Change: Open Government; Transparency; FOIA; Executive Privilege

Jan 21: Acting quickly, to set the tone of the Obama Administration, President Obama issued two Executive Orders and two Presidential Memos that are designed to make the government more open and transparent. Additionally, in a symbolic move, recognizing the severe economic crisis facing the country, the President issued a Memo calling for a freeze in the salaries of senior members of the White House staff. The President said, "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

The first Executive Order deals with "Presidential Records" and establishes policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978. The Order revokes Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, and establishes new, more open procedures that make it more difficult to withhold information based on a claim of Executive Privilege.

The second Executive Order deals with "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel." The order requires every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, to sign, and be contractually committed to an Ethics Pledge. The pledge includes a ban on gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations; a "Revolving Door Ban" for "appointees," requiring that for a period of 2 years from the date of an appointment an employee will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related former employment; and, a "Revolving Door Ban" for "Lobbyists Entering Government," prohibiting various actions for a period of 2 years after the date of appointment. The order includes a similar ban on activities for appointees and lobbyists "leaving government."

The 2-page Memo on the Freedom of Information Act indicates, "In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike. The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. . . In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public. . . All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. . . I direct the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing the FOIA to the heads of executive departments and agencies, reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency, and to publish such guidelines in the Federal Register. . ."

The 2-page Memo on Transparency and Open Government indicates, "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government." It contains paragraphs on: Government should be transparent; and Government should be participatory; Government should be collaborative. It calls for the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days.

Access the EO on Presidential Records (click here). Access the EO on Ethics (click here). Access the Memo on FOIA (click here). Access the Memo on Open Government (click here). Access the Memo on Pay Freeze (click here). [*All]

$1-2.5 Trillion/Year To Avoid Climate Tipping Point

Jan 13: The latest State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World, released by the Worldwatch Institute warns that the world will have to reduce emissions more drastically than has been widely predicted, essentially ending the emission of carbon dioxide by 2050 to avoid catastrophic disruption to the world's climate. The book's 47 authors state, however, that "opportunities abound in renewable energy and efficiency improvements, agriculture and forestry, and the resilience of societies for slowing and managing climate change." Worldwatch VP for Programs Robert Engelman, project co-director for State of the World 2009 said,"We're privileged to live at a moment in history when we can still avert a climate catastrophe that would leave the planet hostile to human development and well-being. But there's not much time left. Sealing the deal to save the global climate will require mass public support and worldwide political will to shift to renewable energy, new ways of living, and a human scale that matches the atmosphere's limits."

The report, the 26th edition of the State of the World series, addresses the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as prepare to adapt to climate change. The Earth's average temperature has already risen by more than 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century, with much of that increase attributed to human activities. Nearly 1 degree Celsius of additional warming may already be in store, based on past emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases that have not yet made their influence felt on surface temperatures.

A chapter by climate scientist W. L. Hare concludes that in order to avoid a catastrophic climate tipping point, global greenhouse gas emissions will need to peak before 2020 and drop 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, with further reductions beyond that date. Emissions of carbon dioxide would actually need to ‘go negative'-with more being absorbed than emitted-during the second half of this century. Hare's research finds that even a warming of 2 degrees Celsius poses unacceptable risks to key natural and human systems, including significant loss of species, major reductions in food-production capacity in developing countries, severe water stress for hundreds of millions of people, and significant sea-level rise and coastal flooding.

According to a release from Worldwatch, economists have estimated the cost of avoiding dangerous climate change at around $1-2.5 trillion a year for decades to come; yet the costs of not doing so are expected to be far higher. At the center of this framework, the book's opening chapter notes ten key challenges that must be adopted as part of any successful path to mitigation and climate change adaptation and resilience. Worldwatch indicates, "addressing these interlinked and challenging issues could lay the groundwork for a world that will not merely bounce back from both the economic and climate crises, but surge forward. A new U.S. administration and impending climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009 could finally break the gridlock that has long plagued climate policy. Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin said, "We can't afford to let the Copenhagen climate conference fail. The outcome of this meeting will be written in the history books-and in the lasting composition of the world's atmosphere."

On January 16, Worldwatch released an interview with Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, one of the world's most visible, outspoken voices on fighting climate change. Pachauri wrote the foreword to the Worldwatch 2009 report. In response to a question regarding what would you tell President Obama, Pachauri said, "I would tell him he has the unique opportunity of saving a large part of the human species and several others, because unless the U.S. takes the lead, I'm afraid we will not get an adequate global response. In absence of that, there will obviously be climate change that will go unmitigated. And we're pretty close to the stage where impacts start to turn very serious and very negative." Worldwatch reported that Pachauri also said, "President-elect Obama's goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 falls short of the response needed by world leaders to meet the challenge of reducing emissions to levels that will actually spare us the worst effects of climate change."

Access a release from Worldwatch on the State of the World report (click here). Access the interview with Pachauri (click here). Access more information on the State of the World report and download individual chapters (click here). [*Climate]

President Obama's Change Has Come To WhiteHouse.Gov

Jan 20: In the blink of an eye, the White House website changed from the now familiar layout of the George W. Bush administration to a totally reformatted new view of the President Barack H. Obama administration. First up on the front page is the White House Blog presented by Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House and one of the people who will be contributing to the blog. The first entry -- "Change has come to WhiteHouse.gov." Phillips comments that, "A short time ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States and his new administration officially came to life. One of the first changes is the White House's new website, which will serve as a place for the President and his administration to connect with the rest of the nation and the world." The video and the full text of President Obama’s Inaugural Address will be available soon on the website.

"Millions of Americans have powered President Obama's journey to the White House, many taking advantage of the internet to play a role in shaping our country's future. WhiteHouse.gov is just the beginning of the new administration's efforts to expand and deepen this online engagement. Just like your new government, WhiteHouse.gov and the rest of the Administration's online programs will put citizens first."

Phillips indicates that the initial new media efforts will center around three priorities (the following is verbatim): "Communication -- Americans are eager for information about the state of the economy, national security and a host of other issues. This site will feature timely and in-depth content meant to keep everyone up-to-date and educated. Check out the briefing room, keep tabs on the blog (RSS feed) and take a moment to sign up for e-mail updates from the President and his administration so you can be sure to know about major announcements and decisions.

"Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government. You can also learn about some of the senior leadership in the new administration and about the President’s policy priorities.

"Participation -- President Obama started his career as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he saw firsthand what people can do when they come together for a common cause. Citizen participation will be a priority for the Administration, and the internet will play an important role in that. One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.

"We'd also like to hear from you -- what sort of things would you find valuable from WhiteHouse.gov? If you have an idea, use this form to let us know. Like the transition website and the campaign's before that, this online community will continue to be a work in progress as we develop new features and content for you. So thanks in advance for your patience and for your feedback."

Access the blog post for links to briefing room, RSS feed, sign up for e-mail updates, policy priorities and a form for submitting ideas or comments (click here). Access the White House website (click here). [*All]

Waxman Promises House Climate Change Bill By Memorial Day

Jan 15: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Chaired by Chaired by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) held a held a major hearing focusing specifically on The U.S. Climate Action Partnership. The hearing presented the perspectives of members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) [See WIMS 11/19/08], a coalition of over 30 businesses and nongovernmental organizations that has called for Congress to pass legislation to address the climate change threat.

The diverse set of witnesses testifying at the hearing included: James Mulva, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ConocoPhillips; Jim Rogers, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Duke Energy; Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund; John Rowe, President & Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation; Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, General Electric; Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council; David Crane, President and Chief Executive Officer, NRG Energy; Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Peter Darbee, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, PG&E Corporation; Jeffry Sterba, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, PNM Resources; Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive - Energy and Minerals, Rio Tinto; George Nolen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Siemens Corporation; Mark Tercek, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Nature Conservancy; and Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute.

Chairman Waxman opened the meeting with a statement, saying in part, "Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence. U.S. industries want to invest in a clean energy future. But uncertainty about whether, when, and how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced is deterring these vital investments. Companies are caught in a dilemma: they are reluctant to invest in old polluting technologies because they know that tougher regulations are inevitable, but they can't invest in new, cleaner technologies until they know what Congress is going to require.

"Our job is to end this regulatory limbo and set our nation on a responsible path for reducing climate change and achieving energy independence. Our Committee will be acting quickly and decisively to reduce global warming and end our dependence on foreign oil. My goal is to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation in the Committee before the Memorial Day recess. . . That is an ambitious schedule, but it is an achievable one. We cannot afford another year of delay. As today's hearing will show, a consensus is developing that our nation needs climate legislation. . . Climate change, energy independence, and health care are going to be the Committee's highest priorities."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented on the Waxman hearing saying, "Chairman Waxman has set an aggressive timetable for action to reduce global warming and our dependence on foreign oil. I share his sense of urgency and his belief that we cannot afford another year of delay. The House is fortunate to have the leadership of Chairman Waxman and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey on climate and energy issues; their knowledge of these issues and commitment to finding the right solutions is unmatched. They will build on the work of Chairman Emeritus John Dingell and former Subcommittee Chair Rick Boucher on energy independence. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House, our colleagues in the Senate, and President Obama to halt the grave threat of climate change."

At the hearing, USCAP) unveiled a comprehensive and detailed set of integrated policy recommendations for developing legislation that would create an environmentally effective and economically sustainable national climate protection program. They said the "landmark document" -- titled A Blueprint for Legislative Action – echoes the sense of urgency that President-elect Obama has articulated regarding the need for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Developed through two years of intensive analysis and consensus-building among 26 corporations and five environmental organizations, the Blueprint offers policymakers "a clear path forward endorsed by a coalition representing a broad swath of the economy and diverse environmental interests."

Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of GE said, "In the past, the U.S. has proven that we have the will, the capabilities and the courage to invest in innovation -- even in difficult times. Today, cap-and-trade legislation is a crucial component in fueling the bold clean energy investments necessary to catapult the US again to preeminence in global energy and environmental policy, strengthen the country's international competitiveness, and create millions of rewarding new American jobs."

USCAP said it believes that strong climate legislation is a critical element of any effort to stimulate investment and innovation in low-carbon technologies. The Blueprint provides specific guidelines for the Administration and Congress to enact legislation that both protects the environment and facilitates the necessary transition to a vibrant, low-carbon economy. That includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent of 2005 levels by 2050 through an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. They said, "every year of delay in controlling emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper greenhouse gas reductions in the future, at substantially greater economic cost and social disruption."

USCAP indicated that their Blueprint details steps for creating a mandatory, economy-wide cap-and-trade program, coupled with cost containment measures and complementary policies addressing a federal technology research development and deployment program, coal technology, transportation, and building and energy efficiency. They said the Blueprint expands
significantly on their 2007 groundbreaking Call for Action, and includes an aggressive emission reduction schedule, further details on the scope of coverage for the cap-and-trade program, and recommendations for how to include as much of the U.S. economy
under the cap as administratively and politically feasible.

While President-elect Obama and many key Congressional leaders, as well as business and environmental interests are supporting the cap-and-trade approach to dealing with the climate change issue, another organization -- U.S. Climate Task Force (CTF) -- and some influential leaders are advocating a "carbon tax" approach. Dr. Robert Shapiro, a CTF co-founder and former economic advisor to President Bill Clinton, along with Dr. Elaine C. Kamarck, co-founder and former domestic policy advisor to Al Gore, issued their own statement, and held a press conference calling the USCAP Blueprint well intended, but "misguided."

CTF said, “The U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s endorsement of an aggressive cap-and-trade scheme represents a significant misstep on America’s path to mitigate carbon emissions. We share their commitment to address the risks of climate change. However, the policy they have chosen is one that has failed to lower emissions in Europe and one strongly opposed by China and other developing nations that have become major CO2 producers. Fortunately, other options exist [See WIMS 12/22/08].

“A large and growing number of economists and others concerned about climate change support a carbon tax. Compared to other similar policies, a carbon tax has the advantage of being simple, transparent and easy to administer. Moreover, the revenues can be recycled in tax relief for American families. However, as today’s Energy and Commerce hearing shows, a number of influential legislators are still narrowly focused on implementing a cap-and-trade system -- a policy that would make energy prices even more volatile than today and discourage the investments we need to address climate change.

“We have a moral imperative to get climate policy right. And to do that, Congress must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of all potentially viable carbon policies. By soliciting the input of leaders in America’s academic, environmental, and business communities, Capitol Hill can finally engage in a long-overdue, serious debate over the most environmentally effective and economically-sound ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions."

Among those supporting a carbon tax, that WIMS has reported on in the past include: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Peter Orszag, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and incoming Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration; James Hansen, PhD, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; and Friends of the Earth (FOE) President Brent Blackwelder [See links below for further information].

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and Chairman Waxman's opening statement (click here). Access Speaker Pelosi's brief statement (click here). Access a press release from USCAP (click here). Access a Blueprint summary from USCAP (click here). Access the complete Blueprint from USCAP (click here). Access the USCAP website for a list of members and more information (click here). Access a CTF release (click here). Access a release from CTF with links to a report on the Carbon Tax and more related information (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon tax issue (click here). [*Climate]

House Dems Detail $825 Bln. American Recovery & Reinvestment Plan

Jan 15: According to information posted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), "In the next two weeks, the House will consider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, which makes long-term investments that are worthy, needed, fully-screened, and based on merit, not politics. Developed with priorities shared by President-elect Obama, the plan will create or save 3 to 4 million American jobs, with an estimated 90 percent of the jobs created in the private sector -- getting the American economy moving in the short term and making investments for a stronger economy in the long term. The Chairman’s mark (draft legislation) will be circulated and posted online and next week the Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, and Appropriations Committee will mark-up the legislation."

Overall the bill includes $550 billion in "strategically targeted to priority investments;" and $275 billion in targeted tax cuts to help spur economic recovery. The House Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees “Chairman’s Mark” contains targeted efforts in: Clean, Efficient, American Energy; Transforming our Economy with Science and Technology; Modernizing Roads, Bridges, Transit and Waterways; Education for the 21st Century; Tax Cuts to Make Work Pay and Create Jobs; Lowering Health Care Costs; Helping Workers Hurt by the Economy; and Saving Jobs of Teachers, Law Enforcement, and Health Workers and Protecting Vital Services.

The Clean, Efficient, American Energy portion of the bill includes: - $32 billion to transform the nation’s energy transmission, distribution, production and storage systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid to transmit renewable energy, and new advanced battery technology to power fuel-efficient, low-emissions vehicles. - More than $20 billion in tax cuts for clean, renewable energy including a new enhanced tax credit for research and development focusing on smart energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, and a multi-year extension of the production tax credit for wind, hydro, geothermal, and bioenergy. - $16 billion to repair public housing and make key energy efficiency retrofits. - $6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes.

Under the Modernize Roads, Bridges, Transit and Waterways section, the bill includes: $32 billion in transportation, of which $30 billion is for highway construction (every dollar of highway investments creates more than 34,000 jobs); $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long term energy cost savings; $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments; and $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption.

According to a summary, the draft includes "Unprecedented Accountability: An historic level of transparency, oversight and accountability will help guarantee taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and ensure that Americans can see the results of their investment. There are no earmarks or pet projects."

Access a release from the Speaker including links to a summary from the Appropriations Committee; a summary of the tax provisions from the Ways and Means Committee; a summary in the Current Legislation section; the draft legislation and the explanation report (click here).

UPDATE:

January 23: Senate Democrats Detail Their Version Of A Stimulus Package - Access the complete 7-page summary of the Senate Appropriations Committee piece of the stimulus package issued on January 23, (click here).

UPDATES:

January 26: House To Formally Introduce Stimulus Bill, H.R. 1 - Access the full text of the House bill (click here). Access the Speakers links (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 1 (click here).

Jan 27: Senate Finance Committee Approves $522 Billion Piece Of Stimulus - Access a release and 10-page summary of the Senate Finance Committee markup (click here). Access links to additional details on the Senate Finace Committee's markup (click here).


[*All]

One Year Assessment Of Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program

Jan 12: One year following the launch of the U.S. EPA Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) [See WIMS 1/28/08], the Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has released the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program Interim Report. The program called on manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of engineered nanoscale materials to voluntarily report to EPA key information about these materials within six months. EPA did not request participants to develop additional data, only to submit existing data.

EPA says the purpose of the Interim Report is to summarize the information that has been submitted to the Agency under the NMSP. The findings and conclusions in the report should not be construed or interpreted to represent any Agency regulatory or statutory guidance or statement of official.

Under the "Basic Program," EPA invited participants to voluntarily report available information by July 29, 2008, on the engineered nanoscale materials they manufacture, import, process or use. By that date, the Agency received submissions from 16 companies and trade associations covering 91 different nanoscale materials. As of December 8, 2008, twenty-nine companies or associations submitted information to EPA covering 123 nanoscale materials and a further seven companies have outstanding commitments to the Basic Program. EPA also invited participants to submit new data that became available for nanoscale materials already reported or to identify additional nanoscale materials to report under the Basic Program. EPA said it is evaluating the information submitted under the Basic Program through a process similar to that of a new chemical review.

Under the "In-Depth Program," EPA invited participants to work with the Agency and others on a plan for the development of data on representative nanoscale materials over a longer time frame. By the 6-month mark, one company had agreed to participate in the In-Depth Program; by December 8, 2008, 4 companies have agreed to participate.

EPA said, "Based on the current interim results, the NMSP can be considered successful. However, a number of the environmental health and safety data gaps the Agency hoped to fill through the NMSP still exist. EPA is considering how to best use testing and information gathering authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act to help address those gaps. The Agency said it welcomes comments on this interim report and will issue a more detailed final report and program evaluation at the conclusion of the NMSP in early 2010.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an active participant in the nanotechnology policy debate, issued a lengthy release saying that EPA "has acknowledged that its voluntary approach to reporting has yielded only limited information on a small fraction of the hundreds of potentially toxic nanomaterials already in commercial use or in development in the United States." EDF said, "EPA disclosed that it has received submissions addressing less than 10 percent of the more than 1,000 nanomaterials EPA identified as likely to be in commercial production. Moreover, the voluntary submissions contain scant environmental health and safety data, and much of the information they do contain is kept secret from the public because the companies submitting the data claim it is confidential business information (CBI)."

Dr. Richard Denison, a senior scientist at EDF, who advised EPA on its approach to nanomaterials as a member of the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC) said, "EPA's voluntary approach has failed to provide both EPA and the public with critical data on the full range of nanomaterials in production and use in the United States. With hundreds of nano products already on the shelves, EPA has squandered precious time while it slowly developed and pursued a program that informed stakeholders cautioned would not yield what was needed."

He continued, "We welcome EPA's statement that it is finally 'considering how to best use testing and information gathering authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act' to address the remaining gaps in information." More than three years ago, the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee advised EPA immediately to begin developing such mandatory measures as a supplement to the voluntary program, recognizing it would not be sufficient. EPA now needs to refocus its energies on these critical tasks."

In related matters, on December 10, 2008, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) issued a new report, Review of the Federal Strategy For Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health and Safety Research, that found "serious weaknesses" and was highly critical of the government's plan for research on the potential health and environmental risks posed by nanomaterials [See WIMS 12/10/08].

Access the complete 38-page report which contains commenting instructions (click here). Access EPA's NMSP website for more information (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on nanotechnology (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]

EDF Launches Business Performance Innovation Exchange

Jan 12: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) launched the Innovation Exchange, a first-of-its-kind online resource that allows businesses to quickly identify and share ways to improve their environmental performance and reduce costs. Gwen Ruta, vice president corporate partnerships at EDF said, “In today’s tough business environment, no company can afford to miss out on proven strategies to cut costs and improve brand value. EDF Innovation Exchange provides the information and inspiration that companies need to achieve market leadership and meet essential environment demands worldwide. This new community will enable businesses leaders to learn from their peers, contribute ideas and success stories and leverage the power of collective innovation.”

The Exchange provides a no-cost, comprehensive set of recommendations, case studies, publications and tools for companies to improve their environmental performance. Lisa Manley, director of environmental communications, The Coca-Cola Company said, “Access to proven environmental strategies is more vital to business success than ever before. Collaborative innovation between companies will play a major role in helping us meet our sustainability goals." The site also includes a five-step "Getting Started" resource that includes recommendations for companies just beginning to understand their environmental performance who need guidance on everything from measuring impact to taking concrete action.

Many of the tools, best practices and case studies on the site are based on EDF's twenty years of experience creating environmental innovations through partnering with Fortune 500 companies including McDonalds, Wal-Mart and FedEx. The Exchange also includes links to numerous external resources that have been vetted by EDF experts. The site will continue to grow and evolve, fostering a dynamic community of users working together to create the next generation of environmental best practices for businesses. In the coming months, EDF will further develop the interactive aspects of the Exchange and develop offline initiatives such as webinars, training programs and fellowships.

Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the Innovation Exchange website (click here). [Note: WIMS also invites readers to visit its EcoBizPort.com -- the Homepage For Environmental Managers (click here).] [*All]

Debate Looms Re: Environmental Reviews In a Depressed Economy

Jan 7: California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has touched off a powder keg of a debate that only promises to get bigger in the coming year as the Federal and state governments struggle to respond quickly to a plummeting economy and rising unemployment with a massive new stimulus focused on major infrastructure and alternative energy projects. The projects, many of which will be large in scale, will have obvious environmental impacts. The burning question is: In the scramble to get projects underway and create jobs; should environmental reviews and regulations be accelerated, revised or eliminated in the name of the economy and jobs?

In a recent press conference on the California State budget, Governor Schwarzenegger said, "Our unemployment rate, as you all know, is 8.4 percent in November; we expect it to go up to 9 percent. So I think that creating jobs is one of the most important things. It’s about jobs, jobs, jobs. That’s why I’ve been adamant about easing environmental regulations and other red tape in order to get the infrastructure going, to get infrastructure projects moving as quickly as possible. For every billion dollars that we spend on infrastructure we create 18,000 to 20,000 new jobs. The federal government estimates actually 40,000 new jobs but we try to be conservative about those numbers. Those are jobs that the people in California need right now."

On January 5, Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to President-elect Obama in follow-up to a meeting they had had in Philadelphia last month. The Governor told the President-elect that his list of infrastructure projects had grown from $28 billion to $44 billion since their meeting. The Governor said that California would be able to generate nearly 800,000 jobs over the life of the projects.

In making suggestions to the President-elect regarding the economic stimulus proposal, the Governor said in part, "I urge you to take the following steps to speed delivery of even more projects: - Waive or greatly streamline National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements consistent with our statutory proposals to modify the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) for transportation projects; - Increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and modify the program’s rules to fund major levee evaluations, repairs and rehabilitation. Regulatory streamlining should accompany this funding to allow CEQA to satisfy NEPA requirements for all levee projects that receive federal funding; - and Shorten federal permitting turnaround times and allow negotiations with permitting agencies over mitigation to occur during construction. . ."

Governor Schwarzenegger, who has generally received praise from environmental and conservation groups for his progressive stance on climate change and alternative energy issues, drew immediate criticism for his suggestions to relax environmental reviews and regulatory requirements. Immediately, national and state environmental organizations reacted issuing a joint release and statements. The groups involved included: California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV); Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); the Planning and Conservation League (PCL); Environment California; and the Sierra Club California.

According to the release, the groups urged Governor Schwarzenegger "to uphold critical environmental safeguards affecting a dozen major transportation projects that could harm California’s air, water and wilderness." The groups called the Governor's letter to President-elect Obama, "alarming." They said, "This dangerous precedent would allow the state to build the transportation projects without environmental review. If such safeguards are removed at federal and state levels, billions of dollars of new, polluting projects could receive federal funding priority over approved clean projects that are designed to protect public health and natural resources. The governor has frozen roughly $16 billion in existing, state-approved, environmentally reviewed projects that could be started this month and would provide badly needed jobs."

NRDC California representative said, “All Californians care about the fiscal health of our state, but relaxing environmental law is not the way to do it. California’s dedication to our workforce and investment in developing clean energy technology has built our economy into the eighth largest economy in the world. These are tough times, but it’s times like this that we need to work toward what's best for California.” EDF's State representative indicated, “Dirty projects that circumvent environmental protections are more costly in both the short and long run than clean ones. California should only fund projects that deliver good jobs and clean air instead of ones that will make matters worse.”

Access a release on the Governor's budget press conference (click here), Access the letter from Governor Schwarzenegger to the President-elect (click here). Access a release from the environmental organizations with statements from each group and links to additional information (click here). [*All]

EPA Issues Health Advisory For Perchlorate; Defers Regulation

Jan 8: U.S. EPA announced that it is seeking advice from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) before making a final determination on whether to issue a national regulation for perchlorate in drinking water. EPA's action follows a December 30, 2008, release of a major 213-page report from EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) entitled, General Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate [See WIMS 1/6/09].

EPA also issued an interim "health advisory" of 15 parts per billion (ppb) to assist state and local officials in addressing local contamination of perchlorate in drinking water and making a corresponding change to the factors it considers in cleaning up Superfund sites. States have the right to establish and enforce drinking water standards, and EPA encourages state-specific situations to be addressed at the local level. EPA said it expects to issue a final health advisory concurrent with the final regulatory determination for perchlorate. Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s assistant administrator for water said, "This is a sensible step for protecting public health and preserving regulatory options as the science of perchlorate is reviewed."

On October 10, 2008, EPA issued a preliminary regulatory determination for public comment in the Federal Register. The Agency announced its intention on October 3, prior to the official Federal Register notice. The notice described the Agency’s decision that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for perchlorate. The agency received more than 32,000 comments on the notice. On October 3, environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they planned to sue the Agency, saying, the decision would benefit weapons makers at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water "spiked with rocket fuel." They said they would "fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act." [See WIMS 10/6/08].

EPA said that after considering public comments, as well as recommendations from EPA advisory groups and offices, it was asking the NAS to provide additional insight on various issues. Specifically, EPA is asking the NAS to evaluate its derivation of the Health Reference Level of 15 ppb, the use of modeling to evaluate impacts on infants and young children, and the implication of recent biomonitoring studies. The Agency is also asking NAS how it should consider the role of perchlorate relative to other iodide uptake inhibiting compounds and if there are other public health strategies to address this aspect of thyroid health.

EPA said it is replacing the existing preliminary remediation goal of 24.5 ppb with the interim health advisory value of 15 ppb. They said the goal will be used as a consideration when establishing cleanup levels for perchlorate at Superfund sites. The OIG reported that on February 18, 2005, EPA established a perchlorate reference dose (RfD) that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). The OIG said that unlike EPA it used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors and said that approach "is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health."

OIG concluded that despite the fact that EPA did not use the proper cumulative risk assessment, "EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk."

EPA noted in its latest announcement that a "regulatory determination" is a formal decision by EPA as to whether it should initiate development of a national primary drinking water regulation for a specific contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A "health advisory" provides technical guidance to Federal, state, and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methods and treatment technologies associated with drinking water contamination. Health advisories also contain guidance values that are concentrations of a contaminant in drinking water that are likely to be without adverse health effects.

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA's health advisory (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]

President-Elect Discusses American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Jan 8: Twelve days before the Presidential Inauguration, President-elect Obama delivered a speech at George Mason University on his new American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. The overall plan, which is expected to be on the order of $750 billion (low end) could stimulate significant economic activity in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Obama said, "I am confident will save or create at least three million jobs over the next few years." He also said, "It is not just another public works program." Obama said, "Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy -- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit. That is why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse these cycles."

Major elements of the Plan include: Doubling the production of alternative energy in the next three years; Modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills; Making the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized; Equipping tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries; Expanding broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world; Investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries; and, 95% of working families will receive a $1,000 tax cut -- the first stage of a middle-class tax cut.

Precisely, the President-elect said on the alternative energy plan, "To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced -- jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain."

On the infrastructure and technology portions of the plan, he said, "To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world. And it means investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries."

Obama indicated that the Plan "won’t just throw money at our problems -- we’ll invest in what works. The true test of the policies we’ll pursue won’t be whether they’re Democratic or Republican ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy, and put the American Dream within reach of the American people. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made transparently, and informed by independent experts wherever possible. Every American will be able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going online to see how and where their tax dollars are being spent."

He said he is asking Congress to work with him and his team day and night, and on weekends if necessary, to get the plan passed in the next few weeks. Most observers are now saying that it will likely be early to mid-February before Congress can get the Plan to the President's desk.

Access a summary and the full text of the speech (click here). [*All]

President Bush Discusses Conservation & Environment

Jan 6: President Bush delivered a speech on conservation and environmental issues at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC. The President said that, "Since 2001, we have put common-sense policies in place, and I can say upon departure, our air is cleaner, our water is purer, and our lands are better protected."

He used the occasion to announce that under the Antiquities Act that Theodore Roosevelt signed in 1906, which allows the President to set aside places of historic or scientific significance to be protected as national monuments, he was issuing proclamations to designate what he called "three beautiful and biologically diverse areas of the Pacific Ocean as new marine national monuments."

The first is the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument that will protect much of the Marianas Trench -- the site of the deepest point on Earth -- and the surrounding arc of undersea volcanoes and thermal vents. The President said, "This unique geological region is more than five times longer than the Grand Canyon. It is deeper than Mount Everest is tall. It supports life in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. A fascinating array of species survive amid hydrogen-emitting volcanoes, hydrothermal vents that produce highly acidic and boiling water, and the only known location of liquid sulfur this side of Jupiter."

The second new monument announced will be the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The monument will span seven areas to the far south and west of Hawaii. One is Wake Island -- the site of a pivotal battle in World War II, and a key habitat for nesting seabirds and migratory shorebirds. The third new monument will be the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. Rose is a diamond-shaped island to the east of American Samoa -- the nation's southernmost territory. It includes rare species of nesting petrels, shearwaters, and terns -- which account for its native name, "Island of Seabirds."

The President said, "Taken together, these three new national monuments cover nearly 200,000 square miles, and they will now receive our nation's highest level of environmental recognition and conservation. This decision came after a lot of consultation -- consultation with local officials, consultation with prominent scientists, consultation with environmental advocates, consultation with the United States military and the fishing community. Based on these consultations, as well as sound resource management principles, the monuments will prohibit resource destruction or extraction, waste dumping, and commercial fishing. They will allow for research, free passage, and recreation -- including the possibility of recreational fishing one day. For seabirds and marine life, they will be sanctuaries to grow and thrive. For scientists, they will be places to extend the frontiers of discovery. And for the American people, they will be places that honor our duty to be good stewards of the Almighty's creation."

The President also discussed his Administration's actions on cleaning the air, water, establishing conservation areas and protecting wildlife. He noted that "more than 11,000 abandoned industrial brownfields are on their way back to productive use"; "aggressive steps to make America's energy supply cleaner and more secure"; and, "developing clean and efficient technologies like biofuels, advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, and clean, safe nuclear power." He said, "We built international consensus on an approach that will replace the Kyoto Protocol with a global climate agreement that calls for meaningful commitments to reduce greenhouse gases from all major economies, including India and China."

He concluded saying, "With all these steps, we have charted the way toward a more promising era in environmental stewardship. We have pioneered a new model of cooperative conservation in which government and private citizens and environmental advocates work together to achieve common goals. And while there's a lot more work to be done, we have done our part to leave behind a cleaner and healthier and better world for those who follow us on this Earth."

The designation of the three new protected areas -- Marianas Marine National Monument, Pacific Remote Island National Monument, and Rose Atoll National Monument -- was generally praised by environmental, marine and conservation groups. David Yarnold, executive director of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's announcement marks an enormous step in conserving the biodiversity of our planet. These new marine monuments rank right up there with our nation’s greatest national parks. We are gratified that the president has given careful consideration to the scientific evidence and our recommendations to protect these areas." Elliott Norse, President of Marine Conservation Biology Institute said, "President Bush has now protected more ocean sites than anyone else in the history of the world. We greatly appreciate this bold, visionary action.”

While the Marine Monument designations drew praise, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released its own rendition of the "The Bush Record." NRDC said it "culled through eight years of policies and actions under the Bush administration to create a dynamic, online timeline that highlights the government’s systematic undermining of environmental protections." Karen Wayland, legislative director for NRDC said, “Eight years of environmental abuse is finally coming to its bitter end, but its impact will take years to overcome. In November, Americans sent a clear message that they’re ready for a new direction. The Obama administration will have a lot of work ahead of it to restore environmental protections that ensure safety for people, endangered species and our national treasures.”

Access the speech and links to the Bush Record, and fact sheets on the National Monuments and the Environment (click here). Access the NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries website for more information (click here). Access a release and links to the completed management plan and associated environmental assessments for Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (click here). Access an interesting legal article on Marine Protected Areas including Marine National Monuments and National Marine Sanctuaries (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to its timeline website and related information (click here). [*All]

OIG Reports EPA’s Perchlorate RfD Is Health Protective

Dec 30: The U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has release a major 213-page report entitled, Office of Inspector General Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate (Assignment No. 2008-0010, December 30, 2008). In a cover letter accompanying the report, OIG indicates it is providing an opportunity to the environmental risk assessor community to review and provide scientific comment on its analysis of perchlorate. OIG notes that on February 18, 2005, EPA established a perchlorate reference dose (RfD) that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). A U.S. EPA regulatory determination is pending on whether to issue a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for perchlorate.

OIG says that EPA’s potential regulation of perchlorate has garnered significant interest. Of concern, according to OIG, is whether EPA’s perchlorate RfD is protective of human health at all life stages. OIG says, "We analyzed the science supporting EPA’s perchlorate RfD. Congressional interest in this public health issue is reflected in bills H.R. 1747 and S.150, which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. We found that EPA guidance supports the use of a cumulative risk assessment when multiple stressors act through the same mode of toxicity. However, both EPA’s 2002 proposed RfD and the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion used single chemical risk assessment to derive the perchlorate RfD. By contrast, we used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors.

"Based on our scientific analysis documented in our report, perchlorate is only one of many chemicals that stress the thyroid’s ability to uptake iodide. The other NIS stressors include thiocyanate, nitrate, and the lack of iodide. All four of these NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. Our analysis includes a cumulative risk assessment of this public health issue using all four NIS stressors. A cumulative risk assessment approach is required to better characterize the risk to the public from a low total iodide uptake (TIU) during pregnancy and lactation. Further, a cumulative risk assessment approach is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health.

"For our review of the perchlorate science, we are seeking scientific comments on the use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are seeking scientific comments from scientists, environmental risk assessors, and related organizations. Because we are only seeking scientific comments for consideration, we are requiring responders to provide the following information: name of individual and/or organization; contact information, and scientific background or credentials. We are seeking specific, scientifically supported comments on the OIG’s use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are requiring any discussion or comments on scientific studies or observations to be appropriately cited and available in the public literature." Scientific comments are being requested by no later than March 10, 2009.

In summary, OIG indicates, "The OIG Analysis indicates that although EPA used a single chemical risk assessment for perchlorate, a cumulative risk assessment that assesses and characterizes the combined human health risk from all NIS stressors would better describe the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. The major findings, which directly address each of seven scientific issues identified in the 'Purpose' section of this report, are as follows:

"1) NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Unconventional RfD Approach Is Conservative and Protective; 2) Increasing Uncertainty Factors Not Effective for Protecting Public Health; 3) Hypothyroxinemia Occurs Before Hypothyroidism; 4) Low Fetal TIU First Adverse Effect; 5) Perchlorate RfD Alone Does Not Protect Most Sensitive Populations; 6) Thiocyanate and Nitrate Need to be Included in Risk Assessment; and, 7) Lack of Iodide Is Dominant NIS Stressor Impacting this Public Health Issue."

OIG concludes, "The OIG Analysis of the scientific literature identified that the risk from perchlorate exposure is only part of a larger public health issue that is defined by the subtle mental deficits occurring in children born to mothers with low maternal TIU during pregnancy and nursing. The TIU results from the combined biological effect of four NIS stressors acting on the thyroid: thiocyanate, nitrate, perchlorate, and lack of iodide. The diet constantly exposes everyone to each of the four NIS stressors, and an individual’s TIU level is the result of the combined effect of all four NIS stressors, not just perchlorate exposure. The OIG Analysis concludes that a single chemical risk assessment of perchlorate is not sufficient to assess and characterize the combined human health risk from all four NIS stressors. However, both EPA’s draft perchlorate RfD from the Argus rat study and the NAS Committee’s recommended perchlorate RfD from the Greer human exposure study used a single chemical risk assessment approach. Only a cumulative risk assessment can fully characterize the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. Furthermore, a cumulative risk assessment allows an informed environmental decision to be made on how to mitigate the risk effectively.

"All four NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance requirements for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. In the OIG Analysis, we conducted a cumulative risk assessment and determined that the risk from each of the four NIS stressors is not equal. The OIG Analysis also confirmed that EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk. By contrast, addressing moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29% of the U.S. pregnant and nursing population appears to be the most effective approach of increasing TIU to healthy levels during pregnancy and nursing, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children."

On October 3, 2008, immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern [See WIMS 10/6/08].

Access the complete OIG report including the cover letter and commenting instructions (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]

D.C. Appeals Court Overturns CAIR Vacatur

Dec 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 05-1244, consolidated with 31 other cases and involving scores of attorneys. Just in time to meet the January 1, 2009, first major compliance deadline under U.S. EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Appeals Court responded in part to a request by EPA and other parties and remanded the case, "without vacatur," for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with the court's prior opinion. Previously, on July 11, 2008 [See WIMS 7/14/08], the Appeals Court had ruled, ". . . we find more than several fatal flaws in the rule and . . . we vacate the rule in its entirety and remand to EPA to promulgate a rule that is consistent with this opinion." EPA, environmental groups, states and others had asked the court to reconsider its July 11 opinion. The program was designed to reduce millions of tons of smog- and particulate-forming pollution from coal-fired power plants in 28 eastern states.

The Appeals Court said in the latest reconsideration, "On July 11, 2008, we issued an opinion, in which we found 'more than several fatal flaws in the rule.' North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In light of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted CAIR as an integral action, we vacated the rule in its entirety and remanded to EPA to promulgate a rule consistent with our opinion. Id. at 929-30. On September 24, 2008, Respondent EPA filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of the case without vacatur. On October 21, 2008, we issued an order on our own motion directing the parties to file a response to EPA’s petition. (Order at 1, Oct. 21, 2008.) We also required the parties to 'address (1) whether any party is seeking vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and (2) whether the court should stay its mandate until Respondent [EPA] promulgates a revised rule.' Id. Respondent EPA was given leave to 'reply to the question whether a stay of the court’s mandate in lieu of immediate vacatur would suffice.' Id.

"Having considered the parties’ respective positions with respect to the remedy in this case, the court hereby grants EPA’s petition only to the extent that we will remand the case without vacatur for EPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion. . . In addition, some of the Petitioners have suggested that this court impose a definitive deadline by which EPA must correct CAIR’s flaws. Notwithstanding these requests, the court will refrain from doing so. Though we do not impose a particular schedule by which EPA must alter CAIR, we remind EPA that we do not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this court’s decision. Our opinion revealed CAIR’s fundamental flaws, which EPA must still remedy. Further, we remind the Petitioners that they may bring a mandamus petition to this court in the event that EPA fails to modify CAIR in a manner consistent with our July 11, 2008 opinion."

In a separate concurring opinion, one of the Judges indicated, "The parties’ persuasive demonstration, extending beyond short-term health benefits to impacts on planning by states and industry with respect to interference with the states’ ability to meet deadlines for attaining national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone, shows that the rule has become so intertwined with the regulatory scheme that its vacatur would sacrifice clear benefits to public health and the environment while EPA fixes the rule."

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's court decision is a welcome gift for the millions of American's that face serious health threats from power plant pollution. Power plants across the East will reduce millions of tons of smog and soot pollution today while America's new leadership fixes the mistakes made by the Bush Administration."

Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access EPA's CAIR website for additional information (click here). [*Air]

WIMS. . . December 24, 2008

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

 

From WIMS

 

We're on our Holiday break right now.

 

But, we'll be back on January 5, 2009

 

We wish you a happy Holiday Season!

Senator Boxer Says EPA's Johnson Has "Run Amok"

Dec 22: In a sternly worded letter, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, made clear that U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson "has run amok and will waste taxpayer dollars in his most recent action to avoid controlling global warming pollution in Clean Air Act permits." Senator Boxer's outrage is over Johnson's December 18 memo to Regional Administrators outlining his policy calling for no regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Johnson said he was clarifying the recent EPA Environmental Appeals Board ruling that concluded EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming [See WIMS 11/14/08].

Senator Boxer said, "This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade Administrator. He defies the clear language of our environmental laws and acts without legal authority. Mr. Johnson's latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions. The Attorney General has an obligation to intervene when the actions of the Administration are so clearly outside the law."

In her letter to the Attorney General, Senator Boxer refers to the Johnson document as a "blatantly illegal memo." She said, "Swift and decisive action on your part to ensure that Administrator Johnson immediately withdraws this unauthorized document will not only prevent a gross waste of taxpayer money defending an illegal decision, but it will also make clear that the waning days of the Bush Administration should not be used to issue 'midnight rules' that undermine the law and threaten the health of our people and our planet. Given the urgency of this matter, please contact me immediately regarding your next steps to ensure that this illegal policy is suspended and that more taxpayer dollars are not wasted."

Access a release and link to the complete letter (click here). Access the Johnson Memo (click here). [*Air, *Climate]

A National Carbon Tax: Another Option For Carbon Pricing

Dec 22: In early December, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held a briefing on the issue of a "carbon tax" as opposed to a "cap and trade" system to control carbon emissions. The controversial topic has been debated for years but is still unsettled in the political discussions of methods to address climate change. The immediacy and simplicity of the carbon tax system is still attracting attention. Speakers at the EESI briefing included: Representative John Larson (D-CT) and sponsor of America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act (H.R.3416 of 2007); James Hansen, PhD, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; Gilbert Metcalf, PhD, Professor of Economics, Tufts University; Robert Shapiro, PhD, Co-Founder and Chairman, Sonecon; former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs; James Hoggan, British Columbia Public Affairs Advisor; Chair, David Suzuki Foundation; and Brent Blackwelder, PhD, President, Friends of the Earth (Moderator).

In his presentation NASA's James Hansen summarized the carbon tax benefits saying, "A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. . . A rising carbon price is the most effective way to encourage compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is needed to decarbonize the economy and move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. . . The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No bureaucracy is needed. . . The tax will spur development of renewable energies and other no-carbon or low-carbon energies. . . A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. . . The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend. . ."

Last February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report entitled, Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions [See WIMS 2/13/08], which said that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” means of reducing global warming pollution. CBO Director Peter Orszag, who oversaw the preparation of the report has now been nominated by President-elect Obama to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Obama is on record as an advocate for a federal cap and trade system with "strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emission to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050." [See WIMS 11/18/08]. Perhaps, Orszag presence in the Obama Administration and the strong position of NASA's James Hansen, will raise the issue for Presidential reconsideration. Hansen has already prepared an 8-page draft letter to President-elect Obama that discusses the urgency of addressing the climate change issue and the reasons a carbon tax is the best approach (See contact information below).

Following the CBO report release, Friends of the Earth (FOE) commented saying, "This underscores the fact that a carbon tax is a serious policy option that should be considered alongside other ways of fighting global warming. A majority of Californians already support a corporate carbon tax, and with leadership from top elected officials, the majority of Americans might ultimately feel the same way -- especially if revenue from such a tax were returned directly to middle class voters through tax rebates or other mechanisms."

Even one of the most cynical climate change opponents, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, commented on the report saying it shows that carbon taxes are the “most efficient” way to regulate CO2 emissions and “could offer significant advantages” over the cap-and-trade approach [See WIMS 2/22/08]. . And, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, at the 2007 Mayors Climate Protection Summit in Seattle [See WIMS 11/06/07], and at the February, 2008 United Nations General Assembly thematic debate on Climate Change said, "Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden -- but they're still there. . . 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."

Access the EESI briefing website for links to available presentations and a video (click here). Access the Hansen draft letter to Obama (click here). Access Hansen's Columbia University website (click here). Access an article on the carbon tax issue and many links from the Worldwatch Institute (click here). Access links to previous EESI briefings on the carbon tax issue (click here). Access various WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the carbon tax issue (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

NAS Recommends Cumulative Risk Assessment For Phthalates, Etc.

Dec 18: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) -- Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks Ahead -- indicates that U.S. EPA should examine whether combined exposures to chemicals known as phthalates could cause adverse health effects in humans. In addition, the cumulative risk assessment, should consider other chemicals that could potentially cause the same health effects as phthalates, instead of focusing on chemicals that are similar in structure, which is EPA's current practice. Furthermore, EPA should consider using the recommended approach for future cumulative risk assessments on other kinds of chemicals.

Phthalates are used in a wide variety of consumer products, such as cosmetics, medical devices, children's toys, and building materials. In light of concerns, the European Union and the United States have passed legislation that restricts the concentrations of several phthalates in children's toys, and the European Union has also banned several phthalates from cosmetics. EPA asked the Research Council to recommend whether it should conduct a cumulative risk assessment for phthalates, and if so, how it should be framed. Accordingly, the NRC report is not a comprehensive profile on the health effects of phthalates.

The NRC committee that wrote the report said recent animal studies have increased understanding of the potential risks from phthalates, although few human studies on the health effects of phthalates are available. To decide whether a cumulative risk assessment is warranted, two factors needed to be determined: (1) whether humans are exposed to multiple phthalates at any given time; and, (2) whether sufficient evidence exists linking exposures to similar adverse health effects. The committee established that recent studies have shown widespread human exposure to multiple phthalates, including "in utero exposure."

Then, the committee reviewed animal research and found that exposure to various phthalates in lab animals produced similar health outcomes, including a range of effects on the development of the male reproductive system. The most notable effects in male rats are infertility, undescended testes, malformation of the penis, and other reproductive tract malformations. However, the severity of effects differs among phthalates; some exhibit less severe or no effects. Furthermore, the age of the animals at the time of exposure is critical to the severity of the effects. For example, the fetus is most sensitive. Given that multiple human exposures to phthalates occur and that research shows exposure to different phthalates leads to similar outcomes in lab animals, the commitee said, "a cumulative risk assessment is called for."

The animal studies reviewed by the committee also indicated that some phthalates reduce testosterone concentrations. Depending on when this drop occurs, it can cause a variety of effects in animals that are critical for male reproductive development. Other chemicals known as antiandrogens, which prevent or inhibit male hormones from working, can produce similar effects in lab animals. The committee recommended that phthalates and other chemicals that affect male reproductive development in animals, including antiandrogens, be considered in the cumulative risk assessment. The committee emphasized, "A focus solely on phthalates to the exclusion of other chemicals would be artificial and could seriously underestimate risk."

The committee indicated that, currently when conducting cumulative risk assessments, EPA often considers only chemicals that are structurally related, on the assumption that they have the same chain of reactions that lead to a final health outcome. That practice ignores how exposures to different chemicals may result in the same health effects. The conceptual approach taken for phthalates -- to consider chemicals that cause similar health effects -- should also be applied when completing any cumulative risk assessment. For instance, "EPA could evaluate the risk of combined exposures to lead, methylmercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls because all contribute to cognitive deficits consistent with IQ reduction in children."

In addition, the report recommends "further research should be conducted to allow greater refinement of the cumulative risk assessment associated with phthalates and reduce uncertainty associated with such an assessment. Moving beyond the constraints of grouping chemicals based on structural similarity may appear challenging, but it is feasible to evaluate the multiplicity of human exposures. It also directly reflects EPA's mission to protect human health. Such a shift in approach would entail substantial efforts by EPA, such as defining and setting priorities among the most prominent adverse health effects. However, a focus on similar outcomes facilitates the process by identifying the groups of chemicals that should be included."

Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report and a 28-page executive summary (click here). Access a 4-page brief summary (click here). [*Toxics]

Annual Energy Outlook 2009: No Growth In U.S. Oil Consumption

Dec 17: The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released its Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO2009) reference case that presents updated projections for U.S. energy consumption and production through 2030. EIA notes that for the first time in more than 20 years, the new AEO reference case projects virtually no growth in U.S. oil consumption, reflecting the combined effect of recently enacted CAFE standards, requirements for increased use of renewable fuels, and an assumed rebound in oil prices as the world economy recovers. With overall liquid fuel demand in the AEO2009 reference case growing by only 1 million barrels per day between 2007 and 2030, increased use of domestically-produced biofuels, and rising domestic oil production spurred by higher prices, the net import share of total liquids supplied, including biofuels, declines from 58 percent in 2007 to less than 40 percent in 2025 before increasing to 41 percent in 2030. The following is a brief EIA summary of major issues.

Natural Gas Use and Import Dependence: The reference case raises EIA’s projection for U.S. production and consumption of natural gas, reflecting increased availability of resources and higher demand for electric power generation. With growing production of natural gas from unconventional onshore sources, the Outer Continental Shelf, and Alaska, the net import share of total natural gas use also declines, from 16 percent in 2007 to less than 3 percent in 2030.

Total Primary Energy Use and Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Efficiency policies and higher energy prices in AEO2009 slow the rise in U.S. energy use, which is projected to grow from 101.9 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 113.3 quadrillion Btu in 2030. When combined with the increased use of renewables and a reduction in projected additions of new coal-fired conventional power plants, this slows the growth in energy-related GHG emissions. Energy-related CO2 emissions grow at 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030 in the AEO2009 reference case, reaching a level of 6,410 million metric tons in 2030, as compared with 6,851 million metric tons in the AEO2008 reference case.

Oil Prices: The assumption of a higher world oil price path in the AEO2009 reference case reflects tighter constraints on access to low cost oil supplies in a setting where the forces driving growth in long-term demand in non-OECD countries remains as strong as previously expected. In 2007 dollars, the world crude oil price, averaging near $60 in 2009, rises as the global economy rebounds and global demand once again grows more rapidly than non-OPEC liquids supply. In 2030, the average real price of crude oil is $130 per barrel in 2007 dollars ($189 per barrel in nominal dollars).

Renewable Energy Use: Total consumption of marketed renewable fuels -- including wood, municipal waste, and biomass in the end use sectors; hydroelectricity, geothermal, municipal waste, biomass, solar, and wind for electric power generation; ethanol for gasoline blending; and biomass-based diesel -- grows by 3.3 percent per year in the AEO2009 reference case. This rapid growth reflects the EISA2007 renewable fuel standard and strong growth in the use of renewables for electricity generation that is spurred by renewable portfolio standards for electricity generators in many States.

Vehicle Characteristics: A sharp increase in the sale of unconventional vehicle technologies, such as flex-fuel, hybrid, and diesel vehicles, and a significant decline in the new light-truck share of total light-duty vehicle sales are projected. Hybrid vehicle sales (all varieties) increase from 2 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2007 to 38 percent in 2030. Sales of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) grow to 90,000 vehicles annually by 2014, supported by recently enacted tax credits. By 2030, PHEVs account for 2 percent of new light vehicle sales.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) completed an initial review of the AEO2009 and reports that it contains a "dramatic turnaround" in the projection of new coal-fired power plants which are significantly reduced from earlier projections. UCS says, "EIA has reduced its 2030 projection of new coal plants from 104 GW to 46 GW. . . This is the equivalent of nearly 100 typical-size new coal plants (600 MW), and indicates that EIA expects the trend of coal plant cancellations and rejections to continue."

Access a release from EIA (click here). Access links to a summary presentation and the various AEO2009 tables (click here). Access a release from UCS and brief analysis (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]