. The investigation has been initiated in response to a petition filed by the United Steelworkers (USW) on September 9, 2010.

    The 5,800-page USW submission alleges that China employs a wide range of World Trade Organization (WTO)-inconsistent policies that protect and unfairly support its domestic producers of wind and solar energy products, advanced batteries and energy-efficient vehicles, among other products, as China seeks to become the dominant global supplier of these products. According to the petition, these policies include export restraints, prohibited subsidies, discrimination against foreign companies and imported goods, technology transfer requirements, and domestic subsidies causing serious prejudice to U.S. interests. The petition further alleges that China's policies have caused the annual U.S. trade deficit in green-technology goods with China to increase substantially since China joined the WTO, making China the top contributor to the U.S. global trade deficit in the sector.

    Ambassador Kirk said, "The USW has raised issues covering a wide array of Chinese government policies affecting trade and investment in green technologies. This is a vitally important sector for the United States. Green technology will be an engine for the jobs of the future, and this Administration is committed to ensuring a level playing field for American workers, businesses and green technology entrepreneurs. We take the USW's claims very seriously, and we are vigorously investigating them. In light of the large number of allegations and the extensive documentation accompanying them, I have asked my staff to utilize the 90-day period allowed by statute to thoroughly examine and verify the USW's claims. For those allegations that are supported by sufficient evidence and that can effectively be addressed through WTO dispute settlement, we will vigorously pursue the enforcement of our rights through WTO litigation."

    The investigation will consider whether acts, policies, and practices of the Chinese government deny U.S. rights or benefits under the GATT 1994, under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement), and under China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO. Because the issues covered in the China-Green Technology investigation involve U.S. rights under the WTO Agreement, any consultation request will be made under the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and unless consultations result in a mutually acceptable resolution, the U.S. Trade Representative will request the establishment of a WTO panel under the DSU.

    USW released a statement from International President Leo Gerard indicating, "President Obama showed again today that fighting for U.S. workers and their jobs is his top priority.  He's backed up his commitment to a clean energy future by making it crystal clear that future is going to benefit all Americans. By accepting the petition the Steelworkers filed against China's predatory and protectionist policies, it sends the message that America is not going to stand by while our jobs get outsourced.  China and all of our trading partners need to understand that we want fair trade and that we're not going to allow unfair and illegal trade practices to deny our farmers, workers and businesses of the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. . ."

 

    The USW 301 petition addressed five specific areas:

• Restrictions on access to critical materials:  Many green technologies depend on critical rare earth elements and other minerals, and China produces 90 percent of the world's supply of these essential inputs.  China denies U.S. producers free access to these inputs (and gives its own producers privileged access to them) through a combination of export quotas, export taxes, and export licenses that violate WTO rules.
• Performance requirements for investors:  The Chinese government has the power to approve or disapprove of foreign investment agreements in its territory; in practice, joint venture agreements in the green technology sector routinely require U.S. investors to license key technologies to their Chinese counterparts.  Such requirements, if imposed as a condition of investment approval, violate China's WTO commitments. 
• Discrimination against foreign firms and goods:  China requires that the level of domestic content be considered in approving wind farm concessions, and reportedly required it's first approved solar power plant to use 80 percent Chinese goods.  These and other discriminatory requirements violate WTO rules.
• Prohibited export subsidies and prohibited domestic content subsidies:  China requires recipients of certain green technology subsidies to use Chinese over imported components or to export a minimum level of production, contrary to WTO rules.  In addition, China outspends the U.S. by 5 to 1 in export credits and insurance, and refuses to conform these subsidies for green technology exports to WTO rules.
• Trade distorting domestic subsidies:  China's massive subsidies for domestic producers of green technology have propelled its producers over U.S. firms, shut the U.S. out of China's wind market, seized market share from the U.S. in Europe's wind and solar markets, driven down world prices, and caused lost sales in the U.S. market.  The harm these subsidies are causing makes them actionable at the WTO.

    Access Trade Representative blog posting (click here). Access a release from USW on the petition filing and link to a 4-page executive summary (click here). Access a release from USW on the Administration's action (click here).